Recently Added Videos

Responding to Venezuelan regime attacks against civilians, the U.S. should identify those commanders responsible and seize their assets.

The need for action is clear. Four civilians were killed on Saturday as they sought to bring aid across the Brazilian and Colombian borders into Venezuela. That aid was to have been used to alleviate chronic starvation rates and shortages of basic medicines. But although about 100 Venezuelan security officers defected to Juan Guaido’s opposition movement over the weekend, most Venezuelan military commanders remain in Nicolas Maduro’s corner.

We must recognize that the current pressure isn’t enough to move the needle in Guaido’s favor. Rather than offering compromise, the U.S. should now identify commanders responsible for border security operations and seize any of their international assets. Those assets should then be transferred to Guaido’s administration.

This isn’t just about moral justice; it’s also about political effect.

After all, it’s increasingly clear that the U.S. will have to be more creative in undercutting Maduro’s hold of power. That means targeting Maduro where it hurts most — in the wallet. If pro-Maduro military officers and militia leaders start to realize that their loyalty to the dictatorship now risks their immediate personal privation, they’ll have more reason to reconsider that loyalty.

Thanks to the Cuban-led domination of Venezuelan security forces, fear of reprisals currently motivates officers to stand by Maduro. It’s time for the U.S. to make the consequences tangible for all of Maduro’s remaining supporters in the military.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/seize-the-assets-of-the-venezuelan-generals-at-the-border

February 25 at 5:32 PM

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, announced Monday evening that his bloc in Parliament would support a second referendum to stop what he called “a damaging Tory Brexit.” 

While Labour Party activists have been pushing their leader for months to back another public vote on Brexit, Corbyn had been cold to the idea. Many Labour voters — especially in Wales and the north of England — want Britain to leave the European Union.

Corbyn’s shift comes after he was battered by the abrupt resignations of nine Labour lawmakers last week. The defectors, who support remaining in the European Union, complained Corbyn lacked leadership on the greatest issue facing Britain in a generation, and they urged more Labour members to quit.

Corbyn’s late support for a second referendum does not mean another public vote will happen. Prime Minister Theresa May, her government and most of her Conservative Party remain opposed to a do-over.

Nor was it clear Monday what kind of second referendum Corbyn supports. Brexit opponents want voters to be given a clear choice of leaving or staying in the European Union. Others say a second referendum, if it ever took place, should be more limited — asking voters, for example, if they support the deal May has negotiated with the European Union. 

This week will see lawmakers putting forward motions seeking to delay Brexit beyond the scheduled departure date of March 29. Other amendments will try to stop Britain from leaving the European Union with no deal — a scenario that could cause economic chaos.

Corbyn said Monday that Labour would also introduce its own amendment, laying out his party’s alternative deal for a much softer Brexit than May has negotiated with the Europeans. The Labour plan would keep Britain in an E.U. customs regime and single market. Such an arrangement probably would mean that Britain would have to continue to accept the free flow of immigrants from Europe.

Corbyn said that only if Parliament — and the government — rejects Labour’s vision for Brexit would he and his party rally around a second referendum to stop May’s deal.

Conservative Party Chairman Brandon Lewis charged that Corbyn seeks to “betray the will of the British people and ignore the biggest democratic vote in our nation’s history.” Lewis said, “A divisive second referendum that would take us back to square one. Once again, it’s clear: Jeremy Corbyn is using Brexit to play his own political games.”

May spent the weekend in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, at a meeting of the leaders of European and Arab states, seeking support for additional language to her Brexit deal that would make it palatable to her party. 

Many Conservative Party lawmakers have rejected May’s Brexit deal because it could keep Britain too closely tied to Europe to guarantee that there would be no return of a hard border in Ireland.

While in Egypt, the British prime minister resisted calls to seek a delay for Brexit.

“A delay in this process doesn’t deliver a decision in Parliament, and it doesn’t deliver a deal,” she said at a news conference Monday. “What it does is precisely what the word delay says, it just delays the point in which we come to that decision.”

Corbyn’s spokesman said the Labour leader believes May is “recklessly running down the clock” in an attempt to “force MPs to choose between her botched deal and a disastrous no deal.”

Corbyn’s move toward backing a second referendum was applauded by Labour leaders who don’t like Brexit. Labour lawmaker David Lammy tweeted, “This is a big step towards uniting our party and most importantly our country. No Brexit deal meets the fantasy promised in 2016. So the only way any specific form of Brexit can be made legitimate is through ratification in a #PeopleVote which includes the option to remain.”

London Mayor Sadiq Khan said in a statement that a second referendum would be “the right decision for London — and for the whole country — to give the public their say for the first time on a final Brexit deal. I hope members of parliament will support this move, which is vital to protect jobs and growth. The prime minister must now withdraw article 50 to prevent Britain crashing out of the EU without a deal within weeks and to give us time to sort out her mess.”

Campaigners for a second referendum are hopeful that if the Labour leadership fully lines up behind the cause, they could have a fighting chance at a second vote.

But others said this seemed like a ploy by Corbyn to stop further splits in his party.

Tim Farron, a former leader of the pro-European Liberal Democrats, said, “This is so weak. Or utterly cynical. One or the other.”

Luciana Berger, one of the Labour lawmakers who defected, tweeted, “This. Is. Not. A. New. Announcement. And yet there are just 23 working days to go until #Brexit.”

The Labour Party officially endorsed a second referendum at the party conference in September, but until now it was not fully adopted by Corbyn.

Chris Leslie, another former Labour lawmaker and member of the new Independent Group, said: “Getting Labour to back a People’s Vote has been like extracting blood from a stone. There are no more excuses left — and the question should be put this week without any further prevarication. Let’s wait to see the detail though. We are too used to reading the small print and finding there’s more to this than meets the eye.”

Karla Adam contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/jeremy-corbyn-says-labour-would-back-a-second-brexit-referendum/2019/02/25/ea765b14-392e-11e9-b10b-f05a22e75865_story.html

Donald Trump Jr. dismissed any notion that he, the President or his family have any fears relating to the Mueller investigation or a probe by the Southern District of New York.

“‘This is going to be it, we finally got him.’ I’ve been hearing this for two years,’” Trump Jr. told “Fox & Friends” on Monday morning.

“This is as political as it gets. Their dream in life is to try to find something to get Trump. I mean, it’s that old Stalinist tactic, you know? ‘Show me the men, and I’ll show you the crime.’

SCHIFF: DEMS ‘ABSOLUTELY’ WILL TAKE DOJ TO COURT OVER MUELLER REPORT IF NECESSARY

“So, you know, there’s no doubt that they’ll try. But again, I know how we functioned as a company. I know how we function as individuals, and that’s why despite all this – for two years – we don’t appear all that worried, because we know there’s nothing there.”

We know there’s nothing there

— Donald Trump Jr.

Sunday former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was on ABC’s “This Week” and highlighted the Southern District of New York’s investigation into the Trump Organization and the Trump Inaugural Committee, saying that it poses a bigger threat to Trump than the Mueller report does.

MUELLER PROBE ‘NEAR THE END GAME’ AMID SHAKEUP AT DOJ, SOURCES SAY

“The Southern District of New York investigation is monumentally more perilous to the president than Bob Mueller ever was or ever will be. They have two tour guides and no restriction on where they can go,” Christie told host George Stephanopoulos.

“What they did was – they put incredible pressure on regular guys that couldn’t afford millions of dollars in legal fees, and got them to slip up and say something incorrectly,” Trump Jr. said of the Southern District of New York’s investigation.

The Mueller report is expected this week according to reports.

MUELLER SENTENCING MEMO SAYS MANAFORT ‘REPEATEDLY AND BRAZENLY’ VIOLATED LAW

Trump Jr. also commented on President Trump’s former attorney testifying before Congress this week while his father is having a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in Vietnam.

“You got a President trying to deal with a major world issue, and to try to distract – or whatever it is – by bringing in a convicted felon and known liar. I mean, it’s pretty pathetic, but it really shows you how much the Democrats hate Trump. They hate Trump more than they love America, by a long shot, and it’s pretty disgusting that they would do that,” Trump Jr. said.

Cohen has closed-door hearings set for Tuesday and Thursday with Senate and House Intelligence Committees.

Wednesday Cohen has a public Congressional hearing with the House Oversight Committee the same day President Trump will meet with Jon-un in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/donald-trump-jr-says-family-have-no-fears-over-mueller-investigation-report

A former staffer on Donald Trump’s presidential campaign says he kissed her without her consent outside a rally in Florida in August 2016, The Washington Post reported Monday.

“I immediately felt violated because I wasn’t expecting it or wanting it,” the staffer, Alva Johnson, told the Post. “I can still see his lips coming straight for my face.” 

The allegation is described in a federal lawsuit filed Monday in Florida, in which Johnson is seeking unspecified damages for emotional pain and suffering, according to the Post.

Trump grabbed Johnson’s hand and tried to kiss her on the lips as he exited an RV outside the Tampa rally on Aug. 24, 2016, she alleges in the lawsuit and told the Post in a series of interviews.

RELATED: Donald Trump at the Oscars through the years




Johnson told the Post she turned her head to avoid the unwanted kiss, which landed on the side of her mouth and felt “super-creepy and inappropriate.”

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders dismissed Johnson’s accusation, calling it “absurd on its face.”

“This never happened and is directly contradicted by multiple highly credible eye witness accounts,” Sanders said in a statement.

At least 21 other women have accused Trump of various instances of sexual misconduct between the early 1980s and mid-2000s. He has vehemently denied the allegations.

In the lawsuit, Johnson, who is black, also alleges that Trump’s campaign discriminated against her by paying her less than her white colleagues. Trump’s campaign has denied the accusation.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/02/25/former-donald-trump-campaign-staffer-alleges-he-kissed-her-without-consent-in-2016/23677488/

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian state television has listed U.S. military facilities that Moscow would target in the event of a nuclear strike, and said that a hypersonic missile Russia is developing would be able to hit them in less than five minutes.

The targets included the Pentagon and the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

The report, unusual even by the sometimes bellicose standards of Russian state TV, was broadcast on Sunday evening, days after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was militarily ready for a “Cuban Missile”-style crisis if the United States wanted one.

With tensions rising over Russian fears that the United States might deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a Cold War-era arms-control treaty unravels, Putin has said Russia would be forced to respond by placing hypersonic nuclear missiles on submarines near U.S. waters.

The United States says it has no immediate plans to deploy such missiles in Europe and has dismissed Putin’s warnings as disingenuous propaganda. It does not currently have ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles that it could place in Europe.

However, its decision to quit the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over an alleged Russian violation, something Moscow denies, has freed it to start developing and deploying such missiles.

Putin has said Russia does not want a new arms race, but has also dialled up his military rhetoric.

The Pentagon said that Putin’s threats only helped unite NATO.

“Every time Putin issues these bombastic threats and touts his new doomsday devices, he should know he only deepens NATO’s resolve to work together to ensure our collective security,” Eric Pahon, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

Some analysts have seen his approach as a tactic to try to re-engage the United States in talks about the strategic balance between the two powers, for which Moscow has long pushed, with mixed results.

In the Sunday evening broadcast, Dmitry Kiselyov, presenter of Russia’s main weekly TV news show ‘Vesti Nedeli’, showed a map of the United States and identified several targets he said Moscow would want to hit in the event of a nuclear war.

The targets, which Kiselyov described as U.S. presidential or military command centers, also included Fort Ritchie, a military training center in Maryland closed in 1998, McClellan, a U.S. Air Force base in California closed in 2001, and Jim Creek, a naval communications base in Washington state.

Kiselyov, who is close to the Kremlin, said the “Tsirkon” (‘Zircon’) hypersonic missile that Russia is developing could hit the targets in less than five minutes if launched from Russian submarines.

Hypersonic flight is generally taken to mean traveling through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound.

“For now, we’re not threatening anyone, but if such a deployment takes place, our response will be instant,” he said.

Kiselyov is one of the main conduits of state television’s strongly anti-American tone, once saying Moscow could turn the United States into radioactive ash.

Asked to comment on Kiselyov’s report, the Kremlin said on Monday it did not interfere in state TV’s editorial policy.

Additional reporting by Tom Balmforth and Idrees Ali in Washington; Editing by Kevin Liffey and Dan Grebler

Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-russia/after-putins-warning-russian-tv-lists-nuclear-targets-in-u-s-idUSKCN1QE1DM?feedType=RSS&

CLOSE

An all-male draft has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Texas, declaring that the “time has passed” for debating the role of women in the army
Time

A federal court ruling that it’s unconstitutional to require only men to register for the draft will increase the pressure on Congress to either expand the draft or eliminate it.

But as a practical matter, the decision by U.S. District Judge Gray Miller late Friday won’t change draft registration overnight. As of Monday, the Selective Service System still registers only men, and an 11-member commission appointed by Congress to study the issue is due to report back next year.

“The court ruling itself changes nothing as far as the commission is concerned,” said Joe Heck, the former Army general and congressman who chairs the National Commission for Military, National and Public Service.

That process could lead to any number of outcomes – only one of which is that women would be required to register for the draft.

Some questions and answers about women in the draft:

Q: Will the decision be appealed?

A: Justice Department spokeswoman Kelly Laco declined to comment Sunday. But lawyers involved in the issue say the government will probably have no choice but to appeal the ruling to defend an act of Congress. The next step would be the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Miller denied a stay of his ruling, so the government would likely seek first to temporarily block the ruling while it’s appealed.

Q: Didn’t the Supreme Court already decide this issue?

A: Yes. In 1981, the Supreme Court ruled in Rostker v. Goldberg that Congress had a reasonable basis to exclude women from the draft because at the time, combat positions were off-limits to women.

That law has not changed, Miller said. But the facts have.

“In the nearly four decades since Rostker, however, women’s opportunities in the military have expanded dramatically,” Miller said. “In 2013, the Department of Defense officially lifted the ban on women in combat. In 2015, the Department of Defense lifted all gender-based restrictions Thus, women are now eligible for all military service roles, including combat positions.”

Q: Has the draft registration process changed as a result of the decision?

A: In the short term, no. 

Miller made a declaratory judgment finding that the current system is unconstitutional. But, notably, he did not issue an injunction. There is no immediate court order requiring any particular change to the Selective Service requirement.

The Selective Service System said Monday that it is continuing its operations as usual.

“As an independent agency of the executive branch, the Selective Service System does not make policy and follows the law as written,” legislative liaison Jacob Daniels said in a statement.

“As such, until Congress modifies the Military Selective Service Act or a court orders Selective Service to change our standard operating procedure, the following remains in effect: (1) Men between ages 18 and 25 are required to register with Selective Service and (2) Women are not required to register with Selective Service.” 

Q: Does the decision mean women will be required to register with the Selective Service?

A: Not necessarily. If the district court’s ruling is upheld, it could mean one of three things: 

► Women would have to register for the draft at their 18th birthday, just like men;

► Selective Service would be eliminated entirely, and neither men nor women would have to register; or

► Selective Service would become voluntary and men and women could continue to register, but would not lose any benefits if they fail to do so.

“There are several different potential outcomes that the commission is considering,”  Heck said. “That’s why it’s so important that we talk not just to policy experts but the American public.”

The commission will hold a public hearing on the issue on April 24 and 25 at Gallaudet University in Washington, and is seeking public comment at inspire2serve.gov.

More: Should women be required to register for the draft? Commission likely to recommend big changes

Q: What is the Pentagon’s position?

A: The Department of Defense wants to keep the Selective Service System as a backstop to the all-volunteer military. And in a report to Congress in 2017, it went on record to support including women.

“It would appear imprudent to exclude approximately 50 percent of the population – the female half – from availability for the draft in the case of a national emergency,” officials said at the time. “And, if a draft becomes necessary, the public must see that it is fair and equitable. For that to happen, the maximum number of eligible persons must be registered.”

Even if there’s never a draft, the Pentagon sees benefits to an all-volunteer force from including women in Selective Service. One such benefit: The number of recruiting leads that the Pentagon could target with direct mail would double.

Q: What is President Trump’s position?

A: Shortly before President Barack Obama left office, Obama expressed support for universal draft registration regardless of sex as “a logical next step.” 

President Donald Trump has been mostly silent on the issue. In a 2017 memorandum to the commission studying the draft, Trump asked the panel to “ensure close examination of … the feasibility and advisability of modifying the Selective Service process to leverage individuals with critical skills for which the Nation has a need without regard to age or sex.”

Q: Why do we need Selective Service, and what happens to the draft if it goes away? 

A: President Richard Nixon ended the draft in 1973, as the United States was attempting to wind down its involvement in the Vietnam War.

President Jimmy Carter created the Selective Service System in 1980, after Russia invaded Afghanistan. The intent was to identify a pool of young men available to be drafted in case of a national emergency.

But the United States drafted men into war even before draft registration, and could do so again. 

The Constitution gives Congress the power to “raise and support Armies.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that this gives Congress the power of conscription.

Q: How are transgender people handled in the draft?

A: President Donald Trump has moved to ban transgender people from the military. According to the Selective Service System, the registration requirement is based on the sex observed at birth and not on gender identity. However, if the draft were to resume, men who had transitioned to women could file for an exemption.

While Friday’s court ruling did not specifically address the transgender issue, it made clear that men and women should be treated equally in draft registration.

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/25/federal-judge-all-male-draft-unconstitutional-now-what-selective-service/2979346002/

“);var a = g[r.size_id].split(“x”).map((function(e) {return Number(e)})), s = u(a, 2);o.width = s[0],o.height = s[1]}o.rubiconTargeting = (Array.isArray(r.targeting) ? r.targeting : []).reduce((function(e, r) {return e[r.key] = r.values[0],e}), {rpfl_elemid: n.adUnitCode}),e.push(o)} else l.logError(“Rubicon bid adapter Error: bidRequest undefined at index position:” + t, c, d);return e}), []).sort((function(e, r) {return (r.cpm || 0) – (e.cpm || 0)}))},getUserSyncs: function(e, r, t) {if (!A && e.iframeEnabled) {var i = “”;return t && “string” == typeof t.consentString && (“boolean” == typeof t.gdprApplies ? i += “?gdpr=” + Number(t.gdprApplies) + “&gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString : i += “?gdpr_consent=” + t.consentString),A = !0,{type: “iframe”,url: n + i}}},transformBidParams: function(e, r) {return l.convertTypes({accountId: “number”,siteId: “number”,zoneId: “number”}, e)}};function m() {return [window.screen.width, window.screen.height].join(“x”)}function b(e, r) {var t = f.config.getConfig(“pageUrl”);return e.params.referrer ? t = e.params.referrer : t || (t = r.refererInfo.referer),e.params.secure ? t.replace(/^http:/i, “https:”) : t}function _(e, r) {var t = e.params;if (“video” === r) {var i = [];return t.video && t.video.playerWidth && t.video.playerHeight ? i = [t.video.playerWidth, t.video.playerHeight] : Array.isArray(l.deepAccess(e, “mediaTypes.video.playerSize”)) && 1 === e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize.length ? i = e.mediaTypes.video.playerSize[0] : Array.isArray(e.sizes) && 0

(CNN)As Donald Trump heads to Vietnam for the second summit of his presidency with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, one big question remains: Is the rogue nation still a nuclear threat or, well, isn’t it?

a>*{vertical-align: top; display: inline-block;}
.duval-3>a>div{display: inline-block; font-size:1.0666667rem;width: 80%; padding-top: 0px; padding-left: 2%;}
.duval-3>a>img{width: 18%; height: auto;}
@media screen and (max-width:640px){
.duval-3>a>*{display:block; margin: auto;}
.duval-3>a>div{width: 100%;}
.duval-3>a>img{width: 50%;}
}
]]>

    Source Article from https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/25/politics/jake-tapper-mike-pompeo-donald-trump-north-korea/index.html

    LONDON — Britain’s opposition Labour Party said on Monday that it was prepared to support a second referendum on withdrawal from the European Union, a shift that could have significant ramifications for the fate of Brexit and for the country’s future.

    After the resignations of nine Labour Party members last week, and amid the prospect of more, the party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, dropped his longstanding resistance to a second vote on leaving the bloc.

    Getting an amendment for a new vote through Parliament any time soon is unlikely, but Mr. Corbyn’s support for one will cheer pro-European Britons, who have been fighting to reverse the outcome of the 2016 referendum decision. Without the support of Labour, there is no chance of a second referendum ever being authorized by lawmakers.

    [Read more on austerity and the UK’s budget squeeze.]

    Though lacking in detail, Labour’s announcement suggested that, under pressure from many of his own lawmakers and party members, Mr. Corbyn, who is a lifelong critic of the European Union, will ultimately fall into line with those who support a so-called people’s vote.

    Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/25/world/europe/Jeremy-Corbyn-brexit-referendum.html

    WASHINGTON — Fifty-eight former U.S. national security officials told the Trump administration in a letter Monday that they are aware of “no emergency that remotely justifies” diverting funds to build a border wall.

    The officials, who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who served in the Clinton administration, and former Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Republican who served in the Senate and the Obama administration.

    Others include Leon Panetta, former secretary of defense and director of the CIA; Gil Kerlikowske, former head of Customs and Border Protection; John Kerry, former secretary of state; and Nick Rasmussen, former director of the National Counterterrorism Center.

    Click here to read the letter

    The letter, according to its authors, is a declaration intended to be used in lawsuits challenging President Donald Trump’s Feb. 15 decision to redirect $8 billion in federal funds in order to begin construction of a barrier along the southern border. Trump had promised during his campaign to build the border wall but Congress has offered less than $2 billion in federal funds after months of negotiations.

    The officials fact check Trump’s basis for declaring the national emergency, pointing out that illegal border crossings are near 40-year lows, there is no documented terror threat, human and drug trafficking will not be affected by a border wall, and there is no violent crime threat posed by immigrants.

    A study by the Cato Institute found that undocumented immigrants in Texas were 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than native-born citizens, the letter said.

    Not only is the national emergency not justified, it could also be damaging to the interests of the United States, the authors say.

    “In the face of a nonexistent threat, redirecting funds for the construction of a wall along the southern border will undermine national security by needlessly pulling resources from Department of Defense programs that are responsible for keeping our troops and our country safe and running effectively,” they said.

    The national emergency and other unilateral actions to block immigrants coming from the south could also strain diplomatic ties in the Western Hemisphere at a time when the U.S. should be addressing concerns in the region, such as the political turmoil in Venezuela, the authors say.

    In addition to redirecting funds for the border wall, the Trump administration has also begun to return asylum-seekers to Mexico where they must wait months or years for a decision on whether they can seek refuge in the United States. Another move, which has been blocked by federal courts, sought to block asylum rights for immigrants who cross the border between legal ports of entry.

    The authors said their concerns extend to the global stage as well.

    “Should a genuine foreign crisis erupt, this lack of credibility will materially weaken this administration’s ability to marshal allies to support the United States, and will embolden adversaries to oppose us,” they said.

    Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/more-50-ex-national-security-officials-tell-trump-national-emergency-n975701

    The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the decisive vote in a California pay dispute case before a lower court doesn’t count — because the vote came from a judge who died before the ruling was issued.

    The case from the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals involved a dispute over pay filed by a Fresno County government employee.

    STEPHEN REINHARDT, CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE, ‘PROGRESSIVE ICON,’ DIES AT 87

    Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was seen as a progressive icon on the bench, heard the dispute and participated in a preliminary vote. The appeals court then issued an opinion in his name nine days after he passed away in March 2018.

    But the high court, vacating the decision of a federal appeals court, said Monday that “federal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.”

    “The upshot is that Judge Reinhardt’s vote made a difference,” said the Supreme Court in its unsigned ruling. “Was that lawful?”

    The justices said it was not. “Because Judge Reinhardt was no longer a judge at the time when the en banc decision in the case was filed, the 9th Circuit erred in counting him as a member of the majority.”

    The Supreme Court itself follows the same practice.

    The votes of Justice Antonin Scalia issued after his sudden death three years ago did not count, even though he had participated in a number of argued cases earlier in the court’s term. No decision is official until it is formally released by the court, and every member of the court must be on the bench at the time.

    Reinhardt was one of the longest-serving federal judges when he died at age 87, and one of the most liberal on the 9th Circuit. He was appointed to the federal bench in 1980 by President Carter.

    The case was sent back to the 9th Circuit for reconsideration.

    Reinhardt died of a heart attack last year during a visit to a dermatologist in Los Angeles, the court spokesperson said.

    When he died, Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles, called Reinhardt “one of the greatest jurists of our time. A searingly brilliant Angeleno and true progressive icon.”

    SUPREME COURT TO DECIDE IF WORLD WAR I MEMORIAL ‘PEACE CROSS’ CAN STAND

    He was considered a liberal stalwart on the bench. He wrote in one opinion that a Trump administration order to deport a man who entered the country illegally nearly three decades ago and became a respected businessman in Hawaii was “inhumane” and “contrary to the values of the country and its legal system.”

    In 2012, he wrote an opinion that struck down California’s gay marriage ban. He also wrote a 1996 opinion that struck down a Washington state law that prohibited doctors from prescribing medication to help terminally ill patients die.

    He was among the federal judges who decided that overcrowding in California’s prison system was unconstitutional.

    Reinhardt joined another judge in ruling that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance were unconstitutional, a decision that was later overturned.

    Fox News’ Amy Lieu and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-says-vote-of-dead-progressive-icon-judge-does-not-count

    MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russian state television has listed U.S. military facilities that Moscow would target in the event of a nuclear strike, and said that a hypersonic missile Russia is developing would be able to hit them in less than five minutes.

    The targets included the Pentagon and the presidential retreat in Camp David, Maryland.

    The report, unusual even by the sometimes bellicose standards of Russian state TV, was broadcast on Sunday evening, days after President Vladimir Putin said Moscow was militarily ready for a “Cuban Missile”-style crisis if the United States wanted one.

    With tensions rising over Russian fears that the United States might deploy intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Europe as a Cold War-era arms-control treaty unravels, Putin has said Russia would be forced to respond by placing hypersonic nuclear missiles on submarines near U.S. waters.

    The United States says it has no immediate plans to deploy such missiles in Europe and has dismissed Putin’s warnings as disingenuous propaganda. It does not currently have ground-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles that it could place in Europe.

    However, its decision to quit the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty over an alleged Russian violation, something Moscow denies, has freed it to start developing and deploying such missiles.

    Putin has said Russia does not want a new arms race, but has also dialled up his military rhetoric.

    Some analysts have seen his approach as a tactic to try to re-engage the United States in talks about the strategic balance between the two powers, something Moscow has long pushed for, with mixed results.

    In the Sunday evening broadcast, Dmitry Kiselyov, presenter of Russia’s main weekly TV news show ‘Vesti Nedeli’, showed a map of the United States and identified several targets he said Moscow would want to hit in the event of a nuclear war.

    The targets, which Kiselyov described as U.S. presidential or military command centers, also included Fort Ritchie, a military training center in Maryland closed in 1998, McClellan, a U.S. Air Force base in California closed in 2001, and Jim Creek, a naval communications base in Washington state.

    Kiselyov, who is close to the Kremlin, said the “Tsirkon” (‘Zircon’) hypersonic missile that Russia is developing could hit the targets in less than five minutes if launched from Russian submarines.

    Hypersonic flight is generally taken to mean traveling through the atmosphere at more than five times the speed of sound.

    “For now, we’re not threatening anyone, but if such a deployment takes place, our response will be instant,” he said.

    Kiselyov is one of the main conduits of state television’s strongly anti-American tone, once saying Moscow could turn the United States into radioactive ash.

    Asked to comment on Kiselyov’s report, the Kremlin said on Monday it did not interfere in state TV’s editorial policy.

    Additional reporting by Tom Balmforth; Editing by Kevin Liffey

    Source Article from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nuclear-russia/after-putins-warning-russian-tv-lists-nuclear-targets-in-us-idUSKCN1QE1DM

    Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un meet in Vietnam to discuss denuclearization, the vague promise they made at their historic first summit. However, history may be repeating itself, as nuclear test sites were discovered months after the first summit. Will “one destiny’ regress into “fire and fury?”
    USA TODAY

    Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/02/25/kim-jong-un-impersonator-deported-ahead-trump-meeting-vietnam/2977374002/

    Freshman New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Sunday night confirmed The Post’s reporting that she’s relocated to a new Bronx apartment in her neighborhood.

    A day after residents at the Democratic congresswoman’s listed address told The Post they’d never seen her around, her spokesman on Sunday said she moved recently to a larger apartment “a block and a half away” with her boyfriend.

    In a tweet, the left-wing darling also said she remained a Bronx resident.

    “I still live in my hood and literally instagrammed from my apartment tonight,” Ocasio-Cortez, 29, wrote in response to The Post’s reporting.

    On Saturday, Ocasio-Cortez ducked questions about her living situation after an appearance.

    Her spokesman, Corbin Trent, claimed she relocated to a two-bedroom apartment with her beau earlier this month.

    Trent claimed that Ocasio-Cortez was at her new home Sunday afternoon, although he wouldn’t identify the address.

    “A man was just arrested last week with a stockpile of guns specifically trying to kill me & others,”Ocasio-Cortez added in her tweet. “So yeah I’m not gonna disclose my personal address or tell people when I move. Sorry!.”

    Ocasio-Cortez was referring to US Coast Guard Lt. Cristopher Paul Hasson who was allegedly plotting to murder Democrats and journalists when he was arrested on drugs and guns charges this month.

    The rep’s recent move still doesn’t explain why residents at her previous digs — a condo owned by her mom — insisted they had never seen her there.

    Click for more from The New York Post

    Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-says-she-moved-to-new-bronx-apartment

    <!– –>

    U.S. President Donald Trump and China’s state-run news agency Xinhua both announced “significant progress” from the last week of trade negotiations.

    Encouragingly, both sides specifically mentioned the issues of technology transfer, intellectual property protection, currency, services and agriculture. Still, the U.S. and China will need to overcome significant hurdles if they’re to ink a deal resolving their long-term disagreements.

    Trump said in a Sunday evening Twitter post he would delay an increase in tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. that was originally scheduled for March 1. “Assuming both sides make additional progress, we will be planning a Summit for President Xi and myself, at Mar-a-Lago, to conclude an agreement,” Trump tweeted. “A very good weekend for U.S. & China!”

    Chinese stocks rallied following the news. The Shanghai composite soared 5.6 percent, sending the index back into bull market territory, or up more than 20 percent from a low touched in early January.

    “In general it’s perceived as very positive,” Wang Huiyao, an advisor to the Chinese government and the president of Beijing-based think tank Center for China and Globalization, said in a phone interview on Monday. “If people think this is good for the country, the government can rally support (and be) more conciliatory, more cooperative.”

    WATCH: The U.S. and China are fighting for global power

    However, a delay of punitive measures isn’t the same as an agreement. Much of the foreign business community has been frustrated by Beijing’s slowness to act on commitments made when the country joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Last year, Trump also abruptly changed the tone on trade negotiations when both sides thought they were nearing an agreement.

    What’s important, analysts said, will be a timeline for implementation on any trade deal, and specific consequences if commitments are not enacted.

    Even Xinhua pointed out in a Chinese-language article on Monday that, according to a CNBC translation, “negotiations become more difficult the closer they get to the end. The chance this causes greater uncertainty cannot be ruled out.”

    The American Chamber of Commerce in China said in a statement Monday that it’s pleased with the latest developments on trade, but “what is common among all of our members is the desire to progress on the fundamental underlying issues, which will be necessary if a long-term solution is to be found.”

    The chamber cited a survey of its members last week that showed they “most valued greater market access for their industries; guarantees that antitrust, environmental protection, product safety, and other measures will be enforced equally against Chinese and foreign enterprises and individuals; improvements in intellectual property protection and elimination of pressure to transfer technology; and participation by foreign companies in standard setting.”

    “China is likely to agree (to) some sort of deal and just run the clock down on the Trump administration.”
    -Chris Rogers, research analyst at Panjiva

    China has made some progress in reducing the requirement for joint ventures, analysts said. Beijing is also increasing its efforts to improve intellectual property protection, especially as the country tries to move into its own production of higher-value technologies.

    Still, the Chinese government’s preferred pace of action may not be fast enough for the U.S., or businesses affected by tariffs.

    “China is likely to agree (to) some sort of deal and just run the clock down on the Trump administration,” Chris Rogers, research analyst at Panjiva, a supply chain data company that’s part of S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a phone interview last week.

    Tariffs have hit both Chinese and U.S. businesses, data show. Beijing is also struggling to crack down on high debt levels while maintaining stable growth. A boost from a surge in Chinese exports that happened in anticipation of tariff increases is also fading.

    The U.S. imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods last year, while Beijing retaliated with duties on $110 billion worth of imports from America. During a G-20 meeting in Argentina that concluded Dec. 1, Trump agreed not to raise duties further if both countries could reach an agreement on trade within 90 days.

    “Finding a resolution to the trade (tensions) that eliminates tariffs would greatly reduce uncertainty in the business community,” Jake Parker, vice president of China operations for the U.S.-China Business Council, said Monday. He noted that the tariffs have had a significant impact on U.S. businesses, especially those in agriculture and retail.

    “We’ve also heard from a number of companies because their costs have risen, that has put them in a less competitive position vis-a-vis their European and Japanese counterparts,” Parker said. “Once you lose market share it’s very hard to regain that in the near term.”

    The Chinese Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to CNBC’s faxed requests for comment on Monday. Details on a potential meeting between Trump and Xi were unclear.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/chinese-stocks-rocketed-higher-on-trumps-trade-tweet.html

    An all-male draft has been ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge in Texas, declaring that the “time has passed” for debating the role of women in the army.

    “While historical restrictions on women in the military may have justified past discrimination, men and women are now ‘similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft,’” wrote U.S. District Judge Gray Miller of the Southern District of Texas. “If there ever was a time to discuss ‘the place of women in the Armed Services,’ that time has passed,” Miller wrote.

    The ruling follows a lawsuit brought by the National Coalition for Men, a men’s rights group, arguing the all-male draft was unfair.

    The U.S. has had an all-volunteer military since the draft ended in 1973, but remains ready to resume the draft if necessary. Currently, all American men must register with the Selective Service System (SSS) for that purpose within 30 days of their 18th birthday.

    The ruling was made as a declaration and not an injunction, which means the court did not specify how Congress should go about changing the SSS, USA Today reports.

    Restrictions for women in military service were ended by the Pentagon in 2015, according to USA Today.

    “The average woman could conceivably be better suited physically for some of today’s combat positions than the average man,” wrote Miller, noting that Congress has never fully reviewed whether men are physically better able to serve than women. “Combat roles no longer uniformly require sheer size or muscle.”

    “Yes, to some extent this is symbolic, but it does have some real-world impact,” Marc Angelucci, the lawyer for the National Coalition of Men, told USA Today. “Either they need to get rid of the draft registration, or they need to require women to do the same thing that men do.”

    Write to Casey Quackenbush at casey.quackenbush@time.com.

    Source Article from http://time.com/5536407/all-male-draft-unconstitutional/

    <!– –>

    British lawmakers were meant to be given a vote this week on British Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal but May has delayed it and it will now take place just 17 days before the U.K. is meant to leave the European Union (EU).

    Still, May said on Sunday that her government is making progress in talks with the EU and that a deal is still “within our grasp.”

    She said that members of parliament (MPs) will have a fresh “meaningful vote” on the Brexit deal on March 12, just over two weeks before the March 29 departure date.

    ‘Recklessness’

    Opposition Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn was among those who criticized the move to delay a parliamentary vote on the Brexit deal, saying May was “recklessly running down the clock” near to the departure date.

    Many MPs wanted a vote on the Brexit deal as soon as possible, concerned that a second rejection of May’s deal could lead to a “no-deal” scenario whereby Britain leaves the EU abruptly with no transitional period nor trade deal in place. British businesses continue to complain that they have not been given enough clarity and reassurance over the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU.

    European officials showed their displeasure at May’s decision not to put forward her Brexit deal to a vote in the parliament this week, as originally planned. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker last week complained of “Brexit fatigue.”

    British MPs had already been given a vote on May’s deal with the EU in January but they rejected it by 432 votes to 202.

    Possible delays

    Speculation is mounting that the U.K.’s departure will end up being delayed although keen Brexiteers in the British parliament would likely be angered at such a move.

    British newspaper The Telegraph and the BBC have reported that May is considering a plan that would see the U.K.’s departure delayed for two months, however.

    The paper and broadcasting network said government officials had drawn up a “series of options” to avoid resignations by ministers who want to ensure that Britain leaves with a deal. The BBC cited two unnamed government ministers as saying that the believe that May will “this week grant some kind of concession to allow for a possible delay.”

    Meanwhile, left-leaning newspaper The Guardian reported on Sunday that Brexit could be delayed until 2021 under plans being explored by the EU’s most senior officials, the paper said citing unnamed EU sources.

    MPs are due to vote on a series of amendments to the Brexit deal on Wednesday, one of which would essentially try to rule out a “no-deal” departure, demanding that Theresa May requests an extension to the departure deadline if parliament fails to approve her Brexit deal. A majority of MPs are believed to back the amendment.

    Backstop

    Theresa May is attending the EU-Arab League summit in Egypt on Monday and is expected to use it as an opportunity to press fellow EU leaders, including German leader Angela Merkel, for more guarantees on the thorny Irish “backstop” issue.

    Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte is among those attending the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh. He told CNBC Monday that he had spoken briefly to May on Sunday and would do so again Monday. Like other European leaders, Rutte reiterated that “the clock is ticking.”

    “On the European side we are all extremely anxious to get to a conclusion and we hope to avoid a ‘no-deal’ situation,” he told CNBC Europe’s “Squawk Box.” “We are approaching the Brexit date in only four weeks and still the deal is not in sight.”

    If the U.K. requested an extension the EU would likely ask what the U.K. thought it could achieve if it was given more time, he added. “How (can we) avoid that we just go around in the same circles?” he said.

    The backstop is something of an insurance policy against a return to border checks (a “hard border”) between the Republic and Northern Ireland.

    Although the backstop would be enacted as a last resort if no trade deal is reached between the EU and the U.K. in a 21-month transition period after Brexit and is designed to prevent the return of a “hard” border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. It’s contentious because it would mean that Northern Ireland (and potentially the rest of the U.K.) remains in a customs union with the EU for an indefinite amount of time.

    The backstop could not be ended without the EU’s permission. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte told CNBC that a collective agreement was needed that if the backstop was needed at all, “it will be as short as possible.”

    “Nobody on the EU side will want to keep the U.K. any longer in the backstop than necessary; only ’til a new arrangement for that border has been found. That level of confidence, that level of trust has to be on the table,” he said.

    EU leaders have refused to renegotiate the Brexit deal or backstop, however, only offering assurances that it is a last resort and unlikely to be used. The EU has previously said it is willing to consider an extension to the U.K.’s departure date.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/recklessness-and-rumors-brexit-uncertainty-rises-after-may-delays-key-vote.html

    February 25 at 9:47 AM

    President Trump on Monday cautioned fellow Republicans against falling into a Democratic “trap” as lawmakers prepare to vote this week on legislation rejecting his declaration of a national emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border.

    A measure is expected to pass easily in the Democratic-controlled House on Tuesday, forcing a difficult vote for GOP senators, who will have to weigh whether to support Trump on a move that even some in his party have criticized as circumventing the will of Congress.

    “I hope our great Republican Senators don’t get led down the path of weak and ineffective Border Security,” Trump said in a tweet Monday. “Without strong Borders, we don’t have a Country – and the voters are on board with us. Be strong and smart, don’t fall into the Democrats ‘trap’ of Open Borders and Crime!”

    Trump is attempting to use the emergency declaration to justify spending significantly more on barriers at the border than what Congress authorized in a compromise intended to avert another partial government shutdown.

    If Senate Democrats are united, they will need only four Republican defections to pass the rejection of Trump’s emergency declaration and send it to his desk.

    On Friday, Trump said he would veto the measure “100 percent” if that happened. And he predicted that Congress would be unable to muster the votes to override his veto.

    As the House vote approaches, Trump is facing fresh backlash from fellow Republicans.

    A group of 23 former Republican members of Congress has written a letter urging a termination of the emergency declaration.

    The letter argues that Trump is encroaching on Congress’s “power of the purse” and urges current lawmakers to stand up for its constitutional powers.

    We who have served where you serve now call on you to honor your oath of office and to protect the Constitution and the responsibilities it vested in Congress,” says the letter.

    Its signatories include former senators John Danforth (Mo.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Gordon Humphrey (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and 18 former House members.

    A bipartisan group of 58 former senior national security officials also plans to issue a statement Monday saying that “there is no factual basis” for Trump’s proclamation of a national emergency on the U.S.-Mexico border.

    The former officials’ statement, which will be entered into the Congressional Record, is intended to support lawsuits and other actions challenging the national emergency proclamation and to force the administration to set forth the legal and factual basis for it.

    Mike DeBonis and Ellen Nakashima contributed to this report.

    Source Article from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-warns-fellow-republicans-as-congress-prepares-to-vote-on-rejecting-his-national-emergency/2019/02/25/d021053c-38fe-11e9-a2cd-307b06d0257b_story.html

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promotes his Medicare-for-all proposal at the 2017 Convention of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee in San Francisco, Calif., an issue that is dominating the early debate in the 2020 presidential contest.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., promotes his Medicare-for-all proposal at the 2017 Convention of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee in San Francisco, Calif., an issue that is dominating the early debate in the 2020 presidential contest.

    Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

    Bernie Sanders is back, but one of his signature policies never left.

    In 2015, he introduced Medicare-for-all to many Democrats for the first time. Since Sanders’ first run for president, that type of single-payer health care system has become a mainstream Democratic proposal.

    Last week, Sanders launched his second presidential campaign, amid a field of presidential candidates who are trying to figure out how to position themselves around the policy. Trying to stand out from the pack, though — especially on health care — poses a problem: Differentiating yourself means getting into the details, and getting into the details can turn voters off.

    Over the last few weeks, candidates have been working to show voters the daylight between their respective health care proposals.

    New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker has stressed that he supports Medicare-for-all, and that he wants private insurers to have a role in that system. “Even countries that have vast access to publicly offered health care still have private health care,” he told reporters this month.

    Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar says she wants a public option, in the form of letting people buy into Medicaid. As for single-payer health care, she says it’s a possibility in the long-term.

    Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, who says he’s still debating a run, also wants a sort of public option, but only for people above age 50, whom he would allow to buy in to Medicare. “I think Medicare-for-all will take a while, and it’s difficult,” he told CNN’s State of the Union.

    Long story short: In a huge Democratic presidential field, health care is the first issue where candidates are really differentiating themselves.

    Bumper sticker politics

    “Health reform is always more popular as a bumper sticker than as a piece of legislation,” said Larry Levitt, senior vice president for health reform at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

    He points to both the Obamacare and the Obamacare repeal efforts as examples — some ideas behind Obamacare, like insuring pre-existing conditions, were popular. But other aspects that proponents said were necessary to make it work, like the individual mandate, infuriated some voters, helping propel Republicans to big wins in 2010.

    Likewise, the Obamacare repeal effort fired up many Republican voters, but the implications of the various repeal plans — fewer people with insurance, lack of protections for pre-existing conditions — ultimately helped doom the effort.

    Medicare-for-all may prove to be yet another example of this trend, according to Levitt.

    “There’s a huge political benefit for candidates to be in favor of the idea of Medicare-for-all in a primary,” he said. “But the more the details get filled in, the less popular that idea will be.”

    When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced his Medicare-for-all legislation in 2017, he was joined by several other senators now seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California.

    JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images


    hide caption

    toggle caption

    JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

    When Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., introduced his Medicare-for-all legislation in 2017, he was joined by several other senators now seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, including Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Cory Booker of New Jersey and Kamala Harris of California.

    JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images

    California Sen. Kamala Harris may be the first to face a big lesson in this. At a recent CNN town hall, host Jake Tapper asked her about her support of Sanders’ Medicare-for-all bill, which he said would “totally eliminate private insurance.”

    (A quick note here: Sanders’ plan does not totally eliminate private insurance, but it would vastly diminish its role.)

    Harris said that she would eliminate private insurance — but after a quick backlash, the next day clarified, with a campaign spokesman saying she also supports more incremental health care overhauls.

    Polling also shows how tricky selling Medicare-for-all could be once the details come into play. A January poll from Kaiser shows that nearly 7 in 10 Americans like Medicare-for-all if they hear it will eliminate premiums and out-of-pocket costs. But that support drops to around 4 in 10 if people hear it will mean higher taxes.

    Both of those things could be true of a Medicare-for-all system. But trying to sell even this basic trade-off on the campaign trail — especially this early — is tough.

    At the other, more moderate end of the spectrum, Klobuchar said she’s for the broad goal of “universal health care,” and did get specific on her support of a public option. But when it comes to Medicare-for-all, she remained vague, saying it could be a possibility. Voters will almost certainly try to pin her down more on that in coming months, but for now her answer may help keep her from alienating some more liberal voters.

    For many candidates, keeping health care rhetoric broad might be a smart move for now, says Nadeam Elshami, former chief of staff to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

    “It’s okay for a candidate to say, ‘Look: This is generally what I believe in. But I’m willing to hear first and then get into specifics later, after I have a deeper discussion of this issue,'” he said.

    The “socialist” threat

    Progressive health care overhauls will also likely feed into one of President Trump’s main attack lines: labeling Democrats as “socialists” as a way of painting them as extreme.

    “It’s a surprising development that 10 years after the passage of the Affordable Care Act and after a massive political backlash against it, and a huge effort to defend it, Democrats are in there immediately swerving so hard to an even greater government role for health care,” said Michael Steel, a Republican strategist who worked for former House Speaker John Boehner and Jeb Bush’s 2016 campaign.

    Republicans know political backlash well — the backlash to their repeal efforts culminated in the GOP losing the House in 2018. Whatever criticism Trump throws Democrats’ way on health care for 2020, they will likely counter by asking him if he has his own alternative to Obamacare, having failed to fully repeal it.

    Until then, Democrats will be doing similar calculations on both health care and a variety of other issues: weighing sweeping, progressive ideas that the president could try to label as “socialist” against incremental policies that might not excite liberal voters — and deciding which choice is most likely to get a Democrat into office.

    Voters want sweeping health care changes …maybe

    A basic tension underlies Democratic plans to overhauls the health care system: Only 1 in 3 Americans rate health care in the U.S. as “excellent” or “good,” according to Gallup. But at the same time, a large majority — 7 in 10 — view their own personal health care as “excellent” or “good.”

    Which is to say, it’s easy to see how voters might want the system massively reformed. In addition, incremental changes that don’t go as far as Medicare-for-all might particularly infuriate progressive voters.

    But at the same time, voters will likely bristle if that reform threatens to change their own health coverage, as some major health care overhauls, like Medicare-for-all, might do.

    “There is a reason that President Obama’s signature promise on Obamacare was ‘If you like your plan, you can keep it,'” Steel said.

    That promise proved untrue — some Americans saw their health care plans canceled under the new Obamacare rules, and Politifact named Obama’s statement the “lie of the year” in 2013.

    Should a Democratic candidate’s health care proposal similarly threaten people’s current health plans, it’s a safe bet that it will become a major Republican line of attack.

    Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2019/02/25/697095749/beyond-bumper-sticker-slogans-2020-democrats-debate-details-of-medicare-for-all

    <!– –>

    U.S. President Donald Trump and China’s state-run news agency Xinhua both announced “significant progress” from the last week of trade negotiations.

    Encouragingly, both sides specifically mentioned the issues of technology transfer, intellectual property protection, currency, services and agriculture. Still, the U.S. and China will need to overcome significant hurdles if they’re to ink a deal resolving their long-term disagreements.

    Trump said in a Sunday evening Twitter post he would delay an increase in tariffs on Chinese exports to the U.S. that was originally scheduled for March 1. “Assuming both sides make additional progress, we will be planning a Summit for President Xi and myself, at Mar-a-Lago, to conclude an agreement,” Trump tweeted. “A very good weekend for U.S. & China!”

    Chinese stocks rallied following the news. The Shanghai composite soared 5.6 percent, sending the index back into bull market territory, or up more than 20 percent from a low touched in early January.

    “In general it’s perceived as very positive,” Wang Huiyao, an advisor to the Chinese government and the president of Beijing-based think tank Center for China and Globalization, said in a phone interview on Monday. “If people think this is good for the country, the government can rally support (and be) more conciliatory, more cooperative.”

    However, a delay of punitive measures isn’t the same as an agreement. Much of the foreign business community has been frustrated by Beijing’s slowness to act on commitments made when the country joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. Last year, Trump also abruptly changed the tone on trade negotiations when both sides thought they were nearing an agreement.

    What’s important, analysts said, will be a timeline for implementation on any trade deal, and specific consequences if commitments are not enacted.

    Even Xinhua pointed out in a Chinese-language article on Monday that, according to a CNBC translation, “negotiations become more difficult the closer they get to the end. The chance this causes greater uncertainty cannot be ruled out.”

    The American Chamber of Commerce in China said in a statement Monday that it’s pleased with the latest developments on trade, but “what is common among all of our members is the desire to progress on the fundamental underlying issues, which will be necessary if a long-term solution is to be found.”

    The chamber cited a survey of its members last week that showed they “most valued greater market access for their industries; guarantees that antitrust, environmental protection, product safety, and other measures will be enforced equally against Chinese and foreign enterprises and individuals; improvements in intellectual property protection and elimination of pressure to transfer technology; and participation by foreign companies in standard setting.”

    “China is likely to agree (to) some sort of deal and just run the clock down on the Trump administration.”
    -Chris Rogers, research analyst at Panjiva

    China has made some progress in reducing the requirement for joint ventures, analysts said. Beijing is also increasing its efforts to improve intellectual property protection, especially as the country tries to move into its own production of higher-value technologies.

    Still, the Chinese government’s preferred pace of action may not be fast enough for the U.S., or businesses affected by tariffs.

    “China is likely to agree (to) some sort of deal and just run the clock down on the Trump administration,” Chris Rogers, research analyst at Panjiva, a supply chain data company that’s part of S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a phone interview last week.

    Tariffs have hit both Chinese and U.S. businesses, data show. Beijing is also struggling to crack down on high debt levels while maintaining stable growth. A boost from a surge in Chinese exports that happened in anticipation of tariff increases is also fading.

    The U.S. imposed tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods last year, while Beijing retaliated with duties on $110 billion worth of imports from America. During a G-20 meeting in Argentina that concluded Dec. 1, Trump agreed not to raise duties further if both countries could reach an agreement on trade within 90 days.

    “Finding a resolution to the trade (tensions) that eliminates tariffs would greatly reduce uncertainty in the business community,” Jake Parker, vice president of China operations for the U.S.-China Business Council, said Monday. He noted that the tariffs have had a significant impact on U.S. businesses, especially those in agriculture and retail.

    “We’ve also heard from a number of companies because their costs have risen, that has put them in a less competitive position vis-a-vis their European and Japanese counterparts,” Parker said. “Once you lose market share it’s very hard to regain that in the near term.”

    The Chinese Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Foreign Affairs did not respond to CNBC’s faxed requests for comment on Monday. Details on a potential meeting between Trump and Xi were unclear.

    Source Article from https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/25/chinese-stocks-rocketed-higher-on-trumps-trade-tweet.html

    Image copyright
    Getty Images

    Image caption

    Howard X says officials have told him that his visa is “invalid”, but has received no explanation as to why

    A Kim Jong-un impersonator has been deported from Vietnam ahead of the real North Korean leader’s meeting with US President Trump in Hanoi this week.

    Hong Kong resident Howard X staged a fake summit with Trump impersonator Russell White last week.

    The two were later held for questioning by Vietnamese police and told to cease all their political jesting.

    Howard X says officials have since told him his visa is “invalid”, but says he has received no further explanation.

    “Satire is a powerful weapon against any dictatorship. They are scared of a couple of guys that look like the real thing,” Howard X, who was wearing a black suit and thick black glasses in the style of Kim Jong-un, told reporters.

    He and Mr White took part in a faux summit in Vietnam’s capital, Hanoi, telling reporters they intended to scale down North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

    “We’re working toward peace. Through negotiations, with dialogue, we want to help North Korea of course,” Canada-born Mr White told reporters at the time, dressed at Donald Trump.

    “Hopefully he can overlook all my nuclear missiles and lift the sanctions,” answered Howard X, a full-time impressionist who visited Singapore ahead of the first US-North Korea summit last year.

    The men were later detained by police whilst giving an interview to a local TV station.

    Vietnamese police told the pair to stop their impersonations and said they could only travel around the city with an approved itinerary and escort, AFP news agency reports.

    “The real reason is I was born with a face looking like Kim Jong-un, that’s the real crime,” said Howard X.

    Media captionHoward and a Donald Trump impersonator go hand in hand in Singapore

    He added he believed he was being deported because the North Korean leader had “no sense of humour”.

    The Kim lookalike took part in similar satirical stunts during the first US-North Korea summit in Singapore last year.

    He was also escorted away by security at the 2018 Winter Olympics in South Korea after dancing in front of North Korea’s cheerleading squad.

    President Trump and Kim Jong-un are due to meet in Hanoi on 27-28 February for talks expected to focus on persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons programme.

    Their first summit in Singapore last June generated significant coverage and optimism, but delivered very few concrete developments.

    Both sides said they were committed to denuclearisation, but gave no details of how this would be carried out or verified.

    Source Article from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47354761

    Three crew members died after an Atlas Air 767 freighter operated on behalf of Amazon Air crashed near the city of Anahuac Texas, in the Trinity Bay.

    Flight 3591 was flying  from Miami to Houston when the incident occurred.

    In a statement, parent company Atlas Air Worldwide said: “Atlas’ primary focus is working to provide the families of those affected with care and support. The company has established a Family Assistance Center staffed with specialists to support the families. Atlas Air Chief Executive Officer Bill Flynn is on site with a team from the airline.”

    “Our thoughts and prayers are with all those who have been affected,” said Bill Flynn, Atlas Air chief executive. “This is a sad time for all of us. Our team continues to work closely with the NTSB, the FAA and local authorities on the ground in Houston. We would like to commend the efforts of all of the first responders. We sincerely appreciate their efforts and support in the investigation.”

    The company said it was working with the emergency services and other agencies to establish the circumstances around exactly what happened. Further updates will be available on its website.

     

     

    Source Article from https://www.aircargonews.net/uncategorized/atlas-air-b767-freighter-in-crash-near-houston-three-crew-feared-dead/