The TRUMP POTUS "Tribute" & "Tribulations" of the Politically Incorrect....!

'Reflection and Choice' in Albany

By James Coll

To the People of the State of New York:

Advocating for the ratification of a newly-created structure of government in the first of 51 essays he would write on behalf of the new constitution, Alexander Hamilton questioned whether Americans could establish “good government from reflection and choice” or be “forever destined to depend for…political constitutions on accident and force.”

The dilemma facing the nation in 1787 was more than just an exercise in constitutional theory from a long-gone era. On election day in 2017, voters in New York—Hamilton’s own state—will be again confronted with deciding the kind of state government we wish to have when we answer a simple question on the ballot: "Shall there be a convention to revise the constitution and amend the same?"

Your own answer to the referendum is up to you, of course, but we should resolve ourselves collectively to at least one conclusion: Let's not ignore the query.

Unlike our national constitution, the drafters of our present state constitution created a device for citizens to directly address fundamental questions about the way our government operates in Albany. In addition to New York, thirteen others have similar provisions for the periodic question of citizens initiating a constitutional convention. With Empire State predecessors providing the legal tools to reform bad government by placing the periodic question of whether we approve of a constitutional convention directly to voters, we are called once again to weigh in on this important referendum.

The mandatory 'constitutional convention' question presented to voters every 20 years gives each generation a voice and a choice about their government. The last time such a question was before the voters in this manner was in 1997. Despite the significance such a question could impose, more citizens casting ballots that year ignored the question entirely than answered “yes” or “no.”

The legal process for conducting a voter-initiated convention can be found outlined in Article XIX of the New York State Constitution:

1. A majority of state-wide voters consider the question of convening a constitutional convention on the ballot on November 7, 2017.

2. If a majority of voters approve the convention, three delegates in each of the 63 state senate districts and 15 statewide at-large delegates are elected by voters in November 2018.

3. These 204 delegates, once selected, then convene in Albany beginning in April 2019 for the limited purpose of holding a convention to discuss reforms to the supreme law of our state they have the ability to propose for consideration.

4. Changes approved by more than a majority of the delegates assembled are then put before voters, where an affirmative majority vote would ratify the changes to the state constitution.

Some will say that the convention is the only way to bring needed reforms. This is not true. The goal of those seeking reform over the next year should not be to advocate for a constitutional convention but to actually not need one. Our elected officials could exercise their power to avoid a costly convention by implementing the changes necessary to make our government more responsive.

There will be others who claim that a constitutional convention for our state would be an unprecedented and radical step. This is also not factual. While our nation has only had two governments at the national level since the American Revolution, 231 constitutional conventions have been held within the states since that same time period. In addition, New York has a history of constitutional contemplation, holding nine such conventions since our revolutionary first in 1776-1777.

Few politicians go to Albany to watch the pillars of government crumble around them. Armed with good intentions, they are often left shielded from expectations by the lament of a system that has frequently given way to far too many bad results.

The confidence New Yorkers have in the ability of elected officials to change our capital city is as low as our confidence in those we elect to serve there. Yet, in spite of the current problems in our state government, we can predict with some certainty that these officials will no doubt promise reform if pro-reform voices get loud enough. Voters should recognize that we have heard this song before and demand results instead of promises, action instead of the status quo.

It will soon be in our hands, the citizens of New York State, to decide whether we will have a state government as we have known or if Hamilton’s vision of “reflection and choice” will prevail. No matter how you vote in this once-in-a-generation referendum, let’s make sure we vote for the government we want. How Albany works—or fails to work—over the next twenty years may depend on it.

***

James Coll is an adjunct professor of American and Constitutional history at Hofstra University and the founder of ChangeNYS.org, a not-for-profit formed to promote civic education and political reform in our state.

Click to expand...

Dear North Korea, it's President Trump

Matt Bai
National Political Columnist
Yahoo News
October 12, 2017


FROM THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington, D.C.

To the Honorable Kim Jong Un

Dear Dear Leader:

I hope you’ll treat this letter as personal and confidential, from one large-handed leader to another. I got the idea to write it from my generals, who were telling me all about this big showdown over Cuban missiles back in the 1960s, which apparently really happened.

I figured, hey, if John Kennedy can negotiate over missiles directly with a dictator — and he was a very low-quality person, let me tell you — then so can Trump.

You can’t leave diplomacy to a loser like Tillerson, believe me. But I’m trying not to think about him right now.

It’s very important that you and I talk, very important. Because like I said during one of those debates we had during the campaign, which were a total waste of time, although people said I won them all and frankly that I was the greatest debater ever, and that’s a direct quote from somebody somewhere, but anyway, what I said during a debate was, “I think, for me, nuclear is just the power, the devastation is very important to me.”

I can’t say it any clearer than that.

First off, let me just point out that our great peoples have a long history together, and all of Korea is frankly very special to us — very, very special. I mean, you gave us the TV show “M*A*S*H,” which had a tremendous run.

Also, without the Korean people, we wouldn’t have all those unbelievable grocery stores in Manhattan. Seriously, I have so much love for the people, so much love. I told my guys at ICE, leave the Koreans alone, because a lot of actual Americans depend on them for kimchi. Great respect, believe me.

You and I have plenty in common, we really do. I know they said that calling you “Little Rocket Man” was a terrible insult, but you can’t believe anything you read in the failing New York Times or lying CNN or the rest of the fake news media. These are the same people who said that I could never win the primaries, and that Hillary was going to be the president, and that Puerto Rico was part of the United States.

The truth is that “Rocket Man” is a very popular song here in America — very much loved, believe me. It’s about a guy who goes into space and finds out that Mars isn’t a very good place to raise a kid, because it’s cold as hell, and there’s no one there to raise them if you did. Which frankly makes no sense, even in English, but it was the ’70s.

The point is, we’re a lot alike. For one thing, we both value family, am I right? I saw you just promoted your sister to a powerful job in the Politburo — very touching, very beautiful. I’m getting ready to turn the White House over to Ivanka in 2020, even though my poll numbers are just unbelievable, better than any president in history, let me tell you.

I’d point out that Ivanka is smarter than Pence, but frankly I think Donald Jr. is smarter than Pence, and I’m pretty sure he still eats crayons when he’s nervous, so that’s not saying very much.

And while we’re on the subject of family, let me say I admired the way you took out your brother, having strangers run up and poison him in the airport, which was genius. I made a comment about it, and ever since then, every time I go to hug Jared, he jumps back and shields his face. Hysterical.

Let’s see, what else. Both of us have great hair, right? I see that everyone in your country wants to do their hair just like you, which I applaud. I mean, I look at a guy like Tillerson, who’s 65 years old and still parts his hair in the middle, and I think it’s just sad, frankly. But I’m not bothered by him, I’m really not.

We’re both deeply committed to the mining industry. I’m getting rid of these Obama rules, which are very, very harmful to our economy, and you’re giving people jobs for the rest of their lives in labor camps, which is basically the same thing.

We both know how to handle critics. Although I have to rely on tweets for that, because I don’t have the same kind of latitude you enjoy over there, which is something we need to change, let me tell you.

I can’t tell you how many mornings I wake up and think: Wouldn’t it be nice to throw Bob Corker into a pit of starving dogs, or pin him to an antiaircraft battery?

And don’t even get me started on Tillerson. Everyone told me, “Get Tillerson, you’ve got to get Tillerson for State.” And then he calls me a moron. You know who’s a moron? A guy who gives up 25 million bucks a year so he can come running whenever I ring a bell, that’s who.

Let’s just say that if I were to send Tillerson on a diplomatic mission to Pyongyang, and he were to, say, disappear into one of your work camps, I could see how we might end up in a very long standoff before negotiating his freedom. It could take years, a deal like that. But that’s a hypothetical.

Anyway, we’ve got a great thing going here. This business with me tweeting about blowing up your country, and you coming back with “final doom” and all of that. The ratings are off the charts, right? It’s a hell of a show, it really is.

We’ve got the whole world waiting to hear every twist and turn. It’s playing on all the networks at once, which is really something, let me tell you.

But you do know it’s a show, right? Because words are one thing. Words have no consequences, near as I can tell. You can say anything, incite any kind of rage or reaction, and your people just love you more for it. This is what I’ve learned in politics, believe me.

Nuclear war, though — my generals tell me that would be very, very horrible. Millions and millions of people would disappear, and not like on “The Apprentice.” Our ratings would tank. The show would be terrible.

I’m sure we’re on the same page here, but it can’t hurt to double check. So good luck with the public executions, and please pass along my fire and fury to the entire family!

Sincerely,

Donald J. Trump

P.S. If you really need to sink Guam, as kind of a season finale, I get it. Just maybe give me a heads-up, so I can see about Tillerson’s travel schedule. But I’m not thinking about him right now. I’m really not.

Click to expand...

Trump: 'I understand fully how Steve Bannon feels' about GOP
BY JORDAN FABIAN - 10/16/17 12:23 PM EDT

President Trump on Monday sympathized with his former chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, who has launched a self-described “war” on the Republican establishment.
“I understand fully how Steve Bannon feels,” Trump told reporters during a Cabinet meeting.
Bannon has promised to back primary challenges to any Senate Republican who opposes Trump.
"Steve is very committed,” Trump said. “He’s a friend of mine. He’s very committed to getting things passed.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The effort has excited supporters of the president but has angered members of the GOP establishment who fear it could derail their agenda in Congress and hurt the party in next year’s midterms.
Bannon touted his push over the weekend at a Christian conservative summit. He spoke one day before Trump's scheduled Monday meeting with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
The top GOP senator has long been a target of conservative activists and Bannon’s push has once again put a target on his back.
"Yeah, Mitch, the donors are not happy,” Bannon said at the Values Voter Summit. “They've all left ya. We've cut your oxygen off, Mitch, OK?"

Click to expand...

Andy said:

"derail their agenda in Congress"? What agenda would that be, exactly?

Click to expand...

vreihen said:

Is the Tea Party still holding the elephants hostage?????

Click to expand...

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow
BY JOHN SOLOMON AND ALISON SPANN - 10/17/17 06:00 AM EDT

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.
Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.
They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.
The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefitting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.
The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.
When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened ... on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”
In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.
“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.
The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015.
That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.
The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.
But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.
Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.
Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.
Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.
Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.
His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.
In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.
“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Garden testified.
“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.
The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.
Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.
The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, who Trump fired earlier this year.
Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.
The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.
One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.
Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap.
But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged.
The only public statement occurred an entire year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.
By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States’s approval.
The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.
The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.
On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.
Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.
“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.
Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.
Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.
“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

Click to expand...

President Donald Trump covered a wide range of issues during his press conference on Monday -- including sparking backlash for his comments about President Obama -- but that wasn't the only reference to his predecessors that generated a big reaction.
At one point while discussing past nominations, Trump referred to the former presidents who came before him as, “Bush…Obama…Clinton,” and, “Bush original.”
And the latter sparked quite a response on social media -- especially Twitter.
"Omg Trump literally just named the last few presidents as ‘Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush…. Bush Original," one user said. Just heard Trump say ‘Bush Original’ in reference to George H.W. Bush…awesome," another chimed in.
Members of the news media have been forced to come up with various creative names for the father and son duo, George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, who served a combined 12 years in the Oval Office in addition to the elder's eight years as President Ronald Reagan's vice president.
Those names over the years have included 41 and 43, a reference to their respective titles as the 41st and 43rd presidents of the United States. Others have shortened them to their middle initials -- "H.W." and "W." or sometimes simply "Dubya" more colloquially.
But users on Twitter were quick to insist the "original" reference showed a lack of understanding or insight.
"#Trump could not think of the word ‘senior’ and therefore called George Bush ‘George Bush….original’. I’d laugh if I wasn’t so terrified," one user wrote.
But not everyone took it so seriously.
"Trump just referred to George Bush as ‘Bush Original’ and it was definitely in my top 5 favorite things he’s ever said," one user surmised. “Trump calls George H. W. Bush, ‘Original’ Bush, leading me to wonder – Does this make George W. Bush the ‘Extra Crispy’ version?” another asked on Twitter.

Click to expand...

Trump launches petition against NFL players' anthem protests

Seems like a peaceful protest to me........just like the morons taking a knee no?

I see it like this .......if I went into a restaurant and I ordered a meal and the server decided it was time to do their peaceful knee protest & during my paid time to get served my "consideration" for my parted "cash", I'd see it as a breach of contract.

I'd go elsewhere........

But.........
I would like to see someone sue the NFL or its players just for that!

Surprised Mr. Trump hasn't used this angle & since he loves contract law........

Tortious interference with business expectancy is a business tort that allows two parties to a contract to hold a third person liable if that person interfered with the contract in a way that caused one or both of the parties to suffer damages. It is related to the tort of tortious interference with contract. The primary difference between these two types of tortious interference – contract and business expectancy – is that the first one requires the two parties to have a contract, while the second one applies to any kind of business relationship. In order to prove a case of tortious interference with business expectancy, a plaintiff must be able to demonstrate all of the following things are true:


the plaintiff had a business relationship with another person or business,
the defendant knew about the relationship,
the defendant deliberately acted in a way that would cause the relationship to go bad or to end,
the relationship went bad or ended, and
the plaintiff suffered damages as a result.


Unlike tortious interference with contract, a claim for tortious interference with business expectancy does not require a contract to exist. Instead, it can be based on any business arrangement the plaintiff had or expected to have with a third party, but that the defendant ruined. For instance, a plaintiff may claim tortious interference with business expectancy if a defendant ruined contract negotiations (before an actual contract was signed) or ruined another expected arrangement, such as a hiring or merger.
In addition to proving that the defendant ruined a business relationship of some kind, the plaintiff must also show that the defendant acted intentionally. The plaintiff does not have to show that the defendant acted out of malice or spite, as long as the defendant acted while knowing that a business relationship existed or was likely to exist and that his actions would likely harm or destroy that relationship.
The plaintiff must also show that the defendant had no legal justification or privilege for acting in a way that would harm or destroy the business relationship. For instance, suppose that in a tortious interference with business expectancy case, the plaintiff is a physician who is seeking privileges in a certain hospital so that he can treat patients at that hospital. The defendant is a physician who used to work with the plaintiff and who has heard that the plaintiff has a prescription drug addiction. Upon finding out that the plaintiff wants privileges at the hospital, the defendant tells the head of the hospital about the drug addiction rumors, which causes the hospital to turn down the plaintiff’s request for privileges.
The plaintiff sues, claiming tortious interference with a business expectancy (and possibly defamation as well). At trial, however, the defendant argues that she told the hospital about the drug addiction rumors in order to protect the patients, who might be seriously injured if the plaintiff tried to treat them while impaired by a drug addiction. The court may find that the defendant’s actions were justified in order to protect the lives and health of the patients. If so, the court will likely decide that the plaintiff cannot hold the defendant liable for tortious interference with his business expectancy. The law that governs tortious interference with business expectancy differs slightly in each state. In most states, however, a claim for tortious interference with business expectancy must be based on some kind of business relationship other than a completed and signed contract. A case that involves a contract should be filed as a tortious interference with contract case, not a business expectancy case. Because the question of whether or not a contract existed may be “up in the air” when a lawsuit is first filed, some plaintiffs and their attorneys choose to file a claim for both types of torts, even though only one actually applies to the case. Which one applies is then sorted out during discovery.

Click to expand...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump has stepped up the pressure on the National Football League over protests by its players during the national anthem by launching a petition and asking his supporters to show their patriotism by backing it.
The move came after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell this week rejected Trump's calls to punish players who kneel for the anthem to protest racism. Trump has said the protests are unpatriotic and disrespectful of military veterans.

"The President has asked for a list of supporters who stand for the National Anthem. Add your name below to show your patriotism and support," said the petition issued on Thursday by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a fundraising organization for Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
The petition was published on the Republican National Committee website. It did not indicate how many signatures had been received.

Players kneeling during "The Star-Spangled Banner" are protesting the killing of unarmed black men and boys by police across the United States, as well as racial disparities in the country's criminal justice system. More than half of all NFL players are black.
Former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who first popularized the gesture last year, said he settled on kneeling as a form of protest because it is widely seen as a gesture of respect. Goodell said on Wednesday after a meeting of league owners that the NFL would continue to nurture players' efforts to fight racial disparities in the criminal justice system, believing this would make the urge to protest fade. Trump has repeatedly expressed disdain for the protests since a rally in September. In a Twitter post on Wednesday, he called the NFL's decision, "Too much talk, not enough action."

Click to expand...

Cub Scout kicked out of den after questioning state lawmaker

...In the video showing Ames asking about gun control, he read from a printed sheet, telling the lawmaker that he was shocked that she sponsored a bill that allowed domestic violence offenders to own guns. He also rattled off a list of survey statistics about Americans' views on the issue and spoke about the trouble Las Vegas shooting victims would have paying their bills.

"There is something wrong in our country where Republicans believe it's a right to own a gun but a privilege to have health care. None of that makes sense to me," he said.

After nearly 2½ minutes, an adult is heard cutting him off, remarking on his thorough question. Marble responds by talking about the need for "crime control" instead and saying that the Vegas shooting and the 2012 Aurora theater shooting both happened in "gun-free zones..."

Click to expand...

Trump says he’s a 'victim' after report that DNC, Clinton campaign partly funded Russia dossier

Click to expand...

President Donald Trump said he is a “victim,” after the Washington Post reported late Tuesday that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign paid for some of the research that led to the controversial dossier alleging his campaign coordinated with Russia during the election.
“Clinton campaign and DNC paid for research that led to the anti-Trump Fake News Dossier. The victim here is the president,” Trump, who currently occupies the White House after winning the presidential election, tweeted Wednesday morning.
According to the Washington Post’s report, the DNC and Clinton campaign hired Fusion GPS to fund the research, which led to the infamous dossier.
Funding opposition research is neither illegal nor out of the ordinary. A still-unknown Republican donor first retained the same firm during the Republican primary. The DNC and the Clinton campaign picked up the research in April 2016, once it became clear Trump would be the GOP nominee.
Fusion GPS went on to hire former British spy Christopher Steele, who wrote the dossier.

The dossier alleges that Russia had been “supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years” as part of its attempt to sow chaos in Western democracies.

Click to expand...

House passes $4T budget in step forward for Trump tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House on Thursday gave a significant boost to President Donald Trump’s promise to cut taxes, narrowly passing a GOP budget that shelves longstanding concerns over federal deficits in favor of a rewrite of the tax code that Republicans promise will jump-start the economy.

The 216-212 vote permits Republicans to begin work on a follow-up $1.5 trillion tax cut and move it through Congress without fear of blocking tactics by Democrats. The tax bill is the top item on the GOP agenda, would be Trump’s first major win in Congress — and, Republicans hope, a much-needed boost for the party’s political fortunes on the eve of next year’s midterm elections.

GOP leaders scrambled in recent days to overcame opposition from House conservatives unhappy about deficits and debt, and lawmakers from high-tax states such as New York and New Jersey, who are upset about plans to curb the state and local tax deduction.

The Senate passed the measure last week and the House endorsed it without changes, a step designed to allow Republicans to move quickly to the tax measure in hopes of passing it into law this year.

“Big news — Budget just passed,” tweeted Trump.

Republicans view passage of the upcoming tax measure as a career-defining dream, and its importance has only grown in the wake of the party’s debacle on health care. But the tax plan’s popularity is not a given with voters, and fissures among Republicans already threaten to slow the measure.

Twenty Republicans opposed the measure, a mix of spending hawks and centrists. Several lawmakers from New York and New Jersey who supported the House plan earlier this month opposed the measure over worries about the state and local tax deduction.

“This isn’t over,” said Rep. Tom MacArthur, R-N.J.

Battles over the state and local tax deduction and tax-free contributions to retirement accounts have already broken open, and Republican tax writers have yet to lock down dozens of crucial details on tax rates and preferences.

The underlying budget measure abandons the Republican Party’s longstanding promise to rein in deficits in favor of Trump’s boast of “massive tax cuts.” The measure drops proposed cuts to mandatory programs such as food stamps, though conservatives promise to take on spending cuts later.

“I still feel strongly about addressing unsustainable mandatory spending,” said Rep. Diane Black, R-Tenn., who chairs the House Budget Committee. “I think we will tackle this important issue in the future. We don’t have a choice.”

Democrats united against the plan, arguing its tax cuts will pad the bank accounts of the wealthy and the balance sheets of corporations, while delivering modest relief — or none at all — to middle-income taxpayers.

“These tax cuts will not create an economic boom, but will instead lead to a higher concentration of wealth among the rich, while dramatically increasing deficits and debt,” said Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky.

The budget plan calls for $5 trillion in spending cuts over the decade, including cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and the Obama-era health care law, though Republicans have no plans to actually impose those cuts with follow-up legislation. Some Democrats criticized the measure for ruthless spending cuts; others took the opposite approach, failing it for tackling the deficit.

Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, R-Texas, says he’ll schedule a panel debate and vote once the budget plan is safely passed, and much of the buzz in the Capitol concerned a flurry of horse trading as Republicans struggled to find ways to raise revenues to help finance cuts to individual and corporate tax rates. The goal is a full rewrite of the inefficient, loophole-laden tax code in hopes of lower rates for corporations and other businesses and a spurt of economic growth.

Brady, for instance, told reporters on Wednesday morning that he’s still looking at curtailing tax-free deposits in 401(k) retirement accounts, a move that could raise revenue in the near term as retirement savings shift to Roth-style accounts that are funded with after-tax earnings.

Trump says he opposes curbing 401(k) donations, however, which tossed a monkey wrench into the process. And Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., came out squarely against reducing the cap on 401(k) contributions in an interview on CNN Thursday morning.

“To do tax reform, you need money. And right now, even as we speak, they appear to be going wobbly on some of the issues they’ve raised with great certainty in previous weeks,” said top Ways and Means panel Democrat Richard Neal of Massachusetts. “They’ve got a revenue problem, a real revenue problem. And you have to make some dramatic changes to benefits that people across America have come to expect and enjoy.”

An Associated Press-NORC poll released Wednesday found most Americans saying Trump’s tax plan would benefit the wealthy and corporations, and less than half believing his message that “massive tax cuts” would help middle-class workers.

Click to expand...

Trump's border wall prototypes are done. Will the president pick a winner?

By GREG MORAN
OCT 28, 2017 | 08:35 AM

People look at prototypes of a border wall. (Elliott Spagat / Associated Press)

The first stage of President Trump's controversial border wall project ended this week, while the prospects for further construction — and even what type of permanent wall — remain uncertain.

Ron Vitiello, acting deputy commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, said Thursday during a news briefing that the monthlong construction of eight prototypes along a section of Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County was complete. The announcement was made in the shadow — literally — of one of the structures.

With the 30-foot prototypes looming behind and beside him, Vitiello said the walls now will undergo a period of testing to determine how effective the designs are.

The agency then expects to come up with a master design for a new wall, one that draws on what works and what doesn't in the prototypes.

That design would be for both the primary wall along the Mexico border and a secondary wall set several hundred feet north.

"We are going to look at everything that is reflected here," Vitiello said, referring to the eight wall models, "and then put out a new design standard for the immediate border barrier and the secondary barrier."

Each of the walls will be tested to see how well they deter climbing, tunneling and tampering by tools and machines. The tests and subsequent evaluations will begin a month from now and take one to two months to complete, he said.

The anti-climbing and tunneling tests will be conducted on the walls built on Otay Mesa, Vitiello said. The test to withstand breaching will be made on a set of mock-ups — smaller versions of each wall — at an undisclosed location in San Diego.

The prototypes were built by six companies that won a national competition. Instead of picking a winning design from the group, as initially thought, it now appears concepts of one or more walls will be combined into a new design.

The future of any wall building still remains in doubt, though. While Customs had $20 million for the prototype project, the cost of building a wall across the border — or even large portions of it — is estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars.

Congress is deadlocked on funding, with Democrats and many Republicans from border states opposing the project.

Since Jan. 25, when a Trump executive order called for construction of the wall along the southwestern U.S. border, officials have downplayed the idea of building across every mile of the border, which is marked by varied terrain, often rugged and rarely trafficked. Trump himself said the wall had to be "see-through," and some Border Patrol officials indicated a preference for transparent designs so they can better observe the other side.

Vitiello declined to speculate about costs but said the need for the wall was real. "I'm no expert on price," he said. "We think this works. We think it is valuable to do. We think it's important."
The walls erected on a dusty piece of Otay Mesa include four fashioned from concrete and four from other materials. Two are see-though — with bollard-type posts on the bottom section topped by a solid portion.

Five of the walls have some kind of structure on top that appears to impede climbing or grappling. One is topped by barbed wire, while others have rounded steel fixtures on top.
All are sunk at least six feet into the ground to deter tunneling. Vitiello said the designs also call for underground sensor cables.

There has been speculation since the project began Sept. 26 that Trump would visit the site. Vitiello demurred when asked whether the president would come. "I'm not in charge of the president's schedule," he said. He also did not say whether Trump would pick the design winner, something the president previously has said.

The project has become a draw for journalists and politicians, both domestically and internationally. News crews from Germany, Korea and elsewhere have descended on the mesa, shuttled to the building site two or three times a day by Border Patrol agents.

"There is worldwide interest in this," Customs spokesman Carlos Diaz said.

There also was interest just a stone's throw from the walls in Mexico. As Vitiello got a briefing on each of the walls before the news conference, a group of half a dozen Mexican federal police watched, looking over the primary fence made of old Navy landing mats.

Two Border Patrol agents standing in the bed of a pickup backed up to the fence on the U.S. side chatted amiably with the federales. At one point, Vitiello hopped into the truck and also spoke with the Mexican police.

Later he said he thanked them for helping with security on their side of the border. "We're grateful for their help in making sure this project went off in a safe manner," he said.

It's unclear what will happen to the constructed prototypes, each of which was built for between $300,000 and $500,000.

"We're going to see what happens on the evaluations, and then we'll make a plan to use them to the best of their ability," Vitiello said. "We're not sure whether they stay here, whether they are part of the infrastructure system. That will be determined through the testing and evaluation phase."

Moran writes for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Click to expand...

The Four Corners of Deceit: government, academia, science, and media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That’s how they promulgate themselves; it is how they prosper.

Click to expand...

That time a drunk Richard Nixon tried to nuke North Korea

By Blake Stilwell
Jan. 19, 02:01 PM

The North Koreans have been provoking the United States for as long as North Koreans have been praising Kim Il-Sung for being birthed from a shooting star.
drunk richard nixon

If you think that sounds stupid, go read about what they actually believe.

In the 1960’s the Hermit Kingdom was at the height of its power, which mostly came from the Soviet Union, who both supplied it and protected it from U.S. “intervention.”

The election of U.S. President Richard Nixon changed how Communist nations interacted with the United States in geopolitical affairs. Nixon, a staunch anti-Communist Cold Warrior, was able to provoke the major Communist powers and them off of one another. His famous 1972 trip to China and the subsequent thaw in relations with the USSR are proof that Nixon’s “triangulation” theory had merit.

But in April 1969, mere months into the first Nixon Administration, Nixon’s internationalist savvy was still unproven. That’s when North Korea shot down an EC-121 spy plane over the Sea of Japan. Nixon was furious.

A July 2010 story on NPR featured remarks from Bruce Charles, an Air Force pilot based in Kunsan, South Korea at the time. He recalled being put on alert to carry out his part of the SIOP, the Single Integrated Operational Plan – the U.S. nuclear strike plan for war with the Communists.

Charles was put on alert to drop a 330-kiloton nuke on a North Korean airstrip.

Eventually, the order to stand down was given, and Charles returned to his regular duties. According to the official accounts, Nixon and his advisors mulled over how to respond. In the end, the President opted not to retaliate.

It’s worth speculating that Nixon would have wanted the Communists to believe he actually considered a nuclear strike. In the coming years, the President would even send nuclear-armed bombers toward the Soviet Union while spreading the rumor that he was so insane, he might really trigger World War III.

Of course, he wasn’t insane. And thanks to a 2000 book by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, we know he was just drunk. Not with power, but with booze.

George Carver, a CIA Vietnam specialist at the time of the EC-121 shootdown, is reported to have said that Nixon became “incensed” when he found out about the EC-121. The President got on the phone with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and ordered plans for a tactical nuclear strike and recommendations for targets.

Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor for Nixon at the time, also got on the phone to the Joint Chiefs and got them to agree to stand down on that order until Nixon woke up sober the next morning.

According to Summers and Swan’s book “The Arrogance Of Power: The Secret World Of Richard Nixon,” Kissinger is reported to have told aides on multiple occasions that if the President had his way, there would have been a new nuclear war every week.

Click to expand...

Manafort indicted; ex-Trump aide pleads in Russia probe

Chad Day and Eric Tucker
Associated Press 31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and a former Manafort business associate, Rick Gates, were indicted Monday on felony charges of conspiracy against the United States, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, and several other financial counts involving tens of millions of dollars routed through offshore accounts.

The unsealing of the indictment came the same day that Special Counsel Robert Mueller announced that a former Trump campaign aide had pleaded guilty to lying to FBI agents about the timing and detail of his attempts to line up meetings between Russian government officials and the Trump campaign.

The plea by George Papadopoulos marked the first criminal charges that cite interactions between Trump campaign associates and Russian intermediaries during the 2016 presidential campaign.

The charges brought Mueller's sprawling investigation into a new phase, with campaign aides including the man who once led the president's campaign facing felony charges and possible prison sentences.

Papadopoulos' plea occurred on Oct. 5 and was unsealed Monday. In court papers, he admitted to lying about the nature of his interactions with "foreign nationals" who he thought had close connections to senior Russian government officials.

Manafort's indictment doesn't reference the Trump campaign or make any allegations about coordination between the Kremlin and the president's aides to influence the outcome of the election in Trump's favor. The indictment does allege a criminal conspiracy was continuing through February 2017.

The indictment filed in federal court in Washington accused both men of funneling tens of millions of dollars in payments through foreign companies and bank accounts as part of their political work in Ukraine. Manafort and Gates surrendered to federal authorities Monday, and were expected in court later in the day to face charges brought by Mueller's team.

The indictment lays out 12 counts including conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to launder money, acting as an unregistered foreign agent, making false statements and several charges related to failing to report foreign bank and financial accounts. The indictment alleges that they moved money through hidden bank accounts in Cyprus, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Seychelles.

In total, more than $75 million flowed through the offshore accounts. Manafort is accused of laundering more than $18 million, according to the indictment.

A spokesman for Manafort did not immediately return calls or text messages requesting comment. Manafort and Gates have previously denied any wrongdoing. The White House declined to comment on the charges.

Manafort, 68, was fired as Trump's campaign chairman in August 2016 after word surfaced that he had orchestrated a covert lobbying operation on behalf of pro-Russian interests in Ukraine. The indictments against Manafort and Gates were largely based on activities disclosed in August 2016 by The Associated Press, which reported that the pair had directly orchestrated a covert Washington lobbying operation on behalf of Ukraine's ruling political party.

Citing internal emails, the AP noted that Gates personally directed the work of two prominent Washington lobbying firms. The indictment quotes from some of the same emails the AP had obtained.

The indictment accuses Manafort and Gates of orchestrating a nearly decade-long conspiracy to covertly work for Ukrainian interests and launder millions of dollars through offshore accounts. Specifically, the indictment accuses Manafort of using "his hidden overseas wealth to enjoy a lavish lifestyle in the United States, without paying taxes on that income." That included using offshore accounts to purchase multimillion-dollar properties in the U.S., some of which the government is seeking to seize.

Mueller was appointed as special counsel in May to lead the Justice Department's investigation into whether the Kremlin worked with associates of the Trump campaign to tip the 2016 presidential election.

The appointment came one week after the firing of James Comey, who as FBI director led the investigation, and also followed the recusal months earlier of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the probe.

Mueller's investigators have focused on Manafort for months. In July, they raided one of his homes in Virginia, searching for tax and international banking records.

Manafort joined Trump's campaign in March 2016 and oversaw the convention delegate strategy. Trump pushed him out in August amid a steady stream of negative headlines about Manafort's foreign consulting work.

Trump's middle son, Eric Trump, said in an interview at the time that his father was concerned that questions about Manafort's past were taking attention away from the billionaire's presidential bid.

Manafort has been a subject of a longstanding FBI investigation into his dealings in Ukraine and work for the country's former president, Viktor Yanukovych. That investigation was incorporated into Mueller's broader probe.

Previously, he denied any wrongdoing related to his Ukrainian work, saying through a spokesman that it "was totally open and appropriate."

Manafort also recently registered with the Justice Department as a foreign agent for parts of Ukrainian work that occurred in Washington. The filing under the Foreign Agents Registration Act came retroactively, a tacit acknowledgment that he operated in Washington in violation of the federal transparency law.

Mueller's investigation has also reached into the White House, as he examines the circumstances of Comey's firing. Investigators have requested extensive documents from the White House about key actions since Trump took office and have interviewed multiple current and former officials.

Mueller's grand jury has also heard testimony about a June 2016 meeting at Trump Tower attended by a Russian lawyer as well as Manafort, Donald Trump Jr., and the president's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

In Gates, Mueller brings in not just Manafort's chief deputy, but a key player from Trump's campaign who survived past Manafort's ouster last summer. As of two weeks ago, Gates was still working for Tom Barrack, a Trump confidant, helping with the closeout of the inauguration committee's campaign account.

___

Associated Press writers Michael Biesecker, Stephen Braun, Tom LoBianco and Jeff Horwitz contributed to this report.

Click to expand...