image
imagewidth (px) 16
5.18k
| text
stringlengths 42
32.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| split
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
‘Americans need to stand together’: Hillary Clinton’s remarks following the Orlando shooting Hillary Clinton delivered an address pledging that as president she would take on "lone wolves" who might carry out terrorist attacks in the United States and calling for unity in light of the massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando on Sunday. The compete transcript of her remarks in Cleveland are posted below.
SPEAKER: FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE
CLINTON: Thank you. (APPLAUSE)
Thank you all very much.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you all.
(APPLAUSE)
Thank you. Thank you. I am -- I'm absolutely -- I'm absolutely delighted to be back in Cleveland and to be here at the Industrial Innovation Center. I've had a chance to learn about the great work you do here. I especially want to applaud Team Wendy for everything you do to protect our troops, first responders.
(APPLAUSE)
And others from traumatic brain injury. It is so important that we continue to support those who protect us.
AUDIENCE: We want Hillary!
CLINTON: Thank you.
AUDIENCE: We want Hillary!
CLINTON: Thank you all.
AUDIENCE: We want Hillary!
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: It is good to be back in Cleveland, I can tell you that.
(APPLAUSE)
I want to thank -- I wan to thank your extraordinary senator, Sherrod Brown, for his leadership, for that very kind and generous introduction. You are very fortunate to -- to have him representing you. I want to thank your congresswoman, Marcia Fudge...
(APPLAUSE)
Who is both indomitable and indefatigable. She is such a tenacious advocate for the people she represents. I want to acknowledge the mayor, Mayor Jackson, who was here, County Executive Budish (ph). And I particularly want to recognize the passing of George Voinovich, and he devoted his life to serving the people of Ohio as mayor of Cleveland, as governor and senator. And we send our prayers and sympathy to his family.
I also want to thank Dan Moore, the owner and founder of this company and Team Wendy for his belief in Cleveland, for his commitment to create jobs. I can't wait to work with him to do more of what he has accomplished here.
(APPLAUSE)
You know, originally, I had intended to come to Cleveland under very different circumstances. We are heading into a general election that could be the most consequential of our lifetimes. But today is not a day for politics.
On Sunday, Americans woke up to a nightmare that's become mind numbingly familiar. Another act of terrorism in a place no one expected. A madman filled with hate, with guns in his hands, and just a horrible sense of vengeance and vindictiveness in his heart, apparently consumed by rage against LGBT Americans, and by extension, the openness and diversity that defines our American way of life.
We will learn more about the killer in the days to come. We know that he pledged allegiance to ISIS, that they are now taking credit and that part of their strategy is to radicalize individuals and encourage attacks against the United States, even if they are not coordinated with ISIS leadership. But there's a lot we still don't know, including what other mix of motives drove him to kill.
The more we learn about what happened, the better we'll be able to protect our people going forward. In the days ahead, we will also learn more about the many lives he viciously cut short, many of them young people, just starting out in their lives. They were travel agents and pharmacy techs, college students and amusement park workers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, and they had one thing in common. They all had a lot more to give.
CLINTON: We should take a moment today amid our busy lives to think about them, to pray for everyone who was killed, for the wounded, those who are fighting to regain their lives and futures, for our first responders who walked into danger one more time. As a mother, I can't imagine what those families are going through.
But let's also remember the other scenes we saw on Sunday. We saw the faces of some of those first responders who rushed into danger and tried to save as many people as they could. We saw survivors like Chris Hansen who risked their lives to help others.
People gathering outside hospitals to comfort anxious family members, waiting for news of their loved ones and waiting, too, to learn more about what they could do to make sure this never happened again.
Religion leaders condemning hate and appealing for peace. People lining up to donate blood. Americans refusing to be intimidated or divided.
Yesterday I called Mayor Dyer of Orlando and offered my support and my appreciation for the leadership that he and the other officials have shown. This is a moment when all Americans need to stand together.
No matter how many times we endure attacks like this, the horror never fades. The murder of innocent people breaks our hearts, tears at our sense of security and makes us furious.
Now we have to steal our resolve to respond. And that's what I want to talk to you about. How we respond.
The Orlando terrorist may be dead, but the virus that poisoned his mind remains very much alive. And we must attack it with clear eyes, steady hands, unwavering determination and pride in our country and our values.
(APPLAUSE)
I have no doubt -- I have no doubt we can meet this challenge if we meet it together. Whatever we learn about this killer, his motives in the days ahead, we know already the barbarity that we face from radical jihadists is profound.
In the Middle East, ISIS is attempting a genocide of religious and ethnic minorities. They are slaughtering Muslims who refuse to accept their medieval ways. They are beheading civilians, including executing LGBT people. They are murdering Americans and Europeans, enslaving, torturing and raping women and girls.
In speeches like this one, after Paris, Brussels and San Bernardino, I have laid out a plan to defeat ISIS and the other radical jihadist groups in the region and beyond.
The attack in Orlando makes it even more clear, we cannot contain this threat. We must defeat it. And the good news is that the coalition effort in Syria and Iraq has made recent gains in the last months.
So we should keep the pressure on ramping up the air campaign, accelerating support for our friends fighting to take and hold ground and pushing our partners in the region to do even more.
We also need continued American leadership to help resolve the political conflicts that fuel ISIS recruitment efforts.
But as ISIS loses actual ground in Iraq and Syria, it will seek to stage more attacks and gain stronger footholds wherever it can, from Afghanistan, to Libya, to Europe.
The threat is metastasizing. We saw this in Paris. And we saw it in Brussels. We face a twisted ideology and poisoned psychology that inspires the so-called lone wolves, radicalized individuals who may or may not have contact and direction from any formal organization.
CLINTON: So, yes, efforts to defeat ISIS on the battlefield must succeed. But it will take more than that.
(APPLAUSE)
We have to be just as adaptable and versatile as our enemies. As president, I will make identifying and stopping lone wolves a top priority.
(APPLAUSE)
I will put a team together from across our government, the entire government, as well as the private sector and communities to get on top of this urgent challenge. And I will make sure our law enforcement and intelligence professionals have all the resources they need to get the job done.
As we do this, there are three areas that demand attention. First, we and our allies must work hand-in-hand to dismantle the networks that move money, and propaganda, and arms and fighters around the world.
(APPLAUSE)
We have to flow -- we have to stem the flow of jihadists from Europe and Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and then back again. The only way to do this is by working closely with our partners, strengthening our alliances, not weakening them or walking away from them.
Second, here at home, we must harden our own defenses. We have to do more to support our first responders, law enforcement and intelligence officers who do incredible work every day at great personal risk to keep our country safe.
(APPLAUSE)
I have seen firsthand how hard their job is, and how well they do it.
In Orlando, at least one police officer was shot in the head. Thankfully, his life was saved by a Kevlar helmet, something folks here at Team Wendy know a lot about.
(APPLAUSE)
It has often been said that our law enforcement, our intelligence agencies, our first responders have to be right 100 percent of the time, but terrorists only have to be right once.
What a heavy responsibility. These men and women deserve both our respect and gratitude. And they deserve the right tools, and resources and training. Too often, state and local officials can't get access to intelligence from the federal government that would help them do their jobs.
We need to change that. We also need to work...
(APPLAUSE)
We also need to work with local law enforcement and business owners on ways to protect vulnerable, so-called soft targets, like nightclubs and shopping malls and hotels and movie theaters and schools and houses of worship.
Now, I know a lot of Americans are asking how it was possible that someone already on the FBI's radar could have still been able to commit an attack like the one in Orlando, and what more we can do to stop this kind of thing from happening again.
Well, we have to see what the investigation uncovers. If there are things that can and should be done to improve our ability to prevent, we must do them. We already know we need more resources for this fight. The professionals who keep us safe would be the first to say we need better intelligence to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out.
That's why I have proposed an intelligence surge to bolster our capabilities across the board with appropriate safeguards here at home.
Even as we make sure our security officials get the tools they need to prevent attacks, it's essential that we stop terrorists from getting the tools they need to carry out the attack.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: And that is especially true when it comes to assault weapons like those used in Orlando and San Bernardino.
(APPLAUSE)
I believe weapons of war have no place on our streets and we may have our disagreements about gun safety regulations, but we should all be able to agree on a few essential things.
If the FBI is watching you for a suspected terrorist link, you shouldn't be able to just go buy a gun with no questions asked.
And you shouldn't be able to exploit loopholes and evade criminal background checks by buying online or at a gun show.
And yes, if you're too dangerous to get on a plane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun in America.
Now, I know some will say that assault weapons and background checks are totally separate issues having nothing to do with terrorism. Well, in Orlando and San Bernardino terrorists used assault weapons, the AR-15. And they used it to kill Americans. That was the same assault weapon used to kill those little children in Sandy Hook.
We have to make it harder for people who should not have those weapons of war. And that may not stop every shooting or every terrorist attack, but it will stop some and it will save lives and it will protect our first responders.
And I want you to know, I'm not going to stop fighting for these kinds of provisions.
Now, the third area that demands attention is preventing radicalization and countering efforts by ISIS and other international terrorist networks to recruit in the United States and Europe.
For starters, it is long past time for the Saudis, the Qataris and the Kuwaitis and others to stop their citizens from funding extremist organizations. And they should stop supporting radical schools and mosques around the world that have set too many young people on a path towards extremism.
We also have to use all our capabilities to counter jihadist propaganda online. This is something that I spend a lot of time on at the State Department.
As president, I will work with our great tech companies from Silicon Valley to Boston to step up our game. We have to a better job intercepting ISIS' communications, tracking and analyzing social media posts and mapping jihadist networks, as well as promoting credible voices who can provide alternatives to radicalization.
And there is more to do offline as well.
CLINTON: Since 9/11, law enforcement agencies have worked hard to build relationships with Muslim American communities. Millions of peace-loving Muslims live, work and raise their families across America. And they are the most likely to recognize the insidious effects of radicalization before it's too late, and the best positioned to help us block it. So we should be intensifying contacts in those communities, not scapegoating or isolating them.
(APPLAUSE)
Last year, I visited a pilot program in Minneapolis that helps parents, teachers, imams, mental health professionals and others recognize signs of radicalization in young people and work with law enforcement to intervene before it's too late.
I've also met with local leaders pursuing innovative approaches in Los Angeles and other places. And we need more efforts like that in more cities across America. And as the director of the FBI has pointed out, we should avoid eroding trust in that community, which will only make law enforcement's job more difficult.
Inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric and threatening to ban the families and friends of Muslim Americans as well as millions of Muslim business people and tourists from entering our country hurts the vast majority of Muslims who love freedom and hate terror.
(APPLAUSE)
So does saying that we have to start special surveillance on our fellow Americans because of their religion. It's no coincidence that hate crimes against American Muslims and mosques have tripled after Paris and San Bernardino. That's wrong. And it's also dangerous. It plays right into the terrorists' hands.
Still, as I have said before, none of us can close our eyes to the fact that we do face enemies who use their distorted version of Islam to justify slaughtering $ innocent people. They'd take us all back to the Stone Age if they could, just as they have in parts of Iraq and Syria.
The terrorist in Orlando targeted LGBT Americans out of hatred and bigotry. And an attack on any American is an attack on all Americans.
(APPLAUSE) And I want to say this to all the LGBT people grieving today in Florida and across our country. You have millions of allies who will always have your back.
(APPLAUSE)
And I am one of them.
(APPLAUSE)
From Stonewall to Laramie, and now Orlando, we've seen too many examples of how the struggle to live freely, openly and without fear has been met by violence. We have to stand together, be proud together. There is no better rebuke to the terrorists and all those who hate.
Our open, diverse society is an asset in the struggle against terrorism, not a liability. It makes us stronger and more resistant to radicalization. And this raises a larger point about the future of our country.
America is strongest when we all believe that we have a stake in our country and our future.
CLINTON: This vision has sustained us from the beginning. The belief that, yes, we are all created equal and the journey we have made to turn that into reality over the course of our history, that we are not a land of winners and losers, that we should all have the opportunity to live up to our God-given potential. And we have a responsibility to help others do so as well.
(APPLAUSE)
As I look at American history, I see that this has always been a country of "we" not "me." We stand together because we are stronger together. E pluribus unum. One -- out of many, one -- has seen us through the darkest chapters of our history. Ever since 13 squabbling colonies put aside their disagreements and united because they realized they were going to rise together or fall separately, generation after generation has fought and marched and organized to widen the circle of dignity and opportunity. Ending slavery. Securing and expanding the right to vote. Throwing open the doors of education. Building the greatest middle class the world has ever seen.
And we are stronger when more people can participate in our democracy.
(APPLAUSE)
And we are stronger when everyone can share in the rewards of our economy and contribute to our communities, when we bridge our divides and lift each other up instead of tearing each other down. Now we have overcome a lot together and we will overcome the threats of terror and radicalization and all of our other challenges. Here in Ohio and across America, I've listened to people talk about the problems that keep you up at night.
The bonds that hold us together as communities, as one national community, are strained by an economy with too much inequality and too little upward mobility. By social and political divisions that have diminished our trust in each other and our confidence in our shared future. I have heard that, and I want you to know as your president I will work every day to break down all the barriers holding you back and keeping us apart. We're gonna get an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top, we're gonna forge a new sense of connection and shared responsibility to each other and our nation.
And finally,
(APPLAUSE) finally let me remind us all, I remember, I remember how it felt, on the day after 9/11, and I bet many of you do as well. Americans from all walks of life rallied together with a sense of common purpose on September the 12th and in the days and weeks and months that followed. We had each others' backs. I was a senator from New York. There was a Republican president, a Republican governor, and a Republican mayor. We did not attack each other. We worked with each other to protect our country and to rebuild our city (ph).
(APPLAUSE)
President Bush went to a Muslim community center just six days after the attacks to send a message of unity and solidarity. To anyone who wanted to take out their anger on our Muslim neighbors and fellow citizens, he said, "That should not, and that will not, stand in America." It is time to get back to the spirit of those days, spirit of 9/12. Let's make sure we keep looking to the best of our country, to the best within each of us. Democratic and Republican presidents have risen to the occasion in the face of tragedy. That is what we are called to do my friends and I am so confident and optimistic that is exactly what we will do.
Thank you all so much. | 0 | train |
|
CNN's Don Lemon: Bill O'Reilly's Criticism Of Black Community "Doesn't Go Far Enough" DON LEMON, CNN ANCHOR: I want to talk to you because we're going to take a break from the headlines to talk about something I've had on my mind for quite some time now. So much so that I felt compelled to bring back our segment where we hold politicians, leaders, and pundits accountable for what comes out of their mouths. It's time now, again, for No Talking Points.
The Trayvon Martin murder case got just about everybody talking about race, and not just specifically how it related to the case. It got some, many on the political right, wondering why the so-called liberal media wasn't talking about other problems in the black community.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUDY MILLER, FOX NEWS CONTRIBUTOR: Let's talk about race. Let's talk about black-on-black violence.
DAVID WEBB, HOST "THE DAVID WEBB SHOW": The outrage that I have is in the lack of really the national attention to what is an epidemic of crime in the black community committed largely by blacks.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: Why aren't we talking about it? Good question. Actually, that's not a good question. We talked about it many times on this show and on CNN. It's actually a good deflection as I've said a number of times to a number of guests here on CNN and also on the radio.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: David, do not that false equivalent. That is not --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm not trying to equivocate --
LEMON: But, listen, crime happens all the time and because a crime happens, it does not mean that you should shift the focus from what happened here. Let's stick to this particular point so continue and let's talk about this case.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: On this case --
(END VIDEOTAPE) LEMON: So, that's the reason I didn't want to discuss at length crime in the African-American community or how to fix other ills that seem to be plaguing the community in general. But now that the jury has reached one that everyone must accept it's time now for some tough love on the subject.
Someone on another network got the chance to go first because I couldn't go during the week. I'm only here on the weekend, so listen to this --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BILL O'REILLY, FOX NEWS HOST: The reason there is so much violence and chaos in the black precincts is the disintegration of the African- American family.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He's got a point. In fact, he's got more than a point. Bill?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
O'REILLY: Raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that, again, it is a personal decision.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: He is right about that, too. But in my estimation, he doesn't go far enough. Because black people, if you really want to fix the problem, here's just five things that you should think about doing. Here's number five, and if this doesn't apply to you, if you're not doing this, then it doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking to you.
Here's number five. Pull up your pants. Some people, a lot of them black, gave me flak for saying that recently on "The Wendy Williams Show."
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: If you're sagging, I mean -- I think it's your self-esteem that is sagging and who you are as a person it's sagging. Young people need to be taught respect and there are rules.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: Sagging pants, whether Justin Bieber or No-name Derek around the way, walking around with your ass and your underwear showing is not OK. In fact, it comes from prison when they take away belts from the prisoners so that they can't make a weapon. And then it evolved into which role a prisoner would have during male-on-male prison sex. The one with the really low pants is the submissive one. You get my point?
Number four now is the n-word. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY-Z, RAPPER: For our generation what we did was we took the word and we took the power out of that word.
CHRIS ROCK, COMEDIAN/ACTOR: We took this word, and we made it into poetry.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: I understand poetic license, but consider this: I hosted a special on the n-word, suggesting that black people stop using it and that entertainers stop deluding yourselves or themselves and others that you're somehow taking the word back.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: By promoting the use of that word when it's not germane to the conversation, have you ever considered that you may be just perpetuating the stereotype the master intended acting like a nigger?
(END VIDEOTAPE)
LEMON: A lot of African-Americans took offense to that, too. I wonder if I gave the right advice, I really did. But confirmation came the very next day on my way home when I exited the subway in 125th Street in Harlem. This little kid in a school uniform no older than seven years old, he was crying his eyes out as he walked down the sidewalk with his mother.
I'm going to be honest here, she turned to me, and she said "I'm sick of you. You act like an old ass man, stop all that crying, nigger." Is that taking the word back? Think about that.
Now number three. Respect where you live. Start small by not dropping trash, littering in your own communities. I've lived in several predominantly white neighborhoods in my life, I rarely, if ever, witnessed people littering. I live in Harlem now, it's an historically black neighborhood, every single day I see adults and children dropping their trash on the ground when a garbage can is just feet away. Just being honest here.
Number two, finish school. You want to break the cycle of poverty? Stop telling kids they're acting white because they go to school or they speak proper English. A high school dropout makes on average $19,000 a year, a high school graduate makes $28,000 a year, a college graduate makes $51,000 a year. Over the course of a career, a college grad will make nearly $1 million more than a high school graduate. That's a lot of money.
And number one, and probably the most important, just because you can have a baby, it doesn't mean you should. Especially without planning for one or getting married first. More than 72 percent of children in the African-American community are born out of wedlock. That means absent fathers. And the studies show that lack of a male role model is an express train right to prison and the cycle continues. So, please, black folks, as I said if this doesn't apply to you, I'm not talking to you. Pay attention to and think about what has been presented in recent history as acceptable behavior. Pay close attention to the hip-hop and rap culture that many of you embrace. A culture that glorifies everything I just mentioned, thug and reprehensible behavior, a culture that is making a lot of people rich, just not you. And it's not going to. That said, though, the political right is not off the hook.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTEN POWERS, DAILY BEAST COLUMNIST: If conservatives are so concerned about black-on-black crime, it's a little concerning the only time I hear them talking about it is when they want to stick it to the black community.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
LEMON: And that's today's "No Talking Points." | 0 | train |
|
MEXICO’S NEXT PRESIDENT Calls for An Invasion Of The US…. 118 SHARES Share Share
For the mainstream media to say that illegal immigration isn’t an issue they really need to look at the world around them and see how things really are out there.
For decades there have been people that came to the United States illegally, but it’s only in the past year or so that it seems that people have been doing it just to spite the system.
People don’t mass organize like this without someone leading the charge.
Currently, ahead of all other candidates, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador will likely be the next President of Mexico.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, also known as “AMLO,” has been openly telling his people to flood the U.S. border. What AMLO is asking his people is not a surprise…
He has an actual strategic policy behind his plan.
Apparently, he has been planning this for years but nobody really cared to pay attention.
AMLO’s key economic plan for Mexico is to become wealthy, and recently he has received a broad mainstream Mexican understanding.
Conservatives in the U.S. have no idea about Mexico’s plan, but the far-left and democratic immigration radicals sure do.
Reported by 100percentfedup: Well…at least a leader of Mexico is admitting what’s been going on for a loooong time. The radical open borders element on both sides has been welcoming millions of illegals for decades. Yes, decades…
Open borders advocates on the left see policing the border as a form of cruelty and American imperialism. There are also radical organizations that feel Mexico deserves a southern portion of America.
La Raza aka “The Race” is a radical organization seeking open borders along with many of the George Soros-funded open borders groups:
GEORGE SOROS’S OPEN BORDER FOUNDATIONS: An inside look at the machinations of the multibillionaire and his mission to destroy national sovereignty.
THE FUTURE PRESIDENT OF MEXICO… Andrés Manuel López Obrador aka AMLO:
(From the Daily Caller) […] “And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.” He then declared it as “a human right we will defend.”
The Conservative Treehouse warns: It would take Mexico several decades to achieve a level of wealth even close to the U.S., and they have no structural (political) systems in place to form the foundation of such an approach. So, AMLO’s faster plan is to use migration into the U.S. to break down barriers, collapse the economic dam and allow the natural flood of U.S. wealth to flow into Mexico.
From the Mexican perspective this is a pretty solid economic approach that just might work; and they have open-border comrades within the progressive, democrat, republican and corporate political systems (all over the U.S) who already support such a strategy.
Read More | 1 | train |
|
United Airlines Flight Attendant Slaps Crying Baby During Flight During a flight from New York City to Chicago, violence erupted after a flight attendant assaulted a 7 month-old baby boy. This comes just hours after a man was dragged off of an overbooked United Airlines flight when he refused to get off the plane. He was pulled out of his seat and thrown into the aisle as seen on a video released on Monday.
The baby, whose name has not been released, was left with a welt mark across his face due to the assault. Eyewitnesses say the little boy was screaming for about 38 minutes straight and the parents were asked by the flight attendant several times to “quiet that annoying ass baby down.”
After the 4th attempt to get the parents to comply, the flight attendant erupted into a rage grabbing the baby from the mother’s arms and slapping him in the face. It took several passengers to subdue the United Airlines employee.
The flight attendant was restrained in the back of the plane until the Pilot could make an emergency landing in Missouri. United Airlines released a statement saying the employee acted in a way that does not represent their company and has been fired.
The little boy is said to be in stable condition with no life-threatening injuries. The parents say they are reaching out to an attorney, refusing to give any further statements. | 1 | train |
|
U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103rd Congress Use this guide to help you find the full text of recent bills and resolutions on the Web, or order them from the Senate or House Document Rooms, or you can find them in a library. | 0 | train |
|
Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll Clinton's Lead Over Trump Shrinks to 3 Points: New NBC News/WSJ Poll | 0 | train |
|
BREAKING: FBI Issues Warrant For Obama’s Arrest After Confirming Illegal Trump Tower Wiretap Former president and breaker of laws, Barack Obama, will either surrender himself or be picked up by the FBI sometime today to be booked and charged with unlawful use of authority, wire fraud and conspiracy to interfere with free elections after it was confirmed that he ordered the tapping of the phones at Trump Tower during the presidential election.
The order, which isn’t something even a president can do without the signature of a federal judge, was to listen in on Trump and his children to try to find a connection to Russia. Nothing came of it since President Trump nor any of his campaign staff have ever been to, spoken with or had anything to do with Russia or its agents.
Trump first disclosed the bombshell in an early morning tweetstorm, knowing already that the FBI was preparing charges and asking a judge to sign a warrant for Obama’s arrest. Todd McMartin, a spokesman for the FBI, told Fox News: Trump first disclosed the bombshell in an early morning tweetstorm, knowing already that the FBI was preparing charges and asking a judge to sign a warrant for Obama’s arrest. Todd McMartin, a spokesman for the FBI, told Fox News:
“The proof is undeniable. Obama basically confessed in a private call to one of Hillary Clinton’s aides that he had the Trump Tower tapped and we can’t find any federal order legally authorized by a judge to do so.” “The proof is undeniable. Obama basically confessed in a private call to one of Hillary Clinton’s aides that he had the Trump Tower tapped and we can’t find any federal order legally authorized by a judge to do so.”
The call, between Obama and Huma Abedin, was intercepted by the FBI after President Trump ordered Obama’s phones tapped to catch him in a lie over the Russia scandal. That tap was authorized by executive order for national security reasons. If convicted, Obama could face up to 40 years in prison, and no President will | 1 | train |
|
Barack Obama’s Remarks in St. Paul And, tonight, I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.
At this defining moment, at this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for office.
I have not just competed with them as rivals. I've learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.
And that is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign.
(APPLAUSE)
She has made history not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.
I congratulate her on her victory in South Dakota, and I congratulate her on the race that she has run throughout this contest.
(APPLAUSE)
We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning -- even in the face of tough odds -- is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago, what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady, what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency: an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country -- and we will win that fight -- she will be central to that victory.
(APPLAUSE)
When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.
Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
(APPLAUSE)
There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well, I say that, because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time.
(APPLAUSE)
There are independents and Republicans who understand this election isn't just about a change of party in Washington, but also about the need to change Washington.
There are young people, and African-Americans, and Hispanic- Americans, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.
(APPLAUSE)
All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that...
(APPLAUSE)
You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment, a moment that will define a generation, we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say: Let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.
In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. (APPLAUSE)
I honor, we honor the service of John McCain, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine.
(APPLAUSE)
My differences with him -- my differences with him are not personal. They are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign, because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.
It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush 95 percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.
It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college, policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.
It's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians, a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.
So I'll say this: There are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new, but "change" is not one of them.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
(APPLAUSE)
"Change" is not one of them, because change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
(APPLAUSE)
I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years, especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.
(APPLAUSE)
We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in, but we -- but start leaving we must.
It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care and the benefits they deserve when they come home.
(APPLAUSE)
It's time to refocus our efforts on Al Qaida's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.
Change, Minnesota, is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy: tough, direct diplomacy, where the president of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.
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.
(APPLAUSE)
We must once again have the courage and the conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy. That's what the American people demand. That's what change is.
(APPLAUSE)
Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and the workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a middle-class tax break to those who need it, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation.
(APPLAUSE)
It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was president.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
(APPLAUSE)
John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy -- cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota -- he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.
(APPLAUSE)
Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and the wealthy.
She needs us to pass health care right now, a plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need, Minnesota. (APPLAUSE)
Maybe if John McCain went to Pennsylvania and he met the man who lost his job, but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators.
That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future, an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need, Minnesota.
(APPLAUSE)
And maybe if John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American.
That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for president of the United States.
(APPLAUSE)
Now, the other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a good thing. That is a debate I look forward to.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
(APPLAUSE)
It is a debate that the American people deserve on the issues that will help determine the future of this country and the future for our children.
But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon...
(APPLAUSE)
What you won't see from this campaign or this party is a politics that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to polarize, because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.
(APPLAUSE)
Despite what the good senator from Arizona may have said tonight, I've seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I've brought many together myself.
I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the south side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools.
I've sat across the table from law enforcement officials and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent 13 innocent people to death row.
I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break, to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent, and reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.
(APPLAUSE)
In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because, behind all the false labels and false divisions and categories that define us, beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.
So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union, and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.
So it was for the greatest generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.
So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines, the women who shattered glass ceilings, the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.
So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better and kinder and more just.
And so it must be for us.
(APPLAUSE)
America, this is our moment. This is our time, our time to turn the page on the policies of the past...
(APPLAUSE) ... our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face, our time to offer a new direction for this country that we love.
The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge -- I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations, but I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that, generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless...
(APPLAUSE)
... this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal...
(APPLAUSE)
... this was the moment when we ended a war, and secured our nation, and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
(APPLAUSE)
This was the moment, this was the time when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.
Thank you, Minnesota. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. | 0 | train |
|
Hillary Clinton Remarks at National Urban League Conference
by
July 31, 2015 User-Created Clipby Caitlin Hillyard July 31, 2015
2015-07-31T08:52:07-04:00
https://images.c-span.org/Files/3e7/1438349883.jpg
2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the National Urban League Conference. She discusses jobs, the economy, and recent police killings and the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina.
2016 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the National Urban League Conference. She discusses jobs, the economy, and recent police killings and the shooting at a church in Charleston, South Carolina. | 0 | train |
|
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen Mr. Ayers, who in 1970 was said to have summed up the Weatherman philosophy as: ''Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at,'' is today distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''
He went underground in 1970, after his girlfriend, Diana Oughton, and two other people were killed when bombs they were making exploded in a Greenwich Village town house. With him in the Weather Underground was Bernardine Dohrn, who was put on the F.B.I.'s 10 Most Wanted List. J. Edgar Hoover called her ''the most dangerous woman in America'' and ''la Pasionara of the Lunatic Left.'' Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn later married.
In his book Mr. Ayers describes the Weathermen descending into a ''whirlpool of violence.''
''Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,'' he writes. But then comes a disclaimer: ''Even though I didn't actually bomb the Pentagon -- we bombed it, in the sense that Weathermen organized it and claimed it.'' He goes on to provide details about the manufacture of the bomb and how a woman he calls Anna placed the bomb in a restroom. No one was killed or injured, though damage was extensive.
Between 1970 and 1974 the Weathermen took responsibility for 12 bombings, Mr. Ayers writes, and also helped spring Timothy Leary (sentenced on marijuana charges) from jail.
Today, Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn, 59, who is director of the Legal Clinic's Children and Family Justice Center of Northwestern University, seem like typical baby boomers, caring for aging parents, suffering the empty-nest syndrome. Their son, Malik, 21, is at the University of California, San Diego; Zayd, 24, teaches at Boston University. They have also brought up Chesa Boudin, 21, the son of David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin, who are serving prison terms for a 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Rockland County, N.Y., that left four people dead. Last month, Ms. Boudin's application for parole was rejected.
So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? ''I don't want to discount the possibility,'' he said.
''I don't think you can understand a single thing we did without understanding the violence of the Vietnam War,'' he said, and the fact that ''the enduring scar of racism was fully in flower.'' Mr. Ayers pointed to Bob Kerrey, former Democratic Senator from Nebraska, who has admitted leading a raid in 1969 in which Vietnamese women and children were killed. ''He committed an act of terrorism,'' Mr. Ayers said. ''I didn't kill innocent people.''
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Mr. Ayers has always been known as a ''rich kid radical.'' His father, Thomas, now 86, was chairman and chief executive officer of Commonwealth Edison of Chicago, chairman of Northwestern University and of the Chicago Symphony. When someone mentions his father's prominence, Mr. Ayers is quick to say that his father did not become wealthy until the son was a teenager. He says that he got some of his interest in social activism from his father. He notes that his father promoted racial equality in Chicago and was acceptable as a mediator to Mayor Richard Daley and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1966 when King marched in Cicero, Ill., to protest housing segregation.
All in all, Mr. Ayers had ''a golden childhood,'' he said, though he did have a love affair with explosives. On July 4, he writes, ''my brothers and I loved everything about the wild displays of noise and color, the flares, the surprising candle bombs, but we trembled mostly for the Big Ones, the loud concussions.''
The love affair seems to have continued into adulthood. Even today, he finds ''a certain eloquence to bombs, a poetry and a pattern from a safe distance,'' he writes.
He attended Lake Forest Academy in Lake Forest, Ill., then the University of Michigan but dropped out to join Students for a Democratic Society.
In 1967 he met Ms. Dohrn in Ann Arbor, Mich. She had a law degree from the University of Chicago and was a magnetic speaker who often wore thigh-high boots and miniskirts. In 1969, after the Manson family murders in Beverly Hills, Ms. Dohrn told an S.D.S. audience: ''Dig it! Manson killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they shoved a fork into a victim's stomach.''
In Chicago recently, Ms. Dohrn said of her remarks: ''It was a joke. We were mocking violence in America. Even in my most inflamed moment I never supported a racist mass murderer.''
Ms. Dohrn, Mr. Ayers and others eventually broke with S.D.S. to form the more radical Weathermen, and in 1969 Ms. Dohrn was arrested and charged with resisting arrest and assaulting a police officer during the Days of Rage protests against the trial of the Chicago Eight -- antiwar militants accused of conspiracy to incite riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
In 1970 came the town house explosion in Greenwich Village. Ms. Dohrn failed to appear in court in the Days of Rage case, and she and Mr. Ayers went underground, though there were no charges against Mr. Ayers. Later that spring the couple were indicted along with others in Federal Court for crossing state lines to incite a riot during the Days of Rage, and following that for ''conspiracy to bomb police stations and government buildings.'' Those charges were dropped in 1974 because of prosecutorial misconduct, including illegal surveillance.
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.
During his fugitive years, Mr. Ayers said, he lived in 15 states, taking names of dead babies in cemeteries who were born in the same year as he. He describes the typical safe house: there were usually books by Malcolm X and Ho Chi Minh, and Che Guevara's picture in the bedroom; fermented Vietnamese fish sauce in the refrigerator, and live sourdough starter donated by a Native American that was reputed to have passed from hand to hand over a century.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
He also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.
''Fugitive Days'' does have moments of self-mockery, for instance when Mr. Ayers describes watching ''Underground,'' Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary about the Weathermen. He was ''embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,'' he writes. ''The rigidity and the narcissism.''
In the mid-1970's the Weathermen began quarreling. One faction, including Ms. Boudin, wanted to join the Black Liberation Army. Others, including Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers, favored surrendering. Ms. Boudin and Ms. Dohrn had had an intense friendship but broke apart. Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn were purged from the group.
Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers had a son, Zayd, in 1977. After the birth of Malik, in 1980, they decided to surface. Ms. Dohrn pleaded guilty to the original Days of Rage charge, received three years probation and was fined $1,500. The Federal charges against Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn had already been dropped.
Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn tried to persuade Ms. Boudin to surrender because she was pregnant. But she refused, and went on to participate in the Brink's robbery. When she was arrested, Ms. Dohrn and Mr. Ayers volunteered to care for Chesa, then 14 months old, and became his legal guardians.
A few months later Ms. Dohrn was called to testify about the robbery. Ms. Dohrn had not seen Ms. Boudin for a year, she said, and knew nothing of it. Ms. Dohrn was asked to give a handwriting sample, and refused, she said, because the F.B.I. already had one in its possession. ''I felt grand juries were illegal and coercive,'' she said. For refusing to testify, she was jailed for seven months, and she and Mr. Ayers married during a furlough.
Once again, Chesa was without a mother. ''It was one of the hardest things I did,'' said Ms. Dohrn of going to jail.
In the interview, Mr. Ayers called Chesa ''a very damaged kid.'' ''He had real serious emotional problems,'' he said. But after extensive therapy, ''became a brilliant and wonderful human being.'' .
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
After the couple surfaced, Ms. Dohrn tried to practice law, taking the bar exam in New York. But she was turned down by the Bar Association's character committee because of her political activities.
Ms. Dohrn said she was aware of the contradictions between her radical past and the comforts of her present existence. ''This is where we raised our kids and are taking care of our aging parents,'' she said. ''We could live much more simply, and well we might.''
And as for settling into marriage after efforts to smash monogamy, Ms. Dohrn said, ''You're always trying to balance your understanding of who you are and what you need, and your longing and imaginings of freedom.''
''Happily for me, Billy keeps me laughing, he keeps me growing,'' she said.
Mr. Ayers said he had some of the same conflicts about marriage. ''We have to learn how to be committed,'' he said, ''and hold out the possibility of endless reinventions.''
As Mr. Ayers mellows into middle age, he finds himself thinking about truth and reconciliation, he said. He would like to see a Truth and Reconciliation Commission about Vietnam, he said, like South Africa's. He can imagine Mr. Kerrey and Ms. Boudin taking part.
And if there were another Vietnam, he is asked, would he participate again in the Weathermen bombings?
By way of an answer, Mr. Ayers quoted from ''The Cure at Troy,'' Seamus Heaney's retelling of Sophocles' ''Philoctetes:'' '' 'Human beings suffer,/ They torture one another./ They get hurt and get hard.' ''
He continued to recite:
History says, Don't hope
On this side of the grave.
But then, once in a lifetime
The longed-for tidal wave
Of justice can rise up
And hope and history rhyme.
Thinking back on his life , Mr. Ayers said, ''I was a child of privilege and I woke up to a world on fire. And hope and history rhymed.'' | 0 | train |
|
Mental Images — Alison Jackson Mental Images
“My pictures ask where does the truth end and the lies begin…where the subjective triumphs over the objective.”
Alison Jackson is renown for her explorations into how photography and the cult of the celebrity have transformed our relationship to what is ‘real’. Her notorious photographic portraits, life-like sculptures, films and videos are startlingly realistically staged affairs that cast uncannily styled actors into an entirely fathomable projection of a future that could have been; or the intimate, often salacious, imagined private moments of media icons such as Diana Princess of Wales, the Queen of England, Marilyn Monroe, George Bush, Brad and Angelina, and David Beckham. Jackson’s productions stress-test the implicit belief that a photograph can capture a frozen moment of ‘truth’.
‘At best, a photograph of a celebrity reproduces something authentic only at the very moment the shutter clicks’ says the artist ‘yet we have been teased into giving these moments an absolute and unquestioned authority. However, what we actually do is create a narcissistic circle where we assert our control over the object of desire: we transform our celebrities into what we want. This whole projective process is further exaggerated by our capacity for fantasy and the inherently titillating nature of the image of a celebrity like Marilyn in flagrante. In this way, my productions, charged with desire, have become more real than the real life model they are based on, evolving into a ‘mental image’ rather than a direct record of reality’
Jackson’s staging, her subversive form of social commentary which has its historical roots in artist William Hogarth, strips away the veneer of PR and hype that prop up the celebrities that come under her scrutiny. Unlike the paparazzi photo, where the actual real celebrity is caught on film in a frozen moment in time, Jackson’s productions – where the likenesses are recognisable – use the celebrity aura to address a deeper universal lineage, the archetypal characters that define the history of human identity and the often humorous struggle of how they cope in the age of mass mediation. | 1 | train |
|
10 Things You Didn't Know About Nancy Pelosi (Jim Lo Scalzo for USN&WR)
1. One of six children (and the only daughter), Nancy (Patricia D'Alesandro) Pelosi was born on March 26, 1940, and grew up in Baltimore's Little Italy.
2. Pelosi's father, Tommy D'Alesandro, was a legendary Democratic congressman and Baltimore mayor. Her brother Thomas would also go on to become mayor of Baltimore.
3. Seemingly, Pelosi was a Democrat from birth—as a young girl, she was offered a toy elephant by a Republican poll worker but recoiled, refusing the toy.
4. A devout Catholic, Pelosi attended a Roman Catholic women's college, Trinity College, in Washington, D.C., where she met her future husband, Paul Pelosi, who was attending Georgetown. They eventually relocated to his hometown, San Francisco.
5. Pelosi is mother to five—Nancy Corinne, Christine, Jacqueline, Paul, and Alexandra, all born within six years—and grandmother to five.
6. Although active in politics her whole life—including stints as a leading Democratic fundraiser and chairwoman of the party in California—Pelosi didn't run for office until she was 47, preferring to wait until the youngest of her five children was a high school senior before running for Congress in 1987.
7. Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said that she was neither a "new Democrat" nor an "old Democrat" but a "prehistoric Democrat." Other Republicans call her a "latte Democrat" for her politically progressive views on the environment, women's reproductive rights, labor unions, and other issues.
8. Pelosi has been a formidable force within the Democratic Party, raising more money than any other congressional Democrat–around $100 million since taking the reins of party leadership. And she has managed to keep the House Dems toeing the party line: According to Congressional Quarterly, House Democrats voted with the majority of their party 88 percent of the time in 2005, the highest total since CQ started keeping track in 1956.
9. Pelosi learned the art of politics from her father, a practitioner of old-school politics. To practice her penmanship, "Little Nancy" was in charge of the book in which her New Deal father kept track of favors done and owed.
10. A true San Franciscan, Pelosi makes sure that her office is stocked with Ghirardelli chocolates. Her diet typically consists of mostly chocolate and chocolate ice cream. Completing the notoriously challenging New York Times crossword puzzle is one of her favorite hobbies.
Sources: | 1 | train |
|
Remarks by President Trump in a Listening Session on Healthcare Roosevelt Room
11:27 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all for being here today. It’s a great honor for you to share your personal stories of struggle under the enormous strain imposed on you by the very, very failed and failing Obamacare law. Secretary Price and I, along with my entire administration, and a lot of people in the Senate and a lot of people in the House are committed to repealing and replacing this disastrous law with a healthcare plan that lowers cost, expands choice, and ensures access for everyone.
You represent the millions of Americans who have seen their Obamacare premiums increase by double digits and even triple digits. In Arizona, the rates were over 116 percent last year -- 116 percent increase. And the deductibles are so high you don’t even get to use it.
Many Americans lost their plans and doctors altogether, and one-third of the counties -- think of it, one-third only have one insurer left. The insurance companies are fleeing. They’re gone; so many gone. The House bill to repeal and replace Obamacare will provide you and your fellow citizens with more choices -- far more choices at lower cost. Americans should pick the plan they want. Now they’ll be able to pick the plan they want, they’ll be able to pick the doctor they want. They’ll be able to do a lot of things that the other plan was supposed to give and it never gave. You don’t pick your doctor, you don’t pick your plan -- you remember that one.
We’re not going to have one-size-fits-all. Instead, we’re going to be working to unleash the power of the private marketplace to let insurers come in and compete for your business. And you’ll see rates go down, down, down, and you’ll see plans go up, up, up. You’ll have a lot of choices.
You’ll have plans that nobody is even thinking of today. They will have plans that today nobody has even thought about, because the market is going to enforce that, with millions and millions of people wanting healthcare. More competition and less regulation will finally bring down the cost of care, and I think it will bring it down very significantly. Unfortunately, it takes a while to get there, because you have to let that marketplace kick in, and it’s going to take a little while to get there. Once it does, it’s going to be a thing of beauty. I wish it didn’t take a year or two years, but that’s what’s going to happen, and that’s the way it works. But we’re willing to go through that process.
Working together, we’ll get the job done. And I have to say this just in closing, and then I want to hear some of your stories, and we’ll let the press stay for your stories if you like. But the press is making Obamacare look so good all of a sudden. I’m watching the news -- looks so good. They’re showing these reports about "this one gets so much and this one gets so much."
First of all, it covers very few people. And it’s imploding. And ’17 will be the worst year. And I said it once, I’ll say it again -- because Obama is gone -- things are going to be very bad this year for the people with Obamacare. They’re going to have tremendous increases.
And the Republicans, frankly, are putting themselves in a very bad position -- and I tell this to Tom Price all the time -- by repealing Obamacare -- because people aren’t going to see the truly devastating effects of Obamacare. They’re not going to see the devastation in ’17 and ’18 and ’19. It'll be gone by then, whether we do it or not. It’ll be imploded off the map.
So the press is making it look so wonderful so that if we end it, everyone is going to say, "Oh, remember how great Obamacare used to be, remember how wonderful it used to be, it was so great." It’s a little bit like President Obama. When he left, people liked him. When he was here, people didn’t like him so much. That’s the way life goes. That’s human nature.
The fact is, Obamacare is a disaster. And I say this to the Republicans all the time: By repealing it, by getting rid of it, by ending it, everyone is going to say, "Oh, it used to be so great." But it wasn’t great. And I tell Tom Price and I tell Paul Ryan, I tell everyone of them -- I say, the best thing you can do politically is wait a year, because it’s going to blow itself off the map. But that’s the wrong thing to do for the country, it’s the wrong thing to do for our citizens.
So with that, I’d like to introduce some of the folks and you could say a few words about your experience with Obamacare. And perhaps the press will even report it. (Laughter.)
Would you like to start?
MS. COUEY: Yeah, thank you for this opportunity, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you.
MS. COUEY: Our rates are three times what they were before Obamacare started. We have one provider in our county. We have very little options for what we can and cannot do. We’re a small-business owner; we’re actually not a brick-and-mortar, we are cattle ranchers. We can’t afford our equipment if we’re paying these rates year after year after year.
Our food source is in jeopardy because of this healthcare law. It’s my basic --
THE PRESIDENT: I know. Sorry. Don't worry. Don't worry. This is what’s happening. It’s gone up three times, and then you have to pay -- if you don’t want to use it, you have to pay. That’s the all-time beauty. If you don’t want to use it, you have to pay. And, Tom, you have to pay big league, right? Some people say, well, if I use it, I use it, I’m paying too much. If I don’t use it, I have to pay a penalty. And do you have to pay penalties? Do you ever do that, or you have to --
MS. COUEY: We haven’t as of yet, but we were uninsured in December. They dropped us for the fourth time, after we paid over $50,000 last year for healthcare expenses.
THE PRESIDENT: And it’s gone up triple.
MS. COUEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And before Obamacare, you actually had good healthcare.
MS. COUEY: We did. We had a fantastic plan.
THE PRESIDENT: A lot of people -- nobody ever takes that into account. I’m not saying the system before was good, because it wasn’t, but millions of people had great healthcare that they loved.
Now, when you start deducting those millions of people from the so-called people that are happy, you have a very small number of people that are happy. That, I can tell you.
How about you?
PARTICIPANT: Well, we’re kind of the same story as Carrie. In 2009, I left a full-time job to be a stay-at-home mom to two kids. For our family, it was never an option to get government assistance; we just don’t believe our neighbors should work harder so that we don’t have to. So my husband said, if you can pay for our insurance -- which at the time was $650 a month for private health insurance for a family of four -- then that was fine.
From 2009 to 2015, that private insurance went up by 102 percent. Finally, his employer told us in 2015, when it went up the final time an additional 34 percent, that they couldn’t carry our family anymore, so I had to enter back into the workforce but I couldn’t find a job that offered health insurance. So we entered under Obamacare, and we believed the sales pitch that, "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor."
So even though we were going to have to pay $1,300 a month for Obamacare, we thought we’d still be okay with our doctors. We were on it for five months. Our pediatrician for our children wouldn’t take it, my doctor wouldn’t take it, so we paid them $8,000 in five months and were never able to use it.
And I think what makes our family story unique is, we’re by no means wealthy. In 2014, when we entered the exchange, we made $53,000 as a family, my husband and I together -- that was our gross income. And then in 2015, we made together -- since I had gone back to work -- $74,000. But when you look at paying $10,000 in health premiums and insurance -- and health costs --
THE PRESIDENT: So it’s been a rough go.
PARTICIPANT: It has, it’s been hard.
THE PRESIDENT: How have you found Obamacare?
PARTICIPANT: We’ll be so happy to see it gone. I mean, it’s almost put our family in financial ruin, and I think that’s the story for a lot of people.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s put businesses in financial ruin.
PARTICIPANT: That’s right.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s one of the biggest costs -- it has been disastrous for businesses.
Go ahead, sir.
MR. SEIFE: Yes, first of all, Mr. President, thank you for having us here.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. SEIFE: I think it’s a great opportunity to talk to the American people, people like ourselves that have struggled with the healthcare law.
I myself am from Miami. I haven’t had very much time to prepare, but the President of the United States calls and I’m here. (Laughter.) So it just so happened I had -- every single year for the past couple of years I’ve had a different insurance every single year. Before, I had an individual plan, my wife and I -- my wife is an attorney, I’m a computer programmer; I’m a small business, my wife is a small business. And I just don’t understand what happened. I have a daughter with a disability. We’ve changed our plan every year.
THE PRESIDENT: So your insurance was good before Obamacare.
MR. SEIFE: Oh, absolutely. I never had --
THE PRESIDENT: Many people are like that. Many, many plans were great before Obamacare. They were so happy. And that doesn’t justify the system before Obamacare, but people are miserable now, and it’s putting people out of business and it’s putting them in the poorhouse.
Go ahead.
MR. SEIFE: It’s just that we had to -- they cancelled our plans, and I couldn’t understand why they cancelled our plans. So we had no other choice. I remember the President of the United States say that individual plans will not be covered, you need to have an employer-based plan. I do not work for the government, I do not work for a large employer.
THE PRESIDENT: Very unfair.
MR. SEIFE: We are ground zero. My case is ground zero for the healthcare law.
THE PRESIDENT: And you represent a lot of people in the same situation.
MR. SEIFE: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: It’s very unfair.
MR. SEIFE: Like my friend here, she’s in the same situation. And I think it’s very, very unfair. And I think that the real scenario was that this law was supposed to implode, like you were saying. And my parents are from -- came from communist Cuba, they know what socialism is all about. So I know what socialism is, and that’s pretty much what -- this whole system was meant to have one single provider.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it turns out it's so expensive it’s almost not socialism when you think about it. (Laughter.) You have to pay so much.
What do you think? Go ahead.
MS. SERTICH: I’m from Arizona, and I can tell you that the 116-percent increase is real, it’s not a myth. I lost my plan three times during the Obamacare era. After losing it this year I decided to opt out. So right now I do not have traditional healthcare.
And I went from a $365-a-month premium last year to a $809-premium this year.
THE PRESIDENT: And a higher deductible.
MS. SERTICH: The deductible was going to be $6,800, no copays. So if I went to the doctor, I would be paying out of my pocket, and it just didn’t seem like a good use of my money. I thought I would be a better steward of that $17,000 at the end of the year should I have reached my deductible, and just decided to opt out. I went into a faith-based share program, and I’m doing that.
One of the reasons I felt like I can do this -- totally taking a leap of faith -- is because I think -- I know you’re going to get this taken care of. So I thought it’s only going to be for a year. I will be on this program, I will opt out of traditional healthcare, or health insurance. And I think you’re going to get it done.
THE PRESIDENT: You have a lot of people in Arizona paying a big penalty?
MS. SERTICH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re paying the penalty?
MS. SERTICH: Well, and my husband also owns his own business and can’t afford to offer insurance to employees. And his employees who are also in the independent market, it’s just getting too much. And I’ve had individual insurance for 25 years, since I started my business. So I’ve always been in that individual market, I’ve always done what was right. I took responsibility for myself, made sure I was covered for healthcare because I’m a businessperson, I don’t want any huge healthcare expenses to affect the money that could be going to my business now having to go to a health expense.
So I was in my mid-20s when I said, you know what, I’ve got to get -- we’ve got to get square with this, I have to have independent insurance. So, I have.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, thank you very much. The people of Arizona have been hit very, very hard. At least 116 percent. Here’s the bad news: It’s going to go up more this year. Now, if we repeal it, nobody is going to know that, and the press is going to say how wonderful it was, and, gee, we miss Obamacare. That’s the problem. It’s the biggest problem I have, Tom. We’re going to do them a big favor, but it’s not the right way.
Go ahead.
MR. BROWN: Mr. President, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much, Louis.
MR. BROWN: My name is Louis Brown. I work for the Christ Medicus Foundation. I'm an attorney by trade. In 2009, when the Affordable Care Act was going through Congress -- what became the Affordable Care Act -- I was working for the Democratic National Committee at the time. I resigned my position because I could tell that the Democratic bill that was going through Congress wanted to publicly fund abortion, and that’s not something that I could go along with. So I resigned my position, later worked for Congressman Dan Lungren in Congress, and went on to eventually work for the Christ Medicus Foundation. And we’re focused on building a culture of life, protecting religious liberty in healthcare, protecting the right of conscience, prohibiting the public funding of abortion, and also prohibiting non-discrimination against pro-life medical providers.
Especially as an African American, I'm a graduate of Howard University School of Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Good school.
MR. BROWN: Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. And I know from Saint John Paul II -- he said that all of our human and civil rights that we believe in as Americans, that we share as Americans -- the right to healthcare, the right to medical care, to housing, to all of these different things -- are illusory if the right to life isn’t defended with maximum determination.
Seventeen million African Americans, it’s shown, that probably have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. And I supported you in the presidential election, gave several speeches in Michigan telling folks to vote pro-life in the general election, and I’m really happy that you’re here to continue the bipartisan belief that there should be no taxpayer-funding of abortion, and also really to support your effort to show that the patient, the human person, should be at the center of our American healthcare system, not the government. The government has its place, but the patient should be the center. So I’m happy to support you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. That’s so nice. Thank you, I appreciate it. Great job.
Yes, go ahead.
DR. SETHI: Mr. President, thank you so much for inviting me. My name is Dr. Manny, and I run a nonprofit called Healthy Tennessee, and across Tennessee I’m a trauma surgeon. But what we do is --
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll be in Tennessee on Wednesday.
DR. MANNY: We look forward to hosting you, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I’ll see you there.
DR. MANNY: Yes, sir. We do these large community events in rural Appalachia, across Tennessee, where we host these health fairs taking care of patients. So it’s really a grassroots effort -- something that you understand better than anybody -- where people come out just to help people. Doctors, nurses on the ground, helping folks with preventative medicine, educating folks. That’s what we do.
But the one thing I’ve been seeing across Tennessee is that folks really can’t afford these rising premiums. So what they’re doing is, effectively, they’re paying the tax penalty because it’s cheaper and it works out better than paying for the insurance. And so that’s been a big problem that we’re seeing across the state. So thank you so much for what you’re doing to tackle this problem.
THE PRESIDENT: So you’ve seen a big problem, and the way out of the problem is to do a plan much more like the plan we’re going to get done.
DR. MANNY: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We’ll get that out -- without penalties too, by the way. People don’t mention all of the facts.
You know, the other thing about what we’re talking about -- we really have a three-phase plan. They only want to talk about the first phase. The first phase is just the most basic of phases, and then you have phase two, which is largely done by our Secretary, and then you have phase three, which is a lot of the bells and whistles. But they don’t want to talk about the bells and whistles. So they’re really comparing things to something that won’t be there for long.
And the reason we have to do it that way is because of Congress. I’d love to do it all in one package, but if you did it that way, it can’t get done. So we’re going to get something done that’s going to be terrific.
I appreciate it. Thank you, doctor, very much.
Yes, sir. Go ahead.
MR. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. President. I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I, too, am from Tennessee, and I, too, am in the farming industry.
THE PRESIDENT: Good.
MR. BROWN: And the effect that I’ve had through Obamacare is my wife's and my daughter's insurance is supplied through her work, I buy my own. And I’ve seen the increases, since Obamacare, to the tune of about $5,000 a year, just for me. And I have considered taking the option of the penalty because -- my problem with the penalty is, though, if I opt out of the program, and buy a private plan -- just a catastrophic plan because I’m a very healthy man -- if I take that option, not only is my income penalized, but my wife’s income as well, because she makes a considerable more amount of money than I do, but she has insurance. So I don’t think that’s fair.
And I don’t think -- the rate increase is just astronomical, and I’m in the county that only has one option -- BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee --and I’ve got about $540-a-month premium for the $7,000 out-of-pocket deductible before I see any help at all. And I even got to pay a high premium for a plan that I don’t need or don’t want --
THE PRESIDENT: Will you be able to continue, in the years to come, if you have to keep going like this?
MR. BROWN: They’re dropping out every day -- the suppliers in other counties. There’s 35 counties in Tennessee that has no options at all right now. I don’t know what those folks do.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what that means? That means somebody is going to make a lot of money. You know that. They’re going to make a lot of money. (Laughter.) Somebody is going to -- well, a few. You’re not going to make it. They’re going to make it. There are people very happy about this situation.
MR. BROWN: Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate. Thank you, Joel.
Doctor?
DR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. Well, I’m a physician in Texas, and thank you for allowing me to be here today. And I’ll tell you, what I’ve seen is that a lot of patients really are not adequately covered by Obamacare. It was supposed to cover people who had -- like everyone has said here -- with the rising premiums and the rising deductibles. I take care of patients in the hospital, and the patients are shocked to get a $20,000 bill, and to find that they’re responsible for $6,000 of that because their deductible is so high. And that’s just the situation that cannot continue.
Medicaid expansion under Obamacare really doesn’t cover folks either, because many physicians are not even taking Medicare. They’re not accepting it any longer in the outpatient setting. And so folks who have chronic medical illnesses, like cancer -- I mean, my wife is a breast cancer survivor, and most of her treatment was actually as an outpatient. It was very expensive outpatient care. Most physicians don’t even accept Medicaid, so those patients are still uncovered.
And so the Medicaid expansion really hasn’t covered them. The folks who have Obamacare insurance really are inadequately covered as well because they’re still paying extremely high premiums and then having to pay extremely high deductibles. And so it’s really --
THE PRESIDENT: And do they even reach it with the high deductibles? They don’t even reach it for the most part.
DR. ARMSTRONG: You know, oftentimes they do not, unless they have some sort of serious medical problem, and they’re in the hospital, and it’s very expensive -- they don’t even reach their deductible oftentimes. And so it’s unfortunate. So I really appreciate it.
I actually read the bill that’s been produced that’s coming out of the House now, and I really like a lot of the changes in it. I think that this is going to correct a lot of the issues that Obamacare has had. So I really appreciate what you all are doing.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate it, doctor. Thank you. Say hello to your wife.
DR. ARMSTRONG: Yes, sir. I will. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Very nice. Thank you.
Gina.
MS. SELL: Hi, Mr. President, I’m Gina. I’m from Wisconsin. I’m a nurse, I’m a mom, and I am part of that huge group of middle-class families that were impacted by the ACA.
Before ACA, we had insurance that was eventually cancelled, and I had written a letter to our senator just asking him, what do I do? Do I quit my job completely so that we can obtain a subsidy -- a job that I love, as a nurse in a hospital that I love? Or do I uproot my family and try to find a job with benefits that doesn’t even cover the medical --
THE PRESIDENT: So the healthcare is -- the Obamacare forced you to actually -- in a sense, forces you, economically and almost potentially, to get another job.
MS. SELL: Right.
THE PRESIDENT: Even though you like your job.
MS. SELL: Right. So I did end up getting a full-time position at the hospital that I worked at. But that came with a price because I was working three days a week, and spending time with my small children, who are my number-one priority. And after the ACA, I was forced -- because we could not afford a premium of $1,200 per month and a deductible that didn’t cover anything -- to find a job with benefits.
THE PRESIDENT: Meaning the deductible was so high that, essentially, unless you had a really big problem, you wouldn’t even be able to use it.
The deductible was so high that essentially unless you had a really big problem, you wouldn’t even be able to use it.
MS. SELL: Correct, yes. And we're still in that boat. I mean, right now our deductible is $6,500. And so if I have a child who's extremely sick, it's going to cost me hundreds of dollars. Just last week, my daughter had a fever, and I sent her to school for three days straight because I had to work to afford our assurance, and I couldn’t afford to bring her to the doctor. So it has been devastating for our family.
THE PRESIDENT: It's really not having insurance at all. A lot of Obamacare, you don’t really have insurance because the deductibles are so high that you really don’t have insurance, if you think about it.
All right. Thank you very much. Good luck.
MS. SELL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, sir.
MR. KNOX: Mr. President, thank you very much for hosting us. This is great. I have to start with something. As I was leaving the house, my 11-year-old ran up to me and said, "Dad, I'd like to have you give this to Mr. President for me." (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: What do you have there? I wished I looked that good. (Laughter.)
MR. KNOX: "Dear President Trump, it is a great honor to be able to write to the President of the USA. I think you are a great President and a great man. Also, don't worry, the picture of you on the front of this looks nothing like you." (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) That's very nice. Thank you. Thank you. I wish I looked that good.
MR. KNOX: So I had the privilege of meeting with Secretary Price and Vice President Pence in Cincinnati about a week and a half ago at a roundtable, and I'll share with you what I shared with them. I started with a quote from the great President, Ronald Reagan, who said, "The most terrifying words in the English language are we're from the government and we're here to help.'" (Laughter.) Kind of my feeling on healthcare.
Frankly, I think that the system was broken before the last administration got their hands on it. I started my company 21 years ago, and I had a vision of wanting to provide 100 percent full family healthcare for as long as I had a company, because I really felt in my heart that it was the right thing to do. I was one of the last holdouts. But, sadly, after about 15 years, I really had a choice of either having a company or being able to provide my employees that level of healthcare. And that's sad. I tell my wife all the time -- you can have anything you want, we just can't everything we want. We have the best healthcare system in the world -- we do -- but it needs to be fixed -- whether it's small business owners, like myself -- I'm a manufacturer, I'm on several boards in the Midwest in manufacturing.
What we'd like to see is not a government-operated market, but a free market. I sell (inaudible) equipment for a living. We have a trade show every year, and there's hundreds and hundreds of people selling competitive products. If we had a healthcare show in my town, there would be three or four people under that roof. And as a businessman yourself, you know what that does to driving down costs or the lack thereof. So we would like to see more of a free-market solution, going back to what made this country great -- entrepreneurialism instead of empowerments; work ethics instead of welfare. And that's what we'd like to ask you for. And I'd like to say thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: As you know, that's what we're doing largely, but we also have to take care of people that can't afford to be in a position like you are. So we're going to do that. Largely, I think beyond everything, if you look at what's going to happen -- the competitive bidding -- every element of what we're doing is competitive bidding, but we have to take care of people who need the help. And there are a lot of people like that.
MR. KNOX: There's always been a safety net in the United States, and there should be. And, unfortunately, when I see 50,000 -- or 50 million Americans taking assistance in -- you know, they're market food stamps. That's like -- for the people who really can't provide for themselves, you know, we're all charitable people who are Americans, we're the most generous nation on the face of the Earth. So I totally believe in safety nets for those who need them, not free handouts for (inaudible).
THE PRESIDENT: We’re going to help a lot of people, but we are going to be very much free market people. They can afford -- and they'll be off the cost.
Go ahead, Stan.
MR. SUMMERS: I'm Mr. Stan Summers from Box Elder County, northern Utah. I think I'm probably the only other elected official here besides you guys. It's been an interesting ride to watch the healthcare system in the last 26 years. When my son was born, he was three and a half months premature, 26 years ago. And we had really good insurance. We basically didn’t have to pay anything out of pocket besides what we were doing from where I worked. As time went on, you could kind of tell the healthcare system has been a little bit broke, and then all of a sudden the ACA -- and I'm not going to call it the other word -- I call it the last President's healthcare program. I don’t want to say that name.
So anyway --
THE PRESIDENT: Other than that, you like him a lot, right? (Laughter.)
MR. SUMMERS: Yeah, exactly. (Laughter.) It's gotten to the point where I own a couple of businesses too and do the things that I have to do. I actually ran for government so I could have insurance -- and won. But now I'm looking at these people, saying, how can I provide insurance for them without raising taxes and doing these things that are happening -- because everything has gone up. Utah didn’t expand Medicaid -- we weren’t a part of that -- and we can see why now, because of the things that are happening throughout the nation with states and companies and everybody else going bankrupt.
So it got to the point where I ended up -- not only with my businesses -- I have to drive a school bus to keep my wife at home with my kid that was ill. So now I own three businesses, I drive a school bus, and I'm an elected official, to be able to continue to do the things that I need to do with healthcare. The last three -- well, the last three years --
THE PRESIDENT: So it's gone through the roof.
MR. SUMMERS: Oh, I got a $6,000 deductible -- HSA -- but I will meet that again in three months. So I'm at -- I think my wife said morning, at 4,800 or 4,900 bucks already this year in March to be able to meet my out-of-pocket. And so by the time April comes, I would have met that to be able to continue to do. And if there was one thing I probably could ask you about -- and my boy has got a rare disease, and I appreciate you talking about the rare [disease] community in your speeches -- is that if somebody has cancer or somebody has a rare disease or continues to have problems, why do we have to do a deductible every year?
So I’m sitting there at Christmas going, okay, my deductible has been met for six or eight months, and I’m going to turn around and have to do it again for the same disease, for the same symptoms, for the same everything.
THE PRESIDENT: That's interesting. Tom, could you answer that? That would be interesting.
SECRETARY PRICE: It’s all about the risk and spreading the risk with insurance over a period of time. But it is a challenge for individuals with chronic disease, there’s no doubt about it.
MR. SUMMERS: And I appreciate you even thinking about it and talking about grassroots, and when you're talking about all the people that we support with the farmers and ranchers, and the small-business people, and the people that are in manufacturing, our county is one of the largest manufacturing counties in the nation per capita. And Nucor would love to tell you thanks -- Nucor Steel would love to tell you thanks for everything you've been doing.
THE PRESIDENT: Nucor has been very good. It’s going to get better, too.
MR. SUMMERS: And we've got a ton of those. The space program -- we used to make the shuttle boosters out of ATK Thiokal. And we’d love to have the space program. I got a really good friend.
THE PRESIDENT: Those days are gone, but they're coming back.
MR. SUMMERS: I’ve got a friend that's going to go up in the next little bit, Lieutenant Commander Scott Maker Tingle, who is headed up on a spaceship from Russia. But he would love to come back to the United States and be able to go up through the United States. So all those jobs I know will come back with you.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Gary Cohn, who is sitting right next to you, he’s a big believer in what you're saying -- right, Gary?
MR. SUMMERS: If there’s anything we can do to help you, the counties are behind you. We can find you low-hanging fruit to be able to pick off that tree to help with jobs. Just let us know where we can help.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Thank you, Stan.
MR. SUMMERS: Thank you for your time.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you have anything to say, Tom, generally speaking?
SECRETARY PRICE: Well, let me start, Mr. President -- really powerful about the consequences of the current law, and you hear people’s lives that have been affected in remarkably adverse ways that sometimes you don't think about as it relates to healthcare -- whether it’s businesses that haven’t been able to survive, or individuals who need to take three, four, five jobs; moms that can't be with their kids when they want. This is about real people. It’s about real patients.
And so working with you and your leadership, we are really excited about the opportunity to put in place a patient-centered system where patients and families and doctors are making decisions, and not Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: What about the concept that -- and everybody knows it’s happening -- that Obamacare is imploding, that if we don't do anything, it’s not even going to be around in another year? The insurance companies are fleeing. But now it | 0 | train |
|
Situation Syria Regional Refugee Response The second edition of “Heya” Campaign will kick off at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina - مكتبة الاسكندرية to celebrate The International Women’s Day. The event will take place on 12-14 March at the Bibliotheca Alexandrina Conference Center (BACC) with UNHCR Egypt's participation. Heya campaign aims at focusing on the irreplaceable role of women in the Egyptian society, and at tackling women empowerment in three main fields: leadership, health and arts this through various activities, workshops, and lectures. Three refugees will be speaking at the closing event to share their experiences in Egypt: their adversities, their resilience and their hopes. Refugees and asylum-seekers will also be performing a play and other musical acts which focuses on women issues particularly pertaining to refugees. The campaign is organized in partnership with UNHCR, The Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport (AASTMT), Alexandria Volunteers for Awareness and Development Club (AVAD), Fund for Drug Control and Treatment of Addiction (FDCTA), Bibliotheca Alexandrina Friends Association, VI Markets, Injaz Egypt, Egyptian Banking Institute and others. | 0 | train |
|
Keeping His Word: Lowering the Cost of Medicare Prescriptions 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 | 0 | train |
|
DEA Just Raided A United States Senator __________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last edited by 1st Recline Bn; 07-16-2017 at 08:52 PM . | 1 | train |
|
Pence: “Michelle Obama Is The Most Vulgar First Lady We’ve Ever Had” Mike Pence said he didn’t understand why Michelle Obama had so passionately condemned his running mate, Donald Trump, for boasting about forcibly grabbing women by their genitals. The First Lady denounced the Republican presidential nominee, although she never dismissively spoke his name, for “speaking freely and openly about sexually predatory behavior” – which she said had “shaken (her) to the core.”
“First and foremost,” Pence argued, “I have no idea why Mrs. Obama, who will be departing the White House shortly, is even commenting on the future President of the United States, God-willing. That’s the first thing I don’t quite get. Secondly, if she’s the First Lady, shouldn’t she be focused on doing whatever it is that First Ladies are supposed to be doing as their duties while their husbands are rescuing the world? What’s she doing commenting on and obviously worrying about her successor? That’s not what she should be doing.”
The governor of Indiana also said that she “has no business” commenting on men and their “restroom talk,” as well as that that’s not “ladylike behavior.” “Now, I know that the word ‘lady’ is kind of in her job description, but it looks to me she’s not behaving like one, at least as of late,” he said. “If she was a real lady, she wouldn’t be commenting on men’s restroom talk and neglecting her own work and duties just so she could get a word out on a topic that she finds interesting for some reason.”
He continued, “If we had anyone else serving as the first lady, they would pretend like they hadn’t heard it and would be going about their business in a normal fashion. But no, Michelle Obama is so vulgar she’s not only being vocal about it, but she’s also convinced that her job title will add weight and significance to her words. And she may be fooling those who can’t see through her smoke screen, but the rest of us have her figured out. She can’t fool me, just like she can’t fool Donald Trump or any other conservative American who has the guts to think for himself.”
“How many times do I have to repeat the fact that what he did and the language he used was just restroom talk?” Pence asked. “He has apologized for it several times, and I really don’t know what else people want him to do. And now you have countless media outlets spearheaded by the New York Times who are calling Donald a sexual predator. And as if that wasn’t enough, the first lady also thinks she’s ordinary enough to be commenting on the issue as well. That’s just ridiculous.”
“There is no way in hell Michelle Obama isn’t working with the New York Times in a joint effort to smear the good name of Donald Trump, if you ask me. I refuse to believe all of these women who are popping up out of nowhere with stories that Donald Trump had sexually assaulted them are a random occurrence. This is too well organized to be an accident. And the entire Democratic Party is behind it, with the addition of their latest recruit, the soon-to-be ex-first lady Michelle Obama. And I’m actually glad that’s the case because when Donald wins, we’ll offer all of them a job just for the fun of it,” Pence concluded. | 1 | train |
|
Joni Ernst "Promises" Ad 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 | 0 | train |
|
Sen. Sanders warns of ‘frightening trend’ towards oligarchy Bernie Sanders screenshot
The defeat of the DISCLOSE Act in the Senate is part of a “frightening” trend, according to Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.
# p #1_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
During an appearance on Current TV’s Viewpoint on Tuesday, Sanders blasted Republicans for blocking the legislation.
# p #2_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
“What really frightens me is not just the disastrous nature of Citizens United, but the whole trend that we are seeing lately, economically, of moving this country toward an oligarchic form of government,” he said. “What you have right now is incredibly unequal distribution of wealth and income… the Walton family of Walmart itself owns more wealth — one family — than the bottom 40 percent of the American people.”
# p #3_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
“You’ve got that reality out there, and then what’s happening now — what Citizens United is about — is these guys are not content to own the economy, to own the wealth of America, they now want to own lock, stock and barrel the political process as well.”
# p #4_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
The DISCLOSE Act would have required outside campaign groups to disclose those who contribute $10,000 or more. But it failed to move forward on Tuesday after Senate Republicans unanimously voted against it.
# p #5_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
Watch video, courtesy of Current TV, below:
# p #6_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
# p #7_7 # ad skipped = NULL #
# p #8_7 # ad skipped = NULL # | 0 | train |
|
Sec. John Kelly on Manchester investigation, keeping America safe This is a rush transcript from "Fox News Sunday," May 28, 2017. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.
CHRIS WALLACE, FOX NEWS ANCHOR: I’m Chris Wallace.
Keeping America safe after the terror attack in England. What steps is the government taking this Memorial Day weekend?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
JOHN KELLY, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: It's a constant threat and we always have to be vigilant.
WALLACE: We’ll discuss the investigation into the bombing and the response here in the U.S. with the secretary of homeland security, General John Kelly, live, only on "Fox News Sunday."
Then, new reports the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner discussed setting up a secret communications channel between the Trump transitions in the Kremlin. We’ll ask our Sunday panel where this takes the expanding probe into Russian interference.
Plus, President Trump returns from his first trip overseas to a domestic agenda in trouble, from ObamaCare repeal and replace to the budget, some on Capitol Hill wonder whether Congress will pass anything.
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM, R-SOUTH CAROLINA: Yes, definitely dead on arrival.
SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILLINOIS: This is step backwards. You’re not going to make America great again with this budget.
WALLACE: We’ll break down the president's priorities and prospects with a number two Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, and Republican senator, Dr. Bill Cassidy.
And our power player of the week flying high for the Blue Angels.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Boy, is it sweet when we put all that together and get that synergy and you feel that fuzz.
WALLACE: All, right now, on "Fox News Sunday."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: And hello again on this Memorial Day weekend from Fox News in Washington.
President Trump is back at the White House arriving late last night after a largely successful nine-day trip to the Middle East and Europe. But he returns to a spreading scandal about links between the Kremlin and some of his current and former advisors, and to a domestic agenda that stalled in Congress.
We’ll get to all of that this hour, but we begin with terror, that suicide bombing at a concert in Manchester, England, that killed 22, just the first of four savage attacks this week around the world.
Joining us now, the man in charge of keeping America safe, the secretary of homeland security, General John Kelly.
Mr. Secretary, welcome to "Fox News Sunday."
Before we get to terror, let me ask you about the hot story in Washington now. These revelations about Jared Kushner trying to set up a back channel to the Kremlin, through the Soviet and -- the Russian ambassador. Your reaction to that? Is there anything improper with that?
KELLY: Well, I don't know if it's true or not. I know it’s being -- it's being reported in the press.
WALLACE: It has been confirmed to me the conversation took place.
KELLY: OK. Then I would just tell you, Chris, that I think any channel of communications back or otherwise with a country like Russia is a good thing. I mean, multiple ways to communicate back and forth is a good thing with a country I think, and particularly a country that’s like Russia. So, it doesn’t -- it doesn't bother me.
I mean, you just have to assume, obviously, that what you’re getting is -- may or may not be true, they may be working you. But that's the whole point. I mean, that communication goes into the White House as a data point in terms of discussion. So, I don't see the big deal.
WALLACE: Let me -- you say you don't see a big deal?
KELLY: No, I think any time you have channels of communication with a country, particularly one like Russia, I wouldn’t criticize it.
WALLACE: But you talked about a data point into the White House. This is during the transition.
KELLY: Right.
WALLACE: These were private officials.
KELLY: Right.
WALLACE: We have one president at a time. Does that make a difference?
KELLY: You know, I mean, obviously, during the transition period, the people in transition, the incoming Trump administration is not in a position to do anything to inhibit with the Obama administration literally days before they transitioned out. So, again, as they begin to build relationships, there's nothing wrong with that. As they begin to build their own situational awareness with Russia in this case, I don't see an issue here.
WALLACE: OK. Let's turn to your day job. What's the latest on the Manchester bombing? Have they rolled up the network that was supporting the bombers, and what have you learned from this plot that will help you better protect the U.S. homeland?
KELLY: I mean, I don't know what the -- actually the better way to put it, I can't comment on whether they finish their investigations, or roll -- you know, completed rolling up on the network that we’re dealing with. But I would just say that this is -- yes, I’ve said it many times, it really is a generational struggle. This is one tragedy in line with dozens of other tragedies in the world.
I mean, last week, you had Manchester, you had Egypt, you had Indonesia, you had the Philippines, all ISIS-inspired or ISIS-controlled terrorist attack.
WALLACE: Was there something different about this network and the way this was pulled off that says to you, gee, we've got to up our game?
KELLY: Well, it’s this kind of -- in my view, there's kind of three types of terrorist attacks. The most sophisticated that we look at, that is against aviation, that's the hardest to do but it's the biggest payoff for these people.
Then you have kind of the middle of the road one, which I think this one was. It’s a network. It's hard to do. You have to construct a bomb and all, and then you have kind of the low-end where -- I mean, just as tragic but you have people running people over in trucks, that kind of thing.
But this is just the way terrorism is today and I think it will be around for many, many years to come. You know, the good news is those officials in the United Kingdom, Europe, around the world are relentless. They are just as relentless in terms of trying to prevent these things as the terrorists aren't trying to create them.
The good news is, for our country, we have not had an outside the United States terrorist attacks since 9/11. And that goes to the issue of those that fight our away game, that’s DOD, NSA, CIA, and those that fight the home game. That’s DHS, FBI, local law enforcement.
WALLACE: Let me pick up on this, because part of the story this week was the leak of information about the bomber and the bombing that made its way into the U.S. media, and that set off this exchange.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
THERESA MAY, BRITISH PRIME MINISTER: I made clear to President Trump that the intelligence that is shared between our law enforcement agencies must remain secure.
REX TILLERSON, SECRETARY OF STATE: We take full responsibility for that. And we, obviously, regret that that happened.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: How was this kind of sensitive information leaked to "The New York Times"? And, General, why is it that whether it's politics or terror, our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies, can't keep a secret?
KELLY: It's outrageous. When I call -- immediately after the attack, I called my counterpart in U.K., offered my condolences. By the way, the third time I’ve offered her, Amber Rudd, my condolences in 120 days. That's how frequent this kind of -- these terrorist attacks are happening.
Anyways, she rightfully and very graciously accepted the condolences and leaned into me on this leak. It's outrageous. I don't know why people do it. It jeopardizes not only investigations, it puts people's lives in jeopardy.
I don't why people do it, but they do. And that's the world we live in.
WALLACE: Let's get to what you're going to try to do to protect the homeland. There are a lot of crowded events in the summer, concerts, sporting events. How do you harden these soft targets like this concert? And do you have new thoughts because this person didn't get into the event, he was outside the event, what do you do about parameters?
KELLY: We -- one of the great things about America, there's many great things but we are a free and open society. And in many -- and I wouldn't change that at all. But that's also one of our vulnerabilities. People can live their lives day in and day out, privacy issues, all of that, it's a good thing. It’s what America is all about. But as I say, that is a vulnerability.
The good news is to all Americans, I mean, the good news is that local state law enforcement today -- not to even go down the issue of the FBI, DHS -- it's in their DNA now to harden. We are just about as hard as we can be. I don't know if there's a way to prevent these kinds of things in the kind of society we live in.
WALLACE: Let me pick up on that, because I want to play a clip of your testimony before Congress this week. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KELLY: It's everywhere, and that’s -- you know, that's the nature of this threat that we are dealing with. As horrible as Manchester was, my expectation is we’re going to see a lot more of that kind of attack.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: A lot more of that kind of attack, here in the U.S.?
KELLY: I think we’re relatively -- we have no specific -- we have threats all the time, but no, right now, specific threat. But that goes to the fact that we are over here and not over there.
The fact is that it's the caliphate is being destroyed, that is Syria and Iraq, there are large numbers of returning fighters, Western Europe, and, you know, in many cases like this guy that did this thing in Manchester, he’s a citizen of the U.K. In this case, he’s a passport holder. I don't if the U.K. had any idea that he was outside -- that he was in Libya, but I think he’s also traveled to other points.
The point is, they have a real threat and it's growing, it’s metastasized, as fighters come back from the caliphate to be I believe to be more of this kind of thing.
The good news is, all decent people, all decent governments, and it doesn't matter whether we are politically close to them or not, all governments for the most part are sharing tremendous amounts of information, passport-type information, aviation, travel information. But, you know, people like this are below the radar.
WALLACE: I want to pick up on aviation because you are in the process of making some big decisions on aviation. And I want to do a lightning round, quick questions, quick answers.
Are you going to ban laptops from the cabin on all international flights both into and out of the U.S.?
KELLY: I might. That's a quick answer.
WALLACE: Yes, well, expand a little bit.
KELLY: Well, there’s a real threat. Numerous threats against aviation, that's really the thing that they are obsessed with, the terrorists, the idea of knocking down an airplane in flight, particularly if it’s a U.S. carrier, particularly if it's full of mostly U.S. folks, people. It's real. You know that I implemented I think on the 21st of March a restriction on large electronic devices in the cabins from ten points of origin.
WALLACE: Right.
But there was talk, as you say, about all international flights both into and out of the U.S. When you say you might, when are you going to make that decision and what’s going to determine it?
KELLY: (INAUDIBLE) follow the intelligence. The very, very good news is that we are working incredibly close with friends and partners around the world. We're going to, and in the process of defining this, but we are going to raise the bar for generally speaking aviation security much higher than it is now.
So -- and there’s new technologies down the road, not too far down the road that we will rely on. But it is a real sophisticated threat and I will reserve that decision until we see where it's going.
WALLACE: Another lightning round question, I do need a quick answer here because we’re running of time. The TSA is testing tighter screening of carry-ons, and the idea that people who bring their carry-ons are going to have to unpack them and put food in one bin, and electronics in the another bin, and paper in another bin.
Are you going to spread that nationwide and what’s that going to do to the screening lines?
KELLY: Yes, I mean, the reason we’ve done, TSA, of course, works for me. The reason we've done that is because of -- people trying to avoid the $25 or $50 or whatever it is to check a bag are now stuffing your carry-on bags to the point of, you know -- well, they can't get any more in there. So, the more you stuff in there, the less the TSA professionals that are looking at what's in those bags through the monitors, they can't tell what's in the bags anymore. So, if you put --
WALLACE: So, are you going to do that nationwide?
KELLY: We might, and likely will.
WALLACE: Soon?
KELLY: Well, what we’re doing now is working out the tactics, techniques and procedures, if you will, in a few airports to find out exactly how to do that with the least amount of inconvenience to the traveler.
WALLACE: A couple final questions I want to ask about the travel ban. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling this week continuing the stay on President Trump's revised travel ban -- and I want to put up -- the chief judge called it, the revised travel ban: an executive order that in text speaks with vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination.
Mr. Secretary, judge after judge has said that this is a Muslim man that violates the Constitution.
KELLY: They are dead wrong.
WALLACE: Well, I mean, you say that, but they are the ones who were --
KELLY: They are wrong. Remember the seven, now six countries? These were the same countries identified by the Obama administration that we should be extra cautious about and backed up, you know, by the United States Congress. That's where those seven countries came from.
The fact is that in those countries, we have very little ability to actually verify, vet the people that are coming out of those countries. So, what the president and it's not a travel ban, remember. It’s the travel pause. What the president said, for 90 days, we were going to pause in terms of people from those countries coming to the United States that would give me time to look at additional vetting to see --
WALLACE: OK. I want to pick up on that and why you’re even talking about the travel ban, because I want to put some numbers on. Take a look at this.
The first executive order that was issued on January 27th banned citizens from seven nations from entering the U.S. for 90 days, suspended the refugee program for 120 days, as you say, a pause, while you set up an extreme vetting program. It's now been 121 days since that first order. So, why don't you have the program in place?
KELLY: We are actually implementing it. The irony here is, had it stood, we would have had the 90 days to study. We’re not even studying what would be procedures, because we are enjoined and can't do that. In the meantime --
WALLACE: You can't study extreme vetting?
KELLY: No. We’re -- the irony again is we can't study it, but I’m just guessing, and implementing.
But we are going to find implement ways to determine who this -- an individual is, and remember, most of these countries have no passports. They have no police. They have no intelligence. Many of the countries in question don't even have a U.S. embassy there to help us vet. The U.N. will tell you it's almost impossible to vet these people from these countries because there are no passports and all the rest of it.
We have to figure out a way to determine who they are and why they come into the United States. Otherwise, we’re guessing. And this president and John Kelly doesn't want to guess when it comes to national security and protection of the U.S. population.
WALLACE: Secretary Kelly, thank you. Thanks for sharing part of your holiday weekend with us.
KELLY: Absolutely. Thanks.
WALLACE: Up next, new reports that Jared Kushner attempted to set up a back channel between Russia and the Trump transition. We’ll bring in our Sunday group to discuss the expanding Russia probe.
Plus, what would you like to ask the panel about the continuous leaks in Washington? Just go to Facebook or Twitter @FoxNewsSunday, and we may use your question on the air.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HILLARY CLINTON, D-FORMER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We were furious about the past presidential election of a man whose presidency would eventually end in disgrace with his impeachment for obstruction of justice.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Hillary Clinton talking about Richard Nixon in her commencement speech at Wellesley College, but clearly taking a shot at President Trump. By the way, Nixon resigned before he was actually impeached.
And it's time now for our Sunday group: the head of Heritage Action for America, Michael Needham, Charles Lane of The Washington Post, Gerald Seib from The Wall Street Journal, and National Security Council staffer, Gillian Turner.
And just to catch you up, President Trump returns home to reports that his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, met with the Russian ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in December, and that they discussed setting up a secret secure channel between the Trump transition and the Kremlin. That communications link reportedly to be based in a Russian diplomatic facility in Russia.
A source close to the Trump administration tells me the conversation did take place but he says it was the ambassador who proposed the back channel, not Kushner, so the Russian military could talk with Trump advisors about the situation in Syria and the source points out that the secure link was never set up.
So, with that as a preface, Gerry, your reaction to the Kushner story, and how does this complicate the already complicated investigation of links between the Kremlin and the Trump transition?
GERALD F. SEIB, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL: Well, look, I mean, back channels are not unusual, they are not unprecedented. This one might have seemed perfectly innocent. Two problems though with it. One is, this happened during the transition, it seems to violate as you suggested earlier in the show the only one president at a time rule. And the second one is it’s Russia, after a campaign in which the Russian connection to the campaign, the Russian interference in the campaign was a big issue.
And I think the fact that it was at a time when people were looking for whether there were going to be signs of special favors for Russia as a result of help they might have given President Trump, then-President-elect Trump during the campaign, that's what makes this a big story, is the context of the conversation as much as the actual content.
WALLACE: Michael, I want to ask you, one, whether it's a big story, and, secondly, about the talk we are hearing, that is just rampant in Washington today about major changes in the White House that they’re going to set up a rapid response operation to deal with all the incoming leaks, that the president has hired at least one criminal defense lawyer and may be process of hiring a team and the staff is urging the president to let the lawyers vet his tweets. I mean, it really does sound like they’re going on a war footing on this.
MICHAEL NEEDHAM, CEO, HERITAGE ACTION FOR AMERICA: Yes, I don't know if it's a major story, there are several investigations going on. They probably should be allowed to work their course. It's kind of exhausting reading some of these new stories and trying to figure out what did you read three weeks ago that’s just being recycled, versus what new?
I think it's smart for the administration to try to put this stuff to the side, have, you know, a team that looks at these issues, and another team that looks at a lot of real policy issues, which are closer to the American people. You have the most conservative, exciting budget that's come out in a decade.
WALLACE: We’re going to get to the agenda in the next segment.
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: I mean, at the very least, it seems dumb.
NEEDHAM: Clearly, the optics of these are awful, and I think that especially when you have people who are new to the political system coming in and getting advice from a guy in Mike Flynn who probably didn't show the best judgment through a lot of this, you know, dumb might be a good word for it. I don’t know. You know, I think Kushner said a couple of weeks ago that he was happy to participate with the Senate investigation. He said he’s happy to participate with this investigation.
You are at a disadvantage when you are the focus of an investigation and your lawyers are saying, don't participate, don't comment, and everyone else in the country seems more than eager to talk about it. So, I think a little prudence in keeping our mouth shut while we let the investigations play out is probably fair and we’ll see what comes up in them.
WALLACE: You talk about the fact that they're all the stories and sometimes it's hard to remember what you've heard this week and what you heard last week. And this gets to the question of leaks. I asked our staff to put together, let's put it up on the screen, a list of the headlines from just the last two weeks. This is just Sunday two weeks ago until today. And as you can see, there's been a torrent of disclosures from intelligence and law enforcement officials.
Gillian, as somebody who worked in the government, have you ever seen anything like this? And, you know, the conservatives talk about a deep state, that there are people embedded in law enforcement and embedded in the intelligence community that are trying to bring this president down. It sure seems like it's true.
GILLIAN TURNER, FORMER WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL: So, to me on the question of leaks, it seems that without a doubt leaks of information today are the number one threat to U.S. national security interest across the globe. And I think for evidence of that, we need look no further than the very public reprimand, we the United States had to endure from Britain earlier this week, in the wake of the Manchester attacks. A reminder that the British-U.S. intelligence cooperation, relationship, is one of the closest that has ever existed. And in my lifetime, in government and policy, I have not seen something so public, so public a risk (ph)
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: Most of these leaks aren’t about national security. They are about Trump's political security.
TURNER: Yes. And so, this gets to the question of the deep state. So, I’m somebody who likes to push back against the narrative having been a civil servant in the government. Again, in the national security community is different than the political community, the rest of the policy community. But I will say that from I have seen and experienced, it does not exist.
There is not this liberal --
WALLACE: How do you define this?
TURNER: There isn’t a liberal core of people -- put it this way, Chris, for a hard fact, more than 50 percent of the federal workforce today is made up of people that joined the government prior to President Bush's tenure in office. So, the idea that these are Obama holdovers is simply not true, it's not the case.
I think that when we talk about why individuals leak information, the explanations are as varied as human beings’ psychology. So, for example, a lot of things we are seeing leaked about the president are probably being leaked by his senior staff to hurt one another. That's not unique to the Trump administration.
WALLACE: We ask you for questions for the panel and we got some different reactions in this question of leaks.
Adri Ane sent us on Facebook: Do whistleblowers hold a vital role in the health of a democracy holding those in power to accountability?
But chuck Coo had a different take: Simple question. If our intelligence agencies are as good as advertised, why can't they find the leakers?
Chuck, how do you answer both of them about leaks?
CHARLES LANE, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, as a member of the press, and is a believer in the role of the media and holding government accountable, I’m not going to come out against leaks, because, you know, for all the leaks that may cause this or that official trouble, there's going to be another one that does play an important role in accountability.
But going back to what Gillian said, I think part of the reason that these leaks are flowing so uncontrollably to the viewer’s question is the factional struggle within this administration. You know, we have this famous dispute between Bannon and Kushner that supposedly was papered over. But I wouldn't be surprised if, you know, those were present two currents, to put it politely, within the White House that are trying to get bad stories out about one another.
And this goes to your point about the staff shakeup and so on and so forth. You can shake up the staff all you want, but if man at the top is not laying out a clear and consistent line, is not himself modeling behavior, for example, by not blowing an Israeli source in a meeting with a foreign government, that sets the tone that this stuff is not really on, then it will continue.
NEEDHAM: I take your point about the responsibility of the press and how leaks play into as it requires a responsible press also. That when James Fallows of The Atlantic today put side-by-side The Washington Post in The New York Times and how they treat, I think it was three unnamed sources in the White House talking about Jared Kushner and his desire to be here and stay here, this is not an urgent story. This is not something that’s getting out there.
I don't think you see in the press, The Times and The Washington Post, the way they are playing this kind of using leakers to try to unearth the truth and taking two months like --
(CROSSTALK)
WALLACE: We need to --
NEEDHAM: It’s kind of getting ridiculous.
WALLACE: We need to -- because we’re going to run out of time. Let me simply say, we're just receiving information. It’s people who had sworn, oftentimes taken legal oaths not to divulge the information, they are the ones putting it out. We’re just the recipients.
All right. We have to take a break here. We’ll see you a little later.
When we come back, Senators Dick Durbin and Bill Cassidy. Is the president's agenda, both his new budget and the new effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare in trouble?
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: Coming up, President Trump releases his budget.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: My administration is laying a foundation to build a future of economic prosperity and achieve American greatness.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: But does it have any chance of getting through Congress?
Two key senators join us next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
WALLACE: A look outside the beltway of the Indianapolis Motor speedway, home to this weekend's Indianapolis 500.
Back from his first foreign trip, President Trump's focus will now shift to his domestic agenda, his new budget and a bill to repeal and replace ObamaCare.
Joining us to discuss the president's priorities from Springfield, Illinois, the Senate’s number two Democrat, Dick Durbin. And here in Washington, Louisiana senator and doctor, Bill Cassidy, who’s on both the Senate Finance and Health Committees.
Well, senators, before we get to the Trump agenda, I’ve got to ask you about the big story in Washington. This weekend, the Jared Kushner story, discussions about setting up a possible back channel with Russia.
Senator Durbin, what's wrong with that?
SEN. DICK DURBIN, D-ILLINOIS: The bottom line, of course, is we now have a special counsel in Bob Mueller. I have the highest level of confidence in him. And I hope that he will follow all the evidence, all the leads, and all the suggestions. And I’m sure he will.
WALLACE: Do you have any specific comment about the Kushner conversation and whether or je should keep his security clearance?
DURBIN: Well, of course not. I mean this is a rumor at this point and whether it is something that should be followed up on, I’ll trust Bob Mueller's judgment.
WALLACE: Senator Cassidy, are you troubled by this?
SEN. BILL CASSIDY, R-LOUISIANA: I agree with Dick’s assessment. And I’ll say, when you speak to folks back home, voters across the nation, they’re more concerned about their climbing health care premiums and the need to have jobs with better wages and better benefits. This will play out. We will know eventually. Right now Americans need help with their premiums.
WALLACE: Well, you know what then gentlemen, let's switch to health care. And the Congressional Budget Office, non-partisan, released its score of the House bill this week. And let's put the numbers up on the screen. It would reduce the deficit $119 billion over ten years, but 23 million more people would be uninsured by 2026. The cost of insurance, according to the CBO, for a 64-year-old earning $27,000 a year would increase from $1,700 a year under ObamaCare to more than $13,000 under the GOP bill. Here's what Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said this week.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER, D-NY, MINORITY LEADER: Unless you’re a healthy millionaire, Trumpcare is a nightmare. This report ought to be the final nail in the coffin of the Republican effort to sabotage our health care system.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Senator Cassidy, is Schumer right?
CASSIDY: So the Senate will write its own bill. And it shouldn't be the final coffin because right now there's families sitting around their kitchen table, they’re play $20,000, $30,000 and $40,000 a year for premiums and there's about to be a 40 percent increase in many states in these premiums. Cassidy-Collins, a bill I’ve introduced with Susan Collins, we have four co-sponsors.
WALLACE: Yes, we’re going to get into that in a --
CASSIDY: But that said, actually would -- would -- would meet that family’s needs and I think it should be a place we go and those families are asking us to address those issues.
WALLACE: So -- so what would you say to Americans? How should they regard the House bill?
CASSIDY: The House product, the Senate will have its own product. We will go to conference. But I think the Senate product, I'm hopeful, will be more likely to address their needs.
WALLACE: Senator Durbin, I know what you’re going to say, and the CBO certainly indicates there are problem with repeal and replace, but ObamaCare has its own problems. You heard Senator Cassidy mentioned some of them. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City just announced this week that it has lost $100 million through 2016 and that it is going to pull out of exchanges. That means that in 25 counties in western Missouri they may have no insurer at all. Doesn’t something have to be done dramatically?
DURBIN: Well, it should be. But first we ought to have an administration that supports our health care system. What the Trump administration has done since day one is to find ways to cut off support for our current health care system, lack of advertising, for example, to bring new people on board so we have larger insurance pools and lower premiums. We have to have an effort made to sustain the current system while we repair it. We shouldn’t be sabotaging it.
WALLACE: Wait, wait, wait, wait, senator --
DURBIN: But let’s look at the bottom line here. What the Republicans --
WALLACE: Senator Durbin, let me just point out, when Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City says they’ve lost $100 million in 2016, you can't blame that on Trump. He wasn't president.
DURBIN: No, of course it is not a situation where the system we have is perfect, and it isn't. I voted for it. And it needs to be repaired. And I think Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins are at least willing to sit down in a constructive fashion and deal with that. Bill and I have had conversations about that. I'm sorry that the two of them are not in the room with the 13 apostles that Senator McConnell’s chosen to come up with the Republicans plan. I wish Bill and Susan were in there.
WALLACE: All right, let -- let -- let me bring Senator Cassidy back, because let's talk about the Collins, Susan Collins, the Republican senator from Maine, and Cassidy plan. And here are some of the highlights of that plan. Keep most ObamaCare taxes to pay for a replacement instead of an individual mandate. That would end. Auto enroll people in insurance so they have to opt out, not opt in. And let states keep most of ObamaCare if they want.
Senator, it's a very interesting plan, but I don't have to tell you there are some | 0 | train |
|
Transcript: Interview with Donald Trump DONALD TRUMP, the President of the United States, along with Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, and Gary Cohn, the director of the National Economic Council, sat down for a conversation with editors from The Economist on May 4th, 2017. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.
The Economist: Could we start with the economy?
Donald Trump: Sure.
Get our daily newsletter Upgrade your inbox and get our Daily Dispatch and Editor's Picks.
What is Trumponomics and how does it differ from standard Republican economics?
Well it’s an interesting question. I don’t think it’s ever been asked quite that way. But it really has to do with self-respect as a nation. It has to do with trade deals that have to be fair, and somewhat reciprocal, if not fully reciprocal. And I think that’s a word that you’re going to see a lot of, because we need reciprocality in terms of our trade deals. We have nations where…they’ll get as much as 100% of a tax or a tariff for a certain product and for the same product we get nothing, OK? It’s very unfair. And the very interesting thing about that is that, if I said I’m going to put a tax on of 10%, the free-traders, somewhat foolishly, they’ll say “Oh, he’s not a free-trader”, which I am, I’m absolutely a free-trader. I’m for open trade, free trade, but I also want smart trade and fair trade. But they’ll say, “He’s not a free-trader,” at 10%. But if I say we’re putting a reciprocal tax on, it may be 62% or it may be 47%, I mean massive numbers, and nobody can complain about it. It’s really sort of an amazing thing.
So that’s the story. It very much has to do with trade. We have so many bad trade deals. To a point where I’m not sure that we have any good trade deals. I don’t know who the people are that would put us into a NAFTA, which was so one-sided. Both from the Canada standpoint and from the Mexico standpoint. So one-sided. Wilbur [Ross, the secretary of commerce] will tell you that, you know, like, at the court in Canada, we always lose. Well, the judges are three Canadians and two Americans. We always lose. But we’re not going to lose any more. And so it’s very, very unfair.
Trump on Trumponomics: Nationalism plus flexibility
Leader: The impulsiveness and shallowness of America’s president threaten the economy as well as the rule of law
Briefing 1: Donald Trump’s economic strategy
Briefing 2: The contradiction at the heart of Trumponomics
Briefing 3: What Donald Trump means by fair trade
Now at the same time I have a very good relationship with Justin [Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister] and a very good relationship with the president of Mexico. And I was going to terminate NAFTA last week, I was all set, meaning the six-month termination. I was going to send them a letter, then after six months, it’s gone. But the word got out, they called and they said, we would really love to…they called separately but it was an amazing thing. They called separately ten minutes apart. I just put down the phone with the president of Mexico when the prime minister of Canada called. And they both asked almost identical questions. “We would like to know if it would be possible to negotiate as opposed to a termination.” And I said, “Yes, it is. Absolutely.” So, so we did that and we’ll start.
We have a problem because we have a ridiculous provision in NAFTA that we have, you know, to go on the fast track. Fast track is the slowest track I’ve ever seen. To go on the fast track you have to give notice. Well we gave notice 70 days ago. It’s called a cooling-off period, OK? But that’s not the way life works because when they call and they want to make a deal, I don’t want to have to wait a hundred days. So I put the papers in almost 70 days ago, to get the approval for fast track in Congress. And they still haven’t given me approval. And the reason they haven’t is because our trade negotiator, who, as you know, the provision goes with your negotiator. It doesn’t go from the time you put it in, it goes with your negotiator. So he just got approved. He’ll be in sometime, I guess next week?
Steve Mnuchin: Yep, yep.
President Trump: And the clock starts ticking. But here you have two people calling saying, “Can we negotiate?” I say yes and I have to wait for a hundred days. I don’t know what a hundred days is going to be like. What’s it going to be like? So NAFTA’s a horrible one-sided deal that’s cost us millions and millions of jobs and cost us tens of billions of dollars.
It sounds like you’re imagining a pretty big renegotiation of NAFTA. What would a fair NAFTA look like?
Big isn’t a good enough word. Massive.
Huge?
It’s got to be. It’s got to be.
What would it look like? What would a fair NAFTA look like?
No, it’s gotta be. Otherwise we're terminating NAFTA.
What would a fair NAFTA look like?
I was all set to terminate, you know? And this wasn’t like…this wasn’t a game I was playing. I’m not playing…you know, I wasn’t playing chess or poker or anything else. This was, I was, I’d never even thought about…it’s always the best when you really feel this way. But I was…I had no thought of anything else, and these two guys will tell you, I had no thought of anything else but termination. But because of my relationship with both of them, I said, I would like to give that a try too, that’s fine. I mean, out of respect for them. It would’ve been very disrespectful to Mexico and Canada had I said, “I will not.”
But Mr President, what has to change for you not to withdraw?
We have to be able to make fair deals. Right now the United States has a 70—almost a $70bn trade deficit with Mexico. And it has about a $15bn dollar trade deficit with Canada. The timber coming in from Canada, they’ve been negotiating for 35 years. And it’s been…it’s been terrible for the United States. You know, it’s just, it’s just been terrible. They’ve never been able to make it.
Does that $70bn deficit have to come to zero to be fair?
Not necessarily. And certainly it can come over a, you know, fairly extended period of time, because I’m not looking to shock the system. But it has to become at least fair. And no, it doesn’t have to immediately go to zero. But at some point would like to get it at zero, where sometimes we can be up and sometimes they can be up.
You’ve talked about reciprocal taxes. Do you imagine that with lots of countries on lots of products or is that a negotiating tool?
No, I think it can be conceivably with lots of countries. The thing that’s bad about the hundred days is, I said the other day, I said, “When do we start this negotiation?” They said, “Sir, it hasn’t kicked in yet” because it goes with [Robert] Lighthizer, who’s our, you know, our representative, who I think is going to do a very good job. I said, “You must be kidding.” So it’s a real deficit. Now that’s a NAFTA thing. Because everything in NAFTA is bad. That’s bad, everything’s bad. But in the case of South Korea we have a deal that was made by Hillary Clinton, it’s a horrible deal. And that is the five-year anniversary and it’s up for renegotiation and we’ve informed them that we’ll negotiate. And again, we want a fair deal. We don’t want a one-sided deal our way but we want fair deals. And if we can have fair deals our country is going to do very well.
Some people think this is a negotiating tactic—that you say very dramatic things but actually you would settle for some very small changes. Is that right?
No, it’s not, really not a negotiation. It’s really not. No, will I settle for less than I go in with? Yes, I mean who wouldn’t? Nobody, you know, I always use the word flexibility, I have flexibility. [Goes off the record.] [Our] relationship with China is long. Of course by China standards, it’s very short [laughter], you know when I’m with [Xi Jinping], because he’s great, when I’m with him, he’s a great guy. He was telling me, you know they go back 8,000 years, we have 1776 is like modern history. They consider 1776 like yesterday and they, you know, go back a long time. They talk about the different wars, it was very interesting. We got along great. So I told them, I said, “We have a problem and we’re going to solve that problem.” But he wants to help us solve that problem.
Now then you never know what’s going to happen. But they said to me that on the currency manipulation, “Donald Trump has failed to call China a currency manipulator”. Now I have to understand something. I’m dealing with a man, I think I like him a lot. I think he likes me a lot. We were supposed to meet for ten minutes and they go to 40-person meetings, OK, in Mar-a-Lago, in Palm Beach. And the ten minutes turned out to be three hours, alone, the two of us. The next day it was supposed to be ten minutes and then we go to our 40-person meeting. That, too, he was, no…because you guys were waiting for a long time. That ten minute meeting turned out to be three hours. Dinner turned out to be three hours. I mean, he’s a great guy.
Now, with that in mind, he’s representing China and he wants what’s best for China. But so far, you know, he’s been, he’s been very good. But, so they talk about why haven’t you called him a currency manipulator? Now think of this. I say, “Jinping. Please help us, let’s make a deal. Help us with North Korea, and by the way we’re announcing tomorrow that you’re a currency manipulator, OK?” They never say that, you know the fake media, they never put them together, they always say, he didn’t call him a currency [manipulator], number one. Number two, they’re actually not a currency [manipulator]. You know, since I’ve been talking about currency manipulation with respect to them and other countries, they stopped.
Mr Mnuchin: Right, as soon as the president got elected they went the other way.
One last question on trade. Do you think you’ve permanently changed the Republican Party’s position on trade?
No. Because there’ll always be someone that comes along with another idea but it’s not a better idea. We have the better idea. But yeah, I think that a lot of the, like for instance today, health care. Very big thing. Very big. And it wasn’t two bites of the apple. It was one bite. Somebody set a time limit and that was mistake, I said never set a time limit but somebody set a time limit. So when they didn’t meet that time limit they said, “We didn’t get it there”, well, they shouldn’t have set a time limit.
On another element of Trumponomics, immigration…
Right.
Do you want to curb legal immigration?
Oh sure, you know, I want to stop illegal immigration.
And what about legal immigration? Do you want to cut the number of immigrants?
Oh legal, no, no, no. I want people to come into the country legally. No, legally? No. I want people to come in legally. But I want people to come in on merit. I want to go to a merit-based system. Actually two countries that have very strong systems are Australia and Canada. And I like those systems very much, they’re very strong, they’re very good, I like them very much. We’re going to a much more merit-based system. But I absolutely want talented people coming in, I want people that are going to love our country coming in, I want people that are going to contribute to our country coming in. We want a provision at the right time, we want people that are coming in and will commit to not getting…not receiving any form of subsidy to live in our country for at least a five-year period.
But the numbers of those people could be as high as the numbers that are coming in legally now? You’re not looking to reduce the numbers?
Oh yeah, no, no, no, no, we want people coming in legally. No, very strongly. Now they’re going to be much more strongly vetted as you see. You know, we’ve broken the all-time record [of detentions at the border] by many times, 73, we’re up to 73, it’s going to go up to almost 80% at the border, we’ve…you know, really stopped it. We also want farm workers to be able to come in. You know, we’re going to have work visas for the farm workers. If you look, you know we have a lot of people coming through the border, they’re great people and they work on the farms and then they go back home. We like those people a lot and we want them to continue to come in.
Another part of your overall plan, the tax reform plan. Is it OK if that tax plan increases the deficit? Ronald Reagan’s tax reform didn’t.
Well, it actually did. But, but it’s called priming the pump. You know, if you don’t do that, you’re never going to bring your taxes down. Now, if we get the health-care [bill through Congress], this is why, you know a lot of people said, “Why isn’t he going with taxes first, that’s his wheelhouse?” Well, hey look, I convinced many people over the last two weeks, believe me, many Congressmen, to go with it. And they’re great people, but one of the great things about getting health care is that we will be saving, I mean anywhere from $400bn to $900bn.
Mr Mnuchin: Correct.
President Trump: That all goes into tax reduction. Tremendous savings.
But beyond that it’s OK if the tax plan increases the deficit?
It is OK, because it won’t increase it for long. You may have two years where you’ll…you understand the expression “prime the pump”?
Yes.
We have to prime the pump.
It’s very Keynesian.
We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. Have you heard that expression before, for this particular type of an event?
Priming the pump?
Yeah, have you heard it?
Yes.
Have you heard that expression used before? Because I haven’t heard it. I mean, I just…I came up with it a couple of days ago and I thought it was good. It’s what you have to do.
It’s…
Yeah, what you have to do is you have to put something in before you can get something out.
Mr Mnuchin: And as we talked about, economic growth under the Trump administration could increase revenues as much as $2trn over the ten-year period of time. So priming the pump in the short term leads to growth.
So you would have a bigger deficit, a stimulus, to prime the pump that would lead to faster growth?
So I happen to think that 3% is low. But you can’t do it if your companies are leaving the country because taxes are too high. Now, I’m going to do something there too. If our companies leave the country, number one they’re leaving for numerous reasons but one of the big reasons is the taxes are so high. When they leave—go back to trade for a second, when they leave the country, go to a certain country wherever it may be, and they fire all their workers in the United States and on the assumption they build cars or air conditioners or whatever they’re building, and they open a plant someplace else and then they send the air conditioner or the car into our country with no tax, that’s not going to happen anymore. They’re going to have a very large tax to pay, in the vicinity of 35%.
Now when you do that, number one they're not leaving the country anyway. So we’re not leaving. I don’t know if you saw what’s happening. Ford has announced massive expansions in the United States. General Motors cancelled a big plant in Mexico and a big plant in Europe. They’re all cancelling plans because I told them, I said…I get along with them great. But I said, “Look, we don’t mind if you leave the country. You can build all you want out of country, I hope you enjoy your plant. But when you build your car, you’re going to have a 35% tax when you bring it back in. And if your numbers work, we wish you well. But that’s what you’re going to have. You’re going to have a 35% tax.”
So I mean, I have, it has, I haven’t been given massive credit for it yet, but I have been given some because I just see polls out in Michigan and different places, that really are affected by this, have been unbelievable, you know, much bigger than election day. But that’s not a tax increase, that’s no tax. In other words, all you have to do is don’t leave and you won’t have a…but we’re bringing our taxes down so low that you won’t even need the barrier because the taxes are so low, that people are going to stay.
The other thing, just in case we…I believe it could be anywhere from $4trn to $5trn outside, you know don’t forget we’ve been talking about $2.5trn for four years now. I’ve been using $2.5trn, the same number we’ve all been using for years. Well, you know, it grows. I think it…I wouldn’t be surprised if it was $5trn but, you know, we’re close. We’re letting that money come back in. And that has two barriers which you have to watch. It’s got a barrier of the tax, which we will take care of. We’re going to make it 10%. Now it’s 35%...
Sorry, 10%? The repatriation taxes?
The repatriation. Inversion. The corporate inversions, which is a disaster, with the companies leaving. But they want to bring back their money. Number one, the tax is too high but the other thing that’s too high is the bureaucracy.
Mr Mnuchin: Correct.
President Trump: I have a friend who said even if you wanted to bring it back in you can’t because you have to go through so many papers, so many documents, so many…
Mr Mnuchin: We’re going to make it simple
President Trump: You have to do…Steve, they told me you’ve got to sign books and books of stuff, you pay millions of dollars in legal fees and they almost don’t allow you to bring it back in.
Can I ask you a question about the politics of tax?
It should be like one page.
The politics of this? Do you need to get Democratic support to get this tax plan passed?
Um. Little bit.
And to get Democratic support, they prefer…
Depending. It depends on which plan, you know, which concept we’ve got to…but it could be. But I think the Democrats are going to like it. We may align it with infrastructure, which they like. They like it as much as the Republicans like it. We need infrastructure in our country. This country has wasted $6trn in the Middle East. Wasted. Like taking it and throwing it right out that window. Right in to the Rose Garden. See that beautiful Rose Garden? Look at those very nicely dressed people. It’s religious liberty out there. [NB. Immediately after this interview, President Trump was due to sign an executive order promoting religious liberty.]
Mr President, can I just try you on a deal-making question? If you do need Democratic support for your tax plan, your ideal tax plan, and the price of that the Democrats say is for you to release your tax returns, would you do that?
I don’t know. That’s a very interesting question. I doubt it. I doubt it. Because they’re not going to…nobody cares about my tax return except for the reporters. Oh, at some point I’ll release them. Maybe I’ll release them after I’m finished because I’m very proud of them actually. I did a good job.
Hope Hicks [White House director of strategic communication]: Once the audit is over.
President Trump: I might release them after I’m out of office.
Mr Mnuchin: Just so you know, I’ve already started meeting with Democratic senators and, you know, the support has been pretty interesting. I mean, I think a lot of the Democratic senators actually believe we’re on to the right tax plan to bring back business to America, and that’s what they’re all about, they want to grow jobs in their states, just like the president does.
Ms Hicks: And our plan has things like child-care tax credits which have never been presented before…
President Trump: By the way, so as you know I’m under routine audit, so they’re not going to be done. But you know, at a certain point, that’s something I will consider. But I would never consider it as part of a deal.
Right, got that.
I would never do it. That would be…I think that would be unfair to the deal. It would be disrespectful of the importance of this deal. Because the only people that find that important are the reporters.
Well, the Democrats say it’s important.
Well, don't forget I got elected without it. Somebody said, “Oh but you have to do it,” I said, “Look where I am”. I was, you know, I was out front, I was asked that question, every debate, I said, you know, I’m under routine audit.
Mr Mnuchin: And the president’s financial disclosure has been longer than any…
President Trump: Plus my financial disclosure is 104 pages.
Ms Hicks: I think when people say that that makes it about the president and the politics versus the people, which is what we’re focused on.
President Trump: Right.
Can I ask you about the focus of the tax cut because you’ve spoken about a massive tax cut for ordinary workers…
Right, this would be the biggest tax cut in the history of the country.
But the biggest winners from this tax cut, right now, look as though they will be the very wealthiest Americans.
Well, I don’t believe that. Because they’re losing all of their deductions, I can tell you.
But something like eliminating the estate tax.
I get more deductions, I mean I can tell you this, I get more deductions, they have deductions for birds flying across America, they have deductions for everything. There are more deductions…now you’re going to get an interest deduction, and a charitable deduction. But we’re not going to have all this nonsense that they have right now that complicates things and makes it…you know when we put out that one page, I said, we should really put out a, you know, a big thing, and then I looked at the one page, honestly it’s pretty well covered. Hard to believe.
Will you keep interest deduction in the corporate tax? Will corporate interest payments…
Do you want to answer?
Mr Mnuchin: We’re contemplating it. We’re contemplating it.
Contemplating getting rid of it?
Mr Mnuchin: No, we’re contemplating keeping it. That’s our preference. But we’ll look at everything.
So what would your preference be Mr President? You know about that very well.
No, I would say probably…I think we’re contemplating is the word. And it hasn’t been determined yet, but we’re contemplating.
Contemplating…
We’re contemplating various…I have to say, we’re contemplating various things, but one of the things that’s very important is simplicity. We want to keep it as simple as possible. Because even if you do, it’s complicated. I mean even if you keep it simple with taxes it gets complicated.
And are you contemplating things outside of corporate income tax? For example a VAT, which many countries have?
Well, you know, a lot of people consider the border tax a form of VAT.
Are you still…
Part of the problem with NAFTA is that Mexico’s a VAT. So Mexico is paying almost…we pay 17%. So we are now down 17%, going into Mexico when we trade. So that’s like, you have a football team and every time they play a game, they’re down, you know, 25 points. How can you possibly do good?
But would you consider…
You could actually make the case, that the 17 is doubled. You can make that case. You know, it’s 17 and it’s really 17 and it’s a double.
Mr Mnuchin: Right
Would you consider a VAT for the United States?
Well the concept of VAT I really like. But let me give you the bad news. I don’t think it can be sold in this country because we’re used to an income tax, we’re used to a…people are used to this tax, whether they like it or don't like, they’re used to this tax. I fully understand because I have a lot of property in the UK. And it’s, sort of, not a bad tax. And every time I pay it, they end up sending it back to me. In fact, my accountant is always saying…
That’s a good tax.
No, it’s really not so bad. Like, I own Turnberry in Scotland. And every time I pay they say, “Yes sir, you pay it now but you get it back next year.” I said, “What kind of tax is this, I like this tax.” But the VAT is…I like it, I like it a lot, in a lot of ways. I don’t mean because of, you know, getting it back, you don’t get all of it back, but you get a lot of it back. But I like a VAT. I don’t think it can be sold in this country, I think it’s too much of a shock to this system. I can tell you if we had a VAT it would make dealing with Mexico very much easier. Because it could neutralise. And I really mean that. Part of the problem with NAFTA, the day they signed it, it was a defective deal. Because Mexico has almost a 17% VAT tax and it’s very much of a hidden tax, people don’t see it. So, but these guys, instead of renegotiating the following week…many years ago, how old is that? 35?
Mr Mnuchin: 35 years ago.
President Trump: But instead of negotiating, we suffered with this for, you know, for decades.
But as you said Mr President, a border-adjustment tax has some similarities to that. Are you still considering a border-adjustment tax?
We are dealing with Congress…because it’s not really what I’m considering. I mean look, on health care, I think we have a great bill and there’s still a little bit further to go because we’re also dealing with the Senate, but the Senate I believe really wants to get something done because Obamacare is dead, just so we understand. Obamacare is absolutely dead. The insurance companies are leaving. Yesterday Aetna just announced they’re pulling out. You have states that aren’t going to have any insurance companies. You know when people say, “Oh, Obamacare is so wonderful,” there is no Obamacare, it’s dead. Plus we’re subsidising it and we don’t have to subsidise it. You know if I ever stop wanting to pay the subsidies, which I will.
You’d pull the plug on that? If this bill doesn’t go through you’d stop those subsidies?
No, this bill only gives them one month. They don’t realize that, that’s another thing. Good point. This bill gives them one month, it gave, you know the subsidy…
The continuation of the subsidy?
The subsidy to the insurance companies, yes. Anytime I want because actually…
But my question is if the bill doesn’t pass…
In actuality Congress has to approve it. Congress…
If the bill doesn’t pass would you cut the subsidies?
If the bill doesn’t pass, I’d be in a different position. Because, if the bill didn’t pass the Republicans would have let me down. And then I’d have to decide what I want to do because I want people to have health care. Our health care is much better than Obamacare. It’s going to be much less expensive. We’re going to have competition, we’re getting rid of the state lines, etc etc. The premiums are going to be low, the deductibles are going to be low. If it didn’t pass…it’s a great question, I don’t want to think about that but the answer is…I would do something to make sure the people have health care, as bad as Obamacare is.
One of the things that was so different about your campaign message compared to other Republicans was, you said things like “I want everyone to be covered”.
We’re not going to let people die on the streets.
But some people will look at this bill and say, hang on, a lot of people are going to lose their coverage.
OK. So we have a pool for people that are having difficulty. We have got a pool. It’s a high-risk pool. And this pool we just funded yesterday, we’re putting in $8bn, into the pool. So depending on what states do…because I would like to see states taking over health care, I think they could do a better job than the federal government. Now in some cases that’ll be great, like in Florida that works fantastically with Rick Scott, and a couple of others. And in some states it isn’t, where they’re not equipped to do it. But ultimately, you know I use the expression, “If you have a bad knee, I would rather have the federal government focus on North Korea than fixing your knee.”
The state governments are in much better position to, you know, help people. In terms of, you know, just the size, the mere size of it. But we’re putting in $8bn and you’re going to have absolute coverage. You’re going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You’re going to have it if you’re a person going in…don’t forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you’re 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you’re 70, and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance.
But I believe it’s very important to have this. Because one thing Obamacare did, is it gave that and it was a concept that people hadn’t heard of. And now I don't want to end it. I don’t want to end it for somebody that…first of all I don’t want to end it for the people that already have it. And I don’t want to end it for somebody that hasn’t been buying insurance for all of his life where he has a guarantee that for all of his life he’s been buying the insurance and he can buy it inexpensively when he turns 65 or 70 years old. So we put in a tremendous amount and we’re…you know, for the pre-existing conditions. We are going to have a great pool for pre-existing conditions.
Now, that will even get better as it’s going along, it’s going to get better. But in a way you could say, that’s not really insurance, but it's there. And I want to make it as…I want to make it actually better than what they have in Obama[care]. Now, Obama[care] has something that’s very, very bad. Where you have to pay a penalty. And people don't realise, how many people are forced to pay a penalty and they don’t get any benefit out of it. We don’t have that. We’re going to have much lower premiums and we’re going to have much lower deductibles.
But when you used to say the hard right of the Republicans can’t be trusted to look after people…
They came through.
They came through? So do you still have to keep them in line.
I’ll be honest with you…Did anybody ever hear of a guy named Mike Pence? Vice-president of the United States?
Mike Pence, the vice-president, enters the room: Morning all.
President Trump: Central casting.
Mr Pence: Please sit, sit, sit.
Ms Hicks: We got about two more minutes. So just one more question.
President Trump: So I know exactly the speeches you’re talking about. I said, “I’m not going to allow people to die on the streets”, and I said it over and over and I meant it more than anything and I probably mean it more now than even when I made the speech. We’re talking about the high-risk pools, Mike, and we just added $8bn to the high-risk pools.
Mr Pence: Yes, sir.
President Trump: People are going to have…they’re going to have great insurance. Now, we have one more step to go. You know we have to go through the Senate and we’re refining it even further. But I will tell you, Mike, I just spoke to a few of the senators and they have some great ideas also and they want to get it there.
So, the problem with Obamacare? He rushed it through, he wanted…although, when I say rushed it through, at the end. They were giving up everything, they were taking out everything. It wasn’t a pure form of what they wanted anyway. They did the Nebraska trade where basically it was, you know, the whole thing was given away.
Look, Obamacare was a disaster. Under Obamacare, you get your doctor; that was a lie. You get your plan; that was a lie. With us, you get your doctor. You get your plan. With us you’ll get hundreds and hundreds of plans. You know, one of the insurance companies, one of the big ones came to see me yesterday. They’re so anxious to start going crazy and you know it’s going to be like life insurance. People that buy life insurance they’re inundated with carriers. All different plans. That’s what this is going to be like. And I said to them, “What do you think the good plans are going to look like?” He said, “Mr President, we’re going to have so many plans. We’re going to have the low version, the high version”, he used the word Cadillac. I won’t tell you what car he used for the low version because I don’t want you to write it because they happen to be friends of mine, you know, the head people. [Goes off the record.]
Mr President, in business you keep score of your profits. How do you keep score in Trumponomics and in politics?
Well I think the score is going to be the end of the game. To me the score is going to have to be at the end of the game. I was saying, Mike, that we’re going to prime the pump with the taxes because we’re going to take in perhaps a little bit less, but we’re going to have a lot more business, we’re going to have companies coming back into the country.
I know a lot of companies that want to come back in but they’re not going to come back in because of taxes. And we have a lot of companies that will come back into the country. They were forced out of the country because the taxes were too high. Many, many. You look at what’s going on in certain countries. In fact I own a lot of property in certain countries where they were forced out.
You look at Ireland. I own great property in Ireland that I bought during their downturn. And I give th | 0 | train |
|
UN Refugee Agency welcomes arrival of 10,000th Syrian refugee resettled to United States UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, has welcomed news of the arrival in the United States this week of the 10,000th refugee from the conflict in Syria, and calls for greater global solidarity ahead of summits next month that will look at ways to increase efforts to deal with the unprecedented refugee crisis worldwide.
“The United States has long been a leader in welcoming people fleeing global persecution and the arrival on Monday of the 10,000th Syrian refugee is a further expression of this leadership,” said UNHCR Regional Representative in the United States, Shelly Pitterman.
“We thank the communities in the United States that have kept their doors open and also our civil society partners for their tireless humanitarian efforts. Much more needs to be done for Syrian refugees and for the global crisis that has seen more people flee persecution than at any time ever recorded.”
At the end of 2015, war, conflict and persecution had forced 65.3 million people globally to flee for their lives, an all-time high. The Syrian refugee crisis is the world’s largest and more than 4.8 million have fled mostly to neighbouring countries whose resources are stretched thin so that increasing numbers of refugees live below national poverty lines.
To aid the most vulnerable refugees and to share the tremendous burden of these refugee-hosting countries, UNHCR has called on governments to resettle those most at risk. So far resettlement countries have pledged a total of more than 220,000 places for Syrians under resettlement and other humanitarian admissions programmes. Around 478,000 Syrians are considered to be in need of resettlement – close to 40 per cent of the 1.19 million people who are in need of resettlement globally.
UNHCR recognizes that opportunities for resettlement are extremely limited and so reserves this for persons who are most at risk, such as unaccompanied children, women-headed households, victims of torture, and persons with special medical needs. UNHCR identifies and carefully screens all refugees before they are referred to a country for resettlement. In the case of the United States, all refugees who are referred then undergo extensive face-to-face interviews with Department of Homeland Security officers, along with multiple layers of identity and security checks in a thorough process undertaken by US authorities.
UNHCR calls for increased efforts to provide Syrian refugees with additional safe and regular pathways for admission. The United Nations General Assembly Summit for Refugees and Migrants on 19 September and the President of the United States Summit on Refugees on 20 September will provide opportunities for countries to show solidarity with refugee-hosting countries across the globe by giving Syrian and other vulnerable refugee groups legal opportunities to access safety and protection through resettlement and other pathways for admission.
“Resettling refugees, along with continued humanitarian funding, is a critical form of solidarity with refugee-hosting countries and it needs to be expanded worldwide,” said Pitterman. | 0 | train |
|
OBAMA CANCELED IT, TRUMP REINSTATED IT – A VERY SACRED DAY IS BACK President Trump made Barack Obama look like a complete fool this morning in front of more than 10,000 police veterans when he announced that he would reinstate a national day of remembrance for fallen officers that the traitor before him had done away with.
Trump told the crowd the following: “Police officers in this country will no longer be treated like criminals. Obama decided your fallen didn’t deserve to be honored. That changes today. Americans will remember those that keep our streets safe big time.”
Obama’s spokesman said the day of remembrance was scrapped so the Black Lives Matter movement wouldn’t be offended. Apparently it’s more important for the friends and families of criminals killed for not obeying simple commands to be coddled than it is for the families and friends of the brave men and women who run into harm’s way to save the innocent to be honored.
President Trump has righted that wrong once and for all. If the Black Lives Matter movement wants to remember their dead they can go ahead and burn down their neighborhoods. The families of fallen police will join together in laughter, grief and prayer remembering those they lost.
FOLLOW us on Facebook at PortalState!
Source: Ok.infoman
Comments | 1 | train |
|
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah About the Show
The Daily Show with Trevor Noah
Trevor Noah and The World's Fakest News Team tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and pop culture. | 0 | train |
|
BREAKING: Nancy Pelosi Was Just Taken From Her Office In Handcuffs Liberal menace and purveyor of lies, Nancy Pelosi (D-California), was just taken from her office in handcuffs by the United States Secret Service. While little information is available as of yet, one agent did tell a reporter for the Washington Examiner that the arrest came at the direct order of the president:
“Mrs. Pelosi’s arrest order comes directly from the Oval Office,” said Special Agent Matthew Derpmore, “She’s wanted for questioning in a possible coup attempt against the president. That’s all we’re authorized to say at this time.”
The White House OIP has confirmed that report, calling Pelosi a usurper and a threat to the office of President Trump:
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi’s arrest for conspiacy to overthrow the office of the President is being taken very seriously. She is said to be at the head of a select group of congressmen who have set in motion plans to use the president’s allegedly unlawful actions to begin imeachment hearings. Without evidence and with a clear denial from the president of these allegations such actions warrant charges of conspiracy and possibly even treason.
Pelosi’s office hasn’t issued a statement yet. According to records obtained by Breitbart, three other congressmen are also wanted and are currently having warrants against them served. We’ll keep you updated as the story progresses. | 1 | train |
|
Pro-Lifers Declare “Ejaculation Is Murder: Every Sperm Cell Is A Life” The pro-life movement in the United States has long advocated their stance that human life begins at conception and that the human fetus is a person and therefore has a right to live. However, a new argument has taken flight over the last month that is taking the abortion debate to the next level. The variety in opinion on the issue of abortion is reflected in the diverse views of religious groups, but now pro-lifers are declaring “ejaculation is murder” and they want strict laws against the practice.
“Life begins BEFORE conception. This is why the Catholics do not believe in birth control,” said Rachel Stratt, pro-life activist. “God made men’s semen for a purpose, and you can just “waste” that purpose by gratifying yourself whenever you want to. Every time you do, you are literally killing thousands of babies! Ejaculation is murder and every sperm cell is a life!”
Stratt and her group of protesters are calling for a law that will make ejaculating for self gratification illegal in every state across the country. “Millions upon millions of innocent lives are wasted every day while men have lustful thoughts or watch those sick pornos on PornHub. We have got to put a stop to this as a human race. Save the sperm, save the children!” A petition on Change.org to stop the ‘needless wasting of sperm through self gratification’ has already received 85,000 signatures in less than three weeks. The petition needs 100,000 signatures before it is reviewed and responded by the White House. This week, 38 White House conservatives say they would pass the bill if given the opportunity to do so – all 38 of them are women. | 1 | train |
|
Obama Criticizes McCain on Lobbyists 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 | 0 | train |
|
Jim DeMintさんのツイート: "House Appropriations Chair David Obey's partial earmark ban wouldn't apply to 90% of earmarks. That's a fig leaf, not real reform." 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 | 0 | train |
|
U.S. considers 3,000 more troops for Afghanistan WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates will consider sending some 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan to thwart any spring offensive by Taliban militants, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
U.S and Dutch soldiers drive along a dusty road in a village in Baluchi pass in Uruzgan province, Afghanistan November 1, 2007. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic
“This proposal is coming before the secretary this week,” Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said. “He will take it and consider it thoroughly before approving it.”
Violence has surged in Afghanistan over the past two years, with the hardline Islamist Taliban fighting a guerrilla war in the south and east and carrying out high-profile suicide and car bombings across the country.
For months, Gates has pressed NATO allies to provide more troops for Afghanistan. But if the Pentagon chief backs the proposal, it will show Washington has concluded it will have to provide a large share of any extra combat forces.
Gates ordered a boost in U.S. forces early last year in response to the violence and the United States currently has some 27,000 troops in Afghanistan — a record high.
Around half the U.S. troops serve in a 40,000-strong NATO-led security assistance force while the rest conduct missions ranging from counter-terrorism to training Afghan troops.
While NATO says it thwarted last year’s attempted Taliban spring offensive, overall violence is up 27 percent over a year ago and it has risen by 60 percent in the southern province of Helmand, the U.S. military said last month.
IN PLACE BY APRIL
Morrell said most of the Marines would go to southern Afghanistan, where British, Canadian and Dutch troops have done much of the fighting.
“The idea is to get this in place to prevent, as we did last spring, another attempt by the Taliban to come back,” he told reporters. “The timing is that they would be in place by April. This is a one-time seven-month deployment.”
After meeting allies in Scotland last month, Gates signaled a shift away from pressing NATO nations to make politically difficult decisions to provide combat troops.
He suggested the allies could help with other areas of the mission of rebuilding Afghanistan. But that shift means the United States must shoulder more of the combat burden.
“The commander needs additional forces there. Our allies are not in a position to provide them so we are now looking at perhaps carrying a bit of that additional load,” Morrell said.
U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban government in late 2001 in response to the September 11 attacks on the United States.
Related Coverage Mine blast kills NATO soldier in Afghanistan
Morrell said the plan to send the Marines would be contained in a schedule of deployment proposals presented to Gates on Friday.
The plan would involve the deployment of a unit called a Marine Air Ground Task Force to fight in southern Afghanistan, and a Marine battalion to train Afghan forces.
The Pentagon’s Joint Staff developed the plan after a request from Adm. William Fallon, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East, and it has the support of Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a U.S. military official said. | 0 | train |
|
Rice told investigators why she unmasked Trump aides Washington (CNN) Former national security adviser Susan Rice privately told House investigators that she unmasked the identities of senior Trump officials to understand why the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates was in New York late last year, multiple sources told CNN.
The New York meeting preceded a separate effort by the UAE to facilitate a back-channel communication between Russia and the incoming Trump White House.
The crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York last December in the transition period before Trump was sworn into office for a meeting with several top Trump officials, including Michael Flynn, the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his top strategist Steve Bannon, sources said.
The Obama administration felt misled by the United Arab Emirates, which had failed to mention that Zayed was coming to the United States even though it's customary for foreign dignitaries to notify the US government about their travels, according to several sources familiar with the matter. Rice, who served as then-President Obama's national security adviser in his second term, told the House Intelligence Committee last week that she requested the names of the Americans mentioned in the classified report be revealed internally, a practice officials in both parties say is common.
Rice's previously undisclosed revelation in a classified setting shines new light on a practice that had come under sharp criticism from the committee chairman, California Rep. Devin Nunes, and President Donald Trump, who previously accused Rice of committing a crime
But her explanation appears to have satisfied some influential Republicans on the committee, undercutting both Nunes and Trump and raising new questions about whether any Trump associates tried to arrange back-channel discussions with the Russians.
"I didn't hear anything to believe that she did anything illegal," Florida Rep. Tom Rooney, a Republican helping to lead the panel's Russia invesigation, told CNN of Rice's testimony. He declined to discuss any of the contents of her classified remarks.
Through a spokeswoman, Rice declined to comment about her testimony. Nunes refused to answer questions when asked about Rice Tuesday evening.
It's unclear precisely which Trump officials Rice discussed at the House meeting. But multiple sources have confirmed to CNN that Zayed met at the time with Flynn, Kushner and Bannon. The three-hour discussion focused on a range of issues, including Iran, Yemen and the Mideast peace process, according to two sources who insisted that opening up a back-channel with Russia was not a topic of discussion.
Still, the fact that the New York meeting occurred prior to the Seychelles session and that the UAE did not notify the Obama administration about why the crown prince was coming to the United States has raised questions in the eyes of investigators on Capitol Hill.
A secret meeting in the Seychelles
But the Trump Tower meeting came shortly before the UAE brokered a meeting to open lines of communications with the United States and Russia, with a clandestine January meeting in the Seychelles Islands in the Indian Ocean, according to reports in CNN and The Washington Post. That meeting is now under investigation on Capitol Hill, though it's unclear whether Rice mentioned the Seychelles meeting in the testimony.
A senior Middle East official told CNN that the UAE did not "mislead" the Obama administration about the crown prince's visit, but acknowledged not telling the US government about it in advance. The meeting, which took place December 15, 2016, the official said, was simply an effort to build a relationship with senior members of the Trump team who would be working in the administration to share assessments of the region.
"The meeting was about ascertaining the Trump team's view of the region and sharing the UAE's view of the region and what the US role should be," the official said. "No one was coming in to sell anything or arrange anything."
A spokesperson for the crown prince declined to comment.
The Seychelles meeting -- and the circumstances around it -- has been a subject of interest to Hill investigators looking at any potential link between the Trump campaign and Russia.
The Washington Post initially reported in April that the UAE brokered a pre-inauguration meeting between the founder of the security firm Blackwater, Erik Prince, who is a close Trump ally, and an associate of Vladimir Putin's in the Seychelles Islands. The purpose of the meeting was part of an effort by the UAE to persuade Russia to curtail its relationship with Iran, including in Syria, according to the Post.
And it occured shortly after Bannon, Flynn and Kushner also met in Trump Tower with Zayed, whom the Post said helped arrange the Seychelles meeting with Russia government officials to set up the private discussions with the Trump team.
But the senior Middle East official told CNN this week that Prince's name was not discussed at the Trump Tower meeting. And Prince himself has said he did nothing wrong, telling CNN's Erin Burnett last month: "I was there for business."
Both the White House and Prince have strongly denied that Prince was working as a liaison for the Trump administration.
Prince said he met with a Russian while at the Seychelles but "I don't remember his name."
"It probably lasted about, as long as one beer," he said about the meeting.
Explaining 'unmasking'
For her part, Rice had been called to the House Intelligence Committee to testify partly over what Nunes and other Republicans believed was an abuse in the practice of "unmasking" -- or revealing the identities of Americans who were communicating with foreign officials under surveillance by the US intelligence community. Simply unmasking the names of individuals in classified reports does not mean that their identities will be revealed publicly, and Rice denied to the committee that she leaked classified information to the press, sources familiar with the matter said.
But Rice's suggestion that she unmasked the names of US individuals -- who turned out to be Trump associates -- over concerns about the propriety of the crown prince's visit to the United States could help her fend off attacks that she was out of line in the actions she took.
Rep. Trey Gowdy, a South Carolina Republican who is helping lead the House investigation, told the Daily Caller "nothing that came up in her interview that led me to conclude" that she improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates or leaked it to the press.
Sarah Sanders, the White House press secretary, did not say explicitly whether Trump still believes Rice committed a crime but added the issue of leaking and unmasking needs to be investigated.
"We've seen illegal leaking of classified materials, including the identities of American citizens unmasked in intelligence reports," Sanders told CNN. "That's why the President called for Congress to investigate this matter and why the Department of Justice and Intelligence Community are doing all they can to stamp out this dangerous trend that undermines our national security."
Nunes was forced to step aside from running the Russia investigation amid a House ethics inquiry into whether he improperly disclosed classified data. The ethics inquiry came in the aftermath of his bombshell comments that Obama administration officials had improperly unmasked the names of Trump associates, a revelation that Trump used as cover for his unsubstantiated claim that Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the election to spy on him. The Justice Department said in a court filing Friday that the DOJ and the FBI have no evidence to support Trump's claims.
But on Tuesday, the Republican who took over the investigation from Nunes said there was no reason to bring Rice in for further questioning.
"She was a good witness, answered all our questions," Rep. Mike Conaway, the Texas Republican now running the House Russia probe, told CNN. "I'm not aware of any reason to bring her back." | 1 | train |
|
Supreme Court Vacancy Video Interest Successfully Added
We'll notify you here with news about
AlertTag
Turn on desktop notifications for breaking stories about interest? | 0 | train |
|
No, We Can’t? Or Won’t? Excuse No. 2: Fear the bond market.
Two years ago The Wall Street Journal declared that interest rates on United States debt would soon soar unless Washington stopped trying to fight the economic slump. Ever since, warnings about the imminent attack of the “bond vigilantes” have been used to attack any spending on job creation.
But basic economics said that rates would stay low as long as the economy was depressed — and basic economics was right. The interest rate on 10-year bonds was 3.7 percent when The Wall Street Journal issued that warning; at the end of last week it was 3.03 percent.
How have the usual suspects responded? By inventing their own reality. Last week, Representative Paul Ryan, the man behind the G.O.P. plan to dismantle Medicare , declared that we must slash government spending to “take pressure off the interest rates” — the same pressure, I suppose, that has pushed those rates to near-record lows.
Photo
Excuse No. 3: It’s the workers’ fault.
Unemployment soared during the financial crisis and its aftermath. So it seems bizarre to argue that the real problem lies with the workers — that the millions of Americans who were working four years ago but aren’t working now somehow lack the skills the economy needs.
Yet that’s what you hear from many pundits these days: high unemployment is “structural,” they say, and requires long-term solutions (which means, in practice, doing nothing).
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.
Well, if there really was a mismatch between the workers we have and the workers we need, workers who do have the right skills, and are therefore able to find jobs, should be getting big wage increases. They aren’t. In fact, average wages actually fell last month.
Excuse No. 4: We tried to stimulate the economy, and it didn’t work.
Everybody knows that President Obama tried to stimulate the economy with a huge increase in government spending, and that it didn’t work. But what everyone knows is wrong.
Think about it: Where are the big public works projects? Where are the armies of government workers? There are actually half a million fewer government employees now than there were when Mr. Obama took office.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
So what happened to the stimulus? Much of it consisted of tax cuts, not spending. Most of the rest consisted either of aid to distressed families or aid to hard-pressed state and local governments. This aid may have mitigated the slump, but it wasn’t the kind of job-creation program we could and should have had. This isn’t 20-20 hindsight: some of us warned from the beginning that tax cuts would be ineffective and that the proposed spending was woefully inadequate. And so it proved.
It’s also worth noting that in another area where government could make a big difference — help for troubled homeowners — almost nothing has been done. The Obama administration’s program of mortgage relief has gone nowhere: of $46 billion allotted to help families stay in their homes, less than $2 billion has actually been spent.
So let’s summarize: The economy isn’t fixing itself. Nor are there real obstacles to government action: both the bond vigilantes and structural unemployment exist only in the imaginations of pundits. And if stimulus seems to have failed, it’s because it was never actually tried.
Listening to what supposedly serious people say about the economy, you’d think the problem was “no, we can’t.” But the reality is “no, we won’t.” And every pundit who reinforces that destructive passivity is part of the problem. | 0 | train |
|
If Democrats Lose, Blame These Guys Kyle Kondik is managing editor of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, a nonpartisan political newsletter produced by the University of Virginia Center for Politics. He also directs the center’s Washington, D.C., office.
If Republicans capture control of the U.S. Senate, there will be many explanations for their victory: President Obama’s poor numbers, a great Senate map filled with attractive opportunities, a generally strong slate of candidates, the success of establishment-backed Republicans in primaries and others.
But one of the biggest factors will have hardly anything to do with the national political climate or, really, the campaign as a whole. Five Democrats, all of whom are old enough to be eligible for Medicare, decided not to run for another term in the Senate. Their decisions, all announced before May 2013, are a huge but largely forgotten boon to GOP hopes.
Story Continued Below
The five retirements were: Max Baucus of Montana, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Carl Levin of Michigan and Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia. (A sixth, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, had announced his retirement, but he later died: Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat, now holds the seat after a special election last year.)
Retirements present a challenge for the incumbent party because it’s easier for a party to hold a Senate seat when an incumbent runs for reelection. Significantly easier.
Over the past half-century, about 85 percent of incumbent senators running in the general election were reelected. In open seats, during the same time period, the incumbent party held the seat just about 60 percent of the time. So not having an incumbent in a Senate race substantially reduces the odds of victory.
The importance of open seats to GOP Senate hopes is particularly pronounced because of the party’s recent inability to defeat Democratic incumbents.
In 1980, Republicans beat an eye-popping nine Democratic incumbents on Election Day to capture control of the Senate for the first time in a quarter-century. Since then, the GOP has not defeated more than two Democratic Senate incumbents in any general election. The party’s best recent Senate years, 1994 and 2010, were built largely on winning open seats (six in 1994, and four in 2010). Democrats, meanwhile, have had more success: They beat seven and six incumbent Republicans, respectively, in recapturing the upper chamber in 1986 and 2006. The latter year, 2006, was notable in that Democrats did not capture a single open seat in netting the six seats they needed to eke out a narrow 51-49 Senate edge.
Republicans seem likely to beat more than two Democratic Senate incumbents this November for the first time in almost 35 years: Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Mark Pryor of Arkansas all have less than 50-50 odds of winning, according to the University of Virginia Center for Politics’ Crystal Ball ratings, which I help formulate. Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado is right at 50-50, and Sens. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire are both in tough races too.
But in all likelihood, the foundation for this year’s GOP gains will be built on winning open seats. That’s why the Democratic exits loom so large in the upcoming election.
An election where these five senators chose to run for another term would look significantly different: There would probably be more competitive races, and Democrats would have a greater number of redoubts to hold off the Republican advance.
Let’s assume, for the purposes of this “what if” exercise, that all five retirees were healthy enough and eager enough to have run for reelection, which is of course a big assumption for a group whose average age is 74 years old:
West Virginia: Rockefeller might still be an underdog to Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R), who entered the race before the incumbent retired. But that race would have been much closer, presumably, than Capito’s largely sleepy contest against West Virginia Secretary of State Natalie Tennant, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee would not have been able to just take a pass on the race, as it has this cycle. Capito’s strong performance as a candidate is an often overlooked bright spot for Republicans this cycle – she’s done so well, in a state where the GOP hasn’t won a Senate seat in more than a half century, that the race never became obviously competitive – but running in an open seat has made her job easier. The Crystal Ball rating here is Safe Republican; with Rockefeller in the race, we’d probably rate it just Leans Republican or maybe Toss-up. A few polls before Rockefeller retired suggested Capito would have started the race with a narrow lead, and Rockefeller did himself no favors by not being 100 percent pro-coal in recent years, a political problem in a state where coal is still king.
Montana: Baucus, like Rockefeller, would have been in for a very tough race in 2014 if he had run. The Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling found him trailing 49 percent to 44 percent in early 2013 against Rep. Steve Daines, who eventually became the GOP nominee. Baucus announced his retirement in April 2013, and then later resigned to become ambassador to China. Gov. Steve Bullock appointed then-Lt. Gov. John Walsh, a fellow Democrat, to fill the vacancy. Walsh’s campaign, of course, fell apart over the summer under the weight of plagiarism. Now Democrats are stuck with little-known nominee Amanda Curtis, a state representative, and Daines is a huge favorite. | 0 | train |
|
New Law Makes it Illegal to Shower and Do Laundry on Same Day California Governor Jerry Brown just signed a draconian new law that makes it illegal to take a shower, and do laundry on the same day:
Assembly Bill 1668 establishes a limit of 55 gallons per person daily as the standard for indoor residential water use, starting in the year 2022. Violators will have to pay a fine of $1,000 per day during normal seasons and $10,000 per day if “the violation occurs in a critically dry year immediately preceded by two or more consecutive below normal, dry, or critically dry years,” the law states.
According to the attentive folks at The Organic Prepper, this allotted water ration exceeds the amount required for taking a shower and doing a single load of laundry and excludes taking baths altogether.
Writer Daisy Luther notes that an ordinary load of laundry uses about 40 gallons of water, while an eight-minute shower uses some 17 gallons of water. A bathtub holds 80 to 100 gallons of water. This means combining a shower and laundry on the same day would use 57 gallons of water, two gallons above the limit.
According to the new law, the 55-gallon per person limit will be reduced even further in future years, dropping to 52.5 gallons per capita in 2025 and just 50 gallons per person in 2030.
To ensure compliance, the government of California urges the use of creative surveillance systems to spy on all residents. Utility providers will be obligated to report on violators, and urban retail water suppliers “shall use satellite imagery, site visits, or other best available technology to develop an accurate estimate of landscaped areas.”
So as not to overburden the wealthy, there will be “provisions for swimming pools, spas, and other water features,” the law states. …
The new, more aggressive mandatory water use levels set by the State Water Resources Control Board in coordination with the Department of Water Resources establish the initial indoor water allowance of 55 gallons per person per day and will also set an outdoor residential amount as well as a standard for system wide pipe leak losses.
This new law is ridiculous and will turn most honest, law abiding residents of California into lawbreakers.
Even worse, the drought has technically ended in California, so these restrictions make no sense based on current conditions.
If the politicians who run the state really wanted to solve the problem they would have limited the amount of grass homeowners can plant, and ban swimming pools.
Instead they come up with stupid rules, designed to harm those who can least afford it.
Facebook has greatly reduced the distribution of our stories in our readers' newsfeeds and is instead promoting mainstream media sources. When you share to your friends, however, you greatly help distribute our content. Please take a moment and consider sharing this article with your friends and family. Thank you. | 1 | train |
|
Wife of Las Vegas massacre victim: ‘He saved my life and lost his’ A nurse from Tennessee died saving his wife’s life in the mass shooting at a Las Vegas music concert Sunday night, according to reports.
Sonny Melton, 29, was fatally gunned down protecting wife Heather from the hail of bullets shooter Stephen Paddock rained down on the Route 91 music festival, his wife said.
“He saved my life,” Heather Gulish Melton told USA Today. “He grabbed me from behind and started running when I felt him get shot in the back.
“At this point, I’m in complete disbelief and despair. I don’t know what to say. Sonny was the most kind-hearted, loving man I have ever met,” she added in a statement to radio station WCYB.
The couple both worked at the Henry County Medical Center in Paris, Tenn. — he was a registered nurse and she is an orthopedic surgeon, the hospital said in a statement.
Melton “checked in” at the event on his Facebook page Friday night — and condolences flooded the post’s comments thread Monday.
Days before, his wife had posted a photo of the smiling couple wearing matching Eric Church shirts — Route 91’s headline act.
Related Video Video length 1 minute 45 seconds 1:45 Las Vegas massacre is deadliest shooting in modern US history Las Vegas massacre is deadliest shooting in modern US history | 1 | train |
|
Debbie Wasserman Schultzさんのツイート: ".@JebBush a flip-flop-flip on immigration? Wow. I fashioned you more of a baseball player than a gymnast. My bad. #notsurprisedatall" 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 | 0 | train |
|
Head Of NFL Fines Steeler Teammates $1 MILLION Each!
BREAKING: NFL Fines Pittsburgh Steelers $1m Each For Skipping National Anthem – YouTube
The hooey hit the fanbase. That is, when the NFL Black Lives Don’t Matter gang attacked patriotism and the US flag and most of the football fans, this blew up big time to the point, the frightened commissioner of this gang of thugs suddenly woke up and issued his first punishment for the people protesting at games: a million dollars each! I hope for two things: Villanueva is exempt plus since he was intimidated by both coach, the owner of the Steelers and fellow teammates, 50% of this fine should go to him! How about that?
Alejandro Villanueva apologizes for throwing Steeler teammates ‘under the bus’ – YouTube
Kim of North Korea is now running the NFL, it appears. The abject apology of this poor football player is backfiring very badly. People are twice as angry as before. Now, the hatred of the ‘other players’ who dissed the American flag is not gone away, either. They demanded everyone join them in being anti-patriotic and now this poor guy is doing exactly that. The NFL is now in dire straits. Like the DNC, they think they can impose their ideology on everyone else via force. Well, it isn’t working at all.
As I said above, Villanueva is the only member of that ‘team’ that stood up for America and he was then muscled by thugs threatening his life and livelihood and who forced him to do a miserable retraction of his good, patriotic deed. People are very angry at him for surrendering but then, he had everyone against him. Now, he should be rehabilitated, he needs a HUGE apology from the entire NFL leadership and his former teammates.
Fire chief apologizes for calling Steelers’ coach Mike Tomlin ‘n-word’ on Facebook | TribLIVE
Chief Paul Smith, who leads Cecil’s Volunteer Fire Department No. 2 in Muse, Washington County, posted the comment in response to the Steelers’ decision not to not take the field for the national anthem. “Tomlin just added himself to the list of no good n-words. Yes I said it,” Smith wrote in the post.Cecil’s board of supervisors said the comment was troublesome. “The Cecil Township Board of Supervisors is deeply disturbed by the comments made by volunteer Chief Smith, and in no way, shape or form condone his comments,” officials said in a written statement.
See? This man said something rash. He is immediately punished. The NFL players who decided to toss the US flag in the trash and attack the President for talking about their disrespect of the US voters and citizens…they should also be punished heavily, no? Of course! Liberals think PC punishment is a one way street.
They can cuss, swear, be abusive, harass and even physically attack fellow citizens and nothing is done to stop this! But anyone else says the wrong words and they lose their jobs and are punished in many ways. This is causing tremendous ire and is the #1 reason many voted for Trump.
Not One More Dime: NFL Stadiums Have Collected Over $1.1 Billion in Federal Subsidies – Time to Cut Them Off. Calls to stop the NFL gravy train is rising. Even if Goodell manages to muscle the teams into behaving themselves, it is not going to work for the fan base can see that the people playing the game really hate them and so this comrade business is kaput.
According to FOX Sports over the last 20 years, the American public has spent more than $7 billion dollars to build or renovate NFL stadiums, taking on 46 percent of the total costs of those projects. It’s time to cut them off. They don’t respect the country. Why should the country respect them?
The coach of the Steelers sponsored Hillary’s run for President. Note the loot she asked for, show up to see her, you had to pay $330000+. What a rip-off!
Pushing this pile of toothpaste back into the tube is impossible now. petition: CUT OFF ALL FEDERAL TAXPAYER SUBSIDIES TO NFL, PAYING BILLIONS TO LEAGUE. NO MORE . is one example.
NFL gives up tax exempt status – Apr. 28, 2015 which was about time. But they still suck off the public teat via moving teams around while making demands for freebies like free stadiums, etc. NFL gets billions in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers – Jan. 30, 2015 despite being ‘taxed’ lightly.
Stadium construction: Twenty new NFL stadiums have opened since 1997 with the help of $4.7 billion in taxpayer funds, according to an analysis by the advisory firm Conventions, Sports and Leisure. Local governments pony up to build these venues to attract or keep teams in their towns. Two more stadiums now under construction in Minneapolis and Atlanta are being built with $700 million in government funds. Taxpayers paid for most of the University of Phoenix Stadium, which opened in 2006 and is home to this Sunday’s Super Bowl — to the tune of about $300 million.
All this will go crashing down unless the team owners wake up and figure out who their audience really is. But then, the cities are being systematically destroyed… | 1 | train |
|
Nexis®: Sign In Note: Personal data with respect to individual users of the LexisNexis® services will be exported to the United States for purposes of providing access to, use of, and support for the services. | 0 | train |
|
Administration Is Seeking $700 Billion for Wall Street With Congressional Republicans warning that the bailout could be slowed by efforts to tack on additional provisions, Democratic leaders said they would insist on a requirement that the administration use its new role, as the owner of large amounts of mortgage debt, to help hundreds of thousands of troubled borrowers at risk of losing their homes to foreclosure.
“It’s clear that the administration has requested that Congress authorize, in very short order, sweeping and unprecedented powers for the Treasury secretary,” the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi of California, said in a statement. “Democrats will work with the administration to ensure that our response to events in the financial markets is swift, but we must insulate Main Street from Wall Street and keep people in their homes.”
Ms. Pelosi said Democrats would also insist on “enacting an economic recovery package that creates jobs and returns growth to our economy.”
Even as talks got under way, there were signs of how very much in flux the plan remained. The administration suggested that it might adjust its proposal, initially restricted to purchasing assets from financial institutions based in the United States, to enable foreign firms with United States affiliates to make use of it as well.
The ambitious effort to transfer the bad debts of Wall Street, at least temporarily, into the obligations of American taxpayers was first put forward by the administration late last week after a series of bold interventions on behalf of ailing private firms seemed unlikely to prevent a crash of world financial markets.
A $700 billion expenditure on distressed mortgage-related assets would roughly be what the country has spent so far in direct costs on the Iraq war and more than the Pentagon’s total yearly budget appropriation. Divided across the population, it would amount to more than $2,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
Whatever is spent will add to a budget deficit already projected at more than $500 billion next year. And it comes on top of the $85 billion government rescue of the insurance giant American International Group and a plan to spend up to $200 billion to shore up the mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
At his news conference, Mr. Bush also sought to portray the plan as helping every American. “The government,” he said, “needed to send a clear signal that we understood the instability could ripple throughout and affect the working people and the average family, and we weren’t going to let that happen.”
A program to help troubled borrowers refinance mortgages — along with an $800 billion increase in the national debt limit — was approved in July. But financing for it depended largely on fees paid by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have been placed into a government conservatorship.
Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an interview that his staff had already begun working with the Senate banking committee to draft additions to the administration’s proposal.
Mr. Frank said Democrats were particularly intent on limiting the huge pay packages for corporate executives whose firms seek aid under the new plan, raising the prospect of a contentious battle with the White House.
“There are going to be federal tax dollars buying up some of the bad paper,” Mr. Frank said. “They should accept some compensation guidelines, particularly to get rid of the perverse incentives where it’s ‘heads I win, tails I break even.’ ”
Mr. Frank said Democrats were also thinking about tightening the language on the debt limit to make clear that the additional borrowing authority could be used only for the bailout plan. And he said they might seek to revive a proposal that would give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, a proposal strongly opposed by the financial industry.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, who attended emergency meetings with the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., and the Federal Reserve chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, on Capitol Hill last week, described the proposal as a good start but said it did little for regular Americans.
Photo
“This is a good foundation of a plan that can stabilize markets quickly,” Mr. Schumer said in a statement. “But it includes no visible protection for taxpayers or homeowners. We look forward to talking to Treasury to see what, if anything, they have in mind in these two areas.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Ms. Pelosi’s statement made clear that she would push for an economic stimulus initiative either as part of the bailout legislation or, more likely, as part of the budget resolution Congress must adopt before adjourning for the fall elections. Such a plan could include an increase in unemployment benefits and spending on infrastructure projects to help create jobs.
Some Congressional Republicans warned Democrats not to overreach.
“The administration has put forward a plan to help the American people, and it is now incumbent on Congress to work together to solve this crisis,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader.
Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You will receive emails containing news content , updates and promotions from The New York Times. You may opt-out at any time. You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.
Mr. Boehner added, “Efforts to exploit this crisis for political leverage or partisan quid pro quo will only delay the economic stability that families, seniors and small businesses deserve.”
Aides to Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the Democratic presidential nominee, said he was reviewing the proposal. In Florida, Mr. Obama told voters he would press for a broader economic stimulus.
“We have to make sure that whatever plan our government comes up with works not just for Wall Street, but for Main Street,” Mr. Obama said. “We have to make sure it helps folks cope with rising prices, and sparks job creation, and helps homeowners stay in their homes.”
Senator John McCain of Arizona, the Republican nominee, issued a statement saying he, too, was reviewing the plan.
“This financial crisis,” Mr. McCain said, “requires leadership and action in order to restore a sound foundation to financial markets, get our economy on its feet, and eliminate this burden on hardworking middle-class Americans.”
If adopted, the bailout plan would sharply raise the stakes for the new administration on the appointment of a new Treasury secretary.
The administration’s plan would allow the Treasury to hire staff members and engage outside firms to help manage its purchases. And officials said that the administration envisioned enlisting several outside firms to help run the effort to buy up mortgage-related assets.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Officials said that details were still being worked out but that one idea was for the Treasury to hold reverse auctions, in which the government would offer to buy certain classes of distressed assets at a particular price and firms would then decide if they were willing to sell at that price, or could bid the price lower.
Mindful of a potential political fight, Mr. Paulson and Mr. Bernanke held a series of conference calls with members of Congress on Friday to begin convincing them that action was needed not just to help Wall Street but everyday Americans as well.
Republicans typically supportive of the administration said they were in favor of approving the plan as swiftly as possible.
Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, said in a statement, “This proposal is, and should be kept, simple and clear.” The majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said that the bailout was needed but that Mr. Bush owed the public a fuller explanation.
Some lawmakers were more critical or even adamantly opposed to the plan. “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America,” Senator Jim Bunning, Republican of Kentucky, declared on Friday.
It is far from clear how much distressed debt the government will end up purchasing, though it seemed likely that the $700 billion figure was large enough to send a reassuring message to the jittery markets. There are estimates that firms are carrying $1 trillion or more in bad mortgage-related assets.
The ultimate price tag of the bailout is virtually impossible to know, in part because of the possibility that taxpayers could profit from the effort, especially if the market stabilizes and real estate prices rise.
Lehman Can Sell to Barclays
A federal bankruptcy judge decided early Saturday that Lehman Brothers could sell its investment banking and trading businesses to Barclays, the big British bank, the first major step to wind down the nation’s fourth-largest investment bank.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The judge, James Peck, gave his decision at the end of an eight-hour hearing, which capped a week of financial turmoil.
The deal was said to be worth $1.75 billion earlier in the week but the value was in flux after lawyers announced changes to the terms on Friday. It may now be worth closer to $1.35 billion, which includes the $960 million price tag on Lehman’s office tower in Midtown Manhattan.
Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. on Monday filed the biggest bankruptcy in United States history, after Barclays PLC declined to buy the investment bank in its entirety. | 0 | train |
|
Oscar Pistorius Attempts To Commit Suicide The former Paralympic athlete reportedly tried to commit suicide.
Convicted murderer Oscar Pistorius was, according to reports, rushed to a local state hospital in the early hours of Saturday after he allegedly attempted on his life.
Although information is still sketchy, a social media report claimed that the former Paralympic athlete had injured his wrists in his prison cell.
He was rushed to a nearby hospital.
According to City Press, correctional services said Pistorius claimed he had injured himself after falling out of bed.
“An inmate situated close to the hospital section told City Press that Pistorius had injured himself intentionally,” the news report stated.
The report added that sharp blades were subsequently found in Pistorius’ cell during a search on Saturday afternoon.
The reports could not yet be confirmed.
Mashego wrote that he had also established from warders that Pistorius had been planning to harm the Kgosi Mampuru II prison’s health manager and a nurse, as they had testified against him, describing him as violent. A raid of his cell weeks ago allegedly found “toxic pills” inside it, though these are likely to be prescription drugs and anti-depressants, which might also be used in a suicide attempt.
The Pistorius family told the Sunday paper that they were not aware of any investigation into Pistorius’ alleged plot against the prison staff. They dismissed it as yet another sensationalist story like many others.
Source: mzansilive.co.za | 1 | train |
|
Opinion | A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip WASHINGTON
SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear and on cold calculations about the money of special interests like the National Rifle Association, which in the last election cycle spent around $25 million on contributions, lobbying and outside spending. | 0 | train |
|
Mike Huckabee: Fried Squirrel Out of a Popcorn Popper 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 | 0 | train |
|
Remarks by the President at the Associated Press Luncheon Marriott Wardman Park
Washington, D.C.
12:35 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. (Applause.) Please have a seat. Well, good afternoon, and thank you to Dean Singleton and the board of the Associated Press for inviting me here today. It is a pleasure to speak to all of you -- and to have a microphone that I can see. (Laughter.) Feel free to transmit any of this to Vladimir if you see him. (Laughter.)
Clearly, we’re already in the beginning months of another long, lively election year. There will be gaffes and minor controversies, be hot mics and Etch-a-Sketch moments. You will cover every word that we say, and we will complain vociferously about the unflattering words that you write -- unless, of course, you're writing about the other guy -- in which case, good job. (Laughter.)
But there are also big, fundamental issues at stake right now -- issues that deserve serious debate among every candidate, and serious coverage among every reporter. Whoever he may be, the next President will inherit an economy that is recovering, but not yet recovered, from the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. Too many Americans will still be looking for a job that pays enough to cover their bills or their mortgage. Too many citizens will still lack the sort of financial security that started slipping away years before this recession hit. A debt that has grown over the last decade, primarily as a result of two wars, two massive tax cuts, and an unprecedented financial crisis, will have to be paid down.
In the face of all these challenges, we're going to have to answer a central question as a nation: What, if anything, can we do to restore a sense of security for people who are willing to work hard and act responsibly in this country? Can we succeed as a country where a shrinking number of people do exceedingly well, while a growing number struggle to get by? Or are we better off when everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules?
This is not just another run-of-the-mill political debate. I’ve said it’s the defining issue of our time, and I believe it. It’s why I ran in 2008. It’s what my presidency has been about. It’s why I’m running again. I believe this is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and I can’t remember a time when the choice between competing visions of our future has been so unambiguously clear.
Keep in mind, I have never been somebody who believes that government can or should try to solve every problem. Some of you know my first job in Chicago was working with a group of Catholic churches that often did more good for the people in their communities than any government program could. In those same communities I saw that no education policy, however well crafted, can take the place of a parent’s love and attention.
As President, I’ve eliminated dozens of programs that weren’t working, and announced over 500 regulatory reforms that will save businesses and taxpayers billions, and put annual domestic spending on a path to become the smallest share of the economy since Dwight Eisenhower held this office -- since before I was born. I know that the true engine of job creation in this country is the private sector, not Washington, which is why I’ve cut taxes for small business owners 17 times over the last three years.
So I believe deeply that the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history. My mother and the grandparents who raised me instilled the values of self-reliance and personal responsibility that remain the cornerstone of the American idea. But I also share the belief of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln -- a belief that, through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.
That belief is the reason this country has been able to build a strong military to keep us safe, and public schools to educate our children. That belief is why we’ve been able to lay down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. That belief is why we’ve been able to support the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, and unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire industries.
That belief is also why we’ve sought to ensure that every citizen can count on some basic measure of security. We do this because we recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, any one of us, at any moment, might face hard times, might face bad luck, might face a crippling illness or a layoff. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee health care and a source of income after a lifetime of hard work. We provide unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss and facilitates the labor mobility that makes our economy so dynamic. We provide for Medicaid, which makes sure that millions of seniors in nursing homes and children with disabilities are getting the care that they need.
For generations, nearly all of these investments -- from transportation to education to retirement programs -- have been supported by people in both parties. As much as we might associate the G.I. Bill with Franklin Roosevelt, or Medicare with Lyndon Johnson, it was a Republican, Lincoln, who launched the Transcontinental Railroad, the National Academy of Sciences, land grant colleges. It was Eisenhower who launched the Interstate Highway System and new investment in scientific research. It was Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency, Ronald Reagan who worked with Democrats to save Social Security. It was George W. Bush who added prescription drug coverage to Medicare.
What leaders in both parties have traditionally understood is that these investments aren’t part of some scheme to redistribute wealth from one group to another. They are expressions of the fact that we are one nation. These investments benefit us all. They contribute to genuine, durable economic growth.
Show me a business leader who wouldn’t profit if more Americans could afford to get the skills and education that today’s jobs require. Ask any company where they’d rather locate and hire workers –- a country with crumbling roads and bridges, or one that’s committed to high-speed Internet and high-speed railroads and high-tech research and development?
It doesn’t make us weaker when we guarantee basic security for the elderly or the sick or those who are actively looking for work. What makes us weaker is when fewer and fewer people can afford to buy the goods and services our businesses sell, or when entrepreneurs don’t have the financial security to take a chance and start a new business. What drags down our entire economy is when there’s an ever-widening chasm between the ultra-rich and everybody else.
In this country, broad-based prosperity has never trickled down from the success of a wealthy few. It has always come from the success of a strong and growing middle class. That’s how a generation who went to college on the G.I. Bill, including my grandfather, helped build the most prosperous economy the world has ever known. That’s why a CEO like Henry Ford made it his mission to pay his workers enough so they could buy the cars that they made. That’s why research has shown that countries with less inequality tend to have stronger and steadier economic growth over the long run.
And yet, for much of the last century, we have been having the same argument with folks who keep peddling some version of trickle-down economics. They keep telling us that if we’d convert more of our investments in education and research and health care into tax cuts -- especially for the wealthy -- our economy will grow stronger. They keep telling us that if we’d just strip away more regulations, and let businesses pollute more and treat workers and consumers with impunity, that somehow we’d all be better off. We’re told that when the wealthy become even wealthier, and corporations are allowed to maximize their profits by whatever means necessary, it’s good for America, and that their success will automatically translate into more jobs and prosperity for everybody else. That’s the theory.
Now, the problem for advocates of this theory is that we’ve tried their approach -- on a massive scale. The results of their experiment are there for all to see. At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier -- we would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades, to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down.
Instead, during the last decade, we had the slowest job growth in half a century. And the typical American family actually saw their incomes fall by about 6 percent, even as the economy was growing.
It was a period when insurance companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions didn’t have to abide by strong enough regulations, or they found their ways around them. And what was the result? Profits for many of these companies soared. But so did people’s health insurance premiums. Patients were routinely denied care, often when they needed it most. Families were enticed, and sometimes just plain tricked, into buying homes they couldn’t afford. Huge, reckless bets were made with other people’s money on the line. And our entire financial system was nearly destroyed.
So we tried this theory out. And you would think that after the results of this experiment in trickle-down economics, after the results were made painfully clear, that the proponents of this theory might show some humility, might moderate their views a bit. You'd think they’d say, you know what, maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders. Maybe, just maybe, at a time of growing debt and widening inequality, we should hold off on giving the wealthiest Americans another round of big tax cuts. Maybe when we know that most of today’s middle-class jobs require more than a high school degree, we shouldn’t gut education, or lay off thousands of teachers, or raise interest rates on college loans, or take away people’s financial aid.
But that’s exactly the opposite of what they’ve done. Instead of moderating their views even slightly, the Republicans running Congress right now have doubled down, and proposed a budget so far to the right it makes the Contract with America look like the New Deal. (Laughter.) In fact, that renowned liberal, Newt Gingrich, first called the original version of the budget "radical" and said it would contribute to "right-wing social engineering." This is coming from Newt Gingrich.
And yet, this isn’t a budget supported by some small rump group in the Republican Party. This is now the party’s governing platform. This is what they’re running on. One of my potential opponents, Governor Romney, has said that he hoped a similar version of this plan from last year would be introduced as a bill on day one of his presidency. He said that he’s “very supportive” of this new budget, and he even called it "marvelous" -- which is a word you don’t often hear when it comes to describing a budget. (Laughter.) It’s a word you don’t often hear generally. (Laughter.)
So here’s what this "marvelous" budget does. Back in the summer, I came to an agreement with Republicans in Congress to cut roughly $1 trillion in annual spending. Some of these cuts were about getting rid of waste; others were about programs that we support but just can’t afford given our deficits and our debt. And part of the agreement was a guarantee of another trillion in savings, for a total of about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.
This new House Republican budget, however, breaks our bipartisan agreement and proposes massive new cuts in annual domestic spending –- exactly the area where we’ve already cut the most. And I want to actually go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly. So bear with me. I want to go through this -- because I don’t think people fully appreciate the nature of this budget.
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
That’s just a partial sampling of the consequences of this budget. Now, you can anticipate Republicans may say, well, we’ll avoid some of these cuts -- since they don’t specify exactly the cuts that they would make. But they can only avoid some of these cuts if they cut even deeper in other areas. This is math. If they want to make smaller cuts to medical research that means they’ve got to cut even deeper in funding for things like teaching and law enforcement. The converse is true as well. If they want to protect early childhood education, it will mean further reducing things like financial aid for young people trying to afford college.
Perhaps they will never tell us where the knife will fall -- but you can be sure that with cuts this deep, there is no secret plan or formula that will be able to protect the investments we need to help our economy grow.
This is not conjecture. I am not exaggerating. These are facts. And these are just the cuts that would happen the year after next.
If this budget became law, by the middle of the century, funding for the kinds of things I just mentioned would have to be cut by about 95 percent. Let me repeat that. Those categories I just mentioned we would have to cut by 95 percent. As a practical matter, the federal budget would basically amount to whatever is left in entitlements, defense spending, and interest on the national debt -- period. Money for these investments that have traditionally been supported on a bipartisan basis would be practically eliminated.
And the same is true for other priorities like transportation, and homeland security, and veterans programs for the men and women who have risked their lives for this country. This is not an exaggeration. Check it out yourself.
And this is to say nothing about what the budget does to health care. We’re told that Medicaid would simply be handed over to the states -- that's the pitch: Let's get it out of the central bureaucracy. The states can experiment. They'll be able to run the programs a lot better. But here's the deal the states would be getting. They would have to be running these programs in the face of the largest cut to Medicaid that has ever been proposed -- a cut that, according to one nonpartisan group, would take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million.
Who are these Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won't be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the people who count on Medicaid.
Then there’s Medicare. Because health care costs keep rising and the Baby Boom generation is retiring, Medicare, we all know, is one of the biggest drivers of our long-term deficit. That’s a challenge we have to meet by bringing down the cost of health care overall so that seniors and taxpayers can share in the savings.
But here’s the solution proposed by the Republicans in Washington, and embraced by most of their candidates for president: Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area. If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they’ll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare. If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they’ve been doing for decades -- that’s too bad. Seniors bear the risk. If the voucher isn’t enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that's too bad.
So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost. The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care. But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.
The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won’t be on our books -- is because we’ve shifted it to seniors. They’ll bear more of the costs themselves. It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.
Now, the proponents of this budget will tell us we have to make all these draconian cuts because our deficit is so large; this is an existential crisis, we have to think about future generations, so on and so on. And that argument might have a shred of credibility were it not for their proposal to also spend $4.6 trillion over the next decade on lower tax rates.
We’re told that these tax cuts will supposedly be paid for by closing loopholes and eliminating wasteful deductions. But the Republicans in Congress refuse to list a single tax loophole they are willing to close. Not one. And by the way, there is no way to get even close to $4.6 trillion in savings without dramatically reducing all kinds of tax breaks that go to middle-class families -- tax breaks for health care, tax breaks for retirement, tax breaks for homeownership.
Meanwhile, these proposed tax breaks would come on top of more than a trillion dollars in tax giveaways for people making more than $250,000 a year. That’s an average of at least $150,000 for every millionaire in this country -- $150,000.
Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year’s worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined -- investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we’d be better off as a country if that’s how we spend it.
This is supposed to be about paying down our deficit? It’s laughable.
The bipartisan Simpson-Bowles commission that I created -- which the Republicans originally were for until I was for it -- that was about paying down the deficit. And I didn’t agree with all the details. I proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and $600 billion -- I'm sorry -- it proposed about $600 billion more in revenue and about $600 billion more in defense cuts than I proposed in my own budget. But Bowles-Simpson was a serious, honest, balanced effort between Democrats and Republicans to bring down the deficit. That’s why, although it differs in some ways, my budget takes a similarly balanced approach: Cuts in discretionary spending, cuts in mandatory spending, increased revenue.
This congressional Republican budget is something different altogether. It is a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plans, it is really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country. It is thinly veiled social Darwinism. It is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity and upward mobility for everybody who’s willing to work for it; a place where prosperity doesn’t trickle down from the top, but grows outward from the heart of the middle class. And by gutting the very things we need to grow an economy that’s built to last -- education and training, research and development, our infrastructure -- it is a prescription for decline.
And everybody here should understand that because there's very few people here who haven't benefitted at some point from those investments that were made in the '50s and the '60s and the '70s and the '80s. That’s part of how we got ahead. And now, we're going to be pulling up those ladders up for the next generation?
So in the months ahead, I will be fighting as hard as I know how for this truer vision of what the United States of America is all about. Absolutely, we have to get serious about the deficit. And that will require tough choices and sacrifice. And I’ve already shown myself willing to make these tough choices when I signed into law the biggest spending cut of any President in recent memory. In fact, if you adjust for the economy, the Congressional Budget Office says the overall spending next year will be lower than any year under Ronald Reagan.
And I’m willing to make more of those difficult spending decisions in the months ahead. But I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again -- there has to be some balance. All of us have to do our fair share.
I’ve also put forward a detailed plan that would reform and strengthen Medicare and Medicaid. By the beginning of the next decade, it achieves the same amount of annual health savings as the plan proposed by Simpson-Bowles -- the Simpson-Bowles commission, and it does so by making changes that people in my party haven’t always been comfortable with. But instead of saving money by shifting costs to seniors, like the congressional Republican plan proposes, our approach would lower the cost of health care throughout the entire system. It goes after excessive subsidies to prescription drug companies. It gets more efficiency out of Medicaid without gutting the program. It asks the very wealthiest seniors to pay a little bit more. It changes the way we pay for health care -- not by procedure or the number of days spent in a hospital, but with new incentives for doctors and hospitals to improve their results.
And it slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need.
We also have a much different approach when it comes to taxes -- an approach that says if we’re serious about paying down our debt, we can’t afford to spend trillions more on tax cuts for folks like me, for wealthy Americans who don’t need them and weren’t even asking for them, and that the country cannot afford. At a time when the share of national income flowing to the top 1 percent of people in this country has climbed to levels last seen in the 1920s, those same folks are paying taxes at one of the lowest rates in 50 years. As both I and Warren Buffett have pointed out many times now, he’s paying a lower tax rate than his secretary. That is not fair. It is not right.
And the choice is really very simple. If you want to keep these tax rates and deductions in place -- or give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, as the Republicans in Congress propose -- then one of two things happen: Either it means higher deficits, or it means more sacrifice from the middle class. Seniors will have to pay more for Medicare. College students will lose some of their financial aid. Working families who are scraping by will have to do more because the richest Americans are doing less. I repeat what I’ve said before: That is not class warfare, that is not class envy, that is math.
If that’s the choice that members of Congress want to make, then we’re going to make sure every American knows about it. In a few weeks, there will be a vote on what we’ve called the Buffett Rule. Simple concept: If you make more than a million dollars a year -- not that you have a million dollars -- if you make more than a million dollars annually, then you should pay at least the same percentage of your income in taxes as middle-class families do. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year -- like 98 percent of American families do -- then your taxes shouldn’t go up. That’s the proposal.
Now, you’ll hear some people point out that the Buffett Rule alone won’t raise enough revenue to solve our deficit problems. Maybe not, but it’s definitely a step in the right direction. And I intend to keep fighting for this kind of balance and fairness until the other side starts listening, because I believe this is what the American people want. I believe this is the best way to pay for the investments we need to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class. And by the way, I believe it’s the right thing to do.
This larger debate that we will be having and that you will be covering in the coming year about the size and role of government, this debate has been with us since our founding days. And during moments of great challenge and change, like the ones that we’re living through now, the debate gets sharper; it gets more vigorous. That’s a good thing. As a country that prizes both our individual freedom and our obligations to one another, this is one of the most important debates that we can have.
But no matter what we argue or where we stand, we have always held certain beliefs as Americans. We believe that in order to preserve our own freedoms and pursue our own happiness, we can’t just think about ourselves. We have to think about the country that made those liberties possible. We have to think about our fellow citizens with whom we share a community. We have to think about what’s required to preserve the American Dream for future generations.
And this sense of responsibility -- to each other and our country -- this isn’t a partisan feeling. This isn’t a Democratic or Republican idea. It’s patriotism. And if we keep that in mind, and uphold our obligations to one another and to this larger enterprise that is America, then I have no doubt that we will continue our long and prosperous journey as the greatest nation on Earth.
Thank you. God bless you. God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.
MR. SINGLETON: Thank you, Mr. President. We appreciate so much you being with us today. I have some questions from the audience, which I will ask -- and I'll be more careful than I was last time I did this.
Republicans have been sharply critical of your budget ideas as well. What can you say to the Americans who just want both sides to stop fighting and get some work done on their behalf?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I completely understand the American people’s frustrations, because the truth is that these are eminently solvable problems. I know that Christine Lagarde is here from the IMF, and she’s looking at the books of a lot of other countries around the world. The kinds of challenges they face fiscally are so much more severe than anything that we confront -- if we make some sensible decisions.
So the American people’s impulses are absolutely right. These are solvable problems if people of good faith came together and were willing to compromise. The challenge we have right now is that we have on one side, a party that will brook no compromise. And this is not just my assertion. We had presidential candidates who stood on a stage and were asked, “Would you accept a budget package, a deficit reduction plan, that involved $10 of cuts for every dollar in revenue increases?” Ten-to-one ratio of spending cuts to revenue. Not one of them raised their hand.
Think about that. Ronald Reagan, who, as I recall, is not accused of being a tax-and-spend socialist, understood repeatedly that when the deficit started to get out of control, that for him to make a deal he would have to propose both spending cuts and tax increases. Did it multiple times. He could not get through a Republican primary today.
So let's look at Bowles-Simpson. Essentially, my differences with Bowles-Simpson were I actually proposed less revenue and slightly lower defense spending cuts. The Republicans want to increase defense spending and take in no revenue, which makes it impossible to balance the deficit under the terms that Bowles-Simpson laid out -- unless you essentially eliminate discretionary spending. You don't just cut discretionary spending. Everything we think of as being pretty important -- from education to basic science and research to transportation spending to national parks to environmental protection -- we'd essentially have to eliminate.
I guess another way of thinking about this is -- and this bears on your reporting. I think that there is oftentimes the impulse to suggest that if the two parties are disagreeing, then they're equally at fault and the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and an equivalence is presented -- which reinforces I think people's cynicism about Washington generally. This is not one of those situations where there's an equivalence. I've got some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress who were prepared to make significant changes to entitlements that go against their political interests, and who said they were willing to do it. And we couldn't get a Republican to stand up and say, we'll raise some revenue, or even to suggest that we won't give more tax cuts to people who don't need them.
And so I think it's important to put the current debate in some historical context. It's not just true, by the way, of the budget. It's true of a lot of the debates that we're having out here.
Cap and trade was originally proposed by conservatives and Republicans as a market-based solution to solving environmental problems. The first President to talk about cap and trade was George H.W. Bush. Now you've got the other party essentially saying we shouldn’t even be thinking about environmental protection; let's gut the EPA.
Health care, which is in the news right now -- there's a reason why there's a little bit of confusion in the Republican primary about health care and the individual mandate since it originated as a conservative idea to preserve the private marketplace in health care while still assuring that everybody got covered, in contrast to a single-payer plan. Now, suddenly, this is some socialist overreach.
So as all of you are doing your reporting, I think it's important to remember that the positions I'm taking now on the budget and a host of other issues, if we had been having this discussion 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, would have been considered squarely centrist positions. What's changed is the center of the Republican Party. And that’s certainly true with the budget.
MR. SINGLETON: Mr. President, the managing director of the (inaudible) for continuation of United States leadership (inaudible) economic issues, an | 0 | train |
|
John McCain for President For Immediate Release
July 15, 2008 Contact: Press Office
703-650-5550 John McCain's Comprehensive Strategy for Victory in Afghanistan
Today, John McCain Outlined A New Comprehensive Strategy For Victory In Afghanistan. The status quo in Afghanistan is unacceptable, and from the moment the next President walks into the Oval Office, he will face critical decisions about Afghanistan. John McCain Is Calling For A New Strategy In Afghanistan That Applies The Tried And True Principles Of Counter-Insurgency Used In The Iraq Surge. As President, John McCain will turn around the war in Afghanistan with a comprehensive strategy for victory. In Afghanistan, we need an integrated, nationwide civil-military campaign that is focused on providing security for the population. John McCain's Comprehensive Strategy For Victory In Afghanistan: John McCain Will Work With Our Allies To Ensure Unity Of Command In Afghanistan. One of the reasons there is no comprehensive campaign plan for Afghanistan is because there is no unity of command. Today, there are no less than three different American military combatant commands operating in Afghanistan, as well as NATO. The top commander in Afghanistan needs to be just that: the supreme commander of all coalition forces operating a successful counter-insurgency strategy that integrates all instructs of our national power. John McCain Will Appoint An Afghanistan Czar To Ensure Commanders Have What They Need To Win. Unity of command is a principle lacking in Washington. Too often, even as our soldiers and diplomats cooperate in the field, their superiors back home have been squabbling. Last year, the Administration took a step in the right direction and appointed a war czar. But the situation in Afghanistan demands a separate Czar based in the White House, reporting directly to the President and dedicated to the sole mission of ensuring we bring the war in Afghanistan to a successful end. John McCain Supports Sending At Least Three Additional Brigades To Afghanistan. Our commanders on the ground say they need these troops, and thanks to the success of the surge, these forces are becoming available, and our commanders in Afghanistan must get them. John McCain Will Double The Size Of The Afghan Military. The Afghan army is already a great success story: a multiethnic, battle-tested fighting force. Yet, it's too small, with a projected strength of only 80,000 troops. We need to at least double the size of the Afghan army to 160,000 troops. To pay for this increase, the international community should share the costs. The United States and our allies should establish an international trust fund to provide long-term financing for the Afghan army. John McCain Will Increase Our Non-Military Assistance To The Afghan Government. Through a multi-front plan, we will increase assistance to the Afghan government to strengthen its institutions, the rule of law, and the economy. Essential to success of the mission in Afghanistan is getting control of narcotics trafficking. Alternative crops must be able to get to market and traffickers must be arrested and prosecuted by enhanced Special Courts. We should agree on specific governance and development benchmarks with the Afghan government and then work with them closely to ensure they are met. John McCain Will Enhance Our Regional Diplomatic Efforts By Appointing A Special Presidential Envoy. The violence in Afghanistan has many causes, but chief among them is the fact that the country is treated by some regional powers as a chessboard to pursue their own ambitions. John McCain will appoint a special presidential envoy to address disputes between Afghanistan and its neighbors. Our goal must be to turn Afghanistan from a theater for regional rivalries into a commons for regional cooperation. As Part Of This Regional Strategy, John McCain Will Put Special Focus On Pakistan. We must strengthen local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight the foreign terrorists there. We must also empower the new civilian government of Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and education. ###
| 0 | train |
|
BREAKING: MALIA OBAMA EXPELLED FROM HARVARD Share this:
Malia Obama, who has decided that as an adult she wants to be a pot smoking, rap listening, twerking party girl, has been ousted from the student roster at Harvard University. The school’s chancellor, Malcolm Little, said that regardless of her status as a former first daughter, the rules are the rules and she won’t be welcome there this fall.
The stunning announcement came after Malia was caught in a Boston hotel lounge vaping marijuana with friends. Harvard has a strict no drug policy. Massachusetts is one of the states that now allows for recreational marijuana and the hotel is “weed friendly,” but that doesn’t change the fact that she broke the rules.
Malia’s lawyer has pointed out that the school has turned the other way on the marijuana issue when their entire rowing team, made up of 14 white males, was caught selling and smoking marijuana cigarettes during the offseason. Chancellor Little remarked that the difference was that the members of the rowing team are hard-working, established students whose parents are paying cash for their education while Malia hasn’t attended yet, isn’t planning on playing a sport and is going to the school on a combination of a scholarship from the Clinton Foundation and taxpayer-funded grants.
The Obama family lawyer is planning on filing a discrimination suit, because isn’t everything about race? | 1 | train |
|
Encounters With 'Regular Guy' Fred Thompson -- New York Magazine Photo: Preston Gannaway/Concord Monitor/Polaris (Thompson); Getty Images (The White House)
Fred Thompson is laying on the southern-fried charm. It’s a tire-melting afternoon in June, and the son of Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, turned two-term United States senator, Law & Order star, and now almost Republican presidential candidate has just arrived at the Clarion Townhouse hotel in Columbia, South Carolina, for a state-party fund-raiser. A crush of reporters has swarmed him, one of whom has just asked if today will be the day Thompson makes things official. Thompson delivers his honey-smooth reply as if on cue. “I’m just testing the waters, but the water is pretty warm,” he says as he plows toward the ballroom.
Inside, his wife, Jeri, and 3-year-old daughter, Hayden, hug Thompson. The family settles on the dais and is consumed in a lightning storm of flash photography. The six-foot-five, cigar-smoking Thompson’s calling card is his cozy, avuncular folksiness, and he seems nothing if not at home here among his people. Jeri is a formidable woman—a former Senate staffer and spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee who is said to be the true force behind her husband’s decision to run and a key operative in his campaign. She also happens to be blonde, gorgeous, and two dozen years younger than her husband. She is dressed today in a purple skirt cut an inch or so above the knees that has definitely caught the attention of the locals. Hayden, saucer-eyed and adorable in a flower-print dress, smiles shyly. Thompson is only 64, but the family tableau makes him look a bit old and wan.
The room settles down, and Thompson steps to the microphone. He goes straight to Page One of the Thompson script—a bit of homey Mayberry RFD bemusement directed at those crazy city slickers in Washington. “I was telling one of my buddies up there, ‘You know, it’s kind of strange. People are always asking me the difference between show business and politics and so forth.’ And he says, ‘Well, don’t you see the deal? Politics is show business for ugly people.’” Thompson pauses for a moment and grins. “And then he says, ‘Thompson, you got it all covered.’” Everyone laughs.
Today, the immigration bill hangs in the balance, and Thompson, who sells himself as the only genuine red-meat conservative among the leading GOP contenders, lays into his wussy opponents. “We can’t drop another 12 million people and be able to cope with that. We’ve already got a 24-hour rule. If you can’t prove they’re terrorists within 24 hours, you’ve got to pass them. You know the dog ain’t eating the dog food when they put that one out there.”
Someone shouts “Go, Fred, go.”
Now it’s back to the outsider theme, but this time Thompson is more slick. The subject is the Iraq war, a conflict that Thompson has staunchly supported. “People talk about the last election. They say, ‘The war, the war, the war,’” Thompson says with a sigh. “I think it has to do more with corruption and spending than it did the war, and it’s understandable. Sad to say some of our folks went to Washington to drain the swamp and made partnership with the alligators instead.”
A minute later, Thompson offers what has now become a hallmark tease. “Maybe I can come back a little bit later in a different capacity and we can talk a little bit more about some of these issues.” The applause builds to a standing ovation. “You know, I had another comment or two,” Thompson says, “but I think that’s the perfect place to stop.”
Thompson sticks around for five minutes afterward to answer a few questions from reporters and pose for pictures with old ladies asking that a fence be built around America. I try to force him to improv a little by asking whether it was too late for him to mobilize a modern presidential campaign. But the man can hit his mark. “You know, they said that you had to raise $100 million this year to compete,” Thompson says as his aides try to get him to turn rightward toward the cameras. “Without raising a dime, I was in the pack. So I’ve already saved $50 million this year.” Then Thompson smiles and lopes toward the exit. The former actor is done shooting for the day.
Since announcing this spring that he was considering a presidential run, Fred Thompson has improbably jumped to the front of the line for the GOP nomination. In two mid-July polls, Thompson led Rudolph Giuliani by a point or two, and while other recent surveys show the former New York mayor in the lead, Thompson’s strength in key southern states, including the aforementioned South Carolina, has not gone unnoticed. This despite the fact that the famously laid-back Thompson has barely campaigned, forgoing the roll-up-your-sleeves-and-make-a-thousand-trips-to-Iowa strategy in favor of the odd Leno appearance and a YouTube jab at Michael Moore, in which he essentially told Moore that if he didn’t love America, he should leave it, and go to Cuba.
Photo: Daily News
So far, the Thompson bubble has floated skyward on several favorable updrafts. He’s the newest man in the race—and one with celebrity name recognition. He’s a Southerner and arguably the most conservative candidate in a field devoid of hard-liners. Despite his eight years in the Senate, people seem to buy the idea, for the time being anyway, that he’s a Washington outsider. And all of his opponents have significant liabilities. But then again, so does Thompson. Among them are his work ethic and authenticity.
Thompson is often compared to Ronald Reagan, not just because they are both actors, but also because of each man’s almost preternatural affability. But Reagan was an unalloyed ideologue when America was looking for one, with eight years as the chief executive of what amounts to one of the world’s largest countries. He wasn’t elected until his third campaign, when he defeated a weak Democratic incumbent. Fred Thompson is in a different place. If he’s going to be elected the leader of the Free World, he may have to do it on the strength of his not inconsiderable personal charm.
You can’t get to Fred Thompson’s hometown from here. Lawrenceburg, Tennessee, is located 28 miles from the nearest interstate. Its rolling hills are picturesquely dotted with pigs and cattle, but it remains one of the state’s poorest areas. “This town hasn’t been the same since the Yankees came in and opened the Murray bike factory,” says Tommy Beuerlein, who owns a downtown pharmacy and was a classmate of Thompson’s. The bike factory arrived in 1955. “Nixon was right about there being a silent majority in America,” Beuerlein proudly says. “It’s right here.”
On a recent summer day, eighteen people attended a city-council meeting dealing with the local problem of illegal dumping of couches. A few steps away, 71 residents, some of them as young as 9, attended a shotgun-safety class. “You have to respect your zone of fire,” insisted the instructor. “Vice-President Cheney didn’t respect his zone of fire, and look what happened.”
Much of Thompson’s down-home affability can be attributed to his roots in Lawrenceburg, where as a child he pretended to be Western star Lash LaRue and courted his high-school sweetheart underneath the town’s Davy Crockett statue (true story). But while Thompson may be a country boy, he’s a certain type of country boy: the one who plays possum while you mock his cornpone ways. Next thing you know he’s got your girl and holds the deed to your farm.
Thompson’s father, Fletch, ran a used-car lot in the center of town, and would talk Republican politics at the Blue Ribbon Café. Neither of Thompson’s parents attended high school (his father eventually earned a GED), and Fred, the first of two sons, proved to be an indifferent but popular student. Even as a kid, Fred had a flair for showmanship. One of the building blocks of the Thompson legend is the story of his concerned football coach’s running onto the field to check on an injured Thompson. When coach Garner Ezell reached his player, Thompson smiled at his fellow Church of Christ parishioner and quipped, “How’s the crowd takin’ it?”
“Fred said it,” says Ezell. “But he wasn’t ever hurt. He was just tired and wanted a rest.”
Even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut, and Thompson has always seemed to have a way of stumbling into success. By all accounts, Thompson’s work ethic kicked in at 17, when he got his sweetheart Sarah Lindsey pregnant and immediately proposed. “I barely got out of high school,” Thompson told the Washington Post in 1985. “I was interested in two things—and sports was one of them.”
Because of his marriage, Thompson didn’t play sports his senior year, and he put in long shifts at the bike factory to support his new family. The following fall, the newlyweds headed to nearby Florence State, now the University of North Alabama, before transferring to Memphis State, from which they both graduated. Sarah’s grandfather was an influential Lawrenceburg lawyer, and her family urged Thompson to apply to Vanderbilt Law School. After graduating, the couple moved back to Lawrenceburg, and Thompson practiced law with Sarah’s uncle and began dabbling in local GOP politics, eventually joining the county’s Republican Executive Committee. It was through that group that Thompson caught the eye of another accidental benefactor, Tennessee senator Howard Baker. Thompson worked on Baker’s 1972 reelection, sometimes driving the senator around Tennessee, and the two men struck up a friendship.
By the next year, Watergate was everywhere. And while Yale and Harvard up-and-comers like Hillary Clinton and Bill Weld clawed for minor legal positions, Baker offered Thompson a coveted slot as minority counsel on the Senate Watergate Committee.
Photo: Brett Flashnick/AP
In 1975, Thompson wrote about the experience in his book At That Point in Time: The Inside Story of the Senate Watergate Committee, portraying himself as the picture of the awestruck country lawyer. He insists when Baker offered him the job in February of 1973, “the only names I could recall without prompting were Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy.”
Because it was a Republican investigator who had uncovered the fact that Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield had admitted that the White House featured an elaborate taping system, Baker insisted that a Republican cross-examine Butterfield the next day so the GOP could maintain the illusion of impartiality—and take credit. On national television, Thompson asked Butterfield the now famous line, “Are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the president?” Butterfield famously answered yes (as everyone already knew he would). It was Thompson’s first star turn, a role that marked him in America’s minds as a righteous heavyweight prosecutor.
Thompson’s own book suggests he wasn’t exactly an impartial participant in the proceedings, however. He admits to leaking the news about the Butterfield discovery to Nixon’s lawyers without authorization. Transcripts from the Nixon Tapes also suggest Thompson was at least partially in Nixon’s pocket. As the Watergate Committee prepared to call Nixon aide John Dean, Nixon lawyer J. Fred Buzhardt coached Thompson on how to question Dean. Buzhardt told Nixon, “I found Thompson most cooperative, feeling more Republican every day.” The next day, Nixon Chief of Staff Alexander Haig reported to the president, “He [Thompson] thinks we’re in good shape.” Of course, they were not. Not long after, Dean became the first Nixon aide to directly tie the president to the break-in and cover-up. But Thompson’s reputation as a plain-speaking crusader for truth and justice had already been made.
Thompson’s acting career also happened by accident. After parlaying his Watergate fame into big speaking fees and the start of a lucrative lobbying career (his clients included Westinghouse and the Tennessee savings-and-loans industry), Thompson returned to private practice in Tennessee. There, he wound up representing Marie Ragghianti, the head of the Tennessee Parole Board who was fired by Democratic governor Ray Blanton for exposing a parole-for-sale scheme. Ragghianti sued for wrongful dismissal, and Thompson won the case. Serpico author Peter Maas wrote a book about Ragghianti’s story that was eventually optioned as a movie with Sissy Spacek slated to play the title role.
According to Thompson lore, director Roger Donaldson had to plead with Thompson to audition to play himself. “The idea of him playing himself was reached,” Donaldson told the Nashville Tennessean in May of this year. “And so I said to Fred, ‘Would you be interested at having a go at playing yourself?’ He was like, ‘Shucks, do you think I could do that?’ I said, ‘You never know until you try.’”
However, back in 1985, when the movie was made, Thompson freely admitted he’d lobbied Donaldson hard until he scored an audition. Although the film wasn’t especially successful, Thompson received raves, including one that described him as the movie’s “real discovery.”
Bored with the law and in the process of getting a divorce from Lindsey, Thompson started work on a novel and began going on auditions. The book was never published, but within a few years, Thompson had become a Hollywood go-to guy for gruff government types, eventually playing a CIA director in No Way Out and a navy admiral in The Hunt for Red October. Most of his parts didn’t take long to film, so Thompson kept his hand in the lobbying game. Tennessee insiders tried to persuade Thompson to run for the retiring Baker’s seat in 1984, but he declined, quipping to the Washington Post, “the hassle factor is up and the pay is not.”
The day after his South Carolina speech in June, Thompson headed to New Hampshire for a bit of packaged politicking to be chronicled by the home team. With rare exceptions, Thompson has limited his media exposure to reliably conservative outlets like The Weekly Standard, Sean Hannity, and Fox News. This morning, Fox had the exclusive.
The first stop was Riley’s gun shop, the largest rifle-and-pistol joint in New Hampshire. A few minutes after noon, two black SUVs barreled down the two-lane blacktop and were waved into the parking lot by a Thompson aide. The cars emptied, and Thompson emerged with Jeri. Thompson’s blue suit was a torrent of wrinkles—he conjured up ’60 Nixon more than ’80 Reagan. His better half looked, well, better in a smart black suit that seemed a slight bit of overkill for a gun-and-ammo stop. They held hands and walked up a wheelchair-accessible ramp into Riley’s, where two or three customers idly chatted with the help about the stability of this or that rifle scope.
Photo: JP Laffont/Sygma/Corbis
Thompson glanced around at the 4,000 guns, and strode toward an employee. “I’ve been looking into your record, and I’m really looking forward to you getting into the race,” said Robert Brown, a 34-year-old salesman. Thompson beamed, pumped his hand, and told him, “We need to get back to basics.”
Fred and Jeri then made a loop of the store, pausing before a glass display case that could be used to showcase engagement rings. Here at Riley’s, it housed a dozen glimmering Saturday night specials. Thompson lovingly nudged his spouse and tilted his noggin toward a coal-black .38 Smith & Wesson and cooed, “Honey, would you like one of those?”
On the way out, I tried again to get Thompson to veer off-script. I jokingly asked him if he had more experience hunting than does Romney, who had been lampooned for saying he hunted varmints. As in a bad movie, time stopped for a second as I realized I’d just set foot on a land mine of my own laying. Jeri beamed, and Fred halted his walk back to the car. He shot a look at the camera crews—Fox had sent two—and waited a second for everyone to settle in again. This is why they made the visit: It was time to contrast the man’s man Thompson with his effete competitors.
“I’ve got a little different eating habits,” joked Thompson. “I’ve hunted pheasants, and I like to skeet shoot. We’d hold a celebrity skeet-shooting contest in Washington, raise money for juvenile diabetes. Now, I’ve held it, I’ve never won it. They couldn’t slow those things down enough for me.”
The Fox crew nodded appreciatively. A moment later, the SUVs peeled away. The whole stop lasted far shorter than an episode of Law & Order, and was just as well-directed.
Thompson changed his mind about the Senate in 1993, when Al Gore was elected vice-president and his seat became open. Thompson’s opponent was Congressman Jim Cooper, a moderate Democrat and the son of a former governor. At first, the candidates projected similar images of dark-suited blandness. “I remember an early event at the Peabody hotel in Memphis,” says Mike Kopp, Cooper’s press secretary. “Cooper was a black hole of charisma: He didn’t have any, and he’d suck up yours. But Fred didn’t come across as exactly electric.”
In May 1994, Thompson trailed badly and talked of quitting. Frustrated, he called Knoxville political consultant Tom Ingram, who had masterminded Lamar Alexander’s 1978 election as Tennessee governor. Alexander wasn’t Mr. Personality either, but he caught fire when Ingram put him in a plaid shirt and had him walk across the state (a tactic, it’s worth noting, that later bombed when Alexander ran for president). Thompson and Ingram met at a Cracker Barrel restaurant halfway between Nashville and Knoxville. “He was talking of getting out, and I asked him how’d he want to do this,” remembers Ingram. “Fred said, ‘Just driving around talking to people.’ I said, ‘Well, let’s get you a truck and do it.’”
Although some of his campaign staff protested the move as cheesy, they leased Thompson a red Chevy pickup and he hit the road. Cooper attempted to paint Thompson as phony, calling him a “Gucci-wearing, Lincoln-driving, Perrier-drinking, Grey Poupon–spreading millionaire Washington special-interest lobbyist.” But voters loved the truck. They didn’t seem to mind that the candidate often switched from a sedan to the truck just miles from his appearances. “We couldn’t believe anyone was buying it,” says Kopp. “We underestimated him. What we didn’t get is that Fred is the country version of a street kid. He’s been talking his way out of situations since he was in high school. He’s a charmer. People fall for it.”
Kopp and Ingram are friends, and Kopp expresses admiration for the consultant’s work. “Fred Thompson was miscast at the beginning of the race,” Kopp says. “So Tom just recast the role, and Fred Thompson played it perfectly.”
Ingram disagrees. “The reason the truck worked is that that is Fred Thompson. Gimmicks fail in campaigns all the time because they don’t ring true. Yeah, Fred is a lawyer and an actor, but he is also a country guy. People sense that.”
Thompson ended up winning by twenty points, partially aided by the Gingrich sweep of 1994. He drove the red truck to Washington where his old boss Baker threw a raucous party for him. According to The Washington Monthly, a gleeful Thompson mentioned that the craziness made him think of the party his fellow Tennessean Andrew Jackson had at the White House on the night of his inauguration.
“One office at a time,” cautioned Baker.
A few hours after the Riley’s stop in Manchester, Thompson reappeared for a fund-raiser at Bedford’s Wayfarer Inn, a hotel known for decades as a base for reporters boozing their way through the New Hampshire primaries. On this 90-degree summer scorcher, the air-conditioning in the small conference room where Thompson was supposed to greet high rollers was on the fritz. Not even Jeri’s perky smile and repeated recanting of “Hi, I’m Jeri, and I’m your official greeter tonight” could relieve the torpor.
After 45 minutes, Thompson emerged, covered in sweat and looking dangerously gray. For a moment, a “What the hell have I got myself into?” look crossed his face. There was another, less exclusive fund-raiser just down the hall, packed with TV cameras (the Fox exclusive had been lifted), but Thompson bargained for some down time. “Give me five minutes,” he asked. He didn’t look like a man in game shape.
Twenty minutes later, a car drove him to the other side of the hotel, either to make his entrance grander or to save him the two-minute walk. After a brief introduction, Thompson took the microphone and talked about terrorism. He spoke in a reassuring, fatherly voice. “We’re confronted with a group of people who killed thousands of our people and would like nothing more than to get their hands on technology to kill millions,” Thompson said. “They’re getting ready to resume a war that’s been going on for hundreds of years, and they have another hundred-year plan. Some of our leaders got a plan for the next election,” he continued, presumably referring to those leaders who want to pull out of Iraq. “And they think they can win votes out of it.” As a policy idea, it wasn’t what one would call a breakthrough, nor was it much of an applause line. When Thompson talks about issues, his speeches tend to lose focus and drift.
But when the speech ended and the music blared, Thompson got in the Country Fred groove. He was doing the walk and talk, where he is most successful. “Keep your powder dry,” Thompson told his fans. He paused mid-mob to answer a Franklin Pierce College poli-sci student’s question about entitlements. This time it was a TV reporter who ventured an unsanctioned question, asking Thompson whether he was a lazy man. Thompson didn’t get angry; he just laughed. “That’s what they said about me before I ran the first time, and that’s what they said about me two years later,” he replied. “I won the first time by twenty points, and 21 points the second time. If you can do that while being lazy, I recommend it to everyone.”
the greatest testament to the power of Fred Thompson’s down-home likability might be that his Senate years were widely viewed as a train wreck, yet he emerged not only unscathed but also as a presidential contender.
Things started auspiciously enough. Because Thompson had been elected to fill Gore’s unexpired term, he was sworn in a month before other freshmen senators on December 9, 1994. Republicans didn’t waste any time putting the actor in front of the cameras. On December 15, Thompson gave the Republicans’ response to President Clinton’s budget address. Thompson spoke for only five minutes, but he struck a chord. A STAR IS BORN read the headline of Frank Rich’s New York Times column.
But that would be the high point. Thompson spent the next two years accomplishing almost nothing of significance other than raising money for his 1996 reelection: Thompson brought back the red truck and won in a walk.
While Bill Clinton easily trounced Bob Dole in that year’s presidential race, allegations surfaced that the Chinese government had funneled money into the Clinton campaign and that Al Gore had attended a fund-raiser at a Los Angeles Buddhist temple financed by foreign nationals. Thompson, chairman of the previously backwaterish Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which had jurisdiction, called for hearings.
In the weeks leading up to the hearings that July, the papers were filled with stories of Thompson’s Watergate role and his prosecutorial flair. The Democrats’ ranking minority member was John Glenn, and the conventional wisdom was that Thompson would charm the octogenarian into submission. It didn’t happen. Thompson condescended to Glenn and alienated members of his own party. When New Hampshire Republican Bob Smith announced in his opening statement, “It is probably the biggest scandal in the history of the Republic,” Thompson turned to the Democratic side, rolled his eyes, and muttered, “Jesus Christ.”
In 2005, Thompson donated his Senate papers to the University of Tennessee. Some of his archives are filled with notes of off-the-record interviews Thompson conducted with reporters during his Senate years. In his papers, Thompson complains about the trouble he had managing his colleagues during the 1996 hearings. He speaks of “members on your [own] side, grilling your team to a point where [you have to] get them to a room, woodshed them, [on] how to ask questions, how to proceed.”
Thompson was also accused of grandstanding, and his relationship with then Republican Senate leaders Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell quickly soured. Soon Thompson was warring with both sides. “[We have] presidents at fund-raisers, Lott [saying] raising money is the American Way, [and] McConnell [is the] Darth Vader of Reform,” Thompson says in one of the off-the-record sessions found in his archives.
Thompson’s hearings grew even more unpopular with his own party when he diverted the proceedings to the subject of campaign-finance reform (Senate Republicans opposed such reform for fear of losing hard-won fund-raising advantages). Lott was furious, and Thompson suspected the majority leader was the anonymous author of quotes criticizing the hearings.
The senator further angered conservatives by becoming an early supporter of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform legislation. Although Thompson has recently tried to minimize his enthusiasm for the bill, his Senate papers include a handwritten note from Senator Russell Feingold after the measure passed the Senate in 2001 reading, “You were essential to our success from the outset!”
Thompson’s Senate years also featured a level of sympathy for Bill Clinton that conservatives don’t tend to share. In 1995, Thompson’s archives show, he sent Clinton a note after the State of the Union address that partially read, “The speech probably would not have seemed so long to some of us if you hadn’t been putting the wood to us so effectively.” Thompson’s 1999 split vote on Clinton’s two counts of impeachment squared with one of his off-the-record sessions in 1998, when he told reporters, “I’m prejudiced in his favor, I object to the tactics used against him.” This didn’t stop Thompson from sending Kenneth Starr a congratulations letter at the end of the Clinton saga.
Thompson may blast colleagues for not draining the Washington swamp, but he did his share of feeding the alligators. His papers include ingratiating notes to George Will, Arianna Huffington, and Washington Post publisher Katharine Graham. There’s a mash note from Bruce Willis (“You were great in Die Hard”) and a letter from Oliver Stone thanking Thompson for brokering an interview with Martin Luther King Jr. assassin James Earl Ray.
Thompson’s off-the-record chats with reporters also suggest that his claim that he hasn’t given much thought to running for president might be somewhat disingenuous (his campaign has attempted to make a virtue of the fact that Thompson, unlike his competitors, isn’t obsessed with power). During one 1998 off-the-record bull session, Thompson boasted to a reporter, “Al Gore goes to bed at night and says, ‘Please don’t let it be Fred Dalton Thompson.’”
As a senator and movie star of a certain age, Thompson was a steadily sought-after D.C. bachelor. He alternately dated Lorrie Morgan, a five-times-married country-music star, Republican pollster Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, former Time columnist Margaret Carlson, and Washington socialite Georgette Mosbacher. “I chased a lot of women, and a lot of women chased me,” Thompson told Republican congressmen earlier this year. “And those that chased me tended to catch me.”
Thompson’s relationships with the Washington elite, romantic and otherwise, have paid significant dividends. This March, Carlson talked up Thompson’s presidential possibilities on MSNBC, rhapsodizing, “He’s handsome, he’s charming, he sounds like a president, and he looks like a president.” She didn’t disclose their prior personal relationship.
Thompson scored more gravitas points last month when Washington Post columnist and socialite Sally Quinn breathlessly wrote that Vice-President Dick Cheney was on his way out and should be replaced by, yes, Fred Thompson. “Everybody loves Fred,” Quinn wrote. “He has the healing qualities of Gerald Ford and the movie-star appeal of Ronald Reagan.” For what it’s worth, they both appeared in the 1994 remake of Born Yesterday.
Talking about his Senate years in July, Thompson said, “When I served eight years, I left. I was following George Washington’s model of serving eight years, getting on his horse, and never coming back.”
It’s only partially true. After 9/11, Thompson announced he would seek reelection the next year. But in January 2002, Thompson’s daughter Betsy died of an accidental drug overdose, ending a long, troubled life. In March, Thompson withdrew his candidacy and sharply criticized the media coverage of Betsy’s death. “I simply do not have the heart for another six years,” he said at the time.
A few months before he left office, Thompson received a call. This time, his career angel was Law & Order creator Dick Wolf, who offered him the role of Arthur Branch over the phone. He immediately accepted. Thompson kept his hand in the lobbying game in 2004 by taking on Equitas Ltd., a British reinsurer responsible for paying out millions in asbestos claims. Equitas wanted Senate legislation that would limit its liability and paid Thompson $760,000 over the next three years. He also serves as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and in 2005 help shepherd Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts through his Senate confirmation hearings.
In 2002, Thompson married Jeri. The couple met in 1995 (Jeri was a Republican spokesperson at the time) on the Nashville yacht of Dale Gish, on the Fourth of July. Their relationship was on and off for years, with Kehn memorably complaining about other rivals to the New York Post in 2000. “They just won’t leave him alone,” she said. “I can’t get up to get a cocktail at a party without coming back and finding some girl sitting in my chair.” Fred and Jeri have since had two children, Hayden and an 8-month-old son named Samuel.
Last November, Thompson said he wouldn’t run for president, telling a political dinner-party gathering, “I would have had to start two years ago if I was going to run. I don’t think I’d ever want to jump back in.”
But with Giuliani, McCain, and Romney appearing vulnerable, Howard Baker began making calls around Washington to gauge the interest for a late-entering telegenic southern senator.
Or so the story goes. Some Republican insiders say it is Jeri who is fanning Thompson’s presidential aspirations. While Ingram won’t confirm that, he does say Jeri played an influential role in the handling of her husband’s April announcement that he had non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but is now in remission. The move was seen as a way of clearing the decks for a Thompson presidential run. “He relies on her,” Ingram says. “They’re definitely partners.”
To some, Jeri has already become a target. MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough mused, “You think she works the pole?” and the New York Times “Styles” section raised the question of whether America was ready for a trophy-wife First Lady.
After getting the high sign from Thompson, Ingram began talking up a Thompson candidacy on Capitol Hill, where Ingram now works as Lamar Alexander’s chief of staff. “I was at the Capitol Hill Club at Bill Hecht’s table,” recalls Ingram, name-dropping the presence of a prominent Republican lobbyist. “Congressmen and lobbyists were coming up to me, and they were all really excited. It’s the closest thing to a presidential draft in my lifetime,” Ingram insists. I asked him whether the well-heeled well-wishers were familiar with Thompson from his Senate days. He hemmed and hawed a bit. “Well no, they mostly know him more from Law & Order than the Senate, but Fred’s not acting on the show. That’s exactly the way Fred was in his Senate office.”
Now comes the hard part. With Thompson all but officially in the race, the media has begun training its sights on his backside. First, the Times dissected the political-consulting careers of Thompson’s two sons and mentioned the payments totaling $170,000 from Thompson’s political action committee to his son Daniel. Then Thompson’s previously noble Watergate image took a hit in the Boston Globe when Scott Armstrong, a man Thompson had labeled a leaker 30 years ago, exacted a measure of revenge by calling Thompson a Nixon “mole.”
The most damaging allegation was a Los Angeles Times story claiming that Thompson lobbied the first Bush White House in 1991 on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, a pro-choice organization. At first, Thompson’s people denied it. Then they said he didn’t remember it. On day three, Sean Hannity, quickly b | 0 | train |
|
Op-ed by President Obama: President Obama Reflects on the Impact of Title IX The full text of the op-ed by President Barack Obama is printed below. The piece was published today in Newsweek.
President Obama Reflects on the Impact of Title IX
By President Obama
Coaching my daughter Sasha’s basketball team is one of those times when I just get to be “Dad.” I snag rebounds, run drills, and have a little fun. More importantly, I get to watch Sasha and her teammates improve together, start thinking like a team, and develop self-confidence.
Any parent knows there are few things more fulfilling than watching your child discover a passion for something. And as a parent, you’ll do anything to make sure he or she grows up believing she can take that ambition as far as she wants; that your child will embrace that quintessentially American idea that she can go as far as her talents will take her.
But it wasn’t so long ago that something like pursuing varsity sports was an unlikely dream for young women in America. Their teams often made do with second-rate facilities, hand-me-down uniforms, and next to no funding.
What changed? Well, 40 years ago, committed women from around the country, driven by everyone who said they couldn’t do something, worked with Congress to ban gender discrimination in our public schools. Title IX was the result of their efforts, and this week, we celebrated its 40th anniversary—40 years of ensuring equal education, in and out of the classroom, regardless of gender.
I was reminded of this milestone last month, when I awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Pat Summitt. When she started out as a basketball coach, Pat drove the team van to away games. She washed the uniforms in her own washing machine. One night she and her team even camped out in an opponent’s gym because they had no funding for a hotel. But she and her players kept their chins up and their heads in the game. And in 38 years at the University of Tennessee, Pat won eight national championships and tallied more than 1,000 wins—the most by any college coach, man or woman. More important, every single woman who ever played for Pat has either graduated or is on her way to a degree.
Today, thanks in no small part to the confidence and determination they developed through competitive sports and the work ethic they learned with their teammates, girls who play sports are more likely to excel in school. In fact, more women as a whole now graduate from college than men. This is a great accomplishment—not just for one sport or one college or even just for women but for America. And this is what Title IX is all about.
Let’s not forget, Title IX isn’t just about sports. From addressing inequality in math and science education to preventing sexual assault on campus to fairly funding athletic programs, Title IX ensures equality for our young people in every aspect of their education. It’s a springboard for success: it’s thanks in part to legislation like Title IX that more women graduate from college prepared to work in a much broader range of fields, including engineering and technology. I’ve said that women will shape the destiny of this country, and I mean it. The more confident, empowered women who enter our boardrooms and courtrooms, legislatures, and hospitals, the stronger we become as a country.
And that is what we are seeing today. Women are not just taking a seat at the table or sitting at the head of it, they are creating success on their own terms. The women who grew up with Title IX now pioneer scientific breakthroughs, run thriving businesses, govern states, and, yes, coach varsity teams. Because they do, today’s young women grow up hearing fewer voices that tell them “You can’t,” and more voices that tell them “You can.”
We have come so far. But there’s so much farther we can go. There are always more barriers we can break and more progress we can make. As president, I’ll do my part to keep Title IX strong and vibrant, and maintain our schools as doorways of opportunity so every child has a fair shot at success. And as a dad, I’ll do whatever it takes to make sure that this country remains the place where, no matter who you are or what you look like, you can make it if you try. | 0 | train |
|
Q&A: Did slaves build the White House? Construction on the President's House began in 1792 in Washington, D.C., a new capital situated in sparsely settled region far from a major population center. The decision to place the capital on land ceded by two pro-slavery states-Virginia and Maryland-ultimately influenced the acquisition of laborers to construct its public buildings. The D.C. commissioners, charged by Congress with building the new city under the direction of the president, initially planned to import workers from Europe to meet their labor needs. However, response to recruitment was dismal and soon they turned to African Americans—both enslaved and free—to provide the bulk of labor that built the White House, the United States Capitol, and other early government buildings. | 0 | train |
|
Bientôt de retour DÉSOLÉ SORRY
LE SITE INTERNET REVIENT DANS LES PLUS BREFS DÉLAIS. THE WEBSITE WILL BE BACK ONLINE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. | 1 | train |
|
'This Week' Transcript: Holder and Giuliani TAPPER: Good morning, and a happy Mother's Day to all the moms watching. We'll begin with a Sunday first, Attorney General Eric Holder. Welcome to "This Week."
HOLDER: It's good to be here.
TAPPER: Well, let's start with the latest on the investigation into the failed Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad. What's the latest?
HOLDER: Well, we've now developed evidence that shows that the Pakistani Taliban was behind the attack. We know that they helped facilitate it. We know that they probably helped finance it and that he was working at their direction.
TAPPER: Is there any evidence that there's a cell that Shahzad was working with in the United States? Or was it just him operating from directions from Pakistan?
HOLDER: All I can really say is that the investigation is ongoing and we are examining overseas connections that he might have, as well as any people he might have worked with here in the United States. But the investigation's ongoing in both those spheres.
TAPPER: In the last few days, U.S. officials have met with Pakistani officials, and the message, as conveyed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on "60 Minutes" is this.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: We want more. We expect more. We've made it very clear that if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: What would those consequences be? And what more do you need the Pakistanis to be doing, the Pakistani government, beyond increased military action in North Waziristan, where the Pakistani Taliban is primarily located?
HOLDER: Well, in connection with the Shahzad investigation, they had been, I think, extremely aggressive, they've been cooperative with us, and I think we have been satisfied with the work that they have done. We want to make sure that kind of cooperation continues. To the extent that it does not, we will, as Secretary Clinton indicated, take the appropriate steps. But as of now, with regard to Shahzad, I think we're satisfied with the level of cooperation we've received.
TAPPER: Did the Pakistani government know about Shahzad before this happened? And did they tell the U.S. government at all anything about that?
HOLDER: We don't have any indication that the Pakistani government was aware of his plans or the attack that was planned by the Pakistani Taliban. We don't have any indication of that.
TAPPER: OK, Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud of the Pakistani -- Pakistani Taliban appeared in a video last month saying the time is very near when a Fedayeen, or soldiers, will attack the American states in the major cities. At the time that he issued that warning, U.S. policymakers didn't think the Pakistani Taliban had the ability to reach into the United States. They were, obviously, wrong?
HOLDER: Well, I'm not sure that we didn't think they had that ability. We didn't think that necessarily was their aim. We certainly have seen with the Shahzad incident that they have not only the aim, but the capability of doing that. And that's why they have taken on, I think, a new significance in our anti-terror fight.
TAPPER: Shahzad was on a Treasury Department watch list since the late 1990s for bringing large sums of cash into this country. He was taken off that watch list. Did the U.S. government drop the ball?
HOLDER: No, I don't think so. I think we have done a good job in monitoring those people who we need to identify as potential threats to the, you know, government, and I think one has to understand that in connection with the -- the resolution of this plot, American law enforcement I think was very successful.
TAPPER: More than 200,000 people from the U.S. traveled to Pakistan last year. How on Earth do you keep track of which ones intend to do us harm?
HOLDER: It is a difficult job. We have to try to use the various intelligence sources that we have, try to look for telltale signs for who we should be concerned about.
The vast majority of people who go to Pakistan and come from Pakistan to the United States are well intentioned. They have relatives. They have cultural ties to both countries. So we have to really try to focus and make sure that our attention is directed at those people who would do our nation harm.
TAPPER: There have been reports that others arrested this year in terrorist plots in the United States had traveled to Pakistan. Are there any ties with Shahzad?
HOLDER: Well, the investigation's ongoing. And we're looking at a variety of things to try to make sure that we hold everybody accountable who was responsible for this attempted attack. I think the investigation is proceeding at a good pace. We have developed, I think, a good amount of information in a relatively short period of time, but we will be continuing to work on it.
TAPPER: There was a time when the FBI and law enforcement lost track of Shahzad after the attempted incident, before he got on the plane. What happened?
HOLDER: Well, we lost contact with him for just a bit of time, but I think what people have to understand is that we had a layered approach so that at the end of the day I think we were always confident that he would be picked up, and the question was only where he would be picked up and when he would be picked up.
A surveillance was conducted, but we wanted to have him at a fairly good distance so that we could observe him and see if he would make contact with other people who were connected to the plot. Contact was lost for a relatively short period of time.
TAPPER: How long? An hour?
HOLDER: Oh, I don't know, about an hour, so maybe something along those lines. But what was key and what ultimately proved to be successful was this layered approach. He was caught before he was able to leave the country.
TAPPER: But he almost got out, right? I mean, we got lucky in a few ways. First of all, let's be honest: The reason that we avoided a horrible incident is because he was apparently an incompetent bomb- maker, right?
HOLDER: Well, there certainly was a bit of that, but I think also one has to look at the overall operation. He was stopped before he was able to leave the country because of a notification that the FBI made to put him on the no-fly list. We also had vigilant citizens who looked at that vehicle that he left and saw the smoke coming out and notified the appropriate authorities.
This was, in some ways, I think, a good example of what an aroused American populace, coupled with a vigilant law enforcement community, can actually do.
TAPPER: Critics say that he should not have been -- some critics say he should not have been his Miranda rights, the right to remain silent, et cetera. Now, I know that the public safety exception was invoked, so before he was read his rights, he was interrogated. But does the current Miranda system, which was created before I was born and was updated, this public safety exception, in 1984 -- so none of the crafters were really aware of this plot, this threat that we face today.
Does it give you the flexibility you need?
HOLDER: Well, that's one of the things that we're looking at. I think we have to first say that the system that we have in place has proven to be effective. We have used our law enforcement authorities that we have as they now exist very effectively. People have been given Miranda warnings. People have continued to talk, as was the case here, as was the case with Abdulmutallab in Detroit.
But I think we also want to look at make determinations as to whether or not we have the necessary flexibility, whether we have a system that can deal with the situation that agents now confront. The public safety exception comes from a case called Quarles that dealt with a -- the robbery of a -- of a supermarket.
We're now dealing with international terrorism. And if we are going to have a system that is capable of dealing in a public safety context with this new threat, I think we have to give serious consideration to at least modifying that public safety exception. And that's one of the things that I think we're going to be reaching out to Congress to do, to come up with a proposal that is both constitutional, but that is also relevant to our time and the threat that we now face.
TAPPER: What kind of modification are you talking about, more time for the -- for investigation before the Miranda rights are read or what?
HOLDER: Well, I think a number of possibilities, and those are the kinds of things that we'll be discussing with Congress, to make sure that we are as effective as we can be, that agents are clear in what it is that they can do and interacting with people in this context, so we're going to be working with Congress so that we come up with something that, as I said, gives the necessary clarity, is flexible, but is also constitutional, is also constitutional.
TAPPER: Senator Joe Lieberman and some others introduced legislation this past week which would give the State Department the right to strip the U.S. citizenship from anyone who is designated a foreign terrorist agent. I understand the administration does not support this and thinks that there are constitutional issues, but there's a point that Senator Lieberman made about the fact that President Obama currently has the authority -- at least according to Lieberman, who's the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee -- to order the assassination of a U.S. citizen, the cleric Awlaki, and -- well, this is what Senator Lieberman had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LIEBERMAN: If the president can authorize the killing of a United States citizen because he is fighting for a foreign terrorist organization, we can also have a law that allows the U.S. government to revoke Awlaki's citizenship and that of other American citizens who have cast their lot with terrorist organizations.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Isn't there a strange double-standard here? The administration gets all offended about revoking, you know, terrorist suspects' citizenship, but feels no compunction at all about ordering their assassination?
HOLDER: Well, I'm not going to assume that what has been said there about ordering anybody's assassination is necessarily true. But with regard to the bill that Senator Lieberman is potentially talking about, that's not something I had a chance to really review. There are potential constitutional issues with it, as I've seen some critics discuss. I've not had a chance, as I said, to review it in any great detail, but I think what people have to understand is that the system we presently have in place takes terrorists and can put them in jail for extended periods of time. We can put people in jail fro the rest of their lives. We can even execute people under the law as it presently exists, and one has to wonder whether we need to go further than that.
TAPPER: I want to turn to a couple of other topics. You and the White House have been proud of the improved review process for the release or transfer of detainees from Guantanamo, and in fact, writing of those detainees who had been released and who have returned to terrorism, White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan wrote in February, quote, "I want to underscore the fact that all these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process," but in fact there are reports that a detainee released by the Obama administration in December into Afghanistan, Abdul Hafeez (ph), has rejoined the Taliban. Did this review process fail?
HOLDER: I've seen this story. I've not seen the intelligence necessarily that confirms that. I don't think -- one has to understand that the process that we've put in place, of the 240 prisoners who were in Guantanamo when we took office, was exhaustible. It involved the law enforcement community, it involved the intelligence community. We took into account all of the information we had on each one of those people, did an analysis of each of them, and made a determination as to who potentially was a threat. Only put people in countries where we thought structures could be in place, put in place so that they would not be a threat--
TAPPER: What structure could possibly exist in Afghanistan?
HOLDER: Well, that's one of the reason why, for instance, with regard to Yemen, the president has made a determination that we're going to suspend the repatriation of people to Yemen to make sure that we don't take anybody out of Guantanamo and put them in a country where they could pose a threat to the United States or to American military forces.
TAPPER: But you're not going to confirm that Abdul Hafeez has rejoined the fight against the United States.
HOLDER: I am not in a position to confirm that. As I said, I've not seen any intelligence that corroborates that.
TAPPER: OK. Last fall, you announced that the trial of the century against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters would take place in New York City, but it seems to me that that's walked back by the White House. Here is what you had to say about the president's response to your announcement of the trial last fall to PBS.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
HOLDER: He has a personal belief that the president is supposed to be hands off with his Justice Department, and those things that are the province of the attorney general, all he needs to be is informed.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: This doesn't seem to be the case any longer. Are you disappointed that the White House seems to be politicizing the decisions you make about the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
HOLDER: I don't think the decision has been politicized at all. This is a national security matter, and I think it's appropriate for the president to be involved in that decision. We are working to see exactly where the trial will be held. Nothing is really off the table at this point. We are trying to come up with a place where these people can be brought to justice as quickly as we can, taking into consideration a variety of things that we have to consider. And I think in that regard, the involvement of the president, given the fact that it is a national security matter, as opposed to something else the Justice Department might be doing, his involvement I think is appropriate.
TAPPER: You've said we're a nation of cowards because we don't talk freely and openly about race. So in that spirit, let me give it a shot. Do you think the Arizona immigration law is racist?
HOLDER: Well, I don't think it's necessarily a good idea. I mean, I think we have to understand that the immigration problem that we have, illegal immigration problem that we have, is a national one, and a state-by-state solution to it is not the way in which we ought to go.
TAPPER: But your issue with it is not that it's state-by-state. Your issue with it is that there are concerns that there might be racial profiling that takes place, right?
HOLDER: That is certainly one of the concerns that you have, that you'll end up in a situation where people are racially profiled, and that could lead to a wedge drawn between certain communities and law enforcement, which leads to the problem of people in those communities not willing to interact with people in law enforcement, not willing to share information, not willing to be witnesses where law enforcement needs them. I think you have to think about the collateral consequences of such a law, understanding the frustration that people feel in Arizona. IT's one of the reasons why I think we have to have a national solution to this immigration problem.
TAPPER: Do you think it's racist?
HOLDER: I don't think it's racist in its motivation. But I think the concern I have is how it will be perceived and how it perhaps could be enacted, how it could be carried out. I think we could potentially get on a slippery slope where people will be picked on because of how they look as opposed to what they have done, and that is I think something that we have to try to avoid at all costs.
TAPPER: The oil company BP has a spotty record when it comes to cutting corners and, in some cases, worker safety. Are you looking into the oil spill in the gulf, possible criminal charges, and ways to make sure that these companies -- not just BP, but Halliburton and the others -- are held accountable?
HOLDER: Well, our primary concern at this point is to try to make sure that we keep that oil offshore, that we disperse it, that we scoop it up, that we burn it, that we do all those kinds of things so that it can't get to shore and do damage to our wetlands, damage businesses that are on the coast.
I've sent down representatives from the Justice Department to examine what our options are with regard to the activities that occurred there and whether or not there has been misfeasance, malfeasance on the part of BP or Oceana (ph).
So we're looking at that situation. But as I said, our primary focus at this point -- through our Department of Homeland Security, the Interior Department -- is really try to deal with the spill.
TAPPER: All right. That's all the time we have. Attorney General Eric Holder, thank you so much for coming by.
HOLDER: Well, thanks for having me. I appreciate it.
TAPPER: And joining me now from New York, former mayor and Republican presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Mayor, thanks so much for joining us.
GIULIANI: Well, thank you, Jake.
TAPPER: Now, you're a former U.S. attorney. If you had been in charge of this investigation, what -- into Faisal Shahzad, what would you do differently, if anything?
GIULIANI: Well, I would not have given him Miranda warnings after just a couple of hours of questioning. I would have instead declared him an enemy combatant, asked the president to do that, and at the same time, that would have given us the opportunity to question him for a much longer period of time. Whether it works in the case of Shahzad or it doesn't, the reality is, the better policy is to give the intelligence agents who are going to question him the maximum amount of time to question him, to check out the credibility of what he's saying.
I mean, I don't know yet what the truth is here. We shouldn't. I mean, I think too much has been leaked about this, and the administration has talked too much about it, because the more you talk about it, the more you warn people in the Taliban to go hide somewhere.
When I was a prosecutor and associate attorney general, the last thing in the world I wanted to do is to have the other side figure out, you know, the information we had before we had a chance to act on it. So the reality is, just to figure -- just to get these guys to tell the truth and then to corroborate how much they're saying and for them to remember, it's going to take three, four, five days of questioning.
To cut it off after 30 or 40 minutes like they did in Detroit on Christmas Day or to cut it off after two or three hours doesn't make much sense. And if they think they need to change the law, well, my goodness, have some urgency about it and go do it. Don't just think about it.
TAPPER: So you support what Attorney General Holder had to say about going to Congress and trying to get an updated Miranda warning?
GIULIANI: I do. I do. I support it, but I really at this point am frustrated by the lack of urgency that is shown about these terrorism matters. I mean, we've had three now where we've seen, you know, big breakdowns: Fort Hood, Christmas Day, and now -- and now this one.
It's about time that we stopped thinking about it and we stopped studying it. I don't know how often the attorney general said he was studying things. How about we stop studying and we start doing things, like we change Miranda, like we fix what appears to be a policy of political correctness in which we missed every signal that related to Major Hasan and promoted him in the military?
And here we missed some very big signals that Shahzad was giving us, going back to Pakistan, remaining there for five or six months, bringing in -- I've forgotten exactly how much cash he brought in from Pakistan, but I think it was something like $60,000...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: It was something like -- I think it was $80,000...
GIULIANI: Eighty thousand dollars in cash.
TAPPER: ... but it was several -- several years ago, yes.
GIULIANI: Yes, but that doesn't trigger an alarm, even several years ago?
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: ... triggered an alarm and he was...
GIULIANI: ... fix these things now instead of talking about them.
TAPPER: Apparently, it did trigger an alarm. He was put on a Treasury watch list, but I'm not sure what more could have been done after that.
GIULIANI: Well, don't you see a pattern here, Jake? And I'm not -- I'm just not talking about the Obama administration. I'm talking about our entire apparatus that has to be fixed. We missed the signals with -- with the -- the -- the bomber in -- in -- in Detroit. We missed the signals with Major Hasan. We missed the signals here.
Maybe we've got to say to ourselves, let's go back and fix all this, rather than study it, to see what we're going to do. We've been at this long enough now to stop studying and start doing things.
TAPPER: I want to talk about the fact that you think that Shahzad should be tried as an enemy combatant. Can you point to any time when a U.S. citizen was interrogated as an enemy combatant as opposed to in the criminal system where the result, the interrogation was more successful than apparently this interrogation is going? I mean, Attorney General Holder and other law enforcement officials say...
GIULIANI: Oh, sure.
TAPPER: ... this is going very well.
GIULIANI: Well, yes, that's OK. I like that. I'm glad it's going very well. And I've, you know, administered Miranda warnings probably 1,000 times, and sometimes they work and the person -- they worked to have the person keep -- keep talking. Sometimes the person stops talking. It depends on the reaction of the person. It's the matter of policy that concerns me.
This is not a smart thing to do. It doesn't make sense to interrupt a terrorist in the middle of his confessing and talking to you. I think even Attorney General Holder realizes that, which is why he wants to go to Congress and seem to get more time for that.
All I'm saying is, OK, do it. What they did in Detroit, in giving Major -- rather...
TAPPER: Abdulmutallab.
GIULIANI: ... Abdulmutabalab (sic) a -- a -- right, giving him a warning after -- after 30 minutes makes no sense. It makes no sense to do that. So, sure, it may work sometimes; it may not work other times. It's not the best policy to follow.
And so far, two in a row, we've gotten lucky. So let's not rely on luck. Let's rely on solid policy.
TAPPER: My understanding, during the Abdulmutallab incident, is that -- is that actually after about 50 minutes they had to take him to get medical care, and that's why he stopped talking then, because he actually -- his life was in danger. But be that as it may, I fear the point you're making.
I want to ask you a question about, in the trial of Richard Reid in 2003, Judge William Young said to Richard Reid in 2003, "You're not an enemy combatant. You're a terrorist. You're not a soldier in any war. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature. We do not negotiate with terrorists. We hunt them down one by one and bring them to justice."
That's a different attitude than the one you're talking about. Some people say that by making somebody like Shahzad, who is certainly less successful than several of the mobsters you put away, who did far more heinous things than Shahzad actually was able to accomplish, but were tried in a criminal court, they say that what you're proposing would elevate somebody like Shahzad.
GIULIANI: Well, that's absurd, of course. I mean, you get more rights as a civilian defendant than you do as an enemy combatant, so that's a matter of semantics. Maybe you're giving them more status in terms of semantics, but you're giving them less rights, which is really important.
I mean, look at this whole thing with Senator Lieberman's recommendation that citizenship be revoked and look at the reluctance of the attorney general to support that. It shows a sort of sense of, I don't know, not understanding the magnitude of the problem.
I mean, why shouldn't we revoke the citizenship of someone who's been designated the -- an agent of a foreign -- of a foreign power or an agent of a -- of a terrorist group? Of course we should. Of course we should be able to revoke it. And I'd be happy to test the constitutionality of that.
Instead we have an attorney general who's studying that, also. They're at war with us, and we're spending time studying what rights they have. This doesn't make much sense, Jake. We're worried more about the rights of the terrorists, it seems -- or at least pondering that -- more than we are urgency about actually curing some of these things that will keep us safe and not have us rely on luck, which is how we got -- got through these last two ones.
TAPPER: We only have a little bit more time. I want to just get your reaction to what happened in Utah yesterday where Senator Bob Bennett, conservative Republican, lost his party primary. Are you worried at all that the Republican Party is not only growing more hostile to more liberal to moderate Republicans such as yourself, but also conservative Republicans who are shown to -- at least shown an ability to work with Democrats?
GIULIANI: No, I don't think so. I think the reality is that the Republican Party is very much based on its core principles. I think it's operating from its core principles. And I think that at this point, you know, President Obama has pushed the envelope so far that Republican Party wants to have candidates who are going to be -- be effective in standing up to the administration's inexorable march toward European social democracy.
I mean, I -- I see an administration that both in terms of economics and in terms of foreign policy, national security, seems to be moving us in the direction of European social democracy, with government taking over large segments of our -- of our economy, from car companies to banks to the energy industry, which they're trying to do, their health care industry, regulated in a minute (ph) way, the way the social democracies will -- which largely have failed in Europe -- have been doing now for -- you know, for several generations.
TAPPER: All right. Unfortunately...
GIULIANI: We need Republicans who are ideologically committed to standing up against that and really moving us in a different direction. I think that's what you see going on with the Tea Party movement. I think that's what you see going on in these -- in these elections.
TAPPER: All right, wonderful. Thank you so much, Mayor Giuliani. That's all the time we have.
GIULIANI: Thank you, Jake. Always nice to talk to you.
TAPPER: Appreciate it. Nice talking to you, sir.
The roundtable is next with George Will, Robin Wright, Shelby Steele, and John Podesta. And later, the Sunday funnies.
TAPPER: Scenes from the flash crash on Thursday. We'll get to the economy and the Greek debt crisis in a second with our roundtable. As always, George Will, Shelby Steele, author and a gentleman from the Hoover Institution, former Clinton White House chief of staff John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, and author and journalist Robin Wright of the center -- of the Institute of Peace. Did I get that right...
WRIGHT: U.S. Institute for Peace.
TAPPER: U.S. Institute for Peace. I'm sorry. I have so many organizations in my head.
We're going to get to the economy in a second, but I want to start with national security, given the conversations we just had with Attorney General Holder and Mayor Giuliani. George, what does this attempted terrorist attack say to you? What's the message from the attempted Times Square attack?
WILL: It is that the Pakistan connection, if true, is good news in the sense that it indicates the decline of the tradecraft of terrorism over time. The underwear bomber at Christmas and this man, also, are staggeringly incompetent and minor league figures compared to the amazing precision and scale of the 9/11 attacks.
Probably credit goes to both the Bush and the Obama administration for the extraordinary pressure with the drone attacks and all the rest that are being put on the Taliban and other supporters who are now footloose and having trouble coordinating.
The bad news -- if there is bad news in this -- is the targeting of Times Square. Let me tell you a story. Right after 9/11, I asked Jack Valenti, the late Jack Valenti, then chairman of the motion picture association, if he worried that someone might target Universal Studios as a symbol of Western decadence. He said, no, what worries me is six backpack bombs in six cineplexes around the country on a Saturday night. That would put huge economic damage on the movie industry. The question is, have they begun to figure that out?
TAPPER: Shelby, the ideology of Islamism still seems to be powerful even if the quality, the candidates of terrorists that the Pakistani Taliban and others are getting are not as good. The ideology seems just as strong. This guy lived, Faisal Shahzad, who we should say is innocent until proven guilty, but he's lived in the United States and had not a bad life here.
STEELE: Right, right. No, I think the ideology is the -- is the story. It's -- there's a larger clash, I think in the world, between the third world, people who were formally oppressed and so forth, who coming into freedom experience that as shame and came in, really, into a sort of confrontation with their own inferiority, their sense of inferiority. And I think jihadism is an ideology that compensates for a sense of inferiority.
And that's really its appeal. It has no real religious connection. These are not particularly religious people. But they're people who, as they -- as they sort of move into modernity, fail or having a rough time making that kind of transition, and so therefore there's this wonderful ideology based in the idea of killing people, of death, you know, if I put on the gun on the table now, I'm the most powerful man in the -- in the room. I'm not inferior anymore.
And it's that -- sort of the grandiosity of administering death randomly is extremely attractive to people who -- who had this inner sense that I'm just never going to make that -- that move into modernity.
TAPPER: John, I want to play some sound for you from House Minority Leader John Boehner talking on Thursday about this attempted attack.
PODESTA: OK.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BOEHNER: Yes, we've been lucky, but luck is not an effective strategy for fighting the terrorist threat. This is a nation at war. And stopping at nothing to confront and defeating the terrorist threat, this is how we best protect the American people and set an example for the rest of the world.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: You heard the attorney general. There was some luck at stake here. How do you see Republicans responding to this?
PODESTA: Well, you know, Widair (ph) said let's take advantage of it, the Republican pollster. I think you see John Boehner there. Nobody can even pause for a second to give credit to the New York City police, to the -- to the FBI, to the customs bureau for what was really a rapid roll-up of this guy, pulling him off the plane and putting him into custody, getting now him to talk.
So I think that they're almost -- they're on the verge of rooting for failure here, because I think they want to damage Obama so badly. And I think that that's tragic for the country.
And, you know, it seems to me that what they need to do is to recognize success, to push the system to do a better job. I think one of the things that George said is relevant, I think, which is that there's more pressure now on the Pakistani Taliban because of more effective strategy that's being employed in Pakistan, but that means that we're likely to be confronted with -- with more threat.
And I think it's time for the Republicans to get on board and try to find at least in this space -- I can understand it on -- you know, they almost root for failure on the economy side, as -- as well. They, you know, describe the job number, for example, on Friday as bad news, 290,000 jobs. But this is, I think, beyond the pale.
TAPPER: Robin, what are your sources telling you about Faisal Shahzad and his involvement with the Pakistani Taliban?
WRIGHT: Well, apparently, he's singing like a bird, I was told last night. But | 0 | train |
|
Target to Discontinue Sale of Holy Bible Target to Discontinue Sale of Holy Bible
Target CEO Brian Cornell announced today the retail giant will be discontinuing sales of the Holy Bible. The company has come under fire recently from religious groups for its new transgender bathroom policy. The King James Bible has been available for purchase at Target stores ever since the company was founded as Goodfellow Dry Goods back in 1902.
Speaking with CNBC, Cornell cited recent protests from what he calls “religious extremists” as the reason to pull the bible from its shelves. “Target will no longer cater to religious extremists,” said Cornell. “If that means removing the bible from our shelves, then so be it.” Cornell said the big box chain is “sticking to its guns” regarding their bathroom policy, and will be phasing out anything having to do with religion. “We believe that everyone, every team member, every guest, and every community, deserves to be treated equally, regardless of their religious beliefs.”
More…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is the video referenced above:
Source: http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/target-to-discontinue-sale-of-holy-bible/ | 1 | train |
|
Peanut Product Recall Took Company Approval “That’s what Sasha eats for lunch probably three times a week,” Mr. Obama said. “And, you know, I don’t want to have to worry about whether she’s going to get sick as a consequence to having her lunch.”
The White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, said Friday that Mr. Obama would soon announce a new F.D.A. commissioner and other officials. Mr. Gibbs said they would put in place a “stricter regulatory structure” to prevent breakdowns in food-safety inspections.
Part of the review is sure to examine whether the requirement for the peanut company’s approval caused delays in warnings about its products once public health officials became aware of significant problems at its plant in Blakely, Ga. The warning also covered products from the company’s customers that manufacture food, including Kellogg.
A representative for the peanut company would not comment. Kris Charles, a Kellogg spokeswoman, said “Kellogg acted quickly and recalled potentially impacted products within hours” of the peanut company’s second recall announcement.
Judy Leon, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, refused to comment.
More than 500 people have been sick in the outbreak of salmonella poisoning, and 8 have died. More than 430 product brands have been recalled.
The delays meant Sarah Kirchner of Belle Plaine, Minn., whose two young children became ill from the outbreak, for weeks had no idea how to prevent a recurrence. Her 3-year-old son, Michael, was hospitalized for four days with intense pain in his head, neck and shoulders, she said.
“He had a spinal tap, bone scan, M.R.I. and a CT scan,” Ms. Kirchner said. “I’m still so worried about him.”
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.
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, said she had been asking top food and drug officials for years if they needed authority for ordering mandatory recalls.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But the officials said companies cooperated when recalls were needed.
“They can’t even get a press release out on this stuff without industry approval. It’s just unbelievable,” said Ms. DeLauro, who promised to offer legislation on Wednesday that would split the agency’s food oversight into a separate entity with mandatory recall authority and other powers.
Public health officials pinpointed the Blakely plant as the source of the salmonella outbreak on Jan. 9. The peanut company announced a limited recall on Jan. 13 and expanded it on Jan. 16. The company waited until Jan. 28 before recalling all products made at the plant in 2007 and 2008, even though it had known since 2007 that tests of products showed contamination with salmonella.
Food buyers and some top public health officials say they knew before any public announcement that the company’s products and those of its customers were the likeliest source of the outbreak.
Craig Wilson, an assistant vice president at Costco, said he pulled Kellogg’s Keebler and Austin peanut butter crackers off shelves a day before Kellogg’s first announcement and nearly a week before the Peanut company and Kellogg issued a nationwide recall that covered those cookies.
Mr. Wilson said he could not wait for the F.D.A. to make announcements about food problems that are widely known among food safety officials.
“I don’t want to say that you can’t rely on the F.D.A.,” Mr. Wilson said, “but we certainly can move quicker than they do.”
The F.D.A. can seize a product that it suspects is contaminated, and it can ask a federal judge for authority to recall products if a maker refuses to do so. The agency can also announce that it suspects problems with a product before the company agrees to a recall. But it rarely does any of these.
Bill Marler, a food safety lawyer in Seattle, said the agency had neither the authority nor the courage it needed to keep the food supply safe.
Michael R. Taylor, a former top official at the food agency, said change was needed.
“F.D.A. negotiates communications about recalls with companies,” Mr. Taylor said, “and that sometimes leads to delays. Changing that dynamic when people are getting seriously ill and dying is something that ought to happen.” | 0 | train |
|
Israel should welcome Rouhani's election victory Such a reaction would be understandable if Saeed Jalili , the most anti-Western ultraconservative candidate, had won. But why has the Israeli government greeted Rouhani with hostility? The common refrain in Israel is that Rouhani's moderate image — in contrast to his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's — will hamper Israel's efforts to keep Iran isolated. Furthermore, Rouhani's moderate tone could fool the United States and Europe into a false sense of security, resulting in the lifting of sanctions against Iran and even passivity toward the threat of Iran's nuclear program. Such concern likely peaked after Rouhani's recent visit to the United Nations General Assembly, which led to a number of milestones in Iran's troubled relationship with the U.S. The meeting between Iran's foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry — the first such formal talks between the two countries since the 1978 Iranian Revolution — was followed by another major unprecedented milestone: a phone call between Rouhani and President Barack Obama. To be sure, when it comes to Rouhani's ability to usher real change to Iran's nuclear program, a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. However, his election victory is not the threat that Netanyahu and his cabinet have alleged. In fact, there are good reasons for Israelis to welcome Rouhani's rise to power. Rouhani was elected on a platform of moderation. Among the presidential candidates, he was the most critical of Iran's nuclear-negotiation strategy. His criticism focused on Iran's intransigent posture at the talks, which forced it to pay a disproportionate price for its nuclear program. As Rouhani stated in a campaign video on June 5, 10 days before the election: "If centrifuges are turning, but the country is dormant, then we don't choose this. If the arrangement is for Natanz [Iran's nuclear enrichment site] to work but 100 other factories close because of sanctions and shortage of primary material or they only work at 20 percent of their capacity, then this is unacceptable."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was the most moderate candidate among those allowed to run in the country's June election. Yet within one month of Rouhani's victory, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly called him a "wolf in sheep’s clothing."
In what should be good news for Israel, Rouhani could usher in change to Iran's nuclear stance. He enjoys very good relations with Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and seems to be highly trusted by him. For 25 years Rouhani was Khamenei's representative on the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), which shapes Iran's national security and defense policies.
In fact, Rouhani's relations with Khamenei are far better so far than that of his predecessors, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Mohammad Khatami and Ahmadinejad. Khamenei may not have allowed Ahmadinejad to shift Iran's nuclear strategy, despite the latter's calls for Iran to halt enrichment at 20 percent, because of bad relations between the two leaders after a public falling out in April 2011.
Rouhani's rapprochement with the U.S. could also be good news for Israeli worries over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Improved relations with Iran, along with the leverage of sanctions, could give the U.S. what it needs to extract concessions from Tehran over its nuclear program.
At the same time, Rouhani's rise to power and the strengthening of his position will come at a cost to Iran's hard-liners, Israel's most ardent enemies. In fact, this is already happening: In less than two months since coming to power, Rouhani is already changing parts of Iran's stance on the Holocaust, much to the fury of Iran's ultraconservatives.
Last but not least, Rouhani's election represented a victory for the tough sanctions imposed against Iran, such as the restrictions against Iran's Central Bank that Israel had demanded for many years. A military attack by Israel or the U.S., by contrast, would most probably have stiffened Iran's stance against negotiations. So now that the goal of softening Iran's stance has been achieved, it is time to reap its benefits.
Netanyahu appears to believe that Rouhani cannot be trusted and must be pressured incessantly, even if he offers compromises. Netanyahu insists that Iran's entire nuclear program must be dismantled and, if Iran does not comply, military action should be taken.
The irony in Netanyahu's harsh line is that it helps Rouhani politically. In Iran praise from any Israeli leaders could be detrimental.
For now, Netanyahu appears to be attacking Rouhani because he genuinely doubts his sincerity and views his overtures as a threat to Israel. Let us hope that instead of hurting Rouhani, Netanyahu ends up helping him. Rouhani's diplomatic outreach could be the best opportunity Israel has seen in the last decade to find a negotiated settlement to Iran's nuclear program. | 0 | train |
|
A fake photo of Emma González went viral on the far right, where Parkland teens are villains Having teenagers act as figureheads for a movement has a certain quality that has not gone unnoticed in the wake of the March for Our Lives rally on Saturday.
Judge too harshly, and you are attacking a kid who has balanced trauma with homework. Amplifying students such as Emma González has injected optimism among liberal activists in the grinding debate about the role of guns in society.
[How the Parkland teens became villains on the right-wing Internet]
González, 18, has been at the flash point of this dynamic, appearing in newspapers, on magazine covers and in a prominent spot at the anchor rally in Washington, where her speech, which included a prolonged silence, lasted as long as the six minutes it took a gunman at her high school in Parkland, Fla., to kill 17 people on Valentine’s Day.
Gun-control advocates have held up González as a figurehead of the movement, splashing her trademark shaved head on T-shirts and viral images.
Then, there is another viewpoint of her activism.
A doctored animation of González tearing the U.S. Constitution in half circulated on social media during the rally, after it was lifted from a Teen Vogue story about teenage activists. In the real image, González is ripping apart a gun-range target.
[NRA host taunts Parkland teens: ‘No one would know your names’ if classmates were still alive]
The doctored image mushrooming across social media appeared to confirm the belief among Second Amendment absolutists that calls for stricter gun-control measures are transgressive, destroying the very foundation of the United States.
The animation bounced around conservative Twitter before it received a signal boost Saturday from actor Adam Baldwin.
He tweeted to a quarter of a million followers with a hashtag reading “#Vorwärts!” — the German word for “forward” and an apparent reference to the Hitler Youth, whose march song included the word.
Gab, the Twitter-like social network that is a popular refuge for the alt-right, tweeted the animation on Saturday to more than 100,000 followers, then hours later asserted it was “satire.” It racked up more than 1,200 retweets. The still images, looking more sophisticated than the glitchy animation, went further, appearing to be taken as legitimate by some conservative-minded Twitter users.
The pushback seems to have gained more traction than the original images, although that means the original images are also spread wider.
Donald Moynihan, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, debunked the altered image, saying in a tweet: “Just a sample of what NRA supporters are doing to teenagers who survived a massacre (real picture on the right),” referencing a user named “Linda NRA Supporter” who posted the photo and whose account has since been suspended.
Justy a sample of what NRA supporters are doing to teenagers who survived a massacre (real picture on the right). pic.twitter.com/czX7IHD8ur — Don Moynihan (@donmoyn) March 25, 2018
Moynihan’s tweet keyed on an idea: Public moments by the Parkland students are being scrutinized and stretched to either bolster or tear down arguments on social media, built on the traditional debates made around the dinner table.
Generally, one form of criticism of González and fellow students such as David Hogg, 17, has focused on their ages.
They are too naive and young to grasp the extent of how money, politics and policy intersect, the argument goes. It was cemented in the right’s criticism of Hogg’s insistence that clear backpacks would infringe on civil rights.
The online effort to defuse Hogg has paid off. The first “top news” video that appears in a YouTube search for “David Hogg” is a takedown from conservative outlet the Blaze. “It’s hard to not just go after this kid,” host Pat Gray said in the video published Saturday, describing Hogg.
[How conspiracy theories about the Parkland attack enter the mainstream]
Other elements of González have been used in an attempt to discredit her, online and off.
For instance, some in conservative circles have circulated images calling attention to a Cuban flag sewn to her jacket.
“Emma Gonzales, wearing the flag of an authoritarian communist nation. Makes sense, they both hate an armed citizenry,” one meme shared on Reddit’s conservative page r/TheDonald. It was shared on social media through variations of the theme, including one by conservative commentator Andrew Wilkow. González’s father migrated from Cuba to the United States.
As The Post’s Samantha Schmidt reported, the flag came under attack Sunday from the campaign of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa).
“This is how you look when you claim Cuban heritage yet don’t speak Spanish and ignore the fact that your ancestors fled the island when the dictatorship turned Cuba into a prison camp, after removing all weapons from its citizens; hence their right to self defense,” said a post on King’s campaign page on Facebook. The post also included a photo of González at the podium Saturday.
A self-identified conservative Parkland student also has been buttressed by the right, which thinks he identifies with its politics — a de facto foil to his classmates. Kyle Kashuv, 16, visited President Trump and five Republican U.S. senators just three weeks after the killings to offer alternatives in the debate.
“The initial movement, in its purest form, was amazing. It got corrupted because now it’s represented as anti-gun and anti-NRA. ‘Boycott this, boycott that.’ It’s detracting from the actual discussions,” Kashuv told The Post’s Dan Zak about the work of his classmates.
Since then, Kashuv has been an occasional guest on Fox News Channel, sometimes calling for middle ground with fellow classmates and among those who disagree in the debate. Kashuv has echoed critics on the right that a focus on law-enforcement failures, not gun laws, is the way forward.
But he has also targeted his classmates on the conservative media circuit.
Hogg’s comments at the rally were “egregious and inflammatory,” Kashuv said on Fox News on Saturday, and he has criticized Hogg numerous times on Twitter. On Sunday, Kashuv challenged classmate Cameron Kasky to a debate. His argument has been bolstered by the NRA, which has published videos decrying Hogg’s use of explicit language and suggesting his activist peers would be unknown if their classmates were still alive, saved by a gun-carrying officer.
Conservatives, who have often asserted that high school students have limited understanding and legitimacy in the gun debate, have taken a shine to the Parkland student.
“You will include Kyle Kashuv in your story, yes?” Baldwin asked The Post in a direct message on Twitter.
Abby Ohlheiser contributed to this report, which has been updated.
Read more:
Rep. Steve King’s campaign ties Parkland’s Emma González to ‘communist’ Cuba
Why Paul McCartney marched: ‘One of my best friends was killed in gun violence’
300 students share their thoughts on how to make schools safe
Meet the young protesters opposing gun violence, face to face | 1 | train |
|
Last in Queen Elizabeth II's line of corgis dies, says British press London (CNN) Britain's Queen Elizabeth II has lost the last descendant of her original corgi after 14-year-old Willow was put down at Windsor Castle on Sunday following a battle with cancer, according to UK media reports.
Willow was the last in a long line of royal corgis owned by Britain's longest-serving monarch, reported British newspaper the Daily Mail.
Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the dog's death, telling CNN it was a private matter.
The Queen's fondness for corgis is well known, with Willow and the monarch even appearing beside James Bond actor Daniel Craig for a sketch shown during the 2012 London Olympic opening ceremony.
Queen Elizabeth II has reportedly owned more than 30 corgis during her reign.
While the Queen still reportedly owns several other dogs, Willow was the only remaining descendant of Susan, the original corgi given to then-Princess Elizabeth on her 18th birthday in 1944.
Read More | 1 | train |
|
Most heroin in U.S. now comes across Mexican border, Rob Portman says "We understand that this heroin is primarily coming from Mexico, over the border."
Ohio Sen. Rob Portman has been busy in Washington touting the Comprehensive Addiction Recovery Act in response to a shocking number of heroin overdoses in Ohio.
The bill just passed in the Senate, 94-1. (Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse was the sole "nay," saying he believes that fighting addiction is a local issue.)
Ohio ranks high on the list of states reeling from the national epidemic. In Montgomery County, which encompasses Dayton, Ohio, heroin-related deaths increased 225 percent between 2011 and 2015.
Back in the 1970s, the heroin on U.S. streets was the "black tar" variety, and much of it came from southeast Asia. In 2010, 80 percent of the heroin in the world came from poppy fields in Afghanistan, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
So when Portman said that most of the heroin in America comes from Mexico’s border, we were skeptical.
Portman, it turns out, has done his homework. The Drug Enforcement Administration’s National Drug Threat Assessment of 2015 says that Mexico is the primary supplier of heroin to the United States.
"Southeast Asia was once the dominant supplier of heroin in the United States, but Southeast Asian heroin is now rarely detected in U.S. markets," the report state. "Mexico and, to a lesser extent, Colombia dominate the U.S. heroin market, because of their proximity, established transportation and distribution infrastructure, and ability to satisfy U.S. heroin demand."
The report also says that Mexican "transnational criminal organizations," (the DEA’s term for drug-dealing gangs) "pose the greatest criminal drug threat to the United States; no other group is currently positioned to challenge them."
The National Drug Threat report notes that Colombian gangs were traditionally the suppliers of wholesale cocaine and heroin to Mexican and Dominican groups. But cartels in Mexico are ramping up their roles on the supply side -- opium production in Mexico increased by 50 percent in 2014.
Mexican labs also produce fentanyl, a synthetic painkiller that is 80 to 100 times stronger than morphine. Fentanyl is sometimes mixed with heroin or substituted for heroin, and the DEA reports more than 700 overdoses attributed to fentanyl between late 2013 and early 2015.
Drugs get past the U.S. borders mostly "by land, not by sea," said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, in the same March 8 hearing with Portman. And a 2015 Washington Post series on the surge of heroin puts the border detection rate at a scant 1.5 percent.
Smugglers’ creativity defies gravity: One successful bust came when agents caught two men flying a drone carrying 28 pounds of heroin from Mexico to California.
Our ruling
Portman said that heroin is coming to the United States primarily from Mexico. He hasn’t been studying drug facts for nothing.
We rate this claim True. | 0 | train |
|
Resource Not Available The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed or relocated.
See one of the following pages for possible options: | 0 | train |
|
Clinton campaign’s claim that Trump would ‘force schools to allow guns in classrooms’ “FACT: Donald Trump would force schools to allow guns in classrooms on his first day in office.”
— Hillary Clinton campaign post on Twitter, May 14, 2016
One of the nine things the Clinton campaign says “every voter in America needs to know about Donald Trump” is that he would get rid of gun-free zones in schools on his first day in office. Most of the nine items are Trump’s widely-known ideas (Muslim ban, torture, ISIS, etc.), but his proposal to allow guns in schools is less familiar to the public.
That’s largely because Trump himself hasn’t talked about it much publicly. His campaign, as usual, didn’t respond to our request for more information, and doesn’t seem to have answered other media outlets’ requests, either.
Perhaps Trump is saving the details until his May 20 speech at the National Rifle Association leadership event. (The NRA wants to repeal gun-free zones.) In the meantime, we took a look at the few instances he’s described his plan to see what he intends to do about school gun-free zones.
The Facts
Congress enacted the Gun-Free School Zones Act in 1990, under President George H. W. Bush, as a part of a larger crime bill, in response to school shootings in the 1980s. It was struck down by the Supreme Court because of violations under the Commerce Clause but was reenacted under President Bill Clinton with a list of exceptions supported by the NRA.
The law makes it illegal under federal law for people to carry or discharge a firearm in a school zone, but states can decide whether to allow concealed carry at K-12 schools or colleges. Most states prohibit concealed carry. There is a dispute between gun-rights and gun-control advocates as to whether the law enacted to prevent shootings on school grounds actually motivates people to target schools, since the victims would be unarmed. (We plan to explore this in a future fact-check.)
After the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, states began introducing legislation to arm teachers and staff at K-12 schools. In 2013 alone, at least 33 states introduced more than 80 bills to authorize school districts to allow certain teachers and staff to carry concealed firearms, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Since 2013, more states have considered laws allowing guns on college campuses.
That year, seven bills were signed into law allowing limited concealed carry with a permit at K-12 schools (mostly applicable to private schools). Some states have specific exemptions for guns in school zones with a concealed-carry permit, such as guns carried by security or law enforcement or unloaded firearms locked in a vehicle on school property.
Trump has argued against gun-free zones at military bases since last October, but he has been less vocal about repealing gun-free zones at schools.
The one time he talked about it publicly was at a January 2016 rally in Vermont: “I will get rid of gun-free zones on schools — you have to — and on military bases. My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day. There’s no more gun-free zones.” His campaign did not respond to requests by the media to clarify his proposal.
Our colleague Jenna Johnson reported at the time that the proposal “raises a number of questions, such as: Would this apply to all public schools, from elementary to college? How would schools deal with the likely logistical and safety concerns created by having guns on the grounds?”
Trump was asked similar questions a few weeks later during an interview with the Outdoor Channel. This seems to be one of the only times he was ever asked directly about his proposal: How would you mandate that legislation? By executive order? Since public schools are legislated by the states, how could you make such an order stick? Would this legislation apply just to public schools, or private as well?
Trump’s answer was still devoid of specifics:
“I’m going to get rid of the gun-free zones on the military bases. I’m also going to do it in schools. You say you have a school, and it’s gun-free. The criminals are out there saying, ‘This is incredible. This is perfect. There’s no guns in there. I’m the only one that’s going to have guns.’ You can’t do it. I’m going to work with the states, and if I have to, I’m going to try and perhaps override the states if I have to, if I’m allowed to do that. . . . But we can’t have gun-free zones where, I see schools advertise, ‘We are a gun-free zone.’ And then you have these crazy people out there saying, ‘Boy, this is the most incredible thing,’ and that’s happening.”
The Pinocchio Test
Trump hasn’t offered many details of his proposal, but it is clear that he wants to force states to allow guns in schools. Would he propose that Congress repeal the federal ban? Would it become illegal for states to pass laws to prohibit concealed carry at schools? The specifics aren’t clear yet.
Trump said he would “work with the states” but that he would “override the states if I have to.” Based on what he has said publicly so far, Trump indeed would force schools to allow guns. And he wants to make it happen on his first day as president.
The Geppetto Checkmark
(About our rating scale)
Send us facts to check by filling out this form
Check out our 2016 candidates fact-check page
Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter | 0 | train |
|
Missing Teen-Ager Found in New Jersey A Connecticut teen-ager who was missing for six days after she took a train to New York City was reunited with her family early yesterday after the police found her at a New Jersey home where she was staying.
Melissa Gay, 14, met her parents, Robert and Lynette, at the police station in Montville, N.J., at 2:30 A.M. yesterday and returned home to Ridgefield, Conn.
We haven't really talked to her yet," Mr. Gay said yesterday from the Pierre Hotel. "We just gave her hugs and brought her home."
Mr. Gay, a partner in the private investment firm Bain Capital, launched a huge search with the help of business partners Thursday to help locate his daughter, whom the family had not heard from since last Saturday.
Melissa left her parents' home that day, took a train to New York and never returned after attending a rave concert on Randalls Island. While at the concert, her father said, she took the drug Ecstasy and then "wandered the city." During her wandering, her father said, she met a young man who took her to his parents' home in Towaco, N.J.
The young man, whose name was not released, kept her in the home without his parents' knowledge, the police said. Officers went to the home in response to several telephone calls, but the police would not give further details. The Montville police said no charges would be filed. | 0 | train |
|
300,000 Pounds of Counterfeit Rat Meat Has Been Sold as Chicken Wings in The U.S. Scores represent the weighted public opinion of the quality of this article based on political spin, trust, accuracy, and relevance. To see the current scores for this article, tap Ratings.
Scores represent the weighted public opinion of the quality of this article based on political spin, trust, accuracy, and relevance. To see the current scores for this article, tap Ratings.
This article does not have enough ratings yet to calculate a Score. Please consider fact-checking and rating this article!
– The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is concerned about an estimated 300,000 pounds of counterfeit rat meat that has been sold as chicken wings in restaurants and grocery stores across America. FDA inspectors raised concerns when several illegal containers originatin..
Scores represent the weighted public opinion of the quality of this article based on political spin, trust, accuracy, and relevance. To see the current scores for this article, tap Ratings.
How much do you trust the site and author?
Check the bias. Does this lean left or right?
Use this Ratings Multibar to rate:
Spin: Is this news bias?
Trust: Do you trust the source?
Accuracy: How accurate is the news?
Relevance: What kind of story is this?
Ratings are submitted automatically on each click.
Rate as many times as you want, the last one counts.
Please visit the FAQ or Forums for more guidance. | 1 | train |
|
Warren Buffett says the super-rich pay lower tax rates than others The "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
It's not often you see someone stand up and say, "Tax me more!"
Yet that's just what famed investor Warren Buffett has done in an op-ed in the New York Times headlined, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich." Buffett says that very wealthy people like himself pay lower tax rates than the middle class, thanks to special tax categories for investment income.
"While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks," he writes.
As an example, Buffett said he paid an effective tax rate of 17.4 percent, while people who worked in his office made much less but paid higher effective tax rates of between 33 percent and 41 percent, averaging 36 percent.
"If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot," Buffett wrote. "To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
Buffett's op-ed inspired a reader to write to us and ask how Buffett's numbers could be correct. As our previous fact-checks have shown, about half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes because they are low income. And when you analyze who pays the bulk of federal income taxes, it's people with higher incomes. So we decided to fact-check Buffett's statement that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. ... (The middle class) fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
Before we get to the heart of the fact-check, it's best if we review a few basics of the tax code that Buffett's op-ed takes for granted. This review proves the point that the federal tax code is extremely complicated, so bear with us.
Income taxes. Federal income taxes are progressive, which means your income is taxed at higher rates as you make more money. Let's take a married couple filing jointly as an example. In 2011, after deductions and exemptions:
• the income between $0 and $17,000 is taxed at 10 percent;
• the income between $17,000 and $69,000 is taxed at 15 percent;
• the income between $69,000 and $139,350 is taxed at 25 percent;
• the income between $139,350 and $212,300 is taxed at 28 percent;
• the income between $212,300 and $379,150 is taxed at 33 percent;
• the income above $379,150 is taxed at 35 percent.
Keep in mind that even if you're in the top bracket of 35 percent, you don't pay that tax rate on all your income. You pay 10 percent on the first $17,000, 15 percent on the money between $17,000 and $69,000, and so on.
Payroll taxes. Payroll taxes are separate from income taxes. If you work for a company, your employer deducts the payroll taxes before you get your paycheck and sends the money on to the federal government. These taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare; it's listed as FICA on your pay stub. Typically, workers pay 6.2 percent of their first $106,800 in earnings for Social Security taxes, and they pay 1.45 percent on all their earnings for Medicare hospital coverage. The employer has to match those taxes, bringing total contributions on behalf of an individual to 12.4 percent for Social Security and 2.9 percent for Medicare. Last year, though, President Barack Obama and Congress knocked 2 percentage points off Social Security taxes for workers, as an economic stimulus measure. So this year, most of us are paying 4.2 percent while employers pay 6.2 percent. Oh, and if you're self-employed, you typically have to pay your share and the employer share for totals this year of 10.4 percent on earnings up to $106,800 and 2.9 percent on all income. Payroll taxes are not progressive -- the rates don't get higher the more you earn. In the case of the Social Security taxes, which disappear once your reach a certain level of earnings, the percentage actually gets smaller if your income is higher than the $106,800 cap.
Head hurt yet? Ours, too.
Taxes on investments. Okay, now we're getting closer to Buffett's main point here, and that's taxes on investments. The tax rates on investments tend to be lower than taxes on regular income. If you make money buying and selling stocks or receiving dividends from stock ownership, those earnings are generally taxed at 15 percent, the rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
Some hedge fund managers and other finance-sector executives get taxed at this rate on their earnings because their compensation is classified as "carried interest" and taxed as a capital gain. (The Wall Street Journal breaks down how carried interest works.) In fact, some economists believe that the lower rates for capital gains actually encourages tax dodges, because it motivates high earners to look for ways to classify normal income as capital gains. Defenders say the lower tax rate helps the economy because it rewards investors for risk-taking and entrepreneurship. They also argue that taxing dividends amounts to double taxation because corporations pay taxes on their income before investors are paid dividends. We won't settle the argument here, but there's no doubt that investors get lower tax rates on their income than workers.
Getting back to Buffett's op-ed, his claims rest on how these taxes interact with each other. The fact we're checking here is that "the mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes," while middle class taxpayers "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot."
He's right that a billionaire whose income is mostly from investments is probably taxed at a lower rate than someone who has an ordinary job. Very little of this taxpayer's income is wage income, so payroll taxes don't take much of a bite. It seems likely that much of this hypothetical person's income would be taxed around the 15 percent rate. And, in fact, as Buffett says, statistics from the Internal Revenue Service show that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay tax rates of less than 20 percent.
On the other side of the equation, people who work for a living, especially those who make higher than average salaries, get taxed at higher rates. It gets a little complicated, given how the tax brackets work, but basically, people who make between $100,000 and $200,000 are paying around 20 percent in income taxes, and it goes up from there, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Buffett slightly glosses over the fact that if you're in the 25 percent tax bracket, your overall tax rate is less than 25 percent. And, the more money you make, the more income taxes you pay, while payroll taxes seem less and less significant as a percentage of income. We're dubious someone would pay as high as a 41 percent tax rate, as Buffett claims someone in his office now pays. (The top income tax rate is 35 percent, but payroll taxes as a share of income decline as income rises, which makes it difficult to get above 37.9 percent, according to the people we ran this by at the Tax Policy Center.) We contacted Buffett's offices as Berkshire Hathaway about this point but didn't hear back.
One final note: People who don't pay any income tax at all tend to have limited incomes, or they qualify for enough deductions -- think of child tax credits and mortgage interest -- that they have no income. When Buffett talks about people in the middle class who pay more taxes than he does, he's thinking of people who make much higher than average salaries.
So when it comes to Buffett's statement, there are two categories: the rich and the really rich. And the evidence tends to point to the conclusion that the really rich pay less in taxes as a percentage of income then their merely well-to-do counterparts -- if their income comes primarily from investments. Overall, we rate Buffett's statement True. | 0 | train |
|
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT AND FIRST LADY AT A CAMPAIGN EVENT 1:05 P.M. EDT
MRS. OBAMA: Oh, wow. (Applause.) Wow. It sounds like you all are already fired up and ready to go. (Applause.) This is amazing. It is truly amazing. And you know what, being here with all of you today, let me tell you, I'm feeling pretty fired up and ready to go myself. I really am. (Applause.)
But there’s a reason why we're here today --
AUDIENCE: I love you! (Applause.)
MRS. OBAMA: And we love you, too. And it's not just because we support one extraordinary man -- although, I'll admit, I'm a little biased because I think our President is awesome. (Laughter and applause.)
And it's not just because we want to win an election. We are here because of the values we believe in. We're here because of the vision for this country that we all share. We're here because we want all our children to have a good education, right? (Applause.) Schools that push them and inspire them, prepare them for good jobs. We want our parents and our grandparents to retire with dignity -- (applause) -- because we believe that after a lifetime of hard work, they should enjoy their golden years.
We want to restore that basic middle-class security for our families because we believe that folks shouldn't go bankrupt because they get sick. (Applause.) They shouldn't lose their home because someone loses a job. We believe that responsibility should be rewarded and hard work should pay off.
And truly, these are basic American values. They're the same values that so many of us were raised with, including myself. You see, my father was a blue-collar city worker at the city water plant. And my family lived in a little bitty apartment on the South Side of Chicago. And neither of my parents had the chance to go to college. But let me tell you what my parents did do: They saved. They sacrificed. I mean, they poured everything they had into me and my brother. They wanted us to have the kind of education they could only dream of. And while pretty much all of my college tuition came from student loans and grants, my dad still paid a little bitty portion of that tuition himself. And let me tell you, every semester, my dad was determined to pay that bill right on time because he was so proud to be sending his kids to college. (Applause.)
And he couldn't bear the thought of me or my brother missing that registration deadline because his check was late. Like so many people in this country, my father took great pride in being able to earn a living that allowed him to handle his responsibility to his family, to pay all of his bills and to pay them on time.
And truly, more than anything else, that is what's at stake. It's that fundamental promise that no matter who you are or how you started out, if you work hard, you can build a decent life for yourself and yes, an even better life for your kids. (Applause.)
And it is that promise that binds us together as Americans. It's what makes us who we are. And whether it's equal pay for women, or health care for our kids; whether it's tax cuts for middle-class families or student loans for our young people -- (applause) -- that is what my husband has been fighting for every single day as President. Every single day. (Applause.)
And let me tell you something -- as First Lady, I have had the chance to see up close and personal what being President looks like, right? I have seen how the issues that come across the President’s desk are always the hard ones.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: You’re beautiful, Michelle! (Applause.)
MRS. OBAMA: But in all seriousness -- (laughter) -- these problems, they’re always the hard ones -- the problems with no clear solutions, the judgment calls where the stakes are so high and there is no margin for error. And as President, you can get all kinds of advice from all kinds of people. But at the end of the day, when it comes time to make that decision, all you have to guide you are your life experiences, your values, and your vision for this country. That’s all you have. In the end, when you’re making those impossible choices, it all boils down to who you are and what you stand for.
And we all know what Barack Obama is -- who he is. (Applause.) We all know what our President stands for, right? (Applause.) He is the son of a single mother who struggled to put herself through school and pay the bills. That’s who he is. He’s the grandson of a woman who woke up before dawn every day to catch a bus to her job at the bank. And even though Barack’s grandmother worked hard to help support his family, she was good at her job. Like so many women, she hit that glass ceiling. And men no more qualified than she was were promoted up the ladder ahead of her.
So believe me, Barack knows what it means when a family struggles. He knows what it means when someone doesn’t have a chance to fulfill their potential. And what you need to know, America -- those are the experiences that have made him the man and the President he is today. (Applause.)
But I have said this before and will say it again and again: Barack cannot do this alone. And fortunately, he never has. We have always moved this country forward together. And today, more than ever before, Barack needs your help. He needs your help. He needs your help. (Applause.) He needs every single one of you -- every single one of you to give just a little part of your life each week to this campaign.
He needs you to register those voters. (Applause.) And to all of the college students out there, all of you -- if you're going to be moving over the summer, remember to register at your new address in the fall. You got that? Get that done. (Applause.)
Barack needs you to join one of our neighborhood teams and start organizing in your community. And just let me say, if there have ever been any doubt about the difference that you can make, I just want you to remember that in the end, this all could come down to those few thousand people who register to vote. Think about it. It could all come down to those last few thousand folks who get out to the polls on November the 6th.
And when you average that out over this entire state, it might mean registering just one more person in your town. It might mean helping just one more person in your community get out and vote on Election Day. So know this: With every door you knock on, with every call you make, with every conversation you have, I want you to remember that this could be the one that makes the difference. This could be the one. (Applause.) Remember that. That is exactly the kind of impact that each of you can have.
Now, I am not going to kid you. This journey is going to be long. And it is going to be hard. But know that that is how change always happens in this country. And if we keep showing up, if we keep fighting the good fight, then eventually we get there. We always do. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but maybe in our children's lifetimes, maybe in our grandchildren's lifetimes -- because in the end, that's what this is all about.
That is what I think about when I tuck my girls in at night. I think about the world I want to leave for them and for all of our sons and our daughters. I think about how I want to do for them what my dad did for me. I want to give them a foundation for their dreams. (Applause.) I want to give them opportunities worthy of their promise. I want to give them that sense of limitless possibility, that belief that here in America, there is always something better out there if you're willing to work for it. So we just cannot turn back now, right?
AUDIENCE: No!
MRS. OBAMA: We have come so far, but we have so much more to do. And if we want to keep on moving forward then we need to work our hearts out for the man that I have the pleasure of introducing here today. (Applause.) Are you ready?
It is my privilege to introduce my husband and our President, President Barack Obama!
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Ohio! (Applause.) It is good to be back in Ohio! (Applause.) Right before I came out, somebody happened to give me a buckeye for good luck. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back! Now, before I begin, I want to say thank you to a few people who are joining us here today. Your mayor, Michael Coleman is here. (Applause.) Former Governor Ted Strickland is here. (Applause.) Senator Sherrod Brown is in the house. (Applause.) An American hero, John Glenn is with us. (Applause.)
And I want to thank so many of our Neighborhood Team Leaders for being here today. You guys will be the backbone of this campaign. (Applause.) And I want the rest of you to join a team or become a leader yourself, because we are going to win this thing the old-fashioned way -- door by door, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood. (Applause.)
Ohio, four years ago, you and I began a journey together.
I didn’t run, and you didn’t work your hearts out, just to win an election. We came together to reclaim the basic bargain that built the largest middle class and the most prosperous nation on Earth.
We came together because we believe that in America, your success shouldn’t be determined by the circumstances of your birth. If you’re willing to work hard, you should be able to find a good job. If you’re willing to meet your responsibilities, you should be able to own a home, maybe start a business, give your children the chance to do even better -- no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what your last name is. (Applause.)
We believe the free market is one of the greatest forces for progress in human history; that businesses are the engine of growth; that risk-takers and innovators should be rewarded. But we also believe that at its best, the free market has never been a license to take whatever you want, however you can get it; that alongside our entrepreneurial spirit and our rugged individualism, America only prospers when we meet our obligations to one another and to future generations. (Applause.)
We came together in 2008 because our country had strayed from these basic values. A record surplus was squandered on tax cuts for people who didn’t need them and weren’t even asking for them. Two wars were being waged on a credit card. Wall Street speculators reaped huge profits by making bets with other people’s money. Manufacturing left our shores. A shrinking number of Americans did fantastically well, while most people struggled with falling incomes, rising costs, the slowest job growth in half a century.
It was ahouse of cards that collapsed in the most destructive crisis since the Great Depression. In the last six months of 2008, even as we were campaigning, nearly three million of our neighbors lost their jobs. Over 800,000 more were lost in the month I took office alone.
It was tough. But I tell you what, Ohio -- the American people are tougher. (Applause.) All across this country, people like you dug in. Some of you retrained. Some of you went back to school. Small business owners cut back on expenses, but did everything they could to keep their employees. Yes, there were setbacks. Yes, there were disappointments. But we didn’t quit. We don’t quit. Together, we’re fighting our way back. (Applause.)
When some wanted to let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers, on the ingenuity of American companies. And today, our auto industry is back on top of the world. (Applause.) Manufacturers started investing again, adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. Businesses got back to the basics, exports surged. And over four million jobs were created in the last two years -- more than one million of those in the last six months alone. (Applause.) Are we satisfied?
AUDIENCE: No!
THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. Too many of our friends and family are still out there looking for work. The housing market is still weak, deficits are still too high, and states are still laying off teachers, first responders. This crisis took years to develop, and the economy is still facing headwinds. And it will take sustained, persistent effort -- yours and mine -- for America to fully recover. That’s the truth. We all know it.
But we are making progress. And now we face a choice. (Applause.) Now we face a choice, Ohio.
CHILD: We love you, Barack Obama!
AUDIENCE: Awww --
THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) Thank you. Now we face a choice. For the last few years, the Republicans who run this Congress have insisted that we go right back to the policies that created this mess.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: But to borrow a line from my friend Bill Clinton, now their agenda is on steroids. (Applause.) This time, they want even bigger tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. This time, they want even deeper cuts to things like education and Medicare, and research and technology.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: This time, they want to give banks and insurance companies even more power to do as they please. And now, after a long and spirited primary, Republicans in Congress have found a nominee for President who has promised to rubber-stamp this agenda if he gets the chance.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: Ohio, I tell you what: We cannot give him that chance. (Applause.) Not now. Not with so much at stake. This is not just another election. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and we’ve been through too much to turn back now. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: We have come too far to abandon the change we fought for these past few years. We have to move forward, to the future we imagined in 2008, where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. (Applause.) That’s the choice in this election, and that’s why I’m running for a second term as President of the United States. (Applause.)
Governor Romney is a patriotic American who has raised a wonderful family, and he has much to be proud of. He’s run a large financial firm, and he’s run a state. But I think he has drawn the wrong lessons from those experiences. He sincerely believes that if CEOs and wealthy investors like him make money, the rest of us will automatically prosper as well.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: When a woman in Iowa shared the story of her financial struggles, he responded with economic theory. He told her, “our productivity equals our income.” Well, let me tell you something. The problem with our economy isn’t that the American people aren’t productive enough -- you’ve been working harder than ever. (Applause.) The challenge we face right now -- the challenge we faced for over a decade is that harder work hasn’t led to higher incomes. It’s that bigger profits haven’t led to better jobs. (Applause.)
Governor Romney doesn’t seem to get that. He doesn’t seem to understand that maximizing profits by whatever means necessary -- whether through layoffs or outsourcing or tax avoidance or union-busting -- might not always be good for the average American or for the American economy.
Why else would he want to spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Why else would he propose cutting his own taxes while raising them on 18 million working families? Why else would he want to slash the investments that have always helped the economy grow, but at the same time, stop regulating the reckless behavior on Wall Street that helped the economy crash?
Somehow, he and his friends in Congress think that the same bad ideas will lead to a different result. Or they’re just hoping you won’t remember what happened the last time we tried it their way.
Well, Ohio, I’m here to say that we were there, we remember, and we are not going back. We are moving this country forward. (Applause.)
Look, we want businesses to succeed. We want entrepreneurs and investors rewarded when they take risks, when they create jobs and grow our economy. But the true measure of our prosperity is more than just a running tally of every balance sheet and quarterly profit report. I don’t care how many ways you try to explain it: Corporations aren’t people. People are people. (Applause.)
We measure prosperity not just by our total GDP; not just by how many billionaires we produce, but how well the typical family is doing -- whether they can go as far as their dreams and hard work will take them.
And we understand that in this country, people succeed when they have a chance to get a decent education and learn new skills -- and, by the way, so do the businesses that hire them or the companies that they start. (Applause.)
We know that our economy grows when we support research into medical breakthroughs and new technologies that lead to the next Internet app or life-saving drug.
We know that our country is stronger when we can count on affordable health insurance and Medicare and Social Security. (Applause.) When we protect our kids from toxic dumping and mercury pollution. When there are rules to make sure we aren’t taken advantage of by credit card companies and mortgage lenders and financial institutions. And we know these rules aren’t just good for seniors, or kids, or consumers -- they're good for business, too. They're part of what makes the market work.
Look, we don’t expect government to solve all our problems, and it shouldn’t try. I learned from my mom that no education policy can take the place of a parent’s love and affection. (Applause.) As a young man, I worked with a group of Catholic churches who taught me that no poverty program can make as much of a difference as the kindness and commitment of a caring soul. (Applause.) Not every regulation is smart. Not every tax dollar is spent wisely. Not every person can be helped who refuses to help themselves.
But that’s not an excuse to tell the vast majority of responsible, hardworking Americans, “You’re on your own.” That unless you’re lucky enough to have parents who can lend you money, you may not be able to go to college. That even if you pay your premiums every month, you’re out of luck if an insurance company decides to drop your coverage when you need it most.
That’s not how we built America. That’s not who we are. We built this country together. (Applause.) We built this country together.
We built railroads and highways; the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge -- together. We sent my grandfather’s generation to college on the GI Bill -- together. We instituted a minimum wage and worker safety laws -- together. Together, we touched the surface of the moon, unlocked the mystery of the atom, connected the world through our own science and imagination. We did these things together -- not because they benefited any particular individual or group, but because they made us all richer. Because they gave us all opportunity. Because they moved us forward together -- as one people, as one nation. (Applause.)
That’s the true lesson of our past, Ohio. That’s the right vision for our future. And that’s why I’m running for President. (Applause.)
I’m running to make sure that by the end of the decade, more of our citizens hold a college degree than any other nation on Earth. (Applause.) I want to help our schools hire and reward the best teachers, especially in math and science. (Applause.) I want to give two million more Americans the chance to go to community colleges and learn the skills that local businesses are looking for right now. In the 21st century, higher education can’t be a luxury -- it is an economic imperative that every American should be able to afford. That’s the choice in this election. That’s why I’m running for President. (Applause.)
I’m running to make sure the next generation of high-tech manufacturing takes root in places like Columbus and Cleveland and Pittsburgh and Richmond. I want to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs and profits overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. That’s the choice in this election. (Applause.)
I’m running so that we can keep moving towards a future where we control our own energy. Our dependence on foreign oil is at its lowest point in 16 years. (Applause.) By the middle of the next decade, our cars will average nearly 55 miles per gallon. Thousands of Americans have jobs, right now, because the production of renewal energy in this country has nearly doubled in just three years. (Applause.)
So now is not the time to cut these investments to pay for another $4 billion giveaway to the oil companies. Now is the time to end the subsidies for an industry that’s rarely been more profitable. (Applause.) Let’s double down on a clean energy future that’s never been more promising -- for our economy, and for our security, and for the safety of our planet. That’s why I’m running for President. That’s the choice in this election, Ohio. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq. (Applause.) Osama bin Laden is no longer a threat to this country. (Applause.) Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat. And by 2014, the war in Afghanistan will be over. (Applause.)
America is safer and more respected because of the courage and selflessness of the United States Armed Forces. (Applause.) And as long as I’m Commander-in-Chief, this country will care for our veterans and serve our veterans as well as they’ve served us -- (applause) -- because nobody who fights for this country should have to fight for a job or a roof over their heads when they come home. (Applause.)
My opponent said it was “tragic” to end the war in Iraq. He said he won’t set a timeline for ending the war in Afghanistan.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: I have, and I intend to keep it. (Applause.) After a decade of war that’s cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, the nation we need to build is our own. (Applause.) I will use half of what we’re no longer spending on war to pay down the deficit, and the other half to repair our roads and our bridges, our runways and our wireless networks. That’s the choice in this election -- to rebuild America. (Applause.)
I’m running to pay down our debt in a way that’s balanced and responsible. After inheriting a $1 trillion deficit, I signed $2 trillion of spending cuts into law. And now I want to finish the job by streamlining government and cutting more waste, and reforming our tax code so that it is simpler and fairer, and asks the wealthiest Americans to pay a little bit more. (Applause.)
My opponent won’t tell us how he’d pay for his new,
$5 trillion tax cut -- a tax cut that gives an average of $250,000 to every millionaire in this country.
AUDIENCE: Booo --
THE PRESIDENT: But we know the bill for that tax cut will either be passed on to our children, or it will be paid for by a whole lot of ordinary Americans. That’s what we know. And I refuse to let that happen again. (Applause.)
I refuse to pay for another millionaire’s tax cut by eliminating medical research projects into things like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. I refuse to pay for another tax cut by kicking children off of Head Start programs; or asking students to pay more for college; or eliminating health insurance for millions of poor and elderly and disabled Americans on Medicaid. (Applause.)
And as long as I’m President of the United States, I will never allow Medicare to be turned into a voucher that would end the program as we know it. (Applause.) We will not go back to the days when our citizens spent their golden years at the mercy of private insurance companies. We will reform Medicare -- not by shifting the cost of care to seniors, but by reducing the spending that isn’t making people healthier. (Applause.) That’s what’s at stake in this election. That’s what’s at stake, Ohio.
On issue after issue, we can’t afford to spend the next four years going backward. America doesn’t need to refight the battles we just had over Wall Street reform and health care reform. On health care reform, here is what I know: Allowing 2.5 million young people to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan -- that was the right thing to do. (Applause.) Cutting prescription drug costs for seniors -- that was the right thing to do. (Applause.) I will not go back to the days when insurance companies had unchecked power to cancel your policy, or deny you coverage, or charge women differently from men. We’re not going back there. We’re going forward. (Applause.)
We don’t need another political fight about ending a woman’s right to choose, or getting rid of Planned Parenthood -- (applause) -- or taking away access to affordable birth control. I want women to control their own health choices, just like I want my daughters to have the same opportunities as your sons. (Applause.) We are not turning back the clock. We are moving forward. (Applause.)
We’re not returning to the days when you could be kicked out of the United States military just because of who you are or who you love. (Applause.) That would be wrong for our national security, and it would be a betrayal of our values.
This should be the last election where multimillion-dollar donations speak louder than the voices of ordinary citizens. (Applause.) We need more checks on lobbyists and special interests, not less.
We’re not going to eliminate the EPA. We’re not going to roll back the bargaining rights that generations of workers fought for. (Applause.) It’s time to stop denying citizenship to responsible young people just because they’re the children of undocumented immigrants. (Applause.) This country is at its best when we harness the God-given talents of every individual; when we hear every voice; when we come together as one American family, striving for the same dream.
That’s what we’re fighting for. That's what we're fighting for, Ohio. A bold America. A competitive America. A generous America. A forward-looking America, where everybody has a chance to make of their life what they will. That’s what made us the envy of the world. That’s what makes us great. That’s why I’m running again for President of the United States. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Four more years! Four more years!
THE PRESIDENT: And that is why I need your help. Ohio, this election will be even closer than the last. Too many of our friends, too many of our neighbors are still hurting because of this crisis. I've heard from too many people wondering why they haven't been able to get one of the jobs that have been created; why their home is still under water; why their family hasn't yet been touched by the recovery.
The other side won't be offering these Americans a real answer to these questions. They won't offer a better vision or a new set of ideas. But they will be spending more money than we've ever seen before on negative ads, on TV, on radio, in the mail, on the Internet -- ads that exploit people's frustrations for my opponent's political gain. Over and over again, they will tell you that America is down and out, and they'll tell you who to blame, and ask if you’re better off than you were before the worst crisis in our lifetime.
We’ve seen that play before. But you know what? The real question -- the question that will actually make a difference in your life and in the lives of your children -- is not just about how we’re doing today. It’s about how we’ll be doing tomorrow.
Will we better off if more Americans get a better education? That’s the question. Will we better off if we depend less on foreign oil and more on our own ingenuity? That's the question. (Applause.) Will we better off if we start doing some nation-building right here at home? That's the question. Will we be better off if we bring down our deficit without gutting the very things we need to grow? When we look back four years from now, or ten years from now, or twenty years from now, won’t we be better off if we have the courage to keep moving forward? (Applause.)
That’s the question in this election. That's the question in this election. And the outcome is entirely up to you. Now, sure, we’ll have to contend with even more negative ads, with even more cynicism and nastiness, and sometimes just plain foolishness. There will be more of that than we saw in the last campaign.
But if there is one thing that we learned in 2008, it’s that nothing is more powerful than millions of voices calling for change. (Applause.) When enough of you knock on doors, when you pick up phones, when you talk to your friends, when you decide that it’s time for change to happen, guess what? Change happens. Change comes to America. (Applause.)
And that’s the spirit we need again. If people ask you what this campaign is about, you tell them it’s still about hope. You tell them it’s still about change. You tell them it’s still about ordinary people who believe that in the face of great odds, we can make a difference in the life of this country. (Applause.)
Because I still believe, Ohio. I still believe that we are not as divided as our politics suggest. I still believe that we have more in common than the pundits tell us; that we're not Democrats or Republicans, but Americans first and foremost. (Applause.) I still believe in you, and I’m asking you to keep believing in me. (Applause.) I told you in 2008 that I wasn’t a perfect man, and I would never be a perfect President. But I promised that I would always tell you what I thought. I would always tell you where I stood. And I would wake up every single day fighting for you as hard as I know how. (Applause.)
And I have that kept that promise. I have kept that promise, Ohio. And I will keep it so long as I have the honor of being your President. So if you’re willing to stick with me, if you're willing to fight with me, and press on with me; if you’re willing to work even harder in this election than you did in the last election, I guarantee you -- we will move this country forward. (Applause.)
We will finish what we started. We are still fired up. We are still ready to go. And we are going to remind the world once more just why it is that the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. (Applause.)
Thank you, God bless you. God bless the United States of America.
END 1:55 P.M. EDT | 0 | train |
|
Barack Obama Challenges John McCain To Duel Over Taxes 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 | 0 | train |
|
BOMBSHELL: COMEY KNEW MURDERED DNC STAFFER, SETH RICH, WAS WIKILEAKS SOURCE & COVERED IT UP FOR HILLARY HERE Is WHAT WILL HAPPEN If The DEEP STATE TAKES DOWN PRESIDENT TRUMP & It’s NOT PRETTY … FOR THEM
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – Thomas Jefferson
ELDER PATRIOT – Corrupt politicians ignore Jefferson’s directive to their own detriment. It’s no longer political, it’s personal.
Americans have had their eyes opened by the ascension of Donald Trump and no amount of leftwing money can put the Freedom Movement genie back in the bottle.
Conservative Senator Ted Cruz made that observation after reviewing the results of the 2016 elections and the expectations of the voters.
Cruz, who had the most high profile personality clash with Donald Trump during the Republican primary process nevertheless embraced Trump’s America First agenda and said, “If we’re given the White House and both houses of Congress and we don’t deliver, I think there will be pitchforks and torches in the streets. And I think quite rightly.”
Candidate Trump promised many things – border control, lower taxes, fairer trade relations, a balanced budget, healthcare that puts the people first not the government, safer communities, and – to the extent possible – an end to foreign wars. What, among those promises, should any Republican, nay any American, have a problem with?
After four months without a single legislative achievement, Congressional and Senatorial Republicans – notably John McCain, Paul Ryan and Lindsey Graham – have joined the Democrats in investigating President Trump absent a single shred of evidence that an underlying crime has been committed.
So, what gives?
Well, there was one additional promise that Trump made on his way to the White House that has some Republicans joining with Democrats and quaking in their boots, Trump’s promise to “Drain the Swamp.”
As we reported yesterday, “An F.B.I. agent with ‘intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Clinton case’ told us that they uncovered evidence of such massive corruption that the agents involved realized that damned near the entire government could be brought down.”
The criminal co-conspirators in both parties realized almost immediately that the new sheriff wasn’t interested in joining them in the swamp so they launched, what can only be characterized as, a coup attempt.
Democrats are well schooled in such things probably because of their close alliance with Marxist regimes that can only gain power by seizing it through bloody civil wars. It should be noted that the Democratic Party has already done this once before.
One Hundred and Fifty-Seven years ago the Democrats waged a war against the First Republican President Abraham Lincoln for giving Blacks their freedom. That war came at a high price, as many as 700,000 Americans died fighting for what they believe in. To put that in perspective, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
Today, Americans are still prepared to fight and die to protect their children’s God-given freedoms. Despite what you are reading and hearing in the mainstream media, they aren’t the leftwing-funded rioters, the pussy hat-wearing feminists, or the cuck bois that cant handle a micro aggression. No, the Americans that back Donald Trump are well armed.
Donald Trump’s presidency will move forward politically lest the sixty million patriots who voted for him, that are comprised of the large majority of military voters, police, and NRA members, move it forward by force.
These patriots are armed, trained, prepared, and have proven their discipline. They have grown disgusted by the corruption in Washington and will do whatever is necessary to make sure Trump’s Freedom Agenda moves forward and under the direction of Donald Trump himself.
No amount of fake news based on unsubstantiated charges by unnamed sources is going to change that. The battle lines have been drawn and no amount of finger pointing is going to convince these patriots to let anyone overturn the election results.
So why are establishment politicians courting a bloodbath on the streets of America that will also threaten them personally when they could be part of Making America Great Again? It’s because they have been caught red-handed and up to their eyeballs in a worldwide criminal conspiracy that has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with defrauding the American taxpayers.
And, now that they’ve been caught robbing the world’s largest bank – the U.S. treasury – they have chosen to go out in a blaze of glory rather than try to defend the indefensible at trial.
Washington’s criminal elites have chosen to go to war to unseat our duly elected president. It’s time to make our voices heard before this turns very ugly. Buckle your chin strap, America is counting on you.
EDITORS NOTE: THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ARMS BUT RATHER AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DEEP STATES OVERTURNS A DUELY ELECTED PRESIDENT.
HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP
“Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance.
Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn.
Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.”
Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump.
Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon.
“Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.”
Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday.
The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.”
But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why?
At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime.
“The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained:
For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code.
However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct.
A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.”
However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him.
. Obama’s Iran nuke deal
Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server
Obama IRS targets conservatives
Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters
Obamacare & Obama’s false promises
Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order
Benghazi-gate
Operation Fast & Furious
5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl
Extortion 17
‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session
Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval
Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law
Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act
Illegally conducting war against Libya
NSA: Spying on Americans
Muslim Brotherhood ties
Miriam Carey
Birth certificate
Executive orders
Solyndra and the lost $535 million
Egypt
Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress
Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers
Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’ | 1 | train |
|
Obama Urges Bernanke, Paulson to Fight Foreclosures, Hold Homeownership Summit Obama Urges Bernanke, Paulson to Fight Foreclosures, Hold Homeownership Summit
Thursday, March 22, 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ben LaBolt
WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Senator Barack Obama today sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Paulson urging them to immediately convene a homeownership preservation summit with key stakeholders to fight foreclosures driven by growth in the subprime mortgage market.
The text of the letter is below:
Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,
There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.
We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.
Working together, the relevant private sector entities and regulators may be best positioned for quick and targeted responses to mitigate the danger. Rampant foreclosures are in nobody’s interest, and I believe this is a case where all responsible industry players can share the objective of eliminating deceptive or abusive practices, preserving homeownership, and stabilizing housing markets.
The summit should consider best practice loan marketing, underwriting, and origination practices consistent with the recent (and overdue) regulators’ Proposed Statement on Subprime Mortgage Lending. The summit participants should also evaluate options for independent loan counseling, voluntary loan restructuring, limited forbearance, and other possible workout strategies. I would also urge you to facilitate a serious conversation about the following:
What standards investors should require of lenders, particularly with regard to verification of income and assets and the underwriting of borrowers based on fully indexed and fully amortized rates.
How to facilitate and encourage appropriate intervention by loan servicing companies at the earliest signs of borrower difficulty.
How to support independent community-based-organizations to provide counseling and work-out services to prevent foreclosure and preserve homeownership where practical.
How to provide more effective information disclosure and financial education to ensure that borrowers are treated fairly and that deception is never a source of competitive advantage.
How to adopt principles of fair competition that promote affordability, transparency, non-discrimination, genuine consumer value, and competitive returns.
How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Of course, the adoption of voluntary industry reforms will not preempt government action to crack down on predatory lending practices, or to style new restrictions on subprime lending or short-term post-purchase interventions in certain cases. My colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs have held important hearings on mortgage market turmoil and I expect the Committee will develop legislation.
Nevertheless, a consortium of industry-related service providers and public interest advocates may be able to bring quick and efficient relief to millions of at-risk homeowners and neighborhoods, even before Congress has had an opportunity to act. There is an opportunity here to bring different interests together in the best interests of American homeowners and the American economy. Please don’t let this opportunity pass us by.
Sincerely,
U.S. Senator Barack Obama | 0 | train |
|
Frequently Asked Questions Frequently Asked Questions
History
Access/FOIA
Museum Information
Holdings
Passport to Presidential Libraries Program
Funding
Building Details
Laws & Regulations
What is a Presidential Library and Museum?
Presidential Libraries and Museums promote understanding of the presidency and the American experience. We preserve and provide access to historical materials, support research, and create interactive programs and exhibits that educate and inspire. Presidential Libraries and Museums present vast archives of documents, museums full of important Presidential artifacts, interesting educational and public programs, and informative web sites. Presidential Libraries and Museums are repositories for the papers, records and historical materials of the Presidents. We work to ensure that these irreplaceable items are preserved and made available for the widest possible use by researchers.
Presidential Libraries and Museums give you the chance to see, hear, and participate in the events that changed our lives and made us who we are as a nation.
When can I visit the Barack Obama Presidential Library?
Currently, the Obama administration materials are housed in a temporary facility in Hoffman Estates, IL, which is not open to the public. Obama presidential records are administered in accordance with the requirements of the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and will not be subject to public Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests until January 20, 2022.
The Obama Foundation is constructing the Obama Presidential Center on Chicago's South Side in Jackson Park. The Center will be a privately operated, non-federal organization. For the most current information on the Obama Presidential Center, visit their website at www.obama.org.
How can I work at the Barack Obama Presidential Library?
The Barack Obama Presidential Library is part of the Presidential Libraries System administered by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), an independent federal agency. Official job listings are posted on USAJobs.
History
How did the Presidential Library System begin?
It all began with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the late 1930s.
A dramatic increase in the amount of Presidential papers led Roosevelt to seek the advice of prominent historians and public figures on how and where to keep not only his White House files, but also his earlier papers, book collection, and memorabilia.
Roosevelt announced plans for a new type of facility, a Presidential Library, on December 10, 1938. An organization was chartered to raise private funds for the construction of the building on Roosevelt’s Hyde Park estate.
On July 18, 1939, Congress passed a joint resolution accepting the new facility and agreeing to operate it as part of the National Archives. The Roosevelt Library was turned over to the Federal government on July 4, 1940, and dedicated on June 30, 1941.
The Roosevelt Library became the model for subsequent Presidential Libraries. Succeeding Libraries have been constructed with private and other non-Federal funds. A private, non-profit organization is formed to coordinate these efforts and provide support for Library and museum programs.
Once a Library is constructed, NARA assumes responsibility for its operation and maintenance in accordance with the Presidential Libraries Acts of 1955 and 1986.
What is the role of the Office of Presidential Libraries within NARA?
The Office of Presidential Libraries is the program office responsible for the overall administration of the Presidential Library System. This office provides budgetary and administrative oversight for the system, coordinates multi-Library and system-wide initiatives, coordinates the development and implementation of NARA policies and procedures, and represents the Presidential Library System within NARA. The Office of Presidential Libraries also coordinates new Presidential Library development and construction, major construction and renovation projects at the libraries and coordinates national programs linking all Presidential Libraries.
What institutions comprise the Presidential Library System administered by NARA?
The Presidential Library System is comprised of 14 Presidential Libraries documenting Presidents Herbert Hoover through Barack Obama.
Listed in the order in which they were added to the system, Presidential libraries and their dedication dates include:
Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum, July 4, 1940
Harry S. Truman Presidential Library and Museum, July 6, 1957
Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Museum, November 11, 1954 (Museum) and May 1, 1962 (Library)
Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum, August 10, 1962
Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum, May 22, 1971
John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, October 20, 1979
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum, April 27, 1981 (Library) and September 18, 1981 (Museum)
Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum, October 1, 1986
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, November 4, 1991
George Bush Presidential Library and Museum, November 6, 1997
William J. Clinton Presidential Library and Museum, November 18, 2004
Richard Nixon Presidential Library and Museum, July 11, 2007
George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum, April 25, 2013
Barack Obama Presidential Library
How soon are the records of a former President open for research?
How soon the records of a former President are available for research depends on a number of variables. For older Presidential Libraries (Hoover through Carter, with the exception of Nixon), access to the holdings are governed by deeds of gift, and the papers are processed according to prioritized plans. These plans are often developed with input from the former Presidents. Major areas of current research interest and the timeliness of topics in the national arena are also considered. Nixon Presidential materials are governed by the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA), and material is reviewed in accordance with established regulations.
For newer Libraries (Reagan to George W. Bush), the holdings are governed by the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978. Under the PRA, the records are exempt from public release for five years after the end of a Presidential administration. During this five-year period, archivists begin processing and preparing materials for release to researchers.
After the end of the five-year period, all Presidential records become subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. These requests must be made in writing and cite the Freedom of Information Act and then be submitted to the appropriate Library by mail, e-mail, fax, or in person.
The Libraries whose Presidential holdings are governed by the PRA work to respond to FOIA requests from the general public. They process records and make them publicly available not only to requestors but also to anyone interested in conducting research on the particular topics covered by FOIA requests.
How many records do all the Presidential Libraries hold and how many of those are open to researchers?
As of September 30, 2016, approximately 238,000 cubic feet, or 88% of the nearly than 270,000 cubic feet of textual and nontextual holdings in the Presidential Libraries have been processed. The percentage of materials processed at the individual Libraries tend to follow a chronological trend. The older Libraries (Hoover, Roosevelt, and Truman) each have processed more than 90% of their holdings, the middle Libraries have all processed more than half their holdings for public access, and the most recent Libraries (from Reagan forward) have processed less than 50% of their holdings.
How can a researcher find out what records are open at a Presidential Library?
Researchers can search the Library websites as part of the Online Public Access (OPA) portal.
Each Library also has a website that contains information regarding their holdings (including finding aids and collection guides) as well as digitized materials from their holdings. If finding aids are not available online, researchers can contact the Library, for more information on the materials available for research.
Museum Information
Are the museums of the Presidential Libraries open to the general public?
Presidential Libraries and Museums are open to the general public of all ages. Each Library has a museum component that documents the life and times of its respective President.
Each Library charges an admission fee, with revenues going to support museum operations and programs.
The museums also host changing exhibits about particular topics relating to American history and experience and are open to the public year-round.
Many Libraries also have an active education component, providing programs geared specifically to students and often tied to local curricula.
The Museum parts of the Libraries seem to be favorable to the former Presidents, as they often talk about the positive things the President did while in office. Why is that?
The composition of the first exhibits in the museums reflect the funding sources of those exhibits. The Presidential foundations (private, non-profit support organizations) raise the funds and construct the Presidential Library facilities, pay for the core exhibits in each Library's museum, provide significant funding (and, in many cases, staff) for public programs and education programs, and (for George Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and all future Presidential Libraries) provide an endowment to the government to offset maintenance costs for the facilities. The National Archives ensures the facility meets the environmental and security requirements for a Presidential archival depository and provides the core professional staff who undertake the archival, museum, programmatic, and administrative operations of the Library. This partnership results in an array of temporary exhibits and programming in facilities across the country that illustrate the life and times of the Presidents, general topics related to the Presidency, and cultural topics, with the National Archives paying only a fraction of the costs of these resources. Another aspect of this partnership is that the exhibit themes are influenced by the organization(s) funding the exhibits.
While the funding source of an exhibit plays a role in its interpretative theme, it is also worth noting that the most recent Presidential Libraries have exhibits that feature contemporary issues and topics. The depiction of contemporary, or nearly contemporary, events in an exhibit comes with different challenges than the portrayal of events and personalities from a more distant time frame. Exhibits in the Presidential Libraries evolve as the themes transition from contemporary to historical. Examples of more critical interpretations of Presidents include the Truman Library’s exhibit on his decision to use the atomic bomb and the Nixon Library’s recently renovated exhibit on Watergate. Where the Truman exhibit can rightfully be lauded today for its balanced content, a more recent Library may well receive similar praise when that Library reaches the age of the Truman Library and reflects the perspective that only time and more historical research can provide.
In all our exhibits, regardless of their age, we strive to present engaging exhibits of the President and the American experience to the broadest audience possible.
Passport to Presidential Libraries Program
What is the Passport Program?
The Passport to Presidential Libraries program gives visitors an opportunity to purchase a special keepsake booklet they can take with them on their travels to Presidential Libraries across the nation. A visitor receives a commemorative stamp from the Library at the time of the purchase and can collect stamps from every Presidential Library visited in the future. Once they collect stamps from all Presidential Libraries, they may visit any of the Presidential Libraries for a special gift. The Passport book retails for $5.
How do I get my Passport stamped?
Stamps are available at each Library's admissions desk and/or museum store. We unfortunately cannot retroactively stamp Passports or accept Passports via mail for stamping purposes.
Who can I call with questions about the Passport?
Please direct all inquiries and feedback regarding the Passport to Presidential Libraries to the Office of Presidential Libraries at (301) 837-3250.
Funding
How is a Presidential Library paid for and funded?
A Presidential Library is constructed with private or non-Federal funds donated to non-profit organizations established usually for the express purpose of building a Presidential Library and supporting its programs.
Some Libraries have also received construction and development funding from state and/or local governments.
The Library is then transferred to the Federal government and operated and maintained by NARA through its congressionally appropriated operating budget.
Some staff and programs at Presidential Libraries are paid for with funds from associated private foundations organized to fund the construction of the Library. These private foundations also provide continuing support for Library programs and special events, such as conferences and exhibitions.
What is the role of a Presidential Library foundation?
Presidential Libraries carry out a mandated program to preserve, process, and make available their archival holdings. As part of providing access, the Libraries and Museums provide outreach and educational programs.
NARA does not have sufficient resources to provide the broadest spectrum of innovative and insightful public, education, and information programs in each Library. Foundation support is critical to the development of core public programming for a Presidential Library.
Presidential Libraries and Museums, their web sites, and the scholarship they promote benefit in significant ways from private organizations established to support such programs.
In several cases, these organizations evolved from bodies chartered to raise money and construct the original Library building. In other instances, these organizations were formed after the dedication of the Library by friends of the President.
Just as the origin and development of these organizations have varied, their formation and operation take a number of forms. Some of the organizations encourage public participation through payment of membership fees. Others are non-membership charitable foundations and corporations. Several seek to support their activities solely through private contributions. Some foundations are run by paid staff, others are voluntary.
Also, it should be noted that, starting with the George Bush Library, all future Presidential Library foundations must provide an endowment to NARA to help offset facility operating expenses. This endowment is presented to NARA and is used by the government to support facility maintenance needs.
Why should taxpayers support Presidential Libraries? Are taxpayer dollars being used to fund these programs instead of taking care of important government records?
NARA’s mission is to serve American democracy by safeguarding and preserving the records of our Government, ensuring that the people can discover, use, and learn from this documentary heritage. We ensure continuing access to the essential documentation of the rights of American citizens and the actions of their government. We support democracy, promote civic education, and facilitate historical understanding of our national experience.
Presidential Libraries support NARA’s mission by preserving and providing access to materials from a crucial part of our government as well as materials from individuals who have played key roles in our government. The papers and records created by, for, or about Presidents, Vice Presidents, and their administrations document the key decisions, policy and activities of the institution of the Presidency - the highest policy level of government. The documents and artifacts held by the Presidential Libraries not only inform society about the President as an individual and about his term in office, but also provide insights into the American experience.
By providing access to these holdings through our research rooms, our exhibits, and online we attempt to support NARA’s mission for the broadest audience possible. In our efforts to fulfill this mission we draw on the many partnerships formed between NARA and the Presidential Library foundations. As a result, many aspects of museum and public programs are, in fact, supported by private funds, although they are overseen by government professionals including curators, educators, and archivists.
Building Details
Who decides where a Presidential Library and Museum should be located?
The President, with advice from the Archivist of the United States, makes the decision about the location of his Presidential Library. In consultation with his family, friends, and associates, he usually selects from a series of proposals submitted by interested communities or universities.
Presidents have often acknowledged their origins by placing their Libraries in their hometowns. However, in some cases Presidents place their Libraries on or near a university campus. For example, the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum is located on the campus of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas.
Does NARA have any input into the decision on location or the kind of building the Presidential Library will be?
The former President or his representatives choose the architects, or an architectural firm/design team for the building of a Presidential Library and for the development and fabrication of museum exhibits. The President or his representatives are solely responsible for choice of the final location for the Library building and for the construction costs.
The Presidential Libraries Act (44 U.S.C. Section 2112 (a) (2)) requires the Archivist of the United States to promulgate architectural and design standards that apply to new and existing libraries “in order to ensure that such depositories (A) preserve Presidential records subject to Chapter 22 of 44 U.S.C. and papers and other historical materials accepted for deposit under section 2111 of 44 U.S.C. (B) contain adequate research facilities.” These standards have been promulgated to fulfill the requirements of the Act and to ensure that Presidential Libraries are safe and efficient to operate and provide adequate and secure research and museum facilities.
The Architectural and Design Standards for Presidential Libraries are a supplement to NARA directive 1571, Archival Storage Standards, and NARA provides the standards for Presidential Libraries to the architects and design team selected by the former President or his representatives.
Are there any limits to the size of Presidential Library buildings?
Though not specifically limiting the size of Presidential Libraries, the Presidential Libraries Act of 1986 mandates that Library foundations must provide an endowment to NARA upon acceptance of the Library facility by the Archivist of the United States. The size of this endowment is based in part on the size of the facility.
The requirement of a significant increase in the endowment for facilities over 70,000 square feet has had the practical effect of limiting the size of newer Libraries to less than 70,000 square feet.
What is the largest Presidential Library?
In terms of building size, the largest Library operated by NARA is the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library and Museum at 134,695 square feet.
It is followed closely by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum at 134,293 square feet.
What is the smallest Presidential Library?
The smallest Library in size is the Herbert Hoover Presidential Library and Museum at 47,169 square feet.
Holdings
What is housed in a Presidential Library? Do you hold the records of executive branch agencies?
A Presidential Library is a rich resource for a particular President and his administration, as well as for the times in which he lived.
The papers and records created by a President and his administration, as well as the materials created by a President during his life and career comprise the core holdings of all Presidential Libraries.
The papers and records document the personal and professional lives of a President, his family, close friends, and business and political associates, revealing the details about White House activities, a President’ s career, and a President’ s personal life.
Along with the papers and records, a Presidential Library contains thousands of feet of motion picture film and videotape, as well as millions of still pictures revealing all aspects of a President's life before, during, and after the White House. This rich resource of audiovisual materials may include home movies, official White House photographs, and audiotapes of Presidential conversations.
Modern Presidential Libraries are also the custodians of the electronic records generated by a Presidential administration in its carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, and ceremonial duties of the Presidency.
Additionally, a Presidential Library contains thousands of artifacts, the objects that document a life and career. Whether a gift from a foreign head of state or a cherished childhood memento, the artifacts provide a unique record of a President's life, in and out of the public eye.
NARA has a statutory obligation to care for and provide access to legally defined Presidential records as a result of the Presidential Records Act of 1978. This law vested the ownership and administration of Presidential records with the United States Government through NARA. This law applies to the core holdings of Presidential Libraries starting with the records from the administration of Ronald Reagan.
The holdings of the Presidential Libraries differ from the materials created by all executive branch agencies, the United States District and Circuit Courts, and Legislative branch agencies. The Federal Records Act provides the statutory framework NARA uses to determine what records from these agencies should be accessioned into the holdings of the National Archives.
Where are the materials of Presidents before Herbert Hoover?
Although Franklin D. Roosevelt established the first Presidential Library, his predecessor, Herbert Hoover, later established a Presidential Library in West Branch, Iowa.
The materials of Presidents prior to Herbert Hoover are dispersed throughout the nation. Some are held by universities and historical societies, but a large quantity are held by the Library of Congress. The Other Places to Research Presidential Materials page is an excellent starting point to finding information on other presidents.
Unfortunately, the extent of Presidential materials in archival and historical institutions across the country varies considerably depending on the attitudes of the former Presidents, their families, and friends to the preservation of their documentary materials. Many materials were lost, purposefully destroyed, or dispersed to family, friends, and supporters.
What Presidential Library has the largest amount of holdings? What Library has the smallest?
The Clinton Presidential Library has the largest overall number of traditional holdings, with more than 38,000 cubic feet of textual and audiovisual records. The Hoover Presidential Library has the smallest overall holdings, with more than 6,000 cubic feet of materials.
The George W. Bush Presidential Library has by far the largest set of electronic holdings in the Presidential Library system, with approximately 80 TB of data including approximately 200 million email messages.
Laws & Regulations
What are the key statutes governing the establishment and operation of a Presidential Library?
Though Congress approved the acceptance of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum by the National Archives in 1939, the nation's legislative branch did not formally authorize the Presidential Library System until 1955 with the passage of the Presidential Libraries Act.
The Presidential Libraries Act of 1955 codified the acceptance, in the name of the United States, of land, buildings, and equipment for the purposes of creating a Presidential archival depository, as well as the role of the National Archives in maintaining, operating, and protecting them as a Presidential archival depository.
The act was amended in 1986, establishing a limit of 70,000 square feet for the Presidential Library facility that will be provided to the government and a requirement for an endowment to offset the maintenance costs of the facility. The most recent update to the act set the endowment requirement for future Presidential Libraries at 60 percent of the overall initial cost of the facility.
What is a deed of gift?
A deed of gift is a legal document between a donor and an archival repository.
Prior to the passage of the Presidential Records Act in 1978, the documentary materials created by a President and his staff during an administration were considered the President's personal property to be disposed of as he desired.
Presidents Herbert Hoover through Jimmy Carter (with the exception of Richard Nixon) donated their Presidential papers to NARA through deed of gift agreements.
Deeds of gift include restrictions of materials for national security and invasion of privacy reasons.
What is the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act?
As a result of the abuses of governmental power commonly known as "Watergate" and the controversy that occurred over the disposition of the Nixon tapes and papers documenting these abuses, Congress passed the Presidential Recordings and Materials Preservation Act (PRMPA) in 1974. PRMPA transferred ownership of the Presidential historical materials of Richard Nixon to the Federal government, deposited them with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and specified access restrictions to these materials.
The act also called for a commission to study and make recommendations regarding the status of the papers of all Federal officials, including those of the President. The findings of this study led to the Presidential Records Act of 1978, vesting ownership of the official records of the President and Vice President with the Federal government after January 20, 1981. | 1 | train |
|
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Series Id: CES4244100001
Seasonally Adjusted
Series Title: All employees, thousands, motor vehicle and parts dealers, seasonally adjusted
Super Sector: Retail trade
Industry: Motor vehicle and parts dealers
NAICS Code: 441
Data Type: ALL EMPLOYEES, THOUSANDS
Download: | 0 | train |
|
Pier 39 Terrorist Was an Anti-Trump Antifa Supporter Muslim convert and would-be domestic terrorist Everitt Aaron Jameson, who planned to carry out a Christmas Day massacre on Pier 39 in San Francisco, was a supporter of Antifa and counted amongst his favourite news organisations CNN, BuzzFeed and Al-Jazeera.
The former US Marine was arrested after he told the FBI of his plan to carry out the atrocity, noting that December 25 would be “the perfect day to commit the attack” because Pier 39 would be crowded with people.
Media reports confirmed that Jameson “had recently been posting and liking pro-terrorism content on Facebook” and had expressed support for the ISIS-inspired Halloween truck attack in New York. He converted to Islam two years ago.
However, what those reports don’t mention is that the would-be terrorist also ‘liked’ numerous Antifa pages, suggesting he supported the movement.
Jameson liked Berkeley Antifa, Antifa California, Antifa Scaramento and White Rose Antifa Portland, an archived version of his Facebook profile confirms.
He also liked a number of other far-left pages, including ‘Trump Resistance Movement’, ‘Things Trump Supporters Say’, ‘US Democratic Socialists’, ‘Progressive Politics’, and ‘Jeremy Corbyn’.
Some of Jameson’s favorite news organisations were The Young Turks, CNN, BuzzFeed and Al Jazeera. He also liked a number of pro-vegan pages.
The jihadist also sympathised with a number of pro-Muslim pages, including ‘Documenting Oppression Against Muslims, ‘Islam – Religion of Peace’ and ‘Stunning Hijabs’, as well as numerous anti-Israel activist pages.
Jameson’s Facebook likes confirm that his political leanings were a mixture of radical far-left ideology and Islamism.
As we have documented, ISIS has previously attempted to reach out to those on the far-left as part of an attempt to create militant offshoot cells within the United States and Western Europe.
A passage from the ISIS manifesto Black Flags from Rome entitled ‘European Muslims allying with Left-Wing activists’ details a plan to recruit those on the far left because they broadly share the same goals as radical Islamists.
During the anti-Trump inauguration riots back in January, one Antifa supporter was seen displaying an ISIS flag and beheading videos on his phone in an effort to intimidate Trump supporters in Washington, DC.
According to a recently revealed FBI field report, Antifa supporters have stored improvised explosives on college campuses. Members of Antifa have also met with Islamic terrorists to obtain weapons & training.
FBI field report: Antifa has improvised explosives stored on college campuses. Members of Antifa have met with Islamic terrorists to obtain weapons & training. This is why the DHS now lists Antifa as a terror group. pic.twitter.com/TkbL3BRCgu — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) November 30, 2017
Antifa radicals are meeting with ISIS. This is directly from an FBI field report. pic.twitter.com/XpW2ngV3Z5 — Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) December 2, 2017
Given all this, it’s unsurprising that the Department of Homeland Security has formally classified Antifa’s activities as “domestic terrorist violence,” with federal authorities warning state and local officials that the group is becoming increasingly dangerous and confrontational.
SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:
Follow on Twitter: Follow @PrisonPlanet
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. | 1 | train |
|
JEFFERSON DAVIS STATUE TO BE REPLACED WITH OBAMA LIKENESS Workers in New Orleans dismantled the city’s Jefferson Davis monument early Thursday, removing the prominent statue of the Confederate leader that had stood for more than 100 years.
As workers slung a strap around the statue’s waist and lifted it off its pedestal, at least 100 people cheered from across the street, outnumbering the few dozen protesters of the removal, some waving Confederate flags.
“This historic moment is an opportunity to join together as one city and redefine our future,” Mayor Mitch Landrieu said as he announced that crews had begun removing the statue, the second of four planned removals of Confederacy-related monuments.
The Mayor also made an announcement that the statue would be replaced with a bronze statue of the 44th President Barack Obama.
“It will be nice”, Landrieu said, “to see a monument to our first African-American President in the same spot that used to be a place to memorialize old racist White privilege.”
The Obama statue will be patterned after one erected in Kenya last year and will reportedly cost the Louisana taxpayers an estimated $800,000 dollars.
Like an earlier removal, this one was performed in the dark because of death threats against city officials and contractors.
Beaureguard Billy-Bob Johnson, one of the leaders of the opposition was outraged by not only the statue being taken down but the fact that it occurred in the middle of the night.
“We would have preferred it to be in the daytime,” Johnson said, “so everybody could see what they are doing the light of day. And I really hate coming downtown at night with all the darkies afoot and everything.”
Before the monument could be removed, police had to clear the immediate area of demonstrators — both supporters of the monuments and those who want them taken away. Barricades were used to keep the sides separated, NOLA.com reported. The news outlet said chants by monument supporters included “Where’s Mitch?” while opponents chanted, “Hey hey, ho ho, white supremacy has got to go.”
As Fox news reported earlier, the mayor’s plan calls for the Davis statue to be melted down and cast into smaller statues of Black Lives Matter leaders. | 1 | train |
|
Fact-Check: No, Fall River, Massachusetts, Was Not ‘Built by Immigrants’ Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) claimed the host-city of his response to President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, Fall River, Massachusetts was “built by immigrants.”
Fact-Check: MOSTLY FALSE
What is now Fall River was first established in the 1600s by English settlers who were not “immigrants” but colonists. A native-born family, the Bordens ran a mill in what became the town for generations before and after the American revolution. Industrialization began when Col. Joseph Durfee, a native-born Revolutionary War hero built the first factory in 1811. Later, at the end of the 19th Century a wave of immigrants swelled the town’s population. Immigrants, however, never made up a majority of the population of Bristol County, where Fall River lies, even at their early 20th Century peak. | 1 | train |
|
Remarks by the President on the Resurgence of the American Auto Industry Michigan Assembly Plant
Wayne, Michigan
4:22 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, everybody! (Applause.) Give Mia a big round of applause for that outstanding introduction. (Applause.) Well, hello, Michigan! (Applause.) Happy New Year to everybody.
AUDIENCE: Happy New Year!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: I love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I -- what was that? I love you back. (Laughter.)
I want to thank all the outstanding leaders that we’ve got here today. I want to introduce some of them. We’ve got Secretary of Labor Tom Perez here. (Applause.) We’ve got Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan here. (Applause.) Senator Gary Peters is in the house. (Applause.) Congresswoman Debbie Dingell is here. (Applause.) Your outstanding CEO, Mark Fields, is here. (Applause.)
Now, I have to say I love the Secret Service, I love the Beasts that they put me in and -- that’s what we call the cars I drive in, “the Beasts.” So I like my ride these days. And it was made in Michigan, too. (Applause.) But I just had a chance to look at these new Mustangs, and I’ve got to say that the Mustangs have a little more style, a little more flavor. (Laughter and applause.)
Bill Ford is in the house. (Applause.) Surprisingly enough, we talked a little bit about Sunday. (Laughter.) Now, listen, I’m a Bears fan. You beat us twice. But even a Bears fan has to admit --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We got hosed!
THE PRESIDENT: -- that that was a little suspect. (Applause.) I have never seen anything like that before. I would have been pretty irritated. Were you irritated? Oh, yes. (Laughter.) But all I can say -- because I’m used to saying this, I’m a Bears fan -- there’s always next year. (Laughter.) And look, you’ve got a lot to be hopeful for. First of all, you’ve got one of the best defenses in the league. (Applause.) A fine young quarterback, Megatron. And if there’s one thing that you can take to the bank when talking about Detroit is that Detroit always comes back. (Applause.) Detroit always comes back. (Applause.)
And that’s why I’m here today. One of my New Year’s resolutions is to make sure that more Americans in Wayne, more Americans in Michigan, more Americans all across this great country -- that everybody feels like they’re coming back. And there is no doubt, thanks to the steps that we took early on to rescue our economy and to rebuild it on a new foundation, we are entering into the New Year with new confidence that America is coming back. (Applause.)
Now, you don’t have to take my word for it. The facts are the facts. And let’s face it, a lot of times the media doesn’t like reporting on good news, but every once in a while, it’s important for us to hear some good news, not to make us complacent, but to give us confidence that if we work harder, we can make even more good news.
So here’s how we begin this year. Last year, 2014, was the strongest year for job growth since the 1990s. (Applause.) Since the 1990s. (Applause.) We’ve now had a 57-month streak of private sector job creation. We’ve created nearly 11 million new jobs. That’s the longest stretch in our history of private sector, uninterrupted job creation. (Applause.)
Here’s another way of thinking about it. Since 2010, we, America, have put more people back to work than Europe, Japan, and every other advanced economy combined. (Applause.) Combined. (Applause.) And let me tell you what’s leading the way: American manufacturing. After a decade of decline, American manufacturing is in its best stretch of job growth since the 1990s. Here in Michigan, manufacturers have created more than 100,000 jobs, helping to cut your unemployment rate in half.
So we’re making more stuff. We’re selling it around the world. America is the number-one producer of oil, the number-one producer of gas. It’s helping to save drivers about a buck-ten a gallon at the pump over this time last year. (Applause.) And the cars that you make help everybody go a little further on that gallon of gas. (Applause.)
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- (applause) -- about 10 million Americans gained health insurance just over this last year. We’ve cut our deficits by about two-thirds. I’d like people to think about that, because when they do surveys of, like, ordinary folks on the street and they ask them, are the deficits going up or are they coming down, everybody automatically assumes, well, government spending and deficits must be going up. Deficits have come down by two-thirds since I took office -- by two-thirds. They’re going down. (Applause.) And after 13 long years, our war in Afghanistan has come to a responsible end, which means more of our brave troops have come home and spent time with their families during the holidays. (Applause.)
So the point is we’re moving. These six years have been tough, demanded hard work, demanded sacrifice on everybody’s part. You guys know that more than most. Which means that as a country, we have every right to be proud of what we’ve got to show for all that hard work.
America’s resurgence is real. Don’t let anybody tell you otherwise. We’ve got the best cards and we are doing better than just about anybody else on Earth. And now that we’ve got some calmer waters, now that the worst of the crisis is behind us, if we all do our part, if we all pitch in, then we can make sure that this rising tide is actually lifting all the boats, not just some. We can make sure that the middle class is the engine that powers American prosperity for decades to come.
And that’s going to be the focus of my State of the Union address in a couple of weeks -- building on the progress that we’ve already made. But I’ve got to admit I’ve only got two years left in office -- I didn’t want to wait for the State of the Union to talk about all the things that make this country great and how we can make it better. So I thought I’d get started this week. (Applause.) I figured, why wait? It’s like opening your Christmas presents a little early.
So today I’m here in Detroit, going to talk about the incredible things that have happened in the auto industry and what more we can do with manufacturing. Tomorrow, I’m going to visit Arizona, a state that was hit about as hard as anybody by the housing crisis, because we want to talk about how we're making homeownership a reality for more middle-class families.
On Friday, I’m going to go to Tennessee, a state that's making big strides in education, to show how we can help every American get the education they need to get ahead in this new economy.
But today, I wanted to come here to Michigan because this state proves no matter how tough times get Americans are tougher. (Applause.) Plus I wanted to see the new Mustang. (Laughter.)
Now, let’s just take a minute and think about what you've had to fight through. A few years ago, nearly one in five autoworkers got a punch in the gut with a pink slip. The year before I took office, 400,000 jobs vanished in this industry -- 400,000. Sales plunged 40 percent. And then as the financial crisis built, we faced what once seemed unimaginable when just two of the Big Three -- GM and Chrysler -- were on the brink of failure.
Now, this is the heartbeat of American manufacturing right here. And it was flat-lining. And we had a choice to make. We could have kept giving billions of taxpayer dollars to the auto industry without asking for accountability or change in return. But that would have just kicked the problem down the road. We could have done nothing, which some people said we should do, and let those companies fail. But think about what that would have meant for this country. The suppliers, the distributors, the communities that depend on the workers who patronize the restaurants and shop at the stores, all those companies would have gone under also.
And, look, the fact is nobody was in a stronger position than Ford. Bill and the team had done a great job steering Ford through tough times, but Bill and others are the first to admit that you could have had a cascading effect if the whole supply chain in the U.S. auto industry starts declining. Then Ford could have gone under, too. Plants would have shuttered. We would have lost this iconic industry, sold for scraps. And folks like you -- the men and women who built these companies with your hands -- would have been hung out to dry. And the communities you depended on -- the schoolteachers, the small business owners, the servers in the diner and, let’s face it, the barkeep -- (laughter and applause.) I’m just saying. (Laughter.) Are you a barkeep, or you’re just waving at me? (Laughter.) But everybody would have been affected. Their jobs were at stake, too.
And it’s more than that. The jobs in the auto industry have always been about more than a paycheck. They're a source of pride for generations. It was representative of what it meant to get into the middle class. You work hard in this job, you could afford to raise a family, buy a house, go on vacation, retire with some dignity. You knew you were making something that people could count on. It meant something. Every car you sent off the line brought you that step closer to doing the right thing by your family and giving something to your kids, and having a sense of security in your life. So plants like this one built more than just cars -- they built the middle class in this country. And that was worth fighting for. (Applause.)
So in exchange for the help, we demanded responsibility. We said to the auto industry, you’ve got to change with the times. Plants retooled. Plants restructured. Labor and management worked together, settled their differences. Everybody put some skin in the game. Everybody made some sacrifices. It wasn’t just some, it wasn’t just the workers who gave something up -- everybody.
And that's how things work best, by the way, when everybody is in it -- when workers and businesses work together; when whoever is in the board room and folks on the floor, they both understand they’re in it together. And we believe America is best when everybody is in it together. And we rejected the false choice that either unions or businesses could succeed but not both. We said, you know what, what’s going to work for the company is also going to work for that worker, and vice versa, which means when the company is doing better, then the workers have got to get their share as well. (Applause.)
And Ford rejected the false choice that they could either take care of their shareholder or take care of their worker -- they did both. And the company benefited and America benefited. We believed in shared sacrifice and that shared sacrifice leads to shared prosperity.
Now, I’ve got to tell you, I was talking to the Detroit News -- they were asking, what was it like when you were making this decision? I just want everybody to be clear. It was not popular. Even in Michigan, it wasn’t popular. I remember they did a poll and, like, in Michigan, it was like only 10 percent were in favor. (Laughter.) And you don’t have to be a genius political analyst to say, 10 percent is not very high. (Laughter.)
And, look -- and it wasn’t on my to-do list when I ran for President. I wasn’t expecting to have to do this. But I ran not to be just doing the popular things, I ran not just to do the easy things, I ran to do the right thing. And saving the American auto industry was the right thing to do. (Applause.) Betting on you was the right thing to do. (Applause.) It was the right thing to do. And that bet has paid off for America, because the American auto industry is back. (Applause.)
Now, part of the reason that we wanted to start this trip here is not just because I wanted to see the new Mustang, not just because the American auto industry is back, but because last month we actually marked a milestone. Last month, the rescue of the auto industry officially came to an end. The auto companies have now repaid taxpayers every dime and more of what my administration invested in you. (Applause.) You paid the taxpayers back with your hard work, with your dedication. (Applause.)
And over the past five years, this industry created about 500,000 new jobs. Last year, American autoworkers churned out cars faster than any year since 2005. Ford has brought jobs back from Mexico, created nearly 24,000 new jobs across this country, including 1,800 new jobs right here in this plant. (Applause.) And after more than a century since Henry Ford introduced the moving assembly line, you’re reinventing it -- one production line for gas, electric, hybrid, plug-in vehicles. That’s the first in the world, right here in Wayne, Michigan. (Applause.) First in the world. (Applause.) That’s always cool when you do something first.
And you’re helping rebuild the middle class for the 21st century. Just down the road in Lincoln Park, UAW-Ford Joint Apprenticeship Program is providing workers with hands-on training in the skills that employers need for the jobs of tomorrow. And nationally, by the way, 87 percent of all apprentices are employed after they complete their apprenticeship program, with an average starting wage of $50,000. So the more folks we get into apprenticeships, the more folks are getting middle-class jobs.
And that’s why I called on last year for businesses across the country to create more and expand more apprenticeship programs. And since then, we’ve seen the largest increase in apprenticeships in nearly a decade. And now my administration is investing $100 million in an American Apprenticeship Grant competition. We’re going to build on this momentum. We’re going to expand successful programs. We want young people to see that they have opportunities. They don’t all have to go to a four-year college. They can get an apprenticeship, save some money, start working -- (applause) -- build a family, buy a home, get some Lions tickets. (Laughter and applause.)
Because everybody came together here and worked together, folks are better off. And some of the most high-tech, fuel-efficient, high-powered, heart-pounding, good-looking, well-designed, fuel-efficient cars in the world are once again designed, engineered, forged and built not in Europe, not in Asia, right here in the United States of America. (Applause.) Right here in America. (Applause.)
So because of you -- because of you, manufacturing has a future in this country. Management has actually grown faster than other parts of the economy. And companies are now saying, you know what, we got to get back to America. We got to relocate. We were offshore, and now they're saying, oh, oh, America is back. We better get back in there. And that means because of you, the middle class has a future in this country.
And the auto industry has proved that any comeback is possible -- and by the way, so has Motor City. (Applause.) So has a Motor City. (Applause.) A year and a half ago, Detroit became the largest city ever to file for bankruptcy. Today, under the leadership of Mayor Duggan, Detroit is charting a new course. Businesses and private investors are making big investments, including Ford, which is helping to launch a tech startup incubator downtown. New restaurants and stores are popping up. Residents are fighting blight, securing abandoned homes, cleaning up neglected neighborhoods.
We’re seeing stories of young people who left town for other opportunities, didn't think they could make it here, and suddenly they're saying, you know what, maybe I want to get back to Detroit -- hoping to be part of the rebirth of this city.
Now, this city still faces big challenges, but you’re coming back. Just like the auto industry is going to have to continue to come up with new ideas and new designs and address competition. It never stops. We got to stay hungry. We can't be complacent. Just like America has got to still keep on working. Just like the Lions got to still come up with a little more work. (Applause.) But we're coming back.
And one thing is for sure -- we may not all root for the Lions, but America is rooting for Detroit. (Applause.) America is rooting for Detroit. (Applause.) We want the Motor City strong. And behind the stories of plants and cities and economic data, it’s people. It’s all of you.
So I’ll just close with a story of a guy named Ramone -- because we’re rooting for guys like Ramone. Ramone spent eight years in the military, served in Afghanistan, served in Iraq. Ramone here? Raise your hand, Ramone. (Applause.)
So Ramone is somebody who fought for our freedom, fought for our security. But sometimes we give lip service to supporting our troops, and then when they come home they get lost. So when Ramone came home, he had a hard time finding a job because it was a tough economy. He didn’t want to be a burden on his family, so he moved into a homeless shelter, took whatever work he could get. And then, one day in 2012, a VA counselor that he’d been working with handed him an application from Ford. Ford was hiring for new shifts.
Imagine what Ramone felt the day he knocked on his grandpa’s door -- his grandfather who had spent 25 years building Mustangs in Dearborn -- and Ramone was able to tell his grandfather he got a job at Ford. (Applause.) And now Ramone has got his own place. And now Ramone has got a good job right on the line here in Wayne. And every day, he’s doing just what his grandfather did. And he’s proud. He’s punching in and building some of the best cars in the world. (Applause.)
If you want to know what America is about, about grit and determination and hard work and sacrifice and looking out for one another and not giving up, think about Ramone. Think about Detroit. Think about the auto industry. Think about the Midwest. Think about Michigan. Think about America.
When our assembly lines grind to a halt, we work together, we get them going again. We don’t give up. We get up, we fight back. We come back stronger than before. Thanks to the hard work of people like you, America is coming back. And I’m going to be on your side every step of the way. (Applause.)
Thank you, Michigan. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END
4:47 P.M. EST | 0 | train |
|
Donald Trump to issue an executive order to ban Facebook across US Year 2017 does not seem to be going well for the United States of America. Sources have said that US President Donald Trump will soon issue an executive order to ban Facebook in the country.
On the other hand, even some Republican leaders said that they were opposed to the idea of Facebook — an American corporation — being banned in the country.
Unfazed by the criticism from his own party members, Trump said that this move would fight fake news being circulated on social media websites. "Inside, we both know what's been going on. We know the game and we're gonna play it," said Trump.
Governance involves taking difficult steps, said the US president, adding that despite Facebook taking action against fake news, a lot of false stories and 'alternative facts' were still being circulated on the site.
Other social websites like Twitter and Instagram, though, will be excluded from the executive order.
The people working for Facebook are not happy about this selective exclusion.
Rick Rowlinson, a source from Facebook, said that even if the ban on Facebook was actually meant to fight against fake news, the President's "commitment" should have not just been limited to Facebook. "You know the rules and so do I. A full commitment's what I'm thinking of," Rowlinson said. "You wouldn't get this from any other guy," he added, shaking his head.
In California, where Facebook is based, a large section of people have already begun protesting against this move.
Courts in the US had earlier blocked Trump's travel ban executive order.
Keen on supporting the President, Vice President Mike Pence has also said that he will support the executive order if it is passed by Trump.
Reacting to this proposed order, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook will continue to run its operations from California even if the site is banned in the US.
On Trump's claim to fight fake news, Zuckerberg said that an outright ban was not the correct way to fight false news.
Last month, reports were saying that a court in Pakistan was mulling action against Facebook over 'blasphemous content'.
Lately, there have been some countries speaking out against social media websites. If Trump's executive order is passed, US will join the list of those countries.
Employees of Facebook are planning to start a signature campaign against the order if it gets passed.
Donald Trump's remarks on Facebook and Zuckerberg's response has gone viral. Click here to view the full statements.
With inputs from FP Special Forces
Your guide to the latest election news, analysis, commentary, live updates and schedule for Lok Sabha Elections 2019 on firstpost.com/elections. Follow us on Twitter and Instagram or like our Facebook page for updates from all 543 constituencies for the upcoming general elections. | 1 | train |
|
Barack Obama says Mitt Romney condemned coal-fired power plants as killers Mitt Romney came to coal country on Aug. 14, standing before a crowd of miners in eastern Ohio and pledging to fight for their jobs.
You could be forgiven if you thought this was much ado about 3,150 jobs -- the number employed directly by coal operations in Ohio, at least before two mines announced layoffs recently. But Romney’s greater point was about how coal fires so many power plants in Ohio and the region, and how, he says, environmental regulation from President Barack Obama’s administration threatens jobs at those plants, too. This could drive up the cost of electricity for every Ohioan, Romney said.
This debate -- over the cost of electricity, the shift among power plants to natural gas, the environmental and health risks, the role the government should or shouldn’t play -- has been building for years. And after the event, the Obama campaign had a response, saying that Romney’s position on coal has changed substantially since he was governor of Massachusetts.
"Immediately after becoming governor, Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people," said an Obama campaign news release.
The claim was similar to one the Obama team made in a radio ad, and Obama reelection aides backed it with specific quotes Romney made in February, 2003, when Romney was the freshly elected governor of Massachusetts.
The quotes:
"That plant kills people." This was in reference to the Salem Harbor power plant, in the Boston area.
"I will not create jobs that kill people." This, too, was made by Romney outside the Salem Harbor plant.
The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from a state of Massachusetts news releasein which Romney said: "If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health."
Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station.
In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly.
Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the "Filthy Five" plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms -- all per year.
As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbor’s pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks at 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.
But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion -- that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentioned news release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor:
"Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming."
This was in a news release issued by the governor’s aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romney’s development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts.
The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbor’s then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts’ emissions rules -- and plant supporters showed up to to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: "That plant kills people." And to those including city officials who argued that this would cost jobs: "I will not create jobs that kill people."
Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third owner will build a natural gas plant there). That’s what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in email.
So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romney’s words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor?
We kept looking, because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. And the news release under Romney’s name suggested it as well.
Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming.
Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasn’t that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today?
No, say environmentalists who include authorities from the CLF.
Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently.
"When he said that ‘this plant kills people,’ he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest," said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the conservation foundation.
Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Association’s air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce -- and that Romney now criticizes.
"The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed," Kaplan agreed. "He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked."
To see if this was accurate -- that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks) -- we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensive Clean Air Markets database.
Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund.
The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held.
"It’s all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio," Walke said.
You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. It’s because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plant’s boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically.
It’s important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits won’t take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent.
But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romney’s name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May, 2004, issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them:
"First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills and poor coordination."
Romney was "a champion" of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. "He was one of the reasons we got them through."
Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, "That plant kills people." But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced.
And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal.
If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it’s fairly safe to assume that "one would also support such things nationally," said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health.
The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio.
The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time.
But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship, the Obama campaign claim about Romney’s coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day.
On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Mostly True. | 0 | train |
|
Breaking: Crew Of Air Force One Refuses To Fly Obama 6000 Miles ‘Just To Play Golf’ – BuzzfeedUSA Send to Email Address
Your Name
Your Email Address
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. | 1 | train |
|
Laura Ingraham wrongly says claim that 90% support for gun background checks has been debunked "The 90 percent statistic of supporting background checks, that's been debunked."
Gun control advocates often cite the statistic that 90 percent of Americans support expanding background checks for gun purchases.
President Barack Obama just did it in his Jan. 1, 2016, weekly address.
But conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham says that statistic is not accurate.
"The 90 percent statistic of supporting background checks, that's been debunked," Ingraham said on Fox News Sunday on Jan. 3. "Lots of the myths about gun ownership are perpetrated by people who never much liked the Second Amendment in the first place and who have a vested interest in amassing more power in Washington, D.C."
PolitiFact has rated this 90 percent statistic True as recently as October. So we decided to try and figure out what Ingraham was talking about when she said this is a myth that has been debunked.
Go to the polls
Under current law, background checks are required in sales by federally licensed gun dealers, but the checks are not required for gun sales by private sellers.
National polls conducted in 2015 consistently show that around 90 percent of Americans support some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases. Here are a few examples:
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Dec. 16-20: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" Support: 89 percent. Oppose: 9 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
CBS/New York Times poll, conducted Oct. 21-25: "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 92 percent. Oppose: 7 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
Gallup poll, conducted Oct. 7-11: "Would you favor or oppose a law which would require universal background checks for all gun purchases in the U.S. using a centralized database across all 50 states?" Favor: 86 percent. Oppose: 12 percent. Unsure: 2 percent.
Quinnipiac University poll, conducted Sept. 17-21: "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 93 percent. Oppose: 6 percent. Unsure/No answer: 1 percent.
Pew Research Center poll, conducted July 14-20: Do you favor or oppose "making private gun sales and sales at gun shows subject to background checks"? Favor: 85 percent. Oppose: 13 percent. Unsure/Refused: 2 percent.
Pew found that support for background checks spans all partisan and demographic groups, and it is also favored by a majority of households that own guns and those that do not.
So are all of these polls wrong? We reached out to Ingraham’s producers and didn’t hear back.
We couldn’t find any sort of definitive debunking of this stat, but we did find that some gun rights advocates have taken issue with this statistic for reasons such as the survey questions referring to the general idea of background checks rather than specific legislation.
For example, in 2013, polls found that 90 percent of Americans supported expanded background checks. However, when Congress failed to pass a popular bill that would have increased background checks, 47 percent were disappointed or angry that it failed, while some 39 percent were relieved or very happy, according to a Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll.
Some gun rights activists took this as proof that the 90 percent figure was phooey.
This highlights an odd discrepancy: While people overwhelmingly support specific gun policy ideas, like universal background checks and banning suspected terrorists from buying guns, the support is not as robust when it comes to actually expanding gun control.
The same October CBS/New York Times poll that found 92 percent support for expanded background checks also shows 46 percent of Americans think laws covering gun sales should be either made less strict or stay the same. Just 51 percent said the laws should be made more strict.
"People don't seem to like the idea of ‘gun control,’ but they still want the government to do more to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill," said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles and author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America.
Our ruling
Ingraham said, "The 90 percent statistic of supporting background checks, that's been debunked."
Numerous respected polls from 2015 show around 90 percent support for some sort of expanded background checks for gun purchases.
While there are some questions as to what inferences can be made from these findings — such as whether that 90-percent support translates into support for specific legislation — there hasn’t been a definitive debunking of the statistic.
We rate Ingraham’s claim False. | 0 | train |
|
Schneiderman suing Trump over DACA cites 'discriminatory animus' Schneiderman suing Trump over DACA cites 'discriminatory animus' 09:09 copied!
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman talks with Rachel Maddow about the coalition of states suing Donald Trump over his suspension of DACA.
Read More | 0 | train |
|
Kerry-McCain: Welcome To Massachusetts! Email this Page To:
Multiple addresses seperated by commas From:
Subject:
Message :
WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS!
Half Of The Proposed Kerry-McCain '04 Ticket Campaigns In Boston
ABC's Charles Gibson: "But, let me, let me, let me imagine it. If he asked you, if he came across the aisle and asked you, would you even entertain the idea? Or will you rule it out for good and all and ever right now?"
Sen. John McCain: "John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We've been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 3/10/04; www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcVXIhssCI)
Kerry-McCain 2004? Sen. John Kerry Says Sen. McCain Wanted It:
Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) Says That Sen. John McCain Approached him About Being His 2004 Running Mate. FOX NEWS' BRIT HUME: "The struggling presidential campaign of John McCain is now involved in a controversy with John Kerry over who approached whom about a possible McCain spot on the Democratic ticket in 2004. The Politico newspaper reports Kerry maintains that McCain's people made overtures to him about a vice presidential nod. But McCain says no, it was Kerry's idea, and that he rejected it each time it was raised. This of course, follows a similar story that came out last week in which Senate Democrats where saying McCain was in serious negotiations with them about switching parties following his loss to George W. Bush in the 2000 presidential primaries. McCain says that also is a mischaracterization, and that he was never serious about leaving the Republican Party." (Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume," 4/4/07; www.youtube.com/watch?v=KX37Jrw_dMM)
Sen. Kerry: "[McCain's] People Similarly Approached Me To Engage In A Discussion About His Potentially Being On The Ticket As Vice President." JONATHAN SINGER: "And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about what your discussions were with him [McCain] in 2004, how far it went, who approached whom... if there was any 'there' there." SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I don't know all the details of it. I know that Tom, from a conversation with him, was in conversation with a number of Republicans back then. It doesn't surprise me completely because his people similarly approached me to engage in a discussion about his potentially being on the ticket as Vice President. So his people were active -- let's put it that way." SINGER: "Okay. And just to confirm, you said it, but this is something they approached you rather than..." KERRY: "Absolutely correct. John Weaver of his shop approached..." (My DD Website, http://www.mydd.com/images/admin/McCain.mp3, Accessed 4/3/07)
Sen. McCain Publicly Said He'd Entertain The Idea Of Running With Kerry:
In 2004, When First Questioned If He'd Run With Kerry, McCain Said He "Would Entertain It." ABC's CHARLES GIBSON: "But, let me, let me, let me imagine it. If he asked you, if he came across the aisle and asked you, would you even entertain the idea? Or will you rule it out for good and all and ever right now?" SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: "John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We've been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 3/10/04; www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkcVXIhssCI)
Sen. McCain Also Considered Leaving The Republican Party In 2001:
The Hill: Sen. McCain Considered Leaving The GOP In 2001. "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Sen. McCain's Top Political Strategist John Weaver Recently Acknowledged That McCain Spoke To Democrats About Leaving The Party. "McCain consistently shot down the rumors, though Weaver acknowledged this week that the senator did talk to Democrats about leaving the GOP." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
One McCain Loyalist Said His Chances Of Leaving The Party Were "50-50." "In one article, Marshall Wittman, a McCain loyalist and strategist six years ago, put the odds of McCain leaving the Republican Party at '50-50.'" (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Sen. McCain Reached Out To Democrats:
In 2001, McCain Aide John Weaver Approached Prominent Democrats About McCain Switching Parties. "Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain's case, they said, it was McCain's top strategist who came to them." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Weaver Met With Lobbyist Tom Downey To Float The Idea Of A McCain Switch. "At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn't asked McCain to switch parties." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Weaver: "Well, If The Right People Asked Him." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Calls Were Immediately Placed To Powerful Democrats. "Within seconds' of arriving home from his lunch with Weaver, Downey said he was on the phone to the most powerful Democrats in town. One of the first calls he made was to then-Senate Minority Leader Daschle." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) Confirmed He Spoke To Downey. "I did take the call from Tom [Downey],' Daschle said in an interview. 'It was Weaver's comment' to Downey that started the McCain talks, he added." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Downey And Weaver Spoke Weekly. "Downey said he talked to Weaver at least once a week during McCain's discussions with Democrats, asking him questions like, 'What is the state of play?' and 'Where are we?'" (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Downey: "I Actually Thought During The Initial Stages Of This That [McCain Leaving The Republican Party] Was Almost A Certain Deal." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Downey: "Weaver Was Very Active In This." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Downey: "None Of This Happens Without Weaver." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Influential Democrats Talked To McCain About Defecting:
Leading Democrats Talked With Sen. McCain For Months About Leaving The Party. "In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain's chief political strategist." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Sens. McCain And Daschle Met. "Daschle said that throughout April and May of 2001, he and McCain 'had meetings and conversations on the floor and in his office, I think in mine as well, about how we would do it, what the conditions would be. We talked about committees and his seniority ... [A lot of issues] were on the table.'" (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Sens. John Edwards, Teddy Kennedy And Harry Reid All Attempted To Recruit Sen. McCain. "Other senators who played major roles in the intense recruiting effort, according to Democrats, were then-Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) as well as Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.)." (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
- Edwards Thought He Might Be Able To Convince McCain To Defect. '"John [Edwards] at that time was working with McCain on a couple things and there was a sense that because of his relationship that he might be a good person to talk to him,' Daschle said. 'He was clearly one of those that we thought could be helpful.''' (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07)
Daschle Thought Sen. McCain Was The Democrats' "Best Opportunity." "Daschle, however, said the talks went much further, claiming that there were times that he and Democratic leaders thought McCain 'might be our best opportunity.'" (Bob Cusack, "Democrats Say McCain Nearly Abandoned GOP," The Hill, 3/29/07) | 0 | train |
|
It’s Time for the Senate to Do Its Job It’s Time for the Senate to Do Its Job
Congressman Mike Honda Blocked Unblock Follow Following Mar 16, 2016
President Obama has taken a great deal of effort to ensure that the Supreme Court will add another extremely qualified legal scholar to the bench. Chief Judge Merrick Garland has already been considered for a seat on the Supreme Court because of his long history of excellent work on the DC Circuit. The President has chosen a man with amazing credentials, a mastery of the law and a history of independent legal thought.
This nation is built on a system of checks and balances: Executive, Legislative and the Courts. For us to be the best nation possible, we must have a full Supreme Court, ready to hear cases that will determine our future as a nation. Republican leadership in the Senate must adhere to a strict reading of the Constitution, advise the President on the nomination and vote on their consent to him joining the Court. It is time for us to put away politics and do our jobs. Americans should accept no less. | 0 | train |
|
Obama Orders Life-Sized Bronze Statute of Himself To Be Permanently Installed in White House 0
WASHINGTON, D.C. –
President Obama has ordered a $200,000, life-sized, bronze statue of himself, with plans to install it in the entryway of the White House. The president says that his legacy “should not be diminished,” and that this is the only way he can “keep an eye” over Trump, as well as future presidents.
“I have been president for only eight years, and in that time, I have done what no other presidents could do in all their time in total,” said Obama. “I have created a legacy that should not be diminished. I have created something that no future president will be able to do. In that regard, I have commissioned this statute, with plans to have it permanently erected in the entryway of the White House, so that all who enter can remember me fondly.”
The statue will not be allowed to be removed, as every president is allowed to leave one thing in the White House that must never be touched by future presidents. William Howard Taft left his giant bathtub. Bill Clinton left one of his saxophones. George W. Bush left a piece of mirror and a rolled up hundred.
0
Comments
comments | 1 | train |
|
Library of Congress 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 | 0 | train |
|
THIS ARTICLE RETRACTED: Red Crescent Says No Evidence of Chemical Attack in Syria’s Douma Update:
The Syrian Arab Red Crescent statement was reported, and at the time we had no reason to believe it was not true. Subsequent questions have emerged, however, and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent is saying they are unaware of such a statement having ever been issued by the Syrian branch. They further say the Syrian Red Crescent was shut down in Douma effective April 7.
—
The Syrian Red Crescent issued a statement Monday dismissing the allegations of a weekend chemical weapon attack in the city of Douma. The statement insisted their medical personnel in the city had found no evidence any such attack took place.
The Syrian Red Crescent said their hospital in Douma received six patients complaining of respiratory problems, but said they didn’t seem to have any physical problems at all, nor was there any trace of any chemical agents they might’ve been exposed to.
(This has been retracted, it is incorrect.)
Chemical attack or no, it wouldn’t be surprising for some people to complain of symptoms without actually having any problems. That the Red Crescent operates a hospital in a city supposedly inundated with wounded and didn’t get a single patient with confirmed exposure, however, is very noteworthy.
The Russian Defense Ministry also reported that their own medics had examined some patients in Douma, and had the same result, that none showed signs of chemical poisoning. With White Helmets claiming scores killed and over 500 wounded by exposure, it seems impossible to believe that if it was true no one can find any of these “real” patients to confirm an attack.
Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz | 1 | train |
|
Democratic debate: Bernie Sanders really isn't as "socialist" as President Eisenhower Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders earned laughter and applause during Saturday's Democratic debate for a line defending his progressive tax policy.
When asked how he would pay for proposals like tuition-free college for Americans, Sanders said he would finance them by "due-demanding: that the wealthiest people and the largest corporations - have gotten away with murder for years - start paying their fair share."
CBS News Congressional Correspondent Nancy Cordes pressed the White House hopeful: "Let's get specific. How high would you go? You've said before you'd go above 50 percent. How high?"
"We haven't come up with an exact number yet," Sanders responded. "But it will not be as high as the number under Dwight D. Eisenhower which was 90 percent."
Bernie Sanders on universal healthcare, taxing the rich and taking on Clinton
As an aside, he said, to loud cheers in the audience: "I'm not that much of a socialist compared to Eisenhower."
Sanders went on to say that his administration would "end the absurdities as Warren Buffet often reminds us - that billionaires pay an effective tax rate lower than nurses, or truck drivers that makes no sense at all. There has to be real tax reform and the wealthiest and the large corporations will pay when I'm president."
In fact, during the first term of Republican President Eisenhower, the marginal tax rate on regular income for those earning over $400,000 -- at the time, the highest income bracket -- was 92 percent. The tax rate was carried over from Democratic President Harry Truman's administration. This was the second-highest tax rate during the 20th century, following the 94 percent instituted by President Roosevelt during World War II for those making over $200,000 annually.
In 1954, under Eisenhower, the rate for the highest income bracket decreased to 91 percent.
Taking into account these income tax rates, Sanders' assertion that he's not as "socialist" as Eisenhower's administration is correct: Sanders has said before that he doesn't believe his tax policy would tax the top bracket over 90 percent, though he has yet to offer up an exact number.
Appearing on "CBS This Morning" in September, Sanders said "We are going to ask the wealthiest people in this country who are doing phenomenally well, and many large corporations that are making billions of dollars of profits and not paying a nickel in taxes, to in fact start paying their fair share of taxes."
When asked to specify, the Vermont senator said of taxing those in the highest income bracket, "I don't think you have to go up to 90 percent."
Sanders, however, has also called for greater increases in capital gains taxes, which were capped at 25 percent during most of Eisenhower's tenure.
During Saturday's debate, former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley also defended asking the wealthy to pay a higher share of taxes.
"Under Ronald Reagan's first term, the highest marginal rate was 70 percent," he pointed out.
O'Malley is also correct on this point: Under President Reagan, those with annual incomes over $215,400 were taxed at a rate of 69.1 percent. | 0 | train |
|
Thousands killed as Israel Drops Tactical Nuclear Bomb On Syria — Exclusive News An Israeli airplane in Syria has dropped the first nuclear bomb deployed in armed conflict since the US dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to local reports.
The nuclear blast targeted an ammunitions depot in Hama, Syria and was so powerful it caused a 2.6 magnitude earthquake recorded close to Taqsees, Hama, Syria at 10:40 pm local time Sunday, at the same time Syrian TV reported several explosions in the same area.
Moments later, videos of a massive set of explosions, reportedly at a Syrian military base at Jabal al-Bukhut 47, some 10 miles south-east of Hama, began to appear on social media. | 1 | train |
|
Trump warns Russia over Jehovah’s Witnesses ban and urges members to seek asylum in the US President Donald Trump has sent a strong message to the Russia Federation over the country’s ban on the “peaceful activities” of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Trump warns Russia to reverse its decision immediately else he would use the country’s own constitution against them.
“You know right that this is contrary to the constitution of the land of the Russia Federation. I request you to reverse the decision immediately before I use your own constitution against you” – Trump warned.
Trump went on to invite all Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia to seek asylum in the United States until their religious rights are reinstated in Russia.
“As this is an infringement of your fundamental human rights, I therefore urge you to seek asylum in the United States until your rights are fully reinstated.” – Trump urged.
Russia’s Supreme Court ruled on April 20, 2017 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization should be closed down and no longer allowed to operate legally in Russia, Human Rights Watch said today. The ruling, which affects more than 100,000 Jehovah’s Witness worshippers across Russia, is a serious breach of Russia’s obligations to respect and protect religious freedom.
The case could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled a previous attempted ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia unlawful in 2010.
The Supreme Court was deciding on a claim lodged by the Russian ministry of justice to liquidate the group’s administrative centre near St Petersburg and 395 local organizations. Its decision will come into effect within 30 days unless an appeal is lodged, when it will be delayed until the resolution of the case.
“The Supreme Court has ruled to sustain the claim of Russia’s ministry of justice and deem the ‘Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia’ organization extremist, eliminate it and ban its activity in Russia,” said judge Yuri Ivanenko. “The property of the Jehovah’s Witnesses organization is to be confiscated to the state revenue.”
A lawyer for the justice ministry, Svetlana Borisova, told the court adherents “pose a threat to the rights of the citizens, public order and public security”.
Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are known for door-to-door preaching and handing out literature, reject some of mainstream Christianity’s core beliefs and have more than 8.3 million members around the world | 1 | train |
|
Bureau of Labor Statistics Data Change Output Options: From: 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 To: 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 include graphs include graphs include annual averages include annual averages
Data extracted on: May 1, 2019 (3:17:14 AM)
Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National) | 0 | train |
|
'This Week' Transcript: Kaine and Steele TAPPER: Hello again. Joining me now, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Tim Kaine, and the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. Gentlemen, welcome.
KAINE: Hey, Jake, good to be with you.
STEELE: Jake, good to see you.
TAPPER: I want to get to the general election results in a second, but first, I want to bear in on a couple of controversies we have, and I'm going to start with you, Mr. Steele.
STEELE: OK.
TAPPER: I don't know if you were expecting (ph) that or not--
STEELE: Kind of.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: The Kentucky Senate candidate, Rand Paul, has expressed his objections philosophically to the federal government being able to tell businesses that they cannot discriminate. Here's Rand Paul.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RAND PAUL, SENATORIAL CANDIDATE, R-KY.: I like the Civil Rights Act in a sense that it ended discrimination in all public domains. I abhor racism. I think it's a bad business decision to ever exclude anybody from your restaurant. But at the same time, I do believe in private ownership.
There's ten different titles, you know, to the Civil Rights Act. One deals with private institutions, and had I been around, I would have tried to modify that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Chairman Steele, you have worked so hard to bring minorities into the Republican Party. Here is a Senate candidate saying that he doesn't think the government, philosophically, should be able to tell a business that they can't -- that they have to serve you.
STEELE: Right, right.
TAPPER: Do you have an issue with that?
STEELE: Well, I do, and I think it's important to understand that Rand Paul has clarified his statement and has reiterated his support for and, you know, movement towards pushing civil rights forward as opposed to going backwards, number one.
Number two, our party has always had a strong view on this issue. We fought very hard in the '60s to get the civil rights bill passed as well as the voting rights bill. So I think that, you know, any -- any, you know, attempted look backwards, it's not in the best interests of our country, certainly, and certainly not in the best interests of the party.
So, you know, I've talked to Rand. He and I are on the same page. Our party stands four-square about moving forward on civil rights. Looking at the civil rights issues of the day -- education, for example -- there are many other fights that loom ahead for us in this area, so Rand Paul as United States senator will be four-square with the Republican Party, in lockstep with moving forward on civil rights, not looking backwards.
TAPPER: Chairman Kaine, this is traditionally a Republican seat. Do these views of Rand Paul make this seat more competitive in your mind?
KAINE: Absolutely, they do, Jake. Of course, it starts with our candidate, Jack Conway, who's the attorney general, I think he's going to run a great race. But Rand Paul's views on this, his statement this week that he thinks it's un-American for President Obama to try to hold British Petroleum accountable for the spill in the Gulf--
TAPPER: Let's talk about that. What do you think about that?
STEELE: Well, I mean, our own speaker of the House referred to American citizens as un-American, so I think referring to a policy which he did not say it was un-American per se. He said going in that direction could be an un-American--
TAPPER: We have -- we actually have the video clip. Let's watch that.
(CROSSTALK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PAUL: What I don't like from the president's administration is this sort of, you know, I'll put my boot heel on the throat of BP, and I think it's part of this sort of blame game society in the sense that it's always got to be someone's fault, instead of the fact that maybe sometimes accidents happen.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Certainly, accidents happen is not what you want the Republican response about the BP oil spill--
STEELE: Well, you know, well, look, I mean, it's not -- people shouldn't worry about the Republican response to the BP oil spill. They should worry about the Democrat president's response to the BP oil spill. It is one thing to actually get on the ground and get in front of this thing. It's another thing to sit back and hold BP accountable without helping them, and that's what's happening here. I mean, the federal government should have stepped into this thing immediately, to help make sure that the appropriate steps are being taken by BP, all federal agencies in support of the state government to try to get this thing cleaned up. And here we are, almost a month and a half later, and it's still spilling oil.
TAPPER: How about that, Chairman Kaine? A lot of Democrats are criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough to hold BP accountable.
KAINE: The administration is doing two things. It starts with BP's accountability, and Rand Paul is wrong. It isn't un-American to hold somebody accountable for a massive environmental disaster of this kind. This isn't just a mistake that we can wash away. BP has got to be accountable for stopping the spill and then cleaning up and paying for the consequences. The administration has had a team working with BP from the very beginning trying to look at ways to help them do it, but it is BP's job. They have to be held accountable, and saying that it's just a mistake that needs to be washed away, or saying, as Rand Paul did, for example, that, you know, we needn't be so worried about things like mining regulations -- I mean, this is a very important role that the government has, to protect the safety of the environment and the health of its citizens. And so, Rand Paul's statements along these lines are very, very troubling, and it's important for Republican leaders to say whether they back this kind of an attitude or not.
I was a civil rights lawyer for 17 years. Rand Paul wrote a letter about the Fair Housing Act to a local newspaper, saying a free society should tolerate private discrimination, even if it means that hate-filled groups exclude people based on the color of their skin.
TAPPER: That's pretty much a direct quote.
STEELE: That's a direct quote, and it's a philosophical position held by a lot of libertarians, which Rand Paul is. They have a very, very strong view about the limitations of government intrusion into the private sector. That is a philosophical perspective. We have had a lot of members go to the United States Senate with a lot of different philosophies, but when they get to the body, how they work to move the country forward matters, and right now, the federal government is not moving forward on BP and cleaning up that mess; the federal government is not moving forward on the economy and creating jobs. There are a lot of -- there are a lot of philosophies, a lot of talk on this hill about folks to get stuff done. What the American people are looking for is what are the concrete steps that this administration has taken to clean up the mess in the Gulf before it gets worse, and to create the jobs that are necessary for people to go back to building the economy the way that everybody wants it to be.
TAPPER: Fair enough, but just one more -- one more beat on Rand Paul, and that is do you condemn that point of view? I mean, where would African-Americans be if the federal government hadn't come in and said, hotels, you have to--
STEELE: Exactly. That's very much a part of the debate back in the '60s, as it is going forward. But the reality of it is, our party has stood four-square behind, you know--
TAPPER: But do you condemn that view?
STEELE: I can't condemn a person's view. That's like, you know, you believe something and I'm going to say, well, you know, I'm going to condemn your view of it. It's the people of Kentucky will judge whether or not that's a view that they would like to send--
TAPPER: Are you comfortable with that?
STEELE: I am not comfortable with a lot of things, but it doesn't matter what I'm comfortable with and not comfortable with. I don't vote in that election. The people of Kentucky will. As a national chairman, I'm here to say that our party will move forward in fighting for the civil rights and liberties of the American people, especially minorities in this country, and we're going to do everything in our power to make sure that everyone who's going to come to the United States Congress or go to state capitals with a Republican label are in that fight with us.
TAPPER: It sounds like you're not comfortable with it.
STEELE: I just said I wasn't (ph) comfortable--
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Let me turn to something to make you uncomfortable, if I can, and that is the race in Connecticut. Democratic candidate Richard Blumenthal has been caught exaggerating his war record. Here's Richard Blumenthal.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, CONNECTICUT SENATORIAL CANDIDATE: We have learned something very important since the days that I've served in Vietnam.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Now, he didn't serve in Vietnam. He was a Marine reservist--
KAINE: During the Vietnam war, right.
TAPPER: During the Vietnam war. He's also quoted in the Milford Mirror in 2008 (ph) saying, "In Vietnam, we had to endure taunts and insults and no one said, welcome home. I say welcome home." In the Stanford Advocate in 2008, he said, "I wore the uniform in Vietnam, and many came back to all kinds of disrespect."
This seems like a real trust issue that voters might have with him.
KAINE: Those statements were wrong, period. They were wrong. And it was very important for him to acknowledge that and clear that up. Now, in his defense, he has given numerous speeches that are in the public record where he's talked extensively about his service, what he did, what he didn't do. One of the papers you mentioned, the Stanford Advocate, ran a very good editorial about that very thing yesterday, and reporters who covered Attorney General Blumenthal for years have said that they have never known him to exaggerate what his service was. But in those statements, he was inflating and exaggerating. They were wrong, and it was important that he set that straight.
STEELE: At a time when the American people are clearly rebelling against the same-old, same-old in politicians, Blumenthal is not the kind of guy I think they want to send anywhere, let alone to Washington to serve at this time, so I think there is a big credibility gap here. You can't say, well, you know, on the one instance, I lied to you, but on the other, since I made up for it by explaining why I lied to you. It doesn't make sense to the American people, and he's got a real problem right now, and I think that there are going to be other issues that are going to come to the fore on this, and so we'll see how it turns out.
But again, the people in Connecticut, just like the people in Kentucky, will have the final say and the ultimate say on these leaders. And you know, it's just, again, right now, there's just this mood out here that the people are sick and tired of (inaudible) -- sick and tired of the same-old in Washington. And these two examples that we're talking about are going to be judged by the people back home.
KAINE: Here's the -- let me just say a word about Connecticut. I mean, the interesting thing, there's of course Attorney General Blumenthal is not a new figure for Connecticut voters. It's an intimate, small state. They know him well. They've elected him to be attorney general. He served very well in that capacity for many years. They are going to weigh this in the grand scheme of things, but they have an awful lot of his record, including the numerous occasions where he's described accurately his military service, that they can use to judge him.
STEELE: But now they have something extra that they didn't know before.
TAPPER: Right. Are Democrats here in D.C. or in Connecticut at all preparing for a contingency where they might have to put another candidate up as happened with Torricelli in New Jersey?
KAINE: I was in Connecticut late last week, and I'm not aware of any contingency plan up there. I think it looks like the convention was held Friday. I think they're going ahead. Connecticut voters know him.
TAPPER: Moving forward to more -- out to elections in general. First of all, congratulations. There was a Hawaii special election last night that you guys won. But for competitive special elections, the Republican Party is one for four. There were two in New York, one in Pennsylvania. You did win the one in Hawaii, although the Democrat -- there were two candidates splitting the vote there. Does the Republican Party need to rethink its strategy?
STEELE: No, I mean, why do you dismiss the Hawaii vote so? Well, there was, you know, two other Democrats. That's a significant election win for us, and I'm going to -- I'm going to thank and congratulate Charles Djou on a great race, a very competitive race. That is a strong Democrat state, with very, very strong Democrat competitors that he ran against. I believe the voters there -- he took almost 40 percent of the vote, which is a significant number. He ran a grassroots campaign that was focused on the issues that impact the people of Hawaii. So don't just take away from that race, you know, sort of shoving it off. It is a significant win. It is the birthplace of the president of the United States.
TAPPER: Not everybody in your party think that way.
STEELE: Well, that's irrespective (ph) -- that's where the man was born--
(LAUGHTER)
STEELE: -- and we're proud of the fact that we were able to take that seat, just like we'll take his Senate seat in November.
KAINE: Jake, just for your viewers, of course the issue about the Hawaii race is for a special election, it's just a runoff, no primary. Three candidates ran, a Republican and two Democrats--
TAPPER: You guys couldn't convince one of the two Democrats to drop out of the race.
KAINE: Democrats are a fiery bunch, and if they want to run, they want to run. But let me just finish, Democrats got 60 percent of the vote in that race last night, and in the November--
STEELE: Yes, but you didn't win.
KAINE: In the November election, it will be one Democrat against one Republican, and we feel very, very confident about winning that race.
STEELE: And Hawaii (inaudible), they don't have a history of throwing incumbents out of office, so, you know, you've got--
KAINE: A three-month incumbent may be different.
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Both good points. To the Pennsylvania 12th--
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: Isn't that the kind of race you need to win?
STEELE: Well, look at the Pennsylvania 12th, folks. I mean, yes, on paper, you would think so, right? Why? Because it's Appalachia and it's a largely conservative--
TAPPER: Conservative Democrats. John McCain won the district. The Democrat was a staffer for John Murtha.
STEELE: Yes, but -- OK, can we -- can we be real here and get out of the conventional wisdom that Washington oftentimes gets stuck in? The reality of it here is, number one, hats off and kudos to Governor Rendell. He had a political genius point where he put the primary and the special election on the same day, and you guys wrote about, oh, gee, what does this mean? What's the mystery here?
Well, it's no mystery, because what happened was the voters went in to vote for Sestak for the primary and then had to flip the ballot over and then vote against him for the special election? They weren't going to do that.
So that, coupled with the 2-to-1 Democratic, you know, edge there made that a tough race from the very, very beginning. But the thing to keep in mind from our perspective -- and the governor certainly can appreciate this -- we were on our point in terms of our turnout, our voter turnout models, exceeded expectations. Our ground game was strong. And in November, we'll get that seat back, because then, guess what, independent conservatives get to play then, and that'll be a very different race.
TAPPER: Are you going to take the House back in November?
STEELE: We're working very hard to do that. But as you can see, you know, with -- some incumbents going down in primaries and newer players coming to the table, that model is still being built up for us. But absolutely, we're in the hunt. Just as he's in the hunt to protect, we're in the hunt to take.
KAINE: Jake, we're going to hold on to both houses, and I'll tell you why -- what this Pennsylvania 12th says. The Republican leadership said they were going to win this race. They said it was exactly the kind of district that they had to win to get a majority in the House.
We won it not just by a little, we won it by a lot, in a district, as you pointed out, that John McCain won in 2008. A former head of the NRCC, Tom Davis, a Virginia congressman, said, look, if they can't win this seat, where's the wave that's coming?
And the -- and the point that was very helpful is, Democrats were energized. Just like in Kentucky -- there's been all this focus on the Rand Paul race. The Democratic candidates in that primary in Kentucky both got more votes than Rand Paul did.
Our voters are energized after the passage of health care. With the economy improving, GDP growing again, we're going to pass soon in 2010 a mark where we will have created more jobs in the American economy in 2010 than in the entire eight years of the Bush administration. Things are looking up.
TAPPER: Let me interrupt. And -- and -- and you'll want me to. I only -- I only have a couple minutes, and I want to ask you about an interview that Sestak -- Congressman Sestak -- who beat Arlen Specter gave in February to legendary Philadelphia newsman Larry Kane on Comcast, in which he said that the White House tried to offer him something in exchange for not running against Arlen Specter in the primary. Here's that interview.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KANE: Were you ever offered a federal job to get out of this race?
SESTAK: Yes.
KANE: Was it Navy secretary?
SESTAK: No comment, though I would never get out for a deal. I'm in this for the Democratic--
KANE: OK, so but--
SESTAK: -- principles--
(CROSSTALK)
KANE: Was there a job offered to you by the White House? That's what it was?
SESTAK: Yes.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Very quickly, because we're running out of time, does the White House have a responsibility to own up and talk about what exactly was offered?
KAINE: I don't know that they do. I mean, the issue is what the White House needs to do now, along with us, is working with -- with him to make sure he's the next senator. He's been a great congressman. I talked to -- I talked to Joe earlier this week. We had a great visit on Thursday. And he was very excited about working hand in hand to win this race. We're a big tent party. Obviously, he's a dynamite campaigner. He showed that on Tuesday, and I think he gives us a great shot in November.
STEELE: Oh, that's -- that's rich. You -- you don't believe the White House has an obligation here to own up and answer a simple question? Did you or did you not offer a member of the United States Congress a job to run for office?
TAPPER: Very quickly. We only -- I only have time for one more question. Very quickly, because you haven't done a Sunday show since that whole club voyeur controversy happened in February, there was a new report indicating that the RNC spent $2,000 on athletic and softball equipment. Can -- can donors to the Republican National Committee know that their money is being well spent?
STEELE: Absolutely they can. And the reality of it is, we have taken aggressive steps to-- to make the changes that are necessary. Our donors are strong. We're raising money, and we're looking forward to using that money to beat this guy in November.
TAPPER: All right.
KAINE: I can say with experience, they had a good softball team before they bought the equipment.
TAPPER: Thank you so much. You guys were wonderful.
TAPPER: President Obama announcing a bipartisan commission to investigate the oil spill, one of the topics for our roundtable this morning with, as always, George Will, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, ABC's own Sam Donaldson, and ABC's own Cokie Roberts.
George, I'm going to start with you. Let's talk about Rand Paul. You heard Chairman Steele say he's not comfortable with Rand Paul's views on aspects of the Civil Rights Act. Is this a problem for the Republican Party?
WILL: Sure. And there's no reason to believe Rand Paul is a racist. There is now reason to believe that he's frivolous, that is, that he doesn't understand that his job is to win a Senate seat and not conduct a seminar on libertarian philosophy.
The simple fact is that, in 1964, we as a nation repealed one widely exercised right, the right of private property owners to serve in public accommodations whom they want, and replaced it with another right, that is, the right of the entire American public to use public accommodations.
We were correct to do so. And in the process, we refuted an old notion, that you cannot -- and this offends some libertarians -- the notion was you cannot legislate morality. Yes, you can. We did.
We not only got African-Americans into public accommodations, we changed the thinking of the white portion of the country, as well.
TAPPER: Donna, I've heard it said that Kentucky might be one of five or six states where a guy like Rand Paul can win.
BRAZILE: Well, Kentucky is a red state. And I thought after Tuesday night that Rand Paul had a real clear path to victory. I don't think that he has a clear path anymore.
First of all, I -- not only did Rand Paul struggle with his -- his answers the day after, but his extreme views are now under the microscope. And the people of Kentucky, I don't believe, are interested in sending him to Washington, D.C., to further polarize this country and polarize the Senate.
So Jack Conway, the Democratic nominee, his challenge is to show the Kentucky voters that Rand Paul is basically out of touch with the mainstream of Kentucky and out of touch with the mainstream of America.
TAPPER: Sam?
DONALDSON: Forty-six years later, after the Civil Rights Act filibuster was broken -- and I was in the gallery -- when Everett McKinley Dirksen, the Republican leader supporting the bill, made the last speech to break that filibuster.
Dr. Paul thinks we should reopen the debate on Title II. He says he supports the other titles of the act, but Title II is the one where you can sit down at a lunch counter, you can have breakfast someplace, you can go to a motel, and all that. He says, well, maybe there's -- that's private business.
TAPPER: Now, he says he doesn't want to overturn it, but just philosophically, he wouldn't have supported that part of...
(CROSSTALK)
DONALDSON: Well, he said, in one of the interviews, that if he had been in the Senate, he would have tried to modify that.
ROBERTS: Right.
DONALDSON: OK. So you don't overturn it, you modify it, so maybe it doesn't do those things.
ROBERTS: (inaudible) more discussion.
DONALDSON: On the Rachel Maddow show -- now, I believe as you do, George, he's probably not an internal racist, as I understand that definition, but he was asked finally, having skipped and gone back and forth, a direct question. Should Woolworth lunch counter be allowed to discriminate? Answer yes or no, she said. We're listening. He doesn't say yes, but he doesn't say no.
You say that's frivolous? I think that's stupid.
ROBERTS: But, you know, I -- I'm not sure, Donna, that the voters this year care about somebody being out of the mainstream. I mean, the people they are choosing in these primaries are definitely people who are out of the mainstream, whether it's in Utah or whether it's in -- in -- in -- Arkansas is still out -- up for grabs, but it looks like it's going toward the more liberal candidate in Arkansas.
TAPPER: That's the Bill Halter versus Blanche Lincoln race.
ROBERTS: Right. I mean, it is in -- in state after state, it is not the mainstream candidate the voters are interested in.
TAPPER: And, Cokie, isn't it -- isn't it fair to say that the same quality that got Rand Paul elected to that nomination...
ROBERTS: Could get him elected to the Senate.
TAPPER: Well, the idea -- this candor of his, this -- this philosophy, this isn't out of nowhere. This is who he is. This is what appealed to some people.
ROBERTS: Right, and a lot of people, that he was real, that he wasn't -- you know, wasn't a phony. But, you know, when you find out somebody's not a phony and what they're real about is -- is -- I don't care whether he's a racist or not -- the views are racist.
DONALDSON: But you say which voters? Which voters? It can't be all the voters. I mean, the Democrats still have a lot of voters out there. They've elected a lot of people, including a president. And in the race, as pointed out by the chairman, the Democratic chairman, the Democrats' two candidates running got 60 percent of the vote.
TAPPER: In Hawaii you're talking about?
ROBERTS: No, no, in Kentucky.
TAPPER: Oh, Kentucky. The two Democrats...
(CROSSTALK)
DONALDSON: So who is going to win in Kentucky? I can't predict. If I've learned anything after all these years as a political reporter, don't predict anything. But I would be shocked -- I'll say that now -- if Rand Paul gets most of Kentucky's votes and becomes the senator.
BRAZILE: This was a closed primary. And there's an internal struggle going on in the Republican Party for the heart and soul of the Republican Party, and I hope George can address just what side will eventually come out on top. But Rand Paul is able to energize the Republican Party right now because there's a vacuum. There's a vacuum of leadership. And the Tea Party has filled that gap.
The question is, in the fall, when independents are able to get to the table and vote, will they support someone whose views are considered out -- outside the mainstream?
ROBERTS: That is the question.
DONALDSON: Are you comfortable?
WILL: The good news about the whole Rand Paul dispute is this. We really do close some questions in this country. Some debates come to an end. A hundred and fifteen years ago, Democrats were all up in arms about free coinage of silver. We sort of settled that question and moved on.
ROBERTS: Or on prohibition. We've sort of settled that one.
WILL: And yet no one in America -- no one in America wants to reopen the argument that Rand Paul has reopened.
DONALDSON: What about doing away with the Federal Reserve Board?
TAPPER: All right.
DONALDSON: And replacing it with nothing?
BRAZILE: Or abolishing the Education Department or the income tax?
ROBERTS: Or the FDA?
TAPPER: Well, our discussion...
(CROSSTALK)
WILL: I'm for most of those.
(LAUGHTER)
TAPPER: Our discussion here on politics will continue after the break and during the break, probably. Plus, Mexico's president enters the immigration fray, and the politics of the BP oil spill. And later, of course, the Sunday funnies.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FALLON: In a new interview on ABC's "Nightline," Jesse James said he's probably the most hated man in the world. Yes. Then the CEO of BP was like, "Dude, don't flatter yourself."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JACKSON: You've been a longtime advocate for abstinence education. And in 2006, you had your staff conduct a report entitled "Abstinence and its Critics," which discredits many claims purveyed by those who oppose abstinence education. What did you think of this hearing?
SOUDER: Well, I personally feel I should have probably abstained from the hearing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Former Congressman Souder of Indiana, who resigned this week, and that -- he was being interviewed by the staff member with whom, allegedly, he had the affair.
Moving on, our roundtable...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: ... our roundtable continues, of course, with George Will, as always, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, ABC's own Sam Donaldson, and ABC's own Cokie Roberts.
You want to say something?
DONALDSON: You're not -- you're not being fair, because he doesn't mean that he recused himself because he was having an affair with her. He went on to say that he could recuse himself for other reasons. That's why I say I want fairness to be...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I appreciate that, Sam, always, always with the fairness. Let's talk about the Pennsylvania Senate race and Congressman Joe Sestak's defeat of Arlen Specter. Here is a little clip from an ad that Sestak ran against Specter that is widely considered to be one of the most effective ads of this election cycle.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SPECTER: My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.
(UNKNOWN): For 45 years, Arlen Specter has been a Republican politician.
BUSH: I can count on this man. See, that's important. He's a firm ally.
(UNKNOWN): But now...
SPECTER: My change in party will enable me to be re-elected.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Wow.
BRAZILE: Wow.
TAPPER: So, first of all, let me ask you a question, George. This -- this -- the Republicans are trying to make hay over this alleged deal that the White House made to Sestak. If you don't run against Specter, we'll give you this other job. A big deal or not a big deal?
WILL: Not a big deal. It's -- politics is a transactional business. They offered him a transaction -- if they did, and I don't see a thing wrong with it.
TAPPER: They are trying to make a big thing out of it, though.
WILL: I don't care what they're trying to do. It's a small thing.
Look, not since 1980, when four incumbent senators were defeated in -- for re-nomination, has more than one been. This year, already two have. Specter's the second; Bennett of Utah was the first. We also have Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas, the appointed Senator Bennet in Colorado is a third, and McCain's fate is still in doubt. So we could have five, and that's part of the tone of the year.
But Arlen Specter, as we saw in this ad, when he changed party, there was an agreeable absence of moralism, and opportunism reigned. He said, "I'm just doing this to save my own skin." It didn't work.
ROBERTS: But it couldn't be a worse year for that. It could not be a worse year for that, because people are in this mood of hating professional politicians, hating Washington, and -- and for him to just say, I'm doing this to win, and the end of that ad says he was protecting one job, his. And, I mean, just people hate the phoniness of it all.
TAPPER: But, you know, there is one aspect to the Specter failure to be -- to win that primary that I want to get into. Donna, here's President Obama campaigning -- he's on the trail -- with the four candidates -- with the four candidates that -- that he is supporting as president. They are Creigh Deeds in Virginia, Jon Corzine in New Jersey, Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, and, of course, Arlen Specter. Do we have that tape?
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: We know where Martha Coakley stands.
Arlen knew that it was more important to answer to the people who sent him to Washington.
You're going to be looking at the next governor of the commonwealth of Virginia, Creigh Deeds.
Your governor, my friend, Jon Corzine.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Donna, he's 0-for-4.
BRAZILE: Well, first of all, I wouldn't blame this on President Obama, because...
TAPPER: He didn't help.
BRAZILE: ... Arlen Specter has been running for office as long as President Obama has been alive, almost. The question is, could he transfer the kind of support he had in Philadelphia and other places to Arlen Specter? And the answer is no.
Joe Sestak ran a Democratic campaign. He won three out of the four largest counties outside of Philadelphia. He won Alleghany County and Pittsburgh. He ran the kind of campaign that Hillary Clinton ran against Barack Obama in Pennsylvania.
So it was an uphill battle for Senator Specter. I'm sorry, but when you announce that you're saving your job and not the jobs of the people of the state, that's a losing...
(CROSSTALK)
DONALDSON: Why -- why didn't Specter do what Ronald Reagan did in reverse? Why didn't Specter say, "I didn't leave the Republican Party. The Republican Party left me"?
ROBERTS: He did.
DONALDSON: I mean -- no, he didn't.
ROBERTS: He did at one point.
DONALDSON: He said re-election. He didn't. Excuse me. You saw the tape. Can we play the tape again for Cokie?
ROBERTS: He did both. He said both.
DONALDSON: All right. Let me just -- let me just continue then, if I may. Thank you. What's the name of that town you're from, New Orleans? OK. But, again, I think Specter did it to himself. I pick up the paper the next day, and the New York Times headline -- I may not | 0 | train |
|
Oprah Winfrey: The Butler, racism and Obama Video
American broadcaster and actress Oprah Winfrey said there was a whole generation of racist people who were "born and bred and marinated" in racism who would never change their ways, but that would die out.
She spoke to the BBC's Will Gompertz while in the UK to promote her new film The Butler, in which she plays Gloria Gaines, the wife of a White House butler. | 1 | train |
|
For Education Secretary, Stimulus Means Dollars and Risk Expectations are running so high, and the appetite for information is so large among the nation’s educators, that when Mr. Duncan organized a conference call last Wednesday to begin explaining the stimulus bill’s terms to a few dozen state and district superintendents, 800 callers swamped the switchboard.
Most of Mr. Duncan’s unusual power would come in disbursing a $54 billion stabilization fund intended to prevent public sector layoffs, mostly in schools. The bill sets aside $5 billion of that to reward states, districts and schools for setting high standards and narrowing achievement gaps between poor and affluent students. The law lets Mr. Duncan decide which states deserve awards and which programs merit special financing.
“It’s hard to imagine moving that much money that quickly,” said Margaret Spellings, Mr. Duncan’s predecessor, who turned her seventh-floor office over to him last month. “The point is, it’s never been done before, and as much confidence as I have in Arne Duncan, there’s an awesome opportunity for slippage with that much money moving through the meat grinder.”
Maybe Ms. Spellings is slightly jealous, since she and other secretaries stretching back decades had only small amounts of money for favored projects.
“Teeny, teeny,” said Amy Wilkins, who as vice president at the Education Trust, a civil rights group, has studied the budgets of several of Mr. Duncan’s predecessors. “Margaret was looking for quarters in her pencil drawer.”
Mr. Duncan said he understood the unusual circumstances.
“There’s going to be this extraordinary influx of resources,” he said in an interview. “So people say, ‘You’re going to be the most powerful secretary ever,’ but I have no interest in that. Power has never motivated me. What I love is opportunity, and this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something special, to drive change, to make our schools better.”
Mr. Duncan said he intended to reward school districts, charter schools and nonprofit organizations that had demonstrated success at raising student achievement — “islands of excellence,” he called them. Programs that tie teacher pay to classroom performance will most likely receive money, as will other approaches intended to raise teacher quality, including training efforts that pair novice instructors with veteran mentors, and after-school and weekend tutoring programs.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
The stimulus money will help states avert some, but most likely not all, of the education cutbacks for the 2009-10 school year resulting from state budget shortfalls that currently total some $132 billion. California, for instance, is facing a $41 billion budget shortfall, much of it in school spending, but will receive some $11 billion in education money from the stimulus, estimates the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers union.
Photo
The positions of deputy secretary, under secretary and chief of staff and dozens of other senior posts at the Education Department remain unfilled, so Mr. Duncan is relying on help from career officers and consultants. He has appointed teams to develop procedures for distributing the stimulus billions quickly, and many aides, he said, have been working evenings and weekends to begin organizing the effort.
“I want all of us to work hard enough and smart enough to take full advantage of this, because it’ll never happen again,” Mr. Duncan said last month in his first speech to hundreds of civil servants at department headquarters, as the outlines of the huge stimulus package were taking shape in Congress.
Urging department employees not to be deferential, he described the reception he got on his first visit to his headquarters.
“It was like, ‘Hello, Mr. Secretary-designate-nominee,’ and it didn’t feel right,” Mr. Duncan said. “My name is Arne. It’s not Mr. Secretary. Please just call me Arne.” That line drew a standing ovation.
He has hit it off well with Congress, too, so far. His wife, Karen, whom Mr. Duncan met in Australia, where he played professional basketball after his 1987 graduation from Harvard, accompanied him to his Senate confirmation, along with their daughter, Claire, 7, and son, Ryan, 4, who sat quietly during the hearing, reading storybooks.
“If you and your wife have done such a great job with Ryan, who is so well behaved, I hope you can do that with every child in American classrooms,” said Senator Johnny Isakson, Republican of Georgia.
Another Republican senator, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, said Mr. Obama had made “several distinguished cabinet appointments.”
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
“I think you’re the best,” Mr. Alexander, who was education secretary under the first President Bush, said to Mr. Duncan.
But now comes the hard part.
Last year the Education Department distributed about $59 billion to states, school districts and colleges, most of it along well-worn financing paths mapped out by Congress.
“Congress usually spends two years debating the rules for how to spend $50 million,” said Jack Jennings, president of the Center on Education Policy, a research organization in Washington. “But this time they’re providing money without spelling out how it should be spent, so Arne Duncan and his staff are going to have to work out rules themselves in just weeks. He’s going to have his hands full.”
Congress has stipulated some rules, of course. To receive a share of the $54 billion stabilization fund, governors must make several “assurances” to Mr. Duncan, intended to drive school reforms: that they are developing statewide data systems that can allow schools to track individual students’ academic progress, that they are assigning experienced teachers fairly to rich and poor schools alike, and so on. Mr. Duncan has the ticklish job of ruling on whether the governors’ assurances are convincing.
And Congress has given him a $5 billion incentive fund that he can use to reward states that are raising student achievement and withhold money from states that are not. “We have states that tell the public that 90 percent of kids are meeting state standards,” Mr. Duncan said, “but when we look at how they’re doing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, it’s nowhere close. I’m not going to reward that. I want to be transparent about the good, bad and the ugly.”
Some states and districts will get less than what they believe is their share, which could create powerful enemies.
“Secretary Duncan has a very challenging job,” said Joel Packer, a lobbyist for the National Education Association. “It’ll take a lot of effort to get this right.” | 0 | train |
|
Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform in El Paso, Texas 1:21 P.M. MDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, El Paso! (Applause.) Well, it is wonderful -- wonderful to be back with all of you in the Lone Star State. (Applause.) Everything is bigger in Texas. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back! (Applause.) Even the welcomes are bigger. (Applause.) So, in appreciation, I wanted to give a big policy speech outside on a really hot day. (Laughter.) Those of you who are still wearing your jackets, feel free to take them off. I hope everybody is wearing sunscreen.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We live here.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you live here? You don’t need it, huh? (Laughter.) Well, it is a great honor to be here. And I want to express my appreciation to all of you for taking the time to come out today.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. (Applause.)
You know, about a week ago, I delivered a commencement address at Miami Dade Community College, which is one of the most diverse schools in the nation. The graduates were proud that their class could claim heritage from 181 countries around the world -- 181 countries. (Applause.)
Many of the students were immigrants themselves, coming to America with little more than the dream of their parents and the clothes on their back. A handful had discovered only in adolescence or adulthood that they were undocumented. But they worked hard and they gave it their all, and so they earned those diplomas.
And at the ceremony, 181 flags -- one for every nation that was represented -- was marched across the stage. And each one was applauded by the graduates and the relatives with ties to those countries. So when the Haitian flag went by, all the Haitian kids -- Haitian American kids shouted out. And when the Guatemalan flag went by, all the kids of Guatemalan heritage shouted out. And when the Ukrainian flag went by, I think one kid shouted out. (Laughter.) This was down in Miami. (Laughter.) If it had been in Chicago, there would have been more.
But then, the last flag, the American flag, came into view. And everyone in the room erupted in applause. Everybody cheered. (Applause.) So, yes, their parents and grandparents -- some of the graduates themselves -- had come from every corner of the globe. But it was here that they had found opportunity. It was here that they had a chance to contribute to the nation that is their home.
And it was a reminder of a simple idea, as old as America itself: E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We define ourselves as a nation of immigrants -- a nation that welcomes those willing to embrace America’s ideals and America’s precepts. That’s why millions of people, ancestors to most of us, braved hardship and great risk to come here -- so they could be free to work and worship and start a business and live their lives in peace and prosperity. The Asian immigrants who made their way to California’s Angel Island. The German and Scandinavians who settled across the Midwest. The waves of Irish, and Italian, and Polish, and Russian, and Jewish immigrants who leaned against the railing to catch their first glimpse of the Statue of Liberty.
This flow of immigrants has helped make this country stronger and more prosperous. (Applause.) We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I. M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie.
And then when I think about immigration I think about the naturalization ceremonies that we’ve held at the White House for members of our military. Nothing could be more inspiring. Even though they were not yet citizens when they joined our military, these men and women signed up to serve.
We did one event at the White House and a young man named Granger Michael from Papua New Guinea, a Marine who had been deployed to Iraq three times, was there. And you know what he said about becoming an American citizen? He said, “I might as well. I love this country already.” That’s all he said. Marines aren’t big on speeches. (Laughter.)
Another was a woman named Perla Ramos who was born and raised in Mexico and came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history we write day by day.”
That’s the promise of this country -- that anyone can write the next chapter in our story. It doesn’t matter where you come from -- (applause) -- it doesn’t matter where you come from; it doesn’t matter what you look like; it doesn’t matter what faith you worship. What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. (Applause.) All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness. In embracing America, you can become American. That is what makes this country great. That enriches all of us.
And yet, at the same time, we’re here at the border today -- (applause) -- we’re here at the border because we also recognize that being a nation of laws goes hand in hand with being a nation of immigrants. This, too, is our heritage. This, too, is important. And the truth is, we’ve often wrestled with the politics of who is and who isn’t allowed to come into this country. This debate is not new.
At times, there has been fear and resentment directed towards newcomers, especially in hard economic times. And because these issues touch deeply on what we believe, touch deeply on our convictions -- about who we are as a people, about what it means to be an American -- these debates often elicit strong emotions.
That’s one reason it’s been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex, when it raises such strong feelings, it’s easier for politicians to defer until the problem the next election. And there’s always a next election.
So we’ve seen a lot of blame and a lot of politics and a lot of ugly rhetoric around immigration. And we’ve seen good faith efforts from leaders of both parties -- by the way, I just noticed, those of you who have chairs, if you want to sit down, feel free. There’s no rule about having to stand when I’m --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: -- we love you! (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: But we’ve seen leaders of both parties who try to work on this issue, but then their efforts fell prey to the usual Washington games. And all the while, we’ve seen the mounting consequences of decades of inaction.
Today, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States. Some crossed the border illegally. Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families. (Applause.)
But we have to acknowledge they’ve broken the rules. They’ve cut in front of the line. And what is also true is that the presence of so many illegal immigrants makes a mockery of all those who are trying to immigrate legally.
Also, because undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, where they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses that skirt taxes, and pay workers less than the minimum wage, or cut corners with health and safety laws, this puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work, it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.
Think about it. Over the past decade, even before the recession hit, middle-class families were struggling to get by as the costs went up for everything, from health care, to college tuition, to groceries, to gas. Their incomes didn’t go up with those prices. We’re seeing it again right now with gas prices.
So one way to strengthen the middle class in America is to reform the immigration system so that there is no longer a massive underground economy that exploits a cheap source of labor while depressing wages for everybody else. I want incomes for middle-class families to rise again. (Applause.) I want prosperity in this country to be widely shared. (Applause.) I want everybody to be able to reach that American dream. And that’s why immigration reform is an economic imperative. It’s an economic imperative. (Applause.)
And reform will also help to make America more competitive in the global economy. Today, we provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. (Applause.)
But then our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or a new industry here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to stay here, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can attract, all the talent we can get to stay here to start businesses -- not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contribution will benefit all Americans.
Look at Intel, look at Google, look at Yahoo, look at eBay. All those great American companies, all the jobs they’ve created, everything that has helped us take leadership in the high-tech industry, every one of those was founded by, guess who, an immigrant. (Applause.)
So we don’t want the next Intel or the next Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root here. (Applause.) Bill Gates gets this. He knows a little something about the high-tech industry. He said, “The United States will find it far more difficult to maintain its competitive edge if it excludes those who are able and willing to help us compete.”
So immigration is not just the right thing to do. It’s smart for our economy. It’s smart for our economy. (Applause.) And it’s for this reason that businesses all across America are demanding that Washington finally meet its responsibilities to solve the immigration problem. Everybody recognizes the system is broken. The question is, will we finally summon the political will to do something about it? And that’s why we’re here at the border today.
And I want to say I am joined today by an outstanding Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, who’s been working tirelessly on this issue. (Applause.) Our commissioner who’s working diligently on border issues, Alan Bersin, is there, and we appreciate him -- Bersin. (Applause.)
So they’re doing outstanding work. And in recent years, among one of the greatest impediments to reform were questions about border security. And these were legitimate concerns. What was true was a lack of manpower and a lack of resources at the border, combined with the pull of jobs and ill-considered enforcement once folks were in the country.
All this contributed to a growing number of undocumented people living in the United States. And these concerns helped unravel a bipartisan coalition that we had forged back when I was in the United States Senate. So in the years since, “borders first, borders first,” that's become the common refrain, even among those who were previously supportive of comprehensive immigration reform.
But over the last two years, thanks to the outstanding work of Janet and Alan and everybody who’s down here working at the border, we’ve answered those concerns. Under their leadership, we have strengthened border security beyond what many believed was possible. They wanted more agents at the border. Well, we now have more boots on the ground on the southwest border than at any time in our history. (Applause.)
The Border Patrol has 20,000 agents -- more than twice as many as there were in 2004. It’s a build-up that began under President Bush and that we’ve continued, and I had a chance to meet some of these outstanding agents, and actually saw some of them on horseback who looked pretty tough. (Laughter.) So we put the agents here.
Then they wanted a fence. Well, the fence is --
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: The fence is now basically complete.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Tear it down!
THE PRESIDENT: Then we’ve gone further. We tripled the number of intelligence analysts working at the border. I’ve deployed unmanned aerial vehicles to patrol the skies from Texas to California. We have forged a partnership with Mexico to fight the transnational criminal organizations that have affected both of our countries. (Applause.) And for the first time -- for the first time we’re screening 100 percent of southbound rail shipments to seize guns and money going south even as we go after drugs that are coming north. (Applause.)
So, here’s the point. I want everybody to listen carefully to this. We have gone above and beyond what was requested by the very Republicans who said they supported broader reform as long as we got serious about enforcement. All the stuff they asked for, we’ve done. But even though we’ve answered these concerns, I’ve got to say I suspect there are still going to be some who are trying to move the goal posts on us one more time.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: They’re racist!
THE PRESIDENT: You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. (Laughter.) Maybe they want alligators in the moat. (Laughter.) They’ll never be satisfied. And I understand that. That’s politics.
But the truth is the measures we’ve put in place are getting results. Over the past two and a half years, we’ve seized 31 percent more drugs, 75 percent more currency, 64 percent more weapons than ever before. (Applause.) And even as we have stepped up patrols, apprehensions along the border have been cut by nearly 40 percent from two years ago. That means far fewer people are attempting to cross the border illegally.
And also, despite a lot of breathless reports that have tagged places like El Paso as dangerous, violent crime in southwest border counties has dropped by a third. El Paso and other cities and towns along this border are consistently among the safest in the nation. (Applause.) Of course, we shouldn’t accept any violence or crime. And we’ve always got more work to do. But this progress is important and it’s not getting reported on.
And we’re also going beyond the border. Beyond the border, we’re going after employers who knowingly exploit people and break the law. (Applause.) And we are deporting those who are here illegally. And that’s a tough issue. It’s a source of controversy.
But I want to emphasize we’re not doing it haphazardly. We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent. (Applause.)
That’s not to ignore the real human toll of a broken immigration system. Even as we recognize that enforcing the law is necessary, we don’t relish the pain that it causes in the lives of people who are just trying to get by and get caught up in the system.
And as long as the current laws are on the books, it’s not just hardened felons who are subject to removal, but sometimes families who are just trying to earn a living, or bright, eager students, or decent people with the best of intentions. (Applause.)
And sometimes when I talk to immigration advocates, they wish I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how a democracy works. What we really need to do is to keep up the fight to pass genuine, comprehensive reform. That is the ultimate solution to this problem. That's what I’m committed to doing. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we can. We can do it. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: The most significant step we can now take to secure the borders is to fix the system as a whole so that fewer people have the incentive to enter illegally in search of work in the first place. This would allow agents to focus on the worst threats on both of our -- both sides of our borders, from drug traffickers to those who would come here to commit acts of violence or terror. That’s where our focus should be.
So, El Paso, the question is whether those in Congress who previously walked away in the name of enforcement are now ready to come back to the table and finish the work that we’ve started. (Applause.) We’ve got to put the politics aside. And if we do, I’m confident we can find common ground.
Washington is lagging behind the country on this. There is already a growing coalition of leaders across America who don’t always see eye-to-eye, but are coming together on this issue. They see the harmful consequences of a broken immigration system for their businesses and for their communities, and they understand why we need to act.
There are Democrats and Republicans, people like former Republican Senator Mel Martinez; former Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; leaders like Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York; evangelical ministers like Leith Anderson and Bill Hybels; police chiefs from across the nation; educators; advocates; labor unions; chambers of commerce; small business owners; Fortune 500 CEOs.
I mean, one CEO had this to say about reform: “American ingenuity is a product of the openness and diversity of this society. Immigrants have made America great as the world leader in business, in science, higher education and innovation.” You know who that leader was? Rupert Murdoch, who owns FOX News, and is an immigrant himself. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Rupert Murdoch’s views, but let’s just say he doesn’t have an Obama sticker on his car. (Laughter.) But he agrees with me on this. (Applause.)
So there is a consensus around fixing what’s broken. And now we need Congress to catch up. Now we need to come together around reform that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants; reform that demands that everybody take responsibility. So what would comprehensive reform look like?
First, we know that government has a threshold responsibility to secure our borders and enforce the law. And that’s what Janet and all her folks are doing. That’s what they’re doing. (Applause.)
Second, businesses have to be held accountable if they exploit undocumented workers. (Applause.)
Third, those who are here illegally, they have a responsibility as well. So they broke the law, and that means they’ve got to pay their taxes, they’ve got to pay a fine, they’ve got to learn English. And they’ve got to undergo background checks and a lengthy process before they get in line for legalization. That’s not too much to ask. (Applause.)
And fourth, stopping illegal immigration also depends on reforming our outdated system of legal immigration. (Applause.) We should make it easier for the best and the brightest to not only stay here, but also to start businesses and create jobs here. In recent years, a full 25 percent of high-tech startups in the U.S. were founded by immigrants. That led to 200,000 jobs here in America. I’m glad those jobs are here. I want to see more of them created in this country. We need to provide them the chance. (Applause.)
We need to provide our farms a legal way to hire workers that they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status. (Applause.) And our laws should respect families following the rules -- reuniting them more quickly instead of splitting them apart. (Applause.)
Today, the immigration system not only tolerates those who break the rules, but it punishes folks who follow the rules. While applications -- while applicants wait for approval, for example, they’re often forbidden from visiting the United States. Even husbands and wives may have to spend years apart. Parents can’t see their children. I don’t believe the United States of America should be in the business of separating families. That’s not right. That’s not who we are. We can do better than that. (Applause.)
And we should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents. (Applause.) We should stop denying them the chance to earn an education or serve in the military. And that’s why we need to pass the DREAM Act. (Applause.) Now, we passed the DREAM Act through the House last year when Democrats were in control. But even though it received a majority of votes in the Senate, it was blocked when several Republicans who had previously supported the DREAM Act voted no.
That was a tremendous disappointment to get so close and then see politics get in the way. And as I gave that commencement at Miami Dade, it broke my heart knowing that a number of those promising, bright students -- young people who worked so hard and who speak about what’s best in America -- are at risk of facing the agony of deportation. These are kids who grew up in this country. They love this country. They know no other place to call home. The idea that we’d punish them is cruel. It makes no sense. We’re a better nation than that. (Applause.)
So we’re going to keep fighting for the DREAM Act. We’re going to keep up the fight for reform. (Applause.) And that’s where you come in. I’m going to do my part to lead a constructive and civil debate on these issues. And we’ve already had a series of meetings about this at the White House in recent weeks. We’ve got leaders here and around the country helping to move the debate forward.
But this change ultimately has to be driven by you, the American people. You’ve got to help push for comprehensive reform, and you’ve got to identify what steps we can take right now -- like the DREAM Act, like visa reform -- areas where we can find common ground among Democrats and Republicans and begin to fix what’s broken.
So I’m asking you to add your voices to this debate. You can sign up to help at whitehouse.gov. We need Washington to know that there is a movement for reform that’s gathering strength from coast to coast. That’s how we’ll get this done. That’s how we can ensure that in the years ahead we are welcoming the talents of all who can contribute to this country and that we’re living up to the basic American idea that you can make it here if you try. (Applause.)
That’s the idea that gave hope to José Hernández. Is José here? Where’s -- José is right over there. (Applause.) I want you to hear -- I want you to think about this story. José’s parents were migrant farm workers. And so, growing up, he was too. He was born in California, though he could have just as easily been born on the other side of the border, if it had been a different time of year, because his family moved around with the seasons. So two of his siblings were actually born in Mexico.
So they traveled a lot, and José joined his parents picking cucumbers and strawberries. And he missed part of school when they returned to Mexico each winter. José didn’t learn English until he was 12 years old. But you know what, José was good at math and he liked math. And the nice thing is that math was the same in every school, and it’s the same in Spanish as it is in English.
So José studied, and he studied hard. And one day, he’s standing in the fields, collecting sugar beets, and he heard on a transistor radio that a man named Franklin Chang-Diaz -- a man with a surname like his -- was going to be an astronaut for NASA. So José decided -- right there in the field, he decided -- well, I could be an astronaut, too.
So José kept on studying, and he graduated high school. And he kept on studying, and he earned an engineering degree. And he kept on studying, and he earned a graduate degree. And he kept on working hard, and he ended up at a national laboratory, helping to develop a new kind of digital medical imaging system.
And a few years later, he found himself more than 100 miles above the surface of the Earth, staring out of the window of the shuttle Discovery, and he was remembering the boy in the California fields with that crazy dream that in America everything is possible. (Applause.)
Think about that, El Paso. That’s the American Dream right there. (Applause.) That's what we’re fighting for. We are fighting for every boy and every girl like José with a dream and potential that's just waiting to be tapped. We are fighting to unlock that promise, and all that holds not just for their futures, but for America’s future. That's why we’re going to get this done. And that's why I’m going to need your help.
Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
1:56 P.M. MDT | 0 | train |
|
Rand Paul Campaigns in Iowa for Miller-Meeks 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 | 0 | train |
|
Hurricane Irene: ‘Photo’ of shark swimming in street is fake
Holy moly! A (fake) picture of a shark swimming on a Puerto Rico street! (Reddit)
That’s because it is.
Google “shark,” and up pops a great photo of a shark stalking a kayak from a 2005 issue of Africa Geographic.. Commenters on Reddit, where the photo seems to have originated, quickly noted this and the very real similarities between the two sharks (note the small circular shadow just below the shark’s belly.)
Some sites have since realized their error. Neatorama, for example, has removed its story with the photo called “Thank you, Hurricane Irene: Shark in the street.” We’ve asked Channel 7 in Miami, which broadcast the user-submitted photo, if it plans to inform viewers about its fakeness. We will update this post if we hear back.
This phenomenon is nothing new. After the death of Osama bin Laden, a fake photo of his body circulated on Arab news outlets. When the earthquake hit Japan, photographs of a damaged church started circulating. The church was located in Christchurch, New Zealand.
What’s the lesson here? If you see a picture of a dolphin hanging out in Central Park after Irene moves through the East Coast this weekend, you may want to investigate it further.
More Hurricane Irene coverage from the Washington Post:
Hurricane Tracker
Massive Hurricane Irene resumes intensification
Hurricane Irene to sock beaches, sweep D.C. metro region
A warm and summery calm before Irene; tropical storm warning issued | 1 | train |
|
Trump Orders 13 Obama Deep State Operatives Arrested For Treason Fact Check Fact-Check Quick Rate Ratings Ratings Scores represent the weighted public opinion of the quality of this article based on political spin, trust, accuracy, and relevance. To see the current scores for this article, tap Ratings. 0% Score Share
Flag
OURLANDOFTHEFREE.COM – Its nice to see the rule of law being restored! Its now clear why the Left has been throwing such a fit lately. While they have been screaming RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA, President Trump has been dealing with some of our nations actual problems. According t.. | 1 | train |
|
DONALD TRUMP PRAISES COLONEL SANDERS FOR HIS SERVICE IN THE CIVIL WAR Manny Schewitz O 2 Days Ago Off the Wire Speaking to Our Intern Dave Robicheaux Who Is Paid in Facebook Likes Trump Insisted Col H Speaking to our intern Dave Robicheaux, who is paid in Facebook likes, Trump insisted Col. Harland Sanders, whom he called a “tremendous Civil War hero,” once saved an entire army at Valley Forge from certain starvation. Trump, a noted fan of Kentucky Fried Chicken, explained how Col. Sanders took five loaves of Evangeline Maid bread and two chickens, added his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices, and turned these humble ingredients into delicious meals that lasted an entire winter. Robicheaux attempted to explain to Trump that Col. Sanders was born 25 years after the end of the war, that The Donald seemed to be confusing the food incident with a Biblical story about Jesus feeding the multitudes, and that Valley Forge was neither an encampment nor a battle site during the Civil War. | 1 | train |
|
NPC Luncheon with Eric Holder Attorney General Eric Holder delivered remarks on criminal justice and sentencing reform at a National Press Club Speakers luncheon on Feb. 17, 2015. | 0 | train |
|
Bumble Bee Foods charged after man cooked with tuna The Bumble Bee tuna processing plant in Santa Fe Springs, Calif., on Oct. 15, 2012. (Photo: Nick Ut, AP)
Bumble Bee Foods and two managers were charged by Los Angeles prosecutors Monday with violating safety regulations in the death of a worker who was cooked in an industrial oven with tons of tuna.
Jose Melena was performing maintenance in a 35-foot-long oven at the company's Santa Fe Springs plant before dawn Oct. 11, 2012, when a co-worker, who mistakenly believed Melena was in the bathroom, filled the pressure cooker with 12,000 pounds of canned tuna and it was turned on.
When a supervisor noticed Melena, 62, was missing, an announcement was made on the intercom and employees searched for him in the facility and parking lot, according to a report by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health. His body was found two hours later after the pressure cooker, which reached a temperature of 270 degrees, was turned off and opened.
The company, its plant Operations Director Angel Rodriguez and former safety manager Saul Florez were each charged with three counts of violating Occupational Safety & Health Administration rules that caused a death.
The charges specify that the company and the two men willfully violated rules that require implementing a safety plan, rules for workers entering confined spaces, and a procedure to keep machinery or equipment turned off if someone's working on it.
Rodriguez, 63, of Riverside, and Florez, 42, of Whittier, could face up to three years in prison and fines up to $250,000 if convicted of all charges, prosecutors said. Bumble Bee Foods faces a maximum fine of $1.5 million. Prosecutions of workplace violations are uncommon — even in fatalities.
San Diego-based Bumble Bee said in a statement that "we remain devastated by the loss of our colleague Jose Melena in the tragic accident." It said it disagreed with the charges filed by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office and that it was "exploring all options with respect to those charges."
Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1zkCgeX | 1 | train |
|
He says universal, but it's no guarantee Under attack at a recent debate from rival Hillary Clinton on health care, Barack Obama shot back:
"Well, let's talk about health care right now because the fact of the matter is that I do provide universal health care. The only difference between Sen. Clinton's health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated — forced — them to get health care."
Before jumping into this fray, it's important to note that when it comes to health care, the two Democratic presidential candidates have a lot in common.
One of the few differences is that Clinton includes a universal mandate. That means that after everything else goes according to plan, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance. Think of how people are required to buy auto insurance and you get an idea of what that might look like.
Obama's plan includes a mandate to insure children, but it does not include a mandate for adults, as the Clinton and Edwards plans do. That likely means not as many people will be insured, said Kenneth Thorpe, professor of health policy and management at Emory University.
Obama's decision not to include a mandate is a more cautious approach, one Obama says is designed not to penalize people with modest incomes. If premiums don't drop enough after all the reforms are implemented, people will still be unable to afford insurance. If a law mandates they buy it anyway, they probably won't. Obama's argument is that if you then fine them, you're essentially punishing the poor — and they will still be uninsured. Obama is betting that his plan will get costs low enough that many of the estimated 47-million uninsured will sign up without a mandate, and a mandate will come later.
So is it fair for Obama to call his plan "universal"? Well, not really. Even if you buy his argument that his plan will create the market conditions to make health care universally available, nothing in his plan guarantees it. We rate his claim Barely True. | 0 | train |
|
Hillary Clinton says guns exceed next nine categories as leading cause of death for young black men "Gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young African American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined."
In a speech posted on Medium, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton offered a striking statistic about gun violence and minority youth.
"Gun violence," she wrote, "is by far the leading cause of death for young African-American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined."
We wondered whether this is correct, so we took a closer look.
We found the relevant data on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website. Using this search form, we collected data on the 10 most common causes of death for African-American men and boys between the ages of 15 and 24, for 2014.
Rank Cause of death Number of deaths Number gun-related 1st Homicide 2,416 2,256 2nd Unintentional injuries 1,135 47 3rd Suicide 448 230 4th Heart disease 172 -- 5th Cancer 161 -- 6th HIV 52 -- 7th Chronic lower respiratory diseases 47 -- 8th Congenital anomalies 38 -- 9th Anemia 33 -- 10th Diabetes 33 -- Total, 2nd through 9th place -- 2,119 --
So even if you look only at gun-related homicides, there were 2,256 of those in 2014, compared to 2,119 deaths in the next nine categories combined. This makes Clinton’s statement correct.
If you add in the accidents and suicides related to guns, the gap between gun-related deaths and other types of deaths expands even further.
There were 2,533 gun-related deaths in all 10 categories combined, compared to 2,002 deaths in the top 10 categories that had nothing to do with guns.
We should note that this statement is dependent on the age range chosen. For instance, the statement is not correct for African-American boys between age 10 and 14. There were 38 gun-related homicides in that age and racial group in 2014, plus 10 gun suicides and three unintentional injuries caused by guns, for a total of 51. By contrast, the top 10 causes of death for that age and racial group included 271 deaths that had nothing to do with guns, such as diseases.
That said, we think Clinton’s definition of "young" as 15-24 is a reasonable one.
Our ruling
Clinton said, "Gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young African-American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined."
As long as you define "young" as being between the ages of 15 and 24, Clinton’s statement is accurate, according to CDC data. We rate the statement True. | 0 | train |
|
Morgan Freeman: ‘Jailing Hillary’ Best Way To ‘Restore Public Faith In Govt’ 302 SHARES Share Tweet
The best way to restore public faith in government institutions is to “send Hillary to prison“, according to Hollywood icon Morgan Freeman, who warns that unless the former First Lady’s crimes are seen to be punished, “everyday Americans will forever know, deep down, that there is one law for those with money and power, and another for the rest of us.”
“Hillary should be in jail for her unlawful deeds and President Trump should absolutely, absolutely make sure this happens to send the very strong message that no-one, and I mean no-one, is above the law in the United States of America,” Morgan Freeman said in New York while promoting National Geographic’s new docu-series The Story of Us.
Responding to a question about why he thinks President Trump has not yet fulfilled this particular campaign promise, Freeman laughed and said and looked up at the heavens before saying, “Goddamnit man, you were elected for this very reason, lock that bitch up!”
After being accused of political incorrectness, Freeman laughed again, saying “It’s all about being loving and caring these days, isn’t it?“
“The most loving and caring thing we as a society can do for Hillary Clinton is lock her up where she can get professional and institutional help and prevent her hurting herself or anyone else.”
The veteran actor, who remains as professionally active as at any point in his long career, cannot be accused of partisan bullying. It appears the 80-year-old star is simply a straight shooter who would prefer politicians and public figures are held to the same standards as everyone else.
In September the Shawshank Redemption star appeared in a viral video demanding President Trump speak directly to the American people about the extent of Russia’s meddling in the 2016 presidential election.
While insisting that the Kremlin’s election interference is “no movie script,” and that he did not know whether the allegations were true or not, Morgan said, “we need our president to speak directly to us and tell us the truth.”
“We need him to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office and say, ‘My fellow Americans. During this past election, we cam under attack by the Russian government,” Freeman demands Trump to say, adding, ‘I’ve called on Congress and our intelligence community to use every resource available to conduct a thorough investigation to determine exactly how this happened.’” | 1 | train |
|
Obama 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。 | 0 | train |
|
Just In The Hill 1625 K Street, NW Suite 900 Washington DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 tel | 202-628-8503 fax
The contents of this site are ©2019 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsidiary of News Communications, Inc. | 0 | train |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.