AUGUST 15, 2018


NEWS AND VIEWS


“... SO THERE IS A LOT OF DEBT THAT WE HAVE TO PAY DOWN. THERE IS A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE. THERE'S A LOT OF POLICY THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK CRITICALLY AT.” THIS IS THE KIND OF CLEVERLY VACUOUS SPEECH THAT SAYS NOTHING SPECIFIC AND AS A RESULT MEANS NOTHING. I HATE IT. I DO HAVE A PARTICULARLY ALLERGIC REACTION TO ALEX JONES, WHO LIKE LIMBAUGH, OBSERVES NO RULES. IT’S SAD THAT SO MANY AMERICANS LIKE THAT KIND OF TWADDLE. AS FOR DORSEY, HE’S MAKING BILLIONS, SO WHY SHOULD HE INTERFERE?

THE CRUX OF THIS PROBLEM IS THAT JONES MADE AN IMPLIED THREAT OF VIOLENCE, LIGHTLY CLOAKED IN RHETORIC OR WHAT MAY BE HIS BRAND OF HUMOR, AGAINST NEWS ORGANIZATIONS AND MAYBE NEWS PEOPLE, AND FINALLY THE TWITTER CEO PULLED HIM FOR A WEEK OR SO AFTER MANY COMPLAINTS. HIS WORDS WERE THAT HIS LISTENERS (PATRIOTS, ALL) SHOULD “ready their “battle rifles” against the media.” ARE PEOPLE LIKE HIM REALLY INSANE, OR SIMPLY GREEDY FOR THE MONEY THEY CAN MAKE WITH THAT KIND OF TALK.

DORSEY, THE CEO OF TWITTER HAD BEEN UNDER PRESSURE TO BAN OR SANCTION HIM AND OTHERS MUCH EARLIER, BUT HE CLAIMS, HE DIDN’T WANT TO FAVOR ONE SIDE OVER THE OTHER. HE PROBABLY KNOWS THAT THE VIOLENT FRINGE IS A LARGE PART OF HIS AUDIENCE, AND DOESN’T WANT TO LOSE THEIR MONEY. THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND THE KKK ARE ALSO PROBABLY BEHIND HIM FINANCIALLY.

ALEX JONES AND PEOPLE LIKE HIM SHOULD NOT, DEFINITELY NOT, HAVE THEIR FREE SPEECH IF THEY REMAIN POISONOUS TO THE AIRWAVES SOWING GROUP HATREDS AND OTHER INTENSE UNKINDNESS, SUCH AS BULLYING. TOO MANY REPUBLICANS ARE JUST COLD, LIKE A LIZARD. THEY ARE UNMOVED BY ANYONE’S MISFORTUNE. THE POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE SINCE THE TRUMP ELECTION CAMPAIGN BEGAN IS NOT ONLY UGLY, IT IS DANGEROUS. WHAT ARE THE FCC RULES ON THIS KIND OF THING, I WONDER? I THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO KEEP THAT KIND OF ABUSE OFF THE NET. IF TWITTER DOESN’T MAKE A REAL MOVE OF A PERMANENT KIND, MAYBE THE FCC WILL.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/twitter-ceo-jack-dorsey-alex-jones-election-security-regrets-n900931
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Alex Jones, election security and regrets
“We can’t build a service that is subjective just to the whims of what we personally believe,” Dorsey told NBC News’ Lester Holt in an exclusive interview.
by Alyssa Newcomb / Aug.15.2018 / 1:47 PM ET

PHOTOGRAPH -- Jack Dorsey, CEO and co-founder of Twitter speaks at the Consensus 2018 blockchain technology conference in New York on May 16, 2018.Mike Segar / Reuters

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Wednesday defended the company’s decision this week to put Infowars’ Alex Jones in a seven-day “timeout” after Jones urged his viewers to ready their “battle rifles” against the media.

Dorsey said he resisted banning Jones, the embattled conspiracy theorist and radio host, despite calls to do so, some of which came from inside Twitter.

“We can’t build a service that is subjective just to the whims of what we personally believe,” Dorsey told NBC News’ Lester Holt in an exclusive interview.

Dorsey said he believes the suspension can be effective and is consistent with the company’s policies.

“I feel any suspension, whether it be a permanent or a temporary one, makes someone think about their actions and their behaviors,” Dorsey said.

When asked by Holt if he believes Jones will change his behavior, Dorsey said he did not know.

“Whether it works within this case to change some of those behaviors and change some of those actions, I don't know,” Dorsey said. “But this is consistent with how we enforce.”

Watch the interview Wednesday evening on NBC Nightly News with Lester Holt.

Exclusive: Twitter CEO on Alex Jones' 'timeout'
AUG.15.201801:26

Jones was banned or restricted from using the services of at least 10 tech companies this month, including Facebook and YouTube. Twitter had been the most high-profile holdout, until it announced on Tuesday that Jones was suspended from posting for seven days.

Dorsey later clarified on Twitter that he was "speaking broadly about our range of enforcement actions" with regards to the company's use of timeouts.

"I don’t assume everyone will change their actions. Enforcement gets tougher with further reported violations," Dorsey tweeted.

Dorsey’s interview comes after months of scrutiny on both him and Twitter for what critics say has been a sluggish response to systemic problems on the platform, including harassment, bots and hate speech. In the interview, Dorsey offered insight into the company’s decision-making process, but also showed that it is still struggling to figure out how to manage the platform it created.

In response to a question about Jones, Dorsey said that “the most important thing for us is that we are consistent in applying our enforcement.”

But in a follow-up question on weighing the importance of Twitter’s rules versus its moral obligation, Dorsey said the company has “to put the safety of individuals first in every single thing that we do, and we need to enforce our rules and also evolve our rules around that.”

Dorsey said trying to strike a balance between consistency and moral obligation had led the company to consider a policy around dehumanizing speech — one that could potentially ensnare Jones, who was banned from Facebook for what the social network called dehumanizing speech directed at Muslims, immigrants and transgender people.

Dorsey also said that he personally felt that other companies had been inconsistent with how they dealt with Jones.

"I think some of the actions have been, in my own personal view, a little bit inconsistent," Dorsey said.

Jones, who has peddled a litany of conspiracy theories over the years including the idea that the Sandy Hook school shooting massacre was a hoax, will be free to continue tweeting and broadcasting from the Twitter-owned video-streaming service Periscope next week, where he often livestreams.

Dorsey said he feels “terrible” at the pain Jones has caused the Sandy Hook families and acknowledged that the company had been slow to respond.

“I think we have felt behind and we have felt that we have moved too slow in a lot of our actions,” he said.

Jones may be Twitter’s latest scandal, but the company continues to deal with an older problem — how to clean up the platform after it was weaponized by Russian bots that pushed misinformation and divisive content in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. election.

“Election integrity is our first priority this year,” Dorsey said.

A big part of that effort has been combatting bots, which are automated accounts used to manipulate the discourse on Twitter. The company is using technology to fight back, and it is showing progress. Last month, Twitter said its technology was capable of identifying more than 9.9 million potential spam accounts per week and shutting them down.

Dorsey said the system is still being improved and noted that the company is considering other solutions as well.

“We need to make sure that we are considering not just policy changes, but also product changes to help alleviate some of these concerns,” he said.

As Twitter tries to combat the weaponization of its platform, the company is also feeling the heat from the country’s political divide, especially when its most prominent user is the president of the United States.

Dorsey has appeared particularly sensitive to claims that Twitter suppresses conservative voices. Twitter came under fire last month after President Donald Trump and some Republican lawmakers claimed that Twitter was burying certain conservative accounts, a process that has been referred to as "shadow banning."

In a radio interview with the conservative personality Sean Hannity last week, Dorsey spoke directly to a Republican audience and said Twitter does not ban accounts based on political ideology.

When asked by Holt if Dorsey felt the rhetoric from conservatives was more extreme than from liberals, Dorsey demurred and instead said it was important to focus on actions rather than words.

TECH

How many Twitter followers have you lost today?

“We need to look at behaviors, when people are trying to shut down the voices of others,” Dorsey said. “People are trying to harass others. And that's independent of a viewpoint.”

Dorsey said that while the company has been working toward improving the health of the conversation on Twitter, he’s cognizant of what the company has done — or not done — in the past and that it has had a negative effect on some people.

“Three years ago, we prioritized health and safety as our No. 1 priority in the company,” he said “And we're coming from 10 years of not doing that. So there is a lot of debt that we have to pay down. There is a lot of infrastructure that we have to change. There's a lot of policy that we have to look critically at.”



“... TREAT ANY AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES AS TRESPASSERS.” INSTEAD OF FCC REPRESENTATIVES, PERHAPS THEY SHOULD SEND A SQUAD OF FBI AGENTS WITH A SEARCH WARRANT TO COLLECT COMMUNICATIONS AND BUSINESS PAPERS. MAYBE THESE PEOPLE HAVE ACTIVE LINKS TO CRIMINALLY INVOLVED RIGHTIST GROUPS, SUCH AS THE KKK. MAYBE OTHER SUCH PEOPLE AGITATING FOR THEM ARE ALSO CRIMINALS. IT USED TO BE THAT THEY JUST SPOUTED THEIR HATE SPEECH AND IDEOLOGY, BUT THOSE KINDS OF PEOPLE HAVE BECOME DANGEROUSLY AGGRESSIVE NOW. THEY AREN’T MERELY ANNOYING ANYMORE.


PHOTOS OF THE OLENICKS* -- https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=walter+olenick+and+m.+rae+nadler-olenick&qpvt=Walter+Olenick+and+M.+Rae+Nadler-Olenick&FORM=IGRE


I HATE TO BE UNKIND IN THIS CASE, BUT THESE PEOPLE LOOK LIKE MOUNTAIN FOLK I’VE SEEN – HALF WILD AND YET SAD. I SUPPOSE THEY GOT ENOUGH MONEY TO HELP OUT WITH THE BILLS AND PERHAPS WON’T BE ABLE TO REPLACE IT WITHOUT THE BROADCASTING STATION. THEY ARE ALSO LIKELY PROPONENTS OF ANTI-GOVERNMENT VIEWS, LIKE THE SOVEREIGN CITIZENS, ETC.

I’M SORRY FOR THEM, STILL, THEY SHOULD BE TRIED FOR WHATEVER CAN BE PROVEN AGAINST THEM, AND GIVEN MENTAL HEALTH EXAMS BY A QUALIFIED PSYCHIATRIST, NOT WITH THE LITTLE ONE PAGE QUESTIONAIRE THAT ONE POLICE DEPARTMENT ADMITTED TO USING TO SELECT THEIR OFFICERS. THEIR SOCIAL AND BUSINESS LINKAGES SHOULD ALSO BE DISCOVERED AND VETTED. THE RIGHTISTS GROUPS ARE VERY LIKELY CONNECTED AND ADVERTISING ON THE NET.

THERE IS A NEED FOR SCREENING FOR DISTURBED AND DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS, EVEN MORE SO SINCE TRUMP TOOK OVER THAN BEFORE. THIS LOOKS LIKE A “SLEEPER CELL” AS MUSLIMS GROUPS ARE CALLED, TO ME. THE OLENICKS, JONES, AND WHO ELSE? IF ISLAMIC RADICALS CAN BE ARRESTED, WHY NOT ACTIVE DOMESTIC RADICALS? OF COURSE, THEY HAVE TO BE CAUGHT IN RELATION TO A SPECIFIC CRIME OR THREAT.

IT’S JUST THAT TO ME, WE NEED TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FREEDOM OF SPEECH, RELIGION OR ASSOCIATION, AND CONSPIRACY. WE COULD USE A LAW ALSO TO PROHIBIT MALICIOUS CONTACTS OR PROPAGANDA DISTRIBUTION BY PEOPLE OR GROUPS WHO WANT TO ACT AGGRESSIVELY. THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE TRIED TO PROVE IT, OF COURSE.

I KNOW IT’S HARD TO GET AMERICANS TO GO ALONG WITH THAT IDEA AT ALL, AT LEAST UNTIL SUCH PEOPLE SHOW THEMSELVES AS BEING DANGEROUS. UNTIL THEY KILL SOMEONE, THEY’RE JUST EXERCISING THEIR LIBERTY.

FLAGSHIP RADIO STATION INDIVIDUALS PHOTOGRAPHS:
https://www.branchenportal24.de/images/links/link5534.gif

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/fcc-shuts-down-alex-jones%e2%80%99-flagship-radio-station/ar-BBLZci9?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
FCC shuts down Alex Jones’ flagship radio station
Jacqueline Thomsen
AUGUST 15, 2018 2 hrs ago

PHOTOGRAPH – HEAD SHOT

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has shut down conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' flagship radio station.

The Austin American-Statesman reported Wednesday that the pirate radio station, Liberty Radio, was hit with a $15,000 fine and at least temporarily pulled from the airwaves.

The newspaper reported that a lawsuit filed in federal court in Austin alleged that Liberty Radio had functioned without a license since at least 2013, and had been transmitting from a tower at an Austin apartment complex.

Liberty Radio stopped airing on the radio in December, but still streams online.

The Associated Press reported that Walter Olenick and M. Rae Nadler-Olenick* were named as the defendants in the lawsuit, and the apartment complex where the station was transmitting from is linked [sic] the pair.

The Olenicks reportedly told the FCC that they would not pay the fine and would treat any agency representatives as trespassers.

Jones, a conspiracy theorist who founded the site Infowars, has recently been banned by several platforms, including Facebook and YouTube.

Infowars and Jones' content has also been pulled from Spotify and Vimeo, and Twitter placed restrictions on the accounts for Jones and his site.

Jones has been criticized for some of the conspiracy theories he promotes: The parents of two children killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting have sued him for allegedly saying the massacre was staged and a cover-up orchestrated by the parents of the children.



THIS SOUNDS FAIR TO ME, SINCE BRENNAN AND THE OTHERS ARE NO LONGER IN THEIR POSITIONS. WHY DID THEY STILL HAVE A SECURITY CLEARANCE ANYWAY? WH SPOKESPERSON SANDERS ANSWERS THE QUESTION, AND ON ONE HAND SOUNDS LOGICAL TO ME, BUT THE LIBERAL SIDE STATES THAT WE CONTINUE TO NEED AND USE THEIR EXPERTISE ON AN INFORMAL BASIS TO ADVISE ON ONGOING INTERNATIONAL MATTERS. SO WHAT IF WE INSTALLED A BODY INTO OUR BUREAUCRACY WHICH IS COMPOSED OF FORMER DEPARTMENT MEMBERS FROM ALL MAJOR PARTIES, WHOSE SOLE PURPOSE WOULD BE TO ADVISE AND AID IN MAKING DECISIONS?

ALSO, THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT IN THIS CASE TRUMP HATES BRENNAN AND WANTS HIM TO BE TOTALLY OUTSIDE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE BECAUSE OF HIS NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT TRUMP IN RECENT MONTHS, AND THEY WERE INDEED QUITE NEGATIVE. THEY ARE SO CLEARLY TRUTHFUL, THOUGH, THAT HE CAN BE FORGIVEN. BESIDES, FOR THIS ACTON BY TRUMP TO BE DONE TO SO MANY OF THE TRUMP ENEMIES LIST AT ONCE, “BECAUSE THEY HAD CRITICIZED TRUMP,” THOUGH, IS JUST ONE MORE TRUMPIAN ATTITUDE ISSUE. HE HAS NEVER WANTED TO LISTEN TO ADVISE, MUCH TAKE ACTION ON IT.

IF MS. SANDERS HAD SAID THAT IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE FORMER LEADERS MAY BE IN A DEEPLY ADVERSARIAL POSITION TO THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, IT WOULD HAVE MADE SENSE TO ME, AND NOT BE MERELY “UNFAIR.” THAT STRUGGLE BETWEEN PHILOSOPHIES OF GOVERNMENT IS HEALTHY UP TO A POINT. IF THERE WERE LESS PARTISAN WARFARE, AS OPPOSED TO FRIENDLIER RIVALRY, THESE THINGS WOULDN’T BE SO PROBLEMATIC. COLLABORATION IS ONE OF THE MOST BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR GOVERNMENT. INSTEAD, NOWADAYS, THERE IS VERY LITTLE TRUST OF ANYONE WHO IS OUTSIDE “THE GROUP” AND A GREAT DEAL OF FOUL PLAY.

NOW IF AUTOMATIC REMOVAL FROM THE GROUP WHO HAVE ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT SECRETS WOULD BE DONE EVERY TIME, AND IT IS A RULE TO BE APPLIED TO ALLRATHER THAN AN ACT OF VENGEANCE AGAINST A HATED FEW, I DON’T THINK THERE SHOULD BE AN INSURMOUNTABLE OBJECTION TO IT. BUT, STRIPPING PEOPLE WHO ARE IN A POSITION TO CHALLENGE HIM OF THEIR POWER TO DO SO – WHICH IS USUALLY WHAT HE IS CONCERNED ABOUT – SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN UNFAIR USE OF POWER, AND GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT, I THINK. THAT IS AUTOCRATIC BEHAVIOR, AND SHOULD NOT BE A PART OF THE UNITED STATES PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT.

I’VE SAID BEFORE AND WILL REITERATE, I THINK A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE WHICH WOULD REMOVE A PRESIDENT AND HIS PARTY LEADERS FROM POWER SHOULD BE PART OF OUR PROCEDURES, FOLLOWED BY A NEW ELECTION. IN BRITAIN, THE NEW LEADER “FORMS A GOVERNMENT” USUALLY OF HIS ALLIES, AND BUSINESS GOES ON AS USUAL. AT LEAST THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THEY ARE DOING IN A GENERAL WAY. WHETHER THE AVERAGE VOTING PUBLIC WEIGHS IN ON WHEN AND WHY THAT WILL HAPPEN IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE NEVER NOTICED, NOR STUDIED THE MATTER.

THERE WAS A MENTION IN A STORY IN THE LAST WEEK OR TWO OF A A TRUMP “ENEMIES LIST,” ONE OF HIS VERY OWN, JUST LIKE NIXON’S; AND WHILE I HATE THAT, IF HE DOESN’T START THROWING PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH HIM IN PRISON, OR FIRING MUELLER AND ROSENSTEIN, IT ISN’T NECESSARILY A MATTER OF AN ILLEGAL ACT I WOULDN’T THINK. THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS TO ME ARE, HOW FAR WILL HE TRY TO GO AND HOW SUCCESSFUL CAN HE BE? THAT ISN’T A MATTER OF THEORY, BUT OF POWER. CAN HE OVERCOME 99.99% OF THE DEMOCRATS, A LARGE NUMBER OF INDEPENDENTS, AND MORE THAN A HANDFUL OF REPUBLICANS? I PRAY NOT.

MANY AMERICANS FEEL THAT TRUMP HAS GROSSLY OVERSTEPPED HIS RIGHTFUL POWERS AND IS TRYING LITERALLY TO CONDUCT A COUP. IT’S A TYPE OF THING THAT OFFENDS THE DEEPLY HELD VIEWS OF A MAJORITY IN THIS COUNTRY, AND I FEEL A BACKLASH IN THE AIR. I HOPE THAT BEAUTIFUL WARM WIND DOESN’T CHANGE BEFORE NOVEMBER. THE DEMOCRATS’ PROBLEM IS THAT WE ARE NOT A MAJORITY IN THE LEGISLATURE AS WE WERE IN 1970. IF THE “SANDERS ARMY” IS ABLE TO WIN, HOWEVER, I THINK THAT WILL CHANGE, AT LEAST TO SOME DEGREE, AND IN A FEW MONTHS’ TIME. CROSS YOUR FINGERS. FOLLOWING THIS ARTICLE, GO TO THE WASHINGTON POST OPINION.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-white-house-briefing-august-15-2018-live-stream/
CBS/AP August 15, 2018, 1:47 PM
White House announces John Brennan's security clearance revoked

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced Wednesday that President Trump has ordered former CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance to be revoked. Brennan served in the Obama administration. He was CIA director from 2013 to 2017.

"Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility," Sanders told reporters in her opening remarks at Wednesday's press breifing.

Security clearances: How do they work?

The White House announced in the end of July that it was "exploring" the possibility of revoking the security clearances of several former intelligence officials who have criticized Mr. Trump. According to Sanders, the White House is now evaluating the clearances of the following individuals on a "case by case basis":

James Clapper, former Director of National Intelligence
James Comey, former FBI director
Michael Hayden, former CIA director
Sally Yates, former Acting Attorney General
Susan Rice, former National Security Adviser
Andrew McCabe, former deputy FBI director
Peter Strzok, former FBI agent
Lisa Page, former FBI lawyer
Bruce Ohr, former Associate Deputy Attorney General

Not everyone on this list appears to still have a security clearance. In July, a spokesperson for McCabe tweeted that the former FBI director's security clearance was he was deactivated when he was fired. The same apparently is true of Comey, according to his friend Ben Wittes, because he was also fired. Meanwhile, Hayden said last month that revoking his clearance wouldn't have any effect on what he says.

"I don't go back for classified briefings," Hayden, who served under President George W. Bush, told CBS News on Monday. "Won't have any effect on what I say or write."

Sanders brought into question why former government officials should maintain their security clearances, although these clearances are typically valid for five years.

"More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan's security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation's most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended," Sanders said. "Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks."

Sanders called Brennan's behavior "erratic conduct and behavior" and accusing him of "lying" and "wild outbursts."

She also claims he's "leveraged his status" to make unfounded allegations.

Brennan has been deeply critical of Trump's conduct, calling his performance at a joint press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Finland "nothing short of treasonous."

Sanders says other former intelligence officials' security clearances are also "currently under review."

Former high-ranking government employees can in some cases ask for and receive a security briefing on a certain subject. But the purpose of extending security clearances is to help the U.S. government, not the people who have them.

"It's not just a courtesy,"former Acting CIA director Michael Morell told CBS News last month. "For as long as I have been aware, which is probably two decades, former senior officials have kept their clearances. And the purpose is not to benefit the individual. It's to benefit the government. So, for example, I go into CIA regularly and I help them think through issues, I talk to people, I'm there to assist in any variety of ways. I also serve on a government commission that I could not serve on without having my clearances."

This story is developing, check back for updates.

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


WHY DOES THE GOVERNMENT USUALLY WANT A BACKUP BOARD OF PEOPLE TO GIVE ADVICE? WA PO TELLS US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/08/16/why-former-government-officials-keep-their-security-clearances/
Politics Analysis
Why former government officials keep their security clearances
By Philip Bump
National correspondent
August 16 at 12:32 PM

One common reaction to the White House’s announcement on Wednesday that it was revoking former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance was a natural one: What does he need a security clearance for anyway? He no longer works for the government. Why does he need access to government secrets?

When senior officials leave government — on good terms; former FBI director James B. Comey lost his clearance after being fired — there has been an informal standard of continuing to grant clearance for the rest of their careers. Those clearances go through a review process every five years, but it’s common. National security experts who spoke with The Washington Post outlined why that’s the case.

Consulting with sitting officials. Perhaps the most obvious is that former intelligence officials constitute a community of individuals with detailed, specific knowledge about past security incidents the country has faced. The United States faces recurring threats that often mirror past incidents. With regularity — every four or eight years, for example — much of the leadership of our intelligence agencies sees turnover. Former officials are part of the institutional knowledge of those organizations, and access to that knowledge can be useful.

“Having former senior officials hold active security clearances can be critically important for those currently charged with defending our nation,” said Jamil N. Jaffer, who was associate counsel to President George W. Bush and founder of George Mason University’s National Security Institute, “because it allows them to turn rapidly to people with significant experience, context and contacts to help interpret the activity of our opponents and to provide wise counsel and guidance, whether that’s in the terrorism, foreign policy or any national security context.”

Former officials don’t need a security clearance to offer their opinions to their successors, of course, but any counsel offered might be hampered if there’s current information that can’t be shared.

Serving the government in an official capacity. In addition to the informal outreach to former officials, there are governmental advisory boards on which those officials can serve in a formal way.

For example, there is the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which under President Barack Obama was co-chaired by Jami Miscik, a former senior CIA official who left service in 2005. Under President Trump, only one member has been appointed: billionaire investor Stephen Feinberg, who was made chairman in May.

Individual agencies have or have had similar boards. While he was director of the CIA, Leon Panetta’s external advisory board included former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, along with former military and elected officials.

Outside work might require a security clearance. In 2015, 4.2 million people held some sort of level of security clearance in the United States.

Why? Because many industries require security clearances. Clearances are common in the defense industry, for example; Lockheed Martin has 60,000 employees who hold a government security clearance. Intelligence agencies also frequently contract with outside companies to perform certain tasks, generally requiring that employees of those firms hold a clearance.

Not all former officials go into positions where they need clearance to carry out their job functions, but many provide consulting services for which a clearance is at least an asset.

Writing memoirs or histories. A not-uncommon post-retirement activity is writing memoirs about an official’s time with the government. In some cases, detailing certain events may require access to still-classified information. Such books are generally reviewed by the government to ensure that classified information isn’t included in the final product.

Several of those identified by the White House on Wednesday as under review over their security clearance have written books about their tenures — often books that are critical of Trump’s administration.

With the exception of Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, it’s not clear that any of the 10 people identified on the White House list actually rely on their clearances to make ends meet. Comey’s book detailing his time at the FBI, for example, was written after his clearance was revoked. Shortly after his own clearance was revoked, Brennan appeared on MSNBC to weigh in on the action, criticizing Trump and the administration in sharp terms. When the White House first floated the idea of revoking clearances, several of those who had been mentioned quickly noted that it would have little effect on their work — or that they didn’t hold clearances anyway.

Trump’s announcement inadvertently reflected on an unusual aspect of his presidency. The primary reason that presidents have supported ongoing clearances for departed officials is that it was helpful to their administrations. It’s useful for a president to be able to get input from those officials that can inform their decision-making. But Trump’s presidency has often eschewed that sort of advice, as reflected in part by the paucity of his Intelligence Advisory Board. A punitive, mostly symbolic action targeting his critics seems much more in line with his approach to his position than encouraging his subordinates to talk to experts and former leaders regardless of their political views.



NASTY COMMENT SPOKEN NEEDLESSLY, TOUSSAINT NOT REPENTANT. I DON’T WANT TO BE CRUEL TO HIM, BUT I THINK THAT HE AND TUCKER CARLSON HAVE ONE OR TWO THINGS IN COMMON – I THINK CARLSON IS ALSO GAY, AND SECONDLY, THEY ARE BOTH LITTLE PRIGS.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/i-made-a-negative-comment-about-rachel-maddow-and-now_us_5914844ae4b01ad573dac1bb
I Made a Negative Comment About Rachel Maddow And Now I’m A Bad Gay
I’ve insulted Her, the goddess.
05/11/2017 11:44 am ET Updated May 13, 2017
David Toussaint, Contributor
Four-Time Author, Longtime Writer, Actor, and Pug Lover

PHOTOGRAPH – PORTRAIT SHOT OF MADDOW

Who knew the condemnation would be so swift.

After checking out her MSNBC show awhile back, I Facebook-posted the comment “My God, Rachel Maddow, get to the point!” and went on my merry way. I took a quick break to make a sandwich and walk the dog and do the laundry and came back to find out that Maddow was still telling us why this particular story she was about to unravel was going to be significant, why we should remember something she said earlier in the program, and then smirking at some witty remark she made, which, admittedly, went over my head.

Surprised that she still hadn’t spilled the beans on her breaking-news piece, I checked Facebook again, only to find out I’d been hit with more disparaging comments than Sean Spicer at a Seder.

“LAY OFF MADDOW!” one friend large-capped in disgust. “Why don’t you go watch Fox, you closet Tucker Carlson fan?” posted another. And, the most hurtful, “It’s gays like you who make me want to date women, vote Republican, and support bills to send you back in the closet.” Since the last comment came from the guy I’m dating I knew I’d touched a nerve.

Rachel Maddow, I’ve learned, is the new Cher. You may worship her, you may find yourself oddly aroused by her, you may think she’ll survive man’s biggest threat to humanity—Trump—but criticize her and you may just as well tell people you’re still glad you protest-voted. The backlash will not be pretty.

Let me clear the air before the new comments commence. I think Rachel Maddow is extremely intelligent, wickedly informed, and a crucial ally in exposing the Right’s lies. I’m thrilled she’s around and I hope she ends up taking the Donald down. Try as I might, however, I can’t watch her.

Her presentational style—not the 20 minutes of substance that does emerge in her hour-long program—is of such repetition and “fat” that any journalism teacher would rip up her news copy and tell her to start over. And to nix the smug humor that suggests her show is an in-joke that only she, and other like-minded liberals, are smart enough to construct.

Listening to Maddow report a news story is like asking your tablemate to pass the salt, and, instead of your wish being granted, getting a discourse on the first salt mine created and how it was incorporated and who worked there and how much of the seasoning was produced on a daily basis. By the time she hands you the shaker your food’s gotten cold.

I’ve tried to snap out of it, these reflections on Maddow, and I’ve tried to overlook the exasperating aspects of her show in order to reap the benefits of her commentary. I’ve fast-forwarded, I’ve split-screen another broadcast, I even tried watching her with just the subtitles, in hopes I would just soak up the important sections. That strategy failed miserably, as instead I found myself editing her words as they staccatoed and stuttered across the TV screen.

My friends have been merciless, reminding me that, in addition to being a brilliant journalist, Maddow’s a storyteller, not bound by the traditional who, what, where, when, and whys of journalism. Nonsense. Unless you’re Garrison Keillor the semantics of reporting apply. Keith Olbermann is as overly dramatic as Norma Desmond singing “I Will Survive” a cappella, but he persistently zeroes in on his point. Bill Maher jumps back and forth and sideways, but he’s a political comedian and a provocateur.

In contrast, Maddow tells us how important her story is by reminding us of the joinery, and instructing us to listen—apparently, it’s a skill we’ve never learned. It’s not length that I object to: I love long stories, and they require a special talent to keep us invested in the plot. You have to find new directions to add to the mix. If Maddow is a political storyteller, she’s not learned the fundamentals of the form.

Like I said, Maddow’s a great political asset and I commend her political savvy. I’m envious of those who not only watch her show but revel in her style. And my own mechanics have failed me because it doesn’t make sense to argue the point that criticism of people on “our side” is part of the democratic freedoms we’re fighting to keep intact. I’ve insulted Her, the goddess, the cheerleader pep rally queen of the fighting Left. I’m a pariah who should join the Log Cabin Republicans or just beat myself over the head with logs.

All that’s left is for me to bury my head in the ignoramus sand while others actually try to make the world a better place. I’m not just a half-breed: I’m a half-wit.

Follow David Toussaint on Twitter and Facebook.



NO, WE CAN’T FEED THE POOR, BECAUSE AFTER TRUMP AND HIS QUITE STRANGE DEPARTMENT HEADS BLEED OUR COFFERS DRY ON TOTALLY NONSENSICAL IDIOCY, WE’LL HAVE TO DECLARE BANKRUPTCY. NOW, EAT YOUR DOGFOOD BEFORE IT GETS COLD, DEAR.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2018/08/16/trump-military-parade-cost-increase/1011519002/?csp=chromepush
Estimated cost of Trump's military parade jumps 666%, reports say
William Cummings, USA TODAY Published 4:14 p.m. ET Aug. 16, 2018 | Updated 8:06 p.m. ET Aug. 16, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- President Trump planned a military parade in DC and it’s reportedly going to cost close to $100 Million dollars. Veuer's Sam Berman has the full story. Buzz60

The estimated cost for President Donald Trump's November military parade in Washington has jumped $80 million, The Associated Press reported Thursday citing an unnamed Pentagon official.

But a Defense Department spokesman told USA TODAY the finals plans for the parade have not yet been approved and that costs could still change.

Last month, the Military Times reported that initial estimates of the parade's cost were $12 million. The official – who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss plans that haven’t been released yet – told AP the new projection is $92 million. That represents an increase of 666 percent.

About $50 million would cover Pentagon costs for equipment, personnel and other expenses for the parade, the official said. The rest would be handled by other agencies, including security costs.

Pentagon spokesman Jamie Davis cautioned that "planning for the Military Veterans Day Parade continues and final details are still being developed. Any cost estimates are pre-decisional."

In February, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney put the cost at $10 million to $30 million.

The parade is currently planned for Nov.10 in Washington, the day before Veterans Day.

The American Legion said in a statement Thursday that the organization appreciates Trump's desire to "show in a dramatic fashion our nation's support for our troops." But the veterans group believes that with troops still deployed overseas in the fight against terrorism, "the parade money would be better spent fully funding the Department of Veterans Affairs and giving our troops and their families the best care possible."

Trump has expressed a desire for such a parade for years and was greatly impressed by the Bastille Day march he witnessed on a presidential trip to Paris in 2017.

Contributing: Tom Vanden Brook in Washington; The Associated Press


http://thehill.com/opinion/finance/401734-democrats-should-stop-shunning-their-union-roots
Democrats should fully embrace their union roots
BY JAMES FEIGENBAUM, ALEXANDER HERTEL-FERNANDEZ AND VANESSA WILLIAMSON, OPINION CONTRIBUTORS — 08/14/18 12:00 PM EDT 80 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL

PHOTOGRAPH OF UNION MEMBERS RALLYING © Getty Images

On August 7, union leaders celebrated as Missourians overwhelming voted to overturn a Republican-backed state law to institute “right-to-work,” a misleadingly-named policy that undercuts union fundraising by letting workers avoid paying fees for union-provided workplace benefits.

After decades of union defeats, this victory could be a critical one for organized labor and for the Democratic Party.

Recent years have seen a concerted campaign to reduce union power. A spate of laws similar to the Missouri legislation have passed in states with strong union traditions, including Michigan, Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Earlier this summer, in the landmark Janus v. AFSCME case, the Supreme Court decided that fees charged by public-sector unions were unconstitutional, effectively making the public sector “right-to-work” in all 50 states. The case hits one of the last bastions of unionism in the United States.

It is not just unions that struggle when right-to-work laws pass, however. Unions have long been a vital component of the Democratic Party, so these losses have tilted the electoral playing field toward Republicans. Our research on the effect of right-to-work laws demonstrates just how much the laws cost Democratic candidates.

Studying counties that border one another where one county is in a right-to-work state and the other is not, we find that the passage of right-to-work laws reduce Democratic presidential vote share by about 3.5 percentage points — and have similar effects down the ballot in other federal and state elections.

These are big effects in a purple state like Missouri. In 2008, for instance, Barack Obama lost Missouri by less than a single percentage point. Moreover, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), is in a very tight race for re-election this year.

The two most recent polls have McCaskill either ahead by one point or losing by two. In close elections like these, whether a state is a right-to-work one or not could be a deciding factor.

How do unions have such a large impact on politics? First, unions provide election funding and get-out-vote manpower. When right-to-work laws pass, our research shows that turnout goes down by two to three percentage points.

Working-class people are also less likely to report they were contacted to vote in states with right-to-work in place. So Missouri’s referendum will likely help unions and allied groups get more working people to the polls in 2018 and beyond.

The referendum may also get more working people onto the ballot. Though the political class is dominated by white-collar professionals like business owners and lawyers, our research finds that right-to-work laws reduce the already-small percentage of working-class people serving in state legislatures and in Congress even more.

Aaron Sojourner and Nick Carnes have both shown that stronger unions increase the likelihood of blue-collar workers serving in state government. By overturning right-to-work, Missourians have helped preserve one avenue by which working-class Americans are represented in politics and exercise their political voice.

In fact, the campaign itself appears to have heightened workers’ political engagement. In Missouri, the campaign to overturn right-to-work brought many more people into active union membership, and locals are preparing for an uptick in candidates running for union leadership positions — and possibly politics as well.

Could the Missouri vote be evidence of a revived union movement? Certainly it joins other positive signs for organized labor, along with the defeat of public-sector union bargaining cutbacks in a 2011 referendum in Ohio; the recent teachers’ strikes in red states like Oklahoma and West Virginia; the wave of unionization in media; and minimum-wage increase campaigns that have succeeded in many major cities.

But the referendum in Missouri is still a defensive victory, preventing a policy that would weaken unions rather than passing a law that would strengthen organized labor. It will take more than the overturning of right-to-work laws to reverse the decades-long decline in union membership nationally.

Given unions’ importance to Democratic Party electoral fortunes, it is puzzling that liberals have not given greater priority to a positive agenda for union rights. State-level Democrats rarely pursue legislation expanding union rights, and the Obama administration passed up an opportunity for sweeping federal labor law reform in 2009 and 2010.

In contrast, the conservative movement has certainly identified policy to cripple organized labor as a way to shape its own political destiny.

Perhaps poll-watching Democrats have been hesitant to run on a pro-union campaign, given that surveys often find very high levels of uncertainty about what right-to-work even is. In 2014, almost half of American adults told a Gallup poll that they had never heard of right-to-work laws.

But the Missouri victory shows that a pro-union position can indeed speak to voters. In fact, careful survey also suggest that about half of nonunion workers say that, given the chance, they would vote to join a union.

A long line of studies in economics has documented the effects of unions on their members’ wages, benefits and working conditions. If Democrats gave workers more opportunities to unionize, our research suggests the party —and progressive politics more generally — would benefit as well.

James Feigenbaum is an assistant professor of economics at Boston University. Alexander Hertel-Fernandez is an assistant professor of public affairs at Columbia University and the author of "Politics at Work" (Oxford, 2018). Vanessa Williamson is a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution and the author of "Read My Lips: Why Americans Are Proud to Pay Taxes" (Princeton, 2017). The authors are all members of the Scholars Strategy Network.


BANNON ON THE TEA PARTY – NO, NOT THAT BANNON.

THE TEA PARTY HAS EVOLVED LIKE A RETROVIRUS. AIDS IS A RETROVIRUS. IT MUTATES EVERY GENERATION OR SO, CAUSING NEW CHARACTERISTICS WITH EVERY GROWTH CYCLE, SOME OF WHICH WILL HAVE NEW SURVIVAL POSSIBILITIES AND THE DIRECTION IN WHICH IT WILL CHANGE IS UNPREDICTABLE. THE OTHER PROBLEM WITH RETROVIRUSES IS THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE A VACCINE THAT WILL CONTINUE OVER TIME TO KILL IT. IT MAY ALSO BECOME MORE INFECTIOUS OR DEADLY.

http://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/401820-what-happened-to-the-tea-party
What happened to the Tea Party?
BY BRAD BANNON, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR
08/14/18 06:00 PM EDT

PHOTOGRAPH – TEA PARTY PROTESTORS, © Getty Images

Just a few years ago, the Tea Party was a dominant force in American politics, but you don’t hear much about it these days. It hasn’t gone away, it just morphed into something else.

Donald Trump was born out of the Tea Party. Trump’s dedicated supporters are many of the same folks who made the Tea Party the dominant force in American politics in 2010.

Like Trump, the Tea Party was never overwhelmingly popular but it did have a strongly committed base. Less than half (41 percent) of the people who voted in 2010 said they were supporters of the Tea Party. Coincidently, Trump’s job rating usually hovers at the same level.

The issues that fired up the Tea Party are the same things that Trump pushes as president: an anti-establishment view, hostility towards immigrants, opposition to ObamaCare and hatred of federal budget deficits.

It was the Tea Party fanned the flames that led to big GOP victories in 2010. The difference in 2018 is that Democrats are engaged as much Republicans were back then.

One of the curiosities of the 2018 midterm election is national polls show Democrats motivated to vote in the same way Tea Party supporters were in 2010. A June CNN Poll indicated that Democrats are much more enthusiastic about voting this November than Republicans.

Why are Republicans so blasé about the midterms? One reason may be that Trump hasn’t delivered on the promises he made in 2016 to the acolytes of the Tea Party even though the GOP controls the U.S. House and Senate.

Trump hasn’t got the money he needs to build his wall. But demography is destiny and a wall on the Mexican border won’t stop the face of America from changing because of birth rates that are much higher than [sic] for Hispanic and Asian Americans than they are for Anglos.

ObamaCare is still the law of the land, even in its weakened condition. And its pale substitute, TrumpCare died a miserable death in a GOP controlled Republican U.S. Senate

Because of tax cuts for the GOP’s corporate masters, the federal debt has swelled to astronomic proportions. The tax cut was ambrosia to big business and the 1 percent but it has done next to nothing for downtrodden white voters who punched Trump’s ticket to the White House.

The big issues on the radar screen haven't changed much since 2010 and 2016. Distrust of Washington, immigration, health care and the economy are still on the front burner. All these issues favored the GOP and Trump; now the same problems will come back to haunt the president and congressional Republicans. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton played the role of swamp creature in 2010 and in 2016. Trump has become is the creature from the black lagoon because he made the swamp more fetid than it already was. Before, voters wanted to get rid of ObamaCare; now voters are angry that the GOP weakened the Affordable Care Act without replacing it.

The move of populists and progressives into the Democratic Party made a regionally based states’ rights party into a dominant party for a generation. But transition works both ways. The question is whether the Republican Party will develop or devolve from the Tea Party.

In 1964, extremist conservative groups took over the Republican Party and the coup led to massive GOP losses in 1964. That turned into a disaster for the GOP because the Democratic landslide quickly produced Medicare, the Voting Rights Act and Head Start. These programs improved the lives of millions of Americans but they continue to embitter conservatives more than 50 years later.

Brad Bannon is a Democratic pollster and CEO of Bannon Communications Research*. (There is no relation to former Trump adviser Stephen Bannon). He is also a senior adviser to, and editor of, the blog at MyTiller.com, a social media network for politics. Contact him at brad@bannoncr.com.


https://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1500655/
Jun 5, 2018 - Bradley Bannon is one of the top rated Criminal Defense attorneys in Raleigh, NC. He has met the stringent Super Lawyers selection criteria.


http://bannoncr.com/index-1.html
BANNON BIOGRAPHY
A COMMITTED LIBERAL, OR SO HE SEEMS TO BE.


Tiller
https://www.mytiller.com/
Tiller verifies that you are a registered voter. Then Tiller gives you all the tools and info you need to let your politicians know how to make you - their boss ...

Privacy - Tiller
https://www.mytiller.com/privacy
... if legally required to do so. If you ever have questions or concerns about your privacy, please don't hesitate to reach out to us at privacy@mytiller.com.

Tiller - Home | Facebook
https://www.facebook.com › Places › San Francisco, California › Political Organization
Trump's speech - RNC final night with Tiller founder Dave Feighan \\ Join Tiller to pledge your vote mytiller.com. 70. 79 · See All. Posts ...

Tiller - Home | Facebook
https://en-pi.facebook.com/Tiller.1/
Join Tiller, the social network JUST for politics mytiller.com · Perhaps Online Voting Needs a Rethink. Five years ago I was an avid supporter of the move to ...


*BANNON COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
http://bannoncr.com/index-4.html



Democrats should fully embrace their union roots
BY
JAMES FEIGENBAUM AND …
08/14/18 12:00 PM EDT


BILL MAHER ON TRUMP – TWO ARTICLES

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lawrence-odonnell-donald-trump-presidency_us_5b6e8a5de4b0ae32af98414e
POLITICS 08/11/2018 03:29 am ET Updated 4 days ago
Lawrence O’Donnell Predicts The Humiliating Way Donald Trump’s Presidency May End
It involves the Secret Service.
headshot
By Lee Moran

VIDEO -- Lawence O'Donnell: A Cheatable System | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

Lawrence O’Donnell has imagined a scenario that could happen if President Donald Trump doesn’t want to leave the White House willingly.

On Friday’s broadcast of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” the host of MSNBC’s “The Last Word” claimed “the most likely ending” of Trump’s presidency “is when Elizabeth Warren, or whoever the Democratic nominee is, beats him in the next election.”

Bill Maher doubted whether Trump would “just greet her at the door” on inauguration day, however.

O’Donnell replied:

“When the clock strikes 12, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court will administer the oath of office to her, no matter where it is—he doesn’t have to show up, he never has to concede, he doesn’t have to do a thing. The second she takes the oath she’s the president, he isn’t any longer. The Secret Service will physically remove him from the building, if he’s still there.”

Maher likened the process to removing a tick from a dog.



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-maher-donald-trump-qanon_us_5b6e841ce4b0530743ca0819
Bill Maher Taunts Trump’s QAnon-Believing Supporters With Mind Control
COMEDY 08/11/2018 03:02 am ET Updated 4 days ago
Bill Maher Taunts Donald Trump’s QAnon-Believing Supporters With Mind Control
“That’s right, Donald Trump was just posing as a disgusting pervert for the last half-century to gain credibility so he could go after the real perverts now.”
headshot
By Lee Moran

VIDEO-- New Rule: I, Q | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

QAnon conspiracy theorists bore the brunt of Bill Maher’s frustration on Friday.

The “Real Time” host spent more than seven minutes ridiculing those who believe that President Donald Trump is actually on a long-term mission to uncover a cabal of elite liberal and Hollywood pedophiles.

(Click here for an in-depth explainer about QAnon).

“If Trump supporters don’t want us to call them stupid, they have to stop coming up with things like Q,” said Maher.

“That’s right, Donald Trump was just posing as a disgusting pervert for the last half-century to gain credibility so he could go after the real perverts now,” he sarcastically added.

The comedian then flipped the script and jokingly claimed he was Q — the anonymous internet poster who started the theory — before using mind control techniques to convince Trump supporters to do one thing this November.



THIS CARRIES ME BACK TO CHAPEL HILL

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-lennon-and-paul-mccartneys-sons-channel-famous-fathers-in-snapshot_us_5b7434b8e4b0df9b093b37bc
ENTERTAINMENT 08/15/2018 10:53 am ET
John Lennon And Paul McCartney’s Sons Channel Famous Fathers In Snapshot
Sean Ono Lennon and James McCartney’s photo was just captioned, “Peekaboo ... “
headshot
By Jenna Amatulli

Here comes the sons.

Sean Ono Lennon and James McCartney, sons of Beatles members John Lennon and Paul McCartney, appear to be chummy in a snapshot shared on Instagram Tuesday.

They also appear to be the spitting image of their famous dads.

Lennon, the son of John Lennon and Yoko Ono, and McCartney, son of Paul and Linda McCartney, could easily be The Beatles 2.0.

Here’s a picture of their famous dads, for comparison.

John Lennon and Paul McCartney of the Beatles in 1968.
STROUD VIA GETTY IMAGES

Unsurprisingly, both sons of the Beatles members are musicians, but it’s unclear whether the two were making music when this shot was taken or if this was just ... a day in the life.

James McCartney is holding a guitar, though, so that does suggest some strumming occurred.

Is anyone else hoping for a cover album of their dads’ music? Yes? Great, let’s keep our fingers crossed.

HuffPost
PHOTO GALLERY -- The Beatles
headshot -- Jenna Amatulli
Trends Reporter, HuffPost



THESE ALL LOOK TO ME TO BE GOOD SECURITY MEASURES. SOME SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN PRACTICE ALREADY, LIKE REQUIRED ID BADGES FOR EVERYONE ON THE CAMPUS, AND AUTOMATICALLY LOCKING DOORS. AS FOR STUDENTS WHO LIVED THROUGH THAT FEELING SAFE AGAIN, THEY WILL PROBABLY NEED PSYCHOTHERAPY TO REALLY GET OVER IT. SOME REGULAR TALK SESSIONS IN GROUPS WOULD BE GOOD, I WOULD SAY, AND SAFETY DRILLS. THE SCHOOL IS PROBABLY ALREADY DOING MOST OF THAT. STILL, A MUCH MORE SECURE CAMPUS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING; AND CRUZ WAS KNOWN TO HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS, AND YET UNTIL THE SHOOTING HAD NOT BEEN REMOVED FROM THE SCHOOL. THEY MUST PAY CLOSER ATTENTION TO THE STUDENTS ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, AND REQUIRE COUNSELING OR EVEN DRUG THERAPY FOR THE ONES WHO ARE WITHDRAWN, INATTENTIVE IN CLASS, CONSTANTLY DISRUPTIVE OR HOSTILE. I’M SURE THAT IN A CAMPUS OF A THOUSAND OR MORE, HE ISN’T THE ONLY ONE WHO IS ON THE EDGE OF SEVERE DISTURBANCE.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/parkland-school-students-return-to-school-but-some-still-dont-feel-safe/
CBS NEWS August 15, 2018, 12:05 PM
Parkland students begin new year after shooting, but some still don't feel safe

PARKLAND, Fla. -- More than 3,000 students return to class today at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The Florida school has significant security upgrades for the new school year since a gunman killed 17 people in February's shooting.

The building where the shooting occurred is blocked off by a 12-foot fence, and 34 portable classrooms have been constructed as a replacement. Despite all the changes and extra security measures, students CBS News correspondent Adriana Diaz spoke to say they still don't feel safe.

PHOTOGRAPH -- ctm-0815-jaclyn-corin-parkland-student.jpg
Jaclyn Corin CBS NEWS

"It doesn't make me feel safer, no, not at all. I'm not going to feel safe in school. I don't feel safe anywhere at this point in my life," senior class president Jaclyn Corin said. Corin is also a leader among student activists. She spent most of the summer traveling across the country promoting gun reform and voter turnout.

"Until we actually remove these weapons of war from our streets… we're not going to feel safe. We can have all the security we want, we can have bullet-proof back packs for all I care," Corin said.

Fifteen-year-old Anthony Borges was shot five times during February's rampage. He said he is too afraid to go back to school.

"I don't feel safe because maybe another Nikolas Cruz [could be] there," Borges said.

Borges' father said he won't send his son back until there's new leadership at the school board.

In the run-up to the new school year, school spirit was already on full display. But superintendent Robert Runcie acknowledged it wouldn't be easy.

"It will be emotional. It will be difficult, as we remember the victims, their families, faculty and staff, and everyone in this entire community," Runcie said.

Runcie said that the school students are returning to will be far more secure.

The number of on-campus security personnel has doubled from nine to 18, which includes three armed school resource officers. More security cameras have been installed along with a single entry-point system. Students and staff will be required to wear IDs at all times. Upgrades have also been made to classroom doors so they lock automatically.

Andrew Pollack lost his daughter, Meadow, in the attack. He believes the school board has failed students.

"They're really just putting a band aid on the situation," Pollack said.

As students return to school today, Cruz returns to a courtroom for a hearing that may set the date for his trial.

© 2018 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.


https://www.commondreams.org/news/2018/08/15/bankrupt-intellectually-gop-no-match-energized-democratic-voters-inspired
Published on
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
byCommon Dreams
'Bankrupt Intellectually,' GOP No Match for Energized Democratic Voters Inspired by Progressive Vision, Says Sanders
"What the Democrats need to do," argues Sanders, "is excite people – get young people, working people to the polls. If they do that, I think we're going to be just fine."
byJon Queally, staff writer

PHOTOGRAPH -- Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) appeared on CBS This Morning on Wednesday to discuss the bankruptcy of the Republican Party under President Trump and the future prospects of the Democratic Party. (Photo: CBS/Screenshot)

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont—who handily won the Democratic Party primary in his state on Tuesday night even though he will continue to run as an Independent—appeared on CBS This Morning on Wednesday where he described the Republican Party under President Donald Trump as "bankrupt intellectually" and urged Democratic leaders to recognize that the future of their party is its energized, progressive wing and with candidates running on bold policies like Medicare for All, tuition-free college, a $15 minimum wage, and an end to corporate rule.

"What I'm seeing, is all across this country people are saying they want a government that represents all of us, not just the billionaire class and wealthy campaign contributors," Sanders said, when asked about recent primary results—including big wins on Tuesday for left-wing candidates in multiple states.

Citing the excitement and the number of political newcomers—and notably women, people of color, and young people—who are throwing their hat in the political ring for the first time on behalf the Democratic Party is a phenomenon that must be embraced, Sanders continued.

"What the Democrats need to do," he said, "is excite people – get young people, working people to the polls. If they do that, I think we're going to be just fine."

Watch:
“Sen. Bernie Sanders says GOP is "bankrupt intellectually"

Asked about Democratic Party leadership, specifically that of Rep. Nancy Pelosi in the House, Sanders said that he believes she's done a good job of leading the party, but that she has become one of the targets of Republicans because they need to talk about something other than their legislative record and regressive positions.

"The Republican Party is bankrupt intellectually," explained Sanders. "They are not going to campaign on their views of giving tax breaks to billionaires and cutting Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, so they have to come up with some demon, I guess their demon right now is Nancy Pelosi."

More striking and more important than the question of leadership, added Sanders, is the level of excitement and engagement among voters that he witnesses when he travels around the country these days.

"I am seeing an energy level that I have not seen before," he said. "So I'm less worried about people on top, than I am about seeing young people, working people getting involved. And that is happening."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-primary_us_5b7304efe4b025e3596b599d
POLITICS 08/14/2018 08:12 pm ET Updated 17 hours ago
Bernie Sanders Definitely Won Vermont’s Democratic Senate Primary
He’s still going to run as an independent in the midterm election.
headshot
By Arthur Delaney

PHOTOGRAPH -- ALEX EDELMAN VIA GETTY IMAGES
The former Democratic presidential candidate cruised to a Democratic primary victory on Tuesday in his home state.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) hasn’t “won” a lot of the Democratic primaries this year in which he championed progressive candidates. But there’s no question he won in Tuesday’s primary in his own state with his own name on the ballot.

The former Democratic presidential candidate cruised to victory in Vermont’s Democratic primary, defeating relatively unknown challenger Folasade Adeluola.

As he did in his two previous campaigns for U.S. Senate, Sanders has indicated he will turn down the nomination so he can run as an independent instead of a Democrat.

And Vermont Democrats are okay with Sanders not taking the nomination, as they had been in 2006 and 2012.

“The Vermont Democratic Party has a strong, productive and close relationship with Senator Sanders,” party spokesman Christopher Di Mezzo said in an email. “We are proud of his role as a leader in the US Senate Democratic Caucus, and as a powerful voice for Democratic values, issues and candidates.”

Though he’s a democratic socialist who classifies himself as an independent, Sanders sought and nearly won the Democratic nomination for president in 2016. He is a member of the Democratic caucus in the Senate and has accrued seniority as a regular Democrat would.

Since his run for president, Sanders has leveraged his fame to promote more progressive Democratic candidates in primaries around the country. Despite several victories, particularly down-ballot, most haven’t won. But Democrats have become increasingly open to policy ideas that Sanders has spearheaded, such as Medicare for all.

Do you have information you want to share with HuffPost? Here’s how.

headshot
Arthur Delaney
Senior Reporter, HuffPost