Datasets:

Ahren09

/

MMSoc_PolitiFact

like 0

Inside a Fake News Sausage Factory: ‘This Is All About Income’ In Tbilisi, the two-room rented apartment Mr. Latsabidze shares with his younger brother is an unlikely offshore outpost of America’s fake news industry. The two brothers, both computer experts, get help from a third young Georgian, an architect. They say they have no keen interest in politics themselves and initially placed bets across the American political spectrum and experimented with show business news, too. They set up a pro-Clinton website, walkwithher.com, a Facebook page cheering Bernie Sanders and a web digest of straightforward political news plagiarized from The New York Times and other mainstream news media. But those sites, among the more than a dozen registered by Mr. Latsabidze, were busts. Then he shifted all his energy to Mr. Trump. His flagship pro-Trump website, departed.co, gained remarkable traction in a crowded field in the prelude to the Nov. 8 election thanks to steady menu of relentlessly pro-Trump and anti-Clinton stories. (On Wednesday, a few hours after The New York Times met with Mr. Latsabidze to ask him about his activities, the site vanished along with his Facebook page.) “My audience likes Trump,” he said. “I don’t want to write bad things about Trump. If I write fake stories about Trump, I lose my audience.” Some of his Trump stories are true, some are highly slanted and others are totally false, like one this summer reporting that “the Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States.” Data compiled by Buzzfeed showed that the story was the third most-trafficked fake story on Facebook from May to July. So successful was the formula that others in Georgia and other faraway lands joined in, too, including Nika Kurdadze, a college acquaintance of Mr. Latsabidze’s who set up his own pro-Trump site, newsbreakshere.com. Its recent offerings included a fake report headlined: “Stop it Liberals…Hillary Lost the Popular Vote by Several Million. Here’s Why.” That story, like most of Mr. Latsabidze’s work, was pilfered from the web. Mr. Latsabidze initially ran into no problems from all his cutting and pasting of other people’s stories, and he even got ripped off himself when a rival in India hijacked a pro-Trump Facebook page he had set up to drive traffic to his websites. (He said that the Indian rival had offered $10,000 to buy the page, but that he had reneged on payment after being provided with access rights and commandeered it for himself.)

train

Democrats go full TYRANNY: Now demand nationwide gun confiscation from law-abiding Americans… at gunpoint, of course by: Ethan Huff NaturalNews.com Monday, May 07, 2018 A California Democrat was recently given a platform by USA Today to publish a shocking editorial that calls for nationwide confiscation of all “military-style semiautomatic assault weapons” from law-abiding citizens. Representative Eric Swalwell from California’s 15th District wrote that all so-called “assault” weapons need to be banned, and that a federal gun buy-back program needs to be instituted in order to effectively collect them all from the citizenry. Rep. Swalwell even goes a step further, insisting that those who refuse to hand over their “assault” weapons be criminally prosecuted – including law-abiding gun owners who have never been convicted of committing a crime with their legally-purchased weaponry. Not content to simply impose a fresh ban on all new “assault” weapon purchases, which in and of itself is unconstitutional, Rep. Swalwell actually wants to see door-to-door gun confiscation teams engage in Nazi-style removal tactics in order to rid the streets of all firearms that he personally deems reckless and unnecessary. “Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed,” Rep. Swalwell wrote in his op-ed for USA Today. “This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.” “Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons.” Democrats like Rep. Swalwell are enemies of the Constitution, and enemies of We the People The Rest…HERE

train

Palin: Pioneer, maverick -- and now game-changer (CNN) -- The McCain campaign calls her a "tough executive who has demonstrated" readiness to be president. The Republican National Committee calls her a "conservative star with the talent, energy and family support necessary to carry out common sense policies." John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate came as a surprise. more photos » But the Obama campaign calls her a candidate with "the thinnest foreign policy experience in history" who is "currently under investigation in her own state." And one of the Senate's top Democrats, Charles Schumer, said that although she is "a fine person, her lack of experience makes the thought of her assuming the presidency troubling." What do we know about Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old first-ever female governor of Alaska, wife and mother of five, and now GOP vice presidential nominee? On August 29, a new part of her identity dominated the political scene: game-changer. She entered an already historic election, knowing well two of the biggest things McCain needs her to do: shore up votes among social conservatives and win over disaffected Hillary Clinton-supporting Democrats, many of them women. iReport.com: What do you think of McCain's choice of Palin? Before catapulting to the forefront of U.S. politics, Sarah Palin was, at points along her journey, a beauty queen, high school basketball star and TV sportscaster. More recently, she became known in Alaska as a popular maverick, staunchly conservative on key issues but vocal about problems she saw, including those in her own party. Watch how conservatives say they're thrilled with Palin » She got the nickname "Sarah Barracuda" for her fierce competitiveness on the basketball court in high school. Some of her opponents revived the name after she became mayor of her hometown, Wasilla, in 1996, kicking out a three-term incumbent and butting heads with some city department heads who remained loyal to her predecessor, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Sarah Palin Born: February 11, 1964, Sandpoint, Idaho Education: B.S., University of Idaho, 1987 Elected offices: Wasilla, Alaska, City Council member, 1992-96 Wasilla mayor, 1996-2002 Elected governor of Alaska, 2006 Professional career: Television sports reporter, 1987-89; co-owner, commercial fishing operation, 1988-2007; owner, snow machine, watercraft and all-terrain vehicle business, 1994-97; chairwoman, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2003-04. Married: To Todd Palin; five children. The oldest, Track, serves in the U.S. Army; the youngest, Trig, has Down syndrome. Sources: Almanac of American Politics, CNN In 2003 and 2004, she chaired the state Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska's oil and gas resources. Widely seen as a political outsider who stayed at arm's length from her party establishment, she defeated two political insiders in 2006 to become the youngest, and first female, governor in the state's history. As governor, she won praise for backing tough ethical standards for politicians. During the first legislative session after her election, her administration passed a state ethics law overhaul. But her term was not without controversy. A legislative investigation is looking into allegations that Palin fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because he refused to fire the governor's former brother-in-law, a state trooper. She denied wrongdoing. An outspoken anti-abortion Republican, Palin has spoken out about her fifth child, who was diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome. "We knew through early testing he would face special challenges, and we feel privileged that God would entrust us with this gift and allow us unspeakable joy as he entered our lives," the Republican National Committee quoted her as saying. "We have faith that every baby is created for good purpose and has potential to make this world a better place. We are truly blessed." She is married to her high-school sweetheart, a commercial fisherman. The two eloped in 1988, to save money on a big wedding, a year after she graduated from the University of Idaho, where she studied journalism and political science, according to the Almanac of American Politics. Watch details on elopement » Palin is an avid hunter and a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. As millions of Americans began searching for information on her Friday, her official Web site as governor wasn't the only one getting flooded with traffic. Traffic also spiked at sites showcasing pictures from 1984, when she wore the crown of Miss Wasilla and competed in the Miss Alaska contest. She was born in Idaho, and her parents moved to Alaska when she was 3 months old. Some similarities between Palin and McCain were clear Friday: Both have been termed mavericks, and both have taken on the GOP establishment at times. McCain has a son who has served in Iraq; Palin has one heading there soon. So does her vice presidential opponent, Sen. Joe Biden. For all that is known about her, Palin now becomes the most prominent unknown quantity in the presidential race. Her lack of experience on national political issues, including foreign policy and homeland security, and her only brief experience as governor open clear lines of attack for the Obama campaign. Watch Democrats respond to the Palin pick » Then again, McCain's surprising announcement Friday and the intense focus it drew threatened to slow Obama's post-convention momentum in a dramatic way. No stranger to being a first in Alaska, Palin now faces being a first on a national level: the first female No. 2 on the GOP presidential ticket and only the second female on a major party ticket, after Democrat Geraldine Ferraro more than 20 years ago. Schumer described McCain's choice as a "Hail Mary pass." Whether that's true has yet to be seen. But what's not in question is that in entering the race, Sarah Palin changes the game. All About Sarah Palin • Alaska • John McCain

train

Sasse Statement on Trade War U.S. Senator Ben Sasse issued the following statement regarding the news that the administration will impose massive steel and aluminum tariffs on our allies in Canada, Mexico, and the European Union. "This is dumb. Europe, Canada, and Mexico are not China, and you don’t treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We’ve been down this road before—blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. 'Make America Great Again' shouldn’t mean 'Make America 1929 Again.'"

train

Tim Kaine's Speech in Spanish at an Arizona Rally: Read Now Good afternoon, Phoenix! I’m so glad to be here with you all. One of the core values of our campaign is that we’re “stronger together.” That means we know that the only way to change this country for the better is by working with each other. So it’s important to us to communicate with as many people as possible – and to listen to as many people as possible – and share our positive vision for America. This country has a foundation that spreads out all across the planet. It has roots in Africa and Asia, many of whose people were brought here against their will, but became part of the fabric of our society. It’s rooted in Native Americans, who have always been here. And it’s enriched by immigrants from all corners – places like Ireland, where my family first came from. And people sometimes forget – and some may not even know – that the Hispanic community has been part of our country since the Spanish arrived in St. Augustine in 1565. That was well before the British landed in North America. Spanish was the first European language spoken in this country. A few years ago, I gave the first speech ever delivered in Spanish on the Senate floor. Since we were debating a bill about immigration, explaining it in Spanish just made sense – especially since it’s the language of more than 40 million people in this country who are most affected by this issue. I feel the same way about this election. With so much at stake for the Hispanic community, it just makes sense to make the case for our campaign in a language that’s spoken by so many families across the country. I don’t speak Spanish perfectly. But I picked up what I could while working with Jesuit missionaries in Honduras. I took the skills I learned as a boy, working in my father’s ironworking shop, and I put them to use in the village of El Progreso, teaching young people carpentry and metalwork. That experience changed my life, and I have carried it with me ever since, in every position I’ve held – civil rights lawyer, city councilman, mayor, lieutenant governor, governor, and senator. What I learned in Honduras comes down to three things: Fe, familia y trabajo duro. Those were also the values I learned in my Irish-Catholic family in Kansas City. There’s one other basic belief that Hillary and I share: Do all the good you can and serve one another. It’s pretty simple. And today, I recognize those same values in every state in our nation, by people of all skin colors, religions and backgrounds. And in this campaign, it’s been inspiring to see people from across our country coming together to address the challenges we face. I believe that God has created a beautiful and rich tapestry in our country, an incredible cultural diversity that succeeds when we embrace everybody in love and battle back against the dark forces of division. Presidential elections are always a choice between two visions for our country… a choice between two candidates. But this year it’s a little bit different. It’s about America looking in the mirror and deciding what we see there. This isn’t just a question of a president’s temperament and experience, although those are very important qualities. What’s really on the ballot is Hillary Clinton’s “stronger together” vision versus Donald Trump’s frightening and divisive vision for our country. So today, I wanted you to hear directly from me, that under a Clinton-Kaine Administration, everyone will have a place in America. Latinos have always shaped this country… From your service in the military, to your spirit of entrepreneurship… to your presence on the Supreme Court. And by 2050, communities of color will represent the majority of our population. So of course Latinos will help shape the future of America because you are the future of America. Todos somos americanos. We need all Americans, from all backgrounds, to help write the next chapters in our nation’s story – just as you have always done. This community has been part of a long struggle that has shown your resilience and your power. In recent years, many of those battles have been waged right here in Arizona. In many ways, Phoenix was one of the birthplaces of the modern immigrant rights movement, when people from all over the country came to organize against SB1070 – a bill that went against so many of our shared values. That battle isn’t over… Right now, in this election, you are all leading the way in the next phase of progress. But we’re up against some pretty tough opponents. One of Trump’s biggest supporters, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who’s facing criminal charges for profiling Latinos and has persecuted undocumented immigrants. He says he thinks Trump will get “a lot of Hispanic votes.” Do you think he’s right? Just the other day, your former governor, Jan Brewer, who signed into law the discriminatory SB1070 that promoted racial profiling, said that she wasn’t worried about her candidate, Donald Trump, winning this state, because, as she said, Latinos “don’t get out and vote.” Do you think she’s right? I think Jan Brewer must not be paying very close attention. Because millions of Americans are coming together – Democrats and Republicans and Independents – to support Hillary Clinton and reject Donald Trump and everything he stands for. Here in Arizona, our campaign is surging. More than a million people have already voted early, and the rate of Hispanic voters has nearly doubled compared to four years ago. We are also seeing the same energy from the Latino community in early vote in states like Florida, Nevada, North Carolina and other states. So I hate to break it to the Trump campaign, but Latinos are going to have a really big voice in this election… And the choice is really clear. On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton. Someone who’s spent her entire life working on behalf of kids and families. She started her career at an organization that fights for children and their families, at the Children’s Defense Fund. Registering Latino voters in South Texas and fought; fighting for universal healthcare and equal rights. In other words, she’s lista. Hillary Clinton is lista. On the other hand, you have Donald Trump. Someone who thinks “Latino outreach” means tweeting out a picture of a taco bowl. In the first weeks of his campaign, Donald Trump said that immigrants from Mexico are drug dealers, rapists, murderers. In the last debate, Trump referred to them as “bad hombres.” He insists that “this is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” He doesn’t understand that multilingual and bilingual families contribute to the diversity that makes our nation strong. He once called Alicia Machado, the winner of his Miss Universe pageant, “Miss Housekeeping…” And a month ago, he decided to pick a fight with her on Twitter and in interviews for days. And he attacked Gonzalo Curiel – the distinguished judge in the fraud lawsuit against Trump University. Now, Judge Curiel was born in Indiana. His parents were born in Mexico. But Donald actually said Judge Curiel can’t be trusted to do his job because of his “Mexican heritage.” Even the Republican Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Trump, said that was the “definition of a racist comment.” Judge Curiel is as American as I am. And he’s as American as Donald Trump. Whether your family just arrived or has been here since before the United States even existed… Hillary Clinton and I believe we are brothers and my sisters, and we will be your champions. You’re our neighbors, colleagues, friends and families. You make our nation stronger, smarter, and more creative. And I want all of you to know that we see you, and we are with you. America is a better country because of you. Hillary and I have a positive vision for what we want to accomplish. You know, when Hillary first called me up and told me she had chosen me to be her running mate, here’s what she said… The definition of success in a Clinton-Kaine Administration won’t be the number of laws we pass, but whether we can make life a little easier for a working mother, or help a child learn better in a classroom, or help a person who’s made a mistake get a second chance. At that moment, I knew we were going to be soul mates in this journey. Hillary and I are making two major promises for the first 100 days of our administration. First, we’ll make the biggest investment in new, good-paying jobs since World War II. We need to create an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. And I don’t need to tell anyone here that we still have some work to do to get there. Latinos are 17 percent of our country’s population, but they hold only 2 percent of its wealth. That’s just not right. We’ve got to connect more Latinos with good jobs that pay good wages… with more opportunities to go to college, launch new ventures, and build wealth that you can pass on to your kids. One of the keys to that is small business. Hillary and I are two kids of two fathers who built small businesses, and we know need to do much more to support the Latino-owned small businesses that create so many jobs across America. Our plan will make it easier to start one, increase access to capital, and invest $25 billion in the communities that need it most. And at a time when education is more important than ever for the jobs of the future, we’ll fight for universal pre-school, good schools in every ZIP code, and make sure no one has to give up on their dreams of college because they can’t afford to pay. Over the last 20 years, the number of Latinos going to college has tripled. That’s great news. And yet, Latinos are still less likely than their white peers to graduate – often because they can’t afford to. Our plan will help change that. We’re going to make community college free. We’re going to make in-state public universities debt-free. And for families making less than $125,000 a year, we’ll completely eliminate tuition at those schools. That’s how we can start to break down all the economic barriers that are holding you back. Second, Hillary and I will introduce legislation for comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. Too many children in America say goodbye to their parents every morning, not knowing if their mom or dad will be there when they get home. Donald Trump wants to create a deportation nation. Trump wants to deport almost 16 million people. He wants to deport 11.5 million undocumented people. And he wants to eliminate citizenship for 4.5 million people who were born in the United States to parents without documents undocumented parents and deport them as well. This goes against one of the most important values in our Constitution – a person born here in the United States is a citizen. Hillary and I will fight against Trump’s divisive plan with all of our efforts. One of my favorite things to do is go to the naturalization services where people become U.S. citizens. Usually, after the oath is taken, there’s an open microphone, and people get to walk up and explain why they decided to become a citizen. Their stories just bring tears to your eyes and a smile to your face when you hear what they think about the greatness of the United States of America. You can’t help but think: Cualquier persona que ama tanto a los Estados Unidos merece estar aquí. That’s why we’re going to fight so hard for comprehensive immigration reform, and in the meantime, we’ll do everything we can to keep families together. A few months ago, the Supreme Court put DAPA on hold. That was devastating for millions of families. But it’s important to note that the Court didn’t actually rule on the substance of the case. Hillary and I have always said that DAPA is squarely within the President’s authority, and we will keep fighting for it. We also need to end family detention, close private detention facilities, and stop the raids and round-ups. They’re not right. They’re not necessary. And they’re not consistent with our values. I want to close by explaining why Hillary and I believe that we’re stronger together. It’s something that has always united Democrats. We’re not just looking out for ourselves, we’re people who look out for those among us that need help. In my church, we talk about the story of the Good Samaritan. There’s somebody who’s beaten up and lying at the side of the road. And a lot of people walk on by – people who should know better, people who are leaders, people who have titles. They just walk on by. I bet somebody walked on by and said, “You’re a loser.” But then a Samaritan, who in that story was sort of an outcast, says I’m going to go help him out. Today, there are a lot of people in this country who on the side of the road asking for help. Maybe they need a job, or need to figure out how to pay for college. Maybe they’re struggling with an illness, or are a victim of violence. Maybe they’re being bullied, or they’re just somebody who needs a second chance. They’re all there, by the side of the road, asking for help. Hillary Clinton and I believe that we can’t just walk on by. Democrats don’t walk on by. Arizonans don’t walk on by. Americans don’t walk on by. That’s just not who we are. We go over and help. And if we want this country to remain a place where we are measured by how we help others, then we need every single person here to vote. And we need you to bring your friends, and families, and neighbors to vote too. For the first time in a while, the state of Arizona is competitive – and every single vote counts. Tomorrow is the last day of early voting in Arizona… But why wait until then when everyone can vote today! Early voting is open until tomorrow. The nearest early voting location is the Maryvale-Cartwright School District Annex Building, at 3401 North 67th Avenue. This election isn’t just about where we’re going. It’s about who we are. I think we’re a country where we all belong. A country that chooses love over hate. A country that builds on the progress we’ve made instead of going backward. That, as we used to say in Honduras, goes adelante, no atrás. And to anyone who says that we can’t realize that vision, let’s reply with the chant that has echoed through our history: Si, se puede! Gracias, Phoenix. Let’s go vote. And let’s go win.

train

Text of H.R. 3338 (107th): Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to ... (Passed Congress version) Because you are a member of panel, your positions on legislation and notes below will be shared with the panel administrators. ( More Info ) Add a note about this bill. Your note is for you and will not be shared with anyone. You are reading a bill enacted 6,320 days ago. In the intervening time subsequent legislation may have amended or repealed the provisions below. The text of the bill below is as of Jan 4, 2002 (Passed Congress). H.R.3338 One Hundred Seventh Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one An Act Making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, for military functions administered by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, namely: DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 2002 TITLE I MILITARY PERSONNEL Military Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Army on active duty (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $23,752,384,000. Military Personnel, Navy For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Navy on active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere), midshipmen, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $19,551,484,000. Military Personnel, Marine Corps For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Marine Corps on active duty (except members of the Reserve provided for elsewhere); and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $7,345,340,000. Military Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, individual clothing, subsistence, interest on deposits, gratuities, permanent change of station travel (including all expenses thereof for organizational movements), and expenses of temporary duty travel between permanent duty stations, for members of the Air Force on active duty (except members of reserve components provided for elsewhere), cadets, and aviation cadets; and for payments pursuant to section 156 of Public Law 97-377, as amended (42 U.S.C. 402 note), and to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $19,724,014,000. Reserve Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10302, and 3038 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $2,670,197,000. Reserve Personnel, Navy For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Navy Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and for members of the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,654,523,000. Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Marine Corps Reserve on active duty under section 10211 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty, and for members of the Marine Corps platoon leaders class, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $471,200,000. Reserve Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air Force Reserve on active duty under sections 10211, 10305, and 8038 of title 10, United States Code, or while serving on active duty under section 12301(d) of title 10, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing reserve training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and for members of the Air Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,061,160,000. National Guard Personnel, Army For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Army National Guard while on duty under section 10211, 10302, or 12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $4,041,695,000. National Guard Personnel, Air Force For pay, allowances, clothing, subsistence, gratuities, travel, and related expenses for personnel of the Air National Guard on duty under section 10211, 10305, or 12402 of title 10 or section 708 of title 32, United States Code, or while serving on duty under section 12301(d) of title 10 or section 502(f) of title 32, United States Code, in connection with performing duty specified in section 12310(a) of title 10, United States Code, or while undergoing training, or while performing drills or equivalent duty or other duty, and expenses authorized by section 16131 of title 10, United States Code; and for payments to the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund, $1,784,654,000. TITLE II OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Operation and Maintenance, Army (including transfer of funds) For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Army, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $10,794,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Army, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $22,335,074,000: Provided, That of the funds made available under this heading, $1,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be transferred to ‘National Park Service--Construction’ within 30 days of the enactment of this Act, only for necessary infrastructure repair improvements at Fort Baker, under the management of the Golden Gate Recreation Area: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated in this paragraph, not less than $355,000,000 shall be made available only for conventional ammunition care and maintenance. Operation and Maintenance, Navy For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Navy and the Marine Corps, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $6,000,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Navy, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $26,876,636,000. Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Marine Corps, as authorized by law, $2,931,934,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air Force For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Air Force, as authorized by law; and not to exceed $7,998,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes, $26,026,789,000: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, that of the funds available under this heading, $750,000 shall only be available to the Secretary of the Air Force for a grant to Florida Memorial College for the purpose of funding minority aviation training. Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of activities and agencies of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments), as authorized by law, $12,773,270,000, of which not to exceed $25,000,000 may be available for the CINC initiative fund account; and of which not to exceed $33,500,000 can be used for emergencies and extraordinary expenses, to be expended on the approval or authority of the Secretary of Defense, and payments may be made on his certificate of necessity for confidential military purposes: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the funds provided in this Act for Civil Military programs under this heading, $750,000 shall be available for a grant for Outdoor Odyssey, Roaring Run, Pennsylvania, to support the Youth Development and Leadership program and Department of Defense STARBASE program: Provided further, That of the funds made available in this paragraph, $1,000,000 shall be available only for continuation of the Middle East Regional Security Issues program: Provided further, That none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to plan or implement the consolidation of a budget or appropriations liaison office of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the office of the Secretary of a military department, or the service headquarters of one of the Armed Forces into a legislative affairs or legislative liaison office. Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Army Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $1,771,246,000. Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Navy Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $1,003,690,000. Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Marine Corps Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $144,023,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve For expenses, not otherwise provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance, including training, organization, and administration, of the Air Force Reserve; repair of facilities and equipment; hire of passenger motor vehicles; travel and transportation; care of the dead; recruiting; procurement of services, supplies, and equipment; and communications, $2,024,866,000. Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard For expenses of training, organizing, and administering the Army National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, and repairs to structures and facilities; hire of passenger motor vehicles; personnel services in the National Guard Bureau; travel expenses (other than mileage), as authorized by law for Army personnel on active duty, for Army National Guard division, regimental, and battalion commanders while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau; supplying and equipping the Army National Guard as authorized by law; and expenses of repair, modification, maintenance, and issue of supplies and equipment (including aircraft), $3,768,058,000. Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard For operation and maintenance of the Air National Guard, including medical and hospital treatment and related expenses in non-Federal hospitals; maintenance, operation, repair, and other necessary expenses of facilities for the training and administration of the Air National Guard, including repair of facilities, maintenance, operation, and modification of aircraft; transportation of things, hire of passenger motor vehicles; supplies, materials, and equipment, as authorized by law for the Air National Guard; and expenses incident to the maintenance and use of supplies, materials, and equipment, including such as may be furnished from stocks under the control of agencies of the Department of Defense; travel expenses (other than mileage) on the same basis as authorized by law for Air National Guard personnel on active Federal duty, for Air National Guard commanders while inspecting units in compliance with National Guard Bureau regulations when specifically authorized by the Chief, National Guard Bureau, $3,988,961,000. Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (including transfer of funds) For expenses directly relating to Overseas Contingency Operations by United States military forces, $50,000,000, to remain available until expended: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer these funds only to military personnel accounts; operation and maintenance accounts within this title; the Defense Health Program appropriation; procurement accounts; research, development, test and evaluation accounts; and to working capital funds: Provided further, That the funds transferred shall be merged with and shall be available for the same purposes and for the same time period, as the appropriation to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this paragraph is in addition to any other transfer authority contained elsewhere in this Act. United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces For salaries and expenses necessary for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, $9,096,000, of which not to exceed $2,500 can be used for official representation purposes. Environmental Restoration, Army (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Army, $389,800,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Army, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Navy (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Navy, $257,517,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Navy shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Navy, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Navy, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Air Force (including transfer of funds) For the Department of the Air Force, $385,437,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of the Air Force, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Air Force, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide (including transfer of funds) For the Department of Defense, $23,492,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris of the Department of Defense, or for similar purposes, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of Defense, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS) For the Department of the Army, $222,255,000, to remain available until transferred: Provided, That the Secretary of the Army shall, upon determining that such funds are required for environmental restoration, reduction and recycling of hazardous waste, removal of unsafe buildings and debris at sites formerly used by the Department of Defense, transfer the funds made available by this appropriation to other appropriations made available to the Department of the Army, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriations to which transferred: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation. Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid For expenses relating to the Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid programs of the Department of Defense (consisting of the programs provided under sections 401, 402, 404, 2547, and 2551 of title 10, United States Code), $49,700,000, to remain available until September 30, 2003. Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense For logistical and security support for international sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces of the United States called or ordered to active duty in connection with providing such support), $15,800,000, to remain available until expended. TITLE III PROCUREMENT Aircraft Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,984,391,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Missile Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of missiles, equipment, including ordnance, ground handling equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,079,330,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of weapons and tracked combat vehicles, equipment, including ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $2,193,746,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Ammunition, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $1,200,465,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Other Procurement, Army For construction, procurement, production, and modification of vehicles, including tactical, support, and non-tracked combat vehicles; the purchase of not to exceed 29 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; and the purchase of 3 vehicles required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per vehicle; communications and electronic equipment; other support equipment; spare parts, ordnance, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $4,183,736,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Aircraft Procurement, Navy For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of aircraft, equipment, including ordnance, spare parts, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $7,938,143,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Weapons Procurement, Navy For construction, procurement, production, modification, and modernization of missiles, torpedoes, other weapons, and related support equipment including spare parts, and accessories therefor; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $1,429,592,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps For construction, procurement, production, and modification of ammunition, and accessories therefor; specialized equipment and training devices; expansion of public and private plants, including ammunition facilities authorized by section 2854 of title 10, United States Code, and the land necessary therefor, for the foregoing purposes, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; and other expenses necessary for the foregoing purposes, $461,399,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy For expenses necessary for the construction, acquisition, or conversion of vessels as authorized by law, including armor and armament thereof, plant equipment, appliances, and machine tools and installation thereof in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; procurement of critical, long leadtime components and designs for vessels to be constructed or converted in the future; and expansion of public and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, as follows: Carrier Replacement Program (AP), $138,890,000; SSGN (AP), $365,440,000; NSSN, $1,578,914,000; NSSN (AP), $684,288,000; CVN Refuelings, $1,148,124,000; CVN Refuelings (AP), $73,707,000; Submarine Refuelings, $382,265,000; Submarine Refuelings (AP), $77,750,000; DDG-51 destroyer program, $2,966,036,000; DDG-51 (AP), $125,000,000; Cruiser conversion (AP), $75,000,000; LPD-17 (AP), $155,000,000; T-AKE, $370,818,000; LHD-8, $267,238,000; LCAC landing craft air cushion program, $46,091,000; Prior year shipbuilding costs, $729,248,000; Mine Hunter SWATH, $1,000,000; Yard Oilers, $3,000,000; and For craft, outfitting, post delivery, conversions, and first destination transformation transportation, $302,230,000; In all: $9,490,039,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2006: Provided, That additional obligations may be incurred after September 30, 2006, for engineering services, tests, evaluations, and other such budgeted work that must be performed in the final stage of ship construction: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading for the construction or conversion of any naval vessel to be constructed in shipyards in the United States shall be expended in foreign facilities for the construction of major components of such vessel: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this heading shall be used for the construction of any naval vessel in foreign shipyards. Other Procurement, Navy For procurement, production, and modernization of support equipment and materials not otherwise provided for, Navy ordnance (except ordnance for new aircraft, new ships, and ships authorized for conversion); the purchase of not to exceed 152 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, and the purchase of five vehicles required for physical security of personnel, notwithstanding price limitations applicable to passenger vehicles but not to exceed $200,000 per unit for two units and not to exceed $115,000 per unit for the remaining three units; expansion of public and private plants, including the land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title; and procurement and installation of equipment, appliances, and machine tools in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway, $4,270,976,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Procurement, Marine Corps For expenses necessary for the procurement, manufacture, and modification of missiles, armament, military equipment, spare parts, and accessories therefor; plant equipment, appliances, and machine tools, and installation thereof in public and private plants; reserve plant and Government and contractor-owned equipment layaway; vehicles for the Marine Corps, including the purchase of not to exceed 25 passenger motor vehicles for replacement only; and expansion of public and private plants, including land necessary therefor, and such lands and interests therein, may be acquired, and construction prosecuted thereon prior to approval of title, $995,442,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2004. Aircraft Procurement, Air Force For construction, procurement, lease, and modification of aircraft and equipment, including armor and armament, specialized ground handling equipment, and training devic

train

Health Reform Carries Heavy Price, Insurers Claim Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour... Become a member of your local PBS station.

train

Remarks by the President at GOP House Issues Conference The White House Office of the Press Secretary Remarks by the President at GOP House Issues Conference Renaissance Baltimore Harborplace Hotel, Baltimore, Maryland 12:10 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Please, everybody be seated. Thank you. Thank you, John, for the gracious introduction. To Mike and Eric, thank you for hosting me. Thank you to all of you for receiving me. It is wonderful to be here. I want to also acknowledge Mark Strand, president of the Congressional Institute. To all the family members who are here and who have to put up with us for an elective office each and every day, thank you, because I know that's tough. (Applause.) I very much am appreciative of not only the tone of your introduction, John, but also the invitation that you extended to me. You know what they say, "Keep your friends close, but visit the Republican Caucus every few months." (Laughter.) Part of the reason I accepted your invitation to come here was because I wanted to speak with all of you, and not just to all of you. So I'm looking forward to taking your questions and having a real conversation in a few moments. And I hope that the conversation we begin here doesn't end here; that we can continue our dialogue in the days ahead. It's important to me that we do so. It's important to you, I think, that we do so. But most importantly, it's important to the American people that we do so. I've said this before, but I'm a big believer not just in the value of a loyal opposition, but in its necessity. Having differences of opinion, having a real debate about matters of domestic policy and national security -- and that's not something that's only good for our country, it's absolutely essential. It's only through the process of disagreement and debate that bad ideas get tossed out and good ideas get refined and made better. And that kind of vigorous back and forth -- that imperfect but well-founded process, messy as it often is -- is at the heart of our democracy. That's what makes us the greatest nation in the world. So, yes, I want you to challenge my ideas, and I guarantee you that after reading this I may challenge a few of yours. (Laughter.) I want you to stand up for your beliefs, and knowing this caucus, I have no doubt that you will. I want us to have a constructive debate. The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks, when we're in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession. And I'm not a pundit. I'm just a President, so take it for what it's worth. But I don't believe that the American people want us to focus on our job security. They want us to focus on their job security. (Applause.) I don't think they want more gridlock. I don't think they want more partisanship. I don't think they want more obstruction. They didn't send us to Washington to fight each other in some sort of political steel-cage match to see who comes out alive. That's not what they want. They sent us to Washington to work together, to get things done, and to solve the problems that they're grappling with every single day. And I think your constituents would want to know that despite the fact it doesn't get a lot of attention, you and I have actually worked together on a number of occasions. There have been times where we've acted in a bipartisan fashion. And I want to thank you and your Democratic colleagues for reaching across the aisle. There has been, for example, broad support for putting in the troops necessary in Afghanistan to deny al Qaeda safe haven, to break the Taliban's momentum, and to train Afghan security forces. There's been broad support for disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda. And I know that we're all united in our admiration of our troops. (Applause.) So it may be useful for the international audience right now to understand -- and certainly for our enemies to have no doubt -- whatever divisions and differences may exist in Washington, the United States of America stands as one to defend our country. (Applause.) It's that same spirit of bipartisanship that made it possible for me to sign a defense contracting reform bill that was cosponsored by Senator McCain and members of Congress here today. We've stood together on behalf of our nation's veterans. Together we passed the largest increase in the VA's budget in more than 30 years and supported essential veterans' health care reforms to provide better access and medical care for those who serve in uniform. Some of you also joined Democrats in supporting a Credit Card Bill of Rights and in extending unemployment compensation to Americans who are out of work. Some of you joined us in stopping tobacco companies from targeting kids, expanding opportunities for young people to serve our country, and helping responsible homeowners stay in their homes. So we have a track record of working together. It is possible. But, as John, you mentioned, on some very big things, we've seen party-line votes that, I'm just going to be honest, were disappointing. Let's start with our efforts to jumpstart the economy last winter, when we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Our financial system teetered on the brink of collapse and the threat of a second Great Depression loomed large. I didn't understand then, and I still don't understand, why we got opposition in this caucus for almost $300 billion in badly needed tax cuts for the American people, or COBRA coverage to help Americans who've lost jobs in this recession to keep the health insurance that they desperately needed, or opposition to putting Americans to work laying broadband and rebuilding roads and bridges and breaking ground on new construction projects. There was an interesting headline in CNN today: "Americans disapprove of stimulus, but like every policy in it." And there was a poll that showed that if you broke it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, 80 percent approved of the assistance to the unemployed. Well, that's what the Recovery Act was. And let's face it, some of you have been at the ribbon-cuttings for some of these important projects in your communities. Now, I understand some of you had some philosophical differences perhaps on the just the concept of government spending, but, as I recall, opposition was declared before we had a chance to actually meet and exchange ideas. And I saw that as a missed opportunity. Now, I am happy to report this morning that we saw another sign that our economy is moving in the right direction. The latest GDP numbers show that our economy is growing by almost 6 percent -- that's the most since 2003. To put that in perspective, this time last year, we weren't seeing positive job growth; we were seeing the economy shrink by about 6 percent. So you've seen a 12 percent reversal during the course of this year. This turnaround is the biggest in nearly three decades -- and it didn't happen by accident. It happened -- as economists, conservative and liberal, will attest -- because of some of the steps that we took. And by the way, you mentioned a Web site out here, John -- if you want to look at what's going on, on the Recovery Act, you can look on recovery.gov -- a Web site, by the way, that was Eric Cantor's idea. Now, here's the point. These are serious times, and what's required by all of us -- Democrats and Republicans -- is to do what's right for our country, even if it's not always what's best for our politics. I know it may be heresy to say this, but there are things more important than good poll numbers. And on this no one can accuse me of not living by my principles. (Laughter.) A middle class that's back on its feet, an economy that lifts everybody up, an America that's ascendant in the world -- that's more important than winning an election. Our future shouldn't be shaped by what's best for our politics; our politics should be shaped by what's best for our future. But no matter what's happened in the past, the important thing for all of us is to move forward together. We have some issues right in front of us on which I believe we should agree, because as successful as we've been in spurring new economic growth, everybody understands that job growth has been lagging. Some of that's predictable. Every economist will say jobs are a lagging indicator, but that's no consolation for the folks who are out there suffering right now. And since 7 million Americans have lost their jobs in this recession, we've got to do everything we can to accelerate it. So, today, in line with what I stated at the State of the Union, I've proposed a new jobs tax credit for small business. And here's how it would work. Employers would get a tax credit of up to $5,000 for every employee they add in 2010. They'd get a tax break for increases in wages, as well. So, if you raise wages for employees making under $100,000, we'd refund part of your payroll tax for every dollar you increase those wages faster than inflation. It's a simple concept. It's easy to understand. It would cut taxes for more than 1 million small businesses. So I hope you join me. Let's get this done. I want to eliminate the capital gains tax for small business investment, and take some of the bailout money the Wall Street banks have returned and use it to help community banks start lending to small businesses again. So join me. I am confident that we can do this together for the American people. And there's nothing in that proposal that runs contrary to the ideological predispositions of this caucus. The question is: What's going to keep us from getting this done? I've proposed a modest fee on the nation's largest banks and financial institutions to fully recover for taxpayers' money that they provided to the financial sector when it was teetering on the brink of collapse. And it's designed to discourage them from taking reckless risks in the future. If you listen to the American people, John, they'll tell you they want their money back. Let's do this together, Republicans and Democrats. I propose that we close tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping American jobs overseas, and instead give companies greater incentive to create jobs right here at home -- right here at home. Surely, that's something that we can do together, Republicans and Democrats. We know that we've got a major fiscal challenge in reining in deficits that have been growing for a decade, and threaten our future. That's why I've proposed a three-year freeze in discretionary spending other than what we need for national security. That's something we should do together that's consistent with a lot of the talk both in Democratic caucuses and Republican caucuses. We can't blink when it's time to actually do the job. At this point, we know that the budget surpluses of the '90s occurred in part because of the pay-as-you-go law, which said that, well, you should pay as you go and live within our means, just like families do every day. Twenty-four of you voted for that, and I appreciate it. And we were able to pass it in the Senate yesterday. But the idea of a bipartisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long term died in the Senate the other day. So I'm going to establish such a commission by executive order and I hope that you participate, fully and genuinely, in that effort, because if we're going to actually deal with our deficit and debt, everybody here knows that we're going to have to do it together, Republican and Democrat. No single party is going to make the tough choices involved on its own. It's going to require all of us doing what's right for the American people. And as I said in the State of the Union speech, there's not just a deficit of dollars in Washington, there is a deficit of trust. So I hope you'll support my proposal to make all congressional earmarks public before they come to a vote. And let's require lobbyists who exercise such influence to publicly disclose all their contacts on behalf of their clients, whether they are contacts with my administration or contacts with Congress. Let's do the people's business in the bright light of day, together, Republicans and Democrats. I know how bitter and contentious the issue of health insurance reform has become. And I will eagerly look at the ideas and better solutions on the health care front. If anyone here truly believes our health insurance system is working well for people, I respect your right to say so, but I just don't agree. And neither would millions of Americans with preexisting conditions who can't get coverage today or find out that they lose their insurance just as they're getting seriously ill. That's exactly when you need insurance. And for too many people, they're not getting it. I don't think a system is working when small businesses are gouged and 15,000 Americans are losing coverage every single day; when premiums have doubled and out-of-pocket costs have exploded and they're poised to do so again. I mean, to be fair, the status quo is working for the insurance industry, but it's not working for the American people. It's not working for our federal budget. It needs to change. This is a big problem, and all of us are called on to solve it. And that's why, from the start, I sought out and supported ideas from Republicans. I even talked about an issue that has been a holy grail for a lot of you, which was tort reform, and said that I'd be willing to work together as part of a comprehensive package to deal with it. I just didn't get a lot of nibbles. Creating a high-risk pool for uninsured folks with preexisting conditions, that wasn't my idea, it was Senator McCain's. And I supported it, and it got incorporated into our approach. Allowing insurance companies to sell coverage across state lines to add choice and competition and bring down costs for businesses and consumers -- that's an idea that some of you I suspect included in this better solutions; that's an idea that was incorporated into our package. And I support it, provided that we do it hand in hand with broader reforms that protect benefits and protect patients and protect the American people. A number of you have suggested creating pools where self-employed and small businesses could buy insurance. That was a good idea. I embraced it. Some of you supported efforts to provide insurance to children and let kids remain covered on their parents' insurance until they're 25 or 26. I supported that. That's part of our package. I supported a number of other ideas, from incentivizing wellness to creating an affordable catastrophic insurance option for young people that came from Republicans like Mike Enzi and Olympia Snowe in the Senate, and I'm sure from some of you as well. So when you say I ought to be willing to accept Republican ideas on health care, let's be clear: I have. Bipartisanship -- not for its own sake but to solve problems -- that's what our constituents, the American people, need from us right now. All of us then have a choice to make. We have to choose whether we're going to be politicians first or partners for progress; whether we're going to put success at the polls ahead of the lasting success we can achieve together for America. Just think about it for a while. We don't have to put it up for a vote today. Let me close by saying this. I was not elected by Democrats or Republicans, but by the American people. That's especially true because the fastest growing group of Americans are independents. That should tell us both something. I'm ready and eager to work with anyone who is willing to proceed in a spirit of goodwill. But understand, if we can't break free from partisan gridlock, if we can't move past a politics of "no," if resistance supplants constructive debate, I still have to meet my responsibilities as President. I've got to act for the greater good –- because that, too, is a commitment that I have made. And that's -- that, too, is what the American people sent me to Washington to do. So I am optimistic. I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it's represented. But we've gotten caught up in the political game in a way that's just not healthy. It's dividing our country in ways that are preventing us from meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I'm hopeful that the conversation we have today can help reverse that. So thank you very much. Thank you, John. (Applause.) Now I'd like to open it up for questions. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: The President has agreed to take questions and members would be encouraged to raise your hand while you remain in your seat. (Laughter.) The chair will take the prerogative to make the first remarks. Mr. President, welcome back to the House Republican Conference. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [Off microphone.] We are pleased to have you return. (Inaudible) a year ago -- House Republicans said then we would make you two promises. Number one, that most of the people in this room and their families would pray for you and your beautiful family just about every day for the next four years. And I want to assure you we're keeping that promise. THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. CONGRESSMAN PENCE: [off microphone] Number two, our pledge to you, Mr. President, was that door is always open. And we hope the (inaudible) of our invitation that we (inaudible). Mr. President, several of us in this conference yesterday on the way into Baltimore stopped by the Salvation Army homeless facility here in Baltimore. I met a little boy, an African American boy, in the 8th grade, named David Carter, Jr. When he heard that I would be seeing you today his eyes lit up like I had never seen. And I told him that if he wrote you a letter I'd give it to you, and I have. But I had a conversation with little David, Jr. and David, Sr. His family has been struggling with the economy. [On microphone.] His dad said words to me, Mr. President, that I'll never forget. About my age and he said -- he said, Congressman, it's not like it was when we were coming up. He said, there's just no jobs. Now, last year about the time you met with us, unemployment was 7.5 percent in this country. Your administration, and your party in Congress, told us that we'd have to borrow more than $700 billion to pay for a so-called stimulus bill. It was a piecemeal list of projects and boutique tax cuts, all of which was -- we were told -- had to be passed or unemployment would go to 8 percent, as your administration said. Well, unemployment is 10 percent now, as you well know, Mr. President; here in Baltimore it's considerably higher. Now, Republicans offered a stimulus bill at the same time. It cost half as much as the Democratic proposal in Congress, and using your economic analyst models, it would have created twice the jobs at half the cost. It essentially was across-the-board tax relief, Mr. President. Now we know you've come to Baltimore today and you've raised this tax credit, which was last promoted by President Jimmy Carter. But the first question I would pose to you, very respectfully, Mr. President, is would you be willing to consider embracing -- in the name of little David Carter, Jr. and his dad, in the name of every struggling family in this country -- the kind of across-the-board tax relief that Republicans have advocated, that President Kennedy advocated, that President Reagan advocated and that has always been the means of stimulating broad-based economic growth? THE PRESIDENT: Well, there was a lot packed into that question. (Laughter.) First of all, let me say I already promised that I'll be writing back to that young man and his family, and I appreciate you passing on the letter. Q Thank you. THE PRESIDENT: But let's talk about just the jobs environment generally. You're absolutely right that when I was sworn in the hope was that unemployment would remain around 8 [percent], or in the 8 percent range. That was just based on the estimates made by both conservative and liberal economists, because at that point not all the data had trickled in. We had lost 650,000 jobs in December. I'm assuming you're not faulting my policies for that. We had lost, it turns out, 700,000 jobs in January, the month I was sworn in. I'm assuming it wasn't my administration's policies that accounted for that. We lost another 650,000 jobs the subsequent month, before any of my policies had gone into effect. So I'm assuming that wasn't as a consequence of our policies; that doesn't reflect the failure of the Recovery Act. The point being that what ended up happening was that the job losses from this recession proved to be much more severe -- in the first quarter of last year going into the second quarter of last year -- than anybody anticipated. So I mean, I think we can score political points on the basis of the fact that we underestimated how severe the job losses were going to be. But those job losses took place before any stimulus, whether it was the ones that you guys have proposed or the ones that we proposed, could have ever taken into effect. Now, that's just the fact, Mike, and I don't think anybody would dispute that. You could not find an economist who would dispute that. Now, at the same time, as I mentioned, most economists -- Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative -- would say that had it not been for the stimulus package that we passed, things would be much worse. Now, they didn't fill a 7 million hole in the number of people who were unemployed. They probably account for about 2 million, which means we still have 5 million folks in there that we've still got to deal with. That's a lot of people. The package that we put together at the beginning of the year, the truth is, should have reflected -- and I believe reflected what most of you would say are common sense things. This notion that this was a radical package is just not true. A third of them were tax cuts, and they weren't -- when you say they were "boutique" tax cuts, Mike, 95 percent of working Americans got tax cuts, small businesses got tax cuts, large businesses got help in terms of their depreciation schedules. I mean, it was a pretty conventional list of tax cuts. A third of it was stabilizing state budgets. There is not a single person in here who, had it not been for what was in the stimulus package, wouldn't be going home to more teachers laid off, more firefighters laid off, more cops laid off. A big chunk of it was unemployment insurance and COBRA, just making sure that people had some floor beneath them, and, by the way, making sure that there was enough money in their pockets that businesses had some customers. You take those two things out, that accounts for the majority of the stimulus package. Are there people in this room who think that was a bad idea? A portion of it was dealing with the AMT, the alternative minimum tax -- not a proposal of mine; that's not a consequence of my policies that we have a tax system where we keep on putting off a potential tax hike that is embedded in the budget that we have to fix each year. That cost about $70 billion. And then the last portion of it was infrastructure which, as I said, a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon-cuttings for the same projects that you voted against. Now, I say all this not to re-litigate the past, but it's simply to state that the component parts of the Recovery Act are consistent with what many of you say are important things to do -- rebuilding our infrastructure, tax cuts for families and businesses, and making sure that we were providing states and individuals some support when the roof was caving in. And the notion that I would somehow resist doing something that cost half as much but would produce twice as many jobs -- why would I resist that? I wouldn't. I mean, that's my point, is that -- I am not an ideologue. I'm not. It doesn't make sense if somebody could tell me you could do this cheaper and get increased results that I wouldn't say, great. The problem is, I couldn't find credible economists who would back up the claims that you just made. Now, we can -- here's what I know going forward, though. I mean, we're talking -- we were talking about the past. We can talk about this going forward. I have looked at every idea out there in terms of accelerating job growth to match the economic growth that's already taken place. The jobs credit that I'm discussing right now is one that a lot of people think would be the most cost-effective way for encouraging people to pick up their hiring. There may be other ideas that you guys have; I am happy to look at them and I'm happy to embrace them. I suspect I will embrace some of them. Some of them I've already embraced. But the question I think we're going to have to ask ourselves is, as we move forward, are we going to be examining each of these issues based on what's good for the country, what the evidence tells us, or are we going to be trying to position ourselves so that come November we're able to say, "The other party, it's their fault." If we take the latter approach then we're probably not going to get much agreement. If we take the former, I suspect there's going to be a lot of overlap. All right? Q Mr. President, will you consider supporting across-the-board tax relief, as President Kennedy did? THE PRESIDENT: Here's what I'm going to do, Mike. What I'm going to do is I'm going to take a look at what you guys are proposing. And the reason I say this, before you say, "Okay," I think is important to know -- what you may consider across-the-board tax cuts could be, for example, greater tax cuts for people who are making a billion dollars. I may not agree to a tax cut for Warren Buffet. You may be calling for an across-the-board tax cut for the banking industry right now. I may not agree to that. So I think that we've got to look at what specific proposals you're putting forward, and -- this is the last point I'll make -- if you're calling for just across-the-board tax cuts, and then on the other hand saying that we're somehow going to balance our budget, I'm going to want to take a look at your math and see how that works, because the issue of deficit and debt is another area where there has been a tendency for some inconsistent statements. How's that? All right? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Thank you. Mr. President, first off, thanks for agreeing to accept our invitation here. It is a real pleasure and honor to have you with us here today. THE PRESIDENT: Good to see you. Is this your crew right here, by the way? CONGRESSMAN RYAN: It is. This is my daughter Liza, my son Charlie and Sam, and this is my wife Janna. THE PRESIDENT: Hey, guys. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: Say hi, everybody. (Laughter.) I serve as a ranking member of the budget committee, so I'm going to talk a little budget if you don't mind. The spending bills that you've signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now. You've also said that you want to take a scalpel to the budget and go through it line by line. We want to give you that scalpel. I have a proposal with my home state senator, Russ Feingold, bipartisan proposal, to create a constitutional version of the line-item veto. (Applause.) Problem is, we can't even get a vote on the proposal. So my question is, why not start freezing spending now, and would you support a line-item veto in helping us get a vote on it in the House? THE PRESIDENT: Let me respond to the two specific questions, but I want to just push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent. Now, look, I talked to Peter Orszag right before I came here, because I suspected I'd be hearing this -- I'd be hearing this argument. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year's budget, this past year's budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession. So the increase in the budget for this past year was actually predicted before I was even sworn into office and had initiated any policies. Whoever was in there, Paul -- and I don't think you'll dispute that -- whoever was in there would have seen those same increases because of, on the one hand, huge drops in revenue, but at the same time people were hurting and needed help. And a lot of these things happened automatically. Now, the reason that I'm not proposing the discretionary freeze take into effect this year -- we prepared a budget for 2010, it's now going forward -- is, again, I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increase taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you'd see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off. That's why I've proposed to do it for the next fiscal year. So that's point number two. With respect to the line-item veto, I actually -- I think there's not a President out there that wouldn't love to have it. And I think that this is an area where we can have a serious conversation. I know it is a bipartisan proposal by you and Russ Feingold. I don't like being held up with big bills that have stuff in them that are wasteful but I've got to sign because it's a defense authorization bill and I've got to make sure that our troops are getting the funding that they need. I will tell you, I would love for Congress itself to show discipline on both sides of the aisle. I think one thing that you have to acknowledge, Paul, because you study this stuff and take it pretty seriously, that the earmarks problem is not unique to one party and you end up getting a lot of pushback when you start going after specific projects of any one of you in your districts, because wasteful spending is usually spent somehow outside of your district. Have you noticed that? The spending in your district tends to seem pretty sensible. So I would love to see more restraint within Congress. I'd like to work on the earmarks reforms that I mentioned in terms of putting earmarks online, because I think sunshine is the best disinfectant. But I am willing to have a serious conversation on the line-item veto issue. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I'd like to walk you through that, because we have a version we think is constitutional. THE PRESIDENT: Let me take a look at it. CONGRESSMAN RYAN: I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending. The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent. THE PRESIDENT: We'll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right? CONGRESSMAN PENCE: Shelley Moore Capito, West Virginia. CONGRESSWOMAN CAPITO: Thank you, Mr. President, for joining us here today. As you said in the State of the Union address on Wednesday, jobs and the economy are number one. And I think everyone in this room, certainly I, agree with you on that. I represent the state of West Virginia. We're resource-rich. We have a lot of coal and a lot of natural gas. But our -- my miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies in these areas: cap and trade, an aggressive EPA, and the looming prospect of higher taxes. In our minds, these are job-killing policies. So I'm asking you if you would be willing to re-look at some of these policies, with a high unemployment and the unsure economy that we have now, to assure West Virginians that you're listening. THE PRESIDENT: Look, I listen all the time, including to your governor, who's somebody who I enjoyed working with a lot before the campaign and now that I'm President. And I know that West Virginia struggles wit

train

Bill Clinton Says He 'Never Said A Bad Word About Senator Obama,' At mtvU's First 'Editorial Board' On Sunday, former President Bill Clinton — whose wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, is battling for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination — fielded some tough questions from four college journalists during mtvU's "Editorial Board" in New Orleans. The Clinton installment of "Editorial Board" premieres March 26 on mtvU. While the questions were largely expected, Clinton's answers were not. The event — the first in a televised series that will give selected writers and editors from mtvU's College Media Network the opportunity to meet with some of today's most prominent political figures — provided Clinton an opportunity to set the record straight. When asked about those remarks he'd made leading up to the South Carolina primary (he pointedly compared Senator Barack Obama's candidacy to that of Jesse Jackson's in '84 and '88, which some perceived as his attempt to pigeonhole his wife's rival as the "black" candidate), Clinton said his remarks were blown out of proportion by a media hungry for controversy during election season. "Contrary to the myth, I went through South Carolina and never said a bad word about Senator Obama — not one," he insisted. "I went to African-American college campuses and said, 'Look, I expect most of you are going to vote against Hillary. But I want you to know that she wants your vote.' That's what we did. You can't blame the African-American community for being proud of having a candidate who's immensely impressive, who has had a lot of support in the North among non-African-Americans and has generated all this excitement among young people. I don't think it's rocket science. The fact that people are excited about Senator Obama's candidacy in the African-American community is entirely understandable." But Clinton warned against approaching this election as though it were a popularity contest. He said while thousands of Americans have rallied around Obama's call for change, his wife has been making change for years. "It is almost impossible to find any Democrat who has accomplished more in less time in the Senate — and with Republicans — on both domestic and foreign-policy issues and military issues" than Hillary Clinton, he said. Bill Clinton also said that Obama has been running a campaign that suggests, "If you were part of making good things happen in the '90s and stopping bad things from happening in this decade ... then you are part of a culture of conflict and you are so yesterday. The only way we can have a good president is to make a completely new beginning. "This is the first election in history that I can remember where experience — and having, actually, experience as a change-maker — should be a disability for being elected," he added. "All of you who are young have a right to say that, but don't pretend you're not saying that." Later, Clinton took exception to suggestions that Obama has rejected special-interest funds in his campaign. "[Obama] was the only one who kept his [political action committee]," Clinton said. "Then, in the beginning, he spends 40 percent of the PAC money — 43 percent, to be exact — on Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina politicians. Those states constitute 3.7 percent of America's population. He also admitted that his political action committee consulted with his campaign on how to spread the money out. So, therefore, it is not true that he has run a campaign without any special-interest money influencing the presidential campaign." When asked why African-Americans' support of his wife continues to drop, Clinton pointed to Obama's caucus win in Iowa as the turning point — not the comments he made before South Carolina's primary. "The minute it became possible that [Obama] could be the nominee, he was going to win the lion's share of the African-American vote," Clinton surmised. "And I think that I never begrudged it." The issue of drug use was also broached. Clinton famously remarked in the '90s that he had experimented with marijuana but "never inhaled," and Obama has also admitted to trying cocaine as a youth. Clinton was asked whether voters might be swayed by such things from a candidate's past. "It was also an issue when President Bush ran for the first time, because he didn't answer the cocaine question, right? ... I think the voters rendered a verdict ... that what you did when you were really young is not going to bar you from serving as president," he said. Clinton later told the crowd assembled for Sunday's event that he thinks Congress may abolish the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy regarding gays serving in the military before year's end. "It would have been a better policy if it had been implemented the way General [Colin] Powell and I agreed to implement it. ... I think we may have the support now in Congress to get rid of it altogether," Clinton said. "That's what we should do. We should do what every other major country has done and allow gays to serve honorably in the military. ... Our guys came to us and said, 'Look. If you don't agree to this, they're going to bury you. You will have nothing.' " Get informed! Head to Choose or Lose for nonstop coverage of the 2008 presidential election, including everything from the latest news on the candidates to on-the-ground multimedia reports from our 51 citizen journalists, MTV and MySpace's Presidential Dialogues, and much more.

train

Student Hasn't Stopped Filming Since Florida School Shooting David Hogg, a senior at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, knows what gunshots sound like: His father worked in law enforcement, and taught him about weapons and how to handle them. So when Hogg heard a “pop” while sitting in an AP environmental science class around 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, he told his teacher it sounded strangely like a gunshot. But there had been a fire drill that very morning and talk of a “Code Red” exercise to prepare for an active shooter. This must just be a surprise drill, he reasoned. And then the fire alarm sounded. Dutifully acting on it, Hogg and other students tried to exit the building. A janitor—Hogg doesn’t know his name but calls him an angel—knew where the shots were coming from and sent the students back. Then a culinary arts teacher, Ashley Kurth, pulled Hogg and others inside, locked the door, and made them hide in a closet. Checking Twitter and Instagram, Hogg—who’s an editor at the school’s TV station—found the news that the shooting was real and ongoing. The shots continued for what felt like an eternity. Hogg considered the possibility that he would not live to see the end of the day. “While I was in there, I thought, ‘What impact have I had? What will my story be if I die here?’” Hogg told TIME in the hours following the ordeal. “And the only thing I could think of was, pull out my camera and try telling others. As a student journalist, as an aspiring journalist, that’s all I could think: Get other people’s stories on tape. If we all die, the camera survives, and that’s how we get the message out there, about how we want change to be brought about.” In the wake of Wednesday’s mass shooting, in which at least 17 were killed and more than a dozen others wounded, that cry for change is echoing across this normally quiet, almost bucolic Florida community of 30,000 on the edge of the Everglades, which draws residents seeking sprawling homes and room to run horses. It’s being heard across Broward County, whose sheriff, Scott Israel, is prodding Florida officials to provide more funding for mental health, as well as laws that would prevent a person with psychological problems from being able to legally acquire a gun. And it’s becoming a rallying cry for people here and across the U.S. who are wondering what, if anything, changes from one mass shooting to the next. “When do we say, that’s not acceptable, something has to change?” asked Hogg, 17, his voice breaking. Hogg’s sister Lauren, a freshman at the high school, is fearing the worst: one of her friends had still not been located late Thursday. Nikolas Cruz, the suspect who has been charged with 17 counts of murder, had been expelled from the school a year ago and appears to have targeted a building full of ninth-graders. RELATED VIDEO: Florida Shooting Survivor Calls for Action Will Gilroy is one of the freshmen who escaped the gunman’s wrath. He is still waiting for word about classmates that haven’t been located. Like Hogg, Gilroy thought the shooting wasn’t real at first. But then he heard the sirens. He listened to his teacher’s orders and crowded into a closet with about 20 others. He was in there, he says, for about an hour. “It was hot in there. We were packed in tight,” he told TIME. “Some students were crying. The teacher had paper plates and we used them to fan ourselves.” Inside the closet Gilroy began texting with his mother, Kristi Gilroy, who teaches second and third grade in at Country Hills Elementary just down the road. She too was on lockdown, with kids who stayed for after-school ccare. She was relieved to know her only son was alive. But the shooter was still at large. Cruz was eventually caught just down the road from their house, trying to escape with the rest of the crowd. “My husband is ex-military, so it’s not like we’re anti-gun. But an AR-15?” Kristi Gilroy said. “You tell me, how big of a gun does a person need?” Douglas is closed for the rest of the week as teens and teachers struggle to make sense of the carnage. But Kristi Gilroy faces the difficult job of going back to school Thursday, waiting for news of the dead and injured, which might, she feared, include children she’d taught when they were younger. The usual questions arose Thursday about whether it was too soon to talk about gun control. Some local officials seemed ready to toss out the oft-heard script, the prayers for families and praise for first responders. “Now, now is the time for this country to have a conversation about sensible gun control laws in this country,” Broward County School Superintendent Robert W. Runcie told reporters. “Our students are asking for that.” President Trump spoke Thursday morning, taking on the grim task of comforter-in-chief, but offering no specific proposals. “To every parent, teacher, and child who is hurting so badly, we are here for you, whatever you need, whatever we can do, to ease your pain,” Trump said. “We are all joined together as one American family, and your suffering is our burden also.” Attorney General Pam Bondi, speaking to reporters on Thursday, said that she’d been sitting with parents until 3:30 a.m. “Having to tell parents that a child, 14 years old, is dead, is the hardest thing you have to do in your career,” she said, her eyes full of tears. To some, however, words of comfort won’t be enough. “When do we actually stand up? I think it’s the time that we all stand up,” Hogg demanded. “If you don’t call your Congressman and do it again and again and not give up, it’s going to be your child that’s next. And that’s horrifying.” Meanwhile, Parkland waits. Waits for the names of the innocent who were gunned down before they could graduate, or in some cases, finish the ninth grade. Waits for news of funeral arrangements for a beloved football coach and security guard. Waits to hear if the children still in the hospital pull will through. Waits for someone to convince their teenagers that it’s okay to go back to school, that they’re safe, and that nothing like this will happen again. Contact us at [email protected].

train

Donald J. Trump on the Stakes of the Election - June 22, 2016 - Donald J. Trump on the Stakes of the Election Download PDF Today I‘d like to share my thoughts about the stakes in this election. People have asked me why I am running for President. I have built an amazing business that I love and I get to work side-by-side with my children every day. We come to work together and turn visions into reality. We think big, and then we make it happen. I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it. So when people ask me why I am running, I quickly answer: I am running to give back to this country which has been so good to me. When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton – only by me. The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before --Jobs, jobs, jobs! Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them. We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money. That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans. Importantly, this includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals. Because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy. It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them. It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools. It’s rigged against you, the American people. Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar – just look at her pathetic email and server statements, or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total self-serving lie.[1] Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying far less. Yesterday, she even tried to attack me and my many businesses. But here is the bottom line: I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars. I have always had a talent for building businesses and, importantly, creating jobs. That is a talent our country desperately needs. I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first. We are going to put America First, and we are going to Make America Great again. This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians. Here is my promise to the American voter: If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C. The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests. Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft. She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash. Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public. [2] [3] Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.[4] They totally own her, and that will never change. The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control. Those are the stakes. Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn't have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders' said, the judgement, to be president. She believes she is entitled to the office. Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.” You know what my response to that is? I’m with you : the American people. She thinks it’s all about her. I know it’s all about you – I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans. Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first. We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy. We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed. This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs. We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again. That’s what we mean by America First. Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to our shores. Our Founders understood this. One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.[5] Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying: “The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”[6] I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton. Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.[7] We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed.[8] Our trade deficit with China soared 40% during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State -- a disgraceful performance for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned.[9] Then she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property – a crime which is continuing to this day.[10] Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself. In return, Hillary Clinton got rich! The book Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense. She gets rich making you poor. Here is a quote from the book: “At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton…at this critical time for US-china relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.” These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.[11] She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing. Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas – and give up Congressional power to an international foreign commission.[12] Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book – deletion is something she is very good at -- (at least 30,000 emails are missing.)[13] But this latest Clinton cover-up doesn’t change anything: if she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership , and we will lose millions of jobs and our economic independence for good. She will do this, just as she has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career – and it will be even worse than the Clintons’ NAFTA deal. I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and our workers. We don't make great deals anymore, but we will once I become president. It’s not just our economy that’s been corrupted, but our foreign policy too. The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world. No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton. Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched. Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed -- that's right, when the phone rang at 3 o'clock in the morning, she was sleeping. Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security.[14] Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all. She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die. To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.[15] Here is what one of the victim’s mothers had to say: “I want the whole world to know it: she lied to my face, and you don’t want this person to be president.”[16] In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world. Libya was cooperating. Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence. Syria was under control. Iran was being choked by sanctions. Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel. ISIS wasn’t even on the map. Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East. Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians. Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons. Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.[17] She helped force out a friendly regime in Egypt and replace it with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened the Pandora’s box of radical Islam. Then, there was the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure date from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS killers.[18] ISIS threatens us today because of the decisions Hillary Clinton has made. ISIS also threatens peaceful Muslims across the Middle East, and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety. In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another. It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.[19] Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.[20] But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power, she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya. She lacks the temperament, the judgment and the competence to lead. In the words of a Secret Service agent posted outside the Oval Office: “She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve in the office…from the bottom of my soul, I know this to be true…Her leadership style – volcanic, impulsive…disdainful of the rules set for everyone else – hasn’t changed a bit.”[21] Perhaps the most terrifying thing about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is that she refuses to acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam. In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that's an increase over President Obama's already very high number.[22] Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.[23] [24] Already, hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the U.S.[25] The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the most repressive anti-gay and anti-women regimes on Earth.[26] I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people. Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved and gays put to death. Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.[27] Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency. Here is some more of what we learned from the book, Clinton Cash: A foreign telecom giant faced possible State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran, and other oppressive regimes. So what did this company do? For the first time ever, they decided to pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a single speech. The Clintons got their cash, the telecom company escaped sanctions.[28] Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.[29] Hillary Clinton appointed a top donor to a national security board with top secret access – even though he had no national security credentials.[30] Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was Secretary of State – plus millions more for her foundation. The Sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law, including the punishment of death by stoning for being gay. The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance. [31] Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death.[32] Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens.[33] To cover-up her corrupt dealings, Hillary Clinton illegally stashed her State Department emails on a private server. Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments – perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China – putting all of America in danger.[34] Then there are the 33,000 emails she deleted.[35] While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do. So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States. This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency. We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies. National security is also immigration security – and Hillary wants neither. Hillary Clinton has put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States. She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States.[36] The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs. They are the ones she will hurt the most. Let me share with you a letter our campaign received from Mary Ann Mendoza. She lost her amazing son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Hillary Clinton.[37] Sadly, the Mendoza family is just one of thousands who have suffered the same fate. Here is an excerpt from Mrs. Mendoza’s letter: “Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.” Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration. For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America. Hillary’s Wall Street immigration agenda will keep immigrant communities poor, and unemployed Americans out of work. She can’t claim to care about African-American and Hispanic workers when she wants to bring in millions of new low-wage workers to compete against them. Here are a few things a Trump Administration will do for America in the first 100 days: Appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s radical judges will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment. Change immigration rules to give unemployed Americans an opportunity to fill good-paying jobs Stand up to countries that cheat on trade, of which there are many Cancel rules and regulations that send jobs overseas Lift restrictions on energy production Repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare -- it is a disaster. Pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs. Impose tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the Office of Secretary of State. There is one common theme in all of these reforms. It’s going to be America First. This is why the stakes in November are so great. On Election Day, the politicians stand trial before the people. The voters are the jury. Their ballots are the verdict. We don’t need or want another Clinton or Obama. Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out their country. They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people. Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that can’t change. My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance do it. This is our last chance to do it. Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system that built the great dams, and so much more. Then we started thinking small. We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions. We lost our sense of purpose, and daring. But that’s not who we are. Come this November, we can bring America back – bigger and better, and stronger than ever. We will build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth – the roads and railways and airports of tomorrow. Our military will have the best technology and finest equipment – we will bring it back all the way. Massive new factories will come roaring into our country – breathing life and hope into our communities. Inner cities, which have been horribly abused by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, will finally be rebuilt. Construction is what I know -- nobody knows it better. The real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years -- but these wages will start going up, along with the new jobs. Hillary’s massive taxation, regulation and open borders will destroy jobs and drive down wages for everyone. We are also going to be supporting our police and law enforcement -- we can never forget the great job they do. I am also going to appoint great Supreme Court Justices. Our country is going to start working again. People are going to start working again. Parents are going to start dreaming big for their children again – including parents in our inner cities. Americans are going to start believing in the future or our country. We are going to make America rich again. We are going to make America safe again. We are going to make America Great Again – and Great Again For EVERYONE . [1] (“Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton Remarks on Iraq” The George Washington University, 3/17/2008) [2] (“2013 Tax Return,” Hillary Clinton, Accessed 6/22/2016) [3] (“2014 Tax Return,” Hillary Clinton, Accessed 6/22/2016) [4] (Robert Yoon, “$153 million in Bill and Hillary Clinton speaking fees, documented,” CNN, 2/6/2016) [5] (“Statement submitted by Thomas O. Marvin, Secretary Home Market Club, Boston,” Committee of Ways and Means, 1/10/1913) [6] (“Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works,” John Nicolay and John Hay, 1894) [7] (Domenico Montanaro, “A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade” NPR, 4/21/2015) [8] (“All Employees: Manufacturing,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Accessed 6/22/2016) [9] (“Trade in Goods with China,” U.S. Census Report, Accessed 6/22/2016) [10] (“The Report of the Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property,” The IP Commission Report, May 2013) [11] (Lauren Carroll, “Fact-checking 'Clinton Cash' author on claim about Bill Clinton's speaking fees,” Politifact, 4/26/2015) [12] (“Press Release, “Fast-Track Would Give Obama Green Light To Form EU-Inspired ‘Pacific Union,’ Surrender Congress’ Treaty Powers,” Senator Jeff Sessions, 6/8/2015) [13] (“Paperback version of Clinton's 'Hard Choices’ omits her former TPP trade pact support” Fox News, 6/11/2016) [14] (Melanie Hunter, “More Than 600 Benghazi Security Requests Never Reached Clinton’s Desk, But Reports on Libya from Her ‘Friend’ Did,” CNS News, 10/22/2015) [15] (Press Release, “State Department Belatedly Releases New Clinton Benghazi Documents,” Judicial Watch, 4/14/2016) [16] (“'I Want the World to Know That Hillary Lied to My Face,'” Fox News, 8/22/2013) [17] (Anne Barnard, “Death Toll From War in Syria Now 470,000, Group Finds,” The New York Times, 2/11/2016) [18] (“Obama: All US Troops Out Of Iraq By End Of Year,” NBC News, 10/21/2011) [19] (Adam Lerner, “Hillary Clinton says her Iraq war vote was a 'mistake,'” Politico, 5/19/2015) [20] (Donald J. Trump, “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” Fox News, 1/28/2003) [21] (“Secret Service agent's book claims Clinton has 'volcanic' leadership style,” Fox News, 6/6/2016) [22] (Rebecca Kaplan, “Hillary Clinton: U.S. should take 65,000 Syrian refugees,” CBS News, 9/20/2015) [23] (Michael Patrick Leahy, “Politifact Says Trump Is Right: Hillary Clinton Supports ‘500% Increase in Syrian Refugees’” Breitbart, 6/15/2016) [24] (Melanie Hunter, “FBI Director Admits U.S. Will Have No Basis to Vet Some Syrian Refugees” CNS News, 10/21/2015) [25] (Judson Berger, “Anatomy of the terror threat: Files shed light on nature, extent of plots in US,” Fox News, 6/22/2016) [26] (Jonathan Landay and Yeganeh Torbati, “Father of Orlando shooter hosted political show on Afghan-Pakistan issues,” Reuters, 6/13/2016) [27] (Joshua Green and Richard Rubin, “Clinton Foundation Failed to Disclose 1,100 Foreign Donations,” Bloomberg Politics, 4/29/2015) [28] (Matthew Mosk and Brian Ross, “Bill Clinton Cashed In When Hillary Became Secretary of State,” ABC News, 4/23/2015) [29] (Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, “Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal,” The New York Times, 4/23/2015) [30] (David Sirota, “Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department,” International Business Times, 5/26/2015) [31] (“Office of the Chief of Protocol; Gifts to Federal Employees From Foreign Government Sources Reported to Employing Agencies in Calendar Year 2012; Notice,” Department of State, 8/20/2013) [32] (William La Jeunesse, “Rights groups silent as Clinton Foundation takes millions from countries that imprison gays,” Fox News, 6/17/2016) [33] (“Contributor and Grantor Information,” Clinton Foundation, Accessed 6/22/2016) [34] (Josh Gerstein and Rachael Bade, “Clinton server faced hacking from China, South Korea and Germany,” Politico, 10/8/2015) [35] (Paula Reid and Hannah Fraser-Chanpong, “Report: FBI pulls deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's server,” CBS News, 9/22/2015) [36] (Monica Alba, “Hillary Clinton Calls Trump a 'Bully' Who Threatens Economy,” NBC News, 5/23/2016) [37] (Megan Cassidy, “Mom is angry that man who killed son wasn't deported,” USA Today, 7/11/2014)

train

House GOP Introduces Keep Terrorists Out of America Act House GOP Introduces Keep Terrorists Out of America Act Washington, May 7 - House Republicans today introduced the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act, legislation aimed at stopping the transfer or release of terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. The legislation unequivocally opposes releasing terrorists from the Guantanamo Bay facility and transferring them to the United States, makes clear that governors and state legislatures must pre-approve the transfer or release of any terrorist detainee into their respective states, and requires the Administration to meet strict criteria and certification standards before terrorists housed at the Guantanamo prison could be brought to the United States. Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement on the legislation: “This bill has a straightforward but vital purpose: to ensure that the terrorists held in the Guantanamo Bay prison are not imported into the United States. We are giving every member of Congress an opportunity to stand with the American people by affirming their opposition to bringing these terrorists into our communities, and we hope they join us. Equally as important, this bill holds the Administration accountable if it acts unilaterally against the will of the American people. “The world did not suddenly become safe in January 2009. There are still terrorists around the world who are committed to killing Americans and destroying our way of life. A number of those terrorists are being held at the prison in Guantanamo Bay right now. If the Administration is allowed to proceed, they won’t be there for long. In fact, they may be right here, in the United States. I have been urging the Administration to finally present to the American people its plan for what to do with the terrorists held at Guantanamo and for confronting and defeating the global terrorist threat. Right now, that plan does not exist, and the safety of our nation depends on it. “Our ranking members John McHugh, Pete Hoekstra, Lamar Smith, Peter King, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen all deserve great credit for their work on this measure. I thank them for their efforts in crafting this critically important bill.” NOTE: Following is a summary of the Keep Terrorists Out of America Act: Affirming Congress’ Opposition to the Release and Transfer of Terrorists. The bill affirms Congress’ opposition to transferring or releasing terrorists held at the Guantanamo Bay prison into the United States. Most Americans do not support releasing these terrorists from Guantanamo Bay prison and transferring them into the United States. The bill gives Congress an opportunity to show that it stands with the American people on this critical matter, and opposes the release and transfer of these terrorists. Governor & State Legislature Pre-Approval. The measure prohibits the Administration from transferring or releasing any terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay to any state without express approval from the state’s governor and legislature, and certifies to Congress that strict requirements have been met. For example, the Administration must certify to the respective governor and state legislature that the detainee does not pose a security risk to the United States. The certifications must be made 60 days before any transfer or release. Presidential Certification Requirements. The measure prohibits the President from transferring or releasing a terrorist detainee into the United States unless he provides the following notification and certification to Congress regarding: - The name of the detainee and transfer/release location in the United States. - The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued prosecution of the detainee. - The release/transfer would not negatively impact continued detention of the detainee. - The ability of federal judges to release detainees into the United States. #####

train

Remarks by the President in Twitter Town Hall 2:04 P.M. EDT MR. DORSEY: Good afternoon and welcome to the White House. I am Jack Dorsey, from Twitter. Through more than 200 million tweets per day, people around the world use Twitter to instantly connect to what's most meaningful to them. In every country -- Egypt and Japan, the UK and the United States -- much of this conversation is made up of everyday people engaging in spirited debate about the future of their countries. Our partners at Salesforce Radian6 studied more than a million tweets, discussing our nation's politics over the recent weeks, and they found that America's financial security to be one of the most actively talked about topics on Twitter. They further found that President Obama's name comes up in more than half of these conversations. And so today this vibrant discussion comes here to the White House and you get to ask the questions. To participate, just open your web browser and go to askObama.Twitter.com. Neither the President or I know the questions that will be asked today. That decision is driven entirely by the Twitter users. And so let's get the conversation started. Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Hello, everybody! (Applause.) First of all, everybody can sit down. (Laughter.) It's much easier to tweet from a seated position. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: And I understand you want to start the conversation off with a tweeter yourself. THE PRESIDENT: I'm going to make history here as the first President to live tweet. So we've got a computer over here. (Types in tweet.) MR. DORSEY: It's only 140 characters. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: All right, I think I have done this properly. But here's the test. MR. DORSEY: And you tweeted. THE PRESIDENT: How about that? Not bad. (Applause.) Thank you. So I think my question will be coming up at some point. MR. DORSEY: So what was your question? Here it is. THE PRESIDENT: Here's the question: "In order to reduce the deficit, what costs would you cut and what investments would you keep?" And the reason I thought this was an important question is, as all of you know, we are going through a spirited debate here in Washington, but it's important to get the whole country involved, in making a determination about what are the programs that can help us grow, can create jobs, improve our education system, maintain our clean air and clean water, and what are those things that are a waste that we shouldn’t be investing in because they're not helping us grow or create jobs or creating new businesses. And that debate is going to be heating up over the next couple of weeks, so I'd love to hear from the American people, see what thoughts they have. MR. DORSEY: Excellent. Well, first question comes from a curator in New Hampshire. And we have eight curators around the country helping us pick tweets from the crowd so that we can read them to the President. And this one comes from William Smith: "What mistakes have you made in handling this recession and what would you do differently?" THE PRESIDENT: That's a terrific question. When I first came into office we were facing the worst recession since the Great Depression. So, looking around this room, it's a pretty young room -- it's certainly the worst recession that we've faced in our lifetimes. And we had to act quickly and make some bold and sometimes difficult decisions. It was absolutely the right thing to do to put forward a Recovery Act that cut taxes for middle-class folks so they had more money in their pocket to get through the recession. It was the right thing to do to provide assistance to states to make sure that they didn’t have to lay off teachers and cops and firefighters as quickly as they needed to. And it was the right thing to do to try to rebuild our infrastructure and put people back to work building roads and bridges and so forth. It also was the right thing to do, although a tough decision, to save the auto industry, which is now profitable and gaining market share -- the U.S. auto industry -- for the first time in a very long time. I think that -- probably two things that I would do differently. One would have been to explain to the American people that it was going to take a while for us to get out of this. I think even I did not realize the magnitude, because most economists didn’t realize the magnitude, of the recession until fairly far into it, maybe two or three months into my presidency where we started realizing that we had lost 4 million jobs before I was even sworn in. And so I think people may not have been prepared for how long this was going to take and why we were going to have to make some very difficult decisions and choices. And I take responsibility for that, because setting people’s expectations is part of how you end up being able to respond well. The other area is in the area of housing. I think that the continuing decline in the housing market is something that hasn’t bottomed out as quickly as we expected. And so that’s continued to be a big drag on the economy. We’ve had to revamp our housing program several times to try to help people stay in their homes and try to start lifting home values up. But of all the things we’ve done, that’s probably been the area that’s been most stubborn to us trying to solve the problem. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, 27 percent of our questions are in the jobs category, as you can see from the screen over here. Our next question has to do about jobs and technology. It comes from David: "Tech and knowledge industries are thriving, yet jobs discussion always centers on manufacturing. Why not be realistic about jobs?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, it’s not an either/or question; it’s a both/and question. We have to be successful at the cutting-edge industries of the future like Twitter. But we also have always been a country that makes stuff. And manufacturing jobs end up having both higher wages typically, and they also have bigger multiplier effects. So one manufacturing job can support a range of other jobs -- suppliers and the restaurant near the plant and so forth. So they end up having a substantial impact on the overall economy. What we want to focus on is advanced manufacturing that combines new technology, so research and development to figure out how are we going to create the next Twitter, how are we going to create the next Google, how are we going to create the next big thing -- but make sure that production is here. So it’s great that we have an Apple that’s creating iPods, iPads and designing them and creating the software, but it would be nice if we’re also making the iPads and the iPods here in the United States, because that's some more jobs that people can work at. And there are going to be a series of decisions that we’ve got to make. Number one, are we investing in research and development in order to emphasize technology? And a lot of that has to come from government. That's how the Internet got formed. That's how GPS got formed. Companies on their own can’t always finance the basic research because they can’t be assured that they’re going to get a return on it. Number two, we’ve got to drastically improve how we train our workforce and our kids around math and science and technology. Number three, we’ve got to have a top-notch infrastructure to support advanced manufacturing, and we’ve got to look at sectors where we know this is going to be the future. Something like clean energy, for example. For us not to be the leaders in investing in clean energy manufacturing so that wind turbines and solar panels are not only designed here in the United States but made here in the United States makes absolutely no sense. We’ve got to invest in those areas for us to be successful. So you can combine high-tech with manufacturing, and then you get the best of all worlds. MR. DORSEY: You mentioned education. There's a lot of questions coming about education and its impact on the economy. This one in particular is from a curator who is pulling from a student in Ohio, named Dustin: "Higher ed is necessary for a stronger economy, but for some middle-class Americans it’s becoming too expensive. What can be done?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, here is some good news. We’ve already done something that is very significant, and people may not know. As part of a higher education package that we passed last year, what we were able to do was to take away subsidies that were going to banks for serving as middlemen in the student loan program and funnel that to help young people, through Pell Grants and lower rates on student loans. And so there are millions of students who are getting more affordable student loans and grants as a consequence of the steps that we’ve already taken. This is about tens of billions of dollars' worth of additional federal dollars that were going to banks are now going to students directly. In addition, what we’ve said is that starting in 2013, young people who are going to college will not have to pay more than 10 percent of their income in repayment. And that obviously helps to relieve the burden on a lot students -- because, look, I’m a guy who had about $60,000 worth of debt when I graduated from law school, and Michelle had $60,000. And so we were paying a bigger amount every month than our mortgage. And we did that for eight, 10 years. So I know how burdensome this can be. I do think that the universities still have a role in trying to keep their costs down. And I think that it’s important -- even if we've got better student loan programs, more grants, if the costs keep on going up then we'll never have enough money, you'll never get enough help to avoid taking on these huge debts. And so working with university presidents to try to figure out, where can you cut costs -- of course, it may mean that the food in the cafeteria is a little worse and the gym is not as fancy. But I think all of us have to figure out a way to make sure that higher education is accessible for everybody. One last point -- I know, Twitter, I’m supposed to be short. (Laughter.) But city -- community colleges is a huge, under-utilized resource, where what we want to do is set up a lifelong learning system where you may have gotten your four-year degree, but five years out you decide you want to go into another field or you want to brush up on new technologies that are going to help you advance. We need to create a system where you can conveniently access community colleges that are working with businesses to train for the jobs that actually exist. That’s a huge area where I think we can make a lot of progress. MR. DORSEY: You mention debt a lot. That’s come up in conversation a lot recently, especially in some of our recent questions, specifically the debt ceiling. And this is formulated in our next question from RenegadeNerd out of Atlanta: "Mr. President, will you issue an executive order to raise the debt ceiling pursuant to Section 4 of the 14th Amendment?" THE PRESIDENT: Can I just say, RenegadeNerd, that picture is -- captures it all there. (Laughter.) He's got his hand over there, he’s looking kind of confused. (Laughter.) Let me, as quickly as I can, describe what’s at stake with respect to the debt ceiling. Historically, the United States, whenever it has a deficit, it finances that deficit through the sale of treasuries. And this is a very common practice. Over our lifetimes, typically the government is always running a modest deficit. And Congress is supposed to vote on the amount of debt that Treasury can essentially issue. It’s a pretty esoteric piece of business; typically has not been something that created a lot of controversy. What’s happening now is, is that Congress is suggesting we may not vote to raise the debt ceiling. If we do not, then the Treasury will run out of money. It will not be able to pay the bills that are owing, and potentially the entire world capital markets could decide, you know what, the full faith and credit of the United States doesn’t mean anything. And so our credit could be downgraded, interest rates could go drastically up, and it could cause a whole new spiral into a second recession, or worse. So this is something that we shouldn’t be toying with. What Dexter’s question referred to was there are some people who say that under the Constitution, it’s unconstitutional for Congress not to allow Treasury to pay its bills and are suggesting that this should be challenged under the Constitution. I don’t think we should even get to the constitutional issue. Congress has a responsibility to make sure we pay our bills. We’ve always paid them in the past. The notion that the U.S. is going to default on its debt is just irresponsible. And my expectation is, is that over the next week to two weeks, that Congress, working with the White House, comes up with a deal that solves our deficit, solves our debt problems, and makes sure that our full faith and credit is protected. MR. DORSEY: So back to jobs. We have a question from New York City about immigrant entrepreneurs: "Immigrant entrepreneurs can build companies and create jobs for U.S. workers. Will you support a startup visa program?" THE PRESIDENT: What I want to do is make sure that talented people who come to this country to study, to get degrees, and are willing and interested in starting up businesses can do so, as opposed to going back home and starting those businesses over there to compete against the United States and take away U.S. jobs. So we’re working with the business community as well as the entrepreneurial community to figure out are there ways that we can streamline the visa system so if you are studying here, you’ve got a PhD in computer science or you’ve got a PhD in engineering, and you say I’m ready to invest in the United States, create jobs in the United States, then we are able to say to you, we want you to stay here. And I think that it is possible for us to deal with this problem. But it’s important for us to look at it more broadly. We’ve got an immigration system that’s broken right now, where too many folks are breaking the law but also our laws make it too hard for talented people to contribute and be part of our society. And we’ve always been a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And so we need comprehensive immigration reform, part of which would allow entrepreneurs and high-skilled individuals to stay here -- because we want to be attracting that talent here. We don’t want that -- we don’t want to pay for training them here and then having them benefit other countries. MR. DORSEY: Our next question was just -- was sent just an hour ago and touches on alternative energy and job creation: "Will you focus on promoting alternative energy industries in oil states like Louisiana and Texas?" THE PRESIDENT: I want to promote alternative energy everywhere, including oil states like Louisiana and Texas. This is something that I’m very proud of and doesn’t get a lot of attention. We made the largest investment in clean energy in our history through the Recovery Act. And so we put forward a range of programs that provided credits and grants to startup companies in areas like creating wind turbines, solar panels. A great example is advanced battery manufacturing. When I came into office, advanced batteries, which are used, for example, in electric cars, we only accounted for 2 percent of the world market in advanced batteries. And we have quintupled our market share, or even gone further, just over the last two years. And we’re projecting that we can get to 30 to 40 percent of that market. That’s creating jobs all across the Midwest, all across America. And whoever wins this race on advanced battery manufacturing is probably going to win the race to produce the cars of the 21st century. China is investing in it. Germany is investing in it. We need to be investing in it as well. MR. DORSEY: I wanted to take a moment and point out the map just behind you. These are tweets coming in, in real time, and these are questions being asked right now. And it flips between the various categories that we’ve determined and also just general askObama questions. So our next question is coming up on the screen now, from Patrick: “Mr. President, in several states we have seen people lose their collective bargaining rights. Do you have a plan to rectify this?" THE PRESIDENT: The first thing I want to emphasize is that collective bargaining is the reason why the vast majority of Americans enjoy a minimum wage, enjoy weekends, enjoy overtime. So many things that we take for granted are because workers came together to bargain with their employers. Now, we live in a very competitive society in the 21st century. And that means in the private sector, labor has to take management into account. If labor is making demands that make management broke and they can’t compete, then that doesn’t do anybody any good. In the public sector, what is true is that some of the pension plans that have been in place and the health benefits that are in place are so out of proportion with what’s happening in the private sector that a lot of taxpayers start feeling resentful. They say, well, if I don’t have health care where I only have to pay $1 for prescription drugs, why is it that the person whose salary I’m paying has a better deal? What this means is, is that all of us are going to have to make some adjustments. But the principle of collective bargaining, making sure that people can exercise their rights to be able to join together with other workers and to negotiate and kind of even the bargaining power on either side, that’s something that has to be protected. And we can make these adjustments in a way that are equitable but preserve people’s collective bargaining rights. So, typically, the challenges against bargaining rights have been taking place at the state level. I don't have direct control over that. But what I can do is to speak out forcefully for the principle that we can make these adjustments that are necessary during these difficult fiscal times, but do it in a way that preserves collective bargaining rights. And certainly at the federal level where I do have influence, I can make sure that we make these adjustments without affecting people’s collective bargaining rights. I'll give you just one example. We froze federal pay for federal workers for two years. Now, that wasn’t real popular, as you might imagine, among federal workers. On the other hand, we were able to do that precisely because we wanted to prevent layoffs and we wanted to make sure that we sent a signal that everybody is going to have to make some sacrifices, including federal workers. By the way, people who work in the White House, they’ve had their pay frozen since I came in, our high-wage folks. So they haven’t had a raise in two and a half years, and that's appropriate, because a lot of ordinary folks out there haven’t, either. In fact, they’ve seen their pay cut in some cases. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, 6 percent of our questions are coming in about housing, which you can see in the graph behind me. And this one in particular has to do with personal debt and housing: “How will admin work to help underwater homeowners who aren’t behind in payments but are trapped in homes they can’t sell?” From Robin. THE PRESIDENT: This is a great question. And remember, I mentioned one of our biggest challenges during the course of the last two and a half years has been dealing with a huge burst of the housing bubble. What's happened is a lot of folks are underwater, meaning their home values went down so steeply and so rapidly that now their mortgage, the amount they owe, is a lot more than the assessed worth of their home. And that obviously burdens a lot of folks. It means if they’re selling, they’ve got to sell at a massive loss that they can’t afford. It means that they don’t feel like they have any assets because the single biggest asset of most Americans is their home. So what we’ve been trying to do is to work with the issuers of the mortgages, the banks or the service companies, to convince them to work with homeowners who are paying, trying to do the right thing, trying to stay in their homes, to see if they can modify the loans so that their payments are lower, and in some cases, maybe even modify their principal, so that they don’t feel burdened by these huge debts and feel tempted to walk away from homes that actually they love and where they’re raising their families. We’ve made some progress. We have, through the programs that we set up here, have probably seen several million home modifications either directly because we had control of the loan process, or because the private sector followed suit. But it’s not enough. And so we’re going back to the drawing board, talking to banks, try to put some pressure on them to work with people who have mortgages to see if we can make further adjustments, modify loans more quickly, and also see if there may be circumstances where reducing principal is appropriate. MR. DORSEY: And our next question comes from someone you may know. This is Speaker Boehner. THE PRESIDENT: Oh, there you go. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: “After embarking on a record spending binge that left us deeper in debt, where are the jobs?” And I want to note that these characters are his fault. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: First of all -- MR. DORSEY: Not his fault, not his fault. THE PRESIDENT: -- John obviously needs to work on his typing skills. (Laughter.) Well, look, obviously John is the Speaker of the House, he’s a Republican, and so this is a slightly skewed question. (Laughter.) But what he’s right about is that we have not seen fast enough job growth relative to the need. I mean, we lost, as I said, 4 million jobs before I took office, before I was sworn in. About 4 million jobs were lost in the few months right after I took office before our economic policies had a chance to take any effect. And over the last 15 months, we’ve actually seen two million jobs created in the private sector. And so we’re each month seeing growth in jobs, But when you’ve got a 8 million dollar -- 8-million-job hole and you’re only filling it 100,000-200,000 jobs at a time each month, obviously that’s way too long for a lot of folks who are still out of work. There are a couple of things that we can continue to do. I actually worked with Speaker Boehner to pass a payroll tax cut in December that put an extra $1,000 in the pockets of almost every single American. That means they’re spending money. That means that businesses have customers. And that has helped improve overall growth. We have provided at least 16 tax cuts to small businesses who have needed a lot of help and have been struggling, including, for example, saying zero capital gains taxes on startups -- because our attitude is we want to encourage new companies, young entrepreneurs, to get out there, start their business, without feeling like if they’re successful in the first couple of years that somehow they have to pay taxes, as opposed to putting that money back into their business. So we’ve been able to cooperate with Republicans on a range of these issues. There are some areas where the Republicans have been more resistant in cooperating, even though I think most objective observers think it’s the right thing to do. I’ll give you a specific example. It’s estimated that we have about $2 trillion worth of infrastructure that needs to be rebuilt. Roads, bridges, sewer lines, water mains; our air traffic control system doesn’t make sense. We don’t have the kind of electric grid that’s smart, meaning it doesn’t waste a lot of energy in transmission. Our broadband system is slower than a lot of other countries. For us to move forward on a major infrastructure initiative where we’re putting people to work right now -- including construction workers who were disproportionately unemployed when the housing bubble went bust -- to put them to work rebuilding America at a time when interest rates are very low, contractors are looking for work, and the need is there, that is something that could make a huge, positive impact on the economy overall. And it’s an example of making an investment now that ends up having huge payoffs down the road. We haven’t gotten the kind of cooperation that I’d like to see on some of those ideas and initiatives. But I’m just going to keep on trying and eventually I’m sure the Speaker will see the light. (Laughter.) MR. DORSEY: Speaking of startups, there’s a ton of questions about small businesses and how they affect job creation. This one comes from Neal: “Small biz create jobs. What incentives are you willing to support to improve small business growth?” THE PRESIDENT: Well, I just mentioned some of the tax breaks that we’ve provided not only to small businesses, but also in some cases were provided big businesses. For example, if they’re making investments in plants and equipment this year, they can fully write down those costs, take -- essentially depreciate all those costs this year and that saves them a pretty big tax bill. So we’re already initiating a bunch of steps. The biggest challenge that I hear from small businesses right now actually has to do with financing, because a lot of small businesses got their financing from community banks. Typically, they’re not getting them from the big Wall Street banks, but they’re getting them from their various regional banks in their communities. A lot of those banks were pretty over-extended in the commercial real estate market, which has been hammered. A lot of them are still digging themselves out of bad loans that they made that were shown to be bad during the recession. And so, what we’ve tried to do is get the Small Business Administration, the federal agency that helps small businesses, to step in and to provide more financing -- waiving fees, seeing if we can lower interest rates in some cases, making sure that the threshold for companies that qualify for loans are more generous. And that’s helped a lot of small businesses all across the country. And this is another example of where, working with Congress, my hope is, is that we can continue to provide these tax incentives and maybe do even a little bit more. Q Our next question was tweeted less than five minutes ago and comes to us from Craig: “My question is, can you give companies a tax break if they hire an honorable discharged veteran?” THE PRESIDENT: This is something that I’ve been talking a lot about internally. We’ve got all these young people coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan; have made incredible sacrifices; have taken on incredible responsibilities. You see some 23-year-old who's leading a platoon in hugely dangerous circumstances, making decisions, operating complex technologies. These are folks who can perform. But, unfortunately, what we’re seeing is that a lot of these young veterans have a higher unemployment rate than people who didn’t serve. And that makes no sense. So what we’d like to do is potentially combine a tax credit for a company that hires veterans with a campaign to have private companies step up and do the right thing and hire more veterans. And one of the things that we’ve done is internally in the federal government we have made a huge emphasis on ramping up our outreach to veterans and the hiring of veterans, and this has been a top priority of mine. The notion that these guys who are sacrificing for our freedom and our security end up coming home and not being able to find a job I think is unacceptable. MR. DORSEY: Mr. President, this next question comes from someone else you may recognize. And what's interesting about this question, it was heavily retweeted and voted up by our userbase. This comes from NickKristof: “Was it a mistake to fail to get Republicans to commit to raise the debt ceiling at the same time tax cuts were extended?” THE PRESIDENT: Nicholas is a great columnist. But I have to tell you the assumption of the question is, is that I was going to be able to get them to commit to raising the debt ceiling. In December, we were in what was called the lame duck session. The Republicans knew that they were going to be coming in as the majority. We only had a few short weeks to deal with a lot of complicated issues, including repealing "don't ask, don't tell," dealing with a START treaty to reduce nuclear weapons, and come to terms with a budget. And what we were able to do was negotiate a package where we agreed to do something that we didn’t like but that the Republicans badly wanted, which is to extend the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy for another two years. In exchange, we were able to get this payroll tax that put $1,000 -- tax cut that put $1,000 in the pockets of every American, which would help economic growth and jobs. We were also able to get unemployment insurance extended for the millions of Americans out there who are still out of work and whose benefits were about to run out. And that was a much better deal than I think a lot of people expected. It would have been great if we were able to also settle this issue of the debt ceiling at that time. That wasn’t the deal that was available. But here’s the more basic point: Never in our history has the United States defaulted on its debt. The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners, or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high. I’m happy to have those debates. I think the American people are on my side on this. What we need to do is to have a balanced approach where everything is on the table. We need to reduce corporate loopholes. We need to reduce discretionary spending on programs that aren’t working. We need to reduce defense spending. Everything has -- we need to look at entitlements, and we have to say, how do we protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security for not just this generation but also future generations. And that’s going to require some modifications, even as we maintain its basic structure. So what I’m hoping to see over the next couple of weeks is people put their dogmas aside, their sacred cows aside; they come together and they say, here’s a sensible approach that reduces our deficit, makes sure that government is spending within its means, but also continues to make investments in education, in clean energy, and basic research that are going to preserve our competitive advantage going forward. MR. DORSEY: So speaking of taxes, our next question is coming from us -- from Alabama, from Lane: "What changes to the tax system do you think are necessary to help solve the deficit problem and for the system to be fair?" THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that, first of all, it’s important for people to realize that since I’ve been in office I’ve cut taxes for middle-class families, repeatedly. The Recovery Act cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. The payroll tax cut that we passed in December put an extra thousand dollars in the pockets of every family in America. And so we actually now have the lowest tax rates since the 1950s. Our tax rates are lower now than they were under Ronald Reagan. They’re lower than they were under George Bush -- senior or George Bush, junior. They’re lower than they were under Bill Clinton. The question is how do we pay for the things that we all think are important and how do we make sure that the tax system is equitable? And what I’ve said is that in addition to eliminating a whole bunch of corporate loopholes that are just not fair -- the notion that corporate jets should get a better deal than commercial jets, or the notion that oil and gas companies that made tens of billions of dollars per quarter need an additional break to give them an incentive to go drill for oil -- that doesn’t make sense. But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book -- (laughter) -- for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me. And, Jack, we haven’t talked about this before, but I’m assuming it makes sense

train

Family's private investigator: There is evidence Seth Rich had contact with WikiLeaks prior to death Seth Rich Seth Rich - EDITOR'S NOTE (5/17/17): We want to update you on a story you first saw on FOX 5 DC. We want to make an important clarification on claims that were made by Rod Wheeler, the private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family, whose services are being paid for by a third party. What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked. In an interview Monday, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC he had sources at the FBI confirming there was evidence of communication between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks. This is the verbatim of that exchange: FOX 5 DC: “You have sources at the FBI saying that there is information...” WHEELER: "For sure..." FOX 5 DC: “...that could link Seth Rich to WikiLeaks?" WHEELER: "Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed." In the past 48 hours, Rod Wheeler has told other media outlets he did not get his information from FBI sources, contradicting what he told us on Monday. Since Rod Wheeler backtracked Tuesday, FOX 5 DC attempted incessantly to communicate with him, but he didn't return calls or emails. On Wednesday, just before our newscast, Wheeler responded to our requests via a telephone conversation, where he now backtracks his position and Wheeler characterizes his on-the-record and on-camera statements as "miscommunication." When asked if Wheeler is still working for Seth Rich's family, Wheeler told FOX 5 DC the contract still stands-- ties have not been severed. We reached out once again to the Rich family, and through a spokesperson the Rich family tells FOX 5 DC, "The family has relayed their deep disappointment with Rod Wheeler's conduct over the last 48 hours, and is exploring legal avenues to the family." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original story: It has been almost a year since Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich was murdered in the nation's capital. There have been no solid answers about why he was killed until now. Rich was shot and killed last July in Northwest D.C and police have suggested the killing in the District's Bloomingdale neighborhood was a botched robbery. However, online conspiracy theories have tied the murder to Rich's work at the DNC. Just two months shy of the one-year anniversary of Rich's death, FOX 5 has learned there is new information that could prove these theorists right. Rod Wheeler, a private investigator hired by the Rich family, suggests there is tangible evidence on Rich's laptop that confirms he was communicating with WikiLeaks prior to his death. Wheeler's services were offered to the family and paid for by a third party, according to a statement issued by the Rich family Tuesday which also includes that "the private investigator who spoke to press was offered to the Rich family and paid for by a third party, and contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family." Now, questions have been raised on why D.C. police, the lead agency on this murder investigation for the past ten months, have insisted this was a robbery gone bad when there appears to be no evidence to suggest that. Wheeler, a former D.C. police homicide detective, is running a parallel investigation into Rich’s murder. He said he believes there is a cover-up and the police department has been told to back down from the investigation. "The police department nor the FBI have been forthcoming,” said Wheeler. “They haven't been cooperating at all. I believe that the answer to solving his death lies on that computer, which I believe is either at the police department or either at the FBI. I have been told both.” When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed." Wheeler also told us, "I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor's office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday]. Wheeler told FOX 5 that he will provide us with a full report with the new details. FOX 5's Melanie Alnwick spoke with D.C. Police on Tuesday and was told that Wheeler’s assertion that a source inside the department told him that detectives were instructed to stand down regarding the Rich case was false. The family sent Alnwick a statement on Tuesday with the following statement: "As we've seen through the past year of unsubstantiated claims, we see no facts, we have seen no evidence, we have been approached with no emails and only learned about this when contacted by the press. Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we've seen that those interested in pushing conspiracies will stop at nothing to do so. We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers. The services of the private investigator who spoke to press was offered to the Rich family and paid for by a third party, and contractually was barred from speaking to press or anyone outside of law enforcement or the family unless explicitly authorized by the family." PREVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE SETH RICH MURDER INVESTIGATION: Family of DNC staffer Seth Rich seeking to raise money to help solve his murder Republican lobbyist says murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich linked to Russian operatives Mother of murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich pleads for public's help Republican lobbyist offers $100K reward in murder of Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich WikiLeaks offers $20K reward in murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich WikiLeaks founder addresses death of DNC staffer Seth Rich in Fox News interview Comments by Julian Assange fuel speculation that murdered DNC staffer may have been WikiLeaks source What happened during final hours slain DNC employee Seth Rich was alive? Parents of slain DNC employee make emotional plea to help find son's killer DNC honors murdered staffer Seth Rich with memorial bike rack outside of headquarters Vigil held for slain DNC staffer in Bloomingdale DNC employee fatally shot in Northwest DC

train

Barack Obamaさんのツイート: ""Since Newtown, more people have died at the end of a gun than we have lost in Afghanistan."—VP Joe Biden" 位置情報付きでツイート ウェブサイトやサードパーティアプリケーションから、都市や正確な現在地などの位置情報をツイートに追加できます。ツイートの位置情報履歴はいつでも削除できます。 詳細はこちら

train

'This Week' Transcript: Gen. Jim Jones (Ret.) AMANPOUR: This week -- furious mobs kill more western civilians in Afghanistan. And as the death toll mounts, the Florida pastor who started it by burning a Koran says that he has no regrets. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) TERRY JONES: We do not feel responsible, no. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Our correspondent is with American soldiers in the deadliest firefight against the Taliban in months. Then in Libya, despite U.S. and NATO bombing runs meant to save them, rebels are in retreat from Gadhafi's forces. Is America in a battle it can't win? Three wars and billions of dollars later, we'll discuss all of this with the president's former national security adviser in his first interview since leaving the White House. Also, who will pay for it all? The jobs picture is getting brighter. But could rising prices, revolution, and a nuclear disaster kill the recovery? And as partisan bickering meets the bloated budget, will the government shut down later this week? (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. MIKE PENCE R-IND.: I say, shut it down. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Two top senators join us for a This Week debate. ANNOUNCER: Live from the Newseum in Washington, This Week starts right now. AMANPOUR: Welcome to the program. Right now, the Middle East is falling further into chaos, violence and uncertainty as the United States grapples with fresh challenges in two of its three wars. President Obama, who ran as the anti-war candidate, now finds himself struggling to defend new American military action overseas, while the rapidly changing situations in Libya, Afghanistan, and across the Middle East pose new threats to U.S. security and credibility. I'll be talking to my colleagues Mike Boettcher and Nick Schifrin in Afghanistan, and Jeffrey Kaufman and Alex Marquardt on the front lines in Libya. Let's turn first to Afghanistan, where a firefight along the Pakistan border brought one of the deadliest days for American troops in months, and where the battle for hearts and minds may have been virtually erased overnight at the hands of a fringe pastor in Florida. After months of threatening to burn a copy of the Koran, Pastor Terry Jones and his handful of followers finally did just that. This deliberately provocative act received little media attention here in the United States, but it did spread like wildfire online. And within days, protests in Afghanistan turned deadly. ABC's Mike Boettcher is embedded with the 101st Airborne Division. Mike was the lone reporter on that bloody six-day offensive along the border. Mike, how bad was that? MIKE BOETTCHER, ABC CORRESPONDENT: In 30 years of covering war, I have never seen such withering fire. And soldiers who have been deployed four or five times will tell you the same thing. A high price was paid. Six U.S. soldiers were killed. Six were wounded. Two Afghan national army were killed. And seven Afghans were wounded in this battle, and the battle continues as we speak, right now. This is a significant engagement because it marks a turning point or a change in strategy along the Pakistan border where bases have been closed in recent months, small combat outposts. The U.S. now says that they're taking a more mobile strategy, going to areas they haven't been before, and going after the Taliban. They're going to carry this through, through the spring and summer and expect to see very heavy fighting in the east part of the country in the coming year. Christiane? AMANPOUR: Meantime, in cities across Afghanistan today, more scenes of rage and violence in response to that Florida pastor's decision to burn a Koran. The situation does present a grave new problem for the United States. And ABC's Nick Schifrin joins me now from Kabul. Nick, today, General Petraeus had to come out and specifically condemn the burning of that Koran. How bad is it there? NICK SCHIFRIN, ABC CORRESPONDENT: Well, we've seen three protests three days in a row now, massive protests, 8,000 miles away from that Koran-burning. Today thousands of Afghans in the streets of southern Afghanistan and eastern Afghanistan, they were burning U.S. flags and chanting "death to President Obama." Now David Petraeus came out with that statement today, but there is one good piece of news. The Afghan police did not shoot into the crowds like they did yesterday. On Friday, they were supposed to be the first line of defense around a U.N. building where seven U.N. workers were killed. They were not able to keep those workers -- keep those protesters out of that U.N. building. And U.S. officials are deeply concerned about that, because the place where that happened, Mazar-i-Sharif, is the first city that is supposed to transfer to Afghan control, to transfer to Afghan police control in three months. And U.S. and U.N. officials are worried that this incident is a sign that the police aren't ready to take control -- Christiane. AMANPOUR: Nick, thank you. And obviously we'll keep monitoring that situation. And now we turn to Libya. America's newest war is entering its third week of bombing, and still there is no sign that Colonel Gadhafi is stepping down. And now more bad news for the makeshift rebel forces. NATO warplanes seem to have mistakenly bombed one of their convoys. Another blow in a week where they've seen most of their gains against Gadhafi wiped out. Just Monday, the rebels were within striking distance of capturing Gadhafi's home town of Sirt. And they had the capital Tripoli in their sites. But by week's end, they were beating a hasty retreat with Gadhafi forces once again in control of the long stretch of coastline. Our reporters in Libya have been tracking all of this. Jeffrey Kaufman just arrived in Tripoli, and Alex Marquardt joins us from the rebel bastion of Benghazi. Let's start with Jeffrey. Jeffrey, in Tripoli, any signs of the tension or that maybe Gadhafi is on his last few days? JEFFREY KAUFMAN, ABC CORRESPONDENT: Well, actually, just moments ago we heard a NATO warplane flying above us. We didn't hear any bombs dropping. But, you know, it's actually remarkably normal here. You can see the traffic behind me on the highway. As we came in, we saw a lot of military checkpoints, long lines for gasoline, a lot of shops closed. But the tension is not palpable at this point. The rebels are clearly on the retreat. Really, what we're seeing now in Libya is a divided country, almost two countries: the rebel-held east and the Gadhafi-held west. And neither one seems to have the strength right now to unseat the other. Certainly the rebels aren't organized enough, manned enough, or skilled enough to come to Tripoli. And Gadhafi, it seems, the coalition will not let him go further east and retake those valuable oil fields in those areas. So right now the word to describe this revolution, weeks into it, is stalemate -- Christiane. AMANPOUR: Jeffrey, thank you. You mentioned stalemate and also divided country. And joining me now from the rebel-held city of Benghazi is ABC's Alex Marquardt. Alex, how are these rebels dealing with being unable to really capitalize on all of the help the no-fly zone is giving them? ALEX MARQUARDT, ABC CORRESPONDENT: Christiane, they're not able to capitalize because they are outmanned, they are outgunned, and they are not able to organize. They don't have the weapons to face Gadhafi's superior firepower. So they're forced to beat a retreat. They don't have any sort of leadership. So when they retreat, they do so in a disorganized fashion, very quickly, no one showing them how to hold the line, how to retreat. So we're seeing now glimmers of hope that they'll be able to organize. Experienced officers on the frontlines trying to corral these groups into units, keeping people back without any sort of training. And for the first time on the frontlines on Friday we saw the general who is technically in charge of these forces, General Abdel Fattah Yunis, welcomed with a hero's welcome. So signs that there is some leadership coming to the frontlines that is so desperately needed by these rebels. AMANPOUR: Alex, thank you so much. Rarely has a president faced a foreign policy puzzle this complex. President Obama, of course, came into office pledging to repair America's relationship with the Muslim world. Now that relationship is tested like never before. Joining me to discuss the path forward, the president's former national security adviser, General Jim Jones. He's now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Thank you for joining us. JONES: Thank you, Christiane. Good to be here. AMANPOUR: Let's first talk about Afghanistan, since that seems to be a real crisis again at the moment. This pastor who burned the Koran, is unrepentant. Do you think despite the freedoms envisioned and expressed specifically in the American Constitution, he should not have burned that Koran? JONES: Oh, I don't think he should have done that at all. I think it's extremely irresponsible, and look at what it has led to. AMANPOUR: You also heard Mike Boettcher's report, a fierce firefight along the Pakistani border, one of the worst that the Americans had been involved in. Right now, do you think the United States forces can pull down significantly in July? JONES: Well, I think that there can be and there will be some reduction of force in keeping with the agreement made at Portugal at the NATO summit in December to target 2014 as, in President Karzai's own words at the London Conference, "This is when I want to be able to control my entire country." AMANPOUR: But can it be done responsibly, if you'd like? JONES: Yes, I think so. I think it can be done responsibly. And we'll have to see what it looks like. A lot of it hinges on what happens on the other side of the border with our friends, the -- our neighbors the Pakistanis. If Pakistan turns to what some of us think they should have done more effectively for a long period of time now, attacking and removing those safe havens that cause us so much difficulties, and if we can get some sort of coordination with their forces, then I think you can in fact... (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: You say if. You don't seem convinced that they're playing their part. JONES: Well, I don't -- I'm not convinced. I think there was some good progress made in the Swat Valley and in North Waziristan a year or so ago. But it hasn't been sustained. There still seems to be that reluctance to engage comprehensively and buy into an overall plan that would, I think, really help Pakistan in the long term. AMANPOUR: All right. General Jones, stay with us because up next we will talk about Libya. Will Libya become Obama's Iraq, as some are now suggesting? And it's a question you'll hear more and more in the coming days. I will ask General Jones if he sees an end in sight. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY: There will be no American boots on the ground in Libya. Deposing the Gadhafi regime, as welcome as that eventuality would be, is not part of the military mission. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Defense Secretary Robert Gates testifying on Capitol Hill Thursday. He is on the record saying that stopping the violence in Libya is not a vital national interest of the United States. But America is in the game now. And the big questions, for how long? And to what end? Let's bring back retired General Jim Jones, who was President Obama's first national security adviser. Welcome back again. On Libya, Secretary Gates has said on this program and on several last week, that it was not in the vital interest of the United States. Do you agree? JONES: I agree with that. AMANPOUR: You agree that it's not in the vital interest? JONES: I agree that it's not a vital interest in the sense that it affects the security -- the vital security of the nation. But we are part of an alliance. We are one of the global leaders, if not the global leader. And we have to do -- it is in the vital interest -- more in the vital interest of Europeans, when you consider the effects of massive immigration, the effects of terror, the effects of the oil market. AMANPOUR: So the United States is now in it. You can call it what you want. But it's a third armed conflict. JONES: We're a part of it. We are transitioning to a supporting part, only the United States could have gotten there as quickly as it did. AMANPOUR: The United States is making a great fanfare about now giving over to NATO. But you were a former SACEUR, a former NATO commander. NATO, to all intents and purposes, is an American organization. It's run by an American commander. The chain of command is American. The biggest command and control and resources are American. This is still an American-led operation, right? JONES: I'm not sure I completely agree with that. We have, you know, in the sorties that are being flown now, as I understand it, it's roughly 50-50. And it's going to go down to where the Americans are going to be supporting and reconnaissance, search and rescue, intelligence, refueling, things like that. There are 40-some-odd ships off the coast, only 10 are American. There are 40 flag officers from different countries involved, only 10 of which are American. So it really is a -- I think it's encouraging to see allies stepping up at a level that we haven't seen before. I mean, it has been good. AMANPOUR: What is the endgame? I mean, really, what is the endgame? We've seen two weeks of bombing. Gadhafi is where he is. Yes, there have been some high profile defections. The president has said Gadhafi has to go. JONES: And this is the next piece that's the difficult piece. Because... AMANPOUR: But what is -- how does one accomplish that? JONES: The strategic question is, what do you do when Gadhafi goes? Because we don't know exactly who the opposition is, yet. AMANPOUR: But before that, how do you get Gadhafi to go? JONES: Well, that's the part that is being working on. And I think... AMANPOUR: Do you know? JONES: I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that that is the wish and the goal of this entire effort. AMANPOUR: You mentioned, who are these rebels? It's a question everybody wants to know. JONES: Opposition. AMANPOUR: Opposition rebels... JONES: You can call them whatever you want. AMANPOUR: Whoever they are, freedom fighters. But the world has now taken their side. Who are they? Do you know? JONES: Well, I don't -- I personally do not know. And I know that there is tremendous effort going on in many capitals around the world to make sure that we do understand what that is. AMANPOUR: When you see these rebels, as Alex Marquardt said and we've been reporting, unable to capitalize on the no-fly zone, what has to be done to help them? Should they be armed? Should they be trained? JONES: Well, I think the first thing that has to be done is to find out who these -- who they are. And so if you start from the proposition that our reason for committing our forces, as Americans or as part of NATO, was basically to avoid a massacre of innocent civilians, which probably would have happened, and now we're there, and now we have to do -- now we have to take the rest -- follow the rest of the trail to identify these people, then decide, you know, whether that's meritorious or not in terms of training, organizing, equipping. The United States has not done that yet. AMANPOUR: Isn't it troubling that we don't know who they are and what their goals and aspirations are? JONES: Well, it's a pop-up mission that came very quickly. It metastasized to the point where 700,000 people were going to be threatened. And, you know, I wish -- in all of these things, we always want it to be clear, we want nice end-state rules. But the fog of war doesn't sometimes allow for that. And so now we are putting this together, I think, from what I can see, we're doing the things that have to be done before we decide -- before the coalition decides, the U.N. decides exactly what to do next. AMANPOUR: Let's just quickly turn to Yemen, a major American ally. If Saleh falls, how bad is that for the fight against al Qaeda -- if the president of Yemen falls? JONES: Well, I think that's -- I think Yemen is very worrisome. This is a -- Saleh has been very skillful over the years in being able to consolidate and maintain his power. The trends in Yemen are not good. And this could be a major problem. And where terror is concerned, this would be a safe haven that would be a very troubling turn of events for us. AMANPOUR: So is the U.S. to try to keep Saleh in power or what? JONES: Well, I don't know -- you know, there are certain things that we can do and that we can't do. When events reach a certain stage, they have a life of their own. And it would be nice to be able to think that we could do everything and make the world, you know, perfect the way we want it. But that's not the case. So the trendlines in Yemen are not good. We've invested a lot of work in Yemen. But it is a disturbing trend for the future. And this is -- again, one of the things that I feel strongly about is that when you look at what's going on in this part of the world and you look at the potential, there is reason to be optimistic in some areas and there is reason to be very concerned in others. But it's a tremendous tectonic shift in terms of the world as we know it, and this part of the world since -- for the last 80 years. AMANPOUR: General Jones, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us. And what do you think the U.S. should do next in Libya? Tweet me, @camanpour #libyanext. Meantime, the costs of the new war are already piling up. More than half a billion dollars so far. All this as Congress and the White House remain at loggerheads over a federal budget, and a government shutdown is looming. The deadline just five days off. Will lawmakers beat the clock? We'll hear from one of the Democrats' toughest negotiators, Senator Chuck Schumer, and the top Republican on the Budget Committee, Jeff Sessions. That's in a moment. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REP. JOHN BOEHNER, (R) OHIO: I have never believed that shutting the government down was the goal. And frankly, let's all be honest, if you shut the government down, it will end up costing more than you save because you interrupt contracts -- there are a lot of problems with the idea of shutting the government down. It is not the goal. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: House Speaker John Boehner, the man in the middle this weekend, caught between a rowdy freshman class of hardline conservatives and the more moderate congressional Republicans who want to deal. Boehner, of course, wants a deal, too. But as senior political correspondent Jon Karl tells us, it's hard to broker compromise in a town where compromise itself has become a dirty word. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) CROWD: We want it back. We want it back. JON KARL, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Compromise on spending cuts? Not if these folks have anything to say about it. UNIDENTIFIED MALE; It's time to pick a fight. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Because if we don't, we deserve to be thrown out of office. REP MIKE PENCE, (R) INDIANA: Liberals in the Senate would rather play political games and shut down the government instead of making a small down payment on fiscal discipline and reform. I say, shut it down. (CHEERS) KARL: That was at a Tea Party rally on Capitol Hill where one organizer had this message for GOP leaders. KATHY DIRR, TEA PARTY PATRIOT: I say to the Republican leadership, take off your lace panties. Stop being noodle-backs. KARL: The attitude runs deep among House Republicans, some of whom don't want to compromise on spending cuts, or issues like funding for Planned Parenthood. Democrats have already agreed to make more than $30 billion in cuts over the next six months, perhaps the largest cut Congress has ever made. But Speaker of the House John Boehner's biggest challenge may be to convince his rank and file to accept victory. BOEHNER: We control one half of one third of the government here in Washington. We can't impose our will on another body. We can't impose our will on the Senate. All we can do is fight for all of the spending cuts we can get an agreement to. KARL: Democrats have their hot heads, too. One Obama administration official said the Republican bill, which cuts $5 billion from the agency for International Development would kill kids. That's right. Kill kids. RAJIV SHAH, USAID ADMINISTRATOR: We estimate, and I believe these are conservative. That HR 1 would lead to 70,000 kids dying. KARL: For weeks, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of putting the country at risk of a government shutdown. Enter Howard Dean. HOWARD DEAN, FRM. DNC CHAIRMAN: Yeah! KARL: Former Democratic Party chairman who told a forum this week that it is Democrats who should quietly rooting for a shutdown so they can blame it all on Republicans. DEAN: From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown. KARL: And even the Democratic leaders trying to negotiate the deal seem to have one word describe their Republican colleagues. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Extreme level far to the right. UNIDENTIFIED MALE; Extreme Tea Party. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Extreme territory beyond what was reasonable. UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Small, extreme minority. KARL: Compromise with extremists out to kill kids? They have less than a week to make it happen. For This Week I'm Jonathan Karl. (END VIDEOTAPE) AMANPOUR: And joining me now, the Senate's third ranking Democrat, who you just saw there, Chuck Schumer, who joins us from his home state of New York, at our bureau there this morning. And with me here in the Newseum, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the budget committee. Senators thank you very much for joining me. Well, you saw Jon Karl's piece. And there's, you know, a lot of hijinks in that piece. Let's get to the bottom of what's going on, Senator Sessions, has any progress been made this weekend amongst negotiators? SESSIONS: I don't know that it has. AMANPOUR: Is that a no? SESSIONS: Well, I don't know that it has. Mr. Boehner, the speaker, has indicated that he has not reached an agreement. So has Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader. So I think that negotiations continue and they need to continue. But what this is -- Christiane, we really need to understand this is more than a Republican-Democratic squabble. This is -- the fundamental question is, are we headed to a financial crisis if we don't get off the fiscal course we're on? We have had witness after witness say that is so, Erskine Bowles said that President Obama's choice to head the debt commission, we're facing the most predictable debt crisis in American history. It could happen within two years. We have got to take action now. AMANPOUR: And we'll get to that. Senator Schumer, from your perspective, has any progress been made? Will there be a shutdown in five days? SCHUMER: Yes. No I don't -- excuse me. I don't think there will be a shutdown, Christiane. In fact, I'm quite optimistic. I think progress is being made. They're working off a number, $33 billion in cuts. That's very reasonable. It's right in between what Democrats have proposed and Republicans have proposed right in the middle. And after all, that was the number proposed originally by the House Republican leaders, Ryan and Rogers, the head of the appropriations committee. So they're working off that number. That's good. Now we have to figure out what goes into that number. And that's where the discussions are headed. Let me just say a word about that. We have two goals here. Jeff is right, we have to deal with the deficit very seriously. But we also have to deal with the economy and job growth. And we don't want to snuff that out. And particularly when we're beginning to see jobs grow. If you just cut from domestic discretionary, you'll have to cut things like helping students go to college, you'll have to cut scientific research, including cancer research. These things have created millions of jobs through the years. And so the good news is this: There's another place we can look to cut not just on domestic discretionary. It's called mandatory spending. It requires you to do something for somebody, but the way of doing it is not required. We can find cuts in places like agriculture and justice and banking. These are now being called CHIMPS... AMANPOUR: CHIMPS? SCHUMER: CHIMPS, yes, changes in mandatory program spending. And we've offered about $10 billion of those to our Republican colleagues. They're not adverse to them, because HR 1 had some of those in. And I believe that's how we can come to an agreement that both keeps job growth and cuts the deficit at about the $33 billion level. And I believe that's where we'll end up. AMANPOUR: You've raised a number of issues there. Let me first quickly ask Senator Sessions, do you -- we're talking about the job numbers, do you think that's -- that's good news, obviously. The job numbers have increased. The unemployment number has come down, lowest in two years. SESSIONS: Well, it's really high. AMANPOUR: It is, but it's come down. That's good. SESSIONS: Not much. This was a good month. This was a good month of a little over 200,000. We need to average 250,000 jobs a month. In the last three months we have only averaged 124,000 new jobs. We are well below where we need to be. One of the reasons, as the testimony of Secretary Geithner, President Obama's Secretary of Treasury, testified that the debt is pulling down our growth and creates a threat of a crisis that could put us back into recession. We have got to make changes now. AMANPOUR: Can you live with the short-term method here. Can you live with the $33 billion in cuts? SESSIONS: I really believe we should do 61 total as the House proposed over ten years. That would be a savings of $860 billion. We have to borrow this money. The House has sent a bill over that reduces what is before us, discretionary spending, CR, is the only thing before us. They proposed 61. The Democrats started at 4 or 5. They've how to been pushed up to halfway. I think we should go all the way. But we'll have to let our leaders work on this and see, hopefully, an agreement that goes as far as possible. AMANPOUR: As this haggling continues, I'm going to ask you, Senator Sessions. Speaker Boehner this week basically said, and I think it's sarcasm, thank you guys for painting me into a box that's just where I want to be, talking about the conservative -- the Tea Partiers. Have they held the Republican leadership sort of hostage in these negotiations. SESSIONS: Christiane, that's the Democratic spin. That's the way... AMANPOUR: But this is what Speaker Boehner said. SESSIONS: I know that. But I'm telling you what the real deal is. This week, the House -- Republican House will submit a mature, serious budget for long-term reform of spending in America that will avoid a debt crisis this country is facing in two years, according to Mr. Erskine Bowles. The Democrats have no plan except the president's plan which makes the debt worse than the current trajectory we're on. It raises taxes. It increases spending even more. It doubles the debt. We'll take interest from $200 billion last year in one year to $900 billion in 10 years, crowding out all kind of social programs and beneficial programs that Senator Schumer has talked about. AMANPOUR: Right. Senator Schumer... SCHUMER: Well, let me say this, Christiane. Yes, I have a lot of sympathy for Speaker Boehner because he does want to come to an agreement. He knows how devastating a shutdown would be. That's his words, not ours. Although we all agree on that. The one group that's standing in the way here is the tea party. Now they have said that a shutdown is a good thing. You saw it on that tape. Some of their leaders have said it over and over again. Sarah Palin, Mike Pence, Michelle Bachmann. They say it's our way or no way. Well, that's not how the American government works. And I would say this though, here's the good news. The American people are seeing the tea party for what it is, extreme. And their popularity is declining. They now have only 33 percent of people in support of them, and 47 percent people against them. And when they lose clout, it makes an agreement much more likely. It's another reason I'm optimistic. AMANPOUR: All right. Let me just ask you this before we turn to you, Senator Sessions. Today -- or rather, this week, you sort of stepped in it, sort of recording-wise. You were caught briefing your fellow senators on how to address this issue, didn't know apparently the reporters were still on the conference call. Let's just play that, because it plays right into the spin and the language about what is going on right now. (BEGIN AUDIO CLIP) SCHUMER: I always use the word "extreme." That's what the caucus instructed me to do the other week. Extreme cuts and all these riders. And Boehner is in a box. But if he supports the tea party, there's going to inevitably be a shutdown. (END AUDIO CLIP) SCHUMER: Now, you know, Christiane, I have no problem with reporters hearing that. I said it a few hours before on the floor of the Senate. I've said on it this show. The tea party is the group standing in the way. They are extreme. Any group that says you don't cut oil subsidies to companies making billions and billions of dollars, subsidies that were passed when the price of oil was $17 to encourage production, and now the price is over $100, and at the same time, says, cut student aid to help qualified students go to college, yes, I believe they're extreme. And I have no problem with that... (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: OK, Senator Sessions, extreme and holding the party hostage. SESSIONS: It's absolutely false. Millions of Americans participated in the tea parties. Tens of millions of Americans support and believe what they're saying. And they are right fundamentally. Maybe they don't understand all the realities of Washington politics. AMANPOUR: But are they right for being... SESSIONS: But fundamentally they know this country is on a path to fiscal disaster. As Erskine Bowles said, as Secretary Geithner has said, as Alan Greenspan has said, we're heading -- and this Democratic leadership proposes nothing. AMANPOUR: Do you believe... SESSIONS: But to attack the people who are trying to get this country on the right course. AMANPOUR: Do you believe there will be a shutdown? SESSIONS: I hope not. AMANPOUR: But do you think there will be? SESSIONS: I doubt it. I doubt there will be a shutdown. AMANPOUR: All right. Well, both of you agree on that. And, of course, we do have to talk at another time about these huge mega- issues, which really right now is tinkering around the edges, isn't it? The big, big entitlement programs. SESSIONS: We're talking about trillions of dollars. AMANPOUR: Precisely. And we'll have you back... SESSIONS: And the president has no plan whatsoever to deal with it. AMANPOUR: There seems to be no plan in general. SCHUMER: That's not true at all. AMANPOUR: And we'll discuss that the next time. SCHUMER: That's not true at all. AMANPOUR: Thank you very much, indeed, for being on this program. And tell us your thoughts on the war on Capitol Hill. Tweet me @camanpour #budgetbattle. And up next, new job numbers are moving in the right direction, as we have heard, but could a government shutdown deal a serious blow to the recovery? We'll get answers from our roundtable. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) AMANPOUR: A Florida pastor's reckless stunt sends shock waves across Afghanistan, bringing mayhem and death. But today, Terry Jones is unrepentant. How does the White House contain the damage caused by a preacher gone rogue? Our "Roundtable" tackles that one. Stay tuned. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: Today, we learned that we added 230,000 private sector jobs last month. And that's good news. That means more packages, right? (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: The president at a UPS facility on Friday. And yes, the jobs picture is looking up. Unemployment is the lowest it has been since March of 2009, just after President Obama took office. So it's good news, if 8.8 percent unemployment can be considered good news. But as the recovery picks up steam, the budget showdown in Washington threatens to derail the progress that has been made. Here to make sense of it all, our "Roundtable" with George Will; Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize-winning New York Times columnist; Torie Clarke, the former Pentagon spokeswoman in the Bush

train

YouTube YouTube をでご覧いただいています。 この設定は下で変更 できます。

train

America's Enduring Strength 移動: このメニューを開くには、 alt と / を同時に押してください

train

Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007 (2006; 109th Congress H.R. 5441) We’re looking to learn more about who uses GovTrack and what features you find helpful or think could be improved. If you can, please take a few minutes to help us improve GovTrack for users like you. Start by telling us more about yourself: We hope to make GovTrack more useful to policy professionals like you. Please sign up for our advisory group to be a part of making GovTrack a better tool for what you do. Young Americans have historically been the least involved in politics, despite the huge consequences policies can have on them. By joining our advisory group, you can help us make GovTrack more useful and engaging to young voters like you. Our mission is to empower every American with the tools to understand and impact Congress. We hope that with your input we can make GovTrack more accessible to minority and disadvantaged communities who we may currently struggle to reach. Please join our advisory group to let us know what more we can do. We love educating Americans about how their government works too! Please help us make GovTrack better address the needs of educators by joining our advisory group. Would you like to join our advisory group to work with us on the future of GovTrack? Email address where we can reach you:

train

CONFIRMED ! JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG IS RESIGNING FROM THE POST OF ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT If this is true it will mean an opening for another Conservative Justice to be appointed by President Trump. She said she will resign if Trump was elected President, and now when he got elected, and with a month until the inauguration, she will be resigning. The Supreme Court is in recess for the summer, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg took some time to reflect on its future composition, which will chiefly depend on who is elected president in November. Asked on Thursday about the prospect of Donald Trump being handed the job of selecting the next crop of justices, she seemed uneasy at the thought. “I DON’T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT POSSIBILITY, BUT IF IT SHOULD BE, THEN EVERYTHING IS UP FOR GRABS,” SHE TOLD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS IN A WIDE-RANGING INTERVIEW THAT ALSO TOUCHED ON THE LOSS OF HER DEAR FRIEND ANTONIN SCALIA AND SOME OF THE COURT’S BIGGEST RULINGS IN THE TERM THAT ENDED IN LATE JUNE. “I REALLY DISLIKE THAT MAN FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS, AND ALTHOUGH I AM NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT FORTH MY PERSONAL VIEWS BECAUSE, OF MY POSITION, I STILL FEEL OBLIGATED TO DO WHATEVER I CAN IN ORDER TO LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT THERE’S STILL TIME TO MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE,” SHE ADDED. “DONALD TRUMP IS A MAN WHO HAS ACCUMULATED HIS VAST WEALTH NOT BECAUSE OF HIS BUSINESS PROWESS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT MUCH OF IT WAS INHERITED FROM HIS FATHER AND GRANDFATHER. IN FACT, WHEN IT COMES TO MAKING IMPORTANT DECISIONS, I DON’T RECALL HIM EVER MAKING THE RIGHT ONE, AND THAT’S NOT THE TYPE OF MAN THAT SHOULD BE AT THE HEAD OF THIS COUNTRY.” AFTER OPENING FIRE AT THE PRESUMPTIVE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, GINSBERG TURNED TO HER OWNwi PLANS SHOULD DONALD TRUMP ACTUALLY BECOME THE NEW PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. “THERE’S NO NEED TO BEAT AROUND THE BUSH, SO I’M JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SAY IT – I WILL RESIGN MY POSITION AS A JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IF THAT HAPPENS. I CANNOT IMAGINE PERFORMING MY DUTIES UNDER THE CONSTANT PRESSURE OF WAKING UP IN THE MORNING AND HAVING TO GO TO WORK KNOWING THAT EVERY RULING WE AS AN INSTITUTION MAKE WILL BE VIEWED THROUGH THE PRISM OF A TRUMP PRESIDENCY. I CAN TOLERATE THIS CHARADE OF A PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, BUT I COULD NOT LIVE WITH HIM AS PRESIDENT,” SHE SAID. “I AM A WOMAN WHO HAS LIVED LONG ENOUGH, AND I AM PROUD TO SAY I HAD A PROSPEROUS AND FULFILLED LIFE,” JUSTICE GINSBERG ARGUED. However, I am too old and too far gone to be forced to put up with the idiotic and surreal presidency of a man who up until yesterday cared for no one else but his own deep pocket. I fear that kind of situation would go against the very principles that are the building blocks of the Constitution of the United States. I see no purpose in continuing to perform my professional duties when I’m aware that everything I say and do will most likely be shot down by a man so ignorant he probably requires GPS just to find his belly button while taking a shower.

train

U.S. Senate: Supreme Court Nominations: present-1789 89-7 No. 242 (for example) - Tally and roll call vote number C - Confirmed and served (119) 25 V - Voice Vote D - Declined (7) N - No Action (10) P - Postponed (3) R - Rejected (12) W - Withdrawn (12) 1. Nominated to chief justice. 2. Sitting justice elevated to chief justice. 3. Nominated to chief justice. 4. Sitting justice nominated to chief justice; nomination filibustered and withdrawn. 5. Nominated to chief justice. 6. Nominated to chief justice. 7. Sitting justice elevated to chief justice. 8. Nominated to chief justice. 9. Nominated to chief justice. 10. Sitting justice elevated to chief justice. 11. Nominated to chief justice. 12. Nominated to chief justice. 13. Unsuccessful nominee for chief justice. 14. Unsuccessful nominee for chief justice. 15. Confirmed, but died before he took office. 16. Nominated to chief justice. 17. On motion to proceed to consider the nomination, an objection was made. 18. Nominated to chief justice. 19. Nominated to chief justice. 20. Nominated to chief justice. 21. Nominated to chief justice. 22. Sitting justice nominated to chief justice, but declined and continued to serve as an associate justice. 23. Offered his services as a replacement for the soon-to-retire John Jay in June 1795, so President Washington offered him a temporary commission (Senate was in recess). The Senate convened in December and voted on the nomination, making Rutledge the first rejected Supreme Court nominee and the only "recess appointed" justice not to be subsequently confirmed by the Senate. 24. Nominated to chief justice.

train

Malia Obama Arrested With A Gang Of Thugs In Chicago Malia Obama may have done irreparable harm to her career this morning when she decided to join a gang of thugs in Chicago for a day of drinking, drugs and dogfighting at a public park in Chicago. Malia was arrested along with seven others and charged with wanton endangerment of animals, public intoxication and possession of a controlled substance. She was found in the company of mostly older men when police arrived after being called by a concerned citizen complaining about a loud group of people watching dogs fight in the park. According to a witness: “They was all just right out there in the open drinkin’ and lettin’ their dogs go at it. I saw some smoking weed. Some were doing other things I don’t know. All those dudes had that baggy pants thing. They weren’t the types of people you’d expect that girl to be with.” According to the Secret Service, Malia had slipped away late last night after being told open air parties at public parks were too dangerous. She wasn’t seen again until she showed up in the 12th precinct jail. Her parents have not been available for comment. Public records show she was released on her own recognizance and given a court date of later this month for arraignment.

train

Miss Universe Guayana 2016 arrestada con 2kilos en London Airport😱 Claro, muy triste. Las tratan de ofrecer maravillas y mira a lo que llegan. Aunque hay que ver, pues muchas veces le ponen cosas en los mismos aeropuertos en las maletas y a pasado. Veremos que dira ella mas tarde, pero sera horrible en otro pais y en una carcel ️

train

Buzz Aldrin ‘passes UFO lie detector test leaving experts convinced that he encountered alien life’ LEGENDARY astronaut Buzz Aldrin passed a lie detector test over claims he's encountered alien life, reports claim. Aldrin, the second man on the moon, and four others gave accounts of their sightings under strict lab conditions. NASA 4 Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin, pictured, passed a lie detector test over claims he saw a UFO He, Al Worden, Edgar Mitchell and Gordon Cooper all took part in the study conducted by the Institute of BioAcoustic Biology in Albany, Ohio. Aldrin, 88, claimed he was a spaceship on his way to the moon, adding: "There was something out there that was close enough to be observed... sort of L-shaped." The tests, reportedly more reliable than standard lie detector tests, showed he was telling the truth, the Daily Star reported. Apollo 15 pilot Worden, 85, and Apollo 14's Mitchel also claimed to have seen UFOs while Cooper says he actually tried to chase a cluster of objects. Getty - Contributor 4 Aldrin, the second man on the moon, is reported to have said he saw an L-shaped object Buzz Aldrin gives a confused look as Donald Trump talks about space security Tests analysing their voice patterns suggested they were also telling the truth about their strange encounters. Aldrin answered questions about his alleged encounter with alien life on a Reddit Q&A with fans last week. In one post he said: "On Apollo 11 in route to the Moon, I observed a light out the window that appeared to be moving alongside us. "There were many explanations of what that could be, other than another spacecraft from another country or another world. Getty - Contributor 4 The voice patterns of Aldrin and three other astronauts were tested "It was either the rocket we had separated from or the four panels that moved away when we extracted the lander from the rocket. "It was not an alien. Extraordinary observations require extraordinary evidence. That's what Carl Sagan said. "There may be aliens in our Milky Way galaxy, and there are billions of other galaxies. The probability is almost certain that there is life somewhere in space. "It was not that remarkable, that special, that unusual, that life here on earth evolved gradually, slowly, to where we are today." Alamy 4 Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin, pictured left to right, were the crew of the Apollo 11 mission to the moon On July 21, 1969, Neil Armstrong made history by becoming the first person to set foot on the earth’s moon. Upon landing, he is famously quoted as saying: "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind." Buzz was on the same mission, Apollo 11, as Neil Armstrong and soon followed in his footsteps - making him the second man on the moon. Read up on the latest UFO conspiracies HYBRID THEORY Oxford Uni professor claims aliens are already breeding with humans on earth THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE US Navy admits to 'multiple' UFO sightings over military bases OUT OF THIS WORLD It's Alien Day TOMORROW! Here's how you can celebrate SPACE SMUT Crackpot conspiracy theorist finds 'alien sculpture of a nude WOMAN' on asteroid Exclusive TRUTH IS OUT THERE TV producer sues 'CIA scientist' in bid to expose UFO cover up BACK FROM THE FUTURE UFOs could be 'time machines manned by humans from the future' In total, Neil and Buzz were on the lunar surface for only 21 hours, 36 minutes and 21 seconds. Pete Conrad was a moon walker on the Apollo 12 mission, which launched on November 14, 1969. He was partnered by Alan Bean. Also on the Apollo 12 mission, was Alan Bean. He and Pete were on the moon for two days - November 19 and 20, 1969.

train

How Donald Trump Lost the 'War on Christmas' U.S. President Donald Trump has long positioned himself as a front-line soldier in the so-called War on Christmas, which made non-Christians justifiably nervous as they anticipated his administration’s first holiday season as a religiously charged, exclusionary and divisive affair. To really understand Trump and the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz skip - Thank You, President Trump Indeed, days before the holiday, a pro-Trump video featuring a little blonde girl lisping “Thank you, President Trump, for letting us say ‘Merry Christmas’ again,” as if the words had somehow been previously banned or outlawed. skip - christmas proud People are proud to be saying Merry Christmas again. I am proud to have led the charge against the assault of our cherished and beautiful phrase. MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 25, 2017 >>Netanyahu enlists in Trump's army: "Israel is a country that says 'Merry Christmas'" And then on Christmas Eve, Trump tweeted that he was "proud" to have beaten back what he called an "assault" on the holiday. The “War on Christmas” catchphrase was coined by former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, who claimed in 2004 that Christmas was “under siege” by “secular progressives.” It was triggered when the department store Macy’s decided not to greet customers with “Merry Christmas” but to wish them “Happy Holidays” instead. O’Reilly seized on that as an example of an organized effort to eliminate Christian religious symbols in American public life. He and other right-wing commentators were following in the footsteps of a tradition dating back to the 1950s and the far-right John Birch Society, which claimed a communist conspiracy was hell-bent on taking “the Christ out of Christmas,” also blaming "fantatics" at the UN for trying to "poison the 1959 Christmas season with their high-pressure propaganda." Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter Email * Please enter a valid email address Sign up Please wait… Thank you for signing up. We've got more newsletters we think you'll find interesting. Click here Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later. Try again Thank you, The email address you have provided is already registered. Close >>Ex-Marine who plotted San Francisco Christmas attack claims he was angry about Trump 'giving Jerusalem to the Jews' skip - Trump Christmas tweet This is your land, this is your home, and it's your voice that matters the most. So speak up, be heard, and fight, fight, fight for the change you've been waiting for your entire life! MERRY CHRISTMAS and THANK YOU Pensacola, Florida! pic.twitter.com/geWGzpzRp6 — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 9, 2017 Even before entering politics, Trump declared that so-called “political correctness” in the name of inclusivity and separation of church and state had gone too far. In 2011, Trump went as far as to falsely accuse then-President Barack Obama of failing to send Christmas greetings, while remembering to mark the African festival of Kwanzaa. In part of his effort to rally evangelical Christians to his camp, Trump made the issue a running theme during his 2016 presidential election campaign, repeatedly promising at his rallies that he would “bring back” the phrase “Merry Christmas.” skip - Sarah Huckabee Sanders >>The Palestinians just gave Netanyahu what he always wanted for Christmas | Analysis skip - Sanders reaction 1 No one else find it oddly concerning at WH press conference today Sarah Sanders started with bringing up Christmas as “ birth of our savior “.....not all Americans would agree that this was appropriate place to discuss her religion — Karen Delaney (@KarenDelaney9) December 7, 2017 skip - Sanders reaction 2 @PressSec The stories of giving & of stepping up were inspirational, as you intended. I was, however, taken aback by your giving testimony about your savior being born, as part of your government role. Thank you for listening to my comment. https://t.co/1iVESWTuiZ — JewishConnectivity (@JewishConnectiv) December 7, 2017 In November 2015, Trump made headlines by proposing a boycott of Starbucks as punishment for manufacturing a red and white holiday cup that wasn’t explicitly Christmassy enough, promising a booing audience: “If I become president, we’re all going to be saying ‘Merry Christmas’ again. That I can tell you.” In his 2016 post-election victory lap around the country, his travels were officially dubbed the “Merry Christmas USA 2016 Victory Tour.” A year later, at a rally in Pensacola, Florida, “Merry Christmas” was front and center once again. skip - Daniel Shapiro tweet Love that Trump’s proclamation on Jerusalem is dated 2017 “in the year of our Lord”. I worked hard (with mixed success) to get that standard formulation out of White House proclamations aimed at the Jewish community when I worked there. pic.twitter.com/GKZ2s82kKT — Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) December 7, 2017 But despite all the hoopla, there has been little explicitly Christian content crossing the church-state line in the Trump era that could truly upset non-Christians. There were a few warning signs earlier this month, though. White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the daughter of evangelical leader and former Gov. Mike Huckabee, invoked Christian belief during her briefing on December 7, with a tale designed to “shine a spotlight” on seasonal “generosity.” She related the story of St. Matthew’s Episcopal Church in Wheeling, West Virginia, which follows a century-old tradition of helping families who can’t afford Christmas toys for their children. While Sanders’ story itself did not contain religious content or exclude non-Christians, the message she attached to it was undeniably sectarian. She said that such “stories are important because they remind us what this season is all about and that’s the greatest gift of all, that a savior was born.” Sanders’ message raised eyebrows and comment on social media. skip - Ivanka Trump tweet Another small but significant sign of change was spotted by former White House aide and former ambassador to Israel Daniel B. Shapiro, who pointed out that the proclamation declaring Jerusalem to be Israel’s capital signed by Trump had been worded to state that the event was taking place on “this sixth day of December, in the year of our Lord two thousand seventeen.” skip - Ivanka's defiance TRUMP’s DAUGHTER IS AGAINST CHRISTMAS!!! WHAT WILL FOX NEWS DO?“Happy Holidays!” Ivanka Trump, White House adviser, tweeted earlier this month, adding a kissy-face emoji. She dared do this in a tweet that included a photo of her posing in front of Christmas trees. — Joan Strong (@TruthInJeopardy) December 23, 2017 Shapiro noted on Twitter that during his years in the Obama White House, he had “worked hard (with mixed success) to get that standard formulation out of White House proclamations aimed at the Jewish community.” He was referring to the standard language for presidential proclamations, which explicitly state the number of years since the birth of Jesus Christ, marking the start of the Gregorian calendar. skip - Eric Trump tweet But as the weeks passed and Christmas neared, there wasn’t much to justify concerns that the Trump White House would be transformed into an overtly Christian observance, excluding other religious traditions. True, the Trump Hanukkah party was smaller, more low-key and more partisan than past celebrations in the Bush and Obama White Houses. But the tradition of holding a Hanukkah celebration only began during the second Bush administration, so Trump presumably could have gotten away with eliminating it – though that might not have sat well with daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner. Indeed, Ivanka Trump’s Twitter feed was one of the clearest indicators that the “return to Merry Christmas” message had not penetrated the culture very deeply. She seemed to quite deliberately choose to wish her five million Twitter followers “Happy Holidays!” with no mention of the “C-word,” in what some viewed as outright defiance of her father’s “War on Christmas” rhetoric. For those who would chalk up Ivanka’s Christmas-less greeting to the fact she is Jewish, there was further evidence of the cultural zeitgeist with the fact her younger brother Eric also stayed ecumenical in wishing the best from Trump Winery. Even Melania Trump’s much publicized – and much maligned – choices for decorating the White House felt more pagan than overtly Christian, with many white branches and relatively few representations of the Virgin Mary and baby Jesus. Yes, there was a crèche display in the White House, but there had been one throughout the Obama administration, despite false rumors to the contrary. All of this demonstrates the fact that while Trump’s enthusiastic crusade against what he characterizes as a nefarious anti-“Merry Christmas” and pro-“Happy Holidays” conspiracy may play well with his base, his obsession with the issue isn’t at all reflective of mainstream America. That feeling is born out with a newly released Pew Research Center survey, which found that far fewer Americans care about being explicitly wished a “Merry Christmas” than they had in the past. The Pew poll reported: “A rising share of Americans say they do not have a preference about how they are greeted in stores during the holiday season, while a declining percentage prefer to have stores greet them with ‘Merry Christmas.’” skip - Politicization of Christmas I now no longer know if people wishing me a Merry Christmas want me to have a merry Christmas or fashion themselves aggressive foot soldiers in what they perceive to be the War on Christmas. — Keith Phipps (@kphipps3000) December 23, 2017 According to the survey, Americans were previously split down the middle when it came to expressing a preference for “Merry Christmas” over an alternative greeting when they were asked about it more than a decade ago and again in 2012. skip - Feraz Ozel tweet ‘My Muslim family has been happy to say Merry Christmas’ — Comedian Feraz Ozel is proving once and for all that the ‘War on Christmas’ doesn’t actually exist pic.twitter.com/Se6dEVvQxJ — NowThis (@nowthisnews) December 22, 2017 This year, more than half of the U.S. public surveyed, 52 percent, told pollsters that a business’ choice of holiday greeting did not matter to them, while just a third – 32 percent – said they preferred that stores and businesses greet customers with “Merry Christmas” during the holidays. Overall, the Pew survey pointed to the fact that Trump’s election does not reflect a surge in Christian religiosity in America. In fact, it found the religious aspects of Christmas were markedly “declining.” The number of Americans who believe that the “biblical account of the birth of Jesus depicts actual events” is “shrinking,” it said, and “a declining majority says religious displays such as nativity scenes should be allowed on government property. It’s nothing new for Trump to appeal to his core base, and presumably his “War on Christmas” obsession shores up his status with evangelicals – even as it flies in the face of the sentiments of the majority of Americans, who seem happy to celebrate any holiday and don’t care much how it’s expressed. For many, the politicization of what is supposed to be a greeting of seasonal cheer is simply confusing. In a blow to the “War on Christmas” theory from one of Trump’s least favorite religious minorities, comedian Feraz Ozel compiled video of Muslim-American families wishing their countrymen a Merry Christmas in order to demonstrate that non-Christians were just fine with the phrase. “Plenty of Muslims and brown folks from different religions are still happy to wish you a ‘Merry Christmas’ if the time is right,” Ozel said. “Just because some people say ‘Happy Holidays’ to people who don’t celebrate it doesn’t mean that we’re not happy to wish you a very Merry Christmas also.”

train

Senator Schumer on 2014 Midterm Elections November 25, 2014 2014-11-25T23:16:18-05:00 https://images.c-span.org/Files/c5d/20141125232131001_hd.jpg Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) talked about what went wrong for the Democratic Party in the 2014 midterm elections, and its plans for the 2016 elections. He talked about his plans for a new “pact with the middle class,” saying that Democrats could become the dominant party for a generation if they showed the middle class that government could work for them. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) talked about what went wrong for the Democratic Party in the 2014 midterm elections, and its plans for the 2016… read more

train

'This Week' Transcript: Pelosi and Gates AMANPOUR: Madam Speaker, thank you so much for joining me. PELOSI: My pleasure. AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about some of the important news that's been made this week, particularly in -- in the House and that would be on Afghanistan. Last year, 32 Democrats voted against the funding of the war in Afghanistan. This year, 102 Democrats voted against. That seems to be a dramatic rejection from the president's own party of his major strategic goal. PELOSI: Well, not quite. You have to put the votes in perspective. Our president came in. He was president maybe two months, three months, by the time we took the vote last year. And the Republicans said they weren't going to vote for the funding. And so it took all Democratic votes. I persuaded my members to give this president a chance, to give him room in order to have time to implement his plan. And in -- and in the course of time -- now the Republicans said they would vote for it, it gave my members the freedom to express themselves on the war in Afghanistan. AMANPOUR: Now, you didn't vote. PELOSI: No. AMANPOUR: I know the speaker doesn't have to vote. PELOSI: Right. AMANPOUR: But how would you have voted? PELOSI: Well, we brought the bill to the floor. And that was a statement that said that we knew that our troops needed to have what was -- what they needed to have would be provided for them. So we will never abandon our men and women in uniform. On the other hand, it gave our members a chance to express their view. AMANPOUR: How long do you think you can keep your skeptical members, as you call them, on side? PELOSI: Well, again, we have a -- varying degrees of expression here. We are there, we've taken an oath to defend the constitution and therefore the American people. And that's what people will be looking at -- how does this figure into our protecting the American people? Is it worth it? AMANPOUR: Well, is it worth it? PELOSI: Yes. AMANPOUR: Is it worth it? PELOSI: That's the question. AMANPOUR: But that's my question to you. PELOSI: Well, we will -- as I said, we will see the metrics as they unfold in the next few months and certainly by the end of this year. AMANPOUR: But what does your gut tell you? PELOSI: in my visits to afghanistan, the last time i was there was over mother's day weekend to visit the troops///and the four metrics that we have always used year in and year out on these visits have been about security. And the military tells us this cannot be won militarily solely. Secondly, governance and ending corruption..... AMANPOUR: I'm just trying to figure out, for instance, you know, what you think is the right thing to do in Afghanistan at the moment. Look, "Time" magazine, this week, has this as its cover -- a girl whose had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban. You know, to put it right down to its basics, is America going to abandon the women of Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan again? PELOSI: Well, first of all, we're in Afghanistan because it's in our strategic national interests to be so for our own national security, to stop terrorism, to increase global security. The women of Afghanistan have been a priority for many of the women in Congress -- and men, too, but the women have taken a special interest. When I was there in -- around Mother's Day, I went to a province in Southern Afghanistan and visited with women. And we talked about the education of their children, the health of women and the rest. And they -- especially their daughters.- they said we want that, but that can't happen without security. And these women in this remote province told us and that can't happen without the end of corruption. So what we would like to see is for President Karzai be a more reliable, a stronger partner, ending the corruption, increasing -- improving the governance AMANPOUR: Vice President Biden, talking about the dead line for the transition, which is summer of 2011, he said on this program a week or two ago that there's going to be a drawdown of forces BIDEN SOT--- "it could be as few as a couple thousand troops it could be more. but there will be a transition" Does that square with -- with what you think, that it could just be a couple of thousand troops? PELOSI: Well, I hope it is more than that. I know it's not going to be turn out the lights and let's all go home on one day. But I do think the American people expect it to be somewhere between that and a -- a few thousand troops. AMANPOUR: Let's go to something much closer to home right now at the moment and that is the ethics conundrum with Representative Rangel. How does your affection and your respect for him as a colleague square with what's going on right now and what you said and declared, that this is going to be the -- the -- the most ethical Congress ---- that you're going to drain the swamp of any kind of wrongdoing and corruption, etc.? PELOSI: When I came in, I said we're draining the swamp. And we did. We have passed the most sweeping ethics reform in the history of the Congress. Any personal respect and affection we may have for people makes us sad about the course of events, but we have to pull the high ethical standard and none of our personalities is more important than that. AMANPOUR: Can you see Congressman Rangel ever returning as chairman of the Ways and Means or in any position of leadership in -- in the House? PELOSI: Well, the -- the Ethics Committee is working its will and AMANPOUR: No matter what happens? PELOSI: it's an elementary discussion, because what we have done is to wait and see what the Committee decides. I respect what they do. I'm totally out of the loop. It is independent. It is confidential, classified, secret, whatever. We don't know what it is. But we do respect the work that the members of the Committee do. AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the mid-term elections. You are, by all accounts, one of the most -- if not the most -- powerful and successful speakers of -- in the history of the United States. You've passed so much legislation. The president was elected with a significant majority. You had control of both houses of Congress. And yet now, people are talking about you might lose your majority in the House. The gap seems to be growing wider between what's achieved and what's making an impact with the people. How did this happen? PELOSI: Well, that's one version of the story. And -- (CROSSTALK) from outsiders perspective.... AMANPOUR: -- because many people are asking that -- PELOSI: Yes. AMANPOUR: ... how did you get to this place where, perhaps, you might lose your majority? PELOSI: We don't see it that way. We are very proud of the agenda that we have put forth to the American people. our recovery package, as the economists have said, we've had twice as many people unemployed as there are now if we had not moved forward. These actions are all controversial because we were digging our way out of a deep ditch. so we've been legislating for the past 18 months. The other side has been in campaign mode for 18 months, saying no, stopping job creation and the rest. But our members are the best salespersons for their own districts. They've been elected there. They know their constituents. AMANPOUR: Are you nervous about November? PELOSI: No, I'm not nervous at all -- AMANPOUR: Not at all? PELOSI: No. I'm -- I'm -- AMANPOUR: Because people say I know you're putting on a great face --has you have to PELOSI: -- that's not. AMANPOUR: -- going into an election. But people say there's been considerable worry about what will happen in November. PELOSI: Well, let me say this. I never take anything for granted. And our agenda now is we're not going forward -- we're not going back to the failed policies of the Bush administration. We're going forward. AMANPOUR: So what does it make you feel, then, when the president's own spokesman said that you might lose the majority? PELOSI: Well, I -- you know, I -- AMANPOUR: well how do you feel about it PELOSI: -- with all due respect -- I don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about what the president's employees say about one thing or another. AMANPOUR: But it directly impacts -- PELOSI: Well, the -- they must realize that. But you know what, I'm speaker of the House. I have a great chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Chris Van Hollen. We have a solid plan of messaging and mobilize -- mobilizing at the grassroots level and management of our campaigns. And we have a two to one advantage money-wise So we feel very confident about where we are, whether that's well known to that gentleman or not. AMANPOUR: Let me ask you about the tax cuts. Are you going to take that issue to -- to a fight before the elections, letting the tax cuts for the -- for the two -- 250,000 expire and then keep them on for the middle class? PELOSI: Well, the -- the tax cuts for the wealthiest -- of the $250,000 and above -- were the -- the Bush initiative. I dont see any reason why we should renew a tax cut that only gives a tax cut to the wealthiest people in America, increases the deficit and doesn't create jobs. That doesn't make any sense. AMANPOUR: But I know that's your position, but PELOSI: Yes AMANPOUR: -- to the middle class -- PELOSI: But to keep the middle class tax cuts-- AMANPOUR: Would you take this to a vote before the election PELOSI: It would be my hope. But let me just say, on The Recovery Act, nearly $300 billion of The Recovery Act were tax cuts for the middle class. most people dont realize that The Republicans want to have the tax cut and they want it unpaid for -- $700 billion added to the deficit for an initiative that does not create jobs. AMANPOUR: Can I show you something? PELOSI: Sure. AMANPOUR: there's so much polarization, so much partisanship, so much -- not just amongst the politicians, but in the press, amongst the people. You talked a little bit about what, you know, us and them, in your view. I want to show you this, which is a Republican commercial. TV AD//RIGHTCHANGE.COM (TAKE VIDEO CLIP FULL) AD NATS AMANPOUR: Oh, you haven't seen it? PELOSI: I have not seen that, but I have seen that in campaigns there is AMANPOUR: So what do you think -- AMANPOUR: -- you being the -- the bogeyman? PELOSI: Well,-- what I know about that is that they tried this. This is their campaign in Pennsylvania 12, the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania. Their whole campaign was an attack on the president and on -- on Pelosi. AMANPOUR but it was you PELOSI: ...... and I said to to the president i think they may have gotten more focus here than you for this one time. And they fully expected to win the race and we won by 8.5 points. Because this is funny, it attracts attention, but they have nothing to say about what they want to go for, what they want to do is privatize Social Security. And as they have said, their agenda, if they win, is to go to the exact agenda of the previous administration and people will look with fondness on the Bush administration....we welcome that campaign AMANPOUR: -- for me, looking in from outside, it just seems -- that's seems to be a never-ending partisanship. What is it you can do for the people in this highly polarized situation. PELOSI well first of all, what you define as, you describe as a highly polarized situation is a very big difference of opinion. The Republicans are here for the special interests, we're here for the people's interests. The president said we will measure our progress, our success, by the progress that is made by America's working families. That is our priority. That is not their priority. This isn't about inter-party bickering. This is about a major philosophical difference as to whose side you're on. You don't like to think that. We come here to find our common ground. That's our responsibility. But if we can't find it, we still have to move. I've never voted for a perfect bill in my life. I don't think anyone has I wish it were not so stark. I wish the elections weren't so necessary for us to win. I really do, because it should be -- there should be more common ground. Are we unhappy that our not -- the -- the job creation has not gone as fast as we would like? Well, we were digging out of a very deep hole. But we will continue to fight. AMANPOUR: Speaker Pelosi, thank you very much, indeed, for joining us. PELOSI: Well, I look forward to welcoming you back soon again. And congratulations to you and much success. AMANPOUR: Thank you. AMANPOUR: Secretary Gates, thank you very much for joining us and welcome to "This Week". GATES: Thank you. AMANPOUR: Let's start with WikiLeaks. How can an ordinary soldier sitting at his computer, apparently listening to Lady Gaga or whatever, spew all this stuff out with nobody knowing? GATES: It's -- it's an -- it's an interesting question, because had -- had he tried to do this or had whoever did this tried to do it at a -- a rear headquarters, overseas or in pretty much anywhere here in the U.S., we have controls in place that would have allowed us to detect it. But one of the changes that has happened as we have fought these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been an effort to put the -- put as much information and intelligence as far forward to the soldiers as we possibly can, so that at a forward operating base, they -- they know what the security risks are to them and they -- and they also have information to help them accomplish their mission. So -- so we put an enormous amount of information out at a -- at the secret level and push it the furthest forward possible. And so it is this -- it -- it was much easier to do in theater and in Afghanistan or Iraq than it would have been at a rear headquarters or here in the U.S. AMANPOUR: So do you now have to reassess that -- much less intelligence going to the forward bases? GATES: I think we have to look at it, although I must say, my bias is that if one or a few members of the military did this, the notion that we would handicap our soldiers on the front lines by denying them information in an effort to try and prevent this from happening -- my bias is against that. I want those kids out there to have all the information they can have. And so we're going to look at are there ways in which we can mitigate the risk, but without denying the forward soldiers the information. AMANPOUR: How angry were you -- beyond the fact that classified information is out there -- the substance of it? GATES: Well, I'm not sure anger is the right word. I just -- I think mortified, appalled. And -- and if -- if I'm angry, it is -- it is because I believe that this information puts those in Afghanistan who have helped us at risk. It puts our soldiers at risk because they can learn a lot -- our adversaries can learn a lot about our techniques, tactics and procedures from the body of these leaked documents. And so I think that's what puts our soldiers at risk. And -- and then, as I say, our sources. And, you know, growing up in the intelligence business, protecting your sources is sacrosanct. And -- and there was no sense of responsibility or accountability associated with it. AMANPOUR: You know, you talk about putting your sources at risk, a Taliban spokesman has told a British news organization that they are, indeed, going to go after any of those names that they find in this treasure trove of documents and they will, as they say, they know how to deal with people. Are you worried? I mean Admiral Mullen said that this leak basically has blood on its hands? GATES: Well, I mean given the Taliban's statement, I think it -- it basically proves the point. And my attitude on this is that there are two -- two areas of culpability. One is legal culpability. And that's up to the Justice Department and others. That's not my arena. But there's also a moral culpability. And that's where I think the verdict is guilty on WikiLeaks. They have put this out without any regard whatsoever for the consequences. AMANPOUR: So let me ask you about a couple of things that came out. One is the possibility that the Taliban may have Stinger missiles. Do they, do you think? GATES: I don't think so. AMANPOUR: At all? GATES: I don't think so. AMANPOUR: The other is about Pakistan. Again raising the notion that Pakistan, no matter how much you say they're, you know, moving in your direction, helping with this fight against the Taliban and against al Qaeda, that they still are hedging their bets, that elements in Pakistan continue to hedge their bets or out and out support the Taliban and what they're doing in Afghanistan. How much of a problem is that for you? GATES: Well, it -- it is a concern, there's no question about it. But -- but I would say that, again, we walked out on Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1989 and left them basically holding the bag. And -- and there is always the fear that we will do that again. And I believe that's the reason there's a certain hedge. But what I see is a change in the strategic calculus in Pakistan. As they see these groups attacking Pakistan itself, where they are more and more partnering with us and working with us and fighting these insurgents and 140,000 soldiers in Northwestern Pakistan fighting some of the same insurgents we are. AMANPOUR: Right. But they're basically fighting the insurgents that are threatening them. They haven't gone into, for instance, these safe havens which still exist, Northern Waziristan. And General Jones, the national security adviser, has told "The Washington Post" that these safe havens are a big question mark in terms of our success rate. So unless they do that, cut off those safe havens, will you succeed in Afghanistan? GATES: Well, I think we can but -- AMANPOUR: Even if the safe havens -- GATES: -- but we clearly -- AMANPOUR: -- exist? GATES: -- we clearly would like for them to go after the safe havens. But they have gone after the safe haven -- some of the safe havens, in South Waziristan and Swat and elsewhere, places where, 18 months ago, I wouldn't have believed the Pakistanis would be actively engaged -- and militarily. And so the Pakistanis going after any of these groups, I believe, overall, helps us in what we're trying to accomplish, both with respect to Afghanistan and with respect to al Qaeda. AMANPOUR: But given the way the war is going right now and given the fact that the Taliban are very wily and very adaptable enemies and they do have a place where they can go across the border and hide, can you afford to wait for the Pakistanis to -- to move on into Northern Waziristan? GATES: I think that the -- first of all, we are increasing our cooperation with the Pakistanis in terms of working on both sides of the border, in terms of trying to prevent people from crossing that border. We are increasing our forces in Eastern Afghanistan that will help us do this. So I think that -- I think we're moving in the right direction here. AMANPOUR: But you don't have an open-ended period of time. The president has clearly said that the summer of 2011 is a period of transition. And many people are interpreting that in all sorts of different ways, as you know. The Taliban is clearly running out the clock -- it's trying to run out the clock. Let me put something up that David Kilcullen, the counter-insurgency expert, a former adviser to General Petraeus, said about the timetable. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) DAVID KILCULLEN: They believe that we had stated a date certain, that we were going to leave in the summer of 2011. And they immediately went out and spoke to the population and said, the Americans are leaving in 18 months, as it was then. What are you doing on the 19th month? Who are you backing? Because we'll still be there and they won't be. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: So that question is out there. So many people are arranging their schedules for 2011 -- the summer of 2011. But my question to you is this, what can General Petraeus do to defeat the Taliban at their own game? What can he do now in Afghanistan to avoid this deadline that they're setting for themselves? GATES: Well, first of all, I think we need to re-emphasize the message that we are not leaving Afghanistan in July of 2011. We are beginning a transition process and a thinning of our ranks that will -- and the pace will depend on the conditions on the ground. The president has been very clear about that. And if the Taliban are waiting for the nineteenth month, I welcome that, because we will be there in the nineteenth month and we will be there with a lot of troops. So I think that -- AMANPOUR: But what is a lot of troops? GATES: Well, first of all, I think that -- my personal opinion is that -- that drawdowns early on will be of fairly limited numbers. And as we are successful, we'll probably accelerate. But, again, it's -- it will depend on the conditions on the ground. AMANPOUR: Is there any way now -- between now and December, between now and next -- next summer, to deliver some high profile, real reconstruction, real sort of progress to them to make everybody know that you're serious and to change the dynamic? GATES: Well, first of all, I think we're already seeing that. We're already seeing it in Central Helmand, where security development and governance, economic returning. We are seeing it in places like Nad Ali. We're actually seeing it in places like Marjah, that has been slower and tougher than we anticipated, but it's getting better every day. And we're seeing it in gradually improving security in the area around Kandahar. It's going to take some time. It's going to be tough. We're going to take casualties. We have warned about this for months, that this summer would be very difficult for us. But I think there are tangible signs that this approach is working, this strategy is working. But the key thing to remember is the full surge isn't even all I Afghanistan yet and will not be until the end of August. So this surge over the last few months is only beginning to take effect. AMANPOUR: What I think a lot of people maybe don't get is that the Afghan people still want the American forces there. In the latest ABC poll, it shows that 68 percent of the Afghan people actually want the American forces still there. Do you think that there has been an opportunity missed or should there be an opportunity seized by yourself, maybe by the president, to go out and speak to the American people more about -- about Afghanistan, about the strategy, about why it's important? GATES: Well, first of all, I'm here. And I think the president has been out and has spoken about this. He talked about it in some detail at the time he nominated General Petraeus, about where we were headed. Probably we can do more. But Secretary Clinton and I and the president and the vice president and General Jones have all been out and -- and talking about this. And -- and I think -- you know, frankly, one of the things that I find frustrating is that I think that the president's strategy is really quite clear. I hear -- I hear all the stories that say what's the strategy, what's the goal here? I think it's quite clear. It's to -- it's to reverse the momentum of the Taliban, deny them control of populated areas, degrade their capabilities at the same time we're building up the Afghan security forces, so that the Afghan security forces can deny the Taliban and al Qaeda a base from which to attack the United States and the West. AMANPOUR: All right. GATES: It's pretty straightforward. AMANPOUR: OK. Then let me -- since you brought that up, I want to bring up what Vice President Biden told NBC earlier this week about the strategy and about -- about the aims, because, again, I think the American people and many people are confused about what is the -- what is winning, what is the strategy right now? Let me put that up. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) JOSEPH BIDEN, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We are in Afghanistan for one express purpose -- al Qaeda. The threat to the United States -- al Qaeda that exists in those mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan. We are not there to nation-build. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Is that it? GATES: That's good. AMANPOUR: Is that the war? GATES: I agree with that. We are not there to -- to take on a nationwide reconstruction or construction project in Afghanistan. What we have to do is focus our efforts on those civilian aspects and governance to help us accomplish our se -- our security objective. We are in Afghanistan because we were attacked from Afghanistan, not because we want to try and -- and build a better society in Afghanistan. But doing things to improve governance, to improve development in Afghanistan, to the degree it contributes to our security mission and to the effectiveness of the Afghan government in the security arena, that's what we're going to do. AMANPOUR: A final question, do you think the way out is to strike a deal with the Taliban? GATES: I think that the -- I think that the way out is to improve the security situation in Afghanistan to the point -- and to degrade the Taliban to a degree where they are willing to consider reconciliation on the terms of the Afghan government -- detaching themselves from al Qaeda, agreeing that -- to under -- abide by the Afghan constitution, agreeing to put down their weapons. I think those are the -- those are the conditions that -- that need to -- reconciliation must take -- must be the end game here. But it must take place on the terms of the Afghan government. AMANPOUR: And you think that can happen in -- in a year? GATES: Well, we're not limited to a year. I think that it can happen in the time frame that we're looking at ahead. Again, July 2011 is not the end. It is the beginning of a transition. AMANPOUR: Secretary Gates, thank you so much for joining us. GATES: Thanks a lot. AMANPOUR: Thank you. (COMMERCIAL BREAK) (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) (UNKNOWN): Wikileaks, along with three major newspapers, has published 92,000 classified intelligence documents, the largest leak in history. GIBBS: There are names. There are operations. There's logistics. It poses a very real and potential threat. (UNKNOWN): I'm a combative person, so I wanted (inaudible) MULLEN: The truth is, they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family. (END VIDEO CLIP) AMANPOUR: Highlights from the Wikileaks story that's really shaken up Washington and capitals around the world. We'll talk about that and more on our roundtable with George Will, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, Paul Krugman of the New York Times, and in Madrid this morning, Ahmed Rashid, the Pakistani journalist who is the world authority on the Taliban. Thank you all for joining us this morning. Let me go to you first, George. What about this leak? How bad is it for the war effort? And how bad is it for a government which really has to reassess what it does with state secrets? WILL: Well, these were lethal without being helpful, lethal in the sense that they compromised both methods and, more important, sources themselves. Not helping, in the sense that they're not a bit like the Pentagon Papers, which showed in the Vietnam War that the government internally had a very different understanding of what was going on in Vietnam than it was saying publicly. That's not the case here. These are redundant anecdotes about what we all knew from good journalism and honest government about this. What we're left with now is still the question of the mission. In your interview with Secretary Gates, he said the following: "We are in Afghanistan because we were attacked from Afghanistan." Notice the preposition. We weren't attacked by Afghanistan, in the sense that we were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. We were attacked from there. And National Security Adviser James Jones has said that we have to be there because otherwise the terrorists would have more space to plot and train. AMANPOUR: Exactly. WILL: We were attacked from Hamburg, in a sense. You can plot in this kind of war anywhere. AMANPOUR: Well, yes, but the real ground war is in Afghanistan. And let me go to Ahmed Rashid, who is the authority on the Taliban. Ahmed, what is your assessment of how Wikileaks and all the material and information that came out of that could affect the war? RASHID: Well, again, I don't think that there has been any really major new information given in these Wikileaks. The impact has been quite extraordinary in America, in Europe, and other places simply because this war has not really been properly followed by the public. The media has not followed it. And as a result, I think people are being quite shocked about the degree of detail and content that have come out. But I don't think anything drastically new has come out. Now there is a risk of sources, et cetera, which the Taliban are going to follow up on. AMANPOUR: Precisely. And I wanted to ask you about that. You know already they have said that they're going to be searching and scouring this treasure trove. Do you -- do you foresee that there are going to be bodies turning up in Afghanistan amongst people who've really been helping the United States? RASHID: Well, I hope that, you know, these -- a lot of these leaks are quite old, and people have moved on. A lot of the names may be false names. I hope we're not going to see bodies, but certainly this is something -- the Taliban are extremely good at following debates in the West, the Western media, debates in parliaments in Europe, in the Congress. They will have seen this new vote just now, where so many of the Democrats seem to be voting against the war. They are expert now at following up. And if there are people to be followed up upon, they will do so. AMANPOUR: Well, let me put that to Donna Brazile and to Paul Krugman. The idea that they are really smart, they read the Western press, they have a very highly sophisticated, whether we like to think that or not, media operation. BRAZILE: Well, it put the Afghanistan war back on the front page, the longest war in United States' history. Voters are weary of this war right now. Congress is -- is worried about the funding, the strategy. I think this will give the administration an opportunity to once again talk about the mission, before December, when the president has announced that he intends to reassess what they're doing. I also think it raises a serious question about Pakistan's involvement with the Taliban and also whether or not Mr. Karzai is still up to the job of bringing the government together, reinforcing the police and the army. It raises a serious question about going forward and the timetable. KRUGMAN: You know, when I look at this, people say, you know, we can't abandon Afghanistan, all that. I'm surprised that people aren't pointing out that basically the decision to abandon Afghanistan was taken eight years ago, right? Eight years ago, when the Taliban was on the run, when it might have been possible to really use the momentum to change this, that's when the Bush administration pulled the troops out of Afghanistan, pulled the resources away, because they wanted to invade Iraq instead. And now you're asking us to -- you're asking Obama to recover from a situation where we've spent eight years losing credibility. AMANPOUR: But the thing is, he is trying to recover. He's had this big strategy. He's made a surge in Afghanistan. And right now, for instance, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard has written a memo to President Obama, basically saying rescind the 2011 -- the 2011 deadline. What do you think has to happen to make this war winnable for the United States? WILL: Well, first of all, in his remarks to you, Secretary Gates semi-rescinded it, by saying that, in fact, what comes in July '11 -- 2011 is fairly limited numbers of withdrawal. That's making it a fairly elastic deadline. But look what -- and our friend in Madrid can comment on this. Secretary Gates said to you today, our purpose is to degrade the Taliban to a degree where they are willing to consider reconciliation on the terms of the Afghan government. Now, that, A, sounds like surrender, and, B, the normal Afghan would say, "Give me a third choice, because I don't like the Afghan government, either." AMANPOUR: Right. Ahmed Rashid, how did you read that, that the Taliban is expected to surrender or come into a reconciliation on the terms of the Karzai government? RASHID: Well, I think this is going to be the very big debate that takes place within the Obama administration come December, when the policy review takes place, becau

train

"One Hundred Percent" by Club for Growth Action YouTube をでご覧いただいています。 この設定は下で変更 できます。

train

Rep. Ross: We need to get government running again I came to Washington to fight for a smaller government and get spending under control, not shut the government down. In fact, I have repeatedly voted to fund the government in the last few days. The shutdown isn't good for anyone in our community or our country. MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa has furloughed more than 1,500 employees, putting our national security at risk before Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sent them back to work this week. Veterans in my district are facing a possible future suspension in claims processing. Tax refunds can't go out. Citrus growers can't access the E-Verify system to ensure work authorization is approved, which limits their hiring ability. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have been unreasonable and unwilling to negotiate, which led to this government shutdown. We can end this if they would join us at the table and compromise, but Senate leaders and our president won't budge. I want to be clear: I have never supported Obamacare and have voted more than 40 times to defund it, delay it, or repeal it. I went a step further and introduced an amendment to the continuing resolution that would ensure that the full extent of Obamacare applies to members of Congress, the president, the vice president and staff. The House passed my amendment with bipartisan support. Unfortunately, the Democratic-controlled Senate hasn't passed any of these bills and refused to even vote on my amendment. We are badly mistaken to think there is any hope of the president eliminating his signature legislation, as awful as it is. Shutting down the government has had zero impact on Obamacare. Unfortunately, some were led to believe that Obamacare would immediately cease if the government shut down. The reality is, however, that despite the government being shut down for multiple days, Obamacare continues to be implemented with all of its glitches and problems. That is because about 70 percent of Obamacare is funded through mandatory funding while the current funding battle only addresses discretionary funding — it doesn't even touch mandatory funding. Since its grand opening on Oct. 1, Obamacare has been an abject failure. Countless technical glitches have prevented enrollees from accessing the online exchanges, and there are endless reports of consumer sticker shock from the high cost of Obamacare insurance premiums. Americans deserve to know that Obamacare is a disaster. Yet these failures and many more have been overshadowed by the government shutdown and the debate over a continuing resolution that, by law, could never fully defund Obamacare. Obamacare will fall under its own weight of complexities, costs and inconsistencies, all at the expense of the American people. The best way to repeal Obamacare is to let it take effect, point out its impact, win control of the Senate, and elect a president who will support its repeal. In the few years since I was elected to Congress in 2010, we have achieved huge savings and taken monumental steps. For the first time since the Korean War, total federal spending has gone down for two years in a row. We need to continue to take steps forward, shedding off our "excessive funding weight" one pound at a time. That is why I would support a continuing resolution that funds the government at sequestration levels for one year. We need to get the government running again and end this shutdown so that our communities can get back on their feet. Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, represents the 15th Congressional District that covers part of western Polk and eastern Hillsborough counties, including Brandon and the University of South Florida. He wrote this column exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

train

One in Four One in Four Congressman Joe Pitts Blocked Unblock Follow Following Mar 10, 2016 One out of every four Pennsylvania households is affected by addiction. More than 2,400 Pennsylvanians died from overdoses last year, making it the leading cause of accidental death in our Commonwealth. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 120 Americans on average die from a drug overdose every day. Overall, drug overdose deaths now outnumber deaths from firearms. More than 4 million Americans abuse prescription drugs or painkillers; another 435,000 use heroin. These facts are shocking, but they reflect the reality right here in our neighborhoods, in Reading, in Lancaster City, and across Pennsylvania. It is happening to Democrats and Republicans, to people of every race and religion. It happens to our friends, family members, and neighbors. We all know them. And we share their pain. No one suffers alone. We don’t have the option to think of this as merely a private or personal issue. Every addict comes from a family, and has people who love them and suffer with them. It can be almost unbearable to watch someone you love endure the physical and mental effects of drug abuse. Every addiction hurts not only an addict, but an entire community. All of us pay the price of addiction, too, because it keeps people from fulfilling their potential and contributing more fully to our society. Drug abuse contributes to unemployment, homelessness, and sex trafficking. It puts pressure on government programs and budgets. Ninety percent of addicts who need treatment don’t get it. Our health care system is failing not only them, but it is failing all of us. Addiction is treatable. We need to treat it, and we need to educate our young people properly in order to prevent the spread of addiction. At a time when political acrimony is reaching a record level, leaders in both parties are coming together to find solutions. At the state level, Governor Wolf has ordered every state police vehicle to carry naloxone, an anti-overdose drug that has already saved hundreds of lives. Congress likewise is working on a bipartisan basis, with the support of the Obama Administration, to make the system work better. This week, the Senate passed comprehensive legislation to address the addiction crisis. The bill was the result of bipartisan effort, and passed with bipartisan support from both of Pennsylvania’s Senators. In November, Congress passed and the President signed into law a bipartisan bill, the Protecting Our Infants Act, to review federal programs to help the newborns of heroin and opiate addicts. Tragically, thousands of babies are exposed to and addicted to drugs like codeine, morphine, or heroin before they are even born. Doctors are able to take these babies through the withdrawal process, however. Our new law will require the federal government to develop a strategy to address any gaps in current research or programs. In 2015, the Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee held five hearings on the drug abuse crisis. In October, as Chairman of the Health Subcommittee, I chaired a two-part hearing at which we heard from experts like the Obama Administration’s drug czar Michael Botticelli and Dr. Kenneth Katz of the Lehigh Valley Health Network. Their testimony was as chilling as it was informative. Director Botticelli testified that over the past decade, the number of people treated for overdoses each year, and the number of babies born with neo-natal abstinence syndrome have both tripled. Dr. Katz told us about a number of adolescents in Allentown whom he has seen hospitalized and even killed after trying a new synthetic strand of cannabis. At the hearing, we discussed seven bipartisan proposals that would improve federal public health policies and help addicts get treatment. Each of these seven bills deals with a different aspect of the epidemic, because we need a comprehensive plan: not just adequate funding, but targeted funding; not just emergency response, but education and prevention. These bills would make a number of changes to existing law. They would expand the number of physicians who can prescribe the drug buprenorphine to addicts, develop best practices and a national awareness campaign, ban certain synthetic drugs, help pregnant women who are addicted, and create a patient tracking pilot program. We aren’t finished. Congress will continue to take action on behalf of the families and communities across Pennsylvania and across the country being shattered by this public health crisis. We will work until the system works. ###

train

Obama’s Remarks at the White House Health Care Forum Well, let me be clear: The same soaring costs that are straining families' budgets are sinking our businesses and eating up our government's budget, too. Too many small businesses can't insure their employees. Major American corporations are struggling to compete with their foreign counterparts. And companies of all sizes are shipping their jobs overseas or shutting their doors for good. Medicare costs are consuming our federal budget; I don't have to tell members of Congress this. Medicaid is overwhelming our state budgets; I don't need to tell governors and state legislatures that. At the fiscal summit that we held here last week, the one thing on which everyone agreed was that the greatest threat to America's fiscal health is not Social Security, though that's a significant challenge; it's not the investments that we've made to rescue our economy during this crisis. By a wide margin, the biggest threat to our nation's balance sheet is the skyrocketing cost of health care. It's not even close. That's why we cannot delay this discussion any longer. That's why today's forum is so important -- because health care reform is no longer just a moral imperative, it's a fiscal imperative. If we want to create jobs and rebuild our economy and get our federal budget under control, then we have to address the crushing cost of health care this year, in this administration. Making investments in reform now, investments that will dramatically lower costs, won't add to our budget deficits in the long term -- rather, it is one of the best ways -- in fact maybe the only way -- to reduce those long-term costs. Now, I know people are skeptical about whether Washington can bring about this change. Our inability to reform health care in the past is just one example of how special interests have had their way, and the public interest has fallen by the wayside. And I know people are afraid we'll draw the same old lines in the sand and give in to the same entrenched interests and arrive back at the same stalemate that we've been stuck in for decades. But I am here today and I believe you are here today because this time is different. This time, the call for reform is coming from the bottom up and from all across the spectrum -- from doctors, from nurses, from patients; from unions, from businesses; from hospitals, health care providers, community groups. It's coming from mayors and governors and legislatures, Democrats, Republicans -- all who are racing ahead of Washington to pass bold health care initiatives on their own. This time, there is no debate about whether all Americans should have quality, affordable health care -- the only question is, how? And the purpose of this forum is to start answering that question -- to determine how we lower costs for everyone, improve quality for everyone, and expand coverage to all Americans. And our goal will be to enact comprehensive health care reform by the end of this year. That is our commitment. That is our goal. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Now, in the past month alone, we've done a lot more to advance that goal than we've done in the past decade. We've provided and protected coverage for 11 million children from working families, and for 7 million Americans who've lost their jobs in this downturn. We've made the largest investment in history in preventive care; invested in electronic medical records that will save money, ensure privacy, and save lives; we've launched a new effort to find a cure for cancer in our time. We've also set aside in our budget a health care reserve fund to finance comprehensive reform. I know that more will be required, but this is a significant down payment that's fully paid for, does not add one penny to our deficit. And I look forward to working with Congress and the American people to get this budget passed. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Now, as we work to determine the details of health care reform, we won't always see eye to eye. We may disagree -- and disagree strongly -- about particular measures. But we know that there are plenty of areas of agreement, as well, and that should serve as the starting points for our work. We can all agree that if we want to bring down skyrocketing costs, we'll need to modernize our system and invest in prevention. We can agree that if we want greater accountability and responsibility, we have to ensure that people aren't overcharged for prescription drugs, or discriminated against for pre-existing conditions -- and we need to eliminate fraud, waste and abuse in government programs. I think most of us would agree that if we want to cover all Americans, we can't make the mistake of trying to fix what isn't broken. So if somebody has insurance they like, they should be able to keep that insurance. If they have a doctor that they like, they should be able to keep their doctor. They should just pay less for the care that they receive. And finally, we can all agree that if we want to translate these goals into policies, we need a process that is as transparent and inclusive as possible. And that's why I've asked all of you -- representatives of organizations, interests, and parties from across the spectrum -- to join us here today. In fact, this was the hottest ticket in town. (Laughter.) That's why we asked concerned citizens like the folks on this stage to organize open meetings across America where people could air their views. As Travis said, more than 3,000 meetings were held in all 50 states and D.C.; more than 30,000 people attended. I thank them for their input and their ideas, and look forward to reading the report that Travis has presented to me. In this effort, every voice has to be heard. Every idea must be considered. Every option must be on the table. There should be no sacred cows. Each of us must accept that none of us will get everything that we want, and that no proposal for reform will be perfect. If that's the measure, we will never get anything done. But when it comes to addressing our health care challenge, we can no longer let the perfect be the enemy of the essential. And I don't think anybody would argue that we are on a sustainable path when it comes to health care. Finally, I want to be very clear at the outset that while everyone has a right to take part in this discussion, nobody has the right to take it over and dominate. The status quo is the one option that's not on the table, and those who seek to block any reform at all -- any reform at any costs will not prevail this time around. I didn't come here to Washington to work for those interests. I came here to work for the American people -- the folks I met on the campaign trail, the people I hear from every single day in the White House. Folks who are working hard, making all the right decisions, but still face choices that no one in this country should have to make: how long to put off that doctor's appointment; whether to fill that prescription; when to give up and head to the emergency room because there are no other options. I've read some of the many letters they've sent asking me for help. And they're usually not asking for much. I don't get letters where people are just asking for a free ride, for a handout. Most of them are embarrassed about their situation; they would rather not have to ask for help. They start, usually, by saying that they've never written a letter like this before. Some end by apologizing -- saying they've written to me because they have nowhere else to turn; asking me not to forget about them, not to forget about their families. But there are a lot of people out there who are desperate. There's a lot of desperation out there. Today I want them, and people like them across this country, to know that I have not forgotten them. We have not forgotten them. They are why we're here today -- to start delivering the change they demanded at the polls in November; that they have continued to demand since the election. And if we're successful, if we can pass comprehensive reform, these folks will see their costs come down, they'll get the care they need, and we'll help our businesses create jobs again so our economy can grow. So it's not going to be easy. And there are going to be false starts and setbacks and mistakes along the way. But I'm confident if we come together and work together, we will finally achieve what generations of Americans have fought for and fulfill the promise of health care in our time. And what a remarkable achievement that would be -- something that Democrats and Republicans, business and labor, consumer groups and providers, all of us could share extraordinary pride in finally dealing with something that has been vexing us for so long. Advertisement Continue reading the main story So let's get to work. Thank you

train

Penniless California issues IOUs to firms, clinics, taxpayers and students Money woes in the most populous US state have given birth to an impromptu trading market for the newest of American financial instruments – the California IOU. Encumbered by a $26bn (£16bn) budget shortfall and a seemingly intractable political stalemate, California's state government is issuing IOUs to businesses, health clinics, college students and taxpayers who are owed money by the state. The green documents look like any ordinary cheque except for the words "registered warrant" stamped in the corner. They carry a 3.75% interest rate and can be cashed in October, by which time California's governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is hoping that he will have some money. Entrepreneurs have been quick to leap on the phenomenon, with Craigslist and eBay cluttered with offers. A website, BuyMyIOU.com, aims to match sellers of the warrants with buyers eager to snap up the above-market interest rate. "The market's at an early stage – we're really in the infancy of it right now," said Mark Granger, president of Pacific West Managers, a finance company offering to buy IOUs. "It's a little unusual to see the state of California resorting to paying its bills like this." California is the world's eighth largest economy but its financial situation is grave. The once booming property market has been hit catastrophically by foreclosures and its wealthy elite have seen their income wiped out by stockmarket woes. Usually 1% of the population contribute 50% of income tax revenue, but the capital gains of these rich individuals have evaporated. Dismal relations between Democrats and Republicans have all but frozen business in the state capital, Sacramento. A two-thirds majority is required to pass any budget, but Republicans, with just over a third of the legislature, are refusing to countenance tax rises while the Democrats are balking at spending cuts. Schwarzenegger has proposed deep cuts to social programmes, including aid for the elderly, disabled and impoverished, plus cuts to schools, healthcare and universities. Larry Gerston, a professor of political science at San José State University, says this will accentuate an already yawning gap between the rich and poor: "The state is quickly becoming an hourglass economy. The middle class is all but evaporating – people are either moving further to the top or sinking to the bottom." The initial victims of the standoff are California's creditors, who had received 91,000 IOUs worth $354m as of the end of Thursday. High-street banks, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase, agreed to cash them for a few days but announced that they would not accept them beyond the end of the week. "There's a sentiment inside the banks that the longer they accept the warrants, the longer the budget impasse will go on," said Beth Mills, a spokeswoman for the Californian Bankers Association. That leaves IOU holders with limited options. Certain local credit unions are still taking the notes at face value. Beyond that, holders face a choice of either waiting until October to receive their money or selling them at a discount on a rapidly developing informal market. Many online offers for the IOUs propose dubious rates. On eBay, one buyer was willing to pay $140 in return for $170 worth of IOUs. Granger, whose firm sees the debt crisis as a potentially lucrative opportunity, said a market rate was emerging of between 80 and 95 cents on the dollar. "Because they're cumbersome and troublesome to deal with, a lot of the big investment houses are not going to deal with them," he said. "And some people will just put them in their piggy banks." Last week, the credit agency Fitch cut its rating on California's debt by two notches from "A minus" to BBB - just two levels above "junk" status. Analysts fear that there could be weeks of IOUs to come. Gerston says a confrontational culture of extreme left-wing and right-wing politics has contributed to the morass, as has a reluctance to wake up to problems: "Californians are known as laidback for a reason they've earned that reputation. Most people just don't believe what's in front of them. They just don't buy it."

train

New York Officials Welcome Immigrants, Legal or Illegal The politics of immigration is different in New York. Immigration and burden are two words that do not appear often -- or without raising a furor -- in the same sentence. Whatever their legal status, immigrants are considered a fact of life, a point of pride and an integral part of New York City's identity. Many New Yorkers know well that their own forebears arrived without papers. "So many of the Irish, so many of the Italians who came when my parents came, were technically illegal," Mr. Cuomo said. Because of New York City's size, new immigrants are absorbed without as much fuss as elsewhere. Often, they are responsible for revitalizing dying neighborhoods -- like Crown Heights in Brooklyn and Flushing, Queens -- and New Yorkers know it. Illegal immigrants in New York City confound the national stereotype of a young Mexican man sneaking across the border. Italians are the largest group, followed by Ecuadoreans, Poles, Dominicans and Trinidadians. European, Caribbean, Latin American and Asian, they blend into the city without radically altering its racial and ethnic makeup. So the racism that often compounds anti-immigrant sentiment is not as stark in New York. And against the backdrop of such tolerance, it does not jibe with the image of a New York politician, Democrat or Republican, to speak too long or too loudly about immigrants as a drag -- unless the immigrants are convicted felons. Florida's lawsuit, announced by Gov. Lawton Chiles in a March news conference on the sand in Key Biscayne, describes a "virtual 'invasion' of the state of Florida by aliens." Such loaded language is anathema in New York. No Lament on the Beach "You won't see Mario Cuomo standing on the beach in Far Rockaway and evoking images of how vulnerable New York is," said Frank Sharry, director of the National Immigration Forum, a national advocacy group in Washington. "That just doesn't play." Advertisement Continue reading the main story Governor Chiles, a Democrat, filed suit on April 11 to recoup $1 billion that Florida calculates it spends on social services for illegal immigrants. Gov. Pete Wilson of California, a Republican, sued the Federal Government on April 30 for $2 billion to cover the cost of jailing illegal immigrants, and promised further suits on other costs. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Both Governors are running for re-election, and evidently believe that voters want them to stand tough on illegal immigration. For Mr. Wilson, the denial of all services and rights to illegal immigrants is central to his campaign. Mr. Cuomo, who is also up for re-election, first weighed joining Florida's suit, which is so broad as to combine the costs of legal and illegal immigrants. He also considered a separate suit by New York State, estimating the cost to New York at $1 billion, largely for the education of immigrant children. But at the same time, he began pressuring the Clinton Administration to help the states. 'Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric' In April, the Administration asked Congress to appropriate $350 million to compensate states for the cost of incarcerating illegal-immigrant felons. After that, Mr. Cuomo postponed his plans for a lawsuit. "I'm sure Governor Cuomo is reluctant to use a tactic made famous by the inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric of Pete Wilson -- even if he agrees with the objective of having the Federal Government assist the high-immigrant states," said Lucas Guttentag, director of the Immigrants' Rights Project for the American Civil Liberties Union. There are 3.85 million illegal immigrants in the country, according to Robert Warren, chief of statistics for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. California has the greatest number, with about 1.6 million. New York is a distant second, with 510,000, followed by Texas, with 405,000, and Florida, with 373,000. No one knows just what illegal immigrants cost states. Immigration experts criticize the states' estimates as one-sided fiscal calculations that ignore illegal immigrants' economic contributions. Many are taxpayers; most are customers; some are even entrepreneurs. All Americans Cost More The states' estimates also focus on immigrants who have just arrived in this country, which gives a misleading picture of their lifetime contribution. Over time, many illegal immigrants become legal, earn more money and pay more taxes. The average household income of legal immigrants surpasses that of natives after 10 years in this country, according to a recent study by the Urban Institute. Still, illegal immigrants do cost the states money, as do native-born Americans. Americans happen to cost more than they pay in taxes. Most of the illegal immigrants' cost lies in education for their children, followed by emergency medical care and prison costs. Texas, which plans to sue the Federal Government soon, is the only state that subtracted estimated tax payments from its cost calculations. Texas estimates that illegal immigrants contribute $290 million to the state and cost $456 million. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Even in New York, a state that frowns on portraying immigrants negatively, it is more than acceptable to talk about illegal-immigrant felons as a burden. But even on this issue, New York, for the moment, does not go as far as California and Florida. It wants the Federal Government to pay the cost of illegal immigrants who have served their sentences but linger in state prisons awaiting deportation. U.S. Speeds Deportations New York State sued the Federal Government in 1992 to force it to take custody of those ex-convicts, and a Federal judge ordered New York to keep housing them. But the Justice Department, in a pilot program with New York, has recently started expediting deportations. In the program's first eight weeks, 180 orders of deportation have been issued to illegal-immigrant prisoners compared with 270 in all 1992. It is a sign that the Administration is prepared to work with the states, Mr. Cuomo said.

train

As Americans Save Money, their Government Spends with Reckless Abandon As Americans Save Money, their Government Spends with Reckless Abandon Posted by Kevin Boland on January 5th, 2010 Last month, the New York Times wrote a story about the rise in the personal savings rate - an encouraging sign that American families are living within their means. The Times reported that “[t]his was the year of the return to financial sobriety.” Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for out-of-touch Washington Democrats. Michael Mandel, the chief economist at Business Week, noted that “Most other journalists and economists have take [sic] the same position-that Americans have reacted to the recession by saving more. But for the U.S. economy as a whole, the savings rate has not gone up-it’s actually fallen.” How can that be? The answer is simple: government spending has exploded over the past year, which explains the discrepancies in the following chart: Mandel explained: What we see here is that the net national savings-the sum of personal, corporate, and government savings, net of depreciation-has been plunging rather than rising. The net national savings rate fell to -2.5% in the third quarter of 2009, its lowest level since the Great Depression. That’s astounding low… the government is running such big deficits that they swamp the savings gains in the private sectors . Here’s another way of putting it: The government is borrowing a lot of money and transferring it to the private sector, through fiscal and monetary stimulus. The private sector is using some of those transfers to boost savings. But on net, the country’s savings rate as a whole is falling. In other words, the federal government is overwhelming the private sector with deficit spending. The House Budget Committee Republican Staff complied a lengthy list of all the Democrats’ spending in last year: Democrats need to abandon their job-killing agenda that’s burdening families and small businesses with tax hikes and burying our kids and grandkids under a mountain of debt. All year long, House Republicans have been offering better solutions on the budget, energy, and health care - solutions that recognize that we need to empower the American people, not bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. Until Democrats understand that fundamental truth, we’ll never get our fiscal house in order. | No Comments »

train

Has the potency of pot changed since President Obama was in high school? Marijuana today is "genetically modified," with THC levels that "far surpass the marijuana" of the 1970s. Apparently, back when President Barack Obama would get high with the Choom Gang, he was tokin’ on some weak product by today’s standards. At least, that’s what one former congressman says. After Obama told The New Yorker that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol — which opened the door to a broader conversation about legalizing or decriminalizing a drug that’s on the federal government’s most restrictive list, Schedule I — former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., said the president needs to brush up on his pot knowledge. "I think the president needs to speak to his (National Institute of Health) director in charge of drug abuse," said Kennedy, who chairs Smart Approaches to Marijuana, a group that opposes legalization. The NIH director "would tell the president that, in fact, today’s modern, genetically modified marijuana (has) much higher THC levels, far surpass(ing) the marijuana that the president acknowledges smoking when he was a young person." Obama’s exploits as a pot-smoking adolescent are well documented in his own memoir, Dreams from My Father. More recently , in journalist David Maraniss’ biography Barack Obama: The Story, readers learned that Obama as a high schooler in the late 1970s rolled with a group called the Choom Gang — friends from Hawaii who frequently got high. But has marijuana changed that much? We decided to investigate. What is THC? Cannabis contains roughly 500 compounds, 70 of which are psychoactive. THC, or delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, is the main psychoactive ingredient in the marijuana plant. The level of THC in a plant varies based on the strain. When researchers discuss the potency of marijuana, they typically are measuring the concentration of THC. THC levels also differ depending on the part of the plant used, and how it is processed for consumption. In addition to marijuana, there are materials such as sinsemilla (the flowering tops of unfertilized female plants), hashish or cannabis resin, and hash oil (a concentrated extract from cannabis plants). Hashish oil tends to have much higher concentrations of THC than marijuana or even sinsemilla. Both of these have become more popular in recent years. But what about marijuana itself? Has weed as we once knew it become more potent? The answer is: yes. THC levels are on the rise, and they have been for quite some time. The University of Mississippi Potency Monitoring project analyzed tens of thousands of marijuana samples confiscated by state and federal law enforcement agencies since 1972. The average potency of all seized cannabis has increased from a concentration of 3.4 percent in 1993 to about 8.8 percent in 2008. Potency in sinsemilla in particular has jumped from 5.8 percent to 13.4 percent during that same time period. Back in the late 1970s when Obama was in high school (he graduated in 1979), the mean potency for marijuana was about 3 percent, said Mahmoud ElSohly, director of marijuana research at Ole Miss. Further, the number of samples confiscated with a THC concentration greater than 9 percent has increased significantly, from 3.2 percent in 1993 to 21.5 percent of the 1,635 marijuana samples collected in 2007. But while the average is up due to the availability of marijuana with a higher THC count, the high mark in potency (somewhere around 25-27 percent) remains relatively unchanged in the last couple decades and isn’t likely to increase, ElSohly said. How did it get so strong? The former congressman said the reason for the increasing levels of THC is genetic modification. That’s not quite right. Genetic modification or genetic engineering involves altering a substance’s DNA at the molecular level. Producers of marijuana on the illicit market don’t have the ability to pull off those kinds of lab-based modifications. However, genetic selection involves breeding marijuana plants with the highest concentration of THC. Genetic selection, unlike genetic modification, has been practiced for centuries. Think about how we got different breeds of dogs or varieties of tomatoes. Genetic selection is quite prevalent in marijuana, ElSohly said. Drug dealers have steered toward these methods in hopes of creating a product that enables them to sell smaller volume at a higher cost. Cultivation methods that allow growers to control climate, water and soil levels have dramatically improved production as well, he said, and they have a better idea what parts of the plant produce the highest concentration of THC. There is some genetic engineering of marijuana in labs, but it’s not widespread yet and it’s not the cause for the increase, ElSohly said. What does it mean? What does this rise in potency mean in a practical sense? Let’s start with what the National Institutes of Health says, since Kennedy singled out the government agency. Noting that the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana has increased in recent decades, the NIH warns that "daily use can have stronger effects on a developing teen brain than it did 10 or 20 years ago." Researchers have warned against marijuana use by teens and even young adults, noting that developing brains have an increased risk of dependency. That was an issue even before potency factored in, though the growing strength of the drug does have health officials more concerned. Those concerns are also directed at populations who had already been advised against smoking marijuana when THC levels were lower, such as individuals with cardiovascular diseases or those with certain mental illness, such as schizophrenia. But for the average adult recreational or habitual user, there’s a lot less certainty about what rising THC levels mean. Only a handful of studies have looked at how users smoke marijuana with varying THC levels. Several of these studies noted that when test subjects were using more highly concentrated marijuana, they often smoked less than they did when consuming product with a lower THC level. In that regard, THC would seem to mimic how people consume beverages with different alcohol content: People tend to drink whiskey in shots, wine by the glass and beer by the mug. Marijuana may work the same way, said Carl Hart, a psychology professor at Columbia University who studies the effects of psychoactive drugs. Roger Roffman, a social work professor at the University of Washington and author of the upcoming book Marijuana Nation, noted that there has been little research on the impact of potency in cannabis at the levels seen today, especially in products like hash oil, meaning we don’t know everything about its potential impact. Beyond dependency, health officials also warn that smoking marijuana can cause paranoia and in some cases anxiety attacks. Hospital visits caused by marijuana are on the rise over the last decade, from 359,795 in 2004 to 540,340 in 2011. However, it is unclear if that is caused by higher potency levels, greater usage of marijuana or other factors. This is all important food for thought, because the debate is ongoing and more research is needed. However, this didn't affect our ruling. Our ruling Kennedy said that marijuana today is "genetically modified," with THC levels that "far surpass the marijuana" of the 1970s. Generally speaking, the potency of marijuana has been on the rise since Obama’s youth, though experts disagree about what impact that rise could have on marijuana’s negative health effects, in part because the research so far has been incomplete. The most off-base part of Kennedy’s claim is that the rise in THC levels comes from "genetic modification." It’s actually from genetic selection, a very old process of producing desired traits from crops. On balance, we rate his statement Mostly True.

train

Hurricane Irma: If There Was Such A Thing As A Category 6 Hurricane, This Would Be It 1.2k SHARES Share Tweet Hurricane Irma has become even stronger than the most extreme forecasts were projecting. According to the National Hurricane Center, Irma had sustained winds of 185 miles per hour at one point on Tuesday. That makes it the strongest Atlantic hurricane in history “outside the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean”. I was criticized for suggesting that Irma could become so powerful that it could potentially be labeled a “category 6” storm if such a thing existed. Well, now it has actually happened. If you extrapolate the Saffir-Simpson scale, “category 6” would begin at 158 knots, which would be 181.8 miles per hour. Since Irma has surpassed that mark, I believe that it is entirely reasonable if people want to refer to it as a “category 6” storm. Of course some meteorologists will get very heated with you when you use the term “category 6” because no such category exists at this point. But we need some way to describe an Atlantic hurricane with sustained winds of 185 miles per hour. “Category 5” simply does not do such a storm justice, and yes, Hurricane Irma is the type of storm that could wipe entire cities off the map if it came ashore at this power. We don’t know where this immensely powerful storm will make landfall in the U.S. yet, but you don’t want to be there when it does. I don’t want to freak people out, but the truth is that the best thing you can do is to get as far away from this storm as you can. Just remember what happened in Houston. The people were told not to evacuate, and that turned out to be an absolutely disastrous decision. This is not just another storm. This is a history making event, and if Irma slams directly into one of our major cities as a category 5 storm, it could potentially make Hurricane Harvey look like a Sunday picnic. The following are some of the key things that you need to know about Hurricane Irma… #1 According to the Miami Herald, Hurricane Irma had sustained winds of 185 miles per hour on Tuesday afternoon… Irma continued to explode into a powerful storm Tuesday afternoon, with winds increasing to 185 mph, National Hurricane Center forecasters said in a 2 p.m. advisory. As the storm continued to track westward, islands in its path raced to complete last minute preparations. The Leeward Islands are expected to get hit with “catastrophic” winds tonight, forecasters said, with the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico slammed tomorrow. In Puerto Rico, the governor asked President Donald Trump to declare a state of emergency, while the electric company warned Irma’s fierce winds could leave the island without power for four to six months. #2 The NOAA is saying that Irma is “the strongest hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic — outside the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico.” #3 As mentioned above, if you extrapolate the Saffir-Simpson scale, Irma could be considered a category 6 storm… While few are willing to admit it yet, according to meteorologist Ryan Maye, Hurricane Irma is still intensifying, with winds up to 155-knots (180 mph) and that extrapolating Saffir-Simpson scale, 158-knots would be Category 6. Yes, I know that a “category 6” does not exist yet, but perhaps it is about time that scientists got together and updated the scale in light of the dangerous new realities that we are now facing. #4 Hurricane Irma is so enormously powerful that it is even “showing up on seismometers”… Hurricane Irma is so strong it’s showing up on seismometers — equipment designed to measure earthquakes. “What we’re seeing in the seismogram are low-pitched hums that gradually become stronger as the hurricane gets closer to the seismometer on the island of Guadeloupe,” said Stephen Hicks, a seismologist at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom. #5 In all of U.S. history, only three category 5 hurricanes have ever hit the United States – an unnamed storm in 1935, Hurricane Camille in 1969, and Hurricane Andrew in 1992. #6 A state of emergency has already been declared for every single county in the state of Florida. #7 If you are in the “danger zone” and you have not already stockpiled food, water and supplies, it is probably already too late. Reports of “panic prepping” are coming in from all over Florida, and down in Puerto Rico many stores are already out of all the most important supplies… On Tuesday, the lines for fast-dwindling gas, food, water and hardware were interminable and anxiety mounted. One hardware store in San Juan had been nearly picked clean by afternoon. “This has been like this for the last three days,” said Juan Carlos Ramirez, the store manager. “We’ve sold all of the most necessary items — flashlight, batteries, plywood.” One of my readers made the point the other day that this isn’t the kind of storm that you can “prepare” for. And my reader was precisely correct. You can’t “get prepared” for a hurricane with sustained winds of 185 miles per hour. Such a storm will snap homes like toothpicks. If I was in Florida, I would be heading north immediately. Those that wait could find themselves in absolutely nightmarish traffic jams. And if I lived on the Gulf coast, I would be watching this storm very, very carefully. Because the waters in the Gulf of Mexico are so warm, there is the possibility that Irma could get even stronger if it slides to the south of Florida. Let us hope that it does not happen, but a scenario in which Irma makes landfall along the Gulf coast as a category 5 storm would probably be the worst of all potential possibilities. If such a scenario plays out, please get out of the path of this storm. Trying to “ride this storm out” would do you no good whatsoever. Michael Snyder is a Republican candidate for Congress in Idaho’s First Congressional District, and you can learn how you can get involved in the campaign on his official website. His new book entitled “Living A Life That Really Matters” is available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.com.

train

ICE removal key goal of Democrats in 2020 election The Democrats mulling a run for the White House in 2020 are facing intense pressure from liberals to campaign on abolishing the agency that enforces federal immigration laws, a proposal that was once relegated to the far-left fringe. In protesting the Trump administration’s policies toward illegal immigration, liberal commentators and writers have been embracing the idea of gutting the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which identifies, arrests and deports illegal immigrants inside the United States. “This is a growing position on the left, and I imagine 2020 Democratic presidential aspirants will have to grapple with it,” liberal writer and MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeted. In January, the idea was endorsed by Brian Fallon, a former top aide to 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, and Eric Holder, President Barack Obama’s attorney general. The Daily Caller first drew attention to the calls. “ICE operates as an unaccountable deportation force,” Fallon tweeted. “Dems running in 2020 should campaign on ending the agency in its current form.” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, has reacted to these calls by Democrats by saying they should speak to victims of illegal immigrant crime. “These politicians, they need to talk to the victims of alien crime, talk to the parents that I talk to that lost children at the hands of criminal aliens,” Homan said Thursday on Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” But the idea has picked up steam in recent days after Hayes, the MSNBC host, asked Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris if she believes ICE should exist. “ICE has a purpose, ICE has a role, ICE should exist,” Harris, a potential 2020 candidate, responded. “But let’s not abuse the power.” Since then, Harris, the former attorney general of California, has faced a backlash from liberal publications. “Kamala Harris is very likely running for president in 2020,” Jack Mirkinson of the liberal Splinter website wrote. “It should be a political problem for her that she is not willing to take her criticisms of ICE to their logical conclusion and call for its abolition.” He added: “She should be asked, over and over again, why exactly she is willing to uphold the legitimacy of such a racist, corrupt, and thuggish organization.” Mirkinson wrote that other potential candidates -- like Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti -- “should be asked the same question.” PELOSI SLAMS CALIFORNIA ICE RAID AS ‘UNJUST AND CRUEL’ The Nation, a liberal magazine, last week also published an article titled “It’s Time to Abolish ICE.” The writer accused the agency of being part of an “unbridled white-supremacist surveillance state” and called it “an unaccountable strike force executing a campaign of ethnic cleansing.” “Though the party has moved left on core issues -- from reproductive rights to single-payer health care -- it’s time for progressives to put forward a demand that deportation be taken not as the norm, but rather as a disturbing indicator of authoritarianism,” McElwee wrote. Democratic officeholders also have been openly rebelling against ICE, including Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who recently tipped off the public to an immigration raid in the San Francisco Bay Area. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., last week slammed that raid as "unjust and cruel." Attorney General Jeff Sessions, in a speech in California last week, said as many as 800 illegal immigrants may have evaded capture and said Schaff’s tip-off put both residents and law enforcement at risk. SESSIONS UNLOADS ON CALIFORNIA DEMS FOR ‘RADICAL, OPEN BORDERS AGENDA’ Sessions called California’s "open borders" policies a “radical, irrational idea that cannot be accepted.” “It cannot be the policy of a great nation to reward those who unlawfully enter its country with legal status, Social Security, welfare, food stamps, and work permits and so forth,” he said. “How can this be a sound policy?”

train

State Of Minnesota Has Just Handed Over FULL CONTROL To Muslims So They Can Take Down ‘Infidels’ There is not a day that goes by that we don’t hear about a Muslim terror attack taking place somewhere in our world, but that hasn’t stopped leftists from defending them at every opportunity. Those of us that criticize the so-called “religion of peace” are subjected to ridicule and even being attacked for our belief of how dangerous Muslims are. In Europe, those that speak out against Islam are being imprisoned for their belief. Courts are actually sentencing people for “Islam anti-blasphemy” laws. While this may be par for the course in Europe right now, it is not the way we roll in America, until now. Minnesota has just established a similar law. Anti-blasphemy laws are a huge victory for Muslims because it ensures their protection and in turn, allows them to continue acting in whatever manner they please all the while marching towards Sharia Law. According to Minneapolis’ local newspaper, the Star-Tribune, the hotline was set up as a way to target Trump supporters, who Muslims believe are the group of people most likely to “harass them.” The Star Tribune reported: The city of Minneapolis has set up a hotline for residents to report hate-crime incidents and other acts of intolerance. The service, operated through the city’s 311 helpline, is aimed to aid targets of any “harassing behaviors motivated by prejudice,” according to a city news release issued on Monday. The announcement comes amid signs of a recent surge of such incidents affecting Muslims and Jews across the country, many of which go unreported. “Since the general election, many of us have experienced, witnessed firsthand or heard of actions of: racism, xenophobia, sexism and bigotry directed at people here and in cities across the United States,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated.” The city’s Department of Civil rights along with mayor is leading the charge for this government-enforced fascism, as this new hotline will now encourage citizens to turn in their neighbors for holding opinions deemed forbidden by the state. This hotline flies right in the face of our United States Constitution, where it goes to the heart of denying American citizens their inalienable rights of the First Amendment, which governments CAN NOT DO. Of course, the rabid liberals controlling the city have little regard for the Constitution or the rights of Americans, as they are using their position to establish a soft version of anti-blasphemy laws. “In no uncertain terms, hate-motivated speech and actions have no place in Minneapolis nor will they be tolerated,” Minneapolis Department of Civil Rights Director Velma Korbel wrote in a statement posted on the city’s website. The Department echoes the unconstitutional sentiments of Minneapolis’ mayor, Betsy Hodges, who went on to blast President Trump, pushing her insane narrative of there being an epidemic of bigotry and hate in our country since he got into office. She stated: “I will not compromise the public safety of the people of Minneapolis to satisfy Trump’s desire to put politics before public safety. Minneapolis is being built and strengthened by people from all over the world and I am grateful for their commitment to our city. I stand with them today and will continue to take that stand as the President-elect prepares to take office.” The idea of an anti-blasphemy hotline in America is pretty absurd, but right up liberal’s alley. Why are they so willing to protect those that would seek to hurt us, don’t they want to protect their loved ones? This is only the beginning of the Democrats plans to take control of our country again, but what they don’t realize is that everyone will end up suffering if we continue to bow to Muslim’s demands. This “anti-blasphemy” hotline is just the start and will only get worse if we allow it. It is very similar to Nazi Germany’s approach in the 1930’s when they started to purge out anyone who was perceived as a threat. Trying to normalize the concept of turning in your neighbor for their opinion is nothing short of chilling and should be looked at as a major threat to our freedom. What do you think? Share this with your friends and family. H/T Freedom Daily

train

Protecting Our Children from the Dangers of Smoking Protecting Our Children from the Dangers of Smoking Viewing this video requires Adobe Flash Player 8 or higher. Download the free player. download .mp4 (159.8 MB) | read the transcript The President expressed his appreciation for Senator Ted Kennedy above all today. Lamenting that the senator could not be there for the signing of Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, he called it "change that's been decades in the making." By all accounts, it is the strongest measure protecting children from the dangers of smoking to date -- read the fact sheet for all of the details. He recounted the all-too-familiar statistics: that more than 400,000 Americans now die of tobacco-related illnesses each year; that more than 8 million Americans suffer from at least one serious illness caused by smoking; and that almost 90% of all smokers began at or before their 18th birthday. He spoke on his personal experience: I know -- I was one of these teenagers, and so I know how difficult it can be to break this habit when it's been with you for a long time. And I also know that kids today don't just start smoking for no reason. They're aggressively targeted as customers by the tobacco industry. They're exposed to a constant and insidious barrage of advertising where they live, where they learn, and where they play. Most insidiously, they are offered products with flavorings that mask the taste of tobacco and make it even more tempting. We've known about this for decades, but despite the best efforts and good progress made by so many leaders and advocates with us today, the tobacco industry and its special interest lobbying have generally won the day up on the Hill. When Henry Waxman first brought tobacco CEOs before Congress in 1994, they famously denied that tobacco was deadly, nicotine was addictive, or that their companies marketed to children. And they spent millions upon millions in lobbying and advertising to fight back every attempt to expose these denials as lies. Fifteen years later, their campaign has finally failed. Today, thanks to the work of Democrats and Republicans, health care and consumer advocates, the decades-long effort to protect our children from the harmful effects of tobacco has emerged victorious. Today, change has come to Washington. This legislation will not ban all tobacco products, and it will allow adults to make their own choices. But it will also ban tobacco advertising within a thousand feet of schools and playgrounds. It will curb the ability of tobacco companies to market products to our children by using appealing flavors. It will force these companies to more clearly and publicly acknowledge the harmful and deadly effects of the products they sell. And it will allow the scientists at the FDA to take other common-sense steps to reduce the harmful effects of smoking. This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship, and it was passed overwhelmingly in both Houses of Congress. It's a victory for health care reform, as it will reduce some of the billions we spend on tobacco-related health care costs in this country. It's a law that will reduce the number of American children who pick up a cigarette and become adult smokers. And most importantly, it is a law that will save American lives and make Americans healthier. Making clear that this legislation does not represent the end of the road on fighting back the health risks of smoking, the President nonetheless described it as another very significant sign of change in Washington: Despite the influence of the credit card industry, we passed a law to protect consumers from unfair rate hikes and abusive fees. Despite the influence of banks and lenders, we passed a law to protect homeowners from mortgage fraud. Despite the influence of the defense industry, we passed a law to protect taxpayers from waste and abuse in defense contracting. And today, despite decades of lobbying and advertising by the tobacco industry, we've passed a law to help protect the next generation of Americans from growing up with a deadly habit that so many of our generation have lived with.

train

Miley Cyrus: ‘Donald Trump Is a F–king Nightmare’ Donald Trump took a major step toward securing the Republican presidential nomination following the mogul’s Super Tuesday victory, and faced with the prospect of a President Trump, Miley Cyrus turned to Instagram Tuesday to tell her 38.1 million followers, “Donald Trump is a fucking nightmare!” Cyrus wrote the caption next to a publicity photo of Trump; Cyrus’ Instagram burn has gained 239,000 likes since it was posted Tuesday. On Wednesday, the Dead Petz singer continued lobbying against the GOP frontrunner with a photo of Trump’s delegate totals over Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and a caption where Cyrus playfully threatened to move out of the country if Trump is elected and a hashtag #aintapartyindausaanymo. Related How America Made Donald Trump Unstoppable Donald Trump is a fucking nightmare! A photo posted by Miley Cyrus (@mileycyrus) on Feb 29, 2016 at 12:35pm PST gonna vom / move out da country. #aintapartyindausaanymo A photo posted by Miley Cyrus (@mileycyrus) on Mar 1, 2016 at 6:32pm PST Cyrus’ Instagram then took aim at self-proclaimed “most hated woman in the world” Rebecca Francis, a woman who uses her social media to showcase her hunting prowess, and the hunter’s allegiance to Trump. Cyrus isn’t the only artist to lament a possible future with Trump as commander in chief: Red Hot Chili Peppers’ Flea recently told Rolling Stone, “I can’t take Donald Trump or anything he says seriously. I just think that he’s a silly reality-show bozo and blustering guy who likes getting attention. I don’t think he wants to be president, and I don’t think he has a chance to be the president. He’s just some egotistical, silly person whose main concern in life is getting a blowjob. He wants to be on TV and he wants everyone to thinks he’s important.”

train

McCain touts 'Gang of 14,' immigration reform 11 years ago John McCain touted his stance on immigration Monday CHARLOTTE, North Carolina (CNN) - John McCain the presidential candidate suddenly sounded like the John McCain of 2005 on Monday, touting two pet issues that have generated considerable heartache among grassroots conservatives: the “Gang of 14” compromise and comprehensive immigration reform. McCain brought up the “Gang of 14” saga unprompted at a town hall here, in advance of a major speech on judicial appointments he is set to deliver tomorrow in Winston-Salem. “I know what bipartisanship is,” McCain said. “I am going to talk tomorrow again about our Gang of 14: seven Republicans, seven Democrats that got together rather than blow up the Senate, and we confirmed so many federal judges.” In the spring of 2005, McCain and 13 other senators from both parties agreed on a compromise to avoid the so-called “nuclear option,” which would have curtailed the right of the minority to filibuster. Democrats had been filibustering to prevent the confirmation of three conservative judicial nominees named by President Bush. McCain said he took pride in his votes to confirm Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, a line that drew applause from assembled members of the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce. The Arizona senator also seemed to move past his usual “secure the borders first” mantra in favor of calling for, as he put it, “comprehensive immigration reform." Last summer, McCain and Sen. Edward Kennedy led the charge on an immigration reform package that aroused the ire of conservatives and ultimately threatened to undermine McCain's then-frontrunning presidential bid. (McCain also supported immigration reform bills in 2005 and 2006.) “Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don’t think you can take it piecemeal,” he explained Monday, answering a question about providing visas for skilled workers. “In other words,” he said, “because as soon you and I start to talk about the highly skilled workers, our agricultural interest people are going to say, ‘Look we need ag workers, too.’ And then somebody’s going say, 'We need the DREAM Act,' and then somebody’s going to say, 'We’ve got to enforce our border.'” Throughout the Republican primary battle last fall, McCain faced relentless questions about his support for the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, the 2007 bill that would have allowed illegal immigrants to remain in the United States if they faced certain penalties. Opponents labeled it “amnesty.” Since clinching the nomination, McCain has largely avoided speaking about wide-ranging immigration reform, arguing primarily that the government needs to focus on securing the border with Mexico before taking on other measures. On Monday, he lobbied for a broader approach that includes a temporary guest worker program and tamper-proof ID cards. “We get in this kind of a circular firing squad on immigration reform in the Congress of the United States," McCain said, "and the lesson I learned from it is we’ve got to have comprehensive immigration reform.”

train

Crime in Chicago: Explore your community Peter Nickeas, a 28-year-old reporter for the Chicago Tribune, describes his experience covering overnight crime on the streets of Chicago. (Chicago Tribune) Peter Nickeas, a 28-year-old reporter for the Chicago Tribune, describes his experience covering overnight crime on the streets of Chicago. (Chicago Tribune)

train

The full transcript of the third presidential debate Here is a complete transcript of President Obama and Mitt Romney’s remarks at the third and final presidential debate at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22, 2012. Remarks from the two candidates were updated as the debate unfolded. BOB SCHIEFFER, MODERATOR: Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign, brought to you by the Commission on Presidential Debates. This one’s on foreign policy. I’m Bob Schieffer of CBS News. The questions are mine, and I have not shared them with the candidates or their aides. SCHIEFFER: The audience has taken a vow of silence — no applause, no reaction of any kind, except right now when we welcome President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. (APPLAUSE) Gentlemen, your campaigns have agreed to certain rules and they are simple. They’ve asked me to divide the evening into segments. I’ll pose a question at the beginning of each segment. You will each have two minutes to respond and then we will have a general discussion until we move to the next segment. Tonight’s debate, as both of you know, comes on the 50th anniversary of the night that President Kennedy told the world that the Soviet Union had installed nuclear missiles in Cuba, perhaps the closest we’ve ever come to nuclear war. And it is a sobering reminder that every president faces at some point an unexpected threat to our national security from abroad. So let’s begin. SCHIEFFER: The first segment is the challenge of a changing Middle East and the new face of terrorism. I’m going to put this into two segments so you’ll have two topic questions within this one segment on the subject. The first question, and it concerns Libya. The controversy over what happened there continues. Four Americans are dead, including an American ambassador. Questions remain. What happened? What caused it? Was it spontaneous? Was it an intelligence failure? Was it a policy failure? Was there an attempt to mislead people about what really happened? Governor Romney, you said this was an example of an American policy in the Middle East that is unraveling before our very eyes. SCHIEFFER: I’d like to hear each of you give your thoughts on that. Governor Romney, you won the toss. You go first. ROMNEY: Thank you, Bob. And thank you for agreeing to moderate this debate this evening. Thank you to Lynn University for welcoming us here. And Mr. President, it’s good to be with you again. We were together at a humorous event a little earlier, and it’s nice to maybe funny this time, not on purpose. We’ll see what happens. This is obviously an area of great concern to the entire world, and to America in particular, which is to see a — a complete change in the — the structure and the — the environment in the Middle East. With the Arab Spring, came a great deal of hope that there would be a change towards more moderation, and opportunity for greater participation on the part of women in public life, and in economic life in the Middle East. But instead, we’ve seen in nation after nation, a number of disturbing events. Of course we see in Syria, 30,000 civilians having been killed by the military there. We see in — in Libya, an attack apparently by, I think we know now, by terrorists of some kind against — against our people there, four people dead. Our hearts and — and minds go out to them. Mali has been taken over, the northern part of Mali by al-Qaeda type individuals. We have in — in Egypt, a Muslim Brotherhood president. And so what we’re seeing is a pretty dramatic reversal in the kind of hopes we had for that region. Of course the greatest threat of all is Iran, four years closer to a nuclear weapon. And — and we’re going to have to recognize that we have to do as the president has done. I congratulate him on — on taking out Osama bin Laden and going after the leadership in al-Qaeda. But we can’t kill our way out of this mess. We’re going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the — the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is — it’s certainly not on the run. ROMNEY: It’s certainly not hiding. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America, long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism. SCHIEFFER: Mr. President? OBAMA: Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe. And that’s what we’ve done over the last four years. We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11. And as a consequence, Al Qaeda’s core leadership has been decimated. In addition, we’re now able to transition out of Afghanistan in a responsible way, making sure that Afghans take responsibility for their own security. And that allows us also to rebuild alliances and make friends around the world to combat future threats. Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way; number two, that we would investigate exactly what happened, and number three, most importantly, that we would go after those who killed Americans and we would bring them to justice. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do. But I think it’s important to step back and think about what happened in Libya. Keep in mind that I and Americans took leadership in organizing an international coalition that made sure that we were able to, without putting troops on the ground at the cost of less than what we spent in two weeks in Iraq, liberate a country that had been under the yoke of dictatorship for 40 years. Got rid of a despot who had killed Americans and as a consequence, despite this tragedy, you had tens of thousands of Libyans after the events in Benghazi marching and saying America is our friend. We stand with them. OBAMA: Now that represents the opportunity we have to take advantage of. And, you know, Governor Romney, I’m glad that you agree that we have been successful in going after Al Qaida, but I have to tell you that, you know, your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map and is not designed to keep Americans safe or to build on the opportunities that exist in the Middle East. ROMNEY: Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to — to kill them, to take them out of the picture. But my strategy is broader than that. That’s — that’s important, of course. But the key that we’re going to have to pursue is a — is a pathway to get the Muslim world to be able to reject extremism on its own. We don’t want another Iraq, we don’t want another Afghanistan. That’s not the right course for us. The right course for us is to make sure that we go after the — the people who are leaders of these various anti-American groups and these — these jihadists, but also help the Muslim world. And how do we do that? A group of Arab scholars came together, organized by the U.N., to look at how we can help the — the world reject these — these terrorists. And the answer they came up with was this: One, more economic development. We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development. Number two, better education. Number three, gender equality. Number four, the rule of law. We have to help these nations create civil societies. But what’s been happening over the last couple of years is, as we’ve watched this tumult in the Middle East, this rising tide of chaos occur, you see Al Qaida rushing in, you see other jihadist groups rushing in. And — and they’re throughout many nations in the Middle East. ROMNEY: It’s wonderful that Libya seems to be making some progress, despite this terrible tragedy. But next door, of course, we have Egypt. Libya’s 6 million population; Egypt, 80 million population. We want — we want to make sure that we’re seeing progress throughout the Middle East. With Mali now having North Mali taken over by Al Qaida; with Syria having Assad continuing to — to kill, to murder his own people, this is a region in tumult. And, of course, Iran on the path to a nuclear weapon, we’ve got real (inaudible). SCHIEFFER: We’ll get to that, but let’s give the president a chance. OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaida is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaida; you said Russia, in the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years. But Governor, when it comes to our foreign policy, you seem to want to import the foreign policies of the 1980s, just like the social policies of the 1950s and the economic policies of the 1920s. You say that you’re not interested in duplicating what happened in Iraq. But just a few weeks ago, you said you think we should have more troops in Iraq right now. And the — the challenge we have — I know you haven’t been in a position to actually execute foreign policy — but every time you’ve offered an opinion, you’ve been wrong. You said we should have gone into Iraq, despite that fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. You said that we should still have troops in Iraq to this day. You indicated that we shouldn’t be passing nuclear treaties with Russia despite the fact that 71 senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted for it. You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies. OBAMA: So, what — what we need to do with respect to the Middle East is strong, steady leadership, not wrong and reckless leadership that is all over the map. And unfortunately, that’s the kind of opinions that you’ve offered throughout this campaign, and it is not a recipe for American strength, or keeping America safe over the long haul. SCHIEFFER: I’m going to add a couple of minutes here to give you a chance to respond. ROMNEY: Well, of course I don’t concur with what the president said about my own record and the things that I’ve said. They don’t happen to be accurate. But — but I can say this, that we’re talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we’re seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and — and confusion. And — and attacking me is not an agenda. Attacking me is not talking about how we’re going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East, and take advantage of the opportunity there, and stem the tide of this violence. But I’ll respond to a couple of things that you mentioned. First of all, Russia I indicated is a geopolitical foe. Not… (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: Excuse me. It’s a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same — in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face. Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin. And I’m certainly not going to say to him, I’ll give you more flexibility after the election. After the election, he’ll get more backbone. Number two, with regards to Iraq, you and I agreed I believe that there should be a status of forces agreement. (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: Oh you didn’t? You didn’t want a status of… OBAMA: What I would not have had done was left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. And that certainly would not help us in the Middle East. ROMNEY: I’m sorry, you actually — there was a — there was an effort on the part of the president to have a status of forces agreement, and I concurred in that, and said that we should have some number of troops that stayed on. That was something I concurred with… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: Governor… (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: …that your posture. That was my posture as well. You thought it should have been 5,000 troops… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: Governor? ROMNEY: … I thought there should have been more troops, but you know what? The answer was we got… (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: … no troops through whatsoever. OBAMA: This was just a few weeks ago that you indicated that we should still have troops in Iraq. ROMNEY: No, I… (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: …I’m sorry that’s a… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: You — you… ROMNEY: …that’s a — I indicated… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: …major speech. (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: …I indicated that you failed to put in place a status… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: Governor? (CROSSTALK) ROMNEY: …of forces agreement at the end of the conflict that existed. OBAMA: Governor — here — here’s — here’s one thing… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: …here’s one thing I’ve learned as commander in chief. (CROSSTALK) SCHIEFFER: Let him answer… OBAMA: You’ve got to be clear, both to our allies and our enemies, about where you stand and what you mean. You just gave a speech a few weeks ago in which you said we should still have troops in Iraq. That is not a recipe for making sure that we are taking advantage of the opportunities and meeting the challenges of the Middle East. Now, it is absolutely true that we cannot just meet these challenges militarily. And so what I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts. Number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region. Number three, we do have to make sure that we’re protecting religious minorities and women because these countries can’t develop unless all the population, not just half of it, is developing. Number four, we do have to develop their economic — their economic capabilities. But number five, the other thing that we have to do is recognize that we can’t continue to do nation building in these regions. Part of American leadership is making sure that we’re doing nation building here at home. That will help us maintain the kind of American leadership that we need. SCHIEFFER: Let me interject the second topic question in this segment about the Middle East and so on, and that is, you both mentioned — alluded to this, and that is Syria. The war in Syria has now spilled over into Lebanon. We have, what, more than 100 people that were killed there in a bomb. There were demonstrations there, eight people dead. Mr. President, it’s been more than a year since you saw — you told Assad he had to go. Since then, 30,000 Syrians have died. We’ve had 300,000 refugees. The war goes on. He’s still there. Should we reassess our policy and see if we can find a better way to influence events there? Or is that even possible? And you go first, sir. OBAMA: What we’ve done is organize the international community, saying Assad has to go. We’ve mobilized sanctions against that government. We have made sure that they are isolated. We have provided humanitarian assistance and we are helping the opposition organize, and we’re particularly interested in making sure that we’re mobilizing the moderate forces inside of Syria. But ultimately, Syrians are going to have to determine their own future. And so everything we’re doing, we’re doing in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria; coordinating with Turkey and other countries in the region that have a great interest in this. This — what we’re seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking, and that’s why we are going to do everything we can to make sure that we are helping the opposition. But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region. And I am confident that Assad’s days are numbered. But what we can’t do is to simply suggest that, as Governor Romney at times has suggested, that giving heavy weapons, for example, to the Syrian opposition is a simple proposition that would lead us to be safer over the long term. SCHIEFFER: Governor? ROMNEY: Well, let’s step back and talk about what’s happening in Syria and how important it is. First of all, 30,000 people being killed by their government is a humanitarian disaster. Secondly, Syria is an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. ROMNEY: Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally, Israel. And so seeing Syria remove Assad is a very high priority for us. Number two, seeing a — a replacement government being responsible people is critical for us. And finally, we don’t want to have military involvement there. We don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict. And so the right course for us, is working through our partners and with our own resources, to identify responsible parties within Syria, organize them, bring them together in a — in a form of — if not government, a form of — of — of council that can take the lead in Syria. And then make sure they have the arms necessary to defend themselves. We do need to make sure that they don’t have arms that get into the — the wrong hands. Those arms could be used to hurt us down the road. We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies, and particularly with — with Israel. But the Saudi’s and the Qatari, and — and the Turks are all very concerned about this. They’re willing to work with us. We need to have a very effective leadership effort in Syria, making sure that the — the insurgent there are armed and that the insurgents that become armed, are people who will be the responsible parties. Recognize — I believe that Assad must go. I believe he will go. But I believe — we want to make sure that we have the relationships of friendship with the people that take his place, steps that in the years to come we see Syria as a — as a friend, and Syria as a responsible party in the Middle East. This — this is a critical opportunity for America. And what I’m afraid of is we’ve watched over the past year or so, first the president saying, well we’ll let the U.N. deal with it. And Assad — excuse me, Kofi Annan came in and said we’re going to try to have a ceasefire. That didn’t work. Then it went to the Russians and said, let’s see if you can do something. We should be playing the leadership role there, not on the ground with military. SCHIEFFER: All right. ROMNEY: …by the leadership role. OBAMA: We are playing the leadership role. We organized the Friends of Syria. We are mobilizing humanitarian support, and support for the opposition. And we are making sure that those we help are those who will be friends of ours in the long term and friends of our allies in the region over the long term. But going back to Libya — because this is an example of how we make choices. When we went in to Libya, and we were able to immediately stop the massacre there, because of the unique circumstances and the coalition that we had helped to organize. We also had to make sure that Moammar Gadhafi didn’t stay there. And to the governor’s credit, you supported us going into Libya and the coalition that we organized. But when it came time to making sure that Gadhafi did not stay in power, that he was captured, Governor, your suggestion was that this was mission creep, that this was mission muddle. Imagine if we had pulled out at that point. You know, Moammar Gadhafi had more American blood on his hands than any individual other than Osama bin Laden. And so we were going to make sure that we finished the job. That’s part of the reason why the Libyans stand with us. But we did so in a careful, thoughtful way, making certain that we knew who we were dealing with, that those forces of moderation on the ground were ones that we could work with, and we have to take the same kind of steady, thoughtful leadership when it comes to Syria. That’s exactly what we’re doing. SCHIEFFER: Governor, can I just ask you, would you go beyond what the administration would do, like for example, would you put in no-fly zones over Syria? ROMNEY: I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria. I don’t think there is a necessity to put our military in Syria at this stage. I don’t anticipate that in the future. As I indicated, our objectives are to replace Assad and to have in place a new government which is friendly to us, a responsible government, if possible. And I want to make sure they get armed and they have the arms necessary to defend themselves, but also to remove — to remove Assad. But I do not want to see a military involvement on the part of our — of our troops. SCHIEFFER: Well – ROMNEY: And this isn’t — this isn’t going to be necessary. We — we have, with our partners in the region, we have sufficient resources to support those groups. But look, this has been going on for a year. This is a time — this should have been a time for American leadership. We should have taken a leading role, not militarily, but a leading role organizationally, governmentally to bring together the parties; to find responsible parties. As you hear from intelligence sources even today, the — the insurgents are highly disparate. They haven’t come together. They haven’t formed a unity group, a council of some kind. That needs to happen. America can help that happen. And we need to make sure they have the arms they need to carry out the very important role which is getting rid of Assad. SCHIEFFER: Can we get a quick response, Mr. President, because I want to… (CROSSTALK) OBAMA: Well, I’ll — I’ll be very quick. What you just heard Governor Romney said is he doesn’t have different ideas. And that’s because we’re doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a — an effective transition so that we get Assad out. That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown. That’s the kind of leadership we’ll continue to show. SCHIEFFER: May I ask you, you know, during the Egyptian turmoil, there came a point when you said it was time for President Mubarak to go. OBAMA: Right. SCHIEFFER: Some in your administration thought perhaps we should have waited a while on that. Do you have any regrets about that? OBAMA: No, I don’t, because I think that America has to stand with democracy. The notion that we would have tanks run over those young people who were in Tahrir Square, that is not the kind of American leadership that John F. Kennedy talked about 50 years ago. But what I’ve also said is that now that you have a democratically elected government in Egypt, that they have to make sure that they take responsibility for protecting religious minorities. And we have put significant pressure on them to make sure they’re doing that; to recognize the rights of women, which is critical throughout the region. These countries can’t develop if young women are not given the kind of education that they need. They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels. They have to make sure that they’re cooperating with us when it comes to counterterrorism. And we will help them with respect to developing their own economy, because ultimately what’s going to make the Egyptian revolution successful for the people of Egypt, but also for the world, is if those young people who gathered there are seeing opportunities. Their aspirations are similar to young people’s here. They want jobs, they want to be able to make sure their kids are going to a good school. They want to make sure that they have a roof over their heads and that they have the prospects of a better life in the future. And so one of the things that we’ve been doing is, is, for example, organizing entrepreneurship conferences with these Egyptians to give them a sense of how they can start rebuilding their economy in a way that’s noncorrupt, that’s transparent. But what is also important for us to understand is, is that for America to be successful in this region there’s some things that we’re going to have to do here at home as well. You know, one of the challenges over the last decade is we’ve done experiments in nation building in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and we’ve neglected, for example, developing our own economy, our own energy sectors, our own education system. And it’s very hard for us to project leadership around the world when we’re not doing what we need to do… SCHIEFFER: Governor Romney, I want to hear your response to that, but I would just ask you, would you have stuck with Mubarak? ROMNEY: No. I believe, as the president indicated, and said at the time that I supported his — his action there. I felt that — I wish we’d have had a better vision of the future. I wish that, looking back at the beginning of the president’s term and even further back than that, that we’d have recognized that there was a growing energy and passion for freedom in that part of the world, and that we would have worked more aggressively with our friend and with other friends in the region to have them make the transition towards a more representative form of government, such that it didn’t explode in the way that it did. But once it exploded, I felt the same as the president did, which is these freedom voices and the streets of Egypt, where the people who were speaking of our principles and the President Mubarak had done things which were unimaginable and the idea of him crushing his people was not something that we could possibly support. Let me step back and talk about what I think our mission has to be in the Middle East and even more broadly, because our purpose is to make sure the world is more — is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war. That’s our purpose. And the mantle of leadership for the — promoting the principles of peace has fallen to America. We didn’t ask for it. But it’s an honor that we have it. But for us to be able to promote those principles of peace requires us to be strong. And that begins with a strong economy here at home. Unfortunately, the economy is not stronger. When the — when the president of Iraq — excuse me, of Iran, Ahmadinejad, says that our debt makes us not a great country, that’s a frightening thing. Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy. We need to have as well a strong military. Our military is second to none in the world. We’re blessed with terrific soldiers, and extraordinary technology and intelligence. But the idea of a trillion dollar in cuts through sequestration and budget cuts to the military would change that. We need to have strong allies. Our association and connection with our allies is essential to America’s strength. We’re the great nation that has allies, 42 allies and friends around the world. ROMNEY: And, finally, we have to stand by our principles. And if we’re strong in each of those things, American influence will grow. But unfortunately, in nowhere in the world is America’s influence will grow. But unfortunately, in — nowhere in the world is America’s influence greater today than it was four years ago. SCHIEFFER: All right. ROMNEY: And that’s because we’ve become weaker in each of those four… (CROSSTALK) SCHIEFFER: …you’re going to get a chance to respond to that, because that’s a perfect segue into our next segment, and that is, what is America’s role in the world? And that is the question. What do each of you see as our role in the world, and I believe, Governor Romney, it’s your chance to go first. ROMNEY: Well I — I absolutely believe that America has a — a responsibility, and the privilege of helping defend freedom and promote the principles that — that make the world more peaceful. And those principles include human rights, human dignity, free enterprise, freedom of expression, elections. Because when there are elections, people tend to vote for peace. They don’t vote for war. So we want to promote those principles around the world. We recognize that there are places of conflict in the world. We want to end those conflicts to the extent humanly possible. But in order to be able to fulfill our role in the world, America must be strong. America must lead. And for that to happen, we have to strengthen our economy here at home. You can’t have 23 million people struggling to get a job. You can’t have an economy that over the last three years keeps slowing down its growth rate. You can’t have kids coming out of college, half of them can’t find a job today, or a job that’s commensurate with their college degree. We have to get our economy going. And our military, we’ve got to strengthen our military long-term. We don’t know what the world is going to throw at us down the road. We — we make decisions today in the military that — that will confront challenges we can’t imagine. In the 2000 debates, there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So, we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty, and that means a strong military. I will not cut our military budget. We have to also stand by our allies. I — I think the tension that existed between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate. I think also that pulling our missile defense program out of Poland in the way we did was also unfortunate in terms of, if you will, disrupting the relationship in some ways that existed between us. And then, of course, with regards to standing for our principles, when — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake. We have to stand for our principles, stand for our allies, stand for a strong military and stand for a stronger economy. SCHIEFFER: Mr. President? OBAMA: America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office. Because we ended the war in Iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in Afghanistan. It also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade. And Governor Romney, our alliances have never been stronger, in Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel, where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat. But what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding America, and that’s what my plan does. Making sure that we’re bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we’re creating jobs here, as we’ve done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Making sure that we’ve got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow. Doing everything we can to control our own energy. We’ve cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we’ve developed oil and natural gas. But we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. That’s the kind of leadership that we need to show. And we’ve got to make sure that we reduce our deficit. Unfortunately, Governor Romney’s plan doesn’t do it. We’ve got to do it in a responsible way by cutting out spending we don’t need, but also asking the wealthiest to pay a little bit more. That way we can invest in the research and technology that’s always kept us at the cutting edge. Now, Governor Romney has taken a different approach throughout this campaign. Both at home and abroad

train

HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News Real Life. Real News. Real Voices. Help us tell more of the stories that matter from voices that too often remain unheard.

train

McCain spoke up early "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming ... five years ago." A new TV ad from the McCain campaign portrays the Arizona senator as a leader in the fight against global warming. The ad begins with fast-paced music and horns honking. It shows black-and-white scenes of crowded freeways, smokestacks belching and a glacier collapsing. "John McCain stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming . . . five years ago," the narrator says. The stark black-and-white scenes are replaced by more pleasant color footage of a wind turbine against a bright blue sky and water flowing through a dam. "Today, he has a realistic plan that will curb greenhouse gas emissions. A plan that will help grow our economy and protect our environment." With images such as a newspaper headline that says "McCain climate views clash with GOP," the ad portrays McCain as an independent voice on climate change. Indeed, the Congressional Record shows that McCain spoke up about global warming in January 2003. And as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, he held hearings on the issue several years before that. On Jan. 9, 2003, McCain and Sen. Joe Liberman introduced the Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship Act, which sought to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capping them and allowing companies and utilities to sell or trade their emission rights. When he introduced the bill, McCain called it "the first comprehensive piece of legislation" in capping emissions. "The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions," he said. "It is time for the U.S. government to do its part to address this global problem, and legislation on mandatory reductions is the form of leadership that is required to address this global problem." By contrast, the Bush administration has opposed cap-and-trade programs and preferred voluntary efforts on climate change. Manik Roy, director of congressional affairs for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, said McCain had actually been working on the climate change bill in 2001, but it got delayed after the 9/11 attacks. The Lieberman-McCain bill ultimately failed in October 2003 by a 43-55 vote, but Roy said it was a key step in "educating the Senate" about how government could respond to global warming. "It is absolutely correct that McCain stood up on this issue, forced the Senate to focus on this issue when nobody else thought it made sense and did it with strong opposition from the White House," Roy said. He called McCain "a huge leader on this issue in the Senate." And so we find McCain's statement to be True.

train

Statement by the President Rose Garden 5:35 P.M. EDT MR. BARDEN: Hello. My name is Mark Barden. Just four months ago, my wife Jackie and I lost our son, and our children, James and Natalie, they lost their little brother Daniel. Daniel was a first-grader at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Our sweet, 7-year-old Daniel was one of 20 children, six adults lost on December 14th. I have to say it feels like it was just yesterday. In our deepest grief, we were supported by the love of our families and comforted by the love and prayers we received from millions of America, from every corner of the country. What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere. In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes. No one should feel the pain. No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who’ve lost loved ones to senseless gun violence. And that's why we're here. Two weeks ago, 12 of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. senators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence. We came with a sense of hope, optimistic that real conversation could begin that would ultimately save the lives of so many Americans. We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, our spouses, our parents who lost their lives on December 14th. Expanded background checks wouldn't have saved our loved ones, but still we came to support the bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with “A” ratings from the NRA -- a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans. It‘s a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. We'll return home now, disappointed but not defeated. We return home with the determination that change will happen -- maybe not today, but it will happen. It will happen soon. We've always known this would be a long road, and we don't have the luxury of turning back. We will keep moving forward and build public support for common-sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety. We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost, and we carry a great faith in the American people. On behalf of the Sandy Hook Promise, I would like to thank President Obama, Vice President Biden for their leadership and for standing strong and continuing to fight for a safer America. I would like to thank Senators Toomey, Manchin, Schumer and Kirk on coming together to seek common ground on legislation that would keep guns out of the hands of criminals and save lives. And I would like to thank Connecticut’s Senators Blumenthal and Murphy. They’ve been right with us. They stood by us right from the very beginning. From the first few hours after this tragedy they were with us. We will not be defeated. We are not defeated, and we will not be defeated. We are here now; we will always be here because we have no other choice. We are not going away. And every day, as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence, our determination grows stronger. We leave Washington hoping that others, both here and across the country, will join us in making the Sandy Hook Promise, a pledge that we'd had great hope that more U.S. senators would take literally. I'd like to end by repeating the words with which the Sandy Hook Promise begins: Our hearts are broken. Our spirit is not. Thank you. It is now my great pleasure to introduce the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama. THE PRESIDENT: A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence. Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law. And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea. A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward. I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights. As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system. Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks. In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it. But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter. And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other. But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment. And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote “no.” One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try. And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs. I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent? I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate? So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington. But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools. But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters. To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time. To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one. The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives. So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence. And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months. And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson. And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence -- I’m assuming that's not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words. I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people. Thank you very much, everybody. END 5:55 P.M. EDT

train

BUSTED: Obama is Holding Secret Meetings to OVERTAKE the White House BUSTED: Obama is Holding Secret Meetings to OVERTAKE the White House

train

Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges Rising to a New Generation of Global Challenges Mitt Romney From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007 Summary: Washington is as divided on foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. As the "greatest generation" did before us, we must move beyond political camps to unite around bold actions in order to build a strong America and a safer world. We must strengthen our military and economy, achieve energy independence, reenergize civilian and interagency capabilities, and revitalize our alliances. Mitt Romney, Governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007, is a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Topics: U.S. policy and politics National security and defense WASHINGTON DIVIDED Less than six years after 9/11, Washington is as divided and conflicted over foreign policy as it has been at any point in the last 50 years. Senator Arthur Vandenberg once famously declared that "politics stops at the water's edge"; today, the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee declares that our major political parties should carry out two separate foreign policies. The Senate unanimously confirmed General David Petraeus, who pledged to implement a new strategy, as the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. Yet just weeks later, the Senate began crafting legislation specifically designed to stop that new strategy. More broadly, lines have been drawn between those labeled "realists" and those labeled "neoconservatives." Yet these terms mean little when even the most committed neoconservative recognizes that any successful policy must be grounded in reality and even the most hardened realist admits that much of the United States' power and influence stems from its values and ideals. In the midst of these divisions, the American people -- and many others around the world -- have increasing doubts about the United States' direction and role in the world. Indeed, it seems that concern about Washington's divisiveness and capability to meet today's challenges is the one thing that unites us all. We need new thinking on foreign policy and an overarching strategy that can unite the United States and its allies -- not around a particular political camp or foreign policy school but around a shared understanding of how to meet a new generation of challenges. A GENERATION'S LEGACY OF LEADERSHIP Today's challenges are daunting. They include the conflict in Iraq, the resurgence of the Taliban, and global terrorist networks made even more menacing by the threat of nuclear proliferation. While Iran's leaders relentlessly pursue nuclear weapons capabilities and spout genocidal threats against Israel, the world largely stands silent, unable to agree on effective sanctions even as each day the danger grows. Genocide ravages Darfur even as the world stands frozen. In Latin America, leaders such as Venezuelan President Hugo Ch�vez seek to reverse the spread of freedom and return to failed authoritarian policies. AIDS and potential new pandemics threaten us in an interconnected world. The economic rise of China and other countries across Asia poses a different type of challenge. It is easy to understand why Americans -- and many others around the world -- feel so much unease and uncertainty. Yet although we face fundamentally different issues today, the United States has a history of rising to meet even greater challenges. Indeed, we need not look to ancient history, but only to the courage and determination of our parents and grandparents to see a stark contrast with the confusion and infighting of Washington today. Just over 60 years ago, we were in the midst of a global war that would take the lives of tens of millions. The outcome was far from certain. General Dwight Eisenhower drafted a short note before the D-day landings at Normandy accepting full responsibility "in case of failure." The invasion did not fail. Yet no sooner had we defeated fascism than we were engaged in a 50-year struggle with communism. Those whom the journalist Tom Brokaw memorialized as "the greatest generation" made the tough choices that allowed us to prevail in these struggles. And it was not just our Washington leaders who were decisive. In the 1940s, Americans rationed and saved, and mothers and daughters enlisted to work in factories. Together with the GIs who returned home, they built this country's prosperity and fueled a sense of optimism. In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, America pursued learning and innovation to lead the world in space, technology, and productivity -- outcompeting the Soviets and driving them to an economic bankruptcy that matched their moral bankruptcy. In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of the Cold War, members of "the greatest generation" united America and the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. They unified U.S. military and security efforts, creating the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. They rethought U.S. approaches to the world, building the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Peace Corps. They forged alliances, such as NATO, that magnified the power of freedom and created a world trading system that helped launch the greatest expansion of economic and political freedom and development in history. Our times call for equally bold leadership and for a renewed sense of service and shared sacrifice among Americans and our allies around the world. A NEW GENERATION OF CHALLENGES 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 next page »

train

UPDATE: Van Full Of Illegals Caught Voting At Multiple Alabama Polling Locations The Democrat Party is up to their usual dirty tricks as Republican senate candidate Roy Moore fights against their cheating ways in an effort to become Alabama’s next senator. According to the Birmingham Press, polling officials caught what appears to be a “van full of illegals” who traveled to at least 7 polling locations with fake identification to vote for Moore’s opponent Doug Jones. “Law enforcement stopped the vehicle at Santa Recto Middle School in Wilmington as 13 Hispanic men were seen piling into a van after voting,” the Santa Recto Observer reported Tuesday afternoon. “The same men were also seen in Smithfield, Birmingham, La Croix, and Mobile and were reported as suspicious by voting officials.” Members of the State Election Integrity Board began investigating the group of men at around 9 a.m. and tracking them around the state. Police arrested 10 of the men and three were able to run to safety before police grabbed their friends. Investigators determined that the men were responsible for “dozens of fake votes” around the state and officials are working to invalidate those votes as we speak. This is typical of Democrats: when even fake news about Moore “molesting” a young woman fail, they try to cheat. This is, of course, similar to a situation in California on Election Day 2016 when illegal aliens were busted trying to vote for Hillary Clinton. All but one of the men were “undocumented” immigrants from Mexico, San Salmos, and Puerta Gorda. The last, Marcos Ramos, is a U.S. citizen and faces up to 13 years in prison for election fraud. How many other dirty tricks will be exposed?

train

Texas Church Shooter Was Antifa Member Who Vowed To Start Civil War The gunman who opened fire inside a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, has been identified as Devin Kelley, an Antifa member who vowed to start a civil war by “targeting white conservative churches” and causing anarchy in the United States. Wilson County Commissioner Albert Gamez Jr said that at least 27 people have been killed in the shooting, according to reports by the CNN and the BBC, with the confirmed death toll expected to climb in the coming hours. Witnesses report they saw Devin Kelley walk into the Baptist Church in the small town 30 miles from San Antonio at 11:30am local time Sunday, according to KSAT-12. Devin Kelley, who killed at least 27 people and injured many more, was one of two shooters in the church, according to eyewitnesses, who also report Kelley carried an Antifa flag and told the churchgoers “this is a communist revolution” before unloading on the congregation, reloading several times. Sheriff Joe Tackitt confirmed to Wilson County News that there have been “multiple fatalities” and the shooter has been “taken down.” Devin Kelley’s Facebook page stated that he was an atheist and his interests included “Civil and social rights” and “Civil rights” as well as endorsements for local Texan Democratic political candidates. His page also featured photos of several high powered weapons. His Facebook page was taken down without explanation less than an hour after the shooting. An eyewitness told CBS News that there was a heavy police presence on the road to the church, adding that they had seen severely injured people being airlifted from the area. Texas Governor Greg Abbott posted to Twitter shortly after the mass shooting, saying: “Our prayers are with all who were harmed by this evil act. Our thanks to law enforcement for their response. More details from DPS soon.” President Donald Trump has confirmed he is aware of the situation and said he was monitoring it from Japan. Source: YourNewsWire

train

Remarks by the President on a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Remarks by the President on a New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary _______________________________________________________________ For Immediate Release March 27, 2009 REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON A NEW STRATEGY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN Room 450 Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building 9:40 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Please be seated. Before I begin today, let me acknowledge, first of all, Your Excellencies, all the ambassadors who are in attendance. I also want to acknowledge both the civilians and our military personnel that are about to be deployed to the region. And I am very grateful to all of you for your extraordinary work. I want to acknowledge General David Petraeus, who's here, and has been doing an outstanding job at CENTCOM, and we appreciate him. I want to thank Bruce Reidel -- Bruce is down at the end here -- who has worked extensively on our strategic review. I want to acknowledge Karl Eikenberry, who's here, and is our Ambassador-designate to Afghanistan. And to my national security team, thanks for their outstanding work. Today, I'm announcing a comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan. And this marks the conclusion of a careful policy review, led by Bruce, that I ordered as soon as I took office. My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats. We've consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations. We've also worked closely with members of Congress here at home. And now I’d like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people. The situation is increasingly perilous. It's been more than seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for American forces. Many people in the United States -- and many in partner countries that have sacrificed so much -- have a simple question: What is our purpose in Afghanistan? After so many years, they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? And they deserve a straightforward answer. So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can. The future of Afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. In the nearly eight years since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier. This almost certainly includes al Qaeda's leadership: Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. For the American people, this border region has become the most dangerous place in the world. But this is not simply an American problem -- far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order. Terrorist attacks in London and Bali were tied to al Qaeda and its allies in Pakistan, as were attacks in North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad and in Kabul. If there is a major attack on an Asian, European, or African city, it, too, is likely to have ties to al Qaeda's leadership in Pakistan. The safety of people around the world is at stake. For the Afghan people, a return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people -- especially women and girls. The return in force of al Qaeda terrorists who would accompany the core Taliban leadership would cast Afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence. As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. So I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. That's the goal that must be achieved. That is a cause that could not be more just. And to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same: We will defeat you. To achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy. To focus on the greatest threat to our people, America must no longer deny resources to Afghanistan because of the war in Iraq. To enhance the military, governance and economic capacity of Afghanistan and Pakistan, we have to marshal international support. And to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- which is why I've appointed Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, who is here, to serve as Special Representative for both countries, and to work closely with General Petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts. Let me start by addressing the way forward in Pakistan. The United States has great respect for the Pakistani people. They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law. The single greatest threat to that future comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together. The terrorists within Pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of America or Afghanistan -- they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of Pakistan. Al Qaeda and other violent extremists have killed several thousand Pakistanis since 9/11. They've killed many Pakistani soldiers and police. They assassinated Benazir Bhutto. They've blown up buildings, derailed foreign investment, and threatened the stability of the state. So make no mistake: al Qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancer that risks killing Pakistan from within. It's important for the American people to understand that Pakistan needs our help in going after al Qaeda. This is no simple task. The tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned. And that's why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training and support that Pakistan needs to root out the terrorists. And after years of mixed results, we will not, and cannot, provide a blank check. Pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al Qaeda and the violent extremists within its borders. And we will insist that action be taken -- one way or another -- when we have intelligence about high-level terrorist targets. The government's ability to destroy these safe havens is tied to its own strength and security. To help Pakistan weather the economic crisis, we must continue to work with the IMF, the World Bank and other international partners. To lessen tensions between two nuclear-armed nations that too often teeter on the edge of escalation and confrontation, we must pursue constructive diplomacy with both India and Pakistan. To avoid the mistakes of the past, we must make clear that our relationship with Pakistan is grounded in support for Pakistan's democratic institutions and the Pakistani people. And to demonstrate through deeds as well as words a commitment that is enduring, we must stand for lasting opportunity. A campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda's offers the people of Pakistan nothing but destruction. We stand for something different. So today, I am calling upon Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by John Kerry and Richard Lugar that authorizes $1.5 billion in direct support to the Pakistani people every year over the next five years -- resources that will build schools and roads and hospitals, and strengthen Pakistan's democracy. I'm also calling on Congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by Maria Cantwell, Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra that creates opportunity zones in the border regions to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. And we will ask our friends and allies to do their part -- including at the donors conference in Tokyo next month. I don't ask for this support lightly. These are challenging times. Resources are stretched. But the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future -- because the security of America and Pakistan is shared. Pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the Pakistani people. And these steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across the border. Security demands a new sense of shared responsibility. And that's why we will launch a standing, trilateral dialogue among the United States, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Our nations will meet regularly, with Secretaries Clinton and Secretary Gates leading our effort. Together, we must enhance intelligence sharing and military cooperation along the border, while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development. This is just one part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent Afghanistan from becoming the al Qaeda safe haven that it was before 9/11. To succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the Taliban's gains, and promote a more capable and accountable Afghan government. Our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. Our civilians have made great sacrifices. Our allies have borne a heavy burden. Afghans have suffered and sacrificed for their future. But for six years, Afghanistan has been denied the resources that it demands because of the war in Iraq. Now, we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals. I've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that had been requested by General McKiernan for many months. These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after insurgents along the border. This push will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August. At the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. That's how we will prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, and how we will ultimately be able to bring our own troops home. For three years, our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. And those resources have been denied because of the war in Iraq. Now, that will change. The additional troops that we deployed have already increased our training capacity. And later this spring we will deploy approximately 4,000 U.S. troops to train Afghan security forces. For the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the Afghan army and police. Every American unit in Afghanistan will be partnered with an Afghan unit, and we will seek additional trainers from our NATO allies to ensure that every Afghan unit has a coalition partner. We will accelerate our efforts to build an Afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011 -- and increases in Afghan forces may very well be needed as our plans to turn over security responsibility to the Afghans go forward. This push must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. Afghanistan has an elected government, but it is undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people. The economy is undercut by a booming narcotics trade that encourages criminality and funds the insurgency. The people of Afghanistan seek the promise of a better future. Yet once again, we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and uncertainty. So to advance security, opportunity and justice -- not just in Kabul, but from the bottom up in the provinces -- we need agricultural specialists and educators, engineers and lawyers. That's how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an economy that isn't dominated by illicit drugs. And that's why I'm ordering a substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. That's also why we must seek civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The Hague. At a time of economic crisis, it's tempting to believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. But make no mistake: Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don't invest in their future. And that's why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State Department and foreign assistance programs. These investments relieve the burden on our troops. They contribute directly to security. They make the American people safer. And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run -- because it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a crop -- or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to Afghan responsibility. As we provide these resources, the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts, and wasteful reconstruction must end. So my budget will increase funding for a strong Inspector General at both the State Department and USAID, and include robust funding for the special inspector generals for Afghan Reconstruction. And I want to be clear: We cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes Afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. Instead, we will seek a new compact with the Afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior, and sets clear benchmarks, clear metrics for international assistance so that it is used to provide for the needs of the Afghan people. In a country with extreme poverty that's been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. Now, I have no illusion that this will be easy. In Iraq, we had success in reaching out to former adversaries to isolate and target al Qaeda in Iraq. We must pursue a similar process in Afghanistan, while understanding that it is a very different country. There is an uncompromising core of the Taliban. They must be met with force, and they must be defeated. But there are also those who've taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price. These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. And that's why we will work with local leaders, the Afghan government, and international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. As their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror and repression must be further isolated. And we will continue to support the basic human rights of all Afghans -- including women and girls. Going forward, we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics to measure progress and hold ourselves accountable. We’ll consistently assess our efforts to train Afghan security forces and our progress in combating insurgents. We will measure the growth of Afghanistan’s economy, and its illicit narcotics production. And we will review whether we are using the right tools and tactics to make progress towards accomplishing our goals. None of the steps that I've outlined will be easy; none should be taken by America alone. The world cannot afford the price that will come due if Afghanistan slides back into chaos or al Qaeda operates unchecked. We have a shared responsibility to act -- not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it. And what’s at stake at this time is not just our own security -- it's the very idea that free nations can come together on behalf of our common security. That was the founding cause of NATO six decades ago, and that must be our common purpose today. My administration is committed to strengthening international organizations and collective action, and that will be my message next week in Europe. As America does more, we will ask others to join us in doing their part. From our partners and NATO allies, we will seek not simply troops, but rather clearly defined capabilities: supporting the Afghan elections, training Afghan security forces, a greater civilian commitment to the Afghan people. For the United Nations, we seek greater progress for its mandate to coordinate international action and assistance, and to strengthen Afghan institutions. And finally, together with the United Nations, we will forge a new Contact Group for Afghanistan and Pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the security of the region -- our NATO allies and other partners, but also the Central Asian states, the Gulf nations and Iran; Russia, India and China. None of these nations benefit from a base for al Qaeda terrorists, and a region that descends into chaos. All have a stake in the promise of lasting peace and security and development. That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous. Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our own men and women in uniform, who've borne a burden as great as any other generation’s. They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice. I remind everybody, the United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater number than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- a future without hope or opportunity; a future without justice or peace. So understand, the road ahead will be long and there will be difficult days ahead. But we will seek lasting partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan that promise a new day for their people. And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more. Thank you. God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 10:02 A.M. EDT NEWS LETTER Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list Enter Your Email Address

train

Harry Reid Says GOP Should "Stop Crying" About Reconciliation (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) Reid said reconciliation had been used 21 times since 1981, mostly by Republicans when they were in control of the Senate for the passage of items like the Bush tax cuts. (Here's a handy chart of when the procedure has been used.) Under reconciliation, Democrats would need a simple majority in the Senate to pass legislation, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. "They should stop crying about reconciliation as if it's never been done before," Reid said. Following Senate Democrats' weekly luncheon, Reid said "nothing is off the table" but that "realistically, they should stop crying about this. It's been done 21 times before." "The question is: Is reconciliation the only way we can do health-care reform?" he said. "The answer to that is no. But I've been told that my Republican friends are lamenting reconciliation, but I would recommend for them to go back and look at history." "It's done almost every Congress, and they're the ones that used it more than anyone else," he added. In his own press availability Tuesday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said "it appears as if the administration has already made up their mind to go forward with a beefed up Senate version and to try to jam it through under a seldom-used process that we commonly refer to around here as reconciliation." Republican Whip Sen. Jon Kyl told reporters that "it's hard for us to quite understand why, with reconciliation being planned, we're having a meeting [Thursday] which is allegedly designed to engender some bipartisan agreement for a way forward." "It seems to me at least that, until the Democratic leaders take reconciliation off the table, it'll be very hard for Republicans to believe that they intend to engage us in good faith," Kyl added. Will Obama Health Care Plan Pass Via Reconciliation? A War of Words Before the Health Care Summit Obama's Health Care Plan at a Glance

train

McCAIN, John Sidney, III McCAIN, John Sidney, III, (1936 - 2018) Senate Years of Service: 1987-2018 Party: Republican Courtesy U.S. Senate Historical Office McCAIN, John Sidney, III, a Senator and a Representative from Arizona; born in Panama Canal Zone, August 29, 1936; attended schools in Alexandria, Va.; graduated, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. 1958, and the National War College, Washington, D.C. 1973; pilot, United States Navy 1958-1981, prisoner of war in Vietnam 1967-1973; received numerous awards, including the Silver Star, Legion of Merit, Purple Heart, and Distinguished Flying Cross; elected as a Republican in 1982 to the Ninety-eighth Congress; reelected to the Ninety-ninth Congress in 1984 and served from January 3, 1983, to January 3, 1987; elected as a Republican to the United States Senate in 1986; reelected in 1992, 1998, 2004, 2010, and 2016, and served from January 3, 1987, until his death; chair, Committee on Indian Affairs (One Hundred Fourth Congress; One Hundred Ninth Congress), Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (One Hundred Fifth through One Hundred Sixth Congresses, One Hundred Seventh Congress [January 20, 2001-June 6, 2001], One Hundred Eighth Congress), Committee on Armed Services (One Hundred Fourteenth and One Hundred Fifteenth Congresses); was an unsuccessful candidate for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000; was an unsuccessful Republican nominee for President of the United States in 2008; died in Cornville, Ariz., on August 25, 2018; lay in state in the Rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, August 31, 2018; interment in the United States Naval Academy Cemetery, Annapolis, Md.

train

Bill Gates: “I think Donald Trump will go down to history as one of the greatest presidents, just like Reagan.” Please Support Online Petition To Congress For Banning Islam From U.S. If You Do Please Like This Form. Together We Can Do That!!! Islam is not a religion, it is a violent cult and should be banned from America. I urge you to sponsor and support legislation banning Islam from America. Remember To Start This Movement It Is Necessary To Get At Least 100,000 Likes! PGlmcmFtZSBzcmM9Imh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmZhY2Vib29rLmNvbS9wbHVnaW5zL3BhZ2UucGhwP2hyZWY9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZ3d3cuZmFjZWJvb2suY29tJTJGQW1lcmljYW5QYXRyaW90c09ubHklMkYmdGFicyZ3aWR0aD0zMDAmaGVpZ2h0PTcwJnNtYWxsX2hlYWRlcj10cnVlJmFkYXB0X2NvbnRhaW5lcl93aWR0aD1mYWxzZSZoaWRlX2NvdmVyPWZhbHNlJnNob3dfZmFjZXBpbGU9ZmFsc2UmYXBwSWQ9MjAyNDU5Njc2ODAwODkxIiB3aWR0aD0iMzAwIiBoZWlnaHQ9IjcwIiBzdHlsZT0iYm9yZGVyOm5vbmU7b3ZlcmZsb3c6aGlkZGVuIiBzY3JvbGxpbmc9Im5vIiBmcmFtZWJvcmRlcj0iMCIgYWxsb3dUcmFuc3BhcmVuY3k9InRydWUiPjwvaWZyYW1lPg==

train

BOOM: Roy Moore Takes The Military Vote, Pulls Ahead By 5K Votes The Alabama Secretary of State’s Division Of Electoral Balloting Integrity has begun sending emails to media outlets regarding the military vote count in the Roy Moore vs. Doug Jones Senatorial race. RWR obtained a copy of the email sent to Breitbart, confirming that Roy Moore is in the lead: Dear Ferdinand, In response to your question on the final count of provisional military ballots, the Secretary has instructed the Division of Electoral Balloting Integrity to inform you that with 97 percent of that vote counted, Justice Roy Moore now leads the race by 5014 votes. Please feel free to inquire about the final 3 percent, which is fewer than 400 votes and can’t possibly change the outcome at this point. Warmest regards, Bethany Marie Palmaranian What that means for the Jones campaign is that it will now be on them to ask for a recount and since the margin is more than .01573, he’ll have to pay for it himself. That could be a costly effort, estimated at nearly $213 million. The Secretary of State’s office has already announced that the election won’t be certified until after the first of the year, so the Democrat loser will have plenty of time to decide if he’ll waste the taxpayers’ time and money with a fruitless recount. They can never just admit when they lost.

train

FindArticles.com FINDARTICLES is a CBS Interactive portal that lets you find articles about any topic, by searching in our network of news and technology sites, including CBS News, CNET, TV.com and others

train

Texas church shooter was a militant atheist Texas church shooter Devin Kelley was a “creepy” atheist “outcast” who never fit in and berated religious believers on social media, according to former friends and classmates. “He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism,” wrote former classmate Nina Rose Nava in a Facebook post, according to the Daily Mail. “I legit just deleted him off my fb cause I couldn’t stand his post.” see also Gunman identified in deadly Texas church massacre The Texas shooter responsible for killing at least 27 people... “I removed him off FB for those same reasons!” replied Christopher Leo Longoria. “He was being super nagtive [sic] all the timd [sic].” Oddly, Kelley lists teaching vacation Bible school as volunteer experience on his LinkedIn page, and his wife, Danielle Shields, was previously a teacher at a Baptist church, according to the Mail. Another former pal described the sinking feeling he got from knowing he used to be buddies with Kelley, who on Sunday opened fire inside a Texas church, killing 26 people, including children and a pregnant woman, and injuring 20 more. “It’s scary to know this psychopath has been in my house. I can’t believe I was friends with this guy and I literally would stay the night at his place when we were kids,” the former friend wrote. Related Video Video length 16 seconds :16 Trump blames ‘mental health problem’ for Texas church massacre Trump blames ‘mental health problem’ for Texas church massacre

train

And we pay her a salary!.... - Judge Jeanine Pirro has Fans 移動: このメニューを開くには、 alt と / を同時に押してください

train

Hillary Clinton Transcript: Read Full Text of Clinton Campaign Launch Thank you! Oh, thank you all! Thank you so very, very much. It is wonderful to be here with all of you. To be in New York with my family, with so many friends, including many New Yorkers who gave me the honor of serving them in the Senate for eight years. To be right across the water from the headquarters of the United Nations, where I represented our country many times. To be here in this beautiful park dedicated to Franklin Roosevelt’s enduring vision of America, the nation we want to be. And in a place… with absolutely no ceilings. You know, President Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad. His legacy lifted up a nation and inspired presidents who followed. One is the man I served as Secretary of State, Barack Obama, and another is my husband, Bill Clinton. Two Democrats guided by the — Oh, that will make him so happy. They were and are two Democrats guided by the fundamental American belief that real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all. President Roosevelt called on every American to do his or her part, and every American answered. He said there’s no mystery about what it takes to build a strong and prosperous America: “Equality of opportunity… Jobs for those who can work… Security for those who need it… The ending of special privilege for the few… The preservation of civil liberties for all… a wider and constantly rising standard of living.” That still sounds good to me. It’s America’s basic bargain. If you do your part you ought to be able to get ahead. And when everybody does their part, America gets ahead too. That bargain inspired generations of families, including my own. It’s what kept my grandfather going to work in the same Scranton lace mill every day for 50 years. It’s what led my father to believe that if he scrimped and saved, his small business printing drapery fabric in Chicago could provide us with a middle-class life. And it did. When President Clinton honored the bargain, we had the longest peacetime expansion in history, a balanced budget, and the first time in decades we all grew together, with the bottom 20 percent of workers increasing their incomes by the same percentage as the top 5 percent. When President Obama honored the bargain, we pulled back from the brink of Depression, saved the auto industry, provided health care to 16 million working people, and replaced the jobs we lost faster than after a financial crash. But, it’s not 1941, or 1993, or even 2009. We face new challenges in our economy and our democracy. We’re still working our way back from a crisis that happened because time-tested values were replaced by false promises. Instead of an economy built by every American, for every American, we were told that if we let those at the top pay lower taxes and bend the rules, their success would trickle down to everyone else. What happened? Well, instead of a balanced budget with surpluses that could have eventually paid off our national debt, the Republicans twice cut taxes for the wealthiest, borrowed money from other countries to pay for two wars, and family incomes dropped. You know where we ended up. Except it wasn’t the end. As we have since our founding, Americans made a new beginning. You worked extra shifts, took second jobs, postponed home repairs… you figured out how to make it work. And now people are beginning to think about their future again – going to college, starting a business, buying a house, finally being able to put away something for retirement. So we’re standing again. But, we all know we’re not yet running the way America should. You see corporations making record profits, with CEOs making record pay, but your paychecks have barely budged. While many of you are working multiple jobs to make ends meet, you see the top 25 hedge fund managers making more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined. And, often paying a lower tax rate. So, you have to wonder: “When does my hard work pay off? When does my family get ahead?” “When?” I say now. Prosperity can’t be just for CEOs and hedge fund managers. Democracy can’t be just for billionaires and corporations. Prosperity and democracy are part of your basic bargain too. You brought our country back. Now it’s time — your time to secure the gains and move ahead. And, you know what? America can’t succeed unless you succeed. That is why I am running for President of the United States. Here, on Roosevelt Island, I believe we have a continuing rendezvous with destiny. Each American and the country we cherish. I’m running to make our economy work for you and for every American. For the successful and the struggling. For the innovators and inventors. For those breaking barriers in technology and discovering cures for diseases. For the factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day. For the nurses who work the night shift. For the truckers who drive for hours and the farmers who feed us. For the veterans who served our country. For the small business owners who took a risk. For everyone who’s ever been knocked down, but refused to be knocked out. I’m not running for some Americans, but for all Americans. Our country’s challenges didn’t begin with the Great Recession and they won’t end with the recovery. For decades, Americans have been buffeted by powerful currents. Advances in technology and the rise of global trade have created whole new areas of economic activity and opened new markets for our exports, but they have also displaced jobs and undercut wages for millions of Americans. The financial industry and many multi-national corporations have created huge wealth for a few by focusing too much on short-term profit and too little on long-term value… too much on complex trading schemes and stock buybacks, too little on investments in new businesses, jobs, and fair compensation. Our political system is so paralyzed by gridlock and dysfunction that most Americans have lost confidence that anything can actually get done. And they’ve lost trust in the ability of both government and Big Business to change course. Now, we can blame historic forces beyond our control for some of this, but the choices we’ve made as a nation, leaders and citizens alike, have also played a big role. Our next President must work with Congress and every other willing partner across our entire country. And I will do just that — to turn the tide so these currents start working for us more than against us. At our best, that’s what Americans do. We’re problem solvers, not deniers. We don’t hide from change, we harness it. But we can’t do that if we go back to the top-down economic policies that failed us before. Americans have come too far to see our progress ripped away. Now, there may be some new voices in the presidential Republican choir, but they’re all singing the same old song… A song called “Yesterday.” You know the one — all our troubles look as though they’re here to stay… and we need a place to hide away… They believe in yesterday. And you’re lucky I didn’t try singing that, too, I’ll tell you! These Republicans trip over themselves promising lower taxes for the wealthy and fewer rules for the biggest corporations without regard for how that will make income inequality even worse. We’ve heard this tune before. And we know how it turns out. Ask many of these candidates about climate change, one of the defining threats of our time, and they’ll say: “I’m not a scientist.” Well, then, why don’t they start listening to those who are? They pledge to wipe out tough rules on Wall Street, rather than rein in the banks that are still too risky, courting future failures. In a case that can only be considered mass amnesia. They want to take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any credible alternative. They shame and blame women, rather than respect our right to make our own reproductive health decisions. They want to put immigrants, who work hard and pay taxes, at risk of deportation. And they turn their backs on gay people who love each other. Fundamentally, they reject what it takes to build an inclusive economy. It takes an inclusive society. What I once called “a village” that has a place for everyone. Now, my values and a lifetime of experiences have given me a different vision for America. I believe that success isn’t measured by how much the wealthiest Americans have, but by how many children climb out of poverty… How many start-ups and small businesses open and thrive… How many young people go to college without drowning in debt… How many people find a good job… How many families get ahead and stay ahead. I didn’t learn this from politics. I learned it from my own family. My mother taught me that everybody needs a chance and a champion. She knew what it was like not to have either one. Her own parents abandoned her, and by 14 she was out on her own, working as a housemaid. Years later, when I was old enough to understand, I asked what kept her going. You know what her answer was? Something very simple: Kindness from someone who believed she mattered. The 1st grade teacher who saw she had nothing to eat at lunch and, without embarrassing her, brought extra food to share. The woman whose house she cleaned letting her go to high school so long as her work got done. That was a bargain she leapt to accept. And, because some people believed in her, she believed in me. That’s why I believe with all my heart in America and in the potential of every American. To meet every challenge. To be resilient… no matter what the world throws at you. To solve the toughest problems. I believe we can do all these things because I’ve seen it happen. As a young girl, I signed up at my Methodist Church to babysit the children of Mexican farmworkers, while their parents worked in the fields on the weekends. And later, as a law student, I advocated for Congress to require better working and living conditions for farm workers whose children deserved better opportunities. My first job out of law school was for the Children’s Defense Fund. I walked door-to-door to find out how many children with disabilities couldn’t go to school, and to help build the case for a law guaranteeing them access to education. As a leader of the Legal Services Corporation, I defended the right of poor people to have a lawyer. And saw lives changed because an abusive marriage ended or an illegal eviction stopped. In Arkansas, I supervised law students who represented clients in courts and prisons, organized scholarships for single parents going to college, led efforts for better schools and health care, and personally knew the people whose lives were improved. As Senator, I had the honor of representing brave firefighters, police officers, EMTs, construction workers, and volunteers who ran toward danger on 9/11 and stayed there, becoming sick themselves. It took years of effort, but Congress finally approved the health care they needed. There are so many faces and stories that I carry with me of people who gave their best and then needed help themselves. Just weeks ago, I met another person like that, a single mom juggling a job and classes at community college, while raising three kids. She doesn’t expect anything to come easy. But she did ask me: What more can be done so it isn’t quite so hard for families like hers? I want to be her champion and your champion. If you’ll give me the chance, I’ll wage and win Four Fights for you. The first is to make the economy work for everyday Americans, not just those at the top. To make the middle class mean something again, with rising incomes and broader horizons. And to give the poor a chance to work their way into it. The middle class needs more growth and more fairness. Growth and fairness go together. For lasting prosperity, you can’t have one without the other. Is this possible in today’s world? I believe it is or I wouldn’t be standing here. Do I think it will be easy? Of course not. But, here’s the good news: There are allies for change everywhere who know we can’t stand by while inequality increases, wages stagnate, and the promise of America dims. We should welcome the support of all Americans who want to go forward together with us. There are public officials who know Americans need a better deal. Business leaders who want higher pay for employees, equal pay for women and no discrimination against the LGBT community either. There are leaders of finance who want less short-term trading and more long-term investing. There are union leaders who are investing their own pension funds in putting people to work to build tomorrow’s economy. We need everyone to come to the table and work with us. In the coming weeks, I’ll propose specific policies to: Reward businesses who invest in long term value rather than the quick buck – because that leads to higher growth for the economy, higher wages for workers, and yes, bigger profits, everybody will have a better time. I will rewrite the tax code so it rewards hard work and investments here at home, not quick trades or stashing profits overseas. I will give new incentives to companies that give their employees a fair share of the profits their hard work earns. We will unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business owners by providing tax relief, cutting red tape, and making it easier to get a small business loan. We will restore America to the cutting edge of innovation, science, and research by increasing both public and private investments. And we will make America the clean energy superpower of the 21st century. Developing renewable power – wind, solar, advanced biofuels… Building cleaner power plants, smarter electric grids, greener buildings… Using additional fees and royalties from fossil fuel extraction to protect the environment… And ease the transition for distressed communities to a more diverse and sustainable economic future from coal country to Indian country, from small towns in the Mississippi Delta to the Rio Grande Valley to our inner cities, we have to help our fellow Americans. Now, this will create millions of jobs and countless new businesses, and enable America to lead the global fight against climate change. We will also connect workers to their jobs and businesses. Customers will have a better chance to actually get where they need and get what they desire with roads, railways, bridges, airports, ports, and broadband brought up to global standards for the 21st century. We will establish an infrastructure bank and sell bonds to pay for some of these improvements. Now, building an economy for tomorrow also requires investing in our most important asset, our people, beginning with our youngest. That’s why I will propose that we make preschool and quality childcare available to every child in America. And I want you to remember this, because to me, this is absolutely the most-compelling argument why we should do this. Research tells us how much early learning in the first five years of life can impact lifelong success. In fact, 80 percent of the brain is developed by age three. One thing I’ve learned is that talent is universal – you can find it anywhere – but opportunity is not. Too many of our kids never have the chance to learn and thrive as they should and as we need them to. Our country won’t be competitive or fair if we don’t help more families give their kids the best possible start in life. So let’s staff our primary and secondary schools with teachers who are second to none in the world, and receive the respect they deserve for sparking the love of learning in every child. Let’s make college affordable and available to all …and lift the crushing burden of student debt. Let’s provide lifelong learning for workers to gain or improve skills the economy requires, setting up many more Americans for success. Now, the second fight is to strengthen America’s families, because when our families are strong, America is strong. And today’s families face new and unique pressures. Parents need more support and flexibility to do their job at work and at home. I believe you should have the right to earn paid sick days. I believe you should receive your work schedule with enough notice to arrange childcare or take college courses to get ahead. I believe you should look forward to retirement with confidence, not anxiety. That you should have the peace of mind that your health care will be there when you need it, without breaking the bank. I believe we should offer paid family leave so no one has to choose between keeping a paycheck and caring for a new baby or a sick relative. And it is way past time to end the outrage of so many women still earning less than men on the job — and women of color often making even less. This isn’t a women’s issue. It’s a family issue. Just like raising the minimum wage is a family issue. Expanding childcare is a family issue. Declining marriage rates is a family issue. The unequal rates of incarceration is a family issue. Helping more people with an addiction or a mental health problem get help is a family issue. In America, every family should feel like they belong. So we should offer hard-working, law-abiding immigrant families a path to citizenship. Not second-class status. And, we should ban discrimination against LGBT Americans and their families so they can live, learn, marry, and work just like everybody else. You know, America’s diversity, our openness, our devotion to human rights and freedom is what’s drawn so many to our shores. What’s inspired people all over the world. I know. I’ve seen it with my own eyes. And these are also qualities that prepare us well for the demands of a world that is more interconnected than ever before. So we have a third fight: to harness all of America’s power, smarts, and values to maintain our leadership for peace, security, and prosperity. No other country on Earth is better positioned to thrive in the 21st century. No other country is better equipped to meet traditional threats from countries like Russia, North Korea, and Iran – and to deal with the rise of new powers like China. No other country is better prepared to meet emerging threats from cyber attacks, transnational terror networks like ISIS, and diseases that spread across oceans and continents. As your President, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe. And if you look over my left shoulder you can see the new World Trade Center soaring skyward. As a Senator from New York, I dedicated myself to getting our city and state the help we needed to recover. And as a member of the Armed Services Committee, I worked to maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, strongest military, ready for today’s threats and tomorrow’s. And when our brave men and women come home from war or finish their service, I’ll see to it that they get not just the thanks of a grateful nation, but the care and benefits they’ve earned. I’ve stood up to adversaries like Putin and reinforced allies like Israel. I was in the Situation Room on the day we got bin Laden. But, I know — I know we have to be smart as well as strong. Meeting today’s global challenges requires every element of America’s power, including skillful diplomacy, economic influence, and building partnerships to improve lives around the world with people, not just their governments. There are a lot of trouble spots in the world, but there’s a lot of good news out there too. I believe the future holds far more opportunities than threats if we exercise creative and confident leadership that enables us to shape global events rather than be shaped by them. And we all know that in order to be strong in the world, though, we first have to be strong at home. That’s why we have to win the fourth fight – reforming our government and revitalizing our democracy so that it works for everyday Americans. We have to stop the endless flow of secret, unaccountable money that is distorting our elections, corrupting our political process, and drowning out the voices of our people. We need Justices on the Supreme Court who will protect every citizen’s right to vote, rather than every corporation’s right to buy elections. If necessary, I will support a constitutional amendment to undo the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United. I want to make it easier for every citizen to vote. That’s why I’ve proposed universal, automatic registration and expanded early voting. I’ll fight back against Republican efforts to disempower and disenfranchise young people, poor people, people with disabilities, and people of color. What part of democracy are they afraid of? No matter how easy we make it to vote, we still have to give Americans something worth voting for. Government is never going to have all the answers – but it has to be smarter, simpler, more efficient, and a better partner. That means access to advanced technology so government agencies can more effectively serve their customers, the American people. We need expertise and innovation from the private sector to help cut waste and streamline services. There’s so much that works in America. For every problem we face, someone somewhere in America is solving it. Silicon Valley cracked the code on sharing and scaling a while ago. Many states are pioneering new ways to deliver services. I want to help Washington catch up. To do that, we need a political system that produces results by solving problems that hold us back, not one overwhelmed by extreme partisanship and inflexibility. Now, I’ll always seek common ground with friend and opponent alike. But I’ll also stand my ground when I must. That’s something I did as Senator and Secretary of State — whether it was working with Republicans to expand health care for children and for our National Guard, or improve our foster care and adoption system, or pass a treaty to reduce the number of Russian nuclear warheads that could threaten our cities — and it’s something I will always do as your President. We Americans may differ, bicker, stumble, and fall; but we are at our best when we pick each other up, when we have each other’s back. Like any family, our American family is strongest when we cherish what we have in common, and fight back against those who would drive us apart. People all over the world have asked me: “How could you and President Obama work together after you fought so hard against each other in that long campaign?” Now, that is an understandable question considering that in many places, if you lose an election you could get imprisoned or exiled – even killed – not hired as Secretary of State. But President Obama asked me to serve, and I accepted because we both love our country. That’s how we do it in America. With that same spirit, together, we can win these four fights. We can build an economy where hard work is rewarded. We can strengthen our families. We can defend our country and increase our opportunities all over the world. And we can renew the promise of our democracy. If we all do our part. In our families, in our businesses, unions, houses of worship, schools, and, yes, in the voting booth. I want you to join me in this effort. Help me build this campaign and make it your own. Talk to your friends, your family, your neighbors. Text “JOIN” J-O-I-N to 4-7-2-4-6. Go to hillaryclinton.com and sign up to make calls and knock on doors. It’s no secret that we’re going up against some pretty powerful forces that will do and spend whatever it takes to advance a very different vision for America. But I’ve spent my life fighting for children, families, and our country. And I’m not stopping now. You know, I know how hard this job is. I’ve seen it up close and personal. All our Presidents come into office looking so vigorous. And then we watch their hair grow grayer and grayer. Well, I may not be the youngest candidate in this race. But I will be the youngest woman President in the history of the United States! And the first grandmother as well. And one additional advantage: You’re won’t see my hair turn white in the White House. I’ve been coloring it for years! So I’m looking forward to a great debate among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. I’m not running to be a President only for those Americans who already agree with me. I want to be a President for all Americans. And along the way, I’ll just let you in on this little secret. I won’t get everything right. Lord knows I’ve made my share of mistakes. Well, there’s no shortage of people pointing them out! And I certainly haven’t won every battle I’ve fought. But leadership means perseverance and hard choices. You have to push through the setbacks and disappointments and keep at it. I think you know by now that I’ve been called many things by many people — “quitter” is not one of them. Like so much else in my life, I got this from my mother. When I was a girl, she never let me back down from any bully or barrier. In her later years, Mom lived with us, and she was still teaching me the same lessons. I’d come home from a hard day at the Senate or the State Department, sit down with her at the small table in our breakfast nook, and just let everything pour out. And she would remind me why we keep fighting, even when the odds are long and the opposition is fierce. I can still hear her saying: “Life’s not about what happens to you, it’s about what you do with what happens to you – so get back out there.” She lived to be 92 years old, and I often think about all the battles she witnessed over the course of the last century — all the progress that was won because Americans refused to give up or back down. She was born on June 4, 1919 — before women in America had the right to vote. But on that very day, after years of struggle, Congress passed the Constitutional Amendment that would change that forever. The story of America is a story of hard-fought, hard-won progress. And it continues today. New chapters are being written by men and women who believe that all of us – not just some, but all – should have the chance to live up to our God-given potential. Not only because we’re a tolerant country, or a generous country, or a compassionate country, but because we’re a better, stronger, more prosperous country when we harness the talent, hard work, and ingenuity of every single American. I wish my mother could have been with us longer. I wish she could have seen Chelsea become a mother herself. I wish she could have met Charlotte. I wish she could have seen the America we’re going to build together. An America, where if you do your part, you reap the rewards. Where we don’t leave anyone out, or anyone behind. An America where a father can tell his daughter: yes, you can be anything you want to be. Even President of the United States. Thank you all. God bless you. And may God bless America.

train

What Carly is doing tonight What Carly is doing tonight Carly Fiorina Blocked Unblock Follow Following Feb 6, 2016 Date: February 6, 2016 Subject: ABC: Anyone But Carly From: Frank F. Sadler, Campaign Manager To: Friends of Carly Despite what the media is telling you, it is clear that Carly deserved to be on the debate stage, both according to their arbitrary metrics — and the ones that actually matter: * In an actual contest of voters, Carly came out ahead of Governors Christie and Kasich * She has the same number of delegates as Governor Bush. Governor Christie has 0 * Carly is 6th in hard dollars raised and has more cash-on-hand than Governors Kasich and Christie combined * There is a ground game with paid staff in 12 states. In New Hampshire alone, CARLY for America has 12 full-time staff, 500 volunteer community captains and 77 canvassers. * Carly has endorsements from leaders in 27 states. In New Hampshire alone, we have endorsements from 83 elected officials, political leaders, party activists, and business and community leaders. * Recent polls — which are the standard by which ABC is making their decision about which candidates to include — show Carly ahead of multiple candidates on the stage. A WBUR poll released yesterday has Carly surging to 8% We know how much this injustice outraged the voters of Iowa — whose votes were ignored — and the voters of New Hampshire, who don’t want the media and the political establishment unfairly winnowing the field before they get to vote. So we spoke with executives at ABC and political leaders at the RNC and made our case. But they decided to keep us off the stage to improve the chances of their favored candidates, despite what voters clearly wanted. And it wasn’t just us. More than 35,000 voters signed a petition to get Carly on the stage. Conservative blog PJ Media polled their readers: 76% said Carly should be on stage. Fox host Greta Van Susteren polled her viewers and 80% agreed that she should be on stage. Other candidates — including Ben Carson and Ted Cruz — called on ABC to change their flawed criteria and put Carly on the stage. So did Republican leaders, including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich. Many business and political leaders joined in the chorus and offered their support to Carly: Current or Former Elected/Appointed Officials and Candidates * Governor Mitt Romney * Governor Rick Perry * Governor Asa Hutchinson * Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) * Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) * Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE) * Representative Michael Capuano (D-MA) * Representative Lynn Jenkins (R-KS) * Dr. Ben Carson * Speaker Newt Gingrich * Former Representative Nan Hayworth (R-NY) * Speaker of the Iowa House of Representatives, Linda Upmeyer * Iowa Lt. Gov. Kim Reynolds * Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright Political and Business Leaders * New Hampshire GOP Chairman Jennifer Horn * New Hampshire GOP Vice Chair Matt Mayberry * Former New Hampshire GOP Chairman Fergus Cullen * Arizona GOP Chairman Robert Graham * Alabama GOP Chairman Terry Lathan * Former Nevada GOP Chairman Amy Tarkanian * RNC Debate Committee Chairman Steve Duprey * American Commitment President Phil Kerpen * President of Americans United for Life Charmaine Yoest * President of Susan B. Anthony List Marjorie Dannenfelser * National Chairman of College Republicans Alex Smith * Independent Women’s Voice Chairman Heather R. Higgins * American Future Fund founder Nick Ryan * Former General Electric CEO Jack Welch * The American Conservative Union (ACU) * The National Federal of Republican Women (NFRW) * Citizens United * Taxpayers Protection Alliance Journalists * Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol * Real Clear Politics Co-Founder and Editor Tom Bevan * National Review Contributing Editor Jim Geraghty * Fortune Editor Alan Murray * NH Today Host Jack Heath * Fox News Analyst Monica Crowley * Fox News Contributor Tammy Bruce * The Hill conservative opinion writer Eddie Zipperer * Washington Examiner Chief Political Correspondent Bryon York * Fox Business contributor Charles V Payne * Daily Caller Contributing Editor Derek Hunter They all know what we know: the criteria are arbitrary, ineffective, and decidedly weighted to tip the scales in favor of the establishment candidates they media has already approved. We’re looking forward to Tuesday night when New Hampshire voters will have their say. We know that no one debate, poll, or event decides anything about this election. That is up to the voters of New Hampshire. They have demonstrated their support for Carly over and over again, showing up to events, asking questions, and protesting this outrageous decision. Despite the efforts of the media and professional political class to stand in her way, Carly will not stop fighting to take our country back. Instead of the debate, Carly and Frank will be having a date night of dinner and a movie in Room 306.

train

Donald Trump exaggerates when he says China has 'total control' over North Korea During the presidential race, Republican candidate Donald Trump has often criticized China, most often on economic grounds. But in the Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., on Jan. 14, 2016, Trump also took a shot at China over foreign policy -- specifically for not doing enough to rein in its neighbor, North Korea. Trump said, "China, they don't like to tell us but they have total control -- just about, of North Korea. They can solve the problem of North Korea if they wanted to, but they taunt us." With the secretive nation back in the news for its claimed (but unverified) hydrogen bomb test earlier this month, we wondered whether Trump was right that China has "total control, just about, of North Korea." When we took a closer look at this question, we found that experts on the region offered a nuanced answer. China, they said, does have notable influence over North Korea because it provides or enables transit for much of North Korea’s supply of goods from the outside world. But that influence, they added, falls well short of "total control." "China does not ‘control’ North Korea in any real sense of the word, but it has influence over North Korea -- perhaps not as much as we think, but more than Beijing is willing to acknowledge," said Evans J.R. Revere, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies. Robert Ross, a China expert at Boston College and Harvard University, compared the relationship between China and North Korea to that between a parent and a teenager. "It’s similar to dealing with a rebellious adolescent," Ross said. "Do the parents have total control? Perhaps – they provide food and shelter. But the cost to the parents of using such leverage can be prohibitive – driving a child out of the house and away from the family. China has much at stake in its strategic and economic relationship with North Korea. But is there total control? That is debatable." China’s leverage over North Korea The strongest argument for China having significant control over North Korea stems from its role in trade, particularly food and fuel. North Korea has a lengthy land border with China -- its longest with any neighbor -- and while North Korea also has seaports, the rest of the world can more easily monitor shipments into those ports, making it preferable from North Korea’s perspective to move goods over land. Research by Stephan Haggard of the University of California-San Diego and Marcus Noland of the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that China may account for as much as 80 percent of North Korea’s trade, and a similar percentage of its investment flows. "North Korea would face daunting economic problems if China were to fully exercise its leverage, for example by cutting off oil supplies or threatening to do so," Haggard told PolitiFact. Why ‘total control’ is an exaggeration Yet while China’s economic lifeline gives it leverage, that doesn’t mean it can simply wave a wand and make things happen in Pyongyang -- something one might reasonably assume when hearing Trump’s quote. (The Trump campaign did not respond to an inquiry.) For starters, China has worried -- with reason, experts say -- that pushing so hard that the current North Korean regime collapses would lead to a humanitarian disaster on its border. "China is reluctant to exercise its leverage, fearing possible effects of an economic breakdown on its border and an outflow of refugees," Haggard said. It also has become painfully obvious over the years that North Korea doesn’t exactly listen to outsiders. "Mr. Trump is correct that the Chinese have leverage, but it is leverage they would have to use with the North Korean regime resisting them with everything they had," said Joseph de Thomas, a professor of international affairs at Penn State University. "This is hardly control." Not only has North Korea thumbed its nose at the United Nations and world powers, but its government has taken extreme measures to keep its citizens ignorant of the outside world. In fact, the country’s national ideology -- juche -- is undergirded by the concept of self-reliance. "North Korea is a country that prides itself on answering to no one and following no one's lead," Revere said. "This has been a consistent element of North Korean behavior for decades, and is of course the reason why the regime is such a danger for the United States, for South Korea, the East Asia region, and the international community at large." Indeed, despite North Korea’s heavy reliance on China for food, fuel and virtually all other goods, "it is not clear that the leadership cares," said Ross of Boston College and Harvard. "For decades the population has lived in extreme poverty, while the elite has fared very well." Meanwhile, North Korea’s development of its nuclear program has given it a measure of strategic independence from China -- which only further complicates China’s situation. This was on display with the recent test of the purported hydrogen bomb. "China publicly and privately exhorted North Korea not to test nukes and missiles over the past few months, to no avail," said Scott A. Snyder, director of the program on U.S.-Korea policy at the Council on Foreign Relations. "As a result, relations between China and North Korea are strained. Chinese President Xi has not met with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, while meeting six times with the South Korean leader." That does not sound like a country in "total control" of another. Trump’s claim "suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of both China and North Korea, both today and over the decades," Revere said. "It is virtually certain that the Chinese were given no advance warning of the test, and Chinese anger was quite evident in the public statements the government made after the test. In the view of virtually every North Korea and China expert I know, the nuclear test was a slap in China's face, in addition to being a major challenge and threat to the international community." Our ruling Trump said China has "total control, just about, of North Korea." He has a point that China holds significant leverage over North Korea if it wishes to exercise it, since China provides the vast majority of North Korea’s international trade, including food and fuel imports. But Trump’s assertion, even slightly hedged as it is, overlooks some significant limits to that leverage, notably the North Korean government’s willingness to follow its own drummer even if that means its people suffer. The fact that North Korea recently conducted a nuclear test over the strenuous objections of China suggests that Beijing lacks anything approaching "total control" over North Korea. The statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

train

McCain-Palin 2008 John McCain's Acceptance Speech By John McCain September 5, 2008 Thank you all very much. Tonight, I have a privilege given few Americans -- the privilege of accepting our party's nomination for President of the United States. And I accept it with gratitude, humility and confidence. In my life, no success has come without a good fight, and this nomination wasn't any different. That's a tribute to the candidates who opposed me and their supporters. They're leaders of great ability, who love our country, and wished to lead it to better days. Their support is an honor I won't forget. I'm grateful to the President for leading us in those dark days following the worst attack on American soil in our history, and keeping us safe from another attack many thought was inevitable; and to the First Lady, Laura Bush, a model of grace and kindness in public and in private. And I'm grateful to the 41st President and his bride of 63 years, and for their outstanding example of honorable service to our country. As always, I'm indebted to my wife, Cindy, and my seven children. The pleasures of family life can seem like a brief holiday from the crowded calendar of our nation's business. But I have treasured them all the more, and can't imagine a life without the happiness you give me. Cindy said a lot of nice things about me tonight. But, in truth, she's more my inspiration than I am hers. Her concern for those less blessed than we are -- victims of land mines, children born in poverty and with birth defects -- shows the measure of her humanity. I know she will make a great First Lady. When I was growing up, my father was often at sea, and the job of raising my brother, sister and me would fall to my mother alone. Roberta McCain gave us her love of life, her deep interest in the world, her strength, and her belief we are all meant to use our opportunities to make ourselves useful to our country. I wouldn't be here tonight but for the strength of her character. My heartfelt thanks to all of you, who helped me win this nomination, and stood by me when the odds were long. I won't let you down. To Americans who have yet to decide who to vote for, thank you for your consideration and the opportunity to win your trust. I intend to earn it. Finally, a word to Senator Obama and his supporters. We'll go at it over the next two months. That's the nature of these contests, and there are big differences between us. But you have my respect and admiration. Despite our differences, much more unites us than divides us. We are fellow Americans, an association that means more to me than any other. We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights. No country ever had a greater cause than that. And I wouldn't be an American worthy of the name if I didn't honor Senator Obama and his supporters for their achievement. But let there be no doubt, my friends, we're going to win this election. And after we've won, we're going to reach out our hand to any willing patriot, make this government start working for you again, and get this country back on the road to prosperity and peace. These are tough times for many of you. You're worried about keeping your job or finding a new one, and are struggling to put food on the table and stay in your home. All you ever asked of government is to stand on your side, not in your way. And that's just what I intend to do: stand on your side and fight for your future. And I've found just the right partner to help me shake up Washington, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. She has executive experience and a real record of accomplishment. She's tackled tough problems like energy independence and corruption. She's balanced a budget, cut taxes, and taken on the special interests. She's reached across the aisle and asked Republicans, Democrats and Independents to serve in her administration. She's the mother of five children. She's helped run a small business, worked with her hands and knows what it's like to worry about mortgage payments and health care and the cost of gasoline and groceries. She knows where she comes from and she knows who she works for. She stands up for what's right, and she doesn't let anyone tell her to sit down. I'm very proud to have introduced our next Vice President to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big spending, do nothing, me first, country second Washington crowd: change is coming. I'm not in the habit of breaking promises to my country and neither is Governor Palin. And when we tell you we're going to change Washington, and stop leaving our country's problems for some unluckier generation to fix, you can count on it. We've got a record of doing just that, and the strength, experience, judgment and backbone to keep our word to you. You know, I've been called a maverick; someone who marches to the beat of his own drum. Sometimes it's meant as a compliment and sometimes it's not. What it really means is I understand who I work for. I don't work for a party. I don't work for a special interest. I don't work for myself. I work for you. I've fought corruption, and it didn't matter if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. They violated their public trust, and had to be held accountable. I've fought big spenders in both parties, who waste your money on things you neither need nor want, while you struggle to buy groceries, fill your gas tank and make your mortgage payment. I've fought to get million dollar checks out of our elections. I've fought lobbyists who stole from Indian tribes. I fought crooked deals in the Pentagon. I fought tobacco companies and trial lawyers, drug companies and union bosses. I fought for the right strategy and more troops in Iraq, when it wasn't a popular thing to do. And when the pundits said my campaign was finished, I said I'd rather lose an election than see my country lose a war. Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petreaus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans. I don't mind a good fight. For reasons known only to God, I've had quite a few tough ones in my life. But I learned an important lesson along the way. In the end, it matters less that you can fight. What you fight for is the real test. I fight for Americans. I fight for you. I fight for Bill and Sue Nebe from Farmington Hills, Michigan, who lost their real estate investments in the bad housing market. Bill got a temporary job after he was out of work for seven months. Sue works three jobs to help pay the bills. I fight for Jake and Toni Wimmer of Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Jake works on a loading dock; coaches Little League, and raises money for the mentally and physically disabled. Toni is a schoolteacher, working toward her Master's Degree. They have two sons, the youngest, Luke, has been diagnosed with autism. Their lives should matter to the people they elect to office. They matter to me. I fight for the family of Matthew Stanley of Wolfboro, New Hampshire, who died serving our country in Iraq. I wear his bracelet and think of him every day. I intend to honor their sacrifice by making sure the country their son loved so well and never returned to, remains safe from its enemies. I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles. We're going to change that. We're going to recover the people's trust by standing up again for the values Americans admire. The party of Lincoln, Roosevelt and Reagan is going to get back to basics. We believe everyone has something to contribute and deserves the opportunity to reach their God-given potential from the boy whose descendents arrived on the Mayflower to the Latina daughter of migrant workers. We're all God's children and we're all Americans. We believe in low taxes; spending discipline, and open markets. We believe in rewarding hard work and risk takers and letting people keep the fruits of their labor. We believe in a strong defense, work, faith, service, a culture of life, personal responsibility, the rule of law, and judges who dispense justice impartially and don't legislate from the bench. We believe in the values of families, neighborhoods and communities. We believe in a government that unleashes the creativity and initiative of Americans. Government that doesn't make your choices for you, but works to make sure you have more choices to make for yourself. I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. I will open new markets to our goods and services. My opponent will close them. I will cut government spending. He will increase it. My tax cuts will create jobs. His tax increases will eliminate them. My health care plan will make it easier for more Americans to find and keep good health care insurance. His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor. Keeping taxes low helps small businesses grow and create new jobs. Cutting the second highest business tax rate in the world will help American companies compete and keep jobs from moving overseas. Doubling the child tax exemption from $3500 to $7000 will improve the lives of millions of American families. Reducing government spending and getting rid of failed programs will let you keep more of your own money to save, spend and invest as you see fit. Opening new markets and preparing workers to compete in the world economy is essential to our future prosperity. I know some of you have been left behind in the changing economy and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed. Government assistance for unemployed workers was designed for the economy of the 1950s. That's going to change on my watch. My opponent promises to bring back old jobs by wishing away the global economy. We're going to help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a new one that won't go away. We will prepare them for the jobs of today. We will use our community colleges to help train people for new opportunities in their communities. For workers in industries that have been hard hit, we'll help make up part of the difference in wages between their old job and a temporary, lower paid one while they receive retraining that will help them find secure new employment at a decent wage. Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work. When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity. Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I'm President, they will. My fellow Americans, when I'm President, we're going to embark on the most ambitious national project in decades. We are going to stop sending $700 billion a year to countries that don't like us very much. We will attack the problem on every front. We will produce more energy at home. We will drill new wells offshore, and we'll drill them now. We will build more nuclear power plants. We will develop clean coal technology. We will increase the use of wind, tide, solar and natural gas. We will encourage the development and use of flex fuel, hybrid and electric automobiles. Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that. We must use all resources and develop all technologies necessary to rescue our economy from the damage caused by rising oil prices and to restore the health of our planet. It's an ambitious plan, but Americans are ambitious by nature, and we have faced greater challenges. It's time for us to show the world again how Americans lead. This great national cause will create millions of new jobs, many in industries that will be the engine of our future prosperity; jobs that will be there when your children enter the workforce. Today, the prospect of a better world remains within our reach. But we must see the threats to peace and liberty in our time clearly and face them, as Americans before us did, with confidence, wisdom and resolve. We have dealt a serious blow to al Qaeda in recent years. But they are not defeated, and they'll strike us again if they can. Iran remains the chief state sponsor of terrorism and on the path to acquiring nuclear weapons. Russia's leaders, rich with oil wealth and corrupt with power, have rejected democratic ideals and the obligations of a responsible power. They invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world's oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire. And the brave people of Georgia need our solidarity and prayers. As President I will work to establish good relations with Russia so we need not fear a return of the Cold War. But we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people. We face many threats in this dangerous world, but I'm not afraid of them. I'm prepared for them. I know how the military works, what it can do, what it can do better, and what it should not do. I know how the world works. I know the good and the evil in it. I know how to work with leaders who share our dreams of a freer, safer and more prosperous world, and how to stand up to those who don't. I know how to secure the peace. When I was five years old, a car pulled up in front of our house. A Navy officer rolled down the window, and shouted at my father that the Japanese had bombed Pearl Harbor. I rarely saw my father again for four years. My grandfather came home from that same war exhausted from the burdens he had borne, and died the next day. In Vietnam, where I formed the closest friendships of my life, some of those friends never came home with me. I hate war. It is terrible beyond imagination. I'm running for President to keep the country I love safe, and prevent other families from risking their loved ones in war as my family has. I will draw on all my experience with the world and its leaders, and all the tools at our disposal -- diplomatic, economic, military and the power of our ideals -- to build the foundations for a stable and enduring peace. In America, we change things that need to be changed. Each generation makes its contribution to our greatness. The work that is ours to do is plainly before us. We don't need to search for it. We need to change the way government does almost everything: from the way we protect our security to the way we compete in the world economy; from the way we respond to disasters to the way we fuel our transportation network; from the way we train our workers to the way we educate our children. All these functions of government were designed before the rise of the global economy, the information technology revolution and the end of the Cold War. We have to catch up to history, and we have to change the way we do business in Washington. The constant partisan rancor that stops us from solving these problems isn't a cause, it's a symptom. It's what happens when people go to Washington to work for themselves and not you. Again and again, I've worked with members of both parties to fix problems that need to be fixed. That's how I will govern as President. I will reach out my hand to anyone to help me get this country moving again. I have that record and the scars to prove it. Senator Obama does not. Instead of rejecting good ideas because we didn't think of them first, let's use the best ideas from both sides. Instead of fighting over who gets the credit, let's try sharing it. This amazing country can do anything we put our minds to. I will ask Democrats and Independents to serve with me. And my administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. We're going to finally start getting things done for the people who are counting on us, and I won't care who gets the credit. I've been an imperfect servant of my country for many years. But I have been her servant first, last and always. And I've never lived a day, in good times or bad, that I didn't thank God for the privilege. Long ago, something unusual happened to me that taught me the most valuable lesson of my life. I was blessed by misfortune. I mean that sincerely. I was blessed because I served in the company of heroes, and I witnessed a thousand acts of courage, compassion and love. On an October morning, in the Gulf of Tonkin, I prepared for my 23rd mission over North Vietnam. I hadn't any worry I wouldn't come back safe and sound. I thought I was tougher than anyone. I was pretty independent then, too. I liked to bend a few rules, and pick a few fights for the fun of it. But I did it for my own pleasure; my own pride. I didn't think there was a cause more important than me. Then I found myself falling toward the middle of a small lake in the city of Hanoi, with two broken arms, a broken leg, and an angry crowd waiting to greet me. I was dumped in a dark cell, and left to die. I didn't feel so tough anymore. When they discovered my father was an admiral, they took me to a hospital. They couldn't set my bones properly, so they just slapped a cast on me. When I didn't get better, and was down to about a hundred pounds, they put me in a cell with two other Americans. I couldn't do anything. I couldn't even feed myself. They did it for me. I was beginning to learn the limits of my selfish independence. Those men saved my life. I was in solitary confinement when my captors offered to release me. I knew why. If I went home, they would use it as propaganda to demoralize my fellow prisoners. Our Code said we could only go home in the order of our capture, and there were men who had been shot down before me. I thought about it, though. I wasn't in great shape, and I missed everything about America. But I turned it down. A lot of prisoners had it worse than I did. I'd been mistreated before, but not as badly as others. I always liked to strut a little after I'd been roughed up to show the other guys I was tough enough to take it. But after I turned down their offer, they worked me over harder than they ever had before. For a long time. And they broke me. When they brought me back to my cell, I was hurt and ashamed, and I didn't know how I could face my fellow prisoners. The good man in the cell next door, my friend, Bob Craner, saved me. Through taps on a wall he told me I had fought as hard as I could. No man can always stand alone. And then he told me to get back up and fight again for our country and for the men I had the honor to serve with. Because every day they fought for me. I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner in someone else's. I loved it not just for the many comforts of life here. I loved it for its decency; for its faith in the wisdom, justice and goodness of its people. I loved it because it was not just a place, but an idea, a cause worth fighting for. I was never the same again. I wasn't my own man anymore. I was my country's. I'm not running for president because I think I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our country in its hour of need. My country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God. If you find faults with our country, make it a better one. If you're disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them. Enlist in our Armed Forces. Become a teacher. Enter the ministry. Run for public office. Feed a hungry child. Teach an illiterate adult to read. Comfort the afflicted. Defend the rights of the oppressed. Our country will be the better, and you will be the happier. Because nothing brings greater happiness in life than to serve a cause greater than yourself. I'm going to fight for my cause every day as your President. I'm going to fight to make sure every American has every reason to thank God, as I thank Him: that I'm an American, a proud citizen of the greatest country on earth, and with hard work, strong faith and a little courage, great things are always within our reach. Fight with me. Fight with me. Fight for what's right for our country. Fight for the ideals and character of a free people. Fight for our children's future. Fight for justice and opportunity for all. Stand up to defend our country from its enemies. Stand up for each other; for beautiful, blessed, bountiful America. Stand up, stand up, stand up and fight. Nothing is inevitable here. We're Americans, and we never give up. We never quit. We never hide from history. We make history. Thank you, and God Bless you.

train

Strong Words in Ohio as Obama and Clinton Press On Mr. Obama often boxes careful rounds with Mrs. Clinton, rationing his jabs while striving to appear unflappable. But the primary races in Texas and Ohio could not be closer. So he noted that Mrs. Clinton did not read the National Intelligence Estimate, a classified document available to senators, before her 2002 vote to authorize the war. “If the chairman of the intelligence committee who voted against the war says, ‘You should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war,’ you should probably read it,” Mr. Obama said. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, took the role of designated duelist. Mr. Rockefeller has endorsed Mr. Obama; he also voted for the war. But Mr. Rockefeller, who campaigned with Mr. Obama for part of the day, criticized those who failed to read the assessment. “There were a lot of senators who should have read it,” Mr. Rockefeller said, “and they didn’t.” The intemperate words of candidates and their surrogates came in a town that 80 years ago was considered the nation’s most temperate, calling itself “the dry capital” before Prohibition. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Now Westerville is a well-heeled suburb of Columbus, and tends to vote Republican. Some self-described Republicans showed up at Mr. Obama’s rally and spoke of abandoning their party’s likely standard bearer, Senator John McCain. Amy Fleer, 36, asking Mr. Obama a question, said she was an Obama-leaning Republican. Afterward, she explained why. “He doesn’t flip-flop, he doesn’t attack; he’s very calming and reassuring,” said Ms. Fleer, who lives in Blacklick, Ohio. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Her aunt and mother, lifelong Republicans, nodded heads in unison. “I’m tired of the same old, same old,” said Janice Evans, the aunt. “You see the same people standing behind McCain that stood behind President Bush.” Mr. Obama addressed the traits he would look for in a Supreme Court justice, suggesting he might leaven legal scholarship with practical political experience. He held up Earl Warren, a former governor of California and the former chief justice, as an exemplar. Mr. Warren, he said, had had the wisdom to recognize that segregation was wrong less because of precise sociological effects and more so because it was immoral and stigmatized blacks. “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through,” Mr. Obama said. While the two Democrats battled in Ohio, Senator John McCain held a barbecue at his cabin near Sedona, Ariz. Mr. McCain, clad in a white sweatshirt with a family photograph on it, served reporters beef ribs he had prepared and grilled. After spending the weekend off the campaign trail — he met at his compound with Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah, and others — he was to return to Texas on Monday to campaign for Tuesday’s primary, when his aides hope he will reach the 1,191 delegates needed to clinch the nomination.

train

Did Bernie Sanders vote against background checks and waiting periods for gun purchases? As hype around Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders grows, political opponents and media reporters are once again suggesting the socialist Vermont senator is a gun nut. "One issue your Democratic rivals are starting to hit you with is the fact that you have, in the past, sided with the NRA on some gun issues," CNN’s Jake Tapper said in a July 5 interview with Sanders, alluding to an attack ad paid for by a pro-Martin O’Malley group. "Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill -- background checks and waiting periods," said the attack, which first aired June 25. "Bernie Sanders is no progressive when it comes to guns." Sanders’ record on guns has been the subject of liberal ire ("Bernie Sanders, gun nut") as well as conservative glee ("Sorry liberals, Bernie Sanders is a gun nut"). So we wanted to take a look at his vote on the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, a landmark piece of gun control legislation. The Brady Act mandated that everyone who wanted to buy a handgun had to wait five days while local law enforcement ran criminal background checks. (After 1998, the firearm dealers became responsible for conducting the checks.) But before Brady became law, it underwent many transformations. Sanders, elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, voted on it numerous times, virtually almost always in opposition: • In May 1991, Sanders voted against a version that mandated a seven-day waiting period for background checks, but the bill passed in the House. • The Senate decreased the waiting period to five days and the bill returned to the House. In Nov. 1991, Sanders voted against that version. Though it passed in the House, the Senate didn’t muster enough votes. The Brady bill and its gun control stance remained in limbo during 1992. • After some back and forth, a version of the bill resurfaced that reinstated the five day waiting period. In November 1993, Sanders voted against that version but for an amendment imposing an instant background check instead (seen by some as pointless, as the technology for instant checks didn’t exist at the time). • He also voted against an amendment that would have ended state waiting periods, and for an amendment giving those denied a gun the right to know why. • The final compromise version of the Brady bill -- an interim five-day waiting period while installing an instant background check system -- was passed and signed into law on Nov. 30, 1993. Sanders voted against it. According to Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ reason for opposing the Brady bill was two-fold. First, he believed implementing a national waiting period was federal overreach. And second, he was doing his job. "He wasn't opposed to states having (waiting periods) if they wanted to. The Republicans wanted to repeal waiting periods in states that had them, and Bernie voted that down," Weaver said. "He said he would be against waiting periods, and he kept his word to the people of Vermont." In April 1991, Sanders’ then-chief of staff Anthony Pollina echoed the idea that Sanders was simply representing the will of his constituents. "Bernie’s response is that he doesn’t just represent liberals and progressives. He was sent to Washington to present all of Vermont," Pollina said. "It’s not inappropriate for a congressman to support a majority position, particularly on something Vermonters have been very clear about." The Green Mountain State, though left-leaning, has a high gun ownership rate and lax gun control laws (as well as a low homicide rate). That and Sanders’ own personal views are reflected in his overall voting record, experts told us. "As a rural state with a large number of hunters and other gun owners, Vermont has been less liberal on guns than on most other issues, historically," explained Bertram Johnson, a professor of political science at Middlebury College in Vermont. "He seems to support more regulation of guns than the U.S. presently has, but he recognizes his constituents’ preferences so does not make gun control a priority." "I think he has disappointed many progressives in Vermont with his gun positions, which sort of walk a middle line – and angering both sides through the years," said Chris Graff, the former Vermont Associated Press bureau chief. "Gun control is a tough issue in Vermont for all politicians." Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, whose 2004 presidential bid is often compared to Sanders’ 2016 run, received high marks from the National Rifle Association. Vermont Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy also voted against the Brady bill. For his part, Sanders has voted to tighten gun control about half the time, and to protect Second Amendment rights the other half. Here are his votes on key gun bills in his 25 years in Congress (bold reflects a pro-gun control position): Sanders’ moderate stance is noted by firearm enthusiasts and gun control advocates alike. Former NRA research coordinator Paul Blackman says the group doesn’t consider Sanders "an anti-gunner," and he’s received mixed marks from NRA ranging from a C- to F. Brady Campaign president Dan Gross says Sanders has shown suppleness and evolution since those first Brady votes and added he isn’t a "gun lobby lapdog." Experts agreed that on guns, Sanders’ views are to the right of his Democratic rivals. "When it comes to guns, he’s not Ted Cruz, but he believes federal policy should be less intrusive than Martin O’Malley or Hillary Clinton," said Eric Davis, who studies Vermont politics at Middlebury College. "Guns are not an important issue for him, because they don’t fit into the class-based framework that Bernie looks at politics through." Our ruling An attack ad said, "Bernie Sanders voted against the Brady Bill -- background checks and waiting periods." The Brady bill imposed a five-day waiting period for would-be purchasers of handguns. Between 1991 and 1993, Sanders voted against it five times. He did, however, vote for a version of the bill that imposed instant background checks, and against an amendment that repealed state background checks. Experts noted Sanders’ votes were representative of Vermont’s gun owners and gun laws. Since the 1990s, his record on gun control is mixed. We rate the ad’s claim Mostly True.

train

Whoopi Goldberg: Navy SEAL Widow was “Looking for Attention” Whoopi Goldberg is in hot water after comments she made Wednesday regarding the Navy SEAL widow that was honored last night during President Donald Trump’s historical speech. “She was just looking for attention. These military widows love their 15 minutes in the spotlight”, Goldberg said. “If it were me I wouldn’t be able to leave the house. How can someone who is truly greiving go out there and be on TV. It just doesn’t make sense to me” After last night’s demonstration where several democrats in leadership roles refused to stand while the widow was being honored, Goldberg continues to make the point that liberals lack a significant amount of class. *** UPDATE- Anyone who believes this story or any other story on this website needs to read this post *** .

train

Man charged with murder after driving into anti-far-right protesters in Charlottesville James Fields, from Ohio, arrested following attack at ‘Unite the Right’ gathering, and two police officers die in helicopter crash This article is more than 1 year old This article is more than 1 year old A man has been arrested and charged with murder after a car rammed into a group of people peacefully protesting against a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person and injuring 19. Police said a 32-year-old woman had died and that they were attempting to notify her family before releasing more details. Col Martin Kumer, the superintendent of Albemarle-Charlottesville regional jail, told the Guardian that 20-year-old James Fields, of Ohio, had been arrested following the attack on Saturday. Facebook Twitter Pinterest James Fields was charged with second-degree murder. Photograph: Albemarle County Jail/AFP/Getty Images “He has been charged with second degree murder, three counts of malicious wounding and failing to stop at an accident that resulted in a death,” Kumer said in an email. Donald Trump condemned the “violence on many sides”, but faced criticism for failing to directly denounce the far-right demonstrators. In a separate incident, two police officers died when their helicopter, which was monitoring the far-right rally, crashed outside Charlottesville. State police said in a statement the helicopter was “assisting public safety resources with the ongoing situation” when it crashed in a wooded area. The pilot, Lieutenant H Jay Cullen, 48, of Midlothian, Virginia, and Trooper-pilot Berke Bates of Quinton, Virginia, died at the scene. The deaths came at the end of a day marked by violent clashes between far-right nationalists and people who had come to protest against their occupation of a downtown park containing a statue of the Confederate general Robert E Lee. Witnesses said those hit by the car were peacefully protesting against the white supremacist rally and footage showed the vehicle crashing into another car, throwing people over the top of it. Play Video 1:34 Virginia governor says 'go home' to white supremacists and nazis – video Charlottesville: far-right crowd with torches encircles counter-protest group Read more The photographer Pat Jarrett, who witnessed the incident, said: “A gray Dodge Charger plowed into a sedan and then into a minivan. Bodies flew. People were terrified and screaming. Those closest to it said it was definitely a violent attack. The driver, who people later described as a skinny white guy with a straggly beard, reversed out of there and drove off, the front end of his car all smashed up.” Charlottesville mayor Mike Signer tweeted: “I am heartbroken that a life has been lost here. I urge all people of good will – go home.” Speaking at a press conference on Saturday evening, the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, who had earlier declared a state of emergency, told the white supremacists: “Go home … Shame on you. You pretend you are patriots, but you are anything but a patriot.” The mother of Fields 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 supremacist rally. “I thought it had something to do with Trump. Trump’s not a white supremacist,” Samantha Bloom said, before becoming visibly upset as she learned of the injuries and deaths at the rally “He had an African-American friend …,” she said before her voice trailed off. Responding to the events in Charlottesville from Bedminster, New Jersey, Trump: “We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides.” But the Republican senator Marco Rubio tweeted that it was important for Trump to describe the events as a “terror attack by white supremacists”. The FBI said it was opening a civil rights investigation into the accident along with the justice department’s civil rights division and the district attorney’s office. The US attorney general, Jeff Sessions, said: “The violence and deaths in Charlottesville strike at the heart of American law and justice. When such actions arise from racial bigotry and hatred, they betray our core values and cannot be tolerated. NBC News (@NBCNews) WATCH: White nationalists and counter-protesters clash at Charlottesville rally https://t.co/4qH1yJjrGy The car attack came about two hours after state police in riot gear had cleared Emancipation Park, the site of the Robert E Lee statue. The city’s decision in February to remove the statue drew earlier protests by the “alt-right” and the Ku Klux Klan. Riot police cleared the park after almost an hour of clashes. The far-right groups were largely compliant, but had to run the gauntlet of counter-protesters as they walked west along Market Street. After a brief stalemate, a hard core of about 100 far-right protesters moved to a park two miles away and gathered to hear speakers who had been scheduled for the “Unite the Right” event. One of the speakers, the far-right figurehead Richard Spencer, said he had been maced on the way in and lashed out at police and city authorities. Facebook Twitter Pinterest Rescue personnel help injured people after a car ran into a large group. Photograph: Steve Helber/AP “Never in my life have I felt like the government was cracking down on me until today,” said Spencer. “We came in peace and we were effectively thrown to the wolves.” He said that they would not back down from protesting against the statue. When he mentioned Mayor Signer by name, the crowd chanted: “Jew! Jew! Jew!” Around the park, members of the far right were nursing and treating minor wounds. One of them, who declined to give his name, was bleeding from the head, and claimed to have been struck with an iron bar. Another young man, with a swastika tattoo on his chest and blood on his forehead, told photographers: “If you take my picture, I’ll cut you. I’m not even kidding.” Meanwhile, counter-protesters were trying to stop the far-right groups from entering the park. Some counter-protesters, including many marching under red and black anti-fascist banners, tried to block the streets. This led to altercations with far-right groups, who were seen using chemical weapons, sticks and shields on people. A group of clergy linked arms to block a set of stairs leading into the park. The Rev Seth Wispelwey, of Sojourners United Church of Christ in Charlottesville, said: “We’re here to counteract white supremacy, and to let people know that it is a system of evil and a system of sin.” Steve Thomas, from Lynchburg, Virginia, who also protested against the far-right groups, said: “I think that what we are witnessing here has always been simmering beneath the surface, and now has been emboldened and enabled by the Trump administration’s politics and rhetoric.” Statue controversy In February, the city council narrowly voted to remove and sell the Robert Lee statue, and to rename the park in which it stands from Lee Park to Emancipation Park. This was the culmination of a campaign to remove the statue started by a local high school student, Zyahna Bryant. It was part of a wave of such removals of Confederate monuments across the south, which began after Dylann Roof massacred nine African American churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina. In response, last May, Richard Spencer led a torchlit white nationalist parade around the park. Then, on 8 July, about 50 members of the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan held a rally in the park, and were greeted by about 1,000 counter-protesters. The day ended in turmoil after police used tear gas on some counter-protesters following the Klan’s departure, and made 23 arrests. Ben Jacobs and the Associated Press contributed to this report

train

Senate Passes Obama-Hagel Provision Aimed at Preventing Nuclear Terrorism Senate Passes Obama-Hagel Provision Aimed at Preventing Nuclear Terrorism Tuesday, September 18, 2007 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Amy Brundage (Obama) or Jordan Stark (Hagel) Legislation requires plan to secure global stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material by 2012 WASHINGTON, DC -- The Senate recently passed a provision authored by Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) to help keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists. The legislation was included as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2008 State-Foreign Operations appropriations bill. The Obama-Hagel amendment requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites around the world are secure by 2012 from the threats that terrorists have shown they can pose. “Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism,” said Senator Obama. “It is imperative that we build and sustain a truly global effort under an aggressive timeline to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to keep them out of the wrong hands.” “Nuclear proliferation will be one of the defining challenges for the United States and the world in the 21st century. The U.S. must actively engage the international community in a constructive dialogue that will focus on strengthening the current international nuclear nonproliferation framework. This amendment provides the directive for development of a comprehensive strategy to adequately secure and account for nuclear stockpiles throughout the world. There is no higher priority for America and the world than to address this great threat to mankind,” Senator Hagel said. Despite significant progress by the U.S. to improve the security of nuclear stockpiles in some parts of the world, there are still significant quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft or diversion. For example, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly enriched uranium – enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs – that are spread out at non-military facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Physical security at these facilities varies significantly, creating dangerous vulnerabilities to theft or diversion. In addition to requiring a plan to secure nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material by 2012, the Obama-Hagel amendment would require the U.S. to work with other countries to ensure adequate accounting and security of nuclear stockpiles on an ongoing basis thereafter. The amendment would further require the U.S. to ensure that its own nuclear weapons stockpile and weapons-usable material are adequately protected. This provision was one component of the Obama-Hagel Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act (S. 1977), which was introduced in August. That bill would promote U.S. leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology. The provisions of S. 1977 include the following: support for an international nuclear fuel reserve to discourage countries from building their own uranium enrichment capability; additional funding to strengthen the inspection capabilities of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); talks with Russia to further reduce global nuclear arsenals; progress on a verifiable global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons; reconsideration of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; expansion of export controls and interdiction capabilities; and the establishment of a commission to develop recommendations about U.S. nonproliferation policy.

train

BREAKING: Laura Ingraham Just Fired!! Latest News BREAKING: They Got Him!! 5 hours ago Hell Just Froze Over - Look Who Just Apologized 6 hours ago BREAKING: Van Attack!! It’s Bad! 6 hours ago BREAKING: A Third Democrat Just Broke Rank! 6 hours ago BREAKING: New Information Has Just Been Released About the Waffle House Shooter and It’s Bad! 6 hours ago President Trump and Mike Pence just threw in their full support 6 hours ago BREAKING: The Supreme Court Has Refused!! 6 hours ago BREAKING: Look Whose Video Kanye West Just Promoted!! 7 hours ago The #3 Democrat Just Dropped A Bomb! 7 hours ago BREAKING: He Just Resigned Due To the Protests!! 7 hours ago BREAKING: Another Democrat Just Broke Party Lines - Big Win For Trump! 8 hours ago BREAKING: The Attempt Against Trump Just Backfired!! 8 hours ago President Trump Fires Off! It’s Viral! 8 hours ago There It Is Folks! Nunes Just Dropped the Bombshell Claim! 9 hours ago Whoa! Look What these Kids Were Just Chanting In San Francisco! 10 hours ago BREAKING: The World's Oldest Person Has Died 19 hours ago Trump Was Right! 21 hours ago BREAKING: Shania Twain Apologizes For Supporting Donald Trump 23 hours ago BREAKING: Look Who Just Called For the Confiscation of All Semi-Automatic Firearms!! 1 day ago Kanye West invokes slavery debate and liberals hate it 1 day ago B-B-Boom! Rep. Devin Nunes drops a bomb on the Russia probe 1 day ago BREAKING: NRA Just Got Blind Side! 1 day ago BREAKING: We Just Learned Who the Hero At the Waffle House Was and Look Who! 1 day ago Trump Just Hit “Sleepy Eyes” Chuck Todd!! 1 day ago BREAKING: Mitt Romney Just Got Some Terrible News!! 1 day ago BREAKING: Look Who Just Resigned Over “Political Correctness”! 1 day ago BREAKING: Reports Are Suggesting CNN Helped Orchestrate The Entire Setup!! 1 day ago Uh Oh! Look What Was Just Discovered About Fresno State Professor! 1 day ago BREAKING: Russia May Have Dirt on Comey!! 1 day ago Look Who Just Fired On James Comey!! 1 day ago BREAKING: Multiple People Have Just Been Killed In A Gun Free Zone!! 1 day ago BREAKING: Trump Just Hit Sessions! 1 day ago Trump’s Early Morning Tweet Is Already Viral! 1 day ago Look Why Alan Dershowitz Believes Michael Cohen Could Flip! 1 day ago President Trump Reveals What’s Really Happening With North Korea 1 day ago This Is Why Conservative Candace Owens Just Won! 1 day ago Whoa! Look What the Mayor of New York Just Admitted!! 1 day ago Well, Well, Well, Look Who Just Emerged From the Shadows! 1 day ago Kaepernick Just Landed It! 1 day ago Gingrich Just Called Out McConnell! This is What Needs to Be Done Now!! 1 day ago A Newly Discovered CDC Survey Has Just Destroyed the Entire Narrative! 1 day ago This Could Be Bad News For Trump! 1 day ago BREAKING: Wikileaks Just Fired Back At the DNC!! 1 day ago Well, Well, Well, Look What We Found! 1 day ago BREAKING: Trump Just Hit the New York Times Reporter! 2 days ago President Trump Just Snubbed The Dems - It’s Historic! 2 days ago BREAKING: He’s Dead!! 2 days ago BREAKING: Gunfire Erupts! Coupe D’etat! 2 days ago Kanye West and Candace Owens are waking up the black community. Liberals are hating it 2 days ago

train

Everything you need to know about the drone debate, in one FAQ This is well outside Wonkblog’s normal bailiwick, but if nothing else, Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) filibuster against CIA director nominee John Brennan — launched as a protest against the administration’s drone policy, which Brennan has steered for the past four years — uncovered a hunger for a broader conversation on the topic. So what does the drone program actually entail, and why are Paul and others criticizing it? What is a drone? Technically called “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAVs), drones are just aircraft without human pilots onboard, encompassing everything from reconnaissance vehicles to unmanned crop dusters. In common parlance, though, “drone” has come to refer to unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), which are UAVs equipped with combat capabilities, most commonly the ability to launch missiles. How long has the U.S. government been using them? The General Atomics MQ-1 Predator, the most famous UCAV in the U.S. arsenal, first saw combat in 1995 as part of the NATO intervention in Bosnia, but at that time was solely a reconnaissance tool and carried no payload. On Feb. 16, 2001, the Predator #3034 became the first to be successfully fitted with a Hellfire missile, and to fire it in a trial flight. Predators were deployed to Afghanistan almost immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and on Oct. 7, 2001 they conducted their first armed mission there. In addition to the Predator, the General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper, a larger UCAV capable of carrying a higher payload, has seen service starting in 2007. The current program is jointly administered by the CIA and the Joint Special Operation Command (JSOC). Where do we send them? Primarily Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. According to a Washington Post database, compiled with the help of the New America Foundation and Long War Journal, strikes in Pakistan have been occurring since 2004 and picked up in pace starting in summer 2008. Apart from a November 2002 strike in Yemen, the Somalia and Yemen campaigns began in 2011. There have been reports of strikes in the Philippines, though information there is sketchy. Additionally, drones have seen service in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the Unites States’s more traditional military campaigns in those countries. How powerful is a drone attack? Predator drones can carry up to two Hellfire missiles. Those have warheads of about 20 pounds, which are designed to pierce tank armor; their damage outside of the vehicle targeted is limited. An alternative warhead, which manufacturer Lockheed Martin touts as featuring “high lethality and minimum collateral damage,” also is in service. Reapers are another story. They feature a maximum payload of 3,000 pounds, or 1.5 tons. That means they can carry a combination of Hellfires and larger 500 pound bombs like the GBU-12 Paveway II and GBD-38 JDAM. Those have an “effective casualty radius” of about 200 feet. That means that about 50 percent of people within 200 feet of the blast site will die. Those odds improve — or worsen, depending on how you look at it — the closer you get, obviously. So imagine if you took a football field and shrunk it by a third. A Reaper attacks one endzone with a GBU-12. If you’re on the field, you have a 50 percent chance of dying. Update: I apparently forgot the distinction between yards and feet since middle school. Corrected. How many drone attacks have we launched to date? According to the Post database, there have been 347 in Pakistan, 53 in Yemen and 2 in Somalia. From 2008 through October 2012, there were 1,015 strikes in Afghanistan, 48 in Iraq, and at least 105 in Libya according to the Bureau for Investigative Journalism. That does not include strikes in Libya past September 2011, strikes from 2001 to 2007 in Iraq and Afghanistan, and those since October 2012. The New York Times’ Mark Mazzetti reported that at least one strike has happened in the Philippines. What sort of people have we targeted? Primarily al-Qaeda and its affiliates. That includes al-Shaabab in Somalia, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (which works in Yemen), and the Haqqani Network in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Philippines strike was intended to kill Umar Patek, a leader of the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah who helped orchestrate the 2002 attacks in Bali that killed 95 people. Patek is now serving a 20-year sentence in Indonesia. Have we killed U.S. citizens this way? We’ve killed four, at least. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born al-Qaeda operative in Yemen, was killed in a drone strike in 2011, as was his American-born 17-year-old son (in a subsequent strike) and Samir Khan, a North Carolina native who died in the same strike as the elder al-Alaki. Ahmed Hijazi, also an American citizen based in Yemen, was killed in 2002. Note: paragraph updated to correct spelling of al-Awlaki’s name and include Hijazi. To clarify the Obama administration’s exact policy on killing Americans without a trial, Eric Holder wrote the following letter to Sen. Rand Paul: “Dear Senator Paul: It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: ‘Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?’ The answer to that question is no.” The dispatch followed an earlier, more equivocal note from Holder on the subject, which seemed to indicate Holder believes the president has the authority to kill U.S. citizens on U.S. soil if he judges them a threat. How many people have died in drone attacks? Sen. Lindsey Graham estimated the death toll of the Pakistan/Somalia/Yemen program at 4,700. That’s higher than most estimates; Micah Zenko of the Council on Foreign Relations puts the number at closer to 3,500. How many of those were civilians? Cora Currier at ProPublica helpfully compiled a number of estimates in January. New America puts the civilian death total in Pakistan and Yemen between 276 and 368, of which 118-135 were under the Bush administration. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism puts the number between 446 and 978, increasing to 993 if you include Somalia. Of those, 179 to 209 were children, BIJ estimates. A Stanford/NYU study suggests that the strikes have inflicted considerable psychological trauma on residents of Pakistan, and deterred relief workers from serving areas targeted. Funerals and rescue workers have been targeted in past strikes. What’s the process for deciding when and where to launch them? As my colleague Greg Miller has reported, the administration uses something called the “disposition matrix” to determine targets for drone strikes. Miller describes it as a “single, continually evolving database in which biographies, locations, known associates and affiliated organizations are all cataloged. So are strategies for taking targets down, including extradition requests, capture operations and drone patrols…The database is meant to map out contingencies, creating an operational menu that spells out each agency’s role in case a suspect surfaces in an unexpected spot.” The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) will prepare lists of potential targets, which will be reviewed every three months by a panel of intelligence analysts and military officials. They are then passed along to a panel at the National Security Council, currently helmed by CIA director nominee Brennan, and then to Obama for final approval. The criteria for addition to the list are determined personally by Obama, who also must personally approve all strikes outside Pakistan. Pakistan strikes are approved by the CIA director. What’s the case for using drones? There’s some political science to suggest that “decapitation strikes,” like these drone attacks, are actually quite effective at reducing the ability of terrorist groups to operate effectively. The RAND Corporation’s Patrick Johnston and UCLA’s Anoop Sarbahi have found preliminary evidence that the drone program specifically is effective at degrading the operations of targeted groups. Zack Beauchamp has a good overview of this literature here. But that’s a case for strikes, not for drone strikes specifically. There is, however, substantial evidence that the percentage of casualties borne by civilians is much lower with drone strikes than with just about any other kind of military intervention, even if one accepts high estimates of the percent of killed who are civilians. Is Congress kept in the loop? To some degree. As part of Brennan’s confirmation process, Senate Intelligence Committee members were granted access to Justice Department memos justifying the use of drones, and a similar white paper was shared last year. The Committee and its House counterpart are also allowed to review individual strikes, including the intelligence behind them and video obtained during their commission. But they have not tried to limit the program in any way. ”I don’t know that we’ve ever seen anything that we thought was inappropriate,” one Congressional aide told the Los Angeles Times. How about the courts? Nope. Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) has proposed establishing a specialized court to approve drone strikes based on FISA courts that approve surveillance of suspected foreign intelligence in the U.S., but that is, for now, just an idea. Neal Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under Obama, has called for an oversight board placed within the executive branch. Is this legal? The Justice Department certainly thinks so, though the reasons why are classified, and lawsuits to expose them have proven unsuccessful. The clearest window we’ve gotten into their reasoning as relates to the killing of U.S. citizenscomes from a white paper leaked to NBC News last month. It derives the authority for the strikes from the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed in the wake of 9/11, which grants the government broad powers against al-Qaeda. What’s more, the white paper argues that drone strikes somehow don’t run afoul of Executive Order 12333, the ban on assassinations as a tool of policy that has existed since the Ford administration, as they are used for “self-defense.” See also Brennan’s speech here defending the program more broadly. Administration critics aren’t impressed, with the ACLU’s Jameel Jaffeer noting the white paper, “argues that the government has the right to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen.” Does it violate international law? The Justice Department memo cites the UN Charter, which allows states to make war in the interest of self-defense, an interest also invoked by Brennan. Critics, like UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions Christof Heyns, say that this defense is a stretch, and the killings plainly run afoul of the laws of war and international human rights treaties. Are other countries using drones this way? Only the United States and the United Kingdom (which assists in the Pakistan drone effort) currently use drones in combat, but many other countries have acquired drone technology, including China, Russia, India, Iran and Israel. The U.K. uses Reapers and Predators while most other countries use the Israeli Aerospace Industries Heron or similar Israeli models. Drones saw combat use in Israel during the Gaza war of late 2008. Even Hezbollah has acquired reconnaissance drones. All told, the GAO estimates that 76 countries, at least, have drone technology. What do our allies think about it? European allies other than Britain generally refrain from using drones to attack al-Qaeda, but frequently share intelligence that assists the drone program in selecting targets. What about the countries where we send drones? What do they think? They’re very mad. The Pakistani government has condemned the drone strikes as a violation of sovereignty, though there’s evidence they’re tacitly allowing the strikes to happen. The Yemeni government quietly agreed to the strikes, though murmurs of opposition have emerged of late. Citizens in both countries deplore the campaigns. Is it actually weakening al-Qaeda? New America estimates that 1,967 – 3,236 militants were killed in Pakistan and Yemen, meaning the overwhelming majority of casualties were intended targets. That said, the share of deaths who were “high-profile targets” was 11 percent under Obama and 33 percent under Bush according to New America. And there are deeper doubts as to whether the strategy is recruiting more militants than it kills, by turning local populations against the United States. The attempted Times Square bomber, for instance, cited drones as a motivating force. It could also be a bad idea even if it is weakening al-Qaeda. Many have noted that the money spent on anti-terrorism efforts might save more lives if devoted to tackling more mundane threats, like auto accidents. Thanks to Zack Beauchamp for research help throughout.

train

Public Campaign Action Fund TV Ad: The McCain File On Monday, June 9, 2008, Campaign Money Watch released a TV ad, now airing in the Washington, D.C., market (and posted at YouTube), regarding John McCain’s intervention in an Air Force contract worth up to $100 billion that was awarded to Airbus, its parent company, and partners. Seven lobbyists aiding John McCain’s campaign worked for Airbus’ American affiliate, and McCain received more in campaign contributions from them than any other politician. Supporting documentation is included below. Attachment Size The McCain File ad documentation.pdf 120.95 KB

train

This Labor Day, we need protests This website is no longer actively maintained Some material and features may be unavailable

train

S.1591 - 104th Congress (1995-1996): A bill to prohibit campaign expenditures for services of lobbyists, and for other purposes. Senate Committee Any Committee Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry (70th-116th) Armed Services (79th-116th) Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (70th-116th) Budget (93rd-116th) Commerce, Science, and Transportation (79th-116th) Energy and Natural Resources (70th-116th) Environment and Public Works (79th-116th) Finance (70th-116th) Foreign Relations (70th-116th) Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (70th-116th) Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (70th-116th) Judiciary (70th-116th) Rules and Administration (79th-116th) Small Business and Entrepreneurship (81st-116th) Veterans' Affairs (91st-116th) State or Territory Indicated Any State or Territory Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Northern Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Nomination Actions Any Nomination Action Placed on calendar as privileged nomination Committee requested information was received Referred to committee Hearings held Ordered reported Reported to Senate Committee discharged Placed on calendar Placed on calendar with footnote Considered by Senate Unanimous consent agreement Cloture motion Cloture invoked/not invoked Rereferred to committee Received message of withdrawal Returned to president Confirmed by Senate

train

Facebook 移動: このメニューを開くには、 alt と / を同時に押してください

train

President Trump Underscores US-Jamaica Relations President Trump Underscores US-Jamaica Relations Story Highlights United States President, Donald Trump, says he looks forward to working with the administration of Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, on bilateral and regional issues. The President made the comment during a courtesy call paid on him by Jamaica’s Ambassador to the United States, Her Excellency Audrey Marks, at the Oval Office in the White House. The Ambassador, in noting the President’s agenda of providing more trading opportunities for US companies, called attention to the significant trade surplus the North American country enjoys in the Caribbean. United States President, Donald Trump, says he looks forward to working with the administration of Prime Minister, the Most Hon. Andrew Holness, on bilateral and regional issues. The President made the comment during a courtesy call paid on him by Jamaica’s Ambassador to the United States, Her Excellency Audrey Marks, at the Oval Office in the White House. During their discourse, Mr Trump and Ambassador Marks underscored the strong longstanding bond of friendship between the people Jamaica and the United States of America, while noting the island’s contribution in many spheres of American life. Ms Marks said she looked forward to working with the President in the interest of both countries, and highlighted the synergies of the US-Caribbean nexus cementing the relationship between the nations. The Ambassador, in noting the President’s agenda of providing more trading opportunities for US companies, called attention to the significant trade surplus the North American country enjoys in the Caribbean. She highlighted the fact that the region is the United States’ seventh largest trading partner, importing non-oil goods and services valued over US$50 billion. This, she said, placed the region ahead of U.S. exports to comparatively larger economies such as Russia and India combined. Ms Marks further noted the mutual benefit and alignment of interest for the continued stability and economic growth of the Caribbean which she described as the United States’ ‘third border’. The Jamaican envoy also took the opportunity to invite President Trump to visit Jamaica in his official capacity.

train

Obama knows his way around a ballot -- chicagotribune.com MAKING OF A CANDIDATE Obama knows his way around a ballot Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign 1 2 3 4 next The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners. There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot. Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens. But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer. A close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it. One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights. "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?" In a recent interview, Obama granted that "there's a legitimate argument to be made that you shouldn't create barriers to people getting on the ballot." But the unsparing legal tactics were justified, he said, by obvious flaws in his opponents' signature sheets. "To my mind, we were just abiding by the rules that had been set up," Obama recalled. "I gave some thought to … should people be on the ballot even if they didn't meet the requirements," he said. "My conclusion was that if you couldn't run a successful petition drive, then that raised questions in terms of how effective a representative you were going to be." Asked whether the district's primary voters were well-served by having only one candidate, Obama smiled and said: "I think they ended up with a very good state senator." Obama behind challenges 1 2 3 4 next America has been defined in part by civil rights and good government battles fought out in Chicago's 13th District, which in 1996 spanned Hyde Park mansions, South Shore bungalows and poverty-bitten precincts of Englewood.It was in this part of the city that an eager reform Democrat by the name of Abner Mikva first entered elected office in the 1950s. And here a young, brash minister named Jesse Jackson ran Operation Breadbasket, leading marchers who sought to pressure grocery chains to hire minorities.Palmer served the district in the Illinois Senate for much of the 1990s. Decades earlier, she was working as a community organizer in the area when Obama was growing up in Hawaii and Indonesia. She risked her safe seat to run for Congress and touted Obama as a suitable successor, according to news accounts and interviews.But when Palmer got clobbered in that November 1995 special congressional race, her supporters asked Obama to fold his campaign so she could easily retain her state Senate seat.Obama not only refused to step aside, he filed challenges that nullified Palmer's hastily gathered nominating petitions, forcing her to withdraw."I liked Alice Palmer a lot. I thought she was a good public servant," Obama said. "It was very awkward. That part of it I wish had played out entirely differently."His choice divided veteran Chicago political activists."There was friction about the decision he made," said City Colleges of Chicago professor emeritus Timuel Black, who tried to negotiate with Obama on Palmer's behalf. "There were deep disagreements."Had Palmer survived the petition challenge, Obama would have faced the daunting task of taking on an incumbent senator. Palmer's elimination marked the first of several fortuitous political moments in Obama's electoral success: He won the 2004 primary and general elections for U.S. Senate after tough challengers imploded when their messy divorce files were unsealed. More articles Get chicagotribune.com news by e-mail. Sign up for Daywatch. Copyright © 2008, Chicago Tribune

train

Romney For President Launches New Television Ad, "Remember" Romney For President Launches New Television Ad, "Remember" Email this Page To: Multiple addresses seperated by commas From: Subject: Message : FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Kevin Madden (857) 288-6390 Boston, MA – Today, Romney for President launched its newest television ad, "Remember." The ad highlights the people of New Hampshire discussing the issues that important to them – lowering tax burdens, securing our borders and changing Washington. While rightly honored as a true patriot, Senator McCain has opposed tax relief, supported amnesty and is too much of a Washington insider to change Washington. On the issues important to New Hampshire Republicans, Senator McCain has taken the wrong approach. The ad will begin airing today as part of the campaign's rotation in New Hampshire. Script and viewing links are below. Script For "Remember" (TV:30): GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message." BOB DUFFY: "I believe John McCain's war record is outstanding." MARIE PALING: "He's a true patriot and has served his country long and well." BOB DUFFY: "However, his record in the US Senate leaves a lot to be desired." GENE BOIS: "John McCain has been one of those Republicans that have been wrong on tax cuts." RAY BRUN: "Opposing tax cuts that would have helped our family, supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, taking jobs away from Americans." COLLETT HILL: "He wrote the amnesty bill that America rejected." BOB DEGANGE: "He's not really listened to the American people." MARIE PALING: "He's had his chance in Washington to make things better." To watch "Remember," please see: http://tv.mittromney.com/?showid=728539 AD FACTS: Script For "Remember" (TV:30): GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY: "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message." BOB DUFFY: "I believe John McCain's war record is outstanding." MARIE PALING: "He's a true patriot and has served his country long and well." BOB DUFFY: "However, his record in the US Senate leaves a lot to be desired." GENE BOIS: "John McCain has been one of those Republicans that have been wrong on tax cuts." - In 2001, Senator McCain Was One Of Only Two Republicans To Vote Against The $1.35 Trillion Tax Cut. The bill lowered marginal rates, eliminated the marriage penalty, and doubled the child tax credit. (H.R. 1836, CQ Vote #170: Adopted 58-33: R 46-2; D 12-31; I 0-0, 5/26/01, McCain Voted Nay) - In 2003, Senator McCain Was One Of Only Three Republicans To Vote Against The $350 Billion Tax Cut. The comprehensive bill lowered taxes by $350 billion over 11 years – including increasing the child tax credit and eliminated the marriage penalty. (H.R. 2, CQ Vote #179: Passed 51-49: R 48-3; D 3-45; I 0-1, 5/15/03, McCain Voted Nay; H.R. 2, CQ Vote #196: Adopted 50-50: R 48-3; D 2-46; I 0-1, 5/23/03, McCain Voted Nay) - National Review: "John McCain is not as conservative as Romney. He sponsored and still champions a campaign-finance law that impinged on fundamental rights of political speech; he voted against the Bush tax cuts; he supported this year's amnesty bill, although he now says he understands the need to control the border before doing anything else." (Editorial, "Romney for President," National Review, 12/11/07) RAY BRUN: "Opposing tax cuts that would have helped our family, supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants, taking jobs away from Americans." COLLETT HILL: "He wrote the amnesty bill that America rejected." BOB DEGANGE: "He's not really listened to the American people." MARIE PALING: "He's had his chance in Washington to make things better." - McCain Joined Ted Kennedy (D-MA) "To Sponsor A Liberal Immigration Reform Bill." "[McCain has] come into conflict with his fellow Republicans by joining with the senator Ted Kennedy to sponsor a liberal immigration reform bill that would allow illegal aliens to eventually become legal American citizens." (Jacob Weisberg, Op-Ed, "Awaiting The Return Of The Bull Moose," The Financial Times, 4/13/06) - Senator McCain's 2006 Immigration Plan Would Allow 11 Million Illegals To Remain In The U.S. "The McCain plan – which is being put forward in the U.S. House by Arizona GOP Congressmen Jeff Flake and Jim Kolbe – allows the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S. to stay in the country if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine." (Mike Sunnucks, "Napolitano, Hayworth Criticize Bush On Illegal Immigration," The Phoenix Business Journal, 2/1/06) - Union Leader Editorial: McCain-Kennedy Proposal "Would Encourage Border Jumping." "Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy have a bill that, surprise, includes a generous guest worker program that would encourage border jumping. Illegals who register would have to pay a fine and taxes, but they would get to stay here and apply for permanent residency. That sure beats waiting at the border and hoping to be let in." (Editorial, "Turnstile Security," The [Manchester, NH] Union Leader, 3/27/06) - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich Said McCain-Kennedy "Actually Provides For Amnesty." NEWT GINGRICH: "However, the bill you mentioned – the Kennedy McCain bill – actually provides for amnesty. And it provides for amnesty for millions of people whose first act in the U.S. was to break the law. I think amnesty is profoundly wrong. I think it sends exactly the wrong signal." (Fox News' "The Big Story," 3/20/06) - Mark Krikorian: "The McCain/Kennedy Amnesty Bill Has Been Unveiled, And It's The Same Hoax We've Fallen For Before." "The McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill has been unveiled, and it's the same hoax we've fallen for before. Like the telemarketer who bilks a widow and then comes back in a different guise to charge a fee to 'help' her get the original money back, the anti-borders crowd created today's immigration crisis and is now offering as a solution the very policies that got us in this mess in the first place." (Mark Krikorian, "Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me," National Review, 5/13/05) - Columnist Charles Krauthammer: 2007 Immigration Bill Supported By Sen. McCain Was "Amnesty" And "Vacuous Nonsense." "The immigration compromise being debated in Congress does improve our criteria for selecting legal immigrants. Unfortunately, its inadequacies in dealing with illegal immigration – specifically, in ensuring that 10 years from now we will not have a new cohort of 12 million demanding amnesty -- completely swamp the good done on legal immigration. ... The amnesty is triggered upon presidential certification that these bureaucratic benchmarks are met – regardless of what is actually happening at the border. What vacuous nonsense." (Charles Krauthmammer, Op-Ed, "One Short Amendment," The Washington Post, 5/25/07) - Brian Darling, Heritage Foundation: "It's Clear To Any Reasonable Person That This Is Amnesty." "'It's clear to any reasonable person that this is amnesty,' said Brian Darling, director of Senate relations for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. 'It's forgiving individuals for being present in the country illegally and working in the country illegally as recently as five months ago.' That, he said, could come back to haunt McCain." (Christi Parsons, "GOP Foes Trade Fire On Immigration," Chicago Tribune, 6/5/07) To watch "Remember," please see: http://tv.mittromney.com/?showid=728539

train

Democratic Leaders Say House Democrats Are United Against GOP Default Act Democratic Leaders Say House Democrats Are United Against GOP Default Act July 29, 2011 Transcript of Press Availability After House Democratic Caucus Meeting WASHINGTON – House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (CT), Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra (CA), and Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (MD) held a press availability immediately after the Democratic Caucus meeting today on the Debt Limit negotiations. Below is the transcript and video: Chairman Larson: Well good afternoon and thank you for joining us. I’m proud to be joined by the Vice Chair of our Caucus, Xavier Becerra, and of course, the person whose been taking the lead for Democrats in the budget discussions, Chris Van Hollen. First of all, I want to start by saying that since Speaker Boehner walked away from the table last Friday we’ve noticed that U.S. stocks and the American people have lost 405 billion dollars. The gravity of this situation, as we continue to repeat, is something that we feel and have felt for a long time could be avoided. Eighteen times under President Reagan the debt ceiling was raised; seven times for George Bush the debt ceiling was raised. As we have said both on the Floor and here before you, defaulting on the American people is not an option. And yet, what we see unfolding in the former Republican Party is the capitulation to special interests – the special narrow interests of one segment of a party that is controlling the very future of all Americans. Impacting and being willing at all costs to take the nation to the precipice – to the cliff – of disaster. Time is running out. A proposal is being put forward that we’re told in the Rules Committee – even the Chair of the Rules Committee said it can’t be signed by the President. And so why is that we are putting the American people through this? People who are wondering aloud, what is going on in Washington, D.C.? A t a time when they’re crying out for help and jobs and economic security, a ideological manufactured crisis is unfolding before us. An ideological manufactured crisis no longer controllable by the Speaker because events have unfolded beyond his control. Washington warned about what would happen in terms of party excesses and what would happen to us if we became a nation where not from without the threats that gather but from within when people seek to destroy the government itself. Imagine standing in the way of Social Security, of veteran’s checks, of paychecks – people’s pensions, and not fully appreciating the gravity of that – only more concerned about bringing government itself down. This is a frightening time for this country – a time when the President of the United States at least has stood there as Horatio at the Bridge and continues to offer calm and sanguine advice and encourages people to come together when forces here won’t even allow it to happen. And whether it’s a cloture vote in the Senate, or whether it’s the Tea Party in the House. This is a travesty that this is happening to the American people. This is a manufactured crisis. This shouldn’t be happening. We should take this from the plate of the American people and get on with the business of putting this country back to work. That’s where this discussion should be. And with that, let me yield to the Vice Chair of the Caucus, Xavier Becerra. Vice Chair Xavier Becerra: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I believe most Americans are trying to figure out where things stand just four short days before we get to this point. Actually, three short days before we get to this point that this country has never seen. And what makes it difficult for the American people to understand what’s going on is that Speaker Boehner indicated a week ago that he was walking away from the negotiations because he had a better plan. Well, we’ve since seen that the Republicans can’t agree to their own plan here in the House of Representatives and they are clearly feuding amongst themselves, and while they’ve been feuding, as the Chairman pointed out, we’ve seen Americans lose about 400 billion dollars worth of value. In five business days Americans have lost about 400 billion dollars worth of value in their wealth. That’s about half of what the Republicans we’re hoping to save in their ten year plan. Five days versus five years of a ten year plan. That’s what happens when you feud and you don’t do your work. The failure of the Republicans is costing not just the Republicans in their party; it’s costing Americans a great deal of money. But we’ve seen this before and we’ve seen described before when the tail wags the dog. In this case we see the tail wagging the elephant, and it’s unfortunate that Republicans don’t seem t be listening to the American public. The American public has said over and over again, get this done, do it bipartisanly, and make sure it’s balanced—and in the process, don’t make Social Security, which hasn’t added a single cent to these deficits, pay for this deficit reduction. Don’t make Medicare recipients lose their Medicare benefits to pay for protecting the tax loopholes for special interests—and we understand that today Republicans have admitted that they can’t pass the bill that we are debating on the floor right now. None other than the Chairman of the Rules Committee, David Dreier, who is managing the debate on this bill has said that he understands that this bill is going nowhere. So, three short days before we’re told we may plunge into the abyss, and Republicans are debating a bill which the Chairman of their Rules Committee is saying he understands that this bill will go nowhere. Clearly the tail is wagging the elephant today. Rep. Van Hollen: I want to thank my colleagues here for their leadership in the Caucus and just pick up where my friend Xavier Becerra left off about this comment with the tail wagging the elephant because I think in the last twenty-four hours we’ve confirmed what many people suspected, which is that the Tea Party Republicans may be a noisy and effective protest movement, but they’re unfit to govern. They’re unfit to govern, and it is time for Speaker Boehner to do what he called for himself some time ago, which is to have that adult moment. And unfortunately, rather than work to reach across the aisle and form true bipartisan compromise for the good of the country, he’s moving in the wrong direction. He’s now taken the bill, which was unacceptable and won’t pass in its original form, back to Rules Committee to make it even more extreme to cater again to the Tea Party wing of the Republican party. That’s not going to get us where we need to go, and the American people watching this process know that. You now have House Republicans having walked out of the Biden talks, two times out of the talks with the President. They rejected the proposal put forward by the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, originally. Then they rejected their own Speaker’s proposal, but instead of working across the aisle to solve the problem, unfortunately the Speaker’s made that problem even worse and is taking this in the wrong direction. This is, as my colleague said, a totally self-inflicted wound we’re inflicting on the American people everyday. It is a manufactured crisis, so you have to ask yourself, why? Why are they doing this to the country? Why are they playing kamikaze pilot with the American economy? Their answer—what they tell you—is that they’ve got to reduce the deficit. That’s what they say, but if you look at their actions that’s just not true because every time someone’s put forward a balanced deficit plan they’ve said no, and it turns out their real objective is not to reduce the deficit because if that was your objective you’d be willing to be to eliminate one penny in subsidies for the gas companies for the purpose of deficit reduction. We’ve challenged them. We want them to put up the hand. The first Republican that says they’re willing to have one penny from closing tax loopholes go to deficit reduction, please come talk to us. If you’re really interested in deficit reduction, you’d be willing to ask the big oil companies to stop taking all the taxpayer money, but they haven’t. That’s not their objective. Their objective, as my colleagues have said, is to manufacture this crisis, try and impose on the American people a very extreme agenda that involves ending the Medicare guarantee, slashing Medicaid, slashing education—that’s what they’re about, not about deficit reduction. When they get serious about deficit reduction in a balanced way, we hope they’ll come talk to us. Chairman Larson: Thank you Chris. Let me just say that we concluded our Caucus and we started our Caucus with the unity I think demonstrates the importance of this nature to the American—of everything that’s unfolding to the American people, and that unity stems from our defense of Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid. Let me throw it open to questions. Q: Beyond all this theater, are you hearing of any serious talks going on either between the Senate and the House or amongst Senate leaders. Chairman Larson: Well we’re not privy, of course, to the discussions that take place in the inner sanctum over in the Senate, but we hear there are discussions that are going on, and I don’t know if Chris would want to comment on that further. Congressman Van Hollen: (Inaudible) . . . I think there may be the beginning of discussions between Senator Reid and Senator McConnell, but we’re not familiar with the details. Chairman Larson: Yes. Q: So the House Republicans are now renewing this push for a balanced budget amendment to be passed before the second stage of this… Chairman Larson: Totally realistic proposal, huh? (Laughter) Vice Chair Xavier Becerra: Did you like the first version of the movie. Q: …That they’re open to the balanced budget amendment that was passed in the House in the late 1990’s Does that... Chairman Larson: Let’s call this for what it is. You know, and the initial question is aside from more theater, this is just more theater, and with the theater is more a further move to the right and a more extreme position and you know, you can put the wings on this pig, but it still won’t fly. Q: Do you see political motivations for this? Does the balanced budget amendment just essentially give Republicans an issue to talk about between now until the election? Chairman Larson: Well, I think if you’re a Tea Party member you’ve got to be—and listen they come here in believing that they are patriots and they’re full of the pledges that they have taken throughout the campaign. But here, I think they’ve forgotten, as Chris pointed out, that we pledge allegiance to this nation, not to Grover Norquist or to any other tax pledge, and where they’re taking this country is unprecedented. It’s never happened before, and while they may take a great deal of pride in that, the reality is the the reality that looms in the American people, best stated by a constituent of mine who said “do they not understand that we’re in the dark abyss of uncertainty?” And that’s true in global markets, national markets, in our business community, but most importantly, for households. I mean, the American people do not deserve this. They deserve far better from their government. Rep. Van Hollen: You know, our Republican colleagues are trotting this out because it sounds good on its surface, it’s really a way of just passing the buck, and what’s interesting is our Republican colleagues who complain about activist judges making decisions. The reality is, at the end of the day, you would be asking judges to enforce the balanced budget amendment. Do they want federal judges to be deciding whether to cut Medicare or to raise taxes? This is just a device to pass the buck and delay confronting the real challenge, which is all of us getting together to hammer this out in a balanced way. And so I know it’s a nice sounding thing, we encourage the American people to take a close look at what it really does, because it’s a way for the Members to escape responsibility and ultimately, lay it on the doorstep of a federal judge. That’s not what our Founders anticipated—the Founders expected the Congress and the President to deal with the budget, not to pass the buck to a federal judge to raise taxes or cut Medicare or education. Vice Chairman Becerra: Can I add something, and James, correct me if I’m wrong. Eleven thousand times since 1789, I wanted to check on this, constitutional amendment since 1789 we’ve had eleven thousand attempts to amend the Constitution since 1789. 27 amendments have been passed, ten of them in one shot with the Bill of Rights. And so, we’re now hearing that Republicans may want two, three days before they plunge us into the economic abyss, propose the eleven-thousand and first constitutional amendment so that in less than three days we pass that when it’s taken over 230 years to pass 27 out of the eleven thousand that were proposed. That’s the height of ridicule that I think you can say we can take these efforts by those who have not yet gotten serious about dealing with what is very serious for any American family, and that is keeping your credit rating—and Republicans are about to allow America’s credit rating to go down the drain. Q: Senator Harkin today said that if worst comes to worst the President should man up and invoke the 14th Amendment. Is that something you support? Chairman Larson: Well, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you know—I know the President has resisted this and—but he is and still remains Horatio at the Bridge and let us hope—I mean it’s our sincere hope and let me again acknowledge and applaud the efforts of our colleagues, Chris Van Hollen and Jim Clyburn and Steny and Nancy, who have been in the room representing our concerns—it is our hope that we will be able to reach a legislative conclusion, if not, and faced with these perilous events that could unfold, then I share, and I know Jim Clyburn does and others, that perhaps the President reluctantly may have to do this. Certainly something that he said he would not. Q: I know that part of the short term solution – both parties are not really proposing that right now, but since the clock is ticking down so close how about a short – you know, three day, five day, seven day just to get this through? Is that something that you’re starting to think about. Chairman Larson: Well, how many more opportunities do you think should be provided for people to get up and walk away from the table? I mean, we sat through and we saw the theater. Chris witnessed Eric Cantor walk away from the discussions with the Vice President as soon as any balance was brought into the discussion. We witnessed then Mitch McConnell coming up with a proposal along with Harry Reid, we watched them walk away from that proposal. We then witnessed, and throughout this the President continuing to reach out—we then witnessed a bipartisan Group of Six, as they like to be called, three Republicans and three Democrats come up with a proposal, they walked away from that. They walked away from their own Speaker’s proposal and from the President’s proposal. I think it was Carolyn Maloney who said if Barack Obama came up with a cure for the common cold or a cure for cancer, they would walk away from that as well. So, I think the time for politics, and whether its extending it out six months so that they can continue this ideological manufactured crisis, I think that that’s wrong headed, and clearly if they all came together and said that we have a bill that we’re going to put on the Floor tomorrow and vote on and it was laid out in detail. I think the President said yeah, he would acknowledge that, but we haven’t seen anything close to that. Vice Chairman Becerra: Can I add—this is clearly a dollars and cents issue, these are facts on the ground, decisions that have to be made because money has to be paid, but at the same time we’re talking about something that’s intangible, somewhat abstract that perhaps is even more important, that is the full faith and credit of the United States of America. What it means to be the U. S. of A., the most relied upon democracy ever, where money still runs to the U.S. when there’s trouble around the world—and if you want to inspire confidence, not just in international markets among the bankers of the world, but if you want to inspire confidence back home on Main Street, I dare say that the last thing you want to do is pass another two or three day extension to try to get somewhere, because I don’t believe any businessman or woman back home on Main Street would budget this way, or try to run a business this way and I dare say, the largest economy in the world should operate this way either. So, It’s time to, as Senator Harkin said, man up—let’s do something, we can do this. This was totally manufactured as a crisis. We can get out of it today. We just have to do the right thing. And so, I would hope that Republicans would understand that they will inspire little confidence in the American family if they tell us we can kick this can down the road for a few more days. Chairman Larson: Thank you very much.

train

First family visits D.C. shelter, highlights homeless veterans’ plight President Obama, alongside his family, serving Thanksgiving dinner to the homeless Wednesday night at Friendship Place in Washington. (NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP/Getty Images/AFP/Getty Images) President Obama, joined by his wife and daughters, served Thanksgiving dinner in a D.C. shelter Wednesday to highlight the administration's efforts to end homelessness among U.S veterans. The first family visited Friendship Place, which is located in the basement of St. Luke’s Church in Northwest Washington. The shelter, which received a $3.1 million grant from the Department of Veterans Affairs this year to improve its capacity to address veteran homelessness, operates the program Veterans First, a leading provider of housing services to veterans and their families in the area that currently serves 550 households. The Obamas, along with some friends, served dinner as part of the shelter's "Feast with Friends" event. Each member of the family had assigned duties: The president served turkey and ladled gravy; Michelle Obama distributed vegetables; Malia doled out mashed potatoes; Sasha gave out stuffing and cranberry sauce and Marian Robinson dished out macaroni and cheese. "We appreciate you,” the president said, asking another, “How you been?" Obama also asked those partaking in the meal if they preferred white or dark meat. The White House, which first launched an effort to end homelessness in June 2010, has intensified its push targeting homeless veterans this year. The mayors of the 25 cities with the largest populations of homeless veterans in the nation have publicly pledged to end veteran homelessness in their communities by the end of this year, and Virginia announced on Veterans Day it had become the first state to end homelessness among those who have served in the military. [For one night, trying to make each homeless person count] Homelessness among American veterans declined 36 percent between 2010 and January 2015, according to White House officials, with unsheltered homelessness among veterans decreasing by 50 percent during that same period.

train

Expanding Opportunity — #KempForum16 Expanding Opportunity — #KempForum16 Paul Ryan Blocked Unblock Follow Following Jan 9, 2016 Let’s get the conversation going on how we can fight poverty and expand opportunity in America. Join Senator Tim Scott and I as we moderate a forum on fighting poverty with Republican presidential candidates in Columbia, S.C., hosted by the Jack Kemp Foundation. Follow along here and on Twitter with #KempForum16. I just wanted to say a few words about why we’re here today. And one reason why I’m here is that my mentor was Jack Kemp. There was no issue he was more passionate about than poverty. So I couldn’t think of a better host than the foundation that bears his name. Jack was the greatest champion of the American Idea, and he knew the fight against poverty is vital to renewing that idea in the 21st century. We’ve been fighting the War on Poverty for 50 years now. And I don’t think you can call it anything but a stalemate. The federal government has spent trillions of dollars. And yet today, if you were raised poor, you’re just as likely to stay poor as you were 50 years ago. I’m not saying we haven’t made progress. We have. But today we have a safety net that catches people falling into poverty. What we need is a safety net that lifts people out of poverty — that helps them earn a good paycheck so they can support themselves. So, what is the problem? It is our strategy. Most of us think poverty is about deprivation — or not having enough money. We treat empty wallets like potholes. Fill them up and move on. So for the past 50 years, we’ve created over 80 different programs to fill over 80 different holes in people’s budgets: health care,child care, energy, education — with almost no coordination among them. Here’s the catch: You qualify for these programs based how much you make. So if you don’t make much, you get a lot of benefits. But as you work and make more, you start to lose benefits. And because we’ve piled these programs right on top of each other, the falloff is steep. Make a little more, and you’ll lose a ton. So we think we’ve been filling holes. But we’ve actually been building a trap. And that’s because poverty is about more than deprivation; it’s about isolation. There are many different kinds of poverty. But what a lot of them share in common is, people are cut off from the community. They don’t have the support they need to grow, whether it’s a counselor, or a teacher, or a boss. What they need is someone they can trust, someone who can help them learn new skills. And by discouraging work, the federal government is isolating the poor. That’s why we are here today. We as a country are not winning this war, and we conservatives have something to offer. I believe if we apply our principles to this challenge, we can come up with real solutions. Don’t just treat the symptoms of poverty. Get at the root causes of poverty. Don’t measure success based on inputs. Measure the results. And this, to me, is the biggest conservative insight: The answer is not the money in Washington. It is the people in our communities — the people with credibility. They’re the ones who can break through. And I’m not saying just cut money for the safety net. I’d say spend the same amount of money we do now — because this isn’t about saving money; it’s about saving lives. What I’m saying is, don’t minimize; customize. Take the money we’re spending now and direct it to homegrown solutions. Design aid to fit each person’s needs. And whatever you do,encourage work — because that’s how people reconnect with their community. Once they find their niche and put down roots, they draw strength from the people around them, and they grow. They’ll not only have enough money; they’ll be able to make enough money to get off assistance. The way I see it, the federal government is the rearguard; it should direct the supply lines. But the people in our communities — they’re the vanguard; they should fight poverty on the front lines. Now, I know a lot of people are wondering, “Why do you care about this? You’re Republicans.” I remind them, ‘Well, we’re Americans too.’ We all believe in the American Idea: The condition of your birth doesn’t determine the outcome of your life. If you work hard and play by the rules, you can get ahead. If you made a mistake, you can redeem yourself. But a lot of people don’t think that’s true anymore. And we have to be honest with ourselves: If the American Idea is not true for everybody, then it is not true at all. So we all should care about poverty because it is a direct challenge to who we are. And it’s not enough to pay your taxes and think, “Government is going to take care of this.” We all have to get involved. And I know it’s easy to get discouraged. But what I’ve learned is, there are thousands of people beating poverty every day. The solutions are out there; they’re already working. We just have to support them. We just have to find them. And more often than not they’re right under our noses . . . in our communities . . . all over America. So I look forward to hearing from all our candidates and learning more about how we can build a more prosperous, a more secure, and a more confident America.

train

Texas law enforcement officer fatally shot upon arriving for work by 3 Muslim refugee. Do you support to deport them? A highly regarded Texas law enforcement officer was shot and killed Monday moments after arriving for work in an attack that prompted a massive manhunt for the gunman. The shooting of Harris County Precinct 3 Assistant Chief Deputy Clinton Greenwood did not appear to be random, according to Baytown police Lt. Steve Dorris, but a motive was not immediately clear. “Whether or not he was specifically targeted, or whether this was because of the uniform he was wearing or the place he pulled up to in the morning, we just don’t know that right now,” Dorris said. No arrests had been made as of Monday evening. Dorris said authorities were still “actively investigating” the shooting.

train

Man Loses His Testicles After Attempting To Smoke Weed Through A Scuba Tank Drinking and drugging will teach you lots of lessons, one of which includes not smoking weed through a scuba tank after drinking copious amounts of alcohol. Related: Colorado Trail Closed After Tourists Refuse to Stop Taking #bearselfies In a recent report by the Boston Leader, 27 year-old Michael Fitzpatrick lost his testicles after trying to create a home-made smoking device out of an old scuba tank. The process included using an air compressor to put pot smoke into the tank before using a regulator to inhale. According to multiple reports, Fitzpatrick invited his buddies over to check out the ‘Scuba Bong,’ a name that is both inaccurate and sounds much too much like ‘Scuba Bomb,’ when the accident occurred. While attempting to attach the air compressor to the tank, the victim knocked over the tank causing an explosion that would send shrapnel into his groin, severing his balls clean off. None of his friends were injured in the accident. The tank in question was fashioned in the early 90’s with a type of aluminum that is known for its capacity to rupture. However, the company that built the tank is unlikely to cover an insurance claim due to the victim’s use of the tank as a smoking device. Fitzgerald is still in the hospital and his condition has been downgraded from ‘critical’ to ‘serious.’ *Our thoughts are with the victim Find the entire Boston Leader article here: Boston Man Tries ‘To Fill Scuba Tank With Weed Smoke’; Loses Testicles

train

NRA President David Keene Rejects White House Gun Control Approach | PBS NewsHour | Jan. 15, 2013 JUDY WOODRUFF: We come back now to the gun story. And we're joined by David Keene. He's president of the National Rifle Association. Welcome to the NewsHour. DAVID KEENE, National Rifle Association: Thank you for having me. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, earlier on the program, we heard from the governor of Delaware, Jack Markell, who said the critics who argue that what they're trying to do by limiting gun violence and say that it's an attack on the Second Amendment are not right. He said, what we're simply doing are commonsense safety measures. DAVID KEENE: That's what Michael Bloomberg says. No, it is an attack on the Second Amendment. It is an attack on those Americans who purchased and legally use firearms, who have never committed a criminal act, who have never done anything wrong. And they can say that it doesn't infringe upon their rights, but, in fact, it does. Now, every amendment -- the First Amendment -- you can't, famously, yell fire in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment is also subject to reasonable limits. The Supreme Court has held that. But they're strictly looked at. And you have to demonstrate that they really impact things and that they're really necessary. And the problem that we have is that none of the things that they have suggested are going to do any good. They're asking the question, Judy, what do we do about guns? The question should be, what do we do to prevent the kinds of things that happened in Connecticut? And we don't think that they're asking that question, but they're pursuing their own agenda. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, they say that's what they're doing. DAVID KEENE: I know they do. JUDY WOODRUFF: And let me just quickly read from something that Gabby Giffords, the former congresswoman who was gravely wounded. Mark Kelly, her husband. They wrote an op-ed article just a few days ago. They say, people who are just -- he said: "Special interests have cast -- have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties." And they say, as a result, more people are vulnerable to gun violence. DAVID KEENE: You know, they're talking about what they call assault weapons. Actually, an assault weapon, so-called, wasn't involved in the Giffords shooting. But the fact of the matter is that we have heard time and time again that these are military weapons designed for the battlefield. They're not. They're semiautomatic commercial rifles. The AR-15 is the bestselling long gun in the United States. There are over three million of them that have been purchased by people. Most people that have them use them for sport shooting, for hunting and for the like. And to take those guns away from them for no reason is an infringement on their rights. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, the mother of one of the victims in Aurora, Colo., was visiting Newtown just yesterday, and she specifically talked about the AR-15, these assault weapons. And she said, they don't belong in the hands of people in the community. What do you say to what -- her name is... JUDY WOODRUFF: ... Phillips. DAVID KEENE: It was interesting, Judy, because... JUDY WOODRUFF: What do you say to her? DAVID KEENE: ... because we're talking -- anybody who dies in a tragedy, whether it's an auto accident or beaten to death or knifed or killed by a gun, it is tragic. And I can understand her reaction to that. But, in this country, last year, more people were, in fact, beaten to death than killed by all long arms, including assault, so-called assault weapons. The semiautomatic rifle has been in this country and available to people since 1806. In our museum, we have got one that fired 20 rounds from a magazine, a magazine that would be banned by some people, that Lewis and Clark took with them on their expedition. It's been that long. And we're talking -- we're talking about something that has no impact. We have tried to do that as a society before. It hasn't made any difference. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we can argue about the statistics. I mean, what is out there... DAVID KEENE: Right. People do that. JUDY WOODRUFF: ... 70 percent of the violent deaths last year were due -- had a gun involved. But, specifically, David Keene, what about what we're hearing from the president, that there is going to be an attempt to ban the assault weapon, that there will be a proposal for comprehensive background checks? Is there -- where -- is there any common ground between the position of the NRA and the White House? DAVID KEENE: Yes, there is some common ground. It's not on banning rifles that we don't think would make any difference. And it's not on setting up a national gun registry. But we have for 20 years been asking that those people who have been adjudicated to be mentally potentially violent be put on the lists of people who are not allowed to buy firearms. When you go into a store to buy a gun, or if you go to a gun show to buy a gun from a licensed dealer, they have to check your background. The FBI keep databases of people who are not allowed to buy guns, felons and the like. We have been urging that these people be put on these lists. And nothing has happened. Twenty-three states don't put any on the list. Now, one of the things we have to do is keep firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. And we can do that partly in that way. The problem is, you can never predict in a society who is going to do what. JUDY WOODRUFF: Right. DAVID KEENE: So, you also have to provide security. And that's what we have been proposing in terms of the schools. JUDY WOODRUFF: And that's why -- and that's -- and you mentioned mental illness. And that is something the administration is going to talk about. Maybe there's some common ground there. When it comes to guards, putting armed guards, Gov. Markell said earlier on the program that -- he said, how would you know where to put a guard, how many to put? He said it's really an impractical thing to... DAVID KEENE: Sure. Well, I don't think that it's impractical. You know, just by coincidence, I was in Israel the day after the Newtown shooting. And I was touring a facility where they in fact train guards for their schools, because they had a spate of shootings in the 1970s. Their crazy people are a little different from ours, but the results were the same. And they first used volunteers. Now each school provides its own through private security guards. And I was a place where they train these people. It works there. It was a sensible thing for them to do. After Columbine, President Clinton proposed what he called the COPS program. And about 28,000 schools in this country now either have police through that program or police that are paid for by the state or private security guards. Those schools have them. Now, and it is -- there's an argument -- the argument against it is just what you said. But the fact is, if you look at the people who do this, first of all, they're mentally deranged. And, secondly, they're cowards. And the fact that there's somebody armed there will prevent them in most cases from doing anything. Can you -- do we live in a perfect world? No. But we can do what makes sense to protect our kids. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, speaking of what's not perfect, what about trying some of the solutions that the folks who are saying they're not trying to attack the Second Amendment are saying? They simply want to make -- they want to reduce gun violence. Why not try reducing high-capacity ammunition clips? Why not try a ban on assault weapons? DAVID KEENE: Well, we tried a ban on assault weapons. The only thing that is different is -- and, remember, Judy, that an assault weapon has to be listed because there's no functional difference between a so-called assault weapon and any other semiautomatic rifle. So, this time, they're saying, well, if it has a pistol grip, it's dangerous. If it doesn't have a pistol grip, it isn't dangerous. Now, that's absurd from a functional standpoint, because it's the same gun, the same rifle. And the only difference is cosmetic. So, banning something for cosmetic reasons is not going to cause -- is not going to cure the problem. JUDY WOODRUFF: But you're not saying there's -- couldn't reasonable people sit down at the table and come up with a solution that would satisfy you, your organization and would satisfy those who say, we have got to make it safer? DAVID KEENE: That's why we went to the meeting with Vice President Biden. But, you know, before that meeting, the vice president himself and those speaking for him said, we're open-minded. We're going to discuss this. We got to the meeting. And one of the first things he said was, the president and I have strong feelings about firearms, and nobody is going to change our mind on that. We're going to pursue what we want to pursue. Fine. They had the meeting, so they could say, oh, and we talked to the NRA. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, and I happened to talk to someone in the White House, because I had heard you say something similar to that in another interview. And they say that's not what was said in the meeting. DAVID KEENE: Well, it is. And the other thing -- let me say one other thing. In the last year, 77,000 people who were on the prohibited list tried to buy firearms. That, in itself, is a crime. You know how many have been prosecuted? Seventy. When that was raised at the meeting, the attorney general said, well, we don't have the resources and the time to be going after those people. Those people are the potential criminals whom we're trying to keep guns out of the hands of, but the government doesn't have time to do anything about them. They do have time to try and prohibit legitimate citizens from owning firearms. JUDY WOODRUFF: Very quickly, David Keene, the new polls show that are out that show even in gun-owning households people are saying by large percentages we need to do something about, again, high-capacity ammunition clips, assault weapons, background checks? DAVID KEENE: Well, actually, interestingly, the Gallup poll showed no change at all on the so-called assault weapon question. I consider that evidence of the fact that people are smarter than politicians. But, given the publicity and everything, I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of an immediate reaction. But when we get into this, when we begin to discuss it -- and remember it's sort of deja vu, because we have had this discussion before. Once the discussion takes place and people think about the substance of it, I'm confident that the judgment of the American people is going to be as it was before. And that is that Second Amendment rights should be protected. Criminals should be prosecuted. And we should strengthen the ways we keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business buying them. JUDY WOODRUFF: David Keene, president of the NRA, we thank you for being with us tonight. DAVID KEENE: My pleasure, as always. Thank you.

train

PolitiFact’s annotated transcript of the second presidential debate PolitiFact’s annotated transcript of the second presidential debate PolitiFact Blocked Unblock Follow Following Oct 9, 2016 By PolitiFact staff PolitiFact is annotating the second presidential debate at Washington University. We will be posting the transcript and our annotations through the night. Follow us on Medium and check back regularly to see our commentary. RADDATZ: Ladies and gentlemen the Republican nominee for president, Donald J. Trump, and the Democratic nominee for president, Hillary Clinton. COOPER: Thank you very much for being here. We’re going to begin with a question from one of the members in our town hall. Each of you will have two minutes to respond to this question. Secretary Clinton, you won the coin toss, so you’ll go first. Our first question comes from Patrice Brock. Patrice? QUESTION: Thank you, and good evening. The last debate could have been rated as MA, mature audiences, per TV parental guidelines. Knowing that educators assign viewing the presidential debates as students’ homework, do you feel you’re modeling appropriate and positive behavior for today’s youth? CLINTON: Well, thank you. Are you a teacher? Yes, I think that that’s a very good question, because I’ve heard from lots of teachers and parents about some of their concerns about some of the things that are being said and done in this campaign. And I think it is very important for us to make clear to our children that our country really is great because we’re good. And we are going to respect one another, lift each other up. We are going to be looking for ways to celebrate our diversity, and we are going to try to reach out to every boy and girl, as well as every adult, to bring them into working on behalf of our country. I have a very positive and optimistic view about what we can do together. That’s why the slogan of my campaign is “Stronger Together,” because I think if we work together, if we overcome the divisiveness that sometimes sets Americans against one another, and instead we make some big goals — and I’ve set forth some big goals, getting the economy to work for everyone, not just those at the top, making sure that we have the best education system from preschool through college and making it affordable, and so much else. If we set those goals and we go together to try to achieve them, there’s nothing in my opinion that America can’t do. So that’s why I hope that we will come together in this campaign. Obviously, I’m hoping to earn your vote, I’m hoping to be elected in November, and I can promise you, I will work with every American. I want to be the president for all Americans, regardless of your political beliefs, where you come from, what you look like, your religion. I want us to heal our country and bring it together because that’s, I think, the best way for us to get the future that our children and our grandchildren deserve. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, thank you. Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. TRUMP: Well, I actually agree with that. I agree with everything she said. I began this campaign because I was so tired of seeing such foolish things happen to our country. This is a great country. This is a great land. I’ve gotten to know the people of the country over the last year-and-a-half that I’ve been doing this as a politician. I cannot believe I’m saying that about myself, but I guess I have been a politician. TRUMP: And my whole concept was to make America great again. When I watch the deals being made, when I watch what’s happening with some horrible things like Obamacare, where your health insurance and health care is going up by numbers that are astronomical, 68 percent, 59 percent, 71 percent, when I look at the Iran deal and how bad a deal it is for us, it’s a one-sided transaction where we’re giving back $150 billion to a terrorist state, really, the number one terror state, we’ve made them a strong country from really a very weak country just three years ago. When I look at all of the things that I see and all of the potential that our country has, we have such tremendous potential, whether it’s in business and trade, where we’re doing so badly. Last year, we had almost $800 billion trade deficit. In other words, trading with other countries. We had an $800 billion deficit. It’s hard to believe. Inconceivable. You say who’s making these deals? We’re going the make great deals. We’re going to have a strong border. We’re going to bring back law and order. Just today, policemen was shot, two killed. And this is happening on a weekly basis. We have to bring back respect to law enforcement. At the same time, we have to take care of people on all sides. We need justice. But I want to do things that haven’t been done, including fixing and making our inner cities better for the African-American citizens that are so great, and for the Latinos, Hispanics, and I look forward to doing it. It’s called make America great again. COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. The question from Patrice was about are you both modeling positive and appropriate behavior for today’s youth? We received a lot of questions online, Mr. Trump, about the tape that was released on Friday, as you can imagine. You called what you said locker room banter. You described kissing women without consent, grabbing their genitals. That is sexual assault. You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women. Do you understand that? TRUMP: No, I didn’t say that at all. I don’t think you understood what was — this was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I apologize to my family. I apologize to the American people. Certainly I’m not proud of it. But this is locker room talk. You know, when we have a world where you have ISIS chopping off heads, where you have — and, frankly, drowning people in steel cages, where you have wars and horrible, horrible sights all over, where you have so many bad things happening, this is like medieval times. We haven’t seen anything like this, the carnage all over the world. And they look and they see. Can you imagine the people that are, frankly, doing so well against us with ISIS? And they look at our country and they see what’s going on. Yes, I’m very embarrassed by it. I hate it. But it’s locker room talk, and it’s one of those things. I will knock the hell out of ISIS. We’re going to defeat ISIS. ISIS happened a number of years ago in a vacuum that was left because of bad judgment. And I will tell you, I will take care of ISIS. COOPER: So, Mr. Trump… TRUMP: And we should get on to much more important things and much bigger things. COOPER: Just for the record, though, are you saying that what you said on that bus 11 years ago that you did not actually kiss women without consent or grope women without consent? TRUMP: I have great respect for women. Nobody has more respect for women than I do. COOPER: So, for the record, you’re saying you never did that? TRUMP: I’ve said things that, frankly, you hear these things I said. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women. COOPER: Have you ever done those things? TRUMP: And women have respect for me. And I will tell you: No, I have not. And I will tell you that I’m going to make our country safe. We’re going to have borders in our country, which we don’t have now. People are pouring into our country, and they’re coming in from the Middle East and other places. We’re going to make America safe again. We’re going to make America great again, but we’re going to make America safe again. And we’re going to make America wealthy again, because if you don’t do that, it just — it sounds harsh to say, but we have to build up the wealth of our nation. COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. TRUMP: Right now, other nations are taking our jobs and they’re taking our wealth. COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. TRUMP: And that’s what I want to talk about. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, do you want to respond? CLINTON: Well, like everyone else, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking over the last 48 hours about what we heard and saw. You know, with prior Republican nominees for president, I disagreed with them on politics, policies, principles, but I never questioned their fitness to serve. Donald Trump is different. I said starting back in June that he was not fit to be president and commander-in-chief. And many Republicans and independents have said the same thing. What we all saw and heard on Friday was Donald talking about women, what he thinks about women, what he does to women. And he has said that the video doesn’t represent who he is. But I think it’s clear to anyone who heard it that it represents exactly who he is. Because we’ve seen this throughout the campaign. We have seen him insult women. We’ve seen him rate women on their appearance, ranking them from one to ten. We’ve seen him embarrass women on TV and on Twitter. We saw him after the first debate spend nearly a week denigrating a former Miss Universe in the harshest, most personal terms. So, yes, this is who Donald Trump is. But it’s not only women, and it’s not only this video that raises questions about his fitness to be our president, because he has also targeted immigrants, African- Americans, Latinos, people with disabilities, POWs, Muslims, and so many others. So this is who Donald Trump is. And the question for us, the question our country must answer is that this is not who we are. That’s why — to go back to your question — I want to send a message — we all should — to every boy and girl and, indeed, to the entire world that America already is great, but we are great because we are good, and we will respect one another, and we will work with one another, and we will celebrate our diversity. CLINTON: These are very important values to me, because this is the America that I know and love. And I can pledge to you tonight that this is the America that I will serve if I’m so fortunate enough to become your president. RADDATZ: And we want to get to some questions from online… TRUMP: Am I allowed to respond to that? I assume I am. RADDATZ: Yes, you can respond to that. TRUMP: It’s just words, folks. It’s just words. Those words, I’ve been hearing them for many years. I heard them when they were running for the Senate in New York, where Hillary was going to bring back jobs to upstate New York and she failed. I’ve heard them where Hillary is constantly talking about the inner cities of our country, which are a disaster education-wise, jobwise, safety-wise, in every way possible. I’m going to help the African-Americans. I’m going to help the Latinos, Hispanics. I am going to help the inner cities. She’s done a terrible job for the African-Americans. She wants their vote, and she does nothing, and then she comes back four years later. We saw that firsthand when she was United States senator. She campaigned where the primary part of her campaign… RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, Mr. Trump — I want to get to audience questions and online questions. TRUMP: So, she’s allowed to do that, but I’m not allowed to respond? RADDATZ: You’re going to have — you’re going to get to respond right now. TRUMP: Sounds fair. RADDATZ: This tape is generating intense interest. In just 48 hours, it’s become the single most talked about story of the entire 2016 election on Facebook, with millions and millions of people discussing it on the social network. As we said a moment ago, we do want to bring in questions from voters around country via social media, and our first stays on this topic. Jeff from Ohio asks on Facebook, “Trump says the campaign has changed him. When did that happen?” So, Mr. Trump, let me add to that. When you walked off that bus at age 59, were you a different man or did that behavior continue until just recently? And you have two minutes for this. TRUMP: It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I’m not proud of it. But that was something that happened. If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women. Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight. So don’t tell me about words. I am absolutely — I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who’s also here tonight. And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth. (APPLAUSE) RADDATZ: Can we please hold the applause? Secretary Clinton, you have two minutes. CLINTON: Well, first, let me start by saying that so much of what he’s just said is not right, but he gets to run his campaign any way he chooses. He gets to decide what he wants to talk about. Instead of answering people’s questions, talking about our agenda, laying out the plans that we have that we think can make a better life and a better country, that’s his choice. When I hear something like that, I am reminded of what my friend, Michelle Obama, advised us all: When they go low, you go high. (APPLAUSE) And, look, if this were just about one video, maybe what he’s saying tonight would be understandable, but everyone can draw their own conclusions at this point about whether or not the man in the video or the man on the stage respects women. But he never apologizes for anything to anyone. CLINTON: He never apologized to Mr. and Mrs. Khan, the Gold Star family whose son, Captain Khan, died in the line of duty in Iraq. And Donald insulted and attacked them for weeks over their religion. He never apologized to the distinguished federal judge who was born in Indiana, but Donald said he couldn’t be trusted to be a judge because his parents were, quote, “Mexican.” He never apologized to the reporter that he mimicked and mocked on national television and our children were watching. And he never apologized for the racist lie that President Obama was not born in the United States of America. He owes the president an apology, he owes our country an apology, and he needs to take responsibility for his actions and his words. TRUMP: Well, you owe the president an apology, because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal — he’s another real winner that you have — and he’s the one that got this started, along with your campaign manager, and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was, saying exactly that. So you really owe him an apology. You’re the one that sent the pictures around your campaign, sent the pictures around with President Obama in a certain garb. That was long before I was ever involved, so you actually owe an apology. Number two, Michelle Obama. I’ve gotten to see the commercials that they did on you. And I’ve gotten to see some of the most vicious commercials I’ve ever seen of Michelle Obama talking about you, Hillary. So, you talk about friend? Go back and take a look at those commercials, a race where you lost fair and square, unlike the Bernie Sanders race, where you won, but not fair and square, in my opinion. And all you have to do is take a look at WikiLeaks and just see what they say about Bernie Sanders and see what Deborah Wasserman Schultz had in mind, because Bernie Sanders, between super-delegates and Deborah Wasserman Schultz, he never had a chance. And I was so surprised to see him sign on with the devil. But when you talk about apology, I think the one that you should really be apologizing for and the thing that you should be apologizing for are the 33,000 e-mails that you deleted, and that you acid washed, and then the two boxes of e-mails and other things last week that were taken from an office and are now missing. And I’ll tell you what. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor. When I speak, I go out and speak, the people of this country are furious. In my opinion, the people that have been long-term workers at the FBI are furious. There has never been anything like this, where e-mails — and you get a subpoena, you get a subpoena, and after getting the subpoena, you delete 33,000 e-mails, and then you acid wash them or bleach them, as you would say, very expensive process. So we’re going to get a special prosecutor, and we’re going to look into it, because you know what? People have been — their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you’ve done. And it’s a disgrace. And honestly, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton, I want to follow up on that. (CROSSTALK) RADDATZ: I’m going to let you talk about e-mails. CLINTON: … because everything he just said is absolutely false, but I’m not surprised. TRUMP: Oh, really? CLINTON: In the first debate… (LAUGHTER) RADDATZ: And really, the audience needs to calm down here. CLINTON: … I told people that it would be impossible to be fact-checking Donald all the time. I’d never get to talk about anything I want to do and how we’re going to really make lives better for people. So, once again, go to HillaryClinton.com. We have literally Trump — you can fact check him in real time. Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country. TRUMP: Because you’d be in jail. (APPLAUSE) RADDATZ: Secretary Clinton… COOPER: We want to remind the audience to please not talk out loud. Please do not applaud. You’re just wasting time. RADDATZ: And, Secretary Clinton, I do want to follow up on e- mails. You’ve said your handing of your e-mails was a mistake. You disagreed with FBI Director James Comey, calling your handling of classified information, quote, “extremely careless.” The FBI said that there were 110 classified e-mails that were exchanged, eight of which were top secret, and that it was possible hostile actors did gain access to those e-mails. You don’t call that extremely careless? CLINTON: Well, Martha, first, let me say — and I’ve said before, but I’ll repeat it, because I want everyone to hear it — that was a mistake, and I take responsibility for using a personal e-mail account. Obviously, if I were to do it over again, I would not. I’m not making any excuses. It was a mistake. And I am very sorry about that. But I think it’s also important to point out where there are some misleading accusations from critics and others. After a year-long investigation, there is no evidence that anyone hacked the server I was using and there is no evidence that anyone can point to at all — anyone who says otherwise has no basis — that any classified material ended up in the wrong hands. I take classified materials very seriously and always have. When I was on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I was privy to a lot of classified material. Obviously, as secretary of state, I had some of the most important secrets that we possess, such as going after bin Laden. So I am very committed to taking classified information seriously. And as I said, there is no evidence that any classified information ended up in the wrong hands. RADDATZ: OK, we’re going to move on. TRUMP: And yet she didn’t know the word — the letter C on a document. Right? She didn’t even know what that word — what that letter meant. You know, it’s amazing. I’m watching Hillary go over facts. And she’s going after fact after fact, and she’s lying again, because she said she — you know, what she did with the e-mail was fine. You think it was fine to delete 33,000 e-mails? I don’t think so. She said the 33,000 e-mails had to do with her daughter’s wedding, number one, and a yoga class. Well, maybe we’ll give three or three or four or five or something. 33,000 e-mails deleted, and now she’s saying there wasn’t anything wrong. And more importantly, that was after getting a subpoena. That wasn’t before. That was after. She got it from the United States Congress. And I’ll be honest, I am so disappointed in congressmen, including Republicans, for allowing this to happen. Our Justice Department, where our husband goes on to the back of a airplane for 39 minutes, talks to the attorney general days before a ruling is going to be made on her case. But for you to say that there was nothing wrong with you deleting 39,000 e-mails, again, you should be ashamed of yourself. What you did — and this is after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress. COOPER: We have to move on. TRUMP: You did that. Wait a minute. One second. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond, and then we got to move on. RADDATZ: We want to give the audience a chance. TRUMP: If you did that in the private sector, you’d be put in jail, let alone after getting a subpoena from the United States Congress. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, you can respond. Then we have to move on to an audience question. CLINTON: Look, it’s just not true. And so please, go to… TRUMP: Oh, you didn’t delete them? COOPER: Allow her to respond, please. CLINTON: It was personal e-mails, not official. TRUMP: Oh, 33,000? Yeah. CLINTON: Not — well, we turned over 35,000, so… TRUMP: Oh, yeah. What about the other 15,000? COOPER: Please allow her to respond. She didn’t talk while you talked. CLINTON: Yes, that’s true, I didn’t. TRUMP: Because you have nothing to say. CLINTON: I didn’t in the first debate, and I’m going to try not to in this debate, because I’d like to get to the questions that the people have brought here tonight to talk to us about. TRUMP: Get off this question. CLINTON: OK, Donald. I know you’re into big diversion tonight, anything to avoid talking about your campaign and the way it’s exploding and the way Republicans are leaving you. But let’s at least focus… TRUMP: Let’s see what happens… (CROSSTALK) COOPER: Allow her to respond. CLINTON: … on some of the issues that people care about tonight. Let’s get to their questions. COOPER: We have a question here from Ken Karpowicz. He has a question about health care. Ken? TRUMP: I’d like to know, Anderson, why aren’t you bringing up the e-mails? I’d like to know. Why aren’t you bringing… COOPER: We brought up the e-mails. TRUMP: No, it hasn’t. It hasn’t. And it hasn’t been finished at all. COOPER: Ken Karpowicz has a question. TRUMP: It’s nice to — one on three. QUESTION: Thank you. Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, it is not affordable. Premiums have gone up. Deductibles have gone up. Copays have gone up. Prescriptions have gone up. And the coverage has gone down. What will you do to bring the cost down and make coverage better? COOPER: That first one goes to Secretary Clinton, because you started out the last one to the audience. CLINTON: If he wants to start, he can start. No, go ahead, Donald. TRUMP: No, I’m a gentlemen, Hillary. Go ahead. (LAUGHTER) COOPER: Secretary Clinton? CLINTON: Well, I think Donald was about to say he’s going to solve it by repealing it and getting rid of the Affordable Care Act. And I’m going to fix it, because I agree with you. Premiums have gotten too high. Copays, deductibles, prescription drug costs, and I’ve laid out a series of actions that we can take to try to get those costs down. But here’s what I don’t want people to forget when we’re talking about reining in the costs, which has to be the highest priority of the next president, when the Affordable Care Act passed, it wasn’t just that 20 million got insurance who didn’t have it before. But that in and of itself was a good thing. I meet these people all the time, and they tell me what a difference having that insurance meant to them and their families. But everybody else, the 170 million of us who get health insurance through our employees got big benefits. Number one, insurance companies can’t deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Number two, no lifetime limits, which is a big deal if you have serious health problems. Number three, women can’t be charged more than men for our health insurance, which is the way it used to be before the Affordable Care Act. Number four, if you’re under 26, and your parents have a policy, you can be on that policy until the age of 26, something that didn’t happen before. So I want very much to save what works and is good about the Affordable Care Act. But we’ve got to get costs down. We’ve got to provide additional help to small businesses so that they can afford to provide health insurance. But if we repeal it, as Donald has proposed, and start over again, all of those benefits I just mentioned are lost to everybody, not just people who get their health insurance on the exchange. And then we would have to start all over again. Right now, we are at 90 percent health insurance coverage. That’s the highest we’ve ever been in our country. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, your time is up. CLINTON: So I want us to get to 100 percent, but get costs down and keep quality up. COOPER: Mr. Trump, you have two minutes. TRUMP: It is such a great question and it’s maybe the question I get almost more than anything else, outside of defense. Obamacare is a disaster. You know it. We all know it. It’s going up at numbers that nobody’s ever seen worldwide. Nobody’s ever seen numbers like this for health care. It’s only getting worse. In ’17, it implodes by itself. Their method of fixing it is to go back and ask Congress for more money, more and more money. We have right now almost $20 trillion in debt. Obamacare will never work. It’s very bad, very bad health insurance. Far too expensive. And not only expensive for the person that has it, unbelievably expensive for our country. It’s going to be one of the biggest line items very shortly. We have to repeal it and replace it with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing, because they want — and President Obama and whoever was working on it — they want to leave those lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition. You will have the finest health care plan there is. She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster, somewhat similar to Canada. And if you haven’t noticed the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States in many cases because their system is so slow. It’s catastrophic in certain ways. But she wants to go to single payer, which means the government basically rules everything. Hillary Clinton has been after this for years. Obamacare was the first step. Obamacare is a total disaster. And not only are your rates going up by numbers that nobody’s ever believed, but your deductibles are going up, so that unless you get hit by a truck, you’re never going to be able to use it. COOPER: Mr. Trump, your time… TRUMP: It is a disastrous plan, and it has to be repealed and replaced. COOPER: Secretary Clinton, let me follow up with you. Your husband called Obamacare, quote, “the craziest thing in the world,” saying that small-business owners are getting killed as premiums double, coverage is cut in half. Was he mistaken or was the mistake simply telling the truth? CLINTON: No, I mean, he clarified what he meant. And it’s very clear. Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That’s where the vast majority of people get their health care. And the Affordable Care Act was meant to try to fill the gap between people who were too poor and couldn’t put together any resources to afford health care, namely people on Medicaid. Obviously, Medicare, which is a single-payer system, which takes care of our elderly and does a great job doing it, by the way, and then all of the people who were employed, but people who were working but didn’t have the money to afford insurance and didn’t have anybody, an employer or anybody else, to help them. That was the slot that the Obamacare approach was to take. And like I say, 20 million people now have health insurance. So if we just rip it up and throw it away, what Donald’s not telling you is we just turn it back to the insurance companies the way it used to be, and that means the insurance companies… COOPER: Secretary Clinton… CLINTON: … get to do pretty much whatever they want, including saying, look, I’m sorry, you’ve got diabetes, you had cancer, your child has asthma… COOPER: Your time is up. CLINTON: … you may not be able to have insurance because you can’t afford it. So let’s fix what’s broken about it, but let’s not throw it away and give it all back to the insurance companies and the drug companies. That’s not going to work. COOPER: Mr. Trump, let me follow up on this. TRUMP: Well, I just want — just one thing. First of all, Hillary, everything’s broken about it. Everything. Number two, Bernie Sanders said that Hillary Clinton has very bad judgment. This is a perfect example of it, trying to save Obamacare, which is a disaster. COOPER: You’ve said you want to end Obamacare… TRUMP: By the way… COOPER: You’ve said you want to end Obamacare. You’ve also said you want to make coverage accessible for people with pre-existing conditions. How do you force insurance companies to do that if you’re no longer mandating that every American get insurance? TRUMP: We’re going to be able to. You’re going to have plans… COOPER: What does that mean? TRUMP: Well, I’ll tell you what it means. You’re going to have plans that are so good, because we’re going to have so much competition in the insurance industry. Once we break out — once we break out the lines and allow the competition to come… COOPER: Are you going — are you going to have a mandate that Americans have to have health insurance? TRUMP: President Obama — Anderson, excuse me. President Obama, by keeping those lines, the boundary lines around each state, it was almost gone until just very toward the end of the passage of Obamacare, which, by the way, was a fraud. You know that, because Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Obamacare, was said — he said it was a great lie, it was a big lie. President Obama said you keep your doctor, you keep your plan. The whole thing was a fraud, and it doesn’t work. But when we get rid of those lines, you will have competition, and we will be able to keep pre-existing, we’ll also be able to help people that can’t get — don’t have money because we are going to have people protected. And Republicans feel this way, believe it or not, and strongly this way. We’re going to block grant into the states. We’re going to block grant into Medicaid into the states… COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. TRUMP: … so that we will be able to take care of people without the necessary funds to take care of themselves. COOPER: Thank you, Mr. Trump. RADDATZ: We now go to Gorbah Hamed with a question for both candidates. QUESTION: Hi. There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States, and I’m one of them. You’ve mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over? RADDATZ: Mr. Trump, you’re first. TRUMP: Well, you’re right about Islamophobia, and that’s a shame. But one thing we have to do is we have to make sure that — because there is a problem. I mean, whether we like it or not, and we could be very politically c

train

Remarks by the President on Oil and Gas Subsidies Rose Garden 11:00 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Everybody, please have a seat. Sorry we’re running just a little bit behind, but I figured it’s a great day to enjoy the Rose Garden. Today, members of Congress have a simple choice to make: They can stand with the big oil companies, or they can stand with the American people. Right now, the biggest oil companies are raking in record profits –- profits that go up every time folks pull up into a gas station. But on top of these record profits, oil companies are also getting billions a year -- billions a year in taxpayer subsidies -– a subsidy that they’ve enjoyed year after year for the last century. Think about that. It’s like hitting the American people twice. You’re already paying a premium at the pump right now. And on top of that, Congress, up until this point, has thought it was a good idea to send billions of dollars more in tax dollars to the oil industry. It’s not as if these companies can’t stand on their own. Last year, the three biggest U.S. oil companies took home more than $80 billion in profits. Exxon pocketed nearly $4.7 million every hour. And when the price of oil goes up, prices at the pump go up, and so do these companies’ profits. In fact, one analysis shows that every time gas goes up by a penny, these companies usually pocket another $200 million in quarterly profits. Meanwhile, these companies pay a lower tax rate than most other companies on their investments, partly because we’re giving them billions in tax giveaways every year. Now, I want to make clear, we all know that drilling for oil has to be a key part of our overall energy strategy. We want U.S. oil companies to be doing well. We want them to succeed. That’s why under my administration, we’ve opened up millions of acres of federal lands and waters to oil and gas production. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating oil rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some. And just yesterday, we announced the next step for potential new oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic. So the fact is, we’re producing more oil right now than we have in eight years, and we’re importing less of it as well. For two years in a row, America has bought less oil from other countries than we produce here at home -– for the first time in over a decade. So American oil is booming. The oil industry is doing just fine. With record profits and rising production, I’m not worried about the big oil companies. With high oil prices around the world, they’ve got more than enough incentive to produce even more oil. That’s why I think it’s time they got by without more help from taxpayers who are already having a tough enough time paying the bills and filling up their gas tank. And I think it’s curious that some folks in Congress, who are the first to belittle investments in new sources of energy, are the ones that are fighting the hardest to maintain these giveaways for the oil companies. Instead of taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s never been more profitable, we should be using that money to double-down on investments in clean energy technologies that have never been more promising -- investments in wind power and solar power and biofuels; investments in fuel-efficient cars and trucks, and energy-efficient homes and buildings. That’s the future. That’s the only way we're going to break this cycle of high gas prices that happen year after year after year. As the economy is growing, the only time you start seeing lower gas prices is when the economy is doing badly. That’s not the kind of pattern that we want to be in. We want the economy doing well, and people to be able to afford their energy costs. And keep in mind, we can’t just drill our way out of this problem. As I said, oil production here in the United States is doing very well, and it's been doing well even as gas prices are going up. Well, the reason is because we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil but we only have 2 percent of the world’s known oil reserves. And that means we could drill every drop of American oil tomorrow but we’d still have to buy oil from other countries to make up the difference. We’d still have to depend on other countries to meet our energy needs. And because it’s a world market, the fact that we’re doing more here in the United States doesn’t necessarily help us because even U.S. oil companies they’re selling that oil on a worldwide market. They’re not keeping it just for us. And that means that if there’s rising demand around the world then the prices are going to up. That’s not the future that I want for America. I don’t want folks like these back here and the folks in front of me to have to pay more at the pump every time that there’s some unrest in the Middle East and oil speculators get nervous about whether there’s going to be enough supply. I don’t want our kids to be held hostage to events on the other side of the world. I want us to control our own destiny. I want us to forge our own future. And that’s why, as long as I’m President, America is going to pursue an all-of-the-above energy strategy, which means we will continue developing our oil and gas resources in a robust and responsible way. But it also means that we’re going to keep developing more advanced homegrown biofuels, the kinds that are already powering truck fleets across America. We’re going to keep investing in clean energy like the wind power and solar power that’s already lighting thousands of homes and creating thousands of jobs. We’re going to keep manufacturing more cars and trucks to get more miles to the gallon so that you can fill up once every two weeks instead of every week. We’re going to keep building more homes and businesses that waste less energy so that you’re in charge of your own energy bills. We’re going to do all of this by harnessing our most inexhaustible resource: American ingenuity and American imagination. That’s what we need to keep going. That’s what’s at stake right now. That’s the choice that we face. And that’s the choice that’s facing Congress today. They can either vote to spend billions of dollars more in oil subsidies that keep us trapped in the past, or they can vote to end these taxpayer subsidies that aren’t needed to boost oil production so that we can invest in the future. It’s that simple. And as long as I’m President, I’m betting on the future. And as the people I’ve talked to around the country, including the people who are behind me here today, they put their faith in the future as well. That’s what we do as Americans. That’s who we are. We innovate. We discover. We seek new solutions to some of our biggest challenges. And, ultimately, because we stick with it, we succeed. And I believe that we’re going to do that again. Today, the American people are going to be watching Congress to see if they have that same faith. Thank you very much, everybody. (Applause.) END 11:08 A.M. EDT

train

Obama’s Prime-Time Press Briefing And that is why the single most important part of this Economic Recoveryand Reinvestment Plan is the fact that it will save or create up to 4million jobs, because that's what America needs most right now. It is absolutely true that we can't depend on government alone to create jobs or economic growth. That is and must be the roleof the private sector. But at this particular moment, with theprivate sector so weakened by this recession, the federal government isthe only entity left with the resources to jolt our economy backinto life. It is only government that can break the vicious cyclewhere lost jobs lead to people spending less money, which leads to evenmore layoffs. And breaking that cycle is exactly what the planthat's moving through Congress is designed todo. When passed, this plan will ensure thatAmericans who'velost their jobs through no fault of their own can receivegreater unemployment benefits and continue their health carecoverage. We will also provide a $2,500 tax credit to folks who are strugglingto pay the cost of their college tuition, and $1,000 worth ofbadly needed tax relief to working and middle-class families. Thesesteps will put more money in the pockets of those Americans who aremost likely to spend it, and that will help break the cycle and getour economymoving. But as we've learned very clearly andconclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can't solve all of our economicproblems -- especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiestfew Americans. We have tried that strategy, time and time again. And it'sonly helped lead us to the crisis we face rightnow. And that's why we have come together,around a plan that combines hundreds of billions in tax cuts for the middle class withdirect investment in areas like health care, energy, educationand infrastructure, investments that will save jobs, create new jobsand new businesses and help our economy grow again, now and in thefuture. More than 90 percent of the jobs createdby this plan will be in the private sector. They're not going to be make-work jobsbut jobs doing the work that America desperately needs done, jobsrebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, repairing our dangerouslydeficient dams and levees, so that we don't face anotherKatrina. Advertisement Continue reading the main story They'll be jobs building the wind turbinesand solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oiland modernizing our costly health care system that will save usbillions of dollars and countlesslives. They'll be jobs creating the 21st-centuryclassrooms, libraries and labs for millions of children across America. And they'llbe the jobs of firefighters and teachers and police officers that would otherwise be eliminated, if we do not provide states with somerelief. Now after many weeks of debate and discussion, the planthat ultimately emerges from Congress must be big enough and bold enoughto meet the size of the economic challenges that we face rightnow. It's a plan that is already supported by businesses representingalmost every industry in America, by both the Chamber of Commerce andthe AFL-CIO. It contains input, ideas and compromises from bothDemocrats and Republicans. It also contains an unprecedented levelof transparency and accountability, so that every American will beable to go online and see where and how we're spending everydime. What it does not contain, however, is asingle pet project, not a single earmark, and it has been stripped of the projects membersof both parties found mostobjectionable. Now despite all of this, the plan's notperfect. No plan is. I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will workexactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that afailure to act will only deepen this crisis, as well as the pain feltby millions ofAmericans. My administration inherited a deficit ofover $1 trillion,but because we also inherited the most profound economic emergencysince the Great Depression, doing little or nothing at all will resultin ever -- even greater deficits, even greater job loss, even greater loss of income and even greater loss of confidence. Those are deficits that could turn a crisis into a catastrophe, and I refuse to let that happen. As long as I hold this office, Iwill do whatever it takes to put this economy back on track and putthis country back towork. I want to thank the members of Congresswho've worked so hard to move this plan forward. But I also want to urge all membersof Congress to act without delay in the coming week to resolvetheir differences and pass thisplan. Advertisement Continue reading the main story We find ourselves in a rare moment wherethe citizens of our country and all countries are watching and waiting for us tolead. It's a responsibility that this generation did not ask for, butone that we must accept for the future of our children andour grandchildren. The strongest democracies flourish fromfrequent and lively debate, but they endure when people of every background andbelief find a way to set aside smaller differences in service of agreater purpose. That's the test facing the United States of Americain this winter of our hardship, and it is our duty as leaders and citizensto stay -- stay true to that purpose in the weeks and monthsahead. After a day of speaking with and listeningto the fundamentally decent men and women who call this nation home, I have full faithand confidence that we can do it. But we're going to have to work together. That's what I intend to promote in the weeks and days ahead. And with that, I'll take some of your questions. And let mego to Jennifer Loven at AP. There youare. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. Earlier today in Indianayou said something striking. You said that this nation could endup in a crisis, without action, that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about what you know or what you're hearing that would lead youto say that our recession might be permanent when others in ourhistory have not? And do you think that you risk losing somecredibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language likethat? MR. OBAMA: No, no, no,no. I think that what I've said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum,which is that if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, thenyou potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much moredifficult for us to get outof. We saw this happen in Japan in the 1990s,where they did notact boldly and swiftly enough, and as a consequence they suffered whatwas called the "lost decade," where essentially for theentire '90s, they did not see any significant economicgrowth. Advertisement Continue reading the main story So what I'm trying to underscore is whatthe people in Elkhart already understand, that this is not your ordinary,run-of-the-mill recession. We are going through the worst economic crisis since theGreat Depression. We've lost now 3.6 million jobs. Butwhat's perhaps even more disturbing is that almost half of that job loss has taken placeover the last three months, which means that the problems areaccelerating instead of getting better. Now, what I said in Elkhart today is whatI'll repeat this evening, which is I'm absolutely confident that we can solvethis problem, but it's going to require us to take somesignificant, importantsteps. Step number one, we have to pass aneconomic recovery and reinvestment plan. And we've made progress. There was avote this evening that moved the process forward in the Senate. Wealready have a House bill that's passed. I'm hoping over the next severaldays that the House and the Senate can reconcile their differences andget that bill on mydesk. There have been criticisms from a bunch ofdifferent directions about this bill. So let me just address a few ofthem. Some of the criticisms really are with thebasic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. You have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And in fact there are several who have suggested that FDR was wrong to intervene back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles thatI thought were resolved a pretty long timeago. Most economists, almost unanimously,recognize that evenif philosophically you're -- you're wary of government intervening inthe economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now --what started on Wall Street goes to Main Street, suddenly businessescan't get credit, they start paring back their investment, they startlaying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending --that when you have that situation, that government is an importantelement of introducing some additional demand into the economy. Westand to lose about $1 trillion worth of demand this year and anothertrillion next year, and what that means is you've got this gaping hole inthe economy. Advertisement Continue reading the main story That's why the -- the figure that weinitially came up with, of approximately $800 billion, was put forward. That wasn't justsome random number that I plucked out of -- out of a hat. Thatwas Republican and Democratic, conservative and liberal economists thatI spoke to, who indicated that given the magnitude of the crisis andthe fact that it's happening worldwide, it's important for us to havea bill of sufficient size and scope that we can save or create 4million jobs. That still means that you're going to have some net jobloss, but at least we can start slowing the trend and moving it in theright direction. Now, the recovery and reinvestment packageis not the only thing we have to do. It's one leg of the stool. We are stillgoing to have to make sure that we are attracting private capital, get thecredit markets flowing again, because that's the lifeblood of theeconomy. And so tomorrow my Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, will be announcing some very clear and specific plans for how we are goingto start loosening up credit once again. And that means having some transparency and oversight in the system. It means that we correct some of themistakes, with TARP, that were made earlier, the lack of consistency, the lack of clarity,in terms of how the program was going to moveforward. It means that we condition taxpayerdollars that arebeing provided, to the banks, on them showing some restraint when itcomes to executive compensation, not using the money to chartercorporate jets when they're notnecessary. It means that we focus on housing and howare we going to help homeowners that are suffering foreclosure or homeowners who arestill making their mortgage payments but are seeing their property values decline. So there's going to be a whole range ofapproaches that we have to take for dealing with the economy. My bottom line is tomake sure that we are saving or creating 4 million jobs, we are making surethat the financial system is working again, that homeowners aregetting somerelief. And I'm happy to get good ideas fromacross the political spectrum, from Democrats and Republicans. What I won't do is return to the failed theories of the last eight years that got us into this fix in the first place, becausethose theories have been tested and they have failed. And that'spart of what the election in November was all about. Okay? Caren Bohan ofReuters. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. I'd like to shift gearsto foreign policy. What is your strategy for engaging Iran, andwhen will you start to implement it? Will your time table beaffected at all by the Iranian elections? And are you getting anyindications that Iran is interested in a dialogue with the UnitedStates? Advertisement Continue reading the main story MR. OBAMA: I said during thecampaign that Iran is a country that has extraordinary people, extraordinary historyand traditions, but that its actions over many years now havebeen unhelpful when it comes to promoting peace and prosperity both inthe region and around the world; that their attacks or -- or their-- their financing of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah andHamas, the bellicose language that they've used towards Israel,their development of a nuclear weapon or their pursuit of a nuclearweapon -- that all of those things create the possibility ofdestabilizing the region and are not only contrary to our interests, but I thinkare contrary to the interests of international peace. What I've also said is that we should take an approach with Iran that employs all of the resources at the United States' disposal,and that includes diplomacy. And so my national security teamis currently reviewing our existing Iran policy, looking at areaswhere we can have constructive dialogue, where we can directly engagewith them. And my expectation is, in the coming months, we will belooking for openings that can be created where we can start sitting acrossthe table, face to face; of diplomatic overtures that will allow usto move our policy in a new direction. There's been a lot of mistrust built up over the years, so it's not going to happen overnight. And it's important that even as we engagein this direct diplomacy, we are very clear about certain deep concerns that wehave as a country, that Iran understands that we find the fundingof terrorist organizations unacceptable, that we're clear about thefact that a nuclear Iran could set off a nuclear arms race in theregion that would be profoundly destabilizing. So there are going tobe a set of objectives that we have in these conversations, but Ithink that there's the possibility, at least, of a relationship ofmutual respect andprogress. And I think that if you look at howwe've approached theMiddle East, my designation of George Mitchell as a special envoy tohelp deal with the Arab-Israeli situation, some of the interviews thatI've given, it indicates the degree to which we want to dothings differently in the region. Now it's time for Iran to sendsome signals that it wants to act differently as well and recognizethat even as it is has some rights as a member of theinternational community, with those rights come responsibilities. Okay. MR. OBAMA: ChipReid. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. You have often said that bipartisanship isextraordinarily important overall and in this stimulus package. But now whenwe ask your advisers about the lack of bipartisanship so far -- zero votesin the House, three in the Senate -- they say, well, it's not thenumber of votes that matters; it's the number of jobs that will becreated. Is that a sign that you are moving away,your White House is moving away, from this emphasis on bipartisanship? And whatwent wrong? Did you underestimate how hard it would be to changethe way Washingtonworked? MR. OBAMA: I don't think -- Idon't think I underestimated it. I don't think the American people underestimatedit. They understand that there have been a lot of bad habits built up herein Washington. And it's going to take time to break down some ofthose badhabits. You know, when I made a series ofovertures to the Republicans -- going over to meet with both Republican caucuses, you know,putting three Republicans in my Cabinet, something that is unprecedented, making sure that they were invited here to the White House, totalk about the economic recovery plan -- all those were not designedsimply to get some short-term votes. They were designed to try tobuild up some trust over time. Advertisement Continue reading the main story And I think that, as I continue to make these overtures, over time, hopefully that will be reciprocated. But understand the bottom line that I'vegot right now, which is what's happening to the people of Elkhart and what's happeningacross the country. I can't afford to see Congress play the usualpolitical games. What we have to do right now is deliver for theAmerican people. So my bottom line when it comes to the recoverypackage is send me a bill that creates or saves 4 million jobs, becauseeverybody has to be possessed with a sense of urgency about putting peopleback to work, making sure that folks are staying in their homes, thatthey can send their kids tocollege. That doesn't negate the continuing effortsthat I'm going to make to listen and engage with my Republican colleagues. Andhopefully the tone that I've taken, which has been consistently civiland respectful, will pay some dividends over the longterm. There are going to be areas where wedisagree and there are going to be areas where we agree. As I said, the one concern I've got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what's been saidin Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who -- I don'tdoubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should donothing. Now, if that's their opening position or their closing positionin negotiations, then we're probably not going to make muchprogress, because I don't think that's economically sound and I don't thinkwhat -- that's what the American people expect, is for us to stand byand donothing. There are others who recognize that we'vegot to do a significant recovery package but they're concerned about the mix of what'sin there. And if they're sincere about it, then I'm happy tohave conversations about this tax cut versus that -- that tax cut orthis infrastructure project versus that infrastructureproject. But what I -- what I've been concernedabout is some ofthe language that's been used suggesting that this is full of porkand this is wasteful government spending, so on and so forth. First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling ofthe national debt, then, you know, I just want them to not engage insome revisionist history. I inherited the deficit that we haveright now and the economic crisis that we have rightnow. Number two is that, although there aresome programs in there that I think are good policy, some of them aren't jobcreators. I think it's perfectly legitimate to say that those programs shouldbe out of this particular recovery package, and we can deal withthem later. But when they start characterizing this as porkwithout acknowledging that there are no earmarks in this package --something, again, that was pretty rare over the last eight years -- then youget a feeling that maybe we're playing politics instead of actuallytrying to solve problems for the Americanpeople. Advertisement Continue reading the main story So I'm going to keep on engaging. Ihope that as we get the Senate and the House bills together, that everybody is willing togive a little bit. I suspect that the package that emerges is notgoing to be a hundred percent of what I want. But my bottom line is,arewe creating 4 million jobs, and are we laying the foundation forlong- term economicgrowth? This is another concern that I've had insome of the arguments that I'm hearing. When people suggest that what a waste ofmoney to make federal buildings more energy-efficient -- why would that bea waste of money? We're creating jobs immediately byretrofitting these buildings or weatherizing 2 million Americans' homes, as was called for in the package. So that right there creates economicstimulus, and we are saving taxpayers, when it comes to federalbuildings, potentially $2 billion. In the case of homeowners, they willsee more money in their pockets. And we're reducing our dependence onforeign oil in the Middle East. Why wouldn't we want to make thatkind of investment? Now, maybe philosophically you just don't think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen todisagree with that. I think that's the reason why we find ourselvesimporting more foreign oil right now than we did back in the early '70s,when OPEC first formed. And we can have a respectful debate aboutwhether or not we should be involved in energy policymaking, but don'tsuggest that somehow that's wasteful spending. That's exactly whatthis countryneeds. The same applies when it comes toinformation technologies and health care. We know that health care is crippling businessesand making us less competitive, as well as breaking the banks offamilies all across America. And part of the reason is we've got themost inefficient health care system imaginable. We're still usingpaper. We're -- we're still filing things in triplicate. Nursescan't read the prescriptions that doctors -- that doctors have writtenout. Why wouldn't we want to put that on an -- put that on anelectronic medical record that will reduce error rates, reduce our long-termcost of health care, and create jobs rightnow? Education, yet another example. Thesuggestion is, why should the federal government be involved in school construction? Well, I visited a school down in South Carolina that was built in the1850s. Kids are still learning in that school -- as best they can. When the -- when the railroad -- when the -- it's right next to a railroad,and when the train runs by the whole building shakes and the teacherhas to stop teaching for a while. The -- the auditorium iscompletely broken down and they can't use it. So why wouldn't we want to build state-of-the-art schools with science labs that are teaching our kids the skills they need forthe 21st century, that will enhance our economy and, by the way, rightnow will createjobs? So, you know, we can differ on some of theparticulars,but again, the question I think that the American people are asking is,do you just want government to do nothing, or do you want it todo something? If you want it to do something, then we can havea conversation. But doing nothing -- that's not an option frommy perspective. All right. Chuck Todd. Where'sChuck? QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. In your opening remarks,you talked about that if your plan works the way you want it to work,it's going to increase consumer spending. But isn't consumerspending, or over-spending, how we got into this mess? And if people getmoney back into their pockets, do you not want them saving it or payingdown debt first, before they start spending money into theeconomy? MR. OBAMA: Well, first of all,I don't think it's accurate to say that consumer spending got us into this mess. What gotus into this mess initially were banks taking exorbitant, wild riskswith other people's monies, based on shaky assets. And because ofthe enormous leverage, where they had $1 worth of assets and theywere betting $30 on that $1, what we had was a crisis in thefinancial system. Advertisement Continue reading the main story That led to a contraction of credit, whichin turn meant businesses couldn't make payroll or make inventories, which meantthat everybody became uncertain about the future of the economy. So people started making decisions accordingly, reducing investments, initiating layoffs, which in turn made thingsworse. Now, you are making a legitimate point,Chuck, about the fact that our savings rate has declined. And this economy has beendriven by consumer spending for a very long time. And that's notgoing to be sustainable. You know, if all we're doing is spending andwe're not making things, then over time, other countries are going to gettired of lending us money. And eventually the party's going to beover. Well, in fact, the party now isover. And so the sequence of how we're approaching this is as follows. Our immediate job is tostop the downward spiral. And that means putting money intoconsumers' pockets. It means loosening up credit. It means putting forward investments thatnot only employ people immediately but also lay the groundwork for long-term economicgrowth. And that by the way is important, even if you're afiscal conservative, because the biggest problem we're going to have,with our federal budget, is if we continue a situation in which thereare no tax revenues, because economic growth is plummeting at thesame time as we've got more demands for unemployment insurance; we'vegot more demands for people who've lost their health care, more demandfor food stamps. That will put enormous strains on the federal budget as well as the state budget. So the most important thing we can do forour budget crisisright now is to make sure that the economy doesn't continue totank. And that's why passing the Economic Recovery Plan is the right thingto do, even though I recognize that it's expensive. Look, I would love not to have to spendmoney right now. I'd -- you know, this notion that somehow I came in here just ginned upto spend $800 billion, you know, that -- that wasn't -- that wasn'thow I envisioned my presidency beginning. But we have to adapt toexisting circumstances. Now, what we are going to also have to dois to make sure that as soon as the economy stabilizes, investment begins again; we'reno longer contracting, but we're growing; that our midterm andlong-term budget is dealt with. And I think the same is true forindividual consumers. Right now, they're just -- they're just trying tofigure out how do I make sure that if I lose my job, you know, I'm still going to be able to make my mortgage payments. Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters. Or they're worried about, how am I going to pay next month's bills? So they're not engaging in a lot of long-term financialplanning. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Once the economy stabilizes and people areless fearful, then I do think that we're going to have to start thinking about how dowe operate more prudently, because there's no such thing as a freelunch. So if -- if you want to get -- if you want to buy a house,then putting zero down and buying a house that is probably notaffordable for you in case something goes wrong, that's something that has tobe reconsidered. So we're going to have to change our --our bad habits. But right now, the key is making sure that we pull ourselves out ofthe economic slump that we'rein. All right. Julianna Goldman,Bloomberg. QUESTION Thank you, Mr.President. Many experts, from Nouriel Roubini toSenator Schumer, have said that it will cost the government more than a trillion dollars to really fix the financial system. During the campaign, youpromised the American people that you won't just tell them what they wantto hear, but what they need to hear. Won't the government needfar more than the $350 billion that's remaining in the financial rescue fundto really solve the credit crisis? MR. OBAMA: Well, the credit crisis is real. And it'snot over. I mean, we averted catastrophe by passing the TARPlegislation. But as I said before, because of a lack of clarity and consistencyin how it was applied, a lack of oversight in -- in -- in how themoney went out, we didn't get as a big of a bang for the buck as weshould have. My immediate task is making sure that thesecond half ofthat money, $350 billion, is spent properly. That's my firstjob. Before I even think about what else I've got to do, my first task is tomake sure that my secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, workingwith Larry Summers, my national economic adviser, and others, are comingup with the best possible plan to use this money wisely, in a waythat's transparent, in a way that provides clear oversight; that weare conditioning any money that we give to banks on themreducing executive compensation to reasonable levels and to make surethat they're not wasting thatmoney. We are going to have to work with the banks in an effective way to clean up their balance sheets so that some trust is restoredwithin the marketplace, because right now part of the problem is thatnobody really knows what's on the banks' books. Any given bank,they're not sure what kinds of losses are there. We've got to open thingsup and restore sometrust. We also have to deal with the housingissue in a clearand consistentway. I don't want to preempt my secretary ofthe Treasury; he's going to be laying out these principles in great detail tomorrow. But my instruction to him has been let's get this right, let's createa template in which we're restoring market confidence. And thereason that's so important is because we don't know yet whether we'regoing to need additional money or how much additional money we'll needuntil we've seen how successful we are at restoring a sense of confidencein a marketplace that the federal government and the Federal ReserveBank and the FDIC, working in concert, know what they're doing. That can make a big difference, in terms of whether or not we attract private capital back into the marketplace. Andultimately the government cannot substitute for all the private capital that hasbeen withdrawn from the system. We've got to restore confidence,so that private capital goes backin. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Okay. Jake. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. My question followsJulianna's incontent. The American people have seen hundreds ofbillions ofdollars spent already. And still the economy continues tofree-fall. Beyond avoiding the national catastrophe that you've warned about, onceall the legs of your stool are in place-- MR. OBAMA: Right. QUESTION: -- how canthe American people gauge whether or notyour programs areworking? Can they -- should they be looking at themetric of the stock market, home foreclosures, unemployment? What metric shouldthey use? When? And how will they know if it's working or whether ornot we need to go to a Plan B? MR. OBAMA: I think my initialmeasure of success is creating or saving 4 million jobs. That's bottom line numberone, because if people are working, then they've got enough confidenceto make purchases, to make investments. Businesses start seeingthat consumers are out there with a little more confidence. Andthey start making investments, which means they start hiring workers. So step number one, jobcreation. Step number two, are we seeing the creditmarketsoperate effectively? You know, I can't tell you how many businessesthat I talk to that are successful businesses but just can't getcredit. Part of the problem in Elkhart that I heard about today was thefact that this is the RV capital of America. You've got a bunch ofRV companies that have customers who want to purchase RVs, buteven though their credit is good, they can't get theloan. Now, the businesses also can't get loansto make payments to their suppliers. But when they have consumers, consumerscan't get the loans that they need. So normalizing the credit marketsis, I think, step number two. Step number three is going to behousing. Have we stabilized the housing market? Now, you know, the federal government doesn'thave complete control over that. But if our plan is effective,working with the Federal Reserve Bank, working with the FDIC, I think whatwe can do is stem the rate of foreclosure and we can startstabilizing housing values over time. And the most -- the biggest measure of success is whether we stop contracting and shedding jobs, and we start growing again. Now, you know, I don't have a crystal ball, and as I said, this isan unprecedented crisis. But my hope is that after a difficultyear -- and this year is going to be a difficult year -- that businessesstart investing again, they start making decisions that, you know, infact, there's money to be made out there; customers -- or consumersstart feeling that their jobs are stable and safe, and they startmaking purchases again. And if we get things right then, startingnext year, we can start seeing some significantimprovement. Advertisement Continue reading the main story Ed Henry. Where's Ed? CNN. There heis. QUESTION: Thank you, Mr.President. You've promised to sendmore troops to Afghanistan. And since you've been very clear abouta time table to withdraw our combat troops from Iraq within 16 months,I wonder what's your time table to withdraw troops eventuallyfrom Afghanistan? And related to that, there's a Pentagonpolicy that bans media coverage of the flag-draped coffins from coming into Dover AirForce Base. And back in 2004, then-Senator Joe Biden said that itwas shameful for dead soldiers to be, quote, snuck back into thecountry under the cover ofnight. You've promised unprecedentedtransparency, openness in your government. Will you overturn that pol

train

Trump on Prejean: Same as Obama Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning – the debate over Carrie Prejean's position on gay marriage. Also pictured: Donald Trump. | AP photo composite by POLITICO Trump on Prejean: Same as Obama President Barack Obama ended up in the middle of an unlikely controversy this morning — the debate over Miss California’s position on gay marriage. At a press conference addressing Carrie Prejean’s disputed title in the Miss USA competition, pageant owner Donald Trump compared Prejean’s stated views on gay marriage to Obama’s. Story Continued Below “It's the same answer that the president of the United States gave,” Trump said. “She gave an honorable answer. She gave an answer from her heart.” In her own remarks moments later, Prejean echoed Trump’s statement, telling reporters: “The president of the United States, the secretary of state, and many Americans agree with me in this belief.” In the final round of the Miss USA pageant, Prejean told judge Perez Hilton: “I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.”

train

Mike Pence: “Allowing Rape Victims To Have Abortions Will Lead To Women Trying To Get Raped” The Republican war on women continues unabated. The same week that conservatives argued in the Supreme Court that employers should be able to stop their employees from getting contraception outside of the company health plan, Indiana joined the ranks of states like Texas and Florida in passing a draconian law that purports to protect women, while in fact, endangering their health by making safe abortion much harder to get. And Gov. Mike Pence recently signed it. The bill is stuffed with as many asinine restrictions on abortion with an eye towards making abortion as miserable and humiliating an experience as possible, and ideally something women can’t get legally at all. Asked to comment on his approval of a piece of legislation that basically promotes hatred towards women once stripped of all the legal terms, Pence argued in an interview with The Huffington Post that “abortion as such was a mistake since the day it was first invented.” “So, let’s get that straight right away – I oppose abortion for any reason whatsoever because I believe that killing someone, or something, if you will, that hasn’t developed a consciousness just yet is the ultimate act of crime. And if we’re murderers of innocent beings who can’t defend themselves, how are we to expect people with a fully developed consciousness to stop murdering each other?” the Indiana governor said. “And as if that wasn’t enough,” Pence continued, “we’ve got this situation now throughout different states where some lawmakers allow abortion under some circumstances like rape or when the fetus is diagnosed with an illness, and others just flat out prohibit it. And that’s bad for a number of reasons. First and foremost – we can’t have this kind of freedom of choice. This is bad, let’s be clear. And that’s part of the reason why I signed this bill, because I believe abortion, or I’m going to flat out call it murder, this murdering of children has to stop and it has to be prohibited in every state. So Indiana is just a step in the right direction.” Pence also tried to offer his opinion on what would have happened had he allowed rape victims to still have abortion. “First and foremost, because this is such a sensitive topic, let me just say that I sympathize with rape victims not just in America, but around the world. I can only imagine what it must be like to experience such trauma,” he said. “However, that does not justify murder, not even that justifies murdering a baby, not in my book. Because what would happen? We’d then have an epidemic of women claiming to have been raped just so they could have an abortion. And that has to be stopped at all cost.” Donald Trump’s new running mate also said, “Basically, if I’d have said no on the bill, that would be just like giving out get-pregnant-without-fear cards, because at the end of the day, women could have unprotected sex without worrying about what they’d do in the event of pregnancy. And you know, it’s not supposed to be like that. That would be equal to me picking up a butcher’s knife and slicing people open in the middle of the street. That would be murder. And I’m not a murderer.” “And it gets worse – when you get an abortion, you get several days off of work and whatnot to recover. And there are a lot of crazy people out there. What if women would go out and get raped on purpose just so they could get off work? I mean, Indiana’s economy is struggling as it is, and having thousands of women absent from their jobs would be horrific for the state, I’m telling you. I made the right call and that will be confirmed in the long run,” Pence concluded.

train

McCain: McSame as Bush 自動再生 自動再生を有効にすると、関連動画が自動的に再生されます。 次の動画

train

Remarks by the President at CNBC Town Hall Discussion on Jobs Newseum Washington, D.C. 12:03 P.M. EDT MR. HARWOOD: Good afternoon from Washington, D.C. I'm John Harwood. It is noon on the East Coast. The Dow Jones average stands around 10,700 points; 15 million Americans are out of work. And we're spending the next hour talking about how to fix the troubled American economy. Please welcome the President of the United States. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. MR. HARWOOD: Mr. President, thanks for being here. THE PRESIDENT: That was quite a lead-in, by the way. (Laughter.) MR. HARWOOD: Yes, wasn’t it? You like that dramatic pause? (Laughter.) We have got a cross-section of people from around the country -- CEOs, union workers, teachers and students -- THE PRESIDENT: It’s a good-looking group, I have to say. (Laughter and applause.) MR. HARWOOD: -- small business owners, people who don't have a job. Every one of them has a stake in the American Dream. And they got some good news over the weekend. The National Bureau of Economic Research, as you know, has said that the recession ended in June 2009 -- a few months after you took office. And yet here’s the problem you find yourself with. Many leaders in business think you and your policies are hostile to them. And many ordinary Americans think your policies are helping Wall Street and big business. How did that happen? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, even though economists may say that the recession officially ended last year, obviously for the millions of people who are still out of work, people who have seen their home values decline, people who are struggling to pay the bills day to day, it’s still very real for them. And I think we have to go back to what was happening when I was first sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. We went through the worst recession since the Great Depression. Nothing has come close. In fact, if you look at the consequences of the recession in the ‘80s, the recession in the ‘90s, and the recession in 2001, and you combine all three of those, it still wasn’t as bad as this recession that we went through. So the month I was sworn in we lost 750,000 jobs; the month after that 600,000; the month after that 600,000. This is before any of our plans had a chance to take effect. The financial markets were on the verge of meltdown and the economy was contracting about 6 percent -- by far, the largest contraction we've seen since the ‘30s. You combine all that and what that meant was that we had to take some steps very quickly just to make sure that the financial system was not collapsing -- that people could get auto loans, could get student loans, that businesses large and small could get some financing to keep their doors open and to keep their payrolls on track. And in addition, we had to make sure that we didn’t slip into a Great Depression. Now, we've done that. Those programs that we put in place worked. So now you’ve got a financial system that is stable. It’s still not as strong as it was back in 2006, 2007, but it is stabilized. You’ve got now eight consecutive months of private sector job growth. Businesses are able to borrow again; they’re investing again; they’re making profits again. That's all the good news. The challenge is, is that the hole was so deep that a lot of people out there are still hurting -- and probably some folks here in the audience are still having a tough time. (Applause.) And so the question then becomes what can we now put in place to make sure that the trend lines continue in a positive direction, as opposed to going back in the negative direction. Last week we got some good news. After fighting for several months, we finally got a small business tax cut bill in place so that we’re eliminating capital gains for small businesses and startups, making sure that they can get loans -- because small businesses are the ones that have been hardest hit in terms of not being able to get capital. We have put forward proposals, for example, to accelerate investment here in the United States instead of overseas in research and development and plants and equipment that could put people back to work. So there are a lot of plans in place that can make improvement, but it’s slow and steady, as opposed to the kind of quick fix that I think a lot of people would like to see. But the thing I’ve just got to remind people of is the fact that it took us a decade to get into the problem that we’re in right now. The Wall Street Journal came out with a report based on Census information that the years from 2001 to 2009, the middle class actually saw their wages decline by 5 percent. This was before the financial crisis. So these have been some long-term trends of the middle class having a lot of problems out there. And what we’ve got to do now it to reverse it, but something that took 10 years to create is going to take a little more time to solve. MR. HARWOOD: I’ve heard you give that turnaround message you just gave many times. THE PRESIDENT: Right, right. MR. HARWOOD: Let me ask about your assessment of the challenge and the problem in communicating that to the American people. We all identify with people like ourselves. Do you think it’s possible that because of your style, or the unusual things about your background -- your racial heritage, where you grew up, Ivy League education -- that the fearful voters who are about to go to the polls in November think, yes, I hear him, he may get it intellectually, but he doesn’t feel what I’m feeling? THE PRESIDENT: Well, here’s my suspicion. I think that when the unemployment rate is still high and people are having a tough time, it doesn’t matter if I was green -- (laughter) -- it doesn’t matter if I was purple. I think people would still be frustrated, and understandably so. Look, I can describe what’s happening to the economy overall, but if you’re out of work right now, the only thing that you’re going to be hearing is, when do I get a job? (Applause.) If you’re about to lose your home, all you’re thinking about is, when can I get my home? So I don’t think that those are the issues. And by the way, I think most people understand -- because I spent two years running around the country talking about my life and why I was running for President -- they understand that I was the kid of a single mom, and I got my education through scholarships, and I lived in a small apartment with my grandparents, and they were helped by the G.I. Bill and FHA in terms of being able to climb into the middle class. The whole reason I ran was because my life is a testimony to the American Dream. And everything that we’ve been doing since I came into office is designed to make sure that that American Dream continues for future generations. I think the challenge right now is that I’m thinking about the next generation and there are a lot of folks out there who are thinking about the next election. If I were making decisions based on November, then I wouldn’t have done some of the things that I did because I knew they weren’t popular. But they were the right thing to do. And that's got to be my top priority. (Applause.) MR. HARWOOD: Let’s go to the real jury who will decide whether they were the right things to do with an audience question right here. Q Thank you very much and, quite frankly, good afternoon, President Obama. I am deeply honored to finally be in this forum, and so grateful for CNBC making the forum available so that you can speak to American citizens just like myself. THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you. Q I am a chief financial officer for a veterans service organization, AmVets here in Washington. I’m also a mother, I’m a wife, I’m an American veteran, and I’m one of your middle-class Americans. And quite frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration, defending the mantle of change that I voted for -- THE PRESIDENT: Right. Q -- and deeply disappointed with where we are right now. I have been told that I voted for a man who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class. I’m one of those people, and I’m waiting, sir. I’m waiting. I don't feel it yet. And I thought, while it wouldn’t be in great measure, I would feel it in some small measure. I have two children in private school. And the financial recession has taken an enormous toll on my family. My husband and I joked for years that we thought we were well beyond the hot dogs and beans era of our lives. THE PRESIDENT: Right. Q But quite frankly, it’s starting to knock on our door and ring true that that might be where we’re headed again. And quite frankly, Mr. President, I need you to answer this honestly, is this my new reality? THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, I think that you describe exactly what is the bedrock of America -- a veteran who’s working for veterans, somebody who is a CFO and I am sure knows how to manage their money, have made good decisions. Q Sometimes. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: I’m not saying once in a while you don't want to get a new pair of shoes. (Laughter.) Q Today. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: So the life you describe -- one of responsibility, looking after your family, contributing back to your community -- that's what we want to reward. Now, as I said before, times are tough for everybody right now, so I understand your frustration. But I would just -- when you say there are things that you’d like to see happen or you’re hoping to see happen that haven’t happened yet, let me just give you a couple of examples. I right now have two children -- it sounds like you’ve got kids, as well. Q Two girls. THE PRESIDENT: Two girls. You’re going to be thinking about college soon. Q Next year. THE PRESIDENT: Okay. Now part of what we did over the last year and a half is to make sure that billions of dollars that were going to subsidize financial service industries under the federal student loan programs are now going to be going directly to students so that millions more students are going to be able to get loans and grants and scholarships to go to college. Now, that's going to have an impact on a whole bunch of kids out there, including maybe yours. If you have a credit card, which I assume, you do -- Q No. THE PRESIDENT: Well, see, now you’re really -- now you’ve shown how responsible you are. (Laughter.) But if you have a mortgage or a credit card or any kind of financial dealings out there, as a consequence of the changes we made, the credit card companies can’t increase your interest rate without notifying you, and they can’t increase your interest rate on your previous balances. In terms of getting a mortgage, they -- you can’t have a mortgage broker steer you to a mortgage that ultimately is going to cost you more money, because maybe they’re getting a financial incentive to do so. Those things are now against the law. So there are a whole host of protections in there. You are a parent who has children -- if your child, heaven forbid, had a preexisting condition, before I took office, you were out of luck in terms of being able to get health insurance for that child. Now, insurance companies have to give you health insurance for that child, and by the way, that health insurance can’t drop you if you get sick. So there are a whole host of things that we’ve put in place that do make your life better. But the bottom line is if your 401(K) is still down substantially from where it was a while back, if you haven’t seen a raise in a long time, if your home value went down -- Q Keep going. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: -- depending on where you live, all those things still make you feel like, gosh, I’m treading water. Q Still struggling -- that's right. THE PRESIDENT: And so my goal here is not to try to convince you that everything is where it needs to be. It’s not. That's why I ran for President. But what I am saying is, is that we’re moving in the right direction. And if we are able to keep our eye on our long-term goal -- which is making sure that every family out there, if they’re middle class, that they can pay their bills, have the security of health insurance, retire with dignity and respect, send their kids to college; if they’re not yet in the middle class, that there are ladders there to get into the middle class, if people work hard and get an education to apply themselves -- that's our goal. That's the America we believe in. And I think that we are on track to be able to do that. MR. HARWOOD: Mr. President, let me go at this from a different direction, from the direction of psychology, business confidence. You just mentioned things that credit card companies and health insurance companies used to do. There are some people in business who think, to use a phrase that you used recently about your critics, who think you talk about them like dogs. Let’s listen to Ken Langone, a billionaire businessman. THE PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, billionaire businessman? MR. HARWOOD: Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Okay. (Video is shown.) MR. LANGONE: What should they stop doing? Well, I think the one thing to do is to not make people in business feel like we’re villains or criminals or doing something wrong. I think anytime we can create a job that puts somebody to work, the country is better served. So I think that there’s got to be a need to understand that America, our democracy, is based on a strong, vibrant private economy. MR. HARWOOD: Are you vilifying business? THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not. Look, let’s look at the track record here. When I came into office, businesses, some of the same commentators who are on CNBC, were crying, “Do something,” -- because as a consequence of reckless decisions that had been made, the economy was on the verge of collapse. Those same businesses now are profitable. The financial markets are stabilized. We haven’t increased taxes on businesses. Actually, we have instituted about 50 tax cuts, many of them going to businesses large and small. And so the only thing that we’ve said is that we’ve got to make sure that we’re not doing some of the same things that we were doing in the past that got us into this mess in the first place. So when I mentioned, for example, changes in the financial services industry, it is very important for us not to find ourselves in a position in which banks get too big to fail, and if they make bad decisions taxpayers have to bail them out or we let the entire economy collapse. That’s not a choice that I want any future President to have to make. And we instituted those changes. And the fact is that when FDR put in place deposit insurance in banks, banks said at the time, this is going to destroy capitalism. When Medicare was instituted, there were a whole bunch of people who said, this is socialized medicine. Now we take it for granted. But oftentimes there’s this response that somehow these modest reforms that make the free market work better for consumers and for workers as well as for businesses, on the front end are resisted. MR. HARWOOD: Let me take it, though, to a level that's beyond policy and it goes to what you value and you don't value. THE PRESIDENT: Sure. MR. HARWOOD: I think some of those in business may think that deep down you think that working for profit is morally inferior to the kind of work you used to do as a community organizer. Is that how you feel? THE PRESIDENT: No, it isn’t. Look, in every speech, every interview that I've made, I've constantly said that what sets America apart, what has made us successful over the long term, is we've got the most dynamic free market economy in the world. And that has to be preserved. That has to be preserved. We benefit from entrepreneurs and innovators who are going out there and creating jobs, creating businesses. Government can't create the majority of jobs. And in fact, we want to get out of the way of folks who’ve got a great idea and want to run with it and are going to be putting people to work. MR. HARWOOD: Maybe we've got one of those people right here. THE PRESIDENT: I'd love to hear from him. Q Thank you, Mr. President. I'm 30 years old. I recently graduated from law school. And I went back to law school in order to pursue a life of public service, like you have. And what I found was that I simply -- there aren't jobs out there right now. I took advantage of the loans that you were just speaking about, but I can't make the interest payments on those loans today, let alone think about getting a mortgage, having a family, having even a marriage -- it’s awfully expensive. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: I'm not going to comment on that. (Laughter and applause.) Let me just say that whatever the expense, it’s worth it. (Laughter.) I want that on record. (Applause.) Q Like a lot of people in my generation, I was really inspired by you and by your campaign and message that you brought, and that inspiration is dying away. It feels like the American Dream is not attainable to a lot of us. And what I'm really hoping to hear from you is several concrete steps that you’re going to take moving forward that will be able to re-ignite my generation, re-ignite the youth who are beset by student loans. And I really want to know, is the American Dream dead for me? THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely not. Look, we still have the best universities in the world. We’ve got the most dynamic private sector in the world. We’ve got the most productive workers in the world. There is not a country in the world that would not want to change places with us. For all the problems that we’ve got, as tough as things are right now, we are still the country that billions of people around the world look to and aspire to. And I want everybody to always remember that. Now, as I said before, what we saw happening during 2001 to the time I took office was wages actually declining for middle-class families, people treading water, young people having more trouble getting their foot in the door in terms of businesses. And so we are now having to go back to the fundamentals that made America great. And that means we’ve got to improve our education system. That means that we have to make sure that our markets are working in a way that is good for a broad base of people and not just a narrow base of people. It means that, let’s say -- you used the example of student loans -- one of the things that I just mentioned was, is that we put billions of dollars more into student loans. This was paid for, now. We took this out of financial service industries that were getting essentially unjustified subsidies -- they’re now going to students so that your debt would be lower. And by the way, part of that law also capped your debt at 10 percent of your income so that you knew that you could actually afford to take out this debt and pay for it even if you had a modest salary. So we are taking these steps. But the most important thing we can do right now is to grow our economy. That’s the single most important thing that we can do. And some of the measures that we’ve put forward and I’m going to be fighting for are designed to exactly do that. For example, we’ve said let’s accelerate business investment in the year 2011 to give a further jumpstart to the economy. That’s something that, by the way, doesn’t add to the deficit necessarily long term because this is depreciation that could be taken in the out-years. We’re just saying you invest now, you can take it now. And that gives businesses incentives to do it. We want to give tax breaks to companies that are investing in research and development here in the United States because the key to our long-term growth is technology and innovation. And if we can get more of those investments here, that's going to improve. The reforms we’ve made on education -- which, by the way, have received bipartisan support -- are designed to make sure we’ve got the best engineers and the best scientists in the world right here in the United States. So if we’re doing all those things, I am confident that the American Dream will continue for the next generation. What we can’t do, though, is go back to the same old things that we were doing, because we’ve been putting off these problems for decades. And that is something that I refuse to do. MR. HARWOOD: Mr. President, let me ask you a question about course correction. Sometimes a leader, even if you think you’ve done the right things, but if the people you’re trying to lead don't think so, you’ve got to somehow accommodate that, just like you would in a relationship. He was talking about marriage. (Laughter.) As you go forward, is there any way in which you want to signal to the American people that you’re going to change your approach? And specifically -- we’re coming up to the midterm election -- have you asked your Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and your top economic advisor Larry Summers to stay with you through the end of your term, or might you make some changes? THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, I have not made any determinations about personnel. I think Larry Summers and Tim Geithner have done an outstanding job, as have my whole economic team. This is tough, the work that they do. They’ve been at it for two years, and they’re going to have a whole range of decisions about family that will factor into this, as well. But the bottom line is, is that we’re constantly thinking, is what we’re doing working as well as it could? Do we have other options and other alternatives that we can explore? I think one of the things that's on a lot of people’s minds right now, obviously, for example, is the issue of deficits and debt. That has fanned a lot of people’s concerns because we had to take a lot of emergency decisions last year that cost money. Now, they were the right things to do. Had we not taken them, the economy would be in a much worse position. Even John McCain’s former economist during the campaign has said that if we hadn’t taken these steps, that we might have lost another 8 million jobs, and we would be in an even deeper hole. MR. HARWOOD: And we know you have that commission that reports in December, but I think a lot of Americans may wonder how serious you are about what that commission is going to do. THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me tell you. We’ve already identified $250 billion in cuts on the discretionary side of our budget. We’ve identified $300 billion worth of loopholes in our tax code that are not helping economic growth. If we just did those two things, as I’ve already proposed, that would make a huge difference. We’ve proposed to freeze discretionary spending for three years, to start whittling down some of the debt that I inherited. MR. HARWOOD: Peter Orszag, as you know, your former budget director, says that we can’t afford to extend the Bush tax cuts for anyone after a year or two. Is he right? THE PRESIDENT: Well, I want to make sure I get this gentleman’s question in, but I will say this. The debate that we’re having about tax cuts right now I think really speaks to the choices that everybody here is going to be facing as we go forward. I think all of us are concerned about the deficit; all of us are concerned about the debt. Now, what we’ve said is that we should extend tax cuts, tax relief, for middle-class Americans -- like most of the audience here -- because, first of all, you’re the ones who didn't see your wages or income rise. Second of all, you’re the folks who are most likely to spend it on a new computer for your kids, or in some other fashion that would boost demand in the economy. Everybody agrees that this should be done. All we’ve said is that you get those tax breaks up to $250,000 a year. After that, if you make more than $250,000 a year, you still get a tax break; it’s just you only get it up to $250,000 -- MR. HARWOOD: House Speak Pelosi said last week -- THE PRESIDENT: And let me say this, John, because I just think it’s very important that everybody understands this. What the Republicans are proposing is that we, in addition to that, provide tax relief to primarily millionaires and billionaires. It would cost us $700 billion to do it. On average, millionaires would get a check of $100,000. And by the way, I would be helped by this, so I just want to be clear. I’m speaking against my own financial interests. This is a -- it is a irresponsible thing for us to do. Those folks are the least likely to spend it and -- (applause.) MR. HARWOOD: Well, let me ask you from this angle. House Speaker Pelosi last week said you can get 80 percent of the revenue if you simply take away the tax cuts for people over a million dollars. Are you open to any sort of compromise that would capture most of that revenue, but those people between $250,000 and a million would get to keep that tax cut? THE PRESIDENT: Here’s the basic principle. Here’s what I can’t do as President. I think I’ve worked pretty hard and I have a pretty big grasp of the challenges that we’re facing. (Applause.) But here’s what I can’t do. I can’t give tax cuts to the top 2 percent of Americans, 86 percent of that money going to people making a million dollars or more, and lower the deficit at the same time. I don’t have the math. I would love to do it. Every -- anybody in elected office would love nothing more than to give everybody tax cuts, not cut services, make sure that I’m providing help to student loans, make sure that we’re keeping our roads safe and our bridges safe, and make sure that we’re paying for our veterans who are coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. At some point, the numbers just don’t work. So what I’ve said is very simple. Let’s go ahead and move forward on what we agree to, which is tax relief for 95 -- 97 percent of Americans. In fact, actually everybody would get tax relief, but just up to $250,000 a year more. And let’s get the economy moving faster, let’s get it growing faster. At some point in the future, if we want to have discussions about further lowering tax rates, let’s do so at a time when we can actually afford it. MR. HARWOOD: All right, we’ve kept this gentleman waiting long enough. THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Q Mr. President, it is an honor to be in front of you. I am a small business owner. I'm a third-generation business owner in Pennsylvania. We are actually celebrating our 100th-year anniversary because we were founded in 1910. THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations. (Applause.) What’s your business? Q Something called Susquehanna Glass, and we do monogrammed glasswork. THE PRESIDENT: Outstanding. Q If you ever pick up a Williams-Sonoma catalog and buy a monogrammed glass, you’re getting the stuff from me. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT: Congratulations -- and your grandfather started this? Q My grandfather and his brother started the business, yes, three generations. THE PRESIDENT: That’s outstanding. That’s great. Q Two world wars, one Great Depression, and a lot of economic recession, so we’ve been through a lot. What I have learned in running a small business over that period of time is that to succeed, to survive, you have to reinvest in your business. It simply is imperative. The single greatest economic challenge that I face today is a public that is fearful and negative. You, when you first came into office, your stimulus package actually funded a very ailing financial system, which was essential for small businesspeople. You turned around and invested in the auto industry, and I believe saved millions of jobs, and I think you’re actually going to make a profit on them. (Applause.) THE PRESIDENT: We are. That's true. Q And yet your critics continue to paint you as a dramatically anti-business President. I believe you are investing in this country, as small businesses invest. And yet for some reason the public just doesn’t get it. I need you to help us understand how you can regain the political center, because you’re losing the war of sound bites, you’re losing the media cycles. I have a son that just graduated from college. He was just commissioned as a second lieutenant in the Army. He wants to make a career of the Army. I want to have a business for him to come back to when he gets out of the Army. THE PRESIDENT: Well, first of all, let me say to your son thank you for your service to our country, and we want to make sure we’ve got a strong economy for him to come back to. (Applause.) As I said before, I think that if you look at what we’ve done over the last two years, it’s very hard to find evidence of anything that we’ve done that is designed to squash business as opposed to promote business. You mentioned the auto industry. This is a great example of something that we did -- we knew it wasn’t popular. I mean, people just -- the last thing folks wanted to see was us helping the auto industry. Now, keep in mind, the previous administration had been helping them, giving them billions of dollars and just asking nothing in return. But we were at a point where two of the big three automakers were about to liquidate, in the midst of this huge recession, and we would have lost an additional million jobs as a consequence, but also lost what is a signature manufacturing industry in this country. I mean, we built the world auto industry. And so what we did was we said to the auto companies, we are going to help you, but you’ve got to make some changes. You’ve got to make sure that we see a restructuring of how you do business. And by the way, some of the folks who made the biggest concessions were actually the workers there. It wasn’t -- they took huge cuts in terms of pay and benefits because they understood that there wage structures could no longer support the auto industry in a competitive era. We are now seeing the top -- the three U.S. automakers making a profit for the first time in a long time. They are hiring for the first time in a long time. And that has huge ramifications, because there are suppliers, and the restaurant next to the plant that's open -- and so it has provided a lot of confidence in a lot of these communities. But it wasn’t popular at the time. Now, there were some folks in -- on CNBC who were unhappy with our decision, partly because they had made bets, essentially, against the auto industry, or they had senior debt. And we said, you know what, if the workers are giving up something, if management is giving up something, if the federal government is giving up something, and taxpayers are giving something, you’re not going to get a hundred percent of what you bargained for in terms of some of the investments that you made here. You’re going to have to take a haircut, too. And they got very mad about it. I still remember some of the fulminating that was taking place on CNBC about it. (Laughter.) We didn’t do that because we were anti-business. We were doing it because we wanted to make sure that these businesses would continue. And by the way, some of the same folks who complained were some of the same folks who, if we hadn’t taken some of those actions on Wall Street, would have lost everything they had. And they didn’t mind us intervening when it was helping them. But they did mind it when we were helping some other folks. So the point, I guess, I’m making is this. I think that American businesses like yours are what make this country go. We have passed eight tax cuts for small businesses so far. We have made it easier for you to invest in plants and equipment. We have already taken down your capital gains and we want to reduce capital gains for small businesses down to zero. All of these things are what historically have been considered pro-business agendas. Even on health care, a lot of small businesses couldn’t provide health care. We are now saying we’ve giving you a tax break if you provide health care to your workers. And 4 million small businesses out there are in a position to potentially take advantage of it. But what is absolutely true -- and this goes to the point you were making earlier, John, about midcourse corrections -- the rhetoric and the politicizing of so many decisions that are out there has to be toned down. We’ve got to get back to working together. And my hope is -- and this is part of my job as leader. It’s not just a matter of implementing good policies, but also setting a better tone so that everybody feels like we can start cooperating again, instead of going at loggerheads all the time. (Applause.) And I’m going to have to do more additional outreach to business community on that front. MR. HARWOOD: You mentioned fulminating. One of my colleagues, Rick Santelli, was one of those who complained about your policies early --

train

whathappensintheusa.com -&nbspwhathappensintheusa リソースおよび情報 This Domain Name Has Expired - Renewal Instructions.

train

U.S. Army's Involvement in Motorsports You have items in your cart

train

Oct. 11: Levin, Graham, McCaffrey, Myers, roundtable Oct. 11: The debate over the best way forward intensifies in Washington. Two key voices on the Hill and two experienced military leaders weigh in on the direction a new war strategy should take: Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI); Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC); Gen. Barry McCaffrey (Ret.); and Gen. Richard Myers (Ret.). Plus a roundtable: Ron Brownstein, Paul Gigot, Katty Kay, Bob Woodward. GREGORY: Realistically, from both of you generals, what is victory in Afghanistan? GEN. MYERS: Some sort--in my view, it's some sort of stable government. And back to Senator Levin's point... GREGORY: So we can't leave. We can't pull troops out of Afghanistan until there's a stable government? GEN. MYERS: I think it has to be a viable, stable government that the people believe in. And if you're going to have Afghan security forces that are effective, they have to be connected to the central government and feel that there's some connection and some direction coming from their central government. Otherwise it doesn't work; they're just in the field doing what they do but there's no connection to the overall mission of that country. So I think clearly that's, that's part of it. And I think there has to be some economic development to give people there hope that there's something beyond... GREGORY: Yeah. GEN. MYERS: ...what they're doing today. GREGORY: Can we beat the Taliban? GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, I, I think in 10 years of $5 billion a month and with a significant front-end security component, we can leave a Afghan national army and police force and a viable government and roads and universities. But it's a time constraint that we can't change things in 18 to 24 months. So I think we got to lower expectations. Senator Levin talked about our political resolve; is it there or not? You know, sort of a simplistic lesson I learned as an infantry company commander in combat, you only got three choices. When you're under fire you can hunker down and take casualties--it's bad--you can break contact and withdraw or you can reinforce and attack. That's really the, the challenge facing the Obama administration right now. And the, the politics of it are really tough. The American people do not appear to support large-scale continued intervention in this conflict. GREGORY: Just with, with very little time left, I want to get to two other issues. The president spoke last night at the Human Rights Campaign dinner and spoke about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." (Videotape) PRES. OBAMA: I'm working with the Pentagon, its leadership and the members of the House and Senate on ending this policy. Legislation has been introduced in the House to make this happen. I will end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." That's my commitment to you. (End videotape) GREGORY: That, of course, the position of the military to expel gays and lesbians from service. Senator Levin, will the president live up to this pledge? Can he? SEN. LEVIN: I think he, he will and he can. I think it has to be done in the, in the right way, which is to get a buy-in from the military, which I think is now possible. Other militaries in the West, the British and other Western armies, have ended this discriminatory policy. We can do it successfully. But it ought to be done with thoughtfulness and with care, and with a buy-in from the military. GREGORY: General Myers, is it time? GEN. MYERS: I can't talk about whether it's time or not. I think the process that Senator Levin outlined is exactly right, that the senior military leadership needs to be part of this. GREGORY: Mm-hmm. GEN. MYERS: The Pentagon needs to be part of it. GREGORY: Do you have an opinion about whether it's time? GEN. MYERS: Well, I, I take some exception to what Senator Levin said, because gays can serve in the military, just can't serve openly. And they, they do and there's lot of them. And we are, and we are, and we're the beneficiary of all that. GREGORY: OK. GEN. MYERS: So I'll leave it to the current folks to, to decide whether it's time or not. GEN. McCAFFREY: Well, there's no question it's time to change the policy. The key to it isn't buy-in from the military, it's for Congress to change the law. They ought to do so. And we would--I'm confident the military will move ahead on it. SEN. LEVIN: And we, I think, will do that, but we'll need the support at least of some of the military to do it. GEN. MYERS: I think that's right. You can't... GREGORY: Does the, does the president have the political resolve to make good on his promise? SEN. LEVIN: Oh, he does, and I think many of us do. GREGORY: Yeah. SEN. LEVIN: I thought it was a mistake to begin with. GREGORY: Right. Congress has the resolve as well to change it? SEN. LEVIN: I think we will gain that resolve. The way we've made other changes in this country, the military are the ones that ended a discriminatory policy against African-Americans. They can end it here and it will be great progress. GREGORY: And finally, Senator Graham, on that question, do you think the military should end the policy? SEN. GRAHAM: Well, it's my belief that if the policy--you don't have buy-in by the military, that's a disservice to the people in the military. They should be included in this. I'm open-minded to what the military may suggest. But I can tell you, I'm not going to make policy based on a campaign rally. And when it comes to time, the one thing I would say again about Afghanistan, history will judge not when we left but by what we left behind. And our national security interests will be determined by what we left behind and not when we left. And if this policy about "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" changes, it should be done based not on politics, but on reason. GREGORY: And, and, finally, Senator Graham, do you think the president deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? SEN. GRAHAM: If he can successfully turn around Afghanistan, deter Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, I will build a bookcase for him to put it in. It depends on what he does. GREGORY: Senator Levin? SEN. LEVIN: I think it was a, a positive statement about hope for America, as well as a recognition of the new direction that he's setting for us. GREGORY: All right, we are going to leave it there. This debate will continue. Thanks to all of you. And coming next, Afghanistan, health care and jobs; the politics behind it all. Insights and analysis from our roundtable. Plus, our MEET THE PRESS Minute highlighting some eerie similarities between Afghanistan and Vietnam, only on MEET THE PRESS. (Announcements) GREGORY: Our roundtable weighs in--Afghanistan, health care and the economy--after this brief commercial break. (Announcements) GREGORY: We are back and joined now by BBC America's Katty Kay, The Washington Post's Bob Woodward, National Journal's Ron Brownstein and Paul Gigot of The Wall Street Journal. Welcome to all of you. So much to get to this week; war and peace, as I said at the outset. But let's talk about the politics of war, and I think it's striking. Here we are in October of 2009, and it was October of 2001 when President Bush made the decision to go to war. In October of 2009, another president has to make another big decision about troops in Afghanistan, and look how the politics have changed. This was a USA Today/Gallup poll about views of sending more troops, and what you see here is a huge political divide: Democrats, 36 percent for it; Republicans, 73 percent for it. Opponents on the Democratic side, 59 percent to 23 percent. Bob Woodward, what's different? What are the politics here for this president? MR. BOB WOODWARD: Well, I, I think what's interesting, instead of trying to figure out the future, what's going on in the White House now? It's extraordinary series of very long meetings. One of the big criticisms of Lyndon Johnson during Vietnam was he wouldn't listen, and Obama is listening. He's on a listening tour, and everyone is getting their say. And he's got to, he's got to make a giant decision not about troop numbers, but what's the strategy? And I think, you know, this is, this is the test for him. Can he come up with some consensus so the military doesn't feel wounded, so his own party doesn't feel wounded? And if he does that, you know, a lot of people, even if they don't agree with the final decision, will say he did something--again, George W. Bush, in deciding to go into Iraq, the model there was he decided... GREGORY: Right. MR. WOODWARD: ..."We're going to do it." All the meetings were about how to do it, never considering other options. GREGORY: But, but there, there is a real debate about this policy that has broken into the public, and you broke this story with McChrystal's assessment. The vice president is on the cover of Newsweek magazine with his perspective as a, as a counselor to the president on important matters, including this question of Afghanistan. This is played out--we spent a lot of time talking about this in the Bush administration over Iraq. This has really played out publicly. MR. WOODWARD: But, but--and I think to everyone's benefit, including the president's, including the military and certainly the, the public. Look, if we had had the secret report on WMD in Iraq before the war and published that, history might have been different. It's very important to know, if you can, what these classified memos say. And in the, in this case we have it, and people are talking about something very concrete. GREGORY: Paul Gigot, the, the question is the president had a strategy. He announced it in March. MR. PAUL GIGOT: I thought--yeah. GREGORY: It was clear. This is what Charles Krauthammer wrote on Friday in his column: "So what does [the] commander-in-chief do now with the war he once declared had to be won but had been almost criminally underresourced by Bush? Perhaps provide the resources to win it? You would think so. ... Obama agonizes publicly and the world watches. Why?"

train

Executive Order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, including the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by foreign nationals admitted to the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The visa-issuance process plays a crucial role in detecting individuals with terrorist ties and stopping them from entering the United States. Perhaps in no instance was that more apparent than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, when State Department policy prevented consular officers from properly scrutinizing the visa applications of several of the 19 foreign nationals who went on to murder nearly 3,000 Americans. And while the visa-issuance process was reviewed and amended after the September 11 attacks to better detect would-be terrorists from receiving visas, these measures did not stop attacks by foreign nationals who were admitted to the United States. Numerous foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001, including foreign nationals who entered the United States after receiving visitor, student, or employment visas, or who entered through the United States refugee resettlement program. Deteriorating conditions in certain countries due to war, strife, disaster, and civil unrest increase the likelihood that terrorists will use any means possible to enter the United States. The United States must be vigilant during the visa-issuance process to ensure that those approved for admission do not intend to harm Americans and that they have no ties to terrorism. In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation. Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to protect its citizens from foreign nationals who intend to commit terrorist attacks in the United States; and to prevent the admission of foreign nationals who intend to exploit United States immigration laws for malevolent purposes. Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and Other Immigration Benefits to Nationals of Countries of Particular Concern. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall immediately conduct a review to determine the information needed from any country to adjudicate any visa, admission, or other benefit under the INA (adjudications) in order to determine that the individual seeking the benefit is who the individual claims to be and is not a security or public-safety threat. (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, shall submit to the President a report on the results of the review described in subsection (a) of this section, including the Secretary of Homeland Security’s determination of the information needed for adjudications and a list of countries that do not provide adequate information, within 30 days of the date of this order. The Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence. (c) To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas). (d) Immediately upon receipt of the report described in subsection (b) of this section regarding the information needed for adjudications, the Secretary of State shall request all foreign governments that do not supply such information to start providing such information regarding their nationals within 60 days of notification. (e) After the 60-day period described in subsection (d) of this section expires, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall submit to the President a list of countries recommended for inclusion on a Presidential proclamation that would prohibit the entry of foreign nationals (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas) from countries that do not provide the information requested pursuant to subsection (d) of this section until compliance occurs. (f) At any point after submitting the list described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Homeland Security may submit to the President the names of any additional countries recommended for similar treatment. (g) Notwithstanding a suspension pursuant to subsection (c) of this section or pursuant to a Presidential proclamation described in subsection (e) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may, on a case-by-case basis, and when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked. (h) The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall submit to the President a joint report on the progress in implementing this order within 30 days of the date of this order, a second report within 60 days of the date of this order, a third report within 90 days of the date of this order, and a fourth report within 120 days of the date of this order. Sec. 4. Implementing Uniform Screening Standards for All Immigration Programs. (a) The Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall implement a program, as part of the adjudication process for immigration benefits, to identify individuals seeking to enter the United States on a fraudulent basis with the intent to cause harm, or who are at risk of causing harm subsequent to their admission. This program will include the development of a uniform screening standard and procedure, such as in-person interviews; a database of identity documents proffered by applicants to ensure that duplicate documents are not used by multiple applicants; amended application forms that include questions aimed at identifying fraudulent answers and malicious intent; a mechanism to ensure that the applicant is who the applicant claims to be; a process to evaluate the applicant’s likelihood of becoming a positively contributing member of society and the applicant’s ability to make contributions to the national interest; and a mechanism to assess whether or not the applicant has the intent to commit criminal or terrorist acts after entering the United States. (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with the Secretary of State, the Director of National Intelligence, and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of this directive within 60 days of the date of this order, a second report within 100 days of the date of this order, and a third report within 200 days of the date of this order. Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States. (b) Upon the resumption of USRAP admissions, the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, is further directed to make changes, to the extent permitted by law, to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality. Where necessary and appropriate, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall recommend legislation to the President that would assist with such prioritization. (c) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of nationals of Syria as refugees is detrimental to the interests of the United States and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest. (d) Pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the entry of more than 50,000 refugees in fiscal year 2017 would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and thus suspend any such entry until such time as I determine that additional admissions would be in the national interest. (e) Notwithstanding the temporary suspension imposed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Secretaries of State and Homeland Security may jointly determine to admit individuals to the United States as refugees on a case-by-case basis, in their discretion, but only so long as they determine that the admission of such individuals as refugees is in the national interest — including when the person is a religious minority in his country of nationality facing religious persecution, when admitting the person would enable the United States to conform its conduct to a preexisting international agreement, or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship — and it would not pose a risk to the security or welfare of the United States. (f) The Secretary of State shall submit to the President an initial report on the progress of the directive in subsection (b) of this section regarding prioritization of claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution within 100 days of the date of this order and shall submit a second report within 200 days of the date of this order. (g) It is the policy of the executive branch that, to the extent permitted by law and as practicable, State and local jurisdictions be granted a role in the process of determining the placement or settlement in their jurisdictions of aliens eligible to be admitted to the United States as refugees. To that end, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall examine existing law to determine the extent to which, consistent with applicable law, State and local jurisdictions may have greater involvement in the process of determining the placement or resettlement of refugees in their jurisdictions, and shall devise a proposal to lawfully promote such involvement. Sec. 6. Rescission of Exercise of Authority Relating to the Terrorism Grounds of Inadmissibility. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security shall, in consultation with the Attorney General, consider rescinding the exercises of authority in section 212 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182, relating to the terrorism grounds of inadmissibility, as well as any related implementing memoranda. Sec. 7. Expedited Completion of the Biometric Entry-Exit Tracking System. (a) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall expedite the completion and implementation of a biometric entry-exit tracking system for all travelers to the United States, as recommended by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. (b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall submit to the President periodic reports on the progress of the directive contained in subsection (a) of this section. The initial report shall be submitted within 100 days of the date of this order, a second report shall be submitted within 200 days of the date of this order, and a third report shall be submitted within 365 days of the date of this order. Further, the Secretary shall submit a report every 180 days thereafter until the system is fully deployed and operational. Sec. 8. Visa Interview Security. (a) The Secretary of State shall immediately suspend the Visa Interview Waiver Program and ensure compliance with section 222 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1202, which requires that all individuals seeking a nonimmigrant visa undergo an in-person interview, subject to specific statutory exceptions. (b) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations, the Secretary of State shall immediately expand the Consular Fellows Program, including by substantially increasing the number of Fellows, lengthening or making permanent the period of service, and making language training at the Foreign Service Institute available to Fellows for assignment to posts outside of their area of core linguistic ability, to ensure that non-immigrant visa-interview wait times are not unduly affected. Sec. 9. Visa Validity Reciprocity. The Secretary of State shall review all nonimmigrant visa reciprocity agreements to ensure that they are, with respect to each visa classification, truly reciprocal insofar as practicable with respect to validity period and fees, as required by sections 221(c) and 281 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1201(c) and 1351, and other treatment. If a country does not treat United States nationals seeking nonimmigrant visas in a reciprocal manner, the Secretary of State shall adjust the visa validity period, fee schedule, or other treatment to match the treatment of United States nationals by the foreign country, to the extent practicable. Sec. 10. Transparency and Data Collection. (a) To be more transparent with the American people, and to more effectively implement policies and practices that serve the national interest, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall, consistent with applicable law and national security, collect and make publicly available within 180 days, and every 180 days thereafter: (i) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been charged with terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; convicted of terrorism-related offenses while in the United States; or removed from the United States based on terrorism-related activity, affiliation, or material support to a terrorism-related organization, or any other national security reasons since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; (ii) information regarding the number of foreign nationals in the United States who have been radicalized after entry into the United States and engaged in terrorism-related acts, or who have provided material support to terrorism-related organizations in countries that pose a threat to the United States, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and (iii) information regarding the number and types of acts of gender-based violence against women, including honor killings, in the United States by foreign nationals, since the date of this order or the last reporting period, whichever is later; and (iv) any other information relevant to public safety and security as determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General, including information on the immigration status of foreign nationals charged with major offenses. (b) The Secretary of State shall, within one year of the date of this order, provide a report on the estimated long-term costs of the USRAP at the Federal, State, and local levels. Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals. (b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations. (c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person. DONALD J. TRUMP

train

John McCain for President John McCain will establish a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, mobilize innovative technologies, and strengthen the economy. He will work with our international partners to secure our energy future, to create opportunities for American industry, and to leave a better future for our children. John McCain’s Principles For Climate Policy: Climate Policy Should Be Built On Scientifically-Sound, Mandatory Emission Reduction Targets And Timetables. Climate Policy Should Utilize A Market-Based Cap And Trade System. Climate Policy Must Include Mechanisms To Minimize Costs And Work Effectively With Other Markets. Climate Policy Must Spur The Development And Deployment Of Advanced Technology. Climate Policy Must Facilitate International Efforts To Solve The Problem.

train

The Des Moines Register Barnes, Paige … Foster? Is the Osky product bound for a blue-blood? "He belongs in the upper echelon with the other five stars. He’s right there. I think he belongs right up there in the top 10, if not the top five." Recruiting

train

Obama for America TV Ad: "Firms" 自動再生 自動再生を有効にすると、関連動画が自動的に再生されます。 次の動画

train

Topic A: How Can President Obama Regain His Political Footing? With polls showing that President Obama is losing ground, The Post asked political experts what he could do to regain the initiative. Below are contributions from Scott Keeter, Michael S. Berman, Newt Gingrich, Donna Brazile, Robert J. Blendon, Christine Todd Whitman, Dan Schnur, Ed Rogers, Harold Ford Jr. and Ed Gillespie. SCOTT KEETER Director of survey research at Pew Research Center President Obama had a better honeymoon with the public than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. But it's over now. His ratings are approaching his electoral margin. This summer slump is a product of his own actions and political forces outside his control. Obama campaigned for strong government action on the economy and health care, and most of his voters agreed with this direction. But Obama's efforts to expand the role of government have alienated many of those who did not vote for him but nonetheless gave him high marks when first he took office. Pew Research's political values survey this spring showed no surge in public demand for more government. Indeed, anti-government sentiment, which had been building for years, was heightened by the financial bailout and stimulus program. Moreover, it was inevitable that Obama eventually would have to take responsibility for the economy, which -- despite a few "green shoots" -- remains grim. The health-care debate has taken a toll on the president's popularity as well as that of his party. Americans remain ambivalent, desiring most of the major elements in the reform proposals but simultaneously worrying about too much government control of health care. Obama can influence whether and how reform passes, and whether it passes at all will affect his approval rating. Democrats in Congress fear that passing an unpopular health care package will be politically costly, but as Clinton's 1994 experience demonstrated, they have good reason to fear that failure on health care could also be costly. MICHAEL S. BERMAN President of the Duberstein Group; former counsel and deputy chief of staff to Vice President Walter Mondale First, the president should not over-read or over-rely on polls. To get some perspective, check out the Aug. 26 piece by Jeremy Rosner of Greenberg, Quinlan, Rosner Research entitled "A Pollster's Advice: Don't Trust the Polls on Health Reform's Demise." Second, Obama should show that he understands that people are being asked to accept changes in the health-care system while they are in the throes of actual or potential crisis in their personal financial "systems." And that he has heard the concerns raised by affected Americans nationwide. While the media attention to various town halls was in the best tradition of "if it bleeds it leads," most of the people who came out did so out of a real need and interest to learn more about health-care reform proposals. Third, invite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid to a meeting, just the three of them, and work through with them a plan for going forward. Work "with" the congressional leadership to come up with a single bill that represents the doable, sans the wish list of every idea for changing health care that has been suggested in the past several decades. And get to that bill before the process kind of stumbles on to it. Finally, choose a dramatic forum, perhaps a joint session of Congress, to lay out a bill that includes core changes but reflects having heard what is bothering the people he was elected to lead. NEWT GINGRICH Former Republican speaker of the House of Representatives When he returns from vacation, the president's most important assignment should be to take a deep breath and get a long-term view of the country's reaction to his policies. Since World War II, only Gerald Ford and Bill Clinton have had worse ratings after seven months than President Obama. His economic policies are not creating jobs. His energy tax is unlikely to pass the Senate. There is an overwhelming rejection of his spending policies. On the international front, Afghanistan is proving much harder than expected. Iran is showing no signs of giving up its nuclear program and North Korea is still unyielding. In this setting, the left's health program is bitterly dividing the country. Several polls have shown that more Americans expect their personal health-care situation to get worse than to get better under the plan being considered in Congress. Still, Obama's left-wing advisers want him to undertake the revolutionary act of ramming through massive change for 17 percent of the economy under a narrow budgetary provision. This would be a statement of absolute defiance of the vast majority of Americans. Obama faces a choice: He can attempt to run a left-wing government against the American people. Or he can govern from the center with a large majority of Americans supporting him. He can have either his left angry or the American people angry. We will know in September which choice he has made. DONNA BRAZILE Author and political commentator; manager of Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign President Obama must reset the national debate and narrow his focus on passing health-insurance reform with or without Republicans. To do this, the president must convince deficit-weary voters that reform will not send the national debt soaring and that higher taxes on the middle class are not just around the corner. With everything in his inbox still marked urgent, the president needs to prioritize more and stop trying to do everything at once without also reminding Americans of the sacrifices involved. He should repeat: "Remember, we're all in this together." Obama must also take a chapter from his campaign and begin to work on the "new politics" that would allow him to reach bipartisan consensus on a host of major challenges. Much of the real anger we are seeing is economic anxiety that ordinary people are experiencing in this jobless recession. The economy is doing better, according to statistics, but nobody feels it yet. That makes for a lot of fear and worry. The administration should also keep an eye on the stimulus spending: target funds, track job creation, rebuild the safety net, and eliminate waste and duplicity. With money so tight, no one wants to see the government spending frivolously. ROBERT J. BLENDON Professor of health policy and political analysis at Harvard's School of Public Health and its Kennedy School of Government Most Americans do not see the president's economic policies as having been particularly successful for people like themselves, and this is leading to some skepticism about health-care reform. In fact, recent polls show most Americans do not anticipate any aspect of their health care improving if the president's health-reform proposals were enacted. To shift this thinking requires two things: The administration's message has to change sharply, focusing on more concrete, practical aspects of reform and how it will improve typical Americans' experiences with health care. Obama needs to present over and over again five specific changes in the legislation that will help the average family, and how they will be paid for. For example, explain why changing the system so families cannot lose their insurance coverage and enacting tough insurance reforms helps families who have coverage today. Second, the president needs to make a clear decision this fall about whether he supports a public option competing with private insurance. If so, he must explain how it would function in practice. Americans in the political center are turned off by ideological debates. After all these months, they want him to explain if it is essential and then move on to other issues they see as important. CHRISTINE TODD WHITMAN Chair of the Republican Leadership Council; governor of New Jersey from 1994 to 2001 If he wants to regain ground on the health-care debate, climate change and the other legislative initiatives he has identified, President Obama needs to start by rebuilding some bridges within his party. The squabbling among Democrats is bitter, with the attacks from the more liberal end of the party on the more moderate "Blue Dog" Democrats reaching a fever pitch. Obama might keep in mind the legacy of Sen. Edward Kennedy and reach out to those Blue Dog Democrats as well as moderate Republicans to find common ground. Kennedy was an ardent partisan with a 90 percent liberal lifetime voting rating from the liberal watchdog group Americans for Democratic Action. No one questioned his commitment to the liberal agenda or his party. Yet few senators have ever authored more bipartisan bills and were known for so consistently reaching across the aisle. The president should refuse to push through legislation on strictly partisan votes and should seek the types of bipartisan compromise he promised to broker. DAN SCHNUR Director of the University of Southern California's Unruh Institute of Politics; communications director for John McCain's 2000 presidential campaign Everyone is drawing political lessons from the life and legacy of Ted Kennedy. But there is one missed opportunity in particular from Kennedy's career that Barack Obama can reflect on to get himself and his administration back on track. Kennedy famously cited his decision to reject President Richard Nixon's health-care reform package as his greatest regret. Although Nixon's proposal was not nearly as ambitious as Kennedy would have preferred, the senator realized over the years that working with Nixon would have led to significant advancements toward his larger goals. Fast-forward to today's battle over health care. It's clear that Obama deserves credit for moving the debate forward and achieving consensus on a number of previously intractable issues. Set aside, for now, the brawls about end-of-life counseling and a publicly funded option. If Obama signed a bill that allows individuals who change jobs to keep their insurance, forbids the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and deals with a lifetime cap on benefits, people will throw rose petals at his feet. Important progress can be made now on health care; after the most significant reforms in a generation are signed into law, he can still come back to the negotiating table and continue to move forward. ED ROGERS Chairman of BGR Group; White House staffer to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush While the president's effectiveness is eroding, the situation is not dire. He can regain the initiative, but an eloquent speech won't do it. I assume he will not convert to conservatism and abandon his flawed plans, but he should cut his losses and get back to reality. Occasionally all White Houses contort themselves into situations where they begin to say things they know are not true. The more you say such things, the more you have to keep saying them to try and make them true. But the Obama administration needs to face it: The president's energy bill is not a jobs bill! His health-care plans will lead to government bureaucratic decisions about individuals' heath care and will cost a fortune. The deficit is not under control. The administration should not deny the obvious or defend the indefensible. White House officials know they are losing the public debate on these issues and must scale back to what is possible and credible given America's economic circumstances -- or use brute force in Congress to pass unpopular, harmful and vast new programs. Even if he did use his congressional majorities to win these battles, the president would lose the war by slowing economic growth, only resulting in more political pain for himself and his party. Obama doesn't have any political problems that a couple of years of 4 percent GDP growth won't solve. But he has to want it, and he needs honest policies to achieve it. Now, though, he is on a course that terrifies his political handlers and his party's candidates. HAROLD FORD JR. Chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council Every president faces a time when poll numbers slide. It's easy to advise a president to ignore the numbers and plow ahead. It's not wise for a president to heed that advice blindly. Thankfully, President Obama knows that politics is about the art of the possible. Obama is battling a stubborn recession, a Republican Congress hell-bent on defeating health reform and a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan. When he returns to Washington the president should forge a consensus in Congress to pass what "is possible" on health reform, redouble his efforts to stimulate job creation, clearly articulate our mission objectives in Afghanistan, and redefine and revive energy and financial services reform. First he needs to win on health reform. Obama has been patient, committed and focused on leading Congress to a consensus. At his core, this president is a pragmatist. In the spirit of the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, Obama should work toward winning a compromise here before taking on new reform challenges. The compromise should be built around insurance reform, such as prohibiting companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions, and guaranteeing coverage for every child in America. Such substantive health reform would put us firmly on path to solving the uninsured problem in this country when our economy gets back on track. ED GILLESPIE Counselor to President George W. Bush Barack Obama faces a fundamental decision about the direction of his presidency: Try to muscle through with Democratic votes a much more liberal agenda than many of his voters expected of him, or seek more consensus-oriented policies that attract at least a slice of the House and Senate Republicans by sacrificing core liberal elements of his policies. If he chooses the former, he risks spectacular failure or a victory that eliminates the "postpartisan" persona that is a critical component of his personal approval ratings. This would make it much more difficult to achieve future legislative goals, in the same way the rushed, forced passage of the stimulus bill has made his health-care policy harder to achieve. And once that critical attribute is lost, it's all but impossible to get back. To pull his young presidency back from the brink, and protect his greatest asset, President Obama would be wise to tack back to the center and pull his congressional leadership with him. He can then return his focus to the central issue on which voters are looking to him for leadership -- turning our economy around.

train

Peace Through Strength and American Pride vs. “Enemy-Centric” Policy 移動: このメニューを開くには、 alt と / を同時に押してください

train

WHITE SUPREMACIST WHO KILLED PROTESTER IS A DEMOCRAT AND VISITED OBAMA IN OVAL OFFICE (Updated 16.08.2017) Conservative author Dinesh D’Souza uncovered something that blows the Left’s whole narrative to bits. While they have been throwing around claims that the white supremacist who ran over a protester who was blocking the road is a Republican, D’Souza discovered he actually an Obama-supporting Democrat. Well, well. The white supremacist organizer of #Charlottesville was an Obama supporter & Occupy Wall Street activist https://t.co/hI5PxNUmb7 — Dinesh D'Souza (@DineshDSouza) August 15, 2017 “Rumors abound on white nationalist forums that Kessler’s ideological pedigree before 2016 was less than pure and seem to point to involvement in the Occupy movement and past support for President Obama,” the Southern Poverty Law Center notes in their profile of Kessler. Kessler didn’t just support Obama; he visited the Oval Office in 2016. Here’s a photo of the two of them having a fun chat: The Democrat party wants you to forget they are the party of the KKK. The Democrat party wants you to blame Republicans. But let’s remember that socialism is inherently a leftist ideology. Nazis — National Socialists — are leftist, pure and simple. The Left has no shame in their attempt to link Donald Trump, who repudiated the attacker immediately after the murder occurred, to white supremacists but perhaps they should remember their own party’s history…and its present. Source: ourlandofthefree.com Update Fake image? The picture of Jason Kessler and Barry O. Bummer in the article above is apparently photoshopped. Original picture: President Trump Destroys Everyone at His Wild Press Conference in Trump Tower 8/15/17 Busted! Journos Rush To Spread Fake News Following Trump’s Latest Press Conference Donald Trump gave a speech addressing the violence this past weekend in Charlottesville. During his speech, the President asked if the “alt-left” bore as much responsibility for the chaos as its extremist counterparts on the alt-right. Following the publication of an erroneous transcript, journalists and liberal pundits are spreading fake news about what Trump actually said in a rush to condemn him. Politico’s White House reporter Annie Karni was among the first to falsely highlight that Trump had referred to the alt-right as “us” in his speech. “Just noticed the use of ‘us’ in this transcript,” wrote Karni in a now-deleted tweet. “Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at us?” she wrongly quoted the president as saying Speaking to the press, Trump stated that members of the “alt-left” (which is commonly understood to be made up of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other social justice groups) were equally responsible for violence as their alt-right counterparts. In the speech, Trump clearly says “Okay, what about the alt-left that came charging at ‘em?” .@realDonaldTrump gave the media DAYS to call out the antifa, BLM, etc Instead the #FakeNews covered for them…today it blew up on them. pic.twitter.com/QqDgwenIZD — Paul Nehlen (@pnehlen) August 15, 2017 As Karni’s tweet made the rounds on Twitter, some—including CNN’s Brian Stelter cast some doubt on the transcript. “Transcript may be funky,” he wrote. Others, like New York Times’ Maggie Haberman, were less discerning and more eager to spread the fake news to thousands of her followers. Haberman corrected herself after dozens of people who listened to the clip pointed out the falsehood. Despite her corrections, variations of the fake news continued to circulate on Twitter as some. One user, Brian Klaas, jumped to erroneous conclusions and wondered if Trump had made a Freudian slip. “Trump lumps himself with his white supremacist supporters,” wrote Klaas in a now-deleted tweet. The fake news stems from Politico’s inaccurate transcription of Donald Trump’s speech. A snapshot of the transcript on Archive.is reveals the presence of the fake quote. The updated version of the transcript fixed the error, but did not acknowledge that any edits were made. Following complaints on Twitter, the transcript has been updated with a correction at the bottom. “In a review of the audio, we could not definitively discern Trump’s exact words at that moment in the news conference,” the site claims. Rather puzzlingly, Politico had no problem peppering “REPORTERS YELL INDISTINCTLY” throughout the piece.

train

Shields and Gerson on Cabinet Noms, Gun Laws, Boehner's Leadership | PBS NewsHour | Dec. 21, 2012 JUDY WOODRUFF: And now to the analysis of Shields and Gerson. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson. David Brooks is off tonight. Gentlemen, it's good to have you with us. MARK SHIELDS: Good to be with you. JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, the fiscal cliff, it's still with us. It's still out there. The president made a last-minute statement late this afternoon. Where does everything stand? MARK SHIELDS: Nobody knows, Judy. RELATED INFORMATION The very best from our political pundits, NewsHour regulars Mark Shields and David Brooks. What happened last night in the Republican Caucus is precedent-shattering. I mean, it really is, that John Boehner could not get a majority of his own caucus to support what had become the Republican position, endorsed not simply by him, but by Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy and Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor. And it's a real problem. I think it puts at risk Boehner's own leadership and his ability to deliver Republicans. It weakens the bargaining position for Republicans in the final negotiations. But I don't know how much closer we are, because I think it strengthens the liberals in the Democratic Caucus, which is going to make it tougher for the Republicans to accept it, because a weakened Republican means a strengthened, emboldened Democratic liberal group. And I just think that there's too many moving parts at this point to say, this is what is going to happen. JUDY WOODRUFF: Do you -- what do you -- can it get done, Michael? I mean, it's. . . MICHAEL GERSON: Well, I generally agree with Mark. And today was supposed to be the end of the world. I think it feels like it for Boehner. This is a case where he ended up with 40 to 50 members of his caucus that wouldn't support anything on this. MICHAEL GERSON: And they were to the right of Grover Norquist. Norquist was open to the Plan B. JUDY WOODRUFF: Because he had endorsed Plan B. MICHAEL GERSON: Right, exactly. So, they want to go off the cliff flags flying. It marginalized Boehner and the Republicans in future negotiations, and raised a question of whether anyone can get a governing majority in the House of Representatives when it comes to the budget. Those are really serious matters. Now, it does go to the Senate, where Harry Reid and McConnell can try to come to some, you know, functional surrender for Republicans on rates, and kick the can on a lot of other issues, and see if that can pass in the next 10 days. But that still would pass -- have to pass the House. And so I think the chances of backing off, off the cliff are higher than they ever have been. JUDY WOODRUFF: You know, I listened to some of these recalcitrant House Republicans today, Mark. And they were saying, I was not going to vote for a tax increase, when my constituents would never have gone along with that. MARK SHIELDS: Well, I think there's two realities, here, Judy. First of all, there's a lot of Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, who are terrified of one thing. That's being primaried, a primary opponent who is going to run on your right if you are a Republican, on your left if you are a Democrat. But it's really become a problem for Republicans, because this has been an article of faith that -- said before it is since 1990 that any Republican in the House or the Senate has voted for a tax increase on Capitol Hill, any Republican. Now, of the 241 Republicans now in the House, 212 of them have come to the Congress since 1990. So, they have never voted for a tax increase. They don't know anybody who has voted for a tax increase. And they were being asked to vote for a tax increase for a tactical advantage on a piece of legislation that they knew the president, A., would veto, B., wouldn't pass the Senate. JUDY WOODRUFF: Only on people earning over a million. MARK SHIELDS: A million dollars, but they were going to give up their virginity, their political virginity, and risk a primary challenge -- that is how they saw it -- by doing this. What they failed to address is the reality that, when you are the -- part of the governing party in any institution, the House, the Senate, anyplace else, you have a responsibility to make sure that you can govern. And what they did was, they robbed the Republicans, that 40 to 50. They robbed the Republicans of that -- that sense of leadership, of governability, and robbed them, I think, and reduced the brand of the Republican Party even more. JUDY WOODRUFF: Is it a fundamental disagreement over what governing is? MICHAEL GERSON: Yes, I think that that is part of it. I think what they couldn't answer is how they are going to get a better result. . . MARK SHIELDS: That's right. MICHAEL GERSON: . . . after you -- when you go over the cliff, or later on in these negotiations, because they're not. This actually undermines their negotiating power and position, which -- because it is a foolish position to be in. But it does -- it raises some really big issues. I mean, one of them here is that we now have a president and a speaker who both wanted a deal, OK? By every account, they wanted a deal. They tried it twice. And they couldn't make it happen. Now, they -- and I don't think they can make it happen. It's a serious kind of governing challenge right now. If you look, we have got a short-term political crisis. We have a long-term fiscal crisis. And we're providing no confidence whatsoever that we can approach those things as a government in a mature way. We look increasingly like we have the dysfunction, the governmental dysfunction of Europe, without the excuse of being separate countries. And, you know, I think it's a serious challenge to America's standing in the world, that -- the views of credit markets. And Washington is not taking that yet with sufficiency seriously -- seriousness. MARK SHIELDS: Yes. I would just add, and not in a partisan way, but the 213 -- 215-209 vote last night in the House before the whole thing came apart, which was that -- to not take the sequestration funds out of defense, but to take them out of domestic spending, was a party-line vote; 209 Democrats stuck on that. Not a single one broke. And I think -- I think you are seeing far more unity in the Democratic ranks than you are in the Republican ranks right now. I agree it is a governmental problem. If the whole thing comes to a grinding halt and we see it reflected in the financial markets and the stock market and elsewhere, then it's a governmental problem. It's not simply a Democratic advantage, a Republican advantage. But, right now, the real fault lines are in the Republican Caucus. JUDY WOODRUFF: Well, we don't -- sounds like neither one -- none of us knows where this is headed. So let's move to another subject. Michael, the president today named John Kerry to be secretary of state. It had been widely believed he wanted to choose the U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice. John Kerry -- what do you make of the choice? MICHAEL GERSON: Well, it's a -- I think, a safe choice and a good choice. I mean, this is a man who has had three decades on the Foreign Relations Committee, former presidential candidate, would have immediate standing on the global stage, similar to Hillary Clinton, in this kind of job. He's also been a troubleshooter for the president in some key ways, under the radar screen. When South Sudan was separating from the North, and it looked like those negotiations were breaking down, Kerry came in and really made a difference there. So, I think that, I mean, he looks good after the Rice nomination. He is a less controversial nominee. He has a lot of respect among his colleagues in the Senate. And so I think that the president -- you know, it was not -- not particularly a hard choice. JUDY WOODRUFF: Mark? MARK SHIELDS: I think James Mann and David Ignatius put it very well, I mean, that he is -- he is experienced, probably unmatched in experience. He does bring considerable stature, on a first-name basis with many of the people around the world with whom he will be dealing. He has done, as David pointed out, back-channel missions for the president, whether it's dealing with Hamas, Afghanistan, Pakistan. And he is eminently confirmable. That's in the Senate. There is no question about it. And it opens up a possibility of a Republican seat in Massachusetts. So, Republicans are cheered by that. (LAUGHTER) JUDY WOODRUFF: And, just quickly, before we leave that, there was a -- and this -- we heard this mentioned earlier, that some -- there is still conversation about whether the president is going to name, may name Chuck Hagel, former Republican senator, to be secretary of defense. A lot of criticism has risen up. Outside groups are saying they are going to defeat him if he's named. What is going on there? MARK SHIELDS: Yes. Well, I mean, certainly, Chuck Hagel has been subjected to withering criticism for his lack of constant or at least unswerving support of every Israeli administration. That has been a central part. There are people who have personal issues with Chuck Hagel. I personally think, A., he's close to the president. He was close to the president when the president was in the Senate. And I think he brings to it credentials that are sadly lacking in this administration. I mean, this is somebody who has spilled blood, shed blood for his own country, spilled blood for his country, faced combat, chose to go to Vietnam. He had orders to go to Germany as an enlisted man. He insisted on going to Vietnam, where he faced serious combat. I just think -- I think he brings to it the first Vietnam veteran to be secretary of defense and the only enlisted man ever to be Secretary of Defense. I think those are credentials that are needed. JUDY WOODRUFF: Any thoughts on that? MICHAEL GERSON: I think that, sometimes, people say these trial balloons are a sign of presidential weakness if they don't go up. They're not really. They're actually a smart way for a president to gauge this. I think the opposition to Hagel is growing. I think it is rooted in disagreements, not just about Israel, but about defense cuts, but about his views on Iran, which are significantly to the left of president, and because he has -- he doesn't have a lot of respect of former colleagues here, which are already coming out, and many of them in opposition. I think it's an unlikely nomination. JUDY WOODRUFF: Let me turn you both to the gun control discussion. We heard from the head of the NRA, Mark, today, Wayne LaPierre, who is advocating putting an armed guard in every school. The president has launched a task force this week. Where do you see this headed? MARK SHIELDS: I mean, to call Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have a tin ear, I think is an understatement. I mean, they seem to be almost whining about criticism of their position, that it somehow was rooted in the press bias or elected officials who have gun-free school zones. You know, Judy, the reality is -- and it's a terrible reality -- since Robert Kennedy died in the Ambassador Hotel on June 4, 1968, more Americans have died from gunfire than died in all the -- all the wars, all the wars of this country's history, from the Revolutionary through the Civil War, World War I, World War II, in those 43 years. We have half the guns that are in the world are in the United States. I mean, guns are a problem. And I think they still have to be confronted. JUDY WOODRUFF: Something like 280 million guns. MICHAEL GERSON: Yes. And we're not going to get rid of all those guns. That's not going to happen. The question is. . . MARK SHIELDS: Well, we could do -- we could do Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and tax ammunition. MICHAEL GERSON: Well, yes. I think that there -- but there are a series of reasonable measures we could take, even going back to what we were doing in the 1990s, when it comes to ammunition, and magazine size, and assault -- certain types of semiautomatic weapons. You should be able to make that case. We have swung so far in this debate in the libertarian direction, that those are fairly minimal burdens on anyone's rights when it comes to this that might have a marginal positive in fact -- impact on gun violence. But any solution is also going have to deal with mental health issues. Security in schools, I don't think it's practical to put armed people in tens of thousands of schools. But security in schools, as well as reasonable gun controls, we're going to have to do a bunch of things in this area. JUDY WOODRUFF: Sobering topic, and we will be coming back to it. Michael Gerson, Mark Shields, thank you both. MARK SHIELDS: Thank you, Judy. Thank you. JUDY WOODRUFF: And Merry Christmas. MICHAEL GERSON: Merry Christmas. MARK SHIELDS: Merry Christmas to you. Thank you.

train