'Genocide' Fails to Describe What Is Happening to Christians in the Middle East, Chaldean Pastor SaysIn an interview with The Christian Post, evangelical author and humanitarian Johnnie Moore reflected that it seems as though Kerry stood against his State Department and Obama administration advisors in making the genocide decision.
"I am encouraged by the fact that Secretary Kerry, in what appears to be on his own initiative based upon what has been said [in the media] and various sources, made this decision," Moore, a former Liberty University vice president, said. "His decision was a controversial decision and is not totally supported within the State Department but he had the courage to make the decision, which I totally commend."
"I am sure some people in the White House and some people in the State Department would have rather John Kerry not made the decision he made," Moore continued. "Although, there may be people in the White House and the State Department who have changed their opinion '-- as indicated as late as yesterday afternoon when the State Department was saying that the deadline would be missed and that the secretary was taking a measured approach."
In response to the news that Kerry was going to indeed declare genocide, an unnamed State Department official, who was not cleared to speak on the matter, told the Associated Press that the declaration "will not obligate the United States to take additional action against IS militants."
Although the genocide declaration will not legally require additional action from the administration, Moore argues that a genocide declaration provides the nation with a moral duty to not only take action to stop the genocide but to provide more for those who have been displaced.
"I am discouraged that the official State Department policy and response to that decision is that they are not required to take any specific action," Moore said. "If you say something is a genocide, I believe whatever the varying legal interpretations are, there is a moral imperative that you stand up on behalf of the victims of this genocide."
Moore and other human rights activists, like genocide scholar Gregory Stanton, believe that the State Department and the Obama administration were so hesitant to declare genocide because they are not prepared to take greater actions.
"Here is the case where the administration is not ready to make the determination because it has not determined to do what is necessary to really stop ISIS with the full force that it needs to use," Stanton said during a press conference last week.
Moore, an editorial advisor to The Christian Post, added that if the administration was really determined to make a genocide declaration, the State Department would have made more of a hands-on effort in investigating the allegations of genocide.
He pointed out that before the U.S. declared genocide in Darfur in 2004, the State Department sent about two dozen State Department-funded researchers to the region to investigate.
Instead of sending State Department researchers to investigate the genocidal claims against IS, the State Department outsourced its investigation to humanitarian groups like the Knights of Columbus. Last week, the Knights of Columbus submitted a nearly 280-page report highlighting the proof that IS is committing genocide against Christians.
On Monday, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously passed a resolution stating that the Islamic State is committing genocide against religious minorities.
"I think the fact that they weren't willing to investigate it themselves, which they were willing to do in Darfur, indicates that there wasn't the will in certain parts of the State Department to take this as seriously as the American people required them to take it," Moore added. "This shows the power of the United States of America when millions of regular people decide that our government needs to do address something seriously and they rally their legislators so that in the most partisan moment that any of us remember in this country we can have a unanimous declaration of genocide from Congress and force the government to stop their delay and to make a decisions."
"John Kerry deserves commendation for that decision and on the same token, we can not let this be a PR exercise," Moore added. "We have to require that the State Department, the White House and members of Congress actually take decisive action to respond to this moral conclusion."
Moore explained that there are a number of things that should be done to take action on the genocide declaration.
He praised Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, who introduced legislation Thursday that would prioritize Christians and other religious minorities in the Syrian refugee resettlement program. Moore added that prioritization in humanitarian aid also needs to be given to Christians and other religious minorities.
Follow Samuel Smith on Twitter: @IamSamSmith'¹
Billy Graham: Christians Should Ignore Mockery of Non-Believers
'º
'Chrisley Knows Best' Reality Star Chase Chrisley Removing Bible Tattoo in Exchange for Range Rover
How Meaningful Is the ISIS 'Genocide' Designation? - The Atlantic
After months of reviews and investigations, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Thursday that the atrocities committed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria amounted to ''genocide.'' It was just the second time in history the executive branch has ever attached that designation to an ongoing crisis.
Kerry's statement, delivered just hours before a deadline put forth by Congress, inspires a new set of questions. Chief among them: Now what?
Following the speech, a senior State Department official clarified that Thursday's declaration placed ''no new obligations'' on the United States in its ongoing campaign against the terrorist group. So what specifically is the purpose of the designation? It depends on whom you ask.
Cameron Hudson is the director of the Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide at the U.S. National Holocaust Museum, which was among the many institutions and organizations to lobby for the designation. Hudson called it a ''good first step.''
''The designation is significant because we're acknowledging not just the suffering of people on the ground, but we're acknowledging that ISIS is more than just a terrorist group,'' he said on Thursday. ''It's now a genocidal group that poses a national security threat to the United States, of course, but poses an existential threat the people who are trapped in their crosshairs and who are in the areas that they control.''
In other words, he added, the declaration represents a potential shift in U.S. thinking whereby ISIS transcends its definition as a traditional counterterrorism target and those entrapped by the group transcend their definition as traditional victims of a proximate war. Hudson added this historical note:
This harkens back to the Holocaust where the idea of saving Jews was not part of our war strategy in World War II. To the extent that we were going to save European Jewry, it was by winning the war and in the time that we made those statements, the Holocaust happened.
The idea that we can eliminate a genocidal threat simply by defeating ISIS, I'm concerned that this threat is going to continue and that more and more people are going to be eliminated in the time it takes to wipe out ISIS. I think the argument we would make is that we need to be doing both at the same time.
Eric Morris, who formerly worked for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and now teaches at Stanford University, was a little less sanguine about the designation.
He suggests that in the past, the debate over whether a crisis does or does not constitute genocide ''was actually a way of delaying action'' in the eyes of critics. Once declared, either by advocates or administrations, the designation does not always translate into action.
''When people use the word 'genocide,' at least implicitly, there is some kind of assumption that some form of obligation is involved, certainly for states that have signed onto the Geneva Convention,'' Morris told me. ''But the reality is that they have very, very imperfect obligations and that's where the problem lies.''
Writing in The Atlantic back in 2011, Rebecca Hamilton noted the response of Warren Christopher, who served as secretary of state under President Clinton, to a question in 1994 about whether the ongoing massacres in Rwanda merited the designation. ''If there is any particular magic in calling it genocide,'' Christopher said, ''I have no hesitancy in saying that.'' (Hamilton notes that Christopher and the Clinton administration, scarred by the Black Hawk Down disaster in Somalia, avoided a formal declaration at all costs.)
Say the United States does use the genocide designation to seek to involve the UN Security Council, establish war-crimes tribunals, or push to have cases referred to the International Criminal Court, ''the second problem,'' Morris notes, ''is that you have imperfect institutions.'' (Hudson remarked that the two bills that overwhelmingly passed through the House earlier this week calling for the genocide designation and war-crimes tribunals were noteworthy because of Congress's general skepticism about international justice.)
While Morris did concede the declaration is useful because it allows for these options, looking back at the only other time the executive branch of the United States government has ever formally declared a genocide in real time does not make for a heartening precedent. After facing months of pressure to declare the crisis in Darfur to be a ''genocide,'' then-Secretary of State Colin Powell said this to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in September of 2004:
Mr. Chairman, some seem to have been waiting for this determination of genocide to take action. In fact, however, no new action is dictated by this determination. We have been doing everything we can to get the Sudanese Government to act responsibly. So let us not be too preoccupied with this designation. These people are in desperate need and we must help them. Call it civil war; call it ethnic cleansing; call it genocide; call it "none of the above." The reality is the same. There are people in Darfur who desperately need the help of the international community.
''So the question is,'' Morris posits, ''Is the Kerry statement more or less like the Powell statement?''
From: To: Date: 2000-12-31 22:00 Subject: NEW IRAN AND SYRIA 2.DOCUNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015RELEASE IN FULL The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad. Negotiations to limit Iran's nuclear program will not solve Israel's security dilemma. Nor will they stop Iran from improving the crucial part of any nuclear weapons program '-- the capability to enrich uranium. At best, the talks between the world's major powers and Iran that began in Istanbul this April and will continue in Baghdad in May will enable Israel to postpone by a few months a decision whether to launch an attack on Iran that could provoke a major Mideast war. Iran's nuclear program and Syria's civil war may seem unconnected, but they are. For Israeli leaders, the real threat from a nuclear-armed Iran is not the prospect of an insane Iranian leader launching an unprovoked Iranian nuclear attack on Israel that would lead to the annihilation of both countries. What Israeli military leaders really worry about -- but cannot talk about -- is losing their nuclear monopoly. An Iranian nuclear weapons capability would not only end that nuclear monopoly but could also prompt other adversaries, like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, to go nuclear as well. The result would be a precarious nuclear balance in which Israel could not respond to provocations with conventional military strikes on Syria and Lebanon, as it can today. If Iran were to reach the threshold of a nuclear weapons state, Tehran would find it much easier to call on its allies in Syria and Hezbollah to strike Israel, knowing that its nuclear weapons would serve as a deterrent to Israel responding against Iran itself. Back to Syria. It is the strategic relationship between Iran and the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria that makes it possible for Iran to undermine Israel's security '-- not through a direct attack, which in the thirty years of hostility between Iran and Israel has never occurred, but through its proxies in Lebanon, like Hezbollah, that are sustained, armed and trained by Iran via Syria. The end of the Assad regime would end this dangerous alliance. Israel's leadership understands well why defeating Assad is now in its interests. Speaking on CNN's Amanpour show last week, Defense Minister Ehud Barak argued that "the toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis, major blow to Iran.... It's the only kind of outpost of the Iranian influence in the Arab world...and it will weaken dramatically both Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza." Bringing down Assad would not only be a massive boon to Israel's security, it would also ease Israel's understandable fear of losing its nuclear monopoly. Then, Israel and the United States might be able to develop a common view of when the Iranian program is so dangerous that military action could be warranted. Right now, it is the combination of Iran's strategic alliance with Syria and the steady progress in Iran's nuclear enrichment program that has led Israeli leaders to contemplate a surprise attack '-- if necessary over the objections of Washington. With Assad gone, and Iran no longer able to threaten Israel through its, proxies, it is possible that the United States and Israel can agree on red lines for when Iran's program has crossed an unacceptable threshold. In short, the White House can ease the tension that has developed with Israel over Iran by doing the right thing in Syria. The rebellion in Syria has now lasted more than a year. The opposition is not going away, nor is the regime going to accept a diplomatic solution from the outside. With his life and his family at risk, only the threat or use of force will change the Syrian dictator Bashar Assad's mind. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05794498 Date: 11/30/2015 The Obama administration has been understandably wary of engaging in an air operation in Syria like the one conducted in Libya for three main reasons. Unlike the Libyan opposition forces, the Syrian rebels are not unified and do not hold territory. The Arab League has not called for outside military intervention as it did in Libya. And the Russians are opposed. Libya was an easier case. But other than the laudable purpose of saving Libyan civilians from likely attacks by Qaddafi's regime, the Libyan operation had no long-lasting consequences for the region. Syria is harder. But success in Syria would be a transformative event for the Middle East. Not only would another ruthless dictator succumb to mass opposition on the streets, but the region would be changed for the better as Iran would no longer have a foothold in the Middle East from which to threaten Israel and undermine stability in the region. Unlike in Libya, a successful intervention in Syria would require substantial diplomatic and military leadership from the United States. Washington should start by expressing its willingness to work with regional allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar to organize, train and arm Syrian rebel forces. The announcement of such a decision would, by itself, likely cause substantial defections from the Syrian military. Then, using territory in Turkey and possibly Jordan, U.S. diplomats and Pentagon officials can start strengthening the opposition. It will take time. But the rebellion is going to go on for a long time, with or without U.S. involvement. The second step is to develop international support for a coalition air operation. Russia will never support such a mission, so there is no point operating through the UN Security Council. Some argue that U.S. involvement risks a wider war with Russia. But the Kosovo example shows otherwise. In that case, Russia had genuine ethnic and political ties to the Serbs, which don't exist between Russia and Syria, and even then Russia did little more than complain. Russian officials have already acknowledged they won't stand in the way if intervention comes. Arming the Syrian rebels and using western air power to ground Syrian helicopters and airplanes is a low-cost high payoff approach. As long as Washington's political leaders stay firm that no U.S. ground troops will be deployed, as they did in both Kosovo and Libya, the costs to the United States will be limited. Victory may not come quickly or easily, but it will come. And the payoff will be substantial. Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will see the United States as a friend, not an enemy. Washington would gain substantial recognition as fighting for the people in the Arab world, not the corrupt regimes. For Israel, the rationale for a bolt from the blue attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would be eased. And a new Syrian regime might well be open to early action on the frozen peace talks with Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon would be cut off from its Iranian sponsor since Syria would no longer be a transit point for Iranian training, assistance and missiles. All these strategic benefits and the prospect of saving thousands of civilians from murder at the hands of the Assad regime (10,000 have already been killed in this first year of civil war). With the veil of fear lifted from the Syrian people, they seem determine to fight for their freedom. America can and should help them '-- and by doing so help Israel and help reduce the risk of a wider war.
Saudi Arabia's Destructive Oil Freeze | Foreign Policy
At OPEC's December meeting in Vienna, the delegation from Saudi Arabia ignored the pleas of some of the bloc's more economically fragile members, whose ranks include Nigeria and Venezuela, to cut output in order to halt the drop in crude oil prices. Instead, the Saudis insisted on maintaining production at its current levels. In the two months that followed, prices of Brent crude oil promptly fell from $40 per barrel to a low of $27 per barrel.
Since then, Saudi Arabia has agreed to ''freeze'' crude oil production at January levels, in an effort to stabilize global prices. But its strategy of helping drive that price down to $30 per barrel represents a serious miscalculation in its efforts to maintain control of the market. By taking advantage of an economic slowdown '-- primarily in China, where GDP growth has fallen by 30 percent '-- and pushing prices so low that very little new exploration makes commercial sense, Riyadh is planting the seeds of the next supply shortage.
That shortage is likely to produce a much steeper price recovery than would otherwise occur. This means that prices could rise to a level that would prompt substantial new investment in exploration '-- precisely what the Saudis are trying to avoid (or discourage). They would, in fact, be better served by less volatility and a price that is reasonable but not so high that it either encourages more expensive shale and deep-water oil projects or unduly enriches their enemies.
Instead, in response to $30 oil, public and private sector oil companies around the world are deferring or canceling billions of dollars in new projects and cutting billions in new exploration and development capital expenditures while laying off '-- and losing '-- technical capacity. The impact of those decisions on supply is only now becoming evident here in the United States, where the number of drilling rigs in operation has fallen from a high of 1,800 in 2014 to below 500 in 2016, according to oil services firm Baker Hughes. However, it will be abundantly clear to the rest of the world by 2017. The extreme economic distress now felt by both major- and minor-producing countries, and the inevitable tightening of budgets, will also contribute significantly to the shortage.
If you're part of the Saudi government, perhaps you think that's a good thing, since one of the objectives of supporting a price collapse is to reduce non-OPEC supply and inflict great damage on U.S.-based shale oil producers. Riyadh is succeeding on that front, as evinced by the fact that production from seven big U.S. shale plays is predicted to decrease by 106,000 barrels a day in April from March. It is also grabbing more market share by overproducing on its OPEC quota and discounting the price of its barrels, so as to undercut the Iranians, Russians, and others.
Some Saudis are likely to argue that, historically, when there has been excess supply, they served as the ''swing producer,'' cutting production to restore balance. When they played that role in recent years, like in 2009 during the global economic crisis, they lost market share to others. So why, Riyadh might ask, should it not take advantage of the fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the lowest-cost producers, in order to increase its market share in a low-price environment? It's an understandable, if extremely short-sighted, position.
The cumulative impact of both the public and private sector capital expenditure reductions across the globe could result in as much as a 5 percent reduction in supply, which, at current production levels, amounts to nearly 5 million barrels a day. Even if the reduction winds up being less than 5 percent, with very modest growth in global demand, a sizable gap between supply and demand will emerge '-- one that cannot be easily filled.
The Saudis would be happy to fill that gap, but they don't appear to have much additional capacity readily available. The Saudis have, roughly, 1.5 to 2 million barrels a day of additional production capacity. But 500,000 barrels are sour '-- meaning that they contain too much sulfur, or heavy crude, which can only be refined in a few places like the United States. The other million barrels require new drilling and infrastructure. The Iranians, Libyans, Iraqis, and Russians all have some additional capacity, but it takes time and capital to reach that potential, and capital is in short supply. At the right price, U.S. shale producers who survive this collapse will be back out in force. However, it will also take time for them to arrest the erosion of supply and begin restoring production. (You can't simply turn on a spigot. That's because oil is a declining and depleting resource. Instead, you rebuild it through new drilling.) As a consequence, there's nowhere to turn quickly to fill the gap. When that becomes apparent, prices will rise sharply.
A smarter strategy for the Saudis would have been to manage a price in the range of $40 to $60 per barrel, a level at which many shale areas are not very profitable, particularly if the costs of rigs, oil-field services, and pipes '-- which have declined by some 30 percent over the past year '-- start to rebound. Indeed, some of the more capital-intensive, large reserves, such as the ''pre-salt formation'' off the coast of Brazil, or the oil sands in Canada, struggle for real profitability at $40 to $60 per barrel.
Over the past 18 months, as the price of crude has fallen from $100 per barrel to under $30 per barrel, analysts and commentators have grown fond of predicting that, unlike the last few oil price declines that were followed by sharp recoveries, this time is different. This time, they say, the price will stay ''lower for longer.'' If the Saudis had not pursued their current strategy of flooding the market and driving prices down so far, that probably would have been the case. But the damage has largely been done, unless the price quickly jumps back up to about $70 per barrel and the surplus barrels currently hanging over the market disappear quickly. Given the shortage the Saudis are helping create, we may be bound for yet another boom-bust-boom cycle.
Such cycles are unhealthy. They cause massive swings in the cost of energy and other commodities, as well as in public and private sector budgeting, investing, and employment. And since the last swing, the oil and gas industry has undergone revolutionary change, thanks to the advent of shale production. In a global market that is less susceptible to manipulation, the price of crude should be determined by the marginal cost of producing new shale barrels. However, the Saudis are not ready to accept that idea, because with it comes the realization that the influence and control that OPEC has wielded over crude markets for the past 40 years is shifting from the Persian Gulf to North and South America. Riyadh may be able to delay that day, but it can't avoid it. In the meantime, it has done serious damage to the global economy, and to itself.
Photo credit: Bloomberg
Share +Twitter Facebook Google + Reddit
2890 Shares
Obama and Putin Agree That Turkish Dictator Erdogan Must Go; Russian and U.S. Arms Flow to Kurdish PKK; April Civil War in Turkey Looms
WITH A REPORT FROM THIERRY MEYSSAN IN DAMASCUS, SYRIA LISTEN TO WORLD CRISIS RADIO SATURDAY EVENING AT TARPLEY.NET
Tax Wall Street Party urges you to join us at anti-Trump protest in Washington, DCMonday, March 21st 4pm '' 7pm at Verizon Center, 601 F St, NW
Today's broadcast features a report from Thierry Meyssan in Damascus, Syria, which can be summarized as follows:
The press of Europe and the United States is attempting to spread the idea that the withdrawal of part of the contingent of Russian military aircraft which had been assigned to bombing terrorist targets in Syria somehow came as a surprise, including to the Assad government in Damascus. In reality, there was no surprise whatsoever. It had been assumed that the Russian bombing campaign against the Syrian terrorist rebels was scheduled to end in the first week of January, at about the time of the Orthodox Christmas. At that time, President Assad visited Moscow and it was decided to extend the bombing campaign until mid March. This plan was confirmed for the Syrian government by the Russian Foreign Ministry as of March 1. Russian troops inside Syria were well aware of their departure date. Large Antonov military transports were used to move some equipment back to Russia, and flight plans for these aircraft were given four days in advance to the competent authorities. This is confirmed by Defense News, which quotes the Jordanian chief of staff saying that he was informed by Moscow and by the Syrian government. So there was no precipitate withdrawal, but rather a carefully planned and executed redeployment.
Especially important is the agreement reached by Presidents Obama and Putin about two or three weeks ago that the continued tenure of Turkish President Erdogan is intolerable, and that he should be removed from office before he can start a wider war. Russian and US weapons are currently flowing into Turkey for the purpose of speeding the departure of the dictator. Contacts are also being made with the Turkish political parties, the top generals of the Turkish military, and others to help bring down the dictator. The Turkish nationalists are turning against Erdogan. The PKK will also mobilize. Erdogan's presidency is illegitimate because his most recent election victory was carried out with massive vote fraud.
Fighting inside Turkey on the level of a civil war is expected to begin during April. The beginning of the end for Erdogan will transform the entire Middle East situation.
Most of the larger cities in Syria will soon be free of terrorist rebels. This is likely to include Aleppo, Palmyra, and Idlib. ISIS/Daesh will only be able to maintain their presence in Raqqa in far northeast Syria, as well as in some parts of Iraq. It is expected that heavy fighting inside Turkey will tend to disrupt the logistics pipeline for the terrorist rebels inside Syria.
This hard line of Moscow and Washington towards Erdogan contrasts most sharply with the policy of the European Union (including Britain and France), which is offering tribute of '¬3 billion per year to Erdogan over the foreseeable future to get the Turkish president to house more Syrian refugees and to prevent them from crossing into Greece. Naturally, since Erdogan functions as the de facto commander of ISIS/Daesh, he could at any time order the total cessation of combat operations, and remove the main factor which is impelling civilians to flee from the terrorists in the combat zones. But he prefers to cash in, obtaining concessions like visa-free travel for Turks in the EU.
Obama's interview to the Atlantic Monthly is remarkable since it reads like the memoirs of a president who has already left office, and thus feels free to frankly speak his mind. His comments about King Salman of Saudi Arabia, Sarkozy, Cameron, and Erdogan are devastating. The message seems to be that these figures are being told to cooperate, or else they will be exposed for their machinations of recent years, and thus destabilized.
Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, who sometimes acts as a spokesman for the Royal family, has issued a weak defense (see below) claiming that the Saudis do not support terrorism, and are loyal allies.
Obama has been quoted as saying that the Saudi royals are the worst in the world. The situation is complicated by the distinct possibility that the Saudis have obtained nuclear weapons from Pakistan.
Obama's Atlantic interview portrays Hillary Clinton as a relentless warmonger '' Democratic primary voters should take note. The Washington think tanks and experts are frequently bought and paid for by the Sunni Arab states.
Here are some excerpts from Obama's interview, which appears in Jeffrey Goldberg, ''The Obama Doctrine: The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America's role in the world,'' Atlantic Monthly, April 2016:
Over the past year, John Kerry has visited the White House regularly to ask Obama to violate Syria's sovereignty. On several occasions, Kerry has asked Obama to launch missiles at specific regime targets, under cover of night, to ''send a message'' to the regime. The goal, Kerry has said, is not to overthrow Assad but to encourage him, and Iran and Russia, to negotiate peace'....Obama has steadfastly resisted Kerry's requests, and seems to have grown impatient with his lobbying. In recent National Security Council meetings, Obama's strategy was occasionally referred to as the ''Tom Sawyer approach.'' Obama's view was that if Putin wanted to expend his regime's resources by painting the fence in Syria, the U.S. should let him. By late winter, though, when it appeared that Russia was making advances in its campaign to solidify Assad's rule, the White House began discussing ways to deepen support for the rebels, though the president's ambivalence about more-extensive engagement remained.
Obama would say privately that the first task of an American president in the post-Bush international arena was ''Don't do stupid shit.'' Obama's reticence frustrated [Samantha] Power and others on his national-security team who had a preference for action. Hillary Clinton, when she was Obama's secretary of state, argued for an early and assertive response to Assad's violence. In 2014, after she left office, Clinton told me that ''the failure to help build up a credible fighting force of the people who were the originators of the protests against Assad '... left a big vacuum, which the jihadists have now filled.'' When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clinton's assessment that ''great nations need organizing principles, and?'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle,'' Obama became ''rip-shit angry,'' according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how ''Don't do stupid shit'' could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that ''the questions we were asking in the White House were 'Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is pro''stupid shit?'?'' The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would ''hug it out'' on Martha's Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.).
'Friday, August 30, 2013[:] '....While the Pentagon and the White House's national-security apparatuses were still moving toward war (John Kerry told me he was expecting a strike the day after his speech), the president had come to believe that he was walking into a trap'--one laid both by allies and by adversaries, and by conventional expectations of what an American president is supposed to do. In Situation Room meetings that followed the attack on Ghouta, only the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, cautioned explicitly about the perils of intervention. John Kerry argued vociferously for action.''
[Samantha] Power sometimes argued with Obama in front of other National Security Council officials, to the point where he could no longer conceal his frustration. ''Samantha, enough, I've already read your book,'' he once snapped. '...Biden, who ordinarily shared Obama's worries about American overreach, argued passionately that ''big nations don't bluff.''
[Cameron of the UK and Saudi Ambassador Jubeir demanded an attack. But Germany's Merkel was opposed and refused to take part. When the British House of Commons also refused to go along, Obama paused.]
Obama also shared with McDonough a long-standing resentment: He was tired of watching Washington unthinkingly drift toward war in Muslim countries. Four years earlier, the president believed, the Pentagon had ''jammed'' him on a troop surge for Afghanistan. Now, on Syria, he was beginning to feel jammed again.
The prime minister of France, Manuel Valls, told me that his government was already worried about the consequences of earlier inaction in Syria when word came of the stand-down. ''By not intervening early, we have created a monster,'' Valls told me. ''We were absolutely certain that the U.S. administration would say yes. Working with the Americans, we had already seen the targets. It was a great surprise. If we had bombed as was planned, I think things would be different today.'' The crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, who was already upset with Obama for ''abandoning'' Hosni Mubarak, the former president of Egypt, fumed to American visitors that the U.S. was led by an ''untrustworthy'' president. The king of Jordan, Abdullah II'--already dismayed by what he saw as Obama's illogical desire to distance the U.S. from its traditional Sunni Arab allies and create a new alliance with Iran, Assad's Shia sponsor'--complained privately, ''I think I believe in American power more than Obama does.'' The Saudis, too, were infuriated. They had never trusted Obama'--he had, long before he became president, referred to them as a ''so-called ally'' of the U.S. ''Iran is the new great power of the Middle East, and the U.S. is the old,'' Jubeir, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, told his superiors in Riyadh.
Amid the confusion, a deus ex machina appeared in the form of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. At the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, which was held the week after the Syria reversal, Obama pulled Putin aside, he recalled to me, and told the Russian president ''that if he forced Assad to get rid of the chemical weapons, that that would eliminate the need for us taking a military strike.'' Within weeks, Kerry, working with his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, would engineer the removal of most of Syria's chemical-weapons arsenal'--a program whose existence Assad until then had refused to even acknowledge.
This was the moment the president believes he finally broke with what he calls, derisively, the ''Washington playbook.'' I have come to believe that, in Obama's mind, August 30, 2013, was his liberation day, the day he defied not only the foreign-policy establishment and its cruise-missile playbook, but also the demands of America's frustrating, high-maintenance allies in the Middle East'--countries, he complains privately to friends and advisers, that seek to exploit American ''muscle'' for their own narrow and sectarian ends. By 2013, Obama's resentments were well developed. He resented military leaders who believed they could fix any problem if the commander in chief would simply give them what they wanted, and he resented the foreign-policy think-tank complex. A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign-policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. I've heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as ''Arab-occupied territory.'' [Leon Panetta was another hawk.]
He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me, Putin is not particularly nasty. ''The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these other folks.'' Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than Americans tend to think. ''He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world is significantly diminished. Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
Right after Obama's reversal, Hillary Clinton said privately, ''If you say you're going to strike, you have to strike. There's no choice.''
Here is Prince Turki's attempted defense of the Kingdom:
'A top Saudi Arabian intelligence chief said on Monday that President Barack Obama failed to appreciate all that the kingdom has done to stabilize the Middle East, fight terrorism and support American priorities, hitting back after the president called Middle Eastern governments ''free riders'' on US initiatives. ''You accuse us of fomenting sectarian strife in Syria, Yemen and Iraq,'' Turki al-Faisal, a Saudi prince and former ambassador to the United States and Britain, wrote in an open letter published Monday in the English-language Arab News. ''You add insult to injury by telling us to share our world with Iran, a country that you describe as a supporter of terrorism.'' Al-Faisal's letter was a response to comments Obama made in a much-discussed interview with The Atlantic magazine in which Obama referred to the Saudis and other allies as ''free riders'' who push the United States to act but contribute little themselves. Obama has long been cooler toward the Saudis and other Arab allies than his predecessor, but his willingness to forcefully criticize them stunned many in Washington's foreign policy establishment.'
See http://www.voltairenet.org/article190785.html for more details.Jeffrey Goldberg, ''The Obama Doctrine: The U.S. president talks through his hardest decisions about America's role in the world,'' Atlantic Monthly, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/4'... emphasis added.Prince Turki al Feisal, We are not 'free riders': Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal to Barack Obama,'' Economic Times of India, March 15, 2016, http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/51407805.cms?utm_source='...
The Night I Fired Donald Trump04:00 PM Tuesday 8/11/15 | |
Michael Cohl was in the middle of telling a story about The Rolling Stones' Steel Wheels tour when he paused. ''By the way, do you want to hear about the night I fired Donald Trump?'' It was Cohl's keynote address at Pollstar Live! this past February.
The theme was his great decisions and others that weren't that hot, told in stories about his career as a concert promoter and Broadway producer. He went to the podium with four stories to tell involving Pink Floyd, Michael Jackson, The Rolling Stones and Broadway's ''Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark,'' but got sidetracked during the Stones yarn.
The 1989 Steel Wheels tour was famous for many things, including its reunion of Mick and Keef but also for its profitability, grossing nearly $100 million '' a tour manufactured by Cohl and one that changed the landscape of concert promotion. It wrapped with a $24.95 pay-per-view event at Atlantic City's 16,000-capacity Convention Center.
The event was Dec. 19, 1989, a broadcast of the last of three sold-out shows. However, to make it happen, Cohl needed to shop the show around Las Vegas, hoping to find the casino that would pay The Rolling Stones' performance fee (which, in this case, could be defined as a ''casino site fee''). When that didn't fly, Cohl resorted to Atlantic City. The event was ultimately broadcast in association with Donald Trump, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino, and MTV. Jump-cut six months from Cohl's speech and the story has a sudden resonance.
By the way, do you want to hear about the night I fired Donald Trump? We have to figure out the pay-per-view event. I realized that when they did a big boxing match they would separate the promotion and the fight. For the fight, you'd get a site fee from Las Vegas. You'd get a dollar, a million, a billion. Whatever. You'd get a ''site fee'' and you'd get a worldwide closed-circuit. I thought, geez, if I can separate the Stones from their own gig, and just concentrate on the pay-per-view, then I might pull it off.
So I go to them and say, ''Look, let's do a worldwide pay-per-view. We'll get a big site fee; I'll get you $3 million for a site fee and we'll keep all the money for the pay-per-view.'' And they agreed. I hadn't told them completely what I had in mind, which is one of the rare times I wasn't completely up front. I went around Las Vegas, and they didn't really want it. They didn't get it, they didn't like rock music yet.
They didn't follow it. And, unfortunately, the only person I could get to kind of agree to the site fee we needed and to work it through was Donald Trump. Now I had one of those, ''Oh God, how am I going to do this?'' moments.
And I opened my big mouth in the meeting with The Rolling Stones where they go, ''This is all great, but we're not going to be affiliated with Donald Trump. At all. Screw you.'' And I go, ''I will control Donald Trump! Don't you worry!''
So, we signed the contract. Donald agrees that he will not be in any of the promotion except in Atlantic City, and he will not show up at the gig! Holy shit! Well, the quick version is we go on sale. Eric Clapton was there, Axl Rose, Slash, John Lee Hooker '' we had a fantastic show; sell out three shows.
Are you ready for the punchline? Three-hundred dollar tickets. That's where they originated -- $300, $250, $150 and it worked. It was spectacular. And that's how it happened.
The Stones agreed to that ticket pricing in Atlantic City. It didn't have the happiest of endings, though. It's the night of the show.
The Stones had such power in those days that the 6:40 p.m. slot on the national evening news was going to be an interview with the Stones to talk about and promote the pay-per-view. At about 5:50 p.m. I get word that I have to come to the press room in the next building. I run to the press room in the next building and what do you think is happening? There's Donald Trump giving a press conference, in our room!
I give him the [come here gesture]. ''Come on, Donald, what are you doing? A) You promised us you wouldn't even be here and, B) you promised you would never do this.'' He says, ''But they begged me to go up, Michael! They begged me to go up!'' I say, ''Stop it. Stop it. This could be crazy. Do what you said you would. Don't make a liar of yourself.''
I go back to the dressing room. Five minutes later, he's back up. They call me back over there. Holy shit. I call him out (again). Same thing happens. I say, ''Donald. I don't know if I can control this. Stop it.'' I go back to the dressing room. And I leave my walkie-talkie on in the dressing room. Moronic, on my part.
They call me back, at which point Keith pulls out his knife and slams it on the table and says, ''What the hell do I have you for? Do I have to go over there and fire him myself? One of us is leaving the building '' either him, or us.'' I said, ''No. I'll go do it. Don't you worry.''
I run over. He's up there again! I go [gives the come here gesture]. We go into the hallway. I said, ''Donald. You lied. You broke your promise. One of two things is going to happen. You're going to leave the building and, at 6:40, The Rolling Stones are going to speak on CBS News, or you're not going to leave the building and I'm going to go on and do an interview to explain to the world why the pay-per-view was canceled. I know it's your building and'...'' '' and in my head I'm going, this is so crazy, right? I'm trying to throw Donald Trump out of his own building.
But, anyway, the bottom line is I look at Donald and said, ''You and Marla (Maples) have to go. You're fired.'' He looks at me and goes berserk.
''You don't know anything! Your guys suck! I promote Mike Tyson! I promote heavyweight fights!'' And I notice the three shtarkers he's with, in trench coats, two of them are putting on gloves and the other one is putting on brass knuckles. I go on the walkie-talkie and I call for Jim Callahan, who was head of our security, and I go, ''Jim, I think I'm in a bit of trouble.'' And he says, ''Just turn around.''
I turn around. He's got 40 of the crew with tire irons and hockey sticks and screwdrivers.
''And now, are you gonna go, Donald?''
And that was the night I fired Donald Trump.
--Joe Reinartz
Setting the Record Straight: Five Misconceptions About the Trump Rally in Chicago
Donald Trump supporters and protesters confront one another after his campaign rally was canceled at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago, March 11, 2016. (Photo: Joshua Lott / The New York Times)
In the wake of the electoral victories of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in Illinois' primary elections this Tuesday, onlookers nationwide are surely wondering what role the enormous March 11 anti-Trump protest played in shaping this course of events. To answer that question, however, it is first necessary to examine the misinformation that has swirled around the story of that day and to set the historical record straight.
For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016."
As professors at the University of Illinois at Chicago, where the Trump rally was held, we were personally involved in the events of March 11 at the Make America Great Again! rally. We initially came together around shared safety concerns to urge the university to reconsider its decision to rent space to the Trump campaign for the rally. Now, we have come together again once more to dispel five major misconceptions that the mainstream media and Donald Trump have perpetuated, which are based on inaccurate information about how events unfolded. Here are the five main misconceptions that have continued to circulate:
Misconception #1: Who Canceled the Event
Trump has claimed that he made the decision to cancel upon the recommendation of the police. Let it be known that the police did not recommend the event be canceled.
In contrast to what Trump has suggested, the rally was shut down by Trump himself, not because of violence.
The Chicago Police Department and the University of Illinois at Chicago police have both stated that they never suggested the rally was too dangerous and should be canceled. In fact, the Chicago Police Department has stated that it never spoke with Donald Trump, that it had the staff power to control the event and that it was safe for Trump to conduct his rally. This is a police force that is accustomed to covering far larger marches, protests and rallies, and through coordination with the University of Illinois at Chicago police, a private security company that regularly works in the campus pavilion, the Secret Service and the Illinois State Police, the people involved in security were prepared for the rally. Officers from various agencies lined virtually every street, stairway, nook and corner of the pavilion space and its surroundings. Trump abruptly canceled the event without direct advisement from event-specific security and police. Trump's campaign, acting alone, decided to shut down his speech.
Misconception #2: Conditions at the Rally and Protest
Trump has been claiming that he had over 25,000 supporters inside and outside the pavilion and 2,500 protesters. Those are lies. Inside the pavilion were over 9,000 people (close to its full capacity). At least one-third of them were protesters from the university and the community. The 8,500 people outside were also protesters. One of the key strategies pursued by protesters was to get tickets and occupy the space in the pavilion. Trump's strategy is to denigrate individual or small groups of protesters and have his security or local police eject them. The university had established a protocol for handling protesters that required the presence of an individual observer and involved police video when protesters were being removed. The University of Illinois at Chicago police had exclusive authority to handle those removals. For the Trump campaign staff, this was arguably uncharted and unwelcome territory: an event where he could not perform and control his usual denigration spectacle. Perhaps it was the sheer people power and the very presence and authority of law enforcement with independent orders that prompted him to cancel.
Misconception #3: Why the Rally Was Canceled
In contrast to what Trump has suggested, the rally was shut down by Trump himself, not because of violence.
There was no physical violence reported before the Trump campaign announced the decision to "postpone" the event. News media and cellphone videos show minor confrontations between Trump advocates and Trump opponents inside the pavilion, but nothing on the order of the "violent clashes" cited in the press. Earlier, protesters outside the arena had shouted anti-Trump chants as Trump supporters lined up. Some Trump supporters directed confrontational speech at protesters. Once most people were in the pavilion, protesters outside continued to rally and chant peacefully. Families with strollers, children, faculty, students and Chicagoans from all walks of life mingled while a roster of students spoke on the microphone and guided chants on the edge of campus facing the pavilion. Inside the pavilion, protesters started anti-Trump chants every few minutes, and several were escorted out without undue force, as video corroborates.
"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee a space free from protest, criticism or disagreement.
Incidents justifiably termed "violent" did occur outside of the rally after the "postponement" announcement. Tension inside the pavilion escalated as bitterly disappointed Trump supporters reacted to the elation of Trump protesters. The announcement by the Trump campaign to shut down the event led thousands in the pavilion to jump for joy, cheer and wave banners. At this point, some scuffles and face-offs occurred, and University of Illinois at Chicago police intervened quickly despite the fact that the Trump campaign gave law enforcement no prior warning of the cancellation. They and the Chicago Police Department evacuated the pavilion in an orderly manner. As Trump supporters left, some made obscene gestures, threw bottles and shouted at chanting protesters.
Most arrests that did occur were the consequence of a civil disobedience staged one block north of the pavilion, at an intersection where those leaving the rally by car had to turn to get onto the 290 West Expressway. Over 30 people from Assata's Daughters, Black Lives Matter Chicago, Organized Communities Against Deportations, Lifted Voices and the Chicago League of Abolitionist Whites locked arms to prevent cars from turning west toward the expressway. Creating "soft blockades" as acts of civil disobedience, the people doing this peaceably disruptive action planned to get arrested. However, some Trump supporters tried to run into them with their cars as they U-turned to seek an alternative exit. Others walked toward them and pushed them to the ground, when they could have passed by them via the sidewalk. Other protesters not related to these groups confronted the Trump supporters, some scuffles ensued and the Chicago Police Department intervened. The people making up the physical blockades have alleged that there was excessive use of force by the Chicago police, leading to hospitalization. These are claims that must be investigated as we account for all the outcomes of this event.
There were few arrests and injuries (only in the single digits) given the estimate that 13,000 people attended the event or protested that evening. As one Chicagoan blogged, "The rally I attended yesterday was overwhelmingly peaceful."
Misconception #4: The Meaning of "Freedom of Speech"
Minutes after his cancellation, Trump started claiming that his freedom of speech had been curtailed. This is false. Trump's freedom of speech was not violated.
The First Amendment protects citizens from government curtailment of their free expression; it does not protect one citizen from the dissenting speech of another citizen or group of citizens.
Trump's complaint is particularly egregious given all the effort that the university administration, several law enforcement agencies, student organizers and university staff expended during a week of preparation to ensure that Trump's freedom of speech would be upheld and protected. Despite the very serious safety and security concerns expressed by faculty, staff and students, the various agencies involved in this event accommodated and facilitated Trump's rally.
To refer to the protesters, including our students among them, as "thugs" (as Trump did on Twitter) is a slur with inexcusable racial and class undertones.
The pavilion (acting in its capacity as a self-supporting facility at the University of Illinois at Chicago) issued a contract to the organization at least a week before the rally. Several layers of city, state and federal security agencies (cited above) then committed vast resources to planning and policing the event, taking into account the legal and peaceful protests that were planned. The university made an explicit statement that there was no legal justification for canceling the event, and none of the state police or security agencies involved called for its cancellation. All protesters who came were within their First Amendment rights to criticize the candidate and his positions, and those who disrupted the peace within the walls of the private event were escorted out, as is within the bounds of a private event in a rented facility. Enormous efforts were made on the part of the police and security to assure that protesters were not assaulted or battered (which is not legal), as has occurred at past Trump campaign events.
"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee a space free from protest, criticism or disagreement. Nor would it have protected against the cancellation of an event due to concerns about safety or appropriateness of the time, manner or place of the speech. Nonetheless, the event was not canceled by the venue, the university or law enforcement. Trump and his staff made the decision to cancel it without explicit instruction from a state agency or the university.
Misconception #5: Who Orchestrated the Protest
The protest was homegrown.
Often when a political group or leader faces mass opposition, those who oppose the protest will claim that it was orchestrated by outsiders. This case is no different. Faced with the shock of many thousands of protesters, Trump and right-wing conspiracy theorists immediately claimed that MoveOn, philanthropist and activist George Soros, and even the Bernie Sanders campaign were the main instigators of the protest. Trump has referred to a "planned attack."
Acts of violence and brutality did occur, and it was people of color, as we predicted, who bore the brunt of the violence.
The photographic evidence and witness accounts refute Trump's account. Yes, MoveOn paid for some signs, but take a good look at the protesters and you will see those with the MoveOn insignia outnumbered by the vast number of homemade signs, banners and unique art on display. Those familiar with MoveOn know that one of its main activities is to organize petition drives, not street protests. As for Bernie Sanders supporters, there were several present holding their Bernie signs, but they were exercising the very freedom of speech that all groups, including Trump supporters, had at the pavilion that day. Sanders himself has stated that his campaign played no role in the event, and Trump and his allies provided no evidence to support their claims.
While all organizations and individuals were welcome, this protest was led and coordinated by a broad coalition of student activists from many different campus organizations. These students in turn, have strong connections with many Chicago grassroots organizations led by Brown, Black, Asian and LGBT youth, and are often active both on- and off-campus. Chicago is a city with a longstanding and dense social movement infrastructure that includes civic, immigrant, grassroots, labor and youth organizations, which also participated. It is an epicenter of labor activism, immigrant rights activism and the movement for Black lives. In fact, many of those attending the rally arrived there immediately after other protests occurring that day around police brutality and a state government budget crisis that is threatening public higher education.
As one University of Illinois at Chicago colleague responded when asked how Chicago shut it down: "We are not perfect but we know how to organize." For people who know our university and the skills and capabilities of our students and the Chicago activist community, to claim that this protest was instigated by outsiders is frankly insulting. To refer to the protesters, including our students among them, as "thugs" (as Trump did on Twitter) is a slur with inexcusable racial and class undertones. For the record, no one paid or instigated us, three independent faculty members, to write a letter signed by 349 faculty and staff members who shared our concern about how this event would be handled and how our diverse student community might be affected by the rally.
We wrote our initial letter because we foresaw that security forces might not be prepared to protect individuals who had gathered to exercise their right to free assembly and free speech on the grounds that the Trump campaign has consistently called for and instigated violence against those who are not "with him" or "for him." He has gone as far as to call for mass arrests and prosecution of protesters. We viewed his overt encouragement of violence against those who publicly disagree with him as a credible cause for either cancellation or additional security and supervision over interactions between Trump security and the public, flare-ups between opposing parties, or between the public and law enforcement. The brutality was not as widespread as we feared, in part because of the largely peaceful and civil nature of the protests and the extra preparation and restraint on the part of all law enforcement and security agencies. But acts of violence and brutality did occur, and it was people of color, as we predicted, who bore the brunt of the violence. We hope the leadership of our campus learned a great deal from our students about the nature of peaceful, effective protest. They continue to impress and astound us. Their rights and their accomplishments should be celebrated and emulated rather than denigrated by the press and the public.
SKIN LIGHTENING-Man at Trump rally attacks protester being escorted out - NY Daily News
With the GOP frontrunner on stage, a Trump supporter at a rally in Tucson viciously assaulted a protester who was being led away.
The disturbing melee pitted a kicking, punch-throwing Trump loyalist against Bryan Sanders, 33, a protester kicked out of the rally at 3 p.m. Saturday for chanting ''liar'' amid a rabid crowd. It was yet one more slice of mayhem following Trump and his screwball campaign across the country.
''I feel great that I'm not dead, but I am definitely in physical pain,'' Sanders told the Daily News.
The Tucson resident is nursing a swollen jaw and bruised ribcage after his alleged attacker, Tony Pettway, 32, landed a brutal sucker punch to Sanders' right jaw.
Pettway continued with a flurry of five to six punches before kicking and stomping on Sanders in a Tucson Arena stairwell.
''I have nothing against the guy that attacked me," said Sanders, who was waving a picture of Trump overlaid with the Confederate flag when Pettway walloped him. "I don't know him. He's just an angry person and his anger is being accentuated by the political movement.''
The assault was caught on video from at least two angles, showing a swarm of cops weaving through a crowd of Trump supporters to grab Pettway. He faces a misdemeanor assault charge in suspicion of beating up Sanders.
The beatdown lasted nearly 10 seconds before security officers and police intervened.
''It's disturbing for me to watch,'' Sanders added. ''Who would have intervened if this man had kept going? I'm actually frightened.''
QUIZ:WHO SAID IT? TRUMP, HITLER, MUSSOLINI OR STALIN?
In another incident, Trump's hotheaded campaign manager Corey Lewandowski '-- already accused of grabbing a female reporter's arm and shoving her to the ground at a March 8 Florida rally '-- was seen in a blue suit wading into the crowd.
Lewandowski went nose-to-nose with a young protester who found himself surrounded by an angry crowd. Video shows Lewandowski's hand landing briefly on the protester's collar, as the man next to Lewandowski yanks the young man backward.
Trump said in a statement that Lewandowski hadn't gotten physical with anyone at the rally and reiterated that the candidate doesn't condone violence.
The tension started early Saturday on a sun-drenched stretch of desert highway where a Wild West showdown took place between demonstrators and sheriff's deputies, delaying the GOP front-runner and his supporters from attending a rally in Fountain Hills.
EDITORIAL: STAND AND FIGHT DONALD TRUMP, GOP
The Trump haters parked their cars in the middle of the three-lane road leading to the Phoenix suburb and unfurled banners bashing the controversial candidate.
Some even chained themselves to their cars to slow down cops' efforts to clear the blockade.
Traffic was backed up for miles, with drivers honking in fury.
''We are here to send a message loud and clear to Donald Trump that he is not welcomed in Arizona and we will not allow his racism and bigotry to go unchecked,'' said Francisca Porchas, one of the organizers of the protest.
Police eventually dispersed the crowd and arrested three people.
The real estate magnate took the stage an hour later and hurled insults at his rivals, promised to build a wall at the U.S.-Mexican border and claimed America ''is not winning anymore'' during a rambling, wide-ranging speech that provided few policy details.
ELECTION 2016: LIVE DELEGATE TRACKER
Trump supporter Geroy Morgan, 62, made it to the park in time to hear Trump speak '-- but was furious at the demonstrators.
''We come here, the silent majority, to express our opinions,'' Morgan said. ''They don't have any permits or rights.''
Trump was joined by Arizona's controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who mentioned the gridlock as he introduced the brash billionaire.
The crowd broke out in applause when he said there were arrests.
Arizona votes Tuesday in a winner-take-all Republican primary as well as a Democratic race.
With News Wire Services
With Denis Slattery
mwagner@nydailynews.com
Tags:donald trump ,2016 election ,arizona
Jedidiah Brown, Candidate for 5th Ward Alderman | abc7chicago.com
Candidate Full Name: Jedidiah BrownOffice: 5th Ward Alderman
Email Address:aboutchange@hotmail.com
Web Site:www.brownfor5thward.com
Campaign Office Mailing Address: 1745 E. 71st
Phone: 312-478-1591
Survey Questions (Character limit of 2,000 per response)
1. What is the most important issue that you will address in your ward?
There's a clear lack of direction in the 5th ward as it relates to addressing the important issue of public safety. From Hyde Park, to South Shore, people question how safe they are walking in their own neighborhood. As a result, many of my neighbors have decided to move out of the area.
We have to implement common sense solutions to reduce crimes of survival and mental illness. As Alderman, I will establish the 5th Wards first office of neighborhood stabilization. The crime prevention model has been very successful in reducing crime Richmond, California. Using data, the office will identify the individuals who are most likely to commit a crime, and aggressively connecting those residents with resources to stabilize their lives. I'm also going to work with the other Alderman to expand mental healthcare treatment centers in the City of Chicago.
With safer communities, we can develop blighted parts of the ward, increase confidence in neighborhood schools, and assign more police officers to walk the neighborhood. As a Chicago anti-violence activist and organizer, I'm uniquely qualified to address the issue of public safety in relation to the other Aldermanic candidates. I've recently been award by the Chicago Police Department 3rd District Caps program for my work with the Chicago Police Department detaining violent offenders, as well as my restorative justice work I do in collaboration with Cook County Jail.
2. What are your plans for helping fight crime in your ward?
See Question #1
3. What, if any, city assets would you consider privatizing to raise money?
I would not vote to privatize any city assets.
4. Do you support or oppose the vote to increase the minimum wage in several steps to $13 an hour by 2019?
I believe every mother, father, or grandparent who works full time should be afforded a living wage. In passing a $13 an hour minimum wage, the current administration has made a monumental first step in addressing the needs of Chicago's hard working families. I support a $15 minimum wage for employees of large corporations following the Seattle model.
5. Are you in favor of Chicago's Red Light Camera program?
I support responsible measures to protect pedestrians, especially our children, from drivers who recklessly disobey our speed laws. With that, it is apparent that the red light and speed camera programs are used to squeeze Chicago taxpayers for additional revenue. I believe the City of Chicago can find a middle ground where we hold reckless drivers accountable thereby protecting our residents without nickel and dimming thousands of other drivers.
Two days after Donald Trump won in four of five primaries, efforts to knock the frontrunner from his perch limp forward.
But the impact of the money and time spent knocking Trump are coming into question after the real estate mogul surged ahead of Ted Cruz by more than 250 delegates.
Katie Packer, a Republican strategist who founded Our Principles PAC to hinder Trump's success, said she is evaluating the path forward.
"We're having conversations with donors, gauging the interest in moving ahead," Packer told NBC News.
A group of conservatives led by Erick Erickson, editor of Red State, met Thursday and pledged to continue their efforts to prevent Trump from winning the nomination.
A signed statement by attendees said they call "for a unity ticket that unites the Republican Party." That unity ticket would preferably include Sen. Ted Cruz, who is second behind Trump in the delegate count, and a presidential contender who dropped out already. But the group did not discount including someone not in the race like Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney.
If a unity ticket fails to garner a majority of the delegates in the primary process, the group agrees, "We encourage all former Republican candidates not currently supporting Trump to unite against him and encourage all candidates to hold their delegates on the first ballot."
"Lastly, we intend to keep our options open as to other avenues to oppose Donald Trump," the statement said, providing no other details on what those other options might be.
In a sign that efforts to #StopTrump are disorganized and decentralized, at least one of the two groups who has spent money trying to take down Trump, Club For Growth, was not at the meeting and found out about it through media reports.
Still, the Club for Growth, has decided to continue on with its efforts to stop Trump. After an internal meeting Wednesday, the group decided to launch a $200,000 ad buy in Utah, which holds its primary Tuesday. The ad uses an interview of Trump saying he supports universal health care and that "the government's gonna pay for it."
The goals of the effort have changed, however. Realizing that Trump is the clear leader and no candidate left in the race can surpass him, they are working to ensure that Turmp fails to reach the 1,237 delegates needed to become the presumptive nominee. That outcome would lead to a contested convention.
"Going forward, looking at the numbers, we think it's still very possible to keep Trump below 1,237, and it's equally possible for Ted Cruz to amass a large chunk of delegates, and that would likely lead to an open convention, which is, in some ways, analogous to a run-off," Doug Sachtleben, communications director for Club for Growth, told NBC News.
Packer with Our Principles PAC agrees with that strategy, saying, "I think that we're still on track to prevent him from getting 1,237 delegates."
The Club has spent $7.5 million trying to stop Trump in seven states. They say their effort has had an impact in Iowa and Oklahoma helped to lead to Trump's defeat. They also placed ads in Missouri and Arkansas, places Trump barely won.
But the group also spent $2 million in Florida as well as in Illinois and South Carolina, places that Trump won handily.
And in a shocking development, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham is not just endorsing Cruz, he's holding a fundraiser for him. Graham and Cruz are at odds on many issues, including government surveillance, foreign policy and immigration.
Top former Romney aide launches anti-Trump super PAC - POLITICO
A former Romney aide has spent months in talks with Republican donors and operatives to gauge financial interest in an anti-Donald Trump campaign. | Getty
With less than two weeks until the Iowa caucuses, a new super PAC has formed with the intention of taking down Donald Trump.
The group, which is called Our Principles PAC, is founded by Katie Packer, a veteran Republican strategist who served as deputy campaign manager on Mitt Romney's 2012 presidential campaign.
Story Continued Below
This week, the group sent out mailers to Iowa voters attacking Trump, who polls show is in a tight battle with Ted Cruz in the state, where caucuses are to be held on Feb. 1. In a filing with the Federal Election Commission, the group has reported spending nearly $45,000 on mailers.
Additionally, the super PAC has reserved more than $3,000 in spending on Iowa radio stations, according to a media buying source.
Packer has spent months in talks with Republican donors and operatives to gauge financial interest in an anti-Trump campaign.
In a brief interview on Thursday, Packer wouldn't comment on the group's plans other than to say: ''Our Principles PAC has focused on conservative principles and ensuring that voters have the necessary information to make a wise decision on Election Day."
Packer declined to say whether she had spoken with Romney about the group. The 2012 GOP nominee has been privately expressing worry to former aides about Trump's ongoing lead in the primary.
Another former Romney aide, Alex Castellanos, has also been pitching Republican donors on a prospective anti-Trump effort but it has yet to materialize.
With the start of primary voting just days away, much of the talk in establishment GOP circles about mounting a sustained anti-Trump campaign has dissipated. Castellanos, a veteran GOP ad man, recently said that it was ''too late'' for those concerned about Trump to begin a media campaign against him.
Many in the party's establishment wing are convinced that a Trump nomination would damage the GOP's prospects for winning the White House and imperil Republican candidates up and down the ballot. Some share similar concerns about Cruz, who is also waging an insurgent-style campaign.
The electoral college could still stop Trump, even if he wins the popular vote - The Washington Post
Donald Trump will be the GOP's presidential nominee. Within the party, talk of a brokered Republican National Convention or even a supporting a third-party candidate has circulated among those hoping to stop him from becoming the next president, leaving Trump antagonists across the spectrum to ponder whether there's any fail-safe left, after November, to stop a Trump administration from becoming a reality.
There is. The electoral college.
If they choose, state legislators can appoint presidential electors themselves this November, rather than leaving the matter of apportioning electoral college votes by popular vote. Then, via their chosen electors, legislatures could elect any presidential candidate they prefer.
[Five myths about the electoral college]
Remember, Americans don't directly elect the president. The electoral college does: Slates of electors pledged to support presidential and vice presidential candidates are voted upon in each state every four years. Each state, and the District of Columbia, is apportioned at least three of the 538 electors, allocated by the total number of U.S. senators and House members each state has.
In December, these electors will gather in their respective states and cast votes for president and vice president. And in January, Congress counts these votes, determines if a candidate has achieved a majority '-- at least 270 votes '-- and then certifies a winner.
We take it for granted that the individual votes we cast will be the ones that select the slate of presidential electors in our state. But the Constitution makes no such guarantee. In fact, it says the states appoint electors ''in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.''
Some of the Founders worried that rash decision-making by the collective body politic would be ''radically vicious'' or ''liable to deceptions'' if they directly elected the president, for the people would lack the ''capacity to judge'' candidates. While members of the House of Representatives would be accountable directly to the people, presidential elections would occur indirectly. Electors, not the people, would elect the president. And state legislatures could decide how. (Most states now have laws binding electors to vote for the candidate who wins their state's popular vote '-- but many states don't.)
Donald Trump will almost certainly be the delegate leader heading into July's Republican National Convention '' but that doesn't mean he'll win the nomination outright. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
In the earliest presidential elections, many states did not have popular elections for electors. Their legislatures simply chose electors. Over time, states gradually moved toward the popular elections we now take for granted.
[The national popular vote effort, explained]
But state legislatures have occasionally retained the power for themselves. In 1876, for instance, the new state of Colorado opted not to hold a popular election for electors, with the legislature claiming publicly that it lacked sufficient time to organize an election. It's more likely that Republican legislators worried that the people would vote for three Democratic electors and move to end Reconstruction in a closely contested election. The state legislature chose to retain the power to choose electors for itself '-- just that one time.
And state legislatures have modified the rules for the selection of presidential electors when they worry that the people of the state will vote for a disfavored candidate. In 1892, for instance, Democrats gained control of the Michigan legislature. They decided that presidential electors should be appointed according to popular vote totals in each congressional district, as opposed to the statewide winner-take-all system that had previously existed. Michiganders had consistently voted for a slate of Republican electors in the recent past, and the move to elections by district guaranteed that Democrats would win at least a few of electoral votes.
In McPherson v. Blacker, the Supreme Court approved Michigan's move and found that the mode of appointing electors was ''exclusively'' reserved to the states. The court would not interfere with the state legislature's decision, whatever the reason.
State legislatures should consider whether to retake this authority in the 2016 election in an effort to stop Trump. Republicans control 31 state legislatures. Many could consider this proposal, but the Texas state legislature is a natural place to start. It could easily pass a law returning power to the legislature. On Election Day, the legislature could decide whether to vote for Trump or Mitt Romney, the prior Republican nominee; former Texas governor Rick Perry, who dropped out of the 2016 race early on; a popular GOP figure such as Condoleezza Rice, whose name has recently been floated as an alternative; or their own junior Sen. Ted Cruz, presently trailing Trump in the Republican Party delegate count.
[Stop Trump campaign plans to push forward]
Texas's 38 red-state electoral votes are almost assuredly required for any Republican to get the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Casting them for someone other than Trump doesn't help likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, because she also needs 270. So while one state's electoral votes may not seem like much, it might be enough to deprive either candidate a majority.
And in the event no candidate wins a majority of the electoral votes, the House of Representatives selects the winner. Each state's delegation of representatives gets one vote and selects among the top three electoral vote-getters '-- which would include the candidate who receives Texas's 38 votes. Republicans control these House delegations, and they could select from Trump, Clinton and Texas's preferred non-Trump candidate.
GOP leaders are scrambling to minimize Donald Trump's dominance in the polls, leaving many wondering what would happen if no one candidate wins a clear majority before the national convention. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
The decision need not rest with a single state, of course. Many state legislatures may worry about voters choosing between Trump and Clinton. It'd be a long shot, to be sure, but if enough state legislatures voted for their own electors this year, they could collectively secure the 270 electoral votes for their preferred candidate, who might not be either of these two candidates.
[U.S. primary results by state]
To take this extraordinary step, state legislators would have to decide that this election calls for an extraordinary change. And, of course, acknowledge that it could be deployed against any candidate in any presidential election '-- this year, four years from now and onward. It has seldom been used. But perhaps '-- just this once '-- legislators will conclude that the times call for a change to how we vote for the president.
Clearly, Trump supporters and, potentially, anyone who sees this sort of procedural move as a dirty trick, would object to this as anti-democratic. But voters' preferences would still be reflected '-- albeit indirectly '-- in the decisions made by the state legislatures, whose members are elected by the people. And the existence of the electoral college, no matter how electors are chosen, means that the people, technically, have already been indirectly selecting their presidents.
Trump hasn't won yet. But it is increasingly likely that we will reach precisely the kind of scenario that the Founders worried about '-- divisive political discourse threatens to thrust a dangerous candidate into office who appears inclined to govern more like a monarch than a president. Opportunities remain for cooler heads to prevail in our presidential election. And state legislatures should consider doing so this year.
Correction: This article has been updated to reflect that state legislatures could vote for electors on Election Day,while the electoral college votes in December.
In convincing fashion, Republican voters seem to be selecting Donald Trump as their nominee. And in a democracy, victory has legitimacy to it. Voters are rarely wise but are usually sensible. They understand their own problems. And so deference is generally paid to the candidate who wins.
And deference is being paid. Gov. Rick Scott of Florida is urging Republicans to coalesce around Trump. Pundits are coming out with their ''What We Can Learn'' commentaries. Those commentaries are built on a hidden respect for the outcome, that this is a rejection of a Republicanism that wasn't working and it points in some better direction.
The question is: Should deference be paid to this victor? Should we bow down to the judgment of these voters?
Well, some respect is in order. Trump voters are a coalition of the dispossessed. They have suffered lost jobs, lost wages, lost dreams. The American system is not working for them, so naturally they are looking for something else.
Moreover, many in the media, especially me, did not understand how they would express their alienation. We expected Trump to fizzle because we were not socially intermingled with his supporters and did not listen carefully enough. For me, it's a lesson that I have to change the way I do my job if I'm going to report accurately on this country.
And yet reality is reality.
Donald Trump is epically unprepared to be president. He has no realistic policies, no advisers, no capacity to learn. His vast narcissism makes him a closed fortress. He doesn't know what he doesn't know and he's uninterested in finding out. He insults the office Abraham Lincoln once occupied by running for it with less preparation than most of us would undertake to buy a sofa.
Trump is perhaps the most dishonest person to run for high office in our lifetimes. All politicians stretch the truth, but Trump has a steady obliviousness to accuracy.
This week, the Politico reporters Daniel Lippman, Darren Samuelsohn and Isaac Arnsdorf fact-checked 4.6 hours of Trump speeches and press conferences. They found more than five dozen untrue statements, or one every five minutes.
''His remarks represent an extraordinary mix of inaccurate claims about domestic and foreign policy and personal and professional boasts that rarely measure up when checked against primary sources,'' they wrote.
He is a childish man running for a job that requires maturity. He is an insecure boasting little boy whose desires were somehow arrested at age 12. He surrounds himself with sycophants. ''You can always tell when the king is here,'' Trump's butler told Jason Horowitz in a recent Times profile. He brags incessantly about his alleged prowess, like how far he can hit a golf ball. ''Do I hit it long? Is Trump strong?'' he asks.
In some rare cases, political victors do not deserve our respect. George Wallace won elections, but to endorse those outcomes would be a moral failure.
And so it is with Trump.
History is a long record of men like him temporarily rising, stretching back to biblical times. Psalm 73 describes them: ''Therefore pride is their necklace; they clothe themselves with violence. '... They scoff, and speak with malice; with arrogance they threaten oppression. Their mouths lay claim to heaven, and their tongues take possession of the earth. Therefore their people turn to them and drink up waters in abundance.''
And yet their success is fragile: ''Surely you place them on slippery ground; you cast them down to ruin. How suddenly they are destroyed.''
The psalmist reminds us that the proper thing to do in the face of demagogy is to go the other way '-- to make an extra effort to put on decency, graciousness, patience and humility, to seek a purity of heart that is stable and everlasting.
The Republicans who coalesce around Trump are making a political error. They are selling their integrity for a candidate who will probably lose. About 60 percent of Americans disapprove of him, and that number has been steady since he began his campaign.
Worse, there are certain standards more important than one year's election. There are certain codes that if you betray them, you suffer something much worse than a political defeat.
Donald Trump is an affront to basic standards of honesty, virtue and citizenship. He pollutes the atmosphere in which our children are raised. He has already shredded the unspoken rules of political civility that make conversation possible. In his savage regime, public life is just a dog-eat-dog war of all against all.
As the founders would have understood, he is a threat to the long and glorious experiment of American self-government. He is precisely the kind of scapegoating, promise-making, fear-driving and deceiving demagogue they feared.
Trump's supporters deserve respect. They are left out of this economy. But Trump himself? No, not Trump, not ever.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter, and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on March 18, 2016, on page A27 of the New York edition with the headline: No, Not Trump, Not Ever.
A Trump protester was punched and kicked several times while being escorted out of a rally in Tucson, Ariz., by police.
Videos show a protester in an American flag shirt holding up a picture of Trump before being punched. Another protester walking right behind him is seen wearing a white KKK-style hood. Police immediately handcuffed the attacker, a black man.
Trump called out the hooded protesters early on in the rally.
"He's a disgusting guy," Trump said. "That is a disgusting guy, really disgusting."
Trump got into hot water when he receieved the support of former KKK leader David Duke and faltered in his distancing himself from the organization.
RT Mobile - Trump as risky as jihadists to economy - study
The EIU highlighted Donald Trump's alienation towards China as well as his comments on Islamist extremismThe prospect of Donald Trump winning the US presidency represents a global threat on a par with jihadist militancy destabilising the world economy, according to British research group EIU.
In the latest version of its Global Risk assessment, the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked victory for the Republican front-runner at 12 on an index where the current top threat is a Chinese economic "hard landing" rated 20.
Justifying the threat level, the EIU highlighted the tycoon's alienation towards China as well as his comments on Islamist extremism, saying a proposal to stop Muslims from entering the United States would be a "potent recruitment tool for jihadi groups".
It also raised the spectre of a trade war under a Trump presidency and pointed out that his policies "tend to be prone to constant revision".
"He has been exceptionally hostile towards free trade, including notably NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), and has repeatedly labelled China as a 'currency manipulator'." it said.
"He has also taken an exceptionally right-wing stance on the Middle East and jiadhi terrorism, including, among other things, advocating the killing of families of terrorists and launching a land incursion into Syria to wipe out IS (and acquire its oil)."
By comparison it gave a possible armed clash in the South China Sea an eight '' the same as the threat posed by Britain leaving the European Union '' and ranked an emerging market debt crisis at 16.
A Trump victory, it said, would at least scupper the Trans-Pacific Partnership between the US and 11 other American and Asian states signed in February, while "his hostile attitude to free trade, and alienation of Mexico and China in particular, could escalate rapidly into a trade war".
"There are risks to this forecast, especially in the event of a terrorist attack on US soil or a sudden economic downturn," it added.
However, the organisation said it did not expect Mr Trump to defeat his most likely Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in an election and pointed out that Congress would likely block some of his more radical proposals if he won November's election.
Rated at 12 alongside the prospect of a Trump presidency was the threat of Islamic State, which the EIU said risked ending a five-year bull run on US and European stock markets if terrorist attacks escalated.
The break-up of the euro zone following a Greek exit from the bloc was rated 15, while the prospect of a new "cold war" fuelled by Russian interventions in Ukraine and Syria was put at 16.
Source: AFP
Read next
Shut Up Slave!
New Bill Would Turn GOP's Xenophobic Rhetoric About Refugees Into Law
THE HOUSE JUDICIARY Committee on Wednesday approved a bill that would reduce the already small number of refugees allowed into the United States, and effectively codify the bigotry of Donald Trump and other GOP candidates.
The Refugee Program Integrity Restoration Act (H.R. 4731) proposed by Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, and Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., would impose new caps on refugee resettlement limits, discriminate on religious grounds, redefine the word ''refugee,'' and give local and state governments broad powers to refuse resettlement.
In ordinary circumstances, the question of how many refugees America accepts is made at the executive level. President Obama has set a target for accepting 100,000 refugees into the United States in fiscal year 2017. This bill, however, would effectively take the decision out of his hands by imposing a hard limit of 60,000 refugees in 2017, even as the world is dealing with the biggest refugee crisis since World War II.
But other provisions included in H.R. 4731 would make it hard for the government to even reach that reduced target.
According to the text of the bill, state and municipal level government officials could refuse refugees through ''any action formally disapproving of resettlement in that locality.'' This provision effectively grants veto power over resettlement to local officials. Such a provision could greatly complicate any resettlement program.
The bill also creates a new definition of who is a refugee by stating that protection from violence would not be offered ''if that violence is not specifically directed at the person.'' For Syrians and others, the violence of the war is not directed at them as ''individuals,'' but rather is occurring as part of a broader conflict.
''If you look at the situation in Syria, Russia is bombing entire townships, not singling people out as individuals, but targeting them regardless because they are in a war zone,'' says Jennifer Quigley of Human Rights First. ''The language in this bill is a huge change from existing standards and would drastically narrow the definition of who constitutes a refugee.''
During this election cycle, a number of Republican presidential nominees have called for incorporating religious discrimination in the refugee process. H.R. 4731 would compel the Department of Homeland Security to ''grant priority consideration to such applicants whose claims are based on persecution '... by reason of those applicants being practitioners of a minority religion in the country from which they sought refuge.''
During the present conflict in Syria, the vast majority of refugees come from the majority Sunni Muslim population, which has also borne the brunt of the government's military crackdown. While they are among the most desperately needy refugees in the world today, because they are not ''minorities'' in their society, the bill would make it harder for them to gain refuge in the United States. ''What this provision is trying to get at is stopping the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees, by basing acceptance criteria on identity rather than need,'' says Quigley.
During this election cycle, GOP candidates have seemed to be competing to express the greatest hostility toward refugees. Ted Cruz and others have said that the United States should refuse all refugees except Christians, while Donald Trump recently promised his supporters that he would look Syrian children in the faces and say, ''You can't come here.'''
The xenophobic rhetoric in response to the current refugee crisis is ironic given the GOP's history. Ronald Reagan, viewed as an icon by most Republicans, famously granted asylum to hundreds of thousands of refugees fleeing conflicts in Southeast Asia and Central America, and even invoked America's generous refugee policy in his 1989 presidential farewell speech. Even George W. Bush, who ignited some of the conflicts that people are today fleeing, chose to restart the Refugee Resettlement Program after 9/11.
''Some of the Republicans advocating against refugees today don't know that historically GOP presidents have had welcoming asylum policies toward people fleeing conflicts,'' says Quigley. ''The rhetoric in this presidential campaign is making it easier for legislation like H.R. 4731 to be proposed, but it is also silencing traditional refugee supporters by making them feel uncomfortable about speaking out against it.''
Top photo: A child cries as migrants cross a river north of Idomeni, Greece, attempting to reach Macedonia on a route bypassing the border fence, March 14, 2016.
Denver Cops Abused Confidential Database To Get Dates, Enable Stalking: Report - Linkis.com
U.S. citizens who owe money to the tax man might soon be barred from flying out of the country '-- or even out of town.
Two separate federal government policies are converging to make traveling difficult for travelers in the unspecified future. Buried in December's Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is a provision that gives the IRS the right to have the State Department deny or revoke the passport of a taxpayer that has a delinquent federal tax bill of at least $50,000.
Meanwhile, another law is currently being implemented that may mean tax delinquents flying domestically could get caught up in the IRS dragnet: REAL ID '-- the antiterrorism measure that sets minimum standards for states that issue licenses and state identification.
Read MoreREAL ID may pose real travel headaches next year
The Department of Homeland Security has set Jan. 22, 2018, as the deadline for which all states must comply with REAL ID requirements. After that date, travelers from any states with noncompliant IDs '-- currently including New York, Minnesota, Louisiana and American Samoa '-- would need a U.S. passport for domestic or international air travel.
"For those travelers denied passports [by the FAST Act] in states that do not issue REAL ID compliant driver's license, their options will be very limited for providing acceptable documentation for air travel," said Andrew Meehan, policy director of the advocacy group Keeping Identities Safe.
The details are in the "Revocation or Denial of Passport in Case of Certain Delinquencies" section of the FAST Act. In essence, a U.S. citizen would be in danger of having a passport request or renewal denied '-- or having their passport revoked entirely '-- if they have a cumulative federal tax bill over $50,000, including penalties and interest.
Such a scenario also includes the IRS having filed a notice of lien against that individual, or if the agency has filed a notice of levy to seize property to satisfy a debt.
Caliphate!
Salah Abdeslam: Who is the 'gay' Isis fighter who fled the Paris attacks? | Europe | News | The Independent
Paris attack suspect Salah Abdeslam has been shot and wounded in a Brussels anti-terror raid.
The 26-year-old - who alleged helped plot the attack which killed 130 people in the French capital in November - was reportedly injured but alive following the raid in the Brussels district of Forest on Tuesday where four police officers were injured.
Police have confirmed they found Abdeslam's fingerprints as well as his DNA on a glass, French and Belgian media report.
Tony Connelly, from Irish TV channel RTE, quoted an anonymous Belgian police source claiming one of the gunman killed in Tuesday's raid "sacrificed himself" to allow Abdeslam time to escape.
Abdeslam may have been one of them men who escaped the raid on Tuesday but officials have not confirmed whether he was present.
Who is he?Abdeslam was born in Brussels in 1989 to parents originally from northern Morocco.
According to Belgian newspaper, Le Derniere Heure, he burnt down the family home at the age of 14 .
Prior to the attack he was known for smoking joints and hanging out at the bar owned by his brother Brahim - who blew himself up at the Stade de France during the attacks.
After the attack, residents in the neighbourhood said that this clean-shaven local boy who liked motorbikes and football could never have carried out the attacks.
Suspect captured in Paris raid in November
One of Abdeslam's friends from Molenbeek told The Independent he could "never, ever, ever have imagined it could be the same person [he] knew".
Abdel Ben Alal said: "We chatted and talked about school and sports. I didn't see any sign of hatred in him whatsoever".
Abdeslam also reportedly liked to frequent gay bars and was reportedly seen in one in central Brussels just weeks before the attacks.
The bartender of the club, Julien, told the Sunday Times: "We had him down as a rent boy, he was always hanging out with that kind of crowd".
So what drove him towards Isis?Isis, which claimed responsibility for the multiple attacks on a football stadium, concert hall and several restaurants, regards homosexuality as evil and has released videos of militants throwing gay people off buildings.
Adulterers are decapitated and drinking and smoking is met with maiming and flogging.
It is unclear how a man who was possibly gay himself and a regular drug user would have been attracted to this way of life.
Despite this, Abdeslam has been identified as having a key role in renting the two cars used by the attackers and to have participated in the assault on restaurants near to the Bataclan theatre.
He is also believed to have taken road trips to Austria and Hungary in September - allegedly to pick up the attacks' ringleader, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, to bring him to Paris.
Abaaoud is believed to have been a childhood friend and five years ago the pair were jailed for armed robbery. They may have been radicalised in prison.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who planned the Paris attacks, is a childhood friend of Abdeslam
Abdeslam's brother Brahim was also caught in Turkey earlier in 2015 after attempting to travel to Syria.
After the attack on the restaurants, it appears Abdeslam and his brother went to the Stade de France to blow themselves up but only Brahim went through with the plan.
Abdeslam reportedly dumped his vest in the southern Paris suburb of Montrouge which was found ten days later, before disappearing.
Where did he go?Abdeslam is reportedly one of just two men linked to the Paris attacks who managed to escape.
He bought a telephone SIM card at a shop in the 18th arrondissement in northern Paris one hour after the attacks and used it to call two friends in Brussels to rescue him.
He then walked through the city for nearly nine hours before being picked in Chtillon '' an inner suburb on the opposite side of the city '' at around 7am.
A deposition by one of the friends who collected him said they had last seen him in the Schaerbeek area of northern Brussels the day after the attacks.
The world mourns Paris attacks - in picturesAfter that where he went is unclear. A Spanish newspaper reported he was driving through Europe in a Citroen Xsara and intelligence services suggested he was hiding from Isis as well as intelligence agencies after failing to complete his "martyrdom".
Despite this, at the end of November a source close to the Parisian investigation said he was likely to have fled to Syria.
Whether he returned to Brussels or never left is currently unclear.
British Captive John Cantlie Mocks U.S. Airstrikes on Media Kiosks in Mosul in IS-Linked 'Amaq Video
NOTE: The following materials are for information purposes only and may not be copied, reproduced, or transmitted without the explicit permission of SITE Intelligence Group and specific attribution to SITE Intelligence Group.
DetailsMultimediaCreated: 18 March 2016
British captive John Cantlie appeared in a video from the Islamic State (IS)-linked 'Amaq News Agency, mocking U.S. airstrikes on IS media kiosks in Mosul. Register to read more ...
Agenda 2030
'In 2050 geen benzine- en dieselauto's meer' | NU - Het laatste nieuws het eerst op NU.nl
De Europese Commissie wil in 2050 alle benzine- en dieselgestookte auto's van de weg hebben. In 2030 moet het gebruik ervan in stedelijke gebieden zijn gehalveerd.In de plannen voor de toekomst van het transport in Europa staat dat de EU er naar streeft om in 2050 benzine- en dieselauto's te hebben uitgeband. Al in 2030 moet het gebruik van dit soort auto's in stedelijke gebieden zijn gehalveerd.
Het is (C)(C)n van de plannen die tot doel hebben de CO2-uitstoot in 2050 met zestig procent terug te dringen. Op het moment komt een kwart van de CO2-uitstoot in de EU van het wegverkeer. Komende maandag wordt het volledige rapport bekendgemaakt.
Om het wegverkeer terug te dringen, wil de EU dat in 2030 dertig procent van het wegverkeer dat een route volgt die langer is dan driehonderd kilometer, over de rails of via het water gaat. Daarvoor gaat worden gezocht naar financile middelen.
Vijftig procentIn 2050 moet dat percentage zijn opgelopen tot vijftig procent. Op het moment is het transport via de weg in Europa vier keer zo groot als het railtransport.
Voor een uitstootvrije stad moeten fiscale maatregelen zorgen en het openbaar vervoer verder gestimuleerd. Ook moet voor elektrische auto's en schone auto's in de steden een goede infrastructuur worden gebouwd.
Hogere belastingDe EU vindt dat belasting en andere tarieven voor vervuilendere auto's hoger moeten zijn. In 2030 moet het transport in de grote steden als CO2-vrij zijn. Voor auto's van leveranciers, taxi's en bestelauto's worden speciale programma's gemaakt om die een lage uitstoot te geven.
De EU heeft voor de plannen nog een lange weg te gaan. Driekwart van de reizen die in stedelijke gebieden worden ondernomen, gaan per auto.
KilometersHet aantal kilometers dat in stedelijke gebieden wordt afgelegd, stijgt tussen 1995 en 2030 met veertig procent. In Europa wordt 73 procent van de olieconsumptie gebruikt voor transport; 96 procent van het Europese transport maakt hier gebruik van.
EuroLand
REASONS FOR BREXIT Nos 137 & 138: EC to decide TTIP content with no democracy at all, as Erdogan splits the EU right down the middle | The Slog.
THE EU IS A RIVEN NEOLIBERAL BASKET CASE WITH NO MORAL OR LIBERTARIAN COMPASS. HOW HARD CAN THIS BREXIT DECISION BE?Leaked documents from the ongoing EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations show that the European Commission will be obliged to consult with US authorities before adopting new legislative proposals in many areas. What's more, only the unelected EC will have authority to decide in which areas there should be cooperation with the US: EU member states and the European Parliament will be completely cut out of the process.
The documents were obtained by the Independent and Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) campaign group.They show a complex network of procedures specifically designed to tie up any EU proposals that go against US interests.
Nick Dearden, director of the Global Justice Now campaign group, said: ''The leak absolutely confirms our fears about TTIP. It's all about giving big business more power over a very wide range of laws and regulations. In fact, business lobbies are on record as saying they want to co-write laws with governments '' this gets them a step closer. This isn't an 'add on' or a small part of TTIP '' it's absolutely central.''
In short, it's another giant step closer to the Corporate State'...and the world hegemony the US (C)lite seeks'...as well as being yet another vindication of what Hungary's leader Viktor Orban has been warning about for the last five years.
Far from being interested in democratic reform, the EC's Troika of fixers demonstrates here that it has every intention of snuffing out elected influencers at the earliest opportunity.
It did it in Greece, and the British Left preferred to stare up its cosy bottom. Now we have the most direct threat to European trade union freedoms since the Nazis. One wonders what the pinhead-angel examiners will do this time. What they should do is attend to the wisdom of Kate Hoey, who has all along said, ''This is not about simple Brexit'....it's about the People versus the Establishment.''
Hear that sound of gunfire, not quite drowning the noise of the UK Left's ideologists onanising about ''the soul of the Labour Party''.
Meanwhile, David Cameron's hero Recep Erdogan is preparing for membership of the European Union by ensuring Turkey is every bit as fascist as the EC by the time it gets on board.
''It is not only the person who pulls the trigger, but those who made that possible who should be defined as terrorists, regardless of their title,'' he said on Monday, in an attempt to convince parliament to include journalists, politicians, academics, and activists under the country's anti-extremism laws. In the light of recent bombings in Ankara, Turkey has arrested nearly 50 people with alleged links to the Kurdish People's PKK, as part of his long-term plans for ethnic cleansing.
However, it seems that Angela Mirakel has been abruptly informed by Paris '' backed up by Warsaw, Budapest and other points East '' that Turkish accession into the EU ill be effected over their collective cadavers. Accordingly, Brussels-am-Berlin has been rapidly back-pedalling away from assurances made to the Turkish Prime Minister. Further, I understand that a senior EU secret service officer based in Britain has warned some of the more doolally goforits that the prospect of Turkish accession ''might be just enough to tip the scales in favour of Brexit''.
Look folks, please can enough of you wake up before June 23rd? You can walk willingly onto the scaffold if you like, but what about your kids?
Related at The Slog
Like this:LikeLoading...
Related
Nukes
30 EU cities join forces against 2 old Belgian nuclear reactors, go to European court '-- RT News
For the first time in history, 30 major cities in three EU countries have come together to shut down two old Belgian nuclear reactors situated near the borders of all three states.
About 60 percent of Belgium's energy comes from seven nuclear reactors located in the Tihange 2 and Doel 3 plants. Among them are the two in question. Both reopened in December, after 21-month repairs, but Doel went offline again a week later.
Both have faced a number of issues over their four-decade lifespan, and continue to do so. Micro-cracks, fire, even sabotage, have taken place. None of this feels very safe to Germany, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, whose borders the reactors straddle; some cracks are reportedly up to 18cm long.
Read more
The alliance between Cologne and Dusseldorf, Luxembourg City and Maastricht in the Netherlands are filing two separate lawsuits '' one of which they're co-funding to shut the Tihange 2 reactor, the other a European commission request for a separate case at the European court of justice, aimed at shutting down Doel 3, located on the Dutch border.
''More than 30 districts have adopted resolutions to support us, and want to join the lawsuit,'' mayor of Germany's Greater Aachen region and leader of the campaign, Helmut Echtenberg, told The Guardian.
Echtenberg is a member of Angela Merkel's CDU who was driven to his current role by essentially popular anger over the reactors.
Doel is located about 40 miles downwind from Aachen. And according to Echtenberg, the plant is causing enough anxiety that business is beginning to suffer. Nor do people wish to move anywhere near the thing, so the real estate sector could soon be feeling it too. Evidence of this fear is all over local media and is felt in the air.
''The risk of a nuclear accident is not very high but if it happened, the damage would be extreme,'' bookstore owner Hartmut Falter, in Aachen, told the British newspaper. ''Unfortunately, nuclear dangers do not stop at the frontier.''
Echtenberg doesn't know if the lawsuits will be successful, but says that influencing the Belgian government will depend on a unified front, together with various NGOs and government structures.
Read more
The Fukushima disaster raised a wave of anti-nuclear sentiment, including in Germany, where Chancellor Angel Merkel's government is defending against three of the country's biggest energy companies at the Constitutional Court. Merkel's nuclear phase-out program has caused them billions in losses, which they now seek as compensation. Five years ago Merkel ordered all nuclear energy gone by 2022. And unlike Tihange and Doel, those were all much more modern plants.
Similar complaints to current ones have been leveled at France by Germany and Switzerland last week, forcing it to shut down its oldest reactor.
According to plant operator Electrabel's spokesperson Anne-Sophie Huge: ''In the 1980's the tests were internationally acceptable but the technology has evolved since then. There are no reasons to be afraid. Our power plants are some of the most safe and secure nuclear power plants in Europe.''
This doesn't fly with nuclear specialists, who talk of an ultrasonic technique to test for cracks, which was available all that time ago, and would definitely have spotted the cracks. Which means the damage is recent.
''It is not comprehensible that a less sensitive ultrasonic technique should not detect large flaws,'' Ilse Tweer, a former advisor to the Austrian government, said.
But Electrabel project director Jean van Vyve countered this by saying that the severity of some of the flaws would not have been apparent when tested by less sensitive technology, so the cracks would seem ''perfectly acceptable.'' He also says that any test results from 40 years ago would not have been recorded, as it wasn't standard practice.
NA-Tech News
Guidance On Podcast 'Back Announces' | NPR Ethics Handbook
Chris Turpin, V.P. for news programming and operations, writes:
As podcasts grow in number and popularity we are talking about them more often in our news programs. We are also fielding more and more questions from news staff and Member stations about our policies for referring to podcasts on air. To that end, we want to establish some common standards, especially for language in back announces. Our hope is to establish basic principles that are easy to understand and allow plenty of flexibility for creativity. These guidelines apply to all podcasts, whether produced by NPR or by other entities.
'' No Call to Action:We won't tell people to actively download a podcast or where to find them. No mentions of npr.org, iTunes, Stitcher, NPR One, etc.
GOOD:
''That's Linda Holmes of NPR's Pop Culture Happy Hour podcast and our blogger on the same subject and Bob Mondello, NPR's film critic. Thanks so much.
BAD:
''OK, everyone. You can download Alt.Latino from iTunes and, of course, via the NPR One app.
'' Informational, not Promotional: When referring to podcasts, and the people who host, produce, or contribute to them, we will mention the name of the podcast but not in a way that explicitly endorses it. References should not specifically promote the content of the podcast (e.g., ''This week, the Politics Podcast team digs into delegate math.'') If you feel a podcast title needs explaining (e.g. Hidden Brain), some additional language can be added (e.g., ''That'sShankar Vedantam, he hosts a podcast that explores the unseen patterns of human behavior. It's called, Hidden Brain'' ). Just to repeat: Be creative in how you back announce podcasts, but please avoid outright promotion.
'' No NPR One: For now, NPR One will not be promoted on the air.
There will be exceptions to these rules, but when in doubt let these principles be your guide.
If you have specific practical questions the Holmes Brothers or Mark Memmott are great places to go for answers.
And, as always, I'm happy to discuss any aspect of this decision.
(''Memmos;'' March 16, 2016)
March 16, 2016
Posted in 'Memmos': Memmott's Missives & Musings, From the Standards & Practices Outbox.
Microsoft Actually Had "Erotic Schoolgirl" Dancers at its GDC Party - CraveOnline
Update: Microsoft has now officially responded to the complaints regarding its Xbox GDC party, with Xbox chief Phil Spencer telling The Verge: "At Xbox-hosted events at GDC this past week, we represented Xbox and Microsoft in a way that was not consistent or aligned to our values.
"It was unequivocally wrong and will not be tolerated. I know we disappointed many people and I'm personally committed to holding ourselves to higher standards. We must ensure that diversity and inclusion are central to our everyday business and core values. We will do better in the future."
Original Story: In a news story beamed in straight from the '90s/early '00s, Microsoft has reportedly decided that the best way to represent its brand at GDC is to hire dancers dressed as "erotic schoolgirls," because apparently no one in the planning committee for this particular event had the wherewithal to prevent this clearly awful idea from being realized.
The dancers were reportedly present at a party organized by Microsoft for GDC 2016, with many attendees on Twitter reporting their disappointment at their presence. Twitter user Kamina Vincent, who attended the party, posted a series of tweets discussing the dancers, with her thoughts being echoed online by others at the convention, too:
Other attendees also began uploading photos and videos from the party, with some stating that they would be filing an official complaint with the company:
With Microsoft being one of the biggest brands in all of gaming, it is thoroughly unacceptable and entirely baffling that they considered this an acceptable form of entertainment for their Game Developers Conference party.
Microsoft has yet to respond to the complaints regarding the event. We'll update this post accordingly if they choose to do so.
U.S. preps to shift critical Internet controlBy Adam MazmanianMar 18, 2016A Commerce Department component is close to approving a plan to move control of the architecture that maps and maintains stability of the Internet address system to a global, multi-stakeholder group.
The National Telecommunications and Information Agency has for years controlled the critical IANA contract (short for Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) that serves as the address book of the global Internet. On March 10, a proposal to transition the IANA function away from NTIA was announced at a global Internet governance meeting in Marrakech, Morocco.
While the move to cede U.S. control of Internet Protocol address blocks, the root zone file (the registry of top-level domains like .com), configuration protocols, and other bedrock Internet architecture had been part of a long-term plan for decades, the surveillance revelations of Edward Snowden apparently speeded the U.S. timetable.
As expected, the U.S.-based non-profit ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is set to maintain its stewardship over the IANA function. In response to concerns about the potential for government worldwide, but especially in countries that don't rank high in freedom of speech or rule of law, Congress mandated a review of the proposal by the Government Accountability Office and by NTIA.
The NTIA has tapped Harvard's Berkman Center to conduct a review of the proposal, to be completed by June 30, according to contracting documents released March 16.
NTIA head Larry Strickling won't be making any public comments on the proposal while the review is ongoing. But in a March 17 speech at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Strickling said the review would be looking to confirm that the proposal met key requirements. It must "support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governance," and not be based on government or inter-governmental control, he said. The plan also must keep the domain name system stable and secure, satisfy customer expectations and "maintain the openness of the Internet."
Alissa Cooper, who chaired the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group that crafted the proposal, told lawmakers on the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the plan "meets the criteria for the transition that NTIA established at the outset of the process."
As always, the details matter. The proposal is technical and dense, and will take weeks to analyze. NTIA has extended its hold on the IANA function before, when the process crept past a 2015 deadline to renew ICANN's contract. Additionally, observers will be looking to make sure changes in ICANN's bylaw are written and implemented in such a way that obviates the potential for greater institutional control from governmental participants than currently exists. A paper from the right-leaning Heritage Foundation advocates a two-year "soft extension" of NTIA's stewardship of the IANA contract to make sure that promised changes at ICANN take root.
The forthcoming NTIA and GAO reviews will go a long way to deciding whether the IANA functions remain with the U.S. government for another year, but it appears that the long-awaited transition could be decided by November.
About the Author
Adam Mazmanian is executive editor of FCW.
Before joining the editing team, Mazmanian was an FCW staff writer covering Congress, government-wide technology policy, health IT and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Prior to joining FCW, Mr. Mazmanian was technology correspondent for National Journal and served in a variety of editorial at B2B news service SmartBrief. Mazmanian started his career as an arts reporter and critic, and has contributed reviews and articles to the Washington Post, the Washington City Paper, Newsday, Architect magazine, and other publications. He was an editorial assistant and staff writer at the now-defunct New York Press and arts editor at the About.com online network in the 1990s, and was a weekly contributor of music and film reviews to the Washington Times from 2007 to 2014.
Click here for previous articles by Mazmanian. Connect with him on Twitter at @thisismaz.
Apple Crack
Bruce Schneier: Companies Handing Source Code Over to Governments
ZDNet has an article on US government pressure on software companies to hand over copies of their source code. There's no details because no one is talking on the record, but I also believe that this is happening.
When asked, a spokesperson for the Justice Dept. acknowledged that the department has demanded source code and private encryption keys before.
These orders would probably come from the FISA Court:
These orders are so highly classified that simply acknowledging an order's existence is illegal, even a company's chief executive or members of the board may not be told. Only those who are necessary to execute the order would know, and would be subject to the same secrecy provisions.
Given that Federighi heads the division, it would be almost impossible to keep from him the existence of a FISA order demanding the company's source code.
It would not be the first time that the US government has reportedly used proprietary code and technology from American companies to further its surveillance efforts.
Top secret NSA documents leaked by whistleblower Edward Snowden, reported in German magazine Der Spiegel in late-2013, have suggested some hardware and software makers were compelled to hand over source code to assist in government surveillance.
The NSA's catalog of implants and software backdoors suggest that some companies, including Dell, Huawei, and Juniper -- which was publicly linked to an "unauthorized" backdoor -- had their servers and firewall products targeted and attacked through variousexploits. Other exploits were able to infiltrate firmware of hard drives manufactured by Western Digital, Seagate, Maxtor, and Samsung.
Last year, antivirus maker and security firm Kaspersky later found evidence that the NSA had obtained source code from a number of prominent hard drive makers -- a claim the NSA denied -- to quietly install software used to eavesdrop on the majority of the world's computers.
"There is zero chance that someone could rewrite the [hard drive] operating system using public information," said one of the researchers.
The problem is, of course, is that any company forced by the US to hand over their source code would also be forbidden from talking about it.
It's the sort of thing China does:
For most computing and networking equipment, the chart says, source code must be turned over to Chinese officials. But many foreign companies would be unwilling to disclose code because of concerns about intellectual property, security and, in some cases, United States export law.
The chart also calls for companies that want to sell to banks to set up research and development centers in China, obtain permits for workers servicing technology equipment and build "ports" to allow Chinese officials to manage and monitor data processed by their hardware.
The draft antiterrorism law pushes even further, calling for companies to store all data related to Chinese users on servers in China, create methods for monitoring content for terror threats and provide keys to encryption to public security authorities.
Slashdot thread.
Tags: courts, encryption, key escrow, keys, national security policy
Posted on March 18, 2016 at 11:27 AM ' 29 Comments
Photo of Bruce Schneier by Per Ervland.
Schneier on Security is a personal website. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Resilient Systems, Inc.
PR
United Nations News Centre - UN appoints Red from the 'Angry Birds' as Honorary Ambassador for International Day of Happiness
18 March 2016 '' The United Nations today appointed Red, the leader of the ''Angry Birds'' mobile game characters, as an envoy to inspire climate action toward a sustainable and happier future for all.
Red's appointment, as Honorary Ambassador for Green, is part of a UN campaign launched today in partnership with the globally renowned characters to make a direct link between tackling climate change and people's happiness and well-being on the occasion of the International Day of Happiness to be observed on Sunday, 20 March.
''The Angry Birds have entertained millions of people around the world '' and now they are part of making the world a better place,'' said Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at a launch event at UN Headquarters in New York.
''We are proud to give Red a reason to go Green,'' he said. ''There is no better way to mark the International Day of Happiness than to have our animated ambassador raise awareness about the importance of addressing climate change to create a safer, more sustainable and happier future for all.''
The campaign, in partnership with Sony Pictures Entertainment, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Foundation, asks the general public across the world to make the Angry Birds happy by taking actions on climate change and sharing their photos and commitments on social media platforms using the common hashtag #AngryBirdsHappyPlanet.
By recycling, taking public transportation and conserving water, for example, individuals can share tips on how they can live sustainably and happily in their everyday lives, he said.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon names The Angry Bird's 'Red' Honourary Ambassador for Green on the International Day of Happiness. Credit: United Nations
As part of his ambassadorial duties, Red will go on a ''virtual world tour'' starting on 21 March, highlighting various ways to take climate action. The tour will take him to Paris, where countries adopted an historic agreement to address climate change in December, and will end in New York, where world leaders will sign the Paris Agreement at UN Headquarters on 22 April.During the launch event, the voice actors from the upcoming Angry Bird movie, Jason Sudeikis, Josh Gad, and Maya Rudolph, and producers John Cohen and Catherine Winder gave hundreds of students gathered in the iconic UN General Assembly Hall a sneak preview of the #AngryBirdsHappyPlanet campaign materials, including public service announcements created to support the campaign. They also asked the young audience for their support to the campaign by doing their part to make a difference on climate change.
In a message to mark this year's Happiness Day, Mr. Ban said that ''At this time of grave injustices, devastating wars, mass displacement, grinding poverty and other man-made causes of suffering,'' the Day is a global chance to assert that ''peace, well-being and joy deserve primacy.''
''It is about more than individual contentment; it is an affirmation that we have a collective responsibility to humanity,'' he added.
By advancing progress towards the interlinked Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted by the UN General Assembly last September, ''we can help spread happiness and secure peace,'' he stressed.
''The best way to celebrate this International Day of Happiness is by taking action to alleviate suffering,'' he urged.
Since 2013, the UN has annually observed the Day on 20 March as a way to recognize the importance of happiness in the lives of people worldwide. This year's focus is on the relationship between having a healthy planet and happiness.
War on Ca$h
22 februari 2016 | Nederland kiest voor biometrisch betalen | International Card Services
19 februari 2016Deelnemers pilot biometrisch betalen nemen afscheid van wachtwoord en omarmen vingerafdruk en gezichtsherkenning.
Amsterdam, 19 februari 2016 '' De Nederlandse deelnemers aan de eerste wereldwijde proef van MasterCard en International Card Services (ICS) omarmen de nieuwe technologie waarbij ze online kunnen betalen via een vingerafdruk en/of selfie. Negen op de tien deelnemers geeft aan dat ze hun wachtwoorden definitief willen inruilen voor biometrische authenticatie. En bijna driekwart van de gebruikers is ervan overtuigd dat biometrisch betalen zorgt voor vermindering van het aantal fraudegevallen. De 750 ABN AMRO creditcardhouders hebben 6 maanden lang zonder pincodes, wachtwoorden of bevestigingscodes eenvoudig hun online aankopen afgerond.
Dat biometrisch betalen de toekomst is blijkt wel uit het enthousiasme van de deelnemers aan de proef. Bijna iedereen zegt graag met vingerafdruk (93%) en/of gezichtsherkenning (77%) te blijven betalen na afloop van de pilot. ''De Nederlandse consument is enorm vooruitstrevend in het omarmen van nieuwe technologien en ons land is opnieuw internationaal koploper in gemakkelijk, veilig en efficint betalingsverkeer'', aldus Arjan Bol, Country Manager MasterCard Nederland. De proef in Nederland heeft geleid tot commercile interesse vanuit de gehele wereld en een extra pilot in Canada. Daarnaast streven we naar commercialisering van het product in een groot deel van Europa (Nederland, UK, Belgi, Spanje, Itali, Frankrijk, Duitsland, Zwitserland en Scandinavi) voor eind 2017.
Contactloze pasjes, smartphones en smartwatches zorgen al voor nieuwe betaalervaringen in winkels. Online shoppers verwachten hetzelfde gemak voor hun betalingen in webwinkels. De Nederlandse deelnemers aan de eerste wereldwijde proef van MasterCard en ICS zijn voornamelijk te spreken over het gebruiksgemak van biometrisch betalen. 95% van de gebruikers van vingerafdrukherkenning en 80% van de gebruikers van gezichtsherkenning geeft aan dat shoppen met biometrische authenticatie eenvoudiger en prettiger gaat dan met een wachtwoord. ''We gaan nu verder kijken naar de mogelijkheden om onze technologie te integreren in de apps van banken en techreuzen om betalen met een selfie of vingerafdruk nog gemakkelijker te maken'', zegt Bol.
Naast het gebruiksgemak zijn de deelnemers ook overtuigd van de veiligheid van biometrisch betalen. Bijna driekwart van de gebruikers verwacht dat biometrisch betalen zorgt voor een vermindering van het aantal fraudegevallen. ''Het voordeel van biometrie ten opzichte van wachtwoorden is het gemak. Mensen vergeten wachtwoorden, waardoor het betalingsproces onnodig lang en complex is. Wachtwoorden zullen daarom ook langzaamaan verdwijnen en plaatsmaken voor een mogelijk gebruiksvriendelijk alternatief als biometrische identificatie'', aldus Andr(C) IJbema, Manager Risk Management bij ICS. Het gebruiksgemak van de nieuwe technologie bevordert het afronden van de online betaling, wat de winkelier ook ten goede komt.
De digitale check identificeert gebruikers aan de hand van unieke persoonlijke kenmerken zoals de vingerafdruk of het gezicht. Tijdens het afrekenen in een webwinkel krijgt de consument een pop-up op zijn mobiele telefoon waarin hij eenvoudig met een vingerafdruk of gezichtsherkenning de transactie kan autoriseren. Bijna 4 op de 5 deelnemers aan de proef geeft de voorkeur aan het gebruik van de vingerafdruk voor authenticatie.
MIC
Carter touts cyber capabilities at budget hearing -- FCW
Carter touts cyber capabilities at budget hearingBy Aisha ChowdhryMar 18, 2016Defense Secretary Ash Carter, shown here at the 2016 RSA conference, testified March 17 before the Senate Armed Services Committee. (Photo credit: Sean Lyngaas, FCW)
The Secretary of Defense testified on March 17 that the Pentagon is doing more in cyber, electronic warfare and space operations, and that U.S. force are better positioned to face evolving threats from potential adversaries with the current budget proposal.
"We must have and be seen to have the ability to ensure that anyone who strikes a conflict with us will regret doing so," Ash Carter told the Senate Armed Services Committee while speaking about DOD's budget request of $582.7 billion for fiscal 2017. This includes $34 billion for investments in cyber, electronic warfare and space.
Key to the department's approach is the ability to deter some of the more advanced competitors, namely Russia and China, according to Carter.
"Our reliance in technology has given us great strength and great opportunities, but also led to vulnerabilities that adversaries are eager to exploit," he said. "We must and will be prepared for a high-end enemy, what we call full spectrum. In this context, Russia and China are our most stressing competitors, as they both developed and continued to advance military systems and seek to threaten our advantages in specific areas."
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), the Armed Services Committee's ranking Democrat, noted in his opening remarks that though the readiness of troops is integral, investments in modernization should not be neglected.
"While difficult choices must be made, we must ensure that this budget does not jeopardize ... targeted investments in research and development that foster new technology," Reed said.
While defending the risks the department could take when it comes to innovation, Carter said that because "our potential enemies take those risks, we need to take those risks also."
Carter assured the committee that the $34 billion budget request will, among other things, "help build our cyber mission force, develop next generational electronic jammers and prepare for a possibility of conflict that extends into space."
He also mentioned the 133 cyber mission teams at U.S. Cyber Command, which include operations to counter the Islamic State. Carter will be meeting with their chief, Adm. Mike Rogers, this week on how to expand on that front.
About the Author
Aisha Chowdhry is a staff writer covering Congress, the State Department, the Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Homeland Security.
Prior to joining FCW, Chowdhry covered foreign policy for CQ Roll Call. Her overseas work prior to that took her to Pakistan and Afghanistan. She has worked as a correspondent for Reuters based out of Islamabad. Chowdhry has also worked at the CBS affiliate in Washington as a multimedia journalist. She began her career as a freelance reporter for USA Today and covered stories from conflict zones. Her work has appeared in the New York Times, Foreign Policy, and Voice of America, among others.
Chowdhry received her masters in broadcast journalism from American University in Washington, D.C.
Click here for previous articles by Chowdhry, or connect with her on Twitter: @aishach
An A-10 Thunderbolt II from the 104th Fighter Wing, Barnes Municipal Airport, Westfield Mass., Massachusetts Air National Guard, banks while flying accross the Mediterranean Sea enroute to a forward operating base.
Op-Ed, War on the Rocks
March 16, 2016
Authors:Jacquelyn Schneider, Julia Macdonald, Research Fellow, Project on Managing the Atom/International Security Program
Belfer Center Programs or Projects: International Security
It's springtime in the beltway, which means it is time for the FY2017 DoD budget debates. The services are lining up to defend their pet platforms and none more avidly so than the Air Force. Not surprisingly, the FY17 budget proposal requests funds for the F-35 and the Long Range Strike Bomber (LRS-B) and also details Air Force plans to transition out the A-10 over the next two years. It has been the party line of the Air Force that in order to keep the budget under the requirements of the sequester, and to build a future Air Force capable of defeating a near-peer, the A-10 has to go. But just as consistent in this fight is the chairman of the Senate Armed Services, Sen. John McCain. His dogged support of the A-10 has frustrated the Air Force's efforts to retire the close air support (CAS) platform.
This antipathy between the Air Force, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, and Sen. McCain recently came to a head on March 3 at a Senate Armed Service Committee Hearing. In the hearing, Gen. Welsh reiterated that, with its hands tied by sequestration, the Air Force had no choice but to retire the A-10 in the near future. Sen. McCain, not to be deterred, accused Gen. Welsh of being "disingenuous" in retiring a platform with no foreseeable replacement. McCain asserted that "the A-10s are flying the most effective sorties in Iraq and Syria," a statement he supported by citing conversations with those "who are doing the combat." It was at this point that Welsh replied, "we all talk to them Chairman," implying the view from the ground was not as decidedly in the A-10 camp as McCain would suggest. So what is the ground truth about platform preferences on the battlefield? Is the A-10 really the most beloved CAS platform or, as Welsh implied, are the F-16s and F-15s also valued as great CAS platforms by troops on the ground?...
Congress has cancelled funding for an advanced missile defense system that has been deployed across the D.C. area during the last few years to prevent against a rising threat from cruise missile strikes.
Congress officially cut funding this month for JLENS, or the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor, a high-tech radar system that casts a wide-ranging protective net across the region to detect and intercept missiles or enemy planes before they reach American soil.
The system was placed on the budgetary chopping block following a high-profile incident last year in which the blimp-like system broke free from its tethers in Maryland and wreaked havoc across the east coast.
Defense industry insiders and former military officials say that despite last year's snafu, the system has proven critical to the capital region's defense against potential cruise missile attacks from rogue nations such as Iran, North Korea, and Russia.
The United States has already invested billions into the program, and was set to integrate the system into the larger defense network protecting the eastern seaboard.
U.S. military leaders have described JLENS as critical to U.S. defenses and requested an additional $27.2 million this year to keep it operational. These officials argued that the program fills an essential gap as the threat from cruise missile attacks increases.
''There are three types of missiles we worry about, the third one's the cruise missile attack,'' Adm. Bill Gortney chief of the North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, told lawmakers earlier this month.
''The Russians are employing these cruise missiles in Syria today, both from bombers, ships, and submarines,'' Gotney said. ''There's no operational or tactical requirement to do it. They're messaging us that they have this capability and those missiles can have a nuclear-tipped or conventional warhead.''
''We look forward to completing [the system] because should it bear out, it defeats a threat I don't have a capability against today,'' he added.
Key lawmakers with control over the federal budget did not buy this argument.
Sens. Dick Durbin (D., Ill.) and Thad Cochran (R., Miss.) recently used their authority to block funding, which has set the stage for JLENS to be taken out of service.
''For the remainder of [fiscal year 2016], both JLENS aerostats must be packed and stored until [fiscal year 2017] funds are appropriated by Congress and obligated,'' said one defense industry source who has worked on the Raytheon-built system. ''The future of the program will depend upon obligated funds for FY17 and beyond being appropriated.''
The Pentagon must now search for an alternative defense system while it works to secure future funding for JLENS, which insiders say is unlikely now that the system is being taken out of service.
''JLENS was an operational exercise designed to assess the systems' ability to integrate into NORAD's Integrated Air Defense System for cruise missile defense,'' said one Defense Department official who has worked on the system. ''While we continue to look for an over-the-horizon capability for the future, we have a system capable of defending the [national capital region].''
It is unlikely the JLENS will get a second chance, according to defense insiders who have been tracking its progress.
Redeployment will be ''a long shot if they pack it up now,'' said one source who works with Congress and the Pentagon on defense issues. ''The reason they had to ask for a reprogramming request is because appropriators stripped the program at the end of the year last year in finalizing the omnibus after it broke tether. They basically damned the program right then and there.''
Chet Nagle, a former Navy official and Defense Department official who has championed JLENS, told the Washington Free Beacon that the program is being abandoned just as it reaches its final testing stage.
''It is now in a final operational test at Aberdeen Proving Ground that will prove its worth and, incidentally, will protect most of the eastern seaboard from cruise missile attack'--once the system is integrated with regional systems,'' Nagle said. ''That integration is needed so that those systems, aircraft, and missiles already stationed in the region, will be able to neutralize incoming cruise missiles to which JLENS will direct them.''
Lawmakers are jeopardizing U.S. security to save a relatively small amount of money, Nagle said.
''While under-informed journalists and politicians make statements detrimental to the safety of America's defenses, our potential adversaries are busy,'' he said. ''The speed of cruise missiles is being increased to the point where existing missile defenses, say those on Aegis-equipped cruisers, will be overwhelmed before they can detect and destroy the incoming missile. The Russians, already threatening us routinely, are a perfect example.''
CLIPS AND DOCS
VIDEO-Trump Home Evacuated After THIS Threat! FBI & Fire Department Responds... (VIDEO) - World News Politics
Some people will stop at nothing when it comes to disrupting Trump in his goal to be the leader of this country and the person who will ''Make America Great Again''!There was one extremist who went too far. He sent a white powder in an envelope with a threatening message to the Central Park home of Donald Trump's son, Eric. Eric Trump's wife Lara opened the envelope and out fell the potentially dangerous powder.
The FBI, police, and fire department had to evacuate the area and are investigating. This is horrible!
The envelope with a Massachusetts postmark was addressed to Eric Trump, 32, at his apartment in the Trump Parc East, according to sources.
The letter contained a threatening message that implied that Donald Trump's children would be hurt if the GOP candidate did not withdraw from the presidential race, according to CBS News.
Eric's wife, Lara Yunaska, opened the envelope and white powder fell out, prompting police, fire crews and the FBI to respond.
It was not clear what the powder was.
The ominous letter arrived less than a week after an outbreak of violence last Friday at a Trump political rally in Chicago, forcing it to be canceled.H/T: NY Post
What do you think would happen if this was President Obama's case? The media response to this will tell you exactly how biased against Trump they are'... this is a real death threat, and is unacceptable.
This is a BREAKING NEWS alert. More information will be shared when it becomes available.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:PRESIDENT OBAMA JUST DECIDED TO PICK THIS MAN FOR THE SUPREME COURTLeaked Benghazi Docs Directly Implicate Barack H. Obama'... Spread This EverywhereThis Republican To Enter Presidential Race'... At The Convention!?!RNC Stop Trump Official: ''We Choose Our Nominee, Not The Voters'' (video)'...SHOCKING FOOTAGE From 1998 PROVES That Trump Is Telling Truth About What Hillary Did To Bill's VICTIMS!Source/Reference
VIDEO-German firms take govt to court over decision to shut down nuke plants - YouTube
''Dancing in a minefield''As Turkey's Prime Minister meets EU leaders in Brussels, there is fighting talk from the country's president.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan has warned EU leaders should consider their own record on migrants before trying to tell Ankara what to do.
His country will only listen to external criticism on its rights record when the comments are justified, he added.
Erdogan spoke at a ceremony in the western Turkish province of Canakkale marking Gallipoli, the 1915 victory of the Ottoman Empire over the Allied powers. He said some countries are guilty of hypocrisy by directly or indirectly supporting terrorism.
''The bombs we have had in Ankara could easily go off in Brussels. Supporters of the PKK have been allowed to demonstrate outside the summit venue. The EU member states are behaving recklessly, as if they are dancing in a minefield.''
Observers have taken this as an apparent reference to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militant group.
A PKK offshoot has claimed responsibility for two suicide bombings in Ankara in the last month that have claimed the lives of 66 people.
The contextErdogan's combative comments come as EU leaders are in Brussels, trying to agree a deal with Turkey's prime minister to resolve the continent's migrant crisis.
Turkey is being asked to manage the flow in return for political and financial concessions.
Leaders finalised a draft joint proposal late on Thursday. Bilateral and full EU council meetings are being held on Friday as they try to reach an agreement.
What they are saying''At a time when Turkey is hosting three million migrants, those who are unable to find space for a handful of refugees, who in the middle of Europe keep these innocents in shameful conditions, must first look at themselves,'' '' Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a televised speech.
VIDEO-Paris attacks suspect Salah Abdeslam charged with 'terrorist murder' | euronews, world news
Europe's most wanted man, Salah Abdeslam has been charged with 'terrorist murder', the Belgian prosecutor has announced.
The suspect has admitted to being in Paris on the night of November 13 when several coordinated terrorist attacks claimed the lives of 130 people.
According to his lawyer he is cooperating with police but will refuse extradition to France.
Paris Prosecutor Francois Molins said that the suspect admitted he wanted to blow himself up at the Stade de France but then changed his mind. Molins said that a new European arrest warrant had been issued by France, effectively an extradition request by other means. He confirmed that Abdeslam's removal from Belgium to France could happen within a matter of days or up to three months should the suspect appeal.
Full press conference on Salah Abdeslam's arrest, from Paris prosecutor Francois MolinsAbdeslam was charged along with a second man detained alongside him on Friday. A third man detained at the same address named as Abid A was charged with being a member of a terrorist organisation. A woman was charged with aiding and abetting criminals but released and a second woman was released without charges.
A vital source
The first suspect to be taken alive, the information Abdeslam gives could provide vital insight into the ISIL terror group.
Security services will be looking for answers on ISIL's plans and structures, Abdeslam's contacts in Europe and Syria as well as his support networks and finances.
After four months on the run, the 26-year-old was finally captured during a raid on a flat in the Molenbeek area of Brussels on Friday.
VIDEO-Punches thrown at Trump rally in Arizona | Reuters.com
See more in the cross-post on the NewsBusters blog.
The major broadcast networks omitted from their Thursday morning and evening newscasts e-mails revealed late Wednesday that Hillary Clinton was denied requests in 2009 when she became secretary of state that she be outfitted with a government-secured Blackberry in order to handle classified information on her smartphone.
The e-mails in question were obtained and made public by the legal group Judicial Watch in what served as the latest break in the ever-growing Hillary Clinton e-mail scandal (thanks to their numerous lawsuits seeking to release hoards of documents related to the actions of Clinton and her top aides).
VIDEO-Networks Yawn at ISIS Inspiration For California Stabbing Spree | MRCTV
[More in the cross-post on the MRC's NewsBusters blog.]
ABC, CBS, and NBC's morning newscasts on 18 March 2016 all failed to cover the FBI's revelation on Thursday that Faisal Mohammad, a University of California, Merced student who went on a stabbing spree in November 2015, was inspired by ISIS. Instead of covering this development, ABC's Good Morning America devoted one minute and 25 minutes to a proposed regulation in San Francisco against "man-spreading." NBC's Today also spent 53 seconds of air time to Harry Potter actress Emma Watson beat-boxing for gender equality.
CNN's New Day on 18 March 2016 stood out for devoting a 20-second brief to Mohammad:
CHRIS CUOMO: A California student who went on a stabbing rampage on his college campus was inspired by ISIS. The FBI says Faisal Mohammad appeared to be self-radicalized '-- motivated from terrorist propaganda that he found '-- where else '-- online. They say he acted alone when he stabbed four people during the November attack. Mohammad was killed by campus police after the rampage.
Jedidiah Brown is removed by security during a Donald Trump rally at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago on Friday. Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty Imageshide caption
toggle captionTasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty ImagesJedidiah Brown is removed by security during a Donald Trump rally at the UIC Pavilion in Chicago on Friday.
Tasos Katopodis/AFP/Getty ImagesDonald Trump's planned rally in Chicago on Friday was canceled, but not before ugly scenes played out between Trump supporters and people who had come to protest the event.
Jedidiah Brown was there. He was the young man who was shown on television yelling as he was pulled from the event stage. He's part of an organization called Young Leaders Alliance.
"Having gotten into the middle of the rally, I completely felt hated, I completely felt unsafe, I felt completely uncomfortable," Brown tells NPR's Rachel Martin. "And I knew that if this is what I felt, when I saw what they were doing to other people, I couldn't imagine what others felt. So it became my mission to shut this down because this can't go on in Chicago."
The Trump campaign cited the safety "of all of the tens of thousands of people that have gathered in and around the arena," in a statement announcing the cancellation. On Saturday, Trump blamed the unrest on "professional protesters" and "thugs" in the crowd.
It was the latest incident in a series of violent incidents between Trump supporters and anti-Trump protesters that have played out at rallies across the country.
Brown says attendees at the Chicago rally directed racist statements at him. "They were calling us the 'n' word, they told me to go back to Africa," he says. "And they would call us all kinds of things and even say to us things that they would do to us. 'Boy, if I had the chance, I would get you and give you a good whipping, boy.' ... That kind of stuff I just couldn't believe could still exist in America in 2016."
Brown rushed the stage but was immediately grabbed by security. "I went up there for two reasons," he says. "Number one: Shut this down. And number two: Get the right message out in our city: America is already great '-- without the hate."
He says people who identified themselves as Secret Service took him off stage and let him back into the crowd, but things got worse. Someone threw a water bottle at him, Brown says, and another person put him in a headlock. He says he took a swing back at that person but Secret Service pulled him down and he was later taken into custody by University of Illinois at Chicago police.
He thinks protests like his may be having two reactions from Trump supporters: They either double down on their backing of Trump, or they begin to change their minds.
"I think that some people are more committed now," Brown says. "I think that they feel like this is an avenue to express how they really feel about people like myself that are black. People that are Muslim '-- for women. I feel like they feel empowered to do whatever they want to do."
But he says people who are still wavering may have a different reaction. "I think that some people are realizing '-- 'Wait a minute. This isn't what we want. This isn't where we're going. It's not what I'm about.' So I think we've seen minds change on both perspectives."
VIDEO-The man who ran Trump out of Chicago - Story | WJBK
Donald Trump rallies are becoming increasingly belligerent and violent. You probably saw the images from the Chicago event on Friday that was called-off after protesters clashed with Trump supporters.
Is the violence being fueled by Trump and his racially charged rhetoric? Is it his detractors who are spoiling for the fight? Or is it a little bit of both? Charlie LeDuff and the Americans on Chicago's Southside where they met the man who ran Trump out of Chicago:
VIDEO-Suspicious Letter Sent To Trump's Son - YouTube
