Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Find yourself mesmerized by Donald Trump’s extreme facial contortions last night?
Well, you’re not alone! Here to expertly convey the orgy that took place on Trump’s visage is the following Vine:
Source –
Behold the Most Glorious Donald Trump Vine You Will Ever Encounter
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
In Donald Trump’s America, everyone speaks English.
When asked by CNN’s Dana Bash during Wednesday night’s GOP debate about his criticism of Jeb Bush for speaking Spanish on the campaign trail, the Republican front-runner and real estate mogul responded:
We have to have assimilation to have a country. We have to have assimilation. I’m not the first one to say this, Dana. We have had many people over the years for many, many years saying the same thing. This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.
In true troll fashion, Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton tweeted some insight.
La libertad incluye el derecho de hablar en cualquier idioma. Eso nos hace fuerte como país y es algo que debemos celebrar—no denigrar.
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton)
For those who didn’t understand her, Clinton said: “Freedom includes the right to speak in any language. That makes us strong as a country, and it is something that we should celebrate—not denigrate.”
Here’s the full exchange between the Republican presidential candidates:
Taken from –
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
During the final hour of tonight’s marathon Republican presidential debate, moderator Jake Tapper asked candidates about their positions on marijuana policy. That’s when Jeb Bush, who has been previously accused of being a hypocrite by fellow presidential hopeful Rand Paul for his hardline stance against medical marijuana, weighed in with the following admission: Forty years ago, he too smoked pot. Just like nearly every teenager in America. He then sheepishly apologized to his mother.
The confession, which drew a handful of chuckles from the crowd, was immediately followed by a tweet from his campaign that reemphasized the important part of his statement:
Sorry Mom
— Jeb Bush (@JebBush)
Despite his admission, the presidential hopeful went on to defend his opposition to legalizing medial marijuana.
Originally from:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
During Wednesday’s GOP presidential debate, Donald Trump—the Republican who’s still running laps around the competition in the polls—faced a seemingly tough question from moderator Jake Tapper: can he really serve as an effective president when he can’t name or even recognize many foreign leaders and groups?
The question stems from Trump’s appearance earlier this month on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, in which he confused Iran’s Quds Force, a special forces unit within the country’s Revolutionary Guard, with the Kurds in Iraq.
Tapper framed the question around Sen. Marco Rubio’s recent criticism of Trump over the gaffe. “If you don’t know the answer to these questions, then you are not going to be able to serve as commander and chief,” Rubio said earlier this month.
How’d Trump deal with Tapper’s question? After all, confusing and mispronouncing foreign names was a standard criticism that dogged George W. Bush throughout his presidency. But Trump? Nah, he’s not worried. First, he boasted about how Hewitt—a co-moderator of the CNN debate—had since apologized and said that “Donald Trump is maybe the best interview anywhere that he’s ever done.”
“I will say this though,” Trump continued, “Hugh was giving me name after name—Arab name, Arab name, Arab—and there are few people anywhere, ANYWHERE, that would have known those names. I think he was reading them off a sheet.”
Oy vey.
Follow this link:
Donald Trump Doesn’t Know Foreign Groups Because They’re Just “Arab Name, Arab Name”
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Yesterday, Kim Davis—the now-infamous Rowan County clerk who was held in contempt for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky—was released from a five-night stint in jail. Escorted by Mike Huckabee, the GOP presidential hopeful who helped throw the rally for her release, an emotional Davis threw her arms in the air, closed her eyes, and basked in the sounds of “Eye of the Tiger,” Survivor’s 1982 hit about being awesome.
Unfortunately for Davis, the writers of that song don’t think Davis is so awesome—and they never agreed to let her or Huckabee broadcast their song at the rally. Survivor’s Jim Peterik tweeted his disapproval, saying Davis would be receiving a “cease and desist” letter from his publisher:
I have not authorized the use of Eye of the Tiger for use by Kim Davis and my publisher will issue a C&D. This does not reflect my views.
— Jim Peterik (@jimpeterik)
CNN reports that Peterik was shocked to hear that his song was played at the rally:
“I was gobsmacked,” he said. “We were not asked about this at all. The first time we saw it was on national TV.” Peterik’s co-writer, Frankie Sullivan, was also upset about the use of “Eye of the Tiger” and posted a message on Facebook to vent. “I would not grant her the rights to use Charmin!” he wrote.
This reaction is not completely uncommon when it comes to musicians and political events. When Donald Trump played Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” at an event at Trump Tower in June to announce his candidacy, Young’s longtime manager Elliot Roberts told Mother Jones that the use of the song was unauthorized. “Mr. Young is a longtime supporter of Bernie Sanders,” he said.
Visit site:
Defiant Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis Could Face More Legal Trouble. This Time for Copyright.
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
On Monday, Hillary Clinton came out in support of legislation seeking to end the so-called “golden parachute” payouts that traditionally benefit private sector executives who take on jobs within the federal government—a practice long criticized by Wall Street reformers such as Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
“The American people need to be able to trust that every single person in Washington—from the President of the United States all the way down to agency employees—is putting the interests of the people first,” Clinton wrote in an blog post for the Huffington Post, published Monday. “We want to do more to make sure that happens.”
Clinton’s backing of the the Financial Services Conflict of Interest Act comes after a report in the Intercept last month that revealed two senior-level State Department officials during her time as secretary, Thomas Nides and Robert Hormats, had received hefty payments from Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs respectively after taking on jobs with the State Department.
In July, Warren issued a challenge to all presidential candidates to support the legislation, calling it “a bill any presidential candidate should be able to cheer for.”
”We have a presidential election coming up,” she told a crowd in Phoenix. “I think anyone running for that job—anyone who wants the power to make every key economic appointment and nomination across the federal government—should say loud and clear that they agree: we don’t run this country for Wall Street and mega corporations. We run it for people.”
Clinton’s announcement on Monday shows she is listening closely to what Warren has to say.
Since announcing her second run for president, the former secretary of state has embraced a number of policies close to Warren’s heart, specifically on Wall Street reform. Last December, Clinton reportedly met privately with Warren to discuss her policy ideas. News of the conversation signaled Clinton could be ready to take a more populist approach to her campaign for the White House.
Visit source:
Hillary Clinton Announces Support to Ban Wall Street Bonuses for Government Officials
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
A federal appeals court in Washington, DC, on Friday tossed out an injunction over the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of millions of American’s phone records, but left open the question of whether the program itself is legal.
From Politico:
The three appeals court judges assigned to the case splintered, with each writing a separate opinion. But they overturned a key ruling from December 2013 that critics of the NSA program had used to advance their claims that the collection of information on billions of calls made and received by Americans was illegal.
That ruling, issued by Judge Richard Leon in Washington, sent shockwaves across the legal landscape because it was the first in which a federal court judge sided with critics who questioned the legality of sweeping up data on vast numbers of phone calls–nearly all of them completely unrelated to terrorism.
The new decision Friday from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit did not kill the lawsuit brought by conservative gadfly Larry Klayman. The appeals court voted, 2-1, to allow the lawsuit to proceed in the district court, but the judges left doubts about whether the case will ever succeed.
In June, Congress phased out the NSA’s controversial program with the passing of the USA Freedom Act. The new law forced the NSA to obtain private phone records for counterterrorism investigations on a case-by-case basis through a court order. After the law mandated a six-month transition program for the new program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court ruled that the NSA could continue its existing bulk collection program through November.
The American Civil Liberties Union has also filed an injunction to block the program, arguing that the surveillance court should not have reinstated the program after a federal appeals court in New York found it to be illegal.
View original:
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
After being shut out of a scheduled campaign event in New Hampshire last week, Black Lives Matter activists engaged in a candid and, at times, tense conversation with Hillary Clinton on racial issues and criminal justice reform. Footage of the conversation, released on Monday by GOOD, appeared to show Clinton sympathizing with activists’ calls for candidates to bring forth more concrete policy proposals.
“You can get lip service from as many white people as you can pack into Yankee Stadium and a million more like it who are going to say, ‘We get it, we get it. We are going to be nicer,'” Clinton said. “That’s not enough, at least in my book.”
But the discussion took an awkward turn when activist Julius Jones rejected Clinton’s suggestion that the movement formalize a more specific plan for its next steps. “I say this as respectfully as I can,” Jones told Clinton. “But if you don’t tell black people what we need to do, then we won’t tell you all what you all what you need to do.”
Jones also accused Clinton of engaging in victim-blaming.
“I’m not telling you,” Clinton shot back. “I’m just telling you to tell me. Respectfully if that is your position then I will talk only to white people about how we are going to deal with the very real problems.”
She then offered a more personal perspective on how to address the deep-seated racism in America.
“Look, I don’t believe you change hearts,” Clinton said. “I believe you change laws, you change allocation of resources, you change the way systems operate. You’re not going to change every heart. You’re not. But at the end of the day, we could do a whole lot to change some hearts and change some systems and create more opportunities for people who deserve to have them, to live up to their own God-given potential.”
Following the video release of the encounter, Jones and fellow activist Daunasia Yancey told Melissa Harris-Perry of MSNBC that Clinton’s responses were not enough.
“What we were looking for from Secretary Clinton was a personal reflection on her responsibility for being part of the cause of this problem that we have today in mass incarceration,” Yancey said. “So her response really targeting on policy wasn’t sufficient for us.”
See original article:
Here’s How Hillary Clinton’s Meeting With Black Lives Matter Activists Went
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
The National Labor Relations Board on Monday dismissed a bid from Northwestern University football players to form the first-ever college athletes’ union, overturning an earlier regional board ruling and ending a year-and-a-half-long battle that included several union-busting efforts by the school and the team’s coaches to persuade athletes to vote against unionization.
From the Chicago Tribune:
In a unanimous decision, the five-member board declined to “assert” jurisdiction over the case because doing so would not promote uniformity and labor stability in college football and could potentially upset the competitive balance between college teams, according to an NLRB official.
The board, the official said, analyzed the nature, composition and structure of college football and concluded that Northwestern football players would be attempting to bargain with a single employer over policies that apply league-wide.
The decision marks a significant blow for Northwestern athletes, who won a regional board decision in March 2014 that determined they were university employees and could therefore seek union representation. However, it is unclear what effect the latest ruling will have on potential future unionization attempts at other schools; the board’s decision applies strictly to Northwestern’s case, and it declined to decide whether the athletes were employees under federal law, leaving open the possibility for athletes to unionize elsewhere.
The College Athletes Players Association, a collection of former athletes spearheading the bid, could appeal the ruling in federal court, but, according to the Tribune, that appears unlikely. Former Northwestern star quarterback Kain Colter, who had pushed the athletes’ union efforts, expressed disappointment over Monday’s ruling on Twitter, noting that the jury was still out as to whether college athletes are still employees.
Disappointed by the NLRB ruling. But can’t deny the positive changes that were brought about by athletes standing up. Proud of those guys.
— Kain Colter (@KainColter_2)
NLRB says that even if college athletes are employees (still very strong evidence), they are not taking jurisdiction. DID NOT rule against
— Kain Colter (@KainColter_2)
CAPA president Ramogi Kuma called Monday’s ruling a “loss in time” in a statement, in that it delayed “the leverage the players need to protect themselves.” But, he said, it didn’t stop other athletes from pursuing unionization. “The fight for college athletes’ rights,” he told the Tribune, “will continue.”
Source:
The Push to Unionize College Football Players Just Suffered a Huge Blow
Mother Jones
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>
Carly Fiorina has had the wind at her back after the first Republican presidential debate. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO earned high marks for her appearance at the “kids table” forum for the least-popular GOP candidates, and she has been rising in the polls ever since. So it was only a matter of time before the knives came out.
On Sunday evening, former Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who herself was doing well in the GOP presidential polls this time four years ago, drew her followers’ attention to a 14-year-old speech Fiorina had given in Minneapolis, in which she defended the cultural, legal, and scientific heritage of the Muslim world. The catch: It was delivered just weeks after 9/11. What nerve!
Carly Fiorina delivered this speech in MPLS praising Muslims 2 weeks after 911. http://t.co/t74JLWrHye
— Michele Bachmann (@MicheleBachmann)
Fiorina’s speech reads as a thoughtful defense of the faith of many of her employees at Hewlett Packard. Her respect for Islam seems to come from personal experience. In her 2006 book, Tough Choices, she described the soothing effect of listening to Muslim prayers when she was a teen and her family lived in Ghana. (Her father was a law professor then on a teaching sabbatical at the University of Ghana). She wrote:
I remember hearing, for the first time, Muslims pray, and how over time their sound evolved from being frightening in its strangeness to comforting in its cadence and repetition—I would feel the same peace when I listened to the sound of summer cicadas around my grandmother’s house. I grew to love being awakened in the morning by the sound of the devout man who always came to pray under my bedroom window.
Uh-oh. That reminiscence may well provide Bachmann with more ammo. And it’s not just Bachmann who has called out Fiorina for being soft on Islam. Fiorina’s comments on Islamic civilization have also been criticized by fringe-right outlets like the American Thinker and Western Journalism Review.
Islam has once again become a wedge issue in the Republican primary. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, for instance, has called for a ban on certain kinds of Muslim immigrants. Fiorina, who tried (and failed) to ride the GOP tea party wave into the Senate in 2010 by fashioning herself as a stalwart conservative—is now the target of the extremists she once courted.
Original article:
Libros
