February 17 and 18, 2018


News and Views


REPUBLICANS ARE SEEING THE LIGHT, SOME OF THEM ANYWAY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retiring-gop-lawmakers-share-their-frustrations-concerns-over-future-of-congress/
CBS NEWS February 18, 2018, 10:03 AM
Retiring GOP lawmakers share their frustrations, concerns over future of Congress

Dozens of members of the House and Senate have announced their upcoming departure from Congress after the 2018 midterm elections. They leave behind frustrations, concerns and hopes for their respective deliberative bodies, things they hope will change even after they leave.

"Face the Nation" sat down with some of the most influential Republican lawmakers leaving Congress. They spoke of a need for more diversity, less partisanship and loyalty to principle over the president.

Transcript: Flake, Dent, Ros-Lehtinen, Royce on "Face the Nation," Feb. 18, 2018
"When you look at the future of the Republican Party, I think that we would be foolish to not see that we're heading into trouble," said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a retiring Republican who represents a diverse Florida district. "Very few women are running on the Republican Party ticket for office. Far greater numbers of women are identifying themselves as being in the Democratic Party. Minorities that have always been, traditionally, a group that we should really be going after -- I don't see that we really have a recruiting program that's active to get minorities involved in our party."

Ros-Lehtinen said the GOP seems unable to adapt to an increasingly diverse electorate.

"When you look ahead, what's our future going to be? Are we going to end up a marginalized party?" she asked. "I think that we need to look toward the future, and we need to have the policies that attract millennials, women and minorities. I don't see that."

Arizona's Sen. Jeff Flake, who has issued scathing criticisms of Mr. Trump, shared similar fears about the party's failure to be racially inclusive.

"If you look, every four years, every presidential election cycle, we are as a country 2 percent less white," Flake said. "You know, voters of color. It's changing that way. And I don't think that we've made enough of an effort as Republicans to appeal across a broader electorate."

Flake said President Trump and GOP positions on key issues have also caused young people to turn away from the party.

"Given some of the positions, and the behavior that the president has exhibited, I think it makes it very difficult for young people to identify with the Republican Party," he said. "I think they've been walking away from the party in general. I think they're at a dead sprint right now. And we've got to change that."

The outgoing lawmakers also expressed concerns over the future of their deliberative bodies as a whole, questioning whether Congress still has the ability to solve the nation's greatest problems with partisanship enveloping Capitol Hill. Flake pointed to a failure to come together on solutions that have broad support among the public as evidence of this political paralysis.

"In the Senate we have a 60-vote requirement for most legislation," Flake said. "And we've had a hard time coming together. There are things that we should -- on the gun issue, obviously the bump stocks, 'no fly, no buy,' those kind of things -- there's broad consensus in the country, certainly. And there should be, and I hope that we can move legislation like that. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to."

Ros-Lehtinen placed some of that failure at the feet of the president.

"But on immigration, you look at the president's position, and what he says on Monday may be different than what he says on Wednesday, and may be different on Friday," she said. "So it's very hard, I think -- for leaders on DACA, on Dreamers, like Jeff Flake -- to figure out a way forward. It's schizophrenic what's coming out of the White House in terms of policy on immigration and Dreamers."

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


ONE PERSON AT A TIME, THE GOP IS OPENING UP. OF COURSE, THEY MAY GO BACK TO THEIR OLD HIDEBOUND POSITIONS IN THE BLINKING OF AN EYE.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/al-hoffman-junior-gop-donor-stops-money-donald-trump-republican-party-assault-weapons-ban-florida-a8216261.html
A top GOP donor says he won't write another check to Republicans until they support an assault weapons ban
Nikolas Cruz killed 17 people at Mary Stoneman High School with a legally purchased AR-15 rifle
Michelle Mark, Business Insider
February 18, 2018

Photograph -- Mourners stand during a candlelight vigil for the victims of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida on 15 February 2018. RHONA WISE/AFP/Getty Images

A major Republican donor issued a remarkable ultimatum on Saturday, vowing to withhold money from GOP candidates unless they support a ban on selling military-style guns to civilians.

"It's the end of the road for me," Al Hoffman Jr., a prominent Florida real-estate developer, told The New York Times. "For how many years now have we been doing this — having these experiences of terrorism, mass killings — and how many years has it been that nothing's been done?"

Hoffman's comments came just days after a gunman opened fire on the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, killing 17 people and renewing an impassioned national debate on gun control.

Miami gun show goes ahead just 50 miles away from high school massacre
Florida shooting suspect may plead guilty to avoid death penalty
Florida victim's mother invokes Donald Trump's son in gun control plea

The suspected shooter, 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz, was armed with a legally purchased AR-15, one of the most popular semi-automatic rifles in the US.

That particular rifle is a recurring element in America's deadliest mass shootings, and was used in some variation by the perpetrators of recent massacres in Las Vegas, Nevada; Sutherland Springs, Texas; Orlando, Florida; and Newtown, Connecticut.

Like other semi-automatic firearms, commonly referred to as "assault weapons," the AR-15 was previously banned under a 1994 law that lapsed in 2004.

Gun-control activists have long called for Congress to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban, but Republican lawmakers staunchly refused to do so.

"Enough is enough!" Hoffman told The Times, adding that he hoped to start a movement within the Republican Party. "I will not write another check unless they all support a ban on assault weapons."

Hoffman has previously donated millions to Republican candidates such as ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and former President George W. Bush.

The Florida school shooting prompted survivors and activists to mobilise on Saturday, unleashing torrents of anger at lawmakers, the National Rifle Association, and President Donald Trump for lax gun-control regulations.

"To every politician who is taking donations from the NRA, shame on you," Emma Gonzalez, a student who survived the Florida shooting, said in an impassioned speech at a gun-control rally in Fort Lauderdale on Saturday.



FIRST, SANDERS DOES SAY, IN THIS ARTICLE, THAT HE IS TOTALLY AGAINST ALLOWING ASSAULT WEAPONS, OR AS HE PUT IT, MILITARY STYLE WEAPONS, TO BE SOLD IN THE USA. SEE THE SENTENCE ABOUT THE GUN BAN ACT WHICH LAPSED AT A TIME WHEN THE DEMS APPARENTLY DIDN’T HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THAT, AND THE REPS HAVE SINCE STUBBORNLY REFUSED TO ALLOW IT TO BE REJUVENATED. ALL LAWS SHOULD BE FREE OF WORDING THAT ONLY REQUIRES GUN SHOPS TO APPLY A MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECK, CALLED “THE GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE.” PRIVATE SELLERS IN OTHER SETTINGS ALSO SOMETIMES DON’T HAVE TO DO THAT, AND A RECENT KILLER, PERHAPS THE ONE IN LAS VEGAS, BOUGHT A KIT WITH INSTRUCTIONS FOR PUTTING A GUN TOGETHER FROM PARTS OVER THE INTERNET. FRANKLY, IT’S DEPRESSING. SANDERS MIDDLE OF THE ROAD POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS HERE, DO MAKE GREAT SENSE AS USUAL, AND PRETTY MUCH COVER ALL THE BASES. THAT’S WHY HE’S STILL MY GUY. I’M NOT ONE OF THOSE WHO ALWAYS WANTS TO FIGURE WHO THE “IN CROWD” IS AND GO WITH THEM. I GO WITH THE PERSON THAT I TRUST AND ADMIRE.

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/

BERNIE SANDERS ON GUN POLICY (2018)

Overall, Bernie Sanders believes in a middle-ground solution in the national gun debate, saying in a recent interview:

“Folks who do not like guns [are] fine. But we have millions of people who are gun owners in this country — 99.9 percent of those people obey the law. I want to see real, serious debate and action on guns, but it is not going to take place if we simply have extreme positions on both sides. I think I can bring us to the middle.”

Gun Control: Gun control legislation should ultimately fall on individual states, with the exception of instant background checks to prevent firearms from finding their way into the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, and a federal ban on assault weapons.

Manufacturer Liability: Gun manufacturers should not be held liable for the misuse of their products, just as any other industry isn’t held accountable for how end-consumers use their products.

Gun Control

Bernie believes that gun control is largely a state issue because attitudes and actions with regards to firearms differ greatly between rural and urban communities. Nevertheless, Bernie believes there are situations where the federal government should intervene. He voted in favor of requiring background checks to prevent firearms from getting into the hands of felons and the mentally ill, passing a federal ban on assault weapons, and closing loopholes which allows private sellers at gun shows and on the internet to sell to individuals without background checks.

What examples are there to show this divide between rural and urban communities?

The state of Vermont, which Bernie represents as senator, is the most gun-friendly state in the nation, while at the same time it boasts the absolute lowest rate of gun-related crime.

How does Bernie believe gun legislation in the United States should be handled?

Bernie believes in middle-ground legislation. As such, he understands that Americans in rural areas have a very different view towards guns as do those who live in densely populated urban environments. Bernie believes in a solution which promotes gun rights for those who wish to possess them while also ensuring their safe and secure use so that they cannot be used to harm fellow human beings.

To what extent does Bernie believe that gun regulation should be a federal issue?

Bernie has voted in favor of a nationwide ban on assault weapons, a nationwide ban on high-capacity magazines of over ten rounds, and nationwide expanded background checks that address unsafe loopholes.

Bernie believes assault weapons, as well as magazines holding more than ten bullets, should be banned nationwide. Why?

In a recent speech, Bernie explained that, in his view, assault weapons should be categorically banned:

WATCH VIDEO: BERNIE IS IN AN INFORMAL DISCUSSION SETTING.

The gun show loophole should be closed to prevent private sellers from selling firearms without background checks.

What is the gun show loophole?

Federal law currently stipulates that only licensed firearms dealers are required to conduct background checks. Bernie supports closing the gun show loophole, which allows private sellers to sell firearms to private buyers without background checks. Currently only ten states require background checks for purchases at gun shows. Moreover, according to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, a private seller is classified as any seller who doesn’t rely on gun sales as the principal way of making their living. Because of this, it is easy to imagine that many individuals who have a regular source of income outside of selling firearms can claim that they are private sellers. This allows these individuals to exploit the gun show loophole and sell guns without requiring background checks.

What does Bernie propose to do about this?

Bernie has voted in favor of expanded background checks for all commercial sales with an exemption for sales between “family, friends, and neighbors”. Bernie has also voted in favor of a national instant background check system.

How does Bernie believe we should address mass shootings and other gun-related violence?

Bernie believes that we have a crisis in addressing mental health issues in this country, saying in a recent interview:

“We need strong sensible gun control, and I will support it. But some people think it’s going to solve all of our problems, and it’s not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don’t have that and we should have that.”

Given that 23 PERCENT of the perpetrators of mass shootings have been found to suffer from mental health issues, Bernie believes that expanding access to mental healthcare can address some of the root causes of gun-related violent crime.

Learn more about Bernie’s stances regarding access to mental healthcare here. Also, learn about his policies with regards to addressing other structural causes of violent crime here.

Manufacturer Liability

Manufacturers and sellers of firearms should not be held accountable for the misuse of their products.

What legislation has Bernie voted in favor of to support this?

Bernie voted in favor of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for negligence as a result of the misuse of their products.

Why does Bernie support this?

In a recent interview, Bernie said:

“Now, the issues that you’re talking about is, if somebody has a gun and it falls into the hands of a murderer, and that murderer kills somebody with the gun, do you hold the gun manufacturer responsible? Not anymore than you would hold a hammer company responsible if somebody beat somebody over the head with a hammer. That is not what a lawsuit should be about.”

In other words, the instrument itself cannot be held responsible for the being misused by the individual.


About Us · Grassroots Resources · Contact Us

This website was built & is maintained by volunteers with no official relation to Bernie Sanders.
We’re regular people, unassociated with any Super PACs or billionaires.

© 2018 FEELTHEBERN.ORG


MORE ON MUELLER’S BIG MOP UP

http://time.com/5163141/robert-muellers-russia-indictments-election-interference/
Mueller Charges 13 Russians in Elaborate Plot to Sow Discord and Influence 2016 Election
By ERIC TUCKER / AP Updated: February 17, 2018 8:35 AM ET | Originally published: February 16, 2018

(WASHINGTON) — In an extraordinary indictment, the U.S. special counsel has accused 13 Russians of an elaborate plot to disrupt the 2016 presidential election, charging them with running a huge but hidden social media trolling campaign aimed in part at helping Republican Donald Trump defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The federal indictment, brought Friday by special counsel Robert Mueller, represents the most detailed allegations to date of illegal Russian meddling during the campaign that sent Trump to the White House. It also marks the first criminal charges against Russians believed to have secretly worked to influence the outcome.

“With the FBI indictment, the evidence is now incontrovertible” of Moscow’s interference in the race, Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, said Saturday at a conference in Germany. Moments earlier, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, speaking through an interpreter, had dismissed the indictment as “just blabber.”

The Russian organization was funded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, the indictment says. He is a wealthy St. Petersburg businessman with ties to the Russian government and President Vladimir Putin.

Trump quickly claimed vindication Friday, noting in a tweet that the alleged interference efforts began in 2014 — “long before I announced that I would run for President.”

“The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong — no collusion!” he tweeted.

But the indictment does not resolve the collusion question at the heart of the continuing Mueller probe, which before Friday had produced charges against four Trump associates. U.S. intelligence agencies have previously said the Russian government interfered to benefit Trump, including by orchestrating the hacking of Democratic emails, and Mueller has been assessing whether the campaign coordinated with the Kremlin.

The latest indictment does not focus on the hacking but instead centers on a social media propaganda effort that began in 2014 and continued past the election, with the goal of producing distrust in the American political process. Trump himself has been reluctant to acknowledge the interference and any role that it might have played in propelling him to the White House.

The indictment does not allege that any American knowingly participated in Russian meddling, or suggest that Trump campaign associates had more than “unwitting” contact with some of the defendants who posed as Americans during election season.

But it does lay out a vast and wide-ranging Russian effort to sway political opinion in the United States through a strategy that involved creating internet postings in the names of Americans whose identities had been stolen; staging political rallies while posing as American political activists and paying people in the U.S. to promote or disparage candidates.

While foreign meddling in U.S. campaigns is not new, the indictment for an effort of this scope and digital sophistication is unprecedented.

“This indictment serves as a reminder that people are not always who they appear to be on the internet,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Friday. “The indictment alleges that the Russian conspirators want to promote discord in the United States and undermine public confidence in democracy. We must not allow them to succeed.”

The 13 Russians are not in custody and not likely to ever face trial. The Justice Department has for years supported indicting foreign defendants in absentia as a way of publicly shaming them and effectively barring them from foreign travel.

The surreptitious campaign was organized by the Internet Research Agency, a notorious Russian troll farm that the indictment says sought to conduct “information warfare against the United States of America.”

The company, among three Russian entities named in the indictment, had a multimillion-dollar budget and hundreds of workers divided by specialties and assigned to day and night shifts. According to prosecutors, the company was funded by companies controlled by Prigozhin, the wealthy Russian who has been dubbed “Putin’s chef” because his restaurants and catering businesses have hosted the Kremlin leader’s dinners with foreign dignitaries.

Prigozhin said Friday he was not upset by the indictment.

“Americans are very impressionable people,” he was quoted as saying by Russia’s state news agency. They “see what they want to see.”

Also Friday, Mueller announced a guilty plea from a California man who unwittingly sold bank accounts to Russians involved in the interference effort.

The election-meddling organization, looking to conceal its Russian roots, purchased space on computer servers within the U.S., used email accounts from U.S. internet service providers and created and controlled social media pages with huge numbers of followers on divisive issues such as immigration, religion and the Black Lives Matter movement.

Starting in April 2016, the indictment says, the Russian agency bought political ads on social media supporting Trump and opposing Clinton without reporting expenditures to the Federal Election Commission or registering as foreign agents. Among the ads: “JOIN our #HillaryClintonForPrison2016” and “Donald wants to defeat terrorism … Hillary wants to sponsor it.”

“They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” the indictment states.

Sens. Cruz, R-Texas, and Rubio, R-Fla., ran against Trump in the Republican primary; Sanders, an independent senator from Vermont, opposed Clinton in the Democratic primary.

The indictment details contacts targeting three unnamed officials in the Trump campaign’s Florida operation. In each instance, the Russians used false U.S. personas to contact the officials. The indictment doesn’t say if any of them responded, and there’s no allegation that any of the campaign officials knew they were communicating with Russians.

Two defendants traveled to the U.S. in June 2014 to gather intelligence on social media sites and identify targets for their operations, the indictment alleges. Following the trip, the group collected further intelligence by contacting U.S. political and social media activists while posing as U.S. citizens. They were guided by one contact to target “purple states like Colorado, Virginia and Florida,” prosecutors say.

According to one internal communication described by prosecutors, the specialists were instructed to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump — we support them).” And according to one internal review, a specialist was criticized for having a low number of posts criticizing Clinton. The person was told “it is imperative to intensify criticizing Hillary Clinton” in future posts.

The indictment also asserts that the posts encouraged minority groups not to vote or to vote for third parties and alleged Democratic voter fraud.

Before a Florida rally, the Russians paid one person to build a cage on a flatbed truck and another to wear a costume portraying Clinton in a prison uniform. But they also organized some rallies opposing Trump, including one in New York after the election called “Trump is NOT my president.”

The Russians destroyed evidence of their activities as Mueller’s investigation picked up, with one of those indicted sending an email in September 2017 to a family member that said the FBI had “busted” them so they were covering their tracks.

That person, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina, wrote the family member, “I created all of these pictures and posts, and the Americans believed that it was written by their people.”


WHAT HAPPENED WHEN?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rob-porter-situation-white-house-creating-divisions-adviser-says/
CBS NEWS February 14, 2018, 7:17 AM
Rob Porter situation creating new divisions in White House, adviser says

The White House is in damage control Wednesday morning as new FBI testimony poked holes in the West Wing's timeline of events leading to top aide Rob Porter's resignation. FBI director Christopher Wray told Congress that a background check of President Trump's staff secretary was finished before Porter resigned over allegations he abused his ex-wives.

Hours later, the White House said that "career officials" within the executive office were aware of issues with Porter's background check as early as last November but top advisers to the president were not told about the severity of the allegations until alst week.

Coming apart at the seams is the description of the West Wing from a top White House adviser. The reason? The deepening sense from some senior officials that even inside, the truth isn't being told about the Rob Porter situation - creating new divisions and a sense of mistrust. Meanwhile, President Trump appears indifferent to the issue of domestic abuse and the turmoil it has caused inside his own White House.

A timeline of the Rob Porter allegations and White House responses

The White House maintains it did not know the full extent of allegations against Porter before the story broke last Wednesday. But according to the FBI's timeline, it submitted a partial report in March of last year, completed its background investigation in late July, followed up with additional information in November and closed its file on Porter last month.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders and her deputy Raj Shah have, for days, said the opposite. Sanders again amended her story Tuesday saying the White House personnel security office had received information about Porter from the FBI but had yet to make a final recommendation to senior staff about his security clearance.

The spotlight remained on White House Chief of Staff John Kelly who learned about Porter's alleged behavior last November, but allowed him to keep his job.

Kelly told the Wall Street Journal the handling of the abuse scandal "was all done right."

President Trump has repeatedly ignored opportunities to condemn domestic violence.

Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst said the president needs to "send a stronger message."

Porter has denied the abuse allegations, but lawmakers like Republican Lindsey Graham wants more answers from Kelly. Graham called on Kelly to come clean about what and when he knew. Speculation continues about possible replacements for Kelly, with Trump loyalists now mentioning top economic adviser Gary Cohn or legislative affairs chief Marc Short.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



THIS IS A BIT OF INFORMATION TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON AN OLD ISSUE, BUT MOST OF YOU WILL REMEMBER IT. DID AL GORE CLAIM TO HAVE “INVENTED THE INTERNET?” NO, HE DID NOT! HE’S NOT ONLY A SMART GUY, HE’S A GOOD GUY, TOO.

https://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
Web of Lies

Despite decades of media mirth-making about the supposed statement, former vice president Al Gore never claimed he "invented the Internet."

CLAIM
Vice-President Al Gore claimed during a news interview that he "invented" the Internet.

RATING
FALSE

ORIGIN

Despite the multitudinous derisive references to the supposed quote that continue to be proffered even today, former U.S. vice president Al Gore never claimed that he “invented” the Internet, nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way. The legend arose from critics and pundits who plucked a relatively credible statement Gore made during the course of an interview, altered its wording, and stripped it of context to make it seem a ridiculously self-serving falsehood.

The “Al Gore claimed he ‘invented’ the Internet” put-downs were misleading distortions that originated wjth a campaign interview conducted by Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s “Late Edition” program on 9 March 1999. (Gore, then the sitting Vice President, was seeking the 2000 Democratic presidential nomination.)

When asked to describe what distinguished him from his challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, Gore replied (in part):

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

In context, Gore’s response (which employed the word “created,” not “invented”) was clear in meaning:

the vice president was not claiming that he “invented” the Internet in the sense of having designed or implemented it, but rather that he was one of the visionaries responsible for helping to bring it into being by fostering its development in an economic and legislative sense,

To claim that Gore was seriously trying to take credit for the “invention” of the Internet is, frankly, just silly political posturing that arose out of a close presidential campaign. If, for example, President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, “took the initiative in creating the Interstate Highway System,” he would not have been the subject of dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he “invented” the concept of highways or implying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway. Everyone would have understood that Eisenhower meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system, and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with interview remarks about the Internet.

How justified Gore’s statement that he “took the initiative in creating the Internet” might be can be a subject of debate, as statements about the “creation” or “beginning” of the Internet are difficult to evaluate because the Internet is not a homogeneous entity (it’s a collection of computers, networks, protocols, standards, and application programs), nor did it all spring into being at once (the components that comprise the Internet were developed in various places at different times and are continually being modified, improved, and expanded).

But a spirited defense of Gore’s statement penned by Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf (the latter often referred to as the “father of the Internet”) in 2000 noted that “Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development” and that “No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution [to the Internet] over a longer period of time”:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively “invented” the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore’s contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” We don’t think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he “invented” the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore’s initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

As far back as the 1970s Congressman Gore promoted the idea of high speed telecommunications as an engine for both economic growth and the improvement of our educational system. He was the first elected official to grasp the potential of computer communications to have a broader impact than just improving the conduct of science and scholarship. Though easily forgotten, now, at the time this was an unproven and controversial concept. Our work on the Internet started in 1973 and was based on even earlier work that took place in the mid-late 1960s. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not deployed until 1983. When the Internet was still in the early stages of its deployment, Congressman Gore provided intellectual leadership by helping create the vision of the potential benefits of high speed computing and communication. As an example, he sponsored hearings on how advanced technologies might be put to use in areas like coordinating the response of government agencies to natural disasters and other crises.

As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into an “Interagency Network.” Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials in Ronald Reagan and George Bush’s administrations, Gore secured the passage of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This “Gore Act” supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN) initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the Internet beyond the field of computer science.

As Vice President Gore promoted building the Internet both up and out, as well as releasing the Internet from the control of the government agencies that spawned it. He served as the major administration proponent for continued investment in advanced computing and networking and private sector initiatives such as Net Day. He was and is a strong proponent of extending access to the network to schools and libraries. Today, approximately 95% of our nation’s schools are on the Internet. Gore provided much-needed political support for the speedy privatization of the Internet when the time arrived for it to become a commercially-driven operation.

There are many factors that have contributed to the Internet’s rapid growth since the later 1980s, not the least of which has been political support for its privatization and continued support for research in advanced networking technology. No one in public life has been more intellectually engaged in helping to create the climate for a thriving Internet than the Vice President. Gore has been a clear champion of this effort, both in the councils of government and with the public at large.

The Vice President deserves credit for his early recognition of the value of high speed computing and communication and for his long-term and consistent articulation of the potential value of the Internet to American citizens and industry and, indeed, to the rest of the world.

It is certainly true that Gore was popularizing the term “information superhighway” in the early 1990s (although he did not, as is often claimed by others, coin the phrase himself) when few people outside academia or the computer and defense industries had heard of the Internet, and he sponsored legislation that included efforts to establish a national computing plan, to help link universities and libraries via a shared network, and to open the Internet to commercial traffic.

In May 2005, the organizers of the Webby Awards for online achievements honored Al Gore with a lifetime achievement award for three decades of contributions to the Internet. “He is indeed due some thanks and consideration for his early contributions,” said Vint Cerf.

Published:5 May 2005

Updated:5 September 2016



WOTUS, POTUS, HOCUS POCUS -- DONALD TRUMP’S MIND IS LIKE THE LORD. IT “WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!” JUST BECAUSE HE NOW WISHES HE HADN’T SIGNED THAT BILL EARLY ON MAKING IT EASIER FOR A MENTALLY ILL PERSON TO BUY A GUN, HE IS NOW WITHHOLDING THE PHYSICAL PROOF THAT HE DID IT.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-refused-to-release-photo-of-trump-signing-bill-to-weaken-gun-law/
By LAURA STRICKLER CBS NEWS February 15, 2018, 4:25 PM
White House refuses to release photo of Trump signing bill to weaken gun law

A little over a month after his inauguration, on Feb. 28, 2017, President Trump signed HJ Resolution 40, a bill that made it easier for people with mental illness to obtain guns. CBS News then asked the White House to release the photograph of Mr. Trump signing the bill, making the request a total of 12 times.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders finally responded to repeated emails and phone calls with a one-line note on April 19, 2017, writing to CBS News, "We don't plan to release the picture at this time."

A White House photographer confirmed to CBS News that there are photos of the bill signing. Those photos won't be seen unless the Trump administration releases them, though, because the White House is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Typically, the White House at minimum releases its own pictures of bill and resolution signings. In fact, the press is often ushered into the Oval Office for these occasions and journalists shoot their own footage and photographs of the event, which are then distributed to all of the major news organizations.

Mr. Trump signed another bill the same day that rolled back an Obama administration rule on the Waters of the United States which was attended by a cabinet official in an official signing ceremony in the Roosevelt Room. Pool cameras took photos, as did the White House. The image below is a screen grab of the White House video.

trump-signs-WOTUS.png
President Trump signs Waters of the United States EO, Feb. 28, 2017 SCREENSHOT OF WHITEHOUSE.GOV VIDEO, VIA YOUTUBE

HJ Resolution 40 was introduced just 10 days after President Trump's inauguration. In a town where legislation often languishes for months, the bill moved quickly to the president's desk within weeks, thanks to the Congressional Review Act, an obscure law that allows Congress to review and repeal new regulations.

President Obama had pushed for the rule following the Sandy Hook massacre and it was finalized in December 2016. Had it been allowed to remain effect, it would have added about 75,000 names of mentally ill Americans to a database that would have stopped them from buying a gun.

On the day the bill was signed, the National Rifle Association (NRA) put out a press release quoting NRA Executive Director Chris Cox: "Today marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we have now have a president who respects and supports our right to keep and bear arms."

The NRA release says that had the Obama rule been allowed to move ahead it "would have resulted in 75,000 Social Security recipients who use a representative payee losing their Second Amendment rights without due process." But in fact, the rule applied to Social Security recipients who weren't able to manage their affairs because of "marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease."

The NRA noted the move to revoke the rule was supported by "the ACLU, and more than a dozen mental health advocacy organizations."

Thursday morning CBS News asked the White House again if it would release the photo of the signing, but received no response.

Editor's note: A previous version of this article stated HJ Resolution 40 went into effect in December 2016. It has been corrected to reflect that HJ Resolution 40 was finalized in December 2016.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



PRESIDENT OBAMA’S GUN LAW/RULE EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 2016 IS BELOW, OR THE PART THAT SEEMS TO DEAL WITH THIS SUBJECT. THE GIST OF THIS RULE, AS I READ IT, IS THAT THOSE WHO HAVE APPLIED FOR AND RECEIVED MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL SECURITY OR SSI, AND WHO ALSO RECEIVE THEIR BENEFIT THROUGH A THIRD PARTY [SUCH AS A CARETAKER, GUARDIAN OR LAWYER, PROBABLY] IS AUTOMATICALLY REFERRED TO THE NATIONAL INSTANT CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM (NICS).

THE NRA HAS CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNTS TO REMOVING PEOPLE WITH A MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITY RULING’S ELIGIBILITY TO BUY A GUN “WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.” THE RULING, THOUGH DOES SAY THAT THIS IS DONE “ON A PROSPECTIVE BASIS,” AND THAT A PROCEDURE HAS BEEN SET UP FOR THE AFFECTED PEOPLE TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PROHIBITION LIST. THERE IS ANOTHER MATTER HERE, OF COURSE. IF THEY ARE ADJUDGED MENTALLY COMPETENT, THEY MAY LOSE THEIR SSI PAYMENTS. IF IT WERE ME, I’D KEEP THE SSI AND DO WITHOUT A GUN BUT I’M NOT A MAN.

IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT IT IS A WAY OF MAKING A ROUGH AND MECHANICAL, BUT LOGICAL, DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE COMPETENT AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY NOT BE RESPONSIBLE AND STABLE ENOUGH TO HAVE A FIREARM. SINCE THIS IS SUBJECT TO DISPUTE BACKED UP BY A SECOND JUDGMENT IN A COURT IN THE CITIZEN’S FAVOR, IT SEEMS FAIR, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CRIME; AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT PROVIDES A SIMPLE, FAST AND CLEAR-CUT WAY, SHORT OF A MURDER, FOR PICKING OUT THE INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY IN FACT BE DANGEROUS. PEOPLE WHO ARE SUFFICIENTLY ILL TO SHOOT SOMEONE VERY OFTEN DON’T “LOOK” OR ACT INSANE TO THE AVERAGE PERSON, WHEREAS THAT FRIEND AND OR FAMILY MEMBER WHO LAPSES OFF INTO A DEEP OR FREQUENT STATE OF INATTENTION IN THE MIDDLE OF A CONVERSATION MAY BE SUICIDAL OR WORSE.

WE DO NEED A WAY TO SPOT SUCH PEOPLE AND DIFFERENTIATE THEM FROM THE REST OF THE POPULATION BEFORE THEY BECOME UNCONTROLLED IN SOME WAY. HOSPITALS AND THERAPISTS MAY BALK AT REPORTING ANYONE DUE TO HIPAA REGULATIONS. I HAVE NOTICED THAT PSYCHIATRISTS ARE SLOW TO LABEL SOMEONE AS BEING “INSANE” OR “MENTALLY ILL,” THOUGH THEY WILL DESCRIBE THEM IN LESS CLEAR WAYS. WHAT DISTURBS ME ABOUT THE WAY PROFESSIONALS DIAGNOSE PEOPLE IS THAT THEY DON’T EVEN INCLUDE SERIAL KILLERS, RAPISTS, AND OTHER SOCIOPATHS AS BEING INSANE. THEY CALL IT (OR DID IN RECENT YEARS) A “PERSONALITY DISORDER.” WELL, I HATE TO SAY THIS, BUT HALF THE PEOPLE WALKING THE STREETS HAVE SOME KIND OF BRAIN, MOOD, OR RATIONALITY PROBLEM. THERE ARE IQ DIFFERENCES, A DAMAGING DEGREE OF SADNESS, FEAR OF LIFE, FEAR OF PEOPLE WHO ARE “DIFFERENT,” AND SO ON. WHY DO KKK MEMBERS JOIN TOGETHER TO RIDE UP AND DOWN SOUTHERN ROADS TERRORIZING PEOPLE OF COLOR? BECAUSE THEY HAVE A “KINK” IN THEIR THINKING PROCESSES WHICH INCLUDES FEAR, HATRED, AND WHAT I CALL CRUELTY. THEY LIKE HURTING PEOPLE. THAT, TO ME, IS MENTAL ILLNESS, AND THEIR GUNS WON’T BE TAKEN AWAY “UNTIL THEY DO SOMETHING” MUCH MORE CONCRETE THAN THAT.

IT’S A PAINFUL THING TO ME, BUT OUR SOCIETY DOESN’T CONSIDER CRUELTY, IF IT’S APPARENTLY "MINOR," TO BE “INSANE,” OR EVEN “SINFUL.” WE’RE NOT AS KIND OR CARING A PEOPLE AS WE GIVE OURSELVES CREDIT FOR BEING; SO THE KKK SEEMS “NORMAL,” OR EVEN “VERY FINE PEOPLE,” AS TRUMP SAID AFTER THE TOTALLY SHOCKING EXHIBITION AT CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA OVER A STATUE. [https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-colin-kaepernick_us_59c6846be4b0cdc77331a2f0]

AS A RESULT OF THAT I FEEL THAT, THOUGH IT IS FAIR AND RATIONAL TO PREVENT THOSE DIAGNOSED FROM BUYING OR BEING ALLOWED TO POSSESS GUNS EVEN TEMPORARILY; THE BORDERS OF WHAT PSYCHIATRISTS MEAN BY THE TERM “MENTALLY ILL,” DON’T ALWAYS INCLUDE THE SAME PROBLEMS IN THE SAME GROUP AND LEAVE OUT SOME ILLNESSES THAT ARE IN FACT CAPABLE OF PRODUCING VIOLENCE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A NUMBER OF OFTEN TEMPORARY CONDITIONS LIKE ANXIETY OR DEPRESSION, WHICH ARE “AS COMMON AS THE GRASS,” AND WHICH ARE EASILY IMPROVED BY MEDICATION AND TALK THERAPY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS OF WHO IS DANGEROUS; BUT IF THOSE THINGS ARE UNTREATED, THEY CAN CAUSE BOTH SUICIDE AND HOMICIDE.

SO, I DON’T TRUST THOSE PEOPLE WITH A GUN, EITHER. I THINK A LIST OF SYMPTOMS WOULD BE MORE USEFUL FOR WEEDING OUT THE DANGEROUS PEOPLE. OF COURSE, THAT ISN’T EASY TO WRITE INTO A LAW FOR PICKING INDIVIDUALS CORRECTLY. THAT’S WHY I GO WITH THE HOSPITALIZATION SOLUTION. LOOK AT WHAT THE SHERIFF OF BROWARD COUNTY SAID ABOUT THESE THINGS YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE. HE SAID THAT THE LAW NOW IS WRITTEN IN SUCH A WAY THAT AN OFFICER IS NOT ALLOWED TO TAKE A PERSON WHO IS ACTING STRANGELY TO A HOSPITAL ON A MANDATORY BASIS FOR EXAMINATION. IF THAT’S TRUE, THAT’S WHAT I RUDELY CALL “STUPID.”


Federal mental health prohibitor.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf

91702 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 243 / Monday, December 19, 2016 / Rules and Regulations

1As part of our responsibilities under the NIAA,
we will also provide the Attorney General with
copies of court orders that we receive, beginning on
or after the compliance date of these final rules,
regarding ADULT TITLE II AND TITLE XVI DISABILITY
CLAIMANTS AND BENEFICIARIES who have been DECLARED
LEGALLY INCOMPETENT BY A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. THE
FBI WILL IDENTIFY THOSE COURT ORDERS THAT MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL MENTAL HEALTH
PROHIBITOR.


FEDERAL MENTAL HEALTH PROHIBITOR

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30407.pdf
[Docket No. SSA–2016–0011]
RIN 0960–AH95
Implementation of the NICS
Improvement Amendments Act of 2007
AGENCY: Social Security Administration.
ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: These final rules implement
provisions of the NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) that
require Federal agencies to provide
relevant records to the Attorney General
for inclusion in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System
(NICS). Under these final rules, we will
identify, on a prospective basis,
individuals who receive Disability
Insurance benefits under title II of the
Social Security Act (Act) or
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
payments under title XVI of the Act and
who also meet certain other criteria,
including an award of benefits based on
a finding that the individual’s mental
impairment meets or medically equals
the requirements of section 12.00 of the
Listing of Impairments (Listings) and
receipt of benefits through a
representative payee. We will provide
pertinent information about these
individuals to the Attorney General on
not less than a quarterly basis. As
required by the NIAA, at the
commencement of the adjudication
process we will also notify individuals,
both orally and in writing, of their
possible Federal prohibition on
possessing or receiving firearms, the
consequences of such prohibition, the
criminal penalties for violating the Gun
Control Act, and the availability of relief
from the prohibition on the receipt or
possession of firearms imposed by
Federal law. Finally, we also establish a
program that permits individuals to
request relief from the Federal firearms
prohibitions based on our adjudication.
These changes will allow us to fulfill
responsibilities that we have under the
NIAA.

DATES: This final rule will be effective
on January 18, 2017. However,
compliance is not required until
December 19, 2017.



GOOD VID

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knTzxMAYiV4
The Persian Empire is one of the most mysterious major civilizations in the ancient world.

Persia became an empire under the Achaemenid king, Cyrus the Great, who created a policy of religious and cultural tolerance that became the hallmark of Persian rule.

The empire that Cyrus left behind expanded to India and Greece under the reign of Darius I, who built the capital of Persepolis.

Among the engineering feats of the Persian Empire were an innovative system of water management accomplished with simple tools; a cross-continent paved roadway stretching 1500 miles that made travel safe and communication possible; a canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea, a forerunner of the modern Suez Canal; and the creation of one of the Seven Wonders of the World
Category -- Nonprofits & Activism
License -- Standard YouTube License
Music -- "Salut d'Amour" by Ilmar Lapinsch and Mostar Symphony Orchestra Listen ad-free with YouTube Red