Story 1: Democrat Socialist Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy or Spy-gate Goes Public With Second Coup Attempt To Legitimatize President Trump and 2020 Campaign Event — Democrat Impeachment Obsession Deflating — Videos —
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is considering arming Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons that Kyiv could use against Russia-backed separatists. Opponents argue arming Ukraine risks escalating the conflict while supporters say better weapons would act as a deterrence to Russian aggression and give a psychological and political boost to Kyiv. The debate comes as Trump’s new envoy on Ukraine, Kurt Volker, is to visit Russia soon. VOA’s Daniel Schearf reports from Washington.
President Obama announces U.S. non-lethal aid to Ukraine
U.S. Sending Nonlethal Aid to Ukraine Military
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the U.S. will send medical supplies, helmets and other nonlethal aid to the Ukrainian military in response to Russia’s ‘destabilizing activities.’ (April 17)
Ukraine’s Poroshenko on charm offensive, US agrees to non-lethal aid
Obama: Military Option Not on Table in Ukraine
WHY RUSSIA SHOULD FEAR AMERICA’S JAVELIN ANTI TANK MISSILE?
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: Adam Schiff Opening Statement
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: Devin Nunes Opening Statement
WHERE’S HUNTER? Early CHAOS In Impeachment Hearing
George Kent: Giuliani’s efforts were “infecting” Ukraine policy
Trump impeachment: Bill Taylor opening statement in Full – BBC News
Top diplomat Bill Taylor says: “I am not here to take one side or the other or to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings.”
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
Devin Nunes begins Republican questioning of Taylor and Kent
Republican counsel Steve Castor’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff questions Kent, Taylor again| Trump impeachment hearings
Devin Nunes begins Republican questioning of Taylor and Kent
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and counsel Steve Castor spent 45 minutes questioning the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, and State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent in the first day of public impeachment hearings. Watch this full portion of the hearing.
Jim Jordan grills Dems’ ‘star witness’ Taylor in impeachment hearing
WATCH: Rep. Elise Stefanik’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questioned George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Stefanik focused on both officials’ statements on the corruption in Ukraine and Burisma. The probe centers around a July phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Both Kent and Taylor testified to lawmakers in October behind closed doors.
WATCH: George Kent’s full opening statement on first day of Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff questions Kent, Taylor again| Trump impeachment hearings
House Impeachment Inquiry – Taylor & Kent Testimony
Watch Day 1 of Trump’s impeachment hearings again as Ambassador Taylor and George Kent give evidence
This week Washington D.C. was rocked by allegations that the President of the United States tried to tie the sale of Javelin missiles to Ukraine for dirt on his political rivals.
The simple, easy to use anti-tank missile is Ukraine’s weapon of choice in its undeclared war against Russia.
In May 2018 Ukraine purchased 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers from the United States for an estimated $47 million.
The Javelin missile is an unlikely weapon to be thrust into the political spotlight.
In a call with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump tied together the Ukraine’s purchase of Javelin missiles with an investigation into his political rivals. While the true nature of this phone call has yet to be determined, the effectiveness of the weapon is an absolute certainty. The Javelin’s features—and Russia’s tank armies—made it a very desirable weapon for Ukraine, a country that is suffering an undeclared war with Russia from 2014 to the present day.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Army’s main threat was Soviet Union. U.S. forces in Europe trained to operate outnumbered, holding their ground against waves of Soviet T-72 and T-80 main battle tanks, as well as BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles. The main anti-tank weapon, issued to every U.S. infantry squad, was the M-47 Dragon anti-tank guided missile.
Ukrainian soldiers armed with Javelin anti-tank missiles, August 2018.
The Dragon was bulky and unreliable but it could penetrate the frontal armor of both the T-72 and T-80. The optically guided missile required the shooter to hold an enemy tank steady in his crosshairs but had a maximum range of just 1,000 meters. This meant the shooter had to launch and guide the missile within range of a Soviet tank’s machine guns, and incoming fire could throw the missile off target.
The introduction of Soviet reactive armor—explosive tiles bolted onto the outside of a tank to blunt anti-tank missiles—made Dragon obsolete. The Army issued a requirement for a replacement known as AAWS-M, or Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System—Medium. Texas Instruments and Martin Marietta (now known as Lockheed Martin) won the contract, and the first missile test took place in 1991. Initial tests were positive and the FGM-148 Javelin missile went into full production in 1994.
An Australian Army Javelin missile explodes on target, Townsville, Australia, 2009.
IAN HITCHCOCKGETTY IMAGES
Javelin is a much better missile system that Dragon in almost every way. A shoulder launched weapon, Javelin uses an imaging infrared system to detect and lock onto tanks at distances of up to 4,750 meters–much, much farther than Dragon. Once the operator locks onto a tank and initiates the launch sequence, a small rocket motor kicks the missile out of the launch tube and into the air, whereupon the main motor ignites and sends the missile downrange.
Unlike Dragon, Javelin has two attack modes. The first mode is direct attack, where the missile flies straight toward the enemy tank. The missile has not one but two warheads–the first to trigger the reactive armor tiles, neutralizing them, and the second to penetrate the tank’s main armor belt. A second mode sends Javelin racing upward to an altitude of 500 feet, whereupon it dives down onto the top of the tank where armor protection is thinnest.
A T-72 tank of the Donetsk People’s Republic, a militia operating in the Donetsk region with Russian backing, 2014.
MAX VETROVGETTY IMAGES
ADVERTISEMENT – CONTINUE READING BELOW
One major drawback of Dragon required the gunner to hold very still, keeping the tracker’s crosshairs centered on an enemy tank until impact. This was never really all that realistic as the noise and stress of combat, as well as enemy fire, could easily cause the gunner to break his visual lock. Javelin on the other hand is a “fire and forget” missile: once launched the missile’s brain takes over guiding it to target. A Javelin gunners can shoot his or her missile and then make a run for it, retreating or relocating to an alternate firing position.
Russian Army regular units and local militias operate tanks and armored vehicles, including the new T-90 main battle tank, T-72 tank, and the latest version of the T-72, the T-72B3. Other vehicles include BMP-2 and BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, MTLB armored personnel carriers, and BMD airborne infantry fighting vehicles. Russia’s large number of tanks and armored vehicles threatens Ukraine not only in the limited fighting around the Donbas and Crimea regions but also if Russia were to stage a general invasion of Ukraine itself.
In May 2018 Ukraine purchased 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers from the United States for an estimated $47 million. Properly used—and Javelin is very easy to use—that could mean the destruction of scores of armored vehicles should Russian forces roll west again. It could lead to a string of humiliating, demoralizing defeats for Russian forces and their proxies.
The question is: Will Ukraine get more any time soon?
Kent has been in the State Department‘s foreign service since 1992.[4][5] He speaks Ukrainian, Russian, and Thai, as well as some Polish, German, and Italian.[1] His work as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer has included service in Ukraine, Poland, Thailand and Uzbekistan.[3]
On October 15, 2019, Kent testified in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump, serving as a key witness on whether Rudy Giuliani used a campaign of disinformation to undermine the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.[6] Kent’s warnings regarding the disinformation campaign are documented in State Department emails submitted to Congress by the organization’s inspector general. Kent protested a “fake news smear” directed at Ambassador Yovanovitch by media commentators supportive of President Trump. He also criticized the Ukrainian prosecutor undermining Yovanovitch, calling the disinformation “complete poppycock.”[7] On November 13, 2019, along with Ambassador Bill Taylor, Kent gave public testimony to the House Intelligence Committee during the first public hearing.[8]
William Brockenbrough Taylor Jr., (born September 14, 1947) is an American diplomat, government official, former soldier, and, as of November 2019, the acting United States ambassador to Ukraine.
Born in New Mexico on September 14, 1947,[1] Taylor is the son of Nancy Dare (Aitcheson) and William Brockenbrough Newton Taylor,[2] who had been a director of research and development for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).[3]
In 1965, Taylor graduated from Mount Vernon High School in Mount Vernon, Virginia after serving as president of his junior and senior class.[4] Like his father, he attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, attaining the rank of cadet battalion commander and graduating in the top 1% of his class in 1969. The 1969 Howitzer yearbook notes his modesty about his many academic and athletic accomplishments, describing him as “a man who is held in the highest esteem and admiration by all of us.”[5][6] In 1977, he completed graduate studies at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government, receiving a Master of Public Policy degree.
Career
After Taylor graduated from West Point, he served in the infantry for six years, including tours of duty in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and 18 months with the 101st Airborne Division during the Vietnam War. Taylor was a rifle company commander serving in the Quang Tri and Thua Tien provinces in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) of the 101st Airborne, widely heralded from the World War II book and TV miniseries Band of Brothers, with their motto “Currahee,” meaning “We stand alone.”[7] He was eligible to return home after serving for one year, but he opted to stay another six months.[8] He earned the Combat Infantryman Badge, a Bronze Star Medal, and Air Medal with ‘V’ for VALOR for heroism.[9]
Taylor left the military in 1975.[8] In 1980, he was serving in the relatively new Department of Energy as Director of Emergency Preparedness Policy. While the DOE had received creditable marks for its response to the coal strike during 1977–78, the crisis in Iran pointed to the need, going forward, for better federal level contingency planning and preparedness. In taking on this new assignment, Taylor had a long term, rather than short term, focus on potential crises (e.g. price controls and gasoline rationing), efforts that often required coordination with other federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Health and Human Services.[12]
Thereafter, Taylor served for five years as Legislative Assistant on the staff of U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). He then directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair.
Following that assignment, he transferred to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, William Howard Taft IV. From 1992 until 2002, Taylor served with the rank of ambassador, coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He then accepted an assignment as Special Representative for Donor Assistance in Kabul, coordinating U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan. Engaging with the Afghan government and international donors, Taylor facilitated the flow of assistance to Afghanistan and promoted additional donations. The undertaking facilitated the repatriation of 2 million Afghan refugees and the restoration of critical services such education and health care. The aid helped restore agriculture, and provided support grants for over 80 infrastructure projects. In 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appointed Taylor as the Afghanistan Coordinator at the U.S. Department of State, overseeing all aspects of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, noting that it was a critical time in Afghanistan’s political development and economic reconstruction.[13]
Taylor met with the interim Fallujah city council, April 2005
In 2004, Taylor was transferred to Baghdad as Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.[14]
Until 2006, he was the U.S. Government’s representative to the Quartet‘s effort to facilitate the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, led by Special Envoy James Wolfensohn in Jerusalem. The Quartet Special Envoy was responsible for the economic aspects of this disengagement.
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be the United States ambassador to Ukraine while Taylor was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization at the Department of State.[15][16] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy, it was the fifth-largest bilateral mission in Europe, with over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies. A report by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of State from 2007 notes that the new ambassador had “taken charge of the embassy in a remarkably effective and positive way,” creating, together with Deputy Chief of Mission Sheila Gwaltney, a “formidable team at a mission that has a complex set of goals.” It further noted that “Embassy Kyiv has a keen understanding of the complicated and rapidly evolving political and economic situation in Ukraine and has good working relations across the political spectrum. The embassy’s commentary on such issues as the evolving state of Ukraine’s relations with the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Russia is extensive, timely, and well appreciated by Washington end-users.”[17] Taylor held the post until May 2009.[18]
On September 30, 2009, U.S. PresidentBarack Obama nominated John Tefft as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.[19] Taylor was appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions in September 2011.[20] From then through 2013, Taylor’s mission was to ensure effective U.S. support for the countries of the Arab revolutions, coordinating assistance to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.[21]
In 2015, Taylor was appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace, after serving a year in the same role in an acting capacity.[22][23] In this role, he supported continuing or increasing U.S. sanctions against Russia for its aggressions toward Ukraine.[24]
Taylor arrived in Ukraine a month after the abrupt ousting of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the inauguration of the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. But following President Donald Trump‘s phone call with the new Ukrainian president, Taylor questioned Trump’s motivation in a text to Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland told him to phone.[26]
On October 3, 2019, it was revealed that Taylor had expressed, in text messages, concern that President Trump may have withheld aid to Ukraine unless they, Ukraine, launched two investigations, one into alleged corruption in Ukraine involving former Vice President Joe Biden, and the other an attempt to deflect from the US intelligence communities’ consensus determination that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and interfered with the 2016 United States presidential election, by suggesting that the DNC is hiding the hacked server in Ukraine.[citation needed]
Explicit throughout Taylor’s testimony was that Trump’s goal in withholding the congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine was to extort Zelensky, the newly inaugurated president of Ukraine, into announcing an investigation into the theory related to Biden in a primetime American television interview. At the time, and through much of the preceding nascent Democratic Party Presidential Primary Election season, Biden was the leading candidate, and seemed likely to be the Democratic Party challenger to Trump in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. Additional incentive was provided for Ukraine to do as Trump, Sondland, and Guiliani suggested, by implying that Zelensky would get a state visit to the White House if he complied.[citation needed]
According to transcripts released by the House impeachment probe, Taylor on September 9, 2019, at 12:47:11 am texted, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Over four hours later, at 5:19:35 am,[27] in his response to Taylor, Sondland responded that the charge is “incorrect.” “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”[27] He then suggested Taylor call the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State about any concerns:[28] “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”[29] In his testimony during the impeachment inquiry Sondland noted that it was only out of his deep respect for Taylor that he tried to address Taylor’s concerns.[30] On October 22, 2019, Taylor’s opening statement also explained that Sondland required that Zelensky make public statements announcing an investigation, forcing him to conduct one, before the US released the allocated military aid. Taylor said he feared that Trump would withhold the military aid anyway, handing Moscow everything it wanted from the betrayal, texting Sondland that his “nightmare is that they [the Ukrainians] give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”[31]
Taylor gave a deposition before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee on October 22, 2019.[32]
On October 22, 2019, Taylor testified before the US Congressional House regarding the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and the Trump–Ukraine scandal in a closed session. Taylor’s opening statement was made public and directly implicated President Trump in a proactive and coordinated effort to solicit a political quid pro quo whereby “everything” – from a one-on-one meeting with President Trump to hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine – would be held up unless Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to announce publicly that “investigations” would be launched including into former VP Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and Ukraine’s alleged involvement in the 2016 election. Taylor’s opening statement and testimony was widely viewed as an inflection point in the impeachment inquiry.[33][34][35][36][37]
A few days before his second House testimony in mid-November, Taylor published an op-ed in Kyiv’s Novoye Vremya expressing the United States government’s commitment to Ukraine: “your success is our success.”[38][39]
Personal life
Taylor is married to Dr. Deborah Furlan Taylor,[40] a religion scholar.[41][42]
Story 1: President Trump Honors Veterans at 100th New York City Veterans Day Parade — Videos
President Trump and The First Lady Attend the New York City Veterans Day Parade
Trump is first sitting president to attend Veterans Day Parade
Trump speaks at the New York City Veterans Day parade
President Trump kicks off the 100th annual NYC Veterans Day Parade at Madison Square Park in Manhattan. He will be the first president to participate in the parade. Trump gives an address at the park, the site of the Eternal Light Flagstaff memorial. #FoxNews
Vice President Pence Delivers Remarks on Veterans Day 2019
Vice President Pence Attends a National Veterans Day Observance
WATCH: Trump speaks at Veterans Day Parade in New York
USA: Veterans Day Parade sees anti-Trump protests
100th Annual NYC Veterans Day Parade
Veterans Day observances from across the country
VP Pence speaks at Arlington Cemetery
WATCH: Vice President Pence observes Veterans Day at Arlington National Cemetery
Story 2: President Trump’s Back Channel To Ukraine And Personal Lawyer Rudy Giuliani — Cashing In As Trump’s Trusted Adviser? — Video
Trish Regan: Corruption, payouts and quid pro quos
Fitton: This is a fundamental threat to our republic
WATCH: Giuliani had a campaign against former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, John Sullivan says
How Rudy Giuliani went from ‘America’s mayor’ to Ukraine business broker
Giuliani’s globetrotting complicates US foreign policy
Giuliani: Shouldn’t Biden be investigated over Ukraine if Trump can be impeached over it?
Giuliani rips ‘corrupt’ media, defends Trump’s calls for Biden probe
Giuliani slams ‘swamp media’, says it’s time to fight back against Dems
PBS News Hour full episode November 11, 2019
‘He’s Gonna Sing’: Giuliani Hires 3 Lawyers Amid Ukraine Scandal | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC
What diplomat George Kent said about Rudy Giuliani — and Hunter Biden
‘I wouldn’t cooperate with Adam Schiff’: Giuliani | ABC News
Rudy Giuliani’s diplomatic backchannel was both ‘irregular’ and ‘outlandish’
Rudy Giuliani, Gordon Sondland, and others created a diplomatic backchannel to conduct foreign policy in Ukraine that actively undermined U.S. interests in Eastern Europe. And the Republicans’ best defense is: “It might be irregular, but it’s not outlandish.”
Acting Ambassador William Taylor testified during Wednesday’s public impeachment hearing that Giuliani’s involvement in Ukraine policy was troubling to many of the official, “regular” diplomats, including himself. It was clear to Taylor that Giuliani was pushing an agenda that had nothing to do with the national interest and everything to do with President Trump’s personal political interests.
It’s this last part that alarmed Taylor. It’s not unusual for the U.S. government to take into consideration the opinions of private citizens, such as Giuliani, when conducting foreign policy. But it is highly unusual for the aforementioned private citizen to influence and shape policy in a way that directly undermines the national interest.
The House Republicans’ counsel, Steve Castor, attempted to dismiss criticisms of Giuliani’s involvement by pointing out the diplomatic qualifications of Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry. But these qualifications are irrelevant to the bigger question: Why were they involved in Ukraine in the first place?
It wasn’t to push a legitimate national interest, as Taylor has testified. Because if that were the case, Giuliani, Sondland, and the rest would not have seen any need to circumvent the system and go behind the State Department’s back.
It was this circumvention that Taylor found “problematic.” But because Giuliani could not be held accountable under government guidelines, there was little Taylor could do besides express his concern to his superiors. And he did just that, confronting Sondland and Kurt Volker directly when he believed things had gotten out of control.
This backchannel was corrupt, and if Republicans want to clear Trump’s name, they’ll need a better defense than “It was bad, but not that bad.”
Story 1: President Trump Approved Sending U.S. Troops To Bolster Saudi Arabia’s Air and Missile Defenses — Videos
Pentagon announces troop deployment to Saudi Arabia
US deploys troops to Saudi Arabia
PBS NewsHour full episode September 20, 2019
Pentagon briefs Trump on military options against Iran
POLL: Just 13% Support Trump’s War For Saudi Arabia
Iran Attack on Saudi Arabia Oil Not Slowing Aramco IPO
Saudi Arabia unveils new strategic drone program ‘Saqr 1’
Did Satellites Spot a Secret Drone Hangar in Saudi Arabia?
United States sending troops to bolster Saudi defenses after attack
by Reuters
Friday, 20 September 2019 23:57 GMT
By Phil Stewart and Idrees Ali
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday approved sending American troops to bolster Saudi Arabia’s air and missile defenses after the largest-ever attack on the kingdom’s oil facilities, which Washington has squarely blamed on Iran.
The Pentagon said the deployment would involve a moderate number of troops – not numbering thousands – and would be primarily defensive in nature. It also detailed plans to expedite delivery of military equipment to both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
Reuters has previously reported that the Pentagon was considering sending anti-missile batteries, drones and more fighter jets. The United States is also considering keeping an aircraft carrier in the region indefinitely.
“In response to the kingdom’s request, the president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense,” U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said at a news briefing.
“We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves.”
The Pentagon’s late Friday announcement appeared to close the door to any imminent decision to wage retaliatory strikes against Iran following the attack, which rattled global markets and exposed major gaps in Saudi Arabia’s air defenses.
Trump said earlier on Friday that he believed his military restraint so far showed “strength,” as he instead imposed another round of economic sanctions on Tehran.
“Because the easiest thing I could do, ‘Okay, go ahead. Knock out 15 different major things in Iran.’ … But I’m not looking to do that if I can,” Trump told reporters at the White House.
But the deployment could further aggravate Iran, which has responded to previous U.S. troop deployments this year with apprehension. It denies responsibility for the attack on Saudi Arabia.
Yemen’s Iran-aligned Houthi movement, which has been battling a Saudi-led military coalition that includes the UAE, has claimed responsibility for the strikes.
ATTACK LAUNCHED FROM IRAN?
Relations between the United States and Iran have deteriorated sharply since Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear accord last year and reimposed sanctions on its oil exports.
For months, Iranian officials issued veiled threats, saying that if Tehran were blocked from exporting oil, other countries would not be able to do so either.
However, Iran has denied any role in a series of attacks in recent months, including bombings of tankers in the Gulf and strikes claimed by the Houthis.
U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, have fingered southwest Iran as the staging ground for the attack, an assessment based at least in part on still-classified imagery showing Iran appearing to prepare an aerial strike.
They have dismissed Houthi claims that the attacks originated in Yemen.
One of the officials told Reuters the strike may have been authorized by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The United States is wary of getting dragged into another conflict in the Middle East. It has troops positioned in Syria and Iraq, two countries where Iranian influence is strong and Iran-backed forces operate openly.
U.S. officials fear Iran’s proxies might attempt to strike American troops there, something that could easily trigger a broader regional conflict.
Saudi Arabia has said it was attacked by a total of 25 drones and missiles, including Iranian Delta Wing unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and “Ya Ali” cruise missiles.
U.S. Marine General Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said officials were still hammering out the best array of capabilities to defend Saudi Arabia, noting the difficulty combating a swarm of drones.
“No single system is going to be able to defend against a threat like that, but a layered system of defensive capabilities would mitigate the risk of swarms of drones or other attacks that may come from Iran,” Dunford said. (Reporting by Phil Stewart, Idrees Ali, Eric Beech and Mohammad Zargham Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Cynthia Osterman)
A whistleblower complaint about President Trump made by an intelligence official centers on Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the matter, which has set off a struggle between Congress and the executive branch.
The complaint involved communications with a foreign leader and a “promise” that Trump made, which was so alarming that a U.S. intelligence official who had worked at the White House went to the inspector general of the intelligence community, two former U.S. officials said.
Two and a half weeks before the complaint was filed, Trump spoke with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a comedian and political newcomer who was elected in a landslide in May.
The Democrats’ investigation was launched earlier this month, before revelations that an intelligence official had lodged a complaint with the inspector general. The Washington Post first reported on Wednesday that the complaint had to do with a “promise” that Trump made when communicating with a foreign leader.
Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) on Sept. 19 said a whistleblower complaint to the intelligence community met the threshold requiring notification of Congress. (JM Rieger/The Washington Post)
On Thursday, the inspector general testified behind closed doors to members of the House Intelligence Committee about the whistleblower’s complaint.
Over the course of three hours, Michael Atkinson repeatedly declined to discuss with members the content of the complaint, saying he was not authorized to do so.
He and the members spent much of their time discussing the process Atkinson followed, the statute governing his investigation of the complaint and the nature of an “urgent concern” that he believed it represented, according to a person familiar with the briefing, who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“He was being excruciatingly careful about the language he used,” the person said.
What is a whistleblower: How to be a journalist
Whistleblowers such as Daniel Ellsberg take personal risks to expose wrongdoing. (The Washington Post)
Atkinson made clear that he disagreed with a lawyer for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, who had contradicted the inspector general and found that the whistleblower complaint did not meet the statutory definition of an urgent concern because it involved a matter not under the DNI’s jurisdiction.
Atkinson told lawmakers that he disagreed with that analysis — meaning he felt the matter was under the DNI’s purview — and also that it was urgent “in the common understanding of the word,” the person said.
Atkinson told the committee that the complaint did not stem from just one conversation, according to two people familiar with his testimony.
Following the meeting, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the committee, warned of legal action if intelligence officials did not share the whistleblower complaint.
Schiff described acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire’s refusal to share the complaint with Congress as “unprecedented” and said he understood the Justice Department was involved in that decision.
“We cannot get an answer to the question about whether the White House is also involved in preventing this information from coming to Congress,” Schiff said, adding: “We’re determined to do everything we can to determine what this urgent concern is to make sure that the national security is protected.”
Someone, Schiff said, “is trying to manipulate the system to keep information about an urgent matter from the Congress … There certainly are a lot of indications that it was someone at a higher pay grade than the director of national intelligence.”
Trump has denied doing anything improper. In a tweet Thursday morning, the president wrote, “Virtually anytime I speak on the phone to a foreign leader, I understand that there may be many people listening from various U.S. agencies, not to mention those from the other country itself.
“Knowing all of this, is anybody dumb enough to believe that I would say something inappropriate with a foreign leader while on such a potentially ‘heavily populated’ call,” Trump wrote.
In a Sept. 17 letter to intelligence committee leaders, Atkinson wrote that he and Maguire “are at an impasse” over how the whistleblower could contact the congressional committees. Ordinarily, a matter of urgent concern that the inspector general deems credible is supposed to be forwarded to the intelligence oversight panels in the House and Senate.
But Maguire prevented Atkinson from doing so, according to correspondence that has been made public. Atkinson wrote that he had requested permission from Maguire to inform the congressional intelligence committees about the general subject matter of the complaint, but was denied.
Maguire, Atkinson wrote, had consulted with the Justice Department, which determined that the law didn’t require disclosing the complaint to the committee because it didn’t involve a member of the intelligence community or “an intelligence activity under the DNI’s supervision.”
Atkinson faulted the Justice Department’s conclusion “particularly … and the Acting DNI’s apparent agreement with the conclusion, that the disclosure in this case does not concern an intelligence activity within the DNI’s authority.”
Maguire is scheduled to testify before the Intelligence Committee in a public session next Thursday.
In letters to the White House and State Department, top Democrats earlier this month demanded records related to what they say are Trump and Giuliani’s efforts “to coerce the Ukrainian government into pursuing two politically-motivated investigations under the guise of anti-corruption activity” — one to help Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, who is in prison for illegal lobbying and financial fraud, and a second to target the son of former vice president Joe Biden, who is seeking the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump.
“As the 2020 election draws closer, President Trump and his personal attorney appear to have increased pressure on the Ukrainian government and its justice system in service of President Trump’s reelection campaign, and the White House and the State Department may be abetting this scheme,” the chairmen of the House Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight committees wrote, citing media reports that Trump had threatened to withhold $250 million in aid to help Ukraine in its ongoing struggle against Russian-backed separatists.
Lawmakers also became aware in August that the Trump administration may be trying to stop the aid from reaching Ukraine, according to a congressional official.
Giuliani dismissed the reports of the whistle blower and Trump’s “promise” to a foreign leader.
“I’m not even aware of the fact that he had such a phone call,” Giuliani said Thursday. “If I’m not worried about it, he’s not worried about it.”
House Democrats are looking into whether Giuliani traveled to Ukraine to pressure that government outside of formal diplomatic channels to effectively help the Trump reelection effort by investigating Hunter Biden about his time on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company.
The filing of the whistleblower complaint has led to what veterans of U.S. spy agencies described as an unprecedented situation with potentially grave consequences for the already troubled relationship between the president and the nation’s powerful intelligence community.
It remains unclear how the whistleblower gained access to details of the president’s calls — whether through “readouts” generated by White House aides or through other means.
Memos that serve as transcripts of such calls are created routinely. But if that is the source in this instance, it would appear to mean that White House aides made a formal record of comments by the president later deemed deeply troubling by the intelligence community’s chief watchdog.
John Wagner, Karoun Demirjian, Robert Costa and Josh Dawsey contributed reporting.
The New York Fed — which handles the levers that control the flow of money in the system — has for the past four days had to pump billions into money markets after bank demand for cash pushed interest rates above the Fed’s target (AFP Photo/Delil SOULEIMAN)
More
New York (AFP) – The New York Federal Reserve Bank said Friday it will inject billions into the US financial plumbing on a daily basis for the next three weeks in an effort to prevent a spike in short-term interest rates.
The Fed will offer up to $75 billion a day in repurchase agreements — exchanging secure assets for cash for very short periods — through October 10, it said in a statement.
In addition, it will offer three 14-day “repo” operations of at least $30 billion each.
Banks have struggled in recent days to find the cash needed to meet reserve requirements which has pushed up short-term borrowing rates, prompting the New York Fed to pump billions into US money markets with repo operations over the past four days.
However, in a sign a cash crunch could be easing, demand for liquidity on Friday did not significantly exceed the amount offered, as it had on two prior days.
After October 10, the New York Fed will “conduct operations as necessary to help maintain the federal funds rate in the target range, the amounts and timing of which have not yet been determined.”
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell this week downplayed concerns about the money market’s cash crunch, saying it was not a sign of problems in the wider economy or a concern for monetary policy.
Economists say an array of conditions converged to dry up liquidity in the banking system — including quarterly corporate tax payments and a surge in government debt sold to investors, which drained cash out of banks.
Banks borrow regularly in markets for very short periods, usually overnight, to make sure their daily cash reserves do not fall below the required level. But interest rates increase with demand.
The New York Fed adds or removes liquidity to keep interest rates in line with the desired target, but the cash shortage in recent days prompted it to pump funds into the short-term repo market as rates soared and threatened to break out of the Fed’s target range.
The central bank cut benchmark lending rates interest rate on Wednesday, and also made some technical adjustments to try to keep the market rates from breaking out of the range, including cutting the interest it offers on bank reserves held at the Fed that are in excess of the minimum required level.
Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, provides insight into the debate over climate change and the political games played to create policy.
Why I Left Greenpeace
The Truth about CO2
Princeton physicist: There’s a ‘cult’ building around climate scientists
Climate field ‘craziness’ too much for climatologist
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
Why climate change has run its course
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
97% of Climate Scientists Really Do Agree
Global warming: why you should not worry
Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change?
Climate Change: What’s So Alarming?
Freeman Dyson: Climate Change Predictions Are “Absurd”
Can We Rely on Wind and Solar Energy?
The True Cost of Wind | Ryan M. Yonk
What They Haven’t Told You about Climate Change
Economics of climate change innovation | Bjørn Lomborg
2018 Annual GWPF Lecture – Prof Richard Lindzen – Global Warming For The Two Culture
DEMYSTIFIED: What’s the difference between weather and climate? | Encyclopaedia Britannica
Is an Ice Age Coming? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios
Tucker Carlson Tonight 9/20/19 | Tucker Carlson Tonight Fox News September 20 , 2019
Watch: Climate Change Marches Across The Globe | NBC News Now
IS GLOBAL WARMING THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY? – Dan Pena
First Global Climate Strike arrests in London as teachers encourage pupils to take to the streets and join mass protest inspired by eco-activist Greta Thunberg
The Metropolitan Police said two people had been arrested in the Strand as activists gathered across London
Schoolchildren joined the protests in Britain after they were urged to walk out of classes and lectures today
State schools urged pupils not to attend, while some private schools urged them to make their own decision
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and mayor Sadiq Khan have been among those to praise young demonstrators
Do you know any of the protesters taking part in today’s climate action? You can email tips@dailymail.co.uk
PUBLISHED: 06:12 EDT, 20 September 2019 | UPDATED: 11:38 EDT, 20 September 2019
Police have moved in and made their first arrests as the largest worldwide climate protest in history arrived in London today with hundreds of thousands of Brits taking part in demonstrations across the country.
Activists, many of whom carried Extinction Rebellion flags and banners, have descended on the capital as the Global Strike 4 Climate Change movement kicked off in the UK to coincide with protests all over the planet.
The Metropolitan Police said two people had been arrested in the Strand for breaching conditions imposed on the protesters which dictate they must gather in a specific place in Westminster, central London.
Schoolchildren, many of them dressed in their uniforms, joined in on more than 200 different climate events in Britain after they were urged to walk out of classes and lectures today.
Politicians have been split on whether or not pupils should be skipping lessons to attend the climate protests, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and mayor Sadiq Khan among those to commend young demonstrators.
Mr Corbyn addressed a rally of climate strikers outside Parliament and praised those who had missed lessons to attend, adding: ‘Thank you for being here to teach me and everyone else a lesson about the environment.’
State school leaders have urged youngsters not to take part, saying they understand the strength of feeling around the issue, but have concerns about pupil welfare.
But Suzie Longstaff, headmistress of the £18,900-a-year private Putney High School in south-west London, said that young people should be able to make their own decisions about whether to take part in today’s action.
Scroll down for video
A protester is arrested by police officers stationed outside outside King’s College London as mass demonstrations hit the UK this morning
A protester is led away by police in handcuffs this morning (shown left), while an Extinction Rebellion activist is shown waving a XR flag outside King’s College London
Two protesters are placed in handcuffs outside King’s College London near the Strand as mass demonstrations kicked off in the capital today
Schoolchildren protest with banners outside parliament in London after youngsters were urged to skip lessons in order to take part in demonstrations
Youngsters take part in today’s climate change demonstrations after thousands skipped lessons and lectures this morning
Thousands of protesters gather near the Houses of Parliament for today’s climate change demonstration, where Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will speak later this afternoon
Police officers carry a protester away in the Strand after issuing section 14 notices amid mass-scale demonstrations in London today
An aerial shot from Central London shows thousands of protesters gathering during one of more 200 events across the UK this afternoon
Scottish comedian Billy Connolly was among those to lend his support to protesters marching in Glasgow this afternoon
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn tweeted an image from the protest in London and is due to address a rally of climate strikers outside Parliament, while dozens of other mass-scale events are being held up and down the country
Students carrying Extinction Rebellion banners and flags are shown marching through the streets outsude the Houses of Parliament
Police officers form a cordon outside Parliament Square, as demonstrators were asked to protest in specified areas
A young child looks out at the masses of people who gathered in central London today for the what is expected to be the world’s largest ever join climate change demonstration
Rolling Stones singer Mick Jagger was among those to give their support to those taking part in the Global Climate Strike
The Global Strike For Climate in London is being held only days ahead of the scheduled United Nations Climate Change Summit in New York
Hundreds of protesters hold a ‘die-in’ at the UK Student Climate Network’s Global Climate Strike in Cambridge this afternoon
But Ms Longstaff said: ‘Every day we are educating the young people of the future to speak out and make their own decisions.
‘We are trying to provide a modern and relevant education which includes connecting to topics that they feel passionate about. We can’t pick and choose what those are.
‘I’m proud that Putney students have both a social and environmental conscience and I applaud them. Those who feel strongly about protesting will be there.’
Sylvie Craig, 11, and her friend Eva De Pear, 12, both of Shepherds Bush in west London, took the day off school and brought their mothers to the demonstration.
Sylvie said: ‘Climate change is really important. We can’t just talk about it, we have to do something about it ‘
Her mother Bay Garnett, a fashion director, said: ‘I am here for my children and all children. I think every mother feels the same. They need a healthy planet to live on.’
Eva skipped her biology lesson on Friday, saying that going to it made ‘no sense’ because ‘the planet is in real big trouble’. She said: ‘I am here to teach people a lesson instead of learning a lesson.’
Her mother Leila Amanpour said: ‘I feel that unless we come out into the streets, especially the children, the Government is not going to do anything about climate change.’
Thousands of protesters, including hundreds of children, many wearing school uniform, gathered in Birmingham’s Victoria Square before marching through nearby streets.
Meanwhile, West Mercia Police advised drivers to find alternatives routes after around 40 Extinction Rebellion members intermittently blocked traffic in Worcester.
Tweeting a photo from a climate strike in London, Mr Corbyn said: ‘Young people here and across the world are making it impossible to ignore the environment and climate emergency.
‘This is the wonderful youth Climate Strike in my constituency; now I’m on my way to the main London demonstration.’
Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson tweeted: ‘Great to see so many people the Glasgow Youth Climate March, all raising awareness of the climate crisis.
‘We demand immediate, strong action to stop irreversible damage. We must protect both our planet and future generations.’
Protesters gather ahead of the UK Student Climate Network’s Global Climate Strike at Millbank in London today
Young climate strikers across the country (pictured here in Millbank, London this morning) are taking to the streets as part of a global protest to demand urgent action to tackle climate change
Protesters hold banners as they attend the Global Climate Strike taking place outside the Houses of Parliament this morning
A sign posted on the outside of the Ben and Jerry’s store in Wardour Street, London, shows the firm’s support of the climate strikes today
London joins in global Climate change strikes call for action
Workers joined thousands of schoolchildren in taking part in the mass-scale demonstrations in London today (pictured in Westminster)
Medical professionals were shown marching near Westminster holding up banners and homemade signs declaring their support of climate intervention
State school leaders have urged youngsters not to take part, saying they understand the strength of feeling around the issue, but have concerns about pupil welfare
Students hold placards as they attend a climate change demonstration in London this morning (pictured on the lawns outside the Houses of Parliament)
Hundreds demonstrate in Bristol in global climate change strike
London Mayor Mr Khan called on the Government to ‘step up’ action on climate change, adding: ‘I am standing in solidarity with all those who are taking part in the Global Climate Strike.
‘Here in London, City Hall staff have also been encouraged to observe the strike by taking time out of their day to send a message to the world that London demands more ambitious climate actions from governments.’
However business, energy and clean growth minister Kwasi Kwarteng said he could not endorse children leaving school to take part in the protests, which have been inspired by teenage eco-activist Greta Thunberg.
He told BBC Breakfast on Friday that he supports the ‘energy and creativity’ of students, but said time spent in school is ‘incredibly important’.
Jessica Ahmed, 16, who is studying for an International Baccalaureate had emailed her school to warn that she would be walking out on Friday.
Speaking at a protest in Westminster, Miss Ahmed of Barnet, north London, said: ‘There are no excuses in this. School is important but so is my future.
‘If politicians were taking the appropriate action we need and had been taking this action a long time ago when it was recognised the world was changing in a negative way, then I would not have to be skipping school.
‘I would be doing the maths exam I have studied for.
She called on the Government to acknowledge the severity of the climate crisis and for youth to be included in policy-making, adding ‘With so many people striking, surely Government have got to take notice?’
Slogans such as ‘if you breath air you should care’, ‘us snowflakes are melting’, ‘learn to change or learn to swim’, and ‘don’t be a fossil fool’, were among the homemade banners held aloft in the crowd.
Politicians have been split on whether or not children should be skipping lessons to attend the climate protests, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and mayor Sadiq Khan among those to praise young demonstrators
Students carrying Extinction Rebellion banners and flags are shown marching through Parliament Square in central London this afternoon
The protests in central London today are part of a snowballing movement sparked by teenage activist Greta Thunberg’s school strikes outside the Swedish parliament
Politicians have been split on whether or not students should be skipping lectures to attend the climate protests, with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and mayor Sadiq Khan among those to praise young demonstrators
As protests got under way across the UK, the Metropolitan Police said two adults had been arrested on The Strand in central London – where XR Universities, an Extinction Rebellion group are holding a protest (pictured)
In Belfast, hundreds of young people took over the Corn Market area of the city centre, where they staged a colourful protest, with speeches and chants, before lying on the ground to participate in a mass ‘die-in’.
John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said the school strikers have shown that people power could move governments.
He said: ‘The rest of us now need to step up and stand with the children demanding radical, systemic change, before it’s too late.’
Metropolitan Police announced it had made a couple of arrests relating to protests this morning, adding in a tweet: ‘Two adults have been arrested in the Strand for breach of the S14 conditions.
‘We would ask everyone attending #ClimateStrike please attend Millbank, where in conjunction with the organisers we have created a safe space for protest.’
Missing a day of school for climate protest will hit your child’s exam chances, says UK’s schools minister
British schools minister Nick Gibb said the Government ‘shares young people’s passion’ for tackling climate change, but said children should not miss school to protest.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said schools need to record the absences.
He said: ‘We share the passion, as a Government, of young people for tackling climate change, and that is why this Government and this country is committed to reaching net zero greenhouse gasses by 2050.’
He added: ‘We don’t think it should be at the expense of a child’s education because what we want is for the next generation to be as well educated as possible to tackle these kinds of problems, and you don’t do that by missing out on an education.’
He said even missing out on one day of school can affect GCSE results.
The ‘Global Strike 4 Climate Change‘ rally started in Sydney this morning where Thor star Chris Hemsworth and his young daughter India joined 50,000 in a rally that saw some violent clashes between police and protesters.
Throughout the day the movement is spreading west across the world to most of the planet’s biggest cities including Hong Kong, Bangkok, Delhi, London and New York.
But in China – the world’s most polluting nation – President Xi’s government has banned the movement from protesting in its cities.
In New York, the city’s Department of Education says all its 1.1million schoolchildren can skip class to participate in the strike if they had parental consent – without any fear of punishment.
Miss Thunberg, who has been nominated for a Nobel prize for her climate activism, will spearhead a rally at the United Nations headquarters in the city later.
As the sea of people made their way through the city, some school students on scooters could be seen heading in the opposite direction, while there was some fighting between protesters and police.
Others could be seen scribbling their signs on old pieces of cardboard on the footpath as they waited for the event to begin.’.
Britons joining the climate strikes can expect a day of unseasonably warm weather on Friday as they call on businesses and politicians to cut emissions.
Children and young people are preparing to walk out of lessons and lectures, with hundreds of thousands of workers expected to join them.
The protests are part of a snowballing movement sparked by teenage activist Greta Thunberg’s school strikes outside the Swedish parliament.
It comes ahead of a climate action summit in New York convened by UN secretary general Antonio Guterres to urge countries to up their climate efforts.
Much steeper measures are needed across the globe to prevent temperature rises of more than 1.5C (2.7F) or 2C (3.6F) to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
Sydney: A protester clashes with police during the climate rally in the Australian city on Friday before he was arrested and removed from the area
Sydney: Children chanting for change march through Australia’s largest city today as the ‘Global Strike 4 Climate Change’ began
Climate demonstrators shut down Sydney streets
Sydney: In Australia today 300,000 people have taken part including more than 50,000 people in Sydney with Thor star Chris Hemsworth and his young daughter India among those who flooded the streets
Canberra: A baby takes part in the The Global Strike 4 Climate rally with his parents displaying a warning about the extinction of animals in his car seat
Marovo Island, Solomon Islands: Students in traditional dress gathered on the South Pacific Ocean took part in a march along the beach
Bangkok: Marchers in Thailand decided to block the roads outside the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment as they demanded action
Hong Kong: Protesters carrying coffins and placards accusing governments of ‘ecocide’ march through Hong Kong’s famous harbour
Indonesia: Youths walk with signs through the main road during a Global Climate Strike rally as smog covers the city due to the forest fires in Palangka Raya, Central Kalimantan province
As if to underline the urgency of the issues, the mercury is set to hit 26C (78.8F) this weekend – 8C(46.4F) above average for the time of year.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said: ‘It is unbelievable that we should need global strike action for the future of our planet to be taken seriously.
‘The stark reality is that our climate is changing rapidly and we are running out of time to address it.’
He promised strikers his full support, adding that City Hall had been invited to observe the strike themselves.
‘I hope governments around the world who are failing to take action hear the voices of millions of people, young and old, unified in their call for action to save our planet. Our future depends on it,’ he said.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn is due to address a rally of climate strikers outside Parliament on Friday, while other events are being held up and down the country.
The UK Student Climate Network (UKSCN) says more than 200 events are taking place across the UK, with – for the first time – adults being encouraged to join the youngsters as they strike.
UKSCN is calling on politicians to bring in a ‘Green New Deal’ to cut the UK’s emissions to zero and improve lives, changes to education to equip youngsters to deal with the climate crisis and votes at 16 to give them a voice.
Bali: People display placards during a rally as part of a global climate change campaign at Sanur beach on Indonesia’s resort island
Dhaka: Bangladeshi students join the protest and claim world leaders are ‘acting like children’ over climate change
Berlin: Activists chose to cycle to block traffic at Ernst-Reuter-Platz square as they take part in the Global Climate Strike
Brisbane: Millions of people from across the globe are expected to walk out of work and school as part of ‘Strike 4 Climate Action’ which will be held in 150 countries on September 20
Sydney: Two young girls climb a pole as thousands gathered in the centre of the city as part of global mass day of action
Sydney: A man clashes with police during the climate rally in Sydney on Friday. He was arrested and removed from the area
Sydney: Parents took their children out of school to take part in the protest. However, acting Prime Minister Michael McCormack said students should be in school as it was ‘just a disruption’
Among the many trade unions throwing their weight behind the strikes are the TUC Congress, the University and College Union and Unite.
Some businesses are actively supporting their workers to take action, with outdoor clothing company Patagonia closing stores and offices globally, and taking out adverts to support the strikers.
The Co-operative Bank has also teamed up with Unite to support its workforce to take part in the climate strikes around the country.
Worldwide, there are more than 4,600 events in 139 countries taking place as part of the Fridays for Future movement between Friday September 20 and 27, and campaign group 350.org says more than 70 unions, 500 organisations and 1,000 companies have come out in support of the strikes.
Muna Suleiman, Friends of the Earth campaigner, said most people wanted to fix the climate crisis but politicians needed to act.
She said: ‘Right when we need our leaders to step up, they continue to let us down.
‘From filling the skies with more planes, to backing fracking in the UK and funding oil and gas projects abroad.
‘That’s why we’re standing shoulder to shoulder with young people to call on our politicians to deliver emergency climate action now. And we’re asking everyone to join us.’
Sydney: The Global Strike 4 Climate will on Friday take place in 110 towns and cities across Australia, with organisers demanding government and business commit to a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030
Sydney: More than 50,000 people flooded Sydney’s streets as they made their way to the Domain to take part in the demonstration calling for governments and businesses to commit to a target of net zero carbon emissions by 2030
‘Can’t eat money, can’t drink money’: Protesters take to the streets in Sydney as part of the rally which happened across the globe on Friday
Brisbane (left) and Melbourne (right): More than 300,000 Australians have chosen to take part in the Global Strike 4 Climate
In Australia there were hundreds of young people proving their dedication to the cause as they carried artistic placards they had made the night before, which read: ‘Time is almost up’ and ‘There is no Planet B’
Sydney: A young girl sits on a man’s shoulders during the Sydney protest on Friday. She held a sign which read: ‘There is no planet B’
Sydney: Children allowed out of school chant and throw their arms in the air during the world’s biggest planned climate protests
Sydney: Thousands of protesters turned out for the climate strike on Friday. This woman wore green and wrapped a vine around her neck for the cause
Bangkok: Thai people protest in front of the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment
Bangkok: Children with megaphones demand their politicians make changes to protect the future of the planet
Nolte: Climate ‘Experts’ Are 0-41 with Their Doomsday Predictions
For more than 50 years Climate Alarmists in the scientific community and environmental movement have not gotten even one prediction correct, but they do have a perfect record of getting 41 predictions wrong.
In other words, on at least 41 occasions, these so-called experts have predicted some terrible environmental catastrophe was imminent … and it never happened.
And not once — not even once! — have these alarmists had one of their predictions come true.
Think about that… the so-called experts are 0-41 with their predictions, but those of us who are skeptical of “expert” prediction number 42, the one that says that if we don’t immediately convert to socialism and allow Alexandria Ocasio-Crazy to control and organize our lives, the planet will become uninhabitable.
Why would any sane person listen to someone with a 0-41 record?
Why would we completely restructure our economy and sacrifice our personal freedom for “experts” who are 0-41, who have never once gotten it right?
If you had an investment counselor who steered you wrong 41times, would you hang in there for number 42?
Of course not. You’d fire him after failed prediction two or three.
And if that’s not crazy enough, the latest ploy is to trot out a 16-year-old girt to spread prediction number 42, because it is so much more credible that way.
Sometimes you just have to sit back and laugh.
Anyway, I want you to have the data, so go ahead and print this out in advance of Thanksgiving dinner with your obnoxious Millennial nephew.
LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT RIGHT
NONE.
ZIP.
ZERO.
NADA.
BLANK
DONUT HOLE
NIL.
NOTHING.
VOID.
ZILCH.
LIST OF DOOMSDAY PREDICTIONS THE CLIMATE ALARMIST GOT WRONG
Here is the source for numbers 1-27. As you will see, the individual sources are not crackpots, but scientific studies and media reports on “expert” predictions. The sources for numbers 28-41 are linked individually.
1967: Dire Famine Forecast By 1975
1969: Everyone Will Disappear In a Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989 (1969)
1970: Ice Age By 2000
1970: America Subject to Water Rationing By 1974 and Food Rationing By 1980
1971: New Ice Age Coming By 2020 or 2030
1972: New Ice Age By 2070
1974: Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast
Sorry, Experts… Sorry, Scientific Consensus… Only a fool comes running for the 42nd cry of wolf.
Don’t litter, be kind to animals, recycling’s for suckers (it’s all going to end up in the ground eventually), so stop feeling guilty… Go out there and embrace all the bounty that comes with being a 21st century American — you know, like Obama, who says he believes in Global Warming with his mouth but proves he doesn’t with the $15 million he just spent on oceanfront that we’re told is doomed to flooding
(Bloomberg) — It’s time to stop crediting corporate sustainability efforts as acts of altruism. For big business, protecting the environment often means padding the bottom line.
Nike Inc. has come up with a way to weave more efficiently, reducing the raw material and labor time needed to make each shoe. That has kept more than 3.5 million pounds of waste from reaching landfills since 2012. But the good news doesn’t stop with the environmental impact. The company is spending less on transportation, materials and waste disposal.
The shoemaker’s “more environmentally conscious product has been a source of cost savings,” said James Duffy, an analyst at Stifel.
Those flimsy plastic water bottles sold by Nestle SA? The ultra-thin design has a smaller impact on the environment while pushing down costs associated with packaging and shipping. Amazon.com Inc. and Walmart Inc. have poured tens of millions of dollars into a fund that builds out recycling infrastructure, reducing landfill tipping fees and recovering material that could be sold as new products.
Tech giants have spent billions of dollars on solar and wind power, cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and energy expenditures at the same time. Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Amazon and Facebook Inc. are now some of the largest buyers of green power in America.
Turns out it’s not just easy being green—it’s also profitable.
“We’ve moved past this concept that business versus the environment is a tradeoff,” said Tom Murray, who advises companies on reducing emissions at Environmental Defense Fund, including Walmart, McDonald’s Corp. and Procter & Gamble Co. “The business benefits were always there, but more and more companies are going after them.”
The business case for going green has never been stronger as companies find ways to make more from less. Here’s a look at the ways corporate sustainability is making environmentalism pay.
Lightweight Flights Cost Less
United Airlines Holdings Inc. has been making its planes lighter, driving down fuel use and costs. Airlines account for almost 2% global carbon emissions. Not even the in-flight magazine has been spared in the search for unnecessary heft: changing to a lighter paper stock saved almost $300,000 per year on fuel. United redesigned airplane bathrooms, switched out beverage carts and ended duty-free sales. The company was also working on reducing its cabin waste to zero.
What it pays: United has saved more than $2 billion on fuel so far.
Hanging Hotel Towels Saves More Than Water
It turns out that simply asking guests to hang up towels to dry and forego daily sheet changes can save hotel operators 25% off annual energy costs. “To some surprise within the hotel industry, this option was quickly embraced by hotel guests as a small way to engage in energy conservation,” according to a report by the Urban Land Institute. Clarion Partners LLC does that at all of its hotels and went a step further by reducing flows through toilets, faucets and showerheads.
What it pays: Cutting water use saves Clarion hotels about $17,250 per year.
Idle Trucks, Real Money
Walmart runs one of the biggest trucking fleets in the U.S. That means scores of semis standing in traffic at any given time. At that scale, the introduction of technology that reduces energy use when trucks or idling and software that creates more efficient routes can improve fuel efficiency by 90%, reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
What it pays: Diesel averages almost $3 a gallon in the U.S.
Tech’s Green Power Payoff
Google, Facebook and Amazon are among the largest energy consumers in the U.S., and a lot of that power is now emission-free. Each company committed to getting 100% of their power for their data centers from renewable resources such as wind and solar. Exxon Mobil signed up to energize its operations in Texas with solar and wind energy starting next year, which would place the oil producer among the top 10 buyers.
What it pays: With renewables now cheaper than fossil fuels, these green energy commitments shave an estimated 10% off tech giants’ gargantuan utility bills.
Paperless Bathrooms Are Cheaper
Restaurants, movie theaters and others have been making the switch from paper towels to hand dryers in their restrooms for years. Dryers have become the norm because of the savings on the cost of paper towels and the expense of sending garbage to the landfill. Soldier Field, home of the Chicago Bears, made the switch and cut carbon emissions by 76% per use.
Patrick J. (“Pat“) Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is an American climatologist. Michaels was a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute until Spring 2019. Until 2007 he was research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, where he had worked from 1980.[2][3][4]
A self-described skeptic on the issue of global warming, he is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He has written a number of books and papers on climate change, including Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992), The Satanic Gases (2000), and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media (2004). He’s also the co-author of Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (2009).[2] Michaels’ viewpoint, as argued in a 2002 article in the journal Climate Research, is that the planet will see “a warming range of 1.3–3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C” for the 1990 to 2100 period (a value far smaller than the IPCC’s average predictions).[5]
Contents
Education
Patrick Michaels obtained an A.B. in biological science in 1971 and an S.M. in biology in 1975 from the University of Chicago, and in 1979 obtained his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin–Madison.[6] His doctoral thesis was titled Atmospheric anomalies and crop yields in North America.[7]
Views on climate change
Michaels has said that he does not contest the basic scientific principles behind greenhouse warming and acknowledges that the global mean temperature has increased in recent decades.[8] He is quoted as being skeptical of global warming,[citation needed][9] and is described by Michael E. Mann as a “prominent climate change contrarian.”[10] He contends that the changes will be minor, not catastrophic, and may even be beneficial.[11]
He has written extensive editorials on this topic for the mass media, and for think tanks and their publications such as Regulation. He stated in 2000:[11]
[S]cientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years]
All this has to do with basic physics, which isn’t real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn’t constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate.[12]
Michaels has stated in the Wall Street Journal:
Why is the news on global warming always bad? Perhaps because there’s little incentive to look at things the other way. If you do, you’re liable to be pilloried by your colleagues. If global warming isn’t such a threat, who needs all that funding?[13]
A 2002 article published in the journal Climate Research by Michaels and three other scholars has predicted “a warming range of 1.3–3.0°C, with a central value of 1.9°C” over the 1990 to 2100 period, although he remarked that the “temperature range and central values determined in our study may be too great.” He made the argument that the climate feedback system involving current warming trends was weaker than generally asserted, coming to a conclusion that set his views apart from that of the IPCC’s estimates.[5]
In 2009, Michaels authored a Cato report arguing that “Congress should pass no legislation restricting emissions of carbon dioxide, repeal current ethanol mandates, and inform the public about how little climate change would be prevented by proposed legislation.” [14]
In 2018, Michaels asserted on Fox News, “probably about half, maybe half of that nine-tenths of the degree [of total warming] might be caused by greenhouse gases.” Climate Feedback, a fact-checking website for media coverage on climate change, wrote of Michaels’ assertion, “no evidence or research is provided to support this claim, which contradicts the published scientific literature.”[15]
Advocacy
Expert witness for Western Fuels Association
In May 1994 Richard Lindzen, Michaels, and Robert Balling served as expert witnesses on behalf of Western Fuels Association in St. Paul, Minnesota to determine the environmental cost of coal burning by state power plants.[16] Western Fuels Association is a consortium of coal producers that uses collective advocacy to represent industry interests.[17]
1998: Michaels and Balling complaint against Star Tribune upheld
In May 1997 Ross Gelbspan made a presentation in Minneapolis discussing his concerns, documented in his 1997 book The Heat is On, that some climatologists were involved in a “disinformation campaign” to counter the scientific consensus on global warming. The Minnesota Star Tribune ran an editorial praising this as a public service exposing undue credit given to the “unsubsantiated opinions” of a handful of contrarian scientists, and naming Michaels and his colleague Robert Balling as skeptics whose views had been examined and dismissed by numerous other scientists. Michaels and Balling took a complaint against the Star Tribune to the Minnesota News Council, and at a hearing in April 1998 by a 9–4 decision the council “voted to sustain the complaint that the Star Tribune editorial unfairly characterized the scientific reputations of Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling.”[18]
World Climate Report, Greening Earth Society, and Western Fuels Association
The World Climate Report, a newsletter edited by Michaels was first published by the Greening Earth Society. The society was a public relations organization associated with the Western Fuels Association (WFA), an association of coal-burning utility companies.[19][20][21]It has been called a “front group created by the coal industry”[22] and an “industry front”.[23] Fred Palmer, a society staffer, is a registered lobbyist for Peabody Energy, a coal company.[24] WFA founded the group in 1997, according to an archived version of its website, “as a vehicle for advocacy on climate change, the environmental impact of CO2, and fossil fuel use.”[25]
2003 John Holdren
Office of Science and Technology Policy director, John Holdren,[26] told the U.S. SenateRepublican Policy Committee in June 2003, “Michaels is another of the handful of U.S. climate-change contrarians … He has published little if anything of distinction in the professional literature, being noted rather for his shrill op-ed pieces and indiscriminate denunciations of virtually every finding of mainstream climate science.”[27] In 2009 Michaels responded in a Washington Examiner Op-Ed, saying that the IPCC had subverted the peer review process, and adding the IPCC had “left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.”[28]
International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group in 2007
Michaels was one of hundreds of US reviewers composing the International Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Working Group in 2007.
Although the Greening Earth Society was generally skeptical of the impact of climate change, it acknowledged some degree of global warming as real: “Fact #1. The rate of global warming during the past several decades has been about 0.18°C per decade”.[29] Note that the actual increase in the global surface temperature during the 100 years ending in 2005 was 0.74 ± 0.18 °C.[30]
Climate scientist Tom Wigley,[31] a lead author of parts of the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has stated that “Michaels’ statements on the subject of computer models are a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation … Many of the supposedly factual statements made in Michaels’ testimony are either inaccurate or are seriously misleading.”[32]
Climate of Extremes
Michaels received praise for his book, Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don’t Want You to Know (2009) from University of Alabama-Huntsville Principal Research ScientistRoy Spencer, who wrote, “Michaels and [Co-Author Robert] Balling have provided a treasure trove of the latest global warming science.”[33]Will Happer, Professor of Physics and Former Chairman of the University Research Board at Princeton University, also praised the book and wrote it “…provides important and honest information about climate change that is hard to find elsewhere.”[34]
Funding from energy or fossil fuel companies
On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000.[35] An Associated Press report said that the donations had been made after Michaels had “told Western business leaders … that he was running out of money for his analyses of other scientists’ global warming research” and noted that the cooperative had a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.[36]
Michaels said on CNN that 40 per cent of his funding came from the oil industry.[37] According to Fred Pearce, fossil fuel companies have helped fund Michaels’ projects, including his World Climate Report, published every year since 1994, and his “advocacy science consulting firm”, New Hope Environmental Services.[38]
A 2005 article published by the Seattle Times reported that Michaels had received more than $165,000 in fuel-industry funding, including money from the coal industry to publish his own climate journal.[9]
Selected publications
Michaels is the author of several books including: Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming (1992), Satanic Gases (2002; as coauthor), Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media (2004), published by the Cato Institute, and Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming (2005; as editor and coauthor).
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Cato Institute. October 25, 2005. p. 280. ISBN1-930865-79-1.
Story 1: President Trump Goes On Offense Against America and Trump Haters — Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) Squad — Fresh Fascist Faces — Women of Color — RED — Videos —
Pelosi under fire for urging Dems to stand against ICE
Trump: If You’re Not Happy Here, You Can Leave
President Trump Takes His Attacks On Four Congresswomen To A New Low | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC
Omar Cites Corruption, Ineptitude Among Reasons To Impeach Donald Trump | Rachel Maddow | MSNBC
AOC and Ilhan Omar Fire Back at Trump’s Racist Tweets | NowThis
‘The Five’ react to The Squad’s fiery presser on Trump’s tweets
President Donald Trump Ramps Up Attacks On Democrats Congresswomen | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC
Trump Tells Democratic Congresswomen To “Go Back” Where They Came From
Dr. Qanta Ahmed: Rep. Omar is a disgrace to Islam
Ilhan Omar faces more anti-semitic controversy over Israel
‘These Are Her Beliefs’: Scalise Says Omar Must Be Removed From Committee Over Anti-Semitic Comments
Ilhan Omar’s Disgusting Attack: ‘This is Un-American’
Pelosi condemns ‘anti-Semitic’ comments by Rep. Omar
Tucker: Radical Democrats turn on Nancy Pelosi
‘The agenda of white nationalists’: AOC, other congresswomen respond to Trump’s attacks
The foursome of minority lawmakers were responding to the president’s “openly racist comments attacking the duly elected members of Congress,” they said in a statement.
By Dareh Gregorian and Adam Edelman
The four progressive congresswomen of color attacked by President Donald Trump responded on Monday afternoon at a joint news conference, saying his “blatantly racist” assault on them is nothing more than an effort to distract from his corrupt administration and inhumane policies.
The Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, portrayed Trump as lawless and condemned his treatment of migrants on the border and deportations.
“This is the agenda of white nationalists, whether it is happening in chat rooms or happening in national TV. And now it’s reached the White House garden,” Omar said of what she called Trump’s “blatantly racist attack.”
Ocasio-Cortez said, “I am not surprised” by the president’s actions, given the actions she said he’s taken against immigrants and to hurt the average American. She called Trump’s comments about the four lawmakers a “distraction.”
“This president operates in complete bad faith,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “He does not know how to defend his policies, so instead he attacks us personally. That’s what this is all about”
She added that she and her colleagues aren’t going anywhere.
“We don’t leave the things we love,” Ocasio-Cortez said, and “we love all people in this country.”
Omar called it a “pivotal moment in our country,” with Trump “openly violating the oath he took” with “human rights abuses” involving the conditions in which migrants are being detained at the border. She called for his impeachment and accused him of “colluding with a foreign government” in the 2016 presidential election, a charge he’s repeatedly denied.
The congresswoman said she would not respond to Trump’s “ridiculous” claims earlier Monday that she supports al Qaeda.
“It’s beyond time to ask Muslims to condemn terrorists,” she said.
Omar also ripped Trump as a hypocrite for saying that she should leave the country if she’s not happy with the government, noting his campaign was all about what terrible shape the United States was in.
“He talked about everything that was wrong in this country and how he was going to make it right,” Omar said.
Pressley urged Americans to not “take the bait” from the “occupant” in the White House.
“This is a disruptive distraction from the issues of care, concern and consequence to the American people” they were sent to Washington to work on, she said.
Tlaib again called for her colleagues to begin impeachment proceedings.
“Sadly, this is not the first, nor will it be the last time that we hear disgusting, bigoted language from the president. We know this is who he is,” she said.
Trump started tweeting about the four again shortly after their press conference was scheduled to start.
“IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE!” he wrote in the first of three tweets, which were posted before the four took to the podium.
Trump first went after the quartet over the weekend, tweeting that they should “go back” to the countries they “originally came from” — even though three of them are from the United States — and has repeatedly doubled down since.
Trump steps up attacks on Democratic congresswomen: “They hate our country”
BY KATHRYN WATSON
/ CBS NEWS
A White House event quickly spiraled into chaos on Monday as President Trump launched into a defiant defense of his earlier racist tweets suggesting Democratic congresswomen of color should “go back” to their countries.
As reporters shouted questions at an event that was ostensibly meant to showcase American-made products, Mr. Trump soon allowed the focus to turn to his explosive comments, at one point saying he is unconcerned by white nationalists championing his words.
A reporter asked, “Does it concern you that many people saw that tweet as racist and that white nationalist groups are finding common cause with you on that point?”
The president responded, “It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me. And all I’m saying, they want to leave, they can leave.”
On Sunday, the president sparked a firestorm with a series of tweets seemingly targeting freshmen Democratic Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley and Ilhan Omar that were immediately and widely condemned as racist. He wrote that the representatives — three of whom were born in the U.S., and all American citizens — should “go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came.”
At Monday’s event, the president repeatedly insisted that people who don’t love America should leave, as reporters — positioned far from the president during the event — continued to lob questions.
“If you’re not happy in the U.S., if you’re complaining all the time, very simply, you can leave. You can leave right now. Come back if you want, don’t come back, it’s OK too. But if you’re not happy, you can leave,” he said. The audience applauded many of the president’s remarks.
When a reporter pointed out that many of the congresswomen the president appears to be criticizing were born in America and all are citizens, Mr. Trump responded that, “All they do is complain.”
Mr. Trump’s tweets on Sunday prompted intense criticism from Democrats but very little criticism from Republicans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House will vote on a resolution to condemn the president’s statement about her colleagues.
But Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning that the people he offended should apologize to him, not the other way around.
“When will the Radical Left Congresswomen apologize to our Country, the people of Israel and even to the Office of the President, for the foul language they have used, and the terrible things they have said. So many people are angry at them & their horrible & disgusting actions!” Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning.
The president’s remarks at the event come the same morning his administration has announced it’s moving to end asylum protections for migrants coming from Central American countries, a step that’s all but certain to face challenges in the courts. The American Civil Liberties Union has already announced its intention to sue.
During Monday’s “Made in America” event, the president insisted the U.S. has to defend its borders, and will do so and build a wall, despite any legal challenges.
“The philosophy of my administration is simple if we can build it grow it or make it in the United States, we will,” the president said.
The executive order the president signed towards the end of the event, increasing requirements for the government’s purchase of products made in the U.S., was overshadowed.
Trump digs in on racist tweets: ‘Many people agree with me’
By ZEKE MILLER, JILL COLVIN, and JONATHAN LEMIRE11 minutes ago
1 of 10
President Donald Trump speaks during a Made in America showcase event on the South Lawn of the White House, Monday, July 15, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Defiant in the face of widespread criticism, President Donald Trump renewed his belligerent call on Monday for four Democratic congresswomen of color to get out of the U.S. “right now,” cementing his position as the most willing U.S. leader in generations to stoke the discord that helped send him to the White House.
Content to gamble that a sizeable chunk of the electorate embraces his tweets that have been widely denounced as racist, the president made clear that he has no qualms about exploiting racial divisions once again.
“It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me,” Trump said at the White House. “A lot of people love it, by the way.”
The episode served notice that Trump is willing to again rely on incendiary rhetoric on issues of race and immigration to preserve his political base in the leadup to the 2020 election.
There was near unanimous condemnation from Democrats for Trump’s comments and a rumble of discontent from a subset of Republicans — but notably not from the party’s congressional leaders.
Republican Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah, the GOP White House nominee in 2012 and now one of the president’s most vocal GOP critics, said Trump’s comments were “destructive, demeaning, and disunifying.”
Far from backing down, Trump on Monday dug in on comments he had initially made a day earlier on Twitter that if lawmakers “hate our country,” they can go back to their “broken and crime-infested” countries. His remarks were directed at four congresswomen: Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Rashida Tlaib of Michigan. All are American citizens and three of the four were born in the U.S.
“If you’re not happy in the U.S., if you’re complaining all the time, you can leave, you can leave right now,” he said.
The president’s words, which evoked the trope of telling black people to go back to Africa, may have been partly meant to widen the divides within the House Democratic caucus, which has been riven by internal debate over how best to oppose his policies. And while Trump’s attacks brought Democrats together in defense of their colleagues, his allies noted he was also having some success in making the controversial progressive lawmakers the face of their party.
The president questioned whether Democrats should “want to wrap” themselves around this group of four people as he recited a list of the quartet’s most controversial statements.
The four themselves fired back late Monday, condemning what they called “xenophobic bigoted remarks” from the president and renewing calls for their party to begin impeachment proceedings.
Trump “does not know how to defend his policies and so what he does is attack us personally,” said Ocasio-Cortez.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said Trump’s campaign slogan truly means he wants to “make America white again,” announced Monday that the House would vote on a resolution condemning his new comments. The Senate’s top Democrat, Chuck Schumer of New York, said his party would also try to force a vote in the GOP-controlled chamber.
Trump, who won the presidency in 2016 in part by energizing disaffected voters with inflammatory racial rhetoric, made clear he has no intention of backing away from that strategy in 2020.
“The Dems were trying to distance themselves from the four ‘progressives,’ but now they are forced to embrace them,” he tweeted Monday afternoon. “That means they are endorsing Socialism, hate of Israel and the USA! Not good for the Democrats!”
Trump has faced few consequences for such attacks in the past. They typically earn him cycles of wall-to-wall media attention. He is wagering that his most steadfast supporters will be energized by the controversy as much, or if not more so, than the opposition.
“It’s possible I’m wrong,” Trump allowed Monday. “The voters will decide.”
The president has told aides that he was giving voice what many of his supporters believe — that they are tired of people, including immigrants, disrespecting their country, according to three Republicans close to the White House who were not authorized to speak publicly about private conversations.
Trump on Monday singled out Omar, in particular, accusing her of having “hatred” for Israel, and expressing “love” for “enemies like al-Qaida.”
“These are people that, in my opinion, hate our country,” he said.
Omar, in an interview, once laughed about how a college professor had spoken of al-Qaida with an intensity she said was not used to describe “America,” ″England” or “The Army.”
She addressed herself directly to Trump in a tweet, writing: “You are stoking white nationalism (because) you are angry that people like us are serving in Congress and fighting against your hate-filled agenda.”
Republicans, for their part, largely trod carefully with their responses.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close ally of the president who golfed with him over the weekend, advised him to “aim higher” during an appearance on “Fox and Friends,” even as he accused the four Democrats of being “anti-Semitic” and “anti-American.”
Marc Short, chief of staff to Vice President Mike Pence, said “I don’t think that the president’s intent in any way is racist,” pointing to Trump’s decision to choose Elaine Chao, who was born outside the country, as his transportation secretary.
Chao is one of the few minorities among the largely white and male aides in high-profile roles in Trump’s administration. She is the wife of Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who declined comment on Trump’s attacks on Monday.
The latest provocation came just two days after Trump inserted himself further into a rift between Pelosi and Ocasio-Cortez, offering an unsolicited defense of the Democratic speaker. Pelosi has been seeking to minimize Ocasio-Cortez’s influence in the House Democratic caucus in recent days, prompting the freshman lawmaker to accuse Pelosi of trying to marginalize women of color.
Trump told advisers later that he was pleased with his meddling, believing that dividing Democrats would be helpful to him, as would elevating any self-proclaimed socialists as a way to frighten voters to steer clear of their liberal politics, the Republicans said.
Among the few GOP lawmakers commenting on Monday, Rep. Pete Olson of Texas said Trump’s tweets were “not reflective of the values of the 1,000,000+ people” in his district. “We are proud to be the most diverse Congressional district in America. I urge our President immediately disavow his comments,” he wrote.
Several other Republicans went out of their way to say they were not condoning the views of the Democrats, while encouraging Trump to retract his comments.
Maine Sen. Susan Collins, who is up for re-election next year, said Trump’s tweet was “way over the line and he should take that down.”
Sen. Patrick Toomey of Pennsylvania said of the Democrats: “We should defeat their ideas on the merits, not on the basis of their ancestry.”
In an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll from February 2017, half of Americans said the mixing of culture and values from around the world is an important part of America’s identity as a nation. Fewer — about a third — said the same of a culture established by early European immigrants.
But partisans in that poll were divided over these aspects of America’s identity. About two-thirds of Democrats but only about a third of Republicans thought the mixing of world cultures was important to the country’s identity. By comparison, nearly half of Republicans but just about a quarter of Democrats saw the culture of early European immigrants as important to the nation.
___
AP writer Hannah Fingerhut contributed from Washington.
US President Donald Trump stepped up his attack on four Democratic lawmakers, saying if they are not happy in the United States, “they can leave”
More
US President Donald Trump came under fire from Democrats and even some members of his own Republican Party on Monday after launching an extraordinary xenophobic attack on four progressive Democratic congresswomen.
“All they do is complain,” Trump told reporters at a White House event featuring products “Made in America.”
“These are people that hate our country,” he said of the four Democratic lawmakers. “If you’re not happy here, you can leave.”
Trump also accused the four first-term Democratic congresswomen — who are of Hispanic, Arab, Somali and African-American origin — of having “love” for US “enemies like Al-Qaeda.”
Asked by a reporter whether he was concerned that many people saw his comments as racist, Trump said: “It doesn’t concern me because many people agree with me.”
Several hours after his remarks, the four — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, who is of Puerto Rico origin, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who is of Somali origin, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to Congress, and Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, who is African-American — hit back at a news conference.
Pressley condemned Trump’s “xenophobic and bigoted” comments and said “we will not be silenced.”
Omar said Trump made a “blatantly racist attack” on four lawmakers “of color.” “This is the agenda of white nationalists,” she said.
Omar and Tlaib repeated calls for Trump to be impeached.
– ‘Destructive’ –
The president first attacked the lawmakers with a series of tweets on Sunday, saying they should “go back” to their countries of origin if they didn’t like the United States.
His comments prompted outrage from Democrats — and, initially, silence from Republicans.
On Monday, several of his party faithful began to speak up.
“My view is that what was said and what was tweeted was destructive, was demeaning, was disunifying, and frankly it was very wrong,” said Senator Mitt Romney, a Republican from Utah.
“There is no excuse for the president’s spiteful comments -– they were absolutely unacceptable and this needs to stop,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska. “We must demand a higher standard of decorum and decency.”
Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine said she disagreed with the policies espoused by the “far-left” Democratic lawmakers but Trump was “way over the line.”
For Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, “the citizenship of all four is as valid as mine.” “They are entitled to their opinions, however misguided they may be,” he said.
Texan Will Hurd, the only black Republican in the House of Representatives, told CNN that Trump’s behavior was “unbecoming of the leader of the free world.”
And Senator Tim Scott, a black Republican from South Carolina, criticized the president for using “unacceptable personal attacks and racially offensive language.”
– ‘Cold, hard strategy’ –
Trump’s comments appear to be aimed at galvanizing his mostly white electoral base ahead of the 2020 presidential vote — while also stoking racial tensions and divisions among his political opponents.
“With his deliberate, racist outburst, @realDonaldTrump wants to raise the profile of his targets, drive Dems to defend them and make them emblematic of the entire party,” said David Axelrod, who served as chief strategist for Barack Obama’s two White House campaigns.
“It’s a cold, hard strategy,” Axelrod said on Twitter. “Fasten your seatbelts, it will only get worse as the election approaches.”
“The voters will decide,” Trump told reporters.
“If (the Democrats) want to gear their wagons around these four people, I think they’re going to have a very tough election, because I don’t think the people of the United States will stand for it.”
In his initial Twitter attack on Sunday, Trump — who before becoming president pushed the racist “birther” conspiracy theory that Obama was not born on US soil — said the congresswomen came from corrupt, poorly managed countries to which they should return.
Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Pressley were all born in the United States while Omar arrived from war-torn Somalia when she was a child.
Former vice president Joe Biden, who is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, denounced Trump as the most “openly racist and divisive” president in US history.
The eldest of 14 children, Rashida Tlaib (née Harbi) was born on July 24, 1976, to working-class Palestinian immigrants in Detroit. Her mother was born in Beit Ur El Foka, near the West Bank city of Ramallah. Her father was born in Beit Hanina, a neighborhood in East Jerusalem. He moved first to Nicaragua, then to Detroit. He worked on an assembly line in a Ford Motor Company plant. As the eldest, Tlaib played a role in raising her siblings while her parents worked, but the family sometimes had to rely on welfare for support.[10]
Tlaib began her political career in 2004 when she interned with State Representative Steve Tobocman. When Tobocman became Majority Floor Leader in 2007, he hired Tlaib to his staff.[12][13]
Michigan House of Representatives
In 2008 Tobocman encouraged Tlaib to run for his seat, which he was vacating due to term limits. The urban district is 40% Hispanic, 25% African-American, 30% non-Hispanic white, and 2% Arab American. Tlaib faced a crowded primary that included several Latinos, including former State Representative Belda Garza. She emerged victorious, carrying 44% of the vote in the eight-way Democratic primary and winning the general election with over 90% of the vote.[14]
In 2010 Tlaib faced a primary election challenge from Jim Czachorowski in his first bid for office.[15] Tlaib picked up 85% of the vote to Czachorowski’s 15%, and won the general election with 92% of the vote against Republican challenger Darrin Daigle.
In 2012 Tlaib won reelection again to the Michigan House in the newly redrawn 6th District against fellow incumbent Maureen Stapleton. She could not run for the Michigan House a fourth time in 2014 because of term limits and ran for the Michigan Senate, losing to incumbent Senator Virgil Smith Jr. in the Democratic primary in August 2014.
During her tenure as a legislator, Tlaib was one of ten Muslims serving in state legislatures across the United States. She is the second Muslim to serve in the Michigan State House of Representatives, after James Karoub. Tlaib is the second Muslim woman to serve in a state legislature nationwide, after Jamilah Nasheed of Missouri.[16] She and Justin Amash, a Republican who was also elected in 2008, were the first two Palestinian-American members of the Michigan legislature.
After leaving the state legislature, Tlaib worked at Sugar Law Center, a Detroit nonprofit that provides free legal representation for workers.[17]
U.S. House of Representatives
Rashida Tlaib at her campaign headquarters in 2018
In 2018 Tlaib announced her intention to run for John Conyers‘s seat in Congress. She filed in both the Democratic primary in the special election for the balance of Conyers’s 27th term, and in the general election for a full two-year term. Both elections were to be held the same day. No Republican qualified for either primary, but the 13th is so heavily Democratic that any Republican would have faced nearly impossible odds. With a Cook Partisan Voting Indexof D+33, the 13th is the most Democratic district in Michigan and tied for the 20th-most Democratic district in the nation. Conyers held the seat without serious difficulty from 1965 until his resignation in 2017 (it was numbered as the 1st from 1965 to 1993 and as the 14th from 1993 to 2013), and never won with less than 77 percent of the vote.
As of July 16, 2018, Tlaib had raised $893,030 in funds, more than her five opponents in the August 7 Democratic primary.[18]
In the Democratic primary for the special election, Tlaib finished second to Detroit City Council president Brenda Jones, who received 32,727 votes (37.7% of the total) to Tlaib’s 31,084 (35.9%). Bill Wild, mayor of Westland, received 13,152 votes (15.2%) and Ian Conyers, the great-nephew of former Congressman Conyers, took fourth with 9,740 (11.2%).[19] Jones faced no major-party opposition in the special election.
In the Democratic primary for the general election, Tlaib defeated Jones and Wild, among others.[20] She received 27,803 votes, or 31.2%. She faced no major-party opposition in November 2018, though Jones mounted an eleventh-hour independent bid.
Tlaib became the first Palestinian-American woman in Congress and simultaneously one of the first two Muslim women in Congress, along with fellow Democrat Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.[5] She took the congressional oath of office on January 3, 2019, swearing in on an English-language translation of the Quran.[21][22] She wore a thawb (thobe), a traditional embroidered Palestinian dress, to the swearing-in ceremony. This inspired a number of Palestinian and Palestinian-American women to share pictures on social media with the hashtag #TweetYourThobe.[23]
Tlaib has said she opposed providing aid to a “Netanyahu Israel” and supported the Palestinian right of return and a one-state solution.[24][25][26][27] Tlaib is one of the few members of Congress who openly support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. In January 2019, she criticized anti-BDS legislation proposed by Senators Marco Rubio and Jim Risch. Tlaib argued that boycotting is a right and said that Rubio and Risch “forgot what country they represent”. Tlaib’s comments were criticized by several Jewish groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, which said, “Though the legislation discussed is sponsored by four non-Jewish Senators, any charge of dual loyalty has special sensitivity and resonance for Jews, particularly in an environment of rising anti-Semitism.”[28][29][30][31][32] In response Tlaib said that her comments were directed at Rubio and Risch.[33]
Tlaib supports efforts to impeach President Trump. In August 2016 she protested a speech Trump gave at Cobo Center and was ejected from the venue.[36] On her first day in Congress, January 3, 2019, she called for the impeachment of Trump in an op-ed article co-authored with John Bonifaz for the Detroit Free Press.[37] In the op-ed Tlaib differs from top Democratic leaders on how to move forward with impeachment: “Those who say we must wait for Special CounselMueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction [referring to Congressional powers of impeachment].”[37]
Later that day Tlaib attended a reception for the MoveOn campaign and spoke on stage. She ended the speech recounting a conversation she had with her son, him saying: “Look, mama, you won. Bullies don’t win.” Tlaib replied to him, she recounted, “Baby, they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and impeach the motherfucker.”[38] The next day at a White House press conference, Trump said, “Well, you can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job…I think she dishonored herself and I think she dishonored her family. I thought it was highly disrespectful to the United States of America.”[39][40]
In a radio interview with Mehdi Hasan of The Intercept, Tlaib reiterated her frequent call for Trump’s impeachment, saying, “Look, it’s not a waste of time to hold the president of the United States accountable … We need to understand our duties as members of Congress and I believe looking at even Nixon’s impeachment, or his—literally, his resignation, it was Republicans and Democrats coming together and putting country first, coming together and putting our values first. You’re seeing it now more and more. Even now, they’re standing up to Steve King.”[41]
Domestic policy: She supports domestic reforms, including “Medicare For All” (single-payer healthcare) and a $15 hourly minimum wage.[44]
Immigration: Tlaib was an early supporter of the movement to abolish the Immigration Customs Enforcement agency.[42] In June 2019 she was one of four Democratic representatives to vote against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, a $4.5 billion border funding bill that required Customs and Border Protection enact health standards for individuals in custody such as forming standards for individuals for “medical emergencies; nutrition, hygiene, and facilities; and personnel training.”[45][46]
Personal life
In 1998, at the age of 22, Tlaib married Fayez Tlaib. They have two sons, Adam and Yousif. The couple have since divorced. In 2018 a campaign spokesperson called Tlaib a single mother.[47]
In September 2018 The New York Times reported that Tlaib walked into her family’s mosque to express her gratitude for the opportunity to run for Congress by saying “Today I was being thankful, embracing how incredibly blessed I am to grow up here, to have this tremendous opportunity…Sometimes I say ‘Thank her’ because my Allah is She.”[48] The Detroit Free Press reported that, although she recognizes that some in her faith community consider her not “Muslim enough”,[49] she believes that “Allah [. . .] understands”[49] and “knows that I am [. . .] giving back and doing things that I think are reflective of Islam”.[49]
Electoral history
2008 campaign for State House
Rashida Tlaib (D), 90%
Darrin Daigle (R), 10%
2008 campaign for State House, Democratic Primary
Rashida Tlaib (D), 44%
Carl Ramsey (D), 26%
Belda Garza (D), 9%
Daniel Solano (D), 7%
Lisa Randon (D), 7%
Denise Hearn (D), 5%
Rochelle Smith (D), 1%
Nellie Saenz (D), 1%
2010 campaign for State House, Democratic Primary
Rashida Tlaib (D), 85%
Jim Czachorowski (D), 15%
2010 campaign for State House
Rashida Tlaib (D), 92%
Darrin Daigle (R), 8%
2014 campaign for State Senate, Democratic Primary
Omar was born in Mogadishu on October 4, 1982,[5][6] and spent her early years in Baidoa, Somalia.[7][8] She was the youngest of seven siblings, including Sahra Noor. Her father Nur Omar Mohamed, an ethnic Somali, worked as a teacher trainer,[9] and her mother, Fadhuma Abukar Haji Hussein, a Benadiri (a community of partial Yemeni descent), died when Ilhan was two.[10][11][12][13] She was raised by her father and grandfather thereafter.[14] Her grandfather Abukar was the director of Somalia’s National Marine Transport and some of Omar’s uncles and aunts also worked as civil servants and educators.[9] She and her family fled Somalia to escape the war and spent four years in a Dadaabrefugee camp in Garissa County, Kenya, near the Somali border.[15][16][17]
After first arriving in New York in 1992,[18] Omar’s family finally secured asylum in the U.S. in 1995 and lived for a time in Arlington, Virginia,[12] before moving to and settling in Minneapolis,[12] where her father worked first as a taxi driver and later for the post office.[12] Her father and grandfather emphasized the importance of democracy during her upbringing, and at age 14 she accompanied her grandfather to caucus meetings, serving as his interpreter.[14][19] Omar became a U.S. citizen in 2000 when she was 17 years old.[20][12] She has spoken about being bullied for wearing a hijab during her time in Virginia, recalling classmates sticking gum on it, pushing her down stairs, and jumping her when changing for gym class.[12] Omar remembers her father’s reaction to these incidents: “They are doing something to you because they feel threatened in some way by your existence.”[12]
In 2013, Omar managed Andrew Johnson‘s campaign for Minneapolis City Council. After Johnson was elected, she served as his Senior Policy Aide from 2013 to 2015.[23] During a contentious precinct caucus that turned violent in February 2014, she was attacked by five people and was injured.[9] According to MinnPost, the day before the caucus, Minneapolis city councilmember Abdi Warsame had told Johnson to warn Omar not to attend the meeting.[25]
As of September 2015 Omar was the Director of Policy Initiatives of the Women Organizing Women Network, advocating for women from East Africa to take on civic and political leadership roles.[23] In September 2018, Jeff Cirillo of Roll Call called her a “progressive rising star.”[26]
Minnesota House of Representatives
Elections
Omar, then a candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives, speaks at a Hillary for Minnesota event at the University of Minnesota in October 2016
In 2016 Omar ran on the Democratic–Farmer–Labor (DFL) ticket for the Minnesota House of Representatives in District 60B, which includes part of northeast Minneapolis. On August 9 Omar defeated Mohamud Noor and incumbent Phyllis Kahn in the DFL primary.[27] Her chief opponent in the general election was Republican nominee Abdimalik Askar, another activist in the Somali American community. In late August, Askar announced his withdrawal from the campaign.[28] In November 2016 Omar won the general election, becoming the first Somali American legislator in the United States.[29] Her term began on January 3, 2017.[30]
Tenure and activity
During her tenure as state Representative for District 60B, Omar was an Assistant Minority Leader for the DFL caucus.[31][32] She authored or co-authored at least 266 bills during the 2017–2018 legislative session.[33][non-primary source needed]
Committee assignments
Civil Law & Data Practices Policy
Higher Education & Career Readiness Policy & Finance
In 2018 Republican state representative Steve Drazkowski publicly accused Omar of campaign finance violations,[6] claiming that she used campaign funds to pay a divorce lawyer, and that her acceptance of speaking fees from public colleges violated Minnesota House rules. Omar responded that the attorney’s fees were not personal but campaign-related; she offered to return the speaking fees.[35][36] Drazkowski later accused Omar of improperly using campaign funds for personal travel to Estonia and locations in the U.S.[6][37][20]
Omar’s campaign dismissed the accusations as politically motivated and accused Drazkowski of using public funds to harass a Muslim candidate.[20][38] In response to an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune arguing that Omar should be more transparent about her use of campaign funds, she said: “these people are part of systems that have historically been disturbingly motivated to silence, discredit and dehumanize influencers who threaten the establishment.”[20]
In June 2019, Minnesota campaign finance officials ruled that Omar had to pay back $3,500 that she had spent on out-of-state travel and tax filing in violation of state law. She was also ordered to pay a $500 fine.[39]
On June 5, 2018, Omar filed to run for the United States House of Representatives from Minnesota’s 5th congressional district after six-term incumbent Keith Ellison announced he would not seek reelection to that office.[40] On June 17 she was endorsed by the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party after two rounds of voting.[41] Omar won the August 14 primary with 48.2% of the vote.[42] The 5th district is the most Democratic district in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, (it has a Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+26) and the DFL has held it without interruption since 1963. She faced health care worker and conservative activist Jennifer Zielinski in the November 6 general election[43] and won with 78.0% of the vote, becoming the first Somali American elected to the U.S. Congress, the first woman of color to serve as a U.S. Representative from Minnesota,[3] and (alongside former Michigan state representative Rashida Tlaib) one of the first Muslim women elected to the Congress.[44][45][46]
Omar received the largest percentage of the vote of any female candidate for U.S. House in state history,[47] as well as the largest percentage of the vote for a non-incumbent candidate for U.S. House (excluding those running against only non-major-party candidates) in state history.[47] She was sworn in on a copy of the Quran owned by her grandfather.[48][49]
After her election, the ban on head coverings in the U.S. House was modified, and Omar became the first woman to wear a hijab on the House floor.[12]
Omar is a member of the informal group known as “The Squad“, whose members form a unified front to push for progressive changes such as the Green New Deal and Medicare-for-all. The other members of “The Squad” are Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) [50].
Omar speaking at worker protest against Amazon, December 2018
Education
Omar supports broader access to student loan forgiveness programs as well as free tuition for college students whose family income is below $125,000.[57] Omar supports Bernie Sanders‘s plan to eliminate all $1.6 trillion in outstanding student debt, funded by an 0.5% tax on stock transactions and an 0.1% tax on bond transactions.[58] She will introduce a companion bill in the House of Representatives.[59] In June 2019 Omar and Senator Tina Smith(D-MN) introduced the bill No Shame at School to end marking of and punishments for students with school meal debts.[60]
Omar has said she is in favor of the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.[62] She supports prosecuting federal officials who have been accused of physical and sexual assault of people in their detention.[63] She supports the protection of sanctuary cities and a path to permanent status for DREAMers and their families.[62] She opposes efforts to seal the border, calling Donald Trump‘s border wall plan “racist and sinful.”[64] In March 2019 Politico reported that Omar criticized Barack Obama‘s “caging of kids” along the Mexican border.[65][66] Omar accused Politico of distorting her comments and said that she had been “saying how [President] Trump is different from Obama, and why we should focus on policy not politics,” adding, “One is human, the other is really not.”[67]
In June 2019 Omar was one of four Democratic representatives to vote against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, a $4.5 billion border funding bill that required Customs and Border Protection to enact health standards for individuals in custody such as standards for “medical emergencies; nutrition, hygiene, and facilities; and personnel training.” “Throwing more money at the very organizations committing human rights abuses—and the very Administration directing these human rights abuses—is not a solution. This is a humanitarian crisis … inflicted by our own leadership,” she said.[68][69]
Military policy
Omar has been critical of U.S. foreign policy, and has called for reduced funding for “perpetual war and military aggression,”[70] saying, “knowing my tax dollars pay for bombs killing children in Yemen makes my heart break,” with “everyone in Washington saying we don’t have enough money in the budget for universal health care, we don’t have enough money in the budget to guarantee college education for everyone.”[70] She has also said, “By principle, I’m anti-war because I survived a war. I’m also anti-intervention. I don’t think it ever makes sense for any country to intervene in a war zone with the fallacy of saving lives when we know they are going to cause more deaths. I also don’t believe in forced regime change. Change needs to come from within.”[71] Omar has criticized the U.S. government’s drone assassination program, citing the Obama administration’s policy of “droning of countries around the world.”[65][66] She has said, “we don’t need nearly 800 military bases outside the United States to keep our country safe.”[72]
In 2019 Omar signed a letter led by Representative Ro Khanna and Senator Rand Paul to President Trump asserting that it is “long past time to rein in the use of force that goes beyond congressional authorization” and that they hoped this would “serve as a model for ending hostilities in the future—in particular, as you and your administration seek a political solution to our involvement in Afghanistan.”[73][74]
Human rights
Omar has criticized Saudi Arabia‘s human rights abuses and the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[75][76] In October 2018 she tweeted: “The Saudi government might have been strategic at covering up the daily atrocities carried out against minorities, women, activists and even the #YemenGenocide, but the murder of #JamalKhashoggi should be the last evil act they are allowed to commit.”[76] She also called for a boycott of Saudi Arabia’s regime, tweeting: “#BDSSaudi.”[77] The Saudi Arabian government responded by having dozens of anonymous Twitter troll accounts it controlled post tweets critical of Omar.[75]
Omar condemned China‘s treatment of its Muslim ethnic Uyghur people.[78] In a Washington Post op-ed, Omar wrote, “Our criticisms of oppression and regional instability caused by Iran are not legitimate if we do not hold Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to the same standards. And we cannot continue to turn a blind eye to repression in Saudi Arabia—a country that is consistently ranked among the worst of the worst human rights offenders.”[72] She also condemned the Assad regime in Syria.[79]
Omar condemned the 2019 Sri Lanka Easter bombings, tweeting, “No person, of any faith, should be fearful in their house of worship.”[80]
Israeli–Palestinian conflict
Criticism of the Israeli government
While she was in the Minnesota legislature, Omar was critical of the Israeli government and opposed a law intended to restrict the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.[81] She compared the movement to people who “engage[d] in boycotts” of apartheid in South Africa.[77] During her House campaign she said she did not support the BDS movement, describing it as counterproductive to peace.[82][83] After the election her position changed, as her campaign office told Muslim Girl that she supports the BDS movement despite “reservations on the effectiveness of the movement in accomplishing a lasting solution.”[84][85][82] Omar has voiced support for a two-state solution to resolve the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[77][72] She criticized Israel’s settlement building in the occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank.[86]
In 2018 Omar came under criticism for statements she made about Israel before she was in the Minnesota legislature.[81][83] In a 2012 tweet she wrote, “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”[81][87] The comment, particularly the notion that Israel had “hypnotized the world,” was criticized as drawing on anti-Semitic tropes.[81]The New York Times columnist Bari Weiss wrote that Omar’s statement tied into a millennia-old “conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator.”[88] When asked in an interview how she would respond to American Jews who found the remark offensive, Omar replied, “I don’t know how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans. My comments precisely are addressing what was happening during the Gaza War and I’m clearly speaking about the way the Israeli regime was conducting itself in that war.”[87] After reading Weiss’s commentary, Omar apologized for not “disavowing the anti-Semitic trope I unknowingly used.”[89]
Remarks on AIPAC and American support for Israel
In an exchange with the journalist Glenn Greenwald in February 2019, Omar tweeted, “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” in reference to American politicians’ support for Israel and invoked the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). A number of Democratic leaders—including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn—condemned the tweet, which was interpreted as implying that money was fueling American politicians’ support of Israel.[90] The Democratic House leadership released a statement accusing Omar of “engaging in ‘deeply offensive’ anti-Semitic tropes.”[91] The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) also denounced her statements.[92] Omar issued an apology the next day, saying, “I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes,” and adding, “I reaffirm the problematic role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be AIPAC, the NRA or the fossil fuel industry.”[91]
On February 27, 2019, Omar spoke at a bookstore and said of her critics: “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” The statements were quickly criticized as allegedly drawing on anti-Semitic tropes of dual loyalty. House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Eliot Engel said it was “deeply offensive to call into question the loyalty of fellow American citizens” and asked Omar to retract her statement.[93] House Appropriations Committee chairwoman Nita Lowey also called for an apology and criticized the statements in a March 3 tweet, which led to an online exchange between the two. In response, Omar reaffirmed her remarks, insisting that she “should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress or serve on committee.”[94][95] Omar said she was simply criticizing Israel, drawing a distinction between criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu and being anti-Semitic.[96][97] Omar’s spokesman, Jeremy Slevin, said Omar was speaking out about “the undue influence of lobbying groups for foreign interests.”[98]
Reaction among Democratic presidential candidates was mixed. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders defended Omar.[99] Senators Cory Booker and Kirsten Gillibrand and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio regarded her statements as disturbing.[100][101] According to The Guardian, election records archived by OpenSecrets “suggest a correlation between pro-Israel lobby campaign contributions and Democratic presidential candidates’ position on the controversy.”[102] Some members of the Black Caucus believed Omar was unfairly targeted because she is a black Muslim, noting that “the Democratic leadership did not draft a resolution condemning Donald Trump or other white male Republicans over their antisemitic remarks.”[102] The second round of remarks prompted the Democratic leadership to introduce a resolution condemning antisemitism but without naming Omar. Following objections from a number of congressional progressive Democrats, the resolution was amended to include Islamophobia, racism, and homophobia,[103] and on March 7 the House passed the amended resolution. Omar called the resolution “historic on many fronts,” and said, “We are tremendously proud to be part of a body that has put forth a condemnation of all forms of bigotry including anti-Semitism, racism, and white supremacy.”[104] Some Minnesota Jewish and Muslim community leaders subsequently expressed continued concern over Omar’s rhetoric and language and indicated that the issue remained divisive with Omar’s district.[105]
On May 20, 2019, protesters gathered in Times Square in New York City to call for Omar’s removal from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “In my lifetime, I cannot think of any other politician who presents a bigger threat to the alliance between the US and Israel and to America’s Jews,” “Ilhan Must Go” founder and rally organizer Joe Diamond told The Jerusalem Post ahead of the protest.[106] Across the street, a smaller group of counter-protesters organized by progressive Jewish organization IfNotNow supported Omar; “I’m just sick and tired of seeing this one part of the Jewish community try to silence those who criticize Israel,” one said.[107]
In March 2019 Omar addressed a rally in support of a Minnesota bill that would ban gay conversion therapy in the state. She co-sponsored a similar bill when she was a member of the Minnesota House.[109] In May 2019 Omar introduced legislation that would sanction Brunei over a recently introduced law that would make homosexual sex and adultery punishable by death.[110]
In January 2019, amid the 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis, Omar joined Democrats Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard in denouncing the Trump administration’s decision to recognize Juan Guaidó, the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, as Venezuela’s interim president.[112] She described Trump’s action as a “U.S. backed coup” to “install a far right opposition”. Omar added that the U.S. should not “hand pick” foreign leaders[113] and should support “Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican’s efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.”[112]
In February 2019 Omar questioned whether Elliott Abrams, whom Trump appointed as Special Representative for Venezuela in January 2019, was the correct choice given his past support of right-wing authoritarian regimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, his initial doubts about the number of reported deaths in the El Mozote massacre in 1982, and his two 1991 misdemeanor convictions for withholding information from Congress about the Iran–Contra affair, for which he was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.[114][115]
On March 1, 2019, the West Virginia Republican Party held “WV GOP Day,” an event to celebrate the Republican Party, at the West Virginia Capitol. An exhibitor, not associated with the GOP, displayed a poster at the event falsely connecting Omar to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, along with Islamophobic flyers. State delegate Mike Pushkin, in attendance at the event, said that no Republican delegates condemned the poster. The poster was condemned the following day by the WV GOP party, which said, “The West Virginia Republican Party does not approve, condone, or support hate speech.” Omar pointed to the poster as an example of why she is targeted with violence, also citing white nationalist domestic terrorist Christopher Hasson placing her on his hit list and “Assassinate Ilhan Omar” being written in a Minnesota gas station.[120][121][122][123][124][120]
Jeanine Pirro’s hijab comments
On March 9, 2019, Fox News host Jeanine Pirro made what were widely condemned as prejudiced[125] and Islamophobic comments on her show when she questioned Omar’s loyalty to the United States because she wears a hijab.[126][127][128] Fox also condemned the remarks and Pirro’s show was not aired the following week.[127][129][130]
On April 7, 2019, Patrick Carlineo Jr., an ardent supporter of President Trump, was arrested for threatening to assault and violently murder Omar. The threats were made in a phone call to Omar’s office.[132][133] In May 2019 Carlineo was released from custody and placed on house arrest.[134]
9/11 comments and World Trade Center cover
On April 11, 2019, the front page of The New York Post carried an image of the World Trade Center burning following the September 11 terrorist attacks and a quotation from a speech Omar gave the previous month. The headline read, “REP. ILHAN OMAR: 9/11 WAS ‘SOME PEOPLE DID SOMETHING'”, and a caption underneath added, “Here’s your something … 2,977 people dead by terrorism.”[135] The Post was quoting a speech Omar had given at a recent Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) meeting. In the speech Omar said, “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us [Muslims in the U.S.] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”[136][137][138][139] (In fact CAIR was founded in 1994, but many new members joined after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.)[139][140]
On April 12, President Donald Trump retweeted an altered video that selectively edited Omar’s remarks to remove context, showing her saying, “Some people did something.”[141][142][143] Her remarks were first criticized by fellow representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas.[144] Some Democratic representatives condemned Trump’s retweet, predicting that it would incite violence and hatred. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Trump to “take down his disrespectful and dangerous video” and asked the U.S. Capitol Police to increase its protection of Omar.[145][140]
On April 30, 100 black women activists held a demonstration in support of Omar in Washington in response to Trump’s comments, urging Democratic leaders to formally censure the president.[146] Speaking at the event, Omar blamed Trump and his allies for inciting Americans against both Jews and Muslims.[147]
Awards and honors
In 2014 Omar was named a rising star in the Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party’s Women’s Hall of Fame.[148]
She received the 2015 Community Leadership Award from Mshale, an African immigrant media outlet based in Minneapolis. The prize is awarded annually on a readership basis.[149]
In 2017 Time magazine named Omar among its “Firsts: Women who are changing the world,” a special report on 46 women who broke barriers in their respective disciplines, and featured her on the cover of its September 18 issue.[150] Her family was named one of the “five families who are changing the world as we know it” by Vogue in their February 2018 issue featuring photographs by Annie Leibovitz.[151]
In 2002 she became engaged to Ahmed Abdisalan Hirsi (né Aden). The couple applied for a marriage license, but the application was not finalized. They did, however, have a faith-based marriage.[1] The couple had two children together before separating in 2008. The next year Omar married Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a British citizen.[1] In 2011 she and Elmi had a faith-based divorce,[154] and that year she reconciled with Hirsi, with whom she had a third child in 2012. In 2017 Elmi and Omar were legally divorced,[36] and in 2018 Omar and Hirsi were legally married.[20] They and their three children live in Minneapolis.[23] Her daughter, Isra Hirsi, is one of the three principal organizers of the school strike for climate.[155]
Story 2: ANTIFA (Anti-facist) 69-Year Old Man With Rifle Who Threw Incendiary Device at Northwest Detention Center Shot Dead By Tacoma Police — Videos
Tucker: Antifa has the support of the ‘respectable’ left
Man shot and killed after attacking ICE facility
AOC, Ilhan Omar repeatedly REFUSE to condemn Antifa attack on ICE! | Keean Bexte
Man throwing ‘incendiary devices’ fatally shot by police at Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma
ANTIFA DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACK!
Far Left Publishes Praise Of Antifa Terrorist Who Attacked ICE, Possible Motivations Revealed
Man shot and killed in police confrontation outside Tacoma ICE detention facility
Anarchist Who Firebombed A Detention Center is Being Called a Hero
The Firebomber’s Manifesto: Inside the Mind of Willem Van Spronsen
Antifa lauds ‘martyr’ who attacked ICE detention center as manifesto circulates
By Victor Morton– The Washington Times – Monday, July 15, 2019
The rifle-wielding attacker who tried to burn an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center in Washington over the weekend wrote a self-justifying manifesto repeating many standard Democratic talking points about the border crisis and other issues.
In a three-page document posted on Seattle TV station KIRO’s website, Willem Van Spronsen cited popular left-wing historian Howard Zinn, said that “i am antifa,” criticized the Electoral College and accused the U.S. of running “concentration camps” on the border.
Willem Van Spronsen, 69, declares early on in his manifesto that “evil says concentration camps for folks deemed lesser are necessary. the handmaid of evil says the concentration camps should be more humane,” using a term usually reserved for Nazi Germany’s death camps, but introduced in the border-security debate last month by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
He also mocked people criticizing Ms. Ocasio-Cortez for intellectual sloppiness, referring to “these days of highly profitable detention/concentration camps and a battle over the semantics.”
Van Spronsen, armed with an AR-15 assault weapon that his manifesto encouraged others to acquire to bring about a revolution, attacked the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma around 4 a.m. Saturday. He threw “incendiary devices” and set vehicles before officers shot him to death as he was trying to ignite a propane tank.
In his manifesto, he called the detention facility “an abomination” and that he was “not standing by” as it operated.
“i really shouldn’t have to say any more than this. i set aside my broken heart and i heal the only way i know how- by being useful. i efficiently compartmentalize my pain… and i joyfully go about this work,” he wrote.
He indicated that he intended the attack as a suicide mission, writing that “i regret that i will miss the rest of the revolution. thank you for the honor of having me in your midst. giving me space to be useful.”
Antifa activists declared him useful, too.
Seattle Antifascist Action called him“our good friend and comrade Willem Van Spronsen” and said he “became a martyr who gave his life to the struggle against fascism.”
The group went on to call for more such attacks in memory of Van Spronsen.
“We cannot let his death go unanswered … May his death serve as a call to protest and direct action,” the group wrote on its Facebook page.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez was asked Monday by the Daily Wire whether she would denounce antifa and whether she was to any degree responsible for the attack, since Van Spronsen repeatedly used her “concentration camp” language.
She ignored the reporter.
BREAKING: Ocasio-Cortez refuses to condemn the far-left terrorist attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, Washington
PUBLISHED: 12:59 EDT, 13 July 2019 | UPDATED: 08:43 EDT, 14 July 2019
A man armed with a rifle threw incendiary devices at a Washington state immigration jail early Saturday morning, then was found dead after four police officers arrived and opened fire, authorities said.
The Tacoma Police Department said the officers responded at about 4am to the privately run Tacoma Northwest Detention Center, in Tacoma, Washington, a U.S. Department of Homeland Security detention facility that holds migrants pending deportation proceedings.
The detention center has also held immigration-seeking parents separated from their children under President Donald Trump’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy, an effort meant to deter illegal immigration.
Roads leading to Washington’s Tacoma Northwest Detention Center were closed Saturday after police shot at a man carrying a rifle, who also threw incendiary devices at the center
The shooting took place about six hours after a peaceful rally in front of the detention center, police spokesman Loretta Cool said. She said another rally was planned for later Saturday, but it would have to be held in a different area because of the investigation into the police shooting.
Police said the man caused a vehicle to catch fire and that he attempted to ignite a large propane tank and set buildings on fire. Police said that besides the rifle, he had a satchel and flares.
Police said officers called out to the man, and shots were fired.
Cool said all four officers fired their weapons, but she didn’t have specific details of what took place. She said the officers weren’t wearing body cameras, but the area is covered by surveillance cameras from the detention center. She said she didn’t know if the man fired at the officers.
Four police officers were said to have opened fire at the man, who was later found dead. Authorities shut down the streets and the center was then put on a 24-hour lock down
The incident occurred six hours after a peaceful demonstration outside the detention center. A protest sign is pictured here posted at the detention in 2017
The center said baseless accusations about how detainees are treated at its facilities (pictured in 2017) ‘have led to misplaced aggression and a dangerous environment for our employees’
After the gunfire, officers took cover, contained the area and set up medical aid a short distance away, police said.
Officers then located the man and determined he had been shot and was dead at the scene. His name hasn’t been released.
Authorities say investigators are processing the scene and police are continuing to investigate. No law enforcement officers were injured.
The four Tacoma police officers who fired their weapons have been placed on paid administrative leave as is standard in officer-involved shootings.
A motive for the man’s actions hasn’t been determined, Cool said.
The incident occurred just one day prior to ICE’s planned national raids in 10 cities, targeting hundreds of immigrants who were given deportation orders. Nearby Seattle, however, is not one of those cities on the list.
Activist group La Resistencia — also known as NWDC Resistance, after Northwest Detention Center — has postponed its planned Saturday afternoon protest of the facility after reporting road closures and the facility’s 24-hour lock down following the incident.
A scene from the peaceful protest outside the detention center on Friday, just hours before the shooting incident occurred
Protesters are seen here at Friday’s Lights for Liberty protest outside the detention center
La Resistancia activist Maru Mora-Villalpando told the Seattle Times that they were notified about what occurred, but that the detainees inside the facility had no idea about the incident.
‘They were not told that visits would not happen, were not told that the accident happened in the early morning. People in detention always are the last ones to know what’s happening outside,’ Mora-Villalpando told the newspaper.
She added that the organization handled three cases of medical neglect recently, including one that resulted in deportation and then death.
GEO Group, which runs the 1,575-bed Northwest Detention Center, in an email to The Associated Press said baseless accusations about how detainees are treated at its facilities ‘have led to misplaced aggression and a dangerous environment for our employees, whose safety is our top priority. Violence of any kind against our employees and property will not be tolerated. We are thankful for the quick and brave action by the Tacoma Police Department, which prevented innocent lives from being endangered.’
GEO Group said the detention center in Tacoma has modern amenities with air conditioning, recreational activities, a bed for every individual and medical care available at all hours.
Last year, a federal judge ruled that Washington state could pursue its lawsuit seeking to force GEO Group to pay minimum wage for work done by detainees at the detention center.
In November, a Russian asylum-seeker who conducted a hunger strike to protest the conditions at the detention center died by suicide, the Pierce County Medical Examiner’s Office ruled.
Mergensana Amar, 40, was taken off life support after attempting to kill himself while in voluntary protective custody at the detention center on November 15, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement said.
The antifa (/ænˈtiːfə, ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of left-wing autonomous, militantanti-fascist[7] groups in the United States.[11] The principal feature of antifa groups is their use of direct action,[12] with conflicts occurring both online and in real life.[13] They engage in varied protest tactics, which include digital activism, property damage, physical violence, and harassment against those whom they identify as fascist, racist, or on the far-right.[18]
Logo of Antifaschistische Aktion, the militant anti-fascist network in 1930s Germany that inspired the Antifa movement
The logo as it appears on a flag held by an antifa member in Cologne, Germany in 2008
When Italian dictator Benito Mussolini consolidated power under his National Fascist Party in the mid-1920s, an oppositional anti-fascist movement surfaced both in Italy and countries such as the United States. Many anti-fascist leaders in the United States were syndicalist, anarchist, and socialist émigrés from Italy with experience in labor organizing and militancy.[26]
After World War II, but prior to the development of the modern antifa movement, violent confrontations with fascist elements continued sporadically.[29]
Modern antifa politics can be traced to opposition to the infiltration of Britain’s punk scene by white power skinheads in the 1970s and 1980s, and the emergence of neo-Nazism in Germany following the fall of the Berlin Wall.[24] In Germany, young leftists, including anarchists and punk fans, renewed the practice of street-level anti-fascism.[24] Columnist Peter Beinart writes that “in the late ’80s, left-wing punk fans in the United States began following suit, though they initially called their groups Anti-Racist Action (ARA) on the theory that Americans would be more familiar with fighting racism than they would be with fighting fascism.”[24]
Dartmouth College historian Mark Bray, author of Antifa:The Anti-Fascist Handbook, credits ARA as the precursor of the modern US antifa groups in the United States and Canada.[30] In the late 1980s and 1990s, ARA activists toured with popular punk rock and skinhead bands in order to prevent Klansmen, neo-Nazis and other assorted white supremacists from recruiting.[24][31][32] Their motto was “We go where they go” by which they meant that they would confront far-right activists in concerts and actively remove their materials from public places.[33] In 2002, the ARA disrupted a speech in Pennsylvania by Matthew F. Hale, the head of the white supremacist group World Church of the Creator, resulting in a fight and twenty-five arrests.[24] One of the earliest Antifa groups in the U.S. was Rose City Antifa, which was formed in Portland, Oregon in 2007.[34]
Other antifa groups in the U.S. have other genealogies, for example in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where a group called the Baldies was formed in 1987 with the intent to fight neo-Nazi groups directly.[19]
Terminology
Although various antifascist movements have existed in the United States since the beginning of fascism, the word antifa, adopted from German usage,[27][35][36] only came into prominence as an umbrella term in English in 2017.[37][38]The ADL makes a point that the label “antifa” should be limited to “those who proactively seek physical confrontations with their perceived fascist adversaries,” and not be misapplied to include all counter-protesters.[13]
Ideology and activities
Antifa is not an interconnected or unified organization, but rather a movement without a leadership structure, comprising multiple autonomous groups and individuals.[13][21][33] Since it is composed of autonomous groups, and thus has no formal organization or membership,[24][39] it is impossible to know how many groups are active. Activists typically organize protests via social media and through websites and email lists.[24][39] Some activists have built peer-to-peer networks, or use encrypted-texting services like Signal.[40] According to Salon, it is an organizing strategy, not a group of people.[41] While its numbers cannot be estimated accurately, the movement has grown since the 2016 presidential election and approximately 200 groups currently exist in the US, of varying sizes and levels of engagement.[27] The activists involved subscribe to a range of ideologies, typically on the left and they include anarchists, socialists and communists along with some liberals and social democrats.[20][22]
According to Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at the California State University, San Bernardino, antifa activists participate in violent actions because “they believe that elites are controlling the government and the media. So they need to make a statement head-on against the people who they regard as racist”.[8] According to Mark Bray, the adherents “reject turning to the police or the state to halt the advance of white supremacy. Instead they advocate popular opposition to fascism as we witnessed in Charlottesville”.[21]
The idea of direct action is central to the antifa movement. Antifa organizer Scott Crow told an interviewer:
“The idea in Antifa is that we go where they [right-wingers] go. That hate speech is not free speech. That if you are endangering people with what you say and the actions that are behind them, then you do not have the right to do that. And so we go to cause conflict, to shut them down where they are, because we don’t believe that Nazis or fascists of any stripe should have a mouthpiece.”[8]
A manual posted on It’s Going Down, an anarchist website, warns against accepting “people who just want to fight”. It furthermore notes that “physically confronting and defending against fascists is a necessary part of anti-fascist work, but is not the only or even necessarily the most important part”.[42]
According to Beinart, antifa activists “try to publicly identify white supremacists and get them fired from their jobs and evicted from their apartments”, in addition to “disrupt(ing) [sic] white-supremacist rallies, including by force”.[43]According to a Washington Post book review, antifa tactics include “no platforming“, i.e. denying their targets platforms from which to speak; obstructing their events and defacing their propaganda; and when antifa activists deem it necessary, deploying violence to deter them.[22] According to National Public Radio, “people who speak for the Antifa movement acknowledge they sometimes carry clubs and sticks” and their “approach is confrontational”.[44]CNNdescribes antifa as “known for causing damage to property during protests”.[8] Scott Crow, described by CNN as “a longtime Antifa organizer”, argues that destroying property is not a form of violence.[8] The groups have been associated with physical violence in public against police[45] and against people whose political views its activists deem repugnant.[46] Antifa activists used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists in Charlottesville[47]and caused property damage.[8] In one incident, an apparent antifa supporter punched white supremacist Richard Spencer in the face as he was giving an impromptu street interview,[48][49] and on another occasion, some threw Molotov cocktails in Berkeley, California.[8]
Apart from the other activities, antifa activists engage in mutual aid, such as disaster response in the case of Hurricane Harvey.[50][51][52] According to Natasha Lennard in The Nation, as of January 2017 antifa groups were working with interfaith groups and churches “to create a New Sanctuary Movement, continuing and expanding a 40-year-old practice of providing spaces for refugees and immigrants”.[53] Antifa activists also do research to monitor and track the “methods and movements of far-right leaders”, hold conferences and workshops on anti-fascist activism, and advocate ways of “fostering sustainable, peaceful communities”, such as “tending neighborhood gardens and setting up booths at book fairs and film festivals” where they provide printed materials.[54]
In June 2017, the antifa movement was linked to “anarchist extremism” by the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness.[55] In September 2017 Politico obtained confidential documents and interviews indicating that in April 2016, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation believed that “anarchist extremists” were the primary instigators of violence at public rallies against a range of targets. Politicointerviewed law enforcement officials who noted a rise in activity since the beginning of the Trump administration, particularly a rise in recruitment (and on the part of the far right as well) since the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally. One internal assessment acknowledged an inability to penetrate the groups’ “diffuse and decentralized organizational structure”. By 2017, the FBI and DHS reported that they were monitoring suspicious Antifa activity in relation to terrorism.[56] In August 2017 a petition was lodged with the White House petitioning system “We the People” calling upon the government to formally classify “AntiFa” as terrorist. The White House responded in 2018 that federal law does not have a mechanism for formally designating domestic terrorist organizations.[57][58][59] The writer of the petition later said he had created it to “bring our broken right side together,” and to “prop up antifa as a punching bag.”[60]
Antifa activists often use the black bloc tactic, in which people dress all in black and cover their faces, in order to thwart surveillance, and create a sense of equality and solidarity among participants.[62] Antifa activists wear masks to hide their “…identity from protestors on the other side (who might dox people they disagree with) or from police and cameras” and for philosophical reasons, such as the beliefs that “hierarchies are bad and that remaining anonymous helps keep one’s ego in check.”[63]
In April 2017, two groups described as “anti-fascist/anarchist”, including the socialist/environmentalist Direct Action Alliance, threatened to disrupt the 82nd Avenue of Roses Parade after hearing the Multnomah County Republican Party would participate. The parade organizers also received an anonymous email, saying: “You have seen how much power we have downtown and that the police cannot stop us from shutting down roads so please consider your decision wisely”. The two groups denied having anything to do with the email. The parade was ultimately canceled by the organizers due to safety concerns.[68][69]
On June 15, 2017, some antifa groups joined protestors at Evergreen State College to oppose the far-right group Patriot Prayer‘s event. Patriot Prayer was supporting biology professor Bret Weinstein who became the central figure in a controversy after he criticized changes to one of the college’s events. In addition to peaceful antifa activists who held up a “community love” sign, USA Today reported that one slashed the tires of far-right activist Joey Gibson and another was wrestled to the ground by Patriot Prayer activists after being seen with a knife.[70]
Antifa counter-protesters at the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017 “certainly used clubs and dyed liquids against the white supremacists”.[47] Journalist Adele Stan interviewed an antifa protester at the rally who said the sticks carried by the protesters are a justifiable countermeasure to the fact that “the right has a goon squad”.[71] Some antifa participants at the Charlottesville rally chanted that counter-protesters should “punch a Nazi in the mouth”.[44] Antifa participants also protected Cornel West and various clergy from attack by white supremacists, with West stating he felt that antifa had “saved his life”.[72][73] Antifa activists also defended the First United Methodist Church, where the Charlottesville Clergy Collective provided refreshments, music and training to the counter-protesters and, according to a local rabbi, “chased [the white supremacists] off with sticks”.[72][74]
Antifa protesters during a Trump rally in Phoenix, Arizona, August 22, 2017
Groups that had been preparing to protest the Boston Free Speech Rally saw their plans become viral following the violence in Charlottesville. The event drew a largely peaceful crowd of 40,000 counter-protestors. In The Atlantic, McKay Coppins stated that the 33 people arrested for violent incidents were “mostly egged on by the minority of ‘Antifa’ agitators in the crowd”.[75] President Trump described the protestors outside his August 2017 rally in Phoenix, Arizona as “Antifa”.[76]
During a Berkeley protest on August 27, 2017, an estimated one hundred antifa protesters joined a crowd of 2,000–4,000 counter-protesters to confront alt-right demonstrators and Trump supporters who showed up for a “Say No to Marxism” rally that had been cancelled by organizers due to security concerns.[67][77] Protestors threatened to smash the cameras of anyone who filmed them.[78]Jesse Arreguin, the mayor of Berkeley, suggested classifying the city’s antifa as a gang.[79] The far-right group Patriot Prayer cancelled an event in San Francisco the same day following counter protests. Joey Gibson, the founder of Patriot Prayer, blamed antifa, along with By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), for breaking up the event.[80]
In November 2018, police investigated the antifa group Smash Racism D.C. following a protest outside the home of The Daily Caller founder Tucker Carlson.[81] Activists of the group said through a bullhorn that Carlson was promoting hate and chanted, “We will fight, we know where you sleep at night!” and defaced the driveway of Carlsons’ property by spray-painting an anarchist symbol onto it[82] Twitter suspended the group’s account for violation of Twitter rules by posting Carlson’s home addresses. The group also posted addresses of Carlson’s brother and a friend who co-founded The Daily Caller.[83][84][85][86][87][88]
In February 2019, anti-fascist activists marched in celebration through Stone Mountain, Georgia as a white supremacist, neo-confederate rally planned to be held at the adjacent Stone Mountain Park was cancelled due to infighting and fear of personal safety. White supremacist groups originally sought to attract attention by marching at the Stone Mountain, a Confederate landmark carving, during the Super Bowl weekend. The groups ignored the park’s denial of permit due to “clear and present danger to the public health or safety”, but was thwarted when Facebook and Twitter terminated their organizing accounts and pages, and one group leader’s retreat due to “fears of violence from counter-protesters”. In their absence, more than 100 antifa activists marched peacefully through the adjacent village, burned a Klansman effigy and chanted slogans such as “Good night, alt right” and “Death to the Klan”, before joining another civil rights rally at Piedmont Park held by the NAACP and the SPLC.[89][90][91]
Response
Antifa actions have been subject to criticism from Republicans, Democrats and political commentators in the U.S. media.[92][93][94]House Minority LeaderNancy Pelosi condemned the violence of antifa activists in Berkeley on August 29, 2017.[95] Conservative talk show host and Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham suggested labeling antifa as a terrorist organization.[96]Noam Chomsky described them as “a major gift to the right”.[97] Other “anti-anti-fascists” on the left have argued that antifa attack a symptom of liberal democracyrather than combating structural racism itself, and in doing so distance themselves from revolutionary politics.[98]Dissent editor Michael Kazin stated “Non-leftists often see the left as a disruptive, lawless force. Violence tends to confirm that view.”[99] The historian Ruth Ben-Ghiat said in July 2019 that “Throwing a milkshake is not equivalent to killing someone, but because the people in power are allied with the right, any provocation, any dissent against right-wing violence, backfires”, with the effect that “[m]ilitancy on the left” can “become a justification for those in power and allies on the right to crack down” on the left.[34]
On the other hand, historian and political organizer Mark Bray has said “Given the historical and current threat that white supremacist and fascist groups pose, it’s clear to me that organized, collective self-defense is not only a legitimate response, but lamentably an all-too-necessary response to this threat on too many occasions.”[100] Alexander Reid Ross, a lecturer in geography and an author on the contemporary right, has said that antifa groups represented “one of the best models for channeling the popular reflexes and spontaneous movements towards confronting fascism in organized and focused ways.”[101] Eleanor Penny, an author on fascism and the far-right, argues against Chomsky that “physical resistance has time and again protected local populations from racist violence, and prevented a gathering caucus of fascists from making further inroads into mainstream politics.”[97]Cornel West, who attended a counter-protest to the Unite the Right rally, said in an interview, “we would have been crushed like cockroaches if it were not for the anarchists and the anti-fascists,” describing a situation where a group of 20 counter-protesters were surrounded by marchers who he described as, “neofascists.”[102]
The Anti-Defamation League stated that “All forms of antifa violence are problematic. Images of these ‘free speech’ protesters being beaten by black-clad and bandana-masked antifa provide right wing extremists with a powerful propaganda tool” but goes on to state “that said, it is important to reject attempts to claim equivalence between the antifa and the white supremacist groups they oppose.” They also mention that “most established civil rights organizations criticize antifa tactics as dangerous and counterproductive.”[13]
Hoaxes
There have been multiple efforts to discredit antifa groups via hoaxes on social media, many of them false flag attacks originating from members of the alt-right and 4chan posing as members of antifa groups on Twitter. Some of these hoaxes have been picked up and reported as fact by right-leaning media.[103]
These include an August 2017 “#PunchWhiteWomen” photo hoax campaign spread by fake antifa twitter accounts.[104] In one such instance, Bellingcat researcher Eliot Higgins discovered an image of British actress Anna Friel portraying a battered woman in a 2007 Women’s Aid anti-domestic violence campaign that had been re-purposed using fake antifa Twitter accounts organized by way of 4chan. The image is captioned “53% of white women voted for Trump, 53% of white women should look like this” and includes an antifa flag. Another image featuring an injured woman is captioned “She chose to be a Nazi. Choices have consequences” and includes the hashtag #PunchANazi. Higgins remarked to the BBC that “[t]his was a transparent and quite pathetic attempt, but I wouldn’t be surprised if white nationalist groups try to mount more sophisticated attacks in the future”.[105] A similar fake image circulated on social media after the Unite the Right rally; the doctored image, actually from a 2009 riot in Athens, was altered to make it look like someone wearing an antifa symbol attacking a member of the police with a flag.[106] After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, similar hoaxes falsely claimed that the shooter was an antifa “member”; another such hoax involved a fake antifa twitter account praising the shooting.[107][108] Another high-profile fake antifa account was banned from Twitter after it posted with a geotag originating in Russia.[109] Such fake antifa accounts have been repeatedly reported on as real by right-leaning media outlets.[103]
Some of the opposition to antifa activism has also been artificial in nature; Nafeesa Syeed of Bloomberg reported that “[t]he most-tweeted link in the Russian-linked network followed by the researchers was a petition to declare Antifa a terrorist group”.[110]
See also
Redneck Revolt, an anti-capitalist, anti-fascist and anti-racist group
Story 3: Establishment Democrats Support Creepy Sleepy Dopey Joey Biden — Videos
Biden support slips below 30 percent in new poll
Former Vice President Joe Biden‘s support in the latest Hill-HarrisX poll of Democratic voters has fallen below 30 percent, his lowest mark in the survey so far.
The poll, released on Monday, found that 29 percent of likely Democratic primary voters support Biden as their first choice for president, while 16 percent back Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.).
This marks a 4-point drop for Biden from an identical poll conducted two weeks ago and immediately following the first 2020 Democratic debates. It also represents a 17-point drop from when same poll was first conducted in May, a month after Biden formally launched his campaign bid.
Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) retained their spots, with Harris getting 11 percent and Warren trailing close behind at 9 percent.
South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who ranked as high as third place at one earlier poll, slipped to sixth place, garnering just 1 percent of support.
Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke, who has been lagging in national polls over the last few months, notched up 2 points to 3 percent.
A large number of respondents, 17 percent, were undecided.
The poll can be viewed as another setback for Biden, whose campaign has been grappling with attacks on his civil rights record in recent weeks.
Harris and Biden went head-to-head last month on the second night of the first Democratic presidential debates, where she confronted him on his past comments about working with segregationists senators and his past opposition to school busing.
The California senator saw a bump in a number of polls — including the Hill’s own Hill-HarrisX survey — following the confrontation.
Yet the poll continues to show Biden with a double digit lead over Sanders, and he has more than twice the support of Harris and more than three times the support of Warren to this point.
The Hill-HarrisX poll surveyed 1,003 voters between July 12 and July 13. The sampling margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points.
Former Vice President Joe Biden repeated one of his old boss’s most infamous pledges on Monday, saying under his proposal, “if you like your health care plan … you can keep it.”
The 2020 Democratic frontrunner released a health care plan Monday that would seek to build upon the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which included subsidies to lower prices on the exchanges and also allowing for a “public option” his campaign called similar to Medicare.
“I give people the option. If you like your health care plan, your employer-based plan, you can keep it,” Biden told an audience at an AARP-sponsored forum. “If in fact you have private insurance, you can keep it.”
Some of his 2020 rivals, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D., Calif.) are pushing for some form of a single-payer “Medicare for All” program. Some versions would completely eliminate private health insurance. Biden warned the crowd of that possible outcome if they liked the plans they have and said the transition would be difficult.
With his, Biden said, “you get a choice.”
“You get full coverage, and you can stay with your plan if you like it,” Biden said. “You can stay with your employer-based plan, or you can move on. I think it’s the quickest, most reasonable, rational and best way to get to universal coverage.”
His use of the phrase “you can keep it” created a stir, given how much it hurt President Barack Obama politically.
Obama pledged dozens of times during and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act that Americans who liked their current health care policies would be able to keep them, even punctuating his promise at times with an emphatic “period.” However, millions of cancellation notices went out upon the law’s implementation for not meeting Obamacare standards, leading him to get hit by PolitiFact with the 2013 “Lie of the Year.”
Biden has criticized his rivals for wanting to scrap Obamacare, one of the Obama administration’s main domestic accomplishments.
“Medicare goes away as you know it,” he said of his rivals’ proposals. “But the transition of dropping 300 million people on a new plan is, I think, kind of a little risky at this point.”
David Rutz is managing editor of the Washington Free Beacon. He was previously a sports reporter for two years in Atlanta and has done freelance sports reporting for the Washington Post. He graduated from Vanderbilt University in 2010 and lives in Roswell, Ga. His Twitter handle is @DavidRutz.
PUBLISHED: 08:10 EDT, 15 July 2019 | UPDATED: 10:01 EDT, 15 July 2019
The EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system has been knocked offline for four days following a ground-based technical incident.
Most of the satellites in the Galileo constellation have suffered a service outage since Friday as the official status of all its crafts as currently ‘Not Usable’.
Two of the 26 are said to be ‘testing’ while two others have long been out of service due to unrelated issues.
It is believed the ability to locate and help people in distress situations is unaffected.
Experts are working to restore operations of the multibillion euro programme, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA) said.
The system is provided for free and is used by private firms, government agencies, academics and the tech sector.
Scroll down for video
The EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system has been down for four days as a result of a technical incident on the ground. The majority of satellites in the Galileo constellation have suffered a service outage (stock)
Issues have persisted the duration of the weekend and it means satellites cannot currently give locations or times to smartphones or other devices.
The majority of popular handsets in use around Europe are reliant on Galileo – including all iPhones released since 2017.
It is still in its earl stages as a project and is therefore not trusted with vital systems, with crucial services using other means.
It operates independently of the US system as well as not relying on Russia’s GLONASS or China’s Beidou networks.
Galileo began testing in December 2016 as an alternative to the US-made Global Positioning System (GPS), designed to provide an exact location to commercial and government customers, with a full deployment expected in 2020.
Experts are working to restore operations of the multibillion euro programme, the European Global Navigation Satellite Systems Agency (GSA) said on Sunday. The system is provided under both free and commercial ventures and is used by both private firms, government agencies, academics and the tech sector
The cause of the technical incident is identified and recovery actions are implemented to ensure that the nominal service is resumed as soon as possible while safeguarding quality of the services,’ the GSA said.
In November, Britain gave up on efforts to gain access to the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system for defence and critical national infrastructure purposes, after being frozen out by Brussels because of Brexit.
It is unclear whether the UK will get back the £1.2 billion it sank into Galileo.
Instead, it is aiming to build its own Global Navigation Satellite System, at a cost estimated by independent experts at £3 billion to £5 billion.
WHAT IS THE GALILEO SATELLITE CONSTELLATION?
An artist’s impression of one of the satellites in the Galileo constellation
Galileo is a global navigation satellite system created by the European Union which was brought online in 2016.
The project was built to provide a high-precision global positioning system for the use of European nations that was independent of the US’ GPS and Russia’s GLONASS systems.
The setup can provide horizontal and vertical position measurements to a precision of within 1 metre.
It also provides a better service for users in higher latitudes than alternative systems.
Galileo’s low-precision services are free to use and open to everyone, while paying commercial customers can access the system’s higher-precision capabilities.
The first test satellite for the project was launched in December 2005, while the first working satellite was put into orbit in October 2011.
The constellation is comprised of 26 satellites — two of which are being tested and 2 of which are non-functional. Another four are planned for launch by 2020, after which new satellites will be launched to replace older ones.
The whole project is estimated to have cost around €10 billion (£9 billion / $11.3 billion)
Galileo, the EU’s global navigation satellite system, has been down for four days, since July 11, following a mysterious outage. All Galileo satellites are still non-operational, at the time of writing.
According to a service status page, 24 of the 26 Galileo satellites are listed as “not usable,” while the other two are listing a status of “testing,” which also means they’re not ready for real-world usage.
The European GNSS Agency (GSA), the organization in charge of Galileo, has not published any information in regards to the root of the outage, which began four days ago, on Thursday, July 11.
On that day, the GSA published an advisory on its website alerting companies and government agencies employing the Galileo system that satellite signals have degraded and they “may not be available nor meet the minimum performance levels.”
The agency warned that the Galileo system “should be employed at users’ own risk.”
The GSA published a more dire warning on Saturday, July 13, when it said that Galileo was experiencing a full-service outage and that “signals are not to be used.”
At the time of writing, the service is nearing 100 hours of downtime.
Keeps your Operating System and other third-party software applications up-to-date and protected against vulnerabilities and attacks with Avast Business Patch Management.
Patch Management and any of the Avast Business Antivirus products are deployed through the Management Console, making it seamless to manage the endpoint security of all your devices from a single platform.
Avast Business Patch Management will help you to:
Prevent Vulnerabilities
Ensure Compliance
Better control over endpoints
Reduce IT efforts and cost
Get 20% off for 1 year, 2 year, or 3 year subscriptions!
The system going down forced the Galileo’s userbase (government agencies and private companies) to switch to alternatives.
The Galileo satellite system was launched in 2016 and was funded by the EU as an alternative to the US Air Force’s Global Position System (GPS) and the Russian government’s GLONASS.
It is provided under both free and commercial offerings and is widely used by governments agencies and private companies for navigation and search and rescue operations.
Because it’s provided for free, it is also widely used by the private tech sector and by most of the world’s academia.
Updated on July 15, 5:30am ET:In a statement published after this article’s publication, the GSA blamed the Galileo outage on “a technical incident related to its ground infrastructure.” The agency said that the search and rescue (SAR) feature — used for locating and helping people in distress situations for example at sea or mountains — remained operational during the outage, which impacted only navigational and satellite-based timing services.
Story 5: Manhattan Lights Go Out with Electrical Outage — Celebrating 42th Anniversary of Great Blackout — Videos
Power outage strikes Manhattan on the same day of the 1977 NYC blackout
Breaking “Massive BLACKOUT Cripples New York City (Manhattan)
Parts of New York City go dark after power cut – BBC News
Documentary | What Happened When The Lights Went Out on July 13, 1977
Blackout, Chapter 1
NYC Blackout: What It Was Like When the City Lost Power in 1977 | NBC New York
Preliminary report shows faulty relay protection system caused NYC power outage
By Rob Frehse and Taylor Romine, CNN
Updated 6:19 PM ET, Mon July 15, 2019
People wait in a Manhattan diner during a massive power outage that hit parts of New York City on July 13, 2019.
(CNN)Con Edison blamed their relay protection system Monday for the weekend power outage in New York City, saying the system didn’t operate as designed, according to preliminary findings from the company.
“That system detects electrical faults and directs circuit breakers to isolate and de-energize those faults,” the company said in a statement. “The relay protection system is designed with redundancies to provide high levels of reliability. In this case, primary and backup relay systems did not isolate a faulted 13,000-volt distribution cable at West 64th Street and West End Avenue.”
“Our analysis of data and testing of the relay protection equipment is continuing, and will provide more insight into why the system, and its multiple redundancies, did not operate as designed,” the company added.
Both New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio called for a full investigation.
“This could have been much worse,” said Governor Cuomo early Sunday morning. “When you’re talking about a city like New York, with a significant piece of the city basically suffering a blackout, that could be a very chaotic situation. We saw the exact opposite, actually. We saw New Yorkers at their best.”
It could take months to investigate why the outage happened, Con Edison President Timothy Cawley told reporters Sunday.
The outage started Saturday at 6:47 p.m., and the lights were back on shortly after midnight, officials said. It mostly affected midtown Manhattan and parts of the Upper West Side. No injuries or hospitalizations were reported.
At the height of the outage, 72,000 customers were in the dark, utility company Con Edison said. It had given a preliminary number of 73,000 — but lowered it early Sunday.
Infrastructure is everything you don’t think about. The roads you drive on. The rigs and refineries that turn fossil fuel into the gas that makes your car go. The electricity that powers the streetlights and lamps that guide your way. All these technologies vanish into the oblivion of normalcy.
Until they break. Then everyone notices.
That’s what happened Saturday night in New York City when a power outage struck Midtown Manhattan, from Hell’s Kitchen north to Lincoln Center and from Fifth Avenue west to the Hudson River. The blackout darkened the huge, electric billboards of Times Square, forced Broadway shows to cancel performances, and even disabled some subway lines.
According to reports, the outage was caused by a transformer fire within the affected region. Power was fully restored by early the following morning. It was not the first or the most severe blackout to hit the Big Apple—another took out the whole city on the same date in 1977, and yet another struck in the summer of 2003. The causes vary—a series of lightning strikes instigated the 1977 event, and a remote software error caused the one in 2003. But deferred maintenance, increased demand, climate-change-driven weather calamities, and even the threat of cyberattack put infrastructure at greater risk.
A quick primer on how electricity works: First, power plants create it, mostly by burning fuel (or smashing atoms) that heats water to make steam that spins a turbine. (Hydroelectric generators harness the flow of water to spin turbines directly.) Those turbines move a generator, which produces electricity from the resulting kinetic energy. Plants then use transformers to step up the voltage of generated electricity and send it down high-voltage lines, which lose less energy in transit. Once it reaches its destination, other transformers step the voltage down to deliver it to substations, and eventually directly to customers.Saturday’s blackout was most likely caused by a disabled transformer at an area substation. There are at least 50 of those in New York City, which are fed in turn by at least 24, higher-voltage transmission substations. When it comes to power, New York is unusual because of the city’s age and the density of its population, both residential and commercial. That produces different risks and consequences.
In Atlanta, where I live, storms often down trees, which take out aboveground power lines. In the West, where wildfires are becoming more common, flames frequently dismantle power infrastructure (sometimes the power lines themselves cause the fires). But across the whole of New York City—not just Manhattan—more than 80 percent of both customers and the electrical load are serviced by underground distribution from area substations. That makes smaller problems less frequent, but bigger issues more severe.
When a transformer goes down in a populous place like Manhattan, it has a greater impact than it would on Long Island, say, or in Westchester County, where density is lower. The amount of power that central Manhattan uses on a regular basis also contributes to that impact. Times Square, the theater district, hundreds of skyscrapers—it’s a substantial load. In New York’s case, supplying that load is not usually the problem. Generating facilities can be located near or far away from where their power is used, and New York City draws power from a couple dozen plants. Some of it is imported from upstate.
But much of New York’s power is still generated locally, in large part at plants along the waterfront of Queens. Those plants are older, and more susceptible to disruption from local calamities, especially severe weather. When peak demand surges—most common during heat waves, such as the ones that struck the region in 2006 and 2011—the older, less efficient generating stations have a harder time keeping up, and brownouts or blackouts become more likely.
Superstorms can also disrupt Manhattan’s delivery infrastructure, despite the fact that it’s underground. In 2011, Hurricane Irene threatened to flood traffic and subway tunnels, also putting underground delivery at risk. The next year, Hurricane Sandy disrupted a third of the city’s electrical capacity. Flooding shut down five transmission substations. Other infrastructure was affected too, including natural gas and steam services (the latter provide heat and hot water, crucial during winter and for emergency facilities such as hospitals).
Sandy inundated the subway tunnels, which rely on pumps to bilge out the water. Electrical failures can disrupt the cleanup process as much as flooding can. And once a subway station gets incapacitated, the impact cascades throughout the system. On Saturday night, when the Midtown blackout occurred, the MTA was forced to cut service on some lines affected by signal or station outages.Failure, fire, and flood aren’t the only dangers that can befall transformer substations. Power infrastructure can be an appealing target for terrorism because the sites are poorly protected and the economic impact of a successful attack can be high—particularly in a city like New York. Cyberattacks are also possible. This March, a denial of service attack affected electrical systems in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City, two major population centers. Intelligence suggests that the risk of similar foreign attacks is currently elevated. A House Energy and Commerce subcommittee discussed those risks in a hearing the day before the Midtown Manhattan blackout.
One way to mitigate these dangers is to make utility infrastructure less susceptible to single points of failure. Underground distribution tends to make it easier to reach electrical customers via multiple paths. Regulatory agencies such as the New York State Reliability Council also impose requirements on utility service. Con Edison, which powers almost all of New York City, is expected to design its network to operate even if some of its components fail or are lost to disaster. But new risks associated with climate change, cyberwarfare, and other factors haven’t necessarily been accounted for in the design and operation of utility infrastructure.
The perils build on one another. Climate change amplifies the frequency of heat waves, which increases electrical load, which puts greater pressure on infrastructure. At the same time, it increases the likelihood of superstorms that can cause flooding, fire, and other disasters that might disrupt nodes in the network. When utility operators designed their equipment years or decades ago, they made assumptions about load, storm surge, and other factors. Those estimates might no longer apply.
Worse, planning and implementing updates to those systems is often stymied by paltry funding, strained political will, or other accidents. The utility industries are pushing for transformation, as it were, in infrastructure design, including efforts to make the “edges” of the grid more resilient and redundant. But those plans are similarly snared in the traps of outdated investment and regulation. Worse still, the same climatological, economic, and political instabilities that help increase the likelihood of electrical-grid collapse might also increase the risk of deliberate attacks to the grid, or reduce the agility of emergency response when accidents like this weekend’s Manhattan transformer fire occur.
None of these factors wafted up to street level Saturday night, as New Yorkers muddled through the inconvenience of a few hours without power. If anything, the scenes aboveground seemed inspiring, delightful even. Broadway-musical casts and Carnegie concert musicians hosted impromptu sidewalk performances for disappointed theatergoers. Citizens took it upon themselves to direct traffic in chaotic intersections. As New Yorkers are wont to do, city dwellers celebrated these and similar acts as telltale signs of the city’s vibrancy and resilience. When the power came back on, the horde of shadows cheered in unison as electric lamps fueled by burning coal miles away restored them to the technicolor of modern, artificial light. No injuries were reported during the blackout.
But such a generous response is only possible because power disruptions are still rare, especially absent the forewarning that accompanies a major hurricane or a serious thunderstorm. The chaos caused by similar, more frequent events would quickly snuff out the surprise and delight of unelectrified life. The theater performers would sneak home out the back, wondering whether the union would consider yet another disrupted performance complete. The citizen constables would spare their bodies, out of fear or boredom. The cheers would turn to groans, as the uncertainty and nuisance of the city’s physical caprices would wear thin.
Worsening political and economic circumstances would only fuel this fire. The July 13, 1977, blackout came amid a widespread economic crisis, the Son of Sam serial killings, a heat wave, and other social stressors. The looting and vandalism that accompanied that blackout 42 years ago were surely underwritten by the increased crime of the age and the totality of the blackout, which wiped out power to the whole city for two days. But those and worse effects are still possible. If you didn’t notice, things aren’t so great in 2019, either.
The blackout is a warning that infrastructure doesn’t only exist when it breaks. That’s true not just for New Yorkers, but for most of the U.S. population, which is scattered across regions with lower density, reduced wealth, and a more fickle public-service response. Whether it sleeps or not, a city is like an iceberg: You only see the smallest bit of it aboveground, but all of it is melting.
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.
IAN BOGOST is a contributing editor at The Atlantic and the Ivan Allen College Distinguished Chair in Media Studies at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His latest book is Play Anything.
Story 1: President Trump Celebrated American Independence Day By A Patriotic History Address Praising America’s Achievements — America Haters, Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Leftist Losers Critical of Speech With Predictable Progressive Propaganda — American People Salute America — Videos
President Trump COMPLETE REMARKS at July 4th “Salute to America” (C-SPAN)
Trump’s Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ | Special coverage
Donald Trump delivers July 4th Independence Day speech at the Lincoln Memorial
Watch All The Military Flyovers From President Donald Trump’s ‘Salute To America’ | NBC News
Watch Live: July 4th In Washington, Trump’s ‘Salute To America’ Military Event | NBC News
National Independence Day Parade: ABC News Live coverage
4th of July Parade in Washington D.C.
Trump’s July 4th speech heavy on history and military praise
Thousands Attend National 4th of July Parade in Washington D.C.
Full Show: Fireworks at 4th of July Celebration in Washington, DC 2019
4th of July fireworks light up sky in Washington, D.C.
4th of July Fireworks from Washington D.C.
Fourth of July fireworks from the Nation’s Capitol
Trump gets tanks, flyover for July 4th celebration
Trump reveals 4th of July celebration details
Left attacks first lady over reciting ‘The Lord’s Prayer’
Marc Thiessen says ‘Salute to America’ critics have ‘egg on their face’
Democratic hysteria proven wrong over Trump’s ‘Salute to America’
Proud Trump delivers patriotic July 4 speech invoking American exceptionalism as ‘one of the greatest stories ever told’ while he avoids politics amid a DC deluge and military flyovers and finishes with a spectacular fireworks display
Donald Trump braved rainy weather to deliver a speech at his Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ event in front of the Lincoln Memorial and behind a panel of bulletproof glass on Thursday evening in Washington, DC
The president struck an inspirational tone as he read pre-prepared remarks from a teleprompter, declaring that ‘our nation is stronger than it ever was before’ and ‘for Americans, nothing is impossible’
He recited a litany of American accomplishments over the nation’s history, including the moon landing
Trump also praised each branch of the military, highlighting their history and their accomplishments
He made the military the focal point of the night by bringing in tanks and organizing flyovers by Air Force B-2 stealth bombers, the US Navy Blue Angels, US Marine One and Air Force One
The event has been dampened by inclement weather as the sky opened up two hours before the event kicked off, sending thousands of revelers running for cover under umbrellas and pitched tents
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades with thousands flocking to the capital
But military chiefs were rumored to be concerned this year could turn out to be an overtly political affair
On Tuesday Trump had said ‘the Pentagon and our great Military Leaders are thrilled’ to participate
Thursday’s celebration had also been overshadowed by questions about how much it will cost taxpayers
But the president has insisted it will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes
PUBLISHED: 16:30 EDT, 4 July 2019 | UPDATED: 13:29 EDT, 5 July 2019
Donald Trump braved rainy weather to deliver a speech at his Fourth of July ‘Salute to America’ event from behind a panel of bulletproof glass.
The president welcomed crowds on the National Mall to a ‘very special’ Fourth of July holiday before launching in his pre-prepared remarks.
‘Today we come together as one nation with this very special Salute to America,’ he told the sea of red, white and blue-clad revelers.
Trump listed off a number of American accomplishments throughout the nation’s history – including the Revolutionary War, the women’s suffrage movement, the Civil Rights movement – and paid special tribute to each brand of the military, which he made the focal point of the festivities.
He offered a brief history of each branch and highlighted their accomplishments between cheers from the enthusiastic crowd.
‘We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag – the brave men and women of the United States military,’ he said.
As he paid tribute to each branch of the service, he also mentioned the branch he wants to see created under his presidency.
The president struck an inspirational tone as he read pre-prepared remarks from a teleprompter, declaring that ‘our nation is stronger than it ever was before’ and ‘for Americans, nothing is impossible’
The crowd erupted in cheers of ‘U-S-A! U-S-A!’ as Trump and Melania strutted onto the stage
Trump’s speech ended with the Blue Angels flying overhead
The Navy’s Blue Angels fly over the Lincoln Memorial with crowds watching big screens below
The president holds hands with the First Lady as he waves to spectators in front of the Lincoln Memorial yesterday
The president addressed the crowd on the Mall as the rain came down
Fireworks spell out USA over the Lincoln Memorial
The fireworks display capped off the evening in Washington D.C.’s Fourth of July celebration
A woman takes a picture from inside the Lincoln memorial as fireworks explode overhead on the National Mall
Planes from the U.S. Navy’s Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron perform a flyover during the celebrations
‘The Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and, very soon, the Space Force,’ he said, ticking off America’s armed services.
He even vowed to soon ‘plant the American flag on Mars.’
‘I want you to know that we are going to be back on the moon very soon, and someday soon we will plant the American flag on Mars,’ he said when he paid tribute to the work of NASA.
AIRCRAFT AND MILITARY VEHICLES PARTICIPATING IN JULY FOURTH
The president also incorporated flyovers into his remarks, timing it so the B-52 bomber, F-18 and F-35 fighter jets and osprey helicopters flew over as he paid tribute to the Army, Navy and Air Force.
The overhead flights particularly pleased the crowd, which cheered loudly when the aircraft appeared over head.
And, as he mentioned each military branch, a band played its theme song.
Critics charged the president with throwing a political rally on the nation’s birthday – a charge the White House fought back against.
But when Trump looked out at the crowd, he would see a similar sight to what he sees at his rally – a sea of red ‘Make America Great Again’ hats, which was his 2016 campaign theme.
Some supporters waved Trump campaign signs. Venders sold Trump campaign merchandise.
And the president touted the crowd’s size after reports Republicans were worried about light turnout due to the rainy weather and late planning with some even saying they feared a ‘Trump Inauguration 2.0’ when a fight broke out between the White House and press over the crowd size.
‘A great crowd of tremendous Patriots this evening, all the way back to the Washington Monument!,’ the president tweeted after he left the National Mall and was back at the White House.
It was Trump’s idea to have a heavy military presence during his ‘Salute to America.’
He took a hand in planning the celebration – which he vowed would be the ‘show of a lifetime’ – pushing to have tanks on display and American military planes flying overhead – a feat he pulled off, capped with Blue Angels soaring over his head as he wrapped up his speech.
He also praised the Gold Star families in the audience, thanking them for their sacrifice, and asked people to remember law enforcement officials.
‘Our nation has always honored the heroes who serve our communities. The firefighters, first responders, police, sheriffs, ICE, border patrol and all of the brave men and women of law enforcement. On this July 4th, we pay special tribute to the military service members who laid down their lives for our nation,’ he said.
And he encouraged young people to join the service during his 45 minute remarks.
‘To young Americans across our country, now is your chance to join our military and make a truly great statement in life,’ he said.
‘Our nation is its strongest today than it ever was before – it is its strongest now,’ he said to great applause, resulting in the crowds cheering: ‘USA, USA, USA.’
Trump wore a navy suit, a bright red tie, an American flag pin on his lapel and shiny black patent dress shoes while Melania tempted fate – given the weather – in a fresh white frock with rainbow stripes and hot pink pointed-toe pumps
Melania Trump (far left) joins Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen and the president’s daughter Tiffany at the event
The president stuck to a patriotic theme in his remarks
People wave flags and take photos as they watch Trump’s address on the National Mall under rainy weather
Trump offers a salute during his Fourth of July speech
Attendees cheered as the Blue Angels appeared
Trump’s speech was projected on a giant screen on the National Mall
QUOTES FROM TRUMP’S FOURTH OF JULY SPEECH
‘Today, we come together as ONE NATION with this very special Salute to America. We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag—the brave men and women of the United States Military!
As we gather this evening in the joy of freedom, we remember that we ALL share a truly extraordinary heritage.
That same American Spirit that emboldened our founders has kept us strong throughout our history. To this day, that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of YOU.
As long as we stay true to our cause — as long as we remember our great history—and as long as we never stop fighting for a better future — then there will be NOTHING that America cannot do.’
His remarks were peppered with famous American names – including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, the Wright Brothers, Frederick Douglass and Amelia Earhart – as he sought to pay tribute to the country’s history while emphasizing its greatness today.
He quoted Abraham Lincoln’s famous ‘Gettysburg Address’ and said the U.S. has the government ‘of, for and by the people.’
Trump, who spoke from the Lincoln Memorial, noted this was also where Martin Luther King made his famous ‘I have a Dream’ speech.
He spoke of the greatness of America invention – noting Alexander Bell, Red Cross founder Clara Barton, and the accomplishment of other famous Americans, adding: ‘Nothing is impossible.’
Trump, who built his career on real estate, spoke of the America’s construction victories like skyscrapers and bridges.
‘Americans always take care of each other,’ he said.
He noted this year was the 100th anniversary of women gaining the right to vote and paid tribute to the Civil Rights movement.
Trump spoke as rain trickled down from the sky onto his festivities. Crowds still swarmed the reflecting pool around the Lincoln Memorial and there was a heavy security presence – people waited up to six blocks to get through the mags.
The president, the first to address a crowd at the National Mall on Independence Day in nearly seven decades, kept his remarks focused on patriotism after the White House defended his event as a celebration of America instead of a political rally.
‘That same American spirit that emboldened our founders has kept us strong throughout our history.’
‘To this date that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of you.’
‘Today just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American Freedom rests on the shoulders of the men and women willing to defend it,’ he added.
Fireworks are lit near the White House during Fourth of July celebration
Fireworks capped off the evening
Trump got an enthusiastic greeting from the crowd, who yelled ‘USA, USA’ as he and the first lady walked on stage.
‘As long was we stay true to our cause – as long as we remember our great history – and as long as we never stop fighting for a better future – then there will e nothing that America cannot do,’ he said.
‘We will never forget that we are Americans and the future belongs to us. The future belongs to the brave, the strong, the proud and the free. We are one people chasing one dream and one magnificent destiny.’
At the end of his speech Trump invited the military band to play a formal rendition Lee Greenwood’s Proud To Be An American – one of his favorites — as a Navy Blue Angel plane flew overhead.
He shook hands with some military officials and waved before exiting the stage.
After Trump’s event, a Fourth of July concert featuring Carole King and cast members from Sesame Street took place down the National Mall at the U.S. Capitol building.
King sang ‘Natural Woman’ and John Stamos – the host of the ‘Capitol Fourth’ contest – had playful interactions with the puppet characters, which included Big Bird, Burt and Ernie.
Both events were followed by a firework display.
The display was not without controversy this year.
To accommodate the flyovers and the fireworks display, President Trump closed down Washington D.C.’s Reagan National Airport, causing several flight delays.
The Federal Aviation Administration announced that flights would be grounded from National, which is close to the center of D.C., during the flypast, from 6.15pm to 7.15pm, and for the fireworks, from 9pm to 9.45pm.
It will be the first time the airport has ever been closed for the annual July 4 fireworks, whose launch site was moved closer to the airport to accommodate Trump’s speech in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
Instead of being launched from its traditional location alongside the Lincoln Memorial’s reflecting pool, the fireworks were launched from a barge in the Potomac.
The firework display was twice as long this year after the White House got two fireworks companies to donate to the show.
Down the mall at the U.S. Capitol, ‘A Capitol Fourth’ host John Stamos took a selfie with Big Bird
The presidential Air Force One flew over the festivities as Trump arrived
Marine One did a flyover as the US Coast Guard sang
A view of the National Mall during Trump’s speech
Vice President Mike Pence and his wife Karen hold their hands over their hearts during the National Anthem
Trump reached his hand up to the sky inspecting falling raindrops as he and Melania made their way toward the stage
Both Trump and Melania’s tresses appeared soggy from the rain by the conclusion of the president’s speech
Melania Trump was on her husband’s arm as the President’s “Salute to America” got underway for the Fourth of July in Washington, D.C., on Thursday.
Washington, D.C. has always had Independence Day celebrations with plenty of concerts and fireworks. But this year was the first year in decades that a president has given a speech.
For her part, Melania chose to wear an American designer, Carolina Herrera, to celebrate the holiday. However, it wasn’t exactly a red-white-and-blue dress, but a multicolored striped flare dress on a white background with an off-the shoulder design. It was a summery choice.
Several attendees wore red ‘Make America Great Again’ caps
The event has been dampened by inclement weather as the sky opened up two hours before it kicked off, sending thousands of revelers running for cover under umbrellas and pitched tents.
On Thursday morning the National Weather Service issued several severe thunderstorm warnings for various Maryland counties and a flash flood watch effective until 8pm in DC.
Despite the weather reports, loyal crowds still gathered on the Mall, excited to see the president’s promised ‘show of a lifetime’ that boasted tanks parked by the Lincoln Memorial, marching bands, loyal followers and protesters with the president’s ‘baby blimp’.
The rain dampened the parade festivities as visitors were seen camping out with dismal expressions as they struggled to keep dry in their plastic rain ponchos and umbrellas.
Protesters were out and about during the day.
At the White House, two people were arrested for burning a flag before Trump left to give his speech.
Political activist Gregory Lee ‘Joey’ Johnson was one of the people taken away in handcuffs during the demonstration outside of the White House two before the president’s celebration is set to kick off, someone confirmed on his Twitter account.
Johnson is a longtime member of the Revolutionary Communist Party – also known as RevCom – which organized Thursday’s protest outside of the White House, where the group chanted: ‘Imagine A World Without America. Fight For A World Without America!’
But, for Trump, the show went on.
Calling his event a ‘Salute to America’ honoring the armed forces, the president tweeted Thursday morning to say he is expecting many attendees for the event which will ‘be well worth the trip and wait.’
The president wrote: ‘Looks like a lot of people already heading to SALUTE TO AMERICA at Lincoln Memorial. It will be well worth the trip and wait. See you there at 6:00 P.M. Amazing music and bands. Thank you ARMY!’
Officers extinguished the burning flag after breaking up the hoard of demonstrators
Two people have been arrested during a flag burning protest in front of the White House ahead of Donald Trump’s ‘Salute to America’ Fourth of July celebration in Washington, DC, on Thursday
Don’t rain on my parade! Rain has started to pour on the thousands lined up on Capitol Hill for Donald Trump’s Fourth of July military parade that he boasted will be the ‘show of a lifetime’. A sculpture of Trump sitting on a toilet as the downpour began pictured above
Rain, rain go away: Fourth of July revelers decked out in red white and blue had no choice but to stand in the rain Thursday
Stormy weather: This morning the National Weather Service issued several severe thunderstorm warnings for various Maryland counties and a flash flood watch effective until 8pm in DC
Revelers sat down in in plastic rain ponchos in a feeble attempt to stay dry during Thursday’s deluge
This couple camped out on the ground and tried to keep dry under the shade of their umbrellas in the storm
Drenched: This couple took cover under an umbrella after the rain began to pound down
Just a bit of drizzle! These people didn’t let the rain stop their fun and took a smiling selfie in the storm
Poncho season! These people smiled for the camera as they sat in the rain and waited for Trump’s speech
A Bradley Fighting Vehicle pictured drenched with rain on Thursday in the deluge
Over it: This woman took cover in her red MAGA hat and blue Trump flag
Can’t stop the party: Instead of going home these folks decided to camp out and wait for the rain to pass
he rain may affect the parade, but it seems Trump’s televised speech will proceed as scheduled at 6pm
Revelers took cover under umbrellas and hats as the rain hit the Lincoln memorial
As marchers walked in the National Independence Day Parade, onlookers whipped out their umbrellas to block the rain
The show must go on! The Marine Silent Drill Team pictured performing in the rain on Thursday
Storm’s brewin! The sky turned an eerie shade Thursday afternoon amid the Fourth of July festivities
Two Bradley fighting vehicles were also in place Wednesday at the Lincoln Memorial, where Trump spoke.
In addition, two 60-ton Army Abrams battle tanks were sent to Washington by rail to be positioned on or near the National Mall, to the dismay of District of Columbia officials.
Soldiers have been pictured working on an armored tanks in front of the Lincoln Memorial as other military vehicles have been pictured in the area.
Workers spent this week constructing a stage around the Lincoln Memorial where Trump spoke, while tourists wandered in between the construction to see one of the most popular monuments in the city.
A balloon is carried in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue in Washington, DC
People gather to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. The president tweeted to say he is expecting big crowds in DC Thursday evening, writing: ‘Looks like a lot of people already heading to SALUTE TO AMERICA at Lincoln Memorial. It will be well worth the trip and wait. See you there at 6:00 P.M. Amazing music and bands. Thank you ARMY!’
A US Army soldier works on an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle on display in front of the Lincoln Memorial for US Independence Day celebrations on the National Mall in Washington. The ‘Salute to America’ Fourth of July activities include remarks by US President Trump, a parade, military flyovers and fireworks
US Army soldiers position a M1 Abrams main battle tank into position. Trump has promised the ‘show of a lifetime’ to celebrate Fourth of July where the president is scheduled to speak
US Army soldiers walk by an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle. Not since 1951, when President Harry Truman spoke before a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds to mark the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, has a commander in chief made an Independence Day speech to a sizable crowd on the Mall
Protester Jim Girvan moves a Baby Trump balloon into position before Independence Day celebrations, as those opposed to the president are ready to make their voices heard on Fourth of July
A Trump supporter stands alongside people gathered for the Independence Day parade ahead of the president’s speech
Supporters of Trump join others to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
People move a statue depicting U.S. President Donald Trump sitting on a golden toilet. Anti-war group Code Pink said, as part of its protest of the president’s politicization of July Fourth, it would bring the Trump Baby Blimp ballon and this 16-foot statue
Miss Maryland, Mariela Pepin, rides in an open-top vehicle during Fourth of July Independence Day celebrations in D.C
Crowds have lined the streets of DC for Trump’s Fourth of July military parade after the president promised ‘show of a lifetime’ with tanks parked by the Lincoln Memorial, marching bands, loyal fans and protesters with the president’s ‘baby blimp’
In a sweltering capital threatened by storms, the traditional Fourth of July parade Thursday served as a warm-up act to a distinctly nontraditional evening event at the Lincoln Memorial, where President Donald Trump made plans to command the stage against the backdrop of a show of military muscle.
It’s been nearly seven decades since a president spoke there on Independence Day.
Trump tweeted Thursday to say he is expecting big crowds in DC ahead of his military spectacular
The U.S. was at war in Korea when Harry Truman addressed a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds, marking the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
Military chiefs are rumored to be concerned the July Fourth extravaganza could turn out to be an overtly political affair, putting them in violation of Defense Department policy.
On Tuesday Trump had said ‘the Pentagon and our great Military Leaders are thrilled’ to participate.
Thursday’s celebration has also been shadowed by questions about how much it will cost taxpayers.
But the president has insisted that the event will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes.
‘We own the planes, we have the pilots, the airport is right next door (Andrews), all we need is the fuel,’ he said, referring to Maryland’s Joint Base Andrews, home for some of the planes that are to fly over the Mall on Thursday. ‘We own the tanks and all. Fireworks are donated by two of the greats.’
Thunderstorms have threatened the celebrations with periods of ‘torrential rain’ forecast by the National Weather Service
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes. He sounded a defensive note Wednesday, tweeting the cost ‘will be very little compared to what it is worth’
In a message marking the 243rd anniversary of the Founding Fathers’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Trump called the document a milestone that ‘cast off the shackles of tyranny’
Trump is promising the ‘show of a lifetime’ for the hundreds of thousands of revelers who flock to the National Mall every year. US Army soldiers are pictured positioning a M1 Abrams main battle tank into position at the Lincoln Memorial
The tanks are in place for the display of military muscle, including this M1 Abrams main battle tank into position at the Lincoln Memorial for US Independence Day celebrations
Under White House direction, the Pentagon was arranging for an Air Force B-2 stealth bomber and other warplanes to conduct flyovers. Soldiers work on an armored Bradley Fighting Vehicle on display in front of the Lincoln Memorial
There will be Navy F-35 and F-18 fighter jets, the Navy Blue Angels aerobatics team, Army and Coast Guard helicopters and Marine V-22 Ospreys
+92
A crowd watches Independence Day celebrations in Washington. Trump set himself up to be the first president in nearly seven decades to address a crowd at the National Mall on Independence Day
+92
In February, Trump tweeted for the public to ‘HOLD THE DATE!’ for this Fourth of July and the president’s supporters have welcomed his stamp on the holiday
A participant in the the Independence Day parade holds an American flag and a picture of President Donald Trump
+92
People prepare a balloon for the Independence Day parade. The president has insisted the event will cost very little given that the military already owns the tanks and planes
A jump rope team participates in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. The traditional Fourth of July parade Thursday served as a warm-up act to a distinctly nontraditional evening event at the Lincoln Memorial
Share
Trump’s original tweet with his ‘Aircraft One’ mistake pictured above
After he received a flood of comments calling him out for his blunder, he deleted the flub tweet and tweeted this correction calling it Air Force One
Protesters unimpressed by his ‘Salute to America’ program inflated a roly-poly balloon depicting Trump as an angry, diaper-clad baby.
In the shadow of the Washington Monument, the anti-war organization Codepink erected a 20-foot tall ‘Trump baby’ balloon to protest what it called the president’s co-opting of Independence Day.
But the president’s supporters welcomed Trump’s stamp on the holiday.
Rachel McKenna, a Trump supporter from McKinney, Texas, said her relatives have served in the military and she thought it was important to say ‘We love you guys, we appreciate everything you do, and I love the fact I can see that,’ as she pointed to the Bradley fighting vehicle positioned near the Lincoln Memorial.
‘I’ve never ever seen one,’ she said. ‘I just think it’s so cool.’
He was savagely mocked on Twitter Thursday morning for tweeting ‘Aircraft One’ instead of ‘Air Force One’ while touting the elaborate military parade plans.
The president tweeted that people would come from far and wide for the celebration ‘culminating with large scale flyovers of the most modern and advanced aircraft anywhere in the World. Perhaps even Aircraft One will do a low & loud sprint over the crowd’.
The president’s aircraft is known as Air Force One when he’s on it, not Aircraft One.
Twitter users eviscerated the president for the slip-up, joking that Aircraft One is the unofficial name of Putin’s jet.
Trump then deleted his flub tweet and posted a new one, this time calling the aircraft Air Force One.
In a message marking the 243rd anniversary of the Founding Fathers’ adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Trump called the document a milestone that ‘cast off the shackles of tyranny’.
A US Marine Corps unit participates in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
People carry U.S. flags as they take part in a parade during Fourth of July Independence Day celebrations in Washington, D.C
US Army Old Guard Fife and Drum Corps participate in ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’ along Constitution Avenue
Independence Day revellers pose in front of a Humvee parked on a street in Washington, DC
Two Bradley fighting vehicles were in place Wednesday at the Lincoln Memorial, where Trump will speak. In addition, two 60-ton Army Abrams battle tanks were sent to Washington by rail to be positioned on or near the National Mall, to the dismay of District of Columbia officials
The presidential Air Force One and Marine One aircraft are also slated to make aerial appearances. White House officials have stressed that Trump’s remarks will be patriotic
Trump originally wanted a parade with military tanks and other machinery rolling through downtown Washington ever since he was enthralled by a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017
A giant inflatable blimp depicting Uncle Sam during Independence Day celebrations
A ‘Trump Baby’ balloon, set up by members of the CodePink group as protesters also descend on the National Mall
A supporter of President Donald Trump makes her way through a security checkpoint before Independence Day celebrations
A supporter of Trump joins others to watch ‘America’s Independence Day Parade’. Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument
Trump originally wanted a parade with military tanks and other machinery rolling through downtown Washington ever since he was enthralled by a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017.
Later that year Trump said he’d have a similar parade in Washington on the Fourth of July, 2018, and would ‘top’ the Paris show. The event ended up being pushed to Veterans Day, which conflicted with one of Trump’s trips abroad, before it was scuttled after cost estimates exceeding $90 million were made public.
In February, Trump tweeted for the public to ‘HOLD THE DATE!’ for this Fourth of July.
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument.
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes.
READ TRUMP’S FULL SPEECH AT HIS SALUTE TO AMERICA ON JULY 4 AT THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL
Hello, America. Hello. The First Lady and I wish each and every one of you a Happy Independence Day on this truly historic Fourth of July.
Today we come together as one nation with this very special salute to America. We celebrate our history, our people, and the heroes who proudly defend our flag, the brave men and women of the United States military.
We are pleased to have with us Vice President Mike Pence and his wonderful wife, Karen. We’re also joined by many hard-working members of Congress, Acting Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, and many other members of my Cabinet and also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joe Dunford. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Daniel Hokanson of the National Guard, and distinguished leaders representing each branch of the United States armed forces: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Marines, and – very soon – the Space Force.
As we gather this evening, in the joy of freedom, we remember that all share a truly extraordinary heritage.
Together, we are part of one of the greatest stories ever told: the story of America. It is the epic tale of a great nation whose people have risked everything for what they know is right, and what they know is true. It is the chronicle of brave citizens who never give up on the dream of a better and brighter future.
And it is the saga of 13 separate colonies that united to form the most just and virtuous Republic ever conceived. On this day, 243 years ago, our founding fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to declare independence and defend our God-given rights.
Thomas Jefferson wrote the words that forever changed the course of humanity: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’
With a single sheet of parchment, and 56 signatures, America began the greatest political journey in human history.
But on that day the patriots, who would determine the ultimate success of the struggle, were 100 miles away in New York. There, the Continental Army prepared to make its stand commanded by the beloved General George Washington. As the delegates debated the Declaration in Philadelphia, Washington’s army watched from Manhattan as a massive British invading fleet loomed dangerously across New York harbor.
The British had come to crush the Revolution in its infancy. Washington’s message to his troops laid bare the stakes, He wrote: “The fate of unborn millions will now depend under God on the courage and conduct of this army. We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.” Days later, General Washington ordered the Declaration read aloud to the troops, the assembled soldiers just joined an excited crowd running down Broadway, they toppled a statue of King George and melted it into bullets for battle.
The faraway king would soon learn a timeless lesson about the people of this majestic land: Americans love our freedom, and no one will ever take it away from us. That same American spirit that emboldened our Founders has kept us strong throughout our history.
To this day, that spirit runs through the veins of every American patriot. It lives on in each and every one of you here today.
It is the spirit, daring and defiance, excellence and adventure, courage and confidence, loyalty and love that built this country into the most exceptional nation in the history of the world and our nation is stronger today than it ever was before. It is its strongest now.
That same righteous American spirit forged our glorious constitution, that rugged American character led the legendary explorers Lewis and Clark on their perilous expedition across an untamed continent. It drove others to journey West and stake out their claim on the wild frontier. Devotion to our founding ideals led American patriots to abolish the evil of slavery, secure civil rights and expand the blessings of liberty to all Americans.
This is the noble purpose that inspired Abraham Lincoln to rededicate our nation to a new birth of freedom and to resolve that we will always have a government of, by and for the people. Our quest for greatness, unleashed a culture of discovery that led Thomas Edison to imagine his light bulb, Alexander Graham Bell to create the telephone, the Wright brothers to look to the sky, and see the next great frontier.
For Americans, nothing is impossible. Exactly 50 years ago this month, the world watched in awe as Apollo 11, astronauts launched into space with a wake of fire and nerves of steel, and planted our great American flag on the face of the moon. Half a century later we are thrilled to have here tonight the famed NASA flight director, who led Mission Control during that historic endeavor, the renowned Gene Krantz.
Gene, I want you to know that we’re going to be back on the moon very soon and someday soon, we will plant the American flag on Mars.It’s happening Gene, it’s happening.
Our nation’s creativity and genius lit up the lights of Broadway and the soundstages of Hollywood. It filled the concert halls and airwaves around the world with the sound of jazz, opera, country, rock n’roll, and rhythm and blues.
It gave birth to the musical, the motion picture, the Western, the World Series, the Super Bowl, the skyscraper, the suspension bridge, the assembly line and the mighty American automobile. It led our citizens to push the bounds of medicine and science to save the lives of millions. Here with us this evening is Dr. Emmanuel Freireich.
When Emmanuel began his work 99 percent of children with leukaemia died. Thanks largely to Dr. Freireich’s breakthrough treatments, currently 90 percent of those with the most common childhood leukaemias survive. Doctor, you are a great American hero, thank you.
Americans always take care of each other. That love and unity held together the first Pilgrims, it forged communities on the Great Plains, it inspired Clara Barton to found the Red Cross, and it keeps our nation thriving today.
Here tonight from the Florida Panhandle is Tina Belcher. Her selfless generosity over three decades has made her known to all as Mrs. Angel. Every time a hurricane strikes Mrs. Angel turns her tiny kitchen into a disaster relief center. On a single day after Hurricane Michael, she gave 476 people a warm meal. Mrs. Angel, your boundless heart inspires us all. Thank you. Thank you very much.
From our earliest days, Americans of faith have uplifted our nation. This evening we’re joined by Sister Deirdre Byrne.
Sister Byrne is a retired Army surgeon who served for nearly 30 years. On September 11, 2001, the sister raced to Ground Zero. Through smoke and debris, she administered first aid and comfort to all. Today Sister Byrne runs a medical clinic serving the poor in our nation’s capital. Sister, thank you for your lifetime of service. Thank you.
Our nation has always honored the heroes who serve our communities, the firefighters, first responders, police, sheriffs, ICE, Border Patrol, and all of the brave men and women of law enforcement. On this July 4, we pay special tribute to the military service members who laid down their lives for our nation. We are deeply moved to be in the presence this evening of Gold Star families whose loved ones made the supreme sacrifice. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Throughout our history, our country has been made ever greater by citizens who risked it all for equality and for justice. One hundred years ago this summer, the women’s suffrage movement led Congress to pass the constitutional amendment giving women the right to vote.
In 1960, a thirst for justice led African American students to sit down at the Woolworth lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. It was one of the very first civil rights sit-ins and it started a movement all across our nation.
Clarence Henderson was 18 years old when he took his place in history. Almost six decades later he is here tonight in a seat of honor. Clarence, thank you for making this country a much better place for all America.
In 1963, Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. stood here on these very steps and called on our nation to live out the true meaning of its creed, and let freedom ring for every citizen all across our land.
America’s fearless resolve has inspired heroes who defined our national character from George Washington, John Adams, and Betsy Ross, to Douglass, you know, Frederick Douglass, the great Frederick Douglass, Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart, Douglas MacArthur, Dwight Eisenhower, Jackie Robinson. And of course, John Glenn.
It has willed our warriors up mountains and across minefields. It has liberated continents split the atom, and brought tyrants and empires to their knees. Here with us this evening is Earl Morse. After retiring from the Air Force, Earl worked at a VA hospital in Ohio. Earl found that many World War Two veterans could not afford to visit their Memorial on the National Mall.
So Earl began the very first honor flights that have now brought over 200,000 World War two heroes to visit America’s monument. Earl, thank you. We salute you. Thank you. Thank you, Earl. Thank you.
Our warriors form a hallowed roll call of American patriots running all the way back to the first souls who fought and one American independence.
Today, just as it did 243 years ago, the future of American freedom rests on the shoulders of men and women willing to defend it. We are proudly joined tonight by heroes from each branch of the U.S. Armed Forces, including three recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor. Thank you. They and thousands before us served with immense distinction, and they loved every minute of that service.
To young Americans across our country, now is your chance to join our military and make a truly great statement in life, and you should do it.
We will now begin our celebration of the United States Armed Forces, honoring each branch’s unique culture, rich history, service song, and distinct legacy. I invite Acting Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman Dunford, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Please join me. In August of 1790, by request of George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, Congress established a fleet of 10 swift vessels to defend our shores. These Revenue cutters would fight pirates, stop smugglers and safeguard our borders.
They are the ancestors of our faithful Coast Guard. When our ships were seized and sailors kidnapped by foreign powers in 1812, it was a Revenue cutter the swift schooner Thomas Jefferson, that swept into capture the first British vessel of the war.
In 1897, when 265 whalers were trapped in ice and the ice fields of Alaska were closing up, courageous officers trekked 1,500 miles through the frozen frontier to rescue those starving men from certain death. In 1942, the Coast Guard manned landing craft for invasions in the Pacific
When the enemy attacked U.S. Marines from the shores of Guadalcanal Coast Guard Signalman First Class, Douglas Monroe, used his own boat to shield his comrades from pounding gunfire. Monroe gave his life. Hundreds of Marines were saved. As he lay dying on the deck, his final question embodied the devotion that sails with every Coast Guardsman: “Did they get off?”
On D Day the Coast Guards famous matchbox fleet served valiantly through every hour of the greatest amphibious invasion in the history of our country.
One coxswain said the water boiled with bullets like a mud puddle in hailstones, but still the Coast Guard braved death to put our boys on Utah and Omaha Beaches. Every Coast Guardsman is trusted to put service before all. Coasties plunge from helicopters and barrel through pouring rain and crashing waves to save American lives.
They secure our borders from drug runners and terrorists in rough seas at high speeds. Their sharpshooters take out smugglers’ engines with a single shot – they never miss. When the red racing stripes of a Coast Guard vessel break the horizon, when their chopper blades pierce the sky, those in distress know that the help is on their way and our enemies know their time has come.
These guardians of our waters stand Semper Peratus. They are always ready. They are the United States Coast Guard.
Representing the Coast Guard today you will soon see an HH-60 Jayhawk helicopter, based at Coast Guard Air Station Clearwater, along with an HH-65 Dolphin from Air Station Atlantic City and an HC-144 Ocean Sentry from Air Station Miami.
Thank you. Thank you to the Coast Guard.
On a cold December morning in 1903, a miracle occurred over the dunes of Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, when two bicycle makers from Ohio defied gravity with a 12 horsepower engine, wings made of cotton, and just a few dollars in their pockets. Just six years later, America was training its first pilots to take these magnificent machines up and over the field of battle.
In World War One, our Fly Boys rush the skies of Europe, and aces like Eddie Rickenbacker filled hearts and headlines with tales of daring duels in the clouds. General Billy Mitchell saw the promise of this technology and risked court-martial in his quest for an independent Air Force. He was proven right when empires across the oceans tried to carve up the world for themselves and America stood in the way – we wouldn’t let it happen.
After Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle and his Raiders flew B-25 bombers off a carrier deck in the deep Pacific in a daring feat of American resolve. And as President Roosevelt said, the Nazis built the fortress around Europe, but they forgot to put a roof on it. So we crushed them all from the air. 177 Liberator bombers flew dangerously low through broad daylight without fighter protection to cripple the Nazi war machine at Ploiești. 300 Airmen gave their lives to destroy the enemy oil refineries and five pilots were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for their actions in that single raid.
It was Airman Chuck Yeager, who first broke the sound barrier. It was airmen like Gus Chris and Buzz Aldrin who traded their Sabrejets for rockets to the stars. And It is our incredible airmen today who will the most powerful weapon systems on the planet earth.
For over 65 years, no enemy air force has managed to kill a single American soldier because the skies belong to the United States of America. No enemy has attacked our people without being met by a roar of thunder. And the aesome of those who bid farewell to earth and soar into the wild blue yonder. They are the United States Air Force.
Representing the Air Force you will soon see beautiful brand new F-22 Raptors from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, and one magnificent B-2 stealth bomber from Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri.
What a great country.
In October of 1775, the Continental Congress ordered the construction of two swift sailing vessels, each carrying 10 cannons and 80 men to sail eastward. Our young fleet tested their sea legs against the most powerful Navy the world has ever seen.
John Paul Jones, America’s first great naval hero, said: ‘I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm’s way.’ He got his wish, many times, when a ship was shot into pieces off the coast of England by a British vessel and her four dozen guns. When demanded to surrender, Jones very famously declared: “I have not yet begun to fight.”
When our Navy begins fighting, they finish the job. In the War of 1812, Captain James Lawrence fell with his brothers on the USS Chesapeake.His dying command gained immortality: ‘Don’t give up the ship.’
In the Battle of Mobile Bay, Admiral David Farragut lashed himself to the rigging of his flagship to see beyond the cannon smoke, crying: ‘Damn the torpedoes Full speed ahead.’
In World War Two, it was aviators launched from the carrier Enterprise, Hornet, Yorktown, who filled the skies of Midway and turned the tide of the Pacific War. Nobody could beat us. Nobody could come close. On D-Day, SeaBee engineers came ashore to destroy blockades and barriers making way for the invasion.
Many lost their lives but they took the German defenses with them. And our men crashed upon the beaches like a mighty storm.
From the naval demolition units of World War Two arose a force that became famous in the Mekong Delta. They don’t want to see our force again. The very best of the very best, the Navy SEALs. It was the SEALs who delivered vengeance on the terrorists who planned the September 11 attack on our homeland. It was the SEALS who stand ready to bring righteous retribution in mountain, jungle, desert to those who do us harm.
America’s sailors are not born. They are forged by the sea. Their traditions are rich with the salt and blood of three centuries.
When Old Glory crests the waves of foreign shores, every friend and every phone knows that justice sails those waters. It sails with the United States Navy.
Representing our great Navy today will be two F-18 Super Hornets from Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia, along with two F-35 Lightnings from Naval Air Station Lamar in California.
So great.
In November of 1775, the Continental Congress created two battalions of a new kind of warrior, one who kept and would protect our ships and sailors and be at home both the shore and the mast, with musket in hand.
They’re versatile. It was proven in the War of Independence when 234 Continental Marines conducted their first amphibious raid, capturing the British supply of gunpowder and cannons at Fort Nassau. Ever since Marines have fought in every American war. Their legend has grown and grown and grown with each passing year.
It was the Marines who won America’s first overseas battle vanquishing Barbary pirates on the shores of Tripoli. Their high stiff collar, which shielded them from the pirate sword earned them the immortal name Leatherneck. It was the Marines who after two long days of battle marched through the halls of Montezuma, it was the Marines who took heavy casualties to kick the Kaiser’s troops out of Belleau Wood in World War I, earning the title Devil Dogs.
And it was the Marines who raised the flag on the black sands of Iwo Jima.
From The Chosin Reservoir to Khe Sanh from Helmand to Baghdad, Marines have struck fear into the hearts of our enemies and put solace into the hearts of our friends. Marines always lead the way.
After the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Beirut, which claimed the lives of 241 great U.S. servicemen, Marine Sergeant Jeffrey Nashton lay in bandages, so badly wounded, barely alive. When the Commandant of the Marine Corps came to visit his hospital, Sergeant Nashton had to feel for the General’s collar. He wanted to feel his four stars. He could not see and he could not speak. He signaled for pen and paper and with shaking hand he wrote two words: Semper Fi. That motto, Semper Fidelis, always faithful, burns in the soul of every Marine, a sacred promise the corps has kept since the birth of our country.
They are the elite masters of air and land and sea, on battlefields all across the globe. They are the United States Marines.
Representing the Marine Corps today will be a brand new VH-92, soon to serve as Marine One, along with two V-22 Ospreys from the famed HMX-1 helicopter squadron at Quantico, the Nighthawks.
In June of 1775, the Continental Congress created a unified army out of the revolutionary forces encamped around Boston and New York, and named after the great George Washington, commander in chief. The Continental Army suffered a bitter winter of Valley Forge, found glory across the waters of the Delaware and seized victory from Cornwallis of Yorktown.
Our army manned the airs, it rammed the ramparts, it took over the airports it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, it had nothing but victory. And when dawn came there, the star Spangled Banner waved defiant. At Shiloh, Antietam and Gettysburg, our soldiers gave the last full measure of devotion for the true unity of our nation and the freedom of all Americans.
In the trenches of World War One, an Army sergeant named Alvin York faced an inferno of enemy fire and refused to retreat. He said: “I won’t leave, I won’t stop.” He shot his rifle 18 times killing 18 of the enemy. When they fixed bayonets and charged, he killed seven more. The entire German machine gun battalion surrendered because of one man: Alvin York.
A generation later, the Army returned to Europe and embarked upon a great crusade with knives and rifles in hand. The Rangers scaled the cliffs of Normandy, the 101st Airborne leapt into the danger from above, illuminated only by enemy flares, explosions and burning aircraft. They threw back the Nazi empire with lightning of their own from the turrets of Sherman tanks and the barrels of the M-1 rifle. In the darkness of the Battle of the Bulge, with Nazis on every side, one soldier is reported to have said: “They’ve got us surrounded again, the poor bastards.”
Outnumbered American warriors fought through the bunkers of Pork Chop Hill, and held the line of civilization in Korea. In the elephant grass of Vietnam, the First Cavalry made its stand amid a forest consumed in flame with enemies at every single turn.
The army brought America’s righteous fury down to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and cleared the bloodthirsty killers from their caves. They liberated Fallujah and Mosul and helped liberate and obliterate the ISIS caliphate just recently in Syria – 100 percent gone. Through centuries, our soldiers have always pointed toward home proclaiming: ‘We will defend.’
They live by the creed of Douglas MacArthur in World War: ‘There is no substitute for victory.’ They are the greatest soldiers on Earth.
Nearly 250 years ago, a volunteer army of farmers and shopkeepers, blacksmiths, merchants and militiamen risked life and limb to secure American liberty, and self-government. This evening, we have witnessed the noble might of the warriors who continue that legacy.
They guard our birthright with vigilance and fierce devotion to the flag and to our great country. Now, we must go forward as a nation with that same unity of purpose. As long as we stay true to our course, as long as we remember our great history, as long as we never, ever, stop fighting for a better future, then there will be nothing that America can not do. Thank you.
We will always be the people who defeated a tyrant, crossed a continent, harnessed science, took to the skies and soared into the heavens, because we will never forget that we are Americans, and the future belongs to us. The future belongs to the brave, the strong, the proud and the free. We are one people chasing one dream and one magnificent destiny. We all share the same heroes, the same home, the same heart. And we are all made by the same Almighty God. From the banks of the Chesapeake, to the cliffs of California, from the humming shores of the Great Lakes, to the sand dunes of the Carolinas, from the fields of the heartland, to the Everglades of Florida, the spirit of American independence will never fade, never fail, but will reign forever and ever and ever.
So once more, to every citizen throughout our land, have a glorious Independence Day. Have a great Fourth of July. I want to thank the Army Band, the National Park Service, the Interior Department, the incredible pilots overhead, and those who are making possible the amazing fireworks display later this evening.
Now as the band plays the Battle Hymn of the Republic, I invite the First Lady, Vice President and Mrs. Pence, the service secretaries and military leaders to join me on stage for one more salute to America by the famous, incredible, talented Blue Angels. God Bless you. God bless the military, and God bless America. Happy Fourth of July.
The real reason why the left was against Donald Trump’s July 4 speech
Gary Varvel, Opinion contributorPublished 7:45 a.m. ET July 5, 2019 | Updated 7:51 a.m. ET July 5, 2019
It was not because it was political or partisan. It was patriotic and that is what annoys the left the most.
Several days before the speech, we heard that Trump was hijacking Independence Day and turning it into a campaign rally. But Trump never mentioned the 2020 campaign in his speech.
We heard that Trump’s desire to have tanks on the National Mall was an out-and-out authoritarian performance art. But that wasn’t really the issue. Neither was the fake outrage over the cost.
There was no mention of political opponents and no mention of the fake news media. And this wasn’t Trump co-opting the nation’s birthday to celebrate himself. In fact, for a man who loves to talk about his accomplishments, he never mentioned himself.
No, Trump did something far more dangerous to the left. He gave America a strong dose of patriotism. He gave Americans a history lesson on the great people, heroes and their great accomplishments over the last 243 years.
Earlier in the week, The New York Times ran a video arguing America isn’t the greatest nation on Earth, “the U.S. is really just O.K.”
Without mentioning The Times or the video, Trump proceeded to tell us about America’s greatness for nearly an hour interrupted only by applause, flyovers and military songs. At one point, I thought “who is this guy and what have they done with President Trump?”
“Today, we come together as One Nation with this very special Salute To America,” said Trump. “We celebrate our history, our people and the heroes who proudly defend our flag — the brave men and women of the United States Military!”
And boy, did he. Starting with the story of America’s war for independence, Trump quoted the words and deeds of Americans that have long been forgotten but need to be remembered.
Trump told the story of Gen. George Washington as he readied his troops to fight the British invasion. Trump said, “Washington’s message to his troops laid bare the stakes, He wrote, ‘The fate of unborn millions will now depend under God on the courage and conduct of this army, we have therefore to resolve to conquer or die.’”
The Lee Resolution for independence was passed on July 2 with no opposing votes. The Committee of Five had drafted the Declaration to be ready when Congress voted on independence. John Adams, a leader in pushing for independence, had persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document,[2] which Congress edited to produce the final version. The Declaration was a formal explanation of why Congress had voted to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. Adams wrote to his wife Abigail, “The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America”[3] – although Independence Day is actually celebrated on July 4, the date that the wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved.
After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms. It was initially published as the printed Dunlap broadside that was widely distributed and read to the public. The source copy used for this printing has been lost and may have been a copy in Thomas Jefferson’s hand.[4]Jefferson’s original draft is preserved at the Library of Congress, complete with changes made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, as well as Jefferson’s notes of changes made by Congress. The best-known version of the Declaration is a signed copy that is displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., and which is popularly regarded as the official document. This engrossed copy (finalized, calligraphic copy) was ordered by Congress on July 19 and signed primarily on August 2.[5][6]
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry. The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing 27 colonial grievances against King George III and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of revolution. Its original purpose was to announce independence, and references to the text of the Declaration were few in the following years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of his policies and his rhetoric, as in the Gettysburg Address of 1863. Since then, it has become a well-known statement on human rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
This has been called “one of the best-known sentences in the English language”,[7] containing “the most potent and consequential words in American history”.[8] The passage came to represent a moral standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy and argued that it is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should be interpreted.[9]
The Declaration of Independence inspired many similar documents in other countries, the first being the 1789 Declaration of United Belgian States issued during the Brabant Revolution in the Austrian Netherlands. It also served as the primary model for numerous declarations of independence in Europe and Latin America, as well as Africa (Liberia) and Oceania (New Zealand) during the first half of the 19th century.[10]
Contents
Background
Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration
Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America.
By the time that the Declaration of Independence was adopted in July 1776, the Thirteen Colonies and Great Britain had been at war for more than a year. Relations had been deteriorating between the colonies and the mother country since 1763. Parliament enacted a series of measures to increase revenue from the colonies, such as the Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767. Parliament believed that these acts were a legitimate means of having the colonies pay their fair share of the costs to keep them in the British Empire.[12]
Many colonists, however, had developed a different conception of the empire. The colonies were not directly represented in Parliament, and colonists argued that Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them. This tax dispute was part of a larger divergence between British and American interpretations of the British Constitution and the extent of Parliament’s authority in the colonies.[13] The orthodox British view, dating from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, was that Parliament was the supreme authority throughout the empire, and so, by definition, anything that Parliament did was constitutional.[14] In the colonies, however, the idea had developed that the British Constitution recognized certain fundamental rights that no government could violate, not even Parliament.[15] After the Townshend Acts, some essayists even began to question whether Parliament had any legitimate jurisdiction in the colonies at all.[16]Anticipating the arrangement of the British Commonwealth,[17] by 1774 American writers such as Samuel Adams, James Wilson, and Thomas Jefferson were arguing that Parliament was the legislature of Great Britain only, and that the colonies, which had their own legislatures, were connected to the rest of the empire only through their allegiance to the Crown.[18]
Congress convenes
The issue of Parliament’s authority in the colonies became a crisis after Parliament passed the Coercive Acts (known as the Intolerable Acts in the colonies) in 1774 to punish the colonists for the Gaspee Affair of 1772 and the Boston Tea Party of 1773. Many colonists saw the Coercive Acts as a violation of the British Constitution and thus a threat to the liberties of all of British America, so the First Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia in September 1774 to coordinate a response. Congress organized a boycott of British goods and petitioned the king for repeal of the acts. These measures were unsuccessful because King George and the ministry of Prime Minister Lord North were determined to enforce parliamentary supremacy in America. As the king wrote to North in November 1774, “blows must decide whether they are to be subject to this country or independent”.[19]
Most colonists still hoped for reconciliation with Great Britain, even after fighting began in the American Revolutionary War at Lexington and Concord in April 1775.[20] The Second Continental Congress convened at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia in May 1775, and some delegates hoped for eventual independence, but no one yet advocated declaring it.[21] Many colonists no longer believed that Parliament had any sovereignty over them, yet they still professed loyalty to King George, who they hoped would intercede on their behalf. They were disappointed in late 1775 when the king rejected Congress’s second petition, issued a Proclamation of Rebellion, and announced before Parliament on October 26 that he was considering “friendly offers of foreign assistance” to suppress the rebellion.[22] A pro-American minority in Parliament warned that the government was driving the colonists toward independence.[23]
Toward independence
Thomas Paine‘s pamphlet Common Sense was published in January 1776, just as it became clear in the colonies that the king was not inclined to act as a conciliator.[24] Paine had only recently arrived in the colonies from England, and he argued in favor of colonial independence, advocating republicanism as an alternative to monarchy and hereditary rule.[25]Common Sense made a persuasive and impassioned case for independence, which had not yet been given serious intellectual consideration in the American colonies. Paine connected independence with Protestant beliefs as a means to present a distinctly American political identity, thereby stimulating public debate on a topic that few had previously dared to openly discuss,[26] and public support for separation from Great Britain steadily increased after its publication.[27]
The Assembly Room in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, where the Second Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence
Some colonists still held out hope for reconciliation, but developments in early 1776 further strengthened public support for independence. In February 1776, colonists learned of Parliament’s passage of the Prohibitory Act, which established a blockade of American ports and declared American ships to be enemy vessels. John Adams, a strong supporter of independence, believed that Parliament had effectively declared American independence before Congress had been able to. Adams labeled the Prohibitory Act the “Act of Independency”, calling it “a compleat Dismemberment of the British Empire”.[28] Support for declaring independence grew even more when it was confirmed that King George had hired German mercenaries to use against his American subjects.[29]
Despite this growing popular support for independence, Congress lacked the clear authority to declare it. Delegates had been elected to Congress by 13 different governments, which included extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, and elected assemblies, and they were bound by the instructions given to them. Regardless of their personal opinions, delegates could not vote to declare independence unless their instructions permitted such an action.[30] Several colonies, in fact, expressly prohibited their delegates from taking any steps towards separation from Great Britain, while other delegations had instructions that were ambiguous on the issue;[31] consequently, advocates of independence sought to have the Congressional instructions revised. For Congress to declare independence, a majority of delegations would need authorization to vote for it, and at least one colonial government would need to specifically instruct its delegation to propose a declaration of independence in Congress. Between April and July 1776, a “complex political war”[32] was waged to bring this about.[33]
Revising instructions
In the campaign to revise Congressional instructions, many Americans formally expressed their support for separation from Great Britain in what were effectively state and local declarations of independence. Historian Pauline Maieridentifies more than ninety such declarations that were issued throughout the Thirteen Colonies from April to July 1776.[34] These “declarations” took a variety of forms. Some were formal written instructions for Congressional delegations, such as the Halifax Resolves of April 12, with which North Carolina became the first colony to explicitly authorize its delegates to vote for independence.[35] Others were legislative acts that officially ended British rule in individual colonies, such as the Rhode Island legislature declaring its independence from Great Britain on May 4, the first colony to do so.[36] Many “declarations” were resolutions adopted at town or county meetings that offered support for independence. A few came in the form of jury instructions, such as the statement issued on April 23, 1776, by Chief Justice William Henry Drayton of South Carolina: “the law of the land authorizes me to declare … that George the Third, King of Great Britain … has no authority over us, and we owe no obedience to him.”[37] Most of these declarations are now obscure, having been overshadowed by the declaration approved by Congress on July 2, and signed July 4.[38]
Some colonies held back from endorsing independence. Resistance was centered in the middle colonies of New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.[39] Advocates of independence saw Pennsylvania as the key; if that colony could be converted to the pro-independence cause, it was believed that the others would follow.[39] On May 1, however, opponents of independence retained control of the Pennsylvania Assembly in a special election that had focused on the question of independence.[40] In response, Congress passed a resolution on May 10 which had been promoted by John Adams and Richard Henry Lee, calling on colonies without a “government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs” to adopt new governments.[41] The resolution passed unanimously, and was even supported by Pennsylvania’s John Dickinson, the leader of the anti-independence faction in Congress, who believed that it did not apply to his colony.[42]
May 15 preamble
This Day the Congress has passed the most important Resolution, that ever was taken in America.
As was the custom, Congress appointed a committee to draft a preamble to explain the purpose of the resolution. John Adams wrote the preamble, which stated that because King George had rejected reconciliation and was hiring foreign mercenaries to use against the colonies, “it is necessary that the exercise of every kind of authority under the said crown should be totally suppressed”.[44] Adams’s preamble was meant to encourage the overthrow of the governments of Pennsylvania and Maryland, which were still under proprietary governance.[45] Congress passed the preamble on May 15 after several days of debate, but four of the middle colonies voted against it, and the Maryland delegation walked out in protest.[46] Adams regarded his May 15 preamble effectively as an American declaration of independence, although a formal declaration would still have to be made.[47]
On the same day that Congress passed Adams’s radical preamble, the Virginia Convention set the stage for a formal Congressional declaration of independence. On May 15, the Convention instructed Virginia’s congressional delegation “to propose to that respectable body to declare the United Colonies free and independent States, absolved from all allegiance to, or dependence upon, the Crown or Parliament of Great Britain”.[48] In accordance with those instructions, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia presented a three-part resolution to Congress on June 7.[49] The motion was seconded by John Adams, calling on Congress to declare independence, form foreign alliances, and prepare a plan of colonial confederation. The part of the resolution relating to declaring independence read:
Resolved, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.[50]
Lee’s resolution met with resistance in the ensuing debate. Opponents of the resolution conceded that reconciliation was unlikely with Great Britain, while arguing that declaring independence was premature, and that securing foreign aid should take priority.[51] Advocates of the resolution countered that foreign governments would not intervene in an internal British struggle, and so a formal declaration of independence was needed before foreign aid was possible. All Congress needed to do, they insisted, was to “declare a fact which already exists”.[52] Delegates from Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, Maryland, and New York were still not yet authorized to vote for independence, however, and some of them threatened to leave Congress if the resolution were adopted. Congress, therefore, voted on June 10 to postpone further discussion of Lee’s resolution for three weeks.[53] Until then, Congress decided that a committee should prepare a document announcing and explaining independence in the event that Lee’s resolution was approved when it was brought up again in July.
The final push
This idealized depiction of (left to right) Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson working on the Declaration was widely reprinted (by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris, 1900).[54]
Support for a Congressional declaration of independence was consolidated in the final weeks of June 1776. On June 14, the Connecticut Assembly instructed its delegates to propose independence and, the following day, the legislatures of New Hampshire and Delaware authorized their delegates to declare independence.[55] In Pennsylvania, political struggles ended with the dissolution of the colonial assembly, and a new Conference of Committees under Thomas McKean authorized Pennsylvania’s delegates to declare independence on June 18.[56] The Provincial Congress of New Jersey had been governing the province since January 1776; they resolved on June 15 that Royal GovernorWilliam Franklin was “an enemy to the liberties of this country” and had him arrested.[57] On June 21, they chose new delegates to Congress and empowered them to join in a declaration of independence.[58]
Only Maryland and New York had yet to authorize independence towards the end of June. Previously, Maryland’s delegates had walked out when the Continental Congress adopted Adams’s radical May 15 preamble, and had sent to the Annapolis Convention for instructions.[59] On May 20, the Annapolis Convention rejected Adams’s preamble, instructing its delegates to remain against independence. But Samuel Chase went to Maryland and, thanks to local resolutions in favor of independence, was able to get the Annapolis Convention to change its mind on June 28.[60] Only the New York delegates were unable to get revised instructions. When Congress had been considering the resolution of independence on June 8, the New York Provincial Congress told the delegates to wait.[61] But on June 30, the Provincial Congress evacuated New York as British forces approached, and would not convene again until July 10. This meant that New York’s delegates would not be authorized to declare independence until after Congress had made its decision.[62]
Political maneuvering was setting the stage for an official declaration of independence even while a document was being written to explain the decision. On June 11, 1776, Congress appointed a “Committee of Five” to draft a declaration, consisting of John Adams of Massachusetts, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, Robert R. Livingston of New York, and Roger Sherman of Connecticut. The committee took no minutes, so there is some uncertainty about how the drafting process proceeded; contradictory accounts were written many years later by Jefferson and Adams, too many years to be regarded as entirely reliable—although their accounts are frequently cited.[63] What is certain is that the committee discussed the general outline which the document should follow and decided that Jefferson would write the first draft.[64] The committee in general, and Jefferson in particular, thought that Adams should write the document, but Adams persuaded them to choose Jefferson and promised to consult with him personally.[2] Considering Congress’s busy schedule, Jefferson probably had limited time for writing over the next 17 days, and he likely wrote the draft quickly.[65] He then consulted the others and made some changes, and then produced another copy incorporating these alterations. The committee presented this copy to the Congress on June 28, 1776. The title of the document was “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled.”[66]
Portable writing desk that Jefferson used to draft and write the Declaration of Independence
Congress ordered that the draft “lie on the table”[67] and then methodically edited Jefferson’s primary document for the next two days, shortening it by a fourth, removing unnecessary wording, and improving sentence structure.[68] They removed Jefferson’s assertion that Great Britain had forced slavery on the colonies in order to moderate the document and appease persons in Great Britain who supported the Revolution. Jefferson wrote that Congress had “mangled” his draft version, but the Declaration that was finally produced was “the majestic document that inspired both contemporaries and posterity,” in the words of his biographer John Ferling.[68]
Congress tabled the draft of the declaration on Monday, July 1 and resolved itself into a committee of the whole, with Benjamin Harrison of Virginia presiding, and they resumed debate on Lee’s resolution of independence.[69]John Dickinson made one last effort to delay the decision, arguing that Congress should not declare independence without first securing a foreign alliance and finalizing the Articles of Confederation.[70] John Adams gave a speech in reply to Dickinson, restating the case for an immediate declaration.
A vote was taken after a long day of speeches, each colony casting a single vote, as always. The delegation for each colony numbered from two to seven members, and each delegation voted amongst themselves to determine the colony’s vote. Pennsylvania and South Carolina voted against declaring independence. The New York delegation abstained, lacking permission to vote for independence. Delaware cast no vote because the delegation was split between Thomas McKean, who voted yes, and George Read, who voted no. The remaining nine delegations voted in favor of independence, which meant that the resolution had been approved by the committee of the whole. The next step was for the resolution to be voted upon by Congress itself. Edward Rutledge of South Carolina was opposed to Lee’s resolution but desirous of unanimity, and he moved that the vote be postponed until the following day.[71]
“Declaration House”, the boarding house at Market and S. 7th Street where Jefferson wrote the Declaration
On July 2, South Carolina reversed its position and voted for independence. In the Pennsylvania delegation, Dickinson and Robert Morris abstained, allowing the delegation to vote three-to-two in favor of independence. The tie in the Delaware delegation was broken by the timely arrival of Caesar Rodney, who voted for independence. The New York delegation abstained once again since they were still not authorized to vote for independence, although they were allowed to do so a week later by the New York Provincial Congress.[72] The resolution of independence was adopted with twelve affirmative votes and one abstention, and the colonies officially severed political ties with Great Britain.[73]John Adams wrote to his wife on the following day and predicted that July 2 would become a great American holiday[74] He thought that the vote for independence would be commemorated; he did not foresee that Americans would instead celebrate Independence Day on the date when the announcement of that act was finalized.[75]
I am apt to believe that [Independence Day] will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.[76]
Congress next turned its attention to the committee’s draft of the declaration. They made a few changes in wording during several days of debate and deleted nearly a fourth of the text. The wording of the Declaration of Independence was approved on July 4, 1776 and sent to the printer for publication.
The opening of the original printing of the Declaration, printed on July 4, 1776 under Jefferson’s supervision. The engrossed copy was made later (shown at the top of this article). Note that the opening lines differ between the two versions.[77]
There is a distinct change in wording from this original broadside printing of the Declaration and the final official engrossed copy. The word “unanimous” was inserted as a result of a Congressional resolution passed on July 19, 1776:
Resolved, That the Declaration passed on the 4th, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile of “The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America,” and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress.[78]
Historian George Billias says:
Independence amounted to a new status of interdependence: the United States was now a sovereign nation entitled to the privileges and responsibilities that came with that status. America thus became a member of the international community, which meant becoming a maker of treaties and alliances, a military ally in diplomacy, and a partner in foreign trade on a more equal basis.[79]
Annotated text of the engrossed declaration
The declaration is not divided into formal sections; but it is often discussed as consisting of five parts: introduction, preamble, indictment of King George III, denunciation of the British people, and conclusion.[80]
Introduction
Asserts as a matter of Natural Law the ability of a people to assume political independence; acknowledges that the grounds for such independence must be reasonable, and therefore explicable, and ought to be explained.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Preamble
Outlines a general philosophy of government that justifies revolution when government harms natural rights.[80]
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Indictment
A bill of particulars documenting the king’s “repeated injuries and usurpations” of the Americans’ rights and liberties.[80]
“Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
“He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
“He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
“He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
“He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.
“He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
“He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
“For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
“For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
“For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
“For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
“For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
“For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
“He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
“He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
“He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
Denunciation
This section essentially finishes the case for independence. The conditions that justified revolution have been shown.[80]
“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”
Conclusion
The signers assert that there exist conditions under which people must change their government, that the British have produced such conditions and, by necessity, the colonies must throw off political ties with the British Crown and become independent states. The conclusion contains, at its core, the Lee Resolution that had been passed on July 2.
“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”
Signatures
The first and most famous signature on the engrossed copy was that of John Hancock, President of the Continental Congress. Two future presidents (Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) and a father and great-grandfather of two other presidents (Benjamin Harrison V) were among the signatories. Edward Rutledge (age 26) was the youngest signer, and Benjamin Franklin (age 70) was the oldest signer. The fifty-six signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows (from north to south):[81]
English political philosopher John Locke (1632–1704)
Historians have often sought to identify the sources that most influenced the words and political philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. By Jefferson’s own admission, the Declaration contained no original ideas, but was instead a statement of sentiments widely shared by supporters of the American Revolution. As he explained in 1825:
Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.[82]
Jefferson’s most immediate sources were two documents written in June 1776: his own draft of the preamble of the Constitution of Virginia, and George Mason‘s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Ideas and phrases from both of these documents appear in the Declaration of Independence.[83] They were, in turn, directly influenced by the 1689 English Declaration of Rights, which formally ended the reign of King James II.[84] During the American Revolution, Jefferson and other Americans looked to the English Declaration of Rights as a model of how to end the reign of an unjust king.[85] The Scottish Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) have also been offered as models for Jefferson’s Declaration, but these models are now accepted by few scholars.[86]
Jefferson wrote that a number of authors exerted a general influence on the words of the Declaration.[87] English political theorist John Locke is usually cited as one of the primary influences, a man whom Jefferson called one of “the three greatest men that have ever lived”.[88] In 1922, historian Carl L. Becker wrote, “Most Americans had absorbed Locke’s works as a kind of political gospel; and the Declaration, in its form, in its phraseology, follows closely certain sentences in Locke’s second treatise on government.”[89] The extent of Locke’s influence on the American Revolution has been questioned by some subsequent scholars, however. Historian Ray Forrest Harvey argued in 1937 for the dominant influence of Swiss jurist Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, declaring that Jefferson and Locke were at “two opposite poles” in their political philosophy, as evidenced by Jefferson’s use in the Declaration of Independence of the phrase “pursuit of happiness” instead of “property”.[90] Other scholars emphasized the influence of republicanism rather than Locke’s classical liberalism.[91] Historian Garry Wills argued that Jefferson was influenced by the Scottish Enlightenment, particularly Francis Hutcheson, rather than Locke,[92] an interpretation that has been strongly criticized.[93]
Legal historian John Phillip Reid has written that the emphasis on the political philosophy of the Declaration has been misplaced. The Declaration is not a philosophical tract about natural rights, argues Reid, but is instead a legal document—an indictment against King George for violating the constitutional rights of the colonists.[94] As such, it follows the process of the 1550 Magdeburg Confession, which legitimized resistance against Holy Roman Emperor Charles V in a multi-step legal formula now known as the doctrine of the Lesser magistrate.[95] Historian David Armitage has argued that the Declaration was strongly influenced by de Vattel’s The Law of Nations, the dominant international law treatise of the period, and a book that Benjamin Franklin said was “continually in the hands of the members of our Congress”.[96] Armitage writes, “Vattel made independence fundamental to his definition of statehood”; therefore, the primary purpose of the Declaration was “to express the international legal sovereignty of the United States”. If the United States were to have any hope of being recognized by the European powers, the American revolutionaries first had to make it clear that they were no longer dependent on Great Britain.[97] The Declaration of Independence does not have the force of law domestically, but nevertheless it may help to provide historical and legal clarity about the Constitution and other laws.[98][99][100][101]
The signed copy of the Declaration is now badly faded because of poor preserving practices in the 19th century. It is on display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.
The Syng inkstand was used at both the signing of the Declaration and the 1787 signing of the U.S. Constitution.
The Declaration became official when Congress voted for it on July 4; signatures of the delegates were not needed to make it official. The handwritten copy of the Declaration of Independence that was signed by Congress is dated July 4, 1776. The signatures of fifty-six delegates are affixed; however, the exact date when each person signed it has long been the subject of debate. Jefferson, Franklin, and Adams all wrote that the Declaration had been signed by Congress on July 4.[102] But in 1796, signer Thomas McKean disputed that the Declaration had been signed on July 4, pointing out that some signers were not then present, including several who were not even elected to Congress until after that date.[103]
The Declaration was transposed on paper, adopted by the Continental Congress, and signed by John Hancock, President of the Congress, on July 4, 1776, according to the 1911 record of events by the U.S. State Departmentunder Secretary Philander C. Knox.[104] On August 2, 1776, a parchment paper copy of the Declaration was signed by 56 persons.[104] Many of these signers were not present when the original Declaration was adopted on July 4.[104] Signer Matthew Thornton from New Hampshire was seated in the Continental Congress in November; he asked for and received the privilege of adding his signature at that time, and signed on November 4, 1776.[104]
On July 4, 1776, Continental Congress President John Hancock‘s signature authenticated the United States Declaration of Independence.
Historians have generally accepted McKean’s version of events, arguing that the famous signed version of the Declaration was created after July 19, and was not signed by Congress until August 2, 1776.[105] In 1986, legal historian Wilfred Ritz argued that historians had misunderstood the primary documents and given too much credence to McKean, who had not been present in Congress on July 4.[106] According to Ritz, about thirty-four delegates signed the Declaration on July 4, and the others signed on or after August 2.[107] Historians who reject a July 4 signing maintain that most delegates signed on August 2, and that those eventual signers who were not present added their names later.[108]
Two future U.S. presidents were among the signatories: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. The most famous signature on the engrossed copy is that of John Hancock, who presumably signed first as President of Congress.[109]Hancock’s large, flamboyant signature became iconic, and the term John Hancock emerged in the United States as an informal synonym for “signature”.[110] A commonly circulated but apocryphal account claims that, after Hancock signed, the delegate from Massachusetts commented, “The British ministry can read that name without spectacles.” Another apocryphal report indicates that Hancock proudly declared, “There! I guess King George will be able to read that!”[111]
Various legends emerged years later about the signing of the Declaration, when the document had become an important national symbol. In one famous story, John Hancock supposedly said that Congress, having signed the Declaration, must now “all hang together”, and Benjamin Franklin replied: “Yes, we must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” The quotation did not appear in print until more than fifty years after Franklin’s death.[112]
The Syng inkstand used at the signing was also used at the signing of the United States Constitution in 1787.
Publication and reaction
Johannes Adam Simon Oertel‘s painting Pulling Down the Statue of King George III, N.Y.C., ca. 1859, depicts citizens destroying a statue of King George after the Declaration was read in New York City on July 9, 1776.
After Congress approved the final wording of the Declaration on July 4, a handwritten copy was sent a few blocks away to the printing shop of John Dunlap. Through the night, Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides for distribution. Before long, it was being read to audiences and reprinted in newspapers throughout the 13 states. The first formal public readings of the document took place on July 8, in Philadelphia (by John Nixon in the yard of Independence Hall), Trenton, New Jersey, and Easton, Pennsylvania; the first newspaper to publish it was the Pennsylvania Evening Post on July 6.[113] A German translation of the Declaration was published in Philadelphia by July 9.[114]
President of Congress John Hancock sent a broadside to General George Washington, instructing him to have it proclaimed “at the Head of the Army in the way you shall think it most proper”.[115] Washington had the Declaration read to his troops in New York City on July 9, with thousands of British troops on ships in the harbor. Washington and Congress hoped that the Declaration would inspire the soldiers, and encourage others to join the army.[113] After hearing the Declaration, crowds in many cities tore down and destroyed signs or statues representing royal authority. An equestrian statue of King George in New York City was pulled down and the lead used to make musket balls.[116]
William Whipple, signer of the Declaration of Independence, freed his slave believing that he could not both fight for liberty and own a slave.
British officials in North America sent copies of the Declaration to Great Britain.[117] It was published in British newspapers beginning in mid-August, it had reached Florence and Warsaw by mid-September, and a German translation appeared in Switzerland by October. The first copy of the Declaration sent to France got lost, and the second copy arrived only in November 1776.[118] It reached Portuguese America by Brazilian medical student “Vendek” José Joaquim Maia e Barbalho, who had met with Thomas Jefferson in Nîmes.
The Spanish-American authorities banned the circulation of the Declaration, but it was widely transmitted and translated: by Venezuelan Manuel García de Sena, by Colombian Miguel de Pombo, by Ecuadorian Vicente Rocafuerte, and by New Englanders Richard Cleveland and William Shaler, who distributed the Declaration and the United States Constitution among Creoles in Chile and Indians in Mexico in 1821.[119] The North Ministry did not give an official answer to the Declaration, but instead secretly commissioned pamphleteer John Lind to publish a response entitled Answer to the Declaration of the American Congress.[120] British Tories denounced the signers of the Declaration for not applying the same principles of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” to African Americans.[121]Thomas Hutchinson, the former royal governor of Massachusetts, also published a rebuttal.[122][123] These pamphlets challenged various aspects of the Declaration. Hutchinson argued that the American Revolution was the work of a few conspirators who wanted independence from the outset, and who had finally achieved it by inducing otherwise loyal colonists to rebel.[124] Lind’s pamphlet had an anonymous attack on the concept of natural rights written by Jeremy Bentham, an argument that he repeated during the French Revolution.[125] Both pamphlets asked how the American slaveholders in Congress could proclaim that “all men are created equal” without freeing their own slaves.[126]
William Whipple, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who had fought in the war, freed his slave Prince Whipple because of revolutionary ideals. In the postwar decades, other slaveholders also freed their slaves; from 1790 to 1810, the percentage of free blacks in the Upper South increased to 8.3 percent from less than one percent of the black population.[127] All Northern states abolished slavery by 1804.
The official copy of the Declaration of Independence was the one printed on July 4, 1776, under Jefferson’s supervision. It was sent to the states and to the Army and was widely reprinted in newspapers. The slightly different “engrossed copy” (shown at the top of this article) was made later for members to sign. The engrossed version is the one widely distributed in the 21st century. Note that the opening lines differ between the two versions.[77]
The copy of the Declaration that was signed by Congress is known as the engrossed or parchment copy. It was probably engrossed (that is, carefully handwritten) by clerk Timothy Matlack.[128] A facsimile made in 1823 has become the basis of most modern reproductions rather than the original because of poor conservation of the engrossed copy through the 19th century.[128] In 1921, custody of the engrossed copy of the Declaration was transferred from the State Department to the Library of Congress, along with the United States Constitution. After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, the documents were moved for safekeeping to the United States Bullion Depository at Fort Knox in Kentucky, where they were kept until 1944.[129] In 1952, the engrossed Declaration was transferred to the National Archives and is now on permanent display at the National Archives in the “Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom“.[130]
The Rotunda for the Charters of Freedom in the National Archives building
The document signed by Congress and enshrined in the National Archives is usually regarded as the Declaration of Independence, but historian Julian P. Boyd argued that the Declaration, like Magna Carta, is not a single document. Boyd considered the printed broadsides ordered by Congress to be official texts, as well. The Declaration was first published as a broadside that was printed the night of July 4 by John Dunlap of Philadelphia. Dunlap printed about 200 broadsides, of which 26 are known to survive. The 26th copy was discovered in The National Archives in England in 2009.[131]
In 1777, Congress commissioned Mary Katherine Goddard to print a new broadside that listed the signers of the Declaration, unlike the Dunlap broadside.[128][132] Nine copies of the Goddard broadside are known to still exist.[132] A variety of broadsides printed by the states are also extant.[132]
Several early handwritten copies and drafts of the Declaration have also been preserved. Jefferson kept a four-page draft that late in life he called the “original Rough draught”.[133] It is not known how many drafts Jefferson wrote prior to this one, and how much of the text was contributed by other committee members. In 1947, Boyd discovered a fragment of an earlier draft in Jefferson’s handwriting.[134] Jefferson and Adams sent copies of the rough draft to friends, with slight variations.
During the writing process, Jefferson showed the rough draft to Adams and Franklin, and perhaps to other members of the drafting committee,[133] who made a few more changes. Franklin, for example, may have been responsible for changing Jefferson’s original phrase “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident”.[135] Jefferson incorporated these changes into a copy that was submitted to Congress in the name of the committee.[133] The copy that was submitted to Congress on June 28 has been lost and was perhaps destroyed in the printing process,[136] or destroyed during the debates in accordance with Congress’s secrecy rule.[137]
On April 21, 2017, it was announced that a second engrossed copy had been discovered in the archives at West Sussex County Council in Chichester, England.[138] Named by its finders the “Sussex Declaration”, it differs from the National Archives copy (which the finders refer to as the “Matlack Declaration”) in that the signatures on it are not grouped by States. How it came to be in England is not yet known, but the finders believe that the randomness of the signatures points to an origin with signatory James Wilson, who had argued strongly that the Declaration was made not by the States but by the whole people.[139][140]
Legacy
The Declaration was given little attention in the years immediately following the American Revolution, having served its original purpose in announcing the independence of the United States.[141] Early celebrations of Independence Day largely ignored the Declaration, as did early histories of the Revolution. The act of declaring independence was considered important, whereas the text announcing that act attracted little attention.[142] The Declaration was rarely mentioned during the debates about the United States Constitution, and its language was not incorporated into that document.[143] George Mason’s draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights was more influential, and its language was echoed in state constitutions and state bills of rights more often than Jefferson’s words.[144] “In none of these documents”, wrote Pauline Maier, “is there any evidence whatsoever that the Declaration of Independence lived in men’s minds as a classic statement of American political principles.”[145]
According to historian David Armitage, the Declaration of Independence did prove to be internationally influential, but not as a statement of human rights. Armitage argued that the Declaration was the first in a new genre of declarations of independence that announced the creation of new states.
Other French leaders were directly influenced by the text of the Declaration of Independence itself. The Manifesto of the Province of Flanders (1790) was the first foreign derivation of the Declaration;[150] others include the Venezuelan Declaration of Independence (1811), the Liberian Declaration of Independence (1847), the declarations of secession by the Confederate States of America (1860–61), and the Vietnamese Proclamation of Independence (1945).[151] These declarations echoed the United States Declaration of Independence in announcing the independence of a new state, without necessarily endorsing the political philosophy of the original.[152]
Interest in the Declaration was revived in the 1790s with the emergence of the United States’s first political parties.[156] Throughout the 1780s, few Americans knew or cared who wrote the Declaration.[157] But in the next decade, Jeffersonian Republicans sought political advantage over their rival Federalists by promoting both the importance of the Declaration and Jefferson as its author.[158] Federalists responded by casting doubt on Jefferson’s authorship or originality, and by emphasizing that independence was declared by the whole Congress, with Jefferson as just one member of the drafting committee. Federalists insisted that Congress’s act of declaring independence, in which Federalist John Adams had played a major role, was more important than the document announcing it.[159] But this view faded away, like the Federalist Party itself, and, before long, the act of declaring independence became synonymous with the document.
A less partisan appreciation for the Declaration emerged in the years following the War of 1812, thanks to a growing American nationalism and a renewed interest in the history of the Revolution.[160] In 1817, Congress commissioned John Trumbull‘s famous painting of the signers, which was exhibited to large crowds before being installed in the Capitol.[161] The earliest commemorative printings of the Declaration also appeared at this time, offering many Americans their first view of the signed document.[162] Collective biographies of the signers were first published in the 1820s,[163] giving birth to what Garry Wills called the “cult of the signers”.[164] In the years that followed, many stories about the writing and signing of the document were published for the first time.
When interest in the Declaration was revived, the sections that were most important in 1776 were no longer relevant: the announcement of the independence of the United States and the grievances against King George. But the second paragraph was applicable long after the war had ended, with its talk of self-evident truths and unalienable rights.[165] The Constitution and the Bill of Rights lacked sweeping statements about rights and equality, and advocates of groups with grievances turned to the Declaration for support.[166] Starting in the 1820s, variations of the Declaration were issued to proclaim the rights of workers, farmers, women, and others.[167] In 1848, for example, the Seneca Falls Convention of women’s rights advocates declared that “all men and women are created equal”.[168]
John Trumbull’s Declaration of Independence (1817–1826)
John Trumbull‘s famous paintingis often identified as a depiction of the signing of the Declaration, but it actually shows the drafting committee presenting its work to the Congress.[169]
John Trumbull‘s painting Declaration of Independence has played a significant role in popular conceptions of the Declaration of Independence. The painting is 12-by-18-foot (3.7 by 5.5 m) in size and was commissioned by the United States Congress in 1817; it has hung in the United States Capitol Rotunda since 1826. It is sometimes described as the signing of the Declaration of Independence, but it actually shows the Committee of Five presenting their draft of the Declaration to the Second Continental Congress on June 28, 1776, and not the signing of the document, which took place later.[170]
Trumbull painted the figures from life whenever possible, but some had died and images could not be located; hence, the painting does not include all the signers of the Declaration. One figure had participated in the drafting but did not sign the final document; another refused to sign. In fact, the membership of the Second Continental Congress changed as time passed, and the figures in the painting were never in the same room at the same time. It is, however, an accurate depiction of the room in Independence Hall, the centerpiece of the Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Trumbull’s painting has been depicted multiple times on U.S. currency and postage stamps. Its first use was on the reverse side of the $100 National Bank Note issued in 1863. A few years later, the steel engraving used in printing the bank notes was used to produce a 24-cent stamp, issued as part of the 1869 Pictorial Issue. An engraving of the signing scene has been featured on the reverse side of the United States two-dollar bill since 1976.
The apparent contradiction between the claim that “all men are created equal” and the existence of American slavery attracted comment when the Declaration was first published. As mentioned above, Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Great Britain’s role in the slave trade, but this was deleted from the final version.[171] Jefferson himself was a prominent Virginia slave holder, having owned hundreds of slaves.[172] Referring to this seeming contradiction, English abolitionist Thomas Day wrote in a 1776 letter, “If there be an object truly ridiculous in nature, it is an American patriot, signing resolutions of independency with the one hand, and with the other brandishing a whip over his affrighted slaves.”[173]
In the 19th century, the Declaration took on a special significance for the abolitionist movement. Historian Bertram Wyatt-Brown wrote that “abolitionists tended to interpret the Declaration of Independence as a theological as well as a political document”.[174] Abolitionist leaders Benjamin Lundy and William Lloyd Garrison adopted the “twin rocks” of “the Bible and the Declaration of Independence” as the basis for their philosophies. “As long as there remains a single copy of the Declaration of Independence, or of the Bible, in our land,” wrote Garrison, “we will not despair.”[175] For radical abolitionists such as Garrison, the most important part of the Declaration was its assertion of the right of revolution. Garrison called for the destruction of the government under the Constitution, and the creation of a new state dedicated to the principles of the Declaration.[176]
The controversial question of whether to add additional slave states to the United States coincided with the growing stature of the Declaration. The first major public debate about slavery and the Declaration took place during the Missouri controversy of 1819 to 1821.[177]Antislavery Congressmen argued that the language of the Declaration indicated that the Founding Fathers of the United States had been opposed to slavery in principle, and so new slave states should not be added to the country.[178] Proslavery Congressmen led by Senator Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina argued that the Declaration was not a part of the Constitution and therefore had no relevance to the question.[179]
With the antislavery movement gaining momentum, defenders of slavery such as John Randolph and John C. Calhoun found it necessary to argue that the Declaration’s assertion that “all men are created equal” was false, or at least that it did not apply to black people.[180] During the debate over the Kansas–Nebraska Act in 1853, for example, Senator John Pettit of Indiana argued that the statement “all men are created equal” was not a “self-evident truth” but a “self-evident lie”.[181] Opponents of the Kansas–Nebraska Act, including Salmon P. Chase and Benjamin Wade, defended the Declaration and what they saw as its antislavery principles.[182]
The Declaration’s relationship to slavery was taken up in 1854 by Abraham Lincoln, a little-known former Congressman who idolized the Founding Fathers.[183] Lincoln thought that the Declaration of Independence expressed the highest principles of the American Revolution, and that the Founding Fathers had tolerated slavery with the expectation that it would ultimately wither away.[9] For the United States to legitimize the expansion of slavery in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, thought Lincoln, was to repudiate the principles of the Revolution. In his October 1854 Peoria speech, Lincoln said:
Nearly eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslave others is a “sacred right of self-government”. … Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. … Let us repurify it. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it. … If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union: but we shall have saved it, as to make, and keep it, forever worthy of the saving.[184]
The meaning of the Declaration was a recurring topic in the famed debates between Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. Douglas argued that the phrase “all men are created equal” in the Declaration referred to white men only. The purpose of the Declaration, he said, had simply been to justify the independence of the United States, and not to proclaim the equality of any “inferior or degraded race”.[185] Lincoln, however, thought that the language of the Declaration was deliberately universal, setting a high moral standard to which the American republic should aspire. “I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement in the condition of all men everywhere,” he said.[186] During the seventh and last joint debate with Steven Douglas at Alton, Illinois on October 15, 1858, Lincoln said about the declaration:
I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal—equal in “certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast as circumstances should permit. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all, constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere.[187]
According to Pauline Maier, Douglas’s interpretation was more historically accurate, but Lincoln’s view ultimately prevailed. “In Lincoln’s hands,” wrote Maier, “the Declaration of Independence became first and foremost a living document” with “a set of goals to be realized over time”.[188]
[T]here is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
Like Daniel Webster, James Wilson, and Joseph Story before him, Lincoln argued that the Declaration of Independence was a founding document of the United States, and that this had important implications for interpreting the Constitution, which had been ratified more than a decade after the Declaration.[190] The Constitution did not use the word “equality”, yet Lincoln believed that the concept that “all men are created equal” remained a part of the nation’s founding principles.[191] He famously expressed this belief in the opening sentence of his 1863 Gettysburg Address: “Four score and seven years ago [i.e. in 1776] our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
Lincoln’s view of the Declaration became influential, seeing it as a moral guide to interpreting the Constitution. “For most people now,” wrote Garry Wills in 1992, “the Declaration means what Lincoln told us it means, as a way of correcting the Constitution itself without overthrowing it.”[192] Admirers of Lincoln such as Harry V. Jaffa praised this development. Critics of Lincoln, notably Willmoore Kendall and Mel Bradford, argued that Lincoln dangerously expanded the scope of the national government and violated states’ rights by reading the Declaration into the Constitution.[193]
The adoption of the Declaration of Independence was dramatized in the 1969 Tony Award–winning musical 1776 and the 1972 film version, as well as in the 2008 television miniseries John Adams.[200][201] In 1970, The 5th Dimension recorded the opening of the Declaration on their album Portrait in the song “Declaration”. It was first performed on the Ed Sullivan Show on December 7, 1969, and it was taken as a song of protest against the Vietnam War.[202] The Declaration of Independence is also a plot device in the 2004 American film National Treasure.[203]
By DARLENE SUPERVILLE, CALVIN WOODWARD and LYNN BERRYyesterday
1 of 20
President Donald Trump, first lady Melania Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Karen Pence and others stand as the US Army Band performs and the US Navy Blue Angels flyover at the end of an Independence Day celebration in front of the Lincoln Memorial, Thursday, July 4, 2019, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump celebrated the story of America as “the greatest political journey in human history” in a Fourth of July commemoration before a soggy but cheering crowd of spectators, many of them invited, on the grounds of the Lincoln Memorial. Supporters welcomed his tribute to the U.S. military while protesters assailed him for putting himself center stage on a holiday devoted to unity.
As rain fell on him, Trump called on Americans to “stay true to our cause” during a program that adhered to patriotic themes and hailed an eclectic mix of history’s heroes, from the armed forces, space, civil rights and other endeavors of American life.
He largely stuck to his script, avoiding diversions into his agenda or re-election campaign. But in one exception, he vowed, “Very soon, we will plant the American flag on Mars,” actually a distant goal not likely to be achieved until late in the 2020s if even then.
A late afternoon downpour drenched the capital’s Independence Day crowds and Trump’s speech unfolded in occasional rain. The warplanes and presidential aircraft he had summoned conducted their flyovers as planned, capped by the Navy Blue Angels aerobatics team.
By adding his own, one-hour “Salute to America” production to capital festivities that typically draw hundreds of thousands anyway, Trump became the first president in nearly seven decades to address a crowd at the National Mall on the Fourth of July.
Protesters objecting to what they saw as his co-opting of the holiday inflated a roly-poly balloon depicting Trump as an angry, diaper-clad baby.
Trump set aside a historic piece of real estate — a stretch of the Mall from the Lincoln Monument to the midpoint of the reflecting pool — for a mix of invited military members, Republican and Trump campaign donors and other bigwigs. It’s where Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “I have a dream” speech, Barack Obama and Trump held inaugural concerts and protesters swarmed into the water when supporters of Richard Nixon put on a July 4, 1970, celebration, with the president sending taped remarks from California.
Aides to the crowd-obsessed Trump fretted about the prospect of empty seats at his event, said a person familiar with the planning who was not authorized to be identified. Aides scrambled in recent days to distribute tickets and mobilize the Trump and GOP social media accounts to encourage participation for an event hastily arranged and surrounded with confusion.
Back at the White House, Trump tweeted an aerial photo showing an audience that filled both sides of the memorial’s reflecting pool and stretched to the Washington Monument. “A great crowd of tremendous Patriots this evening, all the way back to the Washington Monument!” he said.
Many who filed into the sprawling VIP section said they got their free tickets from members of Congress or from friends or neighbors who couldn’t use theirs. Outside that zone, a diverse mix of visitors, locals, veterans, tour groups, immigrant families and more milled about, some drawn by Trump, some by curiosity, some by the holiday’s regular activities along the Mall.
Protesters earlier made their voices heard in sweltering heat by the Washington Monument, along the traditional parade route and elsewhere, while the VIP section at the reflecting pool served as something of a buffer for Trump’s event.
In the shadow of the Washington Monument hours before Trump’s speech, the anti-war organization Codepink erected a 20-foot tall “Trump baby” balloon to protest what activists saw as his intrusion in Independence Day and a focus on military might that they associate with martial regimes.
“We think that he is making this about himself and it’s really a campaign rally,” said Medea Benjamin, the organization’s co-director. “We think that he’s a big baby. … He’s erratic, he’s prone to tantrums, he doesn’t understand the consequences of his actions. And so this is a great symbol of how we feel about our president.”
The balloon remained tied down at the Mall because park officials restricted the group’s permission to move it or fill it with helium, Benjamin said.
Protesters also handed out small Trump-baby balloons on sticks. Molly King of La Porte, Indiana, a 13-year-old Trump supporter in sunglasses and a “Make America Great Again” hat, happily came away with one.
“They’re making a big stink about it but it’s actually pretty cute,” she said. “I mean, why not love your president as you’d love a baby?”
A small crowd gathered to take pictures with the big balloon, which drew Trump supporters and detractors.
“Even though everybody has different opinions,” said Kevin Malton, a Trump supporter from Middlesboro, Kentucky, “everybody’s getting along.”
But Daniela Guray, a 19-year-old from Chicago who held a “Dump Trump” sign, said she was subjected to a racial epithet while walking along the Constitution Avenue parade route and told to go home.
She said she did not come to the Mall to protest but ended up doing so. “I started seeing all the tanks with all the protests and that’s when I said, ‘Wait, this is not an actual Fourth of July,’” she said. “Trump is making it his day rather than the Fourth of July.”
Trump had sounded a defensive note Wednesday, tweeting that the cost “will be very little compared to what it is worth.” But he glossed over a host of expenses associated with the display of military might, including flying in planes and tanks and other vehicles to Washington by rail.
Not since 1951, when President Harry Truman spoke before a large gathering on the Washington Monument grounds to mark the 175th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, has a commander in chief made an Independence Day speech to a sizable crowd on the Mall.
Pete Buttigieg, one of the Democrats running for president, said, “This business of diverting money and military assets to use them as a kind of prop, to prop up a presidential ego, is not reflecting well on our country.” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is a Navy Reserve veteran who served in Afghanistan in 2014.
Two groups, the National Parks Conservation Foundation and Democracy Forward, want the Interior Department’s internal watchdog to investigate what they say may be a “potentially unlawful decision to divert” national parks money to Trump’s “spectacle.”
Trump has longed for a public display of U.S. military prowess ever since he watched a two-hour procession of French military tanks and fighter jets in Paris on Bastille Day in July 2017.
Washington has held an Independence Day celebration for decades, featuring a parade along Constitution Avenue, a concert on the Capitol lawn with music by the National Symphony Orchestra and fireworks beginning at dusk near the Washington Monument.
Trump altered the lineup by adding his speech, moving the fireworks closer to the Lincoln Memorial and summoning the tanks and warplanes.
Amid all the theatrics, Trump did pay tribute to the reason for the holiday — the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. “With a single sheet of parchment and 56 signatures,” Trump said, “America began the greatest political journey in human history.”
Story 2: Millions March and Protest for Freedom and Independence From Chinese Communist Coercion and Tyranny — Totalitarian Tyranny —Every breath you take — Every move you make — Every bond you break — Every step you take — I’ll be watching you — Every single day — Every word you say — Every game you play — Every night you stay — I’ll be watching you — Oh can’t you see — You belong to me — Chinese Communist Party Social Credit System — Belt and Road Initiative — Videos
The Police – Every Breath You Take (Official Music Video)
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every bond you break
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I’ll be watching you
Oh can’t you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you
Since you’ve gone I been lost without a trace
I dream at night I can only see your face
I look around but it’s you I can’t replace
I feel so cold and I long for your embrace
I keep crying baby, baby, please
Oh can’t you see
You belong to me
My poor heart aches
With every step you take
Every move you make
Every vow you break
Every smile you fake
Every claim you stake
I’ll be watching you
Every move you make
Every step you take
I’ll be watching you
I’ll be watching you
(Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
(Every move you make, every vow you break, every smile you fake, every claim you stake)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
(Every breath you take, every move you make, every bond you break, every step you take)
I’ll be watching you
(Every single day, every word you say, every game you play, every night you stay)
I’ll be watching you
How Microsoft Helped Build China’s Nightmare Surveillance | China Uncensored
China: facial recognition and state control | The Economist
Xi Jinping’s rise from living in a cave to president for life
15 Things You Didn’t Know About Xi Jinping
The rise of Xi Jinping: From life in exile to post-modern chairman | China Watch pt II
Is Taiwan a country… or part of China?
Uncovering China’s Detention And Torture Of Its Muslim Minority
China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World
Inside China’s ‘thought transformation’ camps – BBC News
China’s secret internment camps
How to recognize a dystopia – Alex Gendler
1984 (John Hurt) – Official Trailer
1984 Room 101
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) – Last Scene + Credits
George Orwell and 1984: How Freedom Dies
Hong Kong protesters call for people to withdraw funds from the Bank of China to keep up pressure on city’s Beijing-backed government as police arrest six demonstrators after latest clashes
Hong Kong protesters began circulating plans to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China
Six people have been arrested following violent clashes with police on Sunday
Police baton-charged small groups of young protesters who refused to disperse
Rallies sparked by extradition bill have morphed into anti-government protest
PUBLISHED: 04:44 EDT, 8 July 2019 | UPDATED: 11:24 EDT, 8 July 2019
Anti-government protesters in Hong Kong began circulating plans on Monday to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China in their bid to keep pressure on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders, after six people were arrested in the latest clashes with police.
The city has been plunged into its worst crisis in recent history following a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters.
The rallies were sparked by a now-suspended law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China, but have since morphed into a wider movement calling for democratic reforms and a halt to sliding freedoms in the semi-autonomous territory.
A protester is being restrained by an officer during violent clashes with police in Mong Kok district in Kowloon on Sunday night. Anti-government protesters in Hong Kong began circulating plans on Monday to ‘stress test’ the Bank of China in their bid to keep pressure on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders
Sunday night saw fresh political violence break out in Hong Kong’s district of Mongkok. The city has been plunged into its worst crisis in history following a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters
Sunday night saw fresh political violence break out in the district of Mongkok as police baton-charged small groups of masked, largely young protesters who were walking along roads and refused to disperse following another massive, peaceful rally earlier in the day.
Police said the group were taking part in an ‘unlawful assembly’ and had been warned that officers would take action.
‘Some protesters resisted and police arrested five persons for assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer in the execution of duties,’ a statement said.
Another protester was arrested earlier in the day for failing to provide identification during a stop and search.
Hong Kong police baton-charged small groups of masked, largely young protesters who were walking along roads and refused to disperse
Police said the group were taking part in an ‘unlawful assembly’ and had been warned that officers would take action. ‘Some protesters resisted and police arrested five persons for assaulting a police officer and obstructing a police officer in the execution of duties,’ a statement said
An anti-extradition bill protester is seen injured after a conflict with riot police at the end of a march at Hong Kong’s tourism district Mongkok on Sunday night
Activists hit out at the police tactics, saying the protesters had remained peaceful as they made their way home, and that violence was started by a shield wall of riot officers that had blocked the crowd’s path.
‘HKers joined rally peacefully… against extradition bill result in being beaten and assaulted by HK Police,’ democracy activist Joshua Wong wrote in a tweet accompanying pictures of at least two protesters with bleeding head wounds.
‘Just another example of excessive force used by the police,’ he added in another tweet.
By Monday morning, online groups were already planning more protests on encrypted messenger apps and chat forums that have been successfully used by demonstrators to bring out huge crowds.
Despite repeated requests, Hong Kong’s police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests
Protesters in Hong Kong are demanding that a postponed extradition bill be scrapped entirely. By Monday morning, online groups were already planning more protests on encrypted messenger apps and chat forums that have been successfully used by protesters
One proposal going viral was a call to collectively withdraw funds from the Bank of China this Saturday to ‘stress test’ the organisation’s liquidity.
The state-owned Bank of China’s towering Hong Kong headquarters is one of the most recognisable buildings in the territory’s famous skyline and the organisation is one of three banks licensed to issue its own notes
Shares in the bank were down about one percent Monday in line with the broader market.
Public anger has soared against the city’s pro-Beijing leaders and its police force after officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters outside parliament last month.
Since then the chaos has only escalated.
Public anger has soared against the city’s pro-Beijing leaders and its police force after officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse protesters outside parliament last month
Protesters are demanding the bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police tactics, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s leader Carrie Lam to step down
Last Monday, anger peaked as hundreds of demonstrators stormed and trashed the city’s parliament.
Those unprecedented scenes – and renewed huge marches – have failed to persuade the government, whose sole concession so far has been to suspend the loathed extradition bill.
Protesters are demanding the bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police tactics, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s unelected leader Carrie Lam to step down.
They have also demanded authorities stop characterising protesters as ‘rioters’, a definition that carries much steeper jail terms.
Beijing has thrown its full support behind the embattled Lam, calling on police to pursue anyone involved in the parliament storming and other clashes.
Sunday’s rally outside a controversial train station that runs to the mainland drew 230,000 people, organisers said, after calls for the gathering started on online forums and snowballed
Despite repeated requests, police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests
With the exception of a pre-dawn press conference after parliament was stormed, Lam has virtually disappeared from public view in recent weeks with little clue as to what direction her administration intends to take
With the exception of a pre-dawn press conference after parliament was stormed, Lam has virtually disappeared from public view in recent weeks with little clue as to what direction her administration intends to take.
Despite repeated requests, police have not released a breakdown of how many people have been detained in the last month of protests.
A tally kept by AFP shows at least 72 people have been arrested, though it is not clear how many have been charged.
Sunday’s rally outside a controversial train station that runs to the mainland drew 230,000 people, organisers said, after calls for the gathering started on online forums and snowballed.
Police estimated 56,000 people attended the protest at its peak.
Tens of thousands in Hong Kong take message to mainlanders
By KEN MORITSUGU and ALICE FUNGyesterday
1 of 26
Protesters march with a flag calling for Hong Kong independence in Hong Kong on Sunday, July 7, 2019. Thousands of people, many wearing black shirts and some carrying British flags, were marching in Hong Kong on Sunday, targeting a mainland Chinese audience as a month-old protest movement showed no signs of abating. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)
HONG KONG (AP) — Tens of thousands of people, many wearing black shirts and some carrying British colonial-era flags, marched in Hong Kong on Sunday, targeting a mainland Chinese audience as a month-old protest movement showed no signs of abating.
Chanting “Free Hong Kong” and words of encouragement to their fellow citizens, wave after wave of demonstrators streamed by a shopping district popular with mainland visitors on a march to the high-speed railway station that connects the semi-autonomous Chinese territory to Guangdong and other mainland cities.
Hong Kong has been riven by huge marches and sometimes disruptive protests for the past month, sparked by proposed changes to extradition laws that would have allowed suspects to be sent to the mainland to face trial. Hong Kong leader Carrie Lam suspended the bill and apologized for how it was handled, but protesters want it to be formally withdrawn and for Lam to resign.
Organizers said 230,000 people marched on Sunday, while police estimated the crowd at 56,000.
“We want to show our peaceful, graceful protest to the mainland visitors because the information is rather blocked in mainland,” march organizer Ventus Lau said. “We want to show them the true image and the message of Hong Kongers.”
Chinese media have not covered the protests or their origins widely, focusing on clashes with police and damage to public property.
As the crowd broke up Sunday night, a few hundred remained and taunted police who had retreated behind huge barriers set up outside the railway station, while others moved to Canton Road, a street lined with luxury boutique stores. Around 11 p.m., police moved to disperse protesters who were blocking a road and arrested five people for assaulting or obstructing police officers, their statement said.
The march was the first major action since two simultaneous protests last Monday, the 22nd anniversary of the July 1, 1997, return of Hong Kong from Britain to China.
The march through central Hong Kong that’s held annually drew hundreds of thousands of people. It was overshadowed this year, however, by an assault on the legislative building by a few hundred demonstrators who shattered thick glass panels to enter the building and then wreaked havoc for three hours, spray-painting slogans on the chamber walls, overturning furniture and damaging electronic voting and fire prevention systems.
Sunday’s march was the first protest against the extradition legislation to take place on the Kowloon side of Hong Kong harbor. The previous ones were on Hong Kong Island, the city’s business and government center.
Many of the marchers were young and wore black shirts that have become the uniform of the protesters. The largely peaceful crowd also included older people carrying handheld fans in the muggy heat, as well as parents with children, including some in baby strollers.
Many held placards, including one that read “Extradite to China, disappear forever.” Some carried the British flag or the old Hong Kong flag from when it was a British colony.
“This is our fourth march because we think this government is not taking care of Hong Kong,” said Dan Lee, who joined with his wife and their three children. “We need to save Hong Kong and we need to come out for our future generations.”
The extradition legislation has raised concerns about an erosion of freedoms and rights in Hong Kong, which was guaranteed its own legal system for 50 years after its return to China in 1997.
Prior to the march, police put up large barricades blocking a main entrance to the railway station to prevent any attempt to enter it. Only passengers with train reservations were allowed into the station, the mass transit authority said, and Hong Kong media reported that ticket sales had been suspended for afternoon trains.
“The high-speed railway station is a connection between Hong Kong and China and this is the nearest place we can spread our message to China,” said Lau, the march organizer.
The station was a source of contention before it opened last September, because passengers pass through Chinese immigration and customs inside. Some opposition lawmakers said the fact that Chinese law applies in the immigration area violates the handover agreement under which Hong Kong maintains its own legal system.
Protesters also are demanding an independent investigation into a crackdown on June 12 demonstrations in which officers used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse crowds blocking major streets. Police said the tactics, harsher than usual for Hong Kong, were justified after some protesters turned violent. Dozens were injured, both protesters and police.
The protesters are also calling for the direct election of Hong Kong’s leader. Lam was chosen by an elite committee of mainly pro-Beijing electors.
___
Associated Press journalist Johnson Lai contributed to this report.
PUBLISHED: 05:59 EDT, 7 July 2019 | UPDATED: 13:09 EDT, 7 July 2019
Riot police charged protesters in the district of Mongkok
Fresh political violence broke out in Hong Kong on Sunday night as riot police baton-charged anti-government protesters seeking to keep the pressure up on the city’s pro-Beijing leaders, after a mass rally outside a train station linking the finance hub to mainland China.
Hong Kong has been rocked by a month of huge marches as well as separate violent confrontations with police involving a minority of hardcore protesters, sparked by a law that would have allowed extraditions to mainland China.
Sunday’s clashes came hours after the first demonstration since young, masked protesters stormed parliament on Monday, plunging the city into an unprecedented crisis.
The extradition bill has been suspended following the backlash.
But that has done little to quell public anger, which has evolved into a wider movement calling for democratic reforms and a halt to sliding freedoms in the semi-autonomous city.
Protesters used umbrellas to defend themselves from police
Earlier on Sunday tens of thousands of people snaked through streets in the harbour-front district of Tsim Sha Tsui, an area popular with Chinese tourists, ending their march at a high-speed train terminus that connects to the mainland.
The march was billed as an opportunity to explain to mainlanders in the city what their protest movement is about given the massive censorship that Beijing’s leaders wield.
It passed without incident.
The rally was the first major protest since last Monday’s unprecedented storming of parliament by largely young protesters
But late Sunday police wielding batons and shields charged protesters to disperse a few hundreds demonstrators who had refused to leave.
AFP reporters saw multiple demonstrators detained by police after the fracas, their wrists bound with plastic handcuffs.
By early Monday only pockets of demontrators remained with police occupying key intersections around the protest area.
The scene of the clashes — Mongkok — is a densely-packed working class district, which has previosuly hosted running battles between police and anti-government protesters in 2014 and 2016.
– Bluetooth and Simplified Chinese –
Hong Kong enjoys rights unseen on the mainland, including freedom of speech, protected by a deal made before the city was handed back to China by Britain in 1997. But there are growing fears those liberties are being eroded.
Sunday’s clashes marred what had been an otherwise peaceful day of mass rallies aimed at reaching out to mainland Chinese visitors.
Organisers said 230,000 people marched while police said 56,000 attended at the peak.
“We want to show tourists, including mainland China tourists what is happening in Hong Kong and we hope they can take this concept back to China,” Eddison Ng, an 18-year-old demonstrator, told AFP.
Hong Kongers speak Cantonese but protesters used Bluetooth to send leaflets in Mandarin — the predominant language on the mainland — to nearby phones, hoping to spread the word to mainlanders.
There is still palpable anger at police for using tear gas and rubber bullets last month
“Why are there still so many people coming out to protest now?” one man said in Mandarin through a loudspeaker. “Because the Hong Kong government didn’t listen to our demands.”
Many protest banners were written with the Simplified Chinese characters used on the mainland, not the Traditional Chinese system used in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
Protesters are demanding the postponed extradition bill be scrapped entirely, an independent inquiry into police use of tear gas and rubber bullets, amnesty for those arrested, and for the city’s unelected leader Carrie Lam to step down.
Beijing has thrown its full support behind the embattled Lam, calling on Hong Kong police to pursue anyone involved in the parliament storming and other clashes.
Sunday’s protest made its way to a recently opened train station that links to China’s high-speed rail network
Sunday’s protest began on the waterfront — the first time a rally has taken place off the main island — and made its way to West Kowloon, a recently opened multi-billion-dollar station that links to China’s high-speed rail network.
The terminus is controversial because Chinese law operates in the parts of the station dealing with immigration and customs, as well as the platforms, even though West Kowloon is kilometres from the border.
Police gave permission for the rally to go ahead but said officers would step in if anyone attempted to storm the train station
Critics say that move gave away part of the city’s territory to an increasingly assertive Beijing.
Under Hong Kong’s mini-constitution China’s national laws do not apply to the city apart from in limited areas, including defence.
But many say the relationship is changing.
Among recent watershed moments critics point to are the disappearance into mainland custody of dissident booksellers, the disqualification of prominent politicians, the de facto expulsion of a foreign journalist and the jailing of democracy protest leaders.
Hong Kong riot police using batons, tear gas and pepper spray clash with protesters after million-strong demo over proposed new extradition bill with China
Roughly one million people have taken to Hong Kong’s streets to protest proposed new extradition laws
Riot police were called to control the crowds and were forced to use batons, tear gas guns and pepper spray
The laws will make it easier for people wanted in connection with crimes to be extradited to China and Macau
Opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system
PUBLISHED: 05:38 EDT, 9 June 2019 | UPDATED: 05:01 EDT, 10 June 2019
Several hundred riot police armed with batons, shields, tear gas guns and pepper spray sealed off the Legislative Council in Hong Kong as a similar number of protesters charged their lines shortly after midnight.
Police used batons and fired pepper spray at protesters, who still managed to close off part of a nearby road.
Several people on both sides appeared to be injured, and ambulances were called. Metal barriers were left twisted and torn in the clashes.
The Legislative Council is where debates will start on Wednesday to pass a new government bill that will allow suspects wanted in mainland China to be sent across the border for trial.
Hundreds of thousands of people have taken to Hong Kong’s streets on Sunday in a last bid to block a proposed extradition law that would allow suspects to be sent to China to face trial
+27
Police chiefs called for public restraint, government-funded broadcaster RTHK reported, as they mobilised more than 2,000 officers for a march that organisers expect to draw more than 500,000 people
Earlier today, hundreds of thousands had jammed Hong Kong’s streets to protest the bill in the biggest demonstration in years. Many said they feared it put the city’s vaunted legal independence at risk.
The rallies – and the violence – plunge the global financial hub into a fresh political crisis, with marchers and opposition leaders demanding the bill be shelved and that the city’s Beijing-backed Chief Executive Carrie Lam resign.
After seven hours of marching, organisers estimated 1,030,000 people took part, far outstripping a demonstration in 2003 when half that number hit the streets to successfully challenge government plans for tighter national security laws.
Earlier today, hundreds of thousands had jammed Hong Kong’s streets to protest the bill in the biggest demonstration in years. Many said they feared it put the city’s vaunted legal independence at risk
The rallies – and the violence – plunge the global financial hub into a fresh political crisis, with marchers and opposition leaders demanding the bill be shelved and that the city’s Beijing-backed Chief Executive Carrie Lam resign
After seven hours of marching, organisers estimated 1,030,000 people took part, far outstripping a demonstration in 2003 when half that number hit the streets to successfully challenge government plans for tighter national security laws
Hundreds of thousands of people took to Hong Kong’s streets on Sunday in a last bid to block a proposed extradition law that would allow suspects to be sent to China to face trial
+27
Police chiefs called for public restraint as they mobilised more than 2,000 officers for a march that organisers expect to draw more than 500,000 people
The protest is expected to challenge a 2003 rally, which was against tightening national security laws, as the largest ever seen in Hong Kong
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down.
One protester held a sign reading ‘Carry off Carrie’.
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down
Lam has tweaked the proposals but has refused to withdraw the bill, saying it is vital to plug a long-standing ‘loophole’
Protesters who arrived early chanted ‘no China extradition, no evil law’ while others called for Hong Kong’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam to step down
Many of the protesters carried yellow umbrellas, which were the symbol of the 2014 protests against Chinese reforms of the Hong Kong electoral system
Endless thousands of people are seen between the skyscrapers of Hong Kong during the march on Sunday
Opposition to the proposed bill has united a broad range of the community, from usually pro-establishment business people and lawyers to students, pro-democracy figures and religious groups
‘I come here to fight,’ said a wheelchair-bound, 78-year-old man surnamed Lai, who was among the first to arrive at Victoria Park
‘It may be useless, no matter how many people are here. We have no enough power to resist as Hong Kong government is supported by the mainland,’ said Lai, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease
Opposition to the proposed bill has united a broad range of the community, from usually pro-establishment business people and lawyers to students, pro-democracy figures and religious groups.
‘I come here to fight,’ said a wheelchair-bound, 78-year-old man surnamed Lai, who was among the first to arrive at Victoria Park.
‘It may be useless, no matter how many people are here. We have no enough power to resist as Hong Kong government is supported by the mainland,’ said Lai, who suffers from Parkinson’s disease.
The marchers will slowly make their way through the crowded Causeway Bay and Wanchai shopping and residential districts to Hong Kong’s parliament, where debates will start on Wednesday into government amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.
The marchers will slowly make their way through the crowded Causeway Bay and Wanchai shopping and residential districts to Hong Kong’s parliament, where debates will start on Wednesday into government amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance
A Hong Kong police officer with blood flowing down his face is assisted by his colleague after clashing with protesters
Riot police use pepper spray in an effort to keep protesters at bay during the rally against proposed amendments to the extradition law
The changes will simplify case-by-case arrangements to allow extradition of wanted suspects to countries including mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, beyond the 20 that Hong Kong already has extradition treaties with
Opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system and worry about security forces contriving charges
Large swathes of traffic was stopped by the thousands of people marching in Hong Kong on Sunday afternoon
The changes will simplify case-by-case arrangements to allow extradition of wanted suspects to countries, including mainland China, Macau and Taiwan, beyond the 20 that Hong Kong already has extradition treaties with.
But it is the prospect of renditions to mainland China that has alarmed many in Hong Kong. The former British colony was handed back to Chinese rule in 1997 amid guarantees of autonomy and freedoms, including a separate legal system.
‘It’s a proposal, or a set of proposals, which strike a terrible blow … against the rule of law, against Hong Kong’s stability and security, against Hong Kong’s position as a great international trading hub,’ the territory’s last British governor, Chris Patten, said on Thursday.
Whether in business, politics or social and religious groups, opponents of the plan say they deeply question the fairness and transparency of the Chinese court system and worry about security forces contriving charges.
Foreign governments have also expressed concern, warning of the impact on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial hub
Police and security officials shepherd protesters at the protest. There are an estimated 2000 policemen and women at the march
This protester channels English novelist George Orwell by saying ‘1984 is happening in Hong Kong’ in a reference to China’s surveillance of its own people
Foreign governments have also expressed concern, warning of the impact on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial hub, and noting that foreigners wanted in China risk getting ensnared in Hong Kong.
The concerns were highlighted on Saturday with news that a local high court judge had been reprimanded by the chief justice after his signature appeared on a public petition against the bill.
Reuters reported earlier that several senior Hong Kong judges were concerned about the changes, noting a lack of trust in mainland courts as well as the limited nature of extradition hearings.
Human rights groups have repeatedly expressed concerns about the use of torture, arbitrary detentions, forced confessions and problems accessing lawyers.
Signs were seen in several different languages at the march. One slogan protesters used was that ‘Hong Kong is not China’
Hong Kong government officials have repeatedly defended the plans, even as they raised the threshold of extraditable offences to crimes carrying penalties of seven years or more.
They say the laws carry adequate safeguards, including the protection of independent local judges who will hear cases before any approval by the Hong Kong chief executive.
No-one will be extradited if they face political or religious persecution or torture, or the death penalty.
‘We continue to listen to a wide cross-section of views and opinions and remain to open to suggestions on ways to improve the new regime,’ a government official said on Sunday.
It was known as the One Belt One Road (OBOR) (Chinese: 一带一路) and the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-century Maritime Silk Road (Chinese: 丝绸之路经济带和21世纪海上丝绸之路)[3] until 2016 when the Chinese government considered the emphasis on the word “one” was prone to misinterpretation.[4]
The Chinese government calls the initiative “a bid to enhance regional connectivity and embrace a brighter future”.[5] Some observers see it as a push for Chinese dominance in global affairs with a China-centered trading network.[6][7] The project has a targeted completion date of 2049,[8] which coincides with the 100th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China.
Initially, the initiative was termed One Belt One Road Strategy, but officials decided that the term “strategy” would create suspicions so they opted for the more inclusive term “initiative” in its translation.[11]
Initial objectives
The stated objectives are “to construct a unified large market and make full use of both international and domestic markets, through cultural exchange and integration, to enhance mutual understanding and trust of member nations, ending up in an innovative pattern with capital inflows, talent pool, and technology database.”[12] The initial focus has been infrastructure investment, education, construction materials, railway and highway, automobile, real estate, power grid, and iron and steel.[13] Already, some estimates list the Belt and Road Initiative as one of the largest infrastructure and investment projects in history, covering more than 68 countries, including 65% of the world’s population and 40% of the global gross domestic product as of 2017.[14][15]
The Belt and Road Initiative addresses an “infrastructure gap” and thus has potential to accelerate economic growth across the Asia Pacific area, Africa and Central and Eastern Europe: a report from the World Pensions Council (WPC) estimates that Asia, excluding China, requires up to US$900 billion of infrastructure investments per year over the next decade, mostly in debt instruments, 50% above current infrastructure spending rates.[16]The gaping need for long term capital explains why many Asian and Eastern European heads of state “gladly expressed their interest to join this new international financial institution focusing solely on ‘real assets’ and infrastructure-driven economic growth”.[17]
Political control
The Leading Group for Advancing the Development of One Belt One Road was formed sometime in late 2014, and its leadership line-up publicized on 1 February 2015. This steering committee reports directly into the State Council of the People’s Republic of China and is composed of several political heavyweights, evidence of the importance of the program to the government. Then Vice-Premier Zhang Gaoli, who was also a member of the 7-man Politburo Standing Committee then, was named leader of the group, with Wang Huning, Wang Yang, Yang Jing, and Yang Jiechi being named deputy leaders.[18]
On 28 March 2015, China’s State Council outlined the principles, framework, key areas of cooperation and cooperation mechanisms with regard to the initiative.[20]
Infrastructure networks
The Belt and Road Initiative is about improving the physical infrastructure along land corridors that roughly equate to the old silk road. These are the belts in the title, and a maritime silk road. [21] Infrastructure corridors encompassing around 60 countries, primarily in Asia and Europe but also including Oceania and East Africa, will cost an estimated US$4–8 trillion.[22][23] The initiative has been contrasted with the two US-centric trading arrangements, the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.[23] The projects receive financial support from the Silk Road Fund and Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank while they are technically coordinated by the B&R Summit Forum. The land corridors include:[21]
The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) (Chinese: 中国-巴基斯坦经济走廊; Urdu: پاكستان-چین اقتصادی راہداری) which is also classified as “closely related to the Belt and Road Initiative”,[26] a US$62 billion collection of infrastructure projects throughout Pakistan[27][28][29] which aims to rapidly modernize Pakistan’s transportation networks, energy infrastructure, and economy.[28][29][30][31] On 13 November 2016, CPEC became partly operational when Chinese cargo was transported overland to Gwadar Port for onward maritime shipment to Africa and West Asia.[32]
Silk Road Economic Belt
The Belt and Road Economies from its initial plan[33]
Xi Jinping visited Astana, Kazakhstan, and Southeast Asia in September and October 2013, and proposed jointly building a new economic area, the Silk Road Economic Belt (Chinese: 丝绸之路经济带) [34] Essentially, the “belt” includes countries situated on the original Silk Road through Central Asia, West Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. The initiative would create a cohesive economic area by building both hard infrastructure such as rail and road links and soft infrastructure such as the trade agreements and a common commercial legal structure with a court system to police the agreements.[2] It would increase cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. Outside this zone, which is largely analogous to the historical Silk Road, is an extension to include South Asia and Southeast Asia.
Many of the countries that are part of this belt are also members of the China-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Three belts are proposed. The North belt would go through Central Asia and Russia to Europe. The Central belt passes through Central Asia and West Asia to the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean. The South belt runs from China to Southeast Asia, South Asia, to the Indian Ocean through Pakistan. The strategy will integrate China with Central Asia through Kazakhstan‘s Nurly Zhol infrastructure program.[35]
The “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” (Chinese: 21世纪海上丝绸之路) , or just the Maritime Silk Road, is the sea route ‘corridor’.[2] It is a complementary initiative aimed at investing and fostering collaboration in Southeast Asia, Oceania, and Africa, through several contiguous bodies of water: the South China Sea, the South Pacific Ocean, and the wider Indian Ocean area.[36][37][38] It was first proposed in October 2013 by Xi Jinping in a speech to the Indonesian Parliament.[39] Like the Silk Road Economic Belt initiative, most countries have joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
Ice Silk Road
In addition to the Maritime Silk Road, Russia and China are reported to have agreed jointly to build an ‘Ice Silk Road’ along the Northern Sea Route in the Arctic, along a maritime route which Russia considers to be part of its internal waters.[40]
China COSCO Shipping Corp. has completed several trial trips on Arctic shipping routes, the transport departments of both Russia and China are constantly improving policies and laws related to development in the Arctic,[citation needed] and Chinese and Russian companies are seeking cooperation on oil and gas exploration in the area and to advance comprehensive collaboration on infrastructure construction, tourism and scientific expeditions.
Russia together with China approached the practical discussion of the global infrastructure project Ice Silk Road. This was stated by representatives of VnesheconomBank at the International conference Development of the shelf of Russia[41] and the CIS — 2019 (Petroleum Offshore of Russia), held in Moscow.
The delegates of the conference were representatives of the leadership of Russian and corporations (Gazprom, Lukoil, RosAtom, Rosgeologiya, VnesheconomBank, Morneftegazproekt, Murmanshelf, Russian Helicopters, etc.), as well as foreign auditors (Deloitte, member of the world Big Four) and consulting centers (Norwegian Rystad Energy and others.).[42]
Super grid
The super grid project aims to develop six ultra high voltage electricity grids across China, north-east Asia, Southeast Asia, south Asia, central Asia and west Asia. The wind power resources of central Asia would form one component of this grid.[43][44]
Project achievement
Countries which signed cooperation documents related to the Belt and Road Initiative
China has signed cooperational document on the belt and road initiative with 126 countries and 29 international organisations.[45] In terms of infrastructure construction, China and the countries along the Belt and Road have carried out effective cooperation in ports, railways, highways, power stations, aviation and telecommunications.[46]
Ethiopia‘s Eastern Industrial Zone is a manufacturing hub outside Addis Ababa that was built by China and occupied by factories of Chinese manufacturers.[48] According to Chinese media and the vice director of the industrial zone, there were 83 companies resident within the zone, of which 56 had started production.[49] However, a study in Geoforum noted that the EIZ has yet to serve as a catalyst for Ethiopia’s overall economic development due to many factors including poor infrastructure outside the zone. Discrepancies between the two countries industries also mean that Ethiopia cannot benefit from direct technological transfer and innovation.[50]
From October 2011 to February 2012, Chinese companies were contracted to supersede the century-old Ethio-Djibouti Railways by constructing a new electric standard gauge Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway. The new railway line, stretching more than 750 kilometres (470 mi) and travelling at 120 km/h (75 mph), shortens the journey time between Addis Ababa and Dijbouti from three days to about 12 hours.[51] The first freight service began in November 2015 and passenger service followed in October 2016.[52] On China–Ethiopia cooperation on international affairs, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China and Ethiopia are both developing countries, and both countries are faced with a complicated international environment. He stated that the partnership will be a model at the forefront of developing China–Africa relations.[53]
Kenya
In May 2014, Premier Li Keqiang signed a cooperation agreement with the Kenyan government to build the Mombasa–Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway connecting Mombasa to Nairobi. The railway cost US$3.2bn and was Kenya’s biggest infrastructure project since independence. The railway was claimed to cut the journey time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 9 hours by bus or 12 hours on the previous railway to 4.5 hours. In May 2017, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta called the 470 km railway a new chapter that “would begin to reshape the story of Kenya for the next 100 years”.[54] According to Kenya Railways Corporation, the railway carried 1.3 million Kenyans with a 96.7% seat occupancy and 600,000 tons of cargo in its first year of operation. Chinese media claim that the railway line boosted the country’s GDP by 1.5% and created 46,000 jobs for locals and trained 1,600 railway professionals.[55]
Nigeria
On 12 January 2019, Nigeria‘s first standard gauge railway, which has been successfully operated for 900 days, had no major accidents since its inception. With the successful completion of the railway construction by China Civil Engineering Construction Company (CCECC), the Abuja Kaduna train service began commercial operation on 27 July 2016. The Abuja-Kaduna Railway Line is one of the first standard railroad railway modernization projects (SGRMP) in Nigeria. This is the first part of the Lagos-Kano standard metrics project, which will connect the business centres of Nigeria with the economic activity centres of the northwestern part of the country.[56]
In a resolution of the Johannesburg Summit of the China-Africa Cooperation Forum in 2015, the Chinese government promised to provide satellite television to 10,000 African villages. It is reported that each of the 1,000 selected villages in Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, will receive two sets of solar projection television systems and a set of solar 32-inch digital TV integrated terminal systems. A total of 20,000 Nigerian rural families will benefit from the project. Kpaduma, an underdeveloped rural community on the edge of the Nigerian capital of Abuja, is familiar with analog TV and has no chance to see the satellite TV channels enjoyed by people in Nigerian towns. The implementation of the project will create more jobs, 1,000 Nigerians in selected villages have received training on how to install, recharge and operate satellite TV systems.[57]
Sudan
In Sudan, China has helped the country to establish its own oil industry, and provided agricultural assistance for the cotton industry.[citation needed]
Future plans include developing railways, roads, ports, a nuclear power station, solar power farms and more dams for irrigation and electricity generation.[58]
Europe
Freight train services between China and Europe were initiated in March 2011.[59] The service’s first freight route linked China to Tehran. The China–Britain route was launched in January 2017[60] As of 2018, the network had expanded to cover 48 Chinese cities and 42 European destinations, delivering goods between China and Europe. The 10,000th trip was completed on 26 August 2018 with the arrival of freight train X8044 in Wuhan, China from Hamburg, Germany.[61] The network was further extended southward to Vietnam in March 2018.[62]
The China–Belarus Industrial Park is a 91.5 km2 (35.3 sq mi) special economic zone established in Smolevichy, Minsk in 2013. According to the park’s chief administrator, 36 international companies have settled in the park as of August 2018.[63] Chinese media claim the park will create 6,000 jobs and become a real city with 10,000 residents by 2020.[64]
Greece
The foreign ministers of China and Greece signed a Memorandum of Understanding related to further cooperation under the Belt and Road initiative on 29 August 2018. COSCO revitalized and currently runs the Port of Piraeus.[65]
Italy
In March 2019, Italy became the first G7 Nation to join China’s Belt and Road Initiative. [66]
Luxembourg
On 27 March 2019, Luxembourg signed an agreement with China to cooperate on Belt and Road Initiative.[67]
On 26 April 2019, the leaders of Russia and China called their countries “good friends” and vowed to work together in pursuing greater economic integration of Eurasia. On the sidelines of the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin pledged to further strengthen economic and trade cooperation between the two sides. Vladimir Putin further stated that, “countries gathering under the Belt and Road Initiative and the Eurasian Economic Union share long-term strategic interests of peace and growth.” [68]
Switzerland
On 29 April 2019, during his visit in Beijing, Swiss President Ueli Maurer signed a Memorandum of Understanding with China under the Belt and Road Initiative.[69]
Asia
Armenia
On 4 April 2019, the President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian received a delegation led by Shen Yueyue, Vice-Chairwoman of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee of China in Yerevan, Armenia. President Sarkissian stated that Armenia and China are ancient countries with centuries-old tradition of cooperation since the existence of the Silk Road. The President noted the development of cooperation in the 21st century in the sidelines of the One Belt One Road program initiated by the top leadership of China and stated that “It’s time for Armenia to become part of the new Silk Road”.[70]
Central Asia
The five countries of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan – are an important part of the land route of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).[71]
Hong Kong
During his 2016 policy address, Hong Kong chief executive Leung Chun-ying‘s announced his intention of setting up a Maritime Authority aimed at strengthening Hong Kong’s maritime logistics in line with Beijing’s economic policy.[72] Leung mentioned “One Belt, One Road” no fewer than 48 times during the policy address,[73] but details were scant.[74][75]
Indonesia
In 2016, China Railway International won a bid to build Indonesia‘s first high-speed rail, the 140 km (87 mi) Jakarta–Bandung High Speed Rail. It will shorten the journey time between Jakarta and Bandung from over three hours to forty minutes[76] The project, initially scheduled for completion in 2019, was delayed by land clearance issues.[77] 2000 locals are working on the project.
Laos
In Laos, construction of the 414 km (257 mi) Vientiane–Boten Railway began on 25 December 2016 and is scheduled to be completed in 2021. It is China’s first overseas railway project that will connect to China’s railway network.[78] Once operational, the Laos–China Railway will be Laos’ longest and connect with Thailand to become part of the proposed Kunming–Singapore railway, extending from the Chinese city of Kunming and running through Thailand and Laos to terminate at Singapore.[79][80] It is estimated to cost US$5.95 billion with 70% of the railway owned by China, while Laos’s remaining 30% stake will be mostly financed by loans from China.[81] However, it faces opposition within Laos due to the high cost of the project.[82]
In addition, Mahathir also threatened to deny foreign buyers a long-stay visa, prompting a clarification by Housing Minister Zuraida Kamaruddin and the Prime Minister’s Office.[90]
The project undergo negotiations for several months [91] and close to be cancelled off.[92] After rounds of negotiation and diplomatic mission, the ECRL project is resumed after Malaysia and China agreed to continue the project with reduced cost of RM 44 billion (US$10.68 billion) from the original of RM 65.5 billion.[93]
The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor is a major Belt and Road Initiative project encompassing investments in transport, energy and maritime infrastructure.
Sri Lanka
China’s main investment in Sri Lanka was the Magampura Mahinda Rajapaksa Port, mostly funded by the Chinese government and built by two Chinese companies. It claims to be the largest port in Sri Lanka after the Port of Colombo and the “biggest port constructed on land to date in the country”. It was initially intended to be owned by the Government of Sri Lanka and operated by the Sri Lanka Ports Authority, however it incurred heavy operational losses and the Sri Lankan government was unable to service the debt to China. In a debt restructuring plan on 9 December 2017, 70% of the port was leased and port operations were handed over to China for 99 years, The deal gave the Sri Lankan government $1.4 billion, that they will be using to pay off the debt to China. [94][95][96] This led to accusations that China was practicing debt-trap diplomacy.[97]
The port’s strategic location and subsequent ownership spurred concern over China’s growing economic footprint in the Indian Ocean and speculation that it could be used as a naval base. The Sri Lankan government promised that it was intended “purely for civilian use”.[98]
Colombo International Financial City built on land reclaimed from the Indian Ocean and funded with $1.4bn in Chinese investment is a special financial zone and another major Chinese investment in Sri Lanka. [99]
Thailand
In Thailand in 2005, the Chinese pharmaceutical company, Holley Group, and the Thai industrial estate developer, Amata Group, signed an agreement to develop the Thai–Chinese Rayong Industrial Zone. Since 2012, Chinese companies have also opened solar, rubber, and industrial manufacturing plants in the zone, and the zone expects the number to increase to 500 by 2021.[100] Chinese media have attributed this to Thailand’s zero tax incentives on land use and export products as well as favorable labor costs, and claimed that the zone had created more than 3000 local jobs.[101]
In December 2017, China and Thailand began the construction of a high-speed railway that links the cities of Bangkok and Nakhon Ratchasima, which will be extended to Nong Khai to connect with Laos, as part of the planned Kunming–Singapore railway.[102]
South America
Panama was the first to sign BRI agreements, followed by Bolivia, Antigua and Barbuda, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana.[103]
Argentina
The Argentine-China Joint Hydropower Project will build two dams on the Santa Cruz River in southern Argentina: Condor Cliff and La Barrancosa. The China Gezhouba Group Corporation (CGGC) will be responsible for the project, which is expected to provide 5,000 direct and 15,000 indirect jobs in the country. It will generate 4,950 MWh of electricity, reducing the dependence on fossil fuels.[104]
The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, first proposed in October 2013, is a development bank dedicated to lending for infrastructure projects. As of 2015, China announced that over one trillion yuan (US$160 billion) of infrastructure related projects were in planning or construction.[106]
The primary goals of AIIB are to address the expanding infrastructure needs across Asia, enhance regional integration, promote economic development and improve the public access to social services.[107]
The Articles of Agreement of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) (the legal framework) were signed in Beijing on 29 June 2015. The proposed bank has an authorized capital of $100 billion, 75% of which will come from Asia and Oceania. China will be the single largest stakeholder, holding 26% of voting rights.[needs update]. The board of governors is AIIB’s highest decision-making body.[108] The bank began operation on 16 January 2016, and approved its first four loans in June.[109]
In November 2014, Xi Jinping announced a US$40 billion development fund, which would be separate from the banks and not part of the CPEC investment. TheSilk Road Fund would invest in businesses rather than lend money to the projects. The Karot Hydropower Project, 50 km (31 mi) from Islamabad, Pakistan is the first project. [110] The Chinese government has promised to provide Pakistan with at least US$350 million by 2030 to finance this station. The Sanxia Construction Corporation commenced work in January 2016.[111]
A university alliance centered at Xi’an Jiaotong University aims to support the Belt and Road initiative with research and engineering, and to foster understanding and academic exchange.[112][113] The network extends beyond the economic zone, and includes a law schoolalliance to “serve the Belt and Road development with legal spirit and legal culture”.[114]
Commentary
Infrastructure-based development
China is a world leader in infrastructure investment.[115] In contrast with the general underinvestment in transportation infrastructure in the industrialized world after 1980 and the pursuit of export-oriented development policies in most Asian and Eastern Europeancountries,[116][117] China has pursued an infrastructure-based development strategy, which has resulted in engineering and construction expertise and a wide range of modern reference projects from which to draw, including roads, bridges, tunnels, and high-speed railprojects.[118] Collectively, many of China’s projects are called “mega-infrastructure“.
Between 2014 and 2016, China’s total trade volume in the countries along the Belt and Road exceeded $3 trillion, created $1.1 billion revenues and 180,000 jobs for the countries involved.[122] However, partnering countries worry whether the large debt burden on China to promote the Initiative will make China’s pledges declaratory.[123]
Accusations of neocolonialism
There has been concern over the project being a form of neocolonialism. In 2018, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad cancelled China-funded projects and warns “there is a new version of Colonialism happening”,[85] which he later clarified as not being about China and its Belt and Road Initiative in an interview with the BBC HARDtalk.[124][125] Some Western governments have accused the Belt and Road Initiative of being neocolonial due to what they allege as China practice of debt trap diplomacy to fund the initiative’s infrastructure projects.[126]
Swaine (2019) describes such accusations as concerns grossly inflated and oversold, attributing repayment problems in individual cases to reckless and inexperienced practices as opposed to premeditation on the part of Chinese investment.[127] The Chinese government characterizes claims of neocolonialism or debt-trap diplomacy as manipulations to sow mistrust about China’s intentions.[128] China contends that the initiative has provided markets for commodities, improved prices of resources and thereby reduced inequalities in exchange, improved infrastructure, created employment, stimulated industrialization, and expanded technology transfer, thereby benefiting host countries.[129] Blanchard (2018) argues that the potential scope of the benefits may not be fully recognized and the negatives exaggerated, noting that critics are concerned with disparaging Chinese investments and suggesting that they should shift their focus to empowering host countries instead.[129] Poghosyan (2018) states that some Chinese experts claim that such Western perceptions of the Belt and Road Initiative are misconstrued due to Western conceptions of development as seen through their own lens of exploitation of others for resources—as exemplified by European colonialism—instead of through Chinese conceptions of development.[130] Set to differentiate from the coercive nature as was characterized by Western colonialism, as stated by Xing (2017), China’s strategic paradigm for the Belt and Road Initiative involves the active participation and cooperation of partner countries.[131]
Government officials in India have repeatedly objected to China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), specifically because they believe the “China–Pakistan Economic Corridor” (CPEC) project ignores New Delhi’s essential concerns on sovereignty and territorial integrity.[132]
Practically, developing infrastructural ties with its neighboring countries will reduce physical and regulatory barriers to trade by aligning standards.[133] China is also using the Belt and Road Initiative to address excess capacity in its industrial sectors, in the hopes that whole production facilities may eventually be migrated out of China into BRI countries.[134]
A report from Fitch Ratings suggests that China’s plan to build ports, roads, railways, and other forms of infrastructure in under-developed Eurasia and Africa is out of political motivation rather than real demand for infrastructure. The Fitch report also doubts Chinese banks’ ability to control risks, as they do not have a good record of allocating resources efficiently at home, which may lead to new asset-quality problems for Chinese banks that most of funding is likely to come from.[135]
The Belt and Road Initiative is believed by some analysts to be a way to extend Chinese influence at the expense of the US, in order to fight for regional leadership in Asia.[136][137] Some geopolitical analysts have couched the Belt and Road Initiative in the context of Halford Mackinder‘s heartland theory.[138][139][140] China has already invested billions of dollars in several South Asian countries like Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to improve their basic infrastructure, with implications for China’s trade regime as well as its military influence. China has emerged as one of the fastest-growing sources of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into India – it was the 17th largest in 2016, up from the 28th rank in 2014 and 35th in 2011, according to India’s official ranking of FDI inflows.
An analysis by the Jamestown Foundation suggests that the BRI also serves Xi Jinping’s intention to bring about “top-level design” of economic development, whereby several infrastructure-focused state-controlled firms are provided with profitable business opportunities in order to maintain high GDP growth.[141] Through the requirement that provincial-level companies have to apply for loans provided by the Party-state to participate in regional BRI projects, Beijing has also been able to take more effective control over China’s regions and reduce “centrifugal forces”.[141]
Another aspect of Beijing’s motivations for BRI is the initiative’s internal state-building and stabilisation benefits for its vast inland western regions such as Xinjiang and Yunnan. Academic Hong Yu argues that Beijing’s motivations also lie in developing these less developed regions, with increased flows of international trade facilitating closer economic integration with the China’s inland core.[142] Beijing may also be motivated by BRI’s potential benefits in pacifying China’s restive Uyghur population. Harry Roberts suggests that the Communist Party is effectively attempting to assimilate and pacify China’s Uyghur community by using economic opportunities to increase integration between Han settlers and the native population.[143]
Reactions over the world
Supporters of the project
Russia
Moscow has been an early partner of China in the New Silk Roads project. President Putin and President Xi have met several times in the last decade and have already agreed on developments which will be of mutual benefit. In March 2015, Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov asserted that “Russia should not view the Silk Road Economic Belt as a threat to its traditional, regional sphere of influence […] but as an opportunity for the Eurasian Economic Union”. Russia and China now have altogether 150 common projects for Eurasian union and China. These projects, some under the “Ice Silk Road” plan, include gas transmission system, gas refinery plants, manufacturing of vehicles, heavy industries, and new types of services. Not only that, China Development Bank loaned Russia the equivalent of more than 9.6 billion U.S. dollars.[144] An additional proof both countries are growing into a strong partnership is that in official report titled “The Belt and Road Initiative: Progress, Contributions, and Prospects” Russia was mentioned 18 times, the most out of all countries except China.[145]
Asia
One of China’s claimed official priority is to benefit its neighbors before everyone else. During the second Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation which was held in May 2019, Xi Jinping reaffirmed his will to promote regional trade whether it was with President Vorachith of Laos[146] or President Loong of Singapore[147] and that, for the benefit of all the parties. This goes in line with the joint effort decided in November 2015 to move ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)-China relation to a higher level of economic cooperation in areas such as Agriculture, IT, Transport, Communications, etc.[148]
Arab countries
In April 2019 and during the second Arab Forum on Reform and Development, China engaged in an array of partnerships called “Build the Belt and Road, Share Development and Prosperity” with 18 Arab countries. The amount of trade between the two entities has grown almost ten-fold over the last 10 years. That is because China does not see the Middle East as their ‘petrol station’ anymore. Many further areas of commerce are being involved nowadays; ports in Oman, factories in Algeria, skyscrapers in Egypt’s new capital, etc. China is interested in providing a financial security to those countries, who after many Arab wars and American interventions, live off the U.S support. On the one hand, Arab countries gain independence and on the other, China opens the door of a colossal market. As the president of LebanonMichel Aoun stated, “We regard China as a good friend and are willing to further consolidate the relationship with China. We would like to draw the experience from China’s reform and development so as to benefit our people and seek our opportunities for development”.[149] An additional advantage on China’s part is that it plays a neutral role on the level of diplomacy. China is not interesting in intervening between Saudi Arabia and Iran’s conflict for instance. Therefore, it succeeds in both trading with countries which are enemies such Israel and the Palestinian territories or Israel and Syria.[150]
Africa
Attending the second Belt and Road Forum, former president of the world bank and current president of the UNECA (United Nations Economic Commission for Africa)Vera Songwe said: “This (BRI) is probably one of the biggest growths and development initiatives that we have in the world”. The statement well sums up the general stand of African countries. Just like Arab countries, they see the BRI as a tremendous opportunity for independence from the foreign aid and influence. More than half the continent has already signed partnerships with the Middle Kingdom. Lu Kang, spokesman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently declared: “We will advance bilateral cooperation in areas including industries, infrastructure, trade and investment, improve the living standards of African people, bring more development dividends to African countries, and deliver more benefits to people in China and Africa.” Not only that, he continued saying: “The two sides have already launched many important cooperation projects and achieved early harvests.”[151]
Italy/eastern Europe
Greece, Croatia and 14 other eastern Europe countries are already dealing with China within the frame of the BRI. While most of them still suffer the aftereffect of the 2008 economic crisis, China’s approach creates a new range of opportunities and offers an economic breath of fresh air. Hence, it is not surprising that, in March 2019, Italy was the first member of the Group of Seven nations to join the Chinese Initiative. The new partners signed a 2.5 billion euros “Memorandum of Understanding” across an array of sectors such as transport, logistics and port infrastructure to strengthen financial cooperation.[152] The Italian PM immediately affirmed his trust toward China declaring: “Cooperation is bigger than competition between China and Europe”. Former Italian President Giuseppe Conte’s decision was followed soon thereafter by neighboring countries Luxembourg and Switzerland. A few weeks later, China won another victory by consolidating billions of dollars’ worth of infrastructure deals with the 16+1 Nations, which changed its name to the 17+1 group, as it saw Greece join the alliance as well.
One thing is for sure, for all those countries, the common denominator is the same. The general opinion is that China is the only one with a sustainable long-term plan and that the time has come to give the Middle Kingdom a chance when no one really has an alternative to offer in order to boost economic growth.
Opponents to the project
Australia, Japan, India and the US ‘Indo-Pacific Vision’
Japan, India and Australia joined forces to create an alternative to the Belt and Road creating the “Indo-Pacific strategy”. In reality, very few details are known about the project although it was initiated in 2016. By and large, the cooperation highlighted two topics: securing the Pacific Sea and guaranteeing free trade in the region.
Recently, the US joined the initiative thus renaming the alliance into the Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIP). President Donald Trump has begun translating the U.S. Free and Open Indo-Pacific strategy (FOIP) into more concrete initiatives across what officials have articulated as three pillars – security, economics, and governance. This can be seen as a direct counterattack against China which expands its military and whose communist roots are viewed by some as antagonistic to the idea of free trade.[153]
World Pensions Council director M. Nicolas J. Firzli has argued that the United States and its allies will strive to court large private sector asset owners such as pension funds, inviting them to play an increasingly important geo-economic part across the Asia Pacific area, alongside US and other state actors:
Even the self-absorbed, thrifty ‘America first’ policy makers in the White House eventually realized they couldn’t ignore these fateful geo-economic developments. In November 2018, vice-president Mike Pence travelled to Asia to promote President Trump’s ‘Indo-Pacific Vision’, an ambitious plan backed by tens of billions of dollars in new loans and credit-enhancement mechanisms to encourage “private investment in regional infrastructure assets”, insisting that “business, not bureaucrats will facilitate our efforts”. The new great game has just started, and pension investors will be courted assiduously by both Washington and Beijing in the coming years – not a bad position to be in in the ‘age of geoeconomics’.[154]
At the beginning of June 2019, there has been a redefinition of the general definitions of “free” and “open” into four specific principles – respect for sovereignty and independence; peaceful resolution of disputes; free, fair, and reciprocal trade; and adherence to international rules and norms.[155] Leaders committed that the United States and India should intensify their economic cooperation to “make their nations stronger and their citizens more prosperous”.
One issue remains to be dealt with and it is the question of Russia. Indeed, India sees it as an ally which they can rely on, where the U.S relates to Russia as an unfriendly and uncooperative state. Hardship to find substantial partners in the region and over the world is another major impediment for the FOIP.
European Union
Recently, Italy and Greece have been the first major powers to join the Belt and Road Initiative, stressing the urgency for the E.U to clarify its positions towards China international policies. Indeed, whereas Italy’s Deputy Prime Minister Luigi Di Maio told that the accord was “nothing to worry about”, French and German leaders are less optimistic. President Macron even said in Brussels that “the time of European naïveté is ended”. “For many years”, he added, “we had an uncoordinated approach and China took advantage of our divisions.”[citation needed]
At the end of March 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker joined for talks with Xi in Paris in company of President Macron. There, Macron exhorted China to “respect the unity of the European Union and the values it carries in the world”. Juncker on his end stressed that European companies should find “the same degree of openness in the China market as Chinese ones find in Europe.” In the same vein, Merkel declared that the BRI “must lead to a certain reciprocity, and we are still wrangling over that bit.” In January 2019 Macron said: “the ancient Silk Roads were never just Chinese … New roads cannot go just one way.”[156]
Think Tank
A French Think Tank, focused on the study of the New Silk Roads has been launched in 2018. It is described as pro-Belt and Road Initiative and pro-China. [157]
Story 3: Trump Warns Islamic Republic of Iranian Drive For Nuclear Weapons — Race for 90% Enriched Weapons Grade Uranium 235 For Nuclear Bombs — Israel and United States Air Superiority Will Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Bomb Research, Manufacturing, and Testing Facilities, Air Force and Navy — Videos
Iran Nuclear Deal: Iranian economy struggling under sanctions
Why can’t Iran enrich uranium beyond 3.67% under the nuclear deal?
We need to keep the pressure on Iran: Blackburn
Iran breaks nuclear deal, Lieberman calls it ‘predictable’
How will tougher U.S. sanctions against Iran impact oil prices?
In Depth – Sanctions on Iran
Why European companies shouldn’t do business with Iran
Can Iran Stop the US? A look at Irans Defenses
How to Make a Nuclear Bomb: Simplifying the Science
Newt Gingrich: Iran is very close to breaking
Trump to Iran: Threats can ‘come back to bite you’
Iran says it has exceeded uranium stockpile limits set by nuclear deal
Exclusive Interview: Trump sits down with Tucker Carlson in Japan
Tucker: US came within minutes of war with Iran
Iran’s foreign minister accuses US, Mideast of provoking conflict
Is The U.S. Going To War With Iran? | AJ+
Trump: Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon
Can air strikes take out Iran’s nuclear facilities?
Netanyahu claims proof of secret Iranian nuclear activities
The Middle East’s cold war, explained
Could Israel Take Out Iran’s Nuclear Sites? Experts Say Perhaps, But….
Story 4: July 2019 Jobs Report: 224,000 Non-farm Payroll Joys Created in June 2019 with U-3 Unemployment Rate of 3.7%, U-6 Unemployment Rate of 7.6%, 6 Million Unemployed, Labor Participation Rate of 62.8% and Not In Labor Force of 96,057,000 and 162,981,000 in Labor Force — Federal Reserve Will Not Increase Federal Funds Rate Target in July — Videos
Watch five experts break down the June jobs report
US Economy Added 224,000 Jobs In June, Beating Expectations | MSNBC
Trump sees highest approval rating yet as US economy booms
Larry Kudlow: I’m confident the Fed will get to the right place
Alternate Unemployment Charts
The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.
Transmission of material in this news release is embargoed until USDL-19-1137
8:30 a.m. (EDT) Friday, July 5, 2019
Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 * cpsinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/cps
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 * cesinfo@bls.gov * www.bls.gov/ces
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JUNE 2019
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 224,000 in June, and the
unemployment rate was little changed at 3.7 percent, the U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported today. Notable job gains occurred in
professional and business services, in health care, and in transportation
and warehousing.
This news release presents statistics from two monthly surveys. The
household survey measures labor force status, including unemployment,
by demographic characteristics. The establishment survey measures nonfarm
employment, hours, and earnings by industry. For more information about
the concepts and statistical methodology used in these two surveys, see
the Technical Note.
Household Survey Data
Both the unemployment rate, at 3.7 percent, and the number of unemployed
persons, at 6.0 million, changed little in June. (See table A-1.)
Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.3
percent), adult women (3.3 percent), teenagers (12.7 percent), Whites
(3.3 percent), Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (2.1 percent), and Hispanics
(4.3 percent) showed little or no change in June. (See tables A-1, A-2,
and A-3.)
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was little changed at 1.4 million in June and accounted for 23.7 percent
of the unemployed. (See table A-12.)
The labor force participation rate, at 62.9 percent, was little changed
over the month and unchanged over the year. In June, the employment-
population ratio was 60.6 percent for the fourth month in a row. (See
table A-1.)
The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes
referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was essentially unchanged
at 4.3 million in June. These individuals, who would have preferred full-
time employment, were working part time because their hours had been
reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. (See table A-8.)
In June, 1.6 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force,
little different from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally adjusted.)
These individuals were not in the labor force, wanted and were available
for work, and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months. They
were not counted as unemployed because they had not searched for work in
the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)
Among the marginally attached, there were 425,000 discouraged workers in
June, little changed from a year earlier. (Data are not seasonally
adjusted.) Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for
work because they believe no jobs are available for them. The remaining
1.1 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in June had
not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)
Establishment Survey Data
Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 224,000 in June. Employment
growth has averaged 172,000 per month thus far this year, compared with
an average monthly gain of 223,000 in 2018. In June, notable job gains
occurred in professional and business services, in health care, and in
transportation and warehousing. (See table B-1.)
Professional and business services added 51,000 jobs in June, following
little employment change in May (+24,000). Employment growth in the
industry has averaged 35,000 per month in the first half of 2019,
compared with an average monthly gain of 47,000 in 2018.
Employment in health care increased by 35,000 over the month and by
403,000 over the past 12 months. In June, job growth occurred in
ambulatory health care services (+19,000) and hospitals (+11,000).
Transportation and warehousing added 24,000 jobs over the month and
158,000 over the past 12 months. In June, job gains occurred among
couriers and messengers (+7,000) and in air transportation (+3,000).
Construction employment continued to trend up in June (+21,000), in
line with its average monthly gain over the prior 12 months.
Manufacturing employment edged up in June (+17,000), following 4 months
of little change. So far this year, job growth in the industry has
averaged 8,000 per month, compared with an average of 22,000 per month
in 2018. In June, employment rose in computer and electronic products
(+7,000) and in plastics and rubber products (+4,000).
Employment in other major industries, including mining, wholesale trade,
retail trade, information, financial activities, leisure and hospitality,
and government, showed little change over the month.
In June, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm
payrolls rose by 6 cents to $27.90, following a 9-cent gain in May.
Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.1
percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and
nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $23.43 in June. (See
tables B-3 and B-8.)
The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls
was unchanged at 34.4 hours in June. In manufacturing, the average
workweek edged up 0.1 hour to 40.7 hours, while overtime was unchanged
at 3.4 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory
employees on private nonfarm payrolls held at 33.6 hours. (See tables
B-2 and B-7.)
The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for April was revised
down from +224,000 to +216,000, and the change for May was revised
down from +75,000 to +72,000. With these revisions, employment gains
in April and May combined were 11,000 less than previously reported.
(Monthly revisions result from additional reports received from
businesses and government agencies since the last published estimates
and from the recalculation of seasonal factors.) After revisions,
job gains have averaged 171,000 per month over the last 3 months.
_____________
The Employment Situation for July is scheduled to be released
on Friday, August 2, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (EDT).
_______________________________________________________________________
| |
| 2019 Preliminary Benchmark Revision to Establishment Survey |
| Data to be released August 21, 2019 |
| |
| Each year, the establishment survey estimates are benchmarked to |
| comprehensive counts of employment from the Quarterly Census of |
| Employment and Wages (QCEW) for the month of March. These counts |
| are derived from state unemployment insurance (UI) tax records |
| that nearly all employers are required to file. On August 21, |
| 2019, at 10:00 a.m. (EDT), the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) will |
| release the preliminary estimate of the upcoming annual benchmark |
| revision. This is the same day the first-quarter 2019 data from |
| QCEW will be issued. Preliminary benchmark revisions for all major |
| industry sectors, as well as total nonfarm and total private |
| employment, will be available on the BLS website at |
| www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesprelbmk.htm. |
| |
| The final benchmark revision will be issued with the publication |
| of the January 2020 Employment Situation news release in February |
| 2020. |
|_______________________________________________________________________|
Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted[Numbers in thousands]
Category
June
2018
Apr.
2019
May
2019
June
2019
Change from:
May
2019-
June
2019
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population
257,642
258,693
258,861
259,037
176
Civilian labor force
162,129
162,470
162,646
162,981
335
Participation rate
62.9
62.8
62.8
62.9
0.1
Employed
155,592
156,645
156,758
157,005
247
Employment-population ratio
60.4
60.6
60.6
60.6
0.0
Unemployed
6,537
5,824
5,888
5,975
87
Unemployment rate
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.7
0.1
Not in labor force
95,513
96,223
96,215
96,057
-158
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over
4.0
3.6
3.6
3.7
0.1
Adult men (20 years and over)
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.3
0.0
Adult women (20 years and over)
3.7
3.1
3.2
3.3
0.1
Teenagers (16 to 19 years)
12.6
13.0
12.7
12.7
0.0
White
3.5
3.1
3.3
3.3
0.0
Black or African American
6.5
6.7
6.2
6.0
-0.2
Asian
3.2
2.2
2.5
2.1
-0.4
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity
4.6
4.2
4.2
4.3
0.1
Total, 25 years and over
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.0
0.1
Less than a high school diploma
5.6
5.4
5.4
5.3
-0.1
High school graduates, no college
4.1
3.5
3.5
3.9
0.4
Some college or associate degree
3.3
3.1
2.8
3.0
0.2
Bachelor’s degree and higher
2.3
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.0
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs
3,055
2,651
2,664
2,736
72
Job leavers
801
737
803
888
85
Reentrants
2,078
1,926
1,870
1,868
-2
New entrants
579
530
599
541
-58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks
2,218
1,904
2,147
1,961
-186
5 to 14 weeks
1,865
1,842
1,559
1,830
271
15 to 26 weeks
862
854
799
769
-30
27 weeks and over
1,467
1,230
1,298
1,414
116
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons
4,736
4,654
4,355
4,347
-8
Slack work or business conditions
3,018
2,891
2,646
2,707
61
Could only find part-time work
1,453
1,446
1,339
1,337
-2
Part time for noneconomic reasons
21,336
21,322
21,366
21,524
158
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force
1,437
1,417
1,395
1,571
–
Discouraged workers
359
454
338
425
–
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(P) Preliminary
NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2018 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.
PUBLIC COMMENTARY ON UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
June 8, 2016
The following material largely was excerpted from Regular Commentary No. 810 of June 5, 2016.
___________
ALTERNATIVE UNEMPLOYMENT MEASUREMENT
Counting All Discouraged/Displaced Workers, May 2016 Unemployment Rose to About 23.0%.
Discussed frequently in the regular ShadowStats Commentaries on monthly unemployment conditions,
what removes headline-unemployment reporting from common experience and broad, underlying
economic reality, simply is definitional. To be counted among the U.S. government’s headline
unemployed (U.3), an individual has to have looked actively for work within the four weeks prior to the
unemployment survey conducted for the Bureau of Labor Statistic (BLS). If the active search for work
was in the last year, but not in the last four weeks, the individual is considered a “discouraged worker” by
the BLS, and not counted in the headline labor force.
ShadowStats defines that group as “short-term discouraged workers,” as opposed to those who, after one
year, no longer are counted as “discouraged” by the government. Instead, they enter the realm of “longterm
discouraged workers,” those displaced by extraordinary economic conditions, including
regional/local businesses activity affected negatively by trade agreements or by other factors shifting U.S.
productive assets offshore, as defined and counted by ShadowStats (see the extended comments in the
ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Measure).
In the ongoing economic collapse into 2008 and 2009, and the non-recovery thereafter, the broad drop in
the U.3 unemployment rate from its headline peak of 10.0% in 2009, to the May 2016 headline 4.7%, was
due largely to the unemployed giving up looking for work (common in severe economic contractions and
major economic displacements). Those giving up looking for work are redefined out of headline
reporting and the labor force, as discouraged workers. The declines in the headline unemployment rate
often reflect that, as opposed to unemployed individuals finding new and gainful employment, as was
reflected in the headline May 2016 data.
As new discouraged workers move regularly from U.3 into U.6 unemployment accounting, those who
have been “discouraged” for one year also are dropped from the U.6 measure. As a result, the headline
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 2
U.6 measure has been declining along with headline U.3 for some time, but those being pushed out of U.6
still are estimated in the ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment Measure, which has remained relatively
steady, near its historic-high rate for the last couple of years.
Moving on top of U.3, the broader U.6 unemployment rate—the government’s broadest unemployment
measure—includes only the short-term discouraged workers (those marginally attached to the labor
force). Separately, the U.6 measure also includes part-time workers for economic reasons, people looking
for but unable to find full-time unemployment. The still-broader ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment
Measure includes an estimate of all discouraged workers, including those discouraged for one year or
more—those who effectively have been displaced by circumstances beyond their control—as the BLS
used to define and measure the series more broadly, before 1994.
Again, when the headline unemployed become “discouraged,” they are rolled over from U.3 into U.6. As
the headline, short-term discouraged workers roll over into long-term discouraged status, they move into
the ShadowStats measure, where they remain. Aside from attrition, they are not defined out of existence
for political convenience, hence the longer-term divergence between the various unemployment rates.
The resulting difference here is between headline-May 2016 unemployment rates of 4.7% (U.3) and
22.3% (ShadowStats).
Graph 1 reflects headline May 2016 U.3 unemployment at 4.69%, versus 4.98% in April 2016; headline
May 2016 U.6 unemployment at 9.73%, versus 9.71% in April; and the headline May 2016 ShadowStats
unemployment estimate holding at 23.0%, up from 22.9% in April.
Graphs 2 to 3 reflect longer-term unemployment and discouraged-worker conditions. Graph 2 is of the
ShadowStats unemployment measure, with an inverted scale. The higher the unemployment rate, the
weaker will be the economy, so the inverted plot tends to move visually in tandem with plots of most
economic statistics, where a lower number means a weaker economy.
The inverted-scale of the ShadowStats unemployment measure also tends to move with the employmentto-population
ratio, which has turned lower in April and May 2016. That ratio still remains near its post1994
record low, the historic low and bottom since economic collapse (only the period following the
series redefinition in 1994 reflects consistent reporting), as shown in Graph 4. The labor force containing
all unemployed (including total discouraged/displaced workers) plus the employed, however, tends to be
correlated with the population, so the employment-to-population ratio remains something of a surrogate
indicator of broad unemployment, and it has a strong correlation with the ShadowStats unemployment
estimate.
Shown in Graph 4, the May 2016 participation rate (the ratio of the headline labor force to the population)
also turned lower for the second month. Both the near-term Employment-to-Population Ratio and the
Participation Rate appear to have suffered near-term spikes and volatility from a combination of
population redefinition in January 2016 and specifically the lack of any consistency or comparability in
the seasonally adjusted monthly detail from the source Household Survey so far through May 2016.
Unadjusted ratios for these series are running respectively about 0.2% below and 0.1% above the adjusted
numbers, with the differences having narrowed in May.
The Participation-Rate remains off the historic low hit in September 2015 (again, pre-1994 estimates are
not consistent with current reporting), but it also notched lower again in May. The labor force used in the
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 3
Participation-Rate calculation is the headline employment plus U.3 unemployment. As with Graph 3 of
employment-to-population, its holding near a post-1994 low in current reporting indicates problems with
long-term discouraged workers, the loss of whom generally continues to shrink the headline (U.3) labor
force, and the plotted ratio.
Graph 1: Comparative Unemployment Rates U.3, U.6 and ShadowStats
Graph 2: Inverted-Scale ShadowStats Alternate Unemployment Measure
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 4
Graph 3: Civilian Employment-Population Ratio
Graph 4: Participation Rate
Graphs 1 through 4 reflect data available in consistent detail only back to the 1994 redefinitions of the
Household Survey and the related employment and unemployment measures. Before 1994, employment
and unemployment data consistent with the May 2016 Household-Survey reporting simply are not
available, irrespective of any protestations to the contrary by the BLS. Separately, consider Graph 5,
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 5
which shows the ShadowStats version of the GDP, also from 1994 but through the May 27th second
estimate of first-quarter 2016 activity, where the GDP plot has been corrected for the understatement of
inflation used in deflating the headline GDP series (a description of approach and related links are found
in No. 777 Year-End Special Commentary).
Graph 5: Corrected Real GDP through 1q2016, Second Estimate
Graph 6: U.S. Petroleum Consumption to March 2016
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 6
Graph 7: CASS Freight Index for North America (2000 – 2016), Indexed to January 2000 = 100
ShadowStats also regularly publishes less biased series from a variety of sources. Shown in Graph 6, for
example, is the U.S. aggregate consumption of crude oil petroleum product, measured in physical barrel
count, is an extraordinarily broad indicator of general activity. The U.S. Energy Information Agency
(EIA), Department of Energy, publishes this detail on a monthly basis.
As with the CASS freight index (Graph 7), where the monthly data are not seasonally adjusted,
ShadowStats has plotted the petroleum series using a trailing twelve-month average, through headline
monthly detail of April 2016. The resulting smoothed pattern reflects the economic collapse into 2009,
followed by a protracted period of variable, low-level stagnation, and an upside notch into March 2016.
In contrast, the CASS index currently (through April 2016) continues to turn down in its twelve-month
trailing average, with deepening year-to-year contractions on a monthly basis.
In particular, the broad patterns of activity seen in the weakened employment measures in Graphs 2 and 3
generally are mirrored in Graph 5 of the “corrected” GDP. They also are largely consistent with the post1994
period shown in Graph 6 of petroleum consumption, Graph 7 of the CASS Freight Index and Graph
8 of real S&P 500 revenues, as estimated by ShadowStats and previously published and described in No.
777 Year-End Special Commentary.
The graphic detail on the Cass Freight Index™, a measure of North American freight volume, is
calculated by, and used with the permission of Cass Information Systems, Inc. Few measures better
reflect the actual flow of goods in commerce than freight activity. Graph 8 of S&P 500 revenues usually
is plotted with quarterly data beginning in 2000, but the time scale of the graph was shifted here back to
1994 to show the S&P 500 revenue detail on roughly a comparative, coincident basis with the related
detail in Graphs 2 to 6. A similar re-plotting of the monthly time scale was used for the freight index
detail in Graph 7.
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 7
Graph 8: Real S&P 500 Sales Adjusted for Share Buybacks (2000 – 2015), Indexed to January 2000 = 100
THE SHADOWSTATS-ALTERNATE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE MEASURE.
In 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) overhauled its system for estimating unemployment,
including changing survey questions and unemployment definitions. In the new system, measurement of
the previously-defined discouraged workers disappeared. These were individuals who had given up
looking for work, no longer looking for work, because there was no work to be had. These people, who
considered themselves unemployed, had been counted in the old survey, irrespective of how long they had
been “discouraged.” These were individuals who were and would be considered displaced workers, due
to circumstances of severely-negative economic conditions or other factors such as changing industrial
patterns resulting from shifting global trade patterns.
The new survey questions and definitions had the effect of minimizing the impact on unemployment
reporting for those workers about to be displaced by the just-implemented North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA). At the time, I had close ties with an old-line consumer polling company, whose
substantial economic monthly surveys were compared and contrasted carefully with census-survey details.
The new surveying changed the numbers, and what had been the discouraged-worker category soon
became undercounted or effectively eliminated. Change or reword a survey question, and change
definitions, you can affect the survey results meaningfully.
The post-1994 survey techniques also fell far shy of adequately measuring the long-term displacement of
workers tied to the economic collapse into 2008 and 2009, and from the lack of subsequent economic
recovery. In current headline reporting, the BLS has a category for those not in the labor force who
currently want a job. Net of the currently-defined “marginally attached workers,” which includes the
currently-defined and undercounted “discouraged workers” category used in the U.6 (1.713 million in
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 8
May 2016), those not in the labor force currently wanting a job increased to 4.736 million in May 2016 (a
total of 6.449 million). That net of 4.736 million was against 3.956 million in April 2016, 3.726 million
in March 2016, 4.146 million in February 2016, 4.077 million in January 2016, 3.872 million in
December 2015 and 3.608 million in November 2015 (those numbers are counted only on an unadjusted
basis). While some contend that that number includes all those otherwise-uncounted discouraged
workers, such is extremely shy of underlying reality—order of magnitude 20 million—due to the
cumulative effects of changed surveying methodology.
The ShadowStats number—a broad unemployment measure more in line with common experience—is
my estimate. The approximation of the ShadowStats “long-term discouraged worker” category—those
otherwise largely defined out of statistical existence in 1994—reflects proprietary modeling based on a
variety of private and public surveying over the last two-plus decades. Beyond using the BLS U.6
estimate as an underlying monthly base, I have not found a way of accounting fully for the current
unemployment circumstance and common experience using just the monthly headline data from the BLS.
As shown earlier, some broad systemic labor measures from the BLS, though, are consistent in pattern
with the ShadowStats measure, even allowing for shifts tied to an aging population. The graph of the
inverted ShadowStats unemployment measure has a strong correlation with the employment-topopulation
ratio, in conjunction with the labor-force participation rate, as well as with the ShadowStatsAlternate
GDP Estimate and S&P 500 Real Revenues, the CASS Freight Index and petroleum
consumption. Those economic- and labor-related series all are plotted with a time scale subsequent to the
1994 overhaul of unemployment surveying (see Graphs 2 to 8).
Headline May 2016 Detail. Adding back into the total unemployed and labor force the ShadowStats
estimate of effectively displaced workers, of long-term discouraged workers—a broad unemployment
measure more in line with common experience—the ShadowStats-Alternate Unemployment Estimate for
May 2016 notched higher to 23.0%, from 22.9% in April 2016. The April 2016 reading remained down
by 30 basis points or 0.3% (-0.3%) from the 23.3% series high last seen in December 2013.
Again, In contrast, the May 2016 headline U.3 unemployment reading of 4.7% was down by a 530 basis
points or 5.3% (-5.3%) from its peak of 10.0% in October 2009. The broader U.6 unemployment measure
of 9.7% in May 2016, was down from its April 2010 peak of 17.2% by 750 basis points or 7.5% (-7.5%).
Seen in the Graph 1 of the various unemployment measures, there continues to be a noticeable divergence
in the ShadowStats series versus U.6 and U.3, with the BLS headline U.3 unemployment measures
headed lower again against a stagnant U.6 and an up-ticking, high-level ShadowStats number.
The reason for the longer term divergence versus the ShadowStats measure, again, is that U.6 only
includes discouraged and marginally-attached workers who have been “discouraged” for less than a year.
As the discouraged-worker status ages, those that go beyond one year fall off the government counting,
even as new workers enter “discouraged” status. A similar pattern of U.3 unemployed becoming
“discouraged” or otherwise marginally attached, and moving into the U.6 category, also accounted for the
early divergence between the U.6 and U.3 categories.
With the continual rollover, the flow of headline workers continues into the short-term discouraged
workers category (U.6), and from U.6 into long-term discouraged worker or displaced-worker status (the
ShadowStats measure). There was a lag in this happening as those having difficulty during the early
Shadow Government Statistics — Public Commentary on Unemployment, June 8, 2016
Copyright 2016 American Business Analytics & Research, LLC, http://www.shadowstats.com 9
months of the economic collapse, first moved into short-term discouraged status, and then, a year later
they began moving increasingly into long-term discouraged status, hence some of the lack of earlier
divergence between the series. The movement of the discouraged unemployed out of the headline labor
force had been accelerating. While there is attrition in long-term discouraged numbers, there is no set cut
off where the long-term discouraged workers cease to exist. See the Alternate Data tab for historical
detail.
Generally, where the U.6 encompasses U.3, the ShadowStats measure encompasses U.6. To the extent
that a decline in U.3 reflects unemployed moving into U.6, or a decline in U.6 reflects short-term
discouraged workers moving into the ShadowStats number, the ShadowStats number continues to
encompass all the unemployed, irrespective of the series from which they may have been ejected.
Great Depression Comparisons. Discussed in the regular ShadowStats Commentaries covering the
monthly unemployment circumstance, an unemployment rate around 23% might raise questions in terms
of a comparison with the purported peak unemployment in the Great Depression (1933) of 25%. Hard
estimates of the ShadowStats series are difficult to generate on a regular monthly basis before 1994, given
meaningful reporting inconsistencies created by the BLS when it revamped unemployment reporting at
that time. Nonetheless, as best estimated, the current ShadowStats level likely is about as bad as the peak
actual unemployment seen in the 1973-to-1975 recession and the double-dip recession of the early-1980s.
The Great Depression peak unemployment rate of 25% in 1933 was estimated well after the fact, with
27% of those employed then working on farms. Today, less than 2% of the employed work on farms.
Accordingly, a better measure for comparison with the ShadowStats number might be the Great
Depression peak in the nonfarm unemployment rate in 1933 of roughly 34% to 35%.
Story 5: Faces of Fascism — Crazy Communist Clown Cortez — House Speaker Socialist Slapdowns Cortez — Just Walk Away From Democratic Socialist Party — Videos
Robert Paxton – The Anatomy of Fascism
Fascism in Italy
Why fascism is so tempting — and how your data could power it | Yuval Noah Harari
‘How do you not know who this is?’ Glenn questions AOC for quoting a known fascist on Twitter
Tucker: The Democratic Party is now a religious cult
Border Patrol Chief Thoroughly Debunks AOC’s Lies
Garza claims AOC was ‘verbally abusive’ to Border Patrol agents
Customs and Border Protection under fire over conditions at migrant facilities, secret Facebook g…
Trump Takes BLOWTORCH To AOC And Her RADICAL LIES At Border Detention Facility
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wants to eliminate DHS
8yo receives death threats over her parody videos of Ocasio-Cortez
‘The Five’ reacts to fallout from AOC’s explosive accusations
Ex-acting ICE Director reacts to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusations
Hispanic pastor disputes Ocasio-Cortez’s claims about border facilities
Joy Villa: The left is very much the fascists they keep calling us
Hogan Gidley blasts Ocasio-Cortez for inaction on border crisis
Ex-acting ICE Director reacts to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusations
Separated undocumented families held in cages at Texas facility
Pelosi Stuns and SCHOOLS AOC and Ilhan Omar! Border Patrol Chief EXPOSES AOC’s lies! |
Ep. 79
Ocasio-Cortez splits with Pelosi on border bill with fiery response
Gingrich: Ocasio-Cortez was ‘viciously dishonest’ about the border
Fact checking Ocasio-Cortez and Beto’s climate claims
Watch Nancy Pelosi Confront AOC: Your Caucus Is “Like 5 People” | The Beat With Ari Melber | MSNBC
McCarthy: Ocasio-Cortez owes the country an apology for concentration camp remarks
AOC: When I Said Concentration Camps I Didn’t Mean Nazis
Liberated American WWII Prisoner – “Nazi Concentration Camps” 1945
Before Death Camps | Hitler’s Hidden Holocaust
Uncovering China’s Detention And Torture Of Its Muslim Minority
China’s Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World
Inside China’s ‘thought transformation’ camps – BBC News
How to recognize a dystopia – Alex Gendler
1984 (John Hurt) – Official Trailer
1984 Room 101
Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984) – Last Scene + Credits
George Orwell and 1984: How Freedom Dies
Why Public Schools and the Mainstream Media Dumb Us Down
The Myth of Scandinavian Socialism
Ocasio-Cortez pushes back on allegations she insulted Pelosi
BY REBECCA KLAR – 07/08/19 03:10 PM EDT
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) on Monday disputed allegations from some critics that she and other progressive freshmen insulted Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) amid the fallout from House passage of a border aid bill backed by President Trump.
“Having respect for ourselves doesn’t mean we lack respect for her. It means we won’t let everyday people be dismissed,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
In an interview with The New York Times, Pelosi said four House Democrats, including Ocasio-Cortez, made themselves irrelevant by voting against “our bill.”
“All these people have their public whatever and their Twitter world,” she said. “But they didn’t have any following. They’re four people and that’s how many votes they got.”
Ocasio-Cortez responded by tweeting, “That public ‘whatever’ is called public sentiment. And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”
Ocasio-Cortez and fellow Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar(Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (Mass.) voted against a spending package providing $4.5 billion after Pelosi agreed to take up the bipartisan Senate version of the bill without additional border protections demanded by progressive House lawmakers.
Ocasio-Cortez placed the border controversy at the forefront of her response to Pelosi’s comments to the Times.
“I don’t believe it was a good idea for Dems to blindly trust the Trump admin when so many kids have died in their custody,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.
The Hill has reached out to Pelosi’s office for comment.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speaks to the media after visiting the detention facility in Clint, Texas on July 1. Those who condemned her for calling it a concentration camp are split on condemning the conditions at the facility. (Christ Chavez/Getty Images)
ADVERTISEMENT
(JTA) — At least five American Jewish organizations and two public figures think Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was wrong to compare migrant detention centers on the southern border to concentration camps.
But how did they weigh in on the conditions at the detention centers themselves?
A little background: A few weeks ago, Ocasio-Cortez, the freshman Democratic New York congresswoman, tweeted “This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.”
The tweet got a lot of people talking about how we talk about the detention centers. People on the right said Ocasio-Cortez was trivializing the Holocaust by calling the facilities “concentration camps.” Some nonpartisan Jewish groups warned about the use of Holocaust analogies in political discourse.
Her defenders, including a large number of scholars and left-wing activists, said that “concentration camps” had a wider applicability than the death camps at Auschwitz or Treblinka, and that the crowded, inhumane conditions merited use of the term.
And still others argued that the debate over nomenclature was a distraction from the real issue, which is how migrants are being treated in detention facilities. A government report found that across five detention centers, children were going without showers and hot food, and had few clean clothes. On Monday, the Trump administration contested a New York Times report that migrant children were being held in a Clint, Texas facility where disease, hunger and overcrowding were rampant.
Here’s a rundown of the Jewish groups that criticized Ocasio-Cortez, what they said about her comment, and what they said about the detention centers.
Republican Jewish Coalition
What they said about AOC: “Six million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. It is disgraceful for Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to compare our nation’s immigration policies to the horrors carried out by the Nazis.”
What they said about the detention centers: “We are horrified and angry about the conditions and we appreciate that Speaker Pelosi finally relented and supported the Senate bill to fund humanitarian relief,” RJC said in a statement this week to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. Last week, the Senate approved a $4.6 billion in emergency humanitarian aid for the border over Democrats’ objections that it included too much funding for enforcement and not enough for improving conditions at the detention facilities.
Anti-Defamation League
What they said about AOC: “Almost exactly one year ago, we urged caution when drawing comparisons to the Holocaust and reiterated our opposition to the horrible conditions separating families at the border,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, national director of the organization combating anti-Semitism. “This resonates just as strongly today.”
What they said about the detention centers: On July 3, Greenblatt linked to an article about the government report and tweeted: “The pictures and details in this report are startling. It’s inhumane, period. @DHSgov must end this cruelty immediately.”
Watchdog finds extreme overcrowding in Border Patrol facilities in unannounced inspections
Extreme overcrowding and children younger than 7 being held in custody for more than two weeks — far longer than the allowed 72 hours — are among the “urgent” issues discovered at Border Patrol…
cnn.com
91 people are talking about this
Simon Wiesenthal Center
What they said about AOC: “It’s an insult to the victims of the Shoah to make blatant false comparisons,” Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Holocaust research organization, told Jewish Insider. “Stop casting Trump as a latter-day Nazi scheming to build concentration camps. AOC and all Congressmen from both parties have a moral obligation to fix the humanitarian disaster at the border.”
What they said about the detention centers: In a statement to JTA, Cooper acknowledged a “humanitarian crisis” and pivoted back to Ocasio-Cortez: “Americans are compassionate people and understand that there is a humanitarian crisis at the border, but no matter how many times Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez evokes Holocaust imagery, it is appalling and unacceptable… The need for laws that address border security while reflecting Americans’ history of compassion and our democracy’s historic values could not be more dire.”
National Council of Young Israel
What they said about AOC: “Making references to concentration camps in that context minimizes the atrocities of the Holocaust and cheapens the memories of the countless Jews who perished in those horrific camps,” Farley Weiss, president of the right-wing Orthodox synagogue organization, wrote in a letter. “There is simply no comparison with what happened in these concentration camps with what is occurring at the border.”
What they said about the detention centers: “There’s too many conflicting reports on it,” Weiss told JTA. “We want everyone to have basic access to cleanliness and being able to brush teeth and things of that nature.”
The Coalition for Jewish Values
What they said about AOC: “Concentration camps were places where Nazis inflicted slave labor, torture and death upon innocent Jews removed from their homes at gunpoint and transported there in cattle cars,” said Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer of the right-wing Orthodox rabbis’ group. “To use Holocaust terminology regarding the refugee situation at the border is deeply offensive.”
What they said about the detention centers: “We have no first-hand knowledge and there are multiple conflicting reports, so we can’t comment,” Rabbi Yaakov Menken, the group’s spokesman, told JTA.
Deborah Lipstadt, Emory University professor and Holocaust scholar
What she said about AOC and the detention centers: In one tweet on June 24, Lipstadt condemned both Ocasio-Cortez’s language and the conditions at the centers.
“Talk about the horrific conditions & not historical analogies,” she wrote. “Don’t give those who are behind this policy a chance to piously claim they are being wrongly accused. Use of Holocaust analogies to condemn US immigration policy is a distraction.”
Trump’s family-separation policy is horrible, but equating it with genocide is both historically and strategically misguided.
theatlantic.com
Isaac Chotiner
✔@IChotiner
New Interview: I talked to one of the lawyers who spent her week with immigrant children, many of them separated from their families, at a border facility. The conditions are horrific. https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/inside-a-texas-building-where-the-government-is-holding-immigrant-children …
What he said about AOC: “It is baffling why someone would choose a term to condemn cruelty that is guaranteed to make the argument about the term and not about the policy,” he told Jewish Insider. “Analogies that evoke the Holocaust are, with the rarest of exceptions, presumptively offensive and unwise.”
What he said about the detention centers: “It’s appalling and it’s unthinkable for the United States to treat people — whether they’re admitted or not to the country — in such a manner, and all of us should be better than that,” he told JTA. “If you can’t unite as a country to prevent the suffering of children then we’re in just abominable and disgraceful shape.”
Wolpe’s Los Angeles synagogue, Sinai Temple, has organized to provide supplies to migrants detained at the border.
Story 1: Oldest American, Cigar Smoker, Whisky Drinker and World War II Veteran, Richard Overton, Robbed of Savings and Identity in Austin, Texas — Videos
Thieves drain Richard Overton’s personal bank account
Oldest veteran in US, 112, robbed of savings, identity, family says
Austinite Richard Overton, ‘Nation’s Oldest Veteran’ needs help | 12/2016
Richard Overton, oldest living veteran, turns 112
Street Renamed for Oldest Living WWII Veteran on His 111th Birthday
“Mr. Overton” A documentary about Richard Overton (ORIGINAL)
109-Year-Old Veteran and His Secrets to Life Will Make You Smile | Short Film Showcase
Richard Overton, 111, ‘just keeps living’
Oldest WWII vet relishes cigars, celeb status
12-year-old Austin resident, our oldest living veteran, robbed of savings, identity
Story 1: Republicans Rush To Pass Repeal and Replace Obamacare Before August Recess with Pence, Cruz and McConnell Leading The Way — Videos —
Ronald Reagan speaks out on Socialized Medicine – Audio
Is the GOP plan to replace ObamaCare dead?
Vice President Pence ‘s Obamacare Listening Session with Ohio Small Business Owners
Trump’s push to replace Obamacare in trouble as Congress returns from recess
Sen. Cruz on ‘Face the Nation’ – July 9, 2017
Sen Mike Lee on the push to repeal ObamaCare
Lawmakers respond to Senate health care proposal
Sen. Rand Paul: Senate health care bill needs more Obamacare ‘repeal’
Sen. Rand Paul: We shouldn’t try to fix government intervention with more intervention. – 6/22/17
I won’t vote to keep ObamaCare: Rand Paul
Coolidge: The Best President You Don’t Know
Amity Shlaes on Coolidge’s life, ideas, and success in bringing about low taxes and small government
Uncommon Knowledge: The Great Depression with Amity Shlaes
Amity Shlaes: Calvin Coolidge, Better Than Reagan?
Archie Bunker on Democrats
Trump prods Congress to pass stalled healthcare overhaul
By Susan Cornwell and Ian Simpson| WASHINGTON
President Donald Trump on Monday prodded the Republican-led U.S. Congress to pass major healthcare legislation but huge obstacles remained, with a senior lawmaker saying the Senate was unlikely to take up the stalled bill until next week.
The House of Representatives approved its healthcare bill in May but the Senate’s version appeared to be in growing trouble as lawmakers returned to Washington from a week-long recess.
“I cannot imagine that Congress would dare to leave Washington without a beautiful new HealthCare bill fully approved and ready to go!” Trump wrote on Twitter, referring to the seven-year Republican quest to dismantle Democratic former President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement.
Lawmakers are set to take another recess from the end of July until Sept. 5.
Repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, dubbed Obamacare, was a central campaign pledge for the Republican president. But Senate Republican leaders have faced a revolt within their ranks, with moderate senators uneasy about the millions of Americans forecast to lose their medical insurance under the legislation and hard-line conservatives saying it leaves too much of Obamacare intact.
They were struggling to find a compromise that could attract the 50 votes needed for passage in a chamber Republicans control by a 52-48 margin, with Vice President Mike Pence casting a potential tie-breaking vote in the face of unified Democratic opposition.
No. 2 Senate Republican John Cornyn said Republicans could release an updated draft of their bill by the end of the week and told Fox News that senators could vote as early as Tuesday or Wednesday of next week.
U.S. President Donald Trump waves as walks on the South Lawn of the White House upon his return to Washington, U.S., from the G20 Summit in Hamburg, July 8, 2017. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas
“We’re going to continue to talk and listen and exchange ideas on how we can continue to make improvements,” Cornyn said on the Senate floor.
Also speaking on the Senate floor, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell gave no timetable for the bill. McConnell signaled his determination to keep working and said mere legislative “band-aids” would not suffice.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer said he had written to McConnell urging a bipartisan effort to stabilize the health insurance market, noting that McConnell had been quoted recently as saying Congress would need to shore up that market if lawmakers fail to repeal Obamacare.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued data on Monday showing a 38 percent decrease in applications by insurers to sell health plans in the Obamacare individual market in 2018 compared to this year. The agency said insurers continue to flee the exchanges, the online marketplace for health insurance set up under Obamacare.
MORE AMERICANS UNINSURED
With uncertainty hanging over the healthcare system, the percentage of U.S. adults without health insurance grew in the April-May-June period to 11.7 percent, up from 11.3 percent in the first quarter of 2017, according to Gallup-Sharecare Well-Being Index figures released on Monday. That translates into nearly 2 million more Americans who have become uninsured.
Scores of protesters voiced opposition to the legislation outside the Republican National Committee headquarters and at the offices of some Republican lawmakers including House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan, chanting slogans including “Trumpcare kills” and “Healthcare is a human right.”
U.S. Capitol Police said in a statement 80 people were arrested at 13 locations in House and Senate office buildings after they refused “to cease and desist with their unlawful demonstration activities.”
Republicans criticize Obamacare as a costly government intrusion into the healthcare system. Democrats call the Republican legislation a giveaway to the rich that would hurt millions of the most vulnerable Americans.
The Senate legislation would phase out the Obamacare expansion of the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor and disabled, sharply cut federal Medicaid spending beginning in 2025, repeal most of Obamacare’s taxes, end a penalty on Americans who do not obtain insurance and overhaul Obamacare’s subsidies to help people buy insurance with tax credits.
Leerink Partners analyst Ana Gupte said investors remained in a “wait-and-see” mode regarding the Senate legislation.
(For a graphic on who’s covered under Medicaid, click bit.ly/2u3O2Mu)
(Additional reporting by Susan Heavey, Eric Beech and Doina Chiacu; Writing by Will Dunham; Editing by Tom Brown)
The Health 202: Cruz picks government health care subsidies as lesser of two evils
By Paige Winfield CunninghamJuly 10 at 9:03 AM
THE PROGNOSIS
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) debates health care during a town hall meeting on Thursday in Austin. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
Even conservatives acknowledge that the sickest Americans need help in paying their own steep insurance costs. In an ironic twist, some would rather have the government make up the difference rather than spreading expenses among the healthy.
Health insurance markets are so complicated, and the policy around them is so complex and intertwined, that politicians don’t always land ideologically on the issue where you’d think. Just look at how GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is trying to change the Obamacare overhaul that Senate Republicans will try to pass in the next three weeks before August recess. The former presidential candidate last weektouted his ideas and on the Sunday shows yesterday, my colleague Sean Sullivan reports.
Cruz’s so-called “Consumer Freedom Amendment” — which conservatives have been rallying around as the revision they most want — would essentially free the healthiest Americans from covering the costs of the sickest Americans. But the sick would be even more heavily reliant on federal assistance as a result.
Cruz is one of the biggest skeptics in Congress of federal spending. But even he has acknowledged this increased need for government help under his proposal.
“You would likely see some market segmentation” Cruz told Vox last month. “But the exchanges have very significant federal subsidies, whether under the tax credits or under the stabilization funds.”
The Cruz amendment, which is being scored by the Congressional Budget Office as one of several potential changes to the Senate health-care bill, would result in segmenting the individual insurance market into two groups, experts say. Under it, insurers could sell cheaper, stripped-down plans free of Obamacare coverage requirements like essential health benefits or even a guarantee of coverage. These sparser plans would appeal to the healthiest Americans, who would gladly exchange fewer benefits for lower monthly premiums.
But insurers would also have to sell one ACA-compliant plan. The sickest patients would flock to these more expansive and expensive plans because they need more care and medications covered on a day-to-day basis. As a result, premiums for people with expensive and serious medical conditions like diabetes or cancer would skyrocket because all those with such serious conditions would be pooled together.
“The question is, would there be a premium spiral on the ACA-complaint market?” said Cori Uccello, a senior health fellow with the American Academy of Actuaries.“Can they ever price those premiums adequately if it’s just going to be the sickest people in there?”
It’s true that government subsidies — which under the Senate plan would be available to those earning up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level — would be even more crucial in order for these sicker Americans to afford the cost of their coverage, as would an extra infusion of federal “stabilization” money for states to cover their steep expenses.
Cruz hasn’t laid out all the details of how his amendment would work, nor is it even certain Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will accept it as part of his health-care bill. But should it be adopted, and the Senate bill ultimately made law, the Cruz amendment would significantly shift how the individual insurance market operates.
But in Cruz’s mind, it would solve one of the biggest problems with Obamacare: that it robs the healthy to pay for the sick. He’s spent the last week pitching it as the legislative solution for passing the Senate bill.
“I think really the consumer freedom option is the key to bringing Republicans together and getting this repeal passed,” Cruz said on ABC yesterday.
Of course, everyone paying into the system for those who most need care is the way insurance is fundamentally supposed to work. The ACA requires insurers to offer a wider ranger of benefits in plans sold to everyone regardless of their health status. But to Cruz and his compatriots, requiring healthier people to buy cushier plans than they want or need is an abridgment of personal freedom and oversteps federal regulatory authority. So they’re more worried at the moment about rolling back more ACA regulations and less worried about federal spending.
“I think for conservatives it’s become a question of picking their poison,” Larry Levitt, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, told me. “Is it government spending, or regulation? It’s almost like with this amendment, Sen. Cruz is acknowledging the need for a government entitlement program.”
Conservative groups that want a much fuller Obamacare repeal than the Senate bill provides have been jumping on the Cruz bandwagon, including Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and Tea Party Patriots.
Tea Party Patriots Signals Support for Cruz-Lee Amendment to Senate Health Care Bill
Atlanta, GA – Tea Party Patriots President and co-founder Jenny Beth Martin released the following statement today regarding the amendment to the Senate health care bill offered by Senators Ted Cruz…
On the flip side, the Cruz amendment could help kill the Senate health-care bill in the end because it’s prompting fears among moderates (whose votes are also needed to pass the legislation) that patients with preexisting conditions could be harmed.
Cruz has said the Senate bill’s $100 billion stabilization fund for states could help cover costs for the resulting pricier coverage for those with preexisting conditions under his amendment. And to parry concerns about the increased federal spending, which to some is more than ironic coming from Cruz? The talking point Capitol Hill aides and conservative wonks are adopting: Directly subsidizing costs for those with preexisting conditions is a more “honest” approach by the government than forcing healthy people to indirectly pay for their care by buying comprehensive coverage.
“If you’re going to have a subsidy, have it come directly from the taxpayer and call it a subsidy rather than try to dragoon people to do the government’s work,” said Chris Jacobs, a former GOP Hill staffer and founder of Juniper Research Group.
“It’s more honest and fair to have the government than to have healthy, middle-class families pay for it,” Conn Carroll, a spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said.
A co-sponsor of Cruz’s amendment, Lee is insisting it be added to the Senate bill before he’ll vote for it. Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin have sent similar signals. And remember — if more than two Republicans defect, the measure would be sunk in the Senate and the GOP effort to repeal-and-replace Obamacare would most likely meet a bitter end.
Some exciting news over at The Daily 202 from my colleague James Hohmann, whose newsletter makes its debut on Amazon Echo devices and Google Home as a flash briefing called “The Daily 202’s Big Idea.” Every morning, you can listen to James analyze one of the day’s most important political stories, along with three headlines you need to know. To learn how to add The Daily 202’s Big Idea to your flash briefings on your Echo device or Google Home, visit this page. You can also get the briefing on Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.
GOP, White House Plot ‘Urgent Blitz’ For Repeal Votes | The Last Word | MSNBC
Story 2: Total Repeal of Obamacare Requires Total Repeal of All Obamacare Regulations Including Requiring Guaranteed Issue In Individual Health Insurance Market For Those With Preexisting Conditions, Community Rating Premiums and 10 Essential Health Care Benefits as Well As Repeal of The Individual and Employer Mandates and All Obamacare-Related Taxes– Address Individuals With Preexisting Conditions by State Special Risk Pools Insurance Coverage With State Subsidies Only and No Federal Subsidies — Otherwise Guaranteed Failure Just Like Obamacare Due To Adverse Selection — Leading To Single Government Payer Health Care System — Total Repeal of Obamacare Now Or Replace Your Representative and Senators Both Democrat and Republican Next November — It’s Now Or Never (O Sole Mio) — Videos
Rush Limbaugh Podcast 7/11/17 – Exclusive: Vice President Mike Pence Calls the Show
AHCA Myth No. 1: People with Pre-existing Conditions Will Lose Coverage
Fox News host says coverage for preexisting conditions is a ‘luxury’
Dr. Siegel breaks down the pre-existing conditions challenge
The Pre-Existing Condition Scam
Should pre-existing conditions be left to the states?
Debate over pre-existing conditions stalling health-care reform?
Obamacare Replacement, Hill’s Blame Game, Prince Phil Says No Mas and the World Slides Into Insanity
Molyneux and Schiff For Liberty – Discrimination and Pre-Existing Conditions in Health Insurance
It’s now or never,
Come hold me tight
Kiss me my darling,
Be mine tonight
Tomorrow will be too late,
It’s now or never
My love won’t wait.
When I first saw you
With your smile so tender
My heart was captured,
My soul surrendered
I’d spend a lifetime
Waiting for the right time
Now that your near
The time is here at last.
It’s now or never,
Come hold me tight
Kiss me my darling,
Be mine tonight
Tomorrow will be too late,
It’s now or never
My love won’t wait.
Just like a willow,
We would cry an ocean
If we lost true love
And sweet…
May 10, 2017
FACT VERSUS FEAR: THE AHCA AND PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS
Tara O’Neill Hayes
On May 4, 2017, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a bill to repeal and replace many provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Immediately following the vote, misinformation about the bill began spreading like wildfire, stoking fears and outrage. The issue which seems to be getting the most attention is the potential impact this legislation could have on people with pre-existing conditions. However, as the legislation now moves to the Senate for further consideration and amendment, it is important that all stakeholders be well informed, and understand what the legislation actually says and who may realistically be impacted by any possible changes to current law.
The number of people in the U.S. with a condition that would likely qualify as pre-existing is not easily known, primarily because there is not a specific, pre-determined list of conditions. Estimates vary depending on how one defines “pre-existing.”
Even the range included in a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services varied by a margin of more than 2:1, from between 61 million to 133 million people.[1] That said, it is likely that approximately as many as a quarter of Americans, and possibly more, have a pre-existing health condition, making it understandable why some are concerned.
As the AHCA is currently written, the only people who could be charged a premium based on their health status are those with a pre-existing condition who are not enrolled in a large group health plan, are also living in a state that obtains a waiver, and have let their insurance lapse in the past year for 63 days or more. In this case, the increased premium would only be allowed for one year. Further, no one may be denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition.
Background
Before passage of the ACA, most laws pertaining to the regulation of the individual health insurance market were passed at the state level and could vary widely from one state to another. The McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 provided states primary responsibility for regulating the business of insurance.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) imposed federal standards on certain types and with respect to certain provisions of large group (employer-sponsored) health plans, some of which supersede state law.[2] Among the provisions included in ERISA is a requirement that plans be offered on a guaranteed-issue basis, meaning that insurers are prohibited from denying coverage to the group based on medical claims history; though, the policy may be medically underwritten, meaning the premiums are based on the insured’s health status.
In 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) was passed and imposed additional federal health insurance standards across the individual, small group, and large group markets. In response to concerns of “job-lock”—the fear that leaving a job could result in the inability to regain health insurance if an individual had a pre-existing condition—HIPAA required all states to guarantee renewability of health insurance coverage to anyone who had creditable coverage for the past 18 months, with no more than a 63-day gap in coverage during that time.[3] However, while insurers were required to renew an individual’s policy from one year to the next, they were still not prohibited from medically underwriting individuals. Thus, some individuals found that while a plan was still technically available to them, the premium may have effectively priced them out of the market. Even those without a pre-existing condition may have found the cost of insurance to be significantly higher without the added employer contribution and tax advantage that such plans receive, which could make maintaining coverage, and HIPAA eligibility, more difficult.
Very few states previously had guarantee issue or renewability requirements or other protections for individuals not covered by HIPAA.[4] Most states permitted insurers to impose pre-existing condition exclusions, in which a pre-existing condition could be used to deny coverage altogether, or would not be covered by an individual’s new insurance policy for at least a certain amount of time, if not indefinitely. Varying “look-back” periods were also prevalent, which regulated the amount of time during which the insurer may check an individual’s claims history to make such a determination.
Current Law
The ACA attempted to mitigate these issues by imposing federal guaranteed issue requirements paired with community rating, which prohibits medical underwriting, across all health insurance markets. For many, these protections became the most important provisions of the ACA. However, there are economic consequences associated with such protections; primarily, higher average premiums in the individual market and increased spending by federal taxpayers. Multiple risk mitigation programs were included in order to help subsidize the cost of insuring high-risk, high-cost individuals, but the funding has not been sufficient. Insurers continue to lose money in the individual market, despite tens of billions of dollars in federal payments each year. In fact, many insurers have found the markets to be so unprofitable due to the many enhanced regulations, that they have decided they can no longer participate in the individual market in many states.[5]
The AHCA
The AHCA, passed by the House of Representatives on May 4, would repeal and replace many provisions of the ACA. One of the ACA’s most well-known provisions, the individual mandate which requires everyone to obtain health insurance, would be repealed (practically speaking, though not technically) and replaced with a continuous coverage provision.[6] These two policies are similar. The individual mandate imposes an annual penalty for not being insured equal to the greater of $695 per adult or 2.5 percent of household income.[7] The continuous coverage provision in this legislation would, instead of federally mandating that everyone buy insurance, incentivize individuals to remain insured by allowing for the imposition of a 30 percent premium surcharge for one year on individuals who signed up for coverage if they were uninsured for more than two months in the previous year.[8] After paying the surcharge for one year, individuals would return to paying regular community-rated premiums.
One provision that would not be repealed is the federal guaranteed issue requirement; insurers in every state would still be prohibited from denying insurance coverage to anyone on the basis of a pre-existing condition. In no circumstance would this protection be denied, though it seems much confusion surrounding this protection has stemmed from the adoption of several amendments to the underlying legislation.
The first relevant amendment is one that was negotiated by Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), on behalf of the Freedom Caucus. This amendment includes a provision pertaining to the “essential health benefits” established by the ACA—ten categories of care which are now required to be covered under every health insurance plan. The amendment would permit states, rather than the federal government, to define the EHB standards for themselves beginning in 2018.[9] However, this provision was ultimately struck.
A second amendment was offered by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) to address concerns that states would drastically reduce benefit requirements. The MacArthur amendment reinstates the federal EHB standards, but would allow states to apply for waivers to a number of provisions, under certain conditions. Waivers would be permitted for the following: beginning in 2018, a change in age-rating restrictions (which determine how much more an insurer may charge an older person relative to a younger person); beginning in 2019, changes to the community rating provisions, which prohibit insurers from medically underwriting individuals; and, beginning in 2020, changes to the federal EHB standards, permitting states to set their own.
Any state seeking to obtain a community rating waiver must first have in place a program to help high-risk individuals enroll in coverage or a program providing incentives to insurers to enter the market and stabilize premiums, or an invisible risk-sharing program, as defined by the Schweikert/Palmer amendment.[10] All of these programs would be at least partially funded by the $138 billion provided over the next ten years by the Patient and State Stability Fund created by AHCA. The state must also specify how the waiver it is requesting would assist in: reducing average premiums in the state, increasing the number insured, stabilizing the health insurance market, stabilizing premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, or increasing plan choice in the state. If a state demonstrates it has met these conditions and obtains such a waiver, then it may permit insurers to waive the community rating protections, though only for individuals who have not maintained continuous coverage (save for the 63-day allowance) seeking to enroll in coverage in the individual and small group markets. In other words, individuals who would otherwise face a 30 percent surcharge as a result of not maintaining continuous coverage, would instead be medically underwritten for one year. However, under no circumstance may the gender rating protections be waived; insurers would continue to be prohibited from charging different rates based on whether an individual is a male or female.
Thus, the only people who could be charged a premium based on their health status are those with a pre-existing condition, not enrolled in a large group health plan, living in a state that obtains a waiver, who have let their insurance lapse in the past year for 63 days or more, and then only for one year. All others would continue to be protected by the community rating provisions currently in place under the ACA. Further, no one could be denied coverage because of the existence of a pre-existing condition, or even face a lock-out period.
Conclusion
The AHCA would not provide for the return to the status quo prior to the ACA. It is unlikely that many Americans will be impacted by the provisions of the MacArthur amendment. Finally, the AHCA must still be passed by the Senate and is likely to undergo significant reforms before it does, in which case, the legislation would again have to be passed by the House.
[6] Technically, the mandate would not be repealed because legislative rules prohibit such a change through the reconciliation process, but the applicable penalty would be set to $0, rendering the mandate moot.
HOW AN ACCIDENTAL ‘KILL SWITCH’ SLOWED FRIDAY’S MASSIVE RANSOMWARE ATTACK
Amid a desperate situation Friday in which hundred of thousands of ransomware attacks pelted computers in nearly 100 countries, one stroke of good fortune hit, too. As the malware analysis expert who calls himself MalwareTech rushed to examine the so-called WannaCry strain, he stumbled on a way to stop it from locking computers and slow its spread. All it took was ten bucks, and a little luck.WannaCry swept Europe and Asia quickly yesterday, locking up critical systems like the UK’s National Health Service, a large telecom in Spain, and other businesses and institutions around the world, all in record time. Once infected, a victim’s computer denies access, and instead displays a message that demands the equivalent of around $300 in bitcoin.While many thousands have had their lives impacted—including countless people in need of medical care in the UK—two things have slowed WannaCry’s spread. First, Microsoft released a rare emergency patch to help protect Windows XP devices from its reach. (The company hasn’t officially supported XP since 2014.) That helps the many aging systems with no security resource get ahead of infection, if they can download the patch before WannaCry hits. The other, though, was MalwareTech’s happy accident.
Kill Switch
As he worked to reverse-engineer samples of WannaCry on Friday, MalwareTech discovered that the ransomware’s programmers had built it to check whether a certain gibberish URL led to a live web page. Curious why the ransomware would look for that domain, MalwareTech registered it himself. As it turns out, that $10.69 investment was enough to shut the whole thing down—for now, at least.
It turned out that as long as the domain was unregistered and inactive, the query had no effect on the ransomware’s spread. But once the ransomware checked the URL and found it active, it shut down.
Competing theories exist as to why WannaCry’s perpetrators built it this way. One possibility: The functionality was put in place as an intentional kill switch, in case the creators ever wanted to rein in the monster they’d created. “Based on the behavior implemented in the code, the kill switch was most likely intentional,” says Darien Huss, senior security research engineer at the security intelligence firm Proofpoint, who was working on real-time WannaCry analysis and mitigation on Friday.
MalwareTech theorizes that hackers could have included the feature to shield the ransomware from analysis by security professionals. That sort of examination often takes place in a controlled environment called a “sandbox.” Researchers construct some of these environments to trick malware into thinking it’s querying outside servers, even though it’s really talking to a bunch of dummy sandbox IP addresses. As a result, any address the malware tries to reach gets a response—even if the actual domain is unregistered. Since the domain MalwareTech acquired was supposed to be dormant but went live, WannaCry may have assumed it was in the middle of forensic analysis, and shut down.
Building anti-analysis defenses into malware is common, but the WannaCry hackers appear to have botched the implementation. By relying on a static, discoverable address, whoever found it—in this case MalwareTech—could just register the domain and trigger WannaCry’s shutdown defense.
“It was all pretty shocking, really,” MalwareTech says. The kill switch “was supposed to work like that, just the domain should [have been] random so people can’t register it.”
A Temporary Fix
The kill switch doesn’t help devices WannaCry has already infected and locked down. But by registering the domain, and then directing the traffic to it into a server environment meant to capture and hold malicious traffic—known as a “sinkhole”—MalwareTech bought time for systems that hadn’t already been infected to be patched for long-term protection, particularly in the United States where WannaCry was slower to proliferate because its spread had mostly been in Europe and Asia early on.
“Thankfully MalwareTech already had infrastructure in place for the sinkhole,” Huss says. “If someone had sinkholed the domain and had not been prepared then we would be seeing many more infections right now.” If the setup doesn’t have those enough server space and bandwidth, the malware wouldn’t consistently become trapped and, in this case anyway, self-destruct.
With so many security analysts working to reverse-engineer and observe WannaCry, someone else would have eventually found the valuable mechanism MalwareTech spotted. But when infections are spreading as quickly as they were on Friday, every minute counts.
The discovery doesn’t amount to a permanent fix. All it would take to get around it would be a new strain of WannaCry whose code excludes the kill switch, or relies on a more sophisticated URL generator instead of a static address. And the more fundamental problem of vulnerable devices, particularly Windows XP devices, remains. Still, MalwareTech’s find helped turn a bad situation around—and saved people a lot of bitcoin in the process.
Cybersecurity Experts’ First Task: Find Out How Virus Spread
Investigators think a computer outlet that isn’t supposed to be connected to the internet was a possible vector for WannaCry
The virus, dubbed WannaCry, is a two-part virus. One part is ransomware, which locks computer files and demands online payment to unlock them. The other part spreads it.PHOTO: RITCHIE B. TONGO/EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY
By Stu Woo
May 15, 2017 1:10 p.m. ET
Government investigators and private cybersecurity firms are trying to find out how a virus managed to spread around the globe over the weekend, which would give them their best chance to identify the mastermind behind the cyberattacks.
Investigators have already ruled out phishing—tricking someone into opening a seemingly legitimate email attachment that actually contains the virus—as a possible tactic. One of their hypotheses centers on something called port 445, an outlet that isn’t supposed to be connected to the internet.
The race is on to identify patient zero, or the first known infection of the virus, to find clues that could lead back to the hacker.
The attacks appear to have largely abated Monday, despite fears that a new workweek would trigger a second wave. Cybersecurity experts see fewer infections compared with Friday, when the onslaught started.
“We think the initial fire is put out,” said Rob Holmes, vice president of products at Proofpoint, a Silicon Valley company with virus sensors at major corporations and telecom companies.
The virus, dubbed WannaCry, is a two-part virus. One part is ransomware, which locks computer files and demands online payment to unlock them. The other part is a “spreader,” which transmits WannaCry to all other computers on a network. It attacks machines running MicrosoftCorp.’s Windows systems that don’t have up-to-date security patches.
A European Union cybersecurity agency published a report Monday, which said early indications pointed to emails containing WannaCry-infected Microsoft Office documents as the attacker’s weapon. But it quickly amended the report, saying phishing probably wasn’t involved.
If it had been a phishing attack, organizations would have found the offending email by now and described it to the public, cybersecurity experts said.
Now there are two main hypotheses as to how WannaCry could have wormed its way into a computer. One theory centers on port 445.
Imagine a network of 100 computers. These computers communicate with each other through digital roads. One of the roads is port 445, and it is usually reserved for Windows-running computers to transfer files to each other, or to send stuff to the printer, said Becky Pinkard, a vice president at cybersecurity firm Digital Shadows.
Authorities know WannaCry spread itself within a network using the port 445 roads. But how did it get there in the first place? Port 445 roads connect computers within a network, but it was thought to be walled off from the internet and outside world. Now investigators are trying to determine whether port 445’s wall has a hole that WannaCry wiggled through.
“Most researchers tend to believe at the moment that it spreads initially through vulnerable computers exposing port 445 on the internet,” the updated EU agency report said.
There is another theory. Ms. Pinkard said an employee could have taken an office-issued laptop to a coffee shop or hotel and logged onto the venue’s unsecure internet network. If that laptop doesn’t have the antivirus protections that networks at big organizations typically have, a hacker could’ve slipped WannaCry onto the device. When the employee brings the laptop back to the office and connects it to the network, bam: WannaCry spreads itself via port 445.
Companies can protect laptops from this with commercially available protection software, Ms. Pinkard said.
If researchers can find the original WannaCry victim, they might be able to trace the signature of the attacker who delivered the virus via an internet-protocol address, or IP address. “If I were law enforcement, I would be working to find who was the very first company impacted,” Ms. Pinkard said. “I would knock at the door and be asking, ‘Can I look at your logs?’ ”
The problem is that the IP address could lead to another IP address, which would lead to another IP address, and so on. “It’s a very slow and painful process,” Ms. Pinkard said.
Cybersecurity experts said that, even though some of the world’s smartest minds are on the case, it could take months or years to find the mastermind—if they find the attacker at all.
A parallel hunt would be following the money. WannaCry asked for ransom to be delivered via a digital currency called bitcoin. About 124 payments totaling about $34,000, or a little less than $300 each, went to the attacker as of Sunday afternoon, said bitcoin-analytics-firm Chainalysis. Every bitcoin transaction is recorded on an online ledger. But finding out the individual behind each transaction is difficult because users’ identities are well encrypted.
“There’s going to be a paper trail,” said Brian Knight, a George Mason University specialist in financial technology. “Whether it can be deciphered is a separate question.”
—Natalia Drozdiak, Paul Vigna and Peter Rudegair contributed to this article.
The cyberattacks started Friday and spread rapidly around the globe using a security flaw in Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system
The cyberattacks started Friday and spread rapidly around the globe using a security flaw in Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system
Security agencies are hunting for those behind a crippling cyberattack which has so far hit hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide, including at government agencies, factories and health services.
Here is what we know so far about the cyber ransom attacks:
– What happened? –
The cyberattacks started Friday and spread rapidly around the globe using a security flaw in Microsoft’s Windows XP operating system, an older version that is no longer given mainstream tech support by the US giant.
The so-called WannaCry ransomware locks access to user files and in an on-screen message demands payment of $300 (275 euros) in the virtual currency Bitcoin in order to decrypt the files.
Victims have been advised by security experts not to pay up.
The attack is unique, according to policing agency Europol, because it combines ransomware with a worm function, meaning once one machine is infected, the entire internal network is scanned and other vulnerable machines are infected.
– Who has been affected? –
Europol chief Rob Wainwright said computer systems in more than 150 countries were hit, with the majority of organisations affected over the weekend in Europe.
But as Asia woke up to the working week on Monday, leading Chinese security-software provider Qihoo 360 said “hundreds of thousands” of computers in the country were hit at nearly 30,000 institutions including government agencies.
In Japan, a spokesman for Hitachi said the conglomerate discovered problems on Monday morning and its computer networks were “unstable”.
Other high-profile victims include hospitals in Britain, the Spanish telecoms giant Telefonica, French carmaker Renault, US package delivery company FedEx, Russia’s interior ministry and the German rail operator Deutsche Bahn.
– Where did the malware come from? –
Brad Smith, Microsoft’s president and chief legal officer, said in a blog post Sunday that the culprits used a code developed by the US National Security Agency.
It was leaked as part of a document dump, according to researchers at the Moscow-based computer security firm Kaspersky Lab.
Smith warned governments against stockpiling such vulnerabilities and said instead they should report them to manufacturers — not sell, store or exploit them, lest they fall into the wrong hands.
“An equivalent scenario with conventional weapons would be the US military having some of its Tomahawk missiles stolen,” Smith wrote.
“The governments of the world should treat this attack as a wake up call.”
– Who was behind the attack? –
Europol said on Monday it was continuing to hunt for the culprits behind the unprecedented attack.
The agency’s senior spokesman Jan Op Gen Oorth said it was still “a bit early too say who is behind it, but we are working on a decrypting tool”.
Experts think it unlikely to have been one person, with criminally minded cyber crime syndicates nowadays going underground and using ever more sophisticated encryption to hide their activities.
– How can people protect their computers? –
Microsoft took the unusual step of reissuing security patches first made available in March for Windows XP and other older versions of its operating system.
Kaspersky said it was seeking to develop a decryption tool “as soon as possible”.
Europol said European companies and governments had heeded warnings and as a result avoided further fallout from the ransomware.
“It seems that a lot of internet security guys over the weekend did their homework and ran the security software updates,” Jan Op Gen Oorth told AFP.
Dozens of countries hit by huge cyberextortion attack
NEW YORK (AP) — Dozens of countries were hit with a huge cyberextortion attack Friday that locked up computers and held users’ files for ransom at a multitude of hospitals, companies and government agencies.
It was believed to the biggest attack of its kind ever recorded.
The malicious software behind the onslaught appeared to exploit a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that was supposedly identified by the National Security Agency for its own intelligence-gathering purposes and was later leaked to the internet.
Britain’s national health service fell victim, its hospitals forced to close wards and emergency rooms and turn away patients. Russia appeared to be the hardest hit, according to security experts, with the country’s Interior Ministry confirming it was struck.
All told, several cybersecurity firms said they had identified the malicious software, which so far has been responsible for tens of thousands of attacks, in more than 60 countries. That includes the United States, although its effects there didn’t appear to be widespread, at least initially.
The attack infected computers with what is known as “ransomware” — software that locks up the user’s data and flashes a message demanding payment to release it. In the U.S., FedEx reported that its Windows computers were “experiencing interference” from malware, but wouldn’t say if it had been hit by ransomware.
Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer at the Helsinki-based cybersecurity company F-Secure, called the attack “the biggest ransomware outbreak in history.”
Security experts said the attack appeared to be caused by a self-replicating piece of software that enters companies and organizations when employees click on email attachments, then spreads quickly internally from computer to computer when employees share documents and other files.
Its ransom demands start at $300 and increase after two hours to $400, $500 and then $600, said Kurt Baumgartner, a security researcher at Kaspersky Lab. Affected users can restore their files from backups, if they have them, or pay the ransom; otherwise they risk losing their data entirely.
Chris Wysopal of the software security firm Veracode said criminal organizations were probably behind the attack, given how quickly the malware spread.
“For so many organizations in the same day to be hit, this is unprecedented,” he said.
The security holes it exploits were disclosed several weeks ago by TheShadowBrokers, a mysterious group that has published what it says are hacking tools used by the NSA as part of its intelligence-gathering.
Shortly after that disclosure, Microsoft announced that it had already issued software “patches” for those holes. But many companies and individuals haven’t installed the fixes yet or are using older versions of Windows that Microsoft no longer supports and didn’t fix.
By Kaspersky Lab’s count, the malware struck at least 74 countries. In addition to Russia, the biggest targets appeared to be Ukraine and India, nations where it is common to find older, unpatched versions of Windows in use, according to the security firm.
Hospitals across Britain found themselves without access to their computers or phone systems. Many canceled all routine procedures and asked patients not to come to the hospital unless it was an emergency. Doctors’ practices and pharmacies reported similar problems.
Patrick Ward, a 47-year-old sales director, said his heart operation, scheduled for Friday, was canceled at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London.
Tom Griffiths, who was at the hospital for chemotherapy, said several cancer patients had to be sent home because their records or bloodwork couldn’t be accessed.
“Both staff and patients were frankly pretty appalled that somebody, whoever they are, for commercial gain or otherwise, would attack a health care organization,” he said. “It’s stressful enough for someone going through recovery or treatment for cancer.”
British Prime Minister Theresa May said there was no evidence patient data had been compromised and added that the attack had not specifically targeted the National Health Service.
“It’s an international attack and a number of countries and organizations have been affected,” she said.
Spain, meanwhile, took steps to protect critical infrastructure in response to the attack. Authorities said they were communicating with more than 100 energy, transportation, telecommunications and financial services providers about the attack.
Spain’s Telefonica, a global broadband and telecommunications company, was among the companies hit.
Ransomware attacks are on the rise around the world. In 2016, Hollywood Presbyterian Medical Center in California said it had paid a $17,000 ransom to regain control of its computers from hackers.
Krishna Chinthapalli, a doctor at Britain’s National Hospital for Neurology & Neurosurgery who wrote a paper on cybersecurity for the British Medical Journal, warned that British hospitals’ old operating systems and confidential patient information made them an ideal target for blackmailers.
He said many NHS hospitals in Britain use Windows XP software, introduced in 2001, and as government funding for the health service has been squeezed, “IT budgets are often one of the first ones to be reduced.”
“Looking at the trends, it was going to happen,” he said. “I did not expect an attack on this scale. That was a shock.
Global ‘WannaCry’ ransomware cyberattack seeks cash for data
LONDON (AP) — A global “ransomware” cyberattack, unprecedented in scale, had technicians scrambling to restore Britain’s crippled hospital network Saturday and secure the computers that run factories, banks, government agencies and transport systems in many other nations.
The worldwide effort to extort cash from computer users spread so widely that Microsoft quickly changed its policy, making security fixes available for free for the older Windows systems still used by millions of individuals and smaller businesses.
A malware tracking map showed “WannaCry” infections popping up around the world. Britain canceled or delayed treatments for thousands of patients, even people with cancer. Train systems were hit in Germany and Russia, and phone companies in Madrid and Moscow. Renault’s futuristic assembly line in Slovenia, where rows of robots weld car bodies together, was stopped cold.
In Brazil, the social security system had to disconnect its computers and cancel public access. The state-owned oil company Petrobras and Brazil’s Foreign Ministry also disconnected computers as a precautionary measure, and court systems went down, too.
Britain’s home secretary said one in five of 248 National Health Service groups had been hit. Home Secretary Amber Rudd said all but six of the NHS trusts back to normal Saturday.
The U.K.’s National Cyber Security Center was “working round the clock” to restore vital health services, while urging people to update security software fixes, run anti-virus software and back up their data elsewhere.
Who perpetrated this wave of attacks remains unknown. Two security firms — Kaspersky Lab and Avast — said they identified the malicious software in more than 70 countries. Both said Russia was hit hardest.
These hackers “have caused enormous amounts of disruption— probably the biggest ransomware cyberattack in history,” said Graham Cluley, a veteran of the anti-virus industry in Oxford, England.
And all this may be just a taste of what’s coming, another cyber security expert warned.
Computer users worldwide — and everyone else who depends on them — should assume that the next big “ransomware” attack has already been launched, and just hasn’t manifested itself yet, Ori Eisen, who founded the Trusona cybersecurity firm in Scottsdale, Arizona, told The Associated Press.
The attack held hospitals and other entities hostage by freezing computers, encrypting data and demanding money through online bitcoin payments. But it appears to be “low-level” stuff, Eisen said Saturday, given the amount of ransom demanded — $300 at first, rising to $600 before it destroys files hours later.
He said the same thing could be done to crucial infrastructure, like nuclear power plants, dams or railway systems.
“This is child’s play, what happened. This is not the serious stuff yet. What if the same thing happened to 10 nuclear power plants, and they would shut down all the electricity to the grid? What if the same exact thing happened to a water dam or to a bridge?” he asked.
“Today, it happened to 10,000 computers,” Eisen said. “There’s no barrier to do it tomorrow to 100 million computers.”
This is already believed to be the biggest online extortion attack ever recorded, disrupting services in nations as diverse as the U.S., Ukraine, Brazil, Spain and India. Europol, the European Union’s police agency, said the onslaught was at “an unprecedented level and will require a complex international investigation to identify the culprits.”
In Russia, government agencies insisted that all attacks had been resolved. Russian Interior Ministry, which runs the national police, said the problem had been “localized” with no information compromised. Russia’s health ministry said its attacks were “effectively repelled.”
The ransomware exploits a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows that was purportedly identified by the U.S. National Security Agency for its own intelligence-gathering purposes. Hackers said they stole the tools from the NSA and dumped them on the internet.
It could have been much worse if not for a young cybersecurity researcher who helped to halt its spread by accidentally activating a so-called “kill switch” in the malicious software.
The 22-year-old Britain-based researcher, identified online only as MalwareTech, explained Saturday that he spotted a hidden web address in the “WannaCrypt” code and made it official by registering its domain name. That inexpensive move redirected the attacks to MalwareTech’s server, which operates as a “sinkhole” to keep malware from escaping.
“Because WannaCrypt used a single hardcoded domain, my registration of it caused all infections globally to believe they were inside a sandbox … thus we initially unintentionally prevented the spread,” the researcher said, humbly and anonymously, in his blog post.
His move may have saved governments and companies millions of dollars and slowed the outbreak before U.S.-based computers were more widely infected.
Indeed, while FedEx Corp. reported that its Windows computers were “experiencing interference” from malware — it wouldn’t say if it had been hit by the ransomware — other impacts in the U.S. were not readily apparent on Saturday.
That said, the threat hasn’t disappeared, the MalwareTech researcher said.
“One thing that is very important to note is our sinkholing only stops this sample and there is nothing stopping them removing the domain check and trying again, so it’s incredibly important that any unpatched systems are patched as quickly as possible,” he warned.
The kill switch also couldn’t help those already infected. Short of paying, options for these individuals and companies are usually limited to recovering data files from a backup, if available, or living without them.
Security experts said it appeared to be caused by a self-replicating piece of software that enters companies when employees click on email attachments, then spreads quickly as employees share documents.
The security holes it exploits were disclosed weeks ago by TheShadowBrokers, a mysterious hacking group. Microsoft swiftly released software “patches” to fix those holes, but many users still haven’t installed updates or still use older versions of Windows.
Microsoft had made fixes for older systems, such as 2001′s Windows XP, available only to mostly larger organizations, including Britain’s National Health Service, that paid extra for extended technical support. In light of Friday’s attacks, Microsoft announced that it’s making the fixes free to all.
Cluley said “There’s clearly some culpability on the part of the U.S. intelligence services. Because they could have done something ages ago to get this problem fixed, and they didn’t do it.”
“It’s very, very difficult these days, with encryption, to spy on people,” Cluley added. “But I don’t think that those concerns should hide the fact that ALL of us need to be protected … We’re living an online life, and we all deserve security there.”
Ransomware is a type of malicious software designed to block access to a computer system or data until a ransom is paid. Simple ransomware may lock the system in a way which is not difficult for a knowledgeable person to reverse, and display a message requesting payment to unlock it. More advanced malware encrypts the victim’s files, making them inaccessible, and demands a ransom payment to decrypt them.[1] The ransomware may also encrypt the computer’s Master File Table (MFT)[2][3] or the entire hard drive.[4] Thus, ransomware is a denial-of-access attack that prevents computer users from accessing files[5] since it is intractable to decrypt the files without the decryption key. Ransomware attacks are typically carried out using a Trojan that has a payload disguised as a legitimate file.
While initially popular in Russia, the use of ransomware scams has grown internationally;[6][7][8] in June 2013, security software vendor McAfee released data showing that it had collected over 250,000 unique samples of ransomware in the first quarter of 2013, more than double the number it had obtained in the first quarter of 2012.[9] Wide-ranging attacks involving encryption-based ransomware began to increase through Trojans such as CryptoLocker, which had procured an estimated US$3 million before it was taken down by authorities,[10] and CryptoWall, which was estimated by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to have accrued over $18m by June 2015.[11]
Operation
Typically, modern ransomware uses encryption to deny users’ access to their files. The software encrypts the victim’s files using a symmetric cipher with a randomly generated key, and then deletes the key, leaving only a version of it made inaccessible to the victim using public key cryptography. Only the attacker can then decrypt the symmetric key needed to restore the files.[12]
The symmetric key is randomly generated and will not assist other victims. At no point is the attacker’s private key exposed to victims and the victim need only send a very small ciphertext (the encrypted symmetric-cipher key) to the attacker.
Ransomware attacks are typically carried out using a Trojan, entering a system through, for example, a downloaded file or a vulnerability in a network service. The program then runs a payload, which locks the system in some fashion, or claims to lock the system but does not (e.g., a scareware program). Payloads may display a fake warning purportedly by an entity such as a law enforcement agency, falsely claiming that the system has been used for illegal activities, contains content such as pornography and “pirated” media.[13][14][15]
Some payloads consist simply of an application designed to lock or restrict the system until payment is made, typically by setting the Windows Shell to itself,[16] or even modifying the master boot record and/or partition table to prevent the operating system from booting until it is repaired.[17] The most sophisticated payloads encrypt files, with many using strong encryption to encrypt the victim’s files in such a way that only the malware author has the needed decryption key.[12][18][19]
Payment is virtually always the goal, and the victim is coerced into paying for the ransomware to be removed—which may or may not actually occur—either by supplying a program that can decrypt the files, or by sending an unlock code that undoes the payload’s changes. A key element in making ransomware work for the attacker is a convenient payment system that is hard to trace. A range of such payment methods have been used, including wire transfers, premium-rate text messages,[20] pre-paid voucher services such as Paysafecard,[6][21][22] and the digital currencyBitcoin.[23][24][25] A 2016 census commissioned by Citrix revealed that larger business are holding bitcoin as contingency plans.[26]
History
Encrypting ransomware
The first known malware extortion attack, the “AIDS Trojan” written by Joseph Popp in 1989, had a design failure so severe it was not necessary to pay the extortionist at all. Its payload hid the files on the hard drive and encrypted only their names, and displayed a message claiming that the user’s license to use a certain piece of software had expired. The user was asked to pay US$189 to “PC Cyborg Corporation” in order to obtain a repair tool even though the decryption key could be extracted from the code of the Trojan. The Trojan was also known as “PC Cyborg”. Popp was declared mentally unfit to stand trial for his actions, but he promised to donate the profits from the malware to fund AIDS research.[27]
The notion of using public key cryptography for ransom attacks was introduced in 1996 by Adam L. Young and Moti Yung. Young and Yung critiqued the failed AIDS Information Trojan that relied on symmetric cryptography alone, the fatal flaw being that the decryption key could be extracted from the Trojan, and implemented an experimental proof-of-concept cryptovirus on a Macintosh SE/30 that used RSA and the Tiny Encryption Algorithm (TEA) to hybrid encrypt the victim’s data. Since public key crypto is used, the cryptovirus only contains the encryption key. The attacker keeps the corresponding private decryption key private. Young and Yung’s original experimental cryptovirus had the victim send the asymmetric ciphertext to the attacker who deciphers it and returns the symmetric decryption key it contains to the victim for a fee. Long before electronic money existed Young and Yung proposed that electronic money could be extorted through encryption as well, stating that “the virus writer can effectively hold all of the money ransom until half of it is given to him. Even if the e-money was previously encrypted by the user, it is of no use to the user if it gets encrypted by a cryptovirus”.[12] They referred to these attacks as being “cryptoviral extortion”, an overt attack that is part of a larger class of attacks in a field called cryptovirology, which encompasses both overt and covert attacks.[12]
Examples of extortionate ransomware became prominent in May 2005.[28] By mid-2006, Trojans such as Gpcode, TROJ.RANSOM.A, Archiveus, Krotten, Cryzip, and MayArchive began utilizing more sophisticated RSA encryption schemes, with ever-increasing key-sizes. Gpcode.AG, which was detected in June 2006, was encrypted with a 660-bit RSA public key.[29] In June 2008, a variant known as Gpcode.AK was detected. Using a 1024-bit RSA key, it was believed large enough to be computationally infeasible to break without a concerted distributed effort.[30][31][32][33]
Encrypting ransomware returned to prominence in late 2013 with the propagation of CryptoLocker—using the Bitcoindigital currency platform to collect ransom money. In December 2013, ZDNet estimated based on Bitcoin transaction information that between 15 October and 18 December, the operators of CryptoLocker had procured about US$27 million from infected users.[34] The CryptoLocker technique was widely copied in the months following, including CryptoLocker 2.0 (though not to be related to CryptoLocker), CryptoDefense (which initially contained a major design flaw that stored the private key on the infected system in a user-retrievable location, due to its use of Windows’ built-in encryption APIs),[24][35][36][37] and the August 2014 discovery of a Trojan specifically targeting network-attached storage devices produced by Synology.[38] In January 2015, it was reported that ransomware-styled attacks have occurred against individual websites via hacking, and through ransomware designed to target Linux-based web servers.[39][40][41]
Symantec has classified ransomware to be the most dangerous cyber threat.[46]
Non-encrypting ransomware
In August 2010, Russian authorities arrested nine individuals connected to a ransomware Trojan known as WinLock. Unlike the previous Gpcode Trojan, WinLock did not use encryption. Instead, WinLock trivially restricted access to the system by displaying pornographic images, and asked users to send a premium-rate SMS (costing around US$10) to receive a code that could be used to unlock their machines. The scam hit numerous users across Russia and neighboring countries—reportedly earning the group over US$16 million.[15][47]
In 2011, a ransomware Trojan surfaced that imitated the Windows Product Activation notice, and informed users that a system’s Windows installation had to be re-activated due to “[being a] victim of fraud”. An online activation option was offered (like the actual Windows activation process), but was unavailable, requiring the user to call one of six international numbers to input a 6-digit code. While the malware claimed that this call would be free, it was routed through a rogue operator in a country with high international phone rates, who placed the call on hold, causing the user to incur large internationallong distance charges.[13]
In February 2013, a ransomware Trojan based on the Stamp.EK exploit kit surfaced; the malware was distributed via sites hosted on the project hosting services SourceForge and GitHub that claimed to offer “fake nude pics” of celebrities.[48] In July 2013, an OS X-specific ransomware Trojan surfaced, which displays a web page that accuses the user of downloading pornography. Unlike its Windows-based counterparts, it does not block the entire computer, but simply exploits the behavior of the web browser itself to frustrate attempts to close the page through normal means.[49]
In July 2013, a 21-year-old man from Virginia, whose computer coincidentally did contain pornographic photographs of underaged girls with whom he had conducted sexualized communications, turned himself in to police after receiving and being deceived by ransomware purporting to be an FBI message accusing him of possessing child pornography. An investigation discovered the incriminating files, and the man was charged with child sexual abuse and possession of child pornography.[50]
Leakware (also called Doxware)
The converse of ransomware is a cryptovirology attack that threatens to publish stolen information from the victim’s computer system rather than deny the victim access to it.[51] In a leakware attack, malware exfiltrates sensitive host data either to the attacker or alternatively, to remote instances of the malware, and the attacker threatens to publish the victim’s data unless a ransom is paid. The attack was presented at West Point in 2003 and was summarized in the book Malicious Cryptography as follows, “The attack differs from the extortion attack in the following way. In the extortion attack, the victim is denied access to its own valuable information and has to pay to get it back, where in the attack that is presented here the victim retains access to the information but its disclosure is at the discretion of the computer virus”.[52] The attack is rooted in game theory and was originally dubbed “non-zero sum games and survivable malware”. The attack can yield monetary gain in cases where the malware acquires access to information that may damage the victim user or organization, e.g., reputational damage that could result from publishing proof that the attack itself was a success.
Mobile ransomware
With the increased popularity of ransomware on PC platforms, ransomware targeting mobile operating systems have also proliferated. Typically, mobile ransomware payloads are blockers, as there is little incentive to encrypt data since it can be easily restored via online synchronization.[53] Mobile ransomware typically targets the Android platform, as it allows applications to be installed from third-party sources.[53][54] The payload is typically distributed as an APK file installed by an unsuspecting user; it may attempt to display a blocking message over top of all other applications,[54] while another used a form of clickjacking to cause the user to give it “device administrator” privileges to achieve deeper access to the system.[55]
Different tactics have been used on iOS devices, such as exploiting iCloud accounts and using the Find My iPhone system to lock access to the device.[56] On iOS 10.3, Apple patched a bug in the handling of JavaScript pop-up windows in Safari that had been exploited by ransomware websites.[57]
In 2012, a major ransomware Trojan known as Reveton began to spread. Based on the Citadel Trojan (which itself, is based on the Zeus Trojan), its payload displays a warning purportedly from a law enforcement agency claiming that the computer has been used for illegal activities, such as downloading unlicensed software or child pornography. Due to this behaviour, it is commonly referred to as the “Police Trojan”.[58][59][60] The warning informs the user that to unlock their system, they would have to pay a fine using a voucher from an anonymous prepaid cash service such as Ukash or Paysafecard. To increase the illusion that the computer is being tracked by law enforcement, the screen also displays the computer’s IP address, while some versions display footage from a victim’s webcam to give the illusion that the user is being recorded.[6][61]
Reveton initially began spreading in various European countries in early 2012.[6] Variants were localized with templates branded with the logos of different law enforcement organizations based on the user’s country; for example, variants used in the United Kingdom contained the branding of organizations such as the Metropolitan Police Service and the Police National E-Crime Unit. Another version contained the logo of the royalty collection societyPRS for Music, which specifically accused the user of illegally downloading music.[62] In a statement warning the public about the malware, the Metropolitan Police clarified that they would never lock a computer in such a way as part of an investigation.[6][14]
In May 2012, Trend Micro threat researchers discovered templates for variations for the United States and Canada, suggesting that its authors may have been planning to target users in North America.[63] By August 2012, a new variant of Reveton began to spread in the United States, claiming to require the payment of a $200 fine to the FBI using a MoneyPak card.[7][8][61]In February 2013, a Russian citizen was arrested in Dubai by Spanish authorities for his connection to a crime ring that had been using Reveton; ten other individuals were arrested on money laundering charges.[64] In August 2014, Avast Software reported that it had found new variants of Reveton that also distribute password stealing malware as part of its payload.[65]
Encrypting ransomware reappeared in September 2013 with a Trojan known as CryptoLocker, which generated a 2048-bit RSA key pair and uploaded in turn to a command-and-control server, and used to encrypt files using a whitelist of specific file extensions. The malware threatened to delete the private key if a payment of Bitcoin or a pre-paid cash voucher was not made within 3 days of the infection. Due to the extremely large key size it uses, analysts and those affected by the Trojan considered CryptoLocker extremely difficult to repair.[23][66][67][68]Even after the deadline passed, the private key could still be obtained using an online tool, but the price would increase to 10 BTC—which cost approximately US$2300 as of November 2013.[69][70]
CryptoLocker was isolated by the seizure of the Gameover ZeuSbotnet as part of Operation Tovar, as officially announced by the U.S. Department of Justice on 2 June 2014. The Department of Justice also publicly issued an indictment against the Russian hacker Evgeniy Bogachev for his alleged involvement in the botnet.[71][72] It was estimated that at least US$3 million was extorted with the malware before the shutdown.[10]
CryptoLocker.F and TorrentLocker
In September 2014, a wave of ransomware Trojans surfaced that first targeted users in Australia, under the names CryptoWall and CryptoLocker (which is, as with CryptoLocker 2.0, unrelated to the original CryptoLocker). The Trojans spread via fraudulent e-mails claiming to be failed parcel delivery notices from Australia Post; to evade detection by automatic e-mail scanners that follow all links on a page to scan for malware, this variant was designed to require users to visit a web page and enter a CAPTCHA code before the payload is actually downloaded, preventing such automated processes from being able to scan the payload. Symantec determined that these new variants, which it identified as CryptoLocker.F, were again, unrelated to the original CryptoLocker due to differences in their operation.[73][74] A notable victim of the Trojans was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation; live programming on its television news channelABC News 24 was disrupted for half an hour and shifted to Melbourne studios due to a CryptoWall infection on computers at its Sydney studio.[75][76][77]
Another Trojan in this wave, TorrentLocker, initially contained a design flaw comparable to CryptoDefense; it used the same keystream for every infected computer, making the encryption trivial to overcome. However, this flaw was later fixed.[35] By late-November 2014, it was estimated that over 9,000 users had been infected by TorrentLocker in Australia alone, trailing only Turkey with 11,700 infections.[78]
CryptoWall
Another major ransomware Trojan targeting Windows, CryptoWall, first appeared in 2014. One strain of CryptoWall was distributed as part of a malvertising campaign on the Zedo ad network in late-September 2014 that targeted several major websites; the ads redirected to rogue websites that used browser plugin exploits to download the payload. A Barracuda Networks researcher also noted that the payload was signed with a digital signature in an effort to appear trustworthy to security software.[79] CryptoWall 3.0 used a payload written in JavaScript as part of an email attachment, which downloads executables disguised as JPG images. To further evade detection, the malware creates new instances of explorer.exe and svchost.exe to communicate with its servers. When encrypting files, the malware also deletes volume shadow copies, and installs spyware that steals passwords and Bitcoin wallets.[80]
The FBI reported in June 2015 that nearly 1,000 victims had contacted the bureau’s Internet Crime Complaint Center to report CryptoWall infections, and estimated losses of at least $18 million.[11]
The most recent version, CryptoWall 4.0, enhanced its code to avoid antivirus detection, and encrypts not only the data in files but also the file names.[81]
Fusob
Fusob is one of the major mobile ransomware families. Between April 2015 and March 2016, about 56 percent of accounted mobile ransomwares was Fusob.[82]
Like a typical mobile ransomware, it employs scare tactics to extort people to pay a ransom.[83] The program pretends to be an accusatory authority, demanding the victim to pay a fine from $100 to $200 USD or otherwise face a fictitious charge. Rather surprisingly, Fusob suggests using iTunes gift cards for payment. Also, a timer clicking down on the screen adds to the users’ anxiety as well.
In order to infect devices, Fusob masquerades as a pornographic video player. Thus, victims, thinking it is harmless, unwittingly download Fusob.[84]
When Fusob is installed, it first checks the language used in the device. If it uses Russian or certain Eastern European languages, Fusob does nothing. Otherwise, it proceeds on to lock the device and demand ransom. Among victims, about 40% of them are in Germany with the United Kingdom and the United States following with 14.5% and 11.4% respectively.
Fusob has lots in common with Small, which is another major family of mobile ransomware. They represented over 93% of mobile ransomwares between 2015 and 2016.
In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack spread though the Internet, using an exploit vector that Microsoft had issued a “Critical” patch for (MS17-010) two months before on March 14, 2017. The ransomware attack infected over 75,000 users in over 99 countries, using 20 different languages to demand money from users. The attack affected Telefónica and several other large companies in Spain, as well as parts of the British National Health Service (NHS),[85]FedEx, Deutsche Bahn, as well as the Russian Interior Ministry and Russian telecom MegaFon.[86]
Mitigation
As with other forms of malware, security software might not detect a ransomware payload, or, especially in the case of encrypting payloads, only after encryption is under way or complete, particularly if a new version unknown to the protective software is distributed.[87] If an attack is suspected or detected in its early stages, it takes some time for encryption to take place; immediate removal of the malware (a relatively simple process) before it has completed would stop further damage to data, without salvaging any already lost.[88][89]
Alternately, new categories of security software, specifically deception technology, can detect ransomware without using a signature-based approach. Deception technology utilizes fake SMB shares which surround real IT assets. These fake SMB data shares deceive ransomware, tie the ransomware up encrypting these false SMB data shares, alert and notify cyber security teams which can then shut down the attack and return the organization to normal operations. There are multiple vendors[90] that support this capability with multiple announcements in 2016.[91]
Security experts have suggested precautionary measures for dealing with ransomware. Using software or other security policies to block known payloads from launching will help to prevent infection, but will not protect against all attacks. Keeping “offline” backups of data stored in locations inaccessible to the infected computer, such as external storage drives, prevents them from being accessed by the ransomware, thus accelerating data restoration.[23][92]
There are a number of tools intended specifically to decrypt files locked by ransomware, although successful recovery may not be possible.[2][93] If the same encryption key is used for all files, decryption tools use files for which there are both uncorrupted backups (plaintext in the jargon of cryptanalysis) and encrypted copies; recovery of the key, if it is possible, may take several days.[94]
WannaCry, also known by the names WannaCrypt,[2]WanaCrypt0r 2.0,[3]Wanna Decryptor[4] and other similar names, is a ransomware program targeting Microsoft Windows. In May 2017, a large cyber-attack using it was launched, infecting over 230,000 computers in 99 countries, demanding ransom payments in bitcoin in 28 languages. The attack has been described by Europol as unprecedented in scale.[5]
WannaCry is believed to use the EternalBlueexploit, which was developed by the U.S. National Security Agency[12][13] to attack computers running Microsoft Windows operating systems.[3][14] Although a patch to remove the underlying vulnerability had been issued on 14 March 2017,[15] delays in applying security updates left some users and organisations vulnerable.[16] Microsoft has taken the unusual step of releasing updates for the unsupported Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 and patches for Windows 8 operating systems.[2][17]
A kill switch has been found in the code, which prevents new infections. This has been activated by researchers and should slow or stop the spread. However, different versions of the attack may be released and all vulnerable systems still have an urgent need to be patched.
EternalBlue exploits vulnerability MS17-010[15] in Microsoft‘s implementation of the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol. Microsoft had released a “Critical” advisory, along with an update patch to plug the vulnerability a month before, on 14 March 2017.[15] This patch only fixed Windows Vista and later operating systems but not the older Windows XP.
On 12 May 2017, WannaCry began affecting computers worldwide.[23] After gaining access to the computers, via local area network (LAN), an email attachment, or drive-by download, the ransomware encrypts the computer’s hard disk drive,[24][25] then attempts to exploit the SMB vulnerability to spread to random computers on the Internet,[26] and “laterally” between computers on the same LAN.[27] As with other modern ransomware, the payload displays a message informing the user that files have been encrypted, and demands a payment of $300 in bitcoin within three days.
The Windows vulnerability is not a zero-day flaw, but one for which Microsoft had made available a security patch on 14 March 2017,[15] nearly two months before the attack. The patch was to the Server Message Block (SMB) protocol used by Windows.[28] Organizations that lacked this security patch were affected for this reason, although there is so far no evidence that any were specifically targeted by the ransomware developers.[28] Any organization still running the older Windows XP[29] were at particularly high risk because until 13 May,[2] no security patches had been released since April 2014.[30] Following the attack, Microsoft released a security patch for Windows XP.[2]
According to Wired, affected systems will also have had the DOUBLEPULSAR backdoor installed; this will also need to be removed when systems are cleaned up.[31]
Impact
The ransomware campaign was unprecedented in scale according to Europol.[5] The attack affected many NHS hospitals in the UK.[32] On 12 May, some NHS services had to turn away non-critical emergencies, and some ambulances were diverted.[7][33] In 2016, thousands of computers in 42 separate NHS trusts in England were reported to be still running Windows XP.[29]Nissan Motor Manufacturing UK in Tyne and Wear, one of Europe‘s most productive car manufacturing plants, halted production after the ransomware infected some of their systems. Renault also stopped production at several sites in an attempt to stop the spread of the ransomware.[34][35]
Several hours after the initial release of the ransomware on 12 May 2017, a “kill switch” hardcoded into the malware was discovered. This allowed the spread of the initial infection to be halted by registering a domain name.[52] However, the kill switch appears to be a coding mistake on the part of the criminals, and variants without the kill switch are expected to be created.[53][54]
Reactions
Upon learning about the impact on the NHS, Edward Snowden said that if the NSA “had privately disclosed the flaw used to attack hospitals when they found it, not when they lost it, [the attack] may not have happened”.[55]
British Prime MinisterTheresa May said of the ransomware, “This is not targeted at the NHS. It is an international attack. A number of countries and organizations have been affected.”[56]
Microsoft has created security patches for its now-unsupported versions of Windows, including Windows XP, Windows 8 and Windows Server 2003.[57]
Story 2: American People Demand Congress Appoint Special Prosecutor — Investigate Obama’s Administration Use of Intelligence Community (NSA, CIA, FBI, …) Warrantless Surveillance of Both Democrat and Republican Presidential Candidates — The Use Intelligence Information For Political Purposes Is A Felony! — Videos
Were senators under surveillance by Obama administration?
Obama Might have Spied on Rand Paul and Other Republicans
Tucker Carlson : Did Obama Admin Spy On President Trump’s Team “Compelling Evidence Revealed”
Trump slams Susan Rice over refusal to testify
What is the status of the Susan Rice investigation?
Sen Rand Paul Destroys Morning Joe Panel Over Trump Spying Allegations
Dr. Gorka: Susan Rice controversy more than ‘just smoke’
David Bossie: These are criminal acts by Susan Rice
Where does the Susan Rice story go from here?
Byron York reacts to Clapper denying wiretap of Trump
White House asks Congress to investigate Obama 5 Mar 2017
White House Asks Congress To Investigate Wiretap Claim – America’s Newsroom
Multiple Felonies Committed By Obama Admin. Obama Surveillance on Trump.
Obama stopped FBI from revealing russia probe, so surveillance of Trump could continue in 2016/2017
Surveillance Confirmed Of President Trump. Obama spied on Trump. where is the arrest?
Story 1: Climate Gate 2: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Exaggerated Global Warming Duping Nations To Waste Billions — Corrupt Government Funded Junk Science Wasted American People’s Tax Payments — Videos
ClimateGate 2.0: World Leaders Duped Into Investing Billions Over Manipulated Global Warming Data
Climate Fraud – NOAA’s Global Temperature Dataset
ClimateGate 2 NOAA Whistleblower Claims World Leaders Fooled By Fake Global Warming Data
EXPOSED Govt Climate Change Data 100% Fabricated by NOAA YouTube
John Christy on The Economics and Politics of Climate Change
John Christy on The Economics and Politics of Climate Change
Mark Steyn – The Fraudulent Hockey Stick – 10th ICCC
The Paris Climate Agreement Won’t Change the Climate
Do 97% of Climate Scientists Really Agree?
Dr. Roy Spencer debunks the 97% IPCC Climate Global Warming Consensus
Professor Bob Carter – The Faux “97% Consensus” – 10th ICCC
MIT Professor Richard Lindzen On the Corruption of Climate Science
MIT Climatologist Richard Lindzen on the Politics of Global Warming
Nobel Laureate in Physics; “Global Warming is Pseudoscience”
Freeman Dyson on the Global Warming Hysteria April, 2015
What’s the Real Agenda Behind Climate Change Alarmism?
Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case
Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (1 of 2)
Dr David Evans: Global Warming is Manmade? (2 of 2)
Global Warming Skeptic Bell: CO2 Hoax Biggest Climate Change Lie
How the Global Warming Scare Began
George Carlin on Global Warming
Climategate 2: Heating data exaggerated by NOAA
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun
February 5, 2017 6:02am
Another Climategate? Now a whistleblower says the world’s leading source of climate data exaggerated global warming to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
The NOAA allegedly fiddled data to falsely claim there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming since 1998.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised…
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects…
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’… A final, approved version has still not been issued…
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable…
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
There is too much money and pride invested in the global warming scare for us to trust the institutions promoting it. But the dud predictions alone should warn you that many of the “experts” are guilty of gross exaggerations, to say the very least.
Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data
The Mail on Sunday can reveal a landmark paper exaggerated global warming
It was rushed through and timed to influence the Paris agreement on climate change
America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration broke its own rules
The report claimed the pause in global warming never existed, but it was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data
By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 17:57 EST, 4 February 2017 | UPDATED: 10:12 EST, 5 February 2017
Data Science,Climate and satellites Consultant John J Bates, who blew the whistle to the Mail on Sunday
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.
His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Microsoft CEO Bill Gates, US President Barack Obama, French President Francois Hollande and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at the world climate change conference
The PM, the Prince and ‘the pause’: David Cameron and Prince Charles attended the historic 2015 Paris climate change conference with 150 world leaders. Cameron committed Britain to an EU-Wide emission cut as a result. And Charles, writing in this paper last month, stated there was no pause in global warming, influenced by the flawed NOAA paper that made this claim
In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.
Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.
A blatant attempt to intensify paper’s impact
Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.
The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
LED TO THESE GREEN COMMITMENTS
Data published by NOAA, the world’s top climate data agency, claimed global warming was worse than previously thought. The information was published to coincide with the Paris climate change conference in 2015, where world leaders agreed that…
$100bn be given every year in extra ‘climate-related’ aid to the developing world by rich nations
2 degrees C be set as the limit for maximum temperature rise above pre-industrial times
40% of CO2 emissions would be cut across the EU by 2030
£320bn… what the UK’s pledges will cost our economy by 2030
NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.
Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.
The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.
The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.
A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.
Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.
Yet when it came to the paper timed to influence the Paris conference, Dr Bates said, these standards were flagrantly ignored.
The paper was published in June 2015 by the journal Science. Entitled ‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’, the document said the widely reported ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ was a myth.
Less than two years earlier, a blockbuster report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which drew on the work of hundreds of scientists around the world, had found ‘a much smaller increasing trend over the past 15 years 1998-2012 than over the past 30 to 60 years’. Explaining the pause became a key issue for climate science. It was seized on by global warming sceptics, because the level of CO2 in the atmosphere had continued to rise.
WHY OBAMA’S GREEN GURU WILL MAKE TRUMP SEE RED
NOAA’s climate boss Thomas Karl, below left, had a hotline to the White House, through his long association with President Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren.
Karl’s ‘Pausebuster’ paper was hugely influential in dictating the world agreement in Paris and sweeping US emissions cuts. President Trump, above right, has pledged to scrap both policies – triggering furious claims by Democrats he is a climate ‘denier’ and ‘anti-science’.
Thanks to today’s MoS story, NOAA is set to face an inquiry by the Republican-led House science committee.
Some scientists argued that the existence of the pause meant the world’s climate is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought, so that future warming would be slower. One of them, Professor Judith Curry, then head of climate science at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said it suggested that computer models used to project future warming were ‘running too hot’.
However, the Pausebuster paper said while the rate of global warming from 1950 to 1999 was 0.113C per decade, the rate from 2000 to 2014 was actually higher, at 0.116C per decade. The IPCC’s claim about the pause, it concluded, ‘was no longer valid’.
The impact was huge and lasting. On publication day, the BBC said the pause in global warming was ‘an illusion caused by inaccurate data’.
One American magazine described the paper as a ‘science bomb’ dropped on sceptics.
Its impact could be seen in this newspaper last month when, writing to launch his Ladybird book about climate change, Prince Charles stated baldly: ‘There isn’t a pause… it is hard to reject the facts on the basis of the evidence.’
Data changed to make the sea appear warmer
The sea dataset used by Thomas Karl and his colleagues – known as Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperatures version 4, or ERSSTv4, tripled the warming trend over the sea during the years 2000 to 2014 from just 0.036C per decade – as stated in version 3 – to 0.099C per decade. Individual measurements in some parts of the globe had increased by about 0.1C and this resulted in the dramatic increase of the overall global trend published by the Pausebuster paper. But Dr Bates said this increase in temperatures was achieved by dubious means. Its key error was an upwards ‘adjustment’ of readings from fixed and floating buoys, which are generally reliable, to bring them into line with readings from a much more doubtful source – water taken in by ships. This, Dr Bates explained, has long been known to be questionable: ships are themselves sources of heat, readings will vary from ship to ship, and the depth of water intake will vary according to how heavily a ship is laden – so affecting temperature readings.
Dr Bates said: ‘They had good data from buoys. And they threw it out and “corrected” it by using the bad data from ships. You never change good data to agree with bad, but that’s what they did – so as to make it look as if the sea was warmer.’
ERSSTv4 ‘adjusted’ buoy readings up by 0.12C. It also ignored data from satellites that measure the temperature of the lower atmosphere, which are also considered reliable. Dr Bates said he gave the paper’s co-authors ‘a hard time’ about this, ‘and they never really justified what they were doing.’
Now, some of those same authors have produced the pending, revised new version of the sea dataset – ERSSTv5. A draft of a document that explains the methods used to generate version 5, and which has been seen by this newspaper, indicates the new version will reverse the flaws in version 4, changing the buoy adjustments and including some satellite data and measurements from a special high-tech floating buoy network known as Argo. As a result, it is certain to show reductions in both absolute temperatures and recent global warming.
The second dataset used by the Pausebuster paper was a new version of NOAA’s land records, known as the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), an analysis over time of temperature readings from about 4,000 weather stations spread across the globe.
The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures
The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’
This new version found past temperatures had been cooler than previously thought, and recent ones higher – so that the warming trend looked steeper. For the period 2000 to 2014, the paper increased the rate of warming on land from 0.15C to 0.164C per decade.
In the weeks after the Pausebuster paper was published, Dr Bates conducted a one-man investigation into this. His findings were extraordinary. Not only had Mr Karl and his colleagues failed to follow any of the formal procedures required to approve and archive their data, they had used a ‘highly experimental early run’ of a programme that tried to combine two previously separate sets of records.
This had undergone the critical process known as ‘pairwise homogeneity adjustment’, a method of spotting ‘rogue’ readings from individual weather stations by comparing them with others nearby.
However, this process requires extensive, careful checking which was only just beginning, so that the data was not ready for operational use. Now, more than two years after the Pausebuster paper was submitted to Science, the new version of GHCN is still undergoing testing.
Moreover, the GHCN software was afflicted by serious bugs. They caused it to become so ‘unstable’ that every time the raw temperature readings were run through the computer, it gave different results. The new, bug-free version of GHCN has still not been approved and issued. It is, Dr Bates said, ‘significantly different’ from that used by Mr Karl and his co-authors.
Dr Bates revealed that the failure to archive and make available fully documented data not only violated NOAA rules, but also those set down by Science. Before he retired last year, he continued to raise the issue internally. Then came the final bombshell. Dr Bates said: ‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’
The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.
The flawed conclusions of the Pausebuster paper were widely discussed by delegates at the Paris climate change conference. Mr Karl had a longstanding relationship with President Obama’s chief science adviser, John Holdren, giving him a hotline to the White House.
The red line shows the current NOAA world temperature graph – elevated in recent years due to the ‘adjusted’ sea data. The blue line is the Met Office’s independent HadCRUT4 record. Although they are offset in temperature by 0.12°C due to different analysis techniques, they reveal that NOAA has been adjusted and so shows a steeper recent warming trend.
They were forced to correct it: 18 months after the ‘Pausebuster’ paper was published in time for the 2015 Paris climate change conference, NOAA’s flawed sea temperature dataset is to be replaced. The new version will remedy its failings, and use data from both buoys and satellites (pictured) – which some say is the best data of all. The new version will show both lower temperatures and a lower warming trend since 2000
Mr Holdren was also a strong advocate of robust measures to curb emissions. Britain’s then Prime Minister David Cameron claimed at the conference that ‘97 per cent of scientists say climate change is urgent and man-made and must be addressed’ and called for ‘a binding legal mechanism’ to ensure the world got no more than 2C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
President Obama stressed his Clean Power Plan at the conference, which mandates American power stations to make big emissions cuts.
President Trump has since pledged he will scrap it, and to withdraw from the Paris Agreement.
Whatever takes its place, said Dr Bates, ‘there needs to be a fundamental change to the way NOAA deals with data so that people can check and validate scientific results. I’m hoping that this will be a wake-up call to the climate science community – a signal that we have to put in place processes to make sure this kind of crap doesn’t happen again.
‘I want to address the systemic problems. I don’t care whether modifications to the datasets make temperatures go up or down. But I want the observations to speak for themselves, and for that, there needs to be a new emphasis that ethical standards must be maintained.’
He said he decided to speak out after seeing reports in papers including the Washington Post and Forbes magazine claiming that scientists feared the Trump administration would fail to maintain and preserve NOAA’s climate records.
Dr Bates said: ‘How ironic it is that there is now this idea that Trump is going to trash climate data, when key decisions were earlier taken by someone whose responsibility it was to maintain its integrity – and failed.’
NOAA not only failed, but it effectively mounted a cover-up when challenged over its data. After the paper was published, the US House of Representatives Science Committee launched an inquiry into its Pausebuster claims. NOAA refused to comply with subpoenas demanding internal emails from the committee chairman, the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, and falsely claimed that no one had raised concerns about the paper internally.
Last night Mr Smith thanked Dr Bates ‘for courageously stepping forward to tell the truth about NOAA’s senior officials playing fast and loose with the data in order to meet a politically predetermined conclusion’. He added: ‘The Karl study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the President’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study.’
Professor Curry, now the president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network, said last night: ‘Large adjustments to the raw data, and substantial changes in successive dataset versions, imply substantial uncertainties.’
It was time, she said, that politicians and policymakers took these uncertainties on board.
Last night Mr Karl admitted the data had not been archived when the paper was published. Asked why he had not waited, he said: ‘John Bates is talking about a formal process that takes a long time.’ He denied he was rushing to get the paper out in time for Paris, saying: ‘There was no discussion about Paris.’
They played fast and loose with the figures
He also admitted that the final, approved and ‘operational’ edition of the GHCN land data would be ‘different’ from that used in the paper’.
As for the ERSSTv4 sea dataset, he claimed it was other records – such as the UK Met Office’s – which were wrong, because they understated global warming and were ‘biased too low’. Jeremy Berg, Science’s editor-in-chief, said: ‘Dr Bates raises some serious concerns. After the results of any appropriate investigations… we will consider our options.’ He said that ‘could include retracting that paper’.NOAA declined to comment.
It’s not the first time we’ve exposed dodgy climate data, which is why we’ve dubbed it: Climate Gate 2
Helena Christensen addresses demonstrators in the center of Copenhagen on climate change
Dr John Bates’s disclosures about the manipulation of data behind the ‘Pausebuster’ paper is the biggest scientific scandal since ‘Climategate’ in 2009 when, as this paper reported, thousands of leaked emails revealed scientists were trying to block access to data, and using a ‘trick’ to conceal embarrassing flaws in their claims about global warming.
Both scandals suggest a lack of transparency and, according to Dr Bates, a failure to observe proper ethical standards.
Because of NOAA ’s failure to ‘archive’ data used in the paper, its results can never be verified.
Like Climategate, this scandal is likely to reverberate around the world, and reignite some of science’s most hotly contested debates.
Left, blowing up the graph show is disappears in 1961 artfully hidden behind the other colours. Right, the reason? Because this is what it shows after 1961, a dramatic decline in global temperatures
Has there been an unexpected pause in global warming? If so, is the world less sensitive to carbon dioxide than climate computer models suggest?
And does this mean that truly dangerous global warming is less imminent, and that politicians’ repeated calls for immediate ‘urgent action’ to curb emissions are exaggerated?
Story 1: It’s All Over Now — You Can’t Always Get What You Want and — You Get What You Need– A Leader: President Elect Donald J. Trump — We Are The Champions — Another One Bites the Dust — Americans Love a Winner — Videos
Donald Trump’s acceptance speech after winning the 2016 Presidential election
Hillary Clinton FULL Concession Speech | Election 2016
LIVESTREAM: Election 2016 FULL Results Donald Trump WINS Florida, North Carolina, Ohio
LIVE Stream: Donald J. Trump Victory Party 11/8/16
Donald Trump wins Ohio, CNN projects
Donald Trump FULL SPEECH at FINAL Rally With Mike Pence
Queen – We Are The Champions (Official Video)
QUEEN LYRICS
“We Are The Champions”
I’ve paid my dues
Time after time.
I’ve done my sentence
But committed no crime.
And bad mistakes ‒
I’ve made a few.
I’ve had my share of sand kicked in my face
But I’ve come through.
(And I need just go on and on, and on, and on)
We are the champions, my friends,
And we’ll keep on fighting ’til the end.
We are the champions.
We are the champions.
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions of the world.
I’ve taken my bows
And my curtain calls.
You brought me fame and fortune, and everything that goes with it.
I thank you all.
But it’s been no bed of roses,
No pleasure cruise.
I consider it a challenge before the whole human race,
And I ain’t gonna lose.
(And I need just go on and on, and on, and on)
We are the champions, my friends,
And we’ll keep on fighting ’til the end.
We are the champions.
We are the champions.
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions of the world.
We are the champions, my friends,
And we’ll keep on fighting ’til the end.
We are the champions.
We are the champions.
No time for losers
‘Cause we are the champions.
Queen – Another One Bites the Dust (Official Video)
Another One Bites the Dust
Queen
Steve walks warily down the street,
With the brim pulled way down low
Ain’t no sound but the sound of his feet,
Machine guns ready to go
Are you ready,
Are you ready for this
Are you hanging on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
How do you think I’m going to get along,
Without you, when you’re gone
You took me for everything that I had,
And kicked me out on my own
Are you happy, are you satisfied
How long can you stand the heat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
There are plenty of ways you can hurt a man
And bring him to the ground
You can beat him
You can cheat him
You can treat him bad and leave him
When he’s down
But I’m ready, yes I’m ready for you
I’m standing on my own two feet
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
Repeating the sound of the beat
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone, and another one gone
Another one bites the dust
Hey, I’m gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust
Americans Love a Winner
The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (TV Show ’69)
The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (Live) – OFFICIAL
Rolling Stones – It’s All Over Now (stereo)
The Rolling Stones – Ruby Tuesday (Live) – Official 1991
The Beatles – I’m a Loser
Janis Joplin – Cry Baby (Live)
Queen’s Brian May Does Not Approve of Donald Trump’s Use of “We Are the Champions”
By Gregory Adams
Published Jun 08, 2016
In what some would consider some truly horrifying News of the World, Donald Trump celebrated winning the last wave of U.S. Republican primaries last night (June 7) by walking into a speech backed by Queen’s iconic victory anthem, “We Are the Champions.” Trouble is, the nomination has yet to be fully clinched — not to mention the fact that Queen are kind of bummed about having their old tune dragged into Trump’s campaign.
The musical moment happened last night at New York’s Trump National Golf Club, where the presumptive nominee thanked primary voters who pushed him to the top in New Jersey, New Mexico, South Dakota, Montana and California. Shortly after Trump was accompanied by Queen’s recording of “We Are the Champions,” from 1977’s News of the World, guitarist Brian May made an announcement through his personal webpage that he definitely didn’t give Drumpf the thumbs up to blast the track.
“I’ve had an avalanche of complaints – some of which you can see in our ‘Letters’ page – about Donald Trump using our ‘We Are The Champions’ track as his ‘theme’ song on USA TV,” May wrote.
May added that he was speaking for himself, not the rest of the surviving members of Queen, but further noted that the outfit have long distanced themselves from contributing music to political campaigns. Long story short, Trump shouldn’t have used the late Freddie Mercury’s rally cry on the epic anthem to boost his own cause.
“This is not an official Queen statement, but I can confirm that permission to use the track was neither sought nor given. We are taking advice on what steps we can take to ensure this use does not continue. Regardless of our views on Mr Trump’s platform, it has always been against our policy to allow Queen music to be used as a political campaigning tool. Our music embodies our own dreams and beliefs, but it is for all who care to listen and enjoy.”
Trump has been blasted for using songs without permission before. Last year, R.E.M. told the potential-POTUS to stop using their music in his “moronic charade of a campaign,” while Neil Young had also been involved in a back-and-forth beef over Trump using his “Rockin’ in the Free World.” They later reconciled, with Young allowing Trump to use the tune, despite being at odds with his personal politics.
Rock Legends Pull the Plug on Trump Using ‘We Are The Champions’
Brian May and Donald Trump | Photo: AFP-Reuters
Published 9 June 2016
Queen joins a long list of artists who have refused to allow Trump to use their music, including the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, R. E. M. and Adele.
The iconic British rock group Queen is trying to stop Donald Trump from using their hit song “We Are The Champions,” lead guitarist Brian May revealed Thursday
The rock star said property tycoon Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee in the U.S. presidential elections, was using the song without permission.
May, 68, said he had received an “avalanche of complaints” about Trump using the anthem during a speech he gave Tuesday.
“Permission to use the track was neither sought nor given. We are taking advice on what steps we can take to ensure this use does not continue,” May wrote on his website.
“It has always been against our policy to allow Queen music to be used as a political campaigning tool.
“Our music embodies our own dreams and beliefs, but it is for all who care to listen and enjoy.”
“We Are The Champions” was written by the group’s late lead singer Freddie Mercury in 1977 and is an enduring celebratory anthem heard at sports events.
Queen join a long list of artists who have refused to allow Trump to use their music, including the Rolling Stones, Neil Young, R. E. M. and Adele.
REM’s Michael Stipe said, “Go fuck yourselves, the lot of you — you sad, attention-grabbing, power-hungry little men. Do not use our music or my voice for your moronic charade of a campaign,” after Trump played “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine)” at a rally.
Lawyers for Aerosmith singer Steven Tyler sent a cease and desist letter to Trump’s campaign, saying that his use of the song “Dream On” gives “the false impression that he is connected with, or endorses Mr. Trump’s presidential bid.”
Trump has featured the track during his campaign, even drawing the ire of the Rolling Stones earlier this year. “The Rolling Stones have never given permission to the Trump campaign to use their songs and have requested that they cease all use immediately,” a spokesperson for the band said in a statement.
Those words, nor the irony of playing “You Can’t Always Get What You Want” during a Republican National Convention that was often quite divided – on Wednesday, for example, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) refused to endorse Trump from the stage and was summarily booed – was not lost on viewers. Social media exploded after Trump’s speech as the song played, with many mocking the Republican presidential nominee for the song choice.
Several years ago, Rolling Stones’ frontman Mick Jagger disclosed his feelings about then-candidate Mick Romney on an Saturday Night Live episode. Jagger’s approval rating for Romney was a zero.
Adele’s staff recently pushed back when “Rolling in the Deep” and “Skyfall” were used without permission. When Neil Young complained about “Rockin’ in the Free World” being played at a GOP campaign, Trump shot back calling Young a phoney, as the rocker had asked for money to finance a music project. But apparently, raising funds and supporting a candidate are two separate issues for Neil, according to Time.
“I had gone to Donald’s office and asked him to finance my company. He wasn’t running for president at the time. And I thought maybe trying to rescue the art form of recorded sound would be a great thing for his legacy … So I thought I had a shot. It didn’t work out. But he was very gracious.”
The Republican candidate has also used songs by Elton John, added the Daily Beast. His publicist clarified the iconic Elton’s stance on the issue, but the musician clarified that it was nothing personal. He said he met Trump, who was nice to him, but said their political views greatly differ. John explained that he’s far from being a Republican and made a suggestion.
“Why not ask Ted f***ing Nugent? Or one of those f***king country stars? They’ll do it for you.
The ultimate outsider is challenging the ultimate insider, and it’s driving the pollsters crazy.
Democrat Hillary Clinton – first lady of both the state of Arkansas and the United States, U.S. senator from New York, secretary of State and a regular in the global halls of power for more than 20 years. She knows what to say and how to say it. While many question what she has accomplished in any of those positions, there’s no doubt that she’s been there and done things. She represents the status quo, and for many Americans, there is comfort in that.
Republican Donald Trump – brash, brusque billionaire businessman from New York City, used to having his way and paying for it. He says what’s on his mind, often to the despair of his political advisors but to the delight of a usually hostile media. Trump thinks America’s going to hell and is ready to upset the applecart to turn things around. His outbursts – indeed, his entire candidacy – defy conventional political wisdom and have put him at odds with the leadership of his own party who question what he really has in mind. But he has millions of loyal followers across party lines that he has dubbed “a movement.”
Throw in allegations that Clinton is a liar and has mishandled classified information and charges that Trump, too, is a liar and a sexual harasser, and you have the most volatile presidential election in decades.
The polling industry is already struggling with the death of the landline telephone and trying to find new ways to compensate for that loss to achieve demographically balanced voter samples. Along comes the craziest election most of us have ever seen.
Consider that just a month ago, many pollsters were saying the election was already over and that Clinton had won. The three daily tracking polls – the Los Angeles Times, IBD/TIPP and Rasmussen Reports – consistently have shown a much tighter race. We’re the ones who add new voters to the existing mix every day and don’t just swoop in for a two- or three-day sample. But many in the media – perhaps most prominently the New York Times – began preparing for a second Clinton administration as if the voters had already spoken.
Yet despite the release of a damning 11-year-old video showing Trump making uncomfortably graphic comments about women, the race began tightening again, even among the pollsters who had previously declared it over. Then in mid-October, the FBI announced it was reopening the investigation of Clinton’s handling of classified information while secretary of State, and the race really began to close. One major pollster went from showing Clinton with a 12-point lead to a two-point race in just over a week. [The FBI on Sunday closed that case again, choosing to bring no charges against Clinton.]
At the same time, polling in the so-called battleground states was and continues to be all over the place. It’s not uncommon to see Clinton up by seven in a state in one poll, while another pollster shows Trump up by four in the same state. The Real Clear Politics averages meld all this together, but unlike in so many other years, there hasn’t been any consistent pattern among pollsters in most states for weeks.
What makes pollsters come up with different results? We can’t explain the formulas they use, but at Rasmussen Reports our demographics are based on historical trends in previous presidential elections, analysis of the new data we collect (we hear from 10,000 new likely U.S. voters every month) and our own political intuition.
Just a slight difference in any of these factors, though, explains the differences in polls. Using the same numbers, for example, if we create a model that shows slightly more GOP turnout among men and older voters, with two percent more whites voting Republican, it’s Trump 45%, Clinton 44%.
Those same numbers crunched through a model that shows a few more younger voters and more women turning out for the Democrats despite slightly less white turnout for Clinton still pushes her to a four-point lead.
Same numbers, slightly different formula, different results. It also highlights why turnout of their key demographic groups is so important to both major parties.
US election results: The maps and analysis that explain Donald Trump’s shock victory to become President
US election live results and maps in the race between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump has pledged to be a president “for all Americans” after being elected the 45th President of the United States, capturing crucial victories over Hillary Clinton in a remarkable show of strength.
The president-elect addressed supporters at his victory party in New York City after his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton called him to concede.
While Clinton had a higher share of the popular vote than Trump, the Republican was able to take a series of key battleground states including Florida, Ohio and North Carolina, before stunningly carrying Pennsylvania, a state that had not backed a Republican for president since 1988.
The celebrity businessman clinched victory after capturing Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes, putting him over the 270 threshold that a candidate needed to secure to become President.
Mr Trump will govern with a Congress fully under Republican control. The GOP fended off a Democratic challenge in the Senate and the party also extended its grip on the House.
Donald Trump’s road to the White HousePlay!03:17
Presidential results maps
The electoral map is important. Each state is worth a certain number of electoral college votes, so it was essential that Trump and Clinton built a coalition of states to reach the magic number of 270.
A series of close Trump wins in crucial states in Florida, Ohio and North Carolina meant that he was able to gain the number of electoral votes he needed.
Our chart below sizes each state by their number of electoral college votes, showing how the big states have the power to tilt the election.
Swing states with a lot of electoral votes to distribute, such as Florida and Ohio, have been targetted a lot by Clinton and Trump in recent weeks. How they end up voting would have a lot of influence on the final result.
States like Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio and Virginia have the power to swing the election. All but one of these five crucial states went to Trump.
03:13HOW HILLARY CLINTON LOST THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
02:00HOW THE WORLD REACTED TO DONALD TRUMP’S PRESIDENTIAL WIN
13:27WATCH: HILLARY CLINTON’S CONCESSION
Demographics were thought to be of importance here. Before electoral day, polling revealed a country divided down demographic lines. A country where men and whites tend to back Trump, while women and ethnic minorities flock to the Democrat’s candidate.
Trump has triumphed in Ohio. This reliable bellwether state is worth a very handy 18 electoral college votes but it’s claim to fame is that it is the only one to have backed the successful presidential candidate in every election since 1964.
As such its result is seen as being very significant when determining the outcome of the race nationwide, with polling in Ohio was showing Trump marginally ahead of Clinton at the start of November. Situated on the Great Lakes, it is the seventh most populous state in the country.
Minority ethnic voters hold less sway here, with 83 per cent of the population being white according to the 2010 census compared to 72 per cent across the US as a whole.
Trump has won Florida’s vote for the 2016 presidency, marginally ahead of Clinton. Florida has been one of the hardest to call swing states in this election with the margins between the two candidates in recent polling being too close to call.
A week before the big day, polls were showing that Trump had taken a slight lead in the battle to take the state’s 29 electoral college votes. Florida is at once the oldest and one of the most racially diverse in America, and its voting in the past five presidential races has followed the result of the country as a whole.
Both candidates have had multiple campaign stops here in recent weeks. The state played a pivotal role in the 2000 election, when out of more than 5.8 million votes Bush beat Gore by 537 votes to claim all of its electoral college votes.
Clinton has triumphed in Virginia. Although not quite the boost that a state the size of Florida would give, Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes will be very handy addition for Clinton. Prior to Obama’s victory in 2008, Virginia had been a red state for the past forty years.
Nowadays, one in five of its people are black or African American, part of an increasingly moderate population based in its urban areas.
This shifting of demographics meant that the state was expected to stay Democrat this time around, with polls showing Clinton eight points clear of Trump at the end of October. Situated on the Atlantic coast, Virginia was the first colonial possession established in British America.
North Carolina’s voters have chosen Trump as their preferred presidential candidate. This result will be a blow for Clinton as North Carolina has been one of the toughest states to call in this election. Its 15 electoral college votes means that it is a valuable prize in the race to that all important 270 mark.
North Carolina was highly coveted this year with the candidates making multiple campaign stops there in the fortnight leading up to election day.
While Obama won it in 2008 with the assistance of demographic shifts and liberal urban areas, Romney managed to claim it for the Republicans in 2012 – the only swing state Obama lost in the last presidential election. This southeastern state is the ninth most populous in America and has a lower white population, at 64 per cent, than the average state.
Which states did Trump swing from Obama?
There are at least five states that swung from Obama in 2012 to Trump in 2016: Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Iowa. All of these were essential battlegrounds that both candidates canvassed hard.
Trump’s most emphatic victory has come in the state of Wyoming where he won 174,248 votes – a 70.1 per cent share.
With most votes already counted Trump looks to have secured the votes of at least three in five voters in 10 states while Clinton can only boast the same vote share in five.
The Senate and the House of Representatives, the two chambers that comprise America’s legislature, also have elections. Both of these chambers were in Republican hands prior to voting.
Senators are being elected in 34 states with the Republicans having a strong chance of holding onto their majority in the chamber.
The Republicans are on course to hold onto the Senate with a slightly reduced majority.
The House of Representatives is held more firmly in Republican hands with their majority of 59 looking very difficult to overturn even if Clinton had had a good day.
All 435 seats in the House were up for re-election with many having already called the result in favour of the republicans.
The Pronk Pops blog is the broadcasting and mass communication of ideas about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, prosperity, truth, virtue and wisdom.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
+92
+92
+92
,_by_John_Trumbull.jpg)
+27
+27
.svg)
(Subscription required.) 
/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2018/06/29/how-abolish-ice-went-from-social-media-to-progressive-candidates-rallying-cry/abolish_ice.jpg)
Pronk Pops 
The Pronk Pops Show 1358, November 13, 2019, Story 1: Democrat Socialist Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy or Spygate Goes Public With Second Coup Attempt and Smear Campaign To Delegitimize President Trump and Start 2020 Campaign — Democrat Impeachment Collapsing — Videos
Posted on November 22, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, American History, Barack H. Obama, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Computer, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, European History, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Joe Biden, Killing, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mike Pompeo, MIssiles, National Interest, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Security, Senate, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Ukraine, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: 13 November 2019, America, Articles, Audio, Bill Taylor, Breaking News, Broadcasting, Capitalism, Cartoons, Charity, Citizenship, Clarity, Classical Liberalism, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy and Congressional Cover-up, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Concise, Convincing, Courage, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Delegitimize President Trump, Democrat Socialist Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy or Spygate Goes Public With Second Coup Attempt and Smear Campaign, Devin Nunes begins Republican questioning of Taylor and Kent, Donald Trump on Ukraine, Economic Growth, Economic Policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, First, Fiscal Policy, Free Enterprise, Freedom, Freedom of Speech, Friends, George Kent, Give It A Listen!, God, Good, Goodwill, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Javelin Missile, Jim Jordan, Knowledge, Liberty, Life, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Monetary Policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Peace, Photos, Podcasts, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Donald J. Trump, President Obama announces U.S. non-lethal aid to Ukraine, Prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rule of Law, Rule of Men, S;pygate, Show Notes, Spying on American People, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 1358, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Wisdom |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 1358 November 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1357 November 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1356 November 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1355 November 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1354 November 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1353 November 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1352 November 5, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1351 November 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1350 November 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1349 October 31, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1348 October 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1347 October 29, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1346 October 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1345 October 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1344 October 18, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1343 October 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1342 October 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1341 October 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1340 October 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1339 October 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1338 October 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1337 October 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1336 October 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1335 October 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1334 October 4, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1333 October 3, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1332 October 2, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1331 October 1, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1330 September 30, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1329 September 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1328 September 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1327 September 25, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1326 September 24, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1325 September 23, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1324 September 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1323 September 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1322 September 18 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1321 September 17, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1320 September 16, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1319 September 13, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1318 September 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1317 September 11, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1316 September 10, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1315 September 9, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1314 September 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1313 August 28, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1312 August 27, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1311 August 26, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1310 August 21, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1309 August 20, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1308 August 19, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1307 August 15, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1306 August 14, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1305 August 12, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1304 August 8, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1303 August 7, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1302 August 6, 2019
Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019
Story 1: Democrat Socialist Cover-up of Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy or Spy-gate Goes Public With Second Coup Attempt To Legitimatize President Trump and 2020 Campaign Event — Democrat Impeachment Obsession Deflating — Videos —
Donald Trump on Ukraine
UK: ‘An Obama disaster’ – Trump says Obama failed with Crimea
Tucker: Democrats have no actual plan for impeachment
Collins: Dems are hiding the fact that they have nothing on the president
youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMwXG00fSco]
U.S. Considering Lethal Defensive Arms to Ukraine
U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration is considering arming Ukraine with lethal defensive weapons that Kyiv could use against Russia-backed separatists. Opponents argue arming Ukraine risks escalating the conflict while supporters say better weapons would act as a deterrence to Russian aggression and give a psychological and political boost to Kyiv. The debate comes as Trump’s new envoy on Ukraine, Kurt Volker, is to visit Russia soon. VOA’s Daniel Schearf reports from Washington.
President Obama announces U.S. non-lethal aid to Ukraine
U.S. Sending Nonlethal Aid to Ukraine Military
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says the U.S. will send medical supplies, helmets and other nonlethal aid to the Ukrainian military in response to Russia’s ‘destabilizing activities.’ (April 17)
Ukraine’s Poroshenko on charm offensive, US agrees to non-lethal aid
Obama: Military Option Not on Table in Ukraine
WHY RUSSIA SHOULD FEAR AMERICA’S JAVELIN ANTI TANK MISSILE?
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: Adam Schiff Opening Statement
TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: Devin Nunes Opening Statement
WHERE’S HUNTER? Early CHAOS In Impeachment Hearing
George Kent: Giuliani’s efforts were “infecting” Ukraine policy
Trump impeachment: Bill Taylor opening statement in Full – BBC News
Top diplomat Bill Taylor says: “I am not here to take one side or the other or to advocate for any particular outcome of these proceedings.”
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
Devin Nunes begins Republican questioning of Taylor and Kent
Republican counsel Steve Castor’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff questions Kent, Taylor again| Trump impeachment hearings
Devin Nunes begins Republican questioning of Taylor and Kent
Rep. Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and counsel Steve Castor spent 45 minutes questioning the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, William Taylor, and State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent in the first day of public impeachment hearings. Watch this full portion of the hearing.
Jim Jordan grills Dems’ ‘star witness’ Taylor in impeachment hearing
WATCH: Rep. Elise Stefanik’s full questioning of George Kent and Bill Taylor
Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., questioned George Kent, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump. Stefanik focused on both officials’ statements on the corruption in Ukraine and Burisma. The probe centers around a July phone call in which Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate former vice president and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Both Kent and Taylor testified to lawmakers in October behind closed doors.
WATCH: George Kent’s full opening statement on first day of Trump impeachment hearings
WATCH: Rep. Adam Schiff questions Kent, Taylor again| Trump impeachment hearings
House Impeachment Inquiry – Taylor & Kent Testimony
Watch Day 1 of Trump’s impeachment hearings again as Ambassador Taylor and George Kent give evidence
Watch: Trump Impeachment Hearings (Day 1) | NBC News
What William Taylor and George Kent shared during public impeachment hearings
What Is the Javelin Missile at the Center of Trump’s Impeachment Scandal?
Tied up in Trump’s impeachment inquiry, we take a look at the weapon Ukraine’s so eager to buy.
The Javelin missile is an unlikely weapon to be thrust into the political spotlight.
In a call with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump tied together the Ukraine’s purchase of Javelin missiles with an investigation into his political rivals. While the true nature of this phone call has yet to be determined, the effectiveness of the weapon is an absolute certainty. The Javelin’s features—and Russia’s tank armies—made it a very desirable weapon for Ukraine, a country that is suffering an undeclared war with Russia from 2014 to the present day.
In the 1980s, the U.S. Army’s main threat was Soviet Union. U.S. forces in Europe trained to operate outnumbered, holding their ground against waves of Soviet T-72 and T-80 main battle tanks, as well as BMP-2 infantry fighting vehicles. The main anti-tank weapon, issued to every U.S. infantry squad, was the M-47 Dragon anti-tank guided missile.
The Dragon was bulky and unreliable but it could penetrate the frontal armor of both the T-72 and T-80. The optically guided missile required the shooter to hold an enemy tank steady in his crosshairs but had a maximum range of just 1,000 meters. This meant the shooter had to launch and guide the missile within range of a Soviet tank’s machine guns, and incoming fire could throw the missile off target.
The introduction of Soviet reactive armor—explosive tiles bolted onto the outside of a tank to blunt anti-tank missiles—made Dragon obsolete. The Army issued a requirement for a replacement known as AAWS-M, or Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System—Medium. Texas Instruments and Martin Marietta (now known as Lockheed Martin) won the contract, and the first missile test took place in 1991. Initial tests were positive and the FGM-148 Javelin missile went into full production in 1994.
An Australian Army Javelin missile explodes on target, Townsville, Australia, 2009.
Javelin is a much better missile system that Dragon in almost every way. A shoulder launched weapon, Javelin uses an imaging infrared system to detect and lock onto tanks at distances of up to 4,750 meters–much, much farther than Dragon. Once the operator locks onto a tank and initiates the launch sequence, a small rocket motor kicks the missile out of the launch tube and into the air, whereupon the main motor ignites and sends the missile downrange.
Unlike Dragon, Javelin has two attack modes. The first mode is direct attack, where the missile flies straight toward the enemy tank. The missile has not one but two warheads–the first to trigger the reactive armor tiles, neutralizing them, and the second to penetrate the tank’s main armor belt. A second mode sends Javelin racing upward to an altitude of 500 feet, whereupon it dives down onto the top of the tank where armor protection is thinnest.
A T-72 tank of the Donetsk People’s Republic, a militia operating in the Donetsk region with Russian backing, 2014.
One major drawback of Dragon required the gunner to hold very still, keeping the tracker’s crosshairs centered on an enemy tank until impact. This was never really all that realistic as the noise and stress of combat, as well as enemy fire, could easily cause the gunner to break his visual lock. Javelin on the other hand is a “fire and forget” missile: once launched the missile’s brain takes over guiding it to target. A Javelin gunners can shoot his or her missile and then make a run for it, retreating or relocating to an alternate firing position.
Russian Army regular units and local militias operate tanks and armored vehicles, including the new T-90 main battle tank, T-72 tank, and the latest version of the T-72, the T-72B3. Other vehicles include BMP-2 and BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicles, MTLB armored personnel carriers, and BMD airborne infantry fighting vehicles. Russia’s large number of tanks and armored vehicles threatens Ukraine not only in the limited fighting around the Donbas and Crimea regions but also if Russia were to stage a general invasion of Ukraine itself.
In May 2018 Ukraine purchased 210 Javelin missiles and 37 launchers from the United States for an estimated $47 million. Properly used—and Javelin is very easy to use—that could mean the destruction of scores of armored vehicles should Russian forces roll west again. It could lead to a string of humiliating, demoralizing defeats for Russian forces and their proxies.
The question is: Will Ukraine get more any time soon?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a29251877/javelin-missile-trump/
George P. Kent
Jump to navigationJump to search
September 4, 2018
2015–2018
Donald Trump
Johns Hopkins University (M.A.)
National Defense University (M.S.)
George P. Kent is an American diplomat serving as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs since September 4, 2018.[1]
Education
Kent finished high school in 1985 at Porter-Gaud School in Charleston, South Carolina.[2] He then graduated in 1989 with an A.B. in Russian History & Literature from Harvard University. He then earned an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University in 1992.[1] Kent later graduated with an M.S. in national resource strategy from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces of the National Defense University in 2012.[3]
Career
Kent has been in the State Department‘s foreign service since 1992.[4][5] He speaks Ukrainian, Russian, and Thai, as well as some Polish, German, and Italian.[1] His work as a U.S. Foreign Service Officer has included service in Ukraine, Poland, Thailand and Uzbekistan.[3]
From 1995 to 1997, he was posted in Warsaw, Poland, as an economics officer dealing with trade, environmental, and counter-narcotics issues.[3] Kent was later assigned to serve as deputy political counselor in Kyiv, Ukraine, from 2004 to 2007, which include the time period of the Orange Revolution.[3] From 2012 to 2014, Kent served as director of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.[1] He served as a senior anti-corruption coordinator in the European bureau in 2014–2015,[1] and as deputy chief of mission in Kyiv, from 2015 to 2018.[5] On September 4, 2018, he was appointed to his current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.[3][5]
On October 15, 2019, Kent testified in the House impeachment inquiry of President Trump, serving as a key witness on whether Rudy Giuliani used a campaign of disinformation to undermine the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch.[6] Kent’s warnings regarding the disinformation campaign are documented in State Department emails submitted to Congress by the organization’s inspector general. Kent protested a “fake news smear” directed at Ambassador Yovanovitch by media commentators supportive of President Trump. He also criticized the Ukrainian prosecutor undermining Yovanovitch, calling the disinformation “complete poppycock.”[7] On November 13, 2019, along with Ambassador Bill Taylor, Kent gave public testimony to the House Intelligence Committee during the first public hearing.[8]
References
External links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_P._Kent
William B. Taylor Jr.
Jump to navigationJump to search
June 18, 2019
Acting
Marie Yovanovitch (confirmed)
June 21, 2006 – May 23, 2009
Barack Obama
September 14, 1947 (age 72)
New Mexico, U.S.
Harvard University (MPA)
William Brockenbrough Taylor Jr., (born September 14, 1947) is an American diplomat, government official, former soldier, and, as of November 2019, the acting United States ambassador to Ukraine.
Taylor is a former captain and company commander in the United States Army; he served in the Vietnam War and earned a Bronze Star and an Air Medal with a V device for valor. He proceeded to work in the United States Department of Energy and then the Department of Defense. From 1992 to 2002, Taylor carried out diplomatic work for the United States with firstly Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, secondly Afghanistan, thirdly Iraq, and fourthly the Quartet on the Middle East. From 2006 to 2009, Taylor served as the United States ambassador to Ukraine under the George W. Bush administration and the Barack Obama administration. He continued diplomatic work in the Middle East from 2011 to 2013.
Following the recall of U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, Taylor was appointed chargé d’affaires for Ukraine under the Trump administration.
Contents
Early life
Born in New Mexico on September 14, 1947,[1] Taylor is the son of Nancy Dare (Aitcheson) and William Brockenbrough Newton Taylor,[2] who had been a director of research and development for the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).[3]
In 1965, Taylor graduated from Mount Vernon High School in Mount Vernon, Virginia after serving as president of his junior and senior class.[4] Like his father, he attended the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, attaining the rank of cadet battalion commander and graduating in the top 1% of his class in 1969. The 1969 Howitzer yearbook notes his modesty about his many academic and athletic accomplishments, describing him as “a man who is held in the highest esteem and admiration by all of us.”[5][6] In 1977, he completed graduate studies at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government, receiving a Master of Public Policy degree.
Career
After Taylor graduated from West Point, he served in the infantry for six years, including tours of duty in the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and 18 months with the 101st Airborne Division during the Vietnam War. Taylor was a rifle company commander serving in the Quang Tri and Thua Tien provinces in the 506th Infantry Regiment (United States) of the 101st Airborne, widely heralded from the World War II book and TV miniseries Band of Brothers, with their motto “Currahee,” meaning “We stand alone.”[7] He was eligible to return home after serving for one year, but he opted to stay another six months.[8] He earned the Combat Infantryman Badge, a Bronze Star Medal, and Air Medal with ‘V’ for VALOR for heroism.[9]
Later, he was an aero-rifle commander in the 2nd Cavalry Regiment (United States) in Germany.[10][11]
Taylor left the military in 1975.[8] In 1980, he was serving in the relatively new Department of Energy as Director of Emergency Preparedness Policy. While the DOE had received creditable marks for its response to the coal strike during 1977–78, the crisis in Iran pointed to the need, going forward, for better federal level contingency planning and preparedness. In taking on this new assignment, Taylor had a long term, rather than short term, focus on potential crises (e.g. price controls and gasoline rationing), efforts that often required coordination with other federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury, the Office of Management and Budget, the Council of Economic Advisers and the Department of Health and Human Services.[12]
Thereafter, Taylor served for five years as Legislative Assistant on the staff of U.S. Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.). He then directed a Defense Department think tank at Fort Lesley J. McNair.
Following that assignment, he transferred to Brussels for a five year assignment as the Special Deputy Defense Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to NATO, William Howard Taft IV. From 1992 until 2002, Taylor served with the rank of ambassador, coordinating assistance to Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He then accepted an assignment as Special Representative for Donor Assistance in Kabul, coordinating U.S. and international assistance to Afghanistan. Engaging with the Afghan government and international donors, Taylor facilitated the flow of assistance to Afghanistan and promoted additional donations. The undertaking facilitated the repatriation of 2 million Afghan refugees and the restoration of critical services such education and health care. The aid helped restore agriculture, and provided support grants for over 80 infrastructure projects. In 2003, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell appointed Taylor as the Afghanistan Coordinator at the U.S. Department of State, overseeing all aspects of U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, noting that it was a critical time in Afghanistan’s political development and economic reconstruction.[13]
Taylor met with the interim Fallujah city council, April 2005
In 2004, Taylor was transferred to Baghdad as Director of the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office.[14]
Until 2006, he was the U.S. Government’s representative to the Quartet‘s effort to facilitate the Israeli disengagement from Gaza and parts of the West Bank, led by Special Envoy James Wolfensohn in Jerusalem. The Quartet Special Envoy was responsible for the economic aspects of this disengagement.
Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be the United States ambassador to Ukraine while Taylor was serving as Senior Consultant to the Coordinator of Reconstruction and Stabilization at the Department of State.[15][16] He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was sworn in on June 5, 2006. At the time Taylor assumed responsibilities at the embassy, it was the fifth-largest bilateral mission in Europe, with over 650 employees from nine U.S. government departments and agencies. A report by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of State from 2007 notes that the new ambassador had “taken charge of the embassy in a remarkably effective and positive way,” creating, together with Deputy Chief of Mission Sheila Gwaltney, a “formidable team at a mission that has a complex set of goals.” It further noted that “Embassy Kyiv has a keen understanding of the complicated and rapidly evolving political and economic situation in Ukraine and has good working relations across the political spectrum. The embassy’s commentary on such issues as the evolving state of Ukraine’s relations with the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and Russia is extensive, timely, and well appreciated by Washington end-users.”[17] Taylor held the post until May 2009.[18]
On September 30, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama nominated John Tefft as U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.[19] Taylor was appointed Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions in September 2011.[20] From then through 2013, Taylor’s mission was to ensure effective U.S. support for the countries of the Arab revolutions, coordinating assistance to Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria.[21]
In 2015, Taylor was appointed executive vice president of the United States Institute of Peace, after serving a year in the same role in an acting capacity.[22][23] In this role, he supported continuing or increasing U.S. sanctions against Russia for its aggressions toward Ukraine.[24]
Taylor became chargé d’affaires ad interim for Ukraine in June 2019, taking over the role from the deputy chief of mission, Kristina Kvien, after Marie Yovanovitch departed Ukraine.[25]
Trump–Ukraine scandal
Taylor–Sondland texts
Taylor arrived in Ukraine a month after the abrupt ousting of Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and the inauguration of the country’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky. But following President Donald Trump‘s phone call with the new Ukrainian president, Taylor questioned Trump’s motivation in a text to Gordon Sondland, the United States Ambassador to the European Union: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?” Sondland told him to phone.[26]
On October 3, 2019, it was revealed that Taylor had expressed, in text messages, concern that President Trump may have withheld aid to Ukraine unless they, Ukraine, launched two investigations, one into alleged corruption in Ukraine involving former Vice President Joe Biden, and the other an attempt to deflect from the US intelligence communities’ consensus determination that Russia hacked the Democratic National Committee and interfered with the 2016 United States presidential election, by suggesting that the DNC is hiding the hacked server in Ukraine.[citation needed]
Explicit throughout Taylor’s testimony was that Trump’s goal in withholding the congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine was to extort Zelensky, the newly inaugurated president of Ukraine, into announcing an investigation into the theory related to Biden in a primetime American television interview. At the time, and through much of the preceding nascent Democratic Party Presidential Primary Election season, Biden was the leading candidate, and seemed likely to be the Democratic Party challenger to Trump in the 2020 United States Presidential Election. Additional incentive was provided for Ukraine to do as Trump, Sondland, and Guiliani suggested, by implying that Zelensky would get a state visit to the White House if he complied.[citation needed]
According to transcripts released by the House impeachment probe, Taylor on September 9, 2019, at 12:47:11 am texted, “I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.” Over four hours later, at 5:19:35 am,[27] in his response to Taylor, Sondland responded that the charge is “incorrect.” “Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign.”[27] He then suggested Taylor call the Executive Secretary of the United States Department of State about any concerns:[28] “I suggest we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks.”[29] In his testimony during the impeachment inquiry Sondland noted that it was only out of his deep respect for Taylor that he tried to address Taylor’s concerns.[30] On October 22, 2019, Taylor’s opening statement also explained that Sondland required that Zelensky make public statements announcing an investigation, forcing him to conduct one, before the US released the allocated military aid. Taylor said he feared that Trump would withhold the military aid anyway, handing Moscow everything it wanted from the betrayal, texting Sondland that his “nightmare is that they [the Ukrainians] give the interview and don’t get the security assistance. The Russians love it. (And I quit.)”[31]
Taylor gave a deposition before a closed-door session of the House Intelligence Committee on October 22, 2019.[32]
Testimony in House impeachment inquiry
Opening statement of Ambassador William B. Taylor
On October 22, 2019, Taylor testified before the US Congressional House regarding the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump and the Trump–Ukraine scandal in a closed session. Taylor’s opening statement was made public and directly implicated President Trump in a proactive and coordinated effort to solicit a political quid pro quo whereby “everything” – from a one-on-one meeting with President Trump to hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine – would be held up unless Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to announce publicly that “investigations” would be launched including into former VP Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, Ukrainian energy company Burisma, and Ukraine’s alleged involvement in the 2016 election. Taylor’s opening statement and testimony was widely viewed as an inflection point in the impeachment inquiry.[33][34][35][36][37]
A few days before his second House testimony in mid-November, Taylor published an op-ed in Kyiv’s Novoye Vremya expressing the United States government’s commitment to Ukraine: “your success is our success.”[38][39]
Personal life
Taylor is married to Dr. Deborah Furlan Taylor,[40] a religion scholar.[41][42]
See also
References …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_B._Taylor_Jr.
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1357-1358
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1352-1356
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1343-1351
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1335-1342
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1326-1334
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1318-1325
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1310-1317
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1300-1309
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )