March 3, 2016


News Clips For The Day


REPUBLICANS VS TRUMP


https://www.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-koch-brothers-not-funds-try-block-trump-010111128.html

Koch brothers will not use funds to try to block Trump nomination
By Michelle Conlin, Reuters
March 2, 2016

See Video – news Bloomberg Politics


NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Koch brothers, the most powerful conservative mega donors in the United States, will not use their $400 million political arsenal to try to block Republican front-runner Donald Trump's path to the presidential nomination, a spokesman told Reuters on Wednesday.

The decision by the billionaire industrialists is another setback to Republican establishment efforts to derail the New York real estate mogul's bid for the White House, and follows speculation the Kochs would soon launch a "Trump Intervention."

"We have no plans to get involved in the primary," said James Davis, spokesman for Freedom Partners, the Koch brothers’ political umbrella group. He would not elaborate on what the brothers' strategy would be for the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama.

Three sources close to the Kochs said the brothers made the decision because they were concerned that spending millions of dollars attacking Trump would be money wasted, since they had not yet seen any attack on Trump stick.

The Koch brothers are also smarting from the millions of dollars they pumped into the failed 2012 Republican presidential bids of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the sources said.

Donors and media reports have speculated since January, when the Kochs gathered 500 of America’s wealthiest political donors at a California resort, that they would deploy their vast political network to target Trump.

The Kochs oppose his protectionist trade rhetoric and hardline views on immigration - which include building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and deporting millions of illegal immigrants.

Many Republican figures and business backers are eager to see Trump, a political outsider who has tapped into rising anti-establishment sentiment, fail in his bid for the nomination. They prefer instead a more traditional candidate like U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

But with Trump racking up a series of wins in the early nominating contests against opponents including Rubio and U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, there is a growing sense of inevitability that he will win the party's mantle.

(Editing by Richard Valdmanis, Chris Reese and Peter Cooney)



“The decision by the billionaire industrialists is another setback to Republican establishment efforts to derail the New York real estate mogul's bid for the White House, and follows speculation the Kochs would soon launch a "Trump Intervention." "We have no plans to get involved in the primary," said James Davis, spokesman for Freedom Partners, the Koch brothers’ political umbrella group. He would not elaborate on what the brothers' strategy would be for the Nov. 8 election to succeed Democratic President Barack Obama. …. would be money wasted, since they had not yet seen any attack on Trump stick. The Koch brothers are also smarting from the millions of dollars they pumped into the failed 2012 Republican presidential bids of Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, the sources said. …. The Kochs oppose his protectionist trade rhetoric and hardline views on immigration - which include building a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico and deporting millions of illegal immigrants.”


There is a tide of unrest on both sides of the political spectrum at this time, in which the right is menacing what I consider to be the “American Way” -- of basic economic comfort for the Middle Class, a college education for those who study hard, more racial and cultural openness, the possibility of owning a house and car, good healthcare, and definitely enough food on the table. As a result, the emotions are high. Bernie Sanders on the left and Trump et al on the right have strong and motivated followings. In less turbulent times, it probably is possible for people like the Kochs to buy an election, but the outpouring of public discontent is apparently sufficient to stop it this time. I do hope that the cadre of Republicans who are against him will prevail, however, in preventing his getting the nomination. The good news, though, is that the spectre of having the boogeyman himself in office will probably get all lazy or indecisive Democrats off their respective duffs and out to the polls.



http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/03/03/468955099/the-snap-gap-benefits-arent-enough-to-keep-many-recipients-fed

The SNAP Gap: Benefits Aren't Enough To Keep Many Recipients Fed
TRACIE MCMILLAN
March 3, 201612:57 PM ET


Photograph -- Nearly one-third of households on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, still have to visit a food pantry to keep themselves fed, according to USDA data.
Luke Sharrett/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Related articles:
THE SALT -- How America's Wealth Gap Shows Up On Our Dinner Plates
THE SALT -- Both Parties Agree The Food Stamp Program Needs To Change. But How?
THE SALT -- Are You Hungry? Pediatricians Add A New Question During Checkups


Nearly one-third of households on SNAP, formerly known as food stamps, still have to visit a food pantry to keep themselves fed, according to data highlighted this week by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In 2014, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program supported 23 million American households. The same year, 32 percent of all households who received SNAP in the previous 30 days reported they had visited a food pantry, the USDA says. And 23 percent of households using the Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program visited a pantry that year, as had 23 percent of households receiving free or reduced-price school lunch.

"Generally, we believe that people aren't going to go to pantries if they don't need the food," says Alisha Coleman-Jensen, an economist at the USDA's Economic Research Service and a specialist in food insecurity. "I think you can read into [the new data] that SNAP benefits aren't going far enough to cover all of their food expenses."

The federal food stamps program is working to make sure low-income Americans are getting enough calories, but those calories are less nutritious than what everyone else eats, research finds. The USDA is funding programs to try to bridge that gap, such as initiatives that allow food stamp recipients to use their benefits at farmers markets.


That lines up with other research suggesting that SNAP benefits rarely sustain families throughout an entire month. A 2013 qualitative study of 3,300 SNAP households by the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service found that "SNAP households experience ... financial strain that is eased but not alleviated by participation in the SNAP program."

Indeed, that study found that many SNAP clients — about 45 percent — limited food consumption, usually by skipping meals, to make it through the month. Other research has shown that hospital admissions for hypoglycemia —low blood sugar, a condition that can be treated with a healthy diet — spike by 27 percent for low-income households during that last week of the month, while high-income households show no similar trend.

A new budget plan that calls for turning food stamps into a block grant program for states could affect stores that accept food stamps through an Electronic Benefits Transfer, or EBT, system like this one in Memphis.

A forthcoming study from University of Pennsylvania researchers bears out this shortfall in cold dollars and cents. Spending among 700 SNAP customers in Chester, Pa., dropped by 72 percent between the first week of the month and the last, says Eliza Whiteman, one of the study's authors. And while Whiteman cautions that the study sample was small, making extrapolation dicey, she wonders whether making SNAP distribution more frequent — biweekly or weekly, for example, rather than monthly — might "smooth out" the gaps in people's diets.

Kids and parents often shy away from talking about their struggles at the doctor's office. But the American Academy of Pediatrics is now urging its members to screen kids for food insecurity during well-child visits.


Still, the core finding seemed to echo what Coleman-Jensen at USDA found. "It definitely points at the potential that SNAP benefits aren't sufficient," says Whiteman.



http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/gop-foreign-policy-experts-just-went-nuclear-donald-trump

How Many Republican Heavyweights Does It Take to Tell Trump His Foreign Policy Ideas Are Insane?
Seventy-five national security bigshots just went nuclear on Trump.
—By Max J. Rosenthal
Thu Mar. 3, 2016 12:46 PM EST

Photograph -- Donald Trump, by Rex Features/AP


A group of 75 Republican foreign policy experts blasted Donald Trump and his foreign policy positions in an open letter released on Wednesday night, calling the GOP front-runner "fundamentally dishonest" and "utterly unfitted" for the presidency.

"Mr. Trump’s own statements lead us to conclude that as president, he would use the authority of his office to act in ways that make America less safe, and which would diminish our standing in the world," the group wrote in the letter posted at War on the Rocks, a prominent national security blog. "Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States."

The group is a who's who of influential writers, policymakers, and commentators in national security and foreign policy. From the neoconservative brain trust, signatories include Eliot Cohen, who served as a State Department lawyer in the Bush administration, and historians Robert Kagan, Niall Ferguson, and Max Boot. A host of former government officials also signed the document: Bush administration Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff; Philip Zelikow, who served as a national security official under three Republican presidents; and retired US Army Colonel Pete Mansoor joined the other prominent GOP foreign policy figures.

Many of them, particularly the neoconservatives, had already expressed their loathing for Trump in the media, but this open letter unites them in a single platform with figures from other parts of the more traditional GOP foreign policy establishment. "We have disagreed with one another on many issues, including the Iraq War and intervention in Syria," they write, "but we are united in our opposition to a Donald Trump presidency."

Their list of criticisms includes Trump's "inexcusable" fondness for torture, his "admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin," his hate-mongering against Muslims, his threats to start trade wars with China and other countries, and other inflammatory positions. "His foreign policy platform is uniquely awful," wrote Tufts professor and signatory Dan Drezner in the Washington Post.

But, as the letter suggests, Trump doesn't have anything resembling a "foreign policy platform," much less a coherent foreign policy. Instead, the signatories write, "His vision of American influence and power in the world is wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle." One of them, former Department of Justice lawyer Carrie Cordero, tweeted on Thursday morning that Trump still hasn't followed through on his long-standing promise to announce his foreign policy team: "It's not weeks, but 6+ months since Trump said he'd name his foreign policy advisors."

Some of those who signed the letter, including Boot and Kagan, have already pledged to support Hillary Clinton if Trump becomes the GOP nominee. But former Mitt Romney adviser Bryan McGrath, who helped assemble the group, denied that all its members would follow suit. "The only implication here is that we're not going to support Donald Trump," he told the Washington Post. "I want to be on record saying that this man is not presidential material, and this was the best way I could do it and bring some friends along."



“'Furthermore, his expansive view of how presidential power should be wielded against his detractors poses a distinct threat to civil liberty in the United States.' …. Their list of criticisms includes Trump's "inexcusable" fondness for torture, his "admiration for foreign dictators such as Vladimir Putin," his hate-mongering against Muslims, his threats to start trade wars with China and other countries, and other inflammatory positions. "His foreign policy platform is uniquely awful," wrote Tufts professor and signatory Dan Drezner in the Washington Post. …. Some of those who signed the letter, including Boot and Kagan, have already pledged to support Hillary Clinton if Trump becomes the GOP nominee. But former Mitt Romney adviser Bryan McGrath, who helped assemble the group, denied that all its members would follow suit. "The only implication here is that we're not going to support Donald Trump," he told the Washington Post. "I want to be on record saying that this man is not presidential material, and this was the best way I could do it and bring some friends along."


Support Hillary Clinton, now that’s true patriotism, because it goes beyond loyalty to party and into loyalty to our beloved country. Romney did say that not all of the signers would do that, but there are probably others who will. The reaction from Democrats to a man like Trump -- hatred and fear – was natural and expected, but the GOP members now are drawing a strong distinction between conservatism and radical views. Thank Goodness! I had begun to think they were totally intimidated by the Tea Party influx, but perhaps not. I hope they will continue to fight back, because there are other far right thinkers across our country, and the tide of “race war” is perhaps not as far away as I had hoped.

When I first began reading of the comments and actions from the right, including especially the Dominionists, the outright Nazis, and the frighteningly ignorant, who float rumors of everything from the “faked” walk on the moon in 1969 to the dangerous upcoming invasion from “black helicopters” I have been increasingly frightened. When I was young people who were technically “ignorant,” meaning not well educated but not insane or unintelligent either, didn’t frighten me because they weren’t constantly in the news, especially for inciting violence or treasonous action.

Of course there was always the, supposedly, high crime of “advocating the overthrow of the US government,” and groups like “Communists” were believed to be in that category. In those day, Communism wasn’t merely a political philosophy. Nowadays there are tens of thousands of those people out there now – on the right wing -- and, except for the Bundys recently, they aren’t usually prosecuted. One understandable reason for that is that the whole idea of robbing people of their right to speak their minds or associate with whomever they will goes against the American grain, including myself. I didn’t mind ignoring people who talked against evolution or birth control until they began to form into political groups who are out to inforce that view on us all. I draw the line there.

I’m so glad to see so many Republicans speaking out against Trump not timidly, as though in fear of losing their own far right followers, but boldly. I hope to see a real rebellion by moderate Republicans against not only Trump, but a lot of those Tea Partiers as well – particularly Cruz who more or less engineered the government shutdowns to force Obama to back down – who have flooded into both houses of our lawmakers and tried to absolutely take over, not only the Congress, but the Republican Party. Poor John Boehner battled them for years, trying to induce some logic into their ways, and now Paul Ryan is beginning to do the same thing. There are Republican and Republicans. I’m glad to see some who seem to me to be “good people” rather than merely “conservative.” “Conservative” thinking is basically rigid, angry and frightened thinking. Maybe we will go back to a Teddy Roosevelt or Eisenhower in the future.

See the interesting article below on Eisenhower’s executive order that all schools must be desegregated. The thrilling and quick action by President Eisenhower showed why, to me, he is really one of our greatest presidents, though people don’t usually name him for that honor. He was bold and decisive, but a truly good, enlightened person.


http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=89

Executive Order 10730: Desegregation of Central High School (1957)

This executive order of September 23, 1957, signed by President Dwight Eisenhower, sent Federal troops to maintain order and peace while the integration of Central High School in Little Rock, AR, took place.

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Topeka Board of Education that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and ordered that U.S. public schools be desegregated "with all deliberate speed." Within a week of the 1954 decision, Arkansas was one of two Southern states to announce it would begin immediately to take steps to comply with the Brown decision. Arkansas's law school had been integrated since 1949, and seven of its eight state universities had desegregated. Blacks had been appointed to state boards and elected to local offices. It had already desegregated its public buses as well as its zoo, library, and parks system. In the summer of 1957, the city of Little Rock made plans to desegregate its public schools. Little Rock’s school board had voted unanimously for a plan that started with the desegregation of the high school in 1957, followed by junior high schools the next year and elementary schools following. In September 1957, nine African American students enrolled at Central High School in Little Rock. The ensuing struggle between segregationists and integrationists, the Governor of the State of Arkansas and the Federal Government, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus became known as the "Little Rock Crisis."

On September 2, the night before school was to start, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out the state's National Guard to surround Little Rock Central High School and prevent any black students from entering. The Governor explained that his action was taken to protect citizens and property from possible violence by protesters he claimed were headed in caravans toward Little Rock. President Eisenhower, who was vacationing in Newport, RI, arranged to meet Governor Faubus to discuss the tense situation. In their brief meeting in Newport, Eisenhower thought Faubus had agreed to enroll the African American students, so he told Faubus that his National Guard troops could stay at Central High and enforce order. However, once back in Little Rock, Governor Faubus withdrew the National Guard.

A few days later, when nine African American students slipped into the school to enroll, a full-scale riot erupted. The situation was quickly out of control, as Governor Faubus failed to stop the violence. Finally, Congressman Brooks Hays and Little Rock Mayor Woodrow Mann asked the Federal Government for help, first in the form of U.S. marshals. President Dwight D. Eisenhower, as the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, was presented with a difficult problem. He was required to uphold the Constitution and the laws, but he also wanted to avoid a bloody confrontation in Arkansas. With Executive Order 10730, the President placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent 1,000 U.S. Army paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division to assist them in restoring order in Little Rock.

For more information related to the Little Rock Crisis, see the collection of documents at the Eisenhower Presidential Library.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/

Could Ted Cruz be the GOP's last best chance to defeat Donald Trump?
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS
March 3, 2016, 5:35 AM

Play VIDEO -- Lindsey Graham: Republicans are handing election to Hillary Clinton
Photograph -- screen-shot-2016-03-02-at-5-25-21-pm.png, At his victory speech rally Tuesday night in Stafford, Texas, Cruz pointed out that out of the 15 states that have held nominating contests so far, only Trump or Cruz has won them. He said there is now only one way to defeat Trump.
Play VIDEO -- Ted Cruz on unifying GOP against Donald Trump

As Donald Trump racks up more delegates on the path toward the Republican nomination, his opponents are now contemplating whether Ted Cruz might be the GOP's last best chance to stop the billionaire businessman.

That's exactly what Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, floated in an interview Tuesday night with CBS News' Charlie Rose.

"Ted Cruz is not my favorite by any means, and I don't wish him ill, but we may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump and I'm not so sure that would work," said Graham, who dropped out of the presidential race in December and had endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has also suspended his campaign.

A Trump nomination would lead to losing to Hillary Clinton in November, Graham said.

The Texas senator could have trouble attracting wide support as he has alienated many of his Senate colleagues and picked up few congressional endorsements. For years, he has portrayed himself as the anti-Washington, anti-establishment representative in Congress and was largely blamed for the 16-day government shutdown in October 2013.

But after polls closed on Super Tuesday, it was Cruz who benefited from the nominating contests, not Marco Rubio, who for weeks had been positioning himself as the only formidable anti-Trump alternative.

It's crossed the minds of some Rubio supporters that Cruz might represent the best shot at stopping Trump. Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Virginia, told NPR, "I could get behind any other Republican candidate. I'm not a Cruz fan -- I could get behind him."

Out of the 1,237 delegates needed to clinch the nomination, Trump now has about 326 delegates, according to CBS News' latest counts. Until now, all of the GOP delegates have been awarded proportionally instead of on a winner-take-all basis. In addition to winning New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada earlier in the month, he won Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Vermont and Virginia. Cruz, meanwhile, has 230 delegates. He has picked up Alaska, Iowa, Oklahoma and Texas so far. Rubio has gained about 109 delegates; he only won Minnesota.

"For the candidates who have not yet won a state, who have not racked up significant delegates, I ask you to prayerfully consider our coming together, uniting," he said.

Some conservative commentators are already cheering that idea on, especially since some recent polls indicate Rubio and Kasich could lose on their home turfs in Florida and Ohio, respectively, on March 15.

"It is time for Ted Cruz to accept we need a unity ticket and for Rubio to agree to be Cruz's vice presidential pick, uniting the outsider and insider factions of the party and stopping Trump in the process," wrote Erick Erickson in a blog post.

Republican strategist Matt Mackowiak supports that idea.

"Cruz and Rubio together would be a really powerful ticket. It would be forward-looking. You would have two first-time senators of Cuban descent in their 40s. It would be a tremendous contrast with Hillary and whoever she nominates" Mackowiak told CBS News.

He argues that the establishment knows exactly what they would get with Cruz as president while there are too many unknowns with Trump. Unlike previous instances where Trump has survived backlash against his own provocative statements, Mackowiak thinks last weekend was a turning point.

"I think the David Duke, KKK incident probably did a lot of damage to Trump," he said. "It showed that he's not disciplined, that he's not savvy and that he's engaging in dog whistle racial politics. With Cruz, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a solid conservative, really push the establishment."

John Dickerson: Donald Trump's artful dodge about the KKK is making the GOP nervous

Daniel Horowitz, writer for the Conservative Review, wrote Tuesday that Cruz could mount a serious challenge.

"Cruz has amassed a tremendous amount of money to go one-on-one with Trump in the long-run and a two-man race would change the entire narrative of the race. Trump could no longer stand out as the only man tapping into the outrage relative to a crowded field of 'politicians,'" he wrote.

As the rival campaigns try to figure out how to overtake Trump, several super PACs are quickly building an anti-Trump movement.

Katie Packer, a former 2012 Mitt Romney campaign staffer, created the Our Principles PAC and has been airing anti-Trump ads. An ad released Wednesday attacks Trump over the KKK episode. Here's the ad, "Unelectable": [Go to website to view it.]. Conservative group Club for Growth is also airing ads of its own.

"Donald Trump talks tough about China and Mexico. But who has Trump ever actually taken on?" said a Club for Growth ad released Wednesday that will air in Florida. "He even tried to kick an elderly woman out of her home through eminent domain. Real tough guy."

As the anti-Trump machine intensifies, however, time is running out for the other candidates to coordinate. There are less than two weeks to go before states award delegates on a winner-take-all basis on March 15.

"I still think there is time to stop Trump, but boy, the sands of the hourglass are running out and I think they will be almost completely out by March 14 if we don't have a unity ticket that unifies the non-Trump vote," Mackowiak said.

Recommended: Video today on CBS of Romney roundly denouncing Trump. I do hope this Republican united front amounts to more than talk, and quickly. The party needs a purge.


CBS on Cruz -- "Ted Cruz is not my favorite by any means, and I don't wish him ill, but we may be in a position where we have to rally around Ted Cruz as the only way to stop Donald Trump and I'm not so sure that would work," said Graham, who dropped out of the presidential race in December and had endorsed former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who has also suspended his campaign. A Trump nomination would lead to losing to Hillary Clinton in November, Graham said. …. he has alienated many of his Senate colleagues and picked up few congressional endorsements. For years, he has portrayed himself as the anti-Washington, anti-establishment representative in Congress and was largely blamed for the 16-day government shutdown in October 2013. …. "It is time for Ted Cruz to accept we need a unity ticket and for Rubio to agree to be Cruz's vice presidential pick, uniting the outsider and insider factions of the party and stopping Trump in the process," wrote Erick Erickson in a blog post. …. Unlike previous instances where Trump has survived backlash against his own provocative statements, Mackowiak thinks last weekend was a turning point. "I think the David Duke, KKK incident probably did a lot of damage to Trump," he said. "It showed that he's not disciplined, that he's not savvy and that he's engaging in dog whistle racial politics. …. "Cruz has amassed a tremendous amount of money to go one-on-one with Trump in the long-run and a two-man race would change the entire narrative of the race. Trump could no longer stand out as the only man tapping into the outrage relative to a crowded field of 'politicians,'" he wrote.”


“Tapping into the outrage” of our right leaning population is mentioned here as the reason for Trump’s success. It is, of course, appealing to many people for a candidate to be outspoken when he states his views. A Jimmy Carter, Jeb Bush or now Barack Obama, because of their way of speaking, thinking and articulating issues, do not always appear to be “real man” in the US South, West and some other localities appears to be “mealy-mouthed” at best and “a sissy” at worst.

The blue collar crowd also simply don’t trust anyone who fails to speak strongly, bluntly and perhaps even angrily. That is probably true of Americans in general, because unlike the UK we don’t have a long history of upper class-based virtues, and as a result we don’t as frequently “emulate our betters.” In fact we question that whole concept. The annoying new term, “politically correct” comes from that mindset. The American Revolution wasn’t merely about patriotism, but about casting off a caste system which England was mistakenly trying to enforce over us colonists.

Among most nonwealthy Americans, being honest is preferable to being polished. We do have wealthy people who are admired for their financial status by some of us, but we don’t worship them -- as the Brits seem to -- with their royals, lords and ladies. Of course some of us do spend hours of TV time watching “reality” TV shows starring the Kardashians, and follow stories about them in tabloids at the supermarkets and drug stores.

By and large, however, we distrust that sort of thing. Part of the reason is that we aren’t used to it. Our people simply don’t usually have those skills to any great degree, and we tend to believe strongly in folks “speaking their mind,” come what may. One who is too fluent in the language of persuasion sounds like a con man and a liar. That’s justifiable in my opinion.

Trump is interesting. A couple of times I have heard him on talk shows speaking at greater length than usual, when he has been much more articulate and reasoned in what he said than he usually is. What he loves to do is what I call “mouthing off,” saying shocking and even grotesque things like the oblique reference to a woman’s menstrual periods. That offends most people to the point that they wouldn’t consider voting for him, but there is an angry testosterone infused male segment of the population who literally hate women, and thrive on things like that.

His ability to use both ways of speaking convinces me that rather than actually being an utter ruffian – to use a good Victorian word – he is a clever fraud who is capable of switching it on and off when he wants to in order to please a segment of our population who actually are of that type. Bill Clinton was also renowned for that ability. It’s called “the common touch,” and in politics is a great asset. I think Jimmy Carter is a man who has had that touch without putting it on as an act, so some are really educated and gentlemanly to the core, while being humble and respecting those who are less well off.

Since the Tea Party and for several decades before we have been in the habit of calling dangerous radical rightists such as the militias and White Supremacists “conservatives,” and they simply are not. They are much more like anarchists. They are also at least a little bit insane. A number of those who are more than usually outspoken about their views have called out for citizens to “arm themselves” against an anticipated “race war” or even a local takeover by Federal government agents such as the ATF or the FBI. The Bundy episode in Oregon is of that viewpoint, though they were on the offensive against the “tyranny” of government owning land which in their book should be used by “the people.”

The fact is that the radical rightists, as they tend to do things like refuse to file income taxes, bomb buildings or commit violence against local government officials, are much more likely to be chased down by the FBI than people like me are, because they deserve to be. They have more to worry about from “the government,” than does the average citizen, for which I am grateful. I want our leaders to try to keep track of such people without mass surveillance becoming an inescapable part of our daily lives, however. One such story that sticks in my memory as being as bad in its’ own way as the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, was when a militia guy actually put a live rattlesnake in the outdoor mailbox of a local official who had angered him. Another threatened the life of a city councilwoman, and stalked her. Those people aren’t “patriots” at all. They are criminals.

The Republican Party political candidates and/or office holders have for years now used “dog whistle politics,” which they know appeals to the most depraved of our citizenry, in order to gain more votes and financial contributions. Now the ultimate rabble rouser has come on the scene and is about to take over the Republican Party single-handedly. The party is in turmoil, increasingly and especially since the David Duke comments by Trump in which he has ridiculously claimed that he is unfamiliar with either Duke or the KKK. If he has lived in this country, even in NYC, he certainly knows them both, at least by reputation. He coyly used the phrase “I don’t know him personally,” when denying the direct accusation from a news reporter that he is blatantly lying about it. I wonder who he thinks he is fooling. He certainly isn’t fooling his newly adopted party members, not long ago he was an Independent, who don’t want to be tarred with the same brush, no matter how much they may deserve it.

Well, this is certainly interesting. Personally, I really would rather see the GOP cast out its less “grand” members, the NeoFascists, and form a separate and much more moderate party. They could call themselves the New Republicans or something like that, and espouse the kind of decent and inclusive views that would draw in some of the outsider groups like ethnic minorities. That would give us Dems an election advantage, and it would go a long way toward cleansing the political system, which is much needed lately -- to as great a degree as during the infamous days of Boss Tweed. This article gives me a little more hope than I had when Drumpf first came into the presidential race.


For an interesting article on that infamous man who unfortunately was a Democrat, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Tweed, William M. Tweed, From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The following is an excerpt:

“William Magear Tweed (April 3, 1823 – April 12, 1878) – often erroneously referred to as William Marcy Tweed (see below),[1] and widely known as "Boss" Tweed – was an American politician most notable for being the "boss" of Tammany Hall, the Democratic Party political machine that played a major role in the politics of 19th century New York City and State. At the height of his influence, Tweed was the third-largest landowner in New York City, a director of the Erie Railroad, the Tenth National Bank, and the New-York Printing Company, as well as proprietor of the Metropolitan Hotel.[2]

Tweed was elected to the United States House of Representatives in 1852 and the New York County Board of Supervisors in 1858, the year he became the head of the Tammany Hall political machine. He was also elected to the New York State Senate in 1867, but Tweed's greatest influence came from being an appointed member of a number of boards and commissions, his control over political patronage in New York City through Tammany, and his ability to ensure the loyalty of voters through jobs he could create and dispense on city-related projects.

According to Tweed biographer Kenneth D. Ackerman:

It's hard not to admire the skill behind Tweed's system ... The Tweed ring at its height was an engineering marvel, strong and solid, strategically deployed to control key power points: the courts, the legislature, the treasury and the ballot box. Its frauds had a grandeur of scale and an elegance of structure: money-laundering, profit sharing and organization.[3]

Tweed was convicted for stealing an amount estimated by an aldermen's committee in 1877 at between $25 million and $45 million from New York City taxpayers through political corruption, although later estimates ranged as high as $200 million.[4] Unable to make bail, he escaped from jail once, but was returned to custody. He died in the Ludlow Street Jail.”



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-it-worker-who-helped-set-up-hillary-clinton-email-server-gets-immunity/

IT worker who helped set up Hillary Clinton email server gets immunity
CBS NEWS
March 2, 2016, 11:32 PM


WASHINGTON -- Bryan Pagliano, the State Department IT staffer who helped set up and maintain Hillary Clinton's private email server in her Chappaqua, N.Y. home in 2009, has been granted immunity by the Justice Department, CBS News confirmed Tuesday. Pagliano is cooperating with the FBI in its investigation.

The FBI obtained Pagliano's cooperation, the Washington Post first reported, citing a senior law enforcement official. The Post also suggested that granting immunity to Pagliano is a sign "the FBI investigation into possible criminal wrongdoing is progressing." Pagliano was paid separately by the Clintons to set up the server before he was hired by the State Department.

FBI Director James Comey told a congressional hearing recently that he is "closely involved" in the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.

CBS News confirmed in August that the bureau was investigating whether Clinton or her aides mishandled classified information during her tenure as secretary of state, in relation to her use of the private server. Specifically, the FBI has been trying to figure out how many classified emails Clinton had on her server, and whether the system exposed classified information.

Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon told the Post in a statement that the campaign was "pleased" that Pagliano had decided to cooperate with the FBI, after he had previously invoked his Fifth Amendment privileges when subpoenaed by Congress.

Separate from the FBI investigation, the State Department had been clearing and releasing some 52,000 Clinton emails in monthly batches since last May and finally finished releasing the emails Monday. The campaign and the State Department have said repeatedly that none of the material was marked classified when it it was sent.

CBS News' Pat Milton contributed to this report.


“Pagliano was paid separately by the Clintons to set up the server before he was hired by the State Department. FBI Director James Comey told a congressional hearing recently that he is "closely involved" in the investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State.” That and the implied progress by the FBI in the investigation are the only new pieces of information in this article that I can see. Still, this news article does thrust the matter into the public eye again at this crucial part in the political season as the number of states who are due to vote increases. It can, conceivably, do more harm now for Hillary, who needs to maintain her momentum.


http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a42602/chris-christie-super-tuesday-memes/

However Awful Your Night Was, It Wasn't as Bad as Chris Christie's
Esquire "What have I done?"
BY MICHAEL SEBASTIAN
MAR 2, 2016

Photograph – Christie
Play Video – Chris Christie Introducing Donald Trump On Super Tuesday


It's been hard to feel bad for Chris Christie, a notorious bully in the political arena, that is, until Tuesday night when America got a glimpse inside the New Jersey governor's soul. And it was very sad. Christie, who endorsed Trump last week after dropping out of the Republican presidential race, introduced Trump at a victory rally on Tuesday night. But Christie lacked his usual vigor and was either very tired or had just exchanged something dear to him for a place in the Trump White House.

After the intro, Christie stepped aside and stood behind Trump as the Republican frontrunner took the podium. That's when the real fun began, as Christie's eyes and body language stole the show. He even became the top trending topic in Twitter.

Meanwhile, as all of this was happening, six newspapers in New Jersey called on Christie to resign, while The Washington Post on Monday published an op-ed declaring Christie "ruined."


COMMENTS

Matthew ‎@Matthops82
Chris Christie looks like my dog when she realizes our car ride was to the vet
9:56 PM - 1 Mar 2016

Larry Jackson · Works at K-State Research and Extension
Trying to look vice-presidential.
Like · Reply · 12 hrs

Mary Beth Hilburn
Or like an Attorney General. I think Drumpf just wants him to take down Mrs. Clinton like he did poor Marco.
Like · Reply · 3 · 9 hrs

Ed Cooper
Mary Beth Hilburn Never happen. Hillary will have his cojones broiled for breakfast and he knows it.

FROM HERE ON THE CONVERSATION DEGENERATES:

Dante Valiant · University of Oregon
President Trump will be great! ;0
Like · Reply · 6 hrs

Ngoc J Ho
dictator
Like · Reply · 3 hrs

Ed Cooper
only in your fevered dreams. Best if you get back on your meds now, the guys in white coats will be looking for you.


I DO LOVE COMMENTS!


http://www.npr.org/2016/03/02/468875131/christie-stands-by-trump-as-new-jersey-supporters-wonder-why

As Christie Stands By Trump, New Jersey Supporters Wonder Why
MATT KATZ
Updated March 2, 201612:04 PM ET
Published March 2, 201610:37 AM ET

Photograph -- New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie looks on as Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump takes questions from members of the media during a news conference on Super Tuesday primary election night.
Andrew Harnik/AP


As Donald Trump delivered his Super Tuesday victory speech to reporters, his most prominent endorser, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, stood stony-faced behind him, prompting a deluge of tweets comparing the former presidential candidate to a hostage.

Christie's secretly conceived decision last week to endorse Trump has provoked shock, anger and disappointment from all corners.

After Christie refused to take questions about Trump at a news conference at the statehouse in Trenton on Monday, six New Jersey newspapers from the Gannett company penned a joint editorial saying Christie should be recalled for ignoring the people of the state. And a poll released Wednesday showed that his job approval in the state stood at 27 percent, an all-time low, following the endorsement.

One of his critics' chief complaints is that Christie developed his political brand around extending the Republican Party's tent to the marginalized in New Jersey — particularly Hispanics and Muslims — and that those gains may be lost now that Christie has endorsed a candidate whose remarks are viewed by many as offensive.

Meg Whitman, a former California gubernatorial candidate and the national finance co-chair for his failed presidential campaign, called Christie's endorsement "an astonishing display of political opportunism."

Joining the chorus were former New Jersey Gov. Christie Todd Whitman ("I am ashamed that Christie would endorse anyone who has employed the kind of hate mongering and racism that Trump has"), Jennifer Rubin, a conservative blogger who has been a stalwart Christie booster ("Chris Christie, you're nothing to me now") and one of his top fundraisers, Bobbie Kilberg ("I don't get it").

The endorsement has put Christie on the defensive. In a Sunday interview on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, Christie ended up getting blindsided by Stephanopoulos, who forced the governor to account for how he had previously criticized Trump on all of his most significant policy positions. In one particularly difficult exchange, Christie refused to say he disagreed with Trump's ban on Muslims — even though as a candidate, he had brought this up as an indication that Trump wasn't fit to serve as president.

"I'm saying that's only one piece of an overall approach to national security," Christie said.

Christie also found himself deflecting questions about whether Trump's proposal to build a wall on the Mexican border was racist, even though he himself had made fun of the wall at almost every campaign town hall he held.

Eventually, Christie just blamed the media for being too tough on Trump.

New Jersey Republicans in the state privately expressed concern that Trump's presence at the top of the Republican ticket in November could hurt them in local races, while Muslim leaders publicly repudiated the comments from a governor who had been seen as a vocal defender of their rights.

Current and former supporters of Christie believe he made a savvy political move out of crass self-interest — he wanted to pick an early winner in the race for the Republican nomination so he can maintain a prominent role as a Trump surrogate and potentially land a job in the Trump administration.

Back in New Jersey, county GOP leaders were taken aback because they were supposed to meet with Christie this week, when they expected to talk about possible endorsements. They were also starting to coalesce around Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, whom Christie disdains.

Whether New Jersey Republicans likewise support Trump will be seen as a critical test of loyalty to the governor in a state that even members of Team Christie feel he is too eager to leave behind.

Asked by The New York Times if Christie's "inclusive-minded" reputation as a Republican was now at risk, Ray Washburne, Christie's finance chairman for his presidential campaign, said: "That's sure what a lot of people think. I'm still shocked and dismayed."

You can hear more analysis about Christie's endorsement on the WNYC podcast, "The Christie Tracker."



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sheepdog-breaks-california-record-for-largest-litter-of-puppies/

Sheepdog breaks California record for largest litter of puppies
CBS NEWS
March 1, 2016, 6:35 PM

Photograph -- Just a few of the 17 puppies born to a sheepdog on a farm in Napa, California. CBS SAN FRANCISCO
Photograph -- puppies2.jpg, One of the 17 puppies. CBS SAN FRANCISCO
Photograph -- Stella, the gorgeous maremma #sheepdog #bewithmia #travel #pets #dogs #farm #organic
Photograph -- One of the 17 puppies. CBS SAN FRANCISCO
Play Video – KPIX, News


NAPA, Calif. -- A dog who looks after the sheep and chickens at a Napa farm has broken the record for having the largest litter of puppies in California, reports CBS San Francisco.

Stella, a 3-year-old Maremma Sheepdog, bore 17 puppies. Her proud owners John and Gaby Costanzo were shocked.

"Six to eight is normal," said John Costanzo. "Seventeen is insane."

He said the vet told them on the spot Stella set a record for the state. It's also the largest litter ever recorded for her breed.

"We really were just expecting maybe 10 at the most. But once the 17th was finally coming out we realized that this was going to be a lot of work. We were going to be feeding morning noon and night," he said.

"We're not professional breeders or anything. We're just a farm and we have these dogs protecting our livestock."

The Guinness World record for the largest litter of puppies ever is 24, CBS SF reports.

All of the dogs have been spoken for; each will end up doing some very specific work on a farm of their own.

"Some of these guys are already going to farms around California, and we're just waiting to go through the rest of the interview process to put all 17 of them in different farms," said Costanzo.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maremma_Sheepdog

Maremma Sheepdog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Maremma Sheepdog, in Italian Cane da pastore Maremmano-Abruzzese, usually referred to as just Maremmano, is a breed of livestock guardian dog indigenous to central Italy, particularly to Abruzzo and the Maremma region of Tuscany and Lazio. It has been used for centuries by Italian shepherds to guard sheep from wolves. The literal English translation of the name is "The dog of the shepherds of the Maremma and Abruzzese region". The English name of the breed derives from that of the Maremma marshlands, where until recently shepherds, dogs and hundreds of thousands of sheep over-wintered,[1] and where the breed is today abundant although sheep-farming has decreased substantially. The breed is widely employed in Abruzzo, where sheep herding remains vital to the rural economy and the wolf remains an active and protected predator. Similar breeds include the Pyrenean Mountain Dog, the Kuvasz of Hungary, the Tatra of Poland, the Cuvac of Slovakia and the Šarplaninac (although not white), with all of which it may share a common ancestor;[2][3] and the Akbash Dog of Turkey. See Mountain dog breeds.

Appearance[edit]

The Maremma Sheepdog has a solid, muscular build, a thick white coat, a large head and a black nose. According to the breed standard, males should weigh 35 to 45 kilograms (77 to 99 lb) and stand 65 to 73 centimetres (26 to 29 in) at the shoulder, while females weigh 30 to 40 kilograms (66 to 88 lb) and stand 60 to 68 centimetres (24 to 27 in). Some dogs may be considerably larger. The coat is long and thick; it is rough to the touch, and forms a thick collar around the neck. It should be solid white; some minor yellowing may be tolerated.[4]

Some divide the breed into various subtypes, largely based on small differences in physical attributes and with subtype names based on village and provincial names where the dogs may be found, e.g. the Maremmano, the Marsicano, the Aquilano, the Pescocostanzo, the Maiella, and the Peligno.[5] However, biologists dispute this division, as well as over reliance on minor physical differences, as the dogs were bred over the centuries for their behavioral characteristics as flock guardians.[citation needed]

Ancient history and iconography[edit]

Descriptions of white sheep defense dogs are found in ancient Roman literature, in works such as those of Columella, Varro and Palladius. Similar dogs are depicted in numerous sculptures and paintings from Roman times to the present.[6] Among the earliest is the series of large statues (two in Rome, one in Florence, one – the Duncombe Dog – in England) copied from a Hellenistic bronze from Pergamon.[7] Iconographic sources that have been identified as relevant to the history of the Maremmano include:[7]

A Hellenistic bas-relief, of which a drawing was published by Max von Stephanitz in 1901[8]
A votive statuette in the Museo Archeologico of Capua
A 14th-century mediaeval fresco in the church of San Francesco in Amatrice, at the foot of the Monti della Laga, in the comune of Rieti; the dog wears a roccale
A 14th-century fresco in Santa Maria Novella, in Florence

Mariotto di Nardo, Natività, ca. 1385, showing a white shepherd dog with a spiked collar
A 'Nativity' of Mariotto di Nardo (active 1394–1424); the dog wears a spiked collar
Abraham and Lot on their way into Canaan by Bartolo Battiloro, in the Collegiata of San Gimignano

Detail of the Journey of the Magi to Bethlehem by Benozzo Gozzoli
Loup Oudry.jpg
Jean-Baptiste Oudry, Hunting the Wolf, 1746,
in the Musée du Louvre
A detail of the Journey of the Magi to Bethlehem by Benozzo Gozzoli, c.1460
Rough ink drawings on the maps of the pasture-lands of the Tavoliere di Foggia published in 1686 by Antonio and Nunzio Michele di Rovere
A seventeenth-century engraving of the Roman campagna by Joannes van den Hecke
An eighteenth-century maiolica of a bear-hunt by Candeloro Cappelletti (1689–1772) of Castelli, Abruzzo
Hunting the Wolf by Jean-Baptiste Oudry, 1746, from the collection of Louis XV; the dogs to the left and right of the wolf are described in a catalogue of the museum as "large dog[s] with long hair".[9] Wolf dogs from the Abruzzo were imported into France at about this time. They were used by François Antoine, "Antoine de Beauterne", in his successful hunt for the Beast of Gévaudan in 1765;[7] according to Gobin, under Louis XV (r.1715–1774) the Venerie Royale or Royal Hunt was composed in large part of Abruzzese wolf-dogs and Sicilian mastiffs.[10]
The cane da lupo or wolf-dog used by Vincenzo Dandolo to defend Spanish sheep on the mountains above Varese[11]
An illustration in the Penny Magazine of 1833[12]

"Wolf dogs of the Abruzzi", illustration from the Penny Magazine of 1833
An engraving by Arthur John Strutt of a shepherd and his dog in the Roman campagna in 1843
Several engravings by Charles Coleman in his collection A Series of Subjects peculiar to the Campagna of Rome and Pontine Marshes[13]

. . . .

Photograph -- Roccale 1.jpg, The roccale or vreccale, a spiked iron collar
Roccale 2.jpg
Photograph -- A roccale of a different type


Use

The traditional use of the Maremmano dog is as a guardian for the protection of sheep flocks against wolves. Columella, writing in the first century AD, recommends white dogs for this purpose, as the shepherd can easily distinguish them from the wolf, while Varro suggests that white dogs have a "lion-like aspect" in the dark.[17] The dogs work in groups; three or four dogs are an adequate defense against wolves and stray dogs. Their function is mostly one of dissuasion, actual physical combat with the predator being relatively rare.[18] Nevertheless, working dogs may be fitted with a roccale (or vreccale), a spiked iron collar which protects the neck in combat. The ears of working dogs are normally cropped.

Training[edit]

Maremma used as livestock guardian dogs are introduced to sheep flocks as puppies so they bond to the sheep. Some ranchers place Maremma puppies as young as 3–4 weeks old with young lambs [19] though beginning this bonding process at 7–8 weeks is more typical.[20] Although it is easiest to bond Maremma to sheep and goats, cattle ranchers have found that the dogs bond with cows and Maremma are increasingly used to protect range cattle.[21] Some ranchers have found success training Maremmas to protect free-range fowl like chickens from predation from both ground threats such as coyotes, stray dogs and foxes as well as aerial threats such as raptors (hawks, eagles, owls, etc.).[22]

In Warrnambool, Australia, the world's first trial utilized a Maremma to guard the dwindling little penguin population of Middle Island.[23] This project won the 2010 Australian Government Coastcare Award.[24] While using Maremma to guard an endangered species is rare, Maremma along with other breeds of livestock guarding dogs are appreciated by environmentalists because they make it possible for livestock to coexist with predators such as wolves and coyotes, reducing their predation by 70% to 80% or more.[20] National park authorities in Italy, the United States and Canada have promoted use of the Maremma Sheepdog as well as other types of livestock guarding dogs to minimize conflict between endangered predator species and ranchers.[25][citation needed]


The birth of seventeen puppies is exciting and the photos of them are adorable, but the most interesting thing is the Wikipedia article on the breed. They are disarmingly beautiful animals with curly white hair and floppy ears, more or less like a spaniel. They have been used at least back as far as Roman times, and have been depicted in numerous artworks down through the centuries.

They don’t look aggressive, but they weigh between seventy and ninety pounds and have been used for fighting off wolves which come to ravage the sheep flocks and even to hunt wolves. They work the flock in groups of three or four. They are also one of those cultural links that excite me, in that they suggest the movement of peoples across the globe, probably back into prehistory, following a human heritage around over thousands of miles. The evidence of that, in addition to artworks depicting them, is that genetically very similar dogs are found in multiple places in Europe. I do love to find this kind of story. It allows me to get into my time machine and take a tour!