image
imagewidth (px) 16
5.18k
| text
stringlengths 42
32.8k
| label
int64 0
1
| split
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
Mourning in America 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 |
|
The Legislative Process "All Legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
(Article I, Section 1, of the United States Constitution)
How Are Laws Made?
Laws begin as ideas. First, a representative sponsors a bill. The bill is then assigned to a committee for study. If released by the committee, the bill is put on a calendar to be voted on, debated or amended. If the bill passes by simple majority (218 of 435), the bill moves to the Senate. In the Senate, the bill is assigned to another committee and, if released, debated and voted on. Again, a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Finally, a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval. The Government Printing Office prints the revised bill in a process called enrolling. The President has 10 days to sign or veto the enrolled bill. | 1 | train |
|
NRA President Jim Porter Falsely Accused of Saying, “It’s Only A Matter Of Time Before We Can Own Colored People Again” -- ADVERTISEMENT --
UI Notice: The comments were found not to be true. PHEEEEEWWWW, that would have been too much to handle.
Houston – It seems new National Rifle Association President (NRA) president Jim Porter may have found himself in a bit of hot water. Not long ago he made his feelings about the Civil War known when he referred to it as the “War of Northern Aggression.” In that same speech he referred to President Obama as a “fake president” and Attorney General Eric Holder as “rabidly un-American.” However none of those remarks that anyone could deem as racist compare to his remarks made at a recent press conference discussing his new leadership role at the NRA.
“I’m very proud to be taking the lead here at the NRA. We need to really buckle down and strap on our best arguments to defend what is our God-given rights. No more northern folk tryin’ take away what is rightfully ours. I will not stand by and let some liberal-elitists try to ruin what has made this country great, especially a liberal of, you know, a different breed.”
When asked to clarify Porter said,
-- ADVERTISEMENT --
“I don’t have to clarify. You know gall darn well what I mean. In fact, it’s only a matter of time before we can own colored people again. They sure as hell won’t be our leaders. It’s out-right embarrassing. The War of Northern Aggression made it all possible, and you be best to know it’s all gonna change back. I’ll be on the front lines making sure it happens. I don’t want my grandkids growing up taking orders from a colored man. It’s our God-given right to keep them as property and keep them in line.”
Several at the NRA, including vice president Wayne LaPierre, have since tried to distance themselves from Porter’s remarks. LaPierre said, “They brought him in over me to try and liven things up, calling me boring and rehearsed. Next time they’d be better off just making me president.”
It’s still unknown if the NRA and Porter will write an apology and retraction to his comments. Free Wood Post will keep you up to date as this story unfolds.
Source: http://www.freewoodpost.com/2013/05/05/nra-president-jim-porter-its-only-a-matter-of-time-before-we-can-own-colored-people-again/
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN AND LEAVE A COMMENT PUBLIC NOTE: The opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the Urban Intellectuals, affiliates or partners. -- ADVERTISEMENT -- | 1 | train |
|
Trump on Revamping the Military: We’re Bringing Back the Draft COSTA MESA, Ca. – GOP presidential front-runner and billionaire entrepreneur Donald Trump on Thursday unveiled his plan to ‘make the military great again,’ saying he intends to reinstate the draft as part of a larger effort to bolster America’s armed forces. “We’re bringing back the draft, okay? We’re going to bring it back and were going to make America as strong as we were in the Sixties,” Trump declared while addressing supporters at the Pacific Amphitheater in Costa Mesa.
“I love the Sixties,” said Trump, continuing, “I was a very big supporter of the Vietnam war and, of course, the troops. No one supports the troops more than I do.” In addition to bringing back military conscription, Mr. Trump said that if elected, he will enact legislation that will guarantee citizenship to anyone who serves in the armed forces for a minimum of four years. “You have people coming into this country, coming over our borders, expecting a free ride. We’re not going to give it to them, folks. They’re going to have to earn their citizenship.”
Trump has repeatedly stated that he won’t rule out using nuclear weapons against the Islamic State. On Thursday he expanded on his claims, saying he would instruct the Pentagon to begin testing “man-portable” tactical nuclear weapons to be used by American soldiers on the battlefield. “We’re not going to have unquestionable military dominance if we’re seen as too weak to use these weapons against our enemies.”
Rather than use conventional means such as drone strikes or economic sanctions to respond to acts of terrorism or other forms of aggression against the United States, Trump vowed to exercise the nuclear option “extremely” liberally. “My feeling is we have these weapons and we’ve spent a great deal of money developing and improving them over the years; there’s absolutely no reason why we shouldn’t be using them.”
The former reality TV star accused President Obama of making the country less safe by employing tact and diplomacy when dealing with foreign leaders. “This guy’s the president of the United States and he’s bowing to the Chinese. They’re laughing in our faces, okay? They’re laughing in our faces and if we don’t do something about it, they’re going to surpass us militarily and economically and then we’re going to have a huge problem on our hands.”
Donald Trump kicked off the start of his California campaign on Thursday where he made a stop in Costa Mesa, a semi-rural farming community located in Orange County. The GOP presidential hopeful is scheduled to address California’s Republican convention on Friday. | 1 | train |
|
Cain said food stamp program use up under Obama With the fire of a Baptist preacher, Georgia’s newest presidential prospect warned a crowd of thousands that the country has gone astray under President Barack Obama.
"We have become a nation of crises," Republican Herman Cain shouted during his Saturday announcement at Centennial Olympic Park that he’s running for president.
"Look at the facts. Don’t listen to the rhetoric," he said. High gas prices. A rising national debt. High unemployment.
"Forty-seven million people on food stamps," Cain said. "That’s 14 million more than when the current occupant of the White House took over."
Food stamps? your PolitiFact Georgia scribes wondered. What’s with Georgia Republicans and food stamps lately?
Last week, the state’s other presidential contender, Newt Gingrich, said Obama deserves to be called "the most successful food stamp president in American history" because "47 million Americans are on food stamps."
We ruled Gingrich’s statement Half True. For the most part, Gingrich got his facts straight but oversimplified who was to blame.
Cain, a former radio talk show host and Godfather’s Pizza CEO, urged the crowd at his rally to "look at the facts." PolitiFact Georgia is all to happy to oblige him.
Food stamps, officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, give certain low-income Americans vouchers to buy groceries.
The most recent data show roughly 44.2 million people received SNAP benefits in February, the most recent data available.
Cain’s numbers aren’t quite accurate, but he’s close. The number of recipients has topped 44 million since December, which means his estimate is about 7 percent too high.
The number of beneficiaries has climbed every single month since Obama took office, despite signs of an improving economy. According to historical data, February’s count appears to be the highest in any month since the program was established in 1969.
Obama took office in January 2009. That month, nearly 32 million people received SNAP benefits. That means the number of food stamp recipients has increased by about 12.2 million since the start of his administration.
Cain placed the increase at 14 million, which is about 15 percent too high. Again, he’s close, but not quite right.
Whether Obama deserves the blame for the increase is far less clear.
The rise in food stamps is a direct consequence of the Great Recession, which started more than a year before Obama took office. Conservatives and liberals agree that Obama inherited a troubled economy. Whether SNAP usage would have been lower if Republicans won the presidency is impossible to tell.
The number of food stamp beneficiaries ticked upward under President George W. Bush because of policies that broadened eligibility for the program and more aggressive efforts to get eligible Americans to apply for benefits. These policies remained in place under Obama.
Another reason assigning blame is tough is that there is typically a lag between when the broader economy begins to recover and when SNAP usage declines. The monthly growth has slowed for the past three months, and it could start declining in a month or two.
Cain’s accusation against Obama was not as barbed as Gingrich’s, but he did lay the blame for food stamp usage at the president’s feet. We therefore give the presidential candidate a Mostly True. | 0 | train |
|
SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don’t assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:
There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.
Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17, and we’ve removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]
Here is Romney expressing his disdain for Americans who back the president:
At the dinner, Romney often stuck to familiar talking points. But there were moments when he went beyond the familiar campaign lines. Describing his family background, he quipped about his father, “Had he been born of Mexican parents, I’d have a better shot of winning this.” Contending that he is a self-made millionaire who earned his own fortune, Romney insisted, “I have inherited nothing.” He remarked, “There is a perception, ‘Oh, we were born with a silver spoon, he never had to earn anything and so forth.’ Frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you can have: which is to get born in America.”
Romney told the contributors that “women are open to supporting me,” but that “we are having a much harder time with Hispanic voters, and if the Hispanic voting bloc becomes as committed to the Democrats as the African American voting block has in the past, why, we’re in trouble as a party and, I think, as a nation.” When one attendee asked how this group could help Romney sell himself to others, he answered, “Frankly, what I need you to do is to raise millions of dollars.” He added, “The fact that I’m either tied or close to the president…that’s very interesting.”
Asked why he wouldn’t go full-throttle and assail Obama as corrupt, Romney explained the internal thinking of his campaign and revealed that he and his aides, in response to focus-group studies conducted by his consultants, were hesitant to hammer the president too hard out of fear of alienating independents who voted for Obama in 2008:
We speak with voters across the country about their perceptions. Those people I told you—the 5 to 6 or 7 percent that we have to bring onto our side—they all voted for Barack Obama four years ago. So, and by the way, when you say to them, “Do you think Barack Obama is a failure?” they overwhelmingly say no. They like him. But when you say, “Are you disappointed that his policies haven’t worked?” they say yes. And because they voted for him, they don’t want to be told that they were wrong, that he’s a bad guy, that he did bad things, that he’s corrupt. Those people that we have to get, they want to believe they did the right thing, but he just wasn’t up to the task. They love the phrase that he’s “over his head.” But if we’re—but we, but you see, you and I, we spend our day with Republicans. We spend our days with people who agree with us. And these people are people who voted for him and don’t agree with us. And so the things that animate us are not the things that animate them. And the best success I have at speaking with those people is saying, you know, the president has been a disappointment. He told you he’d keep unemployment below 8 percent. Hasn’t been below eight percent since. Fifty percent of kids coming out of school can’t get a job. Fifty percent. Fifty percent of the kids in high school in our 50 largest cities won’t graduate from high school. What’re they gonna do? These are the kinds of things that I can say to that audience that they nod their head and say, “Yeah, I think you’re right.” What he’s going to do, by the way, is try and vilify me as someone who’s been successful, or who’s, you know, closed businesses or laid people off, and is an evil bad guy. And that may work.
(Note: Obama did not promise his policies would keep unemployment under 8 percent, and 50 percent of college graduates are not unemployed.)
To assure the donors that he and his campaign knew what they were doing, Romney boasted about the consultants he had retained, emphasizing that several had worked for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:
I have a very good team of extraordinarily experienced, highly successful consultants, a couple of people in particular who have done races around the world. I didn’t realize it. These guys in the US—the Karl Rove equivalents—they do races all over the world: in Armenia, in Africa, in Israel. I mean, they work for Bibi Netanyahu in his race. So they do these races and they see which ads work, and which processes work best, and we have ideas about what we do over the course of the campaign. I’d tell them to you, but I’d have to shoot you.
When one donor said he was disappointed that Romney wasn’t attacking Obama with sufficient intellectual firepower, Romney groused that the campaign trail was no place for high-minded and detail-oriented arguments:
Well, I wrote a book that lays out my view for what has to happen in the country, and people who are fascinated by policy will read the book. We have a website that lays out white papers on a whole series of issues that I care about. I have to tell you, I don’t think this will have a significant impact on my electability. I wish it did. I think our ads will have a much bigger impact. I think the debates will have a big impact…My dad used to say, “Being right early is not good in politics.” And in a setting like this, a highly intellectual subject—discussion on a whole series of important topics typically doesn’t win elections. And there are, there are, there are—for instance, this president won because of “hope and change.”
Romney, who spoke confidently throughout the event and seemed quite at ease with the well-heeled group, insisted that his election in and of itself would lead to economic growth and that the markets would react favorably if his chances seemed good in the fall:
They’ll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I’m going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president’s going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you’re talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We’ll see capital come back and we’ll see—without actually doing anything—we’ll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don’t know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a “Taxageddon,” as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can’t work together, it’s—it really is frightening.
Advertise on MotherJones.com
At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney “sparingly…so that people don’t get tired of her.” And he noted that he had turned down an invitation from Saturday Night Live because such an appearance “has the potential of looking slapstick and not presidential.”
Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don’t contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.
ALSO READ: More from the secret Romney video. (Romney tells his donors he doesn’t believe in a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, that resolving this conflict is “almost unthinkable,” and that he would merely “kick the ball down the field.”)
Video production: James West, Adam Serwer, Dana Liebelson, and Erika Eichelberger
Research assistance: James Carter
This story originally contained versions of the videos that were blurred out. You can find those videos, in the order they appear in this post, here, here, here, here, and here. | 0 | train |
|
Transcript of AP interview with Trump A transcript of an Oval Office interview Friday with President Donald Trump by AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace. Where the audio recording of the interview is unclear, ellipses or a notation that the recording was unintelligible are used.
AP: I do want to talk to you about the 100 days.
TRUMP: Good.
AP: I want to ask a few questions on some topics that are happening toward the end of the interview.
TRUMP: Did you see Aya (Hijazi, an Egyptian-American charity worker who had been detained in the country for nearly three years) ...
AP: Can you tell me a little bit about how that came about?
TRUMP: No, just — you know, I asked the government to let her out. ...
TRUMP: You know Obama worked on it for three years, got zippo, zero.
AP: How did you hear about this story?
TRUMP: Many people, human rights people, are talking about it. It’s an incredible thing, especially when you meet her. You realize — I mean, she was in a rough place.
AP: Did you have to strike a deal with (Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah) el-Sissi over this?
TRUMP: No. No deal. He was here. He — I said, “I really would appreciate it if you would look into this and let her out.” And as you know, she went through a trial. And anyway, she was let go. And not only she, it was a total of eight people. ...
___
TRUMP: Yeah, it’s funny: One of the best chemistries I had was with (German Chancellor Angela) Merkel.
(Crosstalk) AP: Really?
TRUMP: Chancellor Merkel.
TRUMP: And I guess somebody shouted out, “Shake her hand, shake her hand,” you know. But I never heard it. But I had already shaken her hand four times. You know, because we were together for a long time.
AP: Did you expect you would have good chemistry with her?
TRUMP: No. Because, um, I’m at odds on, you know, the NATO payments and I’m at odds on immigration. We had unbelievable chemistry. And people have given me credit for having great chemistry with all of the leaders, including el-Sissi. ...
TRUMP: So it was a great thing to see that happen.
___
AP: Do you feel like you have changed the office of the presidency, how the presidency can be used to effect change?
TRUMP: I think the 100 days is, you know, it’s an artificial barrier. It’s not very meaningful. I think I’ve established amazing relationships that will be used the four or eight years, whatever period of time I’m here. I think for that I would be getting very high marks because I’ve established great relationships with countries, as President el-Sissi has shown and others have shown. Well, if you look at the president of China, people said they’ve never seen anything like what’s going on right now. I really liked him a lot. I think he liked me. We have a great chemistry together. ...
TRUMP: I’ve developed great relationships with all of these leaders. Nobody’s written that. In fact, they said, “Oh, well, he’s not treating them nicely,” because on NATO, I want them to pay up. But I still get along with them great, and they will pay up. In fact, with the Italian prime minister yesterday, you saw, we were joking, “Come on, you have to pay up, you have to pay up.” He’ll pay.
AP: Did he say that? In your meeting? Your private meeting?
TRUMP: He’s going to end up paying. But you know, nobody ever asked the question. Nobody asked. Nobody ever asked him to pay up. So it’s a different kind of a presidency.
AP: Do you feel like that’s one thing that you’ve changed, that you maybe are actually asking the direct questions about some of these things?
TRUMP: Yeah. Let me give me an example. A little before I took office there was a terrible article about the F-35 fighter jet. It was hundreds of billions of dollars over budget. It was seven years behind schedule. It was a disaster. So I called in Lockheed and I said, “I’m sorry, we’re going to have to bid this out to another company, namely Boeing,” or whoever else. But Boeing. And I called in Boeing and I started getting competing offers back and forth. ...
TRUMP: I saved $725 million on the 90 planes. Just 90. Now there are 3,000 planes that are going to be ordered. On 90 planes I saved $725 million. It’s actually a little bit more than that, but it’s $725 million. Gen. Mattis, who had to sign the deal when it came to his office, said, “I’ve never seen anything like this in my life.” We went from a company that wanted more money for the planes to a company that cut. And the reason they cut — same planes, same everything — was because of me. I mean, because that’s what I do.
TRUMP: Now if you multiply that times 3,000 planes, you know this is on 90 planes. In fact, when the Prime Minister (Shinzo) Abe of Japan came in because they bought a certain number of those ... The first thing he said to me, because it was right at the time I did it, he said, “Could I thank you?” I said, “What?” He said, “You saved us $100 million.” Because they got a $100 million savings on the 10 or 12 planes that they (bought). Nobody wrote that story. Now you know that’s a saving of billions and billions of dollars, many billions of dollars over the course of — it’s between 2,500 and 3,000 planes will be the final order. But this was only 90 of those 2,500 planes.
AP: And you expect those savings to carry out across that full order?
TRUMP: More. I’m gonna get more than that. This was a thing that was out of control and now it’s great. And the woman that runs Lockheed, Marillyn (Hewson), she was great. But all of a sudden it was a different kind of a thing. You know?
___
AP: Do you feel like you’ve been able to apply that kind of a relationship to your dealings with Congress as well?
TRUMP: I have great relationships with Congress. I think we’re doing very well and I think we have a great foundation for future things. We’re going to be applying, I shouldn’t tell you this, but we’re going to be announcing, probably on Wednesday, tax reform. And it’s — we’ve worked on it long and hard. And you’ve got to understand, I’ve only been here now 93 days, 92 days. President Obama took 17 months to do Obamacare. I’ve been here 92 days but I’ve only been working on the health care, you know I had to get like a little bit of grounding right? Health care started after 30 day(s), so I’ve been working on health care for 60 days. ...You know, we’re very close. And it’s a great plan, you know, we have to get it approved.
AP: Is it this deal that’s between the Tuesday Group and the Freedom Caucus, is that the deal you’re looking at?
TRUMP: So the Republican Party has various groups, all great people. They’re great people. But some are moderate, some are very conservative. The Democrats don’t seem to have that nearly as much. You know the Democrats have, they don’t have that. The Republicans do have that. And I think it’s fine. But you know there’s a pretty vast area in there. And I have a great relationship with all of them. Now, we have government not closing. I think we’ll be in great shape on that. It’s going very well. Obviously, that takes precedent.
AP: That takes precedent over health care? For next week?
TRUMP: Yeah, sure. Next week. Because the hundred days is just an artificial barrier. The press keeps talking about the hundred days. But we’ve done a lot. You have a list of things. I don’t have to read it.
___
AP: You did put out though, as a candidate, you put out a 100-day plan. Do you feel like you should be held accountable to that plan?
TRUMP: Somebody, yeah, somebody put out the concept of a hundred-day plan. But yeah. Well, I’m mostly there on most items. Go over the items, and I’ll talk to you ...
(Crosstalk.)
TRUMP: But things change. There has to be flexibility. Let me give you an example. President Xi, we have a, like, a really great relationship. For me to call him a currency manipulator and then say, “By the way, I’d like you to solve the North Korean problem,” doesn’t work. So you have to have a certain flexibility, Number One. Number Two, from the time I took office till now, you know, it’s a very exact thing. It’s not like generalities. Do you want a Coke or anything?
AP: I’m OK, thank you. No. ...
TRUMP: But President Xi, from the time I took office, he has not, they have not been currency manipulators. Because there’s a certain respect because he knew I would do something or whatever. But more importantly than him not being a currency manipulator the bigger picture, bigger than even currency manipulation, if he’s helping us with North Korea, with nuclear and all of the things that go along with it, who would call, what am I going to do, say, “By the way, would you help us with North Korea? And also, you’re a currency manipulator.” It doesn’t work that way.
AP: Right.
TRUMP: And the media, some of them get it, in all fairness. But you know some of them either don’t get it, in which case they’re very stupid people, or they just don’t want to say it. You know because of a couple of them said, “He didn’t call them a currency manipulator.” Well, for two reasons. Number One, he’s not, since my time. You know, very specific formula. You would think it’s like generalities, it’s not. They have — they’ve actually — their currency’s gone up. So it’s a very, very specific formula. And I said, “How badly have they been,” ... they said, “Since you got to office they have not manipulated their currency.” That’s Number One, but much more important, they are working with us on North Korea. Now maybe that’ll work out or maybe it won’t. Can you imagine? ...
AP: So in terms of the 100-day plan that you did put out during the campaign, do you feel, though, that people should hold you accountable to this in terms of judging success?
TRUMP: No, because much of the foundation’s been laid. Things came up. I’ll give you an example. I didn’t put Supreme Court judge on the 100 (day) plan, and I got a Supreme Court judge.
AP: I think it’s on there.
TRUMP: I don’t know. ...
AP: “Begin the process of selecting.” You actually exceeded on this one. This says, “Begin the process of selecting a replacement.”
TRUMP: That’s the biggest thing I’ve done.
AP: Do you consider that your biggest success?
TRUMP: Well, I — first of all I think he’s a great man. I think he will be a great, great justice of the Supreme Court. I have always heard that the selection and the affirmation of a Supreme Court judge is the biggest thing a president can do. Don’t forget, he could be there for 40 years. ... He’s a young man. I’ve always heard that that’s the biggest thing. Now, I would say that defense is the biggest thing. You know, to be honest, there are a number of things. But I’ve always heard that the highest calling is the nomination of a Supreme Court justice. I’ve done one in my first 70 days.
TRUMP: Our military is so proud. They were not proud at all. They had their heads down. Now they have their heads up. ...
TRUMP: I’m rebuilding the military. We have great people. We have great things in place. We have tremendous borders. I mention the F-35 because if I can save $725 million — look at that, that’s a massive amount of money. And I’ll save more as we make more planes. If I can save that on a small number of planes — Gen. (Jim) Mattis (the defense secretary) said, “I’ve never seen anything like this,” because he had to sign the ultimate (unintelligible) ... He had to sign the ultimate, you know. He said, “I’ve never seen anything like this before, as long as I’ve been in the military.” You know, that kind of cutting.
AP: Right.
TRUMP: Now, if I can do that (unintelligible) ... As an example, the aircraft carriers, billions of dollars, the Gerald Ford, billions and billions over budget. That won’t happen.
AP: Is that something you’re going to take on?
TRUMP: (unintelligible) But as we order the other ones, because they want to order 12, the other ones are going to come in much less expensive. ...
___
AP: Can I ask you, over your first 100 days — you’re not quite there yet — how do you feel like the office has changed you?
TRUMP: Well the one thing I would say — and I say this to people — I never realized how big it was. Everything’s so (unintelligible) like, you know the orders are so massive. I was talking to —
AP: You mean the responsibility of it, or do you mean —
TRUMP: Number One, there’s great responsibility. When it came time to, as an example, send out the 59 missiles, the Tomahawks in Syria. I’m saying to myself, “You know, this is more than just like, 79 (sic) missiles. This is death that’s involved,” because people could have been killed. This is risk that’s involved, because if the missile goes off and goes in a city or goes in a civilian area — you know, the boats were hundreds of miles away — and if this missile goes off and lands in the middle of a town or a hamlet .... every decision is much harder than you’d normally make. (unintelligible) ... This is involving death and life and so many things. ... So it’s far more responsibility. (unintelligible) ....The financial cost of everything is so massive, every agency. This is thousands of times bigger, the United States, than the biggest company in the world. The second-largest company in the world is the Defense Department. The third-largest company in the world is Social Security. The fourth-largest — you know, you go down the list.
AP: Right.
TRUMP. It’s massive. And every agency is, like, bigger than any company. So you know, I really just see the bigness of it all, but also the responsibility. And the human responsibility. You know, the human life that’s involved in some of the decisions.
___
AP: You’ve talked a little bit about the way that you’ve brought some business skills into the office. Is there anything from your business background that just doesn’t translate into the presidency, that just simply is not applicable to this job?
TRUMP: Well in business, you don’t necessarily need heart, whereas here, almost everything affects people. So if you’re talking about health care — you have health care in business but you’re trying to just negotiate a good price on health care, et cetera, et cetera. You’re providing health. This is (unintelligible). Here, everything, pretty much everything you do in government, involves heart, whereas in business, most things don’t involve heart.
AP: What’s that switch been like for you?
TRUMP: In fact, in business you’re actually better off without it.
AP: What’s making that switch been like for you?
TRUMP: You have to love people. And if you love people, such a big responsibility. (unintelligible) You can take any single thing, including even taxes. I mean we’re going to be doing major tax reform. Here’s part of your story, it’s going to be a big (unintelligible). Everybody’s saying, “Oh, he’s delaying.” I’m not delaying anything. I’ll tell you the other thing is (unintelligible). I used to get great press. I get the worst press. I get such dishonest reporting with the media. That’s another thing that really has — I’ve never had anything like it before. It happened during the primaries, and I said, you know, when I won, I said, “Well the one thing good is now I’ll get good press.” And it got worse. (unintelligible) So that was one thing that a little bit of a surprise to me. I thought the press would become better, and it actually, in my opinion, got more nasty.
___
AP: But in terms of tax reform, how are you going to roll that out next week?
TRUMP: Well I’m going to roll (out) probably on Wednesday, around Wednesday of next week, we’re putting out a massive tax reform — business and for people — we want to do both. We’ve been working on it (unintelligible). Secretary Mnuchin is a very talented person, very smart. Very successful (unintelligible). ... We’re going to be putting that out on Wednesday or shortly thereafter. Let me leave a little room just in case (unintelligible). ... And that’s a big story, because a lot of people think I’m going to put it out much later.
AP: Do you have any details on that in terms of rates?
TRUMP: Only in terms that it will be a massive tax cut. It will be bigger, I believe, than any tax cut ever. Maybe the biggest tax cut we’ve ever had. ...
___
AP: Obviously, that’s going to come in a week where you’re going to be running up against the deadline for keeping the government open. If you get a bill on your desk that does not include funding for the wall, will you sign it?
TRUMP: I don’t know yet. People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the electoral college. Big, big, big advantage. I’ve always said the popular vote would be a lot easier than the electoral college. The electoral college — but it’s a whole different campaign (unintelligible). The electoral college is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall, they want to see security. Now, it just came out that they’re 73 percent down. ... That’s a tremendous achievement. ... Look at this, in 100 days, that down to the lowest in 17 years and it’s going lower. Now, people aren’t coming because they know they’re not going to get through, and there isn’t crime. You know the migration up to the border is horrible for women, you know that? (Unintelligible.) Now, much of that’s stopped because they can’t get through.
AP: It sounds like maybe you’re beginning to send a message that if you do get a spending bill that doesn’t have border funding in there, you would sign it.
TRUMP: Well, first of all, the wall will cost much less than the numbers I’m seeing. I’m seeing numbers, I mean, this wall is not going to be that expensive.
AP: What do you think the estimate on it would be?
TRUMP: Oh I’m seeing numbers — $24 billion, I think I’ll do it for $10 billion or less. That’s not a lot of money relative to what we’re talking about. If we stop 1 percent of the drugs from coming in — and we’ll stop all of it. But if we stop 1 percent of the drugs because we have the wall — they’re coming around in certain areas, but if you have a wall, they can’t do it because it’s a real wall. That’s a tremendously good investment, 1 percent. The drugs pouring through on the southern border are unbelievable. We’re becoming a drug culture, there’s so much. And most of it’s coming from the southern border. The wall will stop the drugs.
AP: But, just trying to nail you down on it one more time, will you sign a spending bill if it doesn’t have —
TRUMP: I don’t want to comment. I just don’t know yet. I mean, I have to see what’s going on. I really do. But the wall’s a very important thing to — not only my base, but to the people. And even if it wasn’t, I mean I’ll do things that aren’t necessarily popular. ... The wall is very important to stopping drugs.
AP: If you don’t have a funding stream, your message to your base is what?
TRUMP: My base understands the wall is going to get built, whether I have it funded here or if I get it funded shortly thereafter, that wall’s getting built, OK? One hundred percent. One hundred percent it’s getting built. And it’s also getting built for much less money — I hope you get this — than these people are estimating. The opponents are talking $25 billion for the wall. It’s not going to cost anywhere near that.
AP: You think $10 billion or less.
TRUMP: I think $10 billion or less. And if I do a super-duper, higher, better, better security, everything else, maybe it goes a little bit more. But it’s not going to be anywhere near (those) kind of numbers. And they’re using those numbers; they’re using the high numbers to make it sound impalatable (sic). And the fact it’s going to cost much less money, just like the airplane I told you about, which I hope you can write about.
___
(Off-the-record discussion.)
___
TRUMP: They had a quote from me that NATO’s obsolete. But they didn’t say why it was obsolete. I was on Wolf Blitzer, very fair interview, the first time I was ever asked about NATO, because I wasn’t in government. People don’t go around asking about NATO if I’m building a building in Manhattan, right? So they asked me, Wolf ... asked me about NATO, and I said two things. NATO’s obsolete — not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO — NATO is obsolete, and I said, “And the reason it’s obsolete is because of the fact they don’t focus on terrorism.” You know, back when they did NATO there was no such thing as terrorism.
AP: What specifically has NATO changed?
TRUMP: (Cites Wall Street Journal article) ... I did an interview with Wolf Blitzer, and I said NATO was obsolete — I said two things — obsolete, and the country’s aren’t paying. I was right about both. I took such heat for about three days on both, because nobody ever criticized NATO. I took heat like you wouldn’t believe. And then some expert on NATO said, “You know, Trump is right.” But I said it was obsolete because they weren’t focused on terror. ...
It’s not fair that we’re paying close to 4 percent and other countries that are more directly affected are paying 1 percent when they’re supposed to be paying 2 percent. And I’m very strong on it and I’m going to be very strong on it when I go there in a month.”
__
AP: This morning you tweeted that after the possible terrorist attack in Paris, that it will have a big effect on the upcoming French election. What did you mean by that?
TRUMP: Well, I think it will have a big effect on who people are going to vote for in the election.
AP: Do you think it’s going to help Marine Le Pen?
TRUMP: I think so.
AP: Do you believe that she should be the president?
TRUMP: No, I have no comment on that, but I think that it’ll probably help her because she is the strongest on borders and she is the strongest on what’s been going on in France.
AP: Do you worry at all that by saying that, that a terrorist attack would have an impact on a democratic election, that it would actually embolden terrorists to try to —.
TRUMP: No. Look, everybody is making predictions who is going to win. I am no different than you, you could say the same thing. ...
AP: I just wonder if you are encouraging, you are the president of the United States, so to say that you worry that it encourages terrorists ...
TRUMP: No, I am no different than — no, I think it discourages terrorists, I think it discourages. I think what we’ve done on the border discourages it. I think that my stance on having people come in to this country that we have no idea who they are and in certain cases you will have radical Islamic terrorism. I’m not going to have it in this country. I’m not going to let what happened to France and other places happen here. And it’s already largely, you know — we have tens — we have hundreds of thousands of people that have been allowed into our country that should not be here. They shouldn’t be here. We have people allowed into our country with no documentation whatsoever. They have no documentation and they were allowed under the previous administrations, they were allowed into our country. It’s a big mistake.
AP: Just so that I am clear. You are not endorsing her for the office, but you are —
TRUMP: I am not endorsing her and I didn’t mention her name.
AP: Right, I just wanted to make sure I have that clear.
TRUMP: I believe whoever is the toughest on radical Islamic terrorism and whoever is the toughest at the borders will do well at the election. I am not saying that person is going to win, she is not even favored to win, you know. Right now, she is in second place.
___
AP: I have a question on the markets, actually. One thing that I think has been different about this White House is that you do point to the markets as a sign of progress. Do you worry, though — I mean, the markets go up and down.
TRUMP: You live by the sword, you die by the sword, to a certain extent. But we create a lot of jobs, 500,000 jobs as of two months ago, and plenty created since. Five hundred thousand. ... As an example, Ford, General Motors. I’ve had cases where the gentleman from China, Ma, Jack Ma (chairman of Alibaba Group), he comes up, he says, “Only because of you am I making this massive investment.” Intel, only because of you. ... The press never writes that.
___
AP: What about NAFTA? What’s the plan on NAFTA?
TRUMP: What would you like to know?
AP: I would like to know what your plan is in terms of renegotiating.
TRUMP: I am very upset with NAFTA. I think NAFTA has been a catastrophic trade deal for the United States, trading agreement for the United States. It hurts us with Canada, and it hurts us with Mexico. Most people don’t even think of NAFTA in terms of Canada. You saw what happened yesterday in my statements, because if you look at the dairy farmers in Wisconsin and upstate New York, they are getting killed by NAFTA.
AP: Is your plan still, though, to renegotiate the whole deal?
TRUMP: I am going to either renegotiate it or I am going to terminate it.
AP: Termination is still on the table.
TRUMP: Absolutely. If they don’t treat fairly, I am terminating NAFTA.
AP: What’s a timeline for that decision?
TRUMP: It’s a six-month termination clause, I have the right to do it, it’s a six-month clause.
___
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out ... never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying is, “Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff.” You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC, but we had good defenses. They didn’t have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack both of them. They weren’t able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said, “Wow.” It was just a figure of speech. I said, “Well, look at this. It’s good reading.”
AP: But that didn’t mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don’t support or unsupport. It was just information. They shouldn’t have allowed it to get out. If they had the proper defensive devices on their internet, you know, equipment, they wouldn’t even allow the FBI. How about this — they get hacked, and the FBI goes to see them, and they won’t let the FBI see their server. But do you understand, nobody ever writes it. Why wouldn’t (former Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John) Podesta and Hillary Clinton allow the FBI to see the server? They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based.
AP: CrowdStrike?
TRUMP: That’s what I heard. I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian, that’s what I heard. But they brought in another company to investigate the server. Why didn’t they allow the FBI in to investigate the server? I mean, there is so many things that nobody writes about. It’s incredible.
AP: Can I just ask you, though — do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it’s OK with me. I didn’t know about that decision, but if they want to do it, it’s OK with me.
___
AP: On Iran, which is another thing you talked a lot on the campaign —
TRUMP: And the other thing that we should go after is the leakers. ...
AP: On Iran, you also talked about it quite a bit on the campaign trail. And you said in the press conference yesterday that you think that Iran is violating the spirit of the agreement. When you say that, do you mean in terms of the actual nuclear accord, or do you mean what they are doing in the region?
TRUMP: In terms of what they are doing all over the Middle East and beyond.
AP: So you believe that they are complying with the agreement?
TRUMP: No, I don’t say that. I say that I believe they have broken the spirit of the agreement. There is a spirit to agreements, and they have broken it.
AP: In terms of what they are doing elsewhere in the Middle East?
TRUMP: In terms of what they are doing of all over.
AP: When you talk to European leaders, when you talk to Merkel, for example, or Teresa May, what do they say about the nuclear deal? Do they want you to stay in that deal?
TRUMP: I don’t talk to them about it.
AP: You don’t talk to them about the Iran deal?
TRUMP: I mention it, but it’s very personal when I talk to them, you know, it’s confidential. No, they have their own opinions. I don’t say that they are different than my opinions, but I’d rather have you ask them that question.
AP: At this point, do you believe that you will stay in the nuclear deal?
TRUMP: It’s possible that we won’t.
___
AP: Dreamers, you’ve talked about them, you’ve talked about heart earlier. This is one area where you have talked —
TRUMP: No, we aren’t looking to do anything right now. Look, the dreamers ... this is an interesting case, they left and they came back and he’s got some problems, it’s a little different than the dreamer case, right? But we are putting MS-13 in jail and getting them the hell out of our country. They’ve taken over towns and cities and we are being really brutal with MS-13, and that’s what we should be. They are a bad group, and somebody said they are as bad as al-Qaida, which is a hell of a reference. So we are moving criminals out of our country and we are getting them out in record numbers and those are the people we are after. We are not after the dreamers, we are after the criminals.
AP: And that’s going to be the policy of your administration to allow the dreamers to stay?
TRUMP: Yes. Yes. That’s our policy. I am not saying ... long-term, we are going to have to fix the problem, the whole immigration problem. But I will tell you: Right now we have a great gentleman, one of my real stars is Gen. (John) Kelly, now (Homeland Security) Secretary Kelly. We are down 73 percent at the border, we are cleaning out cities and towns of hard-line criminals, some of the worst people on earth, people that rape and kill women, people that are killing people just for the sake of having fun. They are being thrown in jails and they are being ... all over the country and nobody’s ever done it like us, so we are being unbelievably thorough with that. We are out in Long Island cleaning out the MS-13 scum, they are all scum, that’s probably the worst gang anywhere on Earth. ...
AP: A lot of the dreamers have been hoping to hear something from you. I don’t want to give them the wrong message with this.
TRUMP: Here is what they can hear: The dreamers should rest easy. OK? I’ll give you that. The dreamers should rest easy. ...
___
(An aide talks about the president’s address to Congress.)
TRUMP: A lot of the people have said that, some people said it was the single best speech ever made in that chamber.
AP: You seem like you enjoyed it.
TRUMP: I did. I did. I believed in it and I enjoyed it. It was a great feeling to introduce the wife of a great young soldier who died getting us very valuable information. Have you seen the tremendous success? ... That’s another thing that nobody talks about. Have you seen the tremendous success we’ve had in the Middle East with the ISIS (an abbreviation for the Islamic State group)? When (current Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al) Abadi left from Iraq, he said Trump has more success in eight weeks than Obama had in eight years. ... We have had tremendous success, but we don’t talk about it. We don’t talk about it.
AP: Do you mean you don’t talk about it personally because you don’t want to talk about it?
TRUMP: I don’t talk about it. No. And the generals don’t talk about it.
___
AP: You had put a request into the Pentagon to put forward an ISIS plan within 30 days. I know they have sent that over. Have you accepted a plan? Are you moving forward on a strategy?
TRUMP: We have a very strong plan, but we cannot talk about it, Julie.
AP: So you have decided on a plan?
TRUMP: Remember how many times have you been to the speech where I talked about Mosul.
AP: Right.
TRUMP. Right. Mosul. Four months we are going in, three months. We are still fighting Mosul. You know why? Because they were prepared. If we would have gone in and just done it, it would have been over three months ago.
AP: Can you say generally what the strategy is? Shoul | 0 | train |
|
IMPEACHMENT HINT STIRS HOUSE CLASH; Democratic Orators Spring to Roosevelt Defense, Charging 'Malice.' About the Archive
This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.
Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems. Please send reports of such problems to [email protected]. | 0 | train |
|
Putin says: ‘Pope Francis Is Not A Man Of God’ | Must-See !! ログイン 送信する パスワードを忘れた場合はこちら 送信する | 1 | train |
|
Keanu Reeves Shook The World With Another POWERFUL Message Sign up for your daily dose of enlightenment and positivity!
Submit | 1 | train |
|
WATCH FULL Ted Cruz presser on new deal with Kasich (UPDATE: PART TWO ADDED)
Ted Cruz gave a press conference a few minutes ago on the new deal announced last night between he and Kasich in allocating their resources in certain states. One thing that is clear now is this is only a deal about recourses, not about telling voters to vote for the other candidate in certain states.
Watch the full press conference below: | 0 | train |
|
Marco Rubio says Ted Cruz voted for defense cuts in Rand Paul's budget proposal The only budget Ted Cruz "ever voted for in his time in the Senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than Barack Obama proposes we cut it."
Marco Rubio portrayed fellow GOP senator and presidential hopeful Ted Cruz as all talk and no action on defense in an interview on Meet the Press.
"He talks tough on some of these issues," Rubio said Dec. 13. "For example, he was going to ‘carpet bomb’ ISIS. But the only budget he's ever voted for in his time in the Senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than Barack Obama proposes we cut it."
Rubio has tried to portray himself as a strong supporter of the military, while Cruz has tried to appeal to hawks as well as libertarians , who typically favor less defense spending.
We decided to fact-check Rubio’s claim that Cruz voted for a budget that cut defense spending by more than the Democratic president.
Cruz’s vote on Rand Paul’s budget proposal
Rubio’s campaign pointed to Cruz’s 2013 vote in favor of a budget proposal by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is also running for president. Cruz was one of just 18 senators, all Republican, to vote in favor of Paul’s amendment. Rubio voted against it. The measure failed.
Paul’s 2013 proposal emerged after the widespread budget cuts, known as the sequester, went into effect. The sequester dramatically reduced non-war defense spending during the next decade.
Rubio’s campaign pointed to Paul’s statement in his budget proposal about cutting military spending:
"This budget proposal does not simply reduce military spending, but provides directives to realign the military for the 21st century," Paul wrote. "It seeks to reduce the size and scope of the military complex, including its global footprint to one that is more in line with a policy of containment."
Under Paul’s proposal , defense appropriations would have gone from $521 billion in 2014 to $634 billion in 2023. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, projected $588 billion in defense appropriations in 2014 to $731 billion in 2023. That means that Paul actually increased year-over-year defense spending, though it did not keep pace with estimated projections to sustain current defense levels.
Was Paul’s proposal a ‘cut’ for defense?
So why did Rubio refer to Paul’s budget as a "cut" if defense spending would rise?
"We take the budget document at its word that it cuts defense spending and seeks to reduce the size and scope of the military," Rubio senior adviser Joe Pounder said.
But experts questioned whether Rubio can call Paul’s proposal a "cut."
"Paul’s defense budget was above the budget caps set in the Budget Control Act, so in that respect it was an increase (and the president’s budget was an even larger increase)," said Todd Harrison, a defense budget expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "But Paul’s defense budget was less than what other Republicans were proposing and what the president was proposing, so in that sense it was a cut."
Paul’s 2013 proposal for defense was well below Obama’s request both at the time and now, Harrison said.
Christopher Preble, at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he would not call Paul’s budget a "cut."
"As is typical in Washington-speak, a less-than-expected increase is often cast as a cut," he said. "This is misleading."
Cruz spokesman Brian Phillips made a similar argument.
"So it sounds like Rubio is engaging in the time-honored Washington cartel tactic of budget gimmickry and is suggesting that a reduction in the rate of increase is equal to a ‘cut’ when in fact the Obama and Paul budgets spend more on defense every year," Phillips said. "The fact is, in supporting the Paul budget, Cruz did not support a cut in defense spending, but a more responsible rate of increase."
Benjamin Friedman, a defense expert at Cato, pointed to Cruz’s vote in March in favor of a Rubio amendment to boost defense spending over two years rather than Paul’s amendment which would have boosted it with offsets.
"This was a budget, so it doesn’t make Rubio wrong, but it undermines his larger point," Friedman said.
Our ruling
Rubio said that the only budget Cruz "ever voted for in his time in the Senate is a budget that cut defense spending by more than Barack Obama proposes we cut it."
Rubio was referring to Cruz’s vote in favor of Paul’s budget proposal in 2013. But Rubio mischaracterized Paul’s plan when he called it a "cut." That proposal included an increase in defense spending each year from 2014 going forward a decade, although it did not keep pace with estimated projections in growth.
However, there is a kernel of truth here in that Paul’s proposal for defense was below Obama’s request.
We rate this statement Mostly False. | 0 | train |
|
Louise Slaughterさんのツイート: "By 4th grade, 86 percent of African American boys and 82 percent Hispanic boys are reading below proficiency levels #MyBrothersKeeper #ROC" 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 |
|
Police Discover Meth Lab In Back Room of Alabama Walmart 0
DECATUR, Alabama –
Police were recently tipped off to a reported meth lab that was being run by Walmart employees in what they are calling one of the biggest busts in decades.
Police Chief Robert Garner said that an anonymous tip was left on their drug hotline, expressing concern about a horrible burning smell that was coming from the back of the Decatur WalMart facility. When an officer was sent to investigate, the store was instantly shut down as he discovered a meth lab that took up the entire back room.
“The thing was massive, and contained enough materials to make hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds of crystal meth,” said Chief Garner. “Apparently, every employee in the store was a part of it, from working with and gathering materials, to cooking, to selling it outside of the store. It was a full, massive operation.”
No one from Walmart’s corporate office was available for comment, but an unofficial spokesperson did say that they were “disappointed” that they weren’t able to use their company discount to get meth before the place was shut down.
0
Comments
comments | 1 | train |
|
U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th 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 |
|
3/8/14 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) delivers Weekly GOP Address on American jobs 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 |
|
UPDATE: Malia Obama Among 10 Arrested In Racist Antifa Attack You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in | 1 | train |
|
Charleston Shooter Dylann Roof Moved to Death Row in Terre Haute Federal Prison Dylann Roof is escorted into the court room at the Charleston County Judicial Center in Charleston, South Carolina, April 10, 2017.
Grace Beahm/Pool / Reuters | 1 | train |
|
Data on Campaign Finance, Super PACs, Industries, and Lobbying Ruth Marcus, columnist, The Washington Post
The Center for Responsive Politics has made itself into an essential Washington — actually, make that an essential national — institution. Now more than ever, with the proliferation of super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups pouring huge sums into campaigns, it's critical to have a reliable and handy source of information on money and politics. Opensecrets.org is the go-to site for this data — trustworthy, accessible and well-presented. | 0 | train |
|
Morgan Griffith says EPA treats milk spills same way as oil spills U.S. Rep. H. Morgan Griffith is milking his opposition to the Environmental Protection Agency for every last drop.
The Republican stressed his contempt for the agency throughout a heated campaign last fall in which Griffith unseated Democrat Rick Boucher, a 14-term congressman from coal-rich Southwest Virginia. In his victory speech, Griffith vowed to go to Washington and "fight to rein in the EPA." Since taking office, he has fired out a barrage of anti-EPA statements.
In a February newsletter to constituents, Griffith claimed that new EPA rules treat milk spills the same way they treat oil spills. He titled the newsletter "Crying over spilt milk."
"What do spilt milk and oil have in common?" he wrote. "Quite a bit, according to the EPA. In fact, a new ruling by the EPA would force dairy farmers to comply with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Program when dealing with spilt milk -- the same regulations oil and natural gas producers must follow. The EPA’s reasoning is that milk contains ‘a percentage of animal fats, which is a non-petroleum oil.’ It appears spilt milk is just as threatening as an oil spill."
With visions of dairy farmers delicately dabbing milk off the wings of ducks, we looked into the claim.
Beth Breeding, Griffith’s press secretary, said her boss’s information came from the EPA’s website. So we went there.
Right away, we found problems with Griffith’s claim. The website says milk has been regulated under the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure program since 1973, when the Clean Water Act took effect. The law was passed by Congress the preceding year over the veto of Republican President Richard Nixon. So this is hardly a "new ruling," as Griffith says. It has been in effect for 38 years.
The EPA site says "since the SPCC rule became law in 1973, all kinds of oils including petroleum and edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable oils) have been considered oils. This is because the SPCC rule gets its definition of ‘oil’ from the Clean Water Act, which was authored by Congress."
The website also notes the rule only applies to farms storing more than 1,320 gallons of oil or milk.
So what’s new? According to the EPA, the only thing that comes close is a rule change it announced on Jan. 15, 2009. It goes in effect at the end of this month.
The simple purpose of the change is to exclude milk and dairy farms from the spill rules governing oil products. That’s the exact opposite of what Griffith claims. Here’s what the regulation says:
"EPA proposes to exempt milk containers and associated piping and appurtenances from the SPCC requirements provided they are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current applicable Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk Ordinance," or similar state laws.
Translated into plain English, the rule means milk storage will no longer have to meet the EPA’s oil spill rules, provided storage tanks meet pasteurization laws. In Virginia it is illegal to sell "raw," or unpasteurized, milk, so the state’s dairy farmers should already be in compliance with the new standards.
Raw milk is now legal for sale in 25 states, although 15 of those states only allow sales directly from a farm. So conceivably raw milk producers -- which are almost exclusively small operations, according to a group that advocates for raw milk -- might still need to comply with the SPCC rules. But this would affect only a very small fraction of total U.S. milk.
Baffled by how Griffith could have this claim so mixed up, we went back to his office for additional information. The second time around his press secretary pointed us to a Jan. 27 editorial in The Wall Street Journal that makes virtually the same claim. The editorial wrongly said new EPA rules will apply to dairy farms and cover milk storage. The amended rule only applies to petroleum products -- gasoline, fuel oil and the like -- that are stored in large quantities on dairy farms.
Let’s review our findings.
Griffith claimed a "new ruling by the EPA would force dairy farmers to comply" with strict regulations for spills and leaks. He said the rules were the same as those enforced on oil and natural gas companies.
In fact, these regulations have been in place for 38 years and are not new at all. The "new ruling" from the EPA, announced in 2009 and taking effect in a few weeks, actually excludes milk from the spill standards, giving dairy farmers fewer regulations to meet. That’s the exact opposite of what Griffith claims.
Sure, Griffith got some of his information from an inaccurate editorial in The Wall Street Journal. But a congressman who is railing against a federal agency has the means to get his facts right.
Griffith is dishing udder cow chips. We rate his statement False. | 0 | train |
|
Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'Why is it lie after lie after lie?' on Russia meeting Fox News' Shepard Smith: 'Why is it lie after lie after lie?' on Russia meeting
Fox News Channel chief news anchor Shepard Smith on the Fox News Deck before his "Shepard Smith Reporting" program, in New York. (Photo: Richard Drew, AP)
Fox News host Shepard Smith slammed what he called "lies" and "deception" pushed by Donald Trump Jr. in a fiery Friday rant over emerging details of Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer last summer.
On Friday's Shepard Smith Reporting, the host launched into a tirade over Trump Jr.'s stance the meeting equated to nothing even as new details showed it included eight people. Several congressional committees and a special counsel are investigating whether Trump associates colluded with the Russians during the presidential campaign.
"We're still not clean on this, Chris," Smith told fellow Fox anchor Chris Wallace. "Why all these lies? Why is it lie after lie after lie? If you clean, come on clean."
Shep Smith: "The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling...why are we getting told all these lies?"
Chris Wallace: "I don't know what to say" pic.twitter.com/DQKOAC8a2o — Leanne Naramore (@LeanneNaramore) July 14, 2017
Smith, who has chided President Trump for his treatment of the media, continued.
"The deception, Chris, is mind-boggling," he said. "And there are still people out there who believe we're making it up and one day they're going to realize we're not."
The diatribe left Wallace speechless.
"I don't know what to say," he said. "I think there's a lot of truth to everything you've said."
Smith's statements quickly spread across the Internet, where some called for his firing.
Anti-Trump, Shepard Smith is a Fungus !!
RETWEET If you agree @FoxNews should Send Him PACKING !!#SaturdayMorning Kick Him to the Curb👇✔️ pic.twitter.com/Y6D62fNxe7 — 💎STOCK MONSTER💎 (@StockMonsterUSA) July 15, 2017
It would be so great if Shepard Smith left foxnews and went to either CNN or MSNBC where he can be with liberal journalists like himself. — Lonman (@Lonman06) July 14, 2017
Smith went on the offensive against Trump and his administration earlier this year. In February, Smith defended CNN as "not fake news," an accusation often lobbed by the president and his supporters.
Follow Sean Rossman on Twitter: @SeanRossman
Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2uukVmx | 1 | train |
|
Lisa Page Squeals: DNC Server Was Not Hacked By Russia Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer under James Comey and Andrew McCabe, has become the latest rat to depart the sinking ship.
According to testimony given by Page during two days of closed-door House hearings, former bosses at the FBI instructed her to cover-up the fact that China, not Russia, hacked the DNC server.
Truepundit.com reports: The embattled Page tossed James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and Bill Priestap among others under the Congressional bus, alleging the upper echelon of the FBI concealed intelligence confirming Chinese state-backed ‘assets’ had illegally acquired former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s 30,000+ “missing” emails, federal sources said.
The Russians didn’t do it. The Chinese did, according to well-placed FBI sources.
And while Democratic lawmakers and the mainstream media prop up Russia as America’s boogeyman, it was the ironically Chinese who acquired Hillary’s treasure trove of classified and top secret intelligence from her home-brewed private server.
And a public revelation of that magnitude — publicizing that a communist world power intercepted Hillary’s sensitive and top secret emails — would have derailed Hillary Clinton’s presidential hopes. Overnight. But it didn’t simply because it was concealed.
FBI bosses knew of the breach yet did nothing to investigate, seemingly trying to run out the clock on the alarming revelations to protect Hillary during her heated presidential campaign with Trump. So instead of investigating the hacking of Clinton’s server, FBI bosses sat quietly.
And did nothing to confirm the Chinese assets were linked to their government. Or assess the damage such a tremendous breach posed to national security. Did the Chinese government access Hillary’s emails? The FBI didn’t care enough to investigate at the risk of besmirching Clinton and further soiling her during the election.
Hundreds of top secret documents and even the president’s daily travel and security itineraries were on that server — and intercepted by a communist country — yet the FBI sat on the evidence. Likewise, all of Clinton’s and her inner circle’s outgoing emails were compromised as well, sources confirmed.
Even the Inspector General had tipped off the FBI — specifically Strzok — about the foreign breach. Still, no timely case was pursued.
That same cover-up pattern fits FBI bosses who time after time stalled and concealed other criminal intelligence on Clinton in the weeks prior to the election.
We could write more detail here and ramble on and on but at this point, we simply ask.
Is anyone going to go to prison for politicizing the FBI and covering up countless crimes committed by FBI personnel in a variety of coordinated schemes to protect Hillary and the Democrats? | 1 | train |
|
Key Facts: Race, Ethnicity and Medical Care The Kaiser Family Foundation’s updated version of Key Facts: Race, Ethnicity and Medical Care, 2007 Update, serves as a quick reference source on health disparities, presenting the best available data and analysis.
This report includes data on the uninsured and access to care by race/ethnicity as well as information about the disproportionate effect that specific conditions such as diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and asthma have on racial and ethnic minority populations in the U.S. New in the 2007 Key Facts are demographic data on the racial/ethnic minority population in each state and the U.S. territories. This edition of Key Facts also includes data from the National Healthcare Disparities Report, examining changes in health care disparities over time. | 0 | train |
|
'This Week' Transcript: Hoyer, Boeher and Bill Gates TAPPER (voice-over): Good morning, and welcome to "This Week."
It keeps getting worse in the gulf, while the nation asks, who's in charge and when will it end?
OBAMA: We talk to these folks so I know whose ass to kick.
TAPPER: And Congress turns up the heat on BP. Our headliners this morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.
HOYER: We need to get it stopped.
TAPPER: And Minority Leader John Boehner.
BOEHNER: Figure out what the hell went wrong.
TAPPER: Hoyer and Boehner, a "This Week" debate.
Then, he revolutionized computing, and now he wants to do the same for energy. In a "This Week" exclusive, Microsoft co-founder and chairman Bill Gates outlines his vision for a clean energy future...
GATES: The government playing a strong role is critical and urgent.
TAPPER: ... and what it will cost.
Plus, the roundtable looks at a big night for women in politics. That and all the week's politics with George Will, Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, and former Labor Secretary Robert Reich.
And as always, the Sunday funnies.
COLBERT: Eighty-two billion dollars lost. God. It would be such a tragedy if any pelicans owned BP stock.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ANNOUNCER: From the heart of the nation's capital, "This Week" with ABC's senior White House correspondent, Jake Tapper, live from the Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue.
TAPPER: And joining me now is House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner. Gentlemen, thanks so much for joining me.
HOYER: Thank you.
BOEHNER: Hey, good morning.
TAPPER: So you got a letter last night -- I actually think I got it before you guys did...
HOYER: I think you did.
TAPPER: ... but from President Obama requesting $50 billion in emergency spending for state and local governments. Leader Hoyer, you have said that there is spending fatigue on Capitol Hill. Can you get this passed?
HOYER: Well, I think it's accurate that there's spending fatigue, not only on Capitol Hill, but around the country. People are concerned about the debt level, and we are, as well. But clearly, you cannot not continue to stimulate an economy that is still struggling to get out of the deep ditch that we found it in about 18 months ago.
What the president is saying is, we need to expend additional dollars to make sure that we don't have significant layoffs in the next few months, which will again depress the economy, so that -- I understand what he's saying. I have asked the White House to look at the package that we -- the Recovery and Reinvestment Act that we passed, approximately $800-plus billion. There are clearly funds in there that have not been expended to see whether or not there are some available for this more immediate priority than some that may not be quite as immediate.
TAPPER: Leader Boehner, the president said in his letter that if this does not pass, the economy -- there's a risk that the economy will slide back into recession. Do you agree?
BOEHNER: Listen, I'm concerned about the plight of teachers, firemen, policemen who face the real possibility that they may be laid off, but to send this letter up here on a Saturday night with no opportunity to cut spending elsewhere in the budget strikes me as a little different. Steny and I and other leaders were at the White House on Thursday, and this subject never came up.
There was no indication this was going to happen. And I'm asking myself, why is this happening on Saturday night?
Fact is that the spending spree in Washington is continuing to run unabated. The American people are screaming at the top of their lungs, "Stop!" And -- and to move this without finding other offsets in spending, I think, is irresponsible. It's just putting more debt on the backs of our kids and our grandkids, and it really begs the question is, why don't we have a budget this year?
You know, we've not cut -- the House has failed -- not failed in the modern era to move a budget. And this appears to be the first time in the modern era that the House is not even going to consider a budget.
TAPPER: Well, Leader Hoyer, if I could...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: ... if I could say, one of the -- the theory is that you don't want to make vulnerable Democrats vote for another spending bill, and that's why for the first time since 1974 there isn't going to be a House budget. Is that not true?
HOYER: Whatever -- whatever the theory may be, Jake, the fact of the matter is, my friend, Mr. Boehner, voted for $2 trillion during the Bush administration of unfunded spending. So when he says this cascade of spending, he...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: But you agree that this should be offset with spending cuts?
HOYER: I would hope that we could do that, yes. However, what I said was, money that has already been appropriated in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has not yet been spent could be spent now on these priority items. Nobody wants to see $300,000 teachers or fire and police laid off. That's not good for the economy; it's not good for our kids; it's not good for the safety of our communities.
So the president's absolutely right in terms of this being critically important spending, and we're going to work on getting that. I personally believe that if we have dollars that are not yet expended in the Recovery Act that we can apply to this immediate need and then look to later expenditures in the long term for investments, I think we ought to do that. But we can't -- we can't stimulate and depress at the same time.
TAPPER: I'd like to -- I'd...
BOEHNER: Jake, every family knows that in a tough time it's more important to have a budget, not less. And if you think that they're going to move a budget on Capitol Hill, you must obviously believe that Elvis is still alive.
TAPPER: Well, I'd -- I'd like to move on to another topic...
HOYER: I know you do...
TAPPER: ... other than Elvis.
HOYER: ... but as you know, the Republicans didn't have a budget in '02, '04, '06.
BOEHNER: The House has never failed to pass a budget in the modern era.
HOYER: And the American public had no idea about that, budgets that pass...
BOEHNER: Well, this is a great opportunity...
HOYER: ... and spending bills that follow (ph).
BOEHNER: ... to cut spending and to get the economy going again.
HOYER: And we're doing that.
BOEHNER: That's why I gave the president...
HOYER: Let me close with this.
BOEHNER: ... a letter this week with -- 100 economists signed a letter saying that cutting spending now will, in fact, help get the economy moving again, get jobs back...
(CROSSTALK)
TAPPER: I would like -- in terms of getting things moving again, I would like to move to another topic...
HOYER: Look, can I conclude on the deficit? Because the president -- we've adopted statutory PAYGO, which they jettisoned.
BOEHNER: And you've ignored it every time you've had a chance to use it.
TAPPER: All right, guys...
HOYER: The president sent down a freeze in spending. And he established a commission to look at long-term spending control. All of that is positive movement.
TAPPER: Let's move on to the oil spill.
BOEHNER: The American people want spending cut now.
TAPPER: Got it. Let's move on to the oil spill, because I want to get your reaction. On Tuesday, the BP chief operating officer, Doug Suttles, told the Associated Press that the flow "should decrease to a relative trickle by Monday or Tuesday." That's by tomorrow or the day after that, Doug Suttles said that.
I don't know what a relative anything means when it comes to this oil spill, but there's no indication that there's going to be -- it's only going to be trickling by tomorrow or the next day. And I just want to know, as the leaders of your respective parties on Capitol Hill, are you finding it tough to believe anything these guys from BP have to say anymore?
HOYER: Certainly BP has not been accurate in its representations. It has been misleading in its representations. What has happened is outrageous, and the American public are correctly very, very angry. And the administration has been marshalling every asset that we have available to work on this program.
I hope he's right. The American public hopes he's right. A trickle. I don't know what a trickle is. But certainly a very, very substantial reduction. BP said they could handle a 250,000-barrel spill. They have -- weren't able to handle what they said was initially a 5,000, which was -- what then went to 20,000 or 25,000 and now we think is a much greater spill than that.
BOEHNER: Well, Steny, guess what? I agree wholeheartedly with you. The American people want this oil leak stopped now. They want to know what happened. They want the gulf cleaned up. And they want it all done now.
And I just think that BP ought to be held responsible for all of the costs that are involved in this. I've said that right from -- from the beginning. And I continue to believe that.
I'm sure that the federal government, though, was -- isn't also responsible. The laws that were in place, the -- the materials that should have been in place for a spill this size were not, and the reaction, I think, on the part of the administration has been slow. But having said that, it's time to get this thing stopped now.
TAPPER: All right, just to...
HOYER: The only thing I would say to that, Jake...
TAPPER: ... just to clear up what you said earlier this week, on Thursday, you said that -- that BP and the federal government should take full responsibility. To clarify that, you think BP needs to pay?
BOEHNER: I've said from the beginning, BP needs to pay for the entire cost of this. But the federal government -- this is a failure of government. Government is there to protect our shores, to protect our environment. And there's been a real failure here.
We've been asking for 55 days, where's the inspection reports from this rig? The administration won't give them to us.
TAPPER: The Democrats are pushing a bill to lift the liability. Right now, it's at $75 million. Democrats are pushing a bill to lift the liability cap. Do you support that?
BOEHNER: I believe that lifting the liability cap on BP and for this spill is appropriate. I have concerns...
TAPPER: So lift it entirely for BP?
BOEHNER: Absolutely. They should be held responsible for every dime of this cost.
HOYER: Let me -- let me -- let me say a few words here. First of all, the Republicans have been holding up lifting the cap in the Senate from the $75 million, minuscule sum, as we see, to $10 billion.
Secondly, I think John Boehner is right in this respect: The psychology of neglect in terms of regulatory oversight that was pursued in the Bush administration, which led to the banking failure, insurance prices going way up, and oil companies thinking they could do whatever they wanted because the "drill, baby, drill" crowd, all they wanted them to do was to drill.
So I think John's right. I think the regularly psychology of the last administration was not appropriate, and there was mistakes made in this administration, as well.
BOEHNER: How long are you going to blame the Bush administration? Come on. What's going on over at MSS...
HOYER: As long as they're responsible, whether it's the economy...
BOEHNER: No, that's -- listen...
HOYER: ... or their lack of oversight, John, I'm going to do that.
BOEHNER: Where -- where -- when is someone...
HOYER: As appropriate (ph).
BOEHNER: ... in Washington going to -- Washington going to take responsibility for what they are in charge of?
TAPPER: I want to move on...
HOYER: And the administration has done that.
TAPPER: I want to move on to some foreign policy questions, but before I do, I just -- there -- there was a poll recently this week indicating that the American people rate the federal response to this oil spill as worse than the federal response to Katrina, 69 percent negative for the gulf oil spill, 62 percent negative for the government's response to Katrina. Do you rate the government's response to this oil spill as negative or positive?
HOYER: Absolutely not. I think that that's -- the American public are angry, rightfully so. BP was on site. The folks who own the rig, Halliburton, who constructed the piping, the concrete down there, they are responsible with the federal government was (ph).
Immediately upon this incident happening -- immediately...
TAPPER: So you think the government's responsible?
HOYER: ... the Coast Guard -- the Coast Guard was on site. Unfortunately, tragically, we lost 11 lives, but saved over 100 lives on site. Thad Allen, the admiral, immediately put in charge, 17,500 National Guard troops on duty right now.
TAPPER: OK.
HOYER: So there's been a vast response here. A natural disaster came along in Katrina, and, frankly, there were months before there was adequate response.
TAPPER: Leader Boehner, turning to Israel, a member of your leadership team, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana, said this on Thursday.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PENCE: Remarkably, yesterday, the president said it was time for Israel to sharply limit its effective blockade in Gaza, saying, quote, "The situation in Gaza is unsustainable." The truth is, Mr. President, your policy in Israel is unsustainable. The American people are on the side of Israel and Israel's right to defend herself. Mr. President, whose side are you on?
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: Leader Boehner, is expressing concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza the same thing as being anti-Israel?
BOEHNER: Well, I think the Israelis have a clear right to -- to defend themselves. When you look at this flotilla that came over, the first five ships that were inspected, there was no -- there was no problem at all. It's pretty clear to many of us who've looked into this that this last ship was intended to be a problem, intended to cause a conflict.
And this is part of a much bigger problem that we see with the administration, where we've -- we've coddled our enemies and -- and pushed our friends aside in the process...
TAPPER: Leader Hoyer?
BOEHNER: ... raising a lot of doubts around the world, including the people of Israel, who are having serious doubts about our commitment to them, our closest ally in the Middle East.
HOYER: And I think one of the problems is, when you see Mr. Pence and you hear Mr. Boehner, this is not a partisan difference. Mr. Cantor and I had a colloquy on Thursday, which as John knows, I strongly support Israel's actions.
They told these folks, come here, you're not going to break the blockade. Why are you not going to break the blockade? Because Hamas, a terrorist organization, continues to attack civilians, men, women and children, in Israel.
And it is appropriate to have a blockade to make sure they don't get the weapons or other materials to effect those kinds of attacks, which are criminal, which are terrorist acts. So I think they did exactly the right thing in stopping that.
And in fact, in my view, the sixth ship, as John has pointed out, we agree on this, five ships were stopped without incident. This sixth ship was stopped. There's some reason to believe that that's exactly what they intended to do. Al Jazeera television showed attacks on the boarding party, and they responded in self-defense.
Turkey knew that if these ships came, it was going to be a problem. And the Israelis offered to allow the -- those ships to be offloaded at an Israeli port and all the humanitarian gear go into Gaza. That was the appropriate thing to do.
TAPPER: We only have one minute left, and I want to get your predictions for the midterm elections, literally one minute left. So...
HOYER: History says we're going to lose a few seats, but we're going to retain the House.
TAPPER: You're going to keep the House?
HOYER: We're going to keep the House.
TAPPER: Sir?
BOEHNER: Our goal is to take the majority in the House...
TAPPER: Not your goal. What's going to happen? Prediction. Prediction. You've said 100 seats. Can you do it?
BOEHNER: We've got -- we've got 100 seats in play. We have a real shot at winning a majority so that we can put a check on this administration and all the spending that's out of control here in Washington, D.C.
HOYER: Jake, they said that about Mark Critz in the 12th District of Pennsylvania. He won by 8 points.
TAPPER: All right.
HOYER: We're going to keep the House.
TAPPER: Leader Hoyer, Leader Boehner, thanks so much for joining us. I appreciate it.
TAPPER: Joining me now, Microsoft co-founder and chairman, Bill Gates.
Mr. Gates, thanks so much for joining us.
BILL GATES, MICROSOFT CO-FOUNDER & CHAIRMAN: Great to be here.
TAPPER: Obviously, the oil spill in the Gulf makes your proposal for $11 billion in energy innovation all the more resonant, all the more relevant. But I'm wondering, some are criticizing the president's handling of the federal response to the spill by saying he doesn't have executive experience and that's why he hasn't been able to -- to really get the federal bureaucracy moving the way it needs to.
As a former CEO, do you think there's anything to that at all?
GATES: Well, I think in any crisis like this, the key thing is to avoid them happening in the future. And I'm not an expert on oil recovery. BP is certainly incented to try and minimize the damage here in a very complex situation.
But how did we get an ener -- energy infrastructure that is this fragile?
You know, we've got a supply chain where we send a billion dollars a year overseas and you can imagine that there will be disruptions. When there have been in the past, we've always said, no, let's put a solution in place. But, in fact, the only real solution is to take American ingenuity and fund R&D to get energy in different forms that we're not sending this much money away and -- and that it's stable and reliable.
TAPPER: Well, let -- let's talk about that. Obviously, your proposal for $11 billion in additional spending for energy innovation, there's not a huge appetite right now among the American people for more spending with the record deficits we have.
Forgetting the merits of your proposal for a second, how politically feasible is it?
GATES: Well, I would distinguish between spending and investment. What we're talking about is about 1 percent of what the United States spends on energy, being devoted to R&D. And so if you find a way out of the energy sector to raise that 1 percent, which is not some huge increase in the costs there, then you can tap into the unique ability in this country, through its universities, the national labs and entrepreneurs, to give us a form of energy that is both cheaper, not dependent on foreign supply and is environmentally designed so that we're not emitting carbon and getting into the climate change problem.
The only way you get those things is through the breakthroughs. And I'm optimistic they're there, but we're not making the investment. Today we spend only about $4 billion on energy R&D compared to $30 billion on health, $80 billion on -- on defense.
TAPPER: So that's your pitch.
How receptive have you found lawmakers?
GATES: Well, there is obviously a -- a tight budget. And it would be tough to say that this money should come from existing categories.
The question is can the energy sector finance its own revolution and create these great R&D jobs here in America?
TAPPER: What's the risk if -- if President Obama and Congress and the American people don't do this?
GATES: The problem we'll run into is that we'll have more crises like the oil spill and we'll have the supply disruption. We'll start to see more and more effects of the -- the climate problem. The costs will go up because you're looking for oil in harder and harder places.
So you'll just be paying more and more. And so it's an implicit tax. If you don't innovate, it's this gigantic cost that we'll be paying.
TAPPER: You know, some experts believe that the only way to spur the kind of innovation and investment in these alternative forms of energy is to dissuade the American people and American enterprise from using oil and gasoline. Do you think that a gas tax is necessary?
GATES: The -- that's not specifically necessary. You need some source of funding for this R&D. And, you know, so you would take some parts of the energy sector and -- and raise the money there. If you -- if you want people to switch, there's two ways to do it. One is to invent something that's lower cost. The other is to raise the cost of the thing that's forcing us to fund the military or creating climate problems and -- and help the new technology. The bulk of what's missing right now that will force us, at some point, to go for a very expensive alternative because we haven't done invention, is the -- this -- this R&D piece isn't getting done.
TAPPER: Why do you think that the innovation and technology that's part of the oil industry hasn't advanced enough in the last 30 years, I mean to -- to plug this hole in the Gulf, they're using basically the same technology as they used 20 or 30 years ago?
Why have -- hasn't that advanced?
GATES: Well, certainly, in retrospect, they needed to invest more in these deep sea operations. Deep sea operation is fairly complicated in terms of pressures and temperatures how materials behave down there. And obviously, you know, now they're seeing the cost of not doing that. That will be reinforced in a lot of ways.
So that particular innovation will happen. But you're going to get oil in very hard places. With other energy sources, over time, you wouldn't have to try that hard you wouldn't have to be bringing most of it out of the Middle East, where, you know, the chance of something disrupting that in the years ahead is -- is very measurable and -- and we're not -- we're not setting ourselves up to get rid of that over time.
TAPPER: So tell us what areas you're looking at.
GATES: Well, the idea of the Council's report is that you -- you fund R&D very broadly with an open mind. You don't just pick and say it will be synthetic fuels or hydrogen or fuel cells, but you get behind all of those things and you create metrics. In the solar area alone, there's so many different approaches -- solar thermal, solar chemical, solar electric -- and many different scientists. And that's the beauty of America, is you -- you can have hundreds of teams pursuing those things. And as they meet milestones, they can get more funding.
TAPPER: The economic recovery has been slow and relatively jobless.
What do you think President Obama needs to do?
GATES: Well, the president can't just pull the levers and -- and make the economy take off. You know, the right emergency steps were taken and...
TAPPER: So you support the stimulus and the TARP program?
GATES: Well, you don't -- I don't think I need to get into the particulars. And it's easy looking back to say, OK, you could have tuned this or that. The incredible measures needed to be taken to make sure there wasn't a collapse, both in terms of stabilizing the financial system and then priming the pump of the economy, because it had been slowed down so much.
Now, we're seeing the benefits that those things have been done. Now this is an international problem.
And so everybody's dad is coming in, you know, are -- are those governments over spending?
You know, our own government is looking at when do you cut back?
And it's a tricky thing, because almost everybody agrees we need to keep spending up, you know, not take all country deficits to zero right away. But over time, you have to move in that direction. And so getting the timing right on this is -- is a very tough challenge.
TAPPER: So do you think that there needs to be another stimulus to keep spending up?
GATES: In terms of the U.S. in particular, lots of people, you know, have views that plus and minus on that in terms of if you did a -- a smaller stimulus, where exactly would you target?
You know, our $16 billion for energy R&D, that's a type of stimulus. That is creating jobs and it's a -- a nice investment in the future. So where you get a twofer like that, that feels particularly attractive that -- that you can do that.
TAPPER: Do you think the health care legislation is going to do enough to contain costs and control the deficit?
GATES: Well, the -- the health care bill broadened coverage. And there's a lot of...
TAPPER: Yeah, but beyond that, do you think it's going to contain...
GATES: Well, in terms of cost containment, that step alone, in my view, is at most the start of how we look at not letting medical costs continue to go up. The projection is they'll continue to go up.
And it creates a dilemma that if the government is funding those costs and if you're -- you know, you feel your taxation levels are going to hit some -- some limit, then what are you taking money away from?
You're not going to take it away from your Social Security. You're not going to take it away from paying the debt.
It's a tough problem.
So if we could innovate to reduce those increases in costs that would be great. And I think there's a lot of work to be done there, you know, people – In some respects may be tired of hearing about health care, but in terms of really reducing the costs, no. The -- the years ahead, that's going to -- a lot of experts and politicians are going to have to -- to think about how that's achieved.
TAPPER: Last month, Apple passed Microsoft in market capitalization, making -- it marked a historic moment where -- where Microsoft lost its status as the largest tech company in the world.
Why did this happen?
And -- do you still have confidence in CEO, Steve Ballmer?
GATES: Oh, Microsoft is doing a lot of great stuff. I mean the software industry, you know, the opportunities are -- are pretty phenomenal. You know, the way that people think about TV, the way they think about reading, about learning, software is going to revolutionize that. Our company and our stock has gone up, it's gone down. And, you know, we've been the most valuable, not the most valuable. It -- you know, that's -- that changed and it will change again and again and again.
There's room for more than one company to succeed in the industry. I -- I happen to like the things that Steve's -- Steve's doing. It's not my full-time work, but as a -- a board member, you know, I -- I see a lot of great things going on.
TAPPER: Bill Gates, thanks so much for joining us.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LENO: Eighty-nine-year-old White House reporter Helen Thomas is retiring. I'm going to be the first to say, "Mazel tov."
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
(UNKNOWN): The Democratic Senate nominee in South Carolina, Alvin Greene...
(UNKNOWN): Oh, Alvin.
(UNKNOWN): ... is a mystery man.
GREENE: So we should be pro-South Carolina, rather than anti-Greene, and speaking of me.
SMITH: Where'd you get the $10,000 grand to file?
GREENE: From my own personal money.
(UNKNOWN): Where did he come from, and how did he win?
OLBERMANN: How do you think the people voted for you on Tuesday knew who you were or even that you were running?
GREENE: You know, I think that they -- they saw -- I think that they -- you know, I just think that they recognize -- I think they -- they heard of my name.
(UNKNOWN): This is for real?
(UNKNOWN): Yes, I am for real.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: The quizzical stylings of Al Greene, the Democratic Senate candidate in South Carolina, one of many topics we'll get to with our roundtable, starting with George Will, former Republican Congressman Tom Davis, from the University of California at Berkeley, Robert Reich, the former Clinton labor secretary, and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile.
Thanks, one and all, for being here. Let's start with the oil spill this week. The fallout from the oil spill became transatlantic, George. Check the headlines that we see here. "Obama killing all our pensions." "Cameron fails to back BP in fight with Obama." "Back off, Obama." This is how the British press is treating this disaster. BP, obviously, the biggest company in the U.K.
Do they have a point?
WILL: Well, sure, they do. This is a reminder to Americans at all time that when they attack Wall Street and big business, they're attacking the people who are supporting their pension funds. I don't know how many Americans depend also on BP, but a lot of them do. It's an internationally traded stock.
So when you turn on the company, the liability of which is unclear at this point, but Congress, according to the interview you just conducted, is thinking of passing something that looks awfully like a bill of attainder, which is to single out for punishment with specific legislation a particular corporation. This is going to -- to ripple through people's 401(k)s and elsewhere.
TAPPER: Tom, when you were in Congress, you were for a time the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee in charge of electing Republicans to Congress, so you were focused on the mood of the public. What does this oil spill do to the mood of the public?
DAVIS: Well, it adds to the narrative where the big institutions have failed us, government, Wall Street, BP. The anger out there, I think, is greater than we've seen in at least a generation, and this adds to the narrative of government sitting there powerless, just making speeches. It's let them down.
TAPPER: Professor Reich, on -- on Wednesday, when President Obama and other White House officials meet with BP executives -- do you like that, that I called you "professor"?
REICH: I do, actually, yes.
TAPPER: You're smiling. When he meets with BP executives, one of the things he'll be pushing for is a -- is an escrow account, a third-party escrow account for BP to put money in, and then a third party will give out this money to people whose lives have been impacted by the spill. Where do you see this headed?
REICH: Well, look, Jake, BP does not have unlimited resources. It has a lot. But inevitably, there is going to be a clash, because the costs of this clean-up, the costs of containing the oil spill damage, the costs of plugging that hole are going to be in the tens of billions of dollars. And the question is, how much of this is going to be borne by the American taxpayer and how much by BP?
But the present spectacle of the Coast Guard asking BP to speed up this clean-up is absurd. I mean, the federal government needs to be in charge. The president needs to be in charge of this. Use BP's expertise. Use BP's resources. But the president must be in charge of all of this. Otherwise, he looks like he's just standing on the sidelines.
BRAZILE: Well, the administration has been constrained by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which basically gives the responsible party the lead role in trying to not only fix the problem, but contain the problem. That has been the problem from day one. They've waited for BP to come up with the answers, and we know that BP continues to mislead people.
I don't have any sympathy -- and I -- and I probably have some stock or something in BP, because I have mutual funds, so let me just put that aside and say, all the people of Great Britain, this is not personal. This is not about your national identity.
This is about a big region of our country that now has to deal with an oil spill that will go on for years and years and years, threatening the livelihood of human beings, marine life, sea life, and a way of life for people who make that their homes, 14 million Americans.
So when it comes to sympathy, angry, love (ph), go down to the Gulf Coast, because we have all of it. And we're angry. Tomorrow, the BP directors will meet. I hope that they hold that money in escrow. I hope...
TAPPER: The dividend -- the dividend money?
BRAZILE: Absolutely. They made $6.8 billion in profit as of March 31st. Hold it in escrow until the investigation is completed. And while they're at it, process these claims.
People are waiting, waiting in line now in St. Bernard Parish for food because they cannot go out and fish. They can't hunt, so they can't feed their families. They can't pay their mortgage. I have a lot of anger. I don't want my president to be angry. I have it for him.
REICH: Go beyond escrow. Go into temporary receivership.
TAPPER: You think that the Obama administration should take control of BP or BP America?
REICH: BP America, absolutely, Jake. Otherwise, not only is this a political disaster-in-waiting, because this is going to get larger and larger, and the president looks like he's waiting on the sidelines, but, secondly, we have no way of knowing as American people that BP is actually telling the truth, that all of its resource | 0 | train |
|
Full text: Jeff Flake on Trump speech transcript poster="http://v.politico.com/images/1155968404/201801/319/1155968404_5713627373001_5713606670001-vs.jpg?pubId=1155968404" true Full text: Jeff Flake on Trump speech transcript
Prepared remarks for Sen. Jeff Flake, who delivered a speech to the Senate on Jan. 17, 2018.
Mr. President, near the beginning of the document that made us free, our Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “We hold these truths to be self-evident...” So, from our very beginnings, our freedom has been predicated on truth. The founders were visionary in this regard, understanding well that good faith and shared facts between the governed and the government would be the very basis of this ongoing idea of America.
Story Continued Below
As the distinguished former member of this body, Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York, famously said: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” During the past year, I am alarmed to say that Senator Moynihan’s proposition has likely been tested more severely than at any time in our history.
It is for that reason that I rise today, to talk about the truth, and its relationship to democracy. For without truth, and a principled fidelity to truth and to shared facts, Mr. President, our democracy will not last.
2017 was a year which saw the truth – objective, empirical, evidence-based truth -- more battered and abused than any other in the history of our country, at the hands of the most powerful figure in our government. It was a year which saw the White House enshrine “alternative facts” into the American lexicon, as justification for what used to be known simply as good old-fashioned falsehoods. It was the year in which an unrelenting daily assault on the constitutionally-protected free press was launched by that same White House, an assault that is as unprecedented as it is unwarranted. “The enemy of the people,” was what the president of the United States called the free press in 2017.
POLITICO Playbook newsletter Sign up today to receive the #1-rated newsletter in politics Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Mr. President, it is a testament to the condition of our democracy that our own president uses words infamously spoken by Josef Stalin to describe his enemies. It bears noting that so fraught with malice was the phrase “enemy of the people,” that even Nikita Khrushchev forbade its use, telling the Soviet Communist Party that the phrase had been introduced by Stalin for the purpose of “annihilating such individuals” who disagreed with the supreme leader.
This alone should be a source of great shame for us in this body, especially for those of us in the president’s party. For they are shameful, repulsive statements. And, of course, the president has it precisely backward – despotism is the enemy of the people. The free press is the despot’s enemy, which makes the free press the guardian of democracy. When a figure in power reflexively calls any press that doesn’t suit him “fake news,” it is that person who should be the figure of suspicion, not the press.
I dare say that anyone who has the privilege and awesome responsibility to serve in this chamber knows that these reflexive slurs of “fake news” are dubious, at best. Those of us who travel overseas, especially to war zones and other troubled areas around the globe, encounter members of U.S. based media who risk their lives, and sometimes lose their lives, reporting on the truth. To dismiss their work as fake news is an affront to their commitment and their sacrifice.
According to the International Federation of Journalists, 80 journalists were killed in 2017, and a new report from the Committee to Protect Journalists documents that the number of journalists imprisoned around the world has reached 262, which is a new record. This total includes 21 reporters who are being held on “false news” charges.
Mr. President, so powerful is the presidency that the damage done by the sustained attack on the truth will not be confined to the president’s time in office. Here in America, we do not pay obeisance to the powerful – in fact, we question the powerful most ardently – to do so is our birthright and a requirement of our citizenship -- and so, we know well that no matter how powerful, no president will ever have dominion over objective reality.
No politician will ever get to tell us what the truth is and is not. And anyone who presumes to try to attack or manipulate the truth to his own purposes should be made to realize the mistake and be held to account. That is our job here. And that is just as Madison, Hamilton, and Jay would have it.
Of course, a major difference between politicians and the free press is that the press usually corrects itself when it gets something wrong. Politicians don’t.
No longer can we compound attacks on truth with our silent acquiescence. No longer can we turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to these assaults on our institutions. And Mr. President, an American president who cannot take criticism – who must constantly deflect and distort and distract – who must find someone else to blame -- is charting a very dangerous path. And a Congress that fails to act as a check on the president adds to the danger.
Now, we are told via twitter that today the president intends to announce his choice for the “most corrupt and dishonest” media awards. It beggars belief that an American president would engage in such a spectacle. But here we are.
And so, 2018 must be the year in which the truth takes a stand against power that would weaken it. In this effort, the choice is quite simple. And in this effort, the truth needs as many allies as possible. Together, my colleagues, we are powerful. Together, we have it within us to turn back these attacks, right these wrongs, repair this damage, restore reverence for our institutions, and prevent further moral vandalism.
Together, united in the purpose to do our jobs under the Constitution, without regard to party or party loyalty, let us resolve to be allies of the truth -- and not partners in its destruction.
It is not my purpose here to inventory all of the official untruths of the past year. But a brief survey is in order. Some untruths are trivial – such as the bizarre contention regarding the crowd size at last year’s inaugural.
But many untruths are not at all trivial – such as the seminal untruth of the president’s political career - the oft-repeated conspiracy about the birthplace of President Obama. Also not trivial are the equally pernicious fantasies about rigged elections and massive voter fraud, which are as destructive as they are inaccurate – to the effort to undermine confidence in the federal courts, federal law enforcement, the intelligence community and the free press, to perhaps the most vexing untruth of all – the supposed “hoax” at the heart of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.
To be very clear, to call the Russia matter a “hoax” – as the president has many times – is a falsehood. We know that the attacks orchestrated by the Russian government during the election were real and constitute a grave threat to both American sovereignty and to our national security. It is in the interest of every American to get to the bottom of this matter, wherever the investigation leads.
Ignoring or denying the truth about hostile Russian intentions toward the United States leaves us vulnerable to further attacks. We are told by our intelligence agencies that those attacks are ongoing, yet it has recently been reported that there has not been a single cabinet-level meeting regarding Russian interference and how to defend America against these attacks. Not one. What might seem like a casual and routine untruth – so casual and routine that it has by now become the white noise of Washington - is in fact a serious lapse in the defense of our country.
Mr. President, let us be clear. The impulses underlying the dissemination of such untruths are not benign. They have the effect of eroding trust in our vital institutions and conditioning the public to no longer trust them. The destructive effect of this kind of behavior on our democracy cannot be overstated.
Mr. President, every word that a president utters projects American values around the world. The values of free expression and a reverence for the free press have been our global hallmark, for it is our ability to freely air the truth that keeps our government honest and keeps a people free. Between the mighty and the modest, truth is the great leveler. And so, respect for freedom of the press has always been one of our most important exports.
But a recent report published in our free press should raise an alarm. Reading from the story:
“In February…Syrian President Bashar Assad brushed off an Amnesty International report that some 13,000 people had been killed at one of his military prisons by saying, “You can forge anything these days, we are living in a fake news era.”
In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has complained of being “demonized” by “fake news.” Last month, the report continues, with our President, quote “laughing by his side” Duterte called reporters “spies.”
In July, Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro complained to the Russian propaganda outlet, that the world media had “spread lots of false versions, lots of lies” about his country, adding, “This is what we call 'fake news' today, isn't it?”
There are more:
“A state official in Myanmar recently said, “There is no such thing as Rohingya. It is fake news,” referring to the persecuted ethnic group.
Leaders in Singapore, a country known for restricting free speech, have promised “fake news” legislation in the new year.”
And on and on. This feedback loop is disgraceful, Mr. President. Not only has the past year seen an American president borrow despotic language to refer to the free press, but it seems he has in turn inspired dictators and authoritarians with his own language. This is reprehensible.
We are not in a “fake news” era, as Bashar Assad says. We are, rather, in an era in which the authoritarian impulse is reasserting itself, to challenge free people and free societies, everywhere.
In our own country, from the trivial to the truly dangerous, it is the range and regularity of the untruths we see that should be cause for profound alarm, and spur to action. Add to that the by-now predictable habit of calling true things false, and false things true, and we have a recipe for disaster. As George Orwell warned, “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Any of us who have spent time in public life have endured news coverage we felt was jaded or unfair. But in our positions, to employ even idle threats to use laws or regulations to stifle criticism is corrosive to our democratic institutions. Simply put: it is the press’s obligation to uncover the truth about power. It is the people’s right to criticize their government. And it is our job to take it.
What is the goal of laying siege to the truth? President John F. Kennedy, in a stirring speech on the 20th anniversary of the Voice of America, was eloquent in answer to that question:
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.”
Mr. President, the question of why the truth is now under such assault may well be for historians to determine. But for those who cherish American constitutional democracy, what matters is the effect on America and her people and her standing in an increasingly unstable world -- made all the more unstable by these very fabrications. What matters is the daily disassembling of our democratic institutions.
We are a mature democracy – it is well past time that we stop excusing or ignoring – or worse, endorsing -- these attacks on the truth. For if we compromise the truth for the sake of our politics, we are lost.
I sincerely thank my colleagues for their indulgence today. I will close by borrowing the words of an early adherent to my faith that I find has special resonance at this moment. His name was John Jacques, and as a young missionary in England he contemplated the question: "What is truth?" His search was expressed in poetry and ultimately in a hymn that I grew up with, titled “Oh Say, What is Truth.” It ends as follows:
“Then say, what is truth? 'Tis the last and the first,
For the limits of time it steps o'er.
Tho the heavens depart and the earth's fountains burst.
Truth, the sum of existence, will weather the worst,
Eternal… unchanged… evermore.”
Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
| 0 | train |
|
Rebooting: You and your doctor under Obamacare About This Show
From the country’s major political and policy issues to diplomacy on the global stage, State of the Union with Candy Crowley brings in the world’s top newsmakers and analysts to deliver the smartest, most comprehensive look at what matters most to you. Sundays at 9am and Noon ET.
Send Feedback | Subscribe | About Candy Crowley | 0 | train |
|
Dr. James Dobson James C. Dobson, Ph.D., is founder and chairman of Focus on the Family, a non-profit organization that produces his internationally syndicated radio programs, heard on over 3,000 radio facilities in North America and in twenty seven languages in approximately 4,130 additional facilities in over 160 other countries.
His commentaries are heard by more than 220 million people by way of radio every day, including a translation of a program carried on state-owned radio stations in the Republic of China. He is seen on approximately 60 television stations daily in the U.S.
Dobson was for 14 years an Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and served for 17 years on the Attending Staff of Children's Hospital of Los Angeles in the Division of Child Development and Medical Genetics. He has an earned Ph.D. from the University of Southern California (1967) in the field of child development. He is a licensed psychologist in the state of California and a licensed marriage, family and child counselor in both California and Colorado. He is listed in Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare.
IN RECOGNITION of distinguished service in preserving the family, Dr. James Dobson
has been recognized
with academic honors over the past 20 years.
Honorary Degrees Doctor of Laws from Pepperdine University (1983) Doctor of Humanities from Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio (1988) Doctor of Humane Letters from Seattle Pacific University (1988) Doctor of Humane Letters from Asbury Theological Seminary (1989) Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters from MidAmerica Nazarene College (1992) Doctor of Letters from Liberty University (1993) Doctor of Humane Letters from Campbell University (1994) Doctor of Humane Letters from Point Loma Nazarene College (1994) Doctor of Literature from Biola University (1995), Doctor of Humanities from Abilene Christian University (1995) Doctor of Humane Letters from Huntington College (1997) Doctor of Public Service from Greenville College (1997) Doctor of Humane Letters from William Tyndale College (1998) Doctor of Humanities from Harding University (1999) Doctor of Humanities from Olivet Nazarene University (1999). and a Doctor of Humane Letters from Indiana Wesleyan University (2005).
Best-Selling Books
Dr. Dobson's first book for parents and teachers, Dare to Discipline, has sold more than 4.5 million copies and was selected as one of 50 books to be rebound and placed in the White House Library. It has now been revised and updated as The New Dare to Discipline . He has now written 36 books, including:
Film and Video Projects
Awards and Recognition
Advocate for the Family
His first film series, "Focus on the Family," has now been seen by over 70 million people. His second film series, "Turn Your Heart Toward Home," was released in January 1986. A third seven-part series, "Life on The Edge" , designed to help late teens bridge the gap between adolescence and young adulthood, was released in early 1994. In 2002, he produced an eleven-part series based on his best-selling book, "Bringing up Boys;" and in 2005, he recorded the "Your Child" Essentials of Discipline Video seminar, which presents his time-honored childrearing principles to a new generation of parents.Dr. Dobson was chosen as Layman of the Year by the National Association of Evangelicals in 1982. He was honored in 1987 as "The Children's Friend" by CHILDHELP USA, an organization devoted to the prevention of child abuse. He received the Alumni Merit Award from the University of Southern California General Alumni Association (1989); the Humanitarian Award by the California State Psychological Association (1988); the "Philip Award" from the United Methodist Church (1994); the "1996 Man of the Year Award" by the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and 1997 International Human Life Award from Human Life International; Salvation Army "Others" Award (1999); the "Christian Counseling in the Media Award" from the Board of Directors of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS)(1999);the Catholic Alliance Family Advocate of the Year Award (2001); and the "Proudly Pro-Life Award," given by the National Right to Life (2002); the "Churchill Award" for Courageous and Committed Service to the Conservative Cause from the Council for National Policy (2002); the Fellowship of Christian Athletes "Tom Landry Award" (2003); and Marketplace Ministries "Integrity in Family Award" (2004); Promise Keepers "Trail Blazer Award" (2005); and was inducted into Indiana Wesleyan University's Society of World Changers (2005); and the First Baptist Church of Dallas' "W.A. Criswell Lifetime Christian Citizenship Award" (2006).Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved in governmental activities related to the family. He served on the task force which summarized the White House Conference on Families and received a special commendation from President Jimmy Carter in 1980. He was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army's Family Initiative, 1986-88.
He was appointed to Attorney General Edwin Meese's Commission on Pornography, 1985-86. Dr. Dobson was also appointed in the spring of 1987 to the Attorney General's Advisory Board on Missing and Exploited Children, and to Secretary Otis Bowen's Panel on Teen Pregnancy Prevention, within the Department of Health and Human Services. In October, 1987, he received the Marian Pfister Anschutz Award in recognition of his contribution to the American family. A videotaped message of congratulations was sent by President Reagan. He also consulted with President George Bush on family-related matters. In December, 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare and in October, 1996, was appointed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
Dr. Dobson is married to Shirley, and the father of two grown children, Danae and Ryan. The Dobsons reside in Colorado Springs, Colorado.
For more information, contact Gary Schneeberger at (719) 548-5853 or [email protected], or Sonja Swiatkiewicz at (719) 548-4634 or [email protected]. | 0 | train |
|
john.he.is 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 |
|
Pledge of Allegiance E-mail Pledge of Allegiance E-mail
The following is the text of a chain e-mail that features Sen. John McCain's remarks about the Pledge of Allegiance, and an anecdote from his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.
John McCain's remarks about the Pledge of Allegiance
In light of the recent appeals court ruling in California, with respect to the Pledge of Allegiance, the following recollection from Senator John McCain is very appropriate:
'The Pledge of Allegiance' - by Senator John McCain
'As you may know, I spent five and one half years as a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War. In the early years of our imprisonme nt, the NVA kept us in solitary confinement or two or three to a cell. In 1971 the NVA moved us from these conditions of isolation into large rooms with as many as 30 to 40 men to a room.
This was, as you can imagine, a wonderful change and was a direct result of the efforts of millions of Americans on behalf of a few hundred POWs 10,000 miles from home.
One of the men who moved into my room was a young man named Mike Christian.
Mike came from a small town near Selma , Alabama . He didn't wear a pair of shoes until he was 13 years old. At 17, he enlisted in the US Navy. He later earned a commission by going to Officer Training School Then h e became a Naval Flight Officer and was shot down and captured in 1967. Mike had a keen and deep appreciation of the opportunities this country and our military provide for people who want to work and want to succeed.
As part of the change in treatment, the Vietnamese allowed some prisoners to receive packages from home. In some of these packages were handkerchiefs, scarves and other items of clothing.
Mike got himself a bamboo needle. Over a period of a couple of months, he created an American flag and sewed on the inside of his shirt.
Every afternoon, before we had a bowl of soup, we would hang Mike's shirt on the wall of t he cell and say the Pledge of Allegiance.
I know the Pledge of Allegiance may not seem the most important part of our day now, but I can assure you that in that stark cell it was indeed the most important and meaningful event.
One day the Vietnamese searched our cell, as they did periodically, and discovered Mike's shirt with the flag sewn inside, and removed it.
That evening they returned, opened the door of the cell, and for the benefit of all of us, beat Mike Christian severely for the next couple of hours. Then, they opened the door of the cell and threw him in. We cleaned him up as well as we could.
The cell in which we lived had a concrete slab in the middle on which we slept Four naked light bulbs hung in each corner of the room.
As I said, we tried to clean up Mike as well as we could. After the excitement died down, I looked in the corner of the room, and sitting there beneath that dim light bulb with a piece of red cloth, another shirt and his bamboo needle, was my friend, Mike Christian. He was sitting there with his eyes almost shut from the beating he had received, making another American flag. He was not making the flag because it made Mike Christian feel better. He was making that flag because he knew how important it was to us to be able to Pledge our allegiance to our flag and country.
So the next time you say the Pledge of Allegiance, you must never forget the sacrifice and courage that thousands of Americans have made to build our nation and promote freedom around the world. You must remember our duty, our honor, and our country.'
'I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
PASS THIS ON... And on... And on! You can even send it back to me, I don't mind, because its worth reading again.
oh.....and then you have this clown, who refuses to place his hand on his heart and say the pledge...... Subject: Remember this picture on election day!
Let's all remember this on election day...if you have family serving in the military, make sure you send it along. I don't care for Hillary, but at least she shows respect for the country she lives in! I had heard about this but a picture is definitely worth 1000 words! God save us!!!
Senator Barack Obama, Governor Bill Richardson, Senator Hillary Clinton and Ruth Harkin stand during the national anthem.
Barack Hussein Obama's photo (that's his real name).....the article said he REFUSED TO NOT ONLY PUT HIS HAND ON HIS HEART DURING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, BUT REFUSED TO SAY THE PLEDGE.....how in the hell can a man like this expect to be our next C commander-in-Chief | 0 | train |
|
International Arrest Warrant Issued for George Soros George Soros—the Billionaire investment banker who has admitted to manipulating the financial markets in Asia, the UK, Greece, and Russia has finally gone too far.
You see Mr. Soros has become persona non grata across the globe for his role in destabilizing country’s economy’s and financial markets. He does so for the sole intent of lining his own pockets at the expense of others.
George Soros now lives in the United States and has been involved in many of the anti-Trump protests around the country. He has paid salaries and housing for many of the leaders of Black Lives Matters group, in addition to paying young people to protest Donald Trump in multiple big cities across the U.S.
He has done this before in different countries throughout Europe and Asia. Basically, he causes massive financial chaos in a country, cashes in on it, and moves to the next one.
Russia was once a victim of his demented financial upheaval. Back in the ‘90’s he wrote a letter that besmirched the Russian currency and said it was overvalued. Investors immediately panicked and dumped the Russian currency. The results of which pushed Russia into a financial depression which ultimately benefitted the billionaire in his deep, greedy pockets.
Ever since then Russia has held a grudge against Soros. Although it took years, Russia’s president Vladimir Putin officially issued an international arrest warrant for George Soros for his role in collapsing Russia’s currency and the resulting financial meltdown.
Now, as an American citizen, it is a bit tricky to remove him, but when Trump takes office, it may completely change. We’ll have to see. To learn more, check out the provided video below. | 1 | train |
|
Interest Group Ratings Social Issues
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 77 percent in 2006.
2006 According to the National Journal - Conservative on Social Policy calculations, in 2006 Senator Obama voted more conservative on social policy issues than 21 percent of the [HOUSE].
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Population Connection 100 percent in 2006.
2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Secular Coalition for America 90 percent in 2006.
2005-2006 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Population Action International 100 percent in 2005-2006.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy 75 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Mennonite Central Committee 90 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Population Connection 100 percent in 2005.
2005 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Population Institute 100 percent in 2005.
2003 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Citizen Action Illinois 96 percent in 2003.
2002 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Churches in Action - ILLCAAAP 0 percent in 2002.
2002 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Family Institute 50 percent in 2002.
1999-2000 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Churches in Action - ILLCAAAP 100 percent in 1999-2000.
1998-1999 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Churches in Action - ILLCAAAP 100 percent in 1998-1999.
1998 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Family Institute 80 percent in 1998.
1997-1998 Senator Obama supported the interests of the National Association of Social Workers - Illinois Chapter 100 percent in 1997-1998.
1997 Senator Obama supported the interests of the Illinois Churches in Action - ILLCAAAP 0 percent in 1997. | 0 | train |
|
Mueller Will Be Forced To Resign Over Pelosi Affair Robert Mueller’s steamy, 13-year affair with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is going to cost him more than a little bit of embarrassment and his marriage, according to a trusted source inside the Department of Justice. Mueller will also be forced to resign from his position as Special Prosecutor for the FBI, nullifying everything that investigator has uncovered as fruit of the poisonous tree.
Pelosi, who says her husband was well-aware of the affair, swears that Mueller was just a friend whose company she enjoyed on long, lonely working nights and weekends in Washington. The California “progressive” says her husband was afforded the same freedom to explore “pleasures of the flesh.” :
“We’re not interested in defending our actions or our values as human beings. I’m a public servant who will continue to serve until my health or my constituents say otherwise.”
Regardless of how much we hate Nacy Pelosi, she represents a Congressional District that saw a million fraudulent votes from illegal immigrants. She’ll hold that seat until she dies.
Mueller, on the other hand, is looking at a messy divorce, a public humiliation and the loss of his job. He’ll also go down in history as the man who had solid evidence against several Trump surrogates and allowed their cases to all be dismissed on a technicality. None of it would have led to Trump, but it still lifts a huge weight from his legacy.
Mueller is finished and will resign as early as next Tuesday at 4.
Source: Ladies Of Liberty | 1 | train |
|
The Texas Unmiracle In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was less than unemployment in collapsed-bubble states like California and Florida , but it was slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts . By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance , the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the “job-killing” Affordable Care Act.
So where does the notion of a Texas miracle come from? Mainly from widespread misunderstanding of the economic effects of population growth.
Photo
For this much is true about Texas: It has, for many decades, had much faster population growth than the rest of America — about twice as fast since 1990. Several factors underlie this rapid population growth: a high birth rate, immigration from Mexico , and inward migration of Americans from other states, who are attracted to Texas by its warm weather and low cost of living, low housing costs in particular.
And just to be clear, there’s nothing wrong with a low cost of living. In particular, there’s a good case to be made that zoning policies in many states unnecessarily restrict the supply of housing, and that this is one area where Texas does in fact do something right.
But what does population growth have to do with job growth? Well, the high rate of population growth translates into above-average job growth through a couple of channels. Many of the people moving to Texas — retirees in search of warm winters, middle-class Mexicans in search of a safer life — bring purchasing power that leads to greater local employment. At the same time, the rapid growth in the Texas work force keeps wages low — nearly 10 percent of hourly Texan workers earn the minimum wage or less, well above the national average — and these low wages give corporations an incentive to move production to the Lone Star State.
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.
So Texas tends, in good years and bad, to have higher job growth than the rest of America. But it needs lots of new jobs just to keep up with its rising population — and as those unemployment comparisons show, recent employment growth has fallen well short of what’s needed.
If this picture doesn’t look very much like the glowing portrait Texas boosters like to paint, there’s a reason: the glowing portrait is false.
Still, does Texas job growth point the way to faster job growth in the nation as a whole? No.
What Texas shows is that a state offering cheap labor and, less important, weak regulation can attract jobs from other states. I believe that the appropriate response to this insight is “Well, duh.” The point is that arguing from this experience that depressing wages and dismantling regulation in America as a whole would create more jobs — which is, whatever Mr. Perry may say, what Perrynomics amounts to in practice — involves a fallacy of composition: every state can’t lure jobs away from every other state.
In fact, at a national level lower wages would almost certainly lead to fewer jobs — because they would leave working Americans even less able to cope with the overhang of debt left behind by the housing bubble, an overhang that is at the heart of our economic problem.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
So when Mr. Perry presents himself as the candidate who knows how to create jobs, don’t believe him. His prescriptions for job creation would work about as well in practice as his prayer-based attempt to end Texas’s crippling drought. | 0 | train |
|
“Gay People Should Wear Specially-Colored Clothes To Warn Straight People” Televangelist Pat Robertson recently repeated his prediction that LGBT rights will provoke God to destroy America’s financial markets, warning “The 700 Club” viewers that God’s wrath is on its way. He claimed that the U.S. is turning into Sodom now that it has “enshrined sodomy into the United States Constitution” and cities like Houston are trying to “force women to go into men’s bathrooms and men to go into women’s bathrooms.”
“Now it’s a constitutional right for sodomites to marry each other,” he lamented, warning that “the wrath of God is revealed against this stuff.” He explained: “I don’t want the wrath of God to hit this country, it’s a great country, I’d like to see America continue strong, but this is one way of weakening it. First of all, we’re going to have this financial collapse. We’re setting up for a massive financial collapse and I think if God is going to hurt this country that’s probably the way he’d do it.”
At that point, a viewer called in and inquired Robertson whether his grim predictions of such a crisis can somehow be averted, to which Robertson gave a somewhat confusing answer: “I believe so, yes, but we need to stop spreading lesbianism and homosexuality in order to achieve that. And the only way to stop the spread of these diseases that are plaguing the country is to make some sort of obvious distinction between gay people and normal, straight people.”
“I personally believe that we must impose a rule on the gay population that would require them to wear specially-colored clothes, for example. I’m thinking we need to go through the Senate with this and we need to make it official. That way, regular people would know that the person wearing the said color is a deviant sodomite and that they need to stay away from them at all cost, as well as keep their children away from their reach,” Robertson opined.
The viewer then interrupted “The 700 Club” host to state that “that sounds awfully like what Nazis did to Jews in the events leading up to World War II,” referring to the fact that Jews in pre-WWII Poland and Germany were made to wear Jewish badges, or yellow badges, which were cloth patches that Jews were ordered to sew on their outer garments to mark them as Jews in public. It served as a badge of shame.
“I don’t believe that,” Robertson quickly became defensive. “I am simply talking about protecting regular people in America, not setting out gays and lesbians as members of the population that should be tortured and slaughtered in concentration camps. Do you understand my point of view here?” the host asked the caller.
“I do,” the caller replied. “But I also understand that you’re trying to do to gay people what the Nazis did to my people more than half a century ago. And I am appalled by it.”
Click to expand... | 1 | train |
|
The Voter's Self Defense System Thank You!
You are about to be redirected to a secure checkout page.
Please note:
The total order amount will read $0.01. This is a card processor fee. Please know that a recurring donation of the amount and frequency that you selected will be processed and initiated tomorrow. You may see a one-time charge of $0.01 on your statement.
Continue to secure page » | 0 | train |
|
The Democratic Debate in Cleveland MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Clinton, we're here in Ohio. Senator Obama is here. This is the debate. You would agree the difference in tone over just those 48 hours was striking.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, this is a contested campaign. And as I have said many times, I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama, but we have differences. And in the last several days, some of those differences in tactics and the choices that Senator Obama's campaign has made regarding flyers and mailers and other information that has been put out about my health care plan and my position on NAFTA have been very disturbing to me.
And therefore, I think it's important that you stand up for yourself and you point out these differences so that voters can have the information they need to make a decision.
You know, for example, it's been unfortunate that Senator Obama has consistently said that I would force people to have health care whether they could afford it or not. You know, health care reform and achieving universal health care is a passion of mine. It is something I believe in with all my heart. And every day that I'm campaigning, and certainly here throughout Ohio, I've met so many families -- happened again this morning in Lorain -- who are just devastated because they don't get the health care they deserve to have. And unfortunately it's a debate we should have that is accurate and is based in facts about my plan and Senator Obama's plan, because my plan will cover everyone and it will be affordable. And on many occasions, independent experts have concluded exactly that.
And Senator Obama's plan does not cover everyone. It would leave, give or take, 15 million people out. So we should have a good debate that uses accurate information, not false, misleading, and discredited information, especially on something as important as whether or not we will achieve quality, affordable health care for everyone. That's my goal. That's what I'm fighting for, and I'm going to stand up for that.
MR. WILLIAMS: On the topic of accurate information, and to that end, one of the things that has happened over the past 36 hours -- a photo went out the website The Drudge Report, showing Senator Obama in the native garb of a nation he was visiting, as you have done in a host country on a trip overseas.
Matt Drudge on his website said it came from a source inside the Clinton campaign. Can you say unequivocally here tonight it did not?
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
SEN. CLINTON: Well, so far as I know, it did not. And I certainly know nothing about it and have made clear that that's not the kind of behavior that I condone or expect from the people working in my campaign. But we have no evidence where it came from.
So I think that it's clear what I would do if it were someone in my campaign, as I have in the past: asking people to leave my campaign if they do things that I disagree with.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, your response.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, first of all, I take Senator Clinton at her word that she knew nothing about the photo. So I think that's something that we can set aside.
I do want to focus on the issue of health care because Senator Clinton has suggested that the flyer that we put out, the mailing that we put out, was inaccurate. Now, keep in mind that I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.
I have endured over the course of this campaign repeatedly negative mailing from Senator Clinton in Iowa, in Nevada and other places suggesting that I want to leave 15 million people out.
According to Senator Clinton, that is accurate. I dispute it, and I think it is inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't fault Senator Clinton for wanting to point out what she thinks is an advantage to her plan.
The reason she thinks that there are more people covered under her plan than mine is because of a mandate. That is not a mandate for the government to provide coverage to everybody; it is a mandate that every individual purchase health care.
And the mailing that we put out accurately indicates that the main difference between Senator Clinton's plan and mine is the fact that she would force in some fashion individuals to purchase health care.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
If it was not affordable, she would still presumably force them to have it, unless there is a hardship exemption as they've done in Massachusetts, which leaves 20 percent of the uninsured out. And if that's the case, then, in fact, her claim that she covers everybody is not accurate.
Now, Senator Clinton has not indicated how she would enforce this mandate. She hasn't indicated what level of subsidy she would provide to assure that it was, in fact, affordable. And so it is entirely legitimate for us to point out these differences.
But I think it's very important to understand the context of this, and that is that Senator Clinton has -- her campaign, at least -- has constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robocalls, flyers, television ads, radio calls.
And, you know, we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns, but to suggest somehow that our mailing is somehow different from the kinds of approaches that Senator Clinton has taken throughout this campaign I think is simply not accurate.
MR. WILLIAMS: And Senator Clinton, on this subject --
SEN. CLINTON: But I have to -- I have to respond to that because this is not just any issue, and certainly we've had a vigorous back and forth on both sides of our campaign. But this is an issue that goes to the heart of whether or not this country will finally do what is right, and that is to provide quality affordable health care to every single person.
Senator Obama has a mandate in his plan. It's a mandate on parents to provide health insurance for their children. That's about 150 million people who would be required to do that. The difference between Senator Obama and myself is that I know, from the work I've done on health care for many years, that if everyone's not in the system we will continue to let the insurance companies do what's called cherry picking -- pick those who get insurance and leave others out.
We will continue to have a hidden tax, so that when someone goes to the emergency room without insurance -- 15 million or however many -- that amount of money that will be used to take care of that person will be then spread among all the rest of us.
And most importantly, you know, the kind of attack on my health care plan, which the University of Pennsylvania and others have said is misleading -- that attack goes right to the heart of whether or not we will be able to achieve universal health care. That's a core Democratic Party value. It's something that ever since Harry Truman we have stood for.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
And what I find regrettable is that in Senator Obama's mailing that he has sent out across Ohio, it is almost as though the health insurance companies and the Republicans wrote it, because in my plan there is enough money, according to the independent experts who've evaluated it, to provide the kind of subsidies so that everyone would be able to afford it. It is not the same as a single state trying to do this, because the federal government has many more resources at its disposal.
SEN. OBAMA (?): (Inaudible.)
SEN. CLINTON: So I think it's imperative that we stand as Democrats for universal health care. I've staked out a claim for that. Senator Edwards did. Others have. But Senator Obama has not.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, a quick response.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, look, I believe in universal health care, as does Senator Clinton. And this is -- this is, I think, the point of the debate, is that Senator Clinton repeatedly claims that I don't stand for universal health care. And, you know, for Senator Clinton to say that, I think, is simply not accurate.
Every expert has said that anybody who wants health care under my plan will be able to obtain it. President Clinton's own secretary of Labor has said that my plan does more to reduce costs and as a consequence makes sure that the people who need health care right now all across Ohio, all across Texas, Rhode Island, Vermont, all across America, will be able to obtain it. And we do more to reduce costs than any other plan that's been out there.
Now, I have no objection to Senator Clinton thinking that her approach is superior, but the fact of the matter is, is that if, as we've heard tonight, we still don't know how Senator Clinton intends to enforce a mandate, and if we don't know the level of subsidies that she's going to provide, then you can have a situation, which we are seeing right now in the state of Massachusetts, where people are being fined for not having purchased health care but choose to accept the fine because they still can't afford it, even with the subsidies.
And they are then worse off. They then have no health care and are paying a fine above and beyond that.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you.
SEN. OBAMA: That is a genuine difference between myself and Senator Clinton.
And the last point I would make is, the insurance companies actually are happy to have a mandate. The insurance companies don't mind making sure that everybody has to purchase their product. That's not something they're objecting to. The question is, are we going to make sure that it is affordable for everybody? And that's my goal when I'm president of the United States.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, as you two --
SEN. CLINTON: You know, Brian -- Brian, wait a minute. I've got -- this is too important.
You know, Senator Obama has a mandate. He would enforce the mandate by requiring parents to buy insurance for their children.
SEN. OBAMA: This is true.
SEN. CLINTON: That is the case.
If you have a mandate, it has to be enforceable. So there's no difference here.
SEN. OBAMA: No, there is a difference.
SEN. CLINTON: It's just that I know that parents who get sick have terrible consequences for their children. So you can insure the children, and then you've got the bread-winner who can't afford health insurance or doesn't have it for him or herself.
And in fact, it would be as though Franklin Roosevelt said let's make Social Security voluntary -- that's -- you know, that's -- let's let everybody get in it if they can afford it -- or if President Johnson said let's make Medicare voluntary.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, let me --
SEN. CLINTON: What we have said is that at the point of employment, at the point of contact with various government agencies, we would have people signed up. It's like when you get a 401(k), it's your employer. The employer automatically enrolls you. You would be enrolled.
And under my plan, it is affordable because, number one, we have enough money in our plan. A comparison of the plans like the ones we're proposing found that actually I would cover nearly everybody at a much lower cost than Senator Obama's plan because we would not only provide these health care tax credits, but I would limit the amount of money that anyone ever has to pay for a premium to a low percentage of your income. So it will be affordable.
Now, if you want to say that we shouldn't try to get everyone into health insurance, that's a big difference, because I believe if we don't have universal health care, we will never provide prevention.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
I have the most aggressive measures to reduce costs and improve quality. And time and time again, people who have compared our two approaches have concluded that.
SEN. OBAMA: Brian, I'm sorry.
SEN. CLINTON: So let's -- let's have a debate about the facts.
SEN. OBAMA: I'm going to get filibuttered -- I'm getting filibustered a little bit here.
MR. WILLIAMS: The last answer on this topic.
SEN. OBAMA: I mean, it is just not accurate to say that Senator Clinton does more to control costs than mine. That is not the case. There are many experts who have concluded that she does not.
I do provide a mandate for children, because, number one, we have created a number of programs in which we can have greater assurance that those children will be covered at an affordable price. On the -- on the point of many adults, we don't want to put in a situation in which, on the front end, we are mandating them, we are forcing them to purchase insurance, and if the subsidies are inadequate, the burden is on them, and they will be penalized. And that is what Senator Clinton's plan does.
Now, I am -- I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Clinton about how we can both achieve the goal of universal health care. What I do not accept -- and which is what Senator Clinton has consistently done and in fact the same experts she cites basically say there's no real difference between our plans, that are -- that they are not substantial.
But it has to do with how we are going to achieve universal health care. That is an area where I believe that if we make it affordable, people will purchase it. In fact, Medicare Part B is not mandated, it is voluntary. And yet people over 65 choose to purchase it, Hillary, and the reason they choose to purchase it is because it's a good deal. And if people in Cleveland or anywhere in Ohio end up seeing a plan that is affordable for them, I promise you they are snatching it up because they are desperate to get health care. And that's what I intend to provide as president of the United States.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, I'm going to change the subject.
SEN. CLINTON: About 20 percent of -- about 20 percent of the people who are uninsured have the means to buy insurance. They're often young people --
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator --
SEN. CLINTON: -- who think they're immortal --
SEN. OBAMA: Which is why I cover them.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
SEN. CLINTON: -- except when the illness or the accident strikes. And what Senator Obama has said, that then, once you get to the hospital, you'll be forced to buy insurance, I don't think that's a good idea. We ought to plan for it --
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: -- and we ought to make sure we cover everyone.
That is the only way to get to universal health care coverage.
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: That is what I've worked for for 15 years --
SEN. OBAMA: With respect --
SEN. CLINTON: -- and I believe that we can achieve it. But if we don't even have a plan to get there, and we start out by leaving people, you'll never ever control costs, improve quality, and cover everyone.
SEN. OBAMA: With respect to the young people, my plan specifically says that up until the age of 25 you will be able to be covered under your parents' insurance plan, so that cohort that
Senator Clinton is talking about will, in fact, have coverage.
MR. WILLIAMS: Well, a 16-minute discussion on health care is certainly a start. (Laughter.) I'd like to change up --
SEN. CLINTON: Well, there's hardly anything be more important? I think it would be good to talk about health care and how we're we going get to universal health care.
MR. WILLIAMS: I -- well, here's another important topic, and that's NAFTA, especially where we're sitting here tonight. And this is a tough one depending on who you ask. The Houston Chronicle has called it a big win for Texas, but Ohio Democratic Senator Brown, your colleague in the Senate, has called it a job-killing trade agreement. Senator Clinton, you've campaigned in south Texas. You've campaigned here in Ohio. Who's right?
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody saw "Saturday Night Live," you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it.
You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning. I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited.
But what I have seen, where I represent up-state New York, I've seen the factories closed and moved. I've talked to so many people whose children have left because they don't have a good shot. I've had to negotiate to try to keep factories open, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, because the companies got tax benefits to actually move to another country.
So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement.
We will do everything we can to make it enforceable, which it is not now. We will stop the kind of constant sniping at our protections for our workers that can come from foreign companies because they have the authority to try to sue to overturn what we do to keep our workers safe.
This is rightly a big issue in Ohio. And I have laid out my criticism, but in addition my plan, for actually fixing NAFTA. Again, I have received a lot of incoming criticism from Senator Obama. And the Cleveland Plain Dealer examined Senator Obama's attacks on me regarding NAFTA and said they were erroneous. So I would hope that, again, we can get to a debate about what the real issues are and where we stand because we do need to fix NAFTA. It is not working. It was, unfortunately, heavily disadvantaging many of our industries, particularly manufacturing. I have a record of standing up for that, of chairing the Manufacturing Caucus in the Senate, and I will take a tough position on these trade agreements.
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator, thank you.
Before we turn the questioning over to Tim Russert, Senator Obama.
SEN. OBAMA: Well, I think that it is inaccurate for Senator Clinton to say that she's always opposed NAFTA. In her campaign for Senate, she said that NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be good for Wall Street but also be good for Main Street. And if you travel through Youngstown and you travel through communities in my home state of Illinois, you will see entire cities that have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
Now, I think that Senator Clinton has shifted positions on this and believes that we should have strong environmental standards and labor standards, and I think that's a good thing. But you know, when I first moved to Chicago in the early '80s and I saw steelworkers who had been laid off of their plants -- black, white, and Hispanic -- and I worked on the streets of Chicago to try to help them find jobs, I saw then that the net costs of many of these trade agreements, if they're not properly structured, can be devastating.
And as president of the United States, I intend to make certain that every agreement that we sign has the labor standards, the environmental standards and the safety standards that are going to protect not just workers, but also consumers. We can't have toys with lead paint in them that our children are playing with. We can't have medicines that are actually making people more sick instead of better because they're produced overseas. We have to stop providing tax breaks for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that are investing here in the United States of America.
And if we do those things, then I believe that we can actually get Ohio back on the path of growth and jobs and prosperity. If we don't, then we're going to continue to see the kind of deterioration that we've seen economically here in this state.
MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you both about NAFTA because the record, I think, is clear. And I want to -- Senator Clinton. Senator Obama said that you did say in 2004 that on balance NAFTA has been good for New York and America. You did say that. When President Clinton signed this bill -- and this was after he negotiated two new side agreements, for labor and environment -- President Clinton said it would be a force for economic growth and social progress. You said in '96 it was proving its worth as free and fair trade. You said that -- in 2000 -- it was a good idea that took political courage. So your record is pretty clear.
Based on that, and which you're now expressing your discomfort with it, in the debate that Al Gore had with Ross Perot, Al Gore said the following: "If you don't like NAFTA and what it's done, we can get out of it in six months.
The president can say to Canada and Mexico, we are out. This has not been a good agreement." Will U.S. president say we are out of NAFTA in six months?
SEN. CLINTON: I have said that I will renegotiate NAFTA, so obviously, you'd have to say to Canada and Mexico that that's exactly what we're going to do. But you know, in fairness --
MR. RUSSERT: Just because -- maybe Clinton --
SEN. CLINTON: Yes, I am serious.
MR. RUSSERT: You will get out. You will notify Mexico and Canada, NAFTA is gone in six months.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
SEN. CLINTON: No, I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America.
But let's be fair here, Tim. There are lots of parts of New York that have benefitted, just like there are lots of parts of Texas that have benefitted. The problem is in places like upstate New York, places like Youngstown, Toledo, and others throughout Ohio that have not benefitted. And if you look at what I have been saying, it has been consistent.
You know, Senator Obama told the farmers of Illinois a couple of years ago that he wanted more trade agreements. I -- right now --
MR. RUSSERT: We're going to get -- we're going to get to Senator Obama, but I want to stay on your terms --
SEN. CLINTON: Well, but that -- but that is important --
MR. RUSSERT: -- because this was something that you wrote about as a real success for your husband. You said it was good on balance for New York and America in 2004, and now you're in Ohio and your words are much different, Senator. The record is very clear.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, I -- I -- you don't have all the record because you can go back and look at what I've said consistently. And I haven't just said things; I have actually voted to toughen trade agreements, to try to put more teeth into our enforcement mechanisms. And I will continue to do so.
But you know, Tim, when you look at what the Cleveland Plain Dealer said when they examined the kind of criticism that Senator Obama was making of me -- it's not me saying it -- they said it was erroneous. And it was erroneous because it didn't look at the entire picture, both at what I've said and what I've done.
But let's talk about what we're going to do. It is not enough just to criticize NAFTA, which I have, and for some years now. I have put forward a very specific plan about what I would do, and it does include telling Canada and Mexico that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards -- not side agreements, but core agreements; that we will enhance the enforcement mechanism; and that we will have a very clear view of how we're going to review NAFTA going forward to make sure it works, and we're going to take out the ability of foreign companies to sue us because of what we do to protect our workers.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
I would also say that you can go back and look at from the very beginning -- I think David Gergen was on TV today remembering that I was very skeptical about it.
It has worked in some parts of America. It has not worked in Ohio. It has not worked in upstate New York. And since I've been in the Senate -- neither of us voted on this. That wasn't something either of us got to cast an independent vote on. Since I have been in the Senate, I have worked to try to ameliorate the impact of these trade agreements.
MR. RUSSERT: But let me button this up. Absent the change that you're suggesting, you are willing to opt out of NAFTA in six months?
SEN. CLINTON: I'm confident that as president, when I say we will opt out unless we renegotiate, we will be able to renegotiate.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Obama, you did in 2004 talk to farmers and suggest that NAFTA had been helpful. The Associated Press today ran a story about NAFTA, saying that you have been consistently ambivalent towards the issue. Simple question: Will you, as president, say to Canada and Mexico, "This has not worked for us; we are out"?
SEN. OBAMA: I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about. And I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right. I think we should use the hammer of a potential opt-out as leverage to ensure that we actually get labor and environmental standards that are enforced. And that is not what has been happening so far.
That is something that I have been consistent about. I have to say, Tim, with respect to my position on this, when I ran for the United States Senate, the Chicago Tribune, which was adamantly pro-NAFTA, noted that, in their endorsement of me, they were endorsing me despite my strong opposition to NAFTA.
And that conversation that I had with the Farm Bureau, I was not ambivalent at all. What I said was that NAFTA and other trade deals can be beneficial to the United States because I believe every U.S. worker is as productive as any worker around the world, and we can compete with anybody. And we can't shy away from globalization. We can't draw a moat around us. But what I did say, in that same quote, if you look at it, was that the problem is we've been negotiating just looking at corporate profits and what's good for multinationals, and we haven't been looking at what's good for communities here in Ohio, in my home state of Illinois, and across the country.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
And as president, what I want to be is an advocate on behalf of workers. Look, you know, when I go to these plants, I meet people who are proud of their jobs. They are proud of the products that they've created. They have built brands and profits for their companies. And when they see jobs shipped overseas and suddenly they are left not just without a job, but without health care, without a pension, and are having to look for seven-buck-an-hour jobs at the local fast-food joint, that is devastating on them, but it's also devastating on the community. That's not the way that we're going to prosper as we move forward.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator, two journalists here in Ohio wrote a piece called "Business as Usual," which is very well known, suggesting it wasn't trade or manufacturing jobs that were being lost because of it, but rather business as usual: lack of patents, lack of innovation, lack of investment, 70 percent of the Ph.D.s in biology, chemistry, engineering leaving the state.
The fact is, exports now have the highest share of our national income ever. Ohio ranks fourth in terms of exports to Canada and Mexico. Are you sure this has not been better for Ohio than you're suggesting?
SEN. OBAMA: I'm positive it hasn't been better for Ohio. But you are making a very legitimate point, which is, is that this trade (can/can't ?) be the only part of our economic agenda. But we've seen seven years in which we have a president who has been looking out for the well-heeled and people who are doing very well in the global economy, in the financial industries, in the telecommunications industries, and has not been looking out for ordinary workers.
What do we have to do? We're going to have to invest in infrastructure to make sure that we're competitive. And I've got a plan to do that. We're going to have to invest in science and technology. We've got to vastly improve our education system. We have to look at energy and the potential for creating green jobs that can not just save on our energy costs but, more importantly, can create jobs in building windmills that will produce manufacturing jobs here in Ohio, can put rural communities back on their feet by working on alternative fuels, making buildings more energy efficient.
We can hire young people who are out of work and put them to work in the trade. So there are all sorts of things that we're going to have to do to make the United States economy much more competitive, and those are plans that I have put forward in this campaign and I expect to pursue as president of the United States of America.
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, on the issue of jobs, I watched you the other day with your economic blueprint in Wisconsin saying, this is my plan; hold me accountable. And I've had a chance to read it very carefully. It does say that you pledge to create 5 million new jobs over 10 years.
And I was reminded of your campaign in 2000 in Buffalo, my hometown, just three hours down Route 90, where you pledged 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York. There's been a net loss of 30,000 jobs. And when you were asked about your pledge, your commitment, you told The Buffalo News, "I might have been a little exuberant." Tonight will you say that the pledge of 5 million jobs might be a little exuberant?
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
SEN. CLINTON: No, Tim, because what happened in 2000 is that I thought Al Gore was going to be president. And when I made the pledge I was counting on having a Democratic White House, a Democratic president who shared my values about what we needed to do to make the economy work for everyone and to create shared prosperity.
And as you know, despite the difficulties of the Bush administration and a Republican Congress for six years of my first term I have worked very hard to create jobs but obviously as president I will have a lot more tools at my disposal. And the reason why we can create at least 5 million new jobs -- I mean, this is not a big leap. Twenty-two point seven million new jobs were created during the eight years of the Clinton administration under my husband. We can create at least 5 million new jobs.
I'm not just talking about it. I helped to pass legislation to begin a training program for green collar jobs. I want to see people throughout Ohio being trained to do the work that will put solar panels on roofs, install wind turbines, do geothermal, take advantage of biofuels, and I know that if we had put $5 billion into the stimulus package to really invest in the training and the tax incentives that would have created those jobs as the Democrats wanted, as I originally proposed, we would be on the way to creating those.
You know, take a country like Germany. They made a big bet on solar power. They have a smaller economy and population than ours.
They've created several hundred thousand new jobs, and these are jobs that can't be outsourced. These are jobs that have to be done in Youngstown, in Dayton, in Cincinnati. These are jobs that we can create here with the right combination of tax incentives, training, and a commitment to following through. So I do think that at least 5 million jobs are fully capable of being produced within the next 10 years.
MR. RUSSERT: Brian?
MR. WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, yesterday Senator Clinton gave a speech on foreign policy and I'm going to read you a quote from it. Quote, "We've seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We cannot let that happen again. America has already taken that chance one time too many." Some of the comments in the speech were more pointed. The senator has compared your foreign policy expertise to that of George W. Bush at the same period. Provided you could be going into a general electi | 0 | train |
|
Impact of Senator Obama's Tax Proposals as Described by Economic Advisors on Workers, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009 Search Tax Tables
by Laws, Bills, Proposals:
All Laws, Bills and Proposals Current Law Distribution of Current Law and Recent Tax Cuts 2008 Presidential Candidate Proposals 2008 Economic Stimulus Proposals 2008 Tax Acts 2007 Tax Acts 2006 Tax Acts 2005 Tax Acts 2004 Tax Act: Working Families Tax Relief Act Revenue Raising Options 2003 Child Credit Plan: Senate 2003 Child Credit Plan: House JGTRRA and EGTRRA Combined 2004 Middle Class Tax Cuts Repeal Elements of 2001 and 2003 Tax Acts 2003 Tax Act: Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2003 Tax Act: JGTRRA as Passed by the Senate 2003 Tax Act: Senate Finance Committee Modified Jobs and Growth Tax Act 2003 Tax Act: Senate Democratic Plan 2003 Tax Act: House Ways and Means Economic Growth & Jobs Package Featured 2003 Tax Act: Democratic Alternative to Administration Plan Kerry Economic Proposals 2003 Tax Act: Administration Proposal 2002 Tax Act: Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act 2001 Tax Act: Economic Growth and Reconciliation Act 2001 Tax Act: Accelerate Provisions in EGTRRA 2001 Tax Act: Make Provisions in EGTRRA Permanent 2001 Tax Act: Freeze Provisions in EGTRRA
by Tax Topic:
All Tax Topics Alternative Minimum Tax Capital Gains Child Tax Credit Dividends Earned Income Tax Credit Estate and Gift Health Care Low-Income Families and Children Marginal Tax Rates Marriage Penalties Payroll Representative Families Retirement Savings
by Type of Table:
All Types of Tables Distribution Tables by Dollar Income Class Distribution Tables by Percentile Distribution Tables by Size of Tax Cut Revenue Tables Other Tables Descriptions of Laws and Proposals
| 0 | train |
|
Snopes Paid to Push ‘Propaganda’ by Facebook, Former Editor Reveals Snopes Paid to Push ‘Propaganda’ by Facebook, Former Editor Reveals
Claims 'fact-checkers' are paid to 'appear to prevent damage' while pushing an agenda
© press Former managing editor at Snopes Brooke Binkowski says the 'fact-checker' is pushing 'propaganda'
Snopes is paid by Facebook to push "propaganda," according to the former managing editor of the "fact-checker," who claims the social media giant "doesn't care" about facts and is using journalists to promote an agenda so it can "pass the buck."
According to a bombshell report by the Guardian, several current and former Facebook fact-checkers have stepped forward and spoken out to reveal their distrust in the social network and their fact-checking employers.
Facebook has fact-checking partnerships with Snopes, PolitiFact, Factcheck.org, the Weekly Standard, and Associated Press, and uses the information provided by these organizations to reduce the reach of posts that are "debunked" in their News Feed.
The partnering with these fact-checkers has come under heavy criticism, mainly due to the almost-monopolized influence news on Facebook has, which is then being filtered out by unregulated individuals who are often financially motivated and express political bias.
“They’ve essentially used us for crisis PR,” declared former Snopes managing editor Brooke Binkowski during an interview with the Guardian.
“They’re not taking anything seriously.
"They are more interested in making themselves look good and passing the buck…
"They clearly don’t care.”
“You’re not doing journalism anymore. You’re doing propaganda,” she continued, adding, “They threw us under the bus at every opportunity.”
Another former Snopes employee, Kim LaCapria, recently left the company over its partnership with Facebook, accusing it of focusing only on the “appearance of trying to prevent damage without actually doing anything,” and expressing distaste with the fact that Snopes was being paid by Facebook.
LaCapria said she was particularly upset to learn that Facebook was paying Snopes: “That felt really gross … Facebook has one mission and fact-checking websites should have a completely different mission.”
Aside from allegedly being paid by Facebook, Snopes also generates revenue by filling its website with advertisements from Google Adsense, asking for donations from readers via PayPal, and has an active GoFundMe campaign to "Save Snopes" which has so far generated over $850,000 of its $2 million goal.
Of course, it's understandable that a website has overheads that need to be covered, but when a company is primarily driven by profit, how can they be trusted to remain non-partisan?
According to a report by the Daily Mail, Snopes founder David Mikkelson was accused of embezzling thousands from the company.
Mikkelson's ex-wife Barbara, claimed in legal documents he embezzled $98,000 of company money and spent it on "himself and prostitutes."
During the lengthy and bitter legal dispute, CEO David Mikkelson also claimed to be underpaid and was demanding the "industry standard" or at least $360,000 a year.
Being motivated by "facts" is apparently very lucrative.
And in the case of Snopes, their business model is a simple, yet devastatingly effective one since they partnered with Facebook and Google: They debunk viral news, and posts.
Therefore, if a post goes viral on social media, and Snopes says that it's "false," then it will be flagged as so and Facebook will place a link to the "fact-check," thus driving more traffic and revenue to Snopes.
Due to this arrangement, it adds a clear incentive to mark a viral news story as false rather than confirming lesser-known facts as true.
© press Snopes founder David Mikkelson was accused on embezzling company money
Over recent months this push to flag big news stories as "false," mainly from conservative websites, has become more apparent.
In November, Breitbart accused Snopes of attempting to "wash away" the story of armed members of the New Black Panther Party campaigning for the Democrat gubernatorial candidate in Georgia, Stacey Abrams.
According to Breitbart, the move was an "openly partisan" attempt to protect Abrams after the damaging story went viral.
Earlier this month, The Daily Caller also accused Snopes of left-bias after it "botched" its fact-check of a viral meme that was mocked within political circles for spreading false information.
Snopes said that the “general idea” of the meme was “correct,” yet, according to the TheDCNF, the fact-checker intentionally framed it that way as it portrayed President Trump in a negative light if the "wildly misleading" meme was true.
In Snopes "transparency" disclaimer, it states that it operates "without any partisan considerations," saying:
"We don’t choose or exclude items for coverage based on whether they deal with Republican/Democratic, conservative/liberal, or religious/secular issues."
Despite this statement, the left-leaning bias of their fact-checkers is clear.
Snopes' "science dude" Alex Kasprak makes no secret of his political bias, and one look at his Twitter account shows it is filled with anti-Trump rhetoric and retweets of Trump-bashing posts.
The only way to report on that "totally clears the president" tweet is to highlight it as an example of our president's abject delusion, not as a valid legal opinion or as "breaking news" — Alex H. Kasprak (@alexkasprak) December 8, 2018
Prior to joining Snopes, Kasprak wrote for left-wing news outlets Motherboard and BuzzFeed and is pegged as a "science writer" who mainly "debunks" science-related articles.
It comes as no surprise then that Kasprak mainly fact-checks conservative news sites, often using derogatory language when describing the outlets and their writers, using terms such as "right-wing blog" and "junk news."
Biting the hand that feeds
Snopes apparent bias has seen the company suffer considerably over recent months as it continues to abuse its influence over Facebook's News Feed to promote a political agenda.
Visits to snopes.com have plummeted by almost half over recent months as users are seemingly losing trust in the organization.
According to website data tool SimilarWeb, visits to Snopes dropped another 20 percent in November to 19.59 million for the month.
This number is a considerable drop from their July figure of 37.79 million, representing a staggering 48.16 percent drop in website traffic in just four months.
While it's unclear what has caused this drop, when you consider that being flagged as "fake news" on Facebook cuts reach to the websites being debunked, it's clear to see that attacking the sources of their viral "fact-checks," is hardly sustainable if it destroys the sites that it continually attacks.
© SimilarWeb Website visits to Snopes have plummeted by almost 50 percent since July
The appearance of trying to prevent damage
“Why should we trust Facebook when it’s pushing the same rumors that its own fact checkers are calling fake news?” an unnamed Facebook fact-checker told the Guardian.
“It’s worth asking how do they treat stories about George Soros on the platform knowing they specifically pay people to try to link political enemies to him?[…] Working with Facebook makes us look bad.”
According to Breitbart, one fact-checker who has reportedly “long worked” with Facebook even referred to the social network as a “terrible company,” declaring, “and, on a personal level, I don’t want to have anything to do with them,” while another fact-checker proclaimed, “Most of us feel it’s more trouble than it’s worth.”
Facebook started its fact-checking efforts following President Trump’s 2016 presidential election victory and is even expanding into fact-checking images and videos.
Left-wing biases have been found at nearly all Facebook fact-check partners in the United States, including Snopes, Politifact, and the Weekly Standard.
An investigation revealed that Snopes employs left-wing people almost exclusively, with some of its most prominent fact-checkers openly describing themselves as “progressive” and expressing anti-Trump sentiment.
A satirical article from popular satire website Babylon Bee about CNN using a washing machine to “spin the news,” was also nearly removed by Facebook after Snopes fact-checked it as false.
One of Facebook’s other top fact-checking partners, Politifact, is funded by a frequent Clinton Foundation donor, and gave preferential treatment to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election — rating 51 percent of Clinton’s claims as true versus just over 15 percent for Trump.
Even a 2013 article from one of Facebook’s other fact-checking partners, the Weekly Standard, claimed Politifact “has it out for Republicans,” and the Weekly Standard itself has also pushed out misleading information during its partnership with Facebook.
UPDATE: Since this article was published, and subsequently went viral on social media, Snopes CEO David Mikkelson denied the information we presented in this article. Snopes didn't "fact-check" or "debunk" any of the information, nor did they present any evidence to refute the claims. Mikkelson, however, saw fit to abuse his position as Facebook approved "fact-checker" and flagged our story as a "hoax" with Facebook, pulling it from users' News Feed, immediately squashing the story as a result. Make of that what you will. | 1 | train |
|
The hacked emails at the center of Mueller’s Russia investigation, explained Update: On Friday, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 12 Russian intelligence officials who he alleges are involved in these hackings and leaks. You can read about the new breaking indictment at this link. Our original explainer on the hackings, written before the new indictment, is below.
Original post: There’s one positively enormous shoe that still hasn’t dropped in special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 campaign: an indictment about all those hacked emails.
The hacking and release of leading political figures’ emails is the most visible election intervention attributed to Russia’s government. And it’s long been one of the leading, and perhaps the leading, possibility about just what “collusion” between Donald Trump’s team and the Russians might have involved.
That’s not mere speculation. We’ve gradually learned of not one but six times Trump associates at least tried to get involved with either Russian-provided dirt, hacked Democratic emails, or WikiLeaks. We don’t yet know whether these furtive contacts resulted in anything of significance — but one of these advisers, George Papadopoulos, has already pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about the matter and has begun cooperating with Mueller’s team.
These hacks were crimes, victimizing many hundreds of Americans (those who had their documents stolen, and those who corresponded with them). The operation was more wide-ranging than many remember, targeting not just John Podesta and the DNC but many other people and groups. It wasn’t just emails stolen, either — posted material ranged from Democratic Party turnout data that a Republican operative thought was “probably worth millions of dollars” to even a purported picture of Michelle Obama’s passport.
No charges have been filed in the matter — yet. But some are likely coming. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the US has identified “more than six members of the Russian government” involved in the DNC hacks. And the Daily Beast wrote that investigators have identified a specific Russian intelligence officer behind “Guccifer 2.0,” a leading figure in the hacks. Mueller is now overseeing the probe.
To understand what happened in 2016, we have to understand the hackings. And though some mysteries remain, much of the complex story has gradually been pieced together by journalists and cybersecurity experts. The consequences, of course, unfolded in plain sight during the campaign itself.
How the hacks happened (a phishing expedition)
The media often shorthands the 2016 hack story as: Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC’s email accounts, and WikiLeaks then posted those hacked emails publicly.
The full story is more complex. Let’s start at the beginning.
Between March 2015 and May 2016, a group of hackers went on a phishing expedition. The “baited lines” they cast out were at least 19,000 malicious emails that resembled the one below:
These emails were designed to look as if they were coming from Google. But they were in fact designed to trick people into clicking through and entering their login credentials — delivering them right into the hackers’ hands.
According to a later Associated Press analysis of a report by the information security firm SecureWorks, at least 573 of the more than 4,700 email addresses targeted were American. They included many US government officials, military officials, intelligence officials, and defense contractors.
Particularly beginning in March and April 2016, these targets began to include many Democrats as well. Per the AP, more than 130 Democratic accounts were sent these malicious links, compared to just “a handful” of Republican accounts. Podesta and several Clinton staffers — along with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, and others — had their accounts successfully compromised. (We know all this because the hackers used the link-shortening tool Bitly to do their work and accidentally left their activity publicly viewable.)
Russia was eventually blamed for the phishing expedition, for several reasons. For one, SecureWorks concluded the particular malware used in this campaign was tied to a hacking group that outside researchers had been tracking for some time — a group they thought to be linked the GRU, Russia’s foreign military intelligence agency. We don’t know what the secretive hacking group calls itself, but various cybersecurity researchers had given it several names: Iron Twilight, APT (Advanced Persistent Threat) 28, Pawn Storm, and — most famously — “Fancy Bear.”
Circumstantial evidence also suggests a Russian-tied culprit. For instance, the phishers were extremely focused on Ukraine — at least 545 targeted email accounts were from there, comparable to the number of American targets. These included Ukraine’s president and many other top government officials, who are hostile to Vladimir Putin’s regime.
The Russians targeted, meanwhile, were generally critics of Putin’s government and journalists. Another interesting detail, per the AP, is that more than 95 percent of the malicious links were created between the hours of 9 am and 6 pm, Monday to Friday — Moscow time.
Around April 2016, as this phishing campaign increasingly began to target Democrats, material was also taken from the DNC. The firm Crowdstrike attributed this as a hack from Fancy Bear, citing the malware used, and other firms agreed with this assessment. These firms also concluded that a separate group of Russian-tied hackers (dubbed “Cozy Bear”) had been in the DNC’s systems for much longer, since all the way back in the summer of 2015.
The precise mechanisms of how the DNC was breached remain somewhat murky. But Fancy Bear’s phishing campaign did send out malicious links to nine DNC email accounts in March and April 2016. And as we’ll soon see, hacked DNC material ended up in the same place as hacked material from Podesta and others. A January 2017 US intelligence report would later specifically blame Russia’s GRU — the agency thought to be behind Fancy Bear — for taking “large volumes of data from the DNC.”
As striking as all this may seem, though, government-backed hacking is far from unusual. The US does it. Our allies do it. Our rivals do it. China was said to have hacked Barack Obama and John McCain’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and was then tied to a massive theft of federal data in 2015. Foreign intelligence agencies trying to peek into political activities seemed to be something that just, well, happened all the time.
What came next in 2016, however, was a jarring departure from these norms — the hacked information began to be posted publicly, in massive amounts.
A timeline of odd events between the hacks and the leaks
The backdrop to all of this was the US presidential election — the first series of primaries and caucuses took place in February and early March. The surprisingly Russia-friendly Donald Trump emerged as the clear leader in the Republican contest, over his Putin-critical rivals Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, with whom Putin’s regime had long had chilly relations, emerged as the favorite for the Democratic nomination over Bernie Sanders.
It was around this point — in mid-March 2016 — that the phishing campaign began to particularly target many Democrats’ and Clinton campaign staffers’ email accounts, according to SecureWorks’ analysis.
There were several other events that, in retrospect, are either relevant or at the very least intriguing:
April 7: Putin condemns the Panama Papers leak . In early April, an international consortium of journalists published reports on a cache of leaked documents tracing offshore wealth — the Panama Papers. Many of the documents revealed financial information about Putin’s inner circle, and Putin publicly claimed the stories were part of a US plot against Russia. “They are trying to destabilize us from within in order to make us more compliant,” he said. Many have posited that the Russian government may have then wished to retaliate.
In early April, an international consortium of journalists published reports on a cache of leaked documents tracing offshore wealth — the Panama Papers. Many of the documents revealed financial information about Putin’s inner circle, and Putin publicly claimed the stories were part of a US plot against Russia. “They are trying to destabilize us from within in order to make us more compliant,” he said. Many have posited that the Russian government may have then wished to retaliate. April 19: The domain for DCLeaks, a website that would eventually post many hacked documents, is registered . For now, nothing is posted. (US intelligence agencies have said Russia’s GRU is behind the site.)
. For now, nothing is posted. (US intelligence agencies have said Russia’s GRU is behind the site.) April 26: George Papadopoulos g e t s an intriguing tip . Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, sat down in London with a professor named Joseph Mifsud. Mifsud told him he’d just traveled to Moscow and met high-level Russian government officials. He added to Papadopoulos that Russia had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, in the form of thousands of emails.
Papadopoulos, a young foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, sat down in London with a professor named Joseph Mifsud. Mifsud told him he’d just traveled to Moscow and met high-level Russian government officials. He added to Papadopoulos that Russia had obtained “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, in the form of thousands of emails. June 6 to 8 : DCLeaks begins posting, but not about the election . DCLeaks’ posts of hacked documents indicated that it was Russian ties. That’s because they included the hacked emails of retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, who had commanded NATO forces in Europe and pushed for a harder line against Russia in Ukraine. They also included documents from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. (The Russian government has blamed Soros and his associated groups for opposing its interests in Ukraine.)
DCLeaks’ posts of hacked documents indicated that it was Russian ties. That’s because they included the hacked emails of retired Gen. Philip Breedlove, who had commanded NATO forces in Europe and pushed for a harder line against Russia in Ukraine. They also included documents from George Soros’s Open Society Foundation. (The Russian government has blamed Soros and his associated groups for opposing its interests in Ukraine.) June 9: The Trump Tower meeting: Shortly afterward, Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner met a Russian lawyer and four other people with Russian ties at Trump Tower. Don Jr. had agreed to take the meeting based on the promise of “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary,” as part of “Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump” (as it was put to him in an email). Everyone involved claims nothing came of this meeting.
Throughout all this time, there was no public indication that the phishing campaign, or the hacking of the DNC and other campaign figures’ emails, had taken place. Just days later, that would change.
The email leaks begin
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange dropped a bombshell. “We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton,” he announced, during a British television interview. “We have emails pending publication.”
WikiLeaks — a nonprofit launched back in 2006 by Assange, an Australian activist — had previously been most famous for posting a plethora of internal US military documents about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (including video of a deadly airstrike) and more than 250,000 diplomatic cables from the US State Department — leaked by Chelsea Manning. Assange was then accused of rape and sexual assault in Sweden, and he sought political asylum from Ecuador. He has been holed up in the nation’s London embassy since June 2012.
Assange’s announcement was the first public indication that Democrats would soon be plagued by leaked internal emails. So two days after that, the DNC, which had learned of the hacking of its systems and hired Crowdstrike to respond, decided to get in front of what it feared was coming. The committee told the Washington Post that it had been hacked — by, it claimed, the Russian government. Crowdstrike’s CEO put up a blog post explaining why he identified Russia as the culprit.
Yet the next day, June 15, things got even weirder — because that is when “Guccifer 2.0” arrived on the scene. (The name, a portmanteau of “Gucci” and “Lucifer,” is an homage to the original Guccifer, the jailed Romanian hacker Marcel Leher Lazar, who’d broken into high-profile Americans’ email accounts.)
In a Wordpress post, the new Guccifer said that Crowdstrike was quite wrong about the DNC hack, which he said was carried out by him, “a lone hacker.” (“Fuck CrowdStrike!!!” he wrote.) He said that he’d given “the main part of the papers, thousands of files and mails” that he’d stolen, to WikiLeaks. (WikiLeaks has refused to confirm that he was its source.) He also began to post several documents he claimed were from the DNC server.
Almost immediately, journalists pointed to inconsistencies in Guccifer’s story and linguistic tics to suggest he was Russian — or more than one Russian. (US intelligence agencies would eventually say Russia’s GRU was behind the persona, and the Daily Beast recently reported that the account’s user once slipped up and neglected to mask his identity through a VPN — allowing investigators to match a particular Russian intelligence officer to that Guccifer 2.0 login.)
Yet what Guccifer had access to was clearly broader than just the DNC. None of the first documents he posted showed up in WikiLeaks’ DNC email dump, and in fact, many of them eventually showed up in John Podesta’s emails, which were released much later. Additionally, on June 27, Guccifer emailed the Smoking Gun’s William Bastone a link to a password-protected post on DCLeaks.com that contained phished emails and documents from Clinton staffer Sarah Hamilton. (DCLeaks had not yet publicly posted any material related to the election.)
On July 6, Guccifer 2.0 posted his first documents that would eventually be found in the DNC emails. The New Yorker’s Raffi Khatchadourian speculates, based on some comments Guccifer made to journalists at the time, that Guccifer or his handlers were frustrated that WikiLeaks was taking too long to actually post the DNC material and were threatening to spoil Assange’s exclusive. (A week later, Guccifer would send documents to the Hill’s Joe Uchill, writing that he was doing so because the press was “gradually forget[ing] about me,” and complained that WikiLeaks was “playing for time.”)
All the while, Assange and WikiLeaks were working to prepare their database of DNC emails, with the apparent goal of publishing them before the Democratic convention began in late July. It’s unclear how they set that goal. Assange would later tell Khatchadourian that he originally had a deadline of July 18 to release them, but “we were given a little more time.” (It’s unclear, though, who gave him more time, and Assange later disputed the accuracy of the recorded quote.)
Finally, on July 22 — the Friday before the convention — WikiLeaks posted those thousands of DNC emails and attachments online. They revealed that many DNC members privately spoke of Bernie Sanders with disdain, drove DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and other top staffers to resign, and overall made an ugly start for the Democratic convention. Though Assange remained mum on his source, Guccifer 2.0 jubilantly claimed credit in a tweet:
The DNC leaks proved to be just the beginning. News soon broke that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had also been hacked, and on August 12, DCCC documents started showing up on Guccifer’s Wordpress site. Guccifer also sent the DCCC’s internal turnout model data to Florida Republican Party operative Aaron Nevins, who was positively thrilled to receive it. “Holy fuck man I don’t think you realize what you gave me,” Nevins wrote in a DM. “This is probably worth millions of dollars.” Nevins soon put it online on his anonymously run blog.
Then DCLeaks got in the game. On August 12, the site posted a few emails from some little-known Republican state party aides, and from campaign advisers to Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), both of whom were known as Russia hawks. In September, the site’s anonymous administrators sent Colin Powell’s phished emails to reporters, revealing his candid assessments of both Clinton (“greedy”) and Trump (“national disgrace”).
DCLeaks then posted phished emails from Ian Mellul, an Obama White House staffer who had volunteered for Clinton. The Mellul documents included a picture of Michelle Obama’s passport and a months-old audio file in which Hillary Clinton said Sanders’s young supporters were “living in their parents’ basement.” Longtime Clinton ally Capricia Marshall’s phished emails came next.
Many of these disclosures caused brief stirs, but what everyone was really waiting for was the next WikiLeaks dump. Roger Stone, the Trump associate, claimed that he knew Assange had something huge on the way and speculated it would involve the Clinton Foundation.
Assange himself told Fox News back on August 24 that his team had “thousands of pages of material” and was “working around the clock” to prepare it for publication. By early October, there was still nothing from WikiLeaks, but Stone continued to hype an imminent release, saying “an intermediary” who’d met with Assange said “the mother lode is coming Wednesday.”
The “mother lode” instead came two days later, on Friday, October 7, when WikiLeaks posted its first batch of Podesta’s emails. The site would continue to post them, in batches, up through the election. Earlier on that very same day, the US government officially attributed the hacking effort to the Russian government, and the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape hit the news.
In the end, the 2016 election was close, decided by just over 1 percentage point in three Electoral College states. And whether or not the email leaks were sufficient to swing the outcome, they certainly were effective at keeping the words “Hillary Clinton” and “emails” in the headlines throughout the campaign’s final stretch.
Trump associates tried to get in touch with hackers or leakers at least six separate times
During the campaign, it was clear enough that Trump was unusually friendly to Russia, and that the Russian government interventions seemed aimed at trying to help his electoral chances at the expense of Hillary Clinton. But after the election, more and more attention became devoted to whether Trump associates and Putin’s government coordinated to intervene in the campaign in some way. And on March 20, 2017, then-FBI Director James Comey publicly confirmed the FBI was investigating just that topic.
No one has produced a smoking gun demonstrating clear involvement just yet. But this isn’t mere idle speculation, either — there are at least six instances in which Trump associates tried to get Russian dirt or communicated with hacking and leaking figures. The first of them was what initiated the FBI investigation into the Trump campaign and Russia to begin with:
1) The Papadopoulos tip: Fancy Bear’s phishing campaign targeted Clinton staffers and Democrats in large numbers in March and April 2016, but the hacks remained publicly unknown for months afterward. Yet it was very early indeed — on April 26 — that Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos got his tip about what was coming.
As described above, the tip was from a source Papadopoulos understood to have Russian government connections, professor Joseph Mifsud. Mifsud specifically said he’d gained his information from traveling to Moscow and meeting high-level officials there. And he said Russia had “dirt” on Hillary Clinton — and, specifically, thousands of emails.
We don’t yet know whether he told others in the Trump campaign about what he’d heard. But it seems highly likely that he did. He was a young adviser eager to impress campaign higher-ups. And we already know he drunkenly bragged about his inside info to an Australian diplomat a few weeks later. (The Australians later told the FBI, which led the bureau to open the investigation.)
In any case, Papadopoulos was arrested last summer for making false statements to FBI investigators, cut a plea deal, and began cooperating with investigators. So whatever he did do with his tip, Mueller likely now knows it.
2) The Trump Tower meeting: It was on June 3, 2016 — a little more than a month after Papadopoulos’s tip, but still before any news broke about Democrats having been hacked — that publicist Rob Goldstone emailed an acquaintance of his, Donald Trump Jr. Goldstone described some news from his clients Aras and Emin Agalarov, a father-son pair of real estate developers who’d done business with the Trumps:
The Crown prosecutor of Russia met with his father Aras this morning and in their meeting offered to provide the Trump campaign with some official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary and her dealings with Russia and would be very useful to your father. This is obviously very high level and sensitive information but is part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump - helped along by Aras and Emin.
Don Jr. enthusiastically accepted the offer, and Goldstone arranged a meeting six days later, on June 9. The Trump delegation included Don Jr., Paul Manafort, and Jared Kushner. They met Goldstone, Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya, Agalarov company executive Ike Kaveladze, Russian-American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, and translator Anatoli Samochornov.
Once the existence of the meeting became public, all parties involved claimed it was a dud, resulting in nothing of consequence. But the timing of the meeting is strange. Three days later, Assange announced he’d received emails related to Hillary Clinton. Two days after that, the DNC announced it had been hacked and blamed Russia.
Goldstone saw an article about that and emailed it to Emin and Kaveladze, writing that the news was “eerily weird” considering what they’d just discussed at the Trump Tower meeting. Guccifer 2.0 began posting the day after that.
3) The Cambridge Analytica CEO’s contacts with WikiLeaks: Cambridge Analytica is the Steve Bannon-tied firm that did digital work for the Trump campaign and has been in the news of late.
And last year, we learned that Cambridge’s CEO, Alexander Nix, had twice contacted WikiLeaks on the topic of hacked emails.
Nix says that in “early June,” after he learned of Assange’s claims to have Hillary Clinton-related emails, he reached out to Julian Assange to ask for an advance look at those emails. He says Assange turned him down.
Then in August, after Assange had posted the DNC emails, Nix emailed Cambridge employees to say that he’d recently reached out to Assange again, offering help at organizing the DNC material on WikiLeaks. He said he hadn’t yet heard back. Both Nix and Assange have said these overtures didn’t go anywhere.
4) Donald Trump Jr.’s contacts with WikiLeaks: Then, separately, Donald Trump Jr. had some communications with WikiLeaks through the group’s Twitter account toward the end of the campaign.
As best we know, WikiLeaks began the communication, DMing Don Jr. to tell him that they had guessed the password to a new “PAC run anti-Trump site,” PutinTrump.org, that was about to launch. “Any comments?” the group asked. Trump Jr. answered: “Off the record I don’t know who that is but I’ll ask around. Thanks.”
Then on October 3, 2016, WikiLeaks DMed Don Jr. again, asking him to “comment on” or “push” a story that Hillary Clinton had once said she wanted to “just drone” Assange. Don Jr. answered, “Already did that earlier today. It’s amazing what she can get away with.”
He then followed up with a question: “What’s behind this Wednesday leak I keep reading about?” This was at the height of chatter that WikiLeaks had a major batch of anti-Clinton material ready. However, there is no indication that WikiLeaks answered this question from Don Jr. or gave him any advance information that it was Podesta’s emails that were coming. The group sent him a couple more messages, but there are no more known responses from Don Jr.
5) Roger Stone’s several contacts with both Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks: Roger Stone is a longtime Republican operative with a reputation for dirty tricks and a decades-long relationship with Donald Trump. Stone was only an official Trump campaign adviser briefly, departing the operation in early August 2015 after clashing with other staffers. But he remained in Trump’s orbit and, to some extent, in communication with the candidate himself afterward.
Both in public and in private, Stone was fixated on the hackings and leaks.
One associate of Stone’s claimed to the Washington Post that at some point in the spring of 2016, before news of the hackings broke, Stone said he’d learned from Julian Assange that WikiLeaks had obtained emails that would hurt Democrats. (Stone denies this.)
The initial leaks from Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks were posted in June and July. On August 4, Stone emailed fellow ex-Trump adviser and longtime associate Sam Nunberg: “I dined with Julian Assange last night,” according to the Wall Street Journal. (Stone says this was a joke and flight records prove he wasn’t in London then.)
The day after that email, on August 5, Stone penned a Breitbart article in which he took Guccifer’s story about being a lone hacker who stole the DNC emails at face value and argued Russia probably wasn’t responsible. He also tweeted that “Julian Assange is a hero.”
Three days later, on August 8, Stone started publicly claiming to have inside information. “I actually have communicated with Assange,” he said. “I believe the next tranche of his documents pertain to the Clinton Foundation but there’s no telling what the October surprise may be.”
A few days after that, Stone began tweeting at, and eventually DMing with, Guccifer 2.0 (who, again, has reportedly been identified as a Russian intelligence officer). Some of these DMs later leaked, leading Stone to post what he claimed was their full exchange. The posted messages are mainly friendly chitchat and not particularly substantive.
On August 21, Stone tweeted an odd prediction: “Trust me, it will soon the Podesta’s time in the barrel. #CrookedHillary.” Many would later point to this — which came months before the Podesta emails became public — and ask whether Stone had advance knowledge of the Podesta email leak. (Stone himself would later claim that since this came in the midst of a scandal surrounding Stone’s old friend Paul Manafort’s Ukraine work, he was merely predicting “Podesta’s business dealings would be exposed.”)
As October began, Stone took on a new role — as WikiLeaks’ hype man. He again claimed inside knowledge, saying a “friend” of his met with Assange and learned “the mother lode is coming Wednesday.” He tweeted: “Wednesday @HillaryClinton is done. #Wikileaks.” And when nothing came on Wednesday, Stone tweeted, “Libs thinking Assange will stand down are wishful thinking. Payload coming. #Lockthemup.” Assange published the Podesta emails two days later.
Immediately, there were questions about whether the garrulous operative had been involved, which eventually spurred WikiLeaks to tweet that the group “has never communicated with Roger Stone.” The Atlantic later reported that Stone DMed the WikiLeaks Twitter account afterward, complaining that they were “attacking” him. “The false claims of association are being used by the democrats to undermine the impact of our publications,” WikiLeaks responded. “Don’t go there if you don’t want us to correct you.” Stone shot back: “Ha! The more you ‘correct’ me the more people think you’re lying. Your operation leaks like a sieve. You need to figure out who your friends are.”
What to make of all this? Stone was obviously in contact with two of the key leakers, and his own public statements show that at one point he wanted people to think he had an inside line on WikiLeaks’ plans. However, he’s repeatedly denied any inside knowledge or involvement, and we haven’t seen any clear evidence that he truly had such knowledge.
In any case, we might learn more from Mueller’s probe soon enough. “They want me to testify against Roger,” Sam Nunberg said this year, referring to the special counsel’s team. “They want me to say that Roger was going around telling people he was colluding with Julian Assange.”
6) Peter Smith’s hunt for Hillary’s deleted emails: Last but certainly not least, there is one more email-related subplot to the 2016 campaign — and it’s a weird one.
This one involves a separate set of emails: When word got out that Hillary Clinton had used a personal email account for all her work at the State Department, she agreed to hand over the work-related emails on that account to government investigators. But it turned out that she had previously deemed about 32,000 emails (about half of the total) to be “personal” rather than work-related, and deleted them.
Conservatives like longtime Republican operative Peter Smith didn’t take Clinton’s explanation for why she deleted the emails at face value and questioned whether they could have contained scandalous behavior or criminal evidence. Their number included GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing,” Trump said at a July 27, 2016, press conference. “I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let’s see if that happens. That will be next.”
It was around this time that Smith began an unusual project. He assumed that Clinton’s email server had been hacked and that her emails must be out there somewhere, on the “dark web.” So he reached out to computer experts and conservative activists, hoping to assemble a team that would track down those emails.
Smith didn’t work for the Trump campaign. But he is said to have repeatedly claimed to be in contact with Michael Flynn, who was advising Trump. One recruiting document Smith sent to cybersecurity expert Matt Tait contained the subheader “Trump Campaign (in coordination to the extent permitted as an independent expenditure).” It then listed several names: Steve Bannon, Kellyanne Conway, Sam Clovis, Flynn, and Lisa Nelson. (Bannon and Conway have denied any involvement. The other three haven’t commented.)
Eventually, Smith gave his version of what happened to the Wall Street Journal’s Shane Harris. He said his team found five hacker groups who said they had Clinton’s emails, of which two seemed to be Russian. “We knew the people who had these were probably around the Russian government,” Smith said. However, he went on, he couldn’t determine whether the emails were authentic, so he ended up just advising the hackers to give them to WikiLeaks. No such emails have ever surfaced. Smith — 81 years old and in poor health — killed himself in May 2017, 10 days after speaking to Harris.
Smith’s effort appears to have failed. But Smith admitted he had tried to get stolen documents from groups he understood to be Russian government-tied. And then there is the question of Michael Flynn’s role — particularly since, per Harris’s sources, there are intelligence reports that say Russian hackers discussed how they could get leaked emails into Flynn’s hands. Much remains murky about this situation, but Flynn is cooperating with Mueller’s team as part of a plea deal, so the special counsel likely now knows whatever he does.
Mueller will likely bring charges in the email hacking matter. But against whom?
Last November, the Wall Street Journal’s Aruna Viswanatha and Del Quentin Wilber reported that the Justice Department had identified more than six Russian government officials involved in the DNC hack and was considering bringing charges.
Interestingly, though, the report claimed that special counsel Robert Mueller had chosen not to take over the DNC hack investigation because it was “relatively technical” and had already “been under way for nearly a year.”
That appears to have since changed. Both NBC News and the Daily Beast reported in March that Mueller had now taken charge of the email hacking investigation. And the Washington Post reported in January that Mueller had added “a veteran cyber prosecutor, | 1 | train |
|
Nancy Pelosi, Wicked Witch of the West 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 |
|
82-Year-Old Who Killed A Muslim In Self-Defense Gets The Death Penalty 82-year-old William DeLisle of Marina Del Ray, California, has been sentenced to death for defending himself against a life-threatening situation. In October of 2015, DeLisle was walking home from the local senior center when he was ambushed by a pair of young Muslims.
The men, Abdi Nadjeer Hallalla and Mustif Salabu, were already wanted for a crime spree that spanned nearly four years with dozens of victims. They preyed on older Americans, often grabbing them off the street to beat and rob them. Until they met DeLisle.
Now, Hallalla is in a wheelchair breathing through a tube and Salabu is dead. DeLisle, who stormed the beach at Normandy as a young man, responded to the young men like any good Marine would. He pulled a .22 from his ankle holster — which is “illegal” in California — and put both men down in seconds.
Prosecutors said that because the two men were unarmed and using threats instead of actually hurting DeLisle meant that there was no imminent danger and that the use of deadly force was “extreme and unnecessary.” The Dewey County Prosecutor explained in a press release:
“Mr. DeLisle could have handed over his wallet without incident. Instead, he chose to pull an illegally carried firearm from a concealed location and shot the two men. Had he stopped there it may not have been such a major incident, as both men’s initial wounds were superficial.
While they were on the ground, DeLisle told Salabu that if he didn’t ‘denounce his pagan moon god, Allah, that he would be meeting him. Salabu closed his eyes to pray and DeLisle put two bullets in his skull.
Hallalla, after seeing his friend murdered, tried to flee and was shot in the spine, paralizing him for life. This wasn’t self-defense. It was murder and religious persecution.”
Religious persecution? How much you want to bet if the tables were turned and an elderly Muslim killed two Christian men trying to mug him he’d get a medal from the Governor of California?
DeLisle has nothing to be concerned with, since the pansies in California don’t actually execute prisoners. They have a moratorium on their useless death penalty and have for decades. He will, however, die in prison. His lawyer said DeLisle expressed that it was a “small price to pay if he saved others from these two monsters.”
DeLisle hasn’t asked for an appeal.
Source: Ladies of Liberty | 1 | train |
|
Pope Francis To Followers: “Koran And Holy Bible Are The Same” Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Christian Fellowship Community Forums John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift. | 1 | train |
|
Text - H.R.2122 - 106th Congress (1999-2000): Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act Array ( [actionDate] => 1999-06-18 [displayText] => Failed of passage/not agreed to in House: On passage Failed by recorded vote: 147 - 280 (Roll no. 244). [externalActionCode] => 9000 [description] => Failed House )
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:
This bill has the status Failed House
Text: H.R.2122 — 106th Congress (1999-2000) All Information (Except Text)
There is one version of the bill.
Text available as: TXT
PDF (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
Shown Here:
Introduced in House (06/10/1999)
[Congressional Bills 106th Congress] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] [H.R. 2122 Introduced in House (IH)] 106th CONGRESS 1st Session H. R. 2122 To require background checks at gun shows, and for other purposes. _______________________________________________________________________ IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES June 10, 1999 Mr. McCollum (for himself and Mr. Hyde) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary _______________________________________________________________________ A BILL To require background checks at gun shows, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ``Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act''. SEC. 2. MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS. (a) Findings.--Congress finds that-- (1) more than 4,400 traditional gun shows are held annually across the United States, attracting thousands of attendees per show and hundreds of Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding individuals with no desire to participate in criminal transactions; (2) traditional gun shows, as well as flea markets and other organized events, at which a large number of firearms are offered for sale by Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers, form a significant part of the national firearms market; (3) firearms and ammunition that are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events move easily in and substantially affect interstate commerce; (4) gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events at which firearms are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, provide a convenient and centralized commercial location at which firearms may be bought and sold, often without background checks and without records that enable gun tracing; (5) at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events at which guns are exhibited or offered for sale or exchange, criminals and other prohibited persons can obtain guns without background checks and can use such guns that cannot be traced to later commit crimes; (6) firearms associated with gun shows have been transferred illegally to residents of another State by Federal firearms licensees and nonlicensed firearms sellers, and have been involved in subsequent crimes including drug offenses, crimes of violence, property crimes, and illegal possession of firearms by felons and other prohibited persons; and (7) Congress has the power, under the interstate commerce clause and other provisions of the Constitution of the United States, to ensure, by enactment of this section, that criminals and other prohibited persons do not obtain firearms at gun shows, flea markets, and other organized events. (b) Definitions.--Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(35) The term `gun show' means an event which is sponsored to foster the collecting, competitive use, sporting use, or any other legal use of firearms, and-- ``(A) at which 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange, if 1 or more of the firearms has been shipped or transported in, or the event otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and ``(B) at which there are not less than 10 firearm vendors. ``(36) The term `gun show organizer' means any person who organizes or conducts a gun show. ``(37) The term `gun show vendor' means any person who, at a fixed, assigned, or contracted location, exhibits, sells, offers for sale, transfers, or exchanges 1 or more firearms at a gun show.''. (c) Regulation of Firearms Transfers at Gun Shows.-- (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows ``(a)(1) A person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, and who desires to be registered as an instant check registrant shall submit to the Secretary an application which-- ``(A) contains a certification by the applicant that the applicant meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 923(d)(1); and ``(B) contains a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant; and ``(C) is in such form as the Secretary shall by regulation prescribe. ``(2)(A) The Secretary shall approve an application submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) which meets the requirements of paragraph (1). On approval of the application and payment by the applicant of a fee of $100 for 3 years, and upon renewal of valid registration a fee of $50 for 3 years, the Secretary shall issue to the applicant an instant check registration, and advise the Attorney General of the United States of the same, which entitles the registrant to contact the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act for information about any individual desiring to obtain a firearm at a gun show from any transferor who has requested the assistance of the registrant in complying with subsection (c) with respect to the transfer of the firearm, and receive information from the system regarding the individual, during the 3-year period that begins with the date the registration is issued. ``(B) The Secretary shall approve or deny an application submitted pursuant to paragraph (1) within 60 days after the Secretary receives the application. If the Secretary fails to so act within such period, the applicant may bring an action under section 1361 of title 28 to compel the Secretary to so act. ``(3) An instant check registrant shall keep all records or documents which the registrant collects pursuant to this section during a gun show at a premises, or a portion thereof designated by the registrant, that is open for inspection by the Secretary. The Secretary shall establish by regulation the procedure for the inspection, at a premises or a gun show, of the records required to be kept under this section in a manner for a registrant that is identical to the same procedural rights and protections specified for a licensee under subsections (g)(1)(A), (g)(1)(B), and (j) of section 923. An instant check registrant shall remit to the Secretary all records required to be kept by the registrant under this subsection when the registration is no longer valid, has expired, or has been revoked. ``(4)(A) This subsection shall not be construed-- ``(i) as creating a cause of action against any instant check registrant or any other person, including the transferor, for any civil liability; or ``(ii) as establishing any standard of care. ``(B) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except to give effect to subparagraph (C), evidence regarding the use or nonuse by a transferor of the services of an instant check registrant under this section shall not be admissible as evidence in any proceeding of any court, agency, board, or other entity for the purposes of establishing liability based on a civil action brought on any theory for harm caused by a product or by negligence. ``(C)(i) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person who is-- ``(I) an instant check registrant who assists in having a background check performed in accordance with this section; ``(II) a licensee who acquires a firearm at a gun show from a nonlicensee, for transfer to another nonlicensee in attendance at the show, for the purpose of effectuating a sale, trade, or transfer between the 2 nonlicensees, all in the manner prescribed for the acquisition and disposition of firearms under this chapter; or ``(III) a nonlicensee disposing of a firearm, who utilizes the services of an instant check registrant pursuant to subclause (I) or a licensee pursuant to subclause (II), shall be entitled to immunity from a civil liability action as described in this subparagraph. ``(ii) A qualified civil liability action may not be brought in any Federal or State court. The term `qualified civil liability action' means a civil action brought by any person against a person described in clause (i) for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm by the transferee or a third party, but shall not include an action-- ``(I) brought against a transferor convicted under section 924(h), or a comparable or identical State felony law, by a party directly harmed by the transferee's criminal conduct, as defined in section 924(h); or ``(II) brought against a transferor for negligent entrustment or negligence per se. ``(4) A registration issued under this subsection may be revoked pursuant to the procedures provided for license revocations under section 923. ``(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to organize or conduct a gun show unless the person-- ``(1) registers with the Secretary in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary, which shall not require the payment of any fee for such registration; ``(2) before commencement of the gun show, records and verifies the identity of each individual who is to be a gun show vendor at the gun show by examining, but not retaining a copy of, a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(1)) of the individual containing a photograph of the individual; and ``(3) maintains a copy of the records described in paragraph (2) at the permanent place of business of the gun show organizer for such period of time and in such form as the Secretary shall require by regulation. ``(c)(1) If, at a gun show or the curtilage area of a gun show, a person who is not licensed under section 923 makes an offer to another person who is not licensed under section 923 to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible to the person at the gun show or in the curtilage area of the gun show, and such other person, at the gun show or the curtilage area of the gun show, indicates a willingness to accept the offer, it shall be unlawful for the person to subsequently transfer the firearm to such other person, unless-- ``(A) the firearm is transferred through a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer in accordance with paragraph (2)(B) and otherwise in accordance with law; or ``(B)(i) before the completion of the transfer, an instant check registrant contacts the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act; ``(ii)(I) the system provides the registrant with a unique identification number; or ``(II) 72 hours have elapsed since the registrant contacted the system, and the system has not notified the registrant that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922; and ``(iii) the registrant notifies the person that the registrant has complied with clauses (i) and (ii), or of any receipt by the registrant of a notification from the national instant criminal background check system established under section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that the transfer would violate section 922 or State law; and ``(iv) the transferor and the registrant have verified the identity of the transferee by examining a valid identification document (as defined in section 1028(d)(1) of this title) of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee. ``(2)(A) The rules of paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of section 922(t) shall apply to firearms transfers assisted by instant check registrants under this section in the same manner in which such rules apply to firearms transfers made by licensees. ``(B)(i) For purposes of section 922(t)(1)(B)(ii), the time period that shall apply to the transfer of a firearm as described in paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be 72 hours. ``(ii) The licensee or registrant may personally deliver or ship the firearm to the prospective transferee in accordance with clause (iii) if the gun show has terminated, and-- ``(I)(aa) 72 consecutive hours has elapsed since the licensee or registrant contacted the system from the gun show and the licensee or registrant has not received notification from the system that receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law; or ``(bb) the licensee or registrant has received notification from the system that receipt of a firearm by the prospective transferee would not violate subsection (g) or (n) of section 922 or State law; and ``(II) State and local law would have permitted the licensee or registrant to immediately deliver the firearm to the prospective transferee if the conditions described in item (aa) or (bb) had occurred during the gun show. ``(iii)(I) The licensee may personally deliver the firearm to the prospective transferee at a location other than the business premises of the licensee, without regard to whether the location is in the State specified on the license of the licensee, or may ship the firearm by common carrier to the prospective transferee. ``(II) The registrant may personally deliver the firearm to a prospective transferee who is a resident of the State of which the registrant is a resident, or may ship the firearm by common carrier to such a prospective transferee. ``(3) An instant check registrant who agrees to assist a person who is not licensed under section 923 in complying with subsection (c) with respect to the transfer of a firearm shall-- ``(A) enter the name, age, address, and other identifying information on the transferee (or, if the transferee is a corporation or other business entity, the identity and principal and local places of business of the transferee) as the Secretary may require by regulation into a separate bound record; ``(B) record the unique identification number provided by the system on a form specified by the Secretary; ``(C) on completion of the functions required by paragraph (1)(B) to be performed by the registrant with respect to the transfer, notify the transferor that the registrant has performed such functions; and ``(D) on completion of the background check by the system, retain a record of the background check as part of the permanent business records of the registrant. ``(4) This section shall not be construed to permit or authorize the Secretary to impose recordkeeping requirements on any vendor who is not licensed under section 923. ``(d) If, at a gun show or the curtilage area of a gun show, a person who is not licensed under section 923 makes an offer to another person who is not licensed under section 923 to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible to the person at the gun show or in the curtilage area of the gun show, and such other person, at the gun show or the curtilage area of the gun show, indicates a willingness to accept the offer, it shall be unlawful for such other person to receive the firearm from the person if the recipient knows that the firearm has been transferred to the recipient in violation of this section.''. (2) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(7)(A) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (b), (c)(1), or (c)(2) of section 931 shall be-- ``(i) fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both; or ``(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent conviction of such a violation, fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. ``(B) Whoever knowingly violates subsection (c)(3) or (d) of section 931 shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. ``(C) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this paragraph, the Secretary may, with respect to any person who knowingly violates subsection (b), (c), or (d) of section 931-- ``(i) impose a civil fine in an amount equal to not more than $2,500; and ``(ii) if the person is registered pursuant to section 931(a), after notice and opportunity for a hearing, suspend for not more than 6 months or revoke the registration of that person under section 931(a).''. (3) Conforming amendment.--Section 923(j) of such title is amended in the first sentence by striking ``or event'' and all that follows through ``community''. (4) Clerical amendment.--The section analysis for chapter 44 of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``931. Regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows.''. (d) Inspection Authority.--Section 923(g)(1) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: ``(E) The Secretary may enter during business hours the place of business of any gun show organizer and any place where a gun show is held, without such reasonable cause or warrant, for the purpose of inspecting or examining the records required by section 923 or 931 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at the gun show in the course of a reasonable inquiry during the course of a criminal investigation of a person or persons other than the organizer or licensee or when such examination may be required for determining the disposition of one or more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.''. (e) Increased Penalties for Serious Recordkeeping Violations by Licensees.--Section 924(a)(3) of such title is amended to read as follows: ``(3)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), any licensed dealer, licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed collector who knowingly makes any false statement or representation with respect to the information required by this chapter to be kept in the records of a person licensed under this chapter, or violates section 922(m) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both. ``(B) If the violation described in subparagraph (A) is in relation to an offense-- ``(i) under paragraph (1) or (3) of section 922(b), such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both; or ``(ii) under subsection (a)(6) or (d) of section 922, such person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.''. (f) Increased Penalties for Violations of Criminal Background Check Requirements.-- (1) Penalties.--Section 924(a) of such title is amended-- (A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``subsection (s) or (t) of section 922'' and inserting ``section 922(s)''; and (B) by adding at the end the following: ``(8)(A) Whoever knowingly violates section 922(t) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both. ``(B) In the case of a second or subsequent conviction under this paragraph, the person shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.''. (2) Elimination of certain elements of offense.--Section 922(t)(5) of such title is amended by striking ``and, at the time'' and all that follows through ``State law''. (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. SEC. 3. INSTANT CHECK GUN TAX AND GUN OWNER PRIVACY. (a) Prohibition on Gun Tax.-- (1) In general.--Chapter 33 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 540B. Ban against fee for background check in connection with firearm transfer ``No officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States, may charge or collect any fee in connection with any background check required in connection with the transfer of a firearm (as defined in section 921(a)(3) of title 18).''. (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The section analysis for chapter 33 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 540A the following: ``540B. Ban against fee for background check in connection with firearm transfer.''. (b) Protection of Gun Owner Privacy and Ownership Rights.-- (1) In general.--Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: ``Sec. 932. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States or officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States-- ``(1) shall perform any national instant criminal background check on any person through the system established pursuant to section 103 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C. 922 note) (referred to in this section as the ``system'') if that system does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information, in any form whatsoever or through any medium, about such person who is determined, through the use of the system, not to be prohibited by subsection (g) or (h) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, or by State law, from receiving a firearm, except that this subsection shall not apply to the retention or transfer of information relating to-- ``(A) any unique identification number provided by the national instant criminal background check system pursuant to section 922(t)(1)(B)(i) of title 18, United States Code; or ``(B) the date on which that number is provided; or ``(2) shall continue to operate the system (including requiring a background check before the transfer of a firearm) unless-- ``(A) the `NICS Index' complies with the requirements of section 552a(e)(5) of title 5, United States Code; and ``(B) the agency responsible for the system and the system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke the exceptions under subsections (j)(2), (k)(2), and (k)(3) of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, except if specifically identifiable information is compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or specific criminal enforcement matter.''. (2) Technical and conforming amendments.--The section analysis for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end the following: ``932. Gun owner privacy and ownership rights.''. (c) Civil Remedies.--Any person aggrieved by a violation of section 540B of title 28, or 931 of title 18, United States Code, as added by this section, may bring an action in the district court of the United States for the district in which the person resides. Any person who is successful with respect to any such action shall receive actual damages, punitive damages, and such other remedies as the court may determine to be appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee. (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that the amendments made by subsection (a) shall take effect as of October 1, 1998. <all> | 0 | train |
|
Broward County Sheriff Fired For Lying About Parkland Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel has been fired for covering-up the truth about what happened during the Parkland shooting.
According to reports, following a criminal investigation by Florida Governor Rick Scott, Sheriff Israel will be replaced as early as next week.
From Big League Politics: Sheriff Israel is being removed from office for criminal issues, not malfeasance, following an investigation conducted by the office of Florida Governor Rick Scott. The source exclusively revealed to Big League Politics that Sheriff Israel is also allegedly being investigated by the IRS.
The high-level police source within the Sheriff’s Office disclosed that over the last several months, four candidates have been interviewed to refill the position of Broward County Sheriff. One of the candidates who were interviewed is Emery Giany, a Republican Florida law enforcement official who is closely associated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.
During the IG’s testimony last week, FBI director Christopher Wray was asked about the Parkland school shooting. When asked, Wray declined to answer any questions about the shooting and Sheriff Israel, citing that it was an active FBI investigation. Following the Parkland shooting, Governor Scott called for Director Wray to resign over the FBI’s failure to properly investigate Nikolas Cruz, 19, the school shooter whose plans to carry out a school shooting were reported to the FBI twice prior to the shooting on Valentine’s Day.
“We constantly promote ‘see something, say something,’ and a courageous person did just that to the FBI. And the FBI failed to act. ‘See something, say something’ is an incredibly important tool and people must have confidence in the follow through from law enforcement. The FBI Director needs to resign,” Governor Scott said.
According to the source in the Broward Sheriffs office, Sheriff Israel’s removal revolves around a criminal matter that the FBI is aware of. Although his failures surrounding the Parkland shooting initially sparked the investigation, it isn’t the sole reason why he is being removed.
The high-level source who wished to remain anonymous told Big League Politics that Sheriff Israel is already aware of the fact that he is being removed from office next week.
Sheriff Israel has been under heavy criticism for his handling of the of the Parkland school shooting, which left 17 people dead. Following the Valentine’s Day school massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, it was revealed that police officers under Sheriff Israel’s order were called to the home of the Parkland shooter 45 times prior to the school shooting.
It is unclear why law enforcement officials law enforcement at the Broward County Sheriff’s office and FBI failed to properly investigate Cruz, but their massive failure has been directly attributed to the loss of 17 lives in Parkland, FL.
Since the Parkland shooting, a lot of unflattering information has come out regarding Sheriff Israel. Along with being a mouthpiece for Democratic politicians and gun control advocates, like Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman Schultz who he has been photographed with, Sheriff Israel and his department have recently made headlines for more controversy.
In May, it was revealed that Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school and the Broward County Sheriff’s office were keeping quiet the fact that Sheriff Israel’s son, Brett, had allegedly assaulted a 14 year old student on campus in an act of bullying.
Shortly after the Parkland shooting, cell phone video filmed by Cruz himself revealed that he himself felt bullied, which lead him to carry out a massacre on February 14, 2018 in a targeted attack against his former classmates.
Most recently, Sheriff Israel received a massive amount of backlash after the Broward County Sheriff’s office tweeted a picture of a new custom made Broward sheriff’s car that read, “Our new #dodge #charger. Do you like the paint job?”
The tweet sparked outrage online from Republicans and Democrats alike who quipped that the Broward Sheriff’s office should use the funds to pay for better officer training, not new cars. Leaders on both sides of the aisle have called for Sheriff Israel to resign or be removed by the Governor for his extreme dereliction of duty and failure to prevent one of the worst schools shootings in US history.
During the Florida GOP Primary debate in Florida last week, Florida Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam and Rep. Ron DeSantis were asked about the Parkland school shooting. Both Putnam and DeSantis called for the removal of Scott Israel while asserting their support of the Second Amendment.
“I would have removed that sheriff from Broward County. He failed his citizens and he should have been removed,” DeSantis said.
“Sheriff Israel is under investigation and he needs to go,” Putnam said.
Governor Scott is expected to release a statement in the coming week when Sheriff Israel is removed from office. Scott is currently running for US Senate in Florida, and news of Sheriff Israel’s removal is sure to boost his approval rating in what is gearing up to be one of the most important Senate races in the country.
In the days following the Parkland shooting, Sheriff Scott Israel was confronted and asked about his support of and affiliation with the Democratic Party and why he chose to blame guns instead of holding his department and the FBI accountable. Unable to withstand tough questioning, Sheriff Israel became flustered and ended the interview after saying, “the only person accountable for this killing is the detestable, cowardly, murderer. He is solely responsible for this horrific act.” However, as the investigation into Parkland has shown, both Sheriff Israel and the FBI dropped the ball and are to blame for their failure to prevent the shooting despite receiving multiple warning signs. | 1 | train |
|
H.R.1025 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act There are 2 summaries for H.R.1025. Conference report filed in House (11/22/1993) Introduced in House (02/22/1993) Bill summaries are authored by CRS
Shown Here:
Conference report filed in House (11/22/1993)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
Title I: Brady Handgun Control
Title II: Multiple Firearm Purchases to State and Local Police
Title III: Federal Firearms License Reform
Title I: Brady Handgun Control - Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to: (1) require the Attorney General, within five years, to establish a national instant criminal background check system (system) for firearm licensees to contact for information on whether receipt of a firearm by a prospective transferee would violate Federal or State law; and (2) establish an interim five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and procedures for checking with the chief law enforcement officer of the place of residence of the purchaser (police official) for such information.
(Sec. 102) Prohibits, under the interim procedures, any licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a handgun to an unlicensed individual unless: (1) the transferor has received a statement of eligibility from the individual, verified the individual's identity, and notified the police official and during the next five business days the transferor either has not received information that the transfer would violate the law or has received notice that the transfer would not violate the law; (2) the individual has presented a statement from the police official that he or she requires a handgun because of a threat to a family member; or (3) applicable State law requires, before any transfer, verification that possession of a handgun by the purchaser would not be unlawful. Requires notified police officials to make a reasonable effort to make the relevant determinations within five days.
Prohibits the transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed individual after the system is established unless the transferor has verified the individual's identity and contacted the system and either: (1) the system has provided the transferor with a unique identification number for the transfer; or (2) three business days have elapsed and the system has not notified the transferor that the transfer would violate the law.
Permits a transfer (before or after the system is established) if: (1) the individual has presented a permit issued in the past five years by a State that verifies that the individual is legally qualified; (2) the Secretary of the Treasury has approved the transfer under specified provisions of the Internal Revenue Code; or (3) the Secretary has certified that compliance with the applicable background check requirements is impracticable.
Requires the destruction of records pertaining to any transfer to an eligible individual.
Sets penalties of up to a $1,000 fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, for violations of this Act.
(Sec. 103) Directs the Attorney General to: (1) determine a timetable by which each State should be able to provide criminal records on an on-line capacity basis to the system; (2) expedite the upgrading of State records in the Federal criminal records system maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the development of hardware and software to link State systems to the national system, and the FBI's revitalization initiatives for technologically advanced fingerprint and criminal records identification; and (3) notify each licensee and the chief law enforcement officer of each State upon establishment of the national system.
Provides for the correction of erroneous information in the system and for regulations to ensure the privacy and security of system information.
Prohibits any Government entity from using the system to establish any system for the registration of firearms, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a firearm.
Authorizes appropriations.
(Sec. 106) Amends the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 to permit the use of formula grants under the drug control and system improvement grant program for the improvement of State record systems and the sharing with the Attorney General of specified records for the purpose of implementing this Act.
Directs the Attorney General, through the Bureau of Justice Statistics, to make grants to States for the creation of a computerized criminal history record system or improvement of an existing system and for assistance in the transmittal of criminal records to the national system.
Title II: Multiple Firearm Purchases to State and Local Police - Requires each Federal firearms licensee to submit a report of multiple sales or other dispositions of firearms to the department of State police or State law enforcement agency of the State or local law enforcement agency of the local jurisdiction in which the sale or other disposition took place. Prohibits agency disclosure of any such form or contents and requires each such department or agency to: (1) destroy any form containing such information and any record of the contents within 20 days after such form is received, except with respect to a purchaser who is prohibited from receipt of a firearm; and (2) certify to the Attorney General (at six-month intervals) that no disclosure contrary to such requirements has been made and that all such forms and records have been destroyed.
Title III: Federal Firearms License Reform - Federal Firearms License Reform Act of 1993 - Amends the Federal criminal code to prohibit any common or contract carrier from requiring or causing any label, tag, or other written notice to be placed on the outside of any container indicating that it contains a firearm.
Prohibits: (1) any common or contract carrier from delivering in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm without obtaining written acknowledgement of receipt of the package containing the firearm; and (2) stealing or unlawfully taking or carrying away from a licensed firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer any firearm in the licensee's business inventory that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce (subject to penalties of up to a $10,000 fine, ten years' imprisonment, or both, for violations).
(Sec. 303) Increases license application fees for firearms dealers who do not deal in destructive devices. | 0 | train |
|
Computer Models Show IRMA Destroying New York City On Sept. 10 All 5 Boroughs of New York City and most of New Jersey could be totally destroyed on September 10 by Hurricane IRMA, according to computer simulations.
By 12:00 noon on September 10, computer models show that the strength and path of IRMA risk totally obliterating New York.
Halturnerradioshow.com reports: The National Weather Service, and its National Hurricane Center utilize supercomputers to predict where hurricanes will travel based on hundreds-of-thousands of pieces of weather data. The system they use is called Global Forecast System (GFS).
At 2:00 this afternoon, Friday, September 1, the GFS model spit out its projection of Hurricane IRMA’s path over the next 12 days. This model shows the utterly terrifying projected path of Hurricane IRMA coming right up the east coast, and making landfall in NEW YORK HARBOR as a Category 5 Hurricane, with winds in excess of 157 MPH.
I am not a weather expert. I do not profess to have any idea at all about the accuracy of these computer models. As a layman, I know the models can turn out to be wrong. Sometimes even WAAAAAAAAAYYYY wrong.
But if this model is right, then we in New Jersey (where I live) and folks in New York City, had better start preparing to EVACUATE within the next 7-8 days.
I do not know of __ANY__ building that can withstand winds “in excess of 157 MPH.”
I doubt my condo complex could withstand it. I cannot even imagine what the skyscrapers in New York City would do under such a wind load. I suspect some of them — MANY of them — might just snap and fall over.
Even buildings which don’t simply blow over, would probably see ALL their windows blown out.
Can you imagine getting hit by shattered glass driven by 157 MPH wind? It would cut a person to ribbons instantly!
In all of recorded history, no storm like this has __EVER__ hit New Jersey or New York City. It would be beyond “catastrophic.” Seems to me, there would be NOTHING left!
I emphasize that I know computer “models” are just that: MODELS. They may be very wrong.
But given the specificity of this particular forecast, I feel it necessary to tell everyone in New Jersey and New York City to absolutely watch this storm every day. If it appears as you see in the model video below, then EVACUATE at least 100 miles west of NJ.
No one would be able to survive this type of storm.
Here now, the GFS Model which was issued by the National Weather Service at 2:00 PM EDT on Friday, September 1, 2017: | 1 | train |
|
THIS IS AMAZING: In 1984, the New York Times said Trump would be our BEST president…They forgot….. The New York Times had no idea in 1984 that a piece taking a deep dive into the life of an upcoming billionaire would eventually resurface as confirmation of just how PERFECT a fit President Trump is for this time in America. We pulled out the highlights for you below but the entire article is incredible. Who could have predicted in 1984? Well, it seems that The New York Times described brilliant businessman Donald J. Trump as a great future President of the United States…
THE EXPANDING EMPIRE OF DONALD TRUMP:
‘DONALD! HEY, DONALD! DONALD!’ The men were yelling, eager to call him by name. A storm front of cigar smoke was gathering above the hotel ballroom, packed elbow-to-elbow for a breakfast-hour sports forum with a crowd that included some of New York’s most wealthy, powerful and famous men.
He has no public-relations agent. His competitors wonder how this can be, but watching him at the sports forum provided an explanation.
While executives of the other teams told the audience about problems of negotiation and arbitration, about dirty restrooms inside their arenas and street crime outside and about ‘attempting to move the Mets in the right direction,’
“He said further that he would ‘continue to create chaos’ for the N.F.L. and, by the way, that he planned to build a domed stadium in New York.”
Donald Trump was electrifying the room the rat-a-tat-tat revelations, dropping names of star N.F.L. players and coaches he would sign in a matter of hours.
IT IS NOT YET 9 AM SPENDING A DAY WITH Donald Trump is like driving a Ferrari without the windshield. It’s exhilarating; he gets a few bugs in his teeth.
Although he is still interested in such ideas as putting up the world’s tallest building on the East River, his mind wanders from the business of New York real estate.
He has told people in the communications industry that he is ‘very interested in communications,’ which is like a 2,000-pound gorilla mentioning that he is very interested in becoming carnivorous.
The Trump touch. It has set some people in New York to outright Trump worship; they call him ‘a real-estate genius’ who has helped lead the city out of the darkness of the mid-1970’s into a new era of glamour and excitement. Mr. Trump does not take exception to that.
Many urban-affairs experts view the developers as saviors of our postindustrial cities. ‘With manufacturing leaving,’ says George Sternlieb, director of the Center for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, ‘and with Federal and state aid diminishing, our cities desperately need the rich. Cities are tending to fall into two categories: cities of consumption and cities with no economic base.’
The rich of the world can live anywhere they want, explain the experts; Mr. Trump leads them to New York. Sales taxes, user taxes, jobs and resulting payroll taxes are generated.
That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location, when every real-estate developer in the world would have done just about anything to get it, is testimony to Donald Trump’s persistence and to his skills as a negotiator. That he was able to put up a building of this dimension on this site demonstrates his finesse with the zoning code.
‘He has the uncanny ability to smell blood in the water,’ a competitor says. He obtained the air rights over Tiffany, which allowed him to build a much higher building, and went to Equitable, which sold him the land for a 50 percent interest in the project.
The day before he has sent $3,000 to an unfortunate family he has red about in the newspaper, something he does frequently, according to Mrs. Foerderer.
For a billion-dollar corporation, there aren’t too many people around.
Donald Trump makes or approves practically all decisions. He does not seem to write anything down, keeping volumes of company files as mental notes.
Says Louise M. Sunshine, executive vice president: ‘If it is not the impossible, Donald is simply not interested. There has to be creativity. Money ceased to be the object a long time ago.’ Mr. Trump agrees with this assessment.
‘He is an almost unbelievable negotiator,’ says Irving Fischer of HRH Construction. ‘I don’t worship at the shrine of Donald Trump,’ he says, ‘but our company has given up trying to negotiate costs with him. We just say: ‘Tell us what you want, you’re going to get it anyway.’
‘Trump can sense when people might want to get out of a project,’ says a developer… He trusts his instincts and has the guts to act on them.’
Roy M. Cohn, Mr. Trump’s friend and attorney, adds: ‘He has an uncanny sense of knowing that something is a good deal when it looks dismal to everyone else.’
Such was his first deal in Manhattan, his purchase of the Commodore Hotel on East 42nd Street in the mid-1970’s, when even the Chrysler Building across the street was in foreclosure. Fred Trump described his son’s efforts to buy the hotel as ‘fighting for a seat on the Titanic.’ But, Donald Trump says, ‘I saw all those people coming out of Grand Central Terminal, and I said to myself, ‘How bad can this be?” He completely renovated the hotel, reopening it as the chrome-and-glass Grand Hyatt Hotel.
He had moved in quietly, sending 14 different people to purchase 15 parcels of land and keeping his name out of it. ‘If the seller was Italian,’ says Mr. Trump, ‘we sent an Italian’ – something he probably did not learn at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Finance, where he received a B.A. in economics in 1968. He bought and sold a few pieces of real estate in Philadelphia when he was bored with classes.
‘It’s in his genes,’ says Fred Trump, explaining his son’s success in real estate and recalling his three sons growing up on construction sites and in rental offices.
‘Donald Trump is the Michael Jackson of real estate,’ says Mr. Fischer. ‘We’ve been dealing with him since he was 16. He was an old trouper at age 25.’
His success also derives from his marketing skills. ‘I want to bring a little showmanship to real estate,’ Mr. Trumps says. He is often compared to the late William Zeckendorf, the renowned New York builder, who was said to owe much of his success to his personal flair. Other New York developers – including the Lefraks, the Rudins, the Tishmans, the Fishers, the Roses – go quietly about building more buildings than does Donal Trump, making their millions and keeping their names out of things.
Some developers find Mr. Trump’s high-profile approach disagreeable, but most concede that it has worked for him.
Preston Robert Tisch, a developer and chief operating officer of the Loews Corporation, who lost out to Mr. Trump in the battle over whose site would be chosen for the city’s convention center, concludes: ‘He captured the imagination of people to a greater degree than I could.’
The condominiums in Trump Tower are selling rapidly at what many believe are exorbitant prices, while less costly units in Museum Tower, for example, another ‘super luxury’ building a few blocks away, are not. According to a marketing study of four such buildings made by the rudential Insurance Company of America, Donald Trump seems to be the only person in New York who knows how to market superluxury apartments. How do you sell a one-bedroom apartment costin as much as a line item in the Department of Defense budget? ‘You sell them a fantasy,’ Mr. Trump explains. ‘He deserves full credit for his success,’ says another builder. ‘He spent $1 million on the waterfall in Trump Tower. No one else would have done that. If the building fails everyone will say: ‘Well sure, what jackass spends a million bucks on a waterfall?”
‘What sets Trump apart,’ says Ben V. Lambert, a real-estate investment banker, ‘is his ability to pierce through the canvas and get things done.He gets projects literally off the ground while others are having meetings and doing feasibility studies. But his real skill is putting together complex pieces of the puzzles: fiancing, zoning, parcels of land and such. This ethereal part of building is perhaps more important than the brick and mortar.’
‘You don’t use the term ‘settlement’ with Donald.’
Mr. Trump does not place patience on his list of virtues. Workmen confirm a story that he paid $75,000 to truck several 40-foot trees from Florida to Trump Tower, where a tunnel was built into the building so the trees would not be damaged by frost. The 3,000-pound trees were then installed in the lower plaza of the atrium. Mr. Trump did not like the look. He ordered the trees removed, and, when workmen balked for 24 hours, Mr. Trump had the trees cut down with a chainsaw.
He speaks slowly and softly and in the same casual manner to eminent architects an business moguls as to the coffee and sandwich vendor outside his casino-hotel. He is said, by acquaintances, to be generally even tempered and rarely seems ruffled. He is not given to unkind remarks and is nearly always in a positive frame of mind. I never think of the negative, he says. All obstacles can be overcome.
He talks boastfully about his projects, but is uncomfortable talking about himself. He does not smoke and does not drink alcohol. He plays golf and tennis regularly. His wife describes him as an all-American boy who likes country music best and prefers a steak and baked potato to anything called cuisine.
His father pulled Donald Trump out of a prep school because he didn’t want his son growing up with spoiled kids with $40 ball gloves, sending him instead to military school. His father bragged at the sports forum that he had taken the subway and saved $15 car fare.
Mr. Trump seems to have maintained a detached view of his flood of fortune and publicity. He frequently mentions that all of the attention and success may well be fleeting.
His friends say that he is not yet fully cognizant of his station. He loves to got to ’21’ for lunch and be impressed with all the wealthy, powerful, famous people, says an acquaintance. He doesn’t quite realize that he’s one of them.
After dusk, he rides through the city on his way to the last appointment of the day, enjoying the lights that make the whole city sparkle like the inside of Trump Tower. He talked about his plans for the future, as much as anyone who operates on spontaneous combustion can.
Asked to explain, he adds: What does it all mean when some wacko over in Syria can end the world with nuclear weapons?
He says that his concern for nuclear holocaust is not one that popped into his mind during any recent made-of-television movie. He says that it has been troubling him since his uncle, a nuclear physicist, began talking to him about it 15 years ago.
His greatest dream is to personally do something about the problem and, characteristically, Donald Trump thinks he has an answer to nuclear armament: Let him negotiate arms agreements – he who can talk people into selling $100 million properties to him for $13 million. Negotiations is an art, he says and I have a gift for it.
The idea that he would ever be allowed to got into a room alone and negotiate for the United States, let alone be successful in disarming the world, seems the naive musing of an optimistic, deluded young man who has never lost at anything he has tried. But he believes that through years of making his views known and through supporting candidaes who share his views, it could someday happen.
He is constantly asked about his interest in running for elective office. Absolutely not, he answers. All of the false smiles and the red tape. It is too difficult to really do anything.
He dislikes meetings and paperwork and is in the enviable position of being able to avoid both.
AREN’T WE LUCKY THAT THIS BRILLIANT MAN IS OUR PRESIDENT!
source:https://100percentfedup.com | 1 | train |
|
Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey News Release For release 10:00 a.m. (EDT) Tuesday, April 9, 2019 USDL-19-0610 Technical information: (202) 691-5870 • [email protected] • www.bls.gov/jlt Media contact: (202) 691-5902 • [email protected] JOB OPENINGS AND LABOR TURNOVER – FEBRUARY 2019 The number of job openings fell to 7.1 million on the last business day of February, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Over the month, hires and separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.6 million, respectively. Within separations, the quits rate was unchanged at 2.3 percent and the layoffs and discharges rate was little changed at 1.2 percent. This release includes estimates of the number and rate of job openings, hires, and separations for the nonfarm sector by industry and by four geographic regions. Job Openings On the last business day of February, the job openings level fell to 7.1 million (-538,000). The job openings rate was 4.5 percent. The number of job openings fell for total private (-523,000) and was little changed for government. Job openings decreased in a number of industries, with the largest decreases in accommodation and food services (-103,000), real estate and rental and leasing (-72,000), and transportation, warehousing, and utilities (-66,000). The number of job openings fell in the Northeast, South, and Midwest regions. (See table 1.) Hires The number of hires was little changed at 5.7 million in February. The hires rate was 3.8 percent. The hires level was little changed for total private and fell for government (-40,000). The number of hires decreased in construction (-73,000), nondurable goods manufacturing (-33,000), and state and local government education (-22,000). The number of hires was little changed in all four regions. (See table 2.) Separations Total separations includes quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. Total separations is referred to as turnover. Quits are generally voluntary separations initiated by the employee. Therefore, the quits rate can serve as a measure of workers’ willingness or ability to leave jobs. Layoffs and discharges are involuntary separations initiated by the employer. Other separations includes separations due to retirement, death, disability, and transfers to other locations of the same firm. The number of total separations was little changed at 5.6 million in February. The total separations rate was 3.7 percent. The number of total separations was little changed for total private and for government. Total separations increased in educational services (+30,000), but decreased in nondurable goods manufacturing (-32,000) and real estate and rental and leasing (-26,000). The number of total separations was little changed in all four regions. (See table 3.) The number of quits was little changed in February at 3.5 million. The quits rate was 2.3 percent. The quits level was little changed for total private and for government. Quits increased in educational services (+23,000) but decreased in real estate and rental and leasing (-15,000). The number of quits was little changed in all four regions. (See table 4.) The number of layoffs and discharges was little changed in February at 1.7 million. The layoffs and discharges rate was 1.2 percent. The layoffs and discharges level was little changed for total private and for government. The number of layoffs and discharges decreased in federal government (-4,000). The number of layoffs and discharges was little changed in all four regions. (See table 5.) The number of other separations was little changed in February. The other separations level was little changed for total private and edged up for government (+9,000). Other separations increased in federal government (+5,000), but decreased in construction (-13,000) and real estate and rental and leasing (-6,000). The number of other separations fell in the South region. (See table 6.) Net Change in Employment Large numbers of hires and separations occur every month throughout the business cycle. Net employment change results from the relationship between hires and separations. When the number of hires exceeds the number of separations, employment rises, even if the hires level is steady or declining. Conversely, when the number of hires is less than the number of separations, employment declines, even if the hires level is steady or rising. Over the 12 months ending in February, hires totaled 69.3 million and separations totaled 66.6 million, yielding a net employment gain of 2.7 million. These totals include workers who may have been hired and separated more than once during the year. ____________ The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey results for March 2019 are scheduled to be released on Tuesday, May 7, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. (EDT).
Table A. Job openings, hires, and total separations by industry, seasonally adjusted Category Job openings Hires Total separations Feb.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 LEVELS BY INDUSTRY
(in thousands)
Total 6,530 7,625 7,087 5,594 5,829 5,696 5,270 5,532 5,556 Total private 5,925 6,929 6,406 5,243 5,434 5,341 4,930 5,146 5,187 Mining and logging 27 38 28 35 35 30 29 31 32 Construction 198 313 286 391 433 360 318 387 366 Manufacturing 436 458 477 371 377 349 348 355 341 Durable goods 268 295 308 209 190 196 192 174 193 Nondurable goods 169 163 169 162 187 154 156 180 148 Trade, transportation, and utilities 1,292 1,454 1,294 1,087 1,127 1,167 1,016 1,098 1,113 Wholesale trade 197 264 211 134 138 144 134 141 134 Retail trade 827 881 840 718 748 767 682 735 724 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 268 309 243 235 241 256 200 222 255 Information 123 136 125 91 82 89 91 93 88 Financial activities 406 433 320 215 192 202 192 184 183 Finance and insurance 343 291 251 145 112 138 140 113 138 Real estate and rental and leasing 63 142 70 70 80 65 52 71 45 Professional and business services 1,138 1,472 1,421 1,171 1,120 1,174 1,101 1,085 1,134 Education and health services 1,173 1,372 1,267 668 724 714 643 662 709 Educational services 91 117 94 90 113 103 107 87 117 Health care and social assistance 1,081 1,254 1,173 578 611 611 537 575 593 Leisure and hospitality 905 1,077 972 1,040 1,116 1,075 1,011 1,043 1,032 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 116 109 106 183 181 179 170 151 162 Accommodation and food services 789 969 866 856 935 896 840 892 870 Other services 228 175 215 175 228 180 180 208 189 Government 605 696 681 351 395 355 341 386 369 Federal 73 121 111 31 35 36 35 32 36 State and local 532 576 571 320 360 319 305 353 333 State and local education 202 226 223 163 184 162 157 182 170 State and local, excluding education 330 350 348 157 176 157 149 172 163
RATES BY INDUSTRY
(percent)
Total 4.2 4.8 4.5 3.8 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.7 3.7 Total private 4.5 5.1 4.8 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.9 4.0 4.0 Mining and logging 3.6 4.8 3.6 4.9 4.6 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 Construction 2.7 4.0 3.7 5.4 5.8 4.8 4.4 5.2 4.9 Manufacturing 3.3 3.4 3.6 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.7 Durable goods 3.3 3.5 3.7 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.4 Nondurable goods 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.8 3.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities 4.5 5.0 4.4 3.9 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.9 4.0 Wholesale trade 3.3 4.3 3.4 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.4 2.3 Retail trade 5.0 5.3 5.0 4.5 4.7 4.8 4.3 4.6 4.6 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 4.3 4.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.4 3.6 4.2 Information 4.2 4.6 4.3 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.1 Financial activities 4.5 4.8 3.6 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.1 Finance and insurance 5.2 4.4 3.8 2.3 1.8 2.2 2.2 1.8 2.2 Real estate and rental and leasing 2.8 5.8 2.9 3.1 3.5 2.8 2.3 3.1 2.0 Professional and business services 5.2 6.5 6.3 5.6 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.1 5.3 Education and health services 4.8 5.4 5.0 2.8 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.8 3.0 Educational services 2.4 3.0 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.8 2.9 2.3 3.1 Health care and social assistance 5.2 5.8 5.5 2.9 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.8 2.9 Leisure and hospitality 5.3 6.1 5.5 6.4 6.7 6.5 6.2 6.3 6.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 4.7 4.2 4.1 7.7 7.3 7.3 7.2 6.1 6.5 Accommodation and food services 5.4 6.4 5.8 6.2 6.6 6.3 6.1 6.3 6.1 Other services 3.8 2.9 3.5 3.0 3.9 3.1 3.1 3.5 3.2 Government 2.6 3.0 2.9 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 Federal 2.6 4.1 3.8 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.3 State and local 2.6 2.8 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.8 1.7 State and local education 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.8 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 State and local, excluding education 3.5 3.7 3.6 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8
Technical Note This news release presents statistics from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS). The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects and compiles JOLTS data monthly from a sample of nonfarm establishments. A more detailed discussion of JOLTS concepts and methodology is available online at www.bls.gov/opub/hom/pdf/homch18.pdf. Coverage and collection The JOLTS program covers all private nonfarm establishments, as well as federal, state, and local government entities in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Data are collected for total employment, job openings, hires, quits, layoffs and discharges, other separations, and total separations. Concepts Industry classification. The industry classifications in this release are in accordance with the 2017 version of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). Employment. Employment includes persons on the payroll who worked or received pay for the pay period that includes the 12th day of the reference month. Full-time, part-time, permanent, short-term, seasonal, salaried, and hourly employees are included, as are employees on paid vacations or other paid leave. Proprietors or partners of unincorporated businesses, unpaid family workers, or persons on leave without pay or on strike for the entire pay period, are not counted as employed. Employees of temporary help agencies, employee leasing companies, outside contractors, and consultants are counted by their employer of record, not by the establishment where they are working. Job openings. Job openings information is collected for the last business day of the reference month. A job opening requires that: 1) a specific position exists and there is work available for that position, 2) work could start within 30 days whether or not the employer found a suitable candidate, and 3) the employer is actively recruiting from outside the establishment to fill the position. Included are full-time, part-time, permanent, short-term, and seasonal openings. Active recruiting means that the establishment is taking steps to fill a position by advertising in newspapers or on the Internet, posting help-wanted signs, accepting applications, or using other similar methods. Jobs to be filled only by internal transfers, promotions, demotions, or recall from layoffs are excluded. Also excluded are jobs with start dates more than 30 days in the future, jobs for which employees have been hired but have not yet reported for work, and jobs to be filled by employees of temporary help agencies, employee leasing companies, outside contractors, or consultants. The job openings rate is computed by dividing the number of job openings by the sum of employment and job openings and multiplying that quotient by 100. Hires. The hires level is the total number of additions to the payroll occurring at any time during the reference month, including both new and rehired employees, full-time and part-time, permanent, short-term and seasonal employees, employees recalled to the location after a layoff lasting more than 7 days, on-call or intermittent employees who returned to work after having been formally separated, and transfers from other locations. The hires count does not include transfers or promotions within the reporting site, employees returning from strike, employees of temporary help agencies or employee leasing companies, outside contractors, or consultants. The hires rate is computed by dividing the number of hires by employment and multiplying that quotient by 100. Separations. The separations level is the total number of employment terminations occurring at any time during the reference month, and is reported by type of separation—quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations. (Some respondents are only able to report total separations.) The quits count includes voluntary separations by employees (except for retirements, which are reported as other separations). The layoffs and discharges count is comprised of involuntary separations initiated by the employer and includes layoffs with no intent to rehire; formal layoffs lasting or expected to last more than 7 days; discharges resulting from mergers, downsizing, or closings; firings or other discharges for cause; terminations of permanent or short-term employees; and terminations of seasonal employees. The other separations count includes retirements, transfers to other locations, deaths, and separations due to disability. The separations count does not include transfers within the same location or employees on strike. The separations rate is computed by dividing the number of separations by employment and multiplying that quotient by 100. The quits, layoffs and discharges, and other separations rates are computed similarly. Annual estimates. Annual levels for hires, quits, layoffs and discharges, other separations, and total separations are the sum of the 12 published monthly levels. Annual rates are computed by dividing the annual level by the Current Employment Statistics (CES) annual average employment level, and multiplying that quotient by 100. This figure will be approximately equal to the sum of the 12 monthly rates. Consistent with BLS practice, annual estimates are published only for not seasonally adjusted data and are released with the January news release each year. Annual estimates are not calculated for job openings because job openings are a stock, or point-in-time, measurement for the last business day of each month. Sample and estimation methodology The JOLTS survey design is a stratified random sample of 16,000 nonfarm business and government establishments. The sample is stratified by ownership, region, industry sector, and establishment size class. The establishments are drawn from a universe of over 9.1 million establishments compiled by the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) program which includes all employers subject to state unemployment insurance laws and federal agencies subject to the Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees program. JOLTS total employment estimates are benchmarked, or ratio adjusted, monthly to the strike-adjusted employment estimates of the CES survey. A ratio of CES to JOLTS employment is used to adjust the levels for all other JOLTS data elements. JOLTS business birth/death model As with any sample survey, the JOLTS sample can only be as current as its sampling frame. The time lag from the birth of an establishment until its appearance on the sampling frame is approximately one year. In addition, many of these new units may fail within the first year. Since these universe units cannot be reflected on the sampling frame immediately, the JOLTS sample cannot capture job openings, hires, and separations from these units during their early existence. To compensate for the inability to capture data from these establishments, BLS has developed a birth/death model that uses birth and death activity from previous years. The estimates of job openings, hires, and separations produced by the birth/death model are added to the sample-based estimates produced from the survey to arrive at the estimates for openings, hires, and separations. Seasonal adjustment BLS uses X-13 ARIMA to seasonally adjust several JOLTS series utilizing moving averages as seasonal filters. A concurrent seasonal adjustment methodology is used in which new seasonal adjustment factors are calculated each month, using all relevant data, up to and including current month data. JOLTS seasonal adjustment includes both additive and multiplicative models and REGARIMA (regression with auto- correlated errors) modeling to improve the seasonal adjustment factors at the beginning and end of the series and to detect and adjust for outliers in the series. Alignment procedure The JOLTS measures for hires minus separations can be used to derive a measure of net employment change. This change should be comparable to the net employment change from the much larger CES survey. However, definitional differences as well as sampling and nonsampling errors between the two surveys historically caused JOLTS to diverge from CES over time. To limit the divergence, and improve the quality of the JOLTS hires and separations series, BLS implemented the Monthly Alignment Method. This method applies the CES employment trends to the seasonally adjusted JOLTS implied employment trend (hires minus separations) forcing them to be approximately the same, while preserving the seasonality of the JOLTS data. First, the two series are seasonally adjusted and the difference between the JOLTS implied employment change and the CES net employment change is calculated. Next, the JOLTS implied employment change is adjusted to equal the CES net employment change through a proportional adjustment. This procedure adjusts the two components (hires, separations) proportionally to their contribution to the total churn (hires plus separations). The adjusted hires and separations are converted back to not seasonally adjusted data by reversing the application of the original seasonal factors. After the Monthly Alignment Method has been used to adjust the level estimates, rate estimates are computed from the adjusted levels. Reliability of the estimates JOLTS estimates are subject to both sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample is surveyed rather than the entire population, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the "true" population values they represent. The exact difference, or sampling error, varies depending on the particular sample selected, and this variability is measured by the standard error of the estimate. BLS analysis is generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence. That means that there is a 90-percent chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by no more than 1.6 standard errors from the "true" population value because of sampling error. Sampling error estimates are available at www.bls.gov/jlt/jolts_median_standard_errors.htm. The JOLTS estimates also are affected by nonsampling error. Nonsampling error can occur for many reasons, including the failure to include a segment of the population, the inability to obtain data from all units in the sample, the inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide data on a timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, errors made in the collection or processing of the data, and errors from the employment benchmark data used in estimation. Other information Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay Service: (800) 877-8339.
Table 1. Job openings levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 6,530 7,593 7,626 7,479 7,625 7,087 4.2 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.5 INDUSTRY Total private 5,925 6,956 6,962 6,860 6,929 6,406 4.5 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.1 4.8 Mining and logging 27 36 35 29 38 28 3.6 4.6 4.4 3.8 4.8 3.6 Construction 198 278 279 299 313 286 2.7 3.6 3.6 3.9 4.0 3.7 Manufacturing 436 500 501 435 458 477 3.3 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.4 3.6 Durable goods 268 311 315 298 295 308 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.7 Nondurable goods 169 189 185 137 163 169 3.4 3.8 3.7 2.8 3.3 3.4 Trade, transportation, and utilities 1,292 1,558 1,642 1,482 1,454 1,294 4.5 5.3 5.6 5.1 5.0 4.4 Wholesale trade 197 219 217 178 264 211 3.3 3.6 3.6 2.9 4.3 3.4 Retail trade 827 1,080 1,103 986 881 840 5.0 6.4 6.5 5.9 5.3 5.0 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 268 259 322 318 309 243 4.3 4.1 5.0 5.0 4.8 3.8 Information 123 149 124 123 136 125 4.2 5.0 4.2 4.2 4.6 4.3 Financial activities 406 435 412 380 433 320 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.2 4.8 3.6 Finance and insurance 343 303 324 317 291 251 5.2 4.6 4.9 4.8 4.4 3.8 Real estate and rental and leasing 63 132 88 63 142 70 2.8 5.5 3.7 2.7 5.8 2.9 Professional and business services 1,138 1,363 1,313 1,391 1,472 1,421 5.2 6.0 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.3 Education and health services 1,173 1,285 1,324 1,348 1,372 1,267 4.8 5.1 5.3 5.3 5.4 5.0 Educational services 91 92 96 91 117 94 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 3.0 2.4 Health care and social assistance 1,081 1,192 1,228 1,258 1,254 1,173 5.2 5.6 5.8 5.9 5.8 5.5 Leisure and hospitality 905 1,039 1,050 1,102 1,077 972 5.3 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.1 5.5 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 116 94 102 154 109 106 4.7 3.7 4.0 5.9 4.2 4.1 Accommodation and food services 789 944 948 948 969 866 5.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 6.4 5.8 Other services 228 314 282 271 175 215 3.8 5.1 4.6 4.4 2.9 3.5 Government 605 637 665 619 696 681 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.7 3.0 2.9 Federal 73 101 110 87 121 111 2.6 3.5 3.8 3.0 4.1 3.8 State and local 532 536 554 532 576 571 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 State and local education 202 231 230 229 226 223 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 State and local, excluding education 330 304 325 304 350 348 3.5 3.2 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.6 REGION Northeast 1,100 1,277 1,284 1,230 1,281 1,169 3.9 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.1 South 2,357 2,862 2,878 2,848 2,836 2,648 4.2 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.9 4.6 Midwest 1,548 1,800 1,805 1,767 1,827 1,655 4.5 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2 4.8 West 1,526 1,655 1,660 1,634 1,681 1,615 4.3 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4
Table 2. Hires levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 5,594 5,877 5,821 5,717 5,829 5,696 3.8 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.9 3.8 INDUSTRY Total private 5,243 5,515 5,447 5,353 5,434 5,341 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.2 Mining and logging 35 37 32 39 35 30 4.9 4.9 4.2 5.1 4.6 4.0 Construction 391 363 393 399 433 360 5.4 4.9 5.3 5.4 5.8 4.8 Manufacturing 371 382 368 351 377 349 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.9 2.7 Durable goods 209 228 202 186 190 196 2.7 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.4 Nondurable goods 162 155 166 165 187 154 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities 1,087 1,225 1,183 1,176 1,127 1,167 3.9 4.4 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.2 Wholesale trade 134 163 186 151 138 144 2.3 2.8 3.2 2.6 2.3 2.4 Retail trade 718 785 744 802 748 767 4.5 5.0 4.7 5.1 4.7 4.8 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 235 277 253 224 241 256 4.0 4.6 4.2 3.7 4.0 4.2 Information 91 85 97 80 82 89 3.2 3.0 3.4 2.8 2.9 3.1 Financial activities 215 170 213 201 192 202 2.5 2.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.3 Finance and insurance 145 102 135 133 112 138 2.3 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.2 Real estate and rental and leasing 70 68 79 67 80 65 3.1 3.0 3.4 2.9 3.5 2.8 Professional and business services 1,171 1,200 1,136 1,144 1,120 1,174 5.6 5.7 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.5 Education and health services 668 715 692 717 724 714 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 Educational services 90 97 106 124 113 103 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.3 3.0 2.8 Health care and social assistance 578 618 586 593 611 611 2.9 3.1 2.9 2.9 3.0 3.0 Leisure and hospitality 1,040 1,114 1,085 1,037 1,116 1,075 6.4 6.8 6.6 6.3 6.7 6.5 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 183 191 180 154 181 179 7.7 7.9 7.4 6.3 7.3 7.3 Accommodation and food services 856 923 905 883 935 896 6.2 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.6 6.3 Other services 175 224 249 209 228 180 3.0 3.8 4.2 3.6 3.9 3.1 Government 351 362 375 364 395 355 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.6 Federal 31 37 44 36 35 36 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 State and local 320 325 331 328 360 319 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.6 State and local education 163 170 178 176 184 162 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.6 State and local, excluding education 157 155 153 152 176 157 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.7 REGION Northeast 853 870 924 871 879 868 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 South 2,194 2,394 2,268 2,204 2,334 2,349 4.1 4.4 4.1 4.0 4.2 4.3 Midwest 1,269 1,287 1,312 1,324 1,300 1,276 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.9 West 1,279 1,326 1,318 1,318 1,316 1,203 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.5
Table 3. Total separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 5,270 5,642 5,597 5,469 5,532 5,556 3.6 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.7 INDUSTRY Total private 4,930 5,279 5,230 5,122 5,146 5,187 3.9 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.0 Mining and logging 29 31 35 34 31 32 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.5 4.1 4.2 Construction 318 344 380 369 387 366 4.4 4.7 5.2 5.0 5.2 4.9 Manufacturing 348 352 361 342 355 341 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 Durable goods 192 208 203 175 174 193 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.4 Nondurable goods 156 144 157 167 180 148 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.5 3.8 3.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities 1,016 1,195 1,141 1,134 1,098 1,113 3.7 4.3 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.0 Wholesale trade 134 154 165 143 141 134 2.3 2.6 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.3 Retail trade 682 801 741 765 735 724 4.3 5.1 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.6 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 200 240 235 226 222 255 3.4 4.0 3.9 3.7 3.6 4.2 Information 91 68 88 87 93 88 3.2 2.4 3.1 3.1 3.3 3.1 Financial activities 192 166 195 180 184 183 2.3 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.1 Finance and insurance 140 104 132 131 113 138 2.2 1.6 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.2 Real estate and rental and leasing 52 63 63 49 71 45 2.3 2.8 2.8 2.1 3.1 2.0 Professional and business services 1,101 1,161 1,092 1,116 1,085 1,134 5.3 5.5 5.1 5.3 5.1 5.3 Education and health services 643 663 651 652 662 709 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 3.0 Educational services 107 99 101 101 87 117 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 3.1 Health care and social assistance 537 564 549 551 575 593 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.9 Leisure and hospitality 1,011 1,079 1,056 1,007 1,043 1,032 6.2 6.6 6.4 6.1 6.3 6.2 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 170 176 177 153 151 162 7.2 7.2 7.3 6.3 6.1 6.5 Accommodation and food services 840 904 879 853 892 870 6.1 6.4 6.3 6.0 6.3 6.1 Other services 180 219 233 201 208 189 3.1 3.7 4.0 3.4 3.5 3.2 Government 341 363 367 347 386 369 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 Federal 35 32 35 44 32 36 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.2 1.3 State and local 305 332 332 304 353 333 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.5 1.8 1.7 State and local education 157 185 184 163 182 170 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.6 State and local, excluding education 149 147 147 141 172 163 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 REGION Northeast 792 816 790 820 770 767 2.9 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.8 2.8 South 2,131 2,193 2,253 2,197 2,280 2,332 3.9 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.2 Midwest 1,093 1,314 1,347 1,231 1,224 1,202 3.4 4.0 4.1 3.7 3.7 3.6 West 1,255 1,319 1,206 1,221 1,258 1,256 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6
Table 4. Quits levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 3,176 3,469 3,379 3,391 3,483 3,480 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 INDUSTRY Total private 3,012 3,287 3,184 3,205 3,282 3,288 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 Mining and logging 20 19 20 22 19 20 2.9 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.7 Construction 153 180 174 185 185 186 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 Manufacturing 214 205 226 211 212 209 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 Durable goods 119 112 126 111 110 121 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 Nondurable goods 95 93 100 100 101 87 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.8 Trade, transportation, and utilities 649 732 706 715 727 740 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 Wholesale trade 83 85 95 89 87 90 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 Retail trade 450 514 480 493 512 501 2.8 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.2 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 116 133 131 133 128 149 2.0 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.5 Information 48 43 56 43 51 49 1.7 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.8 1.7 Financial activities 114 108 101 106 102 103 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Finance and insurance 78 61 64 76 64 79 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 Real estate and rental and leasing 36 47 37 31 38 23 1.6 2.1 1.6 1.3 1.7 1.0 Professional and business services 625 673 625 649 664 645 3.0 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.0 Education and health services 401 461 451 448 433 459 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 Educational services 53 66 52 52 39 62 1.4 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 1.7 Health care and social assistance 349 395 400 397 394 397 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Leisure and hospitality 685 732 686 706 753 758 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.3 4.5 4.6 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 75 89 70 56 74 79 3.2 3.7 2.9 2.3 3.0 3.2 Accommodation and food services 609 643 615 650 679 679 4.4 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.8 4.8 Other services 103 134 139 120 137 119 1.8 2.3 2.4 2.0 2.3 2.0 Government 165 182 195 186 201 191 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 Federal 14 16 18 20 14 16 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 State and local 151 166 178 166 187 175 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 State and local education 79 92 96 89 105 99 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.9 State and local, excluding education 72 74 81 77 82 76 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.8 REGION Northeast 451 406 412 464 441 427 1.7 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 South 1,341 1,436 1,391 1,423 1,448 1,499 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 Midwest 665 797 817 744 797 761 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 West 719 831 759 760 797 793 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3
Table 5. Layoffs and discharges levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 1,763 1,855 1,889 1,751 1,695 1,742 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 INDUSTRY Total private 1,646 1,731 1,780 1,653 1,562 1,626 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.3 Mining and logging 7 10 13 10 11 9 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.3 1.4 1.3 Construction 161 148 192 164 181 171 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.3 Manufacturing 116 130 109 111 123 114 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 Durable goods 60 83 60 51 52 59 0.8 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 Nondurable goods 56 47 49 60 70 55 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.3 1.5 1.2 Trade, transportation, and utilities 301 409 366 360 305 313 1.1 1.5 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 Wholesale trade 43 58 50 45 43 34 0.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 Retail trade 184 256 221 230 179 185 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.1 1.2 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 74 96 94 85 82 94 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.5 Information 35 21 24 38 32 31 1.3 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.1 1.1 Financial activities 45 34 64 58 57 56 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 Finance and insurance 31 20 44 44 33 37 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.6 Real estate and rental and leasing 15 14 20 14 24 19 0.7 0.6 0.9 0.6 1.0 0.8 Professional and business services 425 418 426 406 358 416 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.7 2.0 Education and health services 181 165 166 155 175 197 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.8 Educational services 44 28 45 42 42 49 1.2 0.8 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.3 Health care and social assistance 138 136 121 112 133 149 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 Leisure and hospitality 308 320 329 279 263 258 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.6 1.5 Arts, entertainment, and recreation 91 85 100 96 74 82 3.9 3.5 4.1 3.9 3.0 3.3 Accommodation and food services 217 236 230 183 189 176 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.2 Other services 66 75 89 73 59 60 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0 Government 117 125 110 98 132 116 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.5 Federal 10 7 5 9 10 6 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 State and local 107 118 104 89 122 110 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 State and local education 54 67 63 51 53 48 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 State and local, excluding education 53 51 42 38 70 61 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.7 REGION Northeast 285 350 318 303 280 280 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.0 South 663 663 720 649 676 710 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.3 Midwest 363 442 464 407 365 380 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.2 1.1 1.1 West 451 401 387 392 374 372 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1
Table 6. Other separations levels and rates by industry and region, seasonally adjusted Industry and region Levels (in thousands) Rates Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Feb.
2018 Oct.
2018 Nov.
2018 Dec.
2018 Jan.
2019 Feb.
2019 Total 331 318 328 327 355 334 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 INDUSTRY Total private 272 261 266 263 302 273 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Mining and logging 2 2 1 2 1 2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 Construction 5 16 14 21 21 8 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.1 Manufacturing 19 16 25 19 21 18 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Durable goods 13 12 17 13 12 13 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 Nondurable goods 5 4 8 6 9 5 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Trade, transportation, and utilities 66 55 69 59 66 60 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Wholesale trade 8 12 20 8 11 10 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 Retail trade 47 31 40 41 43 39 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 11 12 10 9 12 12 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 Information 8 3 7 6 11 7 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.3 Financial activities 33 24 30 15 25 25 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 Finance and insurance 31 23 24 11 16 21 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.3 Real estate and rental and leasing 2 1 5 | 0 | train |
|
Australia Becomes First Country To Begin Microchipping Its Citizens It is being reported that Australia is becoming the first nation in the world to begin microchipping its citizens. This surprising new development is the result of several years of a sustained propaganda that has actually led to Australian citizens voluntarily putting themselves forward for the controversial program.
Australia is getting its citizens microchipped
Shanti Korporaal, who lives in the Australian city of Sydney has found herself at the center of headlines of the new venture after having implants surgically implanted in both of her hands. She says that she has no regrets about the procedure and that she encourages others to follow in her footsteps. The implants are fitted with a unique identifier which can be used to get through locked doors, to transfer personal information into devices and even connected to bank details. "You could set up your life, so you never have to worry about any passwords or PINs, "Korporaal told reporters when justifying her decision. Another anonymous individual who had also voluntarily undergone the procedure said that they had done it for the purpose of ‘convenience.'
But while it may be convenient in the short-term, the long-term implications of having microchips implanted directly into the human body are terrifying. Modern technology has allowed the government and law enforcement agencies an almost unprecedented level of access to the details of the lives of ordinary citizens. In the United States, there are regular reports that indicate that law enforcement agencies such as the police and the FBI are already tracking cell phones without a warrant on a fairly routine basis. In addition to this, revelations by the whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed that the government is accessing and storing a vast amount of information about every single person, whether they are under suspicion or not, from their online devices.
This means that civil liberties campaigners are deeply concerned about this burgeoning trend of microchipping which will essentially allow the government to have a permanent record of a citizen’s every movement and transaction. After all, the only way to remove a surgically implanted microchip is another painful operation. Civil liberties advocates are baffled by the way private citizens are actually volunteering to forego their privacy and security in such an intrusive manner. | 1 | train |
|
Liberal Women Hate Me Because Of My “Striking Beauty And Intellect”, Says Kellyanne Conway Kellyanne Conway, counselor to President Trump claimed that Liberal women hate her because of her “striking beauty and intellect” in comments that were made to a reporter at a luncheon in Washington D.C.
Pundits were quick to capitalise on her comments and tell her that if she and her boss were doing a good job and being open and honest with the American people then she wouldn’t have to face much criticism.
“Making ridiculous claims that she’s being hated because of her good looks is as ridiculous as it gets. The American people don’t care if she looks like a model or not. All they want is to see her doing a good job and not spinning facts around,” wrote James Collin, a New York based attorney and registered Democrat.
Kellyanne Conway’s comments have caused reactions on social media especially on Twitter where she has been blasted as “a show off and trying to divert attention from the most important issues facing our country.”
What do you think of her comments? Let us know in the comments section below and please share and like our Facebook Page. | 1 | train |
|
Biden raises possibility of 2020 presidential bid Vice President Biden on Monday raised the possibility of a presidential bid in 2020.
“I am going to run in 2020,” Biden told a group of reporters in the Capitol when asked about his political future. “What the hell man, anyway.”
Asked if he was kidding about running, the 74-year-old paused before saying he is “not committing not to run.”
“I am not committed to anything,” he added. “I learned a long time ago, fate has a strange way of intervening.”
It would be surprising if Biden decided to continue his decadeslong political career, which many assumed would end once President Obama and he leave the White House next month.
Biden will be 78 in 2020 and would by far be the oldest person ever to win a major-party presidential nomination if he became the Democrats’ standard-bearer.
After months of toying with a presidential run this cycle, Biden announced last October that he would not mount a bid. He said he ran out of time “necessary to mount a winning campaign” while mourning the loss of his son, Beau, to cancer.
Biden spoke publicly before the election about his post-White House plans, which include working on his cancer moonshot initiative, a possible policy project with a major university and writing a book.
The vice president was at the Capitol on Monday afternoon to preside over the Senate as it held a vote on legislation funding the cancer initiative, a portion of which the chamber named after Beau.
He would have to put that work aside if he decided to launch a presidential bid in four years.
The vice president has long had his eye on the Oval Office. He ran for president in 1988 and again in 2008, losing both times in his party’s primary.
In the past few months, he has repeatedly refused to rule out a future run for office. He told CNN in October his decision not to run in 2016 was solely because of his son’s death.
"I didn't run for one simple overarching reason. My son was dying and he died," Biden said. "I didn't not run because Hillary’s running. I didn't run because my son's not here.” | 1 | train |
|
Prince William May Not Attend Royal Wedding Leaving Harry Without a Best Man; Princess Diana Would Not Be Happy No one likely ever thought that Prince William would miss his little brother's wedding. Sadly, it might just happen.
The latest news from sources is that Prince William is in the middle of a huge predicament, one that could change relationships.
Prince William has to choose to either go to Prince Harry's wedding and stand by his side as the best man or choose to attend a soccer game.
While for most of us it seems like an easy choice. Family over soccer. However, for Prince William, it won't be so easy.
Saturday is not just the big Royal wedding; it's also England's Football Association Cup final against Manchester United and Chelsea. He is expected to be there.
Knowing what we know about Prince William, he would rather be at the wedding than at a soccer game. However, it's not just a soccer game and he's not just a spectator, he's the FA president. He has been for over a decade.
Each and every year, the FA president is expected to be in attendance at the final game at Wembley Stadium. The president's job is also to award the final cup trophy to the winning team.
This long-standing tradition and a popular England sporting event will be a hard one for Prince William to miss.
While this quandary isn't unexpected news to Prince William, he's been thinking about it for months. In an interview with radio broadcaster Rio Ferdinand in January, he expressed his upcoming dilemma.
“It’s a big decision, are we going to Wembley, or are we going to...?” William asking Rio. “You’ve touched on something there, Rio, yeah. I’m still working it out. I’ll see what I can do.”
Even though both events are happening the same day, he may be able to attend both. The wedding is at noon, and the soccer game is at 5:30 p.m.
Being 20 miles apart from each other, he could attend the reception at St. George's Chapel and take his helicopter to Wembley to present the trophy. After that, he could travel back to the evening reception at the Frogmore House.
There is no final word yet as to what Prince William will do. Let's hope he can pull it off!
Do you think he can? Let us know in the comment section!
https://rumble.com/embed/u9sgx.v1e83z/
In other news, a famous athlete dies in a horrendous car crash after dropping his kids off at school. The family is requesting prayers. | 1 | train |
|
Sid Miller 移動:
このメニューを開くには、 alt と / を同時に押してください | 1 | train |
|
Rockefeller: An Opportunity We Cant Pass Up Rockefeller: An Opportunity We Cant Pass Up
Earlier this month, the president outlined a clear vision for health care reform a plan that will put families ahead of corporate profits, reduce skyrocketing health care costs and provide a strong pathway for more Americans to access meaningful and affordable care. With Congress back in session and back to work on health care reform, we must continue to build on the presidents vision and capitalize on this profound opportunity to fix a broken system and make life better for millions of Americans.
Today, it is an undeniable fact that millions of families carry the burden of failed health care policies and unmet promises. Too many feel as if they are walking a tightrope just one serious illness threatens to throw them off balance and send them tumbling down.
Real protection for the American people means health coverage must be accountable the insurance that you buy today must be there when you need it tomorrow. Too many families who have paid their premiums faithfully every month for years expecting to be covered suddenly find themselves stuck with devastatingly high bills when they get sick; their plans dont actually provide coverage when they need it. It makes you wonder what the purpose of that health insurance is in the first place, if it offers no protection against the ruin that they hoped to avoid.
As chairman of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care, I believe we must continue to make tougher insurance regulation and greater transparency a top priority, and I will fight to protect families and businesses across the nation.
The Finance Committee has laid out its framework, but at this point it simply does not go far enough to protect Americans from devastating insurance practices or outright loss of coverage.
Many Americans 46 percent get their health coverage through large employers in the self-insured market. Any new insurance market reforms, such as a prohibition on rescissions and benefit caps, should apply to this market as well. Otherwise, we will be doing very little to improve the coverage of a significant number of Americans.
In West Virginia, the example of a local garment company, Corbin Limited, is a sad reminder of the self-insured markets risks. When Corbin declared bankruptcy in April 2003, 444 former employees were left with $2 million in medical bills. With a self-funded plan, Corbin was subject only to the Department of Labors inadequate regulation and had no licensing requirements or solvency standards. When the company went under, its employees had no means of appeal.
Comprehensive health insurance reforms like prohibiting rescissions, eliminating pre-existing condition exclusions and protecting employees in case of bankruptcy must apply to all insurers and policies in every single market including the self-insured.
In the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, we recently heard testimony by Wendell Potter, who worked in the insurance industry for more than 20 years. He explained very clearly the tactics insurance companies use to keep policyholders in the dark. He said they deceive consumers with incomprehensible explanations of their benefits, often leading people to simply ignore them or throw them away.
He also said that more and more consumers are falling victim to deceptive marketing practices which essentially encourage them to buy policies with high costs and limited benefits.
Consumers cant make real choices because the insurance industry doesnt use standard terms or definitions. And consumers cant challenge insurance companies decisions because the companies dont explain the terms of coverage in clear, understandable language. When insurance companies fail to meet their obligations to these people, it literally becomes a matter of life and death.
Thats why since March, Ive been holding a series of hearings in the Commerce panel to get to the bottom of these misleading practices and demanding explanations from companies like CIGNA. And its why I wholeheartedly believe that holding insurance companies including self-insured plans accountable for their actions has to be at the heart of any true health care reform.
Insurance companies have seen their profits soar by more than 400 percent since 2001, while premiums for consumers have doubled. Right now, the insurance industry is profit-driven when it should be patient-driven.
Theyre unfairly raising prices, cutting people out of coverage for pre-existing conditions and, as one report I released through the committee revealed, systematically overcharging consumers who choose to see doctors outside of their networks.
To fight back, I have introduced the Consumers Health Care Act. In addition to creating a strong public insurance option that would put competitive pressure on insurance companies and help drive down costs, my legislation also creates Americas Health Insurance Trust created for consumers and run by consumers.
The presidents speech marked the first time the public option has been clearly explained to the American people. He reopened the door to a serious discussion about a public insurance option and the time to have that discussion is now.
Our goal is comprehensive reform and that takes work, long hours, some disagreement, a lot of coming together and a deep commitment to bringing families real solutions once and for all. I share the presidents confidence and resolve that we will succeed.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) is chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Health Care. | 0 | train |
|
112-Year-Old Voters in North Carolina? Early voting began in North Carolina in October, and soon after almost 900 voters aged 112 reportedly cast ballots. In fact in 2008, almost 10,000 108-year olds cast ballots and just over 9,000 110-year olds voted in 2010.
Have this many centenarians actually been voting in North Carolina, or is this a sign of voter fraud as some have asked? Neither, according to the State Board of Elections.
The true explanation is much less exciting.
Prior to passage of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 1993, the state did not require those registering to provide their birth date. While most voters who registered before NVRA did provide birth dates, some did not. These voters were automatically assigned a default birth date of 01/01/1900 in the state’s voter rolls. So while these voters are still diligently voting, it is very doubtful they are 112 years old. | 1 | train |
|
White House Chef Quits Because Trump Has Only Eaten Fast Food For 6 Months Following the recent resignation of Director of the Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub Jr., the Trump Administration has unexpectedly accepted another resignation: White House Chef Lisa Mead.
Mead reportedly decided to resign because President Donald Trump hasn’t utilized her culinary talents even once the entire time he has been living in the White House.
“It’s kind of crazy because Lisa is such a good chef,” said Kurt Reno, the White House aide who recommended Ms. Mead for the job. “But Lisa feels insulted because the President has ordered fast food for literally every single meal he’s eaten in D.C. The only food-related duty Lisa has done for the past six months is retrieve Trump’s orders from drive-through windows and scoop the President’s ice cream from the carton.”
Mr. Trump’s favorite fast food choices are reportedly Kentucky Fried Chicken and McDonalds, and he eats his fried chicken, burgers, and fries with a knife and fork according to a White House staffer who requested anonymity to avoid consequences from leaking about the President’s eating habits to the press.
“It’s borderline creepy,” the staffer said. “The first thing Trump does with his fried chicken is pick off all the skin from every piece like he’s dissecting the chickens with a scalpel or something, and then he puts it all in a pile. Then he cuts off all the lean meat and throws it away, leaving just the pieces of fat which he then eats individually with pieces of the crispy skin he peeled off. It’s gotta be a warning sign of a serial killer or something.”
Mr. Trump’s McDonalds habits are even weirder.
“He orders the same thing every time,” said the staffer. “He orders two big macs, a large fry, a diet coke of course, and an M&M McFlurry that he has Lisa dig out and remove every brown M&M, and then he makes her dump out half of the ice cream and fill it back up with extra M&M’s. Then he cuts off pieces of his big macs and dips them in the McFlurry so every bite has ice cream and chocolate on it. He dips his fries, still with a fork, in the diet coke as if it were a condiment. The sight of this never gets normal. When Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe saw this routine he threw up.”
No wonder Chef Lisa Mead quit. The Halfway Post wishes her good luck on her future endeavors.
(Photo courtesy of Shelby Bell.)
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
| 1 | train |
|
Change We Can Believe In Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: The Past Versus the Future
Denver, CO | January 30, 2008
Thank you Caroline - for your introduction, your support, and your lifetime of service to a grateful nation. You continue to inspire Americans of all ages and walks of life.
Let me also say a few words about another American who has called us to a common purpose. John Edwards has spent a lifetime fighting to give voice to the voiceless and hope to the struggling. At a time when our politics is too focused on who's up and who's down, he made us focus on who matters - the New Orleans child without a home, the West Virginia miner without a job, the families who live in that other America that is not seen or heard or talked about in Washington. John and Elizabeth Edwards believe deeply that two Americans can become one. Their campaign may have ended, but this cause lives on for all of us who believe that we can achieve one America.
Seven months from now, the Democratic Party will gather here in Denver to nominate our candidate for President of the United States.
We will come together after a long and hard fought primary campaign - and that's a good thing. Because it is through campaigns that we hear directly from the American people, set our common goals, and debate our differences. It is through campaigns that we bring new people into the process; build new coalitions; and renew who we are and what we stand for as a Party.
It is fitting that the journey leads to Denver - a city that is younger than the Democratic Party itself, but filled with the promise that our Party has always fought for. This city, built at the base of the Rocky Mountains, stands as a monument to a uniquely American belief in things unseen. Here, in Denver, fur trappers and traders; gold rushers and ranchers; came in search of opportunity, and made the future their own.
The story of America leads west. It is a story of ideals that know no boundaries. It is a story of immigrants who set out from distant shores; pioneers who persevered; and people of all races, religions, and ethnic groups who put aside their doubts to seek a new frontier.
My own family's journey moved west - from Kansas, where my grandparents met and married, and my mother was born; to the Pacific Coast after World War II; and then across an ocean to Hawaii. Their journey - like so many others - speaks to a simple truth written into the story of America. It's a truth at the foundation of the Democratic Party's purpose, Denver's progress, and our nation's promise: in America, the future is what we decide it's going to be.
As candidates, we must give new meaning to that promise. And seven months from now, one of us will stand before that convention hall, and give voice to the hopes, and dreams, and determination of Americans all across our country. In six days, you get to choose who will be that voice. You get to choose who will be able to build a new majority of not just Democrats - but Independents and Republicans - to win in November, and transform our country. And if you put your trust in me, I will stand up at that convention and say that our divisions are past, our hope is the future, and our time for change has come.
Now there is one thing we know for certain about the election in November: the name George Bush will not be on the ballot. The name of my cousin - Dick Cheney - will not be on the ballot. But the choice before you is about what comes next. Because we need to do more than turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney policies; we have to turn the page on the politics that helped make those policies possible.
Lobbyists setting an agenda in Washington that feeds the inequality, insecurity, and instability in our economy.
Division and distraction that keeps us from coming together to deal with challenges like health care, and clean energy, and crumbling schools year after year after year.
Cronyism that gave us Katrina instead of competent government. And secrecy that made torture permissible and illegal wiretaps possible.
It's a politics that uses 9/11 to scare up votes; and fear and falsehoods to lead us into a war in Iraq that should've never been authorized and should've never been waged.
Each candidate running for the Democratic nomination shares an abiding desire to end the disastrous policies of the current administration. But we must decide - in the debate that leads to Denver - just what kind of Party we want to be, and what lessons we've learned from the bitter partisanship of the last two decades. We can be a Party that tries to beat the other side by practicing the same do-anything, say-anything, divisive politics that has stood in the way of progress; or we can be a Party that puts an end to it.
I am running for President because I believe that we need fundamental change in America. Not just a change of Party in the White House, but change in Washington that the American people can believe in - unity instead of division; hope instead of fear; a politics that leaves behind the fights of the past so that we can finally take hold of our future.
We began this campaign one year ago on the steps of the old statehouse in Springfield. At the time, we made a bet on the American people. That bet was simple - we weren't going to change anything by relying on the same Washington games; instead, we were betting on the American people's hunger for change, and your ability to make change happen from the bottom-up.
And we are showing America what change looks like. From the snows of Iowa to the sunshine of South Carolina, we have built a movement of young and old; rich and poor; black and white; Latino, Asian and Native American. We've reached Americans of all political stripes who are more interested in turning the page than turning up the heat on our opponents. That's how Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress. Not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us, but by choosing one who can unite this country around a movement for change.
If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't take a dime from Washington lobbyists and PACs. We don't need a candidate who agrees with Republicans that lobbyists are part of the system in Washington. They're part of the problem. And when I'm President, their days of setting the agenda in Washington will be over.
If you choose change, you will have a nominee who doesn't just tell people what they want to hear. Poll-tested positions and calculated answers might be how Washington confronts challenges, but it's not how you overcome them; it's not how you inspire our nation to come together behind a common purpose; and it's not what America needs right now.
If you choose change, you will have a nominee who isn't just playing on the same electoral map where half the country starts out against us, because you will have a nominee who has already brought in more Independents and Republicans; young people and new voters; than we have seen in a generation.
I know it is tempting - after another presidency by a man named George Bush - to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th Century. There are those will tell us that our Party should nominate someone who is more practiced in the art of pursuing power; that's it's not yet our turn or our time. There was also a time when Caroline Kennedy's father was counseled by a former President to “be patient,” and to step aside for “someone with greater experience.” But John F. Kennedy responded by saying, “The world is changing. The old ways will not do…It is time for a new generation of leadership.”
It is time for a new generation of leadership, because the old politics just won't do. I am running for President - right now - because I have met Americans all across this country who cannot afford to wait another day for change. That is why the real choice in this campaign is not between regions or religions or genders. It's not about rich versus poor; young versus old; and it is not about black versus white.
It is about the past versus the future. And when I am the nominee, the Republicans won't be able to make this election about the past because you will have already chosen the future.
It's time for new leadership for an economy where families are being forced to foreclose on their dreams, and workers have seen their pensions disappear.
In the short-term, we need what I have consistently called for - a stimulus plan that gives the American people a tax rebate, and that also extends relief to seniors and expands unemployment insurance. And in the long-term, we need to put the American Dream on a firmer foundation. We're not going to offer the American people the choice they need by nominating a candidate who voted to put the banks and big business ahead of hard-working Americans. I've been fighting for working people my entire public life. And when I am President, I'll make sure that CEOs can't dump your pension with one hand while they collect a bonus with the other. I'll pass bankruptcy laws that protect workers instead of banks. And I'll crack down on fraudulent mortgage lenders, and credit card companies that change your rates to push you further into debt.
It's time for new leadership for the Maytag worker who is now competing with his own teenage son for a $7 an-hour job at Walmart because the factory he gave his life to shut its doors.
We're not going to offer the American people the choice they need by nominating a candidate who argues year after year for trade that isn't fair, but calls for a time-out on trade when they run for President. I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas and start putting them in the pockets of working Americans. I will stop giving the wealthiest Americans tax cuts that they don't need and didn't ask for, and restore fairness to our economy. I'll give a tax cut to working people; provide relief to homeowners; and eliminate the income tax for seniors making under $50,000 so they can retire with the dignity and security they have earned.
It's time for new leadership for the woman I met who can't get Medicaid to cover the needs of her sick child.
She can't afford to wait another four years or another fifteen years to get health care because we've put forward a nominee who can't bring Democrats and Republicans together to get things done. I know that the reason Americans don't have health care isn't because no one is forcing them to buy it - it's because they can't afford it. That's why my plan cuts costs by up to $2500 for a typical family, and makes health care available and affordable for every single American. That's the plan that I'll pass in my first term as President.
It is time for new leadership for children going to overcrowded schools in East L.A.; for the teacher I met who is working at Dunkin Donuts to make ends meet; for the young people who are ready to go to college but can't afford it.
When I'm President, we'll rally this country to the cause of world-class education. That means putting our kids on a pathway to success with universal, quality, affordable early childhood education. That means paying our teachers more, and making sure they're not just teaching to the test - but teaching art and music and literature. That means giving our young people an annual $4,000 tax credit for college tuition if they serve their community; and that means expanding AmeriCorps to 250,000 slots, and issuing a call to service for a new generation. But that also means calling on parents to do their part - to get off the couch, turn off the television, and read to our children. Because responsibility for education starts at home.
It's time for new leadership so that my daughters and your children don't grow up in a century where our economy is weighed down by our addiction to oil; our foreign policy is held hostage to the whims of dictators; and our planet passes a moment of no return.
When I'm President, we won't wait any longer to reduce emissions. When I called for higher fuel efficiency standards, I didn't do it in front of an environmental group in California or in Boulder - that would have been the easy thing to do. I did it in front of the automakers in Detroit. Now it was pretty quiet - I didn't get a lot of applause. But we need leadership that tells the American people not just what they want to hear, but what we need to know. That's what I'll do. We cannot wait to invest in the next generation of biofuels, and wind and solar. If President Kennedy could send us to the moon in less than a decade - then we can meet this great challenge our generation. We can set the goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050, and we can lead the world to confront the climate crisis.
And it's time for new leadership for the woman who told me that she hasn't been able to breathe since the day her nephew left for Iraq, and the soldier who doesn't know his own child because he's on his third or fourth tour of duty.
I will end the mentality that says the only way for Democrats to look tough on national security is by talking, acting and voting like George Bush Republicans. It's time to reject the counsel that says the American people would rather have someone who is strong and wrong than someone who is weak and right - it's time to say that we are the Party that is going to be strong and right.
It's time for new leadership that understands that the way to win a debate with John McCain is not by nominating someone who agreed with him on voting for the war in Iraq; who agreed with him by voting to give George Bush the benefit of the doubt on Iran; who agrees with him in embracing the Bush-Cheney policy of not talking to leaders we don't like; and who actually differed with him by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.
We need to offer the American people a clear contrast on national security, and when I am the nominee of the Democratic Party, that's exactly what I will do. Talking tough and tallying up your years in Washington is no substitute for judgment, and courage, and clear plans. It's not enough to say you'll be ready from Day One - you have to be right from Day One.
I opposed this war in Iraq from the start, and I have never, ever wavered in that opposition. I warned about taking our eye off of Osama bin Laden, and overstretching our troops and their families as we have seen in communities across this country like Fort Carson. And when I am President, I will immediately begin to remove our troops, I will finally put meaningful pressure on Iraq's leaders to reconcile, and I will end this war. And I will do what we should have done back in 2002: increase our commitment to Afghanistan, press Pakistan to take action against terror, and finish the fight with al Qaeda.
I will challenge the conventional thinking that says we can't conduct diplomacy with leaders we don't like. Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries as well as their friends, and that's what I'll do. And when I am President, we will keep nuclear weapons from terrorists by securing all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term in office. We will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we will pursue it.
It's time for new leadership that reaches out, as President Kennedy did to my own father, to people “in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery.”
It's time to restore our moral leadership by rejecting torture without equivocation; by closing Guantanamo; by restoring habeas corpus; and by again being that light of justice to dissidents in prison camps around the globe. It's time for America to lead the world against the common threats of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons, but also climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. I will send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”
This is what the moment demands of us - to cast off our doubts; to reach once more for what America can be if we have the courage to make the future our own.
We've been warned, in these last few weeks, that this kind of change isn't possible. That we're peddling false hopes. That we need a reality check.
And we've faced forces that are not the fault of any one campaign - forces that open American wounds. The politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon. A politics that tells us what we have to think and even vote within the confines of the categories that supposedly define us. The assumption that young people are apathetic. The assumption that Republicans won't cross over. The assumption that the wealthy care nothing for the poor, and that the poor don't vote. The assumption that African-Americans can't support the white candidate; whites can't support the African-American candidate; and blacks and Latinos can't come together.
But our Party - the Democratic Party - has always been at its best when we rose above these divisions; when we called all Americans to a common purpose, a higher purpose; when we stood up and said that we will write our own future, and the future will be what we want it to be.
We followed a King to the mountaintop, and a Kennedy who called on us to reject the mindless menace of violence.
We're the party of a young President who asked what we could do for our country, and who put us on a path to the moon.
We're the party of a man who overcame his own disability; who told us that the only thing we had to fear was fear itself; and who faced down fascism and liberated a continent from tyranny.
We're the party of Jackson, who took back the White House for the people of this country.
And we're the party of Jefferson, who wrote the words that we are still trying to heed - that all of us are created equal - and who sent us West to blaze new trails, to make new discoveries, and to realize the promise of our highest ideals.
That is who we are. That is the Party that we need to be, and can be, if we cast off our doubts, and leave behind our fears, and choose the America that we know is possible. Because there is a moment in the life of every generation, if it is to make its mark on history, when its spirit has to come through, when it must choose the future over the past, when it must make its own change from the bottom up.
This is our moment. This is our message - the same message we had when we were up, and when we were down. The same message that we will carry all the way to the convention. And in seven months time - right here in Denver - we can realize this promise; we can claim this legacy; we can choose new leadership for America. Because there is nothing we cannot do if the American people decide it is time. | 0 | train |
|
TPMtv Extra: South Carolina Ronald Reagan Debate 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 |
|
In reversal, McCain says lift ban on offshore drilling Fill out this form to email this article to a friend Your name Your email Recipient email
You may enter up to 20 multiple email addresses, separated by commas.
Your message
Click here to try again. We were unable to send your email. In reversal, McCain says lift ban on offshore drilling By Wes Allison, Times Staff Writer
In print: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Story Tools E-mail this story Contact the editor Print this story Comment on this story Social Bookmarking Digg Facebook Stumbleupon Reddit Del.icio.us Newsvine ADVERTISEMENT WASHINGTON — In a break with his past policy and his allies in the environmental movement, Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Monday called for ending the federal ban on offshore oil and natural gas exploration so coastal states could decide whether to permit drilling. And as an incentive to boost domestic energy production, states that do approve exploration off their shores should be paid "tangible financial benefits," McCain said. "I think that this … would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis," he told reporters at his Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters. He plans to expound on his plan today in Houston. "We've (seen the rising costs of energy) in the form of food prices, in the form of gasoline, in the form of threats of inflation. … And we must — we must — embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse gases through the development of alternate energy sources," he said. "And, as I said, exploration is a step toward the longer-term goal." Gov. Charlie Crist, a close ally of McCain's who has long opposed drilling off Florida's coasts, said he loved the idea of giving states control, and he didn't rule out allowing exploration off Florida. "It's the last thing in the world I'd like to do, but I also understand what people are paying at the pump, and I understand the drag it is on our economy," Crist told the St. Petersburg Times Monday night. "Something has to be done in a responsible, pragmatic way." McCain has supported the moratorium on offshore drilling in the past and has touted his position during campaign stops in Florida. The Arizona senator also opposes drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But with the price of gasoline topping $4 per gallon, the pressure on him and other politicians to act is enormous, though there is little any of them can do to ease prices in the near term. Environmentalists worry that state legislatures would be unduly influenced by the promise of cash and heavy lobbying by well-financed business groups, such as the Associated Industries of Florida, which supports drilling off Florida. "It would be hard for state legislatures in Florida and anywhere else to resist a big pot of money being dangled in front of their nose, especially states that are facing big budget shortfalls," said Holly Binns, field director of Environment Florida. In calling for states to decide, McCain has laid out a politically cautious position: He moved closer to conservative leaders and his Republican colleagues on Capitol Hill, who have been demanding more offshore drilling. Just last week, Democrats on a House subcommittee narrowly defeated a Republican attempt to overturn the 26-year-old moratorium. Yet by giving states the final say, McCain also is less likely to alienate voters in Florida and other coastal states who fear drilling will bring pollution. Asked how far offshore states should be able to control, McCain said: "I think that's a subject of negotiation and discussion. But right now, as you know, there's a moratorium, and those … moratoria have to be lifted. And they have to be lifted so that states can make those decisions." Crist said the idea was "brilliant" because "it leaves it up to the states to decide what's best for themselves." As for whether he could see Florida allowing drilling under McCain's plan, Crist said it depends on "how far (from shore), how safe, how protective of our environment it would be — there are many contingencies that would have to go into it." Since 1982, a congressional moratorium renewed each year has closed most of the U.S. coastline to drilling, with the exception of waters off Alaska and in the western and central Gulf of Mexico. A presidential moratorium enacted by the first President George Bush in 1990 also prohibits drilling. The federal Minerals Management Service estimates that 86-billion barrels of oil and 420-trillion cubic feet of natural gas lie in undiscovered reserves off the U.S. coast, though the agency could not say how much of it is now off-limits. Considering the United States uses about 20-million barrels of oil each day — 60 percent of it imported — that is about 11 years worth of oil, and Republicans in Congress have been clamoring lately to tap it. But there's no guarantee most of that oil is even accessible, and finding and drilling those reserves would take years, experts say. In late 2006, McCain supported a congressional compromise for the eastern Gulf of Mexico that bars drilling within about 230 miles of Tampa Bay through 2022, while opening 8.3-million acres to drilling. The government estimates the area contains 1.26-billion barrels of oil and 5.8-trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Production there has not yet begun. Several East Coast states, especially Virginia, have expressed interest in allowing drilling off their shores in return for a share of the money that oil companies pay the federal government for drilling rights. A spokesman for McCain's Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Obama opposes McCain's idea and instead would make "significant investments in alternative forms of energy." Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., a leading opponent of offshore drilling, called the idea "irresponsible." "There isn't enough oil in the U.S. to make even the smallest dent in world oil prices," said Nelson, who on Monday introduced a bill to ban unregulated speculative trading of oil, which some experts blame for the sharp price increases. "To curb prices in the short run, we need to regulate oil traders. For the long term, we need to break America's oil addiction," he said. Wes Allison can be reached at [email protected] or (202) 463-0577.
[Last modified: Jun 18, 2008 12:02 PM]
Share your thoughts on this story Read our guidelines for comments First Name (only)
Location
Comment (May be published online and/or in print)
You have 250 characters left to comment.
Comments on this article by Issywise Jun 17, 2008 12:03 PM The reality will never change-we can't drill our way out of the need to get off dependence on oil. Globs of petro-tar on Pinellas beaches will cost tourist dollars, tax revenue and housing values. You'll pay many ways for your love of easy oil. by mike Jun 17, 2008 12:03 PM "He moved closer to conservative leaders" YES McCain moved a lot closer, just shortly after a recent big campaign fundraiser with Texas oilmen. Coincidence? I think not. We'll not see the oil because it goes to the highest bidder. WAKE UP Folks. by Fuming Jun 17, 2008 12:02 PM This is ridiculous. Letting each state decide will only add to the enormous water quality problem that we're already leaving our children. It won't provide any kind of meaningful relief at the pump. We all need to ratchet back our oil consumption. by Charles Jun 17, 2008 11:06 AM Its time we move past oil. We need the ANWR and clean beaches now. Wind,solar,food friendly ethanol. Let our descendants not drill. The future is now and oil is on its way out. Americans don't panic, we dump the oil/war based Government and grow. by Holly Jun 17, 2008 11:03 AM I think we need to start "sticking it" to the oil companies; let us get new technology going today and get rid of the Exxon type mentality...they are only interested in getting filthy rich off us! by Mike Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM Looks like Florida is in play for Obama after all. by joe tampa Jun 17, 2008 11:01 AM Anyone remember the McCain Amnesty Scam of 2007? And how much it will cost to continue the Iraq fiasco? by Rick Jun 17, 2008 11:00 AM Talk about clueless, Mike there is no addiction. The oil companies and most of our government set the stage for us to be hooked, and then slammed us. If not we would have had better public transportation and access, but that would not be a profit. by Jack Jun 17, 2008 9:17 AM Evidently, those who are against drilling don't understand the influence commodity speculators have in the current cost of a barrel of oil. If Bush were to issue an Executive Order today to drill in ANWR, the price would drop $30-$4o overnight. by Jack Jun 17, 2008 9:16 AM It would take at least 2 - 4 years before any new wells began producing, and even so, there's no guarantee that oil would not be sold in the USA. Right now a lot USA made biodiesel is sold in Europe, not kept here. People need to ask better questions by Scott Jun 17, 2008 9:13 AM The price of oil is not being driven by supply issues. The Saudis confirmed that a couple weeks ago. Big oil is using their profits to bid up the price of oil. Regulate the futures market and watch the price of oil plummet. Oil spill=tourism disaster by Sean Jun 17, 2008 9:13 AM McCain's short term solution will only lead to a long term problem. Alternative energy investment is the only feasible choice. by Barb Jun 17, 2008 9:12 AM The length of time/cost of finding that 1st barrel of oil will not influence the price we pay at the pump or the grocery store. Then there is the idea of 1 State, with the chance to make a lot of money, deciding the fate of the ocean's health. by Kay Jun 17, 2008 9:12 AM Think about it. Eventually, other country's oil will run dry. We will still have our our untapped oil. by sam Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM The public likes to believe by not drilling in the gulf we are saving something. The hundreds of rigs in the northern gulf you never hear about doesn't seem to be causing a problem. WAKE UP AMERICA !! Quit sending all our money to the Arabs. by Ray Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM Drilling is NOT the answer. It's like giving more crack to a drug addict. Converting to 4 day workweek, getting rid of your SUV's, and getting rid of drive-thru lines at businesses are the proper steps to take. by Winston Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM Charlie Christ (aka the perfect politician) can change gears faster than an Indy driver. YAHOO go Charlie. OH! and thanks for the help with my homeowners. haha by jb Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM Hey McCain,(aka"old goat"),why don't we start using the the oil we already refine,instead of selling it overseas,then we won't need to ruin our beaches,it will just be more oil that the oil companies can sell overseas,instead of helping,America by Sean Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM McCain's short term solution will only lead to a long term problem. Alternative energy investment is the only feasible choice. by darryl Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM when are all the morons gonna realize even if there is a lot of oil there.it isnt gonna lower the price of gas that much,but instead just tear up something nice.use the costs for this to make alternative fuel,and energy. by Linda Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM Bill Nelson needs to get another soap box to preach from!!! We, the American people, desperately need new oil fields and offshore drilling. We may not see the results, but our children will!! Get with it Nelson!!! by Parker Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM it is about time someone stands up against the environmental lobbyists. thank you McCain. if states want to drill for oil, then let them. that is why Alaska became a state in the first place. by sheila Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM Here we go another republican trying to get more oil to fatten his pockets.yeehaw by JM Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM About time we woke up.We nrrd to drill in the Gulf.And Bill Nelson needs to get with the program.I'm sure he can afford these priges but the average person can't.And it is obvious he doesn't care.Typical Democrat all about themselves. by H MAN Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM Yeah ruin Florida's tourist industry with the first oil spill accident. Brilliant. by Regina Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM He just lost my vote. by Robert Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM Bill Nelson needs to get his head out of the sand and realize that there is no way we are going to make a dent in oil consumption through conservation. WE NEED OIL! He's wrong--the US has lots of it, and we should get it now! by Georgette Jun 17, 2008 8:26 AM WHY NOT DRILL OFF THE COAST AS WELL AS ANWA ALASKA....FLORIDA NEEDS TO BUILD SOME REFINERIES AS WELL AS IN THE REST OF THE USA.McCain has my vote!! by Kathleen Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM Charlie, think about it. The US oil companies are benefiting from the rising Mideast oil prices. Do you really think that even if we could free ourselves from foreign oil, the US oil companies would reduce their prices? by David Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM McCain is more concerned about pandering to big oil than in solving our energy crisis, and he's undercutting his own position on fighting global warming. Crist is also reversing course on the environment, in his desperate ploy to be McCain's VP. Sad. by Mikes Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM Addiction is difficult to break free from.At the pump last week I saw two motorists pumped $20 worth; one pumped $78 worth and another pumped $128! Who do you think was more addicted to oil? $20, $78 or $128 buyers? by Edward Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM Hard to disagree with giving states a choice (NOT HERE PLEASE)... but any notion this might provide short-term relief at the pump is baloney, it takes *years* for a new well to supply product that makes it to the pump. by JH Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM So it's okay to keep sending dollars to people who hates us? We should've been drilling years ago. Instead Clinton/Gore gave us the SUV tax credit and our addiction grew.Mccain is pulling a kerry but at least he finally gets it.Obama=clueless. by greg Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM this is leadership? caving in to his right wing and the oil lobby? for all of his experience, mr.mccain shows extremely poor judgement, again. by jill Jun 17, 2008 8:25 AM Letting each state decide is a great idea. It would not affect Florida and would decrease our dependence on foreign oil. | 0 | train |
|
Ohio student suspended for staying in class during National Walkout Day An Ohio high school student said he tried to stay apolitical during the National Walkout Day over gun violence but was suspended for his choice to remain in a classroom instead of joining protests or the alternative, going to study hall.
Jacob Shoemaker, a senior at Hilliard Davidson High School, said he didn’t want to take sides in the gun-control debate consuming the country. If he went outside for the walkout, he said, he would be supporting gun control. If he stayed in the common area of the school, he said, he would be seen as supporting gun violence and disrespecting the 17 lives lost in the Parkland, Fla. High school shooting the month before.
Jacob had met with the school’s principal on Tuesday, a day before the rally, for about an hour to find out what exactly the walkout was supporting. But he said the principal reportedly told him it was for the “students to express themselves.”
COLLEGE STUDENT KICKED OUT OF CLASS FOR TELLING PROFESSOR THERE ARE ONLY TWO GENDERS
This left Jacob wondering if it was a memorial for the lives lost or a show of support for gun control.
He decided, instead, to stay in class for about 20 minutes doing homework after his teacher and fellow classmates left and locked the door.
When they returned, he was slapped with a suspension.
Jacob’s father, Scott Shoemaker, said his son was just trying to stay neutral – and did nothing wrong.
“Politics [doesn’t] belong in the school,” he said. “Students shouldn’t be pressured into taking a side.”
STUDENT WITH ‘TRUMP’ FLAG ASSAULTED BY MOB DURING NATIONAL SCHOOL WALKOUT
The story went viral after Jacob sent a photo of his out-of-school suspension citation to one of his friends, who posted it on social media.
The school, as well as the Shoemakers, have received death threats and hate messages.
Scott Shoemaker said his son was just trying to be introspective – and he wasn’t acting out.
“He didn’t do anything to deserve this,” he said. “He didn’t ask for this.”
CHICAGO STUDENTS ALLEGEDLY TRASH WALMART DURING NATIONAL SCHOOL WALKOUT PROTEST
The district says it's responsible for students' safety and they can't be unsupervised.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. | 1 | train |
|
Secret Service Agent Says Obama Is Muslim & Gay In New Tell-All Book Washington, DC — A former Secret Service agent whose new book is quickly climbing Amazon’s best-seller charts, said he is concerned about the state of the country and says it is time the public knows the real truth about our Commander in Chief, Barack Obama.
Former agent, Paul Horner, in his new tell-all book “The Black House,” reveals what goes on inside the White House when the news cameras are turned off.
In an interview with CNN, Horner told Victor Berman that he is one-hundred-percent positive that President Obama is not only gay, but a radical Muslim as well.
“Everyone on the inside knows that Obama is gay and a Muslim, it is common knowledge,” Horner said. “I saw many men coming and going from Obama’s room, at all hours. I would say a good portion of the men, over fifty-percent, were Muslim.”
Berman: “In your book you talk about several rituals Obama preformed to unwind from his busy schedule. Can you elaborate on these for our viewers?”
Horner: “When no one was around, except his security, Obama couldn’t wait to get out of his suit and into his Muslim tunic. He would wear it while praying to the prophet Muhammad throughout the day. During these prayer sessions he insisted that he not be disturbed.”
Berman: “Your book spends a whole chapter devoted to the various “tortures” that Obama and the First Lady would subject you to. Can you explain?”
Horner: “Because I was white, Obama would force me to listen to Diana Ross full volume, every day, at all hours of the night. It was horrible, I never got any sleep. This is one of the main reasons I finally had to quit.”
Berman: “Can you give us any insight on Obama’s feelings towards the American people?”
Horner: “He constantly made jokes about Americans, frequently referring to them as “mongoloids” and “idiots”. Christians were his favorite verbal punching bags. He has absolutely no respect for the Christian religion. I believe he actually hates Christians, and finds their ideology to be old fashioned and ignorant.”
Berman: What is one of the things readers will find the most shocking?
Horner: “Probably the sheer amount of men he welcomed into his bed quarters. I am in no way homophobic, but Obama’s insatiable lust for homosexual liaisons is like nothing I’ve ever witnessed. We’re talking 10-15 partners in a single day.”
To read more, pick up a copy of Horner’s book, The Black House, now available on Amazon and at your local bookstore.
VIDEO: Secret Service Agent Says Obama Is Muslim & Gay In New Tell-All Book | 1 | train |
|
Palin-Huey 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 |
|
"Give Me a Break" Americans Against Food Taxes TV Ad 2011 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 |
|
Twitter Caught Leaking Donald Trump's Private Messages in Undercover Sting Twitter Caught Leaking Donald Trump's Private Messages in Undercover Sting
Senior Twitter engineer caught on video boasting during Project Veritas investigation
© Neon Nettle / YouTube An investigation by Project Veritas found Twitter is leaking Donald Trump's private data
An undercover investigation by Project Veritas has uncovered mass political bias at the highest levels of Twitter.
One of Twitter's senior engineers has admitted to hacking the president's private data and leaking it to the Department of Justice to "help with their little investigation."
The high-level engineer, Clay Haynes, a self-confessed "bleeding-heart liberal," boasted to covert investigators that his team can access all activity of every user on the site, and can even retrieve deleted messages.
After confessing that the social media sites extreme monitoring of its users was "big brother-ish," he admitted that Twitter disclosed all of Donald Trump's messages to the DOJ, saying:
"Even the ones he’s deleted, any direct messages"
© Youtube The investigation into Twitter was conducted by Project Veritas
A Project Veritas undercover investigation has revealed a senior network security engineer at Twitter stating that his company is “more than happy” to turn over the private communications and deleted tweets of President Donald Trump to the Department of Justice.
If true, it is yet unknown whether Twitter is voluntarily disclosing this sensitive information or acting under a court order.
© Youtube Senior engineer Clay Haynes admitted to leaking he president's private messages
Twitter is currently in the midst of defending itself from left-leaning criticism that President Trump hasn’t been removed from the enormous media platform for violations of Twitter’s Terms of Service.
According to his LinkedIn profile, Clay Haynes has been employed by Twitter since September 2016. On January 3, 2018, he met with a Project Veritas undercover journalist (UCJ) at Stookey's Club Moderne in San Francisco.
© Youtube James O’Keefe went undercover to expose Twitter
Using a hidden video camera, the Veritas UCJ captures Haynes stating that “we’re more than happy to help the DOJ with their little investigation” of President Trump.
When prompted by the UCJ, Mr. Haynes provides additional details, “Basically, giving them every single tweet that he’s posted. Even the ones he’s deleted, any direct messages, any mentions…”
© Youtube Clay Haynes boasts that Twitter can access anyone's private data
“…he’s dangerous, I don’t like him and he’s a terrible human being and I want to get rid of him,” the self-described bleeding-heart liberal Haynes says in the video about President Trump.
“In fact, we had internal reviews about that…”
On January 7, 2018, James O’Keefe himself went undercover with Haynes at Morton’s Steakhouse in San Francisco to confirm if Twitter was working with the Department of Justice to hand over Trump’s tweets and DMs.
© Youtube Twitter's senior engineer boasting about leaking Donald Trump's data
When pressed about looking at Donald Trump’s messages, Haynes explained: “We have a subpoena process for that very reason.”
The conversation continued:
James O’Keefe: “Are you working with DOJ currently on that?” Clay Haynes: “I can’t comment, even if I knew, I wouldn’t comment.”
© Youtube Twitter has access to all user's private data according to Haynes
“The fact is, even if Haynes was just speculating about helping Justice, his admission shows a clear and dangerous political bias at the highest levels of Twitter,” says Project Veritas founder and President James O’Keefe in the video.
“The question is: by Twitter giving private information about the President to the Justice Department, are they breaking the law, betraying a trust, following an official request or satisfying a political agenda by leading a crusade against the President.”
© PV Project Veritas exposed political bias at the highest levels of Twitter
Describing himself as the bouncer of the network, Mr. Haynes also details the level of information Twitter retains in its databases about their hundreds of millions of users.
The Project Veritas Twitter investigation is the fourth installment of its American Pravda series.
In Part I, Veritas disclosed that CNN's Russia coverage is driven by ratings and a political agenda, but in reality, using the words of CNN Political Commentator Van Jones is just a “nothing burger.”
© Youtube Clay Haynes is a self-confessed 'bleeding-heart liberal'
Part II disclosed a political bias at The New York Times which forced executive responses and an immediate change of their social media policy.
Part III exposed political bias at The Washington Post and brought to light that the far-reaching narratives of the paper’s editorial board are not rooted in the factual findings of their subject-matter expert reporters.
© Youtube Clay Haynes reveals political bias at Twitter
Project Veritas will be releasing additional Twitter-related videos over the next several days. | 1 | train |
|
Clinton Foundations Sends Water To Houston For $7 A Bottle 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
– How they get away with it is just sick. Clinton Foundations Sends Water To Houston For $7 A Bottle. The Clinton Foundation is using an outdated rule for non-profits that states that they have the right to compete in the free market regardless of who the competition is. What that translates to is, Since the guy on the corner is fleecin.. | 1 | train |
|
by Mark Halperin A fact sheet on Senator Obama's plan to protect consumers is available HERE
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Credit Cards Event
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Chicago, Illinois
Before we begin, I just wanted to say a word about the flooding devastating so many communities. We were scheduled to be holding this event in Iowa, but we decided to cancel it because we didn't want to divert state resources from going to help with flood relief.
My heart goes out to the families in Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois and across the Midwest, who have been forced to flee their own homes, and leave their businesses and communities behind. Right now, many of them are wondering when they'll be able to return, and what they'll find when they get there. Well, we cannot assure them that their communities will be rebuilt overnight, but we can assure them that they will be rebuilt – because we'll work to ensure that the full resources of our state and federal government are there to help. And I will do everything in my power to see to it that those resources get to the people who need them as swiftly as possible.
You know, over the next two weeks, I'm going to be talking a lot about what we can do to build an economy that works for all Americans. Because for families all across this country, our economy hasn't been working for quite some time. I've met Americans who are doing everything right – who are working that extra shift, or taking on that extra job – but are still struggling just to make ends meet. And a big part of the reason is that they're paying $4 a gallon for gas, and skyrocketing costs for groceries, health care, and college tuition – at a time when their wages have stayed the same.
As a result, many of them are falling deeper and deeper into debt, and a lot of that debt is being put onto credit cards. Over the past 15 years, average household credit card debt has tripled. The typical family is now nearly $10,000 in the red. And bankruptcy rates have steadily climbed over the past year.
Now, let's be honest. Part of why our debt crisis is so bad is that some folks are making reckless decisions – racking up big credit card bills by purchasing flat-screen TVs and other luxury goods that they know they can't afford. And they should have to face the consequences of those decisions.
But many more Americans aren't falling into debt because they made an irresponsible decision; they're falling into debt because credit card companies are pushing them over the edge. For too long, credit card companies have been using unfair and deceptive practices to trick Americans into signing agreements they can't afford. The contracts you sign when you get a card have gone from being one page-long a few decades ago to more than thirty pages-long today. And they're often filled with traps and fine print that only a credit card executive could understand. These companies have been crossing the line to boost their bottom line.
But rather than stop this outrage, Washington has let them get away with it. And it's no wonder – because the credit card companies have spent millions in recent years financing political campaigns and lobbying Congress to get laws written to their liking. In the first quarter of this year alone, one such industry group spent nearly $800,000 on lobbying.
This has to stop. We cannot let the rules of the game continue to be rigged against ordinary Americans. We need a President who will look out for the interests of hardworking families, not just their big campaign donors and corporate allies.
And that will be a real difference in this election, because when it comes to Washington letting credit card companies get away with all this, John McCain has been part of the problem. When he had the chance to help families avoid falling into debt, John McCain sided with the credit card companies. When he had the chance to protect teenagers and college students from deceptive credit card practices, he sided with the credit card companies. And when I fought against the credit card industry's bankruptcy bill that made it harder for working families to climb out of debt, he supported it – and he even opposed exempting families who were only in bankruptcy because of medical expenses they couldn't pay.
Just look at the proposals he's been making on this campaign. He's calling for nearly $2 trillion in corporate tax cuts over the next decade, but he hasn't even proposed a single measure to protect hardworking Americans from credit card companies that are trying to take advantage of them.
Well, that's not the kind of change that the folks I've met are looking for. They're looking for a President who will fight for them, and restore fairness to our economy. That's the kind of President I'll be. I'll put a middle class tax cut into the pockets of hardworking families – a tax cut that will give 95% of all families $1,000 in relief.
I'll eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 a year. And I'll protect the rights of ordinary Americans by cracking down on companies that are trying to deceive them.
That's why back in November, I proposed a plan to help ensure that credit cards don't become the next subprime crisis. It starts with making sure that we have a system that's open and transparent. To help you understand the risks that are involved in signing up for a credit card, I'll create a five-star rating system. That way, Americans can compare credit card companies and avoid those that are stacking the deck against them.
Now, don't get me wrong. We all have a responsibility to pay what we owe. But we have to ensure that the amount we're paying is fair. That's why I've proposed a Credit Card Bill of Rights. The first thing we'll do under this bill of rights is ban unilateral changes to credit card agreements. You should pay the rate you signed up for. If the credit card company wants to raise that rate, you should be able to opt out of the agreement.
Second, we'll ban rate changes on past debt. If a credit card company wants to raise interest rates, then that new, higher rate should apply to the debt you add going forward, not what you already owe. The store can't change the price of what you bought after you bought it and neither should your credit card. Third, we'll ban interest on transaction fees. If you're late in making a payment, you have to pay a late fee. But you shouldn't be paying a fee for paying a fee.
It's time Washington established some rules of the road to level the playing field for hardworking families. It's time we had an economy that worked for companies and consumers alike. That's what my campaign is all about. So the American people will have a clear choice in November: you can choose an approach that sides with the credit card companies when it really counts; or you can choose to finally have a President who looks out for Main Street, not just Wall Street; a President who fights each day to put the American dream within reach for all Americans. And that's the kind of President I intend to be. Thank you. | 0 | train |
|
Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email The revelations about how Mrs. Clinton handled her email have been an embarrassment for the State Department, which has been repeatedly criticized over its handling of documents related to Mrs. Clinton and her advisers.
On Monday, a federal judge sharply questioned State Department lawyers at a hearing in Washington about why they had not responded to Freedom of Information Act requests from The Associated Press, some of which were four years old.
“I want to find out what’s been going on over there — I should say, what’s not been going on over there,” said Judge Richard J. Leon of United States District Court, according to a transcript obtained by Politico. The judge said that “for reasons known only to itself,” the State Department “has been, to say the least, recalcitrant in responding.”
Two days later, lawmakers on the Republican-led House committee investigating the Benghazi attacks said they planned to summon Secretary of State John Kerry’s chief of staff to Capitol Hill to answer questions about why the department has not produced documents that the panel subpoenaed. That hearing is set for next Wednesday.
“The State Department has used every excuse to avoid complying with fundamental requests for documents,” said the chairman of the House committee, Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina.
Mr. Gowdy said that while the committee has used an array of measures to try to get the State Department to hand over documents, the results have been the same. “Our committee is not in possession of all documents needed to do the work assigned to us,” he said.
The State Department has sought to delay the hearing, citing continuing efforts to brief members of Congress on the details of the nuclear accord with Iran. It is not clear why the State Department has struggled with the classification issues and document production. Republicans have said the department is trying to use those processes to protect Mrs. Clinton. | 0 | train |
|
More Czars Than the Romanovs Meet Obama's Czars
With the Obama Administration's latest creation of a new czar position - the pay czar, announced Wednesday - TPM decided to take a look at just how many have been named so far.
When he announced his 9th czar, Obama already had more than any other President. We gave him a break and didn't include the special envoys - like George Mitchell to the Middle East - considered czars by some. Despite that, there are still upwards of 20 (and more to come, for cyber security and intellectual property). John McCain's words ring true: Obama has more czars than the Romanovs.
Drug Czar
Czar R. Gil Kerlikowske
What it means:
The former police chief of Seattle, Kerlikowske was sworn in as the the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy on May 7. According to the official website, he "coordinates all aspects of Federal drug control programs and implementation of the President's National Drug Control Strategy."
Energy Czar
Czar Carol Browner
What it means:
Officially the Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, this is what Obama said at the press conference announcing her nomination: "Carol understands that our efforts to create jobs, achieve energy security and combat climate change demand integration among different agencies, cooperation between federal, state and local governments and partnership with the private sector."
Auto Recovery Czar
Czar Ed Montgomery
What it means:
Montgomery is the director of recovery for auto communities and workers - he's spent time in Detroit at workshops "on applying for federal grants and other financial assistance." The title can possibly be shared with Steve Rattner, who the NYT calls the "car czar lite" - "one of 14 people on a committee that is orchestrating the rescue of the giant automakers."
Urban Affairs Czar
Czar Adolfo Carrion, Jr.
What it means:
As head of the new White House Office of Urban Affairs, this former Bronx Borough President is in charge of the planning and execution of all urban affairs policy and programs. According to the National Journal, Carrion will also "work across traditional Cabinet divisions to coordinate health, education and environmental initiatives in American's cities."
Information Czar
Czar Vivek Kundra
What it means:
Officially the Federal Chief Information Officer at the White House, Kundra "directs the policy and strategic planning of federal information technology investments and is responsible for oversight of federal technology spending."
Technology Czar
Czar Aneesh Chopra
What it means:
Officially the Chief Technology Officer at the White House, Chopra will "promote technological innovation to help achieve our most urgent priorities -- from creating jobs and reducing health care costs to keeping our nation secure," as Obama said at his press conference introduction. Chopra works with Kundra and Chief Performance Officer (or Performance Czar) Jeffrey Zients, not pictured.
Great Lakes Czar
Czar Cameron Davis
What it means:
Appointed by Obama to oversee the cleanup of the Great Lakes.
Intelligence Czar
Czar Dennis Blair
What it means:
Charged with filling the seats on Obama's National Intelligence Council and coordinating among agencies.
Health Czar
Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle
What it means:
As TIME puts it, DeParle is "behind the scenes but leading the charge" on health care, working alongside Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.
Economic Czar
Czar Paul Volcker
What it means:
Often referred to as Obama's "big-picture" economic czar, Volcker is charged with coordinating with the Treasury Department and other relevant agencies.
Regulatory Czar
Czar Cass Sunstein
What it means:
The White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs "oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration...the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
Bailout Czar (or TARP Czar)
Czar Herb Allison
What it means:
This former Fannie Mae CEO is overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the $700 billion bank bailout that happened under Bush.
Stimulus Accountability Czar
Czar Earl Devaney
What it means:
Devaney oversees the $787 billion stimulus package passed earlier this year ("the kind of guy you'd want guarding your cash," Devaney is a former Secret Service agent who investigated Jack Abramoff).
Border Czar
Czar Alan Bersin
What it means:
Bersin, who had a similar position under the Clinton Administration, is working with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to curb the violence and trafficking of drugs along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Non-Proliferation Czar
Czar Gary Samore
What it means:
Samore, also known as the WMD Czar, is Obama's point man for ensuring the proliferation of such weapons doesn't occur. Samore has already said back in January that he wanted "immediate talks" with Iran and that he wanted to "manage North Korea until it collapsed."
Guantanamo Closure Czar
Czar Danny Fried
What it means:
Fried has the unenviable task of "plead[ing] individual war on terror detainee cases in Europe and the Middle East."
Terrorism Czar
Czar John Brennan
What it means:
Brennan, a veteran of the CIA, is President Obama's top adviser on counterterrorism.
Faith-Based Czar
Czar Joshua DuBois
What it means:
The 26-year-old DuBois is heading up the faith-based office created under former President Bush, which is concentrating on these issues, according to TIME: "domestic poverty, responsible fatherhood, reducing the need for abortion and preventing unintended pregnancy, and interreligious dialogue and cooperation."
Weapons Czar
Czar Ashton Carter
What it means:
Also known as the Pentagon Acquisition Czar, Carter is in charge of improving the Pentagon's system for the procurement of weapons.
Green Jobs Czar
Czar Van Jones
What it means:
Jones is the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation in the Obama administration, tasked with creating and managing various green jobs-related initiatives among different agencies.
Science Czar
Czar John Holdren
What it means:
As head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Holdren is Obama's primary science adviser.
AIDS Czar
Czar Jeffrey Crowley
What it means:
As the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP), Crowley has much work to catch up on - the Bush Administration didn't even fill this slot for the last 2 years.
Pay Czar
Czar Kenneth Feinberg
What it means:
The White House announced Wednesday, June 10 that Feinberg - who oversaw the 9/11 victims' compensation fund - is the new pay czar, or Special Master of Compensation. "Feinberg will have broad authority to set pay limits for the top 100 employees of institutions that have received a substantial amount of TARP funds," says MarketWatch, including GM, Bank of America, and AIG. | 0 | train |
|
U.S. Department of Defense Know Your Military
Discover the new #KnowYourMil showcasing the men and women who serve in your military — who they are, what they do and why they do it. | 0 | train |
|
About Mayor Bhalla Ravi Bhalla was elected Hoboken’s 39th Mayor on November 7, 2017 out of a field of six candidates. Born and raised in New Jersey, Mayor Bhalla is a 17 year resident of Hoboken and eight year member of the Hoboken City Council.
He received his undergraduate education from the University of California at Berkeley, where he received a B.A. in Political Psychology. Upon graduation, he attended the London School of Economics (L.S.E.) in the United Kingdom and received a Master of Science degree in Public Administration and Public Policy, and also earned a Juris Doctor Degree from Tulane Law School in New Orleans, Louisiana.
Ravi first set his roots in Hoboken at the age of 26, a bachelor fresh out of law school starting his first job at a small law firm in Newark, New Jersey. Ravi earned national recognition in the New York Times for his legal advocacy after suffering a violation of his own constitutional and civil rights during a jail visit to a client. The incident motivated Ravi to lead a successful campaign to reform the federal government’s visitation policies at correctional facilities nationwide.
Ravi married his wife Bindya, and they had two children, Arza and Shahbegh. It was during this time that Hoboken’s local government was in dire straits. He observed and witnessed mismanaged government at the local level, including a government budget that was underfunded and overspent by $12 million, a state takeover of Hoboken, and a 70% spike in municipal taxes in a single year.
Ravi ran for Council alongside Mayor Zimmer and worked tirelessly to get their message out of restoring honesty, professionalism and fiscal responsibility to Hoboken. Out of twelve candidates vying for 3 council-at-large positions, Ravi received the highest number of votes, as a first time candidate for office.
Once in office, Ravi worked hard alongside Mayor Zimmer and his council colleagues to establish tangible reforms to the way government is run in Hoboken. Municipal taxes were reduced and Hoboken’s finances were put on a responsible long-term path. The City’s bond rating was improved from junk bond status in 2009 to AA+ in 2013, the second highest rating, and had a responsible cash surplus for the first time in years.
Ravi was a leading voice on the council for securing the necessary funding for Hoboken’s second flood pump in Northwest Hoboken, advocated with Mayor Zimmer for the addition of 9 acres of open space, ensured our parks were built with detention systems to help alleviate flooding, voted to add progressive transportation options including corner cars and bike share, and played a large role in saving the hospital from closing in 2013, preserving more than 1,200 jobs and relieving taxpayers of a $52 million bond guarantee. Ravi currently sits as a co-chair of the City’s Rebuild by Design project, in which the City was awarded $230 million to comprehensively protect Hoboken from storm surge events like Superstorm Sandy.
Ravi served as Council President from 2011-2012 and Council Vice-President from 2010-2011 & 2013-2014 and was Chairman of the Hoboken Democratic Party from 2010-2011. Prior to his service as a Councilman, Mr. Bhalla served as a local Democratic Committeeman for the 2nd Ward, 3rd District of Hoboken from 2007-2009.
Ravi and his wife Bindya reside on Garden Street with their two children, Arza Kaur, age 10 and Shabegh Singh, age 5. | 1 | train |
|
British Politician Beaten by Protestors for 'Welcoming Trump to the UK' British Politician Beaten by Protestors for 'Welcoming Trump to the UK'
74-year-old former UK Ambassador to the US, savagely beaten by thugs
© press Sir Christopher Meyer, 74, savagely beaten close to death by protestors
An elderly British politician has been savagely beaten to a bloody pulp by a gang of anti-Trump protestors because he 'welcomed' the US President to the UK on Thursday.
74-year-old Sir Christopher Meyer has been hospitalized with his injuries after he was set upon by a mob of thugs in London at around 3 pm local time.
Sir Meyer, who is the former UK Ambassador to the United States, was targetted after he publically expressed his support for Donald Trump's visit.
The retired diplomat was left with a bleeding and swollen eye socket, a burst lip and a possible broken nose.
Violent riots have gripped the nation's capital as citizens take to the streets in a shameful display of fascism and intolerance.
Meyer's wife, Baroness Catherine Meyer, has expressed her anger at the brutal attack, saying it "was politically motivated," adding: "It's just not right."
"I'm absolutely shocked by the level of the brutality. They really beat him. It's appalling — like something you would see in a war zone," she said.
“He looks terrible," she continues.
"His left eye is like a golf ball and bleeding, the nose looks like it could be broken.
“He hasn’t had an x-ray yet.
"He doesn’t remember anything.
"The first thing he remembers is the police.
“He is opinionated, and sometimes people have different opinions.
“Nothing was taken, but the transport police intervened quickly.
"London is such a beautiful, wonderful city.
"We can't start worrying about walking in the streets at 3 pm."
© press The 74-year-old retired diplomat, pictured with his wife, was beaten to a pulp for his political view
Daily Mail reports: Cambridge-educated Sir Christopher worked as press secretary for former chancellor Geoffrey Howe and John Major before being appointed US ambassador.
He spent six years in Washington, from 1997 to 2003, becoming the longest-serving holder of his office since 1945.
As ambassador, he welcomed around 35,000 guests to his home a year and was made Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George.
After retiring, he became chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, the former newspaper regulatory body.
He is a prolific tweeter, who regularly comments on politics and foreign affairs.
The former diplomat has called for Britain to engage with President Trump ahead of his visit today.
He has been married to Catherine for more than 20 years.
Sir Christopher's attack comes as London's crime rate has soared.
Since the start of the year, more than 80 murder investigations have been launched in the capital.
Forces in England and Wales logged 5.3million crimes in the year to September 2017, 14 percent up on the previous 12 months.
A statement from the British Transport Police (BTP) said:
"Officers were called to Victoria London Underground Station at 2.45pm yesterday (11 July), after receiving reports that a man had been seriously assaulted.
"A 16-year-old boy from Hillingdon and a 15-year-old girl from Croydon were both arrested on suspicion of assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
"They have been released under investigation while inquiries into the incident continue.
"A man in his seventies was taken to hospital, though his injuries are not believed to be life-threatening or changing."
Thoughts with former British ambassador to the US, Sir Christopher Meyer, who was brutally attacked yesterday. He has been doing a lot of media about how important the Trump visit is. Police say it looks like a robbery - we’ll see. https://t.co/XS1MyfoAFY — Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) July 12, 2018
First he wrote this. Within 12 hours, Christopher Meyer - U.K. ambassador to USA (retired) -looked like this. Coincidence? #MAGA #TrumpUKVisit pic.twitter.com/3id7V6n8pt — Katie Hopkins (@KTHopkins) July 12, 2018
© press Violent protestors are flooding the streets on London in a shameful display of intolerance.
Baroness Meyer's comments come as police struggle to cope with a wave of violence across Sadiq Kahn's London.
Evening Standard reports: Activists attending a "Welcome Trump" protest on Saturday will march from the US Embassy in Nine Elms to Whitehall, where organizers say they intend to disrupt a "free Tommy Robinson" rally.
Scotland Yard says the protests will be subject to a series of restrictions “due to concerns of serious public disorder and disruption to the community.”
These include limiting the protests to specific times and routes and not allowing motor vehicles to take part.
The huge 'Stop Trump' rally in central London on Friday, will see 70,000 violent protestors flood the British capital.
Chief Superintendent Elaine Van-Orden said:
“We police hundreds of public events and demonstrations in central London every year and we always facilitate peaceful protest.
"We have such serious concerns about this event on Saturday, July 14, that we have made the decision to impose conditions under the Public Order Act.
"We have a duty to ensure that the community can go about their daily business not unduly impacted by demonstrations taking place.
"Our message is simple: if you wish to protest peacefully, that is your right and we want to work with you.
"If you commit criminal acts or breach the conditions of the event, you are liable to be arrested.” | 1 | train |
|
Rep. Vern Buchananさんのツイート: "Think Wimbledon tickets are expensive? Our National Debt has gone up by $1,729,000,000 during the Isner v. Mahut match #USA" 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 |
|
Peter Strzok, FBI Agent in Texting Scandal, Will Testify Before Congress Representative Bob Goodlatte will miss out on the fun of issuing a subpoena. Photo: Pete Marovich/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Peter Strzok, the FBI agent who sent anti-Trump messages to a colleague while leading the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails and Russia’s involvement in the Trump campaign, has said he’s willing to testify before the House Judiciary Committee, or any other committee that wants to talk with him. This could lead to dramatic hearings, as Strzok could expose more information about those probes, and is central to President Trump’s effort to discredit Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Reports last week indicated that House Judiciary chairman Bob Goodlatte was preparing to subpoena Strzok as part of the House investigation into the FBI’s conduct during the 2016 election. Strzok’s lawyer, Aitan Goelman, said in a letter to Goodlatte released Sunday that the move would be unnecessary, as Strzok “intends to voluntarily appear and testify before your committee and any other Congressional committee that invites him.”
The letter noted that Strzok cooperated fully with the DOJ inspector general, who issued a report last week that was highly critical of the agent. In the lead-up to the 2016 election Strzok and former FBI lawyer Lisa Page, who were having an affair, exchanged anti-Trump messages on their FBI-issued phones. In one, Page asked if Trump might become president and Strzok replied, “No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it.” The inspector general found no evidence connecting their views with “specific investigative decisions,” but said that comment and others “implies a willingness to take official action.”
Strzok and Page said he meant Trump wouldn’t be elected, and noted that they did not do anything to hurt Trump’s odds, like leaking the existence of the Russia probe before the election. Goelman told the Washington Post on Sunday that there’s “no question” that Strzok regrets sending the messages, but that “I think what he was doing is expressing his political opinions in what he thought was a private text conversation, and he regrets that this has been weaponized by people with political motivations to try to discredit the Mueller investigation.”
Mueller removed Strzok from his investigation several weeks after it started following the discovery of the texts.
Goelman said that if asked to testify, Strzok would be willing to testify without immunity, and would not invoke his Fifth Amendment rights. He said the agent “intends to answer any question put to him, and he intends to defend the integrity of the Clinton email investigation, the Russia collusion investigation to the extent that that’s a topic, and his own integrity.”
Trump reiterated his thoughts on the matter on Sunday night, which are not supported by the inspector general’s findings. The report did not cover the Russia probe, though that did not stop Trump’s allies from calling for Mueller’s immediate suspension.
Why was the FBI’s sick loser, Peter Strzok, working on the totally discredited Mueller team of 13 Angry & Conflicted Democrats, when Strzok was giving Crooked Hillary a free pass yet telling his lover, lawyer Lisa Page, that “we’ll stop” Trump from becoming President? Witch Hunt! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2018
“The highest level of bias I’ve ever witnessed in any law enforcement officer.” Trey Gowdy on the FBI’s own, Peter Strzok. Also remember that they all worked for Slippery James Comey and that Comey is best friends with Robert Mueller. A really sick deal, isn’t it? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2018
Strzok still works for the FBI, but it’s unclear what he does now. The inspector general referred him, Page, and three other people to the FBI office that handles disciplinary action. | 1 | train |
|
JUST IN: Barack Obama ARRESTED in a Japanese Drug Bust Former US President Barack Obama, in custody of the US military police, has informed on his drug dealing bosses, according to sources in Japanese military intelligence.
As a result of this, an airplane filled with Afghan Heroin and North Korean amphetamines was impounded at Argyle International Airport on St. Vincent and the Grenadines in the Caribbean, the sources say. The money raised from this drug flight was intended to be used to finance the operations of Daesh (formerly known as ISIS), the sources say. This impoundment follows the capture of an Obama linked ship containing 4.2 tons of cocaine, the sources note.
You can see the video below:
This is the developing story.
We will keep you updated soon. | 1 | train |
|
dscc 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 |
|
Fox News accidentally puts up a poll graphic that shows how they are the least trusted network Fox News accidentally puts up a poll graphic that shows how they are the least trusted network
UPDATE 4/12/2018: Yes, Fox did accidentally put up the wrong poll graphic, but Fox has since pointed out that the confusing graphic wasn't actually showing that Fox is the least trusted network. Instead, what the graphic intended to do was to compare CNN, MSNBC and Fox News to Trump. The graphic asks who people trust more, CNN or Trump, MSNBC or Trump, and Fox News or Trump. When looking at it this way, people trust all three networks more than they trust Trump.
During a Fox news segment in which Republican strategist Frank Luntz thought the media should give Trump more credit for the nation's economic "clear recovery," someone behind the scenes made a boo boo.
When host Howard Kurtz asked for a poll to be put up on the screen that asks if the media reports fake news, viewers got a look at the wrong poll – one put out by Monmouth University that asks people which network they trust more, CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News.
Not surprising but a knee-slapper nonetheless, the graphic for the poll showed that people trusted CNN most, at 48%, followed by MSNBC at 45%. Fox came in last place with a mere 30% of those polled thinking that the network was trustworthy.
Kurtz quickly said, "This is not the graphic we're looking for – hold off. Take that down please!"
.@FoxNews the least trusted US network. Here is the graph which got Fox News in a panic today. https://t.co/n5rA0xZ1LY pic.twitter.com/ES6pBoKN9E — Gerry Hassan (@GerryHassan) April 8, 2018
.@FrankLuntz: "It's [@POTUS's] own tweets that are causing so much of the trouble... He should be focused on the economy and on taxes." #MediaBuzz pic.twitter.com/hbjdU6G7gz — Fox News (@FoxNews) April 8, 2018
Via Mashable | 1 | train |
|
U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress Roll Call Vote 111th Congress - 1st Session
Vote Summary
Question: On the Amendment (Durbin Amdt. No. 1014 ) Vote Number: 174 Vote Date: April 30, 2009, 02:47 PM Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Amendment Rejected Amendment Number: to S.Amdt. 1014 to S. 896 (Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009) Statement of Purpose: To prevent mortgage foreclosures and preserve home values.
Vote Counts: YEAs 45 NAYs 51 Not Voting 3
*Information compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Barrasso (R-WY), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Brown (D-OH), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burr (R-NC), Nay
Burris (D-IL), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Cardin (D-MD), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Nay
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Nay
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Nay
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Gillibrand (D-NY), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Nay
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Johanns (R-NE), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kaufman (D-DE), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Nay
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McCaskill (D-MO), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
Merkley (D-OR), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Nay
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Not Voting
Sanders (I-VT), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting
Shaheen (D-NH), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Specter (D-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Tester (D-MT), Nay
Thune (R-SD), Nay
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
Wicker (R-MS), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---45
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Begich (D-AK)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Casey (D-PA)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Webb (D-VA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---51
Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennet (D-CO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Shelby (R-AL)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (D-PA)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 3
Kennedy (D-MA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sessions (R-AL)
Grouped by Home State | 0 | train |
|
The Wave 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 on Responsible Homeownership Desert Vista High School
Phoenix, Arizona
1:00 P.M. MST
THE PRESIDENT: Hey! Hello, Phoenix! (Applause.) Hello, Arizona! (Applause.) It is --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Obama!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. It is good to be here. (Applause.)
I want to say thank you to the Thunder for hosting us here today. (Applause.) Well, we are so glad to be here. I want you to give it up for somebody who’s been fighting for homeowners and working families every single day, who’s with me today -- Secretary Shaun Donovan, Secretary of HUD. There he is right there. Give him a big round of applause. (Applause.) We’ve got Congressman Ed Pastor who’s here as well. (Applause.) We’ve got your Mayor, Greg Stanton, here. (Applause.) Doing an outstanding job. And to all the mayors and state legislators and tribal leaders who are here today, thank you. (Applause.)
Give Jorge a big round of applause for his introduction. (Applause.) To your superintendent, Dr. Kenneth Baca. (Applause.) Your principal, Dr. Anna Battle. (Applause.) And I appreciate everybody at Desert Vista for having me here today. (Applause.) It is good to see the students are pretty enthusiastic about being back in school. (Laughter.) I’m not sure I would have been that enthusiastic starting on the 6th. (Laughter.)
And I know this isn’t your typical school -- second day of school. So I want to give a special shout-out to the new seniors, class of 2014. (Applause.) You are aware that you’re not finished yet. (Laughter.) Senior year, that’s sometimes tempting. I want you all to stay focused.
Over the past couple weeks, I have been --
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Happy birthday, Mr. President!
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. (Applause.) It was my birthday two days ago. (Laughter.) Got some singers here.
AUDIENCE: Happy birthday to you, happy birthday to you, happy birthday, Mr. President. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) I am now 52, and Michelle says that I don’t look a day over 51. (Laughter.)
So over the last few weeks, I’ve been visiting towns all across the country, talking about what we need to do to secure a better bargain for the middle class -- a national strategy to make sure that everybody who works hard has a chance to succeed in the 21st century economy.
And I think people in Arizona especially understand the challenges that are out there, because for the past four and a half years, together, we fought our way back from a devastating recession that cost millions of jobs for Americans. A lot of folks lost their homes; a lot of folks lost their savings. And what the recession showed was the long erosion of middle-class security that had been taking place for decades.
But we fought back. We took on a broken health care system. We took on a housing market that was in free fall. We invested in new technologies to reverse our addiction to foreign oil. We changed a tax code that had become tilted a little bit too much in favor of the wealthiest Americans at the expense of working families. (Applause.) We saved the auto industry. We’ve now got GM that plans to hire a thousand new workers right next door in Chandler to make sure we’re building some of the best cars in the world right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
Our businesses have created 7.3 million new jobs over the past 41 months. We now sell more products made in America to the rest of the world than ever before. Our exports are way up. We produce more renewable energy than ever before, more natural gas than anybody else. Health care costs have been growing at the slowest rate in 50 years. And our deficits are coming down at the fastest rate in 60 years. So we’re making progress. (Applause.)
So thanks to the efforts of a lot of people like you, we’ve cleared away the rubble of the financial crisis. We’re starting to lay the foundation for more stable, more durable economic growth. But as any middle-class family will tell you, we’re not yet where we need to be. Because even before the crisis hit, we had lived through a decade where a few at the top were doing better and better, but most families were working harder and harder just to get by.
And reversing this trend should be -- must be -- Washington’s highest priority. It’s my highest priority. (Applause.) I want to make sure that in America, it doesn’t matter what you look like, where you come from, who you love -- you should be able to make it when you try. You should be able to make it. (Applause.)
Now, unfortunately, for the last year or so, we’ve had an endless parade of distractions and political posturing and phony scandals that shift focus away from what do we need to do to shore up middle-class families and create ladders of opportunity for folks to get into the middle class. And as Washington heads towards another budget debate, the stakes could not be higher.
And that’s why I’m traveling around, laying out my ideas for how we have to build the cornerstones of what it means to be middle class: a good job with good wages; a home to call your own; a good education; affordable health care that’s there for you when you get sick; a secure retirement even if you’re not rich; the opportunity -- the ladders of opportunity for people to earn their way into the middle class, to work their way out of poverty. Those are the elements that I think all of us believe in, but right now we're not delivering as much as we should on those promises.
Now, last Tuesday, I went to Tennessee to talk about the first cornerstone, which is how do we make sure that we're creating good middle-class jobs here in the United States of America. Today I've come to Phoenix to talk about the second component, which is the most tangible cornerstone that lies at the heart of the American Dream, at the heart of middle-class life -- and that's the chance to own your own home. (Applause.) The chance to own your own home.
We've got a lot of young people here who are thinking about college, they're going to get a higher education, they're going to find a job, they're going to find somebody they love, they're going to want to own a home. And the reason they will is because a home is the ultimate evidence that here in America, hard work pays off, that responsibility is rewarded.
I think about my grandparents’ generation. When my grandfather served in World War II, he fought in Patton's Army -- when he got back, this country gave him a chance to go to college on the G.I. Bill, but it also gave him the chance to buy his first home with a loan from the FHA. To him, and to generations of Americans before and since, a home was more than just a house. It was a source of pride and a source of security. It was a place to raise kids, to put down roots; a place where you could build up savings for college, or to start a business, or to retire with some security.
And buying a home required responsibility on everybody’s part. You had to save up to buy a home. And then banks were supposed to give you a fair deal, with terms you could understand, and buyers were supposed to live within their means and make sure that they could make their payments. So in that earlier generation, houses weren’t for flipping around, they weren’t for speculation -- houses were to live in, and to build a life with.
And unfortunately, over time, responsibility too often gave way to recklessness. You had reckless lenders who sold loans to people they knew couldn’t afford them. And let's face it, we also had some reckless buyers who knew they couldn’t afford them and still took out loans. And all this created a housing bubble. And especially in some places like Arizona, it was devastating when that bubble finally burst -- triggered a recession. Millions of Americans who had done everything right were hurt badly by the actions of other people. Housing prices plummeted.
By the time I took office, home values had fallen almost 20 percent from the year before. New housing starts had fallen nearly 80 percent from their peak. Hundreds of thousands of construction workers had lost their jobs. A record number of people were behind on their mortgage payments. And a lot of people here in Phoenix, they saw that devastation. This was part of Ground Zero for the housing bubble bursting.
So less than a month after I took office, I came here to Arizona and I laid out steps to stabilize the housing market and help responsible homeowners get back on their feet. And the truth is it's been a long, slow process. The housing market is so big that it was going to take some time to heal when it got hurt that badly. It's taken longer than any of us would like. But during that time, we helped millions of Americans save an average of $3,000 each year by refinancing at lower rates. We helped millions of responsible homeowners stay in their homes, which was good for their neighbors because you don't want a bunch of foreclosure signs in your neighborhood.
Where Congress wouldn’t act, we went ahead and acted, so over the past few years, we had the Department of Justice stand up for buyers who had been discriminated against or conned by predatory lending. And we won a settlement that gave more money to victims of discrimination in one year than in the previous 23 years combined. (Applause.)
We worked with states to force big banks to repay more than $50 billion to more than 1.5 million families -- largest lending settlement in history. (Applause.) We extended the time that folks who had lost their jobs could delay their payment on their mortgages while they kept looking for work. We cracked down on the bad practices that led to the crisis in the first place. I mean, you had some loans back there in the bubble that were called “liar’s loan.” Now, something that's called a liar's loan is probably a bad idea. (Laughter.)
So because of all these actions we've been taking, our housing market is beginning to heal. Home prices are rising at the fastest pace in seven years. Sales are up nearly 50 percent. Construction is up nearly 75 percent. New foreclosures are down by nearly two-thirds. Millions of families have been able to come up for air -- they’re no longer underwater on their mortgages. (Applause.)
And just like the crisis hit Phoenix very hard, thanks to some great leadership here locally, Phoenix has also led one of the biggest comebacks in the country. (Applause.) So you should be proud of what you've done here. Home prices in Phoenix have risen by nearly 20 percent over the last year. New home sales are up by more than 25 percent.
This morning, right before I came here, I visited Erickson Construction -- (applause.) We've got some Erickson folks here. And they were explaining how right when the bubble hit, Erickson shrank to less than a hundred workers. Today they're employing 580 people -- and they’re hiring even more people -- (applause) -- because the housing market is bouncing back.
So that's one of the things about housing. It's not just important for the person who owns the house; our economy is so impacted by everything that happens in housing. Consumers feel better when their home values are in a better place, so they're more willing to spend. A lot of people who want to start a business, their savings may be locked up in their house. Construction workers, contractors, suppliers, carpet makers, all these folks are impacted by the housing industry.
So we've made progress, and that's helped to move the economy forward. But we've got to build on this progress. We're not where we need to be yet. We've got to give more hardworking Americans the chance to buy their first home. (Applause.) We have to help more responsible homeowners refinance their mortgages, because a lot of them still have a spread between the rates they're paying right now on their mortgage and what they could be getting if they were able to refinance.
And we’ve got to turn the page on this kind of bubble-and-bust mentality that helped to create this mess in the first place. (Applause.) We got to build a housing system that is durable and fair and rewards responsibility for generations to come. That's what we’ve got to do. (Applause.)
So I’ve already put forward a bunch of ideas that will help accomplish that. And, look, the fact of the matter is Congress hasn’t enacted all of them, so I’d like you to encourage members of Congress to take some of these actions. (Applause.)
But like the other actions that we’ve taken, these will not help the neighbors down the street who bought a house that they couldn’t afford, and then walked away from it and left a foreclosed home behind. We don't want to help speculators who bought multiple homes just to make a quick buck.
What we want to do is put forward ideas that will help millions of responsible, middle-class homeowners who still need relief. And we want to help hardworking Americans who dream of owning their own home fair and square, have a down payment, are willing to make those payments, understand that owning a home requires responsibility. And there are some immediate actions we could take right now that would help on that front, that would make a difference. So let me just list a couple of them.
Number one: Congress should pass a good, bipartisan idea to allow every homeowner the chance to save thousands of dollars a year by refinancing their mortgage at today’s rates. (Applause.) We need to get that done. We’ve been talking about it for a year and a half, two years, three years. There’s no reason not to do it. (Applause.)
Step number two: Now that we’ve made it harder for reckless buyers to buy homes that they can’t afford, let’s make it a little bit easier for qualified buyers to buy the homes that they can afford. (Applause.) So Shaun Donovan has been working with the finance industry to make sure we’re simplifying overlapping regulations; we’re cutting red tape for responsible families who want to get a mortgage but keep getting rejected by the banks. We need to give well-qualified Americans who lost their jobs during the crisis a fair chance to get a loan if they’ve worked hard to repair their credit.
And step three is something that you don’t always hear about when it comes to the housing market, and that is fixing our broken immigration system. It would actually help our housing market. (Applause.)
It’s pretty simple: When more people buy homes and play by the rules, home values go up for everybody. And according to one recent study, the average homeowner has already seen the value of their home boosted by thousands of dollars just because of immigration. And the good news is, with the help of your Senators, John McCain and Jeff Flake, the Senate has already passed a bipartisan immigration bill. It’s got the support of CEOs and labor and law enforcement. (Applause.) This could help homeownership here.
So I want you to encourage Republicans in the House of Representatives to stop dragging their feet. Let’s go ahead and get this done.
Step number four: We should address the uneven recovery by rebuilding the communities hit the hardest by the housing crisis, including many right here in Arizona. Let’s put construction back -- construction workers back to work repairing rundown homes, tearing down vacant properties so that the value of homes in those surrounding areas start picking up. We can put people to work right now and improve the remaining housing stock that's out there. (Applause.) Places that are facing a longer road back from the crisis should have their country’s help to get back on their feet.
Step five: We should make sure families that don’t want to buy a home or can’t yet afford to buy one still have a decent place to rent. (Applause.) It’s important for us to encourage homeownership, but a lot of people rent and there’s nothing wrong with renting. And we got to make sure that we are creating affordable opportunities when it comes to rental properties.
In the run-up to the crisis, banks and governments too often made everybody feel like they had to own a home, even if they weren’t ready and didn't have the payments. That’s a mistake we should not repeat. Instead, let’s invest in affordable rental housing. Let’s bring together cities and states to address local barriers that drive up rents for working families. (Applause.)
So if we help more Americans refinance their homes, if we help qualified families get a mortgage, we reform our immigration system, we rebuild the hardest-hit communities, we make sure that folks have a decent place to rent if they're not yet able to buy -- all these steps will give more middle-class families the chance to either buy their own home now or eventually buy their own home. It's going to give more relief to responsible homeowners. It gives more options to families who aren’t yet ready to buy. All that is going to improve the housing market and will improve the economy.
But -- and this is the last key point I want to make -- as home prices rise, we can’t just re-inflate another housing bubble. I hope everybody here in Arizona learned some hard lessons from what happened. Housing prices generally don't just keep on going up forever at the kind of pace it was going up. It was crazy. So what we want to do is something stable and steady. And that's why I want to lay a rock-solid foundation to make sure the kind of crisis we went through never happens again. We've got to make sure it doesn't happen again. (Applause.)
And one of the key things to make sure it doesn't happen again is to wind down these companies that are not really government, but not really private sector -- they're known as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. For too long, these companies were allowed to make huge profits buying mortgages, knowing that if their bets went bad, taxpayers would be left holding the bag. It was “heads we win, tails you lose.” And it was wrong. And along with what happened on Wall Street, it helped to inflate this bubble in a way that ultimately killed Main Street.
So the good news is, right now there’s a bipartisan group of senators working to end Fannie and Freddie as we know them. And I support these kinds of reform efforts. And they're following four core principles for what I believe this reform should look like.
First, private capital should take a bigger role in the mortgage market. I know that sounds confusing to folks who call me a socialist -- I think I saw some posters there on the way in. (Laughter.) But I actually believe in the free market. And just like the health care law that we put in place, Obamacare -- (applause) -- which, by the way, if you don't have health insurance or you're buying it at exorbitant rates on the individual market, starting on October 1st, you can join a marketplace and be part of a pool that gives you much lower premiums, saves you a lot of money. (Applause.)
But in the same way that what we did with health care was to set up clear rules for insurance companies to protect consumers, make it more affordable, but still built on the private marketplace, I believe that our housing system should operate where there's a limited government role and private lending should be the backbone of the housing market. And that includes, by the way, community-based lenders who view their borrowers not as a number, but as a neighbor. So that's one principle.
A second principle is we can't leave taxpayers on the hook for irresponsibility or bad decisions by some of these lenders or Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. (Applause.) We've got to encourage the pursuit of profit, but the era of expecting a bailout after you pursue your profit and you don't manage your risk well -- well, that puts the whole country at risk. And we're ending those days. We're not going to do that anymore. (Applause.)
The third principle is we should preserve access to safe and simple mortgage products like the 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage. That’s something families should be able to rely on when they're making the most important purchase of their lives. (Applause.)
Number four, we've got to keep housing affordable for first-time homebuyers -- like all these young people. When they're ready to buy a house, we've got to make sure it's affordable. Families who are working to climb their way into the middle class, we've got to do what we can to make housing affordable. And that means we've got to strengthen the FHA so it gives today’s families the same kind of chance it gave my grandparents to buy a home, and it preserves those rungs on the ladder of opportunity.
And we've got to support, as I said, affordable rental housing. And, by the way, we've also got to keep up our fight against homelessness. (Applause.) The Mayor of Phoenix has been doing a great job here in Phoenix on that front. We've got to continue to improve it. (Applause.)
Since I took office, we helped bring one in four homeless veterans off the streets. (Applause.) We should be proud of that. Here in Phoenix, thanks to the hard work of everyone from Mayor Stanton to the local United Way to US Airways, you’re on track to end chronic homelessness for veterans, period, by 2014. (Applause.)
But we've got to keep going, because nobody in America, and certainly no veteran, should be left to live on the streets. (Applause.)
So here's the bottom line: Put all these principles together, that's going to protect our entire economy and it will improve the housing market not just here in Phoenix, but throughout the state and throughout the country.
We're also going to need to make sure, though, that we're protecting individual homeowners. We've got to give them the tools that they can protect themselves. So we've got a Consumer Finance Protection Bureau that we created. (Applause.) And it's laying down new rules of the road that everybody can count on when they’re shopping for a mortgage. They’re designing a new, simple mortgage form that will be in plain English, so you can actually read it without a lawyer -- (applause) -- although, you may still want a lawyer obviously. I'm not saying you don't. I'm just saying you'll be able to read it. (Laughter.) There won't be a lot of fine print. That way you know before you owe. (Laughter and applause.)
And the Senate finally confirmed Richard Cordray as the head of this -- head watchdog for the CFPB. (Applause.) So he's out there aggressively protecting consumers and homeowners.
When it comes to some of the other leaders we need to look out for the American people, the Senate still has a job to do. Months ago, I nominated a man named Mel Watt to be our nation’s top housing regulator. He is an outstanding member of Congress. And during that time, he was on the Housing Committee -- worked with banks, worked with borrowers to protect consumers, to help responsible lenders provide credit. He is the right person for the job. Congress and the Senate should give his nomination an up or down vote without any more obstruction or delay. We don't have time for those kinds of games. (Applause.)
So I want to be honest with you. No program or policy is going to solve all the problems in a multi-trillion dollar housing market. The housing bubble went up so high, the heights it reached before it burst were so unsustainable, that we knew it was going to take some time for us to fully recover. But if we take the steps that I talked about today, then I know we will restore not just our home values, but also our common values. We’ll make owning a home a symbol of responsibility, not speculation -- a source of security for generations to come, just like it was for my grandparents. I want it to be just like that for all the young people who are here today and their children and their grandchildren. (Applause.)
And if we stay focused on middle-class security and opportunities to get into the middle class, if we take the strategy that I'm laying out for the entire economy -- for jobs and housing and education, health care, retirement, creating ladders of opportunity -- then we will secure that better bargain for all Americans, where hard work is once again rewarded with a shot at a middle-class life, which means more Americans will know the pride of that first paycheck. More Americans will know the satisfaction of flipping the sign to “Open” on their own business. More Americans will know the joy of scratching the child’s height on the door of their new home -- with pencil, of course. (Laughter.)
We can do all this if we work together. And it won’t be easy. But if we take just a few bold steps -- and if Washington will just end the gridlock, set aside the slash-and-burn partisanship -- (applause) -- actually try to solve problems instead of scoring political points, our economy will grow stronger a year from now, five years from now, 10 years from now. (Applause.)
And as long as I've got the privilege to serve as your President, that's what I'm going to be fighting for.
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. (Applause.)
END 1:35 P.M. MST | 0 | train |
|
Already a lost decade: Working-age household income down more than 10% since 2000 The labor market is the foundation of income for nearly all working-age families, so when the labor market deteriorates, household income drops.
As the figure shows, income for the median working-age household – where the householder is under 65 – dropped by $4,184 between 2007 and 2010. Furthermore, the Great Recession came on the heels of one of the worst business cycles (2000-2007) on record in terms of job creation, one in which the income of the median working-age household fell $2,113.
Thus, the typical working-age household brought in roughly $6,300 less in 2010 than it did in 2000, a more than 10 percent decline. A lost decade, indeed.
***
Click on the figure to enlarge
| 0 | train |
|
Over 30,000 Graduates, Including Scientists, Claim Global Warming NOT Caused By Humans A staggering 31,487 Americans, including scientists, academics and university graduates, have come forward to claim that global warming is not caused by the human release of gases.
One of the experts is weather channel founder, John Coleman, who warns that huge fortunes are being made by man-made climate change proponents such as Al Gore.
Natural News reports:
In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:
“Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the ‘global warming’ debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years.”
Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.
Al Gore’s dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 – a year that was touted as being “the hottest ever” in the Earth’s history – there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.
Debunking the “97 percent” lie
On top of those “inconvenient truths,” the White House’s assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the “97 percent” statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.
More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.
From the National Review:
“A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased.”
Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda – even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.
And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.
Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth – not human activity.
Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax
But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you’re still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 – largely due to investments in fake “green tech” companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.
You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.
Update: We have updated the headline to make it clear that the signatures of the petition were not all scientists. Some were academics, others scientists and the rest were university graduates who hold a B.S. degree or higher. | 1 | train |
|
Legendary Actor Kirk Douglas Dead, 4 Days Before His 101st Birthday News reports have confirmed that actor Kirk Douglas died of natural causes late this afternoon, Los Angeles coroners office reported. This was just 4 days before he would have turned 101 years old.
Family released a statement saying he “went comfortably and was in no pain” and “lived a long and prosperous life that people only dream of.”
Kirk Douglas was an American actor, producer, director, and author. He was one of the last living people of the film industry’s Golden Age. After an impoverished childhood with immigrant parents and six sisters, he had his film debut in The Strange Love of Martha Ivers (1946) with Barbara Stanwyck. Douglas soon developed into a leading box-office star throughout the 1950s and 1960s, known for serious dramas, including westerns and war movies. During his career he appeared in more than 90 movies. Douglas was well known for his explosive acting style.
As an actor and philanthropist, Douglas had received three Academy Award nominations, an Oscar for Lifetime Achievement, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. As an author, he had written ten novels and memoirs. He was No. 17 on the American Film Institute’s list of the greatest male screen legends of classic Hollywood cinema, and the highest-ranked living person on the list. After barely surviving a helicopter crash in 1991 and then suffering a stroke in 1996, he had focused on renewing his spiritual and religious life. He lived with his second wife (of 63 years), Anne Buydens, a producer. He was to turn 101 on December 9, 2016. | 1 | train |
|
Remarks by the President on the American Jobs Act Scranton High School
Scranton, Pennsylvania
2:37 P.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Scranton! Thank you. (Applause.) It is good to be back in Scranton. Go, Knights! (Applause.) It is good to be here. Thank you, Principal Schaeffer, for letting us hold this little assembly here at the high school. (Laughter.) The principal was bragging about both the basketball team and the football team. I understand they’re -- (applause) -- right up there? All right.
Thank you, Donna, for the wonderful invitation. We had a chance to visit in the Festas’ living room, and just a wonderful family, and their kids are doing great. So I’m really, really proud to be with all of you.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can you come to my house? (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: What did she say? You want -- next time, your house. (Laughter.) All right? (Applause.)
Now, I will say, Donna put out some really good cookies. So -- (laughter) -- I’m just saying. (Laughter.) All right.
Now, I also want to bring greetings from somebody you guys know pretty well -– a guy named Joe Biden. (Applause.) Joe is in Iraq as we speak, and he’s visiting with our brave men and women in uniform, thanking them for their service. (Applause.) And part of the reason he’s going now is because, pretty soon, we’ll all get a chance to say thank you. This holiday season is going to be a season of homecomings, because by the end of December, all of our troops are going to be out of Iraq. They’re going to be back home. (Applause.)
Now, I mention Joe, first of all, because he loves Scranton. (Applause.) He was born here in Scranton. He spent his early years here in Scranton. This town helped make him who he is. This is a town where he and so many of you grew up with a faith in an America where hard work matters. Where responsibility matters. Where if you stay true to those things, you can get ahead. Where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like -– whether you own a factory or you work on the factory floor –- America is a place where you can make it if you try. (Applause.)
That’s why Joe and I ran for this office. You are why we spent so much time in this state a few years ago. Because even then, those ideas -– the idea that’s at the very heart of the American Dream –- felt like it was slipping away for a lot of people. It was wonderful visiting with Patrick and Donna, and we were talking about the fact that Patrick has been -- Patrick Festa has been teaching in the school system for 25 years now; Donna has been a graphic artist. But they’re still worried about if the washer/dryer goes out, or if they have to do a car repair. Things are tight. And they’re pretty lucky that they’ve got a good job, steady jobs. For a lot of folks, it’s a lot tougher.
And we’ve gone through a difficult decade for middle-class Americans. More good jobs in manufacturing left our shores over the last decade. More of our prosperity was built on risky financial deals and homes that a lot of folks couldn’t afford. And a lot of you watched your incomes fall or your wages flatline. Meanwhile, the costs of everything from college to health care were all going up. And then, after all that, the financial crisis hit because of the irresponsibility of some on Wall Street. (Applause.) And that made things a whole lot tougher.
Today, we all know folks who’ve spent months looking for work. We all know families making deep sacrifices just to get by. We all know young people who have gone to college, they’ve taken on a bunch of debt. Now they’re finding that the opportunity that they worked so hard to find is getting harder and harder to come by. So there’s a sense of deep frustration among people who’ve done the right thing, but don’t see that hard work and that responsibility pay off. And that’s not the way things are supposed to be, not here in America.
But here today with all of you, I’m thinking about something that is probably Joe’s favorite expression. And some of you know Joe’s story. He went through some tough times when he was a kid. And his father used to tell him, Champ, when you get knocked down, you get up. You get up.
And Scranton, we’ve taken some punches these last few years. But there’s one thing I know about people here in Scranton, people in Pennsylvania, and people all across America: We are tougher than the times. We are America. We get back up. We fight back. We move forward. (Applause.) We don’t give up. We get back up. (Applause.)
And even though our economic problems weren’t caused overnight and so they’re not going to be solved overnight -- even though it’s going to take a few more years to meet all the challenges that were decades in the making -- we’re fighting to make things right again. We’re fighting to make sure that if you are working hard and you are carrying out your responsibilities and you’re looking out for your family, that you can live a good, solid, middle-class life. That is what America is all about. And we are going to be fighting for that every day, every week, every month and every year that we’re in office. (Applause.)
We want an America where hard work is valued and responsibility is rewarded. We’re fighting to rebuild an economy that restores security for the middle class and renews opportunity for folks that are trying to get into the middle class. We’re fighting to build an economy that’s not based on outsourcing and tax loopholes and risky financial schemes, but one that’s built to last -- one where we invest in things like education and small businesses -- (applause) -- an economy that’s built on manufacturing and building things again and selling them all around the world. (Applause.)
And we’re going to keep fighting to make our economy stronger and put our friends and neighbors back to work, to give our young people opportunities greater than the opportunities that we had. (Applause.) That’s what we’ve been doing for the last three years.
But two months ago, I sent a particular piece of legislation to Congress called the American Jobs Act. (Applause.) This is a jobs bill that will put more Americans to work, put more money back in the pockets of working families. It’s contains ideas that historically have been supported by Democrats and Republicans. It’s paid for by asking our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share. (Applause.) And independent economists said that it would create up to 2 million jobs, and grow the economy by as much as 2 percent. And that’s what we need right now.
Now, here’s the problem -- there is a problem. Folks in Washington don’t seem to be getting the message. When this jobs bill came to a vote, Republicans in the Senate got together and they blocked it. They refused to even debate it. Even though polls showed that two-thirds of Americans of all political stripes supported the ideas in this bill, not one single Republican stepped up to say, this is the right thing to do.
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: Not one. But here’s the good news, Scranton. Just like you don’t quit, I don’t quit. (Applause.) I don’t quit. So I said, look, I’m going to do everything that I can do without Congress to get things done. (Applause.)
So let’s just take a look over the past several weeks. We said, we can’t wait. We just went ahead and started taking some steps on our own to give working Americans a leg up in a tough economy. For homeowners, I announced a new policy that will help families refinance their mortgages and save thousands of dollars. (Applause.) For all the young people out here -- (applause) -- we reformed our student loan process to make it easier for more students to pay off their debts earlier. (Applause.) For our veterans out here -- and I see some veterans in the crowd -- (applause) -- we ordered several new initiatives to help our returning heroes find new jobs and get trained for those jobs. (Applause.) Because you shouldn’t have to fight for a job when you come home after fighting for America -- you shouldn’t have to do that. (Applause.)
And in fact, last week I was able to sign into law two new tax breaks for businesses that hire veterans, because nobody out here who is a veteran should -- we have to make sure that they are getting the help that they need.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President!
THE PRESIDENT: And by the way, I think we’re starting to get, maybe, to the Republicans a little bit, because they actually voted for this veterans bill. I was glad to see that. (Applause.) I was glad that Democrats and Republicans got together with this bipartisan legislation.
Now, there’s a lot more to do, though, if we’re going to get every American back to work who wants to work, and to rebuild an economy that works for every American, which is why we’re going to give Congress another chance to do the right thing with the American Job Act. We’re going to give them another chance to help working families like yours. (Applause.)
Last year, both parties came together to cut payroll taxes for the typical household by $1,000. Now, that’s been showing up in your paychecks each week. You may not be aware of it, because times are tight. But you actually got a tax cut of $1,000 this year. Now, I know you hear a lot of folks on cable TV claiming that I’m this big tax-and-spend liberal. Next time you hear that, you just remind the people who are saying it that since I’ve taken office, I’ve cut your taxes. (Applause.)
Your taxes today -- the average middle-class family, your taxes today are lower than when I took office, just remember that. (Applause.) We have cut taxes for small businesses not once, not twice, but 17 times. The average family’s tax burden is among the lowest it’s been in the last 60 years.
So the problem is not that we’ve been raising taxes. We’ve actually been trying to give families a break during these tough times. But here’s the thing: That payroll tax cut that we passed in December of last year, it’s set to expire at the end of this year, one month from now. If that happens -- if Congress doesn’t act to extend this tax cut -- then most of you, the typical middle-class family, is going to see your taxes go up by $1,000 at the worst possible time. A young lady just said she can’t afford that. It would be tough for you. It would also be a massive blow for the economy, because we’re not fully out of the recession yet. Don’t take my word for it; this is what every independent economist says. We can’t let this tax cut lapse right now.
And that’s why my jobs bill -- part of the American Jobs Act was to extend this tax cut for another year. In fact, it does one better. It says, let’s expand that tax cut. Instead of a $1,000 tax cut next year, the typical working family under my plan would get a tax cut of $1,500. (Applause.) Instead of it coming out of your paycheck, it would be going into your pocket. Now, that’s money that you can spend on a small business right here in Scranton. If you’re a small business owner, my jobs bill will cut your payroll taxes in half. So if you’ve got 50 employees making $50,000 each, you’d get a tax cut of nearly $80,000. That’s money that you can then use to hire some more workers and get this economy moving again. That’s a good thing. (Applause.)
Now, this really should not be controversial. A lot of Republicans have agreed with this tax cut in the past. The Republican leader in the Senate said it would -- I’m quoting here -- it would “put a lot of money back in the hands of business and in the hands of individuals.” That’s what he said. Another Republican leader said it would help small business owners create jobs and help their employees spend more money, creating even more jobs. One Republican even called it a “conservative approach to help put our economy back on track.” So what’s the problem?
The bad news is some of those same Republicans voted “no” on my jobs bill and those tax cuts. I don’t know whether it’s just because I proposed it. I don’t know. They said “no” to cutting taxes for small business owners and working families. One of them said just two years ago that this kind of tax cut would boost job creation, and now that I’m proposing it, he said we should let it expire. I mean, what happened?
Republicans say they’re the party of tax cuts. That’s what they say. A lot of them have sworn an oath to never raise taxes on anybody as long as they live. That doesn’t square with their vote against these tax cuts. I mean, how is it that they can break their oath when it comes to raising your taxes, but not break their oath when it comes to raising taxes for wealthy people? That doesn’t make any sense. (Applause.) I mean, I hope that they don’t want to just score political points. I hope that they want to help the economy.
This cannot be about who wins and loses in Washington. This is about delivering a win for the American people. That’s what this is about. (Applause.) You know, $1,500 -- that’s not a Band-Aid for middle-class families, that’s a big deal. How many people here could use an extra $1,500? (Applause.) Yes, I thought so.
So I’ll tell you what, Scranton. They may have voted “no” on these tax cuts once. But I’m already filled with the Christmas spirit. There’s kind of some chill in the air. I saw some Christmas decorations at the Festas. So I’m in a Christmas spirit. I want to give them another chance. I want to give them a chance to redeem themselves. We’re going to give them another chance.
So as early as Friday, this Friday, in a couple of days, we’re going to give them a chance to take a simple vote on these tax cuts. If they vote “no,” then the typical family’s taxes will go up by $1,000 next year. If they vote “yes,” then the typical family will have an extra $1,500 in their pocket. (Applause.) So let’s just be clear: If they vote “no,” your taxes go up; vote “yes,” you get a tax cut. Which way do you think Congress should vote? They should vote “yes,” it’s pretty simple.
Now, if you want to see what this vote will mean for your bottom line, we have this spiffy new tax calculator on our Internet site, WhiteHouse.gov. So you can go on there and you can punch in your numbers and figure out what it would mean to your family. But this is real money that would go into the economy at a time it needs it.
Now, I really do think your voices are already getting
through, because some of the folks in Congress are starting to say, well, maybe we’re open to this thing. Maybe we’ll be open to these tax cuts. And that’s good news. But I want to make sure that we do this responsibly. So what I’ve said is, to pay for this tax cut, we need to ask wealthy Americans to pay their fair share. (Applause.)
We’re asking -- what we’ve said is let’s ask the folks who’ve seen their incomes rise fastest, who’ve gotten bigger tax breaks under Bush, let’s ask them to help out a little bit, because they made it better through the recession than most of us. Let’s ask them to contribute a little bit more to get the economy going again.
And I just want to point out I’ve done pretty well over these last few years. So I’ve said, let me pay a little bit more. I promise you, I can afford it. (Laughter.) I really can. We’re asking people like me to sacrifice just a little bit so that you guys have a little bit of a leg up.
And by the way, let me say this: When you talk to most folks who are making a million dollars a year, they are willing to do more if they’re asked. Warren Buffett is a good example. They’re willing to do more if they’re asked. (Applause.)
Now, I mean, I don’t want to exaggerate. It’s not like they’re volunteering. (Laughter.) But if they’re asked, if they feel like it’s going to help middle-class families, help grow the economy, help to reduce the deficit, they’re willing to help. I can’t tell you how many well-to-do folks I meet who say, look, America gave me a chance to succeed. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a good education. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a college scholarship. Somewhere along the line, somebody built the information and transportation networks that have helped my business grow. Somewhere along the line, somebody gave me a shot. And so now it’s my turn to do the next generation that same good thing. I’ve got to give something back to them as well. (Applause.)
Because, Scranton, this is something everybody in this audience understands. When you think about the history of Scranton and the immigrants who came here and worked hard, each successive generation doing a little bit better -- you guys know that what America is about is that we’re all in this together; that each of us has to do our own individual part, but we also have to be looking out for one another.
And that’s the very simple choice that’s facing Congress right now: Are you going to cut taxes for the middle class and those who are trying to get into the middle class? Or are you going to protect massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, many of whom don’t even want those tax breaks? Are you going to ask a few hundred thousand people who have done very, very well to do their fair share? Or are you going to raise taxes for hundreds of millions of people across the country -- 160 million Americans? Are you willing to fight as hard for middle-class families as you do for those who are most fortunate? What’s it going to be?
That’s the choice in front of Congress. And I hope members of Congress think hard about this, because their actions lately don’t reflect who we are as a people. What does it say about our priorities when we’d rather protect a few really well-to-do people than fight for the jobs of teachers and firefighters? (Applause.) What does it say when we -- about our values when we’d rather fight for corporate tax breaks than put construction workers back on the job rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our schools? (Applause.) What does it say about us if we’re willing to cut taxes for the people who don’t need them, and raise them on folks who do need a tax break?
We are better than that. America is better than that. We celebrate individual achievement, we expect everybody to work hard, but we don’t believe in every person for themselves; we believe that out of many, we come together as one. (Applause.) We’re a people who reach for our own success, but we also reach back for the people -- to bring somebody up. Reach back to help others earn their own success as well. (Applause.) And we believe that if the folks at the bottom and the folks in the middle succeed, then American succeeds, and the folks at the top succeed as well. (Applause.)
The decisions we make today are going to determine whether or not our kids grow up in a country where those values still thrive. And Scranton, I don’t know about you, but I want our kids to grow up -- I want Malia and Sasha and all your kids, I want them to come into a country that is built on those big, generous values -- (applause) -- an America that reflects the values that we inherited from our parents and our grandparents.
So if you agree with me, I need you to tell Congress where your priorities lie. Members of Congress, they work for you. Scranton, you’ve got a great senator in Senator Casey. I love Senator Casey. (Applause.)
So I want you to know, Casey is already on the program. (Applause.) But to everybody who is here, everybody who is watching, send your Senate a message -- send your senators a message. Tell them, “Don’t be a Grinch.” (Laughter.) “Don’t be a Grinch.” Don’t vote to raise taxes on working Americans during the holidays. Make sure to renew unemployment insurance during the holidays. (Applause.) Stop saying “no” to steps that would make our economy stronger. Put our country before party. Put money back into the pockets of working Americans. Do your job. Pass this bill. (Applause.)
Scranton, the American people are with us on this. It is time for folks to stop running around spending all their time talking about what’s wrong with America. Spend some time, roll up your sleeves, and help us rebuild America. That’s what we need to do. (Applause.)
There is nothing wrong with this country that we can’t fix. We’re Americans, and our story has never been about things coming easy to us. That’s not what Scranton has been about. That’s not what Pennsylvania, that’s not what America is about. It’s been about rising to the moment, and meeting the moment when things are hard. It’s about doing what’s right.
So let’s do what’s right. Let’s prove that the best days of America are still ahead of us.
God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END
3:03 P.M. EST | 0 | train |
|
Civil War Erupts In Sweden as Irate Swedes Burn Nine Muslim Refugee Centers to the Ground So is it happening now or not?
I was just getting my hopes up... :(
----
Dear Winter,
I am breaking up with you.
I think it is time I start seeing other seasons.
p.s. Summer is hotter than you | 1 | train |
|
Breaking down barriers for African Americans Breaking down barriers for African Americans
Hillary Clinton Blocked Unblock Follow Following Feb 17, 2016
Thank you so much Charlie [Rangel]. Thanks for your friendship. Thanks for your leadership. The Congress will miss you when you leave its ranks, but I have a feeling that you are going to be spending a lot of time right here in Harlem. Charlie didn’t tell you the whole story.
He was actually the person who called to encourage me to run for the Senate. He basically said that I had no choice. But it took me a long time before I realized he was right. He’s been a great friend and partner since then.
I want to tell you how special it is for me to be back here in Harlem to make this set of comments. I loved representing New York for eight years. And Harlem looms large in the American imagination, as the birthplace of so much art and culture and such vibrant public life. There’s really no place like it in the world.
I appreciate being joined by the Governor [Cuomo] and Sandra, by the Mayor [De Blasio] and Chirlane, by the former Attorney General, Eric Holder, Representative Yvette Clark, and Representative Nydia Velázquez, our Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, Public Advocate Letitia James. I want to thank Dr. Khalil Gibran Muhammad, and to all of the New York State Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian caucus members and members of the New York City Council. The Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus: I thank you all so much for being here.
I want to pick up on what I just said about Harlem, because Harlem, and many other communities across America, remind us that any view of Black America that focuses exclusively on crime, poverty, or other challenges is missing so much. Missing the strength and the pride and the achievement that is evident on every street here.
That narrative is missing the remarkable rise of the African American middle class, the rise of African American … leadership in all walks of life: in business, law, politics, science, the arts, sports, and all the professions. It’s missing the vibrancy of the black church, the passionate advocacy of the next generation of changemakers, and the service of leaders at every level, who never tire of making others’ lives better.
Earlier today, I spent some time with the heads of nine of America’s historic civil rights groups, hosted by Marc Morial of the National Urban League. Reverend Al Sharpton attended. And we had a great conversation, because they are working to drive a 21st century agenda for jobs and freedom. I am grateful for their guidance and wisdom. I am also grateful to be speaking in this building that honors two men who represent just some of the diversity of the African American community.
Arturo Schomburg, who was from the Caribbean, and Langston Hughes, whose ashes are housed here, reminded all of us that when life ain’t no crystal stair, you’ve got to keep climbing. That’s a good lesson for everyone.
But even as we acknowledge and even celebrate successes, it’s important to remember: There are still very real barriers holding back African Americans from fully participating in our society. That’s what I am here to talk about today.
Last week on the debate stage in Milwaukee, I said I want to tear down all the barriers that hold back Americans across racial lines, because our country can only live up to its potential when every single American has the chance to live up to theirs. So I want to talk with you about how we break down the barriers that disproportionately affect African Americans and build ladders of opportunity in their place.
Last week, I went to Flint, Michigan. By now, we all know what’s happening there. Families, children, babies, drinking poisoned water for nearly two years because their government wanted to save a little money. It’s a horrifying story, but what makes it even worse is that it’s not a coincidence that this was allowed to happen in a largely black, largely poor community. Just ask yourself, would this have ever occurred in a wealthy white suburb of Detroit? Absolutely not.
And as we have learned more about this crisis, we’ve seen other barriers holding back the people of Flint coming into clearer focus.
Years of under-investment have left behind a hollowed out community without enough jobs or opportunity for the people living there. Not enough families have access to the quality education that their children deserve. And they have too little political power, which left them vulnerable to a state government that ignored and dismissed their concerns.
Just imagine — every one of you a parent, a grandparent, an aunt, an uncle — going to the authorities holding a bottle of brown, smelly water. Telling those in authority, “There’s something wrong with this water. My baby has a rash. I feel funny when I drink it or take a bath,” and being told, “There’s nothing wrong with the water. Just go away.”
Flint is not alone. There are many Flints across our country: places where people of color and the poor have been left out and left behind.
Now, in the contest for the Democratic nomination, we have spent a lot of time debating about the big banks and the excesses of Wall Street, and these are important issues. And I am absolutely committed to ensuring that no bank is too big to fail, and no executive too powerful to jail.
But Flint reminds us there’s a lot more going on in our country that we should be concerned about. The truth is we aren’t a single-issue country. We face a complex set of economic, social, and political challenges.
They are intersectional, they are reinforcing, and we have got to take them all on.
So it’s not enough for your economic plan to be, “break up the banks.” You also need a serious plan to create jobs, especially in places where unemployment remains stubbornly high. You need a plan to address the generations of underinvestment and neglect.
Now even if we succeed on raising taxes on every millionaire and billionaire in America — and believe me, I do intend to succeed at that — we still need to face the painful reality that African Americans are nearly three times as likely as whites to be denied a mortgage. Something’s wrong when the median wealth for black families is just a tiny fraction of the median wealth of white families.
And when gun violence is by far the leading cause of death for young African American men, outstripping the next nine causes of death combined, there is something deeply wrong.
Something is wrong when African American men are far more likely to be stopped and searched by police, charged with crimes, and sentenced to longer prison terms than white men convicted of the same offenses. And when black kids get arrested for petty crimes, but white CEO’s get away with fleecing our entire country, there is something wrong.
Just imagine with me, for a minute, if white kids were 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than black kids. Five hundred percent. Imagine if a white baby in South Carolina were twice as likely to die before her first birthday than an African American baby. Imagine the outcry. Imagine the resources that would flood in.
Now, these inequities are wrong — but they’re also immoral. And it’ll be the mission of my presidency to bring them to an end. We have to begin by facing up to the reality of systemic racism. Because these are not only problems of economic inequality.
These are problems of racial inequality. And we have got to say that loudly and clearly.
Now, I don’t by any means intend to imply that we are not still making progress. We do have a lot to celebrate, as Congressman Rangel said. The people in this room know that — you have helped to make it happen.
And there is no better example of that progression than our president. And for all the partisan resistance President Obama has faced every day, remember — and celebrate — he brought our economy back from the brink of another Great Depression. On his watch, 14 million jobs have been created, health care has been brought to 18 million people, the auto industry was saved, and so much else.
Now, he would be the first to say — as we’ve heard him say — that despite our best efforts and our highest hopes, America’s long struggle with race is far from finished.
For many white Americans, it’s tempting to believe that bigotry is largely behind us. That would leave us with a lot less work, wouldn’t it? But more than half a century after Rosa Parks sat and Dr. King marched and John Lewis bled, race still plays a significant role in determining who gets ahead in America and who gets left behind.
Now anyone — anyone — asking for your vote has a responsibility to grapple with this reality. To see things as they actually are, not just as we want them to be.
I’d be the first to admit I don’t have all the answers. I’ve made my own mistakes. I’ve walked my own journey. But I believe with all my heart we can and must do better. We’ve made progress before, which gives me hope we can do it again. In the 1990s, economic programs like the new market tax credit, the earned income tax credit, and empowerment zones like the one right here in Harlem made a real difference in people’s lives.
They helped to create the highest increase in black incomes and the lowest black unemployment in history. We achieved record small-business lending to minority-owned businesses, and record bank lending in minority communities. Right here in Harlem, the unemployment rate dropped by two-thirds, and we saw a drop in child poverty and an increase in employment and income for single mothers, too.
We also learned about what doesn’t work. Some of what we tried didn’t resolve problems. Some ended up creating new ones, and caused disappointment, frustration, even anger. So as we face today’s challenges, we have to bring all those lessons to bear.
Here’s the bottom line, as I see it: When we make direct strategic investments in communities that have been left behind, and when we guarantee justice and dignity to every American, then we really can make progress. Lasting progress. Progress that will catapult us into the future. We can reduce poverty. We can build ladders of opportunity.
So I’m proposing a comprehensive new commitment to equity and opportunity for African American communities. That means a real plan to create jobs. If I’m elected president, we will direct hundreds of billions of dollars in new investments to places like Harlem and rural South Carolina — including $20 billion aimed specifically at creating jobs for young people.
The unemployment rate among young African Americans is twice as high as for young white people. Now, we need to get young people working, developing their skills, unlocking the full extent of the contributions they can make to themselves, their families, and our country. We need to make sure we’re not only creating good jobs, but connecting black communities to where the good jobs are.
So we’ve got to be strategic about our investments in transit and infrastructure. And we need a real plan, including expanding access to capital to support black entrepreneurs — especially black women, who represent the fastest-growing segment of women-owned businesses in America. And while we’re at it, let’s finally ensure equal pay for equal work for women.
That would benefit women of color most of all, and would lift up an awful lot of families. And let’s go even further. Let’s follow Governor Cuomo’s lead and raise the minimum wage to help people get out of poverty.
Now we need to support African American homeownership, which has always been one of the surest ways for black families to build wealth. That’s why I have a plan that would, among things, help African American families save for a down payment.
We need to make sure every family also has access to quality pre-school. And I applaud Mayor De Blasio for what he’s achieved here in New York with his pre-K program.
And please, help us reverse the dangerous slide towards re-segregation in our schools. Our schools are now more segregated than they were in 1968. That is appalling, and we’ve got to fix it.
We also have to make sure everyone who wants to go to college can afford to. And everyone with student debt can have that debt refinanced, and take thousands of dollars off the burden that they are carrying!
Let’s give tax credits to businesses that actually invest in training and in apprenticeship programs to help young people who don’t go for a two or four-year degree.
And my plan gives special support to historically black colleges and universities.
The HBCUs have produced some of the finest leaders in our country. And it’s not just who they graduated in the past, it’s the work they’re still doing today — often against great odds.
And then finally, and so importantly, we need end-to-end reform in our criminal justice system.
Not half measures, but a full commitment with real follow-through. Now, this is something we can talk about for hours. In fact, I gave my first speech of this campaign in April not far from here, and it was about reforming criminal justice. Because the inequities that persist in our justice system undermine our shared vision of what America can — and should — be.
Our legal system is still, all too often, stacked against those who have the least power, who are the most vulnerable. And we’ve seen the toll it takes on families torn apart by excessive incarceration, and children growing up in homes shattered by prison and poverty.
We’ve got to get back to that fundamental principle that everyone, in every community, benefits when there is respect for the law — and when everyone is respected by the law. That is the formula for building trust and cooperation, and we need to not only acknowledge but fix the crisis of mass incarceration.
Let’s finally, once and for all, eliminate the remaining disparity in sentencing between crack and powder cocaine. Let’s rebuild the bonds of trust between law enforcement and communities by creating more opportunities for people to actually interact with one another, to build relationships.
Let’s the end the epidemic of African Americans being killed by police or dying in custody.
Now I think you know — because I sure believe — there are many police officers out there every day inspiring trust and confidence, putting themselves on the line to save lives. So let’s learn from those who are doing it right, and apply those lessons across the country.
Let’s make sure the Justice Department has the resources to hold departments — like Ferguson’s — accountable when they do it wrong.
Again and again, something terrible happens — and no one is held accountable; the deeply troubling pattern, and we’ve got to break it. We’ve also got to do a much better job of helping people who have paid their debt to society find jobs and support when they get out.
Up to 60 percent of prisoners who re-enter society face long-term unemployment. That’s a recipe for hopelessness and repeat offending. My jobs plan would make significant investments in re-entry programs for the formerly incarcerated.
In my faith, we believe in second chances. In America, we believe in second chances. Let’s give those chances to people who need our help the most. Let’s give them a fair shot — which is also why I will “ban the box” in the federal government. And I want to thank Attorney General Holder, who has been really in the forefront of making so many of these changes happen. And I also want to thank another great New Yorker, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, who is continuing the work for equity and justice!
And let’s roll up our sleeves and get to work to dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline. It’s diverting too many African-American kids into the criminal justice system, instead of giving them the education they deserve.
We’ve seen a significant increase in police involvement in school discipline, especially in schools with majority-black students. We’re seeing an over-reliance on suspensions and expulsions. I’m sure many of us remember that horrifying video of the girl in South Carolina being thrown out of her desk and dragged across her classroom by a school police officer.
A classroom should be a safe place for our children. We shouldn’t even have to say that, I don’t think.
So today I’m announcing my plan to end the school to prison pipeline. It includes major investments in school districts that reform their discipline practices. We want districts to know, if they do the right thing, we’ll have their backs. And we will dramatically expand support for guidance counselors, school psychologists and social workers — so instead of just labeling kids problem students, they can actually help kids with their problems, and keep them in school!
And for schools that refuse to reform and states that refuse to take this issue seriously, I want the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights to intervene, because this — this is not just an education issue, this is a civil rights issue and we cannot ignore it any longer.
The bottom line is this: We need to be sending our kids to college. We need a cradle-to-college pipeline, not sending them into court and into prison.
There’s much more to do. If you go to my website, hillaryclinton.com, you can read our full agenda.
Sometimes people make fun of me because I actually tell you what I want to do as president. I actually give you plans about what I want to do. I kind of think it’s my duty to help inform voters, so that you can make a good decision!
But I want to mention one more critical area: Protecting that most fundamental of rights — the right to vote. Across our country, Republican governors and legislatures are erecting one barrier after another that make it harder for black people to vote. It’s a blast from the Jim Crow past, and we need to call it for what it is.
And in the past few days the stakes got even higher. Justice Scalia’s passing means the court hangs in the balance. Now the Republicans say they’ll reject anyone President Obama nominates, no matter how qualified. Some are even saying he doesn’t have the right to nominate anyone, as if somehow he’s not the real president.
That’s in keeping with what we’ve heard all along, isn’t it? Many Republicans talk in coded, racial language about takers and losers. They demonize President Obama and encourage the ugliest impulses of the paranoid fringe. This kind of hatred and bigotry has no place in our politics — or our country.
The president has the right to nominate, under the Constitution, and the Senate has the obligation to process that nomination. And I hope the Senate will start paying more attention to statesmanship than partisanship. And I hope that they will understand that we can have our differences, but let’s not go right after fundamental rules of how we govern ourselves. That’s a bridge way too far, my friends.
Now, I will appoint Supreme Court justices who will see the Constitution as a blueprint for progress, not as an excuse to try to roll back decisions going all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt — which is apparently what some of them would prefer to do!
Now I suppose some people will hear what I’m proposing and think, “Well, she’s saying this because she’s in an election.” But many of you in this audience know me, and you know that these issues have always been part of my North Star.
In my first semester at law school, a woman named Marian Wright Edelman came to speak on campus at Yale. She was the first African American woman admitted to the Mississippi bar, a lawyer for the NAACP in Jackson, a friend of Dr. King before he was murdered — altogether a remarkable person. She talked about starting a Head Start program in Mississippi and using her legal education on behalf of poor children who were invisible to the rest of the country.
Something clicked in my brain that day. Until I heard Marian speak, it wasn’t clear to me how to channel my faith and commitment to social justice to try to make a real difference in the world. But she put me on the path of service.
I went to work for her at the Children’s Defense Fund. She sent me to her home state of South Carolina to take on the problem of black teenagers who were being incarcerated along with adults. And when I look back, everything else I’ve done — whether it was going undercover to Alabama to expose segregated academies and try to skip them of their tax exemptions, or running a legal clinic at the University of Arkansas, to represent inmates — that’s been part of my mission. Representing poor people through the Legal Services Corporation: It’s about making people’s lives better.
And it taught me that, even if you’re young and you don’t have a powerful job, if you work at it and you stick with it, you can make a difference.
… You know, to quote Dr. King, the time is always right to do right — no matter who you are. And when I had the great privilege of representing New York, I worked with members of our congressional delegation. We fought to bring investments and jobs to neighborhoods that needed them, to improve health care, to get cleaner air and water for low-income communities.
One of the highlights was partnering with the organization, One Hundred Black Men, to create the Eagle Academy, which has been so successful — it’s grown to six schools now in New York — taking young African American and Latino men.
There was always something to be done, and I had so many partners here in New York. We championed reforms to probation and drug diversion programs. We promoted specialized drug courts and juvenile programs, coming full circle with the work that I had done for Marion.
So when I decided to run for president, I knew these issues had to be at the heart of my campaign. That’s where they’ve always been, that’s where they will always be.
And I want to add something else: We Democrats have a special obligation: If we’re serious about our commitment to the poor, to those who need some help, including African Americans, if we continue to ask black people to vote for us, we cannot minimize the realities of the lives they lead or take their concerns for granted.
You know, you can’t just show up at election time and say the right things and think that’s enough. We can’t start building relationships a few weeks before a vote. We have to demonstrate a sustained commitment to building opportunity, creating prosperity, and righting wrongs. Not just every two or four years, not just when the cameras are on and people are watching, but every single day.
So here’s what I ask of you: Hold me accountable. Hold every candidate accountable. What we say matters — but what we do matters more. And you deserve leaders who will do whatever it takes to tear down all the barriers holding you back, and then replace them with those ladders of opportunities that every American deserves to have.
I’m also asking all Americans to join in that effort. As Cornell Brooks, the new head of the NAACP, said in our meeting this morning: None of this is a “they” problem. It’s a “we” problem, and all of us have to admit that. And you know what? It is not an urban problem. It’s an American problem.
Ending systemic racism requires contributions from all of us — especially those of us who haven’t experienced it ourselves. White Americans need to do a better job of listening when African Americans talk about the seen and unseen barriers that you face every day.
We need to recognize our privilege and practice humility, rather than assume that our experiences are everyone’s experiences. All of us need to bring our skills to bare — and especially young people coming up today, who have a passion for social justice and are helping to create new ways to solve intractable problems.
And we all need to try as best we can to walk in one another’s shoes. Imagine what it would be like to sit our son or daughter down and have the talk. Or if people followed us around stores or locked our car doors whenever we walked past.
That kind of empathy is critical. It’s what makes it possible for people from every background, every race, every religion to come together in this great city, and to come together as one nation. It’s what makes a country like America endure.
You know, I started my remarks by talking about Flint. I’m going to keep talking about Flint until the families there get the help they need — for as long as it takes.
But there’s another side to the story of this tragedy.
It’s the story of hundreds of union plumbers from across the country travelling to Flint to install water filters for free.
It’s students at universities all over the Midwest raising funds for water deliveries and student athletes showing up in Flint to distribute supplies.
It’s the United Auto Workers and General Motors donating millions.
It’s money pouring in to organizations where people are donating, if you wish, to try and help the kids and the people of Flint. And I’m grateful to everyone who has responded to our request sent out to our campaign.
And it’s the story of that kindergartner in Wilton, NH who lost his first tooth just a few days ago. The tooth fairy left him five dollars. I got a dime, I don’t know about you.
And he said to his mother, “I want to give it so those little kids can have water.” His mom sat right down and wrote me a letter about it.
To me, that’s the best of America, and it keeps me going. That sense we are all in this together. We all have vital contributions to make, and that when we come together — all of us — with a sense of shared purpose and shared humanity, we can solve any problem we face.
And we can heal any divide. We can build a future that is far, far better than our past. That is my hope for our country, that is my goal for this election, and I promise to keep fighting right alongside all of you, every day, to make the United States a place where all men and all women are treated as equals — just as we are, just as we deserve to be.
That is my hope for America.
Thank you all very much. | 0 | train |
|
Remarks by the President at AFL CIO Labor Day Picnic THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release September 7, 2009
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT AFL-CIO LABOR DAY PICNIC
Coney Island
Cincinnati, Ohio
1:24 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, Cincinnati! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, Ohio! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, labor! (Applause.) All-righty. It is good to be back in Cincinnati. (Applause.) It's good to be back in Ohio. (Applause.) It's good to be back among great friends, great leaders. And I want everybody to give a big round of applause to Charlie Dilbert for that great introduction. (Applause.) And I want to thank Kathy Mattea and the band for the entertainment. Give Kathy a big round of applause. (Applause.)
How you all feeling today? (Applause.) Are you fired up? (Applause.) Are you ready to go? (Applause.) I can't think of a better place to be on Labor Day than at America's biggest Labor Day picnic, and with the workers and families of the Cincinnati AFL-CIO. (Applause.)
I'm so proud to be on the stage with Charlie, because Charlie reminds us that in these tough times, America's working men and women are ready to roll up their sleeves and get back to work. (Applause.)
I want to salute your local AFL-CIO local leaders: Executive Secretary-Treasurer Doug Sizemore -- (applause) -- President Joe Zimmer -- (applause) -- State President Joe Rugola. And your outstanding national leaders: a man who we thank for devoting his life to working Americans -- President John Sweeney. (Applause.) He's right there. And the man who will pick up the mantle, who will take the baton of leadership, who we need to succeed because a strong labor movement is part of a strong economy -- is part of a strong economy -- Secretary-Treasurer Rich Trumka. (Applause.)
Although Ohio's wonderful governor and great friend of mine Ted Strickland couldn't be here, we've got Lieutenant Governor Lee Fisher in the house -- (applause) -- Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner -- (applause) -- Attorney General Richard Cordray -- (applause) -- Cincinnati Mayor Mark Mallory -- (applause) -- Hamilton County Commissioner -- Commission President David Pepper. (Applause.)
We're joined by members of Ohio's outstanding congressional delegation: Congressman Steve Driehaus -- (applause) -- and a great friend who is at the forefront of every fight for Ohio's working men and women, including the battle for health insurance reform, Senator Sherrod Brown. (Applause.)
I'm also proud to be here with a leader who is reenergizing the Department of Labor, who realizes that it's not the Department of Management, it's the Department of Labor -- (applause) -- a daughter of union members, a daughter of a Teamster -- Secretary Hilda Solis. (Applause.) My director of recovery for auto communities and workers, Ed Montgomery, is in the house, and he's doing outstanding work. (Applause.)
Now, Cincinnati, like a lot of Americans, you're having some fun today. Taking the day off. Spending time with the kids. Some of you may be proud of your grilling skills. (Laughter.) Every man thinks he can grill -- (laughter) -- whether he can or not. That's what Michelle says. (Laughter.) Michelle says she's a better griller than me. (Applause.) I don't know. We'll have to have a grill-off someday. But you're enjoying some good music, some good food, some famous Cincinnati chili. (Applause.)
But today we also pause. We pause to remember and to reflect and to reaffirm. We remember that the rights and benefits we enjoy today weren't simply handed to America's working men and women. They had to be won. They had to be fought for, by men and women of courage and conviction, from the factory floors of the Industrial Revolution to the shopping aisles of today's superstores. They stood up and they spoke out to demand a fair shake and an honest day's pay for an honest day's work. (Applause.)
Many risked their lives. Some gave their lives. Some made it a cause of their lives -- like Senator Ted Kennedy, who we remember today. (Applause.)
So let us never forget: much of what we take for granted -- the 40-hour work week, the minimum wage, health insurance, paid leave, pensions, Social Security, Medicare -- they all bear the union label. (Applause.) It was the American worker -- men and women just like you -- who returned from World War II to make our economy the envy of the world. It was labor that helped build the largest middle class in history. Even if you're not a union member, every American owes something to America's labor movement. (Applause.)
So as we remember this history, let's reflect on its meaning in our own time. Like so many Americans, you work hard. You meet your responsibilities. You play by the rules. You pay your bills. But in recent years, the American Dream seems like it's been slipping away, because from Washington to Wall Street, too often a different attitude prevailed. Wealth was valued over work, selfishness over sacrifice, greed over responsibility. The right to organize was undermined rather than strengthened. (Applause.)
That's what we saw. And it may have worked out well for those folks at the top, but it didn't work out for you and it didn't work out well for our country. That culture -- that culture and the policies that flowed from it -- undermined the middle class and helped create the greatest economic crisis of our time.
So today, on this Labor Day, we reaffirm our commitment. To rebuild. To live up to the legacy of those who came before us. To combine the enduring values that have served us so well for so long -- hard work and responsibility -- with new ideas for a new century. To ensure that our great middle class remains the backbone of our economy -- not just a vanishing ideal we celebrate at picnics once a year as summer turns to fall. We want it a reality for the families of Ohio and the families of America. (Applause.)
That's what we've been working to do ever since I took office. Now, I notice some people have already forgotten how bad it was just seven months ago. You notice that? They've got sort of selective amnesia. (Laughter.) So let's just remind them for a second. (Applause.) A financial system on the verge of collapse; about 700,000 workers losing their jobs each month; the worst recession of our lifetimes threatening to become another Great Depression.
That's what was happening just seven months ago. And that's why we took bold, swift action. That's why we passed an unprecedented Recovery Act, and we did it without the usual Washington earmarks and pork-barrel spending. And, Ohio, it is working. (Applause.)
Times -- times are still tough. Times are still tough, I know that. But we have given 95 percent of America's working families a tax cut -- 4.5 million families in Ohio, including here in Cincinnati -- a promise we made during the campaign; a promise I kept as President of the United States. (Applause.)
We cut taxes for small businesses, made new loans to more than 1,000 small businesses in Ohio so they could grow and hire more workers. We extended unemployment benefits for 12 million Americans, including Charlie and nearly 570,000 Ohio citizens. (Applause.) Across America, we've saved the jobs of tens of thousands of state and local workers, including teachers and first responders right here in Ohio. Don't take my word for it. Ask folks here in Ohio what they would have done if we hadn't passed the Recovery Act -- the cuts they would have had to make, the taxes they would have had to raise.
We're rebuilding America's infrastructure, including improvements to I-75 in Hamilton County, led by a local Cincinnati contractor. (Applause.) We've got more than 200 other highway projects across Ohio, and we're making a historic commitment to innovation -- much of it still to come in the months and years ahead: doubling our capacity to generate renewable energy; building a new smart grid to carry electricity from coast to coast; laying down broadband lines and high-speed rail lines and providing the largest boost in basic research in our history -- all of which will put people back to work. (Applause.) Steelworkers, plumbers, pipe-fitters, engineers, you name it.
So our recovery plan is working.
Q What about bricklayers?
THE PRESIDENT: Bricklayers, too. (Applause.) The financial system -- financial system has been saved from collapse. Home sales are up. We're seeing signs of life in the auto industry. Business investment is starting to stabilize. For the first time in 18 months, we're seeing growth in manufacturing. When was the last time you heard that here in the United States of America? (Applause.)
Now, on Friday, we learned that the economy lost another 216,000 jobs in August. And whenever Americans are losing jobs, that's simply unacceptable. But for the second straight month, we lost fewer jobs than the month before, and it was the fewest jobs that we had lost in a year. (Applause.) So, make no mistake, we're moving in the right direction. We're on the road to recovery, Ohio. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE: Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!
THE PRESIDENT: Yes we will. Yes we are.
AUDIENCE: Yes we will! Yes we will! Yes we will!
THE PRESIDENT: But -- but, my friends, we still have got a long way to go. We're not going to rest. We're not going to let up. Not until workers looking for jobs can find them -- good jobs that sustain families and sustain dreams. Not until responsible mortgage-owners can stay in their homes. Not until we've got a full economic recovery and all Americans have their shot at the American Dream. (Applause.)
Now, we can't do that if we go back to that old economy -- overleveraged banks, inflated profits, maxed-out credit cards, CEOs and bankers getting multimillion-dollar bonuses --
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE PRESIDENT: -- an economy of bubbles and bursts, your wages and incomes stagnant while corporate profits soar. So even as we recover from the recession and work to cut the deficit, we have to build a new foundation for prosperity:
We need an America with a reformed financial system. We got to have regulations in place that protect consumers so that we never have a crisis like this again. (Applause.) I don't want to have to bail out any more banks. (Applause.) And we got to make sure we've got regulations in place to prevent it. (Applause.)
An America where energy reform creates green jobs that can never be outsourced and that finally frees America from the grip of foreign oil. (Applause.)
An America that commits to education because the countries that out-educate us today will out-compete us tomorrow and the best jobs will go to the best educated. (Applause.) So we got to do a better job educating our sons and our daughters. And, yes, I'm going to have something to say tomorrow to our children, telling them to stay in school and work hard -- because that's the right message to send. (Applause.)
We need an America that once again invests in the middle class, which is why I've created our task force for middle-class working families, led by my outstanding Vice President Joe Biden to make sure that our policies always benefit you, the American worker. (Applause.)
Today we're taking another step. I'm naming Ron Bloom, who's right here -- raise your hand, Ron; he's right down in the front here. (Applause.) I'm naming Ron Bloom to lead our efforts to revitalize the sector that helped build the middle class: American manufacturing. (Applause.) Ron has worked with steelworkers, service employees, and management to create jobs. He helped guide our auto task force. And as my new point person on manufacturing, he's going to help us craft the policies that will create the next generation of great manufacturing jobs and ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century. (Applause.)
Oh, and by the way, just in case you were wondering, we're also going to build an America where health reform delivers more stability and security to every American. (Applause.) We are going to reform the system for those who have insurance and those who don't. Now, I'll have a lot more to say about this on Wednesday night. I might have to save my voice a little bit -- not get too excited. I don't want to give anything away. I want you all to tune in.
But let me just say a few things about this health care issue. We've been fighting for quality, affordable health care for every American for nearly a century -- since Teddy Roosevelt. Think about that -- long time. (Laughter.) The Congress and the country have now been vigorously debating the issue for many months. The debate has been good, and that's important because we've got to get this right. But every debate at some point comes to an end. At some point, it's time to decide. At some point, it's time to act. Ohio, it's time to act and get this thing done. (Applause.)
We have never been this close. We've never had such broad agreement on what needs to be done. And because we're so close to real reform, suddenly the special interests are doing what they always do, which is just try to scare the heck out of people.
But I've got -- I've got a question for all these folks who say, you know, we're going to pull the plug on Grandma and this is all about illegal immigrants -- you've heard all the lies. I've got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? (Applause.) What's your answer? (Applause.) What's your solution? (Applause.) And you know what? They don't have one. (Applause.) Their answer is to do nothing. Their answer is to do nothing. And we know what that future looks like: insurance companies raking in the profits while discriminating against people because of preexisting conditions; denying or dropping coverage when you get sick. It means you're never negotiating about higher wages, because all you're spending your time doing is just trying to protect the benefits that you already fought for.
It means premiums continuing to skyrocket three times faster than your wages. It means more families pushed into bankruptcy, more businesses cutting more jobs, more Americans losing health insurance -- 14,000 every day. It means more Americans dying every day just because they don't have health insurance.
That's not the future I see for America. I see reform where we bring stability and security to folks who have insurance today -- where you never again have to worry about going without coverage if you lose your job or you change your job or you get sick. You've got coverage there for you. Where there is a cap on your out-of-pocket expenses, so you don't have to worry that a serious illness will break you and your family even if you have health insurance. (Applause.) Where you never again have to worry -- where you never again have to worry that you or someone you love will be denied coverage because of a preexisting condition. (Applause.)
I see reform where Americans and small businesses that are shut out of health insurance today will be able to purchase coverage at a price they can afford. (Applause.) Where they'll be able to shop and compare in a new health insurance exchange -- a marketplace where competition and choice will continue to hold down costs and help deliver them a better deal. And I continue to believe that a public option within that basket of insurance choices will help improve quality and bring down costs. (Applause.)
I see reform where we protect our senior citizens by closing the gaps in their prescription drug coverage under Medicare that costs older Americans thousands of dollars every years out of their pockets; reforms that will preserve Medicare and put it on a sounder financial footing and cut waste and fraud -- the more than $100 billion in unwarranted public subsidies to already profitable insurance companies.
I want a health insurance system that works as well for the American people as it does for the insurance industry. (Applause.) They should be free to make a profit. But they also have to be fair. They also have to be accountable.
That's what we're talking about -- security and stability for folks who have health insurance, help for those they don't -- the coverage they need at a price they can afford, finally bringing costs under control. That's the reform that's needed. That's the reform we're fighting for. And that's why it's time to do what's right for America's working families and put aside partisanship, stop saying things that aren't true, come together as a nation, pass health insurance reform now -- this year. (Applause.)
Few have fought harder or longer for health care in America's workers than you -- our brothers and sisters of organized labor. And just as we know that we have to adapt to all the changes and challenges of a global economy, we also know this: In good economic times and in bad, labor is not the problem. Labor is part of the solution. (Applause.)
That's why Secretary Solis made it her priority at the Labor Department to protect workers -- your safety, your benefits, your right to organize, your right to bargain collectively. (Applause.) That's why some of the first executive orders I issued overturned the previous administration's attempts to stifle organized labor. That's why I support EFCA -- to level the playing field so it's easier for employees who want a union to form a union. (Applause.) Nothing -- nothing wrong with that. Because when labor is strong, America is strong. When we all stand together, we all rise together. (Applause.)
That's why the first piece of legislation I signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act -- (applause) -- guaranteeing equal pay for equal work. (Applause.) Lilly worked at a factory in Alabama. She did her job and she did it well. And then, after nearly two decades, she discovered that for years she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. Over the years, she had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in wages and in pension and Social Security benefits.
Lilly could have just moved on. Instead, this Alabama grandmother made a decision. She said a principle was at stake. She stood up and she spoke out for what was right -- all the way to the Supreme Court, and then Congress, and finally the White House, where she stood next to me as I signed the law that bore her name. (Applause.)
Ohio, that's the lesson this day -- that some things are worth fighting for. (Applause.) Equal pay. Fair wages. Dignity in the workplace. Justice on the job. An economy that works for everybody, because in America there are no second-class citizens. An economy where you can make a living and care for your families. Where you're leaving your kids something better. Where we live up to our fundamental ideals. Those words put on paper some 200 years ago -- that we're all created equal, that we all deserve a chance to pursue our happiness -- that's the calling to which we are summoned this Labor Day. That's the cause of my presidency. And that is the commitment we must fulfill to preserve the American Dream for all of America's working families.
But I'm going to need you to do it. At the beginning of this speech, I talked about whether you were fired up. (Applause.) I know that, over the last couple months, the economy has been bad, the recession has been wearing on folks -- people losing their jobs, people losing their health care, people losing their homes in some cases. It's been the usual bickering in Washington. Doesn't seem like that ever stops. Pundits on TV, they're saying how, oh, this isn't working and that's not working. You know, you start getting into a funk, and whenever I see folks in that negative place, I always think back to a story I told during the campaign. Some of you have heard it. But I just thought I'd say it again. (Applause.)
It's about where the phrase "fired up" comes from. So, this is when we were -- right at the beginning of the campaign for the presidency, nobody gave us a chance -- none of you all could pronounce my name. (Laughter.) And I went down to South Carolina. I went down -- I think I was -- where was I? (Laughter.) I was in Greenville -- am I right? Greenville. And the legislators were having a little banquet and they had invited me to come down to speak. And I sat next to a state representative. I had nobody supporting me back then, so I had to ask everybody. I said, will you support my campaign for the presidency of the United States? And this state rep looked me up and down and she said, "You know, I will give you my endorsement if you come to my hometown at Greenwood, South Carolina."
Now, I had had a glass of wine, so I said right away, I said, okay. (Laughter.) Let's shake on it. Come to find out that Greenwood is about an hour and a half from everyplace else. (Laughter.)
So about a month later, I fly in -- I've been campaigning for two weeks straight, haven't seen my family, I'm exhausted, I'm tired. Get to the hotel room, I'm dragging my bag into my room, about to go to bed. I get a tap on my shoulder. It's my staff member, says, "Excuse me, sir." I said, "What?" (Laughter.) He said, "You have to be in the car tomorrow at 6:30 a.m. in the morning. I said, "Why?" (Laughter.) He said, "Because we got to go to Greenwood like you promised." (Laughter.)
So the next day, I wake up and I feel worse than when I went to bed. I stagger over the window, open up the blinds -- it's pouring down rain outside; ugly day. I go out, get my newspaper, open it up, there's a bad story about me in The New York Times. I pack up my stuff, I go downstairs. My umbrella breaks and I get soaked. So that by the time I'm in the car, I'm sleepy, I'm wet, and I'm mad. (Laughter.) And we start driving, and we just keep on driving -- we're driving, we're driving, we drive -- goes on forever. Hour and a half we're driving.
Finally we get to Greenwood -- although you don't know that you're in Greenwood right away. (Laughter.) It's kind of -- a lot of fields and -- (laughter.) We pull up next to a little field house in a park and I get back out and I get a little more wet and I go inside. And after this hour-and-a-half drive, lo and behold, there are only 20 people inside. (Laughter.) And most of them are wet and don't look like they really want to be there either. (Laughter.)
So, you know, I'm a professional. I go and shake everybody's hands and I've got kind of a tight smile on my face. "How do you do? What do you do? Nice to meet you." Suddenly I hear this voice behind me, shouting out -- "Fired up?" And I'm surprised. I'm scared, almost. (Laughter.) But everybody else acts like this was normal and they all say, "Fired up!" "Ready to go?" People around me, they all say, "Ready to go!"
I don't know what's going on. I look behind me. There is a little woman. She couldn't be more than 5'2". Watch out -- you're little, too. (Laughter.) Little lady. She's about 50, 60 years old. She dressed like she just came from church. She got a big church hat. And she's smiling at me. She looks at me and she says, "Fired up!"
Turns out this woman is a city council member from Greenwood who is famous for her chant. Every event she goes to, she likes chanting. She goes, "Fired up? "Fired up!" "Ready to go?" "Ready to go!" And she does a little dance while she's doing it. (Laughter.)
So for the next five minutes, it seems like, she just keeps on saying this little chant. "Fired up?" "Fired up!" "Ready to go?" "Ready to go!" And I'm standing there and I'm thinking, this woman is upstaging me. (Laughter.) I don't know what to do. I'm looking at my staff. I'm thinking, when is this thing going to be over? (Laughter.)
But here's the thing, Ohio. After about a minute or two, I'm starting to feel kind of fired up. (Laughter and applause.) I'm starting to feel like I'm ready to go. (Applause.) So I start joining in the chant, and it's making me feel good. And for the rest of the day, whenever -- we campaigned the whole day. Whenever I saw my staff, I said, "Are you fired up?" They said, "I'm fired up, boss. Are you ready to go?" And I'd say, "I'm ready to go."
It just goes to show you how one voice can change a room. (Applause.) And if it can change a room, it can change a city. (Applause.) And if it can change a city, it can change a state. (Applause.) And if it can change a state, it can change a nation. (Applause.) And if it can change a nation, it can change the world. (Applause.) Your voice can change the world. Your voice will get health care passed. Your voice will make sure that the American worker is protected. You can build America. I need your help.
Thank you, Cincinnati. Are you fired up?
AUDIENCE: Fired up!
THE PRESIDENT: Ready to go?
AUDIENCE: Ready to go!
THE PRESIDENT: Fired up?
AUDIENCE: Fired up!
THE PRESIDENT: Ready to go?
AUDIENCE: Ready to go!
THE PRESIDENT: Fired up?
AUDIENCE: Fired up!
THE PRESIDENT: Ready to go?
AUDIENCE: Ready to go!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you. Bye-bye. (Applause.)
END
1:59 P.M. EDT | 0 | train |
|
Target Recalls Water Absorbing Toys Due to Serious Ingestion Hazard The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction. Deaths, injuries, and property damage from consumer product incidents cost the nation more than $1 trillion annually. CPSC is committed to protecting consumers and families from products that pose a fire, electrical, chemical or mechanical hazard. CPSC's work to help ensure the safety of consumer products - such as toys, cribs, power tools, cigarette lighters and household chemicals -– contributed to a decline in the rate of deaths and injuries associated with consumer products over the past 40 years.
Federal law bars any person from selling products subject to a publicly-announced voluntary recall by a manufacturer or a mandatory recall ordered by the Commission.
To report a dangerous product or a product-related injury go online to www.SaferProducts.gov or call CPSC's Hotline at 800-638-2772 or teletypewriter at 301-595-7054 for the hearing impaired. Consumers can obtain news release and recall information at www.cpsc.gov, on Twitter @USCPSC or by subscribing to CPSC's free e-mail newsletters. | 1 | train |
|
Memorial Day 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 |
|
Local News Headlines Hawaii If you want to do business with Miller Industries, you’ll need to pick up the phone and have an actual conversation with an actual human being or, better, stop by the shop on Kalihi Street, where you can have that same actual conversation face to face with one of those human beings. | 0 | train |
|
Author Offers Insights on Slavery, the Capitol, and Obama's Inauguration Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour... Become a member of your local PBS station. | 0 | train |
|
The first Trump-Clinton presidential debate transcript, annotated Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump went head-to-head for the first time Monday night in a debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. The debate was moderated by Lester Holt of NBC News and came as polls both nationally and in swing states are increasingly tight.
The complete transcript of the debate is posted below. The Fix team has annotated it with context, analysis and other thoughts, using Genius.
To see an annotation, click or tap the highlighted words. If you would like to leave your own annotations, make sure you have a Genius account. Post staff annotations will appear by default; others are in a menu that you can see in the upper right when you click or tap on an annotation.
LESTER HOLT: Good evening from Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. I'm Lester Holt, anchor of "NBC Nightly News." I want to welcome you to the first presidential debate.
The participants tonight are Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This debate is sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. The commission drafted tonight's format, and the rules have been agreed to by the campaigns.
The 90-minute debate is divided into six segments, each 15 minutes long. We'll explore three topic areas tonight: Achieving prosperity; America's direction; and securing America. At the start of each segment, I will ask the same lead-off question to both candidates, and they will each have up to two minutes to respond. From that point until the end of the segment, we'll have an open discussion.
The questions are mine and have not been shared with the commission or the campaigns. The audience here in the room has agreed to remain silent so that we can focus on what the candidates are saying.
I will invite you to applaud, however, at this moment, as we welcome the candidates: Democratic nominee for president of the United States, Hillary Clinton, and Republican nominee for president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
(APPLAUSE)
CLINTON: How are you, Donald?
(APPLAUSE)
HOLT: Good luck to you.
(APPLAUSE)
Well, I don't expect us to cover all the issues of this campaign tonight, but I remind everyone, there are two more presidential debates scheduled. We are going to focus on many of the issues that voters tell us are most important, and we're going to press for specifics. I am honored to have this role, but this evening belongs to the candidates and, just as important, to the American people.
Candidates, we look forward to hearing you articulate your policies and your positions, as well as your visions and your values. So, let's begin.
We're calling this opening segment "Achieving Prosperity." And central to that is jobs. There are two economic realities in America today. There's been a record six straight years of job growth, and new census numbers show incomes have increased at a record rate after years of stagnation. However, income inequality remains significant, and nearly half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
Beginning with you, Secretary Clinton, why are you a better choice than your opponent to create the kinds of jobs that will put more money into the pockets of American works?
CLINTON: Well, thank you, Lester, and thanks to Hofstra for hosting us.
The central question in this election is really what kind of country we want to be and what kind of future we'll build together. Today is my granddaughter's second birthday, so I think about this a lot. First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top. That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes.
I want us to invest in you. I want us to invest in your future. That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business. We also have to make the economy fairer. That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women's work.
CLINTON: I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing. If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top.
And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work. I've heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you're under. So let's have paid family leave, earned sick days. Let's be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college.
How are we going to do it? We're going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes.
Finally, we tonight are on the stage together, Donald Trump and I. Donald, it's good to be with you. We're going to have a debate where we are talking about the important issues facing our country. You have to judge us, who can shoulder the immense, awesome responsibilities of the presidency, who can put into action the plans that will make your life better. I hope that I will be able to earn your vote on November 8th.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, thank you.
Mr. Trump, the same question to you. It's about putting money -- more money into the pockets of American workers. You have up to two minutes.
TRUMP: Thank you, Lester. Our jobs are fleeing the country. They're going to Mexico. They're going to many other countries. You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product. They're devaluing their currency, and there's nobody in our government to fight them. And we have a very good fight. And we have a winning fight. Because they're using our country as a piggy bank to rebuild China, and many other countries are doing the same thing.
So we're losing our good jobs, so many of them. When you look at what's happening in Mexico, a friend of mine who builds plants said it's the eighth wonder of the world. They're building some of the biggest plants anywhere in the world, some of the most sophisticated, some of the best plants. With the United States, as he said, not so much.
So Ford is leaving. You see that, their small car division leaving. Thousands of jobs leaving Michigan, leaving Ohio. They're all leaving. And we can't allow it to happen anymore. As far as child care is concerned and so many other things, I think Hillary and I agree on that. We probably disagree a little bit as to numbers and amounts and what we're going to do, but perhaps we'll be talking about that later.
But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us. We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and, with it, firing all of their people. All you have to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis. They left -- fired 1,400 people. They're going to Mexico. So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this.
TRUMP: We cannot let it happen. Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from 35 percent to 15 percent for companies, small and big businesses. That's going to be a job creator like we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan. It's going to be a beautiful thing to watch.
Companies will come. They will build. They will expand. New companies will start. And I look very, very much forward to doing it. We have to renegotiate our trade deals, and we have to stop these countries from stealing our companies and our jobs.
HOLT: Secretary Clinton, would you like to respond?
CLINTON: Well, I think that trade is an important issue. Of course, we are 5 percent of the world's population; we have to trade with the other 95 percent. And we need to have smart, fair trade deals.
We also, though, need to have a tax system that rewards work and not just financial transactions. And the kind of plan that Donald has put forth would be trickle-down economics all over again. In fact, it would be the most extreme version, the biggest tax cuts for the top percent of the people in this country than we've ever had.
I call it trumped-up trickle-down, because that's exactly what it would be. That is not how we grow the economy.
We just have a different view about what's best for growing the economy, how we make investments that will actually produce jobs and rising incomes.
I think we come at it from somewhat different perspectives. I understand that. You know, Donald was very fortunate in his life, and that's all to his benefit. He started his business with $14 million, borrowed from his father, and he really believes that the more you help wealthy people, the better off we'll be and that everything will work out from there.
I don't buy that. I have a different experience. My father was a small-businessman. He worked really hard. He printed drapery fabrics on long tables, where he pulled out those fabrics and he went down with a silkscreen and dumped the paint in and took the squeegee and kept going.
And so what I believe is the more we can do for the middle class, the more we can invest in you, your education, your skills, your future, the better we will be off and the better we'll grow. That's the kind of economy I want us to see again.
HOLT: Let me follow up with Mr. Trump, if you can. You've talked about creating 25 million jobs, and you've promised to bring back millions of jobs for Americans. How are you going to bring back the industries that have left this country for cheaper labor overseas? How, specifically, are you going to tell American manufacturers that you have to come back?
TRUMP: Well, for one thing -- and before we start on that -- my father gave me a very small loan in 1975, and I built it into a company that's worth many, many billions of dollars, with some of the greatest assets in the world, and I say that only because that's the kind of thinking that our country needs.
Our country's in deep trouble. We don't know what we're doing when it comes to devaluations and all of these countries all over the world, especially China. They're the best, the best ever at it. What they're doing to us is a very, very sad thing.
So we have to do that. We have to renegotiate our trade deals. And, Lester, they're taking our jobs, they're giving incentives, they're doing things that, frankly, we don't do.
Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We're on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there's a tax. When they sell in -- automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there's no tax. It's a defective agreement. It's been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven't done anything about it.
Now, in all fairness to Secretary Clinton -- yes, is that OK? Good. I want you to be very happy. It's very important to me.
But in all fairness to Secretary Clinton, when she started talking about this, it was really very recently. She's been doing this for 30 years. And why hasn't she made the agreements better? The NAFTA agreement is defective. Just because of the tax and many other reasons, but just because of the fact...
HOLT: Let me interrupt just a moment, but...
TRUMP: Secretary Clinton and others, politicians, should have been doing this for years, not right now, because of the fact that we've created a movement. They should have been doing this for years. What's happened to our jobs and our country and our economy generally is -- look, we owe $20 trillion. We cannot do it any longer, Lester. HOLT: Back to the question, though. How do you bring back -- specifically bring back jobs, American manufacturers? How do you make them bring the jobs back?
TRUMP: Well, the first thing you do is don't let the jobs leave. The companies are leaving. I could name, I mean, there are thousands of them. They're leaving, and they're leaving in bigger numbers than ever.
And what you do is you say, fine, you want to go to Mexico or some other country, good luck. We wish you a lot of luck. But if you think you're going to make your air conditioners or your cars or your cookies or whatever you make and bring them into our country without a tax, you're wrong.
And once you say you're going to have to tax them coming in, and our politicians never do this, because they have special interests and the special interests want those companies to leave, because in many cases, they own the companies. So what I'm saying is, we can stop them from leaving. We have to stop them from leaving. And that's a big, big factor.
HOLT: Let me let Secretary Clinton get in here.
CLINTON: Well, let's stop for a second and remember where we were eight years ago. We had the worst financial crisis, the Great Recession, the worst since the 1930s. That was in large part because of tax policies that slashed taxes on the wealthy, failed to invest in the middle class, took their eyes off of Wall Street, and created a perfect storm.
In fact, Donald was one of the people who rooted for the housing crisis. He said, back in 2006, "Gee, I hope it does collapse, because then I can go in and buy some and make some money." Well, it did collapse.
TRUMP: That's called business, by the way.
CLINTON: Nine million people -- nine million people lost their jobs. Five million people lost their homes. And $13 trillion in family wealth was wiped out.
Now, we have come back from that abyss. And it has not been easy. So we're now on the precipice of having a potentially much better economy, but the last thing we need to do is to go back to the policies that failed us in the first place.
Independent experts have looked at what I've proposed and looked at what Donald's proposed, and basically they've said this, that if his tax plan, which would blow up the debt by over $5 trillion and would in some instances disadvantage middle-class families compared to the wealthy, were to go into effect, we would lose 3.5 million jobs and maybe have another recession.
They've looked at my plans and they've said, OK, if we can do this, and I intend to get it done, we will have 10 million more new jobs, because we will be making investments where we can grow the economy. Take clean energy. Some country is going to be the clean- energy superpower of the 21st century. Donald thinks that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese. I think it's real.
TRUMP: I did not. I did not. I do not say that.
CLINTON: I think science is real.
TRUMP: I do not say that.
CLINTON: And I think it's important that we grip this and deal with it, both at home and abroad. And here's what we can do. We can deploy a half a billion more solar panels. We can have enough clean energy to power every home. We can build a new modern electric grid. That's a lot of jobs; that's a lot of new economic activity.
So I've tried to be very specific about what we can and should do, and I am determined that we're going to get the economy really moving again, building on the progress we've made over the last eight years, but never going back to what got us in trouble in the first place.
HOLT: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: She talks about solar panels. We invested in a solar company, our country. That was a disaster. They lost plenty of money on that one.
Now, look, I'm a great believer in all forms of energy, but we're putting a lot of people out of work. Our energy policies are a disaster. Our country is losing so much in terms of energy, in terms of paying off our debt. You can't do what you're looking to do with $20 trillion in debt.
The Obama administration, from the time they've come in, is over 230 years' worth of debt, and he's topped it. He's doubled it in a course of almost eight years, seven-and-a-half years, to be semi- exact.
So I will tell you this. We have to do a much better job at keeping our jobs. And we have to do a much better job at giving companies incentives to build new companies or to expand, because they're not doing it.
And all you have to do is look at Michigan and look at Ohio and look at all of these places where so many of their jobs and their companies are just leaving, they're gone.
And, Hillary, I'd just ask you this. You've been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now? For 30 years, you've been doing it, and now you're just starting to think of solutions.
CLINTON: Well, actually...
TRUMP: I will bring -- excuse me. I will bring back jobs. You can't bring back jobs.
CLINTON: Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit.
TRUMP: Yeah, for 30 years.
CLINTON: And I have -- well, not quite that long. I think my husband did a pretty good job in the 1990s. I think a lot about what worked and how we can make it work again...
TRUMP: Well, he approved NAFTA...
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: ... million new jobs, a balanced budget...
TRUMP: He approved NAFTA, which is the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country.
CLINTON: Incomes went up for everybody. Manufacturing jobs went up also in the 1990s, if we're actually going to look at the facts.
When I was in the Senate, I had a number of trade deals that came before me, and I held them all to the same test. Will they create jobs in America? Will they raise incomes in America? And are they good for our national security? Some of them I voted for. The biggest one, a multinational one known as CAFTA, I voted against. And because I hold the same standards as I look at all of these trade deals.
But let's not assume that trade is the only challenge we have in the economy. I think it is a part of it, and I've said what I'm going to do. I'm going to have a special prosecutor. We're going to enforce the trade deals we have, and we're going to hold people accountable.
When I was secretary of state, we actually increased American exports globally 30 percent. We increased them to China 50 percent. So I know how to really work to get new jobs and to get exports that helped to create more new jobs.
HOLT: Very quickly...
TRUMP: But you haven't done it in 30 years or 26 years or any number you want to...
CLINTON: Well, I've been a senator, Donald...
TRUMP: You haven't done it. You haven't done it.
CLINTON: And I have been a secretary of state...
TRUMP: Excuse me.
CLINTON: And I have done a lot...
TRUMP: Your husband signed NAFTA, which was one of the worst things that ever happened to the manufacturing industry.
CLINTON: Well, that's your opinion. That is your opinion.
TRUMP: You go to New England, you go to Ohio, Pennsylvania, you go anywhere you want, Secretary Clinton, and you will see devastation where manufacture is down 30, 40, sometimes 50 percent. NAFTA is the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere, but certainly ever signed in this country.
And now you want to approve Trans-Pacific Partnership. You were totally in favor of it. Then you heard what I was saying, how bad it is, and you said, I can't win that debate. But you know that if you did win, you would approve that, and that will be almost as bad as NAFTA. Nothing will ever top NAFTA.
CLINTON: Well, that is just not accurate. I was against it once it was finally negotiated and the terms were laid out. I wrote about that in...
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard.
(CROSSTALK)
TRUMP: You called it the gold standard of trade deals. You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen.
CLINTON: No.
TRUMP: And then you heard what I said about it, and all of a sudden you were against it.
CLINTON: Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts. The facts are -- I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated...
TRUMP: Not.
CLINTON: ... which I was not responsible for, I concluded it wasn't. I wrote about that in my book...
TRUMP: So is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: ... before you even announced.
TRUMP: Is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: Look, there are differences...
TRUMP: Secretary, is it President Obama's fault?
CLINTON: There are...
TRUMP: Because he's pushing it.
CLINTON: There are different views about what's good for our country, our economy, and our leadership in the world. And I think it's important to look at what we need to do to get the economy going again. That's why I said new jobs with rising incomes, investments, not in more tax cuts that would add $5 trillion to the debt.
TRUMP: But you have no plan.
CLINTON: But in -- oh, but I do.
TRUMP: Secretary, you have no plan.
CLINTON: In fact, I have written a book about it. It's called "Stronger Together." You can pick it up tomorrow at a bookstore...
TRUMP: That's about all you've...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Folks, we're going to...
CLINTON: ... or at an airport near you.
HOLT: We're going to move to...
CLINTON: But it's because I see this -- we need to have strong growth, fair growth, sustained growth. We also have to look at how we help families balance the responsibilities at home and the responsibilities at business.
So we have a very robust set of plans. And people have looked at both of our plans, have concluded that mine would create 10 million jobs and yours would lose us 3.5 million jobs, and explode the debt which would have a recession.
TRUMP: You are going to approve one of the biggest tax cuts in history. You are going to approve one of the biggest tax increases in history. You are going to drive business out. Your regulations are a disaster, and you're going to increase regulations all over the place.
And by the way, my tax cut is the biggest since Ronald Reagan. I'm very proud of it. It will create tremendous numbers of new jobs. But regulations, you are going to regulate these businesses out of existence.
When I go around -- Lester, I tell you this, I've been all over. And when I go around, despite the tax cut, the thing -- the things that business as in people like the most is the fact that I'm cutting regulation. You have regulations on top of regulations, and new companies cannot form and old companies are going out of business. And you want to increase the regulations and make them even worse.
I'm going to cut regulations. I'm going to cut taxes big league, and you're going to raise taxes big league, end of story.
HOLT: Let me get you to pause right there, because we're going to move into -- we're going to move into the next segment. We're going to talk taxes...
CLINTON: That can't -- that can't be left to stand.
HOLT: Please just take 30 seconds and then we're going to go on.
CLINTON: I kind of assumed that there would be a lot of these charges and claims, and so...
TRUMP: Facts.
CLINTON: So we have taken the home page of my website, HillaryClinton.com, and we've turned it into a fact-checker. So if you want to see in real-time what the facts are, please go and take a look. Because what I have proposed...
TRUMP: And take a look at mine, also, and you'll see.
CLINTON: ... would not add a penny to the debt, and your plans would add $5 trillion to the debt. What I have proposed would cut regulations and streamline them for small businesses. What I have proposed would be paid for by raising taxes on the wealthy, because they have made all the gains in the economy. And I think it's time that the wealthy and corporations paid their fair share to support this country.
HOLT: Well, you just opened the next segment.
TRUMP: Well, could I just finish -- I think I...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: I'm going to give you a chance right here...
TRUMP: I think I should -- you go to her website, and you take a look at her website.
HOLT: ... with a new 15-minute segment...
TRUMP: She's going to raise taxes $1.3 trillion.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, I'm going to...
TRUMP: And look at her website. You know what? It's no difference than this. She's telling us how to fight ISIS. Just go to her website. She tells you how to fight ISIS on her website. I don't think General Douglas MacArthur would like that too much.
HOLT: The next segment, we're continuing...
CLINTON: Well, at least I have a plan to fight ISIS.
HOLT: ... achieving prosperity...
TRUMP: No, no, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do.
CLINTON: No, we're not. No, we're not.
TRUMP: See, you're telling the enemy everything you want to do. No wonder you've been fighting -- no wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.
CLINTON: That's a -- that's -- go to the -- please, fact checkers, get to work.
HOLT: OK, you are unpacking a lot here. And we're still on the issue of achieving prosperity. And I want to talk about taxes. The fundamental difference between the two of you concerns the wealthy.
Secretary Clinton, you're calling for a tax increase on the wealthiest Americans. I'd like you to further defend that. And, Mr. Trump, you're calling for tax cuts for the wealthy. I'd like you to defend that. And this next two-minute answer goes to you, Mr. Trump.
TRUMP: Well, I'm really calling for major jobs, because the wealthy are going create tremendous jobs. They're going to expand their companies. They're going to do a tremendous job.
I'm getting rid of the carried interest provision. And if you really look, it's not a tax -- it's really not a great thing for the wealthy. It's a great thing for the middle class. It's a great thing for companies to expand.
And when these people are going to put billions and billions of dollars into companies, and when they're going to bring $2.5 trillion back from overseas, where they can't bring the money back, because politicians like Secretary Clinton won't allow them to bring the money back, because the taxes are so onerous, and the bureaucratic red tape, so what -- is so bad.
So what they're doing is they're leaving our country, and they're, believe it or not, leaving because taxes are too high and because some of them have lots of money outside of our country. And instead of bringing it back and putting the money to work, because they can't work out a deal to -- and everybody agrees it should be brought back.
Instead of that, they're leaving our country to get their money, because they can't bring their money back into our country, because of bureaucratic red tape, because they can't get together. Because we have -- we have a president that can't sit them around a table and get them to approve something.
And here's the thing. Republicans and Democrats agree that this should be done, $2.5 trillion. I happen to think it's double that. It's probably $5 trillion that we can't bring into our country, Lester. And with a little leadership, you'd get it in here very quickly, and it could be put to use on the inner cities and lots of other things, and it would be beautiful.
But we have no leadership. And honestly, that starts with Secretary Clinton.
HOLT: All right. You have two minutes of the same question to defend tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, Secretary Clinton.
CLINTON: I have a feeling that by, the end of this evening, I'm going to be blamed for everything that's ever happened.
TRUMP: Why not?
CLINTON: Why not? Yeah, why not?
(LAUGHTER)
You know, just join the debate by saying more crazy things. Now, let me say this, it is absolutely the case...
TRUMP: There's nothing crazy about not letting our companies bring their money back into their country.
HOLT: This is -- this is Secretary Clinton's two minutes, please.
TRUMP: Yes.
CLINTON: Yeah, well, let's start the clock again, Lester. We've looked at your tax proposals. I don't see changes in the corporate tax rates or the kinds of proposals you're referring to that would cause the repatriation, bringing back of money that's stranded overseas. I happen to support that.
TRUMP: Then you didn't read it.
CLINTON: I happen to -- I happen to support that in a way that will actually work to our benefit. But when I look at what you have proposed, you have what is called now the Trump loophole, because it would so advantage you and the business you do. You've proposed an approach that has a...
TRUMP: Who gave it that name? The first I've -- who gave it that name?
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Mr. Trump, this is Secretary Clinton's two minutes.
CLINTON: ... $4 billion tax benefit for your family. And when you look at what you are proposing...
TRUMP: How much? How much for my family? CLINTON: ... it is...
TRUMP: Lester, how much?
CLINTON: ... as I said, trumped-up trickle-down. Trickle-down did not work. It got us into the mess we were in, in 2008 and 2009. Slashing taxes on the wealthy hasn't worked.
And a lot of really smart, wealthy people know that. And they are saying, hey, we need to do more to make the contributions we should be making to rebuild the middle class.
CLINTON: I don't think top-down works in America. I think building the middle class, investing in the middle class, making college debt-free so more young people can get their education, helping people refinance their -- their debt from college at a lower rate. Those are the kinds of things that will really boost the economy. Broad-based, inclusive growth is what we need in America, not more advantages for people at the very top.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, we're...
TRUMP: Typical politician. All talk, no action. Sounds good, doesn't work. Never going to happen. Our country is suffering because people like Secretary Clinton have made such bad decisions in terms of our jobs and in terms of what's going on.
Now, look, we have the worst revival of an economy since the Great Depression. And believe me: We're in a bubble right now. And the only thing that looks good is the stock market, but if you raise interest rates even a little bit, that's going to come crashing down.
We are in a big, fat, ugly bubble. And we better be awfully careful. And we have a Fed that's doing political things. This Janet Yellen of the Fed. The Fed is doing political -- by keeping the interest rates at this level. And believe me: The day Obama goes off, and he leaves, and goes out to the golf course for the rest of his life to play golf, when they raise interest rates, you're going to see some very bad things happen, because the Fed is not doing their job. The Fed is being more political than Secretary Clinton.
HOLT: Mr. Trump, we're talking about the burden that Americans have to pay, yet you have not released your tax returns. And the reason nominees have released their returns for decades is so that voters will know if their potential president owes money to -- who he owes it to and any business conflicts. Don't Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?
TRUMP: I don't mind releasing -- I'm under a routine audit. And it'll be released. And -- as soon as the audit's finished, it will be released.
But you will learn more about Donald Trump by going down to the federal elections, where I filed a 104-page essentially financial statement of sorts, the forms that they have. It shows income -- in fact, the income -- I just looked today -- the income is filed at $694 million for this past year, $694 million. If you would have told me I was going to make that 15 or 20 years ago, I would have been very surprised.
But that's the kind of thinking that our country needs. When we have a country that's doing so badly, that's being ripped off by every single country in the world, it's the kind of thinking that our country needs, because everybody -- Lester, we have a trade deficit with all of the countries that we do business with, of almost $800 billion a year. You know what that is? That means, who's negotiating these trade deals?
We have people that are political hacks negotiating our trade deals.
HOLT: The IRS says an audit...
TRUMP: Excuse me.
HOLT: ... of your taxes -- you're perfectly free to release your taxes during an audit. And so the question, does the public's right to know outweigh your personal...
TRUMP: Well, I told you, I will release them as soon as the audit. Look, I've been under audit almost for 15 years. I know a lot of wealthy people that have never been audited. I said, do you get audited? I get audited almost every year.
And in a way, I should be complaining. I'm not even complaining. I don't mind it. It's almost become a way of life. I get audited by the IRS. But other people don't.
I will say this. We have a situation in this country that has to be taken care of. I will release my tax returns -- against my lawyer's wishes -- when she releases her 33,000 e-mails that have been deleted. As soon as she releases them, I will release.
(APPLAUSE)
I will release my tax returns. And that's against -- my lawyers, they say, "Don't do it." I will tell you this. No -- in fact, watching shows, they're reading the papers. Almost every lawyer says, you don't release your returns until the audit's complete. When the audit's complete, I'll do it. But I would go against them if she releases her e-mails.
HOLT: So it's negotiable?
TRUMP: It's not negotiable, no. Let h | 0 | train |
|
The Gingrich Tragedy Though his ideas stray, his most common theme is that government should intervene in crucial ways to create a dynamic, decentralized, low- tax society.
So why am I not more excited by the Gingrich surge?
In the first place, Gingrich loves government more than I do. He has no Hayekian modesty to restrain his faith in statist endeavor. For example, he has called for “a massive new program to build a permanent lunar colony to exploit the Moon’s resources.” He has suggested that “a mirror system in space could provide the light equivalent of many full moons so that there would be no need for nighttime lighting of the highways.”
Photo
I’m for national greatness conservatism, but this is a little too great.
Furthermore, he has an unconservative faith in his own innocence. The crossroads where government meets enterprise can be an exciting crossroads. It can also be a corrupt crossroads. It requires moral rectitude to separate public service from private gain. Gingrich was perfectly content to belly up to the Freddie Mac trough and then invent a Hamiltonian rationale to justify his own greed.
Then there is his rhetorical style. He seems to have understood that a moderate Republican like himself can win so long as he adopts a bombastic style when taking on the liberal elites. Most people just want somebody who can articulate their hatreds, and Gingrich is demagogically happy to play the role.
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.
Most important, there is temperament and character. As Yuval Levin noted in a post for National Review, the two Republican front-runners, Gingrich and Mitt Romney are both “very wonky Rockefeller Republicans who moved to the right over time as their party moved right.”
But they have very different temperaments. Romney, Levin observes, has an executive temperament — organization, discipline, calm and restraint. Gingrich has a revolutionary temperament — intensity, energy, disorganization and a tendency to see everything as a cataclysmic clash requiring a radical response.
I’d make a slightly similar point more rudely. In the two main Republican contenders, we have one man, Romney, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1950s, and another, Gingrich, who seems to have walked straight out of the 1960s. He has every negative character trait that conservatives associate with ’60s excess: narcissism, self-righteousness, self-indulgence and intemperance. He just has those traits in Republican form.
As nearly everyone who has ever worked with him knows, he would severely damage conservatism and the Republican Party if nominated. He would severely damage the Hamilton- Theodore Roosevelt strain in American life.
It’s really too bad. We could have had a great debate about the progressive-conservative tradition. President Obama is now embracing Roosevelt. Gingrich has tried to modernize this tendency.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story
But how you believe something is as important as what you believe. It doesn’t matter if a person shares your overall philosophy. If that person doesn’t have the right temperament and character, stay away. | 0 | train |
|
Spicer: “Trump Has The Legal Right To Cancel SCOTUS Because They Serve At His Pleasure” During a Monday press conference that media outlets were banned from airing, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer announced that the president was sending “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of an alleged terrorist attack in London and to the families of seven dead U.S. sailors. Spicer defended the ban on broadcasting the briefing by noting that President Donald Trump had already appeared on camera on Monday for several minutes, although he took no questions. Spicer also said that the president had confidence in all the members of the Justice Department, including Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who is reportedly investigating the president for obstruction of justice. He also insisted that Trump has the power to fire Mueller if necessary. “If you serve at the pleasure of the president, you serve at the pleasure of the president,” he said. “That is a fact.”
Asked by several reporters to clarify the full extent of the president’s power, or in other words, its limitations – if they exist – Spicer argued that the Constitution “clearly states” what the President of the United States can and cannot do. “However,” he added, “one must also recognize the fact that our Constitution was written quite a while ago and, as such, isn’t ideal when it comes to facing the issues that plague the American society nowadays. One of those issues is also the limit of the president’s power. Just like our language and many other things that are typically American, our Constitution is also a living thing that changes and evolves as time goes by. And if it doesn’t do so on its own, then it has us, the people of America, to help it. However, seeing how the people already have more than enough on their plate these days, the president has decided not to bother you folks with such boring decisions.”
Spicer continued, “As a result, the president of the country nowadays has very different legal and executive abilities than those of many of his predecessors, especially some of the first ones like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. As a matter of fact, in order to be able to deal with the problems of today, which vary incredibly compared to ones that existed when the Constitution was written, Donald Trump has incomparably more power than any other president in the history of our country. In other words, there’s a real need to follow the aforementioned ‘if you serve at the pleasure of the president, you serve at the pleasure of the president’ rule. For example, President Trump not only has the power to fire Robert Mueller; he also has the legal ability and right to cancel and disband the Supreme Court of the United States as well, should he feel the need for it. And no one could argue with such a decision.”
“This is something that’s necessary in order to cope with the daily problems and disasters that go with the territory of living in a technologically advanced time. To make things perfectly clear once again: this is not something that’s exclusive to just Donald Trump; whoever succeeds him as president will also have a slightly higher level of power, because this power is linked to the position, not the man in the position. It is today a requirement as much as it is a logical order of events. It is important that we evolve with the times and not be stuck in the past while everyone else goes past us. We need to retain the proactively flexible approach to life that has been our trademark for so long. That goes especially for interpreting the Constitution of the United States,” Spicer concluded. | 1 | train |
|
The CNN Miami Republican debate transcript, annotated Donald Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. John Kasich debated Thursday night in Miami, five days before the winner-take-all GOP primary in Florida.
The complete transcript is posted below. Washington Post reporters and readers using Genius have annotated it, and will continue to do so following the debate.
To see an annotation, click or tap the highlighted part of the transcript; if you would like to leave your own annotations, make sure you have a Genius account. Post staff annotations will appear by default; others are in a menu that you can see in the upper right when you click or tap on an annotation.
Jake Tapper introduced the candidates and the debate began.
TAPPER: Governor Kasich, we will start with you.
KASICH: Well, thank you. You know, I look in the faces of people all across this country, and I know they want to be hopeful. And many are hopeful. Look, I can take conservative policies to the White House, to Washington, to restore the strength of our economy. But I also want to transfer power, money and influence to where you live, because I believe the strength in this country rests in the neighborhoods, the families, the communities and our states.
And I believe it's a new partnership -- a partnership that can allow us to restore the spirit of America and strengthen America for the best century we've ever had.
Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Senator Rubio?
RUBIO: Every election is important. I believe this is the most important election in a generation. Because what's at stake in this election is not simply what party is going to be in charge or which candidate wins. What's at stake is our identity as a nation and as a people.
RUBIO: For over two centuries, America has been an exceptional nation. And now the time has come for this generation to do what it must do to keep it that way. If we make the right choice in this election, our children are going to be the freest and most prosperous Americans that have ever lived. And the 21st century is going to be a new American century.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Fifty-nine years ago, Florida welcomed my father to America as he stepped off the ferry boat from Cuba onto Key West. He was 18. He was filled with hopes and dreams, and yet he was in the freest land on the face of the earth.
This election, this debate is not about insults. It's not about attacks. It's not about any of the individuals on this stage. This election is about you and your children. It's about the freedom America has always had and making sure that that freedom is there for the next generation, that we stop Washington from standing in the way of the hard-working taxpayers of America.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Mr. Trump?
TRUMP: One of the biggest political events anywhere in the world is happening right now with the Republican Party. Millions and millions of people are going out to the polls and they're voting. They're voting out of enthusiasm. They're voting out of love. Some of these people, frankly, have never voted before -- 50 years old, 60 years old, 70 years old -- never voted before.
We're taking people from the Democrat Party. We're taking people as independents, and they're all coming out and the whole world is talking about it. It's very exciting. I think, frankly, the Republican establishment, or whatever you want to call it, should embrace what's happening.
We're having millions of extra people join. We are going to beat the Democrats. We are going to beat Hillary or whoever it may be. And we're going to beat them soundly.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Thank you. Thank you.
Let's begin with jobs and the economy, which Republican voters say is the most important issue to them in this election. There have been some real differences expressed in -- on this stage on whether trade deals have been good for the American workers. One of Mr. Trump's, the front runner's, signature issues is ending what he calls "disastrous trade deals" in order to bring jobs back to America.
Governor Kasich, I'd like to start with you. You've been a strong advocate for these trade deals over the years. Critics say these deals are great for corporate America's bottom line, but have cost the U.S. at least 1 million jobs. How do you respond to the criticism that you've been catering to board rooms at the expense of the American middle class?
KASICH: Well, Jake, I grew up in a blue collar family. And the simple fact of the matter is that of course we're sensitive about trade. One out of five Americans works in a job connected to trade; 38 million Americans are connected to it.
But my position has always been we want to have free trade, but fair trade. And I've been arguing all along that it is absolutely critical that when other countries break those agreements, we don't turn the process over to some international bureaucrat who comes back a couple years later and says, "Oh, America was right," and people are out of work.
The fact of the matter is we have to have an expedited process. When people cheat, when countries cheat and they take advantage of us, we need to blow the whistle. And as president of the United States, I absolutely will blow the whistle and begin to stand up for the American worker.
But we don't want to lock the doors and pull down the blinds and leave the world. Because frankly, if we do that, prices will go up. People will buy less. Other people will be out of work. And we don't want to see that happen.
Trade, though, has to be balanced and we have to make sure that when we see a violation, like some country dumping their products into this country, believe me as president, I will stand up and I will shut down those imports because they're a violation of the agreement we have and the American worker expects us to stand up.
And Jake, my family worked in the steel industry, not with a white collar. I understand their plight.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Mr. Trump, your critics say your campaign platform is inconsistent with how you run your businesses, noting that you've brought in foreign workers instead of hiring Americans, and your companies manufacture clothing in China and Mexico.
Why should voters trust that you will run the country differently from how you run your businesses? TRUMP: Because nobody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. Nobody knows it better than me. I'm a businessman. These are laws. These are regulations. These are rules. We're allowed to do it. And frankly, because of the devaluations that other countries -- the monetary devaluations that other countries are constantly doing and brilliantly doing against us, it's very, very hard for our companies in this country, in our country, to compete.
So I will take advantage of it; they're the laws. But I'm the one that knows how to change it. Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me.
TAPPER: Senator Rubio, last October, you said that you're, quote, "generally very much in favor of free trade." More recently, you backed a away from your support of some trade deals. If elected, will you support free trade deals even if it means the inevitable loss of U.S. jobs?
RUBIO: No, I support free trade deals that are good for America. We're 5 percent of the world's population. If all we do is sell things to each other, we can only sell to 5 percent of the people on earth. We have to have access to the hundreds of millions of people in the world today who can afford to buy things.
The problem is we're a low-tariff country. To import something into the United States is not very expensive, but many of these countries we can't export to because their tariffs are too high. And so I am in favor of deals that allow us to bring down those tariffs so that America can sell things to all these people around the world.
There are good trade deals and there are bad ones. So for example, here in Florida, we have benefited from the free trade deal with Colombia. It's allowed flower exporters to come into the United States but it's created jobs for hundreds of people who are now delivering those flowers and working in that industry. We have a surplus with Colombia.
On the other hand, you've seen trade deals like in Mexico that have been less than promising in some aspects, better in others. Bottom line is I believe that America, if given access to foreign markets, our workers are the most productive in the world, our people are the most innovative on this planet. If it is a free and fair trade deal, we can compete against anyone in the world, and we need to in the 21st century.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Senator Cruz, you were a supporter of the Pacific trade deal, but after taking some heat from conservatives, you changed your position. Why should these voters who don't like these trade deals trust that you will fight for them all the time and not just in election years?
CRUZ: Actually that's incorrect. There are two different agreements. There's TPA and TPP. I opposed TPP and have always opposed TPP, which is what you asked about. And when it comes to trade, look, free trade, when we open up foreign markets, helps Americans. But we're getting killed in international trade right now. And we're getting killed because we have an administration that's doesn't look out for American workers and jobs are going overseas. We're driving jobs overseas.
And the people who are losing out are in manufacturing jobs, or the steel industry or the auto industry. But I'll tell you who else is going to be losing out, which is the service industry. This Obama administration is negotiating the Trade in Services Agreement which is another treaty to allow services to come in and take jobs from Americans as well.
And you've got to understand. Trade and immigration are interwoven, and they are hurting the working men and women of this country. So the question is, what's the solution? It's easy to talk about the problems. But do you have a solution to fix it? And I think the solution is several things.
Number one, we need to negotiate trade deals protecting American workers first, not the corporate board room. Number two, we need to lift the regulations on American businesses here so we see jobs coming back. And number three, we need a tax plan like the tax plan I've introduced that will not tax exports and that will tax imports, and that will bring millions of high-paying jobs back to America.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Let's talk more about how American jobs are impacted by foreign workers. Let's go to Stephen Dinan of the Washington Times. Stephen.
DINAN: Senator Rubio in late 2014, Disney laid off 250 tech workers in Orlando, replacing many of them with foreign workers. Some of the Americans even had to train their own replacements. You support increasing the H-1B visa program that made it possible to bring in these foreign workers. Doesn't this program take jobs away from Americans?
RUBIO: If it's being abused the way Disney did. Understand that program, it is illegal now under that program to use it to replace American workers. Under that program, you have to prove not only that you're not replacing Americans, but that you've tried to hire Americans. And if a company is caught abusing that process, they should never be allowed to use it again.
The second problem with the current structure of the program that people perhaps don't understand is a lot of these companies are not directly hiring employees from abroad. They are hiring a consulting company like Tata, for example, out of India. That company then hoards up all of these visas. They hire workers. You hire -- Disney or some other company hires this company.
What they're basically doing is they are insourcing and outsourcing. They are bringing in workers from abroad that are not direct employees of a Disney or someone else, they're employees of this consulting business. And what I argue is that no consulting business such as that should be allowed to hoard up all of these visas, that the visas should only be available for companies to use to directly hire workers and that we should be stricter in how he enforce it.
It is illegal now, it is a violation of the law now to use that program to replace Americans. And if a company is caught doing that, whether it be Disney or anyone else, they should be barred from using the program in the future.
DINAN: Senator Rubio, real quick follow-up on this.
(APPLAUSE)
You've -- in the -- in the context of illegal immigration, you've called for basically putting off any legalization process until we get the border secured.
RUBIO: Correct.
DINAN: Why not call for a pause on H1Bs until those abuses you've talked about are solved.
RUBIO: Well first, I think -- well, I'd be open to it if it takes a pause. But I don't think it takes a pause to enforce the law. What they are doing is they are in fact using that program to replace an American.
If there's an American working at Disney and they bring someone from another country using H1B to replace their direct job, that's in violation of the law. And what I'm explaining to you is, what they are doing now is they are not -- what they are doing is they are eliminating the job.
They are outsourcing the entire tech division to a consulting company. They are making the argument that we didn't replace you. We just replaced the whole unit by hiring a company to do it instead. And that company that they're hiring is bringing their workers from abroad. It's a loophole they've figured out that we need to close so they can no longer continue to do it that way.
(APPLAUSE)
DINAN: Governor Kasich, I want to come to you next. Mr. Trump says that legal immigration is producing quote, "lower wages and higher unemployment for U.S. workers". He's calling for a pause on green cards issued to foreign workers. Wouldn't that help workers in the U.S.?
KAISCH: Well look, I believe in immigration, but it has to be controlled. The simple fact of the matter is I wouldn't be standing here. I'd be maybe running for president of Croatia if we didn't have immigration.
Immigration is something that brings youth and vibrance and energy to our country. But we clearly have to control our borders. We can't have people just walking in. Look, we lock our doors at night in our homes. The country has to be able to lock its doors as well. So, we -- I have a comprehensive plan to deal with this problem of immigration.
I would say we have to absolutely finish the wall and guard the border. And if anybody were to come in after that, they are going to have to go back. No excuses because we can't continue this problem. I think we ought to have a guest worker program, where people come in, work and go home.
And I think at the same time, for the 11 and a half million who are here, then in my view if they have not committed a crime since they've been here, they get a path to legalization. Not to citizenship. I believe that program can pass the Congress in the first 100 days.
But let's not lose sight of the fact that the whole key to the future of America is strong economic growth with common sense regulation, lower taxes and a balanced budget.
We can have a rising tide that lifts all the workers in America, all the people who are citizens of America, if we'll just follow the formula that works, that I used in Washington. And guess what, I've used it in Ohio to grow over 400 private sector jobs since I've been governor
DINAN: Mr. Trump, I do want to come to you. Will you also in your answer, address how long you think that pause would be and what that pause would look like.
TRUMP: I will. First of all, I think and I know the H1B very well. And it's something that I frankly use and I shouldn't be allowed to use it. We shouldn't have it. Very, very bad for workers. And second of all, I think it's very important to say, well, I'm a businessman and I have to do what I have to do.
When it's sitting there waiting for you, but it's very bad. It's very bad for business in terms of -- and it's very bad for our workers and it's unfair for our workers. And we should end it. Very importantly, the Disney workers endorsed me, as you probably read.
And I got a full endorsement because they are the ones that said, and they had a news conference, and they said, he's the only one that's going to be able to fix it. Because it is a mess. I think for a period of a year to two years we have to look back and we have to see, just to answer the second part of your question, where we are, where we stand, what's going on.
We have to sort of take a strong, good, hard look and come up with plans that work. And we're rushing into things, and we're just -- we're leading with the chin.
(BELL RINGS)
We're leading with people that don't know what they are doing in terms of our leadership. I'd say a minimum of one year, maybe two years.
DINAN: Senator Cruz, I want to bring you in very quickly on this.
(APPLAUSE)
DINAN: The United States averages about a million new permanent legal immigrants a year and hundreds of thousands more guest workers. What should the right level be?
CRUZ: Well, we need to redefine our legal immigration system so that it meets the needs of the American economy. Right now, we're bringing in far too many low skilled workers. What that is doing is driving down the wages of hard-working Americans. Our system isn't working. And then on top of that, we've got a system that's allowing in millions of people to be here illegally.
And the answer to that, I've laid out a very, very detailed immigration plan on my website. We're going to build a wall, triple the border patrol. We're going to end sanctuary cities. And let me tell you how we're going to do that.
We're going to cut off federal taxpayer funds to any city that defies federal immigration laws.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: We're going to end welfare benefits for anyone who is here illegally. And the thing to understand, Stephen, we can solve these problems. It's not that we don't know how to do it. It's that we're lacking the political will. Neither of the parties in Washington wants to do this.
The Democrats support illegal immigration because they view those illegal immigrants as potential voters and far too many of the Republicans are doing the bidding of Wall Street and the special interest and they view it as cheap labor.
CRUZ: We need instead leadership that works for the working men and women of this country. We need an immigration system that takes care of the jobs of the working men and women of this country.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Senator Rubio, did you want to weigh in?
RUBIO: Well, I would add when you talk about the millions of green cards that are coming in, those aren't actually workers at all. They are just coming in primarily based on family connection. And ;let me tell you, when my parents came in 1956, I acknowledge that my parents came to the U.S. on a family-based system.
The problem is nothing looks like it did 60 years ago. The 21st Century economy simply is not creating enough jobs for people that don't have skills. When my parents came, they had a very limited education. My father stopped going to school when he was 9 years old because his mother died and he had to work. And he would work the next 70 years of his life and never go back to school. And I'm grateful every day that America welcomed them.
But today in the 21st Century, 60 years later, finding jobs when you don't have skills is very difficult. We need to move to a merit- based system of immigration, not just on H-1B, particularly on green cards. The primary criteria for bringing someone from abroad in the 21st Century should be, what skills do you have? What business are you going to open? What investment are you going to make? What job are you going to be able to do when you arrive in the United States?
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Education obviously plays a large role when it comes to jobs and the economy. The United States has long been falling behind others in the industrialized world. American students currently rank 27th out of 34 countries in math and 17th in reading.
Mr. Trump, you've called the education standards known as Common Core a disaster. What are your specific objections to Common Core?
TRUMP: Education through Washington, D.C. I don't want that. I want local education. I want the parents, and I want all of the teachers, and I want everybody to get together around a school and to make education great.
And it was very interesting, I was with Dr. Ben Carson today, who is endorsing me, by the way, tomorrow morning, and he is...
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: We were talking. We spoke for over an hour on education. And he has such a great handle on it. He wants competitive schools. He wants a lot of different things that are terrific, including charter schools, by the way, that the unions are fighting like crazy. But charter schools work and they work very well.
So there are a lot of things. But I'm going to have Ben very involved with education, something that's an expertise of his.
TAPPER: OK. But just to clarify, the Common Core standards were developed by the states, states and localities voluntarily adopt them, and they come up with their own curricula to meet those standards. So when you say "education by Washington, D.C.," what do you mean?
TRUMP: You're right, Jake. But it has been taken over by the federal government. It was originally supposed to be that way. And certainly sounds better that way. But it has all been taken over now by the bureaucrats in Washington, and they are not interested in what's happening in Miami or in Florida, in many cases.
Now in some cases they would be. But in many cases they are more interested in their paycheck and the big bureaucracy than they are taking care of the children.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Governor Kasich, you have called opposition to Common Core hysteria. What is your response to grassroots conservatives who do not agree with you?
KASICH: Well, look, all I'm in favor of in Ohio is high standards. First of all, let me tell you, I would take 125 federal education programs, put them in four buckets, and send them back to the states. OK, I've been working on this for many, many years.
Secondly, Jake, in our state, the state school board sets the standards. And we want high standards because we have not always had high standards, unfortunately. They set the standards and the local school boards develop the curriculum.
Not only did we have that in the law, we reasserted it in the law. And we also want parental advisers in the local school district so that, in fact, you know, frankly, education has to be run at the school board level with a little guidance from the state.
Now on top of that, you want to talk about the 21st Century and what we need to do with our kids? We need to start connecting them to the real world. We need to be training them for the jobs of the 21st Century, not the jobs of 20 years ago.
We need vocational education starting in the seventh grade where kids can get that kind of education that can take them to college, but all the way through their K through 12 they ought to be connected with real-world jobs.
Frankly, what ought to happen is we ought to get them to pursue their God-given talents and connect them with the things that give them passion. And that's exactly what we're doing in Ohio, combined with mentoring programs to talk to kids about what their future can be.
So let me be clear, local control, obviously, high state standards. That's what it is in the state of Ohio.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: So, Senator Cruz, let me bring you in. You object to Common Core. Governor Kasich says it's local school boards developing local curriculum to meet higher standards. What's wrong with that?
CRUZ: Common Core is a disaster. And if I am elected president, in the first days as president, I will direct the Department of Education that Common Core ends that day.
(APPLAUSE)
CRUZ: Now, let me tell you why you can do that, because it's easy to talk about the problem, but you have to understand the solutions. The Obama administration has abused executive power in forcing common core on the states. It has used race-to-the-top funds to effectively blackmail and force the states to adopt common core.
Now, the one silver lining of Obama abusing executive power is that everything done with executive power can be undone with executive power, and I intend to do that.
(APPLAUSE)
Beyond that, though, Jake, I intend to work to abolish the federal Department of Education and send education back to the states and back to the local governments.
And let me say finally, the most important reform we can do in education after getting the federal government out of it, is expand school choice; expand charter schools and home schools and private schools and vouchers, and scholarships. And give every child -- African American, Hispanic -- every child in need an opportunity to access to a quality education.
(APPLAUSE)
TAPPER: Let's move on to another topic of particular interest here in Florida. Florida has the highest percentage of seniors in the country. There are 3.1 million senior citizens here who receive Social Security benefits, and they're very interested in hearing what you candidates intend to do to keep Social Security going for future generations.
Let me turn now to my colleague Dana Bash.
BASH: Senator Rubio, you argue Americans your age must have an honest conversation about making Social Security sustainable. For people under 55, you want to raise the retirement age and also reduce benefits for wealthier Americans. So, what should the new retirement age be? And how much will those benefits be cut?
RUBIO: Well, first of all, let me say that you're right, there are about 3 million seniors in Florida with Social Security and Medicare. One of them is my mother, who happens to be here today. I'm against any changes to Social Security that are bad for my mother. And we don't have to make any changes for them. But anyone who tells you that Social Security can stay the way it is is lying. Any politician that goes around saying, "We don't have to anything; all we have to do is raise a few taxes or just leave it the way it is," they're not being honest with you.
Social Security will go bankrupt and it will bankrupt the country with it. So what it will require is people younger, like myself, people that are 30 years away from retirement, to accept that our Social Security is going to work differently than it did for my parents.
For example, instead of retiring at 67 the way I'm supposed to retire, I'd have to retire at 68. If I were still in the Senate, I'd be one of the youngest people there.
(LAUGHTER)
If I've made a lot of money, my Social Security benefit will not grow as fast as someone who made less money. And by the way, Medicare could very well become the option of using my Medicare benefit to buy a private plan that I like better. Medicare Advantage does that now.
These are not unreasonable changes to ask of someone like myself who is 25 or 30 years away from retirement, in exchange for leaving the program undisturbed for the people that are on it now or about to retire, and ensuring that we do not bankrupt our country and that this program still exists when my children retire, when my grandchildren retire, when I retire.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator, the question was specific though. You made your plan very clear about generally what you want to do, but how high would the retirement age go and how much would you cut those benefits?
RUBIO: Well, I'm sorry I didn't answer that part. So the thing is that my -- my generation, someone my age would retire at 68. We would continue to allow it to increase the retirement age for future generations until it hit 70. And so my children would retire at 70. I would retire at 68. It would be a graduating scale over a period of time.
But again I'm talking about people like myself and Ted who are 45 years old. We're years away from retirement. For people that are on it now, we don't have to change it at all. If we don't do anything, we will have a debt crisis. It's not a question of if. It is a question of when. In less than five years, only 17 percent of our budget will remain discretionary; 83 percent of the federal budget in less than five years will all be spent on Medicare, Medicaid, the interest on the debt.
That's -- all of it will be eaten up by that. That's a debt crisis. And it will be debilitating to our economy and our children deserve better than to inherit a debt crisis.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Mr. Trump, you don't want to raise the retirement age, and you also don't want to cut benefits even for wealthier Americans. But according to the Social Security Administration, unless adjustments are made, Social Security is projected to run out of money within 20 years. So specifically, what would you do to stop that from happening?
TRUMP: Well, first of all, I want you to understand that the Democrats, and I've watched them very intensely, even though it's a very, very boring thing to watch, that the Democrats are doing nothing with Social Security. They're leaving it the way it is. In fact, they want to increase it. They want to actually give more.
And that's what we're up against. And whether we like it or not, that is what we're up against.
I will do everything within my power not to touch Social Security, to leave it the way it is; to make this country rich again; to bring back our jobs; to get rid of deficits; to get rid of waste, fraud and abuse, which is rampant in this country, rampant, totally rampant.
TRUMP: And it's my absolute intention to leave Social Security the way it is. Not increase the age and to leave it as is.
You have 22 years, you have a long time to go. It's not long in terms of what we're talking about, but it's still a long time to go, and I want to leave Social Security as is, I want to make our country rich again so we can afford it. I want to bring back our jobs, I want to do things that will make us, that will bring back GDP...
I mean, as an example, GDP was zero essentially for the last two quarters. If that ever happened in China. you would have had a depression like nobody's ever seen before. They go down to 7 percent, 8 percent, and it's a -- it's a national tragedy. We're at zero, we're not doing anything.
We've lost our jobs. We've lost everything. We're losing everything. Our jobs are gone, our businesses are being taken out of the country. I want to make America great again and I want to leave Social Security as is. We're going to get rid of waste, fraud, abuse and bring back business.
(APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Rubio, I know you want to get in. Hang on one second, I just want to follow up with Mr. Trump. You're talking about waste, fraud and abuse, but an independent bipartisan organization, the Committee For a Responsible Federal Budget, says improper payments like you're talking about, that would only save about $3 billion, but it would take $150 billion to make Social Security solvent. So how would you find that other $147 million?
TRUMP: Because they don't cover most of the subjects. We're the policemen of the world. We take care of the entire world. We're going to have a stronger military, much stronger. Our military is depleted. But we take care of Germany, we take care of Saudi Arabia, we take care of Japan, we take care of South Korea. We take -- every time this maniac from North Korea does anything, we immediately send our ships. We get virtually nothing.
We have 28,000 soldiers on the line, on the border between North and South Korea. We have so many places. Saudi Arabia was making a billion dollars a day, and we were getting virtually nothing to protect them. We are going to be in a different world. We're going to negotiate real deals now, and we're going to bring the wealth back to our country. We owe $19 trillion. We're going to bring wealth back to our country. (APPLAUSE)
BASH: Senator Rubio, will that be enough to save Social Security?
RUBIO: No. And I -- and I think you've outlined why. The numbers don't add up. You know, when I ran for the Senate in 2010, I came out and said we're going to have to make changes to Social Security, and everyone said that's the end of your campaign. In Florida, you can't talk about that, but people know that it's the truth here in Florida.
Fraud is not enough. Certainly, let's wipe out the fraud, but as you said, it won't add up. You already gave those numbers. The second point is on foreign aid. I hear that all the time as well. I'm against any sort of wasting of money on foreign aid, but it's less than 1 percent of | 0 | train |
|
Trump’s Top Scientist Pick: “Scientists Are Just Dumb Regular People That Think Dinosaurs Existed And The Earth Is Getting Warmer” The research section of the USDA studies everything from nutrition to climate change, and according to the 2008 Farm Bill the “chief scientist” is supposed to be the leader “among distinguished scientists with specialized or significant experience in agricultural research, education and economics.” President Donald Trump’s pick, Sam Clovis, doesn’t seem to have any of those credentials. He has never taken science as part of his graduate course and questions the legitimacy of climate change. Although he has a doctorate in public administration and taught business and public policy at Morningside College for ten years, he barely published any academic work. Clovis had made a reputation for himself as a conservative talk radio show in Iowa and an avid Trump supporter.
When asked to comment on his credentials in a recent interview with KYXL Radio, Clovis, who is currently working as the senior White House advisor within the USDA, argued that he was “proud” he didn’t have any scientific credentials or education, because “scientists are nothing more than a bunch of mislead individuals anyway.” Asked to elaborate, he said that he was “glad” to be working in the Trump administration, but that he was, at the same time, “disappointed” as to where he was assigned. “While I can certainly appreciate President Trump’s reasons for placing me at my current position, at the same time I can’t help but feel as though my abilities are being severely misused here,” he said. “I do not agree with anything these people are trying to do. I mostly spend my days watching them run around in circles, trying to change the world or something. In reality, they’re just wasting their time.”
“When I get back home from work – believe me – I thank God every single day that he had the mercy not to make me a scientist as well,” Clovis continued. “I’m proud I’m not one of them because they believe in things like evolution and the like. They have no fear from God, no understanding of things that they can’t see, taste, smell, touch or hear. If you ask me, that’s a pretty limited way for one to live their life. And you want to know what the irony is? They’re the ones who keep calling us traditional and conservative. They, who refuse to believe God made man because they found some sort of so-called evidence that man derived from monkeys or whatever. They’re so narrow-minded that they can’t except that we’re different and then they go around calling us the conservatives. It’s funny when you really think about it.”
“That’s why I’m happy I’m not one of them. At the end of the day, scientists are nothing more than a bunch of dumb, regular people with limited vision who think dinosaurs actually existed and the earth is somehow getting warmer. They don’t even consider the fact that there’s more to us, to our species than just the physical and the tangible. It’s as funny as it is pitiful,” he said. When asked why he continues to work as president Trump’s pick for top scientist if that’s how he feels about it, he replied, “Well, just because you’re a member of the Trump administration doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the bills. That used to work for members of the Obama administration, if I remember correctly. Not now,” Clovis concluded.
SOURCE
Comments
comments | 1 | train |
|
Notice: Data not available: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Notice
Wednesday, May 1, 2019 3:48 AM
The database is currently unavailable.
Your request was invalid for this Data Access Service. Please attempt other data requests. Thank you for using LABSTAT. | 0 | train |
|
HillaryClinton.com Twice in One Day: Senator Obama Tries Rewriting History, Again Claims He Hasn't Been Planning White House Run
At an event in Boston this evening, Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.
"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last fifteen years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
In Boston this evening, Senator Obama said: "I'm not running to fulfill some long held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Iowa earlier today, he said: Senator Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
But that's not what Senator Obama's teachers, family, classmates or staff say: | 0 | train |
|
Denzel Washington hit by Facebook fake news story on Trump A fabricated news story claiming Hollywood actor Denzel Washington had praised US President-elect Donald Trump is being shared widely on Facebook.
The post from Facebook page American News has been shared more than 22,000 times since Monday.
It claims Mr Washington praised Mr Trump, saying: "We need more and more jobs.
"He has hired more employees, more people, than anyone I know in the world."
The story also claims Mr Washington called President Barack Obama "anti-Christian".
Mr Washington's publicist Alan Nierob told BBC News: "The story is 100% complete fabrication."
Image copyright Facebook
But some Facebook users have been fooled.
One, Anita Ward, said on Facebook: "Kudos to Denzel.
"We need to be a united country not divided, after all it is called United States of America.
"In the name of Jesus, stand up for America and come together, love one another and work together."
Another posted: "He has been my favourite actor for a very long time. Knew there was something special about him. God is his saviour. Thank you, Denzel!"
Image copyright Reuters
The prevalence of fake news on Facebook has become a hot issue in the wake of the US election.
And Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg responded to these concerns in a post on Saturday night.
"Only a very small amount is fake news and hoaxes," he said.
"The hoaxes that do exist are not limited to one partisan view, or even to politics."
But it appears not all Mr Zuckerberg's own employees were satisfied with his response, as Buzzfeed news has reported that some have set up an unofficial task force to deal with the problem.
Things to ask yourself before you share a claim
Have I heard of the publisher before?
Is this the source I think it is?
Has this been reported anywhere else?
Is there more than one piece of evidence for this claim?
Who is American News?
American News has more than five million likes on Facebook.
It specialises in emotive right-wing stories.
The articles it shares on Facebook link back to its website, which contains no information about the people who write and publish the stories.
The domain registration uses a privacy service to keep the owner's identity a secret.
The BBC messaged American News for comment but has had no response.
Where did this story come from?
Characteristically for stories of this type, American News was not the first to publish it.
Instead, it took it from other similar websites.
As reported by Snopes - one of the internet's oldest debunking sites - a site called ANews24 published the false claim about Mr Washington back in August.
Snopes points out the words about Donald Trump attributed to Mr Washington are originally from an interview in the New York Post with civil rights activist Charles Evers.
Mr Evers, 93, endorsed Mr Trump in that interview, saying: "We need more and more jobs.
"Unemployment is way up here.
"He has hired more employees, more people, than anyone I know in the world."
How to spot a fake US election claim
by Patrick Evans, UGC & Social News team | 1 | train |
|
Iraq pullout could create chaos WASHINGTON — U.S. troops could withdraw from Iraq within months, but if Iraq's government remains politically deadlocked, it probably would collapse and the nation would descend into chaos, a war game organized by the U.S. Army concluded earlier this month.
The war gamers, following a scenario created by their Army hosts, determined that U.S. troops would secure the exit route to Kuwait through largely Shiite Muslim southern Iraq and face little fighting as they drove their equipment out. Any attacks, the panel judged, would be "harassment attacks," likely by a few Sunni members of al Qaida in Iraq who wanted to attack American troops one last time.
"Why would they stop us? They have been telling us to leave," said one participant who requested anonymity to speak freely about the war game.
Once U.S. troops left, however, the chaos in Iraq would escalate. Shiite militias would drive Baghdad's Sunni population into Iraq's western Anbar province, which is almost exclusively Sunni, the war gamers concluded. There would be a power struggle within Anbar among tribes backed by outside Sunni Arab states, including Saudi Arabia and Syria.
Rival Shiite factions would fight one another to control much of the rest of the country, and Iran presumably would back one side, although the gamers couldn't assess how overt Iranian interference would be. Turkey would consider entering Iraq from the north to thwart the Kurds, who desire independence and claim some of Turkey as part of their homeland.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki's government would be unable to control the country. Indeed, the gamers concluded, his government could collapse unless Iran threw its support behind it.
"The mess we would leave behind would be awful," the participant said. "The ethnic cleansing is happening now. Once we're gone, absent a political solution that would allow the Iraqi Army to go into action, all of that will be accelerated."
The Army staged the one-day exercise earlier this month at a Hilton hotel in suburban Springfield, Va., and invited 30 Iraq experts, among them serving and retired officers and Iraqi exiles.
The organizers picked April 2008 as a starting point — the month after which U.S. commanders have said they can't maintain the surge of additional U.S. forces and still give troops a year off between 15-month deployments — and January 2009 as the end. They played the roles of the Sunnis, the Shiites, the insurgents, the militias, the military generals and the Iraqi government.
The game was one of several simulations of what Iraq might look like in the 2009 time frame if U.S. troops leave, said retired Marine Col. Gary Anderson, who participated in the Springfield exercise and several previous such games. But he said the Army hasn't yet staged an exercise premised on an abrupt withdrawal.
That the military war games are focusing on the potential chaos in Iraq, rather than an abrupt troop withdrawal, offers some insight into how the Pentagon is planning for the next stage of the war, several of the participants told McClatchy Newspapers.
"It will be as easy to get out as it was to get in," said one senior defense official, who declined to speak on the record about possible future operations. He said he believes that U.S. forces could get out of Iraq in as little as six months.
But the military insists that there's no withdrawal plan at this time.
"Tell us the policy, and we will do it," one senior Pentagon official said.
Critics said the military is underestimating how hard it'll be to get out of Iraq. They point to Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, which boosted the fortunes of the militant Shiite Islamic group Hezbollah, and the Soviet Union's hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan, which cost more than 500 Soviet troops their lives.
Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., a retired Navy vice admiral who was director of defense policy for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said he believes that drawing down or withdrawing troops could be one of the most dangerous periods of the Iraq war.
"The military will be vulnerable ... You are going to go out in a combat situation," Sestak said. "I think we can do greater damage if we don't have a firm grasp on the military implications."
U.S. troops are likely to leave an Iraq that's still embroiled in fierce sectarian violence, he said. "How quickly can the military move its 160,000 troops out? What about the 100,000-plus contractors? How many of the military's 45,000 Humvees should be left behind for the Iraqi Army? Which of 64 military bases should be closed? How does the military protect its main route out of Iraq toward Kuwait?"
Sestak estimates that it would take at long as two years to withdraw.
America's future in Iraq will be at center stage next month, when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. envoy there, give an assessment and recommendation to Congress on Iraq's security and political situation.
The war gamers' only issue was getting out and at what cost.
By the end of the game, the players decided that the exercise had "captured how bad it would be," said the participant who declined to be identified.
"I don't worry about how we will get out of Iraq," Anderson concluded about the latest war game. "I am worried about the Iraqis we will kill on the way out." | 0 | train |
|
CPAC 2013 - Former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) 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 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.