Category Archives: Thayer

Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

by LethaMary9021219 Posted on June 28, 2018

In a letter hand-delivered to President Trump on Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his retirement after 30 years on the Supreme Court.

Trump has already hinted at a list of potential replacements — all of whom are likely to side with the court’s now clear conservative majority. Kennedy has been the swing vote for decades. And without his moderating influence, advocates of the environment will face a steep challenge in winning over a majority of the justices.

With time quickly running out before the world locks in dangerous levels of climate change, that’s a frightening proposition. A more conservative-leaning court could make broad modifications to U.S. law that could last for decades. With environmental protections weakened, future presidents who want to take action on climate will have a much tougher time making lasting policy decisions.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that, when it comes to climate change and environmental protection, the next Supreme Court justice’s opinions will have consequences that are planetary in scope.

Since the implications of a solidly conservative Supreme Court are so far-reaching, Grist reached out to several environmental law experts to learn which specific rulings and regulations could be most at risk. Responses were lightly edited for clarity.

Massachusetts vs. EPA: Gives the government authority to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants.

Justice Kennedy was in the majority on Massachusetts v. EPA. It would be quite something if a new court, by a 5-4 decision, opted to reverse such recent precedent. But given what we have seen in the last few days [from the Supreme Court], it’s not impossible to see it happening.

—Michael Burger, Columbia University Law School

The Clean Air Act and climate protections are most at risk. Kennedy was the deciding vote on Massachusetts v. EPA, which reaffirmed the Clean Air Act as the most important mechanism for regulating greenhouse pollution economy-wide. We’re one vote away from losing fundamental protections for our climate.

—Kassie Siegel, Center for Biological Diversity

“Waters of the United States” Rule: Provides protection to some wetlands.

The Trump Administration’s proposal to rescind the Obama-era Waters of the United States Rule — which would curtail the federal government’s authority to limit pollution in wetlands and other smaller bodies of water under the Clean Water Act — may well ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s replacement will influence how we protect our air and water, as well as how we respond to climate change, for generations to come.

—Augusta Wilson, Climate Science Legal Defense Fund

Clean Power Plan: Limits greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.

I’m particularly concerned about the regulations that the Trump administration will introduce to replace Obama-era climate protections — for example the replacement to the Clean Power Plan. The administration will no doubt be gutting some of these rules and potentially violating statutory mandates in the process. It’s much more likely that the Supreme Court will uphold the replacement rules with another Trump nominee replacing Kennedy.

—Jessica Wentz, Columbia University Law School

​There is a good chance that the new justice will go along with the other conservative justices in narrowly reading the regulatory authority that statutes like the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act give to EPA and other federal agencies. This could be bad news if the next President tries to revive something like the Clean Power Plan, which was widely portrayed as pushing the envelope of EPA’s authority — an issue the courts still haven’t decided.

—Michael B. Gerrard, Columbia University Law School

Standing: Allows plaintiffs to bring environmental grievances to court more often.

My main concern is how the newly configured court will interpret environmental groups’ standing to sue to enforce federal laws. Justice Kennedy had a nuanced take on standing, and it is likely that Trump’s nominees will have a more blunt approach, one that seeks to significantly curtail the ability of these groups to get into court.

—Burger

The future for environmental laws or standards:

Litigation is often the only option for those seeking to protect air and water and ensure public input on the value of sensitive ecosystems, endangered species, other wildlife species, and for those wanting to preserve important national landscapes. My general thought is that Kennedy was the last bulwark of reasonableness against the Trump Administration’s environmental onslaught. Every environmental lawyer I know is incredibly fearful of what this retirement will mean for the future of environmental protection in the United States.

—Hillary Hoffmann, Vermont Law School

I think just about any environmental rule that makes its way to the Supreme Court after Kennedy’s successor is appointed will be in jeopardy. We already have four hyper-conservative justices who tend to vote along ideological/party lines — and antipathy towards regulation, particularly environmental regulation, is a core part of that ideology. I have no doubt that Trump will nominate another conservative justice who shares his anti-regulation agenda. Through this justice, Trump will be able to continue advancing his deregulatory agenda for years after he his presidency ends.

—Wentz

View article – 

Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, Hoffman, LAI, ONA, Thayer, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Losing Justice Kennedy puts fundamental environmental protections in peril

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

by MichaelMahony Posted on June 27, 2018

Anthony Kennedy is retiring, and progressives around the country are trying not to freak out. The 81-year-old justice, who has served on the Supreme Court since 1988, has been a crucial swing vote on many issues from abortion to gay marriage to campaign finance. And — for better or worse — he has also been the deciding vote on environmental issues for the past three decades.

As a moderate on an increasingly divided court, Kennedy has been in the majority in an outstanding number of environmental cases. As Lewis and Clark environmental law professor Michael Blumm writes, “Advocates in environmental cases must tailor their arguments to win his vote or risk losing their appeals.”

Over his 30-year tenure, Kennedy — who was once called by the New York Times an “equal opportunity disappointer” — has been a mixed bag for environmentalists.

In Massachusetts v. EPA, the most consequential ruling on climate change in the past two decades, Kennedy was the swing vote. The state of Massachusetts had challenged the EPA’s refusal to regulate greenhouse gases, despite profound and convincing evidence that they are harmful to human health and well-being.

Kennedy joined the four liberal justices, arguing that the EPA would have to treat CO2 like any other pollutant, unless the Bush-era agency provided “scientific basis” for its reasoning. Although he didn’t write the majority opinion, without him — or with a more staunchly conservative justice in his place — we might still be fighting to have CO2 recognized as a pollutant at all.

On the other side of spectrum, Kennedy, again as the swing vote, tempered his support for the EPA by aligning with conservatives in the 2014 decision on Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, joining the late Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion. The majority argued that while the EPA could continue to place limits on CO2 emissions from large stationary pollution sources like power plants, the administration could not regulate smaller sources like schools, apartment buildings, or businesses.

In 2006, a Michigan property owner, John Rapanos, faced criminal charges from the EPA for draining and filling in potentially protected wetlands with earth. Conservative justices wanted to dramatically restrict the definition for wetlands — which would have decimated protected areas across the country.

Kennedy’s decisive opinion in the case, Rapanos v. United States, established a new standard which protected all wetlands that are part of a “significant nexus” of navigable waters. It was a win for environmentalists — but one that still significantly restricted wetland protection under the Clean Water Act.

Despite his mixed record, any replacement for Kennedy will likely have a much, much worse record on environmental issues. Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment — and the son of a former EPA administrator to whom current chief Scott Pruitt has garnered frequent comparisons —  has been an opponent of many Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act protections throughout his career. Some of the other members on Trump’s initial shortlist carried even more alarming disregard both for issues of civil liberties and for the environment. And Kennedy has, at times, provided the much-needed fifth vote to reject restrictions on abortion rights, with significant impacts for both women’s health and our environmental future.

It remains to be seen exactly what the new justice will think of the EPA, clean air protections, and climate change, but the conservative-liberal split on the court will significantly change for the first time in decades. Environmentalists may have gotten lucky with Kennedy’s moderate support of CO2 regulation and protecting wetlands — and chances are their luck has run out.

“I’m fearful,” Blumm, the law professor, told Grist. “And I think all people who watch the court and care about the environment should be fearful.”

Read article here:

Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, ONA, OXO, Thayer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court Justice Kennedy is retiring. Here’s what that means for the environment.

Who Wins and Who Loses From TrumpamaCare?

by AveryUgcegvw Posted on March 27, 2017

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Earlier this morning I sketched out a possible compromise between Obamacare and Trumpcare that might have a chance of getting through Congress if everyone agrees to a plan that would rely on both Republican and Democratic votes. I consider the odds of such a thing small, but nevertheless it’s worth looking at why nearly everyone should find this idea attractive:

Donald Trump gets a big win. Paul Ryan couldn’t get his plan through Congress, but then Trump steps in and pulls off a huge deal. His presidency is back on track.
Republicans in Congress get an albatross off their backs. Right now, health care is a loser for them, and the Freedom Caucus is riding high. But if they pass a bipartisan plan, it sticks a finger in the eye of the FC ultras. And if they’re worried about their base, they don’t have to be. Trump will sell the hell out of the plan, and his fans will buy it.
Democrats have to make some concessions, but in return they get stability and permanence—and the possibility of future enhancements—for a social welfare program they’ve been trying to get enacted for decades.
The health care industry gets some certainty about the future, along with a system that promises to be a moneymaker for them.

Who are the losers in this deal? Hardly anyone. The ultras lose, but everyone wants them to lose. Rich people lose a bit because they continue paying a modest tax, but frankly, I haven’t noticed that rich people are all that upset about it. They care more about capital gains taxes and top marginal rates. Talk radio shouters lose a reliable audience pot stirrer, but they’ll support Trump in the end. And they have plenty of other ways of keeping their listeners at a fever pitch of outrage anyway.

Oh, and I almost forgot: the American people would be big winners too. Already, Obamacare covers 20 million people. A new and improved TrumpamaCare would probably get to 30 million within a few years.

Given all this, it’s almost insane that this deal isn’t likely to happen.

Continue reading: 

Who Wins and Who Loses From TrumpamaCare?

Posted in alo, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Wins and Who Loses From TrumpamaCare?

This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

by GracielaFitzwate Posted on December 22, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

With one tweet on Thursday, Donald Trump proved how dangerous and unstable his presidency could be.

Out of the blue, Trump weighed in on one of America’s most important national security issues: nuclear weapons. He tweeted:

In just 118 characters, Trump seemed to be reversing decades of bipartisan policy aimed at stopping the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. For decades, the United States has worked with Russia, the other major nuclear power, to reduce both nations’ nuclear arsenals. Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama have each negotiated treaties with Russia reducing nuclear stockpiles. Today, the United States and Russia each possess about 7,000 nuclear weapons, and there continue to be efforts to shrink these stockpiles.

Yet with a single tweet, Trump suggested he would move in the opposite direction and expand the US nuclear arsenal. To what end? Trump did not follow up with any other thoughts. But many experts contend that nuclear weapons will not bring greater security to the United States, given that the greatest risks these days come from nonstate actors, crises in the Middle East, and cyberwarfare.

Moreover, global efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons—as enshrined in the international Non-Proliferation Treaty—are predicated on Washington and Moscow collaborating to downsize their nuclear arsenals. By declaring that the United States would enlarge its nuclear arms collection, Trump was undermining the attempts to stop the spread of these weapons throughout the world.

The Trump team’s response did not make the situation any better. Spokesman Jason Miller issued a statement saying Trump was referring to “the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it—particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes.”

Uh, no, he wasn’t. And, still, this was an illogical point. Adding more nukes to the US stockpile will hardly stop terrorists or rogue regimes from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons. Miller was replying with a non sequitur.

Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund and a nuclear arms expert, says, “Can a tweet start and arms race? This one just might have.” He adds, “There are groups like Heritage Foundation arguing to expand our nuclear arsenal. If Trump was reflecting their thinking for not just new weapons but more weapons and new missions, we are entering new and very dangerous territory.”

With this tweet, Trump gave new fuel to two questions: whether he intends to drastically change US policy on nuclear arms control, and whether he and his team are capable of handling serious matters. It doesn’t get much more serious than nuclear weapons, and here was Trump seemingly shooting from the hip, without any apparent deliberation, on a critical national security matter—and with his staffers then forced to issue a nonsensical statement to back him up. It was clown time…with nuclear weapons.

Trump has suggested in years past that he believes a nuclear war is inevitable. So any tweet from him on this subject deserves great scrutiny—at least as much as his tweets about Alec Baldwin, SNL, and the musical Hamilton. The posting of this tweet, and his staff’s inability to explain it, are frightening signs that Trump is not ready for the task of controlling weapons that can destroy the world.

View original article: 

This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This May Be Trump’s Most Frightening and Dangerous Tweet Yet

Joss Whedon Explains Why Donald Trump Is America’s Scariest Big Bad

by LuellaHayman Posted on November 1, 2016

Mother Jones

The most emotionally devastating ad of the campaign hasn’t come from Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. Rather, it was released by a filmmaker last seen directing The Avengers. The quiet, tense video, called “Verdict,” shows Latinos on Election Day listening to news of low voter turnout and a surprisingly close race. As the results are about to be announced, the ad closes with a young girl asking her family if they will be able to stay in the country.

It was the latest in a string of videos from Save the Day, a super-PAC started by Joss Whedon, the creator, writer, and director behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, Cabin in the Woods, and The Avengers. Whedon isn’t entirely new to electoral politics; he made an amusing video in 2012 about how Mitt Romney would usher in the zombie apocalypse. But his latest project is a more all-consuming endeavor—a full-time, multimonth initiative with $1 million of his own money behind it.

Save the Day’s viral videos are too long for TV and aren’t intended to sway undecided voters. Instead, the aim is to rile up liberal-leaning millennials to make sure they show up and vote. “The ethos is there is this heroic act called voting,” Whedon says. “The world is scary, and things are overwhelming, and there’s a lot at stake. But this voting thing is actually beautiful.”

Some Save the Day videos are filled with the celebrities who populate Whedon’s popular films—Robert Downey Jr. (Ironman), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Mark Ruffalo (The Hulk), Don Cheadle (War Machine), Neil Patrick Harris (Dr. Horrible). There are other big-name stars, as well, including Julianne Moore and Martin Sheen. To date, the group’s first spot has been watched more than 7.5 million times.

Last week Whedon spoke with Mother Jones about his super-PAC’s quest to defeat the GOP’s latest Big Bad; his plans for the long-promised Dr. Horrible II; the sexism Clinton has faced in her career; and the World War II script he’s planning to finish once the election is finally over.

Mother Jones: What’s your goal? It seems like you’re taking a couple of different paths, with some of the funnier joke ads and the recent “Verdict” ad that’s more chilling.

Joss Whedon: I got a bunch of people together to talk about doing a lot and decided that I really want to throw my hand in and do as much as I can. We talked about various aspects of what we wanted to talk about, Hillary and Trump and down-ballot stuff, various issues. One of the things that it showed was you’ve got to use fear. People only respond to fear. You’ve got to hit one message over and over and over. But I’m not great at fear. I made the least frightening vampire show ever on TV. I’m pretty much good at heroic narratives and making people laugh, and that’s pretty much it.

Apart from a couple that were just having fun with the concept and making fun of Trump—like the one we did with Keegan Michael-Key—they really are little hero narratives. The whole “Save the Day”—it’s called that, specifically, for a reason—ethos is there is this heroic act called voting. And the world is scary, and things are overwhelming, and there’s a lot at stake. But this voting thing is actually beautiful. Not just necessary—it’s a wonderful thing and it makes you powerful. And we’ve forgotten that in the most negative campaign in history. The process has been so degraded.

We did the first one, “Important,” and what surprised me—what I didn’t really understand, but then I thought this makes perfect sense, as well—was how many people responded to it by being like, “It was just so nice to take a break.” Because even the humor—the great stuff that Samantha Bee and John Oliver and Seth Meyers are doing—it’s all anger humor. And for somebody to say, “Hey, we’re all idiots,” and just be able to laugh at ourselves and be able to connect through that. It’s always about connecting with someone, never about scolding them. The only thing I knew right upfront is we’re not going after Trump supporters. That’s a very complicated issue. There’s things going on with people that we’re not privy to, we don’t understand. These aren’t just a bunch of bad people. That isn’t how it works.

MJ: Your work has often featured feminist messages. Especially in Buffy and Dollhouse, you tackled sexual assault and violence against women. What do you think of the tenor of the conversation on that this year?

JW: I think it’s wonderful that we’re having it. I think there’s the opportunity for—I almost said President Clinton, and soon I will—but for Hillary Clinton to address that, and for the public sphere to address that in a way that they haven’t. We started a conversation in the last few years on race that we desperately needed to have. Right now it’s still an argument, but it will become a conversation, I believe. The only bitterness I had is: Where is the conversation on gender? That’s been going on since there have been men and women, and still we’re not hearing about what they’re going through.

So inevitably it’s going to cause some terrible misogynist backlash, and I assume we’ll look forward to eight years of jaw-droppingly sexist statements—the way we listened to eight years of racism around the presidency. It will be an argument before it’s a conversation. But at least it’s being had.

MJ: Trump’s a product of the entertainment industry. Do you think the industry needs any self-reflection after this?

JW: I’ve never watched reality shows, except for the Great British Bake Off, which is magnificent.

MJ: Slightly different than The Apprentice.

JW: A little bit different. Although Paul Hollywood’s “You’re under baked” is even better than “You’re fired.” Ugh, terrifying. Anyway, I’ve seen Trump appear in a film or a TV show cameo or the tabloids, and he’s a grotesquely distasteful human being and always has been, always made me want to take a shower. But other people fell in love with him as a reality star. So does that mean that the entertainment industry is doing something wrong? I think reality TV answered that question a long time ago: Yes, it’s doing something terribly wrong. But there’s some great reality TV, and I’m not bagging on it completely.

The fact of the matter is fame predates even the age of cinema. There’s always been fame, there’s always been the caveman who’s prettier or killed a bigger lion, or somebody started a story about a guy. The fact that a TV star can become president should be old news since Reagan, and old news since the Nixon-Kennedy debates—which the famous story, whether or not you agree, is that if you listened on the radio, Nixon won; if you listened on TV, Kennedy won. This is part of it. Politics, glamor, fame—they’re all mixed up together, and they always have been.

I think the Trump thing is particularly egregious, and I think he’s as much a product of the GOP lie machine in the era of Roger Ailes as he is of television. And also, of the Twitter era. Of the everything-is-as-reductive-as-it-can-be. To me, the most telling thing is we have a man who cannot complete a sentence. Certainly could never get to 140 characters, or past it. He thinks in tiny little bursts—the way he tweets.

MJ: I saw that he got you to go back on Twitter.

JW: Yeah, he got me back. That definitely happened. I had imagined I would come back at some point. But yeah, that was for a very specific reason. I will be very excited when I can tweet things that are just stupid puns and not be political for a while.

MJ: One of my editors made a comparison that there’s a little Captain Hammer in Trump sometimes.

JW: Well, they’re both idiots and they’re both bullies. So yeah, that’s fair. And they both like to brag about their dick. But Captain Hammer can actually punch things. But I do think that’s not unfair.

MJ: I imagine if you promised Dr. Horrible II would come out if a certain percentage of millennials voted, the voting booths would be completely filled up.

JW: You know, it crossed my mind. How much am I willing to commit to this? I said, “You know, tell you what, we can get this many people—is that cheating, is that bribery?”

MJ: You’ve mentioned that this isn’t just an anti-Trump message, but this is a pro-Hillary effort. Why is this pro-Clinton or not just about Trump?

JW: Because I think Hillary Clinton is vastly intelligent and good-hearted and extremely qualified. She’s more in the center of things than I am, but she also knows how to work with the opposition, which is a necessary talent in politics right now.

I think she’s a goddamn stud for having put up with this shit all this time. Everything she’s ever done has been investigated by a committee, and it’s all smoke and mirrors. It’s all deliberate attempts by the GOP to discredit her.

It’s so offensive that we have a man that has been accused by more than 10 women of sexual misconduct, not to mention fraud and bribery and all the other things that he’s being investigated for, and he gets a total pass. It has to do with people being tired of politicians, although unfortunately for Hillary she’s a competent politician, which means she seldom says anything in less than three paragraphs. So people like the guy who just goes, “Nuh-uh, no puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet.”

The double standard is beyond anything I’ve ever seen. Woman all live a double standard, but this is actually sort of a beautifully grotesque parody of it. There’s a weird kind of joy that I have in seeing her trounce this essence of male bullshit.

MJ: It seems almost out of a show or a comic book or video game, that the final enemy the first female president has to vanquish before becoming president is this personification of all of that.

JW: Right. A hundred eyes and a hundred hands, and they’re all groping.

MJ: So what are you up to once Save the Day is done? Future shows or films in the works? Or is Donald all you have on your mind?

JW: Everything has been for the election for the last couple of months. Since the Democratic National Convention, it’s been a dead run to get out as much content as possible and do as much as possible. Then, I go back to writing the screenplay I was working on, which is an original piece—a period piece that I will hopefully finish a couple of months after that, and hopefully I can convince some unsuspecting fool studio to buy.

MJ: What period is the piece?

JW: It’s World War II.

MJ: Does that ever feel fitting to be exploring the politics of that era compared to now?

JW: It’s very weird. I went to Berlin and Warsaw and Kraków to do research. Right after we got started, I had already booked this trip, so I went. Seeing the history and the posters, and hearing from the guy certain phrases and words and images, it’s stunning how much they’re playing from the handbook of the little mustache that isn’t Chaplin. With Rudy Giuliani as Mussolini.

MJ: Thanks for taking the time. The videos have been a nice respite in this depressing election.

JW: We’ve got a couple more coming. Hopefully they’ll get people to register, which is the point. And we have things to say about Congress and all of that. I think we may have our magnum opus coming yet. It’s a piece called “Leonard” that I’m very excited about, and I think we’re going to see a side of Chris Pine that people haven’t really seen yet. That’s all I’m going to say, but I’m proud of it.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Link: 

Joss Whedon Explains Why Donald Trump Is America’s Scariest Big Bad

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Meyers, ONA, Oster, OXO, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Joss Whedon Explains Why Donald Trump Is America’s Scariest Big Bad

Donald Trump’s Takeover of the Republican Party Is Complete

by DemetriGjs Posted on September 19, 2016

Mother Jones

On Sunday, the Republican Party establishment officially endorsed Donald Trump’s false narrative about the birther conspiracy.

For five years, Trump has pushed the discredited theory that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States. Even after the White House released Obama’s birth certificate in 2011, Trump continued to fan the flames of this conspiracy. He refused to admit that he was wrong until last Friday, when his role in the birther movement became an issue in the presidential election. Then, rather than admit he was wrong, Trump falsely blamed Hillary Clinton for starting the rumor that Obama was not born in the United States and said he had done a service to the country by forcing Obama to release his birth certificate, resolving the question of Obama’s citizenship (which, of course, was never actually in question).

On Sunday, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, Reince Priebus, approved this account of the birther movement and Trump’s role in it. “It was an issue that he was interested in,” Priebus said in an interview on CBS’ Face the Nation. “It was an issue that I believe and I think the preponderance of the evidence shows Hillary Clinton started it. And after getting this issue resolved, he proclaimed on Friday that he believes that the president was born in America, just like I have as chairman of the Republican Party.”

By agreeing with Trump’s “she started it; I finished it” narrative, Priebus implicitly signed off on the idea that Trump’s actions—even after 2011, when he continued to question the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate—were legitimate. Since birtherism became an obsession of the right wing, Republicans have often shied away from challenging the theory because it helped energize the party’s base. But Trump put Republicans on the spot, and on Sunday, Priebus, the official face of the party, sided with Trump.

Priebus also made clear that he expects Republicans who have thus far refused to endorse Trump to fall in line. In the same interview, Priebus said that the party could take actions to punish or ostracize Republicans who ran for president this cycle and pledged during the primary to support the party’s eventual nominee but then did not honor that pledge. “Those people need to get on board,” Preibus said, referring to candidates such as John Kasich and Ted Cruz, who have thus far refused to endorse Trump. “And if they’re thinking they’re going to run again someday, you know, I think that we’re going to evaluate the process of the nomination process, and I don’t think it’s going to be that easy for them.”

“Would the party itself penalize somebody who does not make good on the pledge that they made to support the party’s nominee?” host John Dickerson followed up. Priebus didn’t rule it out. “I think these are things that our party’s going to look at in the process,” he said. “And I think that people who gave us their word, used information from the RNC, should be on board.”

Back in February, the Wall Street Journal‘s Bret Stephens worried that a Trump nomination would legitimize the accusations by liberals that the GOP has turned a blind eye to racism—or worse, capitalized on it—for political gain. “It would be terrible to think that the left was right about the right all these years,” he wrote. “Nativist bigotries must not be allowed to become the animating spirit of the Republican Party. If Donald Trump becomes the candidate, he will not win the presidency, but he will help vindicate the left’s ugly indictment. It will be left to decent conservatives to pick up the pieces—and what’s left of the party.”

But now Trump is surging in the polls and threatening to prove Stephens wrong about the election. And with the party establishment lining up not only behind his candidacy but behind his debunked conspiracy narratives, Trump’s takeover of the party appears to be complete.

Read this article: 

Donald Trump’s Takeover of the Republican Party Is Complete

Posted in bigo, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Takeover of the Republican Party Is Complete

Trump’s Economic Plan: Light on Details, Heavy on Tax Breaks for the Rich

by JacintoWare2 Posted on August 8, 2016

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Donald Trump tried to reset his campaign yet again with a Monday visit to Detroit and a promise of an economic agenda. His speech at the Detroit Economic Club was light on details and full of assurances that his campaign website would soon feature specifics on how he’d tackle the economy. But what details did exist undercut his pledge to make life better for low- and middle-income families, instead serving largely to keep more money in the pockets of the wealthy people in his own income bracket.

The centerpiece of Trump’s new plan is a retooled tax system. “Nothing would make our foreign adversaries happier than for our country to tax and regulate our companies and our jobs out of existence,” Trump said. He had already laid out a vision for rewriting the tax code during the Republican primary, one whose benefits tilted heavily toward a lower tax burden for people earning more than $1 million per year. His campaign website tried to erase his previous plan ahead of the Monday speech, though web archives still retain information on that initial proposal.

During the primary, Trump had proposed four tax brackets, with rates of 0, 10, 20, and 25 percent. While his new plan lacks details, on Monday he said he’d now seek to introduce only three brackets, taxed at 12, 25, and 33 percent. That represents a tax hike from his earlier proposal, but it’s still a major tax cut from current rates for the top income tax bracket, which is taxed at 39.6 percent.

Trump also said he’d like to wipe away the estate tax altogether, using the term “death tax” that’s popular among some conservatives. “American workers have paid taxes their whole lives, and they should not be taxed again at death—it’s just plain wrong,” Trump said. “We will repeal it.” But the inheritance tax, as currently constituted, touches only a small segment of the population. The federal government doesn’t take any taxes out of estates unless the inheritance exceeds $5.4 million for individuals or $10.9 million for couples. That leaves just the wealthiest 0.2 percent of families paying any estate taxes and makes its repeal less than a great boost to the working class.

Meanwhile, Trump’s speech included many subtle appeals to corporate interests. He promised to reduce the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent. Under a President Trump, there would be a complete moratorium on new federal regulations, a massive handout to the financial industry. “Next,” he added, “I will ask each and every federal agency to prepare a list of all of the regulations they impose on Americans which are not necessary, do not improve public safety, and which needlessly kill jobs. Those regulations will be eliminated.” Given his previous claims that he’d like to ditch the 2010 Dodd-Frank law intended to rein in Wall Street, it sounds likely that Trump would vastly lower the number of rules banks and financial institutions need to follow.

But Trump’s speech didn’t contain only the normal Republican calls to lower taxes and cut government oversight of business. He also called for an end to the carried-interest loophole, which allows hedge-funders and others to pay a much lower tax rate on earnings, marking a rare policy agreement with Hillary Clinton. And as Trump launched an usual attack against free trade policies, he cited the liberal Economic Policy Institute to explain potential harms of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Trump also proposed a tax deduction for families to offset the cost of child care—but since that benefit is a deduction rather than a credit, its benefits would skew toward the upper middle class rather than working-class families.

Not unlike other Trump speeches, this one was unconstrained by facts. Trump accused Clinton of seeking to raise taxes on the middle class, based on a blatant misreading of a recent speech. (Clinton has in fact vowed to leave taxes untouched for all but the extremely wealthy.) The Republican nominee called the nation’s low unemployment rate a hoax, another claim that has landed him in trouble with fact-checkers in the past.

See more here: 

Trump’s Economic Plan: Light on Details, Heavy on Tax Breaks for the Rich

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump’s Economic Plan: Light on Details, Heavy on Tax Breaks for the Rich

US beekeepers lost almost half their honeybees last year

by TrudyNorthern Posted on May 14, 2015

green4us

How to Raise the Perfect Dog – Cesar Millan & Melissa Jo Peltier

From the bestselling author and star of National Geographic Channel’s Dog Whisperer , the only resource you’ll need for raising a happy, healthy dog. For the millions of people every year who consider bringing a puppy into their lives–as well as those who have already brought a dog home–Cesar Millan, the preeminent dog behavior expert, […]

iTunes Store
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up – Marie Kondo

This New York Times best-selling guide to decluttering your home from Japanese cleaning consultant Marie Kondo takes readers step-by-step through her revolutionary KonMari Method for simplifying, organizing, and storing. Despite constant efforts to declutter your home, do papers still accumulate like snowdrifts and clothes pile up like a tangled mess of noodles? Japanese cleaning consultant […]

iTunes Store
White Dwarf Issue 67: 09th May 2015 – White Dwarf

Conqueror protocols, engaged! White Dwarf 67 strides forth like an automata of death – well, of weekly hobby goodness – but beside it the Kastelan battle robots, the real mindless machines of death and destruction. What are these relics of an age ancient even by the standards of the Imperium? We’ve got the knowledge you’re […]

iTunes Store
Cesar Millan’s Short Guide to a Happy Dog – Cesar Millan

After more than 9 seasons as TV’s Dog Whisperer, Cesar Millan has a new mission: to use his unique insights about dog psychology to create stronger, happier relationships between humans and their canine companions. Now in paperback, this inspirational and practical guide draws on thousands of training encounters around the world to present 98 essential lessons. Taken together, they will […]

iTunes Store
Codex: Imperial Knights (Enhanced Edition) – Games Workshop

Thundering across the battlefield, the towering walkers known as Imperial Knights scatter the foes of the Imperium with booming battle cannon shots and roaring swings of their massive chainblades. The Knights are piloted by proud and deadly warriors of ancient cultures, each one part of a noble family whose lineage can stretch back to before […]

iTunes Store
Linking Our Lineage: 12 Techniques from 12 Master Smiths – Victoria Lansford

Linking Our Lineage is a book of jewelry and metalsmithing techniques with chapters by Nanz Aalund, Lessley Burke, Juan Carlos Caballero-Perez, Andy Cooperman, Ronda Coryell, Robin Gordon, Mary Lee Hu, Linda Kaye-Moses, Brian Meek, Dawn M. Miller, Chris Ploof, and Jayne Redman, and edited by Victoria Lansford. The processes illustrated range from beginning to advanced […]

iTunes Store
Chicken Soup for the Dog Lover’s Soul – Jack Canfield, Mark Victor Hansen & Marty Becker

For thousands of years, dogs have been cherished as devoted companions and exuberant playmates—their unconditional love, limitless affection, and unwavering loyalty never fail to melt our hearts. The stories in Chicken Soup for the Dog Lover’s Soul truly capture the special joy these four-legged creatures bring to our lives and hearts.  The family that learns […]

iTunes Store
The Art of Raising a Puppy (Revised Edition) – Monks of New Skete

For more than thirty years the Monks of New Skete have been among America’s most trusted authorities on dog training, canine behavior, and the animal/human bond. In their two now-classic bestsellers, How to be Your Dog’s Best Friend and The Art of Raising a Puppy, the Monks draw on their experience as long-time breeders of […]

iTunes Store
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo – A 15-minute Summary & Analysis – Instaread

PLEASE NOTE: This is a  summary and analysis  of the book and NOT the original book.  The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up by Marie Kondo – A 15-minute Summary & Analysis   Inside this Instaread: Summary of entire book, Introduction to the important people in the book, Key Takeaways and Analysis of the Key Takeaways. […]

iTunes Store
White Dwarf Issue 66: 02nd May 2015 – White Dwarf

Feel the earth tremble as White Dwarf 66 stamps down and with it the Imperial Knight Warden! Making not one, not two, but five classes of Imperial Knight – the Warden, Crusader and Gallant, plus the Paladin and Errant with a host of new options – you’re going to want to pick up White Dwarf […]

iTunes Store

From – 

US beekeepers lost almost half their honeybees last year

Posted in eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, Monterey, ONA, Smith's, solar, solar power, Thayer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on US beekeepers lost almost half their honeybees last year

How In the World Did This Man Raise $12 Million to Draft Ben Carson?

by Amilianp2t Posted on February 2, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon, author, tea party hero, and Stuck On You star, is contemplating a presidential bid in 2016. He’s being cheered on by conservative activists—and by the National Draft Ben Carson for President Committee, a super PAC founded in 2013 to urge Carson to run. The PAC sends out emails touting Carson, gathers signatures for petitions aimed at coaxing him into the race, and it raises money from conservatives enthralled with the prospect of a Carson presidency. A lot of money. According to Federal Election Commission filings, the Draft Carson PAC has raised an impressive $12.2 million since its founding—slightly more than Ready for Hillary, the pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC. Draft Carson has, in fact, done very little besides fundraise.

The guy responsible for collecting and managing Draft Carson’s huge haul is Vernon Robinson, the PAC’s political director and a notorious, perennial candidate with a history of rabid anti-immigrant rhetoric. An African-American, ex-Air Force officer from North Carolina, Robinson has repeatedly run unsuccessful campaigns for Congress. He calls himself “the black Jesse Helms”—a comparison the director of the late senator’s foundation declared “sad.” His congressional campaign ads—one of which characterized undocumented immigrants as flag-burners and sex offenders—are so out-there that political science professors use them to illustrate mudslinging at its dirtiest. In 2006, a Republican running against Robinson in a House primary said that he “scares me.” But win or (almost always) lose, the common thread in his political career has been remarkable fundraising success, with a big chunk of the proceeds Robinson has raised flowing to a small camp of conservative fundraisers, and sometimes, himself.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading: 

How In the World Did This Man Raise $12 Million to Draft Ben Carson?

Posted in Anchor, bigo, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, Omega, ONA, Radius, Thayer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How In the World Did This Man Raise $12 Million to Draft Ben Carson?

Thayer Unscented Witch Hazel, 12 Fluid Ounce

by Myrna Posted on August 8, 2014

[amzn_product_post]

Posted in Thayer | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Thayer Unscented Witch Hazel, 12 Fluid Ounce