March 27, 2018


News and Views


THIS IS GOOD TO SEE. NON-REPUBLICANS, AND EVEN SOME REPUBLICANS, ARE CAPABLE OF GOING FOR LAWS THAT BENEFIT PEOPLE MORE THAN CORPORATIONS, AND WITHOUT HUGE STREET PROTESTS, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BERNIE’S REVOLUTION IS ONE OF IDEAS AND PEACE. PEOPLE, SINCE SANDERS CAME ALONG AND SUGGESTED SOME NEW THOUGHT PATTERNS, ARE PICKING THEM UP AND TRYING THEM ON, LIKE A NEW HAT.

http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-medicare-for-all-public-option-bernie-sanders-plan-support-2018-3
A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system
Bob Bryan
March 27, 2018

Photograph -- Bernie Sanders Joe Raedle/Getty Images

A new poll found 59% of Americans support a "national Medicare-for-all plan."

The plan is similar to a proposal made by Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Support for the idea is split along party lines, with only 36% of Republicans in favor.

The healthcare system supported by Bernie Sanders and many liberal-leaning Democrats has begun gaining steam with more Americans, according to a new poll.

The poll, from the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy think tank, found that:

59% of respondents supported a Medicare-for-all healthcare system in which all Americans would get coverage through a government program like Medicare or Medicaid.

Moving to a public-option model, under which people could sign up for the Medicare-like program, would be even more popular.

About 75% of the public would favor a program framed as a public option for anyone who wants it.

GRAPHICS -- MEDICARE FOR ALL POLL KAISER
KAISER FAMILY FOUNDATION

There is, as expected, a partisan split in the polling on Medicare-for-all:

75% of Democrats support the idea along with 58% of independents.
But just 36% of Republicans are in favor of the idea.

But, when asked about the optional expanded Medicare program, or "Medicare-for-some," support among GOP voters jumped to 64%.

While the Medicare-for-all option is still a difficult sell for lawmakers, 16 Democrats signed on to Sanders' bill to implement such a program in the US back in September. Additionally, many business leaders and politicians have been floating the idea for a single-payer system, which would see the government fund a vast majority of medical coverage.

Despite the findings, Kaiser said it is not conclusive whether the same percentage of people would support a concrete piece of legislation.

"It is unclear how support levels would fare once each of these proposals became part of the larger public debate on health care in this country," the organization's researchers wrote. "Prior Kaiser Family Foundation surveys have found the public's attitudes can be quite malleable, and some people could be convinced to change their position after hearing typical pro and con arguments that might come up in a national debate."

In a 2017 Kaiser poll, for instance, people presented with arguments against a similar proposal became 13 percentage points to 21 percentage points less likely to support the idea depending on the argument. On the other hand, people presented with arguments for a Medicare-for-all types idea increased their support anywhere between 9 percentage points and 17 percentage points.

Given the current political landscape, and the GOP's historic distaste for government healthcare programs, it is unlikely any Medicare-for-all proposal could gain much traction anytime soon.

SEE ALSO: Trump's controversial change to the 2020 Census could have massive political and economic consequences


A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION ON THE CENSUS FORM SEEMS LIKE A QUICK AND EASY WAY TO LOCATE AND ROUND UP UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS TO ME, PERHAPS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. I CAN’T THINK OF ANY OTHER REASON WHY THE TRUMP TEAM WANTS TO DO IT. IN WHAT OTHER WAY WILL IT BENEFIT ANYBODY?

http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/380458-blue-states-sue-trump-over-census-citizenship-question
Blue states sue Trump over census citizenship question
BY REID WILSON - 03/27/18 11:57 AM EDT

Democratic attorneys general in several states said Tuesday they would bring legal action to stop the Trump administration from adding a question on citizenship to the next U.S. census, a question they said would lead to serious undercounts that could reverberate for years to come.

The administration said late Tuesday it would include a question on the decennial survey that would ask whether respondents are American citizens.

That question has not appeared on a census questionnaire since 1950. Civil rights groups and Democrats in blue states said the question, combined with the Trump administration’s hostile attitude toward immigrants, could lead to undocumented immigrants avoiding the census altogether, creating an underestimation of the number of residents who live in certain states.

An undercount could put at risk billions of dollars in federal aid, in programs ranging from health care to education and even law enforcement funding for some states. Figures from the census are used to allocate federal money through programs across the government.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) filed suit in U.S. District Court seeking to block the question from appearing on the census, which will take place in 2020.

“Having an accurate Census count should be of the utmost importance for every Californian,” Becerra said in a statement. “The Census numbers provide the backbone for planning how our communities can grow and thrive in the coming decade. California simply has too much to lose for us to allow the Trump administration to botch this important decennial obligation.”

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (D) said in a statement Tuesday he would lead a multistate effort against the question. In a statement, Schneiderman cited the 14th Amendment and the enumeration clause of the Constitution as potential areas for legal challenges.

“This move directly targets states like New York that have large, thriving immigrant populations — threatening billions of dollars in federal funding for New York as well as fair representation in Congress and the electoral college,” Schneiderman said in his statement.

Legal experts said it was not immediately clear that states would be successful in challenging the Commerce Department’s decision in court.

“The power to do the census is given to the federal government,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine.

Research shows that more than 60 percent of the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States live in just 20 metro areas across the country. Twelve of those 20 metro areas are in blue states that backed Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by wide margins in the 2016 presidential election.

More than a million undocumented immigrants live in the New York area, and a million more live in Los Angeles, according to a 2017 study by the Pew Research Center. Chicago, Washington, D.C., Seattle, Denver and four California metro areas all have between 100,000 and 400,000 undocumented immigrant residents.

An undercount of undocumented immigrants also threatens funding for several red states where those immigrants live. Houston, Dallas and Austin, Texas, all have large undocumented populations, as does Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Fla., and Phoenix. Those metro areas are all in red states President Trump carried in 2016.

Earlier this year, the Justice Department asked the Commerce Department to include the citizenship question on the next census. Nineteen attorneys general, all Democrats, and Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) wrote to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, himself a former census-taker, asking him to leave the question out.

But in a memo released Monday, Ross directed Karen Dunn Kelley, the Commerce under secretary for economic affairs, to develop plans to add the citizenship question to the census nonetheless. Ross cited concern from the U.S. Census Bureau itself that the question would lead to lower response rates among non-citizens.

“I find that the need for accurate citizenship data and the limited burden that the reinstatement of the citizenship question would impose outweigh fears about a potentially lower response rate,” Ross wrote.

Democrats reacted angrily to the Trump administration’s decision to include the new question. Former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, said his group would sue the administration to block the question.

“Make no mistake — this decision is motivated purely by politics,” Holder said.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called the addition “a craven attack on our democracy and a transparent attempt to intimidate immigrant communities.”

Civil rights groups also opposed adding the question to the decennial survey. In a letter to Ross, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights — an organization that includes senior officials from the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, the AARP and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, among many other groups — said the question would degrade the quality of the data the census produces.

“Adding a new citizenship question to the 2020 Census would destroy any chance for an accurate count, discard years of careful research, and increase costs significantly,” the group wrote.

The Justice Department cited Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in its request for the new question, but civil rights groups said the department had never used Census data to enforce the Voting Rights Act in the first place.

“As attorney general, I did not — nor did my predecessors — request the addition of a citizenship question to the decennial census to enforce the [Voting Rights Act],” Holder said in a statement. “We did not need to: Data derived from the existing census process was perfectly adequate for any voting litigation that arose.”



http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-2020-census-citizenship-question-could-affect-economy-politics-2018-3
Trump's controversial change to the 2020 Census could have massive political and economic consequences
Bob Bryan March 27, 2018

Photograph -- Children with certificates of citizenship after becoming US citizens during a ceremony at the Bronx Zoo on May 5. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The Commerce Department announced Monday that it would include a question regarding citizenship on the 2020 Census.

Many lawmakers and advocates worry the move could lead to an inaccurate count of immigrants in the US.

A statistically significant miscount in the census could hurt academic research, business decisions, and the federal allocation of funds.

The US Commerce Department announced Monday that the 2020 Census would include a new question on citizenship, a tweak that could send shockwaves through the world of politics and economics.

The department said the census would ask whether respondents are US citizens.

The Trump administration says the addition will help properly enforce the Voting Rights Act. But immigration advocates and many lawmakers expressed concern that it could undercount immigrants, particularly those in the US illegally, thus distorting the population count.

"An accurate count of everyone living in the United States is vital to our democracy," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Adding a question designed to depress participation in certain communities is an assault on the foundations of this country."

The attorneys general of New York and California have already said they plan to sue the Trump administration to remove the question.

Beyond the legal question — the Constitution says the census should be an accurate count of people living in the US regardless of citizenship — any miscount could also have serious consequences for state agencies, economists, and academics.

Here's a rundown of what the change could affect:

Congressional votes and districts: The census is used to determine the number of Electoral College votes and members of Congress for each state.

More than $675 billion in federal fund distributions: According to a 2017 paper by Marisa Hotchkiss and Jessica Phelan of the Census Bureau, 132 federal programs appropriated a bit more than $675 billion in 2015 primarily using data derived from the decennial census. Here are just a few federal programs that rely on census data to determine how much money to appropriate and whether the funding is being used correctly:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (also known as SNAP, or food stamps)

Highway planning and construction
Federal Pell Grant program
Special-education grants to states
School Breakfast Program
Crime-victim assistance
Rural Rental Assistance payments
Fire Management Assistance Grant

Federal and local policymaking: Federal and local politicians make policy decisions based in part on demographic data provided by the census. For instance, a city planner may use census data to determine the best location for a new school given a higher concentration of children moving into one area of the city. Emergency-response officials in South Florida also used the data to determine areas more vulnerable to major weather events.

Academic and economic research depends on census data: Researchers in a wide range of academic fields rely on the data to conduct their analyses, which often help form public policy.

Private business decisions: A 2015 review found that many businesses used census data to determine growth decisions, such as where to place new locations or offices. "The ACS is an important component of the information that businesses need to make decisions to help them run efficiently, hire wisely, and serve their customers' needs," the study said.



JIMMY CARTER IS MY KIND OF CHRISTIAN. NUFF SAID.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retired-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-calls-for-repeal-of-second-amendment/
CBS/AP March 27, 2018, 3:42 PM
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens calls for repeal of Second Amendment

Video – Jimmy Carter on the young people’s movement
Video – NRA responds to March for our Lives 2:10

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment to allow for significant gun control legislation. The 97-year-old Stevens wrote in an op-ed for The New York Times on Tuesday suggesting a repeal would weaken the National Rifle Association's ability to "block constructive gun control legislation" and be a more "effective and more lasting reform."

"Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century," wrote Stevens.

In his essay, the former justice embraced legislation that would ban semiautomatic weapons, increase the minimum age for buying a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establish a "more comprehensive" background check system on all purchases of firearms.

Stevens was on the losing end of a 2008 ruling in which the high court held that the Second Amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense. He had previously called for changing the Second Amendment to permit gun control.

Stevens said the decision in that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power." Stevens retired from the court in 2010, after more than 35 years.

The former justice also said the "March for Our Lives" rally in Washington and similar demonstrations across the country "demand our respect," hailing the civic engagement of young children as a stepping stone to enacting legislation to "minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society."

Stevens added, "That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday's marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence."

52 Photos -- Gun ownership by state

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


THE STEVENS OP-ED IS OFF LIMITS TO ME BECAUSE I HAVE USED MY ONE FREE NYT STORY ALREADY, BUT IF YOU OUT THERE IN THE BLOGOSPHERE WANT TO READ IT, HERE IT IS:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html?mtrref=www.cbsnews.com&gwh=C5770F2ABA564ECACA01189C96FF3A4C&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion



THE WESTERN POWERS ARE WORKING TOGETHER. THIS FALLS SHORT OF BEING AN ULTIMATUM, BUT IT IS SUGGESTIVE TO THE ALERT MIND. THAT SHOULD HELP OUR SITUATION, BUT EVEN IF IT DOESN’T, IT SOOTHES MY ANGER SOMEWHAT.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43545565
Spy poisoning: Russian diplomats expelled across US and Europe
26 March 2018

Photograph -- Russia had been expecting diplomatic expulsions in response to the attack, Getty Images

The United States and its European allies are expelling dozens of Russian diplomats in a co-ordinated response to the poisoning of a former Russian spy in the UK.

It is said to be the largest collective expulsion of Russian intelligence officers in history.

More than 20 countries have aligned with the UK, expelling more than 100 diplomats.

Russia vowed to retaliate to the "provocative gesture".

Russia denies any role in the attack on Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, in Salisbury, southern England. The pair remain in a critical but stable condition in hospital.

What the diplomat expulsions tell us
What next for Russia’s spy networks?
What was the Cold War?
Russian spy: The story so far
Full coverage of the Russia spy poisoning

EU leaders agreed last week it was highly likely Russia was behind the nerve-agent poisoning.

Mrs May said: "President Putin's regime is carrying out acts of aggression against our shared values and interests within our continent and beyond.

"And as a sovereign European democracy, the United Kingdom will stand shoulder to shoulder with the EU and with Nato to face down these threats together."

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson also praised the "extraordinary international response" by the UK's allies.

Media captionBoris Johnson on widespread expulsions of Russian diplomats
The Russian foreign ministry said the moves demonstrated a continuation of a "confrontational path".

"It goes without saying that this unfriendly act by this group of countries will not go without notice and we will react to it," its statement said.

Remarkable show of solidarity
By Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent

This is building into the most serious diplomatic crisis between Russia and the West since Moscow's seizure of Crimea.

Whatever the denials, Britain's allies have clearly accepted its view that the use of a military grade nerve agent in Salisbury was "highly likely" the work of the Russian state.

The collective expulsions from the US and EU member states is a remarkable show of solidarity with Britain, even more so because it comes at a time when UK-EU relations are strained due to the Brexit negotiations.

Donald Tusk's note that there could be "additional measures" is a signal to Moscow as it considers how it will respond.

It is a significant diplomatic victory for Prime Minister Theresa May - concerted action has now followed the strong rhetorical support from its allies. It also marks a significant toughening of the Trump administration's stance towards Moscow.

Who is expelling diplomats?

The UK announced it was expelling 23 Russian diplomats earlier this month.

Various countries announced they were making the same move in solidarity on Monday. These are:

US: 60 diplomats
EU countries: France (4); Germany (4); Poland (4); Czech Republic (3); Lithuania (3); Denmark (2); Netherlands (2); Italy (2); Spain (2); Estonia (1); Croatia (1); Finland (1); Hungary (1); Latvia (1); Romania (1); Sweden (1)
Ukraine: 13
Canada: 4, plus the rejection of 3 further applications from Russia
Albania: 2
Australia: 2
Norway: 1
Macedonia: 1

Iceland has also announced it is suspending high-level dialogue with Russian authorities, and its leaders will not attend the World Cup, which starts in Russia in June.

The UK said earlier this month it would not send ministers or members of the Royal Family to the football tournament.

EU countries that have said they have no intention of expelling diplomats include Austria, Greece and Portugal, although all have said they support the UK and condemn the poisoning.

Why are they doing it?

President of the European Council Donald Tusk said the EU states had decided to expel Russian diplomats as a direct result of a meeting, held last week about the Salisbury poisoning.

"Additional measures, including further expulsions within this common EU framework are not to be excluded in the coming days and weeks," he said.

Inside UK lab that identified ex-spy nerve agent
Has the Russian row given UK diplomacy new focus?
Ex-spy asked Putin if he could return

The US state department said in a statement: "On March 4, Russia used a military-grade nerve agent to attempt to murder a British citizen and his daughter in Salisbury.

"This attack on our Ally the United Kingdom put countless innocent lives at risk and resulted in serious injury to three people, including a police officer."

It called the attack an "outrageous violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention and breach of international law".

The US is expelling 48 envoys at the Russian embassy in Washington and 12 more at the UN in New York. It will also order the closure of the Russian consulate in Seattle.

US toughens its tone
By Chris Buckler, BBC News, Washington DC

In a phone call last week with Vladimir Putin, the US president failed to mention the attack in Salisbury. But he did congratulate Mr Putin on his re-election, against the advice of his officials.

The deliberate change in tone also demonstrates real concern about Russian activity inside the US, as well as elsewhere.

Alongside the allegations of election interference two years ago, the Kremlin is accused of spying and cyber-attacks targeting vital infrastructure in the US.

Closing the Russian consulate in Seattle reflects those specific fears - a submarine base and the aerospace firm Boeing are both close to the city.

Diplomatic retaliation is inevitable. Almost immediately, the Russian Embassy asked its followers to take part in a Twitter poll to recommend which US consulate it should close in response.

Image Copyright @RusEmbUSA@RUSEMBUSA
Report
What are the precedents?

In 1986, US President Ronald Reagan expelled 80 Cold War-era Russian diplomats.

In 2016, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats in response to the alleged hacking of the US Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton campaign during the 2016 presidential election, accusations Moscow denied.

Senior US officials told the Associated Press that Russia had an estimated 100 intelligence officials at its diplomatic posts in the US, suggesting that dozens will still be left in the country.

However, the diplomats working at the UN were described by the US State Department as "intelligence operatives", suggesting it is looking to hamper more than just administrational work.



CLEARLY THE POLICE IN SO MANY PARTS OF THIS COUNTRY HAVE MUCH TOO MUCH LEEWAY IN HOW THEY PERFORM THEIR JOB. NOT ONLY IS POSSESSING A CELL PHONE NOT GROUNDS FOR THE DEATH PENALTY, BUT “BREAKING CAR WINDOWS” ISN’T EITHER, IF HE WAS DOING THAT. HE PROBABLY DIDN’T HAVE GOOD RECEPTION IN THE HOUSE, SO HE WENT OUT TO GET A BETTER SIGNAL.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/stephon-clark-calif-ag-gives-update-on-investigation-live-updates-today-3-27-2018/
By CRIMESIDER STAFF CBS/AP March 27, 2018, 8:51 AM
California AG to join investigation of Stephon Clark's fatal police shooting

SACRAMENTO -- The California Attorney General announced Tuesday that the state Justice Department will be conducting an independent investigation into the police shooting death of Stephon Cark.

Clark, 22, was standing in his grandmother's back yard holding a cellphone last Wednesday when police fired 20 shots at him, killing him on the spot. The fatal shooting sparked days of protests in Sacramento, followed by a candlelight vigil Sunday.

Attorney General Xavier Becerra, Mayor Darrell Steinberg, Chief of Police Daniel Hahn and other Sacramento community leaders spoke to the public at a press conference Tuesday.


Darrell Steinberg
✔
@Mayor_Steinberg
At tomorrow's meeting of the Sacramento City Council, we will have a public discussion about the events surrounding the death of Stephon Clark. For information about how to participate, please read this @TheCityofSac blog post. https://sacramentocityexpress.com/2018/03/26/open-dialogue-with-the-sacramento-city-council-march-27/ …

8:35 PM - Mar 26, 2018 · Sacramento, CA

Open Dialogue with the Sacramento City Council, March 27
The Sacramento City Council is holding two special meetings tomorrow, Tuesday, March 27, one at 1 p.m. and one at 5 p.m. The 1 p.m. meeting is for City Council business matters that were previousl…

sacramentocityexpress.com
70
75 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy

"Due to the nature of the investigation, the extremely high emotions, anger and hurt in our community," Hahn said, he decided it was best for attorney general to independently investigate the shooting.

Becerra said his department will also be conducting an independent review of police use-of-force training and protocols.

Activists called for justice for Clark at a press conference later Tuesday and decried what they called systematic racism in police encounters.

"This young man should not have been murdered," Berry Accius, CEO of Voice of the Youth, said. "It's excessive force that has been used."

"Understand that a cell phone should not be a death sentence," Accius said.

Steinberg said that the city will not have to wait for the AG's investigation to begin "asking and answering" a set of questions brought by the community in the aftermath of Clark's death. The city council and the police department will also be reviewing protocols.

"We can do that and we can do it thoroughly without prejudging the investigation," said Steinberg.


The Sacramento city council is expecting a large crowd at a public meeting scheduled for Tuesday evening.

Chief Hahn refrained from answering questions about the individual officers due to the number of death threats he says they are receiving.

Clark was killed by two Sacramento police officers who were responding to a report of someone breaking car windows in a South Sacramento neighborhood. Police thought Clark was holding a gun, but he was found with only a cellphone. Body camera footage released by the department shows police firing 20 rounds at Clark.

The decision of whether to bring criminal charges against the officers involved remains with District Attorney Ann Marie Schubert, although Becerra said his office could bring charges as well.

"Understand that this process will take time," Schubert said. "Thorough and fair independent review demands that we do it right."

Clark's grandmother, Sequita Thompson, called Monday for the police to change how they apply force in such situations and to consider non-lethal options.

"We fully expect that the Attorney General's Office will do a complete and thorough investigation that is fair and impartial - and that extends due process not just to those being investigated, but equally to the family of Stephon Clark," family attorney Benjamin Crump said in a statement.

Hahn and a number of community leaders called for calm and peaceful protest as the city moves forward.

On different occasions, protesters have taken over downtown Sacramento and the South Sacramento neighborhood where Clark was killed. At one point, protesters shut down the interstate during rush hour and blocked the entrance to a Sacramento Kings basketball game. The protests have largely remained non-violent although tensions have been high. In one case, several protesters smashed a car window, according to the Sacramento Bee.

Steinberg urged the city to set a positive national example.

"The country is watching us," he said. "Let us show how a city in pain together, with all of our partners, can in fact achieve a better way."

Tanya Faison, the head of the local Black Lives Matter chapter, said the community is "traumatized." She said her group would be protesting at the district attorney's office for the next few days.

Tuesday afternoon, she called for an independent civilian investigation in order to bring about change.

"The AG is investigating is not enough, the community is the one that needs to lead the investigation," Faison said.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



A LETTER FROM NINE SENATE DEMOCRATS IS CIRCULATING AMONG THE HIGHER LEVEL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ASKING THEM TO MAKE A PUBLIC PLEDGE TO RESIST ANY DEMAND, OR EVEN A HINT, THAT THEY SHOULD MOVE TO DISMISS ROBERT MUELLER OR INTERFERE IN ANY WAY WITH HIS WORK, SUCH AS BY CUTTING OFF HIS FUNDS. I’M GLAD TO SEE THAT. THIS IS A TIME FOR STRONG POSITIVE ACTION IF WE ARE TO SAVE WHAT WE HAVE. HOPEFULLY, THIS WILL HELP.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/380549-dems-to-top-doj-officials-publicly-promise-not-to-interfere-in
Dems to top DOJ officials: Publicly promise not to interfere in Mueller's probe
BY JORDAIN CARNEY - 03/27/18 05:36 PM EDT

Photograph – Greg Nash

Several Senate Democrats are urging top officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to make a public commitment that they will not interfere in special counsel Robert Mueller's probe, including refusing potential requests from the White House.

“We have significant concerns that the president or his White House could order individuals at the Department of Justice with the authority to oversee Special Counsel Mueller’s probe to interfere with the probe or shut it down," they wrote in letters dated March 7 but released publicly on Tuesday.

Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Christopher Coons (Del.), Mazie Hirono (Hawaii), Cory Booker (N.J.) and Kamala Harris (Calif.) signed the letters.

The senators said they were sending the letters to individuals who are in the line of succession if Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein "were to either resign or be removed."

Identical copies went to Solicitor General Noel Francisco, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Steven Engel, Assistant Attorney General for the National Security Division John Demers, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Robert Higdon and U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Texas Erin Nealy Cox.

The senators are asking the DOJ officials to provide a written and public commitment to refuse to interfere in Mueller's investigation, which centers around Russian interference in the 2016 election and potential collision between the Trump campaign and Moscow.

"As such, we ask that you publicly commit to refuse any order or request – whether express or implied – to interfere in the Special Counsel’s investigation, including but not limited to firing Mr. Mueller, cutting off funding or resources, limiting staffing, or inhibiting his ability to follow the facts wherever they may lead and hold those accountable who may have broken the law," they wrote.

The public release of the letter comes the same day Coons and GOP Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.) said in a joint statement that it was in Trump's "best interest" to let Mueller's probe continue unimpeded.

Senators have introduced two bills that would limit Trump's ability to fire Mueller unilaterally. But Republicans argue legislation isn't needed because they do not believe the president will actually fire the former FBI director, who is widely respected in Washington.

The Trump administration has repeatedly denied that the president is considering firing Mueller. But The New York Times reported earlier this year that he ordered staff to fire him in mid-2017, before ultimately backing down when his general counsel threatened to resign.


DO READ THIS ARTICLE. IT’S INSIGHTFUL AND MAKES ME A LITTLE MORE HOPEFUL, BECAUSE THIS WRITER SPEAKS ENCOURAGINGLY ABOUT BERNIE SANDERS’ POSSIBLE SUCCESS IN THE FUTURE, AND HIS WISDOM ABOUT HOW THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD PROCEED NOW. PIKETTY SAYS THAT BERNIE’S THEORY OF HOW TO WIN IS CORRECT. THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD GO TO THE LEFT AND NOT THE RIGHT. THE PARTIES BOTH HAVE BEEN LEANING TO THE RIGHT IN ORDER TO GET PATRONAGE FROM THE WEALTHY AND HIGHLY EDUCATED, WHILE THEIR NATURAL CONSTITUENCIES OF THE LOWER ECONOMIC CLASSES HAVE BEEN ABANDONED WHERE THEY WERE. THAT MAKES PEOPLE ANGRY.

I THINK THAT HAS HAPPENED MAINLY BECAUSE BIG DONORS CAN GIVE MANY TIMES MORE MONEY THAN THE POOR CAN. IT LOOKS LIKE A BETTER DEAL, BUT AS BERNIE PROVED WITH HIS MANY THOUSANDS OF SMALL DOLLAR DONATIONS, THE POOR AND WORKING CLASS SHOULDN’T BE SCORNED. SO, THEY WENT STRONGLY IN TWO DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS – BREAKING BOTH THE DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN PARTIES APART. FOR SANDERS WHO SPEAKS FOR A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ECONOMICALLY AND A FAIR POLICY FOR MINORITY GROUPS, THE ADVENTUROUS AND POSITIVE, HOPEFUL PEOPLE SUCH AS STRUGGLING YOUNGER PEOPLE WERE DRAWN TO HIS HIGH-MINDED POSITIVENESS.

THE USUALLY LESS WELL EDUCATED AND POORER WHITES, WHOSE JOBS HAD BEEN IN UNION SHOPS SUCH AS FACTORIES, FARMS AND MINES, THEN WENT FOR TRUMP BECAUSE HE PROMISED THEM A MIRACULOUS RETURN TO JIM CROW -- OR WORSE -- AND A NEW PROSPERITY FOR THE UNDEREDUCATED AND OFTEN HUNGRY WHITES. ONE OF HIS IMPOSSIBLE PROMISES WAS THAT HE WOULD OPEN THE MINES AND FACTORIES AGAIN. THOSE BUSINESS LINKS WERE BROKEN LONG AGO. IN THE DAYS OF YORE, WHEN I WAS TWENTY OR SO YEARS OLD, THOSE PEOPLE WERE BOLSTERED BY THE UNIONS, BUT THE WEALTHY RIGHT FORCED THROUGH LAWS WHICH ALLOWED COMPANIES TO FIGHT UNIONS ALMOST TO A TOTAL DEFEAT, AND NOW THERE ARE FEW UNION SHOPS LEFT, AND FEW JOBS OF ANY KIND FOR PEOPLE WITHOUT COLLEGE DEGREES. WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO IS GO BACK TO SCHOOL AND ON TO COLLEGE, BUT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE MONEY.

ALONGSIDE THAT, THE DEMOCRATS HAVE ALIGNED THEMSELVES EVEN MORE STRONGLY TO SPLINTER GROUPS ON SOCIAL ISSUES LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, WHICH THE HIGHLY EVANGELICAL RELIGIONS, SO POPULAR AMONG THE LOWER CLASSES, ABSOLUTELY HATE. WHAT SEEMS TO ME TO BE CULTURAL CHANGE, TO THEM, IS SIN. THEREFORE, BASED ON CULTURAL REASONS, THEY WENT WITH THE “DOG WHISTLE” PROMISES AND AGGRESSIVE CRUDITY OF DONALD TRUMP AS SECOND BEST.

THE TRUTH IS THAT WELL-EDUCATED AND WEALTHY WHITES SO OFTEN DO TEND TO “LOOK DOWN THEIR NOSES” AT ANYONE WHOM THEY CONSIDER THEIR INFERIORS, AND THAT ISN’T JUST BLACKS. WHEN I HEARD HILLARY CALL THE DECIDEDLY BUMPTIOUS TRUMP FOLLOWERS A “BASKET OF DEPLORABLES,” I UNFORTUNATELY UNDERSTOOD HER; BUT I FELT WITH A SHOCK THAT SHE HAD JUST COMMITTED ONE OF THE WORST MISTAKES THAT I HAD SEEN IN YEARS. IT WAS JUST ABOUT LIKE THE TIME WHEN MITT ROMNEY STATED IN FRONT OF A CAMERA THAT HE DOESN’T TRY TO PLEASE THE POOR “BECAUSE THEY WON’T VOTE FOR ME ANYWAY.”

BOTH WERE SUCH ELITIST STATEMENTS -- AND AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF PUBLIC SERVICE THAT WE REALLY DO WANT TO SEE IN OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS -- THAT IT DAMAGED THEM BOTH BADLY. I ALSO THINK THAT THE ELITES NEED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE VOTERS IN USA ARE NOT, NOT WEALTHY OR EVEN UPPER MIDDLE CLASS, DO NOT HAVE SIX MONTHS OR MORE OF SAVINGS IN A “PRUDENT RESERVE,” SO THEIR MONEY IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT TO THEM. A SERIOUS ILLNESS OR THE LOSS OF A JOB MEANS LOSING THEIR HOUSE, PERHAPS, AND THAT’S ONE-HALF STEP UP FROM HOMELESSNESS. IN THIS COUNTRY WE TEND TO THINK OF POVERTY AS BEING A CLASS ISSUE, WHEN ACTUALLY IT IS A LIVELIHOOD ISSUE. IT REALLY MATTERS.

https://www.salon.com/2018/03/27/pikettys-new-paper-vindicates-bernie-sanders-electoral-strategy/
Thomas Piketty says Bernie Sanders’ electoral strategy is the way to beat back the right
New paper explores how both parties were captured by the “elite,” leaving a politically rudderless underclass
KEITH A. SPENCER
03.27.2018•4:58 AM

In a new paper, French political economist Thomas Piketty, author of the bestselling 2013 book "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," argues that Western political parties on the right and left have both become parties of the "elites."

Yet the 65-page paper from the notoriously punctilious economist — titled "Brahmin Left vs. Merchant Right: Rising Inequality & the Changing Structure of Political Conflict" — is more surprising for the lessons it has for the political left in the Western world. Indeed, the left-populist wing of Western political parties, including the American progressive movement restarted by Bernie Sanders, has reason to celebrate: Piketty's paper aligns with their somewhat counterintuitive strategy that shifting the Democratic Party platform more to the left is actually a winning electoral strategy that can help bring back disenfranchised working-class voters and less educated voters who currently may not vote at all or identify with right-wing populism.

"Using post-electoral surveys from France, Britain and the US, this paper documents a striking long-run evolution in the structure of political cleavages," Piketty writes in the abstract. He goes on to explain the political changes that have happened since the 1950s and 1960s, when "the vote for left-wing (socialist-labour-democratic) parties was associated with lower education and lower income voters" — in other words, the Labour Party of the United Kingdom, the Socialist Party of France and the Democratic Party of the United States were considered parties that supported and helped destitute and less-well-educated voters.

Yet over time, those parties, Piketty explains, "gradually become associated with higher education voters," which he describes as creating a system of "multiple-elite" parties where "high-education elites now vote for the 'left,' while high-income/high-wealth elites still vote for the 'right' (though less and less so)." In other words, both sides of the spectrum became parties of the elite, with no party for less educated folks or the working class.

Piketty argues that this situation "contributes to rising inequality and lack of democratic response to it," as well as the rise of populists like Trump, Marine Le Pen in France and Nigel Farage in Britain. "Without a strong egalitarian-internationalist platform, it is difficult to unite low- education, low-income voters from all origins within the same party," he writes.

If the Democratic Party was wise, it might see Piketty's paper as a chance to improve its electoral strategy. Indeed, the Democratic Party seems to be locked in a battle for its own soul, a fight long-presaged that erupted during the 2016 presidential primary. In one corner sits the Clintonite corporate wing of the party, who believe that the key to Democratic Party strategy is to move to the center in order to pick up moderate conservatives voters who feel left behind by the Republican Party's far-right shift.

This was Clinton's strategy to a T: in her election campaign, she bragged about her connections to Henry Kissinger and her support from billionaire Republicans like former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, while being famously dismissive of social democratic policies like single-payer health care.

In the other corner there are those who argue that the Democratic Party will win more voters if it appeals explicitly to class interests and concerns. As Steve Phillips wrote in a Times op-ed last year:

If Democrats had stemmed the defections of white voters to the Libertarian or Green Parties, they would have won Michigan and Wisconsin, and had they also inspired African-Americans in Pennsylvania, Mrs. Clinton would be president.

If progressive whites are defecting because they are uninspired by Democrats, moving further to the right will only deepen their disillusionment.

This "go left" strategy hints at what Piketty calls the "class-based party system" that dominated Western democracies in the 1950s and 1960s. In those decades, "lower class voters from the different dimensions (lower education voters, lower income voters, etc.) tend[ed] to vote for the same party or coalition, while upper and middle class voters from the different dimensions tend[ed] to vote for the other party or coalition."

Similar as the Democratic factions may seem to the right, which seem unable to distinguish a liberal billionaire like Warren Buffett from a "communist," they represent radically different positions and have different constituencies. The Clintonite coalition tended to rely on pandering to identity groups and a sort of vague multiculturalism that posited that billionaires, corporations and the poor could live in some kind of perfect harmony, even though the former rely on the exploitation of the latter to exist.

Critics like Phillips argue that Clinton and her DNC lackeys failed to grasp that her milquetoast liberalism lacked a comprehensible ideology: There were no scapegoats, and "America was already great," in Clinton's words. Those words appeared tone-deaf to the millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet, who sought a scapegoat and heard a more sensible explanation for their woes from Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, the strategy of Bernie Sanders — mirrored in other left organizing groups in the United States that seek to push the Democratic Party to the left, including Our Revolution and Democratic Socialists of America — is to offer a more serious material analysis of the underpinnings of oppression and suffering in the United States and to scapegoat income inequality caused by an unjust economic system propped up by the elite. Sanders and his counterparts overseas, particularly U.K. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, offer that aforementioned "strong egalitarian-internationalist platform" that has the potential to "unite low-education, low-income voters from all origins," as Piketty describes.

Though Sanders came up short in the primaries, he was vindicated in the aftermath of the general election in several ways: First, many of the Rust Belt states that Trump carried — states Hillary Clinton had banked on winning — were won by Sanders in the primary, including Michigan and Wisconsin. Second, post-election studies suggested that had Sanders been the Democratic nominee, he would have defeated Trump by a wide margin. Third, Sanders remains the most popular politician in the United States, despite an ongoing bile-spitting campaign orchestrated by Democratic insiders like Sally Albright (who called Sanders "racist" for proposing free college) or Peter Daou (who blames Sanders for Clinton's loss). Finally, Clinton's victory was aided considerably by a corrupt party apparatus that was already in the bag for Clinton, as former interim DNC chair Donna Brazile has described.

For Berniecrats, democratic socialists and those even further left, there's much to love in Piketty's paper. His conclusion, one echoed by the Sanders wing of the Democratic party, is essentially that ostensibly "left" parties — e.g. the Democrats in the United States, Labour in the U.K. or the Socialist Party in France — have lost the constituencies they once supported and now appeal to the elite, leaving a vast underclass politically unrepresented and rudderless. Piketty is giving them a rudder, if the parties can seize it.


LET US FINISH OFF NOW, WITH VIDEOS ON TWO VITALLY IMPORTANT SUBJECTS.

THESE VIDEOS ARE NOT “NEWS,” PER SE, BUT OPINION. THEY AREN’T ACCOMPANIED BY MUCH IN THE WAY OF TEXT, BUT ARE EXCELLENT VIDEO INTERVIEWS BY CHRIS HEDGES AND ABBY MARTIN ON SEVERAL RELATED SUBJECTS. AFTER THESE ARE TWO BY RENOWNED JOURNALISTS, DAVID CAY JOHNSTON & GREG PALAST, BOTH OF WHOM ARE INTELLIGENT AND REASONABLE PROGRESSIVES AND TRUE AMERICAN PATRIOTS – FOR THE GOOD AMERICA, I MEAN.

THE FIRST VIDEO IS ABOUT THE COMBINATION OF GROUPS THAT ARE MERGING THESE LAST SEVERAL YEARS TO FORM A CHRISTIAN RIGHT LED FORM OF FASCISM IN THE USA. ACTUALLY, THINGS LIKE WHAT HE IS DESCRIBING HAVE BEEN A WELL-ROOTED SET OF THOUGHT-PATTERNS AND ACTIVITIES FOR YEARS HERE, AT LEAST IN THE SOUTH; BUT NOW WITH THE EMERGENCE OF TRUMP ET AL THEY REALLY ARE IN OUR FACES AND UNAVOIDABLE, GROWING MORE BOLD AND RADICAL BY THE DAY. WHAT REALLY FRIGHTENS ME MOST IS THE FACT THAT A DANGEROUSLY LARGE MINORITY OF WELL-INTENTIONED AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE BLITHELY FOLLOWING ALONG LIKE THE VILLAGE CHILDREN BEHIND THE PIED PIPER, FIRMLY ESPOUSING THE BELIEF THAT A GOOD CITIZEN DOESN’T MAKE WAVES, AND THAT AMERICA IS POWERFUL ENOUGH TO TAKE CARE OF THIS, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMES ALONG, WITH NO PROBLEM. DON’T WORRY, BE HAPPY!

I BELIEVE WE CAN ACTUALLY STOP IT HERE IN THE USA, BUT NOT WITHOUT A SEVERE STRUGGLE FROM THE TOP TO THE BOTTOM OF OUR SOCIETY. THAT IS PARTLY DUE TO THE TYPE OF RELIGION THAT CHRISTIANITY IS, STRESSING AN UNQUESTIONING TURN OF MIND, WHICH IS DEMANDED OF THOSE WHO HOPE FOR HEAVEN – AND SURELY WE ALL DO – WHICH LEADS TO A HABIT OF NOT THINKING VERY MUCH ABOUT ANYTHING CONTROVERSIAL, AND “BELIEVING” THE NEAREST DEMAGOGUE. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE DONALD TRUMP AS OUR FEARLESS LEADER.

HEDGES IS SPEAKING ALSO AGAINST “LIBERAL ELITES” ON BOTH COASTS, SO HE MAY BE A LIBERTARIAN OR, LIKE BERNIE SANDERS, AN INDEPENDENT. BY TRADE, HE IS AN INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER. HE ISN’T SAYING THINGS THAT SOUND UNTRUE TO ME, THOUGH; AND HE IS A CELEBRATED REPORTER AND PULITZER PRIZE WINNER, SO I AM PAYING CLOSE ATTENTION TO HIS WORDS. LISTEN TO THIS AND THE SEVERAL DIFFERENT LECTURES INCLUDED HERE. THIS IS UNHAPPY MATERIAL, BUT IMPORTANT IF WE ARE TO OPERATE AS RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS IN A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC IN CONSIDERABLE DANGER AND DISTRESS.

FOR CHRIS HEDGES TALKS, GO TO:
https://www.truthdig.com/author/chris_hedges/


HEDGES TALKS ABOUT PROPAGANDA USED AS A PRIMARY WEAPON (BLOOD IS SO MESSY), IN THE FOLLOWING FILM –

“PROPAGANDA BURIES FACTS & MANIPULATES EMOTIONS”
*** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0T0U9sGjP3I


THEN WE HAVE A DISSECTION OF THE TRUMP/PUTIN/ALT-RIGHT MOVEMENT –

“TRUMP, FASCISM & THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT.”
*** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP5gjrh-3Ew
CHRIS HEDGES & ABBY MARTIN (Feb 02, 2018) - (Feb 21, 2018)


FOR A DISCUSSION BASED ON THE BEST SELLER, “IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THINK” SEE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAmKwAcjha8
IT’S EVEN WORSE THAN YOU THINK: DAVID CAY JOHNSTON & GREG PALAST

"A NARCISSISTIC KNOW-NOTHING CON ARTIST WHO HAS SPENT HIS ENTIRE LIFE SWINDLING OTHERS WHILE REPEATEDLY URGING FOLLOWERS TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST HIS CRITICS," WRITES DAVID CAY JOHNSTON. WHO COULD HE BE TALKING ABOUT? I ASKED...”

FOR MORE BY PALAST AND JOHNSTON GO TO “DC REPORTS”
GREG PALAST
PUBLISHED ON FEB 3, 2018