Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, 16, attends a protest outside the White House on Friday. She launched the Friday school strikes last year. Since then, her notoriety has steadily grown as she speaks in clear and powerful terms about why people — particularly young people — must pay attention to our climate.

Mhari Shaw/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, 16, attends a protest outside the White House on Friday. She launched the Friday school strikes last year. Since then, her notoriety has steadily grown as she speaks in clear and powerful terms about why people — particularly young people — must pay attention to our climate.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Greta Thunberg led a protest at the White House Friday. But she wasn’t looking to go inside: “I don’t want to meet with people who don’t accept the science,” she says.

The young Swedish activist joined a large crowd of protesters outside the White House Friday morning, calling for immediate action to help the environment and reverse an alarming warming trend in average global temperatures.

Her message for President Trump is the same thing she tells other politicians, Thunberg says: listen to science and take responsibility.

Thunberg, 16, will spend nearly a week in Washington. But she says she doesn’t plan to meet with anyone from the Trump administration during that time.

“I haven’t been invited to do that yet. And honestly I don’t want to do that,” Thunberg tells NPR’s Ailsa Chang. When asked why not, she said, “I don’t want to meet with people who don’t accept the science.”

If people in the White House who reject climate change want to change their minds, they should rely on scientists and professionals to do that, she says.

But Thunberg also believes the U.S. has an “incredibly important” role to play in fighting climate change.

“You are such a big country,” she says. “In Sweden, when we demand politicians to do something they say, ‘It doesn’t matter what we do — because just look at the U.S.’

“I think you have an enormous responsibility” to lead climate efforts, Thunberg says, adding, “You have a moral responsibility to do that.”

Thunberg launched the Friday school strikes last year. Since then, her notoriety has grown steadily thanks to the clear terms in which she speaks about why people — particularly young people — must pay attention to our climate. She gave a TED Talk about the issue last November; one month later, she made a powerful speech at a U.N. Climate Change conference in Poland.

“You are not mature enough to tell it like it is. Even that burden, you leave to us children,” Thunberg, who was then 15, told the grownups at the conference, in a video that’s been watched millions of times online.

Thunberg has now inspired student protests in dozens of countries — and in the U.S., Thunberg plans to lead protests ahead of the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City next week.

Mhari Shaw/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Thunberg has now inspired student protests in dozens of countries — and in the U.S., Thunberg plans to lead protests ahead of the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City next week.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Asked when she became so passionate about climate change, Thunberg says it started before she was 10 years old, during a school lesson that, as she recalls, made the entire class very sad.

“We saw these horrifying pictures of plastic in the oceans and floodings and so on, and everyone was very moved by that. But then it just seemed like everyone went back to normal,” Thunberg says. “And I couldn’t go back to normal, because those pictures were stuck in my head. And I couldn’t just go on knowing that this was happening around the world.”

She began researching the issue, reading about climate science and asking questions. Her sense of activism grew gradually — and it emerged, Thunberg says, when she was also dealing with depression. At the time, she was 11.

“How I got back from that depression was by telling myself I can do so much good with my life instead of just being depressed,” she says.

She became an activist, attending marches and talking to people inside the environmental movement. When the pace seemed too slow, she hit on the idea of a school strike last summer, and a new movement was born. But Thunberg is quick to note that much work remains to be done.

“Even though this movement has become huge and there have been millions of children and young people who have been school striking for the climate,” Thunberg says, “the emission curve is still not reducing … and of course that is all that matters.”

Along with increasing awareness of the dangers of climate change, Thunberg says she wants people to use the power of their votes to elect leaders who will work to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.

Mhari Shaw/NPR


hide caption

toggle caption

Mhari Shaw/NPR

Along with increasing awareness of the dangers of climate change, Thunberg says she wants people to use the power of their votes to elect leaders who will work to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.

Mhari Shaw/NPR

In the past, Thunberg has spoken about being diagnosed with Asperger’s — and how that has helped her.

“My diagnosis helps me helps me see things a bit more clearly sometimes,” she says. “When everyone else seems to just compromise and have this double moral that’s, ‘Yeah. That’s very important, but also I can’t do that right now and I’m too lazy and so on.’ — But I can’t really do that.”

Thunberg continues, “I want to to walk the talk, and to practice as I preach. So that is what I’m trying to do. Because if I am focused on something and if I know something, and if I decide to do something, then I go all in. And it seems like others are not doing that right now. So yeah, it has definitely helped me.”

Thunberg has now been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, and she’s inspired student protests in dozens of countries. In the U.S., Thunberg plans to lead protests ahead of the U.N. Climate Action Summit in New York City next week. Her arrival in Washington helped kick off that plan.

“Protect our future!” young demonstrators chanted as they marched across the grass north of the White House. One girl held a sign reading, “Make Earth Cool Again.”

The only things that seemed to slow Thunberg were the many admirers and journalists that thronged around her on the sidewalks around the White House. After the crowd was repeatedly asked to move back, the diminutive Thunberg was able to inch along, pausing occasionally to acknowledge a question or comment from passers-by.

“Thank you, Greta!” several onlookers shouted. Another yelled out, “We’re all here for you — and the climate!”

After the protesters marched around the White House to the lower portion of the Ellipse, Thunberg delivered a short speech, speaking through a megaphone to tell the crowd she’s grateful for their support and proud of them for coming to the march.

“This is very overwhelming,” Thunberg said, noting the large turnout.

“Never give up,” Thunberg told the protesters. She added, “See you next week, on Sept. 20.”

The international protest that’s planned for next Friday will likely be very large. With Thunberg planning to be in New York, the NYC Public Schools recently announced that it will excuse the absences of any students who participate in the climate strike.

“Students will need parental consent,” the school district said, adding, “Younger students can only leave school with a parent.”

And if students elsewhere need an excused absence note, Amnesty International Secretary General Kumi Naidoo has written a letter to more than 30,000 schools, urging them to allow their students to join the climate strikes.

Along with boosting people’s awareness of the dangers of climate change, Thunberg says she wants them to use their voting power to elect leaders who will work to reduce carbon emissions and slow global warming.

Thunberg arrived in the U.S. last week, after sailing across the Atlantic Ocean to avoid the carbon emissions jet travel would entail. She’s taking a gap year away from school, to focus on her burgeoning youth movement.

When asked what her parents think of her activism and its demands on her time, Thunberg says, “of course they are concerned that I am doing all this and and that I am not going to school.”

The young climate activist adds, “I think they also see that I am happier now than I was before, because I’m doing something meaningful.”

Noting her parents’ concerns about her living a very public life and being out of school, Thunberg says, “I think they support me in at least some way. They know that what I am doing is morally right.”

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13/760538254/greta-thunberg-to-u-s-you-have-a-moral-responsibility-on-climate-change

Sen. Kamala Harris ridiculed President Trump by saying that, deep down, he is a very small person.

During a discussion of the president’s trade policies and stance on North Korea, Harris attempted to analyze Trump’s psyche. “He reminds me of that guy on The Wizard of Oz,” the California senator said, referring to the Wizard of Oz himself. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude?”

Harris guffawed as debate moderator George Stephanopoulos, who stands at 5-foot-5 tall, said, “I’m not even gonna take the bait, senator.”

This was not the first time Harris has implied that Trump may have some insecurities about his masculinity. In an August interview with CNN’s Kyung Lah, Harris scoffed at the president for mentioning the crowd size of a rally he held while visiting an El Paso hospital in the wake of a mass shooting. “His preoccupation with size, I’ll leave that for someone else to analyze,” she said. “But I will say that this president has used the platform that is given to the office of president of the United States in a way that has been about trying to divide our country.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-hits-trump-manhood-when-you-pull-back-the-curtain-its-a-really-small-dude

Less than two weeks after Hurricane Dorian hit the Bahamas, another storm is headed that way. The storm’s possible path could bring it to Florida’s east coast.

The National Hurricane Center warns South Carolina, Georgia and Florida could experience heavy rainfall and possible flash flooding over the weekend.

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/tropical-storm-cyclone-nine-bahamas-map-n1054201

America didn’t get the big dust-up between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren that many were expecting Thursday night in the two leading Democrats’ first debate faceoff, but looks like a lot of them tuned in to ABC looking for it.

Hosted by ABC News chief anchor George Stephanopoulos, ABC World News Tonight anchor David Muir, ABC News correspondent Linsey Davis and rather excellent Univision anchor Jorge Ramos, the meet-up in Houston saw the ex-VP, the Massachusetts senator, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a sometimes acerbic ex-HUD Secretary Julian Castro and the six other top-polling contenders for Donald Trump’s job take on the absent incumbent and one another for nearly three primetime hours.

Facing an NFL game on cable and MLB over on Fox, the third debate by the Democrats for the most part lacked the anticipated fireworks betwen the front-runners but might have more than made up for it in the ratings.

In metered-market results, last night’s Democratic debate scored a 10.0 for the Disney-owned network, which also simulcasted the event on Univision. That’s a 23% rise over the Biden- and Sanders-starring Night 2 of the two-headed first debate on NBC back on June 27.

AOC Blasts ABC And Sinclair For Allowing Debate Ad Showing Her Picture In Flames

Up just over 17% over Night 1 on the Comcast-owned outlet, that second-night scrimmage proved to be the most-watched Democratic debate ever with an audience of 18.1 million peering on NBC, MSNBC and Telemundo. Of that big number, 11 million watched on the Big 4 net – a number last night’s Lone Star state debate looks poised to exceed, if the early metrics are any indication.

In fact, the ABC debate could top 15 million and maybe beat the overall Dems debate record once Univision numbers are factored in.

It’s a bit of an unfair comparison, all things considered, but the second night of debate on CNN in late July snagged 10.7 million viewers. Adding in CNN en Español, Night 2 of the second round of debates went up to 10.8 million, according to Nielsen.

Except for Big Brother (1.1/6), which had its biggest audience of the season so far with 4.6 million watching in clear counter programming, CBS and NBC went for all encores last night – as you can see in our chart below.

Deadline

Still, even in the fluid fast affiliates ABC was the clear winner with a 1.9./10 rating among adults 18-49 and 11.22 million viewers watching the debate. Right now Univision is averaging an audience of 1.02 million, but that will all likely tick upwards in the final numbers. Otherwise there was MLB (0.5/3) on Fox and The Outpost (0.2/1) and Two Sentence Horror (0.1/1) on the CW.

We’ll update with more Democratic debate ratings as we get them.

Democrats Quickly Spar Over Healthcare: “This Is Why Presidential Debates Are Becoming Unwatchable,” Says Pete Buttigieg

Source Article from https://deadline.com/2019/09/joe-biden-julian-castro-democratic-debate-ratings-rise-abc-jorge-ramos-1202733652/

A party that opened its debate promising to unite the country took less than an hour to show its true colors.

“Hell yes, we’re gonna take your AR-15,” Beto O’Rourke declared to great applause during Thursday night’s Democratic debate. While every other policy sparked robust debate and legitimate disagreement among Democrats, he got not a word of blowback for his plan to steal about 5 to 10 million guns from millions of Americans.

Amy Klobuchar offered the closest thing to disagreement when she said she would “begin with” voluntary gun buybacks. But even that implies a threatened second step that goes beyond “voluntary.” When you offer voluntary buybacks followed by mandatory buybacks, the “voluntary” part is a bit less voluntary. So the gun “buybacks” at play here are simply compensated confiscation. This is a terrifying premise.

Millions and millions of Americans own AR-15s and other rifles to which Democrats arbitrarily apply the nontechnical term “assault weapons.” AR-15s are the most popular firearm in America. Rifles of all kinds are used in a mere handful of killings each year according to FBI statistics: 300 to 400, depending on the year. But these rifles are a powerful culture war totem for Democrats, who see gun owners as toothless rural barbarians whom it is fun to poke.

“Some of the southern areas have cultures that we have to overcome,” former Democratic congressman Charlie Rangel said a few years back. President Barack Obama told his wealthy donors in 2008 that folks in Middle America “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them … “

For Democrats, gun control is just one more front in the culture war.

But O’Rourke, with the tacit approval of all the Democratic candidates, would shift this fight from culture war to literal war.

Government is, at bottom, force. It operates through the threat of force. When the federal government says it will seize weapons from armed Americans, who are guaranteed by the Constitution the right to keep and bear those weapons, the threat of force becomes more acute.

Yes, the federal government could obviously overpower any given AR-15 owner. But is this something we want to test on a door-to-door basis?

We don’t think an O’Rourke administration would actually follow through and wage war on its citizens as he implies. Still, we’re perturbed that this seems like a winning message, even with a small part of the Democratic base.

There is a palpable bloodthirst, a desire to punish political opponents, on the American Left these days. Kamala Harris has had the most success when she has been most explicit about her prosecutorial career. Pete Buttigieg, amid his cute nerdiness and calls for reconciliation, is largely running on a platform of establishing elite supremacy over the backwards Religious Right — just watch his lip snarl whenever he mentions Mike Pence.

It’s not the majority of Democrats. Harris and O’Rourke have small combined followings. Yet it’s still unnerving to see that a sizable minority of the Democratic Party is ready for civil war.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/beto-and-friends-elevate-the-culture-war-to-literal-war

“The bulb that we’re being forced to use — the light doesn’t look good,” Mr. Trump lamented during an extended aside about his dislike for energy-efficient light bulbs. “I always look orange, and so do you.”

In more than an hour, there was little that he skipped. He mentioned military spending, socialism, the North Carolina elections, Veterans Choice, opioids and the search for nonaddictive painkillers, tax cuts, China trade, the individual mandate, food stamps, African-American unemployment, Venezuela, “Crazy Bernie,” the Paris climate accords, straws, collusion and judges.

He made fun of Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrat of New York, saying he would call her “Cortez” because he did not have “time to go through the whole damn name.” He pronounced Pete Buttigieg “Boot-edge-edge” because “nobody can pronounce this guy’s name.”

In the second half of the speech, the president touched on the Green New Deal; open borders; Hillary Clinton’s aversion to stairs; his 2016 victories in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania; guns; ethanol; NAFTA; the deaths of birds because of wind turbines; paid family leave; “sanctuary cities”; his love of cowboy hats; and homelessness in San Francisco.

In his extended riff about wind turbines, Mr. Trump complained that “they make noise, they kill all the birds, the energy is intermittent.” Then, in a nod to the Democratic presidential primary debate, he suggested what might happen if a family were watching the Democrats on TV in a house supplied by energy from a wind farm.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/12/us/politics/trump-baltimore.html

Kamala Harris thinks the Constitution is a joke.

At least, that’s what you’d think from some of her answers at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate. At the ABC event in Houston, moderators pressed the California Democrat on her promises to ban assault weapons via executive action, not legislation, and whether that would be really constitutional. Fellow candidate Joe Biden jumped in to challenge Harris on the constitutionality of her plans.

She laughed.

Yes, literally: Harris’s first response was to laugh away the question, and said “Hey Joe, yes we can,” making a joke using a play on words with an old slogan from the Obama campaign.

It gets worse.

Harris could have attempted to point to a part of the Constitution that she thinks grants the president the authority to make millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Instead, she invoked “dead bodies,” “autopsies,” and “police funerals” to fearmonger and scare people about gun violence until they stop talking about the dubious legality of her plans.

It’s a classic authoritarian tactic. Use emotion and fear to dismiss legal concerns and challenges to the extent of your power. This cannot be overlooked: Harris has made it clear that when she thinks the cause is important enough, she is willing to go beyond the bounds of our constitutional order and abuse her power.

And that’s exactly what an assault weapons ban would be, especially if enacted via executive order. Even Biden admits this, saying: “You have no constitutional authority to issue that executive order.”

At the end of the day, the fact that Harris is an authoritarian isn’t exactly news. We already knew this because of her harsh record as a prosecutor in California.

ABC moderators deserve some credit for calling her out on her authoritarian tendencies on the debate stage. Let’s just hope Harris’s supporters realize what they’d be getting us into.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/assault-weapons-ban-via-executive-order-kamala-harris-just-reminded-us-shes-a-wannabe-authoritarian-at-democratic-debate

PG&E says it will pay $11 billion to resolve insurance companies’ claims from the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire. Here, destroyed homes are seen in Paradise, Calif., where the Camp Fire raged last November.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

PG&E says it will pay $11 billion to resolve insurance companies’ claims from the 2017 Northern California wildfires and the 2018 Camp Fire. Here, destroyed homes are seen in Paradise, Calif., where the Camp Fire raged last November.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Utility giant PG&E has agreed to a second large settlement over devastating Northern California wildfires, saying it will pay $11 billion to resolve most insurance claims from the wine country fires in 2017 and massive Camp Fire in 2018.

“These claims are based on payments made by insurance companies to individuals and businesses with insurance coverage for wildfire damages” in those catastrophic blazes, PG&E said in announcing the deal.

The utility says the tentative deal with a group of insurers covers about 85% of claims from those fires. While the $11 billion sum is large, it’s far smaller than the roughly $20 billion that the insurance companies wanted, after paying out billions to California wildfire victims.

The settlement will require the approval of a bankruptcy court, as PG&E filed for bankruptcy in January and recently entered into a Chapter 11 reorganization plan.

In a statement about the outcome, the insurance companies — which banded together as the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group — said that while their initial claim wasn’t fulfilled, “we hope that this compromise will pave the way for a plan of reorganization that allows PG&E to fairly compensate all victims and emerge from Chapter 11 by the June 2020 legislative deadline.”

PG&E CEO and President Bill Johnson, who joined the company in April, says the settlement is “another step in doing what’s right for the communities, businesses, and individuals” that suffered damages from the fires.

PG&E’s transmission lines were immediately suspected of playing a role in the Camp Fire that destroyed the town of Paradise — and in May, state fire investigators confirmed that the utility’s electrical lines were to blame.

In June, PG&E announced it would pay $1 billion to 18 local governments and agencies affected by three large wildfires: the 2015 Butte Fire, the 2017 North Bay Fires and the Camp Fire. Butte County and Paradise will receive more than $500 million of that amount.

PG&E still faces a third large group of legal claims from individual plaintiffs, whose cases are pending in federal and state courts.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/09/13/760479525/pg-e-to-pay-11-billion-insurance-settlement-over-wildfires-in-paradise-and-elsew

Sen. Kamala Harris ridiculed President Trump by saying that, deep down, he is a very small person.

During a discussion of the president’s trade policies and stance on North Korea, Harris attempted to analyze Trump’s psyche. “He reminds me of that guy on The Wizard of Oz,” the California senator said, referring to the Wizard of Oz himself. “You know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude?”

Harris guffawed as debate moderator George Stephanopoulos, who stands at 5-foot-5 tall, said, “I’m not even gonna take the bait, senator.”

This was not the first time Harris has implied that Trump may have some insecurities about his masculinity. In an August interview with CNN’s Kyung Lah, Harris scoffed at the president for mentioning the crowd size of a rally he held while visiting an El Paso hospital in the wake of a mass shooting. “His preoccupation with size, I’ll leave that for someone else to analyze,” she said. “But I will say that this president has used the platform that is given to the office of president of the United States in a way that has been about trying to divide our country.”

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/harris-hits-trump-manhood-when-you-pull-back-the-curtain-its-a-really-small-dude

In an online video, protesters in riot gear sing and play instruments. They have violins tucked under chins covered with masks, drumsticks swinging in black-gloved hands. And together, in Cantonese, they belt out the soundtrack to the Hong Kong resistance: a new, if unofficial, national anthem.

“Glory to Hong Kong” (Or “Glory be to thee, Hong Kong”) has become the rallying cry of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong, one that’s being sung in unison by crowds in malls and even at a soccer game this week. It’s the latest act of opposition by demonstrators, who for months have been resisting creeping Chinese authority in the autonomous territory, and it may be one of the greatest signs yet of just how cohesive the resistance really is.

An anonymous user with the name “Thomas dgx yhl” posted the song and lyrics at the end of August to LIHKG, an online forum that’s a bit like Reddit and a popular way for protesters to communicate. He’s believed to be the composer and, according to the New York Times, he asked other users on the forum to record themselves singing the tune:

He collected audio versions via Google Drive, and assembled them together to make it sound as though a choir were singing. He adjusted the lyrics based on suggestions in the forum.

The anthem runs just a couple of minutes long. “We pledge: no more tears on our land,” it begins. “In wrath, doubts dispell’d we make our stand. Arise! Ye who would not be slaves again: for Hong Kong, may freedom reign!”

The song has spread since then, including that popular video of a riot-gear-clad chorus and orchestra playing the song, interspersed with scenes from the months of Hong Kong protests. (Here’s the version with English subtitles.)

The anthem may have spread online, but demonstrators have blasted the resistance theme song out in public. At a World Cup qualifying soccer game on Tuesday in Hong Kong, for example, crowds booed the Chinese national anthem and sang “Glory to Hong Kong” instead.

Crowds have also gathered in the hundreds and thousands this week to sing all over the city. In some cases it’s led to conflict: At Hong Kong’s busy commercial center known as the International Financial Center, or IFC, pro-Beijing counterprotesters descended on the mall, waving Chinese flags and singing the Chinese national anthem. That led to a literal sing-off, with workers and protesters drowning out the pro-China activists.

The anthem protests continued Thursday night, with thousands gathered in the IFC and other areas of Hong Kong, singing “Glory to Hong Kong” over and over.

“The song spells out our heartfelt feelings,” a 33-year-old man who joined in the singing this week told the Guardian. “It is a song that stands for our fight.”

“Glory to Hong Kong” is another rejection of China’s influence

The lyrics are very national anthem-y — “For Hong Kong may freedom reign!” goes one line— but the song also speaks to the untenable situation the territory finds itself in.

After taking over Hong Kong in a war in the 1800s, Britain returned it to China in 1997 with an important stipulation: The city would partly govern itself for 50 years before fully falling under Beijing’s control. So until 2047, the expectation was that the city and the mainland would operate under the principle known as “one country, two systems.”

But in recent years, Beijing has persistently tried to exert its influence over Hong Kong and control it more tightly. The controversial extradition bill that initially sparked these protests in June became an example of this.

The bill would have allowed for case-by-case extraditions to countries that lack formal extradition treaties with Hong Kong, most notably mainland China. Critics worried that Beijing would take advantage of this law to arbitrarily detain Hong Kong’s citizens, such as those who openly dissent against the Chinese government or advocate for human rights.

But as protests intensified — and as the government and police cracked down on the movement — the resistance morphed into something much larger: a fight to preserve democracy in Hong Kong. Just last week, in fact, Hong Kong’s Beijing-backed government formally withdrew the extradition law after months of refusing to do so. At that point, many protesters simply said: “too little, too late.”

“Glory to Hong Kong,” then, is an expression of demonstrators’ fight to preserve democracy and its unique status within China for as long as they possibly can. The song recognizes the tremendous challenge they face. The odds that protesters can fend off China forever or win some of their demands — such as universal suffrage — are extraordinarily low. “Though deep is the dread that lies ahead,” one line reads, “Yet still, on our faith, on we tread.”

The Chinese government largely ignored the Hong Kong protests when they first began in June. But its leadership has grown increasingly impatient with the continued unrest, using harsher rhetoric against demonstrators and waging a disinformation campaign via tightly controlled, state-run media to discredit the movement.

The country is also fast-approaching a hugely important date: the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China on October 1. President Xi Jinping does not want the major celebration marred by scenes of protests against his government. The increasingly tense and sometimes violent demonstrations were already testing China’s resolve.

Crowds of Hong Kong’s citizens peacefully singing their own anthem is one of the more powerful acts of defiance against Beijing. Which means China is likely to continue to push back — and for the chorus of dissent to grow even louder.

Source Article from https://www.vox.com/2019/9/12/20862441/hong-kong-protesters-national-anthem-china

0 minutes: Debate night in America starts with cliches, a rapid-fire ABC News montage of prerecorded voices from 10 Democratic candidates. “I will be president for every American,” says former vice president Joe Biden. “This is our moment,” asserts Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “We will make the most of this moment,” declares former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke. It goes on, indistinguishable from what candidates always say at times like this.

1 minute: The stage on the campus of Texas Southern University in Houston is revealed to be massive, electronic and blue, like a deep-sea Times Square. The people are also blue. Blue ties. Blue suits. Blue shirts. Democrats have been sad for the past three years, so this feels appropriate. Warren, center stage, stands out in a magenta jacket. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, keeping close to her moderate brand, has taken a small risk with a dark turquoise coat.

2 minutes: ABC’s four debate hosts introduce themselves by making clear that this is not CNN. There will be no 15-second gut punches or rejoinders like in the July debates. Candidates get 75 seconds to answer, 45 seconds to respond.

3 minutes: To prove the point, everyone gets extended time for an opening statement. Former housing secretary Julián Castro goes first, declaring that he can excite a “young, diverse coalition” like John F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did. Klobuchar follows by saying she is neither loud nor made for TV. “We have a guy there that is literally running our country like a game show,” she says of President Trump. “I think we need something different.”

6 minutes: O’Rourke says the shooter who murdered 22 last month in his hometown of El Paso was “inspired to kill by our president.” Then he bemoans the political debate that followed: “The bitterness, the pettiness, the smallness of the moment, the incentives to attack one another and try to make differences without distinctions, mountains out of mole hills — we have to be bigger,” he says. This is the clearest rationale for his campaign that he has so far offered in a debate.

7 minutes: New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker follows with a bit of his stump speech, strung together with aphorisms. “Without vision, the people will perish,” he says. “At our best, we unify.” He is followed by businessman Andrew Yang, who immediately takes Klobuchar up on her game-show challenge. “I’m going to do something unprecedented tonight,” he says, like Howie Mandel about to open a briefcase. “My campaign will now give a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month for an entire year to 10 American families, someone watching this at home right now.” It’s a gimmick designed to promote the core idea of Yang’s candidacy — his plan for the government to pay Americans a universal basic income.

10 minutes: South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg is stunned to momentary silence. He has no $12,000 voter prizes to offer. “It’s original, I’ll give you that,” he says, before launching a lyrical opening statement that is basically typical presidential campaign words, arranged better. “Imagine what would be possible right now with ideas that are bold enough to meet the challenges of our time, but big enough, as well, that they could unify the American people,” he says.

11 minutes: California Sen. Kamala D. Harris has planned a novel rhetorical device. She looks in the camera and tells Trump she knows he is watching. He is not, in fact, watching. At this moment, he is addressing Republican lawmakers in Baltimore. But that is beside the point. The former prosecutor wants to show she can, in the words of her advisers, “prosecute the case.” “Here’s what you don’t get,” she tells the man who can’t hear her. “What you don’t get is that the American people are so much better than this.”

13 minutes: Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’s voice sounds like gravel. When he speaks louder, it builds into a growl, then a roar. “We have got to recognize that this country is moving into an oligarchic form of society where a handful of billionaires control the economic and political life of this country,” he says. Sanders has almost no pretense. What you see — the wily hair, the red face, the ideological certainty — is exactly who he is.

14 minutes: The opening statements round out with Warren, the former Harvard professor, recounting her blue-collar roots, from an Oklahoma childhood to the part-time waitress job to single motherhood. “I know what’s broken. I know how to fix it,” she says. Biden uses his time to rebut all the claims by his rivals that he lacks bold ideas or a sense of urgency. “It’s no longer time to postpone,” he says. “We should get moving.”

17 minutes: The first question is about health care. Biden gets asked if Sanders and Warren are going too far with their plan to effectively replace private health insurance and the Obamacare exchanges with a government-run Medicare-for-all. He answers by attacking Warren, who has said she is with Sanders on this issue. “I know that the senator says she’s for Bernie,” he says. “Well, I’m for Barack.” Then he points out that neither Warren nor Sanders have explained how they will pay for their plans. He has come to rumble.

18 minutes: Warren is smiling. She defuses the Obama comparison by praising the former president’s health reforms and decides not to bite back. Instead she says under Medicare-for-all, the rich will pay more and the middle class will pay less.

19 minutes: ABC’s George Stephanopoulos decides to repeat a question that Warren has spent more than six months refusing to answer directly, even though experts have said the answer is yes. Will her health plan raise taxes on the middle class? She says again that in terms of overall costs, the wealthy will pay more and the middle class will pay less.

22 minutes: Biden, seeming gleeful in his new role on offense, is happy to say what Warren will not. “This is about candor, honesty, big ideas,” he says. “The middle-class person, someone making 60 grand with three kids, they’re going to end up paying $5,000 more.”

23 minutes: So it goes, back and forth. Sanders and Warren won’t admit to the new taxes, focusing instead on the profits taken by private insurers and the possibility of greater cost savings by avoiding them. Sanders points out that U.S. health costs are twice what Canadians pay. “This is America,” Biden snaps back. “Yes, but Americans don’t want to pay twice as much as other countries,” says Sanders.

25 minutes: Klobuchar, Buttigieg and Harris all chime in with different approaches to backing up Biden’s view that private insurance should remain an option. “While Bernie wrote the bill, I read the bill,” Klobuchar says. “I trust you to choose what makes the most sense for you. Not my way or the highway,” says Buttigieg. The name he has for his proposal — “Medicare-for-all who want it — just happens to be two syllables short of iambic pentameter. Harris says her plan is “about offering people choice, not taking that from them.”

31 minutes: Biden is still not done. He asks for 15 seconds to respond, forgetting that this is not CNN. He gets it, and attacks Sanders for the benefits some union workers would lose under Medicare-for-all. Sanders responds by asking for 1 minute, even though he should only get 45 seconds. He says people are going bankrupt in America just for getting sick with cancer. Biden retorts by saying that those with serious illness that brings them into poverty would be “automatically enrolled” in his public-option plan.

33 minutes: Then Castro takes it all to another level. His plan would basically mimic Sanders’s Medicare-for-all but still allow people to opt out and remain in private insurance. “The differences between what I support and what you support, Vice President Biden, is that you require them to opt in, and I would not require them to opt in,” he says.

35 minutes: Biden objects to this, since his plan does have an automatic enrollment for those near the poverty line who can’t afford private insurance. Minutes earlier, he had mentioned this, while also saying someone who loses a job could buy into the plan. “You are automatically enrolled,” he said, referring to the poorer voter.

36 minutes: Castro sees a chance to make his generational case, but to do it he conflates the two circumstances and appears to go after Biden’s age. “I can’t believe that you said two minutes ago that they had to buy in and now you’re saying they don’t have to buy in,” Castro says, without allowing Biden a chance to respond. “You’re forgetting that.” Biden seems to get what’s going on and mimes exasperation, then a smile.

37 minutes: “I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you’re not,” says Castro, sounding a bit like he has left the debate stage and joined the schoolyard. Biden responds immediately: “That’ll be a surprise to him.”

38 minutes: “This reminds everybody of what they cannot stand about Washington, scoring points against each other,” Buttigieg says accurately. Castro responds by showing he can lecture younger rivals as well. “Yeah, that’s called the Democratic primary election, Pete,” Castro says.

39 minutes: Yang, the son of Taiwanese immigrants, breaks the tension by making one of his Asian jokes. “Now, I am Asian, so I know a lot of doctors,” he says.

40 minutes: The health-care portion of the night ends, with a quick pivot to race. The candidates are each asked to prove their ability to handle racial division and injustice. O’Rourke gets applause for mentioning “August 20, 1619, when the first kidnapped African was brought to this country against his will and in bondage.” Castro lists off the names of black people who have been killed by police in recent years. Booker promises to make a new White House office to combat white supremacy. Buttigieg speaks about “transcending the framework” that “pits a single black mother of three against a displaced autoworker.”

46 minutes: Harris gets a tough question about why she didn’t accomplish more as a prosecutor in reforming the criminal justice system. She is ready for the question, rattles off her accomplishments, and then admits that there was much more to do when she became a U.S. senator. “As president of the United States, knowing the system from the inside, I will have the ability to be an effective leader and get this job complete,” she says.

49 minutes: Klobuchar, who has been criticized along similar lines for her record as a prosecutor, gets the same question and answers it much the same way.

51 minutes: Biden gets the criminal justice reform question and appears to stumble. “Nobody should be in jail for a nonviolent crime,” he says. He probably means for nonviolent drug offenses, or something like that. Or he is making big news about a new criminal justice reform idea embraced by moderates in the Democratic Party.

55 minutes: The candidates now debate gun policy. Several candidates praise O’Rourke for his emotional and forceful response to the El Paso shooting, but they do not agree with him on imposing mandatory gun buyback for assault weapons.

60 minutes: O’Rourke is grateful for the praise from the other candidates. And unapologetic about his new position on gun confiscation. “So many other people were shot by that AR-15 in Odessa and Midland, there weren’t enough ambulances to get to them in time,” he says. “. . . Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

70 minutes: Univision’s Jorge Ramos tries repeatedly to get Biden to back away from the deportation policy under the Obama presidency. Like Warren and Sanders, who would not admit to new taxes, Biden refuses to bite. “The president did the best thing that was able to be done at the time,” he says.

72 minutes: Castro once again attacks Biden. Just as before, Castro’s eagerness seems to work against him. “He wants to take credit for Obama’s work, but not have to answer to any questions,” Castro says. Then when the moderator asks Biden to respond, Castro keeps talking.

73 minutes: “I stand with Barack Obama all eight years, good, bad and indifferent,” says Biden, once he finally gets a chance to speak.

74 minutes: Warren, Buttigieg, Yang and O’Rourke all get more immigration questions, and all of them denounce Trump and promise to do better for the country.

82 minutes: The first commercial break. Running for president, after all, is a marathon, not a sprint.

88 minutes: And we’re back. The topic now is Trump’s tariffs. The candidates are all hazy, promising to have similar aims of getting tough on China with less-harmful methods. But none of them say they would abandon tariffs completely. Some, like Castro, stick to abstract phrases like “ratchet down the trade war.” Others, like Warren, seem eager for a further escalation in defense of the American worker. “You want to come sell goods to American consumers? Then you got to raise your standards,” she says. “We can use trade to help build a stronger economy.”

96 minutes: Harris uses the trade question to uncork a manliness shot on Trump, returning to her prosecute the case theme. “Donald Trump in office on trade policy, you know, he reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ you know, when you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude,” she says. Then she laughs at her own joke.

97 minutes: Stephanopoulos, who is not a very big dude, doesn’t know what to do with this. “I’m not even going to take the bait, Senator Harris,” he says. “Oh, George, it wasn’t about you,” says Harris. That got awkward.

98 minutes: Sanders points out that Biden voted for NAFTA and other trade deals, which he opposed. Biden responds by hugging Warren’s position. “At the table has to be labor and at the table have to be environmentalists,” he says.

102 minutes: Time to talk about Afghan withdrawal. The candidate positions range from “pull out quickly” to “pull out while leaving a clear counterterrorism force to make sure al-Qaeda or other international terror groups do not start using the country as a staging base again.” But it is not entirely clear who would leave what size force or for how long. Warren seems more dovish than Biden.

111 minutes: The conversation ends when Sanders takes a chance to point out he opposed the Iraq invasion and Biden supported it. “You’re right,” Biden says, appearing to admit his mistake. This moment is quickly swept away when Yang gets a question about his preparations to be commander in chief, and he clearly struggles. “I’ve signed a pledge to end the forever wars,” he says in a rambling answer that includes a mention of “our own country of Puerto Rico.”

114 minutes: Sanders once again refuses to call Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro “a dictator,” despite a direct question. “A vicious tyrant,” Sanders says instead.

117 minutes: Booker, a vegan, is asked if others should follow his diet. “No,” Booker says. Then he translates his answers into Spanish. “No.”

118 minutes: This begins the climate-change portion of the evening. There is no real disagreement. Rather, the candidates compete to show concern. Then, Yang proposes that the government give everyone in America 100 “Democracy dollars,” which they can spend on political causes to reduce the relative influence of corporate donations. This is in addition to $12,000 in sweepstakes-like money he announced earlier in the night for 10 families.

126 minutes: Education is the topic. The candidates agree that Trump is bad. Public schools are good, and public-school teachers are better. The latter deserve a raise.

134 minutes: Biden is asked a question about his old views on school segregation, and he deftly avoids the topic, focusing instead on Maduro, public schools and other things parents can do to help their children learn. “Make sure you have the record player on at night,” he says. “Make sure that kids hear words.”

140 minutes: A final commercial break. Almost there. Debates are often the opposite of a good sporting event in the final quarter. You have to force yourself to keep watching.

146 minutes: We’re back with a softball question that doubles as an opportunity for closing statements. All the candidates are asked to speak about their own resilience. After a brief interruption from protesters shouting for unclear reasons, Biden speaks eloquently about the family tragedy he has endured, including the death of his daughter, first wife and adult son. “You know, Kierkegaard said, ‘Faith sees best in the dark,’ ” he says.

149 minutes: Warren returns to her stump speech. Sanders talks about his early campaign losses. Harris talks about the challenge of being the “first black woman” in many jobs. Booker talks about his early political races in Newark. Klobuchar talks about her alcoholic father and the illness of her daughter after birth. Buttigieg talks about coming out as gay. Yang talks about his business struggles. O’Rourke talks about his hometown. Castro talks about his immigrant family, and his decision to quit his law firm job because of a political conflict.

165 minutes: “The debate is over,” says Stephanopoulos. See you next month, with even more qualified candidates possibly spread over two nights. Remember, it’s a marathon. Sprints would be too easy.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/what-you-missed-while-not-watching-last-nights-democratic-debate/2019/09/13/d8242de0-d5e8-11e9-9343-40db57cf6abd_story.html

At the Democratic primary debate on Thursday night, Bernie Sanders asserted that the pharmaceutical industry is defined by “greed, corruption, and price-fixing.”

Oh, really?

Don’t get me wrong, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry should face export price floors so that Europeans and others around the world don’t “free ride” off Americans. But is Bernie right? Is he really telling the truth when he says that the medical innovation industry, pharmaceutical companies included, are basically evil?

I suggest that he is not.

Bernie Sanders proposes a socialist “Medicare for all” system that would at least provide healthcare access to everyone. But let me ask you something: Do you like maggots?

I ask that question because maggots and antibiotics can achieve the same object, cleaning a wound, only people prefer antibiotics and they work better.

The point may seem silly, but it speaks to the critical importance of innovation. American pharmaceutical companies are responsible for the vast majority of new drugs because they have a profit motive driving them to engage in high-risk research.

That point also matters is that America’s healthcare system, though grossly inefficient and thus overpriced, is the best in the world. Cancer patients go out of their way to come here if they have money, and part of the issue is that the connection between revenue and provision of care isn’t incidental.

Bernie’s plan would transfer the current system’s robust system of patient choices away from many people into the hands of a few. The choices would all fall to bureaucrats. And when the revenue supply available to the bureaucrats starts declining, their choices will inevitably become less about the patients and more about limiting care.

That’s why the Soviet Union had a lot of apartment blocks and nuclear power plants, but not very good ones. In the end, socialist systems alter the calculation of costs and people away from what’s good for people. Thus, we must ask ourselves a question: Do we wish for a healthcare system in which 80% of the population have the best healthcare in the world, and the other 20% at least have avenues to good care? Or do we wish for bureaucratic domination and an end to medical innovation?

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/bernie-sanders-the-candidate-of-soviet-medicine

Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate in Houston confirmed what we already knew: Beto O’Rourke needs to sit down, face reality, and drop out.

From the beginning of his presidential campaign, O’Rourke has come across as smug rather than substantive. A mediocre man and example of “white privilege” if there ever was one, the sheer audacity of his campaign launch was astounding: Imagine losing a Senate race, but thinking you somehow then deserve to become president. And in the now-famous Vanity Fair cover story in light of his campaign launch, O’Rourke said he “was born to be in it.”

Too bad he wasn’t born with any qualifications or talent. O’Rourke’s inadequacies have never been more clear than after the most recent ABC debate.

Within 10 seconds of opening his mouth for the first time, O’Rourke invoked the recent El Paso, Texas, mass shooting to exploit the tragedy to stump on gun control and reinvigorate his campaign, blaming it on President Trump, to boot. That’s right: His first order of business was to attempt to cash in on a massacre to score political points. Party affiliation aside, all sensible Americans know that such a shameless man ought not be president.

Now add in O’Rourke’s reiterated disdain for gun owners and Second Amendment rights. On the debate stage, he said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” and continued to push his fake narrative of a “mandatory gun buyback,” aka forcible gun seizure.

When an ABC moderator asked O’Rourke, “Why are you the most qualified candidate to address the [political] divide?” he immediately pivoted back to the El Paso shooting and said that President Trump “poses a mortal threat to people of color all across this country.”

Yes, that’s right: O’Rourke’s answering to healing the divide is that Trump, and by implication, his supporters, are racist, evil, and a deadly threat to minorities. Then he basically called America a racist country, saying that the true start of the country was August 20, 1619, when the first slave was brought here. O’Rourke promised to sign a reparations bill to address this, because there’s nothing less divisive than “reparations” supported by less than a third of the country.

We get it. As a straight white dude in the Democratic Party of 2019, a certain amount of pandering is required. O’Rourke’s hands are basically tied. But this guy is obviously not capable of being a unifying president in any way, shape, or form, and it’s time for him to give it a rest.

Remember: In the lead-up to the debate, O’Rourke was averaging less than 3% in the polls. Voters just aren’t drawn to a mediocre white dude who thinks standing on a table is a personality, especially when it’s paired with radical policy, divisive rhetoric, and obnoxious grandstanding.

It doesn’t look like any of this is getting better. O’Rourke once again resorted to speaking his broken Spanish on the debate stage in a gross attempt to pander to Hispanic voters who he offensively assumes can’t understand English.

It’s never been more clear than after tonight: This man should never become president. Let’s just hope O’Rourke finally puts this joke to bed and stops subjecting us all to his midlife crisis of a campaign.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/abcs-houston-democratic-presidential-debate-showed-beto-orourke-should-face-reality-and-drop-out

Kamala Harris thinks the Constitution is a joke.

At least, that’s what you’d think from some of her answers at Thursday night’s Democratic presidential debate. At the ABC event in Houston, moderators pressed the California Democrat on her promises to ban assault weapons via executive action, not legislation, and whether that would be really constitutional. Fellow candidate Joe Biden jumped in to challenge Harris on the constitutionality of her plans.

She laughed.

Yes, literally: Harris’s first response was to laugh away the question, and said “Hey Joe, yes we can,” making a joke using a play on words with an old slogan from the Obama campaign.

It gets worse.

Harris could have attempted to point to a part of the Constitution that she thinks grants the president the authority to make millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals with the stroke of a pen. Instead, she invoked “dead bodies,” “autopsies,” and “police funerals” to fearmonger and scare people about gun violence until they stop talking about the dubious legality of her plans.

It’s a classic authoritarian tactic. Use emotion and fear to dismiss legal concerns and challenges to the extent of your power. This cannot be overlooked: Harris has made it clear that when she thinks the cause is important enough, she is willing to go beyond the bounds of our constitutional order and abuse her power.

And that’s exactly what an assault weapons ban would be, especially if enacted via executive order. Even Biden admits this, saying: “You have no constitutional authority to issue that executive order.”

At the end of the day, the fact that Harris is an authoritarian isn’t exactly news. We already knew this because of her harsh record as a prosecutor in California.

ABC moderators deserve some credit for calling her out on her authoritarian tendencies on the debate stage. Let’s just hope Harris’s supporters realize what they’d be getting us into.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/assault-weapons-ban-via-executive-order-kamala-harris-just-reminded-us-shes-a-wannabe-authoritarian-at-democratic-debate

Media captionBercow: “We… cannot be conducting a debate as to whether adherence to the law is required.”

John Bercow has vowed “creativity” in Parliament if Boris Johnson ignores a law designed to stop a no-deal Brexit.

The Commons Speaker also said in a speech that the only possible Brexit was one backed by MPs.

A new law, passed before the suspension of Parliament, forces the PM to seek a delay until 31 January 2020, unless a deal or no-deal exit is approved by MPs by 19 October.

The PM has said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than ask for a delay.

Responding to Mr Bercow’s comments, Tory Brexiter MP Sir Bernard Jenkin said the role of the Speaker had become “irretrievably politicised and radicalised”.

Meanwhile, Downing Street has announced Mr Johnson will travel to Luxembourg on Monday to hold talks with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, and the country’s prime minister Xavier Bettel.

Delivering a lecture in London, Mr Bercow said: “Not obeying the law must surely be a non-starter. Period.”

He said it would be a “terrible example to set to the rest of society”.

“The only form of Brexit which we will have, whenever that might be, will be a Brexit that the House of Commons has explicitly endorsed,” he said.

“Surely, in 2019, in modern Britain, in a parliamentary democracy, we – parliamentarians, legislators – cannot in all conscience be conducting a debate as to whether adherence to the law is or isn’t required.”

He called it “astonishing” that “anyone has even entertained the notion”.

If the government comes close to disobeying the law, Mr Bercow said that Parliament “would want to cut off such a possibility and do so forcefully”.

“If that demands additional procedural creativity in order to come to pass, it is a racing certainty that this will happen, and that neither the limitations of the existing rule book nor the ticking of the clock will stop it doing so,” he added.

Image copyright
PA Media

Image caption

Boris Johnson has said he would rather ‘die in a ditch’ than seek a further Brexit delay

The new law could force a Brexit delay beyond the current 31 October deadline by requiring the prime minister to request an extension to the UK’s EU membership.

This would be done by making him write to EU leaders to prolong talks under Article 50 – the part of the EU’s Lisbon Treaty which sets out what happens when a country decides that it wants to leave the EU.

The law forcing the PM to seek a delay unless MPs vote for a deal or no deal received royal assent on Monday, the final day that MPs sat in this session.

Parliament was suspended – or prorogued – in the early hours of Tuesday and is not scheduled to return until 14 October.

Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has said the government would abide by the law, but would “test to the limit” what it requires of ministers.

Mr Bercow said: “One should no more refuse to request an extension of Article 50 because of what one might regard as the noble end of departing from the EU as soon as possible, than one could possibly excuse robbing a bank on the basis that the cash stolen would be donated to a charitable cause immediately afterwards.”

Sir Bernard, who chairs the constitutional affairs select committee in Parliament, said the Commons should “adapt itself” to a new role for the Speaker.

He accused Mr Bercow of launching a “personal attack” on the prime minister, insisting this would have been “unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago”.

The current position allows the occupant “unregulated and untrammelled power”, he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“It’s a kind of majoritarian dictatorship position,” he added.

Another Leave-voting Conservative MP, Michael Fabricant, said Mr Bercow had brought the office of Speaker into disrepute:

Yellowhammer warnings

On Thursday, Mr Johnson insisted the UK “will be ready” to leave the EU by the current deadline without an agreement “if we have to”.

In response to the publication of the government’s Yellowhammer document, an assessment of a reasonable worst-case scenario in the event of a no-deal Brexit, Mr Johnson reiterated it was “the worst-case scenario”.

“In reality we will certainly be ready for a no-deal Brexit if we have to do it and I stress again that’s not where we intend to end up,” Mr Johnson said.

Mr Bercow has announced he will stand down as Commons Speaker and MP at the next election or on 31 October, whichever comes first.

The House of Commons has confirmed an election to choose his successor will take place on Monday 4 November.

Media captionJohn Bercow’s most memorable moments as Speaker of the House

‘No reason to be optimistic’

The Speaker’s warning came as the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator told political leaders in the European Parliament on Thursday that he could not say whether contacts with the UK government would result in a deal by mid-October.

Michel Barnier, in a speech to MEPs, suggested that negotiating a new withdrawal agreement remained uncertain despite discussions between Mr Johnson’s team and the EU.

“I cannot tell you objectively whether contacts with the government of Mr Johnson will be able to reach an agreement by mid-October,” he said.

“While we have previously reached an agreement, as far as we can speak, we have no reason to be optimistic.”

He added: “We will see in the coming weeks if the British are able to make concrete proposals in writing that are legally operational.”

Please upgrade your browser

Your guide to Brexit jargon

Use the list below or select a button

Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-49683797

Andrew Yang has drawn cheers, jeers, chuckles, and even legal scrutiny for his odd plan to give 10 American families $1,000 a month for the next year, paid out of his campaign coffers.

This is actually a great plan. And here’s why:

1. It’s a field test of a policy proposal
Nothing is less scientific in America than public policy. Looking for evidence is unheard of, much less conducting experiments. Yang here is running a pilot program for his central policy proposal: A Universal Basic Income that provides $1,000 to every family every month.

Of course it’s not a full test, as there will be macroeconomic effects of giving $120,000 to more than a hundred million families that won’t appear when you give that to 10 families. But if we see how those people spend their money, how their lives are changed, it will tell us something about this policy.

A willingness to field-test your proposal during the campaign? That’s pretty bold.

2. It may be illegal, and it will draw the ire of the feds
Most Democrats want to regulate political spending more and more. Everything is becoming illegal, and Democrats want to make more things illegal. If Yang gives people money, to help them out, and to test his idea, and then the Federal Election Commission brings down the hammer, Yang will be the enemy of the state and the hero of the people.

3. It’s much better than the other things campaigns spend money on
When campaigns spend money, as Yang hinted, it enriches Beltway consultants and television stations. Giving money to a campaign, then, is giving money to some former congressional staffer now living in a mansion in McLean funded by all sorts of campaigns. Now, Yang makes it clear that if you give money to him, you’re funding some American family.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/andrew-yangs-cash-giveaway-is-a-great-plan-for-these-three-reasons

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/us/bahamas-dorian-evacuees/index.html

Chat with us in Facebook Messenger. Find out what’s happening in the world as it unfolds.

Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/13/politics/september-democratic-debate-highlights/index.html

Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate in Houston confirmed what we already knew: Beto O’Rourke needs to sit down, face reality, and drop out.

From the beginning of his presidential campaign, O’Rourke has come across as smug rather than substantive. A mediocre man and example of “white privilege” if there ever was one, the sheer audacity of his campaign launch was astounding: Imagine losing a Senate race, but thinking you somehow then deserve to become president. And in the now-famous Vanity Fair cover story in light of his campaign launch, O’Rourke said he “was born to be in it.”

Too bad he wasn’t born with any qualifications or talent. O’Rourke’s inadequacies have never been more clear than after the most recent ABC debate.

Within 10 seconds of opening his mouth for the first time, O’Rourke invoked the recent El Paso, Texas, mass shooting to exploit the tragedy to stump on gun control and reinvigorate his campaign, blaming it on President Trump, to boot. That’s right: His first order of business was to attempt to cash in on a massacre to score political points. Party affiliation aside, all sensible Americans know that such a shameless man ought not be president.

Now add in O’Rourke’s reiterated disdain for gun owners and Second Amendment rights. On the debate stage, he said, “Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” and continued to push his fake narrative of a “mandatory gun buyback,” aka forcible gun seizure.

When an ABC moderator asked O’Rourke, “Why are you the most qualified candidate to address the [political] divide?” he immediately pivoted back to the El Paso shooting and said that President Trump “poses a mortal threat to people of color all across this country.”

Yes, that’s right: O’Rourke’s answering to healing the divide is that Trump, and by implication, his supporters, are racist, evil, and a deadly threat to minorities. Then he basically called America a racist country, saying that the true start of the country was August 20, 1619, when the first slave was brought here. O’Rourke promised to sign a reparations bill to address this, because there’s nothing less divisive than “reparations” supported by less than a third of the country.

We get it. As a straight white dude in the Democratic Party of 2019, a certain amount of pandering is required. O’Rourke’s hands are basically tied. But this guy is obviously not capable of being a unifying president in any way, shape, or form, and it’s time for him to give it a rest.

Remember: In the lead-up to the debate, O’Rourke was averaging less than 3% in the polls. Voters just aren’t drawn to a mediocre white dude who thinks standing on a table is a personality, especially when it’s paired with radical policy, divisive rhetoric, and obnoxious grandstanding.

It doesn’t look like any of this is getting better. O’Rourke once again resorted to speaking his broken Spanish on the debate stage in a gross attempt to pander to Hispanic voters who he offensively assumes can’t understand English.

It’s never been more clear than after tonight: This man should never become president. Let’s just hope O’Rourke finally puts this joke to bed and stops subjecting us all to his midlife crisis of a campaign.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/abcs-houston-democratic-presidential-debate-showed-beto-orourke-should-face-reality-and-drop-out

The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that it has finalized a repeal of the Obama-era clean water rule that spells out protections for large and small bodies of water. The EPA will create a new rule to replace the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) regulation, which was established in 2015. The Trump administration rule is expected to cover fewer waterways than the current one and weaken existing protections. 

Soon after he was inaugurated, President Trump signed an executive order directing the EPA and the Army to “review and rescind or revise” the regulation. The order said that it’s in the nation’s interest to keep waterways free of pollution, while still promoting economic growth and cutting regulatory uncertainty.

Many businesses have opposed the WOTUS rule, arguing that it was overly broad. The National Federation of Independent Business sued the Obama administration over the rule, complaining that it gave the federal government “jurisdiction over seasonal streams, ponds, ditches, and even depressions fields that are dry through most of the year.” The federation also took issue with the fact that business owners could be fined $50,000 per day for violating the rule.

In December 2018, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler unveiled the Trump administration’s revision of the rule, touting it as one that would provide states and landowners with greater clarity and “certainty” about protected bodies of water.

At a press conference on Thursday, Wheeler noted to reporters that many states already have their own protections against their waters, but that the administration aims to provide “a strong network of coverage for our nation” and “restore the water we drink and the land we use and that means the property owners will spend less time and money fighting.”

The 2018 release said that the following bodies of water would be federally regulated:

  • Traditional navigable waters and tributaries to those waters;
  • “Certain” ditches;
  • “Certain” lakes and ponds;
  • Impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and
  • Wetlands adjacent to jurisdictional waters. 

The EPA rule also lays out what are not “waters of the United States,” including the following: 

  • Features that only contain water during or in response to rainfall; 
  • Groundwater;
  • “Many” ditches, including most roadside or farm ditches;
  • Prior converted cropland;
  • Stormwater control features; and
  • And waste treatment systems.

Environmentalists fear the new rule will lead to more pollution, especially in smaller bodies of water that will no longer have protected status. 

Mr. Trump often complains that the WOTUS rule is too onerous for land owners and companies. His administration argues that the White House is fulfilling its environmental goals “in a manner that also encourages economic growth.” In addition to the administration’s action, lawmakers have introduced their own legislation as a companion piece to the president’s repeal. Republican Senators Mike Braun and Joni Ernest introduced legislation that would put a new definition in statute to provide permanent certainty so that future administrations can’t undo Mr. Trump’s rollback.  

Braun told CBS News in a statement that the bill puts a new definition into law “so that no future administrations can treat our farmers like the previous administration did.”

The new rule, which reverts standards back to the 1986 guidelines under the Clean Water Act, is likely to face a spate of legal challenges.  Administrator Wheeler told reporters that the administration is aiming to pass everything by winter “so when spring comes hardworking Americans will have the regulatory they need.”

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/clean-water-act-repeal-epa-announces-repeal-of-obama-era-clean-water-regulation-today/

Andrew Yang has drawn cheers, jeers, chuckles, and even legal scrutiny for his odd plan to give 10 American families $1,000 a month for the next year, paid out of his campaign coffers.

This is actually a great plan. And here’s why:

1. It’s a field test of a policy proposal
Nothing is less scientific in America than public policy. Looking for evidence is unheard of, much less conducting experiments. Yang here is running a pilot program for his central policy proposal: A Universal Basic Income that provides $1,000 to every family every month.

Of course it’s not a full test, as there will be macroeconomic effects of giving $120,000 to more than a hundred million families that won’t appear when you give that to 10 families. But if we see how those people spend their money, how their lives are changed, it will tell us something about this policy.

A willingness to field-test your proposal during the campaign? That’s pretty bold.

2. It may be illegal, and it will draw the ire of the feds
Most Democrats want to regulate political spending more and more. Everything is becoming illegal, and Democrats want to make more things illegal. If Yang gives people money, to help them out, and to test his idea, and then the Federal Election Commission brings down the hammer, Yang will be the enemy of the state and the hero of the people.

3. It’s much better than the other things campaigns spend money on
When campaigns spend money, as Yang hinted, it enriches Beltway consultants and television stations. Giving money to a campaign, then, is giving money to some former congressional staffer now living in a mansion in McLean funded by all sorts of campaigns. Now, Yang makes it clear that if you give money to him, you’re funding some American family.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/andrew-yangs-cash-giveaway-is-a-great-plan-for-these-three-reasons