"Don Jr. has been a tremendous asset to the campaign," Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in the statement obtained by NBC News. "Speaking the truth might upset those who would rather be politically correct than safe, but the American people want a change."
Donald Trump Jr tweet: 'I'm a refugee' says Skittles photographer David Kittos, who had to flee his home in Cyprus in 1974, is angry that the Trump campaign have used his image. Donald Trump Jr's tweet comparing Skittles to refugees [ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37416457 ] has caused a furore on social media. In a new development, the man who took the photo of the Skittles has revealed himself to be a former refugee. 20 Sept 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37421886
Remarks by President Obama at Leaders Summit on Refugees
United Nations New York, New York September 20, 2016
3:43 P.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. (Applause.) Yusra, we could not be prouder of you -- not just for the great introduction, but more importantly, for your courage and your resilience and the great example that you're setting for children everywhere, including your eight-year-old sister, who I know must look up to you. (Applause.)
Good afternoon. Mr. Secretary General; Your Excellencies, we are here because, right now, in crowded camps and cities around the world, there are families -- from Darfur in Chad, Palestinians in Lebanon, Afghans in Pakistan, Colombians in Ecuador -- who’ve endured years -- in some cases, decades -- as refugees, surviving on rations and aid, and who dream of someday, somehow, having a home of their own.
We’re here because, right now, there are young girls -- like Yusra, like my daughters -- who are just as precious and just as gifted -- like the 16-year-old refugee from Myanmar that I met in Malaysia -- who’ve suffered unspeakable abuse at the hands of traffickers, modern day slavery, girls who pray at night that someone might rescue them from their torment. There are boys, fleeing the fighting in South Sudan, violence in Central America, wars in North Africa and the Middle East -- who are at the mercy of criminals who pack them into trucks or makeshift rafts, and who die on treacherous seas -- like little Alan Kurdi from Syria, lifeless, face down on a Turkish beach, in his red shirt and blue pants.
We are here because, right now, there are mothers separated from their children -- like the woman in a camp in Greece, who held on to her family photographs, heard her children cry on the phone, and who said “my breath is my children…every day I am dying 10, 20, 30 times.” We’re here because there are fathers who simply want to build a new life and provide for their families -- like Refaai Hamo, from Syria, who lost his wife and daughter in the war, who we welcomed to America, and who says, “I still think I have a chance to make a difference in the world.”
Mr. Secretary General; heads of state and heads of government; distinguished guests; ladies and gentlemen: As you saw in the video, we are facing a crisis of epic proportions. More than 65 million people have been driven from their homes -- which is more than any time since the Second World War. Among them are more than 21 million refugees who have fled their countries -- everything and everyone they’ve ever known, fleeing with a suitcase or the clothes on their back.
And I’m here today -- I called this summit -- because this crisis is one of the most urgent tests of our time -- our capacity for collective action. To test, first and foremost, our ability to end conflicts, because so many of the world’s refugees come from just three countries ravaged by war -- Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia.
And I said today to the General Assembly, the mentality that allows for violence with impunity is something we cannot excuse. And collectively, we continue to make excuses. It's not the subject of this summit, but we all know that what is happening in Syria, for example, is unacceptable. And we are not as unified as we should be in pushing to make it stop.
It’s a test of our international system where all nations ought to share in our collective responsibilities, because the vast majority of refugees are hosted by just 10 countries who are bearing a very heavy burden -- among them Turkey, Pakistan, Lebanon, Iran, Ethiopia. Countries that often have fewer resources than many of those who are doing little or nothing.
It is a crisis of our shared security. Not because refugees are a threat. Refugees, most of whom are women and children, are often fleeing war and terrorism. They are victims. They’re families who want to be safe and to work, be good citizens and contribute to their country -- I was talking to Yusra -- she’s now in Germany. She already speaks some English. Now she’s trying to learn German -- who are interested in assimilating and contributing to the society in which they find themselves.
In recent years, in the United States, we’ve worked to put in intensive screening and security checks, so we can welcome refugees and ensure our security -- in fact, refugees are subject to more rigorous screening than the average tourist. We’ve seen in America, hardworking, patriotic refugees serve in our military, and start new businesses and help revitalize communities. I believe refugees can make us stronger.
So the challenge to our security is because when desperate refugees pay cold-hearted traffickers for passage, it funds the same criminals who are smuggling arms and drugs and children. When nations with their own internal difficulties find themselves hosting massive refugee populations for years on end, it can risk more instability. It oftentimes surfaces tensions in our society when we have disorderly and disproportionate migration into some countries that skews our politics and is subject to demagoguery.
And if we were to turn refugees away simply because of their background or religion, or, for example, because they are Muslim, then we would be reinforcing terrorist propaganda that nations like my own are somehow opposed to Islam, which is an ugly lie that must be rejected in all of our countries by upholding the values of pluralism and diversity.
And finally, this crisis is a test of our common humanity -- whether we give in to suspicion and fear and build walls, or whether we see ourselves in another. Those girls being trafficked and tortured, they could be our daughters. That little boy on the beach could be our son or our grandson. We cannot avert our eyes or turn our backs. To slam the door in the face of these families would betray our deepest values. It would deny our own heritage as nations, including the United States of America, that have been built by immigrants and refugees. And it would be to ignore a teaching at the heart of so many faiths that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us; that we welcome the stranger in our midst. And just as failure to act in the past -- for example, by turning away Jews fleeing Nazi Germany -- is a stain on our collective conscience, I believe history will judge us harshly if we do not rise to this moment.
First and foremost, we must recognize that refugees are a symptom of larger failures -- be it war, ethnic tensions, or persecution. If we truly want to address the crisis, wars like the savagery in Syria must be brought to an end -- and it will be brought to an end through political settlement and diplomacy, and not simply by bombing.
We have to insist on greater investments in development and education and democratic institutions -- the lack of which fuels so much of the instability we see in the world. And we need to continue to speak up for justice and equality, and insist that the universal human rights of every person are upheld, everywhere.
In the face of this crisis, with what often seems grim news, we are grateful for the heroic work of so many around the world. Leaders who, often in the face of difficult politics at home, welcome refugees as new neighbors. Businesses, such as those I met with right before I came here, which had made commitments worth more than $650 million to empower refugees. International institutions and faith groups and NGOs, including InterAction -- the alliance of American NGOs -- whose members will invest more than $1.2 billion over the next three years to assist the world’s displaced people and refugees.
As Americans, we're determined to do our part. The United Nations [United States] is the largest single donor of humanitarian aid around the world, including to refugees and to the people of Syria. We resettle more refugees than any other nation. As President, I’ve increased the number of refugees we are resettling to 85,000 this year, which includes 10,000 Syrian refugees -- a goal we’ve exceeded even as we’ve upheld our rigorous screening. And I called for this summit because we all have to do more.
I want to thank our co-hosts, Secretary General Ban, and Jordan. Obviously, Jordan is carrying an enormous burden as a consequence of the conflict, and we are grateful for His Majesty and the work that they've done. Mexico, which is absorbing a great number of refugees from Central America. Sweden, which has made enormous humanitarian contributions in addition to taking on refugees. Germany and Canada -- two countries that have gone above and beyond in providing support for refugees. And I want to personally thank Chancellor Merkel and Prime Minister Trudeau, and the people of both those countries -- because the politics sometimes can be hard, but it's the right thing to do. And Ethiopia, which as was noted in the video, bears an enormous burden.
I also want to thank the more than 50 nations and organizations participating in this summit for making tangible, concrete commitments. Collectively, our nations have increased our contributions to humanitarian organizations and U.N. appeals this year by some $4.5 billion, and that includes a $1 billion increase this year from the United States. This will translate concretely into lifesaving food, and medicine, and clothing, and shelter.
But since we can’t just keep on doing the same thing the same way -- allowing refugees to languish in camps, disconnected from society -- we’ve also been working with the World Bank to create new financing facilities to assist countries hosting refugees build schools and economic opportunities. As part of these efforts, the United States will contribute at least $50 million to help middle-income countries, and we’ll do more to help low-income countries so that refugees and their host communities can flourish and grow stronger together. The refugees in places like Ecuador or Kenya don’t always get as much attention as some of the recent migrations, but they need help too. And that's part of our goal here.
Collectively, our nations are roughly doubling the number of refugees that we admit to our countries to more than 360,000 this year. Again, I want to especially commend Germany, Canada, Austria, the Netherlands and Australia for their continued leadership, as well countries like Argentina and Portugal for their new commitments. And today, I'm proud to announce that the United States will continue our leadership role. In the coming fiscal year, starting next week, the United States will welcome and resettle 110,000 refugees from around the world -- which is a nearly 60 percent increase over 2015. We intend to do it right, and we will do it safely.
Collectively, the major commitments by Turkey, Thailand, Chad and Jordan will help more than one million children who are refugees get an education; will help one million refugees get training, new skills or find a job. And in all of this work, we cannot forget those who are often the most vulnerable to abuse -- young girls and women. So a key part of our efforts must be a renewed commitment to stopping sexual violence and forced marriage. And we need to do more to truly empower women and girls -- because every girl deserves the chance to grow and be safe, and every woman should have her human rights and dignity upheld.
So I'm heartened by the commitments that have been made here today. They will help save lives. But we're going to have to be honest -- it’s still not enough; not sufficient for a crisis of this magnitude. And that’s why I believe this summit must be the beginning of a new global movement where everybody does more: More nations donating more assistance and accepting more refugees. More institutions and NGOs finding new ways to deliver aid. More businesses contributing their expertise. More faith groups making this work their own. More young people demanding action. More states and cities and towns coming forward and saying, yes, we will open our communities to our fellow human beings in need. And more pressure on those countries that are willing to perpetrate violence on their own citizens in pursuit of power that carries such a heavy human toll.
We can learn from a young boy named Alex, who lives not far from here in Scarsdale, New York. Last month, like all of us, Alex saw that heartbreaking image -- five-year-old Omran Daqneesh in Aleppo, Syria, sitting in that ambulance, silent and in shock, trying to wipe the blood from his hands.
And here in New York, Alex, who is just six years old, sat down and wrote me a letter. And he said, he wanted Omran to come live with him and his family. "Since he won’t bring toys," Alex wrote, "I will share my bike and I will teach him how to ride it. I will teach him addition and subtraction. My little sister will be collecting butterflies and fireflies for him…We can all play together. We will give him a family and he will be our brother."
Those are the words of a six-year-old boy. He teaches us a lot. (Applause.)
The humanity that a young child can display, who hasn’t learned to be cynical, or suspicious, or fearful of other people because of where they’re from, or how they look, or how they pray, and who just understands the notion of treating somebody that is like him with compassion, with kindness -- we can all learn from Alex. Imagine the suffering we could ease, and the lives we could save, and what our world would look like if, seeing a child who’s hurting anywhere in the world, we say, "We will give him a family and he will be our brother."
We spend, so many of us in politics and in leadership, so much time devoted to ascending the ladders of power. We spend time maintaining it; we spend time trying to win over public opinion. And maybe sometimes we forget that the only rationale for doing it is to help that little boy. I hope and pray that we remember.
I appreciate all of your support. Thank you. (Applause.)
Texas to stop refugee aid as Obama plans more resettlements Sep. 21, 2016 AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Texas will stop helping the U.S. government provide aid and services to refugees, state officials said Wednesday, severing ties at a time when President Barack Obama has announced intentions to dramatically increase the number of resettlements in 2017. Kansas and New Jersey also have pulled out of the federally funded refugee resettlement program due to what Republicans have called security concerns. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said his state will follow suit unless demands for more rigorous refugee vetting are "unconditionally" met by Sept. 30. Federal officials say refugees are exhaustively screened and have won several court battles over states' efforts to block the arrival of Syrian refugees in the wake of November's deadly attacks in Paris. But GOP leaders, including vice presidential candidate and Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, have said a Syrian passport, now believed to be fake, was found near one of the suicide bombers, and earlier this week, presidential hopeful Donald Trump's eldest son likened refugees from the war-torn country to a bowl of poisonous candy. "Empathy must be balanced with security," Abbott said Wednesday in a statement. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that services for refugees would continue in Texas. In other states, the Obama administration works directly with local resettlement agencies instead of passing federal dollars for refugee services and benefits through state agencies. [...] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/32263f33637d40ec8b1bcf9062b927c8/texas-governor-threatens-stop-aid-resettled-refugees
Address by President Obama to the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly
The United Nations New York, New York September 20, 2016
10:29 A.M. EDT
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Mr. President; Mr. Secretary General; fellow delegates; ladies and gentlemen: As I address this hall as President for the final time, let me recount the progress that we’ve made these last eight years.
From the depths of the greatest financial crisis of our time, we coordinated our response to avoid further catastrophe and return the global economy to growth. We’ve taken away terrorist safe havens, strengthened the nonproliferation regime, resolved the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomacy. We opened relations with Cuba, helped Colombia end Latin America’s longest war, and we welcome a democratically elected leader of Myanmar to this Assembly. Our assistance is helping people feed themselves, care for the sick, power communities across Africa, and promote models of development rather than dependence. And we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative, while establishing a framework to protect our planet from the ravages of climate change.
This is important work. It has made a real difference in the lives of our people. And it could not have happened had we not worked together. And yet, around the globe we are seeing the same forces of global integration that have made us interdependent also expose deep fault lines in the existing international order.
We see it in the headlines every day. Around the world, refugees flow across borders in flight from brutal conflict. Financial disruptions continue to weigh upon our workers and entire communities. Across vast swaths of the Middle East, basic security, basic order has broken down. We see too many governments muzzling journalists, and quashing dissent, and censoring the flow of information. Terrorist networks use social media to prey upon the minds of our youth, endangering open societies and spurring anger against innocent immigrants and Muslims. Powerful nations contest the constraints placed on them by international law.
This is the paradox that defines our world today. A quarter century after the end of the Cold War, the world is by many measures less violent and more prosperous than ever before, and yet our societies are filled with uncertainty, and unease, and strife. Despite enormous progress, as people lose trust in institutions, governing becomes more difficult and tensions between nations become more quick to surface.
And so I believe that at this moment we all face a choice. We can choose to press forward with a better model of cooperation and integration. Or we can retreat into a world sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old lines of nation and tribe and race and religion.
I want to suggest to you today that we must go forward, and not backward. I believe that as imperfect as they are, the principles of open markets and accountable governance, of democracy and human rights and international law that we have forged remain the firmest foundation for human progress in this century. I make this argument not based on theory or ideology, but on facts -- facts that all too often, we forget in the immediacy of current events.
Here’s the most important fact: The integration of our global economy has made life better for billions of men, women and children. Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent. That's unprecedented. And it's not an abstraction. It means children have enough to eat; mothers don’t die in childbirth.
Meanwhile, cracking the genetic code promises to cure diseases that have plagued us for centuries. The Internet can deliver the entirety of human knowledge to a young girl in a remote village on a single hand-held device. In medicine and in manufacturing, in education and communications, we’re experiencing a transformation of how human beings live on a scale that recalls the revolutions in agriculture and industry. And as a result, a person born today is more likely to be healthy, to live longer, and to have access to opportunity than at any time in human history.
Moreover, the collapse of colonialism and communism has allowed more people than ever before to live with the freedom to choose their leaders. Despite the real and troubling areas where freedom appears in retreat, the fact remains that the number of democracies around the world has nearly doubled in the last 25 years.
In remote corners of the world, citizens are demanding respect for the dignity of all people no matter their gender, or race, or religion, or disability, or sexual orientation, and those who deny others dignity are subject to public reproach. An explosion of social media has given ordinary people more ways to express themselves, and has raised people’s expectations for those of us in power. Indeed, our international order has been so successful that we take it as a given that great powers no longer fight world wars; that the end of the Cold War lifted the shadow of nuclear Armageddon; that the battlefields of Europe have been replaced by peaceful union; that China and India remain on a path of remarkable growth.
I say all this not to whitewash the challenges we face, or to suggest complacency. Rather, I believe that we need to acknowledge these achievements in order to summon the confidence to carry this progress forward and to make sure that we do not abandon those very things that have delivered this progress.
In order to move forward, though, we do have to acknowledge that the existing path to global integration requires a course correction. As too often, those trumpeting the benefits of globalization have ignored inequality within and among nations; have ignored the enduring appeal of ethnic and sectarian identities; have left international institutions ill-equipped, underfunded, under-resourced, in order to handle transnational challenges.
And as these real problems have been neglected, alternative visions of the world have pressed forward both in the wealthiest countries and in the poorest: Religious fundamentalism; the politics of ethnicity, or tribe, or sect; aggressive nationalism; a crude populism -- sometimes from the far left, but more often from the far right -- which seeks to restore what they believe was a better, simpler age free of outside contamination.
We cannot dismiss these visions. They are powerful. They reflect dissatisfaction among too many of our citizens. I do not believe those visions can deliver security or prosperity over the long term, but I do believe that these visions fail to recognize, at a very basic level, our common humanity. Moreover, I believe that the acceleration of travel and technology and telecommunications -- together with a global economy that depends on a global supply chain -- makes it self-defeating ultimately for those who seek to reverse this progress. Today, a nation ringed by walls would only imprison itself.
So the answer cannot be a simple rejection of global integration. Instead, we must work together to make sure the benefits of such integration are broadly shared, and that the disruptions -- economic, political, and cultural -- that are caused by integration are squarely addressed. This is not the place for a detailed policy blueprint, but let me offer in broad strokes those areas where I believe we must do better together.
It starts with making the global economy work better for all people and not just for those at the top. While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage. In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers.
In developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment. Mercantilist policies pursued by governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the consensus that underpins global trade. And meanwhile, global capital is too often unaccountable -- nearly $8 trillion stashed away in tax havens, a shadow banking system that grows beyond the reach of effective oversight.
A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable. I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others. Expectations rise, then, faster than governments can deliver, and a pervasive sense of injustice undermine people’s faith in the system.
So how do we fix this imbalance? We cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology back into a box. Nor can we look to failed models of the past. If we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation -- these approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict. And the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of the economy is a dead end.
But I do believe there’s another path -- one that fuels growth and innovation, and offers the clearest route to individual opportunity and national success. It does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage. It means investing in our people -- their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business. It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardship and allows them to take more risks -- to look for a new job, or start a new venture.
These are the policies that I’ve pursued here in the United States, and with clear results. American businesses have created now 15 million new jobs. After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth. But today, that's down to about half. Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And with further investment in infrastructure and early childhood education and basic research, I’m confident that such progress will continue.
So just as I’ve pursued these measures here at home, so has the United States worked with many nations to curb the excesses of capitalism -- not to punish wealth, but to prevent repeated crises that can destroy it. That’s why we’ve worked with other nations to create higher and clearer standards for banking and taxation -- because a society that asks less of oligarchs than ordinary citizens will rot from within. That’s why we’ve pushed for transparency and cooperation in rooting out corruption, and tracking illicit dollars, because markets create more jobs when they're fueled by hard work, and not the capacity to extort a bribe. That’s why we’ve worked to reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific Partnership, so that the benefits are more broadly shared.
And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe. This is difficult politically. It's difficult to spend on foreign assistance. But I do not believe this is charity. For the small fraction of what we spent at war in Iraq we could support institutions so that fragile states don’t collapse in the first place, and invest in emerging economies that become markets for our goods. It's not just the right thing to do, it's the smart thing to do.
And that’s why we need to follow through on our efforts to combat climate change. If we don't act boldly, the bill that could come due will be mass migrations, and cities submerged and nations displaced, and food supplies decimated, and conflicts born of despair. The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition. And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.
So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be the beginning. We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries. And only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair.
So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable. And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people.
I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the same model of governance. I do not think that America can -- or should -- impose our system of government on other countries. But there appears to be growing contest between authoritarianism and liberalism right now. And I want everybody to understand, I am not neutral in that contest. I believe in a liberal political order -- an order built not just through elections and representative government, but also through respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciaries and the rule of law.
I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free markets, still reject the model of free societies. And perhaps those of us who have been promoting democracy feel somewhat discouraged since the end of the Cold War, because we've learned that liberal democracy will not just wash across the globe in a single wave. It turns out building accountable institutions is hard work -- the work of generations. The gains are often fragile. Sometimes we take one step forward and then two steps back. In countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game. And so, given the difficulty in forging true democracy in the face of these pressures, it’s no surprise that some argue the future favors the strongman, a top-down model, rather than strong, democratic institutions.
But I believe this thinking is wrong. I believe the road of true democracy remains the better path. I believe that in the 21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up -- because entrepreneurs need to access information in order to invent; young people need a global education in order to thrive; independent media needs to check the abuses of power. Without this evolution, ultimately expectations of people will not be met; suppression and stagnation will set in. And history shows that strongmen are then left with two paths -- permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.
Now, I will admit, my belief that governments serve the individual, and not the other way around, is shaped by America’s story. Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few. But because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out -- opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength; that gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor; that made it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the United States.
So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of America, but I do not think this story is unique to America. Look at the transformation that's taken place in countries as different as Japan and Chile, Indonesia, Botswana. The countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake.
In Europe, the progress of those countries in the former Soviet bloc that embraced democracy stand in clear contrast to those that did not. After all, the people of Ukraine did not take to the streets because of some plot imposed from abroad. They took to the streets because their leadership was for sale and they had no recourse. They demanded change because they saw life get better for people in the Baltics and in Poland, societies that were more liberal, and democratic, and open than their own.
So those of us who believe in democracy, we need to speak out forcefully, because both the facts and history, I believe, are on our side. That doesn’t mean democracies are without flaws. It does mean that the cure for what ails our democracies is greater engagement by our citizens -- not less.
Yes, in America, there is too much money in politics; too much entrenched partisanship; too little participation by citizens, in part because of a patchwork of laws that makes it harder to vote. In Europe, a well-intentioned Brussels often became too isolated from the normal push and pull of national politics. Too often, in capitals, decision-makers have forgotten that democracy needs to be driven by civic engagement from the bottom up, not governance by experts from the top down. And so these are real problems, and as leaders of democratic governments make the case for democracy abroad, we better strive harder to set a better example at home.
Moreover, every country will organize its government informed by centuries of history, and the circumstances of geography, and the deeply held beliefs of its people. So I recognize a traditional society may value unity and cohesion more than a diverse country like my own, which was founded upon what, at the time, was a radical idea -- the idea of the liberty of individual human beings endowed with certain God-given rights. But that does not mean that ordinary people in Asia, or Africa, or the Middle East somehow prefer arbitrary rule that denies them a voice in the decisions that can shape their lives. I believe that spirit is universal. And if any of you doubt the universality of that desire, listen to the voices of young people everywhere who call out for freedom, and dignity, and the opportunity to control their own lives.
This leads me to the third thing we need to do: We must reject any forms of fundamentalism, or racism, or a belief in ethnic superiority that makes our traditional identities irreconcilable with modernity. Instead we need to embrace the tolerance that results from respect of all human beings.
It’s a truism that global integration has led to a collision of cultures; trade, migration, the Internet, all these things can challenge and unsettle our most cherished identities. We see liberal societies express opposition when women choose to cover themselves. We see protests responding to Western newspaper cartoons that caricature the Prophet Muhammad. In a world that left the age of empire behind, we see Russia attempting to recover lost glory through force. Asian powers debate competing claims of history. And in Europe and the United States, you see people wrestle with concerns about immigration and changing demographics, and suggesting that somehow people who look different are corrupting the character of our countries.
Now, there’s no easy answer for resolving all these social forces, and we must respect the meaning that people draw from their own traditions -- from their religion, from their ethnicity, from their sense of nationhood. But I do not believe progress is possible if our desire to preserve our identities gives way to an impulse to dehumanize or dominate another group. If our religion leads us to persecute those of another faith, if we jail or beat people who are gay, if our traditions lead us to prevent girls from going to school, if we discriminate on the basis of race or tribe or ethnicity, then the fragile bonds of civilization will fray. The world is too small, we are too packed together, for us to be able to resort to those old ways of thinking.
We see this mindset in too many parts of the Middle East. There, so much of the collapse in order has been fueled because leaders sought legitimacy not because of policies or programs but by resorting to persecuting political opposition, or demonizing other religious sects, by narrowing the public space to the mosque, where in too many places perversions of a great faith were tolerated. These forces built up for years, and are now at work helping to fuel both Syria’s tragic civil war and the mindless, medieval menace of ISIL.
The mindset of sectarianism, and extremism, and bloodletting, and retribution that has been taking place will not be quickly reversed. And if we are honest, we understand that no external power is going to be able to force different religious communities or ethnic communities to co-exist for long. But I do believe we have to be honest about the nature of these conflicts, and our international community must continue to work with those who seek to build rather than to destroy.
And there is a military component to that. It means being united and relentless in destroying networks like ISIL, which show no respect for human life. But it also means that in a place like Syria, where there’s no ultimate military victory to be won, we’re going to have to pursue the hard work of diplomacy that aims to stop the violence, and deliver aid to those in need, and support those who pursue a political settlement and can see those who are not like themselves as worthy of dignity and respect.
Across the region’s conflicts, we have to insist that all parties recognize a common humanity and that nations end proxy wars that fuel disorder. Because until basic questions are answered about how communities co-exist, the embers of extremism will continue to burn, countless human beings will suffer -- most of all in that region -- but extremism will continue to be exported overseas. And the world is too small for us to simply be able to build a wall and prevent it from affecting our own societies.
And what is true in the Middle East is true for all of us. Surely, religious traditions can be honored and upheld while teaching young people science and math, rather than intolerance. Surely, we can sustain our unique traditions while giving women their full and rightful role in the politics and economics of a nation. Surely, we can rally our nations to solidarity while recognizing equal treatment for all communities -- whether it’s a religious minority in Myanmar, or an ethnic minority in Burundi, or a racial minority right here in the United States. And surely, Israelis and Palestinians will be better off if Palestinians reject incitement and recognize the legitimacy of Israel, but Israel recognizes that it cannot permanently occupy and settle Palestinian land. We all have to do better as leaders in tamping down, rather than encouraging, a notion of identity that leads us to diminish others.
And this leads me to the fourth and final thing we need to do, and that is sustain our commitment to international cooperation rooted in the rights and responsibilities of nations.
As President of the United States, I know that for most of human history, power has not been unipolar. The end of the Cold War may have led too many to forget this truth. I’ve noticed as President that at times, both America’s adversaries and some of our allies believe that all problems were either caused by Washington or could be solved by Washington -- and perhaps too many in Washington believed that as well. (Laughter.) But I believe America has been a rare superpower in human history insofar as it has been willing to think beyond narrow self-interest; that while we’ve made our share of mistakes over these last 25 years -- and I’ve acknowledged some -- we have strived, sometimes at great sacrifice, to align better our actions with our ideals. And as a consequence, I believe we have been a force for good.
We have secured allies. We’ve acted to protect the vulnerable. We supported human rights and welcomed scrutiny of our own actions. We’ve bound our power to international laws and institutions. When we've made mistakes, we've tried to acknowledge them. We have worked to roll back poverty and hunger and disease beyond our borders, not just within our borders.
I'm proud of that. But I also know that we can't do this alone. And I believe that if we're to meet the challenges of this century, we are all going to have to do more to build up international capacity. We cannot escape the prospect of nuclear war unless we all commit to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and pursuing a world without them.
When Iran agrees to accept constraints on its nuclear program that enhances global security and enhances Iran's ability to work with other nations. On the other hand, when North Korea tests a bomb that endangers all of us. And any country that breaks this basic bargain must face consequences. And those nations with these weapons, like the United States, have a unique responsibility to pursue the path of reducing our stockpiles, and reaffirming basic norms like the commitment to never test them again.
We can't combat a disease like Zika that recognizes no borders -- mosquitos don't respect walls -- unless we make permanent the same urgency that we brought to bear against Ebola -- by strengthening our own systems of public health, by investing in cures and rolling back the root causes of disease, and helping poorer countries develop a public health infrastructure.
We can only eliminate extreme poverty if the sustainable development goals that we have set are more than words on paper. Human ingenuity now gives us the capacity to feed the hungry and give all of our children -- including our girls -- the education that is the foundation for opportunity in our world. But we have to put our money where our mouths are.
And we can only realize the promise of this institution’s founding -- to replace the ravages of war with cooperation -- if powerful nations like my own accept constraints. Sometimes I'm criticized in my own country for professing a belief in international norms and multilateral institutions. But I am convinced that in the long run, giving up some freedom of action -- not giving up our ability to protect ourselves or pursue our core interests, but binding ourselves to international rules over the long term -- enhances our security. And I think that's not just true for us.
If Russia continues to interfere in the affairs of its neighbors, it may be popular at home, it may fuel nationalist fervor for a time, but over time it is also going to diminish its stature and make its borders less secure. In the South China Sea, a peaceful resolution of disputes offered by law will mean far greater stability than the militarization of a few rocks and reefs.
We are all stakeholders in this international system, and it calls upon all of us to invest in the success of institutions to which we belong. And the good news is, is that many nations have shown what kind of progress is possible when we make those commitments. Consider what we’ve accomplished here over the past few years.
Together, we mobilized some 50,000 additional troops for U.N. peacekeeping, making them nimble, better equipped, better prepared to deal with emergencies. Together, we established an Open Government Partnership so that, increasingly, transparency empowers more and more people around the globe. And together, now, we have to open our hearts and do more to help refugees who are desperate for a home.
We should all welcome the pledges of increased assistance that have been made at this General Assembly gathering. I'll be discussing that more this afternoon. But we have to follow through, even when the politics are hard. Because in the eyes of innocent men and women and children who, through no fault of their own, have had to flee everything that they know, everything that they love, we have to have the empathy to see ourselves. We have to imagine what it would be like for our family, for our children, if the unspeakable happened to us. And we should all understand that, ultimately, our world will be more secure if we are prepared to help those in need and the nations who are carrying the largest burden with respect to accommodating these refugees.
There are a lot of nations right now that are doing the right thing. But many nations -- particularly those blessed with wealth and the benefits of geography -- that can do more to offer a hand, even if they also insist that refugees who come to our countries have to do more to adapt to the customs and conventions of the communities that are now providing them a home.
Let me conclude by saying that I recognize history tells a different story than the one that I've talked about here today. There's a much darker and more cynical view of history that we can adopt. Human beings are too often motivated by greed and by power. Big countries for most of history have pushed smaller ones around. Tribes and ethnic groups and nation states have very often found it most convenient to define themselves by what they hate and not just those ideas that bind them together.
Time and again, human beings have believed that they finally arrived at a period of enlightenment only to repeat, then, cycles of conflict and suffering. Perhaps that's our fate. We have to remember that the choices of individual human beings led to repeated world war. But we also have to remember that the choices of individual human beings created a United Nations, so that a war like that would never happen again. Each of us as leaders, each nation can choose to reject those who appeal to our worst impulses and embrace those who appeal to our best. For we have shown that we can choose a better history.
Sitting in a prison cell, a young Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote that, “Human progress never rolls on the wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God.” And during the course of these eight years, as I've traveled to many of your nations, I have seen that spirit in our young people, who are more educated and more tolerant, and more inclusive and more diverse, and more creative than our generation; who are more empathetic and compassionate towards their fellow human beings than previous generations. And, yes, some of that comes with the idealism of youth. But it also comes with young people’s access to information about other peoples and places -- an understanding unique in human history that their future is bound with the fates of other human beings on the other side of the world.
I think of the thousands of health care workers from around the world who volunteered to fight Ebola. I remember the young entrepreneurs I met who are now starting new businesses in Cuba, the parliamentarians who used to be just a few years ago political prisoners in Myanmar. I think of the girls who have braved taunts or violence just to go to school in Afghanistan, and the university students who started programs online to reject the extremism of organizations like ISIL. I draw strength from the young Americans -- entrepreneurs, activists, soldiers, new citizens -- who are remaking our nation once again, who are unconstrained by old habits and old conventions, and unencumbered by what is, but are instead ready to seize what ought to be.
My own family is a made up of the flesh and blood and traditions and cultures and faiths from a lot of different parts of the world -- just as America has been built by immigrants from every shore. And in my own life, in this country, and as President, I have learned that our identities do not have to be defined by putting someone else down, but can be enhanced by lifting somebody else up. They don’t have to be defined in opposition to others, but rather by a belief in liberty and equality and justice and fairness.
And the embrace of these principles as universal doesn't weaken my particular pride, my particular love for America -- it strengthens it. My belief that these ideals apply everywhere doesn’t lessen my commitment to help those who look like me, or pray as I do, or pledge allegiance to my flag. But my faith in those principles does force me to expand my moral imagination and to recognize that I can best serve my own people, I can best look after my own daughters, by making sure that my actions seek what is right for all people and all children, and your daughters and your sons.
This is what I believe: that all of us can be co-workers with God. And our leadership, and our governments, and this United Nations should reflect this irreducible truth.
Obama Warns Against ‘Aggressive Nationalism’ And ‘Crude Populism’ In UN Speech U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept. 20, 2016. “We can choose to press forward with a better model of integration, or we can retreat into a world sharply divided and in conflict,” he said. 09/20/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/barack-obama-unga-speech_us_57e0453ee4b04a1497b60ce3 [with comments]
--
Full Speech: Donald Trump Rally in High Point, NC (9/20/2016) Trump High Point University Speech
On this Tuesday, September 20 edition of the Alex Jones Show, we analyze the Bush family’s history with globalism as George H.W. Bush endorses Hillary Clinton. Not much of a conservative now, is he? Trump insider Roger Stone reveals more on what this means. We also look into how George Soros is spending $500 million for migrants to invade the West instead of fixing problems in the Middle East.
Is one candidate a ‘recruiting sergeant for the terrorists’?
Smoke raises behind an Islamic State flag after Iraqi security forces and Shiite fighters took control of Saadiya in Diyala province from Islamist State militants, Nov. 24, 2014. Stringer/Reuters
By Steve Benen 09/20/16 08:00 AM—Updated 09/20/16 10:22 AM
In the 2004 presidential election, the first national race after 9/11, there was considerable focus on national security and the question of which candidate was better prepared to combat al Qaeda. Just a few days before the election, Osama bin Laden released a new video, which only served to intensify the debate.
With a manhunt still in progress before an arrest later in the day, [Hillary Clinton] sought to shift the terms of the presidential contest back in her direction. She called [Donald Trump] a “recruiting sergeant for the terrorists” and, from a rainy airport in White Plains, offered herself as a seasoned warrior against terrorism. […]
Citing former intelligence and counterterrorism officials who have criticized Mr. Trump’s caustic remarks about Islam, Mrs. Clinton leveled an attack that might have shocked the political world in any other campaign: In addition to calling him a “recruiting sergeant” for terrorists, she accused him of giving “aid and comfort” to the Islamic State with his campaign oratory.
At a certain level, this seems like predictable campaign posturing in the midst of a competitive presidential campaign. When the public’s attention turns to national security and terrorist threats, it’s only natural for a candidate to say something along the lines of, “The bad guys would much rather deal with my opponent than me.”
But isn’t this a knowable thing? ISIS won’t get a vote in the American presidential election, but isn’t there independent information that offers some sense of their political preferences?
There are a couple of ways to examine the issue. For example, one could note, as many have [ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/trump_s_response_to_orlando_is_exactly_what_isis_wants.html ], that Trump’s platform and campaign rhetoric is consistent with what ISIS wants American leaders to say on a conceptual level. For ISIS, a key goal is to convince followers and would-be allies that there’s a war of civilization being waged, pitting Islam against the West. The Republican nominee’s endorsement of policies such as torture and Muslim bans has the effect of fueling ISIS propaganda.
Analysis of ISIS chatter on social media and conversations with 12 current and former supporters of the group do indicate that ISIS strongly prefers Trump over the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. When asked to explain their preference for Trump, interviewees offered several reasons. First, Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric plays into ISIS’ narrative of a bipolar world in which the West is at war with Islam. Second, ISIS hopes that Trump will radicalize Muslims in the United States and Europe and inspire them to commit lone-wolf attacks in their home countries.
Third, ISIS supporters believe that Trump would be an unstable and irrational leader whose impulsive decision-making would weaken the United States. And fourth, ISIS subscribes to the prophecy of a “Final Battle,” to take place in the northern Syrian town of Dabiq, in which the caliphate will decisively triumph over its enemies. Some ISIS supporters believe that Trump would lead the United States and its Western allies into the apocalyptic clash they have been waiting for.
The piece concluded that ISIS’s supporters “say that a Trump presidency is exactly what they want.”
TPM had a related report [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/trump-extremist-web-forums ] in June, adding, “In some quarters of the dark internet, where supporters of the Islamic State and other extremist groups linger, the presumptive GOP nominee has emerged a rallying point of sorts. To them, he is the ‘perfect enemy, as one Islamic State defector told a researcher interviewed by TPM, and they are using his posturing to advance their own agenda, according to another analyst.”
While the GOP presidential hopeful may believe ISIS terrorists are “hoping and praying that Hillary Clinton becomes president,” the evidence appears to point in a very different direction.
How Donald Trump Puts His Own Interests Ahead of Counterterrorism
Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
The Republican nominee has twisted himself in knots with contradictory claims about Hillary Clinton and national security.
Conor Friedersdorf Sep 20, 2016
On Monday morning, Donald Trump claimed to his millions of followers on Facebook and Twitter that “Hillary Clinton's weakness while she was Secretary of State has emboldened terrorists all over the world to attack the U.S., even on our own soil.” Many of his fans celebrated the attack on the Democratic nominee. I invite them to give his words a closer look. Those who do will find two reasons for concern.
First, it is important for the president and the American people to understand what motivates Islamist terrorism, an ongoing threat to our safety. Clarity on that subject really could have life or death consequences. And if we take Trump at his word, he believes something that is obviously false: that the secretary of state is a determining factor in whether mass murderers intent on killing Westerners act or not—indeed, Trump’s words suggest a belief that at least one person who already killed Americans on our soil wouldn’t have done so but for Hillary Clinton’s tenure.
If he believes this he is woefully unprepared to combat terrorism.
Now, I don’t think Trump actually believes his own words. It would take ignorance far greater than his to believe that Islamist terrorist attacks against the United States, a phenomenon illustrated most memorably on September 11, 2001, turn decisively on “weakness” by the secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.
But if he is innocent of being too ignorant about the reality of terrorism to be president, then he is guilty of trying to mislead Americans about the nature of terrorism for political gain. And that is execrable. Whether Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, Americans share a common interest in clarity on the matter of what causes terrorism and how best to fight it. Disagreements on that subject are totally legitimate. Lying about that subject is not—it undermines America’s ability to understand and fight terrorism for the selfish gain of a politician. All politicians lie, but that sort of lie is especially pernicious and shameful.
And there is more.
Even if we treat Trump’s comments as yet another instance of his abandoning the literal meaning of words—even if we take him as trying to convey only that Hillary Clinton was a bad secretary of state—we arrive at another worrisome conclusion about Trump.
that Obama was “doing great” and that “I think Hillary Clinton is a great appointment.”
Later, during Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, Trump gushed about how much he liked Clinton and how harding working she was, among other words of praise:
Even after the Benghazi attack, Trump was praising Secretary of State Clinton:
At various times, Trump has tried to explain away this praise. For example, he told Jimmy Kimmel that due to his business interests he always spoke highly of politicians, prompting the late night host to comment that Trump was saying he is “full of shit.”
But calling Trump “full of shit” lets him off too easily here. If we take Trump at his word, he wasn’t being a typical businessperson saying nice things about a politician while secretly disagreeing with them on taxes or immigration policy. If we take Trump at his word, he was falsely praising Clinton and her work as secretary of state even as he believed it was emboldening terrorists to murder Americans! That is the implication of the story he is now telling us.
Now, there’s no way to know what is really going on in Trump’s head.
But it’s hard to reconcile all his contradictory comments and behavior without concluding that, one way or another, Trump treated his own business or political interests as more important than American democracy’s collective effort to stop terrorism. And any way you tell it, Trump demonstrated a willingness to go on national television and blatantly lie to millions of Americans on this grave, life-or-death topic. Why does anyone trust Trump, or believe he should be entrusted with the presidency? Over and over, he shows with his actions that he is dangerously unfit.
Sen. Warren reacts to Donald Trump's lamenting that the suspect in the New York/New Jersey bombings is being granted his constitutional rights.
[aired September 19, 2016]
Elizabeth Warren on Donald Trump: ‘What kind of human being are we talking about here?’ September 20, 2016 Elizabeth Warren tore into Donald Trump after the Republican nominee said it was “sad” that the suspect in the New York City and New Jersey bombings would receive medical care and legal counsel after his arrest. “You just really wonder what kind of vision Donald Trump has for this country,” Warren told MSNBC on Monday night [ http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/watch/one-on-one-with-elizabeth-warren-769004611519 ]. “This is what we fight for. We fight for our Constitution. We fight for our basic humanity. And Donald Trump says, Let’s throw all that out the window. And let’s do the maximum amount of fearmongering.” [...] https://www.yahoo.com/news/elizabeth-warren-trump-what-kind-of-human-154535867.html [with embedded videos, and comments]
Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems Video [embedded]: How Donald Trump used his charity's money to settle his legal disputes The Washington Post's David Fahrenthold explains the latest revelations about how Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump may have violated the IRS's rules regarding charitable funds. September 20, 2016 Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents. Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” - which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses. [...] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-used-258000-from-his-charity-to-settle-legal-problems/2016/09/20/adc88f9c-7d11-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html [with (additional) embedded videos, and (over 6,000) comments]
*
Trump: 'Nothing like doing things with other people's money'
All In with Chris Hayes 9/20/16
According to the Washington Post, Donald Trump used a quarter of a million dollars from his charitable foundation - which he hasn't funded since 2009 - to settle two legal disputes. Duration: 2:58
Trump Won $97 Million Of Tax Breaks While Donating Tens Of Thousands To Corrupt Official Alan Hevesi is seen at the wedding of Donald Trump and Marla Maples at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, Dec. 20, 1993. Trump poses for a portrait in New York, June 2003. Sounds familiar. 09/20/2016 Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/donald-trump/ ] gave at least $45,000 to the campaign of Alan Hevesi, a New York state comptroller who later went to prison for his role in a pay-to-play bribery scandal, according to a Huffington Post review of campaign finance records. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-donations-alan-hevesi_us_57da25b8e4b0071a6e05666b [with comments]
The Trump campaign says reporter David Fahrenthold got his facts wrong in reporting on the Trump Foundation. They just won't say which facts. Duration: 5:52
An Inmate Died Of Thirst In A Jail Run By A Loudly Pro-Trump Sheriff Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke spoke at the Republican convention in July. Presumed Innocent, Found Dead - Counting Jail Deaths In The Year Since Sandra Bland Died More than 800 people have lost their lives in jail since July 13, 2015 but few details are publicly released. Huffington Post is compiling a database of every person who died until July 13, 2016 to shed light on how they passed. http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2016/jail-deaths Terrill Thomas’ death in Milwaukee County Jail has been ruled a homicide. 09/19/2016 Updated September 19, 2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/david-clarke-jail-death-terrill-thomas_us_57e03580e4b04a1497b5f12e [with comments]
Death Threats and Police Killings Bolster Colin Kaepernick's Protest Sep 21 2016 In the weeks since NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick took a stand against racism and police brutality by not standing for the national anthem, racists have attacked him on social media, police have threatened not to protect him and he has received numerous death threats. [...] If the death threats against Kaepernick are carried out, the quarterback said, "You've proven my point." "It'll be loud and clear for everyone why it happened, and that would move this movement forward at a greater speed than what it is even now," Kaepernick told the Bay Area News Group. "Granted, it's not how I want it to happen, but that's the realization of what could happen. I knew there were other things that came along with this when I first stood up and spoke about it. It's not something I haven't thought about." [...] http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/death-threats-police-killings-bolster-kaepernick-s-protest-n652251 [with embedded videos, and comments]
--
Health Insurers Fire Volley In New Battle Over The Public Option Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) has recruited 32 co-sponsors for a bill expressing support for the public option, but it isn’t expected to pass. Still, the insurance industry seems concerned. “The big insurance lobby is spooked because the public option is back,” said one advocate for a government-run insurance plan. 09/20/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/public-option-fight-insurance_us_57e03a66e4b08cb140974781 [with comments]
*
Senator Elizabeth Warren questions Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf at Banking Committee Hearing
Senator Elizabeth Warren's two round of questions for Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf at the September 20, 2016 Senate Banking Committee hearing entitled: "An Examination of Wells Fargo’s Unauthorized Accounts and the Regulatory Response." For more information on the hearing, click here: http://www.banking.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?ID=B80F9B81-4331-4F95-91BC-718288EC9DA0
Officials from 21 states sue to block overtime pay expansion Sep. 20, 2016 LAS VEGAS (AP) — Officials from 21 states sued the U.S. Department of Labor Tuesday over a new rule that would make about 4 million higher-earning workers eligible for overtime pay, slamming the measure as inappropriate federal overreach by the Obama Administration. Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt, a Republican, filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Eastern Texas, urging it to block implementation before the regulation takes effect on Dec. 1. Laxalt, a frequent critic of President Barack Obama's policies, said the rule would burden private and public sectors by straining budgets and forcing layoffs or cuts in working hours. "This rule, pushed by distant bureaucrats in D.C., tramples on state and local government budgets, forcing states to shift money from other important programs to balance their budgets, including programs intended to protect the very families that purportedly benefit from such federal overreach," he said in a statement. The lawsuit came the same day that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and more than 50 other business groups filed a legal challenge against the regulation. U.S. Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez said he was confident in the legality of the rule, describing the lawsuits as partisan, obstructionist tactics. He noted that overtime protections have receded over the years: they applied to 62 percent of full-time salaried workers in 1975 and just 7 percent today. "The overtime rule is designed to restore the intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the crown jewel of worker protections in the United States," Perez said in a statement. "I look forward to vigorously defending our efforts to give more hardworking people a meaningful chance to get by." The measure would shrink the so-called "white collar exemption" that exempts workers who perform "executive, administrative or professional" duties from overtime and minimum wage requirements. It would more than double the salary threshold under which employers must pay overtime to their white collar workers. Overtime protections would apply to workers who make up to $913 a week, or $47,476 a year, and the threshold would readjust every three years to reflect changes in average wages. [...] Other plaintiffs include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, and the governors of Iowa, Maine and New Mexico. [...] http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a0d8eada5bb24cbd91ff03f692306aa3/21-us-states-sue-block-expansion-overtime-pay-law
--
There’s No Debate By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship 09/20/2016 Updated September 20, 2016 Let’s call the whole thing off. Not the election, although if we only had a magic reset button we could pretend this sorry spectacle never happened and start all over. No, we mean the presidential debates - which, if the present format and moderators remain as they are, threaten an effect on democracy more like Leopold and Loeb than Lincoln and Douglas. We had a humiliating sneak preview Sept. 7, when NBC’s celebrity interviewer Matt Lauer hosted a one-hour “Commander-in-Chief Forum” in which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump spoke with Lauer from the same stage but in separate interviews. The event was supposed to be about defense and veterans issues, yet to everyone’s bewilderment (except the Trump camp, which must have been cheering out of camera range that Lauer was playing their song), Lauer seemed to think Clinton’s emails were worthy of more questions than, say, nuclear war, global warming or the fate of Syrian refugees. [...] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-moyers/theres-no-debate_b_12090380.html [with comments]
375 Top Scientists Warn Us Not To Vote For Trump Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has claimed global warming is a hoax “created by and for the Chinese” and vowed to pull the United States out of the historic Paris climate agreement. Stephen Hawking and E.O. Wilson are among those who say the GOP nominee could prove disastrous for the planet. 09/21/2016 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/scientists-donald-trump_us_57e1ac04e4b0e80b1b9eda3d [with comments]
--
You Should Definitely Take the Donald Trump Debate Prep Survey
The Late Show Blanket Fort (with First Lady Michelle Obama)
Published on Sep 21, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
There's a place you can go where everything you knew as a child is still true. It's called the Blanket Fort, and tonight it's under heavy security because the First Lady is there.
First Lady Michelle Obama Does Her Best Barack Impression
Published on Sep 21, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
Turns out everyone in President Obama's family does an impression of him, usually at the dinner table. But the leader of the free world would rather gossip.
Michelle Obama Has No Sympathy for the Candidates' Spouses
Published on Sep 21, 2016 by The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
While discussing 'We Will Rise,' a CNN documentary about her 'Let Girls Learn' initiative, Michelle Obama reminded Stephen that the spouses of presidential candidates have to be in it to win it.
Following an introduction from boxing promoter Don King which included the "n-word," Donald Trump spoke at a Cleveland church Wednesday morning. Trump commented on the recent police shootings and asked African-Americans in attendance, "What do you have to lose?" in voting for him. See Trump's full remarks.
Full Video: Clinton focuses on people with disabilities in Orlando
Published on Sep 21, 2016 by CBS News
Hillary Clinton described a future with more jobs for people with disabilities druing a speech in Orlando Wed. Clinton also commented on the recent police shootings. See her full remarks.
Full Show - WILL HILLARY CLINTON MAKE THE DEBATE OR WILL SHE COLLAPSE? AND MORE - 09/21/2016
Published on Sep 21, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
On this Wednesday, September 21 transmission of the Alex Jones Show, riots break out overnight in Charlotte after a black cop shot dead a black man police say was armed. We'll analyze the events which led up to the chaos that unfolded last night, and break down the media's conditioning. On today's show we'll also continue looking at the presidential race and Hillary's absence from the campaign trail.
Paul Ryan Is Planning a Revolution, and It Starts in January
"The Progressive Case for Hillary Clinton Is Pretty Overwhelming"
By Ed Kilgore October 6, 2016 1:27 p.m.
Paul Ryan’s got a surprise in store for those who think Republicans cannot enact their agenda next year even if Trump wins. Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images
One of the by-products of all the talk this year about divisions within the Republican Party has been the illusion that, if given control of both the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government, the GOP would not be able to get much done — specifically, passing laws that many liberals find scary or disconcerting. Combined with the illusion that the filibuster would give Senate Democrats a veto over anything egregious, the Republicans-in-disarray meme has lulled a lot of Democrats, and the media, into a drowsy inability to understand how close we are to a right-wing legislative revolution .. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/09/if-gop-wins-white-house-and-senate-expect-radical-changes.html .. if Donald Trump becomes president and Republicans hang on to Congress.
Now Paul Ryan has given Washington a wake-up call. Reportedly angry that Beltway types were yawning at his plans for 2017 on the grounds that the usual gridlock would stop anything major from happening, the House Speaker held a presser .. October 6, 2016 1:27 p.m. .. to explain how he could cram a generation’s worth of legislation into a budget reconciliation bill that cannot be filibustered, as Politico’s Ben Weyl reports:
-- Ryan peeled back the curtain on his strategy at a news conference after a reporter suggested he would struggle to implement his ambitious agenda next year. After all, it was noted, Republicans are certain to lack the 60 votes needed in the Senate to break Democratic filibusters on legislation. So Ryan gave a minitutorial on congressional rules and the bazooka in his pocket for the assembled reporters.
“This is our plan for 2017,” Ryan said, waving a copy of his “Better Way” policy agenda. “Much of this you can do through budget reconciliation.” He explained that key pieces are “fiscal in nature,” meaning they can be moved quickly through a budget maneuver that requires a simple majority in the Senate and House. “This is our game plan for 2017,” Ryan said again to the seemingly unconvinced press. --
One major reason congressional Republicans conducted this dry run was to set a precedent that reconciliation could be used for seemingly non-budget items like repealing key elements of the Affordable Care Act (notably the individual mandate and purchasing subsidies). The GOP-appointed Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly the traffic cop whose job it is to stop non-germane riders, waved it on through. Democrats can whine about it, but if the GOP wins the trifecta in November, they will not be able to do a thing. So a future reconciliation bill would not only cripple Obamacare and strip millions of Americans of health coverage obtained via the exchanges, but also kill the Medicaid expansion and throw millions more out of coverage. Indeed, there is zero reason to think it would not include turning the original Medicaid program into a block grant to the states (probably along with the food-stamp program), as both Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed, while implementing Ryan’s own controversial plan to voucherize Medicare.
Those are just a few nasty features we can expect on the spending side of the budget. On the tax side, the only problem Republicans will face is cutting a deal with Trump on the relatively few differences between their tax schemes and his.
-- Trump and House Republicans have proposed different tax plans, but they are largely in sync on major principles. Both would cut the top tax rate for individuals to 33 percent from the current 39.6 percent. The corporate rate would drop to 15 percent under Trump’s plan and 20 percent under the House GOP plan, from 35 percent today. Both plans also would drain federal coffers of several trillion dollars and give the biggest boost to the wealthy. By the end of the decade, the richest 1 percent would have accumulated 99.6 percent of the benefits of the House GOP plan, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. --
Think there’s some chance Trump won’t play ball? I don’t. One of the advantages of using reconciliation is that the entire toxic ball of reactionary legislation can be whipped through Congress and placed on Trump’s desk while he’s still looking for the washroom keys. He may still maintain big differences with congressional Republicans on matters like trade policy and immigration policy and NATO. But he’s given us no reason whatsoever to think he’d pause before rubber-stamping a bill that kills Obamacare and gets rid of all that “welfare” crap his supporters hate — while giving people like himself a historic tax cut billed as a job-generator.
Ryan may have conducted his explainer in order to get the word out to wavering Republican opinion-leaders that even though there are risks in placing Trump in the Oval Office, there’s a huge payoff as well that he can point to with considerable specificity. But it should be a warning to Democrats as well, and something that with imagination and persistence they can convey to those critical progressives who are meh about voting for Hillary Clinton and don’t think the identity of the president much matters. Even if you think Clinton is a centrist sellout or a Wall Street puppet, she’s not going to sign legislation throwing tens of millions of people out of their health coverage, abolishing inheritance taxes and giving top earners still more tax benefits, shredding the safety net, killing Planned Parenthood funding, and so on through Ryan’s whole abominable list of reactionary delights. If Democrats think a scenario so complicated that it’s lulled the press to sleep cannot be explained to regular voters, maybe they should break out the hand puppets. There is no more urgent and galvanizing message available to them.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
