menu-type-splitmenu menu-type-splitmenu">

Category: Politics

The lieutenant governor of Missouri has asked the state senator who threatened President Donald Trump on Facebook to resign from her post by Sept. 14 or be expelled from the state Senate.

Missouri Democratic State Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal wrote on Facebook that she hopes “Trump is assassinated.”

Lt. Gov. Mike Parson called on Chappelle-Nadal to resign almost immediately after she posted the threat on Facebook. She refused to resign, sending a Twitter message with a photo of a man flashing an ISIS terrorist group hand sign while posing for a photo with her.

Now Parson, a former sheriff who is also the president of Missouri’s state Senate, has issued a more damning statement, pointing to a section of the state constitution that lists penalties for lawmakers for “contempt and disorderly conduct.”

“The senator needs to resign, or we will make the decision for her,” Parson wrote on Twitter.

“About 30 seconds after she made the comment, I issued a request for her resignation. She does not deserve to be an elected official in the state that I love–Missouri. She doesn’t deserve to be anywhere in this country,” Parson told Fox News.

Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens joined Parson’s call.

“If she will not resign, the Senate can vote to remove her. I believe they should,” Greitens said in a statement.

Sept. 14 is the date of the upcoming veto session in the Missouri Senate, when a motion to expel can proceed.

The Sercret Service told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that it was looking in to the comments made by the state senator.

Chappelle-Nadal received a number of racist slurs and threats after her comments were widely reported on in the media.

Missouri Democractic state senators Claire McCaskill and Gina Walsh both condemned Chappelle-Nadal’s threats.

“I strongly condemn and disavow Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal’s horrible comments. Promoting, supporting, or suggesting violence against anyone, especially elected leaders, is never acceptable,” Walsh said in a statement.

“It’s outrageous and she should resign,” said Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay.

Nadal said that she will not resign despite the mounting pressure.

Several people who have insinuated threats to the president have met with backlash.

On June 15, police arrested and charged an Illinois man who posted threats against the president on social media. Joseph Lynn Pickett posted profanity-filled and detailed threats on Facebook, which were seen by his co-workers at Lowes. The co-workers reported Pickett to the Secret Service.

Also this summer, Delta Airlines and Bank of America dropped their sponsorships of New York Public Theater after it stood by its production of “Julius Caesar,” which featured an on-stage assassination of a President Trump look-a-like.

Meanwhile, comedian Kathy Griffin lost her only sponsor, her New Year’s CNN gig, and had all of the upcoming performances on her tour canceled after posting a photograph of herself holding a mock bloodied and severed head of Trump.

The post Missouri Set to Expel Lawmaker Who Threatened Trump appeared first on NTD.TV.

In his first interview shortly after the White House announced that it was parting ways with Trump's chief strategist, Steve Bannon told the Weekly Standard on Friday afternoon that "the Trump presidency that we fought for, and won, is over." After confirming his departure Bannon said that “we still have a huge movement, and we will make something of this Trump presidency. But that presidency is over. It’ll be something else. And there’ll be all kinds of fights, and there’ll be good days and bad days, but that presidency is over.”

In his interview with the conservative publication, Bannon predicted that in the wake of his departure, Trump's administration would "be much more conventional" as his absence from the White House would make it “much harder” for Trump to pave a way forward on issues like “economic nationalism and immigration.” He also predicted that republicans would "moderate" Trump:

“I think they’re going to try to moderate him,” he says. “I think he’ll sign a clean debt ceiling, I think you’ll see all this stuff. His natural tendency—and I think you saw it this week on Charlottesville—his actual default position is the position of his base, the position that got him elected. I think you’re going to see a lot of constraints on that. I think it’ll be much more conventional.”

In Bannon’s view, his departure is not a defeat for him personally but for the ideology he’d urged upon the president, as reflected in Trump’s provocative inaugural address in which he spoke of self-dealing Washington politicians, and their policies that led to the shuttered factories and broken lives of what he called “American carnage.” Bannon co-authored that speech (and privately complained that it had been toned down by West Wing moderates like Ivanka and Jared).

“Now, it’s gonna be Trump,” Bannon said. “The path forward on things like economic nationalism and immigration, and his ability to kind of move freely . . . I just think his ability to get anything done—particularly the bigger things, like the wall, the bigger, broader things that we fought for, it’s just gonna be that much harder.”

He also warned that things are about to get worse for Trump as even more people depart his side, warning of a 'jailbreak' of moderate Republicans.

“There’s about to be a jailbreak of these moderate guys on the Hill”—a stream of Republican dissent, which could become a flood. Bannon also said that he once confidently believed in the prospect of success for that version of the Trump presidency he now says is over.

Asked what the turning point was, he says, “It’s the Republican establishment. The Republican establishment has no interest in Trump’s success on this. They’re not populists, they’re not nationalists, they had no interest in his program. Zero. It was a half-hearted attempt at Obamacare reform, it was no interest really on the infrastructure, they’ll do a very standard Republican version of taxes.

"What Trump ran on- border wall, where is the funding for the border wall, one of his central tenets, where have they been? Have they rallied around the Perdue-Cotton immigration bill? On what element of Trump's program, besides tax cuts-which is going to be the standard marginal tax cut-where have they rallied to Trump's cause? They haven't."

As for what happens next, as reported late on Friday, Bannon said that he is eager to get back to Breitbart and lead the opposition from there.

"Now I’m free. I’ve got my hands back on my weapons," he said. "Someone said, ‘it’s Bannon the Barbarian.’ I am definitely going to crush the opposition. There’s no doubt. I built a f-cking machine at Breitbart. And now I’m about to go back, knowing what I know, and we’re about to rev that machine up. And rev it up we will do.”

Specifically, the target of his attacks will be the 'globalists' and liberals he believes have taken over the White House. They include National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, advisor Gary Cohn, Trump's daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner.

* * *

With Bannon's departure conceding control of Trump's inner circle to the so-called "Goldman globalists", the question is how Trump's message will evolve in the coming days with the "nationalist" element purged. With Trump having been granted the option of sounding like a more centrist President, will he continue with his usual rhetoric. Bloomberg is convinced that the answer is "more of the same" especially since Trump won't risk losing his core base, although that may no longer be in his control, especially if Bannon is about to unleash a stinging attack on Trump's inner circle.

For the clearest sign of what Trump's post-Bannon posture - and administration - will look like, look no further than the coming debt ceiling negotiation (and/or crisis): on Friday, Goldman raised its odds of a government shutdown to 50%, a fact which also spooked the market sending the S&P to session lows at the close. If Trump is unable to build some political goodwill in the coming days on the back of the Bannon departure, those odds will steadily grow to 100% over the next few weeks.

UK terror threat increased by IS losses, security minister says

  • 19 August 2017
  • From the section UK
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Media captionIS is inspiring home-grown attackers rather than sending them to the front line, Ben Wallace says

The UK terror threat is increasing as so-called Islamic State loses territory in Syria and Iraq, the security minister has said.

Ben Wallace said extremists were trying to carry out attacks in the UK because they were either unable to join IS overseas or had returned from there.

He said Europe was now under “constant attack” from terror groups.

Mr Wallace also warned there needed to be more understanding of the anti-terrorism programme Prevent.

It comes after IS said it was behind the Barcelona attack on 17 August when a van drove down Las Ramblas, killing 13 and injuring scores more.

The terror group lost its Mosul stronghold to Iraqi forces last month and international efforts to bring down its “capital” Raqqa in Syria continue.

IS seized Raqqa in 2014 and established its headquarters there, with former prime minister David Cameron calling it “the head of the snake”.

Mr Wallace told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “I think the threat is still increasing, partly driven by the fact Isis is collapsing in Syria and people are either unable to get out there to fight for Isis and so they look to do something at home, or also because people have come back and tried to inspire people with their stories and tales of the caliphate.

“I think those two things mean that the threat is to some extent increasing.”

Image copyright
Getty Images

Image caption

IS says it was behind the Barcelona attack on 17 August

The security minister also said it was vital for people to engage with the government’s anti-terrorism programme, Prevent, which aims to stop people from becoming radicalised.

But he said he disagreed with comments from the police lead for Prevent who said the programme should be compulsory.

Under the scheme, police and other organisations try to build relationships with the public – including faith leaders, teachers and doctors – and urge them to report any concerns to them, but currently any engagement is voluntary.

Mr Wallace added that he had ordered the release of more information to increase understanding of Prevent and its successes to get more people to engage with it.

“There’s no ifs and buts nowadays.

“If we’re going to stop these people who use everyday items such as vehicles and kitchen knives to murder people on our streets, we are going to have to all engage together with Prevent and we are having real success when we do that.”

Mr Wallace added: “We must offer an alternative and help people be protected from that [radicalisation].”

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post UK terror threat increased by IS losses, security minister says appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.

Jeremy Corbyn Welsh visit ‘on your side’ pledge to voters

Image caption

Jeremy Corbyn was greeted by large crowds in Wales during the general election campaign

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn will tell voters in north Wales they need a UK government “on their side” in his summer campaign tour of marginal seats.

He will promise investment in jobs and industry at a rally in Bangor, after meeting community groups in Llandudno.

Labour came within 92 votes of taking Arfon from Plaid Cymru and cut the Tory majority in Aberconwy to 635.

He said the next Labour government would “transform” the economy, building on the new Development Bank of Wales.

“We will develop the jobs, skills, infrastructure and industries of the future through an investment-led approach, supported by our National Transformation Fund and a Welsh development bank, building on the Welsh Labour Government’s Development Bank of Wales,” Mr Corbyn said, in advance of Saturday’s visit.

“People in Wales need a government in Westminster that is on their side,” he added, pledging a £10 minimum wage, an end to the public sector pay cap, and action on energy prices and rail fares.

Labour gained three seats from the Conservatives in Wales in June’s election, as Theresa May lost her majority at Westminster.

Conservative Guto Bebb and Plaid’s Hywel Williams were both re-elected for Aberconwy and Arfon respectively but both saw majorities of almost 4,000 over second-place Labour drastically cut.

Targeting voters in the two seats, Mr Corbyn said: “We can win here and form the next government that will work for the many not the few.”

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew RT Davies, said: “Jeremy Corbyn would certainly ‘transform’ the economy with billions and billions of pounds of extra borrowing, bankrupt public finances and broken public services.”

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post Jeremy Corbyn Welsh visit ‘on your side’ pledge to voters appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.

Update: that was quick. As Breitbart's Charlie Spiering reports, Bannon jas returned to Breitbart News as Executive Chairman of Breitbart News "and chaired our evening editorial meeting"

As The Hill adds, Bannon reclaimed the title of Breitbart's executive chairman and directed the outlet’s Friday editorial meeting, the website said in a statement on Friday.

“The populist-nationalist movement got a lot stronger today,” said Breitbart News Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow. “Breitbart gained an executive chairman with his finger on the pulse of the Trump agenda.

As chairman, Bannon oversaw massive growth of the populist website before leaving to be chairman of Trump’s campaign. Bannon never settled into his role as chief strategist in the White House, where he feuded bitterly with ideological rivals like Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, economic adviser Gary Cohn and national security adviser H.R. McMaster.

Breitbart eagerly accepted Bannon back into the fold. “Breitbart’s pace of global expansion will only accelerate with Steve back,” said Breitbart president Larry Solov. “The sky’s the limit.”

* * *

While Breitbart has warned of war 'against' Trump - should he break from the policies upon which he was elected - former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon has spoken for the first time since being fired today.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Bannon said he was "going to war" for Trump...

If there’s any confusion out there, let me clear it up.

 

I’m leaving the White House and going to war for Trump against his opponents... on Capitol Hill, in the media, and in corporate America,

So, war it is!

Presumably, being outside The White House allows him more freedom to pursue his tactics. The question is - given the narrative being spun is he resigned by mutual agreement - does Bannon stil have Trump's ear? And if so, will Cohn, Kelly, and Kushner stand for it? We already know his agenda is anything but in line with theirs.

Notably The White House formally launched a probe of China's intellectual property practices tonight - invoking Section 301 just as Bannon had said.

With regard his internal adversaries, at the departments of State and Defense, who think the United States can enlist Beijing’s aid on the North Korean standoff, and at Treasury and the National Economic Council who don’t want to mess with the trading system, Bannon was ever harsher...

“Oh, they’re wetting themselves,” he said, explaining that the Section 301 complaint, which was put on hold when the war of threats with North Korea broke out, was shelved only temporarily, and will be revived in three weeks. As for other cabinet departments, Bannon has big plans to marginalize their influence.

 

“That’s a fight I fight every day here,” he said. “We’re still fighting. There’s Treasury and [National Economic Council chair] Gary Cohn and Goldman Sachs lobbying.”

 

“We gotta do this. The president’s default position is to do it, but the apparatus is going crazy. Don’t get me wrong. It’s like, every day.”

Bannon dismissed the far-right as irrelevant:

“Ethno-nationalism—it's losers. It's a fringe element. I think the media plays it up too much, and we gotta help crush it, you know, uh, help crush it more.”

 

“These guys are a collection of clowns,” he added.

And finally, Bannon scoffed at The Democrats...

“...the longer they talk about identity politics, I got ’em. I want them to talk about racism every day. If the left is focused on race and identity, and we go with economic nationalism, we can crush the Democrats.

*  *  *

Kurt Bardella, a Republican communications specialist who worked for Bannon at Breitbart but later denounced him, predicts the strategist would "feel liberated" by his departure.

"Now, he will be able to operate openly and freely to inflict as much damage as he possibly can on the ‘globalists’ that remain in the Trump Administration."

The love affair between Breitbart, whose former head Steve Bannon was just fired by Donald Trump, just turned to hate, as confirmed by Joel Pollak, a Breitbart Editor, who moments ago tweeted one word:

As Axios' Jonathan Swan explains, "Joel is a Breitbart editor. They're going thermonuclear, I'm told. "

Separately, as iBankCoin reports, investigative journalist and former Breitbart employee, Lee Stranahan, offered a quick quip on today’s news that Bannon has resigned from the White House, suggesting that Steve would ‘unleash the beast’ through his online publication and call out those working against the Trump agenda in the White House.

Stranahan has been a long time loyalist to Bannon and ardent opponent to several people inside Trump’s White House, namely McMaster, Powell and Cohn. The theory he’s putting forth is that Bannon will have more power outside the White House than inside. While that might be true for Steve, I fail to see how fomenting more internal strife inside the Trump White House will be constructive at this point.

Nevertheless, it’s about to get real interesting soon. Watch

 

As for what Steve Bannon's next steps would be, Axios reports that it "will be all about the billionaire Mercer family."

I'm told Bannon, who visited New York this week, met with Bob Mercer and together they will be a well-funded force on the outside.

  • Bannon has felt liberated since it became clear he was being pushed out, according to friends. He's told associates he has a "killing machine" in Breitbart News, and it's possible he returns to lead their editorial operation.
  • A source familiar with Breitbart's operations told me they would go "thermonuclear" against "globalists" that Bannon and his friends believe are ruining the Trump administration, and by extension, America.
  • Watch for Breitbart's Washington Editor Matt Boyle to be a central figure in this war — which has already begun — against White House officials like HR McMaster, Dina Powell, Gary Cohn, and Jared and Ivanka.

Then again, Trump may be spared. As Politico's Robert Costa tweets, "One theme I'm picking up: Bannon believes next battle is *not* w/ Trump but w/ Kushner/Cohn/Dina/HR McMaster. "Save Trump," as one R put it."

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Townhall.com,

"They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee -- and what a leader! ... No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller."

So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial "The Oxford History of the American People" in 1965.

First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.

This veneration of Lee, wrote Richard Weaver, "appears in the saying attributed to a Confederate soldier, 'The rest of us may have ... descended from monkeys, but it took a God to make Marse Robert.'"

Growing up after World War II, this was accepted history.

Yet, on the militant left today, the name Lee evokes raw hatred and howls of "racist and traitor." A clamor has arisen to have all statues of him and all Confederate soldiers and statesmen pulled down from their pedestals and put in museums or tossed onto trash piles.

What has changed since 1965?

It is not history. There have been no great new discoveries about Lee.

What has changed is America herself. She is not the same country. We have passed through a great social, cultural and moral revolution that has left us irretrievably divided on separate shores.

And the politicians are in panic.

Two years ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe called the giant statues of Lee and "Stonewall" Jackson on Richmond's Monument Avenue "parts of our heritage."

 

After Charlottesville, New York-born-and-bred McAuliffe, entertaining higher ambitions, went full scalawag, demanding the statues be pulled down as "flashpoints for hatred, division, and violence."

Who hates the statues, Terry? Who's going to cause the violence?

Answer: The Democratic left whom Terry must now appease.

McAuliffe is echoed by Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam, the Democratic candidate in November to succeed McAuliffe. GOP nominee Ed Gillespie wants Monument Avenue left alone.

The election is the place to decide this, but the left will not wait.

In Durham, North Carolina, our Taliban smashed the statue of a Confederate soldier. Near the entrance of Duke University Chapel, a statue of Lee has been defaced, the nose broken off.

Wednesday at dawn, Baltimore carried out a cultural cleansing by taking down statues of Lee and Maryland Chief Justice Roger Taney who wrote the Dred Scott decision and opposed Lincoln's suspension of the right of habeas corpus.

Like ISIS, which smashed the storied ruins of Palmyra, and the al-Qaida rebels who ravaged the fabled Saharan city of Timbuktu, the new barbarism has come to America. This is going to become a blazing issue, not only between but within the parties.

For there are 10 Confederates in Statuary Hall in the Capitol, among them Lee, Georgia's Alexander Stephens, vice president to Jefferson Davis, and Davis himself. The Black Caucus wants them gone.

Mount Rushmore-sized carvings of Lee, Jackson and Davis are on Stone Mountain, Georgia. Are they to be blasted off?

There are countless universities, colleges and high schools like Washington & Lee named for Confederate statesmen and soldiers. Across the Potomac from D.C. are Jefferson Davis Highway and Leesburg Pike to Leesburg itself, 25 miles north. Are all highways, streets, towns and counties named for Confederates to be renamed? What about Fort Bragg?

On every Civil War battlefield, there are monuments to the Southern fallen. Gettysburg has hundreds of memorials, statues and markers. But if, as the left insists we accept, the Confederates were traitors trying to tear America apart to preserve an evil system, upon what ground do Democrats stand to resist the radical left's demands?

What do we do with those battlefields where Confederates were victorious: Bull Run, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville?

"Where does this all end?" President Trump asked.

It doesn't.

Not until America's histories and biographies are burned and new texts written to Nazify Lee, Jackson, Davis and all the rest, will a newly indoctrinated generation of Americans accede to this demand to tear down and destroy what their fathers cherished.

And once all the Confederates are gone, one must begin with the explorers, and then the slave owners like Presidents Washington, Jefferson and Madison, who seceded from slave-free Britain. White supremacists all.

Andrew Jackson, Henry Clay of Kentucky and John Calhoun must swiftly follow.

Then there are all those segregationists. From 1865 to 1965, virtually all of the great Southern senators were white supremacists.

In the first half of the 20th century, Woodrow Wilson and FDR carried all 11 states of a rigidly segregationist South all six times they ran, and FDR rewarded Dixie by putting a Klansman on the Supreme Court.

While easy for Republicans to wash their hands of such odious elements as Nazis in Charlottesville, will they take up the defense of the monuments and statues that have defined our history, or capitulate to the icon-smashers?

In this Second American Civil War, whose side are you on?

But removing them is not enough, just as denouncing neo-Nazis is not enough: Opposing view

      
 

 

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post Confederate monuments must go immediately appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.

Authored by Dmitri Simes via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation

Improving the dangerously unstable U.S.-Russia relationship will be very difficult, but it is important for U.S. national security. Current mutual hostility threatens an explosive confrontation that could destroy American (and Russian) civilization as we know it. Short of that, Russia can do much more than it is today to damage U.S. interests and values without taking extreme risks. Accordingly, the United States should explore normalizing its interaction with Russia. Washington should do so without illusions, and from a position of strength.

Today, America and Russia are adversaries with different approaches to key international issues, different systems of government and, in many respects, different values. Each confronts domestic obstacles to efforts to establish better relations. These obstacles are particularly challenging in the United States, where Congress, the mainstream media and much of the American public view Vladimir Putin’s Russia as a vicious enemy akin to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, if not Hitler’s Germany. Unlike China, Russia has only limited economic interaction with America—and therefore few Americans see a practical positive side to contacts with Russia.

President Putin has much greater latitude in shaping his country’s foreign policy, including exploring a new beginning with Washington. Yet in a period of economic difficulty before Russia’s 2018 presidential election, Putin is loath to appear weak under foreign pressure.

At the same time, Washington and Moscow continually calculate how their relationship affects their close partners. Thus, for example, Russia cannot disregard how China and Iran might react if they perceive Russia as accommodating the United States on North Korea, Syria or other issues—especially if Moscow’s flexibility compromises their interests.

Yet failing to arrest the downward spiral in U.S.-Russia relations poses real dangers. The most dramatic, if least likely, is a direct military confrontation leading to uncontrollable escalation and potentially a global catastrophe. Many dismiss this risk, arguing that neither the United States nor Russia wants to commit suicide and would show restraint; however, the same assumption that the other side would pull back at the last moment contributed to World War I. The truth is that no one knows what might happen if U.S. and Russian warplanes started shooting at each another or if American cruise missiles hit Russian bases in Syria. Russia could retaliate asymmetrically, perhaps in eastern Ukraine, and fighting could escalate and spread in ways that trigger NATO’s Article Five guarantees. While the Obama administration may have considered nuclear weapons so terrible as to have little practical utility, Russian military doctrine explicitly describes tactical nuclear weapons as a viable option if Russia is under serious attack. Where would that lead?

Setting aside nuclear apocalypse, forswearing diplomacy with Moscow because it legitimizes an unsavory government and rewards bad behavior could prompt Russian officials to conclude that they have little left to lose and must weaken and confront what they would view as an unremittingly hostile America. Interfering in the 2016 election could pale by comparison to serious and sustained attacks on infrastructure, financial systems and other foundations of American society, all of which are highly vulnerable to cyberattack. Devastating U.S. retaliation would do little to help millions of affected Americans or to reassure those who escaped harm the first time. There is, likewise, a difference between failing to help the United States prevent proliferation in North Korea or elsewhere, as is the case today, and working actively to assist Pyongyang and other American foes to develop these capabilities. Moscow could arm and support Hezbollah, Hamas and the Taliban too. If Russian leaders feel pushed into a corner, they could even consider a deal with ISIS or others whom they oppose today.

Finally, Russia could double down on its emerging alignment with China. Russia and China maintain strong mutual suspicions, and China is a much stronger country by most measures. Although both are interested in normal relations with the United States, and would be reluctant to go too far in ways that could lead to a serious conflict, they are fearful of and, indeed, irritated with Washington. They are drawing closer economically and militarily, and are increasingly coordinating their foreign policies. Moscow and Beijing are concerned over American-led encirclement and, specifically, expanding U.S. antimissile systems that threaten their retaliatory capabilities. At a minimum, the worse the U.S.-Russia relationship, the more a rising China can count on Russian support in any disagreement with the United States. Emboldening China in this fashion cannot be in the U.S. national interest.

To avoid these costs, any responsible U.S. government should want to normalize the relationship with Moscow. The objective should not be to become allies or friends, neither of which is possible or advisable. Instead, Washington should seek a narrow dialogue to avoid an unintended military confrontation, manage differences more effectively and, at times, work together where interests and priorities overlap.

Pursuing such an approach requires a clear explanation of the U.S. national interests at stake that Congress and the public can understand. It will also require sustained and disciplined attention from the president and a concerted effort to appoint and retain officials both committed to this approach and capable of executing it. Good chemistry between the two presidents is important, but it should be a tool, rather than a basis, of American policy.

The obstacles to seeking a new approach to Russia are so numerous and momentous that many may feel that even trying is not a good use of President Trump’s time, energy and limited political capital. Yet if it goes badly wrong, the U.S.-Russia relationship could end in nuclear conflict. It would be a travesty for America to do so much to avoid an imaginary mushroom cloud in Iraq and then to ignore far greater looming dangers in a collapsing relationship with Russia.

The first and most important task for any U.S. administration is to protect the survival and security of the American people. That is why no responsible administration could refuse to pursue a more stable relationship with Russia. It is why every new administration since the end of the Cold War has tried to do just that. No matter how futile these efforts may seem, the United States cannot afford to dismiss diplomacy with Moscow out of hand. Failing to try risks fueling a highly destructive self-fulfilling prophecy that could undermine U.S. national security, as well as America’s foreign-policy objectives around the globe.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

Though a lot of people in my line of work (alternative economic and geopolitical analysis) tend to be accused of "doom mongering," I have to say personally I am not a big believer in "doom." At least, not in the way that the accusation insinuates. I don't believe in apocalypse, Armageddon or the end of the world, nor do I even believe, according to the evidence, that a global nuclear conflict is upon us. In fact, it annoys me that so many people seem desperate to imagine those conclusions whenever a crisis event takes shape.

I think the concept of "apocalypse" is rather lazy - unless we are talking about a fantastical movie scenario, like a meteor the size of Kentucky or Michelle Obama's Adam's apple hurtling towards the Earth. Human civilization is more likely to change in the face of crisis rather than end completely.

I do believe in massive sea-changes in societies and political dynamics. I believe in the fall of nations and empires. I believe in this because I have seen it perpetually through history. What I see constant evidence of is that many of these sea changes are engineered by establishment elitists in government and finance. What I see is evidence of organized psychopathy and an agenda for total centralization of power. When I stumble upon the potential for economic disaster or war, I always ask myself "what is the narrative being sold to the public, what truth is it distracting us from and who REALLY benefits from the calamity."

The saying "all wars are banker wars" is not an unfair generalization — it is a safe bet.

First, let's clear up some misconceptions about public attitudes towards the North Korean situation.

According to "polls" (I'll remind readers my ample distrust of polls), a majority of Americans now actually support U.S. troop deployment to North Korea, but only on the condition that North Korea attacks first.

I want you to remember that exception - North Korea must attack first. It will be important for later in this analysis.

Despite a wide assumption that the mainstream media is beating the war drums on this issue, I find it is in most cases doing the opposite. The mainstream media has instead been going out of its way to downplay any chance that the current inflamed rhetoric on both sides of the Pacific is anything other than bluster that will end with a whimper rather than bomb blasts. This is one of the reasons why I think war is imminent; the media is a notorious contrarian indicator. Whatever they predict is usually the opposite of what comes true (just look at Brexit and the election of Donald Trump, for starters).  Another generalization that is a sure bet is that the mainstream media usually lies, or at the very least, they are mostly wrong.

That said, if we are to believe the latest polls, unfortunately, one thing is clear: The American people, on both sides of the political spectrum, are becoming more galvanized around supporting a potential conflict with North Korea. For the establishment, war is a winning sell, at least for now.

Of course, I am aware that we have heard all this before. Back in 2013 tensions were relatively high with North Korea just like they are today. North Korea threatened a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. back then, too, and in the end it was all hot air. However, besides wider public support than ever before in terms of troop deployment to North Korea, something else is very different from 2013. Primarily, China's stance on the issue of regime change.

In the past, China has been consistent in supporting UN sanctions against North Korea's nuclear program while remaining immovable on war and regime change in the region. In 2013, it was clear that China was hostile to the notion of a U.S. invasion.

In 2017, though, something has changed. China's deep ties to the global banking establishment, their open statements on their affection for the IMF, and their recent induction as the flagship nation for the IMF's Special Drawing Rights system make it clear that they are working for the globalist agenda, not against it. This is not necessarily a new thing behind the curtain; China has done the bidding of globalist institutions for decades. Today though, the relationship is displayed far more publicly.

In 2015, it was China, not the U.S., that sounded the alarm over North Korea's nuclear program, indicating that Pyongyang might have technology well beyond American estimates. It was this warning that triggered the slow buildup to today's fear over a fully capable intercontinental ballistic missile package in the hands of North Korea. It seems obvious to me that China plays the role of North Korea's friend as long as it serves the interests of the globalist agenda, and then China turns on North Korea when the narrative calls for a shift in the script. It is China that opens and closes the door to war with North Korea; a China that is very cooperative with the IMF and the push towards total globalization.

In 2013, China presented the narrative of stalwart opposition to U.S. invasion. In 2017, China has left the door wide open.

Both alternative and mainstream media outlets latched onto recent statements made by Beijing proclaiming that China "would not allow regime change in North Korea." What many of them forgot to mention or buried in their own articles, though, was that this was NOT China's entire statement. China also asserted that they would REMAIN NEUTRAL if North Korea attacked first. I cannot find any previous instance in the past when China has made such a statement; a statement that amounts to a note of permission.

Both the American public and the Chinese government have given support for regime change in North Korea given the stipulation that there is an attack on the U.S. or U.S. interests and allies. So, I ask you, what is most likely to happen here?

Much of the world and most importantly the U.S. is on the verge of a new phase of severe economic decline according to all fundamental data trends. The U.S. is set to enter into yet another debate on the debt ceiling issue with many on the conservative side demanding that Trump and Republicans not roll over this time. And, as I discussed in my article 'Geopolitical Tensions Are Designed To Distract The Public From Economic Decline', a North Korean conflict stands as the best possible distraction.

How does the establishment rationalize a contested debt ceiling increase while also diverting blame away from themselves on the continued decline in U.S. and global fiscal data? War! Not necessarily a "world war" as so many are quick to imagine, but a regional war; a quagmire war that will put the final nail in the U.S. debt coffin and act as the perfect scapegoat for the inevitable implosion of the current stock market bubble. The international banks have much to gain and little to lose in a war scenario with North Korea.

I predict that there will be an attack blamed on North Korea. Either North Korea will be prodded into a violent reaction, or, a false flag event will be engineered and tied to Pyongyang. Remember, for the first time ever, China has essentially backed off of its opposition to invasion of North Korea as long as North Korea "attacks preemptively." Why? Why didn't they make this exception back in 2013? Because now the international banks want a distraction and China is giving them the opening they require.

Will this war culminate in global nuclear conflagration? No. The establishment has spent decades and untold trillions building it's biometric control grids and staging the new global monetary framework under the SDR system. They are not going to vaporize all of this in an instant through a nuclear exchange. What they will do, though, is launch regional wars and also economic wars. Those people expecting apocalypse in the Hollywood sense are going to find something different, but in my opinion much worse — a steady but slower decline into economic ruin and global centralization.

Eventually, China and the U.S. will enter hostilities, but these hostilities will lean more towards the financial than the kinetic. The establishment cabal works in stages, not in absolute events. Another Korean war would be a disaster for America, just not in the way many people think.

Will there be a nuclear event? Yes. If war takes place in North Korea then it is likely they will use a nuclear device somewhere in retaliation. We may even see a nuclear event as a false flag catalyst for starting the war in the first place. This will not be a global threat, but a mushroom cloud over any American city or outpost is enough to scare the hell out of most people. It is all that will be needed.

Does this mean "doom" for the American people? It depends on how we react. Will we continue to hold the banking establishment responsible for all of their sabotage previous to a high profile war in the pacific? Or, will we get caught up in the tides of war fever? Will we question the source of future attacks on the U.S., or will we immediately point fingers at whoever the media or government tells us is the enemy? Our response really is the greatest determining factor in whether or not the American ideal of liberty stands or falls. This time, I do not see bluster, but a dark fog very common in the moments preceding conflict. This time, I believe we are indeed facing war, but war is always a means to an end. War is an establishment tool for social engineering on a massive scale.

Time to look at prisoners as human beings and eliminate life sentences for young offenders

      
 

 

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post Common: Our criminal justice system needs an overhaul appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.

The White House communications office put out these talking points.

      
 

 

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post President Trump is ‘a voice for unity and calm’ appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.

The FBI is reopening its search for documents related to the secret tarmac meeting between former President Bill Clinton and then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch in June last year.

Lynch met with Bill Clinton at the same time the department she headed was conducting a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton.

Some of the emails pertaining to the meeting became public on Aug. 4, when the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) released a batch it obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ) through a lawsuit.

Those emails showed that Lynch used a secret email for communications. They also showed that the DOJ worked with media outlets to downplay the story, that the White House was involved, and that some of the same officials who were involved in the coverup are now charged with investigating the meeting.

The FBI has previously denied having any documents related to the matter in response to a Freedom of Information document request filed by ACLJ.

But the emails received from the DOJ on Aug. 4 exposed that FBI officials were directly involved in the tarmac meeting coverup, and that the FBI lied about not having any documents.

On Tuesday, just a week after ACLJ publicly accused the FBI of lying, ACLJ received a letter from the FBI, which stated that the bureau now believes that “records potentially responsive to your request may exist.”

“While we appreciate that the FBI has reopened the case file and is now searching for documents responsive to our duly submitted FOIA request from more than a year ago, it stretches the bounds of credulity to suggest that the FBI bureaucracy just discovered that ‘potentially responsive’ records ‘may exist’ on its own accord,” Jordan Sekulow, the president of ACLJ, wrote in a statement.

Among the most significant findings in the Aug. 4 documents is a three-page email of talking points that was completely redacted. ACLJ is working to receive the contents of that email through legal means.

One of the lawyers mentioned in the redacted email was counsel for Lynch at the time of the tarmac meeting. That same lawyer is now the deputy council to the minority ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the tarmac meeting, which presents a clear conflict of interest, Sekulow said on Fox News.

Compounding the issues revealed in the emails so far is former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony that Lynch attempted to influence the criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton. Lynch told Comey to call the investigation “a matter.”

Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017 in Washington, DC. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Former FBI Director James Comey testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee in the Hart Senate Office Building on Capitol Hill June 8, 2017, in Washington. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The tarmac meeting was the deciding factor for Comey to act of his own will and update the public about the Clinton investigation during the 2016 presidential race.

RELATED:

Former AG Lynch Used Alias for Emails About Controversial Clinton Meeting

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch on July 20, 2016, at the Justice Department in Washington. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal Lynch used an alias for emails about controversial meeting with former president Bill Clinton. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch on July 20, 2016, at the Justice Department in Washington. Documents obtained by Judicial Watch reveal Lynch used an alias for emails about controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP)

Former Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an alias for official emails as attorney general, including emails about her controversial meeting with former President Bill Clinton aboard her Justice Department jet as it was parked on the tarmac in Phoenix.

Watchdog groups Judicial Watch and American Center for Law and Justice obtained 413 pages of Justice Department documents through a request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Among the documents were emails that revealed Lynch used the alias “Elizabeth Carlisle.”

Lynch is not the first senior federal official to use an email alias, a practice that was seen elsewhere in the Obama administration due to spam and security concerns, said officials defending the practice.

Vice News obtained documents from the Department of Justice in February 2016 that revealed Lynch’s predecessor, Eric Holder, used the alias “Lew Alcindor.” That is the former name of retired NBA star Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Vice obtained the documents through an FOIA suit. The revelation that Holder used an alias for official business raised concerns about email practices in the Obama administration, and whether it would be possible to obtain all such communications subject to the FOIA.

Among the topics Lynch used her alias email for were messages to help craft responses to media requests about her unusual meeting with Bill Clinton. The meeting took place as Lynch’s department wrestled with what to do about the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email scandal.

Lynch later claimed that she and the former president did not discuss his wife’s potential prosecution or anything related to the FBI’s investigation. Lynch did seem to take a personal interest in the investigation, however, going out of her way to tell former head of the FBI, James Comey, to refer to the Clinton email scandal as a “matter” rather than an “investigation.” Comey revealed the conversation during his testimony before Congress on June 8.

He said the request left him feeling “queasy.”

Another Obama-era appointment to use an email alias was former IRS official Lois Lerner. Lerner was appointed Director of Exempt Organizations in 2006 and led 900 employees in an effort to target conservative groups in a fashion that made it impossible for them to take part in the 2012 election. The Department of Justice—under Holder at the time—investigated the practice but decided not to prosecute. Lerner resigned over the controversy.

Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 5, 2014, during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the the agency
Former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner. (Lauren Victoria Burke/AP)

In Lynch’s case, her attorney, Robert Raben, told The Daily Caller that Justice Department staffers who process FOIA requests are aware of the alias and that the agency had acknowledged its use as far back as February 2016.

Lynch has denied any serious wrongdoing in the 30-minute meeting with former President Clinton, and says they discussed grandchildren and other matters. Clinton boarded her plane uninvited, reportedly, and Lynch said she regrets having allowed the meeting.

The post FBI Reopens Search for Documents on Clinton-Lynch Secret Tarmac Meeting appeared first on NTD.TV.

NEW YORK—President Donald Trump said there were two sides to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia last Saturday, calling out both white supremacists and left wing protesters.

“You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other and they came at each other with clubs and it was vicious, it was horrible,” Trump said when asked by a reporter whether the “alt-left is as bad as the white supremacists,” following a press conference about infrastructure at Trump Tower in New York.

Trump reiterated a previous statement he made on Aug. 12 after a woman was killed when a man drove a car into a left wing counter protest of a white nationalist rally.

“We condemned in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, it has no place in America,” he said.

President Donald Trump answers questions about his responses to the violence, injuries and deaths at the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville as he talks to the media with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (L) at his side in the lobby of Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York on Aug. 15, 2017. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)
President Donald Trump answers questions about his responses to the violence, injuries and deaths at the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville as he talks to the media with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (L) at his side in the lobby of Trump Tower in Manhattan, New York on Aug. 15, 2017. (REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque)

But the president said that while neo-Nazis should be condemned in the strongest terms, there were also people who had come to legitimately and peacefully protest against the removal of the statue of confederate general Robert E. Lee.

“I’ve condemned neo-Nazis, I’ve condemned many different groups but not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists … Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” he said.

Trump said the left wing counter protesters, who had come without a permit, were also to blame for the violence.

[morearticles]2281555[/morearticles]

“What about the alt-left that came charging … They came charging with clubs in their hands, swinging clubs, do they have any problem? I think they do,” Trump said.

“I think there’s blame on both sides. you look at both sides, I think there’s blame on both sides.”

Trump specifically called out, albeit not by name, the Antifa group, a communist and anarchist group that has been behind a series of violent protests.

“You see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets and the baseball bats. You had a lot of people in the other group,” he said.

The post Trump Condemns Violence From Both Sides in Charlottesville appeared first on NTD.TV.

After backlash, President Trump made more remarks Monday about the protests, stating that the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis must be brought to justice.

      
 

 

Read More At Article Source | Article Attribution

The post President’s words on Charlottesville too little, too late? #tellusatoday appeared first on RocketNews | Top News Stories From Around the Globe.


Newsletter Signup Form



Contact Info

Zion Clinic Pharmacy
205 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd
Hallandale Beach, Fl 33009

Phone 954-367-5365
Fax 954-839-9039
Email: info@zionpharmacy.com

Archives

Zion Health Store

Login