DECEMBER 27, 2018

NEWS AND VIEWS

WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THIS KIND OF THING I REALLY DON’T UNDERSTAND. HE KNOWS THAT THE NEWSPAPERS WILL JUMP ON IT IMMEDIATELY. TELLING A LIE IS ONLY WORTHWHILE IF YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH IT.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/trump-misleads-military-pay-raise-again/index.html
Trump misleads about military pay raises again
By Kate Sullivan, CNN
Updated 11:06 PM ET, Wed December 26, 2018

Video – Don’s Take

(CNN)President Donald Trump incorrectly told troops in Iraq on Wednesday that he gave them their first pay raise in more than 10 years -- a falsehood he has repeatedly told.

Speaking to troops at Al Asad Air Base during his surprise visit to Iraq, Trump told troops: "You protect us. We are always going to protect you. And you just saw that, 'cause you just got one of the biggest pay raises you've ever received. ... You haven't gotten one in more than 10 years. More than 10 years. And we got you a big one. I got you a big one. I got you a big one."

In fact, military pay has increased every year for more than three decades. It was raised 2.4% in 2018 and then 2.6% in the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. The 2.6% pay raise is the largest in the past 9 years.

The President and first lady quietly swept into Iraq on Wednesday to pay a holiday visit to US troops -- the first trip Trump has made to a war zone.

"They had plenty of people that came up, they said, 'You know, we could make it smaller. We could make it 3%, we could make it 2%, we could make it 4%,'" Trump told the troops about the latest pay raise. "I said, 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.'"

'Cause it's been a long time, it's been more than 10 years. Been more than 10 years, that's a long time," Trump said, repeating the false claim.

CNN's Kevin Liptak contributed to this report.


SOME DAY I’M GOING TO WRITE A SATIRICAL HISTORY OF THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, CALLED “TRUMP TALES.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/26/politics/trump-bone-spurs-vietnam-war/index.html
New York Times: Daughters of foot doctor say he diagnosed Trump with bone spurs as 'favor' to Fred Trump
CNN Digital Expansion 2018 Veronica Stracqualursi
By Veronica Stracqualursi, CNN
Updated 10:23 PM ET, Wed December 26, 2018

RELATED ARTICLE -- President Trump and first lady Melania Trump make surprise visit to Iraq

(CNN)The daughters of a Queens foot doctor say their late father diagnosed President Donald Trump with bone spurs to help him avoid the Vietnam War draft as a "favor" to his father Fred Trump, according to a new report Wednesday.

Dr. Larry Braunstein, a podiatrist who died in 2007, often told the story of providing Donald Trump with the diagnosis of bone spurs in his heels so he could be exempt from military service, his two daughters -- Dr. Elysa Braunstein and Sharon Kessel -- told the New York Times.

"It was family lore," Elysa Braunstein told the Times, adding that the story was "something we would always discuss" among family and friends.

The Times did not find documentation to help corroborate the family's account, who described themselves as Democrats who dislike Trump, and Elysa Braunstein was unsure whether her father ever examined Donald Trump.

The White House did not return the Times' request for an interview with the President nor respond to questions about his service record.

Dr. Braunstein rented his office in Jamaica, Queens, from Fred Trump in the 1960s, the Times reported, citing records. His two daughters told the Times that their father provided the diagnosis of bone spurs as a courtesy to the elder Trump.

"I know it was a favor," Elysa Braunstein told the newspaper, who added that the "small favor" got her father "access" to Fred Trump.

"If there was anything wrong in the building, my dad would call and (Fred) Trump would take care of it immediately," she told The Times.

Elysa Braunstein also told the newspaper that her father implied that Trump did not have a foot ailment.

In 1968, after receiving four deferments due to education, Donald Trump was diagnosed with bone spurs in his heels at the age of 22, seven years before the Vietnam War ended.

In a 2016 interview with The Times, Trump claimed that a doctor "gave me a letter -- a very strong letter -- on the heels" to provide to draft officials. In the interview, Trump couldn't recall the name of the doctor.

CNN's Dan Merica contributed to this report.


I DON’T WANT TO BE UNAMERICAN, BUT I BELIEVE THAT ALL DANGEROUS GROUPS SHOULD BE CONTROLLED IN SOME WAY, IF NOT JAILED. PERHAPS MANDATORY PSYCHIATRIC THERAPY IN LIEU OF PRISON. THEY SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO PRETEND THAT THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH PREACHING HATE. THAT SHOULD NOT BE “FREEDOM OF SPEECH.”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/18/uk/parents-jailed-scli-gbr-intl/
Couple who named baby after Hitler jailed for membership of neo-Nazi group
By Lianne Kolirin, CNN
Updated 8:20 AM ET, Tue December 18, 2018

PHOTOGRAPH -- Adam Thomas in KKK robes holding his son (right), and Claudia Patatas and Thomas with their son holding a Nazi flag.

London (CNN)A couple who named their baby after Adolf Hitler and were members of a banned neo-Nazi group in Britain have been jailed for more than 10 years combined.

Adam Thomas, 22, and Claudia Patatas, 38, were sentenced to six-and-a-half and five years respectively at Birmingham Crown Court after a jury found them guilty of being members of National Action, which was banned in Britain in 2016.

The pair were sentenced alongside their four others, including their friend Darren Fletcher who the prosecution claimed had taught his daughter to perform a Nazi salute.

Fletcher, who admitted membership of the group prior to seven-week trial which ended last month, was said to have sent Patatas a message saying "finally got her to do it," the UK Press Association reported.

During the trial, the jury heard that Thomas and Patatas had given their child the middle name Adolf, while photos found at their house showed the newborn baby being cradled by his father dressed as a hooded Ku Klux Klan member.

Thomas had twice applied -- but failed -- to join the British Army. He had previously worked as a security guard at Amazon. He was also convicted on a majority verdict of having a terrorist manual, which contained instructions on making "viable" bombs.

Patatas, originally from Portugal, worked as a wedding photographer. The jury heard that she told another member of the group that "all Jews must be put to death" and that she wanted to "bring back concentration camps."

Sentencing Patatas, Judge Melbourne Inman QC said: "You were equally as extreme as Thomas both in your views and actions.

"You acted together in all you thought, said and did, in the naming of your son and the disturbing photographs of your child, surrounded by symbols of Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan."

Couple who named their baby after Adolf Hitler found guilty of being members of banned neo-Nazi group

The pair stood trial alongside Daniel Bogunovic, 27, from Leicester, who was described in court last week as a "committed National Action leader, propagandist and strategist," within the group's Midlands cell.

The two other men, cyber security worker and the Midlands' National Action cell's "banker" Joel Wilmore, 24, and van driver Nathan Pryke, 26, described as the group's "security enforcer," were also sentenced.

The court handed down the following jail sentences: Bogunovic, six years and four months; Fletcher, five years; Pryke, five years and five months; and Wilmore five years and 10 months.

Opening the case on Friday, Barnaby Jameson QC, prosecuting, said all six had been members of the group post-ban and taken part in the organization's chat groups, which were staging posts for comments of "virulent racism, particularly from Thomas, Patatas and Fletcher."

He added: "Leaders Pryke, Wilmore and Bogunovic were more circumspect in their views but on occasion the true depth of their racial hatred leeched out.
The group was outlawed after it had celebrated the murder of Labour Party member of Parliament Jo Cox. The then home secretary, Amber Rudd, called it "racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic."

Rudd added that it is an "organization which stirs up hatred, glorifies violence, and promotes a vile ideology, and I will not stand for it. It has absolutely no place in a Britain that works for everyone."

The judge said the group had "horrific aims" and that one of its objectives was "the overthrow of democracy in this country by serious violence and murder, and the imposition of a Nazi-style state which would eradicate whole sections of society by such violence and mass murder."

The judge continued: "If there was any room for misunderstanding then any member of the public need only watch the video shown in court," adding that the promotional footage for National Action "would give a stark and rightly terrifying image of what life in this country would be like if your organization achieved its aims.

"The public have a right to know what you would wish to subject them to."


GOOD STATISTICS FOR NOW, BUT THERE’S A LONG TIME TO GO YET. I ALWAYS LOOK AT THESE, BUT I HAVE NOTICED THAT ONLY THE ELECTION WILL GIVE THE RESULTS THAT COUNT.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/12/18/bernie-sanders-straw-poll-2020-elections-1067867
2020 ELECTIONS
Bernie tops progressive straw poll
By DAVID SIDERS 12/18/2018 05:07 AM EST

Photograph -- Sen. Bernie Sanders led the field of prospective 2020 presidential candidates with 36 percent support. | Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) tops the first 2020 straw poll by the progressive political action committee Democracy for America by a wide margin, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas).

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, has seen her stock slide among the group‘s members, according to the poll, released Tuesday and obtained first by POLITICO. The Massachusetts Democrat, whose success in similar polling four years ago propelled DFA to help organize a massive but ultimately unsuccessful effort to draft her into the 2016 presidential campaign, was running fourth.

The straw poll is more significant as a sign of organizational support than as a measure of public opinion. DFA boasts more than 1 million members, and after shifting its support from Warren to Sanders in 2016, it played an instrumental role in his unsuccessful presidential campaign.

But in the run-up to 2020 — even as Warren and Sanders mull presidential bids — the poll reflects uncertainty on the left about a progressive standard-bearer.

Leading the field was Sanders, with 36 percent support. He was followed by Biden at 15 percent and O’Rourke at 12 percent. Warren and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), received 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. No other potential candidate received more than 4 percent.

COUNTDOWN TO 2020
The race for 2020 starts now. Stay in the know. Follow our presidential election coverage.

Sanders galvanized support by running “one heck of a fantastic presidential campaign” in 2016, DFA executive director Charles Chamberlain said Monday. Chamberlain, who will become chairman of the group in January, said the straw poll exposes that Warren and Harris “have some work to do” to build support among progressives. But he said the poll at this early stage for DFA members is also a “cross between name recognition, people they’re excited about and people they actually think are running.”

Chamberlain said support for Biden likely draws in part on nostalgia for the Obama administration. “I have a feeling the wheels come off the cart [among progressive Democrats] when he starts to campaign,” he added. Biden, however, has consistently led early national polls of Democratic voters.

DFA said members cast more than 94,000 votes, ranking up to three potential candidates on each ballot. The poll ran Nov. 29 through Dec. 14, and results reflect only first-choice votes. The group polled 23 candidates, with write-ins accounting for nearly 5 percent of the vote, officials said.

“These results make clear that, while Bernie Sanders has a strong early lead, no single potential presidential candidate has full command of the Democratic Party’s progressive base heading into 2019,” the group’s incoming chief executive, Yvette Simpson, said in a prepared statement. “With more than 14 months before Iowa, we expect these results to change as grassroots progressives hear the messages the candidates are running on, see the campaigns executing on the ground, and watch them construct the broad-based coalition of the New American Majority of people of color and white progressive voters it will take to beat Donald Trump.”

The DFA said it will run additional polls before any endorsement, with the next survey likely to come in the first half of 2019. None of the top-tier contenders have said yet whether they will run for president, though most have been laying groundwork for a potential campaign for months.

Amy Klobuchar
2020 ELECTIONS

Poll: Klobuchar rising in Iowa
By NATASHA KORECKI

The poll’s release follows a similar measure by the progressive group MoveOn, which had O’Rourke, Biden and Sanders running first, second and third. The same politicians rounded out the top of the first Des Moines Register/CNN/Mediacom survey of the 2020 field last week. That poll put Biden ahead of Sanders and O’Rourke among Iowa Democrats likely to participate in the 2020 presidential caucuses.

DFA, founded by Howard Dean following his run for president in 2004, said it has raised and contributed more than $62 million to progressive candidates nationwide.

In the run-up to the past presidential election, in late 2014, Warren topped the DFA’s membership poll with 42 percent support. Then, in a bid to nudge Warren into the race, DFA and MoveOn organized an effort that opened offices in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire and gathered 365,000 signatures before ultimately abandoning the campaign and rallying behind Sanders.

“Let’s be clear: Progressive support in the 2020 Democratic primary is up for grabs and so is Democracy for America’s endorsement,” Chamberlain said in a statement. “Unlike 2016, no candidate has support strong enough for the Democratic Party establishment to clear the field, which means progressives will have an excellent opportunity over the next year to kick the tires on a wide range of different candidates and find the best one to take on Trump. With a clear majority of the top five candidates being champions of Medicare for All, these results illustrate that Americans are eager for bold, progressive candidates who will fight for the multiracial inclusive populism America needs in 2020 and beyond.”


THIS WRITER PETER CANELLOS IS PRETTY HOSTILE TO WOMEN, AND GINSBURG IN PARTICULAR. TUT, TUT, TUT!! I HOPE HE GOT IT OFF HIS CHEST BY WRITING THIS REPELLANT STORY. MAYBE HE WON’T HAVE TO SEE HIS PSYCHIATRIST THIS WEEK NOW.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/12/25/on-the-basis-of-sex-review-rbg-223557
Why We Should Worry About the Cult of RBG
The new Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic will galvanize her fans. They should consider whether that makes them part of the problem.
By PETER CANELLOS December 25, 2018

Photograph of all the cast together -- Shannon Finney/Getty Images

The new Ruth Bader Ginsburg biopic “On the Basis of Sex” begins grandly, with an all-male chorus singing “Ten Thousand Men of Harvard,” the university’s storied—and flagrantly sexist—fight song. The men sing in that peculiarly reverential tone used for a collegiate alma mater, their creamy tenors caressing every syllable. On the screen, an ocean of besuited young men—and one young woman—flows solemnly toward the Greek Revival temple of learning known as Harvard Law School.

It’s 1956, and Ginsburg is one of only nine women in the class, facing the slings and arrows of sexist men of all ages. The opening scene will be deeply satisfying, especially for viewers who have joined the burgeoning cult of RBG, because they know what those students obviously didn’t: That Ginsburg will end up sitting on the Supreme Court, long after most of the guys who beat her out for law firm jobs have retired to the golf course. More than that, the elderly Ginsburg will become a cultural icon of still-uncharted dimensions.

“On the Basis of Sex,” a full Hollywood production in which the young Ginsburg is played by Felicity Jones, is the latest entry in the popular movement that presents the pioneering women’s-rights attorney as a kind of progressive superhero. The film is a myth-building exercise for a woman who’s reached mythic stature in a shockingly short period of time.

Like the highly successful “RBG” documentary released earlier this year, “On the Basis of Sex” satisfies a yearning for a liberal heroine in a time of disappointment and cynicism. As a work of cinema, it paints a vivid picture of an era, now passing from memory, when women were completely, rigorously excluded from power. It also offers an intelligent rendering of the struggles to achieve legal equality for women (still ongoing, though you wouldn’t necessarily know it from the story).

As a cultural artifact in the deification of RBG, however, you might say that it—like some of the court decisions it calls into question—sets a dubious precedent.

In the broader sweep of American history, this is an inopportune moment to present a current Supreme Court justice as a political hero. Last month, after President Donald Trump dismissed a ruling against his migrant policy as the action of an “Obama judge,” Chief Justice John Roberts took the unusual step of responding directly, declaring in a statement that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

Trump shot back on Twitter: “Sorry, Chief Justice Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country.”

By the standard of civic disagreements in the Trump era, this was a high-minded exchange, and a revealing one. No doubt many liberals found themselves essentially agreeing with Trump: Republicans have politicized the judicial nomination process, so everyone must look for chances to elevate “our kind” of judges. There’s an element of regret built into that view: In an ideal world, more like the one of four decades ago, judges would be regarded less in terms of who appointed them than how well they live up to their oaths to provide independent justice, without fear or favor.

There are many reasons that the judicial system has strayed. Presidents making ideologically motivated appointments, rather than seeking consensus, is one. The bare-knuckled brutality of the confirmation process is another. Even if nominees aren’t particularly partisan at the outset, they quickly learn to recognize their friends and enemies; the loyalties forged in the furnace of the confirmation process carry over onto the bench. It’s only human that such anger or gratitude, growing out of a trauma that some compare to a near-death experience, would alter judicial decision-making.

There’s a third element to the politicization of the courts, though. That’s the visceral sense of approval and validation that judges get when they please their fans. The 60,000-member Federalist Society provides conservative judges with a Greek chorus of admirers. And many members of the Supreme Court, such as the late Antonin Scalia, couldn’t resist taking bows before conservative audiences for court rulings that devastated liberals.

Anyone who was discomfited by the notion of ideologically supercharged young conservatives praising Scalia for creating a new individual right to bear arms should probably think twice before donning their RBG T-shirts at the next abortion-rights march—or bursting into applause at her next triumphant cinematic moment. These efforts to show popular support and approval for a heroic liberal judge might feel energizing for progressives, but they also remove any sense of stigma or impropriety from conservatives' far more effective efforts to provide a support network for "their kind" of justices—a movement so aggressive it handed Trump a list of approved high-court nominees before he was even elected president.

“On the Basis of Sex” isn’t about today’s Supreme Court. It focuses on the earlier chapters in Ginsburg’s career, before she ascended to the bench; it celebrates her breakthroughs as an ACLU litigator of cases challenging sexism in the 1970s. But this strand of admiration, like others in the RBG movement, draws its strength from Ginsburg’s continued presence on the Supreme Court. Without Ginsburg on the court now, in this moment, it’s impossible to imagine there’d be such a traveling circus of Ginsburg-mania.

RBG the current-day gladiator, as much as the figure of history, fills the Ginsburg cart on Amazon this holiday season. Fans can choose from four biographies, five children’s books, a coloring book, a workout book, an action figure, an “historic Ruth Bader Ginsburg notebook,” a throw pillow and a robe-bedecked figurine. The book titles alone attest to an effort to present her as a rebuke to the current state of judging: “The Notorious RBG,” “The Unstoppable Ruth Bader Ginsburg,” “No Truth Without Ruth,” “I Dissent.”

The truth is, until recently, Justice Ginsburg wasn’t particularly noted for her influential dissents, any more than, say, fellow Justices Elena Kagan or Stephen Breyer. But in the larger Ginsburg mythology, she’s a symbol of everything that’s foul and corrupt in Trump-era Washington; her history as a fighter, her constancy, her aged wisdom all combine to make her a kind of priestess for a younger generation.

The Ruth Bader Ginsburg celebration, therefore, isn’t strictly about RBG at all; it’s about DJT. With a president who knowingly sets himself up as an icon of one pole of American politics, it’s about picking (or even inventing) a rival icon to rally around—a way to rebel against a president who openly vows to fill the nation’s courtrooms with like-minded judges, most of them hostile to the concepts of due process and equal protection that liberals hold dear. But in its very presence as an anti-movement, a liberal call to arms to thwart Trump and Mitch McConnell and the Federalist Society, the cult of RBG furthers the politicization of the court. It’s a form of surrender to the “everything’s political” argument that enables Trump to traduce boundaries of propriety that have existed for decades, dismissing the existence of any sort of independence or professionalism in government institutions.

There’s a further irony to the emergence of RBG as a political icon: She would never have succeeded in rooting out some of the double standards in American law had she not argued before some fair-minded, apolitical judges. In “On the Basis of Sex,” the male professors, law-firm partners and Justice Department attorneys are all irredeemably sexist and connive to preserve their privileges; the male federal judges, however, are not and do not. Though they’re lower-court judges, they’re portrayed by character actors resembling Earl Warren and William Brennan and other Republican appointees who turned out to be attuned to social change. When, at an appeals-court hearing, Ginsburg launches into a speech about the evils of sexism, the camera pans over their thoughtfully creased faces, absorbing her words like kindly grandfathers, while oboe music reminiscent of Aaron Copland’s “Fanfare for the Common Man” plays on the soundtrack. The judges are so clearly moved by Ginsburg’s arguments that her team is tearful with joy even before they issue their ruling.

Unfortunately, this demonstration of judicial reasonableness, against all expectations, isn’t emphasized as a story line, even though it’s arguably more inspiring and does more to build confidence in the courts than attributing the victory to one relentless fighter, a woman-against-the-many.

But there’s only one true hero in “On the Basis of Sex,” and it’s the heroine.

***

The movie’s determination to be a tale of personal triumph, rather than a drama exploring how the law really changes, are evident early on, and mark it almost immediately as an entry in the RBG canon. In the more nuanced “RBG,” the documentary directed by Betsy West and Julie Cohen, the youthful Ginsburg appears as a quietly intense young woman, awkward and courageous in equal measure. In the rich home-movie footage of the time, there’s something intriguingly different about her. She’s a woman apart.

In the movie, when the plucky, open-faced Felicity Jones arrives on the Harvard campus in her aquamarine skirt and starched blouse she might as well be handing out business cards reading “Indefatigable Heroine.” This Ruth, speaking with a more refined, melodic version of Ginsburg’s famous New Yawk accent, is confident enough to slyly rebuke the dean for a sexist question at the dinner table. There isn’t a moment when she second-guesses her decision to take her chances in such a male-dominated institution, and no recognition of any social costs to her choice.

The documentary “RBG” presents a few intriguing hints of the roots of her difference. Her mother, Celia, died of cancer on the day of Ruth’s high-school graduation; though Celia was encouraging of Ruth’s desire for education, viewers couldn’t help but wonder whether the loss of her mother played any role in her sense of independence. After all, many girls of her era (she was born in 1933) ran up against the expectation that women, even very smart women, must live within certain social boundaries. Often, those boundaries were enforced by their mothers. “On the Basis of Sex,” however, isn’t interested in that or any other questions that would make Ginsburg’s story more relatable to average women. She’s simply exceptional, and no explanation is offered. (She derives inspiration from her late mother in the usual way of movie heroes, gazing at her portrait at challenging moments.)

Nor does the movie provide much of a backstory for its other exceptional figure, Ginsburg’s husband, Marty. The “RBG” documentary makes clear that Marty and Ruth had a uniquely complementary relationship. The extroverted Marty, the kind of person who relishes pulling people together for games of charades, provided a crucial counterpart to the far less outgoing Ruth. Though they were both lawyers, there was no tension between them in their professional lives; Marty was her No. 1 fan and supporter, believing that she was the smartest lawyer he’d ever met. He also enjoyed cooking and parenting. The documentary goes on to explain that, in the ’90s, Marty shrewdly campaigned for her Supreme Court nomination at a time when others felt that, at 60, she was too old for the appointment.

This extraordinary man is one of the most moving parts of the Ginsburg story, in any telling. His presence attests to the role that some far-sighted and loving men played in promoting opportunities for women. “On the Basis of Sex” gives him his full due as a husband, but, like his wife, he seems to arrive on campus as a fully resolved character before the story really gets going. As played by the effortlessly self-assured Armie Hammer (the namesake great-grandson of the late billionaire Armand Hammer), Marty feels no hesitation about donning an apron and performing household tasks while Ruth studies, or, later, having heart-to-heart discussions with the couple’s rebellious daughter, Jane.

The director, Mimi Leder, seems to assume that the audience will understand the motivations of the Ginsburgs simply by presenting them as a couple ahead of their time: Ruth wanted a professional identity for the same reasons today’s women cultivate careers; Marty craved the satisfaction of being a supportive spouse and parent for the same reasons that many of today’s men do. But the Ginsburgs were married in 1954; they chose dramatically different paths than the vast majority of their peers.

The failure to sufficiently explore their motivations seems especially glaring when, early on, Marty is diagnosed with a type of cancer that, at the time, had only a 5 percent chance of survival. The viewer expects that this would be the occasion when Ruth confronts the frightening reality that a widow with a child in the 1950s had few opportunities to make a living, while Marty vows to spend his remaining days showering love on Ruth and their daughter. Instead, the couple seizes on an experimental treatment and confidently vows to beat the disease. Ruth helps Marty keep up with his studies while undergoing treatment; neither of them accepts the possibility of anything but survival.

In this, as in so many other ways, the cinematic Ginsburgs win all their bets; it’s a very affirmative movie. Ruth’s struggles—failing to get a law-firm job, taking a teaching post at a less prestigious university, confronting skepticism about her fitness as an attorney from ACLU boss Mel Wulf—are largely written off to sexism, even in her own mind. In one of the too few moments of surprise and insight during the movie, Ruth takes her teenage daughter to meet the octogenarian lawyer Dorothy Kenyon, who tried but failed to persuade a court to rule against all-male juries. Kathy Bates, as Kenyon, briefs Ruth and Jane on the fight for women’s suffrage but avows that courts aren’t yet prepared to deal with sexism in the law; far better to concentrate on changing hearts and minds than changing the law. After that dispiriting encounter, Ruth watches Jane aggressively tell off some obnoxious construction workers and realizes that, yes, the social changes envisioned by Kenyon were already happening, in the minds of younger women.

The rest, as the movie would have it, is history. Ruth shows her stuff as a lawyer in arguing the case of a man who was denied a tax write-off for a home health aide for his mother, simply because he was unmarried; the tax law offered breaks to men who thoughtfully hired health aides to assist their stay-at-home wives in taking care of elderly relatives, but none to single men who, presumably, weren’t suited for caretaking duties in the first place. The decision to attack sexism through a male plaintiff proves to be an inspiration, and leads to other victories. Then, in the movie’s finale, Felicity Jones ascends the steps of the Supreme Court to argue a case and magically morphs into the present-day Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a cameo, heading to work.

***

That final scene raises the question of what the real Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks of the RBG movement. Her cooperation with this Hollywood production, as well as the “RBG” documentary, suggests she is, at the very least, committed to having her story told in her own way; she may also be gratified by the attention. There have been a few times in her Supreme Court career when Ginsburg has accepted tributes from liberals; in 2004, she lent her name and her presence to a lectureship at the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, in a move that paralleled the more frequent appearances by conservative justices like Scalia, Clarence Thomas and, later, Samuel Alito before conservative legal groups.

She’s been more restrained in recent years. When, during the 2016 campaign, she called Trump a “faker” and expressed her distaste for him, she quickly pulled back, putting out a statement that her remarks were “ill-advised” and asserting that “judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.” In “RBG,” the 85-year-old justice appears embarrassed at the idea of people wearing clothing bearing her image and barely manages a laugh at Kate McKinnon’s “Saturday Night Live” portrayal of her as a kind of robed ninja. She knows how much is too much.

It may be too much to hope that she would use her superhero status to rally her supporters behind Roberts’ efforts to promote judicial independence. It’s one public debate that judges can safely enter without compromising their objectivity, and a cause around which the left and the right can coalesce. More importantly, it does more to counter the threat of Trumpism than simply pushing back against his politics.

READ MORE
The Capitol is seen Jan. 3, 2018
POLITICS

The Political Insiders’ Guide to 2019
By POLITICO MAGAZINE
Ben Smith in the Buzzfeed headquarters in New York
SWAMP DIARY

Week 83: BuzzFeed Takes a Victory Lap
By JACK SHAFER
Trump and Mattis are pictured.
WASHINGTON AND THE WORLD

RIP, Axis of Adults
By IVO DAALDER and JAMES LINDSAY

Trump’s populist attacks on government institutions hit liberals on two levels. The nakedness of his desire to score victories on everything from Obamacare to abortion rights makes some liberals eager to respond in kind, to match their identity politics against his, their scorched-earth tactics against his. Those who've been agitating for a fight may even welcome Trump’s willingness to turn every agency from the Federal Reserve to the Supreme Court to the Justice Department to the CIA into a playing field for partisan politics.

But it’s on the second level—the assault on the integrity of American institutions, the breaking of boundaries that have been honored for decades—that Trump threatens to have his most lasting impact. Liberals, who have spent decades questioning some of those same agencies and trying to scrub them of bias, should understand that Trump’s critique is different from theirs. They’re trying to purify the institutions; he’s trying to discredit them, creating a void he can fill with his own judgments.

The vision and courage of Ruth Bader Ginsburg played a significant role in breaking down legal double standards involving gender, but there were larger forces at work. Her assault on the system succeeded because the system contained mechanisms for change that Americans broadly respected. Those judges with their furrowed brows did their jobs. They weren’t tied down by fixed ideologies, or loyalties to cheering fans on either side. They weren’t following election returns. They merely tried “to do equal right to those appearing before them,” in Roberts’ unartful but satisfyingly apt phrase.

In its determination to celebrate its dauntless heroine over a crusty system, “On the Basis of Sex” cheats the facts: Social progress depends not only on passionate advocates, but also on open-minded judges. The best aren’t necessarily the ones who are most predictable, or most politically galvanizing to their bedazzled followers. They’re the ones who would give a little-known litigator in her late 30s a fair hearing, and were willing to change history because of what she told them.

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Peter Canellos is editor-at-large of Politico.


GINSBURG AS A YOUNG LAWYER WAS ASKED "HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY TAKING A SPOT FROM A QUALIFIED MAN?"[14] [8] I REALLY DO WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 2016 portrait.jpg
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States
Incumbent

Assumed office
August 10, 1993
Appointed by Bill Clinton
Preceded by Byron White

Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In office
June 30, 1980 – August 9, 1993
Appointed by Jimmy Carter
Preceded by Harold Leventhal
Succeeded by David Tatel

Personal details
Born Joan Ruth Bader
March 15, 1933 (age 85)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Martin Ginsburg
(m. 1954; died 2010)
Children
Jane C. GinsburgJames Steven Ginsburg
Education Cornell University (BA)
Harvard University
Columbia University (JD)
Signature

Ruth Bader Ginsburg (/ˈbeɪdər ˈɡɪnzbɜːrɡ/; born Joan Ruth Bader; March 15, 1933)[1] is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by President Bill Clinton and took the oath of office on August 10, 1993. She is the second female justice (after Sandra Day O'Connor) of four to be confirmed to the court (along with Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, who are still serving). Following O'Connor's retirement, and until Sotomayor joined the court, Ginsburg was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, which were noted by legal observers and in popular culture. She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the court. Ginsburg has authored notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia, Olmstead v. L.C., and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc.

Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York. Her older sister died when she was a baby, and her mother, one of her biggest sources of encouragement, died shortly before Ginsburg graduated from high school. She then earned her bachelor's degree at Cornell University, and became a wife and mother before starting law school at Harvard, where she was one of the few women in her class. Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated tied for first in her class. Following law school, Ginsburg turned to academia. She was a professor at Rutgers Law School and Columbia Law School, teaching civil procedure as one of the few women in her field.

Ginsburg spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of gender equality and women's rights, winning multiple victories arguing before the Supreme Court. She advocated as a volunteer lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union and was a member of its board of directors and one of its general counsels in the 1970s. In 1980, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where she served until her appointment to the Supreme Court. Ginsburg has received attention in American popular culture; dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G."

Early life and education

Joan Ruth Bader was born on March 15, 1933, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, the second daughter of Celia (née Amster) and Nathan Bader, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood. Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Odessa, Ukraine, then in the Russian Empire, and her mother was born in New York to Austrian Jewish parents.[2][3][4] The Baders' older daughter Marylin died of meningitis at age six, when Ruth was 14 months old.[1]:3[5][6] The family called Joan Ruth "Kiki", a nickname Marylin had given her for being "a kicky baby".[1]:3[7] When "Kiki" started school, Celia discovered that her daughter's class had several other girls named Joan, so Celia suggested that the teacher call her daughter "Ruth" to avoid confusion.[1]:3 Although not devout, the Bader family belonged to East Midwood Jewish Center, a Conservative synagogue, where Ruth learned tenets of the Jewish faith and gained familiarity with the Hebrew language.[1]:14–15 At age 13, Ruth acted as the "camp rabbi" at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York.[7]

Early life and education
Joan Ruth Bader was born on March 15, 1933, in the New York City borough of Brooklyn, the second daughter of Celia (née Amster) and Nathan Bader, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood. Her father was a Jewish emigrant from Odessa, Ukraine, then in the Russian Empire, and her mother was born in New York to Austrian Jewish parents.[2][3][4] The Baders' older daughter Marylin died of meningitis at age six, when Ruth was 14 months old.[1]:3[5][6] The family called Joan Ruth "Kiki", a nickname Marylin had given her for being "a kicky baby".[1]:3[7] When "Kiki" started school, Celia discovered that her daughter's class had several other girls named Joan, so Celia suggested that the teacher call her daughter "Ruth" to avoid confusion.[1]:3 Although not devout, the Bader family belonged to East Midwood Jewish Center, a Conservative synagogue, where Ruth learned tenets of the Jewish faith and gained familiarity with the Hebrew language.[1]:14–15 At age 13, Ruth acted as the "camp rabbi" at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York.[7]

Celia took an active role in her daughter's education, often taking her to the library.[7] Celia had been a good student in her youth, graduating from high school at age 15, yet she could not further her own education because her family instead chose to send her brother to college. Celia wanted her daughter to get more education, which she thought would allow Ruth to become a high school history teacher.[8] Ruth attended James Madison High School, whose law program later dedicated a courtroom in her honor. Celia struggled with cancer throughout Ruth's high school years and died the day before Ruth's high school graduation.[7]

Bader attended Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where she was a member of Alpha Epsilon Phi.[9] While at Cornell, she met Martin D. Ginsburg at age 17.[8] She graduated from Cornell with a bachelor of arts degree in government on June 23, 1954. She was a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the highest-ranking female student in her graduating class.[9][10] Bader married Ginsburg a month after her graduation from Cornell. She and Martin moved to Fort Sill, Oklahoma, where he was stationed as a Reserve Officers' Training Corps officer in the Army Reserve after his call-up to active duty.[8][11][10] At age 21, she worked for the Social Security Administration office in Oklahoma, where she was demoted after becoming pregnant with her first child.[6] She gave birth to a daughter in 1955.[6]

In the fall of 1956, Ginsburg enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was one of only nine women in a class of about 500 men.[12][13] The Dean of Harvard Law reportedly asked the female law students, including Ginsburg, "How do you justify taking a spot from a qualified man?"[14] [8] When her husband took a job in New York City, Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews: the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review. In 1959, she earned her Juris Doctor degree at Columbia and tied for first in her class.[7][15]


NOW THIS IS IMPRESSIVE. I CAN’T IMAGINE DOING SUCH A THING, UNLESS FOR SOME REASON I HAD NO CHOICE – EXTREME CLIMATE CHANGE PERHAPS. IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT I AM REFERRING TO, GO TO GOOGLE AND SEARCH “SNOWBALL EARTH.” AND THE “CONVEYOR BELT” THAT KEEPS THE GULF STREAM CIRCULATING WARM EQUATORIAL AIR UP HERE TO FLORIDA AND BEYOND. IF TOO MUCH MELTWATER IN THE ARCTIC MIXES WITH THE SALT OF THE ARCTIC OCEAN, IT [PERHAPS] COULD “SHUT DOWN” THE GULF STREAM. THAT MEANS A NEW ICE AGE. IF YOU WANT TO READ ABOUT THAT THEORY, GO TO WIKIPEDIA.

https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/2nd-man-nears-end-historic-solo-trek-antarctica-60038062
2nd man nears end of historic solo trek across Antarctica
By AMANDA LEE MYERS, ASSOCIATED PRESS Dec 27, 2018, 2:21 PM ET

Photograph -- This Dec. 9, 2018, selfie provided by Colin O'Brady, of Portland., Ore., shows himself in Antarctica. He has become the first person to traverse Antarctica alone without any assistance. O'Brady finished the 932-mile (1,500-kilometer) journey across the continent in 54 days, lugging his supplies on a sled as he skied in bone-chilling temperatures. (Colin O'Brady via AP)

A British adventurer is close to becoming the second person to traverse Antarctica completely unassisted.

Louis Rudd's expedition blog shows he has only has about 50 miles left on the journey across the continent and is expected to finish Saturday.

If the Hereford, England, resident completes the journey, he'll become the second man to do so after Colin O'Brady of Portland, Oregon, became the first Wednesday.

The more than 900-mile (1448-kilometer) trek took O'Brady 54 days. O'Brady and Rudd were competing to become the first to travel across Antarctica without getting new supplies or help from the wind.

Rudd's solo is in honor of his close friend and fellow British explorer Henry Worsley, who died near the end of his attempt at an unassisted solo trek across Antarctica in 2016.


THE WAR OVER FOX HUNTING GOES ON. SO SAD. SO SICK. POOR LITTLE FOXIE LOXIE.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-46695991
Vegans banned by Lewes pub during hunt
December 27, 2018 56 minutes ago

Photograph -- An employee has been suspended following the banning of vegans

Vegans were banned from a pub during a Boxing Day hunt, leading to a backlash on social media.

Some people accused The Dorset pub in Lewes, East Sussex, of being "discriminatory".

Harvey's, the brewery which owns The Dorset, said it was "appalled", and an employee had been suspended over the "inappropriate" sign.

Sussex Police were called when scuffles broke out between those taking part in the hunt and protestors.

Image copyrightGOOGLE MAPS
Image caption
The Dorset caters for vegans, but banned them temporarily

According to its menu, the pub in Malling Street caters for vegan and gluten-free customers, and it was only during the hunt when the sign appeared in the window.

On Twitter, Gilly Smith said: "Isolating and discriminating against their own customers? Really clever marketing ploy. Should be ashamed of themselves and boycotted."

Skip Twitter post by @Angel_Kershaw

Not quite an Angel
@Angel_Kershaw
Replying to @mollymoolaa and 4 others

Why bother being in the hospitality business if you're going to discriminate against the fastest growing market? What a stupid thing to do! Cutting their own throat somewhat!

22
2:31 AM - Dec 27, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
20 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @Angel_Kershaw

A spokesman for Harvey's said: "Following the comments generated by [the] inaccurate, insensitive and inappropriate poster, the company would like to issue a formal apology for any confusion, offence or upset it may have caused.

"Harvey's do not concur with the sentiment of this sign in any way, and are appalled at the inconsiderate actions of the individual in question... [an] employee has been suspended pending an ongoing investigation.

"Harvey's are fully committed to the inclusivity of all guests. We... would like to reassure current and future patrons that all are welcome in our establishments. This will not happen again."

Skip Twitter post by @Nutkin_GQWP

Nutkin
@Nutkin_GQWP
Replying to @mollymoolaa and 4 others
@Harveys1790
Thanks for banning me from your pub. All because of what I choose to eat?!

11
6:01 PM - Dec 26, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Nutkin's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @Nutkin_GQWP

The UK hunting ban came into force in 2005 and saw the practice change to drag hunting, in which hounds and riders follow an artificial scent.

The sport remains controversial, and violent clashes with protestors were seen elsewhere on Boxing Day.

The Dorset pub deactivated its Facebook page after the photo was shared more than 100 times.


A GUATEMALAN BOY, EIGHT YEARS OLD, HAS DIED IN THE HANDS OF IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A RESPIRATORY INFECTION. ON THE NEWS VIDEOS THIS MORNING HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY KIRSTJEN NIELSEN PROMISED TO CHECK EVERY CHILD WHO COMES INTO THE SYSTEM OVER CAREFULLY IN THE FUTURE. I HOPE THAT SORT OF EFFORT WILL PREVENT ANY MORE OF THESE CASES, BECAUSE IT IS HARD TO LISTEN TO SUCH NEWS.

PRESIDENT TRUMP NEEDS DESPERATELY TO SET UP TALKS BETWEEN THE NATIONS TO THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH. WE NEED TO MAKE SOME AGREEMENTS TOGETHER ON ISSUES LIKE IMMIGRATION, BECAUSE IT IS RAPIDLY BECOMING A PROBLEM OF TWO CONTINENTS RATHER THAN A BORDER SQUABBLE OVER CUSTODY OF MIGRATING PEOPLES. NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT EQUIPPED TO CARE FOR EVERYONE IN THE NEW WORLD, WITHOUT CONSIDERABLY MORE AID FROM OUR NEIGHBORS WHILE THE PEOPLE ARE STILL TO THE SOUTH OF THE RIVER; BUT TO TRY TO DO SO WOULD BE FOOLISH. WAITING UNTIL THEY GET TO OUR BORDERS IS EVEN MORE FOOLISH.

WHY DON’T WE HAVE EMBASSIES IN THE CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICAN COUNTRIES WHICH ARE EQUIPPED TO HANDLE CITIZENSHIP ISSUES AT THE LOCAL LEVEL? WHY CAN’T WE SET UP A NETWORK THAT WILL DISTRIBUTE THE MIGRANTS AROUND TO OTHER NATIONS AS WELL AS AMERICA? IF THEY WANT TO LEAVE POLITICAL DISORDER AT HOME, THEY CAN VERY LIKELY DO JUST AS WELL FOR THEMSELVES BY GOING SOUTH, EAST OR WEST INSTEAD OF NORTH.

WHY DON’T WE ALL USE THE POWERS OF THE OAS TO INTERVENE WHEN DRUG THUGS ARE FRIGHTENING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOME TOWNS? THERE ALREADY IS AN ORGANIZATION IN PLACE WHICH IS SET UP TO SOLVE INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS IN THE NEW WORLD: THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES (OAS). SEE BELOW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States.
Organization of American States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Organization of American States (Spanish: Organización de los Estados Americanos, Portuguese: Organização dos Estados Americanos, French: Organisation des États américains), or the OAS or OEA, is a continental organization that was founded on 30 April 1948, for the purposes of regional solidarity and cooperation among its member states. Headquartered in the United States capital Washington, D.C.,[1] the OAS's members are the 35 independent states of America.

As of 26 May 2015, the Secretary General of OAS is Luis Almagro.[2]

“Significant milestones in the history of the OAS since the signing of the Charter have included the following:

1959: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights created.
1959: Inter-American Development Bank created.
1960: First application of the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance against the regime of Rafael Trujillo in Dominican Republic
1961: Charter of Punta del Este signed, launching the Alliance for Progress.
1962: OAS suspends Cuba.
1969: American Convention on Human Rights signed (in force since 1978).
1970: OAS General Assembly established as the Organization's supreme decision-making body.
1979: Inter-American Court of Human Rights created.
1991: Adoption of Resolution 1080, which requires the Secretary General to convene the Permanent Council within ten days of a coup d'état in any member country.
1994: First Summit of the Americas (Miami), which resolved to establish a Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
2001: Inter-American Democratic Charter adopted.
2009: OAS revokes 1962 suspension of Cuba.
2009: OAS suspends Honduras due to the coup which ousted president Manuel Zelaya.
2011: OAS lifts the suspension of Honduras with the return of Manuel Zelaya from exile.
2017: Venezuela announces it will begin the process to leave the OAS in response to what it alleged was OAS interference in Venezuela's political crisis.

Goals and purpose

In the words of Article 1 of the Charter, the goal of the member nations in creating the OAS was "to achieve an order of peace and justice, to promote their solidarity, to strengthen their collaboration, and to defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity, and their independence."

Article 2 then defines eight essential purposes:

To strengthen the peace and security of the continent.

To promote and consolidate representative democracy, with due respect for the principle of non-intervention.

To prevent possible causes of difficulties and to ensure the pacific settlement of disputes that may arise among the member states.

To provide for common action on the part of those states in the event of aggression.

To seek the solution of political, judicial, and economic problems that may arise among them.

To promote, by cooperative action, their economic, social, and cultural development.

To eradicate extreme poverty, which constitutes an obstacle to the full democratic development of the peoples of the hemisphere.

To achieve an effective limitation of conventional weapons that will make it possible to devote the largest amount of resources to the economic and social development of the member states.

Over the course of the 1990s, with the end of the Cold War, the return to democracy in Latin America, and the thrust toward globalization, the OAS made major efforts to reinvent itself to fit the new context. Its stated priorities now include the following:

Strengthening democracy: Between 1962 and 2002, the Organization sent multinational observation missions to oversee free and fair elections in the member states on more than 100 occasions. The OAS also works to strengthen national and local government and electoral agencies, to promote democratic practices and values, and to help countries detect and defuse official corruption.

Working for peace: Special OAS missions have supported peace processes in Nicaragua, Suriname, Haiti, and Guatemala. The Organization has played a leading part in the removal of landmines deployed in member states and it has led negotiations to resolve the continents' remaining border disputes (Guatemala/Belize; Peru/Ecuador). Work is also underway on the construction of a common inter-American counter-terrorism front.

Defending human rights: The agencies of the inter-American human rights system provide a venue for the denunciation and resolution of human rights violations in individual cases. They also monitor and report on the general human rights situation in the member states.

Fostering free trade: The OAS is one of the three agencies currently engaged in drafting a treaty aiming to establish an inter-continental free trade area from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego.

Fighting the drugs trade: The Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission was established in 1986 to coordinate efforts and crossborder cooperation in this area.

Promoting sustainable development: The goal of the OAS's Inter-American Council for Integral Development is to promote economic development and combating poverty. OAS technical cooperation programs address such areas as river basin management, the conservation of biodiversity, preservation of cultural diversity, planning for global climate change, sustainable tourism, and natural disaster mitigation.


WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE US BORDER AGENCY? US CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE ESCOBAR ASKS THE PENETRATING QUESTION, ARE THESE TWO CHILDREN THE ONLY DEATHS IN CUSTODY? I WONDER, TOO, HOW MANY ARE BEING SEXUALLY MOLESTED OR SEVERELY BULLIED THERE. NONE, I HOPE, BUT STILL IT SHOULD BE CHECKED. AND THERE SHOULD BE SHOWERS, SOAP, CLEAN CLOTHES AND TOILETS ENOUGH FOR EVERYONE. THAT GAP IN THE HUMAN SERVICES IS ALSO MENTIONED IN MERCHANT’S ARTICLE; AND IS A PROBLEM THAT NOT ONLY MAKES PEOPLE DEPRESSED AND ANGRY, IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE SPREAD OF ILLNESSES. BY THE WAY, “CBP” STANDS FOR “US CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION.” https://www.google.com/search?q=us+cbp&oq=USCBP&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.6831j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8.

https://6abc.com/deaths-of-2-children-raise-doubts-about-us-border-agency/4975605/
U.S. & WORLD
Deaths of 2 children raise doubts about US border agency
By NOMAAN MERCHANT AP
Thursday, December 27, 2018 01:08PM

NEWS VIDEO -- Deaths of 2 children raise doubts about US border agency. Matt Gutman reports during Action News at 12:30 p.m. on December 27, 2018.

HOUSTON -- The deaths of two migrant children in just over two weeks raised strong new doubts Wednesday about the ability of U.S. border authorities to care for the thousands of minors arriving as part of a surge of families trying to enter the country.

An 8-year-old boy identified by Guatemalan officials as Felipe Gomez Alonzo died in U.S. custody at a New Mexico hospital on Christmas Eve after suffering a cough, vomiting and fever, authorities said. The cause is under investigation, as is the death Dec. 8 of another Guatemalan child, 7-year-old Jakelin Caal.

"There is a real failure here that we all need to reckon with," said incoming Rep. Veronica Escobar, a Democrat elected last month to represent El Paso in Congress. "We need to know how many other Jakelins and Felipes there have been."

The U.S. government's system for detaining migrants crossing the border is severely overtaxed. Authorities would not say how many children U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now holding. But the country is seeing a sharp rise in families with children.

In the wake of the two deaths, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen asked the Coast Guard to study CBP's medical programs and announced that all children who enter the agency's custody will be given "more thorough" assessments.

Also, border authorities said that they conducted health checks in reaction to Felipe's death on nearly all children in their custody. They did not disclose the results.

Nielsen blamed "a system that prevents parents who bring their children on a dangerous illegal journey from facing consequences for their actions." The Trump administration contends it must detain more people to discourage other Central American families from trying to enter the country.

Felipe had been detained by U.S. border authorities for a week and moved between facilities with his father, officials said. The last place the boy was held - after the first of two visits to the hospital on the day he died - was a highway checkpoint in New Mexico.

Felipe's father, Agustin Gomez, did not see any signs of illness from his son until Monday, according to Guatemalan consul Oscar Padilla, who spoke to Gomez on Wednesday. Felipe and his father had left Guatemala on Dec. 14 and were detained at the U.S-Mexico border four days later, Padilla told The Associated Press.

By its own regulations, CBP is supposed to detain people for no more than 72 hours before turning them over to other government agencies responsible for long-term detention. CBP facilities are typically spartan, with food, water and blankets but often no medical professionals, teachers or some of the other resources longer-term detention centers offer.

Similarly, Jakelin was first held with her father at a small base in rural New Mexico that did not have running water, according to Democrats who visited it after the girl's death.

Rep. Henry Cuellar, a Texas Democrat who sits on a key subcommittee overseeing border funding, said he has pushed to fund more alternatives to detention such as ankle monitors, which he said could have been issued to Felipe's father.

He said the Trump administration has prioritized the president's border wall - the subject of the partial government shutdown since last week - over investing in CBP checkpoints that have long needed attention.

"They're not set up to hold people for a long time," Cuellar said. "There's so much money that the wall sucks up that it's hard to address some of the other issues. I wish the administration would understand that."

CBP said it is reviewing all available options to relieve overcrowding in the El Paso sector, where Felipe and his father were apprehended. The agency also said it has reached out to other government agencies for "surge medical assistance."

CBP Commissioner Kevin McAleenan said in the agency's defense that CBP has more than 1,500 emergency medical technicians on staff and that officers are taking dozens of sick children to hospitals every day.

"This is an extraordinarily rare occurrence," McAleenan told "CBS This Morning" of the two child deaths. "It's been more than a decade since we've had a child pass away anywhere in a CBP process, so this is just devastating for us."

It's not uncommon for families in El Paso these days to spend more than a week in holding cells just as Felipe and his father did, said Ruben Garcia, director of El Paso's Annunciation House shelter.

Those problems predate the Trump administration. During a 2014 surge at the border, some families were put in holding cells for up to 20 days before being released, Garcia said.

Homeland Security's inspector general examined nine CBP holding facilities earlier this year. In a September report, the inspector general said that the facilities complied with CBP standards and that people had access to food and water, toilets and sinks, and hygiene items - with "the exception of inconsistent cleanliness of the hold rooms."

Just three of the nine facilities had "trained medical staff to conduct medical screening and provide basic medical care," the report said. And showers were available for unaccompanied children at only four facilities.

Felipe and his father were taken to two of the facilities the inspector general examined: the processing center at the Paso del Norte port of entry, then the El Paso Border Patrol station.

But just after 1 a.m. Sunday, the two were transferred 90 miles (145 kilometers) to the Border Patrol station at Alamogordo, New Mexico. CBP said it moved them "because of capacity levels" in El Paso. The next day, a border agent noticed Felipe was coughing and had "glossy eyes," and sent him to the hospital, the CBP said.

"I can't think of any logical reason that would happen, for the most vulnerable of children to be sent to a remote area," Escobar said.

According to CBP statistics, border agents detained 5,283 children unaccompanied by a parent in November alone. Agents last month also apprehended 25,172 "family units," or parents and children together. Both figures are highs for this year.

Children who arrive unaccompanied by a parent are supposed to go to longer-term facilities operated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. But HHS' system is also strained. The Associated Press reported this month that 14,300 children were being detained by HHS, most in facilities with more than 100 kids.

___

Associated Press writers Mary Hudetz in Albuquerque, New Mexico; Sonia Perez D. in Guatemala City; and Mark Stevenson in Mexico City contributed to this report.


WELL, OUR NEWEST TESTOSTERONE TOY IS THE MISSILE THAT CAN GO A MILE A SECOND. THAT MAKES IT VERY HARD TO SHOOT DOWN, TRACK, OR OTHERWISE USE TO PROTECT OURSELVES. IT ALSO SKIPS AND SWERVES LIKE A RABBIT RUNNING. MY FATHER SAID THAT ANYONE WHO WANTS TO EAT SOME RABBIT HAD BETTER USE A SHOTGUN. THE PELLETS IN A SHOTGUN SHELL SPREAD OUT IN A WIDER RANGE, SO THEY ARE MORE LIKELY TO HIT SOMETHING. I WONDER IF THERE IS SOME SORT OF MULTIPLE HEAD WEAPON FOR OUR VERSION OF THE ROCKET. THAT MIGHT HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF HITTING IT AT ALL, IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED.

I’M ENVISIONING AN ENCLOSED SET OF EXPLOSIVES THAT WILL GO OFF LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL FIREWORKS THAT BLOW APART INTO FLOWERS AND SHOWERS IN THE AIR ON JULY 4TH. IT ALSO OCCURS TO ME THAT MAYBE WHAT WE NEED IS A SUPERFAST HEAT-SEEKING MISSILE THAT WILL HOME IN ON THEIRS AUTOMATICALLY AND BLOW IT UP WITHIN A SHORT DISTANCE, WITHOUT DESTROYING WHAT WOULD BE OUR OWN UNDOUBTEDLY OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE MISSILE.

THAT COULD BE DONE BY HAVING THE WARHEAD DETACHABLE AND MAGNETIZED SO THAT IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY POP OFF WHEN IT IS CLOSE TO THE QUARRY AND ATTACH ITSELF TO THE ENEMY’S HANDY-DANDY HYPERSONIC WEAPON AND BLOW IT UP. I KNOW I HAVE HEARD OF HEAT-SEEKING MISSILES IN THE PAST TWENTY OR SO YEARS.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/21/hypersonic-weapons-what-they-are-and-why-us-cant-defend-against-them.html
Russia and China are 'aggressively developing' hypersonic weapons — here's what they are and why the US can't defend against them
Amanda Macias | @amanda_m_macias
Published 4:12 PM ET Wed, 21 March 2018 Updated 8:29 AM ET Thu, 22 March 2018

America's top nuclear commander said the U.S. doesn't have defenses against hypersonic weapons.

A hypersonic weapon travels at Mach 5 or higher, which is at least five times faster than the speed of sound.

Russia and China are leading the way in developing hypersonic weapons.

Speed is the new stealth and earlier this week America's top nuclear commander described a grim scenario for U.S. forces facing off against hypersonic weapons.

"We don't have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us," Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday.

"Both Russia and China are aggressively pursuing hypersonic capabilities," Hyten added. "We've watched them test those capabilities."

Researchers and engineers at Rand explain what a hypersonic weapon is, which countries are developing them and how the U.S. could look to defend against them.

What is a hypersonic weapon?

A hypersonic weapon is a missile that travels at Mach 5 or higher, which is at least five times faster than the speed of sound. This means that a hypersonic weapon can travel about one mile per second.

A rendering of Hypersonic missile from RAND Corp.
Source: Rand Corp.

For reference, commercial airliners fly subsonically, just below Mach 1 whereas modern fighter jets can travel supersonically at Mach 2 or Mach 3.

What are some technical requirements needed for hypersonic weapons?

"Once you reach Mach 5 you can't use your traditional jets and just make them go faster," Carrie Lee, a Rand Stanton Nuclear Fellow, explained.

A traditional jet engine could operate up to Mach 3 or Mach 4 and so, anything traveling faster would need an altered system.

"You need a completely different design to unclutter the flow path and sustain combustion of the supersonic airflow inside the engine," said Rand senior engineer George Nacouzi.

The answer would then be a supersonic combustion ramjet (SCRAMJET), which can operate between Mach 5 and Mach 15.

In order to maintain sustained hypersonic flight, a vehicle must also endure the extreme temperatures of flying at such speeds.

"You can think of it as flying into a blowtorch," explained Rich Moore, senior engineer and Rand researcher. "The faster a vehicle flies, the pressure-temperature rises exponentially."

"So you have to have materials that can withstand high temperatures over a long period of time," Nacouzi added.

What types of hypersonic weapons are in development?

There are two types of weapons emerging: hypersonic cruise missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles.

"Hypersonic cruise missiles are powered all the way to their targets using an advanced propulsion system called a SCRAMJET. These are very, very fast. You may have six minutes from the time its launched until the time it strikes," Moore said.

Hypersonic cruise missiles can fly at altitudes up to 100,000 feet whereas hypersonic glide vehicles can fly above 100,000 feet.

Nacouzi said that hypersonic glide vehicles are placed on top of rockets, launched, and then glide on top of the atmosphere.

"It's like a plane with no engine on it. It uses aerodynamic forces to maintain stability to fly along and to maneuver," he added.

What's more, Moore notes that because it's maneuverable "it can keep it's target a secret up until the last few seconds of it's flight."

Which countries are developing hypersonic weapons?

"The U.S., Russia and China are ahead of other nations in developing hypersonic weapons," Richard Speier, adjunct staff with Rand, told CNBC.

Speier, who worked to initiate the Pentagon's Office of Counter-Proliferation Policy, added that France, India, and Australia are also developing military uses of hypersonic technology.

"Japan and various European countries are working on civilian uses of the technology, such as space launch vehicles or civilian airliners, but civilian uses can be adapted for military purposes," Speier noted.

How could the U.S. defend against hypersonic weapons?

"We don't currently have effective defenses against hypersonic weapons because of the way they fly, i.e., they're maneuverable and fly at an altitude our current defense systems are not designed to operate at," he said. "Our whole defensive system is based on the assumption that you're gonna intercept a ballistic object."

Speier explained that ballistic missiles have predictable trajectories akin to a fly ball in baseball.

"A ballistic missile is like a fly ball in baseball, the outfielder knows exactly where to catch it because its path is determined by momentum and gravity."

Nacouzi added that because hypersonic weapons are maneuverable and therefore, unpredictable, they are difficult to defend against.

Looking ahead, Nacouzi said there are potential ways to address hypersonic weapons but that "they will be very expensive."

"As an example, the Missile Defense Agency is proposing developing a space-based sensor system that would be able to track Hypersonic Glide Vehicles globally, this would be one of the first steps in defending against these new missiles."

"Furthermore, the Department of Defense would need additional systems to defeat the missiles," Nacouzi said.

WATCH: Boeing plans on hypersonic jets for commercial flights
Boeing planning on hypersonic jets for commercial flights
11:00 AM ET Mon, 19 June 2017 | 00:47
Amanda Macias
National security reporter


THIS TRIP SHOULDN’T BE TOO DISASTROUS, UNLESS THE NAVY SEALS WILL NOW BE COMPROMISED. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHY MRS. TRUMP HAS HER HAND ON THAT YOUNG SEAL’S ARM IN PHOTO #2. I KNOW. I SHOULDN’T START RUMORS. I’M SORRY!

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46694206
Trump in Iraq: Seals, secrets, selfies, squabbles
December 27, 2018 4 hours ago

Video -- US President Donald Trump: 'We're no longer the suckers, folks'

Donald Trump's unannounced Christmas visit to US troops in Iraq succeeded as a morale-boosting exercise, judging from the standing ovation the president got. Equally, and perhaps predictably, the trip had its controversial moments - and his legendary attachment to social media had something to do with it.

Recognition: 'We're no longer the suckers'

Mr Trump travelled to al-Asad airbase, west of Baghdad, to thank armed forces personnel for what they had achieved in Iraq against Islamic State (IS), the Sunni Muslim militant group, during his tenure as commander-in-chief:

"Two years ago when I became president they were a very dominant group, today they're not so dominant any more. Great job."

"We're no longer the suckers, folks," he said. "We're respected again as a nation."

Image copyrightAFP
Image caption -- President Trump and his wife met military personnel at the al-Asad airbase, west of Baghdad

Mr Trump was accompanied by First Lady Melania Trump on the first trip of his presidency to a war zone. The couple walked amid troops, posing for selfies and signing autographs.

More than 5,000 US troops remain in Iraq to train and advise local forces, who are fighting what remains of IS following a string a victories last year.

Exposure: Did smiling Navy Seals know the whole world would see their faces?
Shortly after he left Iraqi airspace, Mr Trump proudly shared a video of what he'd been up to during the visit.

But it didn't take long for eagle-eyed watchers to point out something it seemed Mr Trump and his team might have missed.

It appears that those in the video include an elite US Navy Seal team, according to Newsweek. A team, the magazine pointed out, which would usually have their identities protected.

Skip Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump
Embedded video

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
.@FLOTUS Melania and I were honored to visit our incredible troops at Al Asad Air Base in Iraq. GOD BLESS THE U.S.A.!

196K
3:35 PM - Dec 26, 2018
85.9K people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @realDonaldTrump

Malcolm Nance, a former US Navy intelligence specialist, told the magazine it would be a very unusual decision to picture them so clearly while on duty because, if any of them were captured, "there would be no denying who you are and what you do".

Mr Trump also took a selfie with US Navy Lt Cmdr Kyu Lee, who told him he was with Seal Team Five - a fact later reported by the pool of reporters travelling with the president.

The White House has not commented on why they decided against taking such precautions, as some of his predecessors did.

Fiction: What was the pay rise figure?
The president also announced that he had secured a sizable pay increase for troops.

Some of his advisers had suggested 2, 3 or 4%, he said, adding that he had made clear that this was not enough: "I said: 'No. Make it 10%. Make it more than 10%.' Because it's been a long time, it's been more than 10 years."

Media caption -- Was Trump right to say IS is beaten?

But as a number of US commentators noted, armed forces personnel have in fact received a pay rise in each of the past 10 years.

The increase for 2019, approved by Congress and signed by the president in August, will be 2.6%.

It is the largest rise for troops since 2010, but not significantly more than last year's 2.4%.

Secret's out: Trump's plane tracked

Any trip by a US president has to be planned down to the last detail, to make sure there are no holes in the security arrangements.

A trip to an active war zone has to be planned with special care - and secretly.

Trump loves the military. Do they love him back?

Mr Trump was apparently very happy, regaling reporters with tales of how they had travelled with the windows closed and lights off so as not to attract any attention.

But unfortunately, when you are in arguably the world's most recognisable aircraft, the chance of being spotted is always high.

And on this occasion, Alan Meloy captured a perfect image of the plane soaring over Sheffield, UK, on Boxing Day.

From there, Twitter sleuths and plane enthusiasts began to track the aircraft as it made its way across Europe and to Iraq, with a number of people guessing where it was headed.

Skip Twitter post by @CivMilAir

CivMilAir ✈🎅🎄🐈
@CivMilAir
Now, I'm not saying Trump is currently heading to the Middle East to visit troops. BUT...

There's been some interesting aircraft movements the last couple of days. Some I've already tweeted... And a VC-25A has been reported over the UK earlier today.

Watch this space! 😌

1,686
8:56 AM - Dec 26, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
865 people are talking about this
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Report
End of Twitter post by @CivMilAir

Mr Trump is, of course, not the only president to travel on Air Force One on a secret visit to a warzone. His predecessors have done so.

However, the fact it was quite so easy to follow what the president was doing had more than a few people concerned.

"Sources telling me Trump's on his way to visit troops - possibly in Iraq. Better late than never," tweeted Paul Rieckhoff, founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

"But also a bit troubling that so many folks seem to already know about this if it hasn't happened already. #OpSec anyone?"

Friction: Iraqi host not too pleased

President Trump was due to meet Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi during the trip but the talks were cancelled over what Mr Mahdi's office called "disagreements" over organisation.

Iraqi MPs told Reuters news agency that Mr Trump had asked for the meeting to take place at the al-Asad military base, an offer declined by the prime minister.

Media caption -- Mr Trump said he was concerned for Melania during their Iraq visit

When asked if he had had concerns about the visit, Mr Trump told reporters: "Absolutely. I had concerns for the institution of the presidency - not for myself, personally. I had concerns for the first lady, I will tell you."

Mr Mahdi's office said US officials had given Iraq advance notice of the presidential visit, but powerful local figures clearly took umbrage.

Sabah al-Saadi, who leads the Shia Muslim parliamentary bloc Islah, called it a "blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty".

Qais al-Khazali, commander of Asaib Ahl al-Haqq, Iraq's most powerful Shia Muslim militia, also objected to the trip. He warned in a tweet that parliament would respond to the visit by "forcing the US troops to leave Iraq".


WELL, IF SPUTNIK NEWS LIKES BERNIE SANDERS, MAYBE THEY AREN’T FAKE NEWS AFTER ALL. I’VE SEEN THIS STORY BEFORE SEVERAL MONTHS AGO THE DAY IT HAPPENED, BUT I GRABBED IT AGAIN. LOOK AT THE OPEN, FRIENDLY SORT OF SMILE THAT SANDERS HAS. I AGREE WITH THE WRITER. HE IS GENUINELY HUMBLE, NOT THAT HE DOESN’T GET A LITTLE SPICY SOMETIMES. WE ALL DO, BUT HE CLEARLY LIKES PEOPLE.

https://sputniknews.com/us/201810051068643695-bernie-sanders-traffic-rescue/
Senator Bernie Sanders looks on after the Vermont delegation cast their votes during roll call on the second day of the Democratic National Convention at the Wells Fargo Center, July 26, 2016Humble Hero: Bernie Sanders Saves Woman From Traffic, Keeps Quiet About It © AFP 2018 /
US
21:57 05.10.2018(updated 00:01 06.10.2018)

The senator’s staffers revealed that their boss never told them about this incident, and that they only learned about his deed from the social media.

US Senator and former presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders apparently believes that a good deed is its own reward, as he helped save a woman from oncoming traffic and didn’t bother to brag about his exploits.

The public apparently became aware of this incident only after the lady herself, a student at the University of the District of Columbia named Amy Currotto, posted her account of it on Facebook along with a selfie she took at that time with Sanders.

BERNIE SANDERS I KID YOU NOT STOPPED ME FROM GETTING HIT BY A CAR ON MY WAY TO MY GUITAR LESSON SO WE TOOK A SELFIE TOGETHER. ( he is also much taller than me so awkward picture )
4.2K
502
4.6K

As Currotto, who uses a wheelchair, explained in an interview with the news website DCist, she was crossing the street at a crosswalk a few blocks from Capitol Hill and probably “was not 100 percent paying attention” when she suddenly heard someone yelling "Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am!"

"It was Bernie Sanders. I was in shock and he was like, 'Ma'am, get off the street'," she said, adding that she was "kind of embarrassed at first, but he ended up being really nice."

A representative of Sanders' Senate staff confirmed to DCist that this interaction took place, noting however that Sanders’ staffers only became aware of it via social media as the senator didn’t tell them anything because “he doesn't view it as a big deal.”

This occurrence resonated with social media users, with many praising both Senator Sanders’ conduct and humility.


MOST OF THE TIME WHEN THERE IS A MASS KILLING, THE KILLER IS A WHITE MAN, THAT’S TRUE, BUT IT ISN'T EVERY WHITE MAN WHO GOES ROGUE. THEY ARE THE INSANE FRINGE. I’VE NEVER SEEN ONE OF THOSE JOY KILLINGS WHEN THE MAN WASN’T INSANE. WHAT I WANT TO SEE IS BETTER MENTAL HEALTH, AND THAT WOULD TAKE MONEY. WE LITERALLY NEED TO DEVELOP A WAY TO TRY TO CATCH THOSE PEOPLE BEFORE THEY BLOW UP AND START SHOOTING.

MEDICAL DOCTORS WHO SEE BRUISES AND SIGNS OF VIOLENCE ON CHILDREN OR WOMEN ARE SUPPOSED TO REPORT IT. TEACHERS DO THAT, TOO, I SEEM TO REMEMBER. ALSO IF PEOPLE WOULD REPORT IT WHEN THEY SEE SIGNS OF DEPRESSION; THEY SHOULD SUGGEST MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING, I BELIEVE, OR EVEN BETTER, JUST SPEAK IN A FRIENDLY WAY AND SMILE AT THE PERSON. THAT’S BETTER THAN A MEDICATION SOMETIMES. DOCTORS ARE FULLY WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO STEP IN IN SUCH CASES. SUICIDES COULD BE STOPPED WITH INTERVENTION AS WELL.

ALSO, I HAVE NOTICED THAT WHEN A SHOOTER IS CAUGHT, HE WILL USUALLY BE DESCRIBED AS “DEPRESSED.” I WONDER IF IT IS CHARACTERISTIC OF DEPRESSED WOMEN TO KILL THEMSELVES AND OF DEPRESSED MEN TO KILL OTHERS? THAT’S TOO BROAD A STATEMENT TO BE TRUE EXACTLY AS STATED HERE, BUT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF SUCH STORIES. I THINK MEN ARE TOO PROUD TO GO TO A PSYCHIATRIST FOR HELP, BUT WOMEN WILL. WOMEN, ALSO, ARE SIMPLY LESS LIKELY TO BECOME VIOLENT WHEN THEY ARE UPSET.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/10/30/don_lemon_the_biggest_terror_threat_in_this_country_is_white_men.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=mixi&utm_campaign=realclearpolitics
Don Lemon: "The Biggest Terror Threat In This Country Is White Men"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 30, 2018

Don Lemon: "The Biggest Terror Threat In This Country Is White Men"
Posted By Ian Schwartz
On Date October 30, 2018

CNN's Don Lemon said people need to realize that white men radicalized to the right are "the biggest terror threat" to the country on Monday night.

Lemon lamented that a travel ban was put on Muslims because of terror fears but there is not a "white guy ban" for radicalized white males. The CNN host said we have to "stop demonizing people" and realize this is a real threat.

"So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban," he said.

DON LEMON, CNN HOST: I keep trying to point out to people and not to demonize any one group or any one ethnicity. But we keep thinking that the biggest terror threat is something else, someone people who are marching, you know, towards the border, like it's imminent.

And the last time they did this, a couple hundred people came and they -- you know, most of them did get into the country, most of them tired-- you know, got tuckered out before they made it to the border.

So, we have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them. There is no travel ban on them. There is no ban on -- you know, they had the Muslim ban. There is no white guy ban.

So, what do we do about that? And first of all, let me just say this. Maurice Stallard is the name and Vicki Jones. And they have been lost in all of this. Two people who were killed on Wednesday that you talked about.

They have been lost in this, and I know that people feel that this story has not gotten enough coverage, and we will honor them tonight in our program.



MADDOW NEWS

THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/27/18
U.S. suffering effects of Trump gutting environmental protections
Eric Lipton, investigative reporter for the New York Times, talks with Joy Reid about extensive new reporting in the Times about the observable environmental impact of Donald Trump rolling back Obama-era environmental and anti-pollution regulations, and hiring the likes of Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke to run the EPA and the Interior Department. Duration: 7:26


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/27/18
New McClatchy report: Cohen cell phone pinged in Prague in 2016
Greg Gordon, investigative reporter for McClatchy News, talks with Joy Reid about the information behind his new reporting that Michael Cohen's cell phone was observed to have pinged cell towers in the area of Prague in the summer of 2016, and an Eastern European intelligence agency eavesdropped on Russians discussing his presence there. Duration: 17:28


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/27/18
Cohen again denies Prague visit despite report of intel, evidence
Barbar McQuade, former U.S. attorney, talks with Joy Reid about the legal implications for Michael Cohen if the information reported by McClatchy, that Cohen was in Prague as the Trump dossier says, is true, and why it wouldn't already have been mentioned in Cohen's charges. Duration: 4:47


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/27/18
House Dems eager to complete picture of Trump camp ties to Russia
Rep. Mike Quigley, member of the House Intelligence Committee, talks with Joy Reid about the Intelligence Committee's perspective on a new McClatchy report that seems to corroborate allegations in the Trump dossier that Michael Cohen was in Prague in late summer of 2016. Duration: 5:48


Embed
HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/27/18
Trump-backing billionaire Mercer spent millions less in 2018
Joy Reid reports on newly released financial records that show that Robert Mercer, who has funded Donald Trump's presidential campaign as well as Breitbart News and Cambridge Analytica, spent millions less in 2018 than he did in 2016, though climate change disinformation is apparently still enjoying his largess. Duration: 1:58


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/26/18
Trump opens disorienting fire hose of falsehoods over the holiday
E.J. Dionne, columnist for The Washington Post, and Ned Price, former Obama NSC spokesman, talk with Joy Reid about the recent spate of Donald Trump tweets and other behavior that are demonstrably, disorientingly false. Duration: 16:28


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/26/18
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at home after working through surgery
Joy Reid reports on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's remarkably productive schedule even as she underwent surgery for lung cancer, and her remarkable record of never having missed oral arguments in her 25 years on the bench. Duration: 1:24


THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/26/18
Trump cruelty-as-deterrent border strategy yields tragedy, chaos
Julia Ainsley, national security and justice reporter for NBC News, talks with Joy Reid about difficult circumstances at the U.S. border as the Trump administration's strategy of trying to deter migrants and refugees at the southern border with cruel treatment is producing chaos and a humanitarian crisis. Duration: 7:42


Embed
HELP THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW 12/26/18
Mystery Mueller case being considered by Supreme Court
Joy Reid reports on a mysterious court case believed to be tied to Robert Mueller's Trump Russia investigation that is now the subject of a stay order by Chief Justice John Roberts while the Supreme Court considers whether to take on the case itself. Duration: 2:42