• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1020
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации54
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы366
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
30 июля, 14:07

How Barbara Lee Became An Army of One

She was the only member of Congress to vote against the use of force after 9/11. Now, she’s finding unlikely allies in her campaign against America’s forever war: Republicans.

28 июля, 00:34

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, 7/27/2017, #2

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room  2:21 P.M. EST MS. SANDERS:  Good afternoon.  Before we get started on some of the Q&A, I'd like to bring up Tom Homan, which some of you guys mays know and remember, the Acting Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Rob Hur, the Principal Deputy Attorney General, to talk with you about what the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice are doing to eradicate criminal organizations like MS-13. Mr. Hur will speak to the Justice Department’s work first, then Mr. Homan will discuss the ICE component, and Tom will stay and answer your questions.   As always, I'd like to put out a friendly reminder for you guys to stay on topic.  And after that, I'll come back up to take your questions.  Thanks, guys. MR. HUR:  Good afternoon.  My name is Robert Hur.  About five weeks ago, I was sworn in as the Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice.  In that role, I serve as the principal advisor to the Deputy Attorney General.  I appreciate the chance to talk to you about the Justice Department's aggressive efforts to achieve this administration's goal of dismantling the gang, la Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13. As you all know, the President is traveling to Long Island tomorrow to talk about our fight to eradicate the violent threat of MS-13.  And as we speak, the Attorney General is in El Salvador, where he will spend the next two days addressing the root of this problem, the San Salvadorian prisons that house the leaders of this dangerous gang. While there, the Attorney General will meet with members of the Justice Department's transnational anti-gang taskforce on the ground, in El Salvador, and the attorneys general from the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to discuss joint efforts to disrupt and take down MS-13. Earlier in my career, I served as a federal prosecutor in Maryland, where I personally prosecuted a number of MS-13 racketeering cases.  These included capital cases in which the defendants' crimes were so violent and so heinous that the government saw fit to pursue the death penalty. Through these prosecutions I learned firsthand from the victims, their grieving and heartbroken families, and other members of terrorized communities just want a scourge this group of thugs really is.   This gang's chilling motto is: "Mata, viola, controla" -- which means "kill, rape, and control."  They seek to live up to this motto through truly shocking acts of violence designed to instill fear.  Vicious machete attacks, execution-style gunshots, gang-rape, and human trafficking.  They use whatever they can get their hands on -- guns, knives, machetes, baseball bats, tire irons, or their fists and feet -- not just to inflict violence.  They use violence to shock, to send a message, and to control territory here in the U.S. and in Central America. The Attorney General has answered the President's call.  And we at the Justice Department are moving forward aggressively against MS-13.  Specifically, pursuant to the President's direction and executive orders, the Attorney General has directed the department's law enforcement agencies -- ATF, DEA, FBI and the Marshals Service, as well as federal prosecutors across the country -- to prioritize the prosecution of gang members, specifically MS-13.   The Attorney General has issued charging guidance regarding violent crime and criminal immigration enforcement, both of which directly target MS-13 members and their associates.  In addition, the Department of Justice has requested funding for 300 more federal prosecutors to focus specifically on violent crime and criminal immigration enforcement.   We've also prioritize multi-agency and cross-border collaboration in order to attack MS-13 from all angles.  The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security are coordinating our anti-gang efforts to ensure that we bring both criminal and immigration laws to bear in the fight against transnational gangs. We continue our critical partnerships with state and local law enforcement around the country whose brave men and women are truly on the front lines in the fight against MS-13.  And we work, of course, hand in glove with our law enforcement partners in the Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.  They are helping us take the fight to MS-13 on its home turf.  It speaks volumes that the Attorney General himself has traveled to the nerve center of MS-13 and is standing in solidarity with our partners in Central America. Indeed, earlier today, just hours ago, El Salvadorian prosecutors announced that they have filed charges against, and arrested, over the past 36 hours, hundreds of members of MS-13 in El Salvador.  Many of the defendants are members of MS-13 Peajes Locos Salvatruchos clique who are centered in the La Paz department of El Salvador. Earlier this year, members of this MS-13 clique committed several high-profile murders in El Salvador.  The shooter in these murders fled to the United States and is now in ICE custody pending immigration proceedings.  This prosecution showcases just how closely we are working with our partners in El Salvador to combat MS-13.  Specifically, U.S. law enforcement agents with ICE, who are on the ground in El Salvador, are coordinating with their counterparts here in the U.S. to ensure that the shooter is removed from the United States as quickly as possible to face charges in El Salvador. This investigation is being handled by Salvadorian gang prosecutors who are trained and mentored by embedded DOJ prosecutors in El Salvador and Salvadorian police officers who are trained and mentored by the FBI and advisors from the State Department. At the request of Salvadorian prosecutors, the Justice Department has also arranged to have an essential witness to the murders transported to El Salvador for court proceedings. The United States law enforcement and federal prosecutors recently targeted leaders and members of the same Peajes clique operating here in Maryland, charging 16 defendants with racketeering offenses involving murder and attempted murder, the last of whom was sentenced this year to life imprisonment.  These are very significant blows to MS-13 and are made possible by our close cross-border coordination.   We've also revitalized the Institutional Hearing Program, which brings immigration judges to Bureau Prisons facilities to adjudicate the immigration status of federal criminal alien inmates while they're incarcerated.  This results in much quicker deportation after these criminals serve out their prison sentences here in the United States. Finally, we are also holding sanctuary cities accountable for their lawless conduct.  The Attorney General will not allow sanctuary cities to become sanctuaries for criminals.  Earlier this week, the Attorney General announced new grant conditions.  Cities and states may only receive JAG grants if they comply with federal law, allow federal immigration officials access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours' notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities. Taking on MS-13 is a top priority of this administration and this Justice Department.  We will not tire and we will not fail.  I am humbled to once again be in a position to work to reduce and ultimately decimate this gang to make our communities safe for all Americans. Thank you. MR. HOMAN:  Good afternoon.  I'm Tom Homan.  I'm the Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE.  Targeting, arresting, and removing members of violent street gangs, such as MS-13, sends a clear message to criminal enterprises around the world:  You are not welcome in the United States, and you'll find no harbor here. President Trump made it a priority to get these criminals off our streets and, when possible, out of our country.  And that's exactly what the men and women of ICE are going to do every single day to help keep America safe. ICE's Homeland Security Investigation, known as HSI National Gang Unit, leads our efforts along with our deportation officers to identify and arrest gang members while working to dismantle the organizational structure that supports them.   Gang members are involved in a broad range of criminal activity, including murder, extortion, narcotics trafficking, weapons trafficking, human smuggling, and other crimes with a nexus of border security.   Since the beginning of January of this year, ICE's Homeland Security Investigation has already arrested 3,311 gang members across the country, a -- targeted operation.  I'll speak just about two. Project New Dawn:  A recent gang surge led by ICE HSI netted 1,378 gang arrests.   Operation Matador -- up in New York State:  Since May 9th has netted over 100 gang members and affiliates, the vast majority of MS-13 members.   Make no mistake, organized violent transnational gangs threaten the safety of our communities, not just in major metropolitan areas, but in our suburbs, like Suffolk County in New York, where I'll be joining the President tomorrow to discuss this very issue. Let me share just a couple of examples that demonstrate the violence of these criminals.  Recently, two MS-13 members who were juveniles, arrested as part of Operation Matador, have been implicated in a quadruple homicide of four young adults in New York.  An additional MS-13 arrest admitted to be complicit in homicides of two juvenile females.  Multiple other Operation Matador MS-13 arrests have led to admissions on narcotics trafficking, weapons smuggling, and intelligence on other unsolved crimes in the region. The proliferation of MS-13 remains an ongoing challenge for law enforcement everywhere.  Our efforts to eradicate gangs such as this are much more effective in areas where our partnership with local law enforcement is the strongest.   As I said the last time I was here, I cannot stress enough:  Our operations are more effective when there are strong local partnerships supporting them.  Sanctuary city policies only make it more difficult, if not impossible, for ICE to remove known gang members and other criminal aliens who are removed from this country without the opportunity to commit additional crimes. As I said when I was here at the podium a month ago:  Cooperation is critical.  It is often state and local law enforcement, not ICE, that first come into contact with transnational gang members.  Together, through partnership, we can keep our streets safe.  Together, our gang is bigger than theirs. In addition to making our community safer, the intelligence gathered from operations targeting MS-13 helps our agents and investigators continue their efforts to fully dismantle these global criminal enterprises, from the command and control structure in El Salvador to the street members walking our communities, and everybody in between.   In closing I'll say this:  The progress we're making would not be possible without the brave and dedicated men and women of ICE.  These are professionals, American patriots, who leave the safety of their homes and their families every day to help keep us safe, to keep people safe they'll never meet.  And I am honored and proud to represent them here today. With that, I'll take questions. Q    Thank you.  In Montgomery County there has been MS-13 activity.  And when they have prosecuted MS-13 there, they have said that members of MS-13, some of them are citizens.  And to get help from the immigrant community where they're plaguing -- you know, the plague is on the immigrant community -- that they have not been successful because they're afraid of being taken out of the country, that you're going to deport them. So for those in the immigrant community who are being taken advantage of, do you guys -- are you going to offer any type of support for those who are not involved in MS-13, who come forward to assist law enforcement?  Because local law enforcement says that's the largest problem they have in getting people to come forward -- they think they're going to be deported. MR. HOMAN:  Well, you all can help with that message, right?  I mean, the mis-messaging that ICE is out there doing neighborhood raids and roadblocks and things that we were being accused of doing.  We got to get the message straight:  ICE prioritizes arrests based on criminal threats, national security, those who violate immigration laws. However, if they're a victim or witness, we're not out looking for victims or witnesses.  I believe that these -- especially MS-13 -- they victimize the very communities in which they live.  So if the immigrant community is being victimized, they don’t want them in the community either.   They should be safe to go to law enforcement, report the crime.  Again, we do not target victims of crime.  Matter of fact, there's actually benefits to victims of crimes through the immigration process.  So they should feel safe to go and report criminal activity.  And we're going target the most violent criminals -- not the witness, not the victims -- to remove them.   And we need their help.  We need the community's help but most importantly, we need local law enforcement's help, especially county jails that will have an MS-13 booked in that county jail, but if that county jail is located in a sanctuary city, they get released back to the streets.  That's what we need to change.  We need cooperation from local law enforcement.  Q    But you're saying -- point blank, you're not going to take advantage of the immigrant communities who are victims, right? MR. HOMAN:  Taking advantage of immigrant communities?  Look, we're -- Q    If they're victims, they're not going to be deported. MR. HOMAN:  We need the immigrant community to assist us in identifying the most heinous criminals, and that's MS-13.  It's the most violent gang out there.   So again, I'll say this again:  If there is a victim of crime and they come forward, we're not looking to arrest a victim of crime.  We're looking to arrest the bad guy, all right? Now, let me make this clear -- now, there's a population of illegal aliens are off the table?  I'm not saying that.  But victims of crime have certain protections, and they need to take full advantage of the protections. Ma'am. Q    Thank you.  Do you have a count for how many people are actually a part of the MS-13 in cities across the country?  And what has the reaction been from sanctuary cities to the new policy that was announced earlier this week by the Attorney General?  And if you could speak broadly about -- obviously the President has been very critical of the Attorney General recently.  He has overseen everything that you're talking about.  Has that criticism in any way impacted your ability and federal law enforcement's ability to do their jobs? MR. HOMAN:  That's a lot of questions.  I can tell you that thousands of MS-13 members in the country and that number changes every day depending on who you deport, who sneaks into the country. As far as sanctuary cities, I don't know how they feel about the recent legislation, the recent action taken by DOJ. But I'll say it once again:  Sanctuary cities are a criminal's biggest friend.  If you're an alien smuggler and you're smuggling people in this country for a living, that is one sales pitch -- "we can get you to a sanctuary city where that city will help shield you from immigration." So, you know, I've said it every time I speak; I say, sanctuary cities need to help us keep their community safe.  Sanctuary cities not only endanger public safety, they endanger my law enforcement officers, because when we can't get a criminal alien -- violent alien -- out of a county jail, it means one of our officers will knock on the door -- which anybody in law enforcement knows, that's one of the most dangerous things to do.  So rather than arresting a violent criminal in the safety, security, and privacy of a county jail, we got to go knock on a door.  We got to arrest them in the community.   The community is put at risk, our officers are put at risk, and the alien himself is put at risk.  We got to start thinking about public safety and the men and women of ICE and the men and women of the Border Patrol who we've lost many over the last few years at the hands of violent criminal aliens.  We got to join forces with these cities.  These cities have to come to us.  They have to work with us to keep our communities safe. Sir. Q    And on the Attorney General -- anything on the Attorney General? MR. HOMAN:  What was the question on the Attorney General? Q    The fact that the President has been criticizing him recently, has that in any way impacted your ability, federal law enforcement's ability to do their job? MR. HOMAN:  ICE is going to do our job.  We're going to continue to enforce the law.  The Attorney General is a strong supporter of immigration enforcement, and so is the President, and I'll end it there.   But I can tell you, nothing is going to change the way we do our business.  The men and women of ICE are professionals.  We're going to keep enforcing the law within the orders of the executive order. Sir.  Q    The previous administration also told the country to prioritize criminal gangs.  Are you telling the country now that it didn't?  And if you're not, what is different about your approach as compared to the previous administration's approach with MS-13 and those gangs like it? MR. HOMAN:  Well, I can tell you that the prior administration prioritized criminals and national security threats, but the difference is, for those that criminal aliens get booked in a county jail, on the prior administration they needed a conviction before we could put a detainer on them and put them in our custody.   That's not necessary anymore.  If you've been arrested for a serious crime, and you're in a county jail, we're going to drop a detainer, we're going to take the person into custody. Q    And what does that mean, dropping the detainer? MR. HOMAN:  That means we'll ask that the local jurisdiction hang on to them until we can get there to take custody of them when they're with you.     Q    Has that proven effective? MR. HOMAN:  Yes.  I think we got more jurisdictions coming to the table now.  You know, the story is -- now we got sanctuary cities here and there, but more jurisdictions, more law enforcement comes to the table now.  The 287(g) agreements -- we've already doubled those agreements on this administration.  I expect to triple those agreements by the end of the year.   Most law enforcement agrees with what I'm saying up here.  The street cops -- they want to work with us and they want to identify these threats to the community and get them out of their communities.  These people are not welcome in their communities, and local law enforcement are teaming up with us.  The operation I spoke about here in New York City -- we work with Nassau County, Suffolk County, NYPD -- all these jurisdictions want to get the criminal element out of their neighborhoods.  The immigrant communities themselves, they don't want these people in their communities.  We all should be on the same page here. But again, New York City -- one of those places where, you know, we can't get into Riker's Island and put our hands on people that are here illegally and they're criminal aliens.  When it comes to gang members -- gang members walk out of the county jails and sanctuary cities every day across this country.  That's what we need to change. Ma'am. Q    How are suspected gang members being identified for ICE enforcement?  Is it just through local law enforcement?  Are there databases that you're using?  Like, how do you know how to find these gang members? MR. HOMAN:  Local law enforcement, they're usually the ones that -- they have the most intelligence on gang members.  As far as what we look for to find gang members, I'd rather not discuss that because I certainly don't want to share that information with the gang members who may be watching and say, okay, well, we'll just do this a little bit different.  There is a myriad of factors we look -- it's just not -- we don't arrest people for the way they look.  I want to make that clear, because I've seen media accounts about people with tattoos and clothing.  That is one of many, many factors we look at.  So it's really quite law enforcement-sensitive how we identify, target, and locate gang members.   So I can tell you that the men and women of ICE are well-trained.  Other federal agencies -- whether it's the Bureau, or whether it's the Suffolk County, Nassau County -- they do this for a living.  They're professionals.  They look at a lot of factors, including database checks.  But I'd rather not share the factors we all consider to look at that, because I really don't want to share that with the criminal element who may be watching this program. Q    Thank you.  You said that victims of crimes who are immigrants will not be targeted.  In February, your agency detained a woman in El Paso, Texas who was seeking a protective order against a domestic abuser.  Can you say now that your agency will not be doing that again?  And if it's been done in the past, why should we believe that it won't be done in the future? MR. HOMAN:  Okay, that case you're talking about, you obviously don't know all the facts that I do.  That is not the way -- there's much more to that story than you're presenting here today.  I can tell you that was a solid arrest and it's under litigation.  I can't give you all the information I have, but that was a good arrest, that was a public safety arrest, and I can't say anything more because it's in litigation. MS. SANDERS:  He'll take one last question, guys. Q    You focused, and the President is going to focus tomorrow, on the most violent gangs, MS-13, and suggesting that that's what ICE is focused on.  I'm reading a story here from just last month that said the biggest number -- that ICE arrests are up of illegal immigrants, and the sharpest spike is seen for non-criminals.  I think that the other side of the issue would say that ICE and this administration really is going after non-criminals, and just using these moments to sort of suggest otherwise.  What do you say about that? MR. HOMAN:  It's ridiculous.  I mean, under the prior administration, non-criminals were not a priority.  So when you go from 0 to 100, of course you're going to see the biggest rise in that.  The executive orders are clear.  Anybody who reads the executive orders -- no population is off the table.   So non-criminals -- yeah, those that get a court order from a judge that refuse to leave, we're looking for them.  Those who enter the country illegally, I've said it 100 times, that is a crime to enter this country illegally.  And when they get their due process at great taxpayer expense -- billions of dollars are spent on border security, immigration court, detention.  So when they get their due process, and a federal judge orders them removed, that order needs to mean something or the whole system has no integrity.   Nowhere else in law enforcement has anybody asked a law enforcement agency to ignore a judge's order from a bench.  They've had their due process; our job is to enforce those orders and that that's what we do.   And for the people that say that we concentrate too much on those that are not criminals, beyond them committing a crime entering the country illegally, they've not committed yet another crime -- "You should ignore them.  They've been here.  Let them go" -- that message drives what happened in San Antonio.  That message drives what happened in Victoria, Texas that I investigated back in 2003.  If we send the message that if you get into the country, you get by the Border Patrol, and don't get arrested by local law enforcement for another crime, and no one is looking for you -- that is a magnet; that is a pull factor.  We got to stop that messaging.  We got to tell people it's not okay to violate laws in this country.  You can't want to be a part of this country and not respect its laws.  You can't have it both ways.  So until we get that message clear that there is no safe haven here.  And if you're in sanctuary cities, that's where we'll send additional resources to look for you at your home, at place of employment.  We're going to enforce the law.  We got to stop sending the message that people that don't commit yet another crime should be forgotten.  Don't enforce the law. Q   If I could on a previous question, you said you needed cooperation of local communities.  You hear that a lot from law enforcement, and including American immigrants, families that maybe have mixed situations.  President Trump the other day called it, in a speech in Ohio, twice referred to criminal gang members as "animals."  I think there are some who would say, well, that's another attempt to paint broader swaths of immigrants as criminal and violent.  He wasn't that specific about who he was talking about necessarily, and I'm wondering if you think that kind of rhetoric is appropriate or whether that could potentially set back some of your efforts in trying to convince community members to work with your department. MR. HOMAN:  As a criminal law enforcement officer, I can tell you that criminal aliens are a threat not only to public safety but to national security.  We got to enforce the laws.  The men and women of ICE are doing it in a professional manner.  And I shared with you the last time I was here why it's so important to let the folks know in Central America and in Mexico -- let those that want to come to the United States to find themselves in a sanctuary city -- why it's so important to send a message they should not make that dangerous trek. In my years of -- 33 years of doing this job, these are criminal organizations that transport these people into the country.  The same organizations, the same illicit pathways that smuggle drugs, smuggle weapons, and smuggle people that want to do harm to this country.  And by continuing to ignore that segment of the illegal population, we are bankrolling these criminal organizations.  As I said earlier, sanctuary cities -- that's the alien smuggler's best friend.  That's their advertisement:  "We'll get you to sanctuary city." And I'm telling you, what I've seen in my career -- I've seen people that were killed, could not pay their smuggling fee.  We talked to women who have been raped.  Children have been molested.  People have been killed.  You know, I shared with the media yesterday -- in Phoenix, Arizona, during the hostage crisis several years ago, people couldn’t pay their fees.  The fees will double once they got -- they couldn’t pay their fees.  We rescued one man who was duct-taped from head to toe, his whole face and head were duct-taped and he had a hole poked in the mouth with a straw so he could breathe for two days. When I was in Victoria, Texas, I did stand in the back of a tractor trailer with 19 dead aliens with a five-year-old that suffered.  What do you think that five-year-old went through the last 30 minutes of his life?  What do you think his father went through the last 30 minutes of his life looking down at his child, knowing he couldn’t help him because they were locked in the back of a tractor trailer?  Q    (Inaudible) people over 18, who are part of this gang, are animals? MR. HOMAN:  I'm not calling anybody an animal.  I'm saying there are those who break the law and those who don’t break the law.  You got to respect the laws of this country.  There are millions of people that are members of this society that enter this country the right way.  And what's what we need to push.  We need to push -- enter this -- there's a legal way and an illegal way.  We got to be pushing the legal message out there and stop sending this message that if you don’t commit yet another crime, beyond the crime you committed when you came to this country, that it's okay to be here.  It's not okay to be here illegally.  It's not okay to violate the laws of this country.  We're going to enforce the law.   That is why -- and with everything you're reading right now, all these horrific events, that's why we need more -- we need the 10,000 officers that President Trump has promised so we can go after these gangs even harder in the criminal alien population.  We need the border wall.  The border wall is one more tool in the toolbox that might prevent some of the things from happening.  That is why what President Trump is asking us to do, that is why what he's proposing for border security makes sense for the law enforcement community -- not just Tom Homan at ICE, but the 20,000 men and women that work at ICE, the 20,000 Border Patrol agents that wear the uniform and step on the front line every day.  We need this help.  We need these executive orders to make sense of what we do every day. MS. SANDERS:  Thanks so much, Tom.  We really appreciate it. Thank you, Tom, Rob.  Just like the dedicated men and women of ICE and DOJ who are unquestionably producing results every day in these fights against vicious cartels, Senate Republicans now have an opportunity this evening to deliver on one of our biggest promises to the American people. On the Hill, the Senate is gearing up for a series of votes on the Republican plans to finally repeal and replace Obamacare and replace it with the Freedom Health Care Bill.  Congressional Republicans have been telling the American people that, given the chance, they would save them from this increasing damage of this disastrous law.   After seven years of skyrocketing premiums and dwindling healthcare options, now is there chance to act.  The President looks forward to seeing the Senate fulfill that promise later tonight when they finally repeal Obamacare and end the nightmares it has caused for American families and businesses.   I hate to start the Q&A off on a low note, but I wanted to get ahead of some of the personnel-related questions and just let you guys know ahead of time that, no, I cannot confirm whether or not Sean Spicer will be on "Dancing with the Stars" upon leaving the White House.  (Laughter.)   And with that, I will take your questions.  Jonathan. Q    Sarah, does the President have confidence in his Chief of Staff? MS. SANDERS:  Look, I think I've addressed this question when it comes to staffing and personnel many times, that if the President doesn’t, then he'll make that decision.  We all serve at the pleasure of the President, and if he gets to a place where that isn’t the case, he'll let you know. Q    So you can't say right now if the President has full confidence in Chief of Staff Reince Priebus? MS. SANDERS:  I think I just answered that.  Look, I think what we have -- this is a White House that has a lot of different perspectives, because the President hires the very best people.  They're not always going to agree.  There are going to be a lot of different ideas.  Unlike previous administration, this isn’t groupthink.  We all come and have a chance to voice those ideas, voice those perspectives, and have a lot of healthy competition.  And with that competition you usually get the best results.  The President likes that type of competition and encourages it.  The people that are here are here because they love the President, they love this country, and they want to see the best things happen.  And sometimes you're going to have different ideas come to the table.  That's all we're talking about. Q    But we're talking about public humiliation of both the Attorney General and now the Chief of Staff, left to kind of wonder about their own fate and their own status within this administration.   MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know that the President has spoken about that.  Particularly on Attorney General Sessions -- look, he's been clear that he was disappointed with his decision to recuse himself.  But at the same time, as I've said -- look, Attorney General Sessions knows better than anybody that the President and his campaign had nothing to do with Russia, and his decision to recuse himself was disappointing to the President.  At the same time, the President wants him to do his job, do it properly.  He wants him to be tough on the intelligence leaks, and he wants him to move forward. Q    Lindsay Graham says there will be "holy hell to pay" if Attorney General Sessions is fired.  What does the President say to that? MS. SANDERS:  You know, I haven’t asked him about Lindsay Graham's comments. Matthew. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  The President -- excuse me, the Pentagon has announced that the President's statements via Twitter did not change the transgender policy in the military and that the White House actually has to issue a policy directive to the Secretary of Defense to make that change happen.  So, two questions.  Does the President plan to do so?  And if so, how will that affect transgender troops that are currently serving? MS. SANDERS:  As I said yesterday, the White House will work with the Department of Defense and all of the relevant parties to make sure that we fully implement this policy moving forward and do so in a lawful manner. Q    But what is the policy?  And was the President aware that he can't make policy changes via statements on Twitter?  Because the Pentagon is saying --  MS. SANDERS:  I think he was making the announcement of the policy change.  So that was -- Q    So the policy hasn’t yet been formulated? MS. SANDERS:  Well, like I said, they are going to have to work out the details on how that all moves forward to lawfully implement that policy change from this point. Q    Sarah, thank you.  Moving on to healthcare, you talked about how Senate Republicans have the chance tonight to really undo Obamacare.  But it seems like the thing that's most likely to get through is the skinny repeal, and that would just kind of -- that would maybe get rid of the mandate and some other things.  But it’s not the massive overhaul that had been promised.  So would the White House support just a skinny repeal, that being signed into law? MS. SANDERS:  We certainly support progress moving forward, and that's what we're seeing taking place in the Senate right now. And I think that that's -- the place where we've been since we started this is we're looking for moving the ball forward down the field, repealing and replacing it with a better healthcare system.  And this is one step within that process. Q    But does the White House believe that a skinny repeal on its own would be enough to address the issues of premiums -- rising premiums and deductibles and things like that?  Would the President sign just a skinny repeal? MS. SANDERS:  Well, we've got see what they get to tonight.  We haven’t seen a final piece of legislation.  We're continuing to work with the Senate to make sure we get the best healthcare we can. Q    Yes, Sarah.  I want to ask two questions -- one about the President’s management style and one about immigration enforcement.   So on the President’s management style, is the President aware that occasionally -- days like yesterday, when he had a big jobs announcement he wanted to roll out -- that his seemingly impulsive decisions to make an announcement on transgender troops steps on his own message?  Is the President aware of that dynamic?  And is he interested in changing it at all? MS. SANDERS:  I think the President is aware that he can walk and chew gum at the same time.  This is a White House that takes on a lot of different things every day, not just one.  And we're going to continue to do that moving forward. Q    On immigration -- I had a question on immigration enforcement. MS. SANDERS:  Sorry. Q    So this week when the President spoke in Ohio, he spoke about MS-13 and he gave a litany of the violence that they're capable of.  And then he said, "Our guys are rougher than their guys."  What did the President mean by that? MS. SANDERS:  I think the President means that our guys are going to do whatever it takes to protect Americans, protect American lives, protect our borders. Q    Is that a license for the use of more force when it comes to making arrests against MS-13? MS. SANDERS:  Look, the President wants people to do their jobs -- not go beyond the scope of what they should do.  But he wants to protect our country.  He wants to protect American people, and he’s asked the law enforcement agencies to step up and help be part of that process as I think we would all expect for them to. Q    Does he want the law enforcement agencies to change the rules of the use of force when it comes to making arrests against MS-13? MS. SANDERS:  I’m not aware of any specific changes. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  Anthony Scaramucci was on CNN today talking about Reince Priebus.  He said, “If he wants to prove he’s not a leaker, let him do it.”  I can't imagine that you would speak on Anthony’s behalf, but if you would, does he think that Reince Priebus is a leaker?  Or does the White House, does the President think that Reince is leaking? MS. SANDERS:  I’m not going to comment on Anthony’s suggestion.  I’ll let him answer for himself.  I think I made pretty clear where the President is, and I don't have anything to add beyond that. Q    I had a tax question, too, please.  Does the President believe that tax overhaul should increase the budget deficit?  Or should it be revenue neutral?  MS. SANDERS:  Look, we're continuing to make announcements on the details of the tax reform plan.  As I’m sure you all saw, there was a joint statement that came out earlier today.  And we're making a lot of progress on this front.  As we get closer to lining out the final details, we’ll certainly be putting those out in front of all of you. The big pieces are simplification and helping take off the relief for the middle class.  Those are big places that we're really focused, and we're going to continue to do that.  As you saw from the statement, the border adjustment tax was taken off the table, and that's another big step forward in the process. Peter. Q    Sarah, can I ask you quickly about Anthony Scaramucci?  A little bit of housekeeping.  One --  MS. SANDERS:  Only if you do it quickly. Q    Fine.  Has he taken an oath of office? MS. SANDERS:  I’m sorry? Q    Has Anthony Scaramucci taken an oath of office? MS. SANDERS:  Not that I’m aware of. Q    Have his security clearances gone through yet? MS. SANDERS:  As always, we do not discuss security clearances by staff at the White House.  Q    Is he an official member of the White House staff now?  Initially it was announced that it would be in mid-August. MS. SANDERS:  He is working at the White House, but on your other questions, I can't answer that. John Gizzi. Q    So let me follow up on --  Q    Thank you, Sarah. MS. SANDERS:  We're going to go with one-question Thursday because we're kind of tight on time.  As you guys know, the President has got an open-press event. Q    Let me ask you about the Boy Scouts then, if I can very quickly -- MS. SANDERS:  I’m going to actually go to, John.  Sorry, Peter. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  I do have to ask you about the healthcare bill.  Many who are in the Freedom Caucus say that they would oppose the skinny repeal that was referred to earlier; that if a measure came out with just, oh, ending the mandates and ending the tax on medical devices, that that would -- and not addressing anything else, they’d vote against it.  Is the President aware of this?  And is he making any calls for specific parts of the repeal effort? MS. SANDERS:  Look, the administration has been working hand-in-hand on pushing repeal and replace of Obamacare.  We actually like the term "freedom bill" a lot better because we think it addresses what this bill actually is -- it removes a lot of those mandates that allow people to have the type of freedom, have states have the freedom that they want.  And that was one of the big priorities for this administration.  We're happy about that progress. And we're going to wait and see where this bill ends up later this evening. Jon Decker. Q    Thanks, a lot, Sarah.  Is the President -- just to follow up on what John Gizzi just asked you; I don't think you got to that particular part of the question.   MS. SANDERS:  Sorry. Q    Is the President picking up the phone?  Is he calling those seven or eight Republican senators, making the case for them that this may be their last best hope for repealing and replacing Obamacare?  And if he is, what’s his message to those particular senators? MS. SANDERS:  The same one he’s been making all along:  Let’s get the job done.  Let’s replace a terrible healthcare system with a better one.  And he’s going to be engaged, and I’ll keep you posted on any specifics and people that he talks to. Peter.  Q    He had all of those Republican senators here at the White House last week, Sarah. MS. SANDERS:  Sorry.  Guys, we're real tight on time.  I’m really going to try to keep you to one question.  Let’s be polite to your colleagues.   Q    Sorry. MS. SANDERS:  Go ahead, Peter. Q    Anthony Scaramucci said this morning that the President might veto the Russia sanctions bill, even though Senator Corker has now withdrawn his objection and that the same version that we've already seen from the House is going to be up for the Senate vote.  Is that, in fact, possible?  Would he veto that passed with just three negative votes in the House and two negative votes in the Senate? MS. SANDERS:  As I said yesterday, the President and the administration support sanctions against Russia, Iran, and North Korea.  We continue to support strong sanctions against those three countries, and we're going to wait and see what that final legislation looks like and make a decision at that point. Q    (Inaudible.) MS. SANDERS:  As soon as we have a final piece of legislation, we’ll let you know.  David. Q    In terms of working with the DOD on this new policy, how long is it going to be before you find out what the details are?  Weeks, months?   MS. SANDERS:  I don't have a specific timeline, but I believe they're going to start moving on it quickly.  But we’ll keep you posted as those details come out. Q    Will it be this year?  MS. SANDERS:  Again, I don't have a specific timeline on what that looks like, but I know that they're ready to start moving and work on that implementation.  Major. Q    Sarah, thanks.  Several Senate Republicans have sent signals to this White House:  One, don't make a recess appointment because we're not going to allow it; two, there’s not going to be a confirmation if there’s a new Attorney General nominated.  There is a signal being sent:  Don't do what we fear you might be contemplating. Can you, for the betterment of the Senate Republicans who are working with this White House on a lot of issues, put to rest once and for all the status of the Attorney General -- that he's not going to be fired, there's not going to be a need for a recess appointment, and this issue can be laid to rest, for the country and for Senate Republicans who appear, based on their public statements, to be anxious about this prospect? MS. SANDERS:  I guess I'm not sure how many times you have to lay an issue to rest.  I've tried many times.   Q    But when you don’t say the President has confidence, and the President says "time will tell," as he said earlier this week, I'm only telling you what Senate Republicans, who are in a position that have to deal with this, are saying. MS. SANDERS:  And I've answered your question.  And yesterday you probably saw a statement come out from here that that was more fake news from The Washington Post on the fact that we were considering a recess appointment.  I think that sums it up pretty clearly. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  This is a little -- maybe just a little bit off topic.  I want to run it by you anyway.  Is the President aware of this story -- MS. SANDERS:  It's probably good if we mix it up a little bit. Q    Yeah, why not -- right?  Is the President aware of the story of the IT staff -- of the congressional IT staffer who most recently worked for Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Imran Awan, who was recently arrested attempting to leave the country, although he said he was not trying to flee the country?  Is the President aware of that particular circumstance?  And is he satisfied with the pace of the investigation? MS. SANDERS:  I haven’t had a conversation with him specifically about that, but I do think that is something we should fully look into and there should be a thorough investigation on that.  Kristen. Q    Since we only have one question, I'm going to ask you about the Boy Scouts -- MS. SANDERS:  Make it count. Q    -- their chief wrote this to family members who were at the President's event earlier this week:  "I want to extend my sincere apologies to those that are Scouting family who are offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree.  That was never our intent.  We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program."  Does the President owe the Boy Scouts an apology? MS. SANDERS:  I was at that event, and I saw nothing but roughly 40,000 to 45,000 Boy Scouts cheering the President on throughout his remarks, and I think they were pretty excited that he was there and happy to hear him speak to them. Q    But the head of the Boy Scouts has acknowledged that there was a problem.  A lot of parents have expressed frustration in the wake of those comments and felt the need to actually write a letter about it.  So does the President owe them an apology? MS. SANDERS:  Again, I was at that event and heard nothing but a lot of cheering and probably one of the most energetic crowds I've seen in front of the President.  And so I don’t have anything to add.  I haven’t seen the statement from the Boy Scouts, so I can't comment any further than what I saw firsthand, and that was a lot of individuals, roughly 40,000 to 45,000, as reported, cheering the President on. Zeke. Q    Thanks, Sarah.  I have two for you real quick, if you don’t mind. MS. SANDERS:  You get one.  Remember there's a rule today.   Q    I'm going to be quick.  First on Anthony Scaramucci on CNN this morning, he said he had a conversation with Attorney General Jeff Sessions about these supposed leaks.  That would appear to violate DOJ guidelines.  So I was hoping you could provide some clarity on that front.   And secondly, out of Alaska today, the local paper there is reporting the Senator Murkowski received a phone call from the Secretary of Interior Zinke, threatening the people of -- essentially threatening the services and federal dollars that were spent -- that the administration (inaudible) toward the people of Alaska if she voted a certain way on the healthcare bill.  I was hoping if you could confirm that and discuss whether that sort of conversation, if it happened, would be appropriate. MS. SANDERS:  I'll answer both of your questions with one answer so that it keeps it somewhat fair since you kind of broke the rules.  But I'm not going to speak about conversations between Cabinet members and other individuals that I wasn’t a part of and haven’t had a chance to talk to either individual about. Francesca. Q    Thank you, Sarah.  You suggested that the President continues to have confidence in Reince Priebus based on the fact that he's still in the position, and he's a friend of Anthony Scaramucci who's coming into the administration.  At this point, based on what we've seen quite publicly playing out, though, does he think they at least need to sit down and talk, as House Speaker Paul Ryan said, and get whatever this is out of their system so that they can start off the one right foot here? MS. SANDERS:  I don’t know if he has an opinion on what they should do between the two of them.  I think the President, as always, enjoys healthy competition and conversation, and he sees that as such. I've got to wrap up here because the President is getting ready to do an event, which I know you all probably want to attend.  And I want to leave you with just one last thing, because I close out, on an important development.  You guys love to talk about Russia, and there's been nonstop coverage.  And the one day that there might have been a question on Russia, there wasn’t.  Often, we have a lot of media with Russia first, but today there was public testimony that further discredited the phony dossier that's been the source of so much of the fake news and conspiracy theories.  And we learned that the firm that produced it was also being paid by the Russians.  This is yet the latest piece of evidence that vindicates what the President has said, that this is a witch hunt and a hoax.  And it's a shame that the President and the country have had to go through this charade continually.  And hopefully this will help us move forward in that process. And with that, thank you, guys, so much.  And we'll see you tomorrow.     END  3:05 P.M. EDT  

26 июля, 17:24

The Real Reason North Korea May Start a War

Doug Bandow Security, Asia North Korea is moving to do what no other potential adversary other than China and Russia has done, foreclose U.S. military action. If you listen to the administration today you would think America was a small, virtually defenseless country threatened by a gaggle of hostile great powers. The latest national-security crisis involves the vast, globe-spanning empire of North Korea. Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats declared on NBC that the North “has become a potential existential threat to the United States.” He apparently sees Pyongyang’s armored divisions, aircraft carriers, air wings and nuclear-tipped missiles encircling the beleaguered United States. In fact, Coats’ claim is astonishing. Last year the United States had a GDP of almost $19 trillion, roughly 650 times the GDP of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The latter is equivalent to the economies of Portland, Maine; Anchorage, Alaska; El Paso, Texas; or Lexington, Kentucky. America’s population is around thirteen times as large as that of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. The U.S. military vastly outranges the North’s armed forces—spending upwards of one hundred times as much. America sets the technological standard for the world, while much of North Korea’s materiel is old and decrepit. With the world’s most sophisticated nuclear arsenal and 1411 warheads (the peak was 31,255 about fifty years ago), Washington could incinerate the North in an instant. Pyongyang is thought to possess around twenty nukes of uncertain deliverability. Who poses an existential threat to whom? But Coats is not the only Washington official prepared to run screaming from the room when North Korea is mentioned. Last month Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told the House Armed Services Committee that the North is the “most urgent and dangerous threat” to world peace and security. The DPRK’s nuclear program “is a clear and present danger to all,” he added. Read full article

Выбор редакции
25 июля, 13:26

Мужчина напал на полицейских в Испании с криками «Аллах акбар»

В Испании мужчина с ножом напал на полицейских, злоумышленник задержан. Об этом сообщил глава МВД Испании Хуан Игнасио Соидо. La @policia ha detenido a un hombre que atacó con un cuchillo a los agentes en el paso fronterizo de Beni Enzar, uno de ellos herido leve.

17 июля, 15:47

Lockheed Martin Unit Wins $130M FMS Deal for PAC-3 Missile

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s (LMT) business unit, Missiles and Fire Control, clinches modification contract from the U.S. Army for PAC-3 Missile.

13 июля, 16:59

General Mills' Fiscal 2018 Global Strategies to Drive Growth

General Mills Inc. (GIS) outlined four key global strategies for fiscal 2018 at the company's annual Investor Day meet on Jul 12.

05 июля, 19:14

What on Earth Is Wrong With Connecticut?

Conservatives say the state has a tax problem. Liberals say it has an inequality problem. What it really has is a city problem.

30 июня, 12:42

The Short, Unhappy Life of a Libertarian Paradise

The residents of Colorado Springs undertook a radical experiment in government. Here’s what they got.

26 июня, 18:11

Supreme Court Tosses Case On Cross-Border Shootings Back To Lower Court

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide on whether non-citizens have constitutional rights at the border, and ordered the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to reconsider the question of whether the families of Mexican nationals killed by U.S. border authorities can sue in federal court. The lower court will again decide whether the family of Sergio Hernandez, a 15-year-old Mexican national fatally shot by a U.S. border patrol agent near the U.S.-Mexico border in 2010, has the right to sue the agent. Previously, the 5th Circuit found that Hernandez didn’t have constitutional protections. On Monday, the Supreme Court vacated that ruling and ordered the lower court to reconsider the case.  “The facts alleged in the complaint depict a disturbing incident resulting in a heartbreaking loss of life. Whether petitioners may recover damages for that loss in this suit depends on questions that are best answered by the Court of Appeals in the first instance,” reads the ruling.  Three justices dissented: Clarence Thomas, who was in favor of upholding the lower court ruling, and Steven Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who in a joint dissent penned by Breyer said they would reverse the lower court ruling with regards to the Fourth Amendment question and allow the Hernandez family to seek damages. Because oral arguments were heard prior to Justice Neil Gorsuch joining the Supreme Court, just eight justices considered the case. On July 7, 2010, Hernandez was playing with friends along the Rio Grande, between the U.S. city of El Paso, Texas, and the Mexican city of Ciudad Juárez. A U.S. Border Patrol agent, Jesús Mesa Jr, saw the boys and assumed they were attempting to illegally cross the border. Mesa grabbed one boy, but others fled. A Justice Department investigation found that some of the boys began to “hurl rocks” at Mesa. (There is no evidence that Hernandez threw anything at Mesa.) Mesa then saw Hernandez, who was taking cover behind a bridge on the Mexican side of the river, and shot him in the face, killing him. The Justice Department declined to prosecute Mesa in 2012, arguing that he acted in self-defense. The U.S. government declined to extradite him to Mexico for prosecution. A civil liability claim is the family’s last option in seeking justice for the killing. Hernandez’s parents, María Guadalupe Güereca and Jesús Hernandez, sued Mesa in federal court with the help of a Texas law firm, arguing that the agent violated their son’s constitutional rights. Federal judges repeatedly rejected the family’s claims, saying the Constitution does not apply to a non-citizen not on U.S. soil. Those rejections relied on a 1990 Supreme Court ruling, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, that found non-citizens must have a “substantial connection” to the U.S. in order to be granted constitutional protections while in a foreign country. (Another key Supreme Court decision, Boumediene v. Bush, found in 2007 that foreign-born detainees held at Guantanmo Bay have due-process rights to challenge their detentions.) There was no specific legal standard, however, for whether constitutional rights apply in cross-border situations involving non-citizens. If Hernandez was a U.S. citizen, his constitutional rights would be assured, no matter where he was at the time of the shooting. And he would have been afforded those same rights had the shooting occurred on the U.S. side of the river. But because the shooting took place in what lawyers representing Hernandez’s family described as “a unique no-man’s land—a law-free zone in which U.S. agents can kill innocent civilians with impunity,” Hernandez’s rights were murky. In 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit sided with Mesa, concluding that because Hernandez was on Mexican soil and was “a Mexican citizen who had no significant voluntary connection,” he had no U.S. constitutional protections. Last year, the Supreme Court agreed to take on the case. The court heard oral arguments in February, appearing split over whether the Constitution should apply in cross-border situations. Justice Department lawyers argued that the matter shouldn’t be for courts to decide, due to foreign-policy implications. “You have a cross-border incident, which necessarily gives rise to foreign-relations problems, which are committed to the political branches,” Justice Department lawyer Edwin Kneedler argued. The justices, meanwhile, grappled with how to establish a standard narrow enough to not open up the U.S. government to civil liability for other incidents on foreign soil. “How do you analyze the case of a drone strike in Iraq, where the plane is piloted from Nevada?” Chief Justice John Roberts asked Hilliard during arguments. “Why wouldn’t the same analysis apply in that case?” But Hilliard, the attorney representing Hernandez’s parents, argued that the standard could be specific enough to not apply to military operations. Domestic law enforcement officers, such as Border Patrol agents, should be subject to the Constitution, he argued. “Right now, while they’re in the United States, their boots never leave the country, and it’s the government’s position that the Constitution turns off like a light switch at the border, and they are unconstrained by our U.S. Constitution,” Hilliard said. Read more background of the case here. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 июня, 23:19

Trump Administration Backs Texas In Immigration Crackdown Challenge

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Trump administration asked a federal judge on Friday to uphold the constitutionality of the controversial state immigration crackdown passed by the Republican-dominated Texas legislature.   The U.S. government isn’t a party in the lawsuit challenging Texas Senate Bill 4, which bans so-called sanctuary policies that limit local police from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. But the Texas law has become a prominent test of whether courts will approve strong-arm tactics endorsed by President Donald Trump to pressure local jurisdictions into complying with federal deportation efforts. “President Trump has made a commitment to keep America safe and to ensure cooperation with federal immigration laws,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a statement Friday. “The Department of Justice fully supports Texas’s effort and is participating in this lawsuit because of the strong federal interest in facilitating the state and local cooperation that is critical in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws.” SB 4 bars local jurisdictions in Texas from denying requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold suspected undocumented immigrants on the federal government’s behalf. Adopting a policy of refusing such requests, known as “detainers,” can land public officials in jail for up to a year under the new law. SB 4 also allows local police officers to ask the immigration status of anyone they stop, drawing comparisons to an Arizona law derided by critics as the “show me your papers” law. Several jurisdictions ― including Austin, San Antonio and El Paso ― filed lawsuits to overturn SB 4 shortly after Gov. Greg Abbott signed it into law last month. The legal challenges accuse Republican lawmakers of trampling multiple constitutional principles. Several federal judges have ruled in recent years that holding someone on an ICE detainer in a local jail if they would otherwise be allowed to go free violates the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees against illegal search and seizure. And because the federal government alone is charged with crafting immigration policy, the state of Texas can’t create its own, or dole out criminal penalties for refusing to follow a state policy, critics argue. The flurry of lawsuits were consolidated into a single case that will have its first hearing on Monday, when U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia will consider whether to block the law from taking effect on Sept. 1 while the legal challenges move forward. The Justice Department will try to convince the judge to give the law a chance. “Cooperation with federal officials is plainly permitted under the [Immigration and Nationality Act] and the Constitution,” the statement of interest filed by DOJ reads. “Parties may disagree with the state legislature’s policy determinations in enacting SB 4, but nothing in federal immigration law precludes a state from directing law enforcement officers in the state to cooperate with the federal government, rather than merely permitting them to do so on an ad hoc basis.” The filing hinges on the argument that ICE detainers have changed in the months since Trump took office. The Department of Homeland Security started issuing administrative arrest warrants in April, along with detainer requests, in an apparent effort to make ICE holds less vulnerable to legal challenges. That argument may not convince Garcia. He ruled earlier this month that the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office in Texas violated the Fourth Amendment by refusing to release an undocumented immigrant for more than two months on the basis of an ICE detainer. The ruling appeared to strike a major blow against SB 4, which aims to force local jurisdictions to honor all such requests from ICE. The Justice Department’s filing took note of that ruling, but countered that the case began last year, before Trump took office. The Trump administration’s new policy of including administrative warrants with ICE detainers solves the problem and is “fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment,” the filing says.   But avoiding the constitutional pitfalls presented by ICE detainers requires a warrant in a criminal case, not an administrative warrant for a violation of civil immigration law, according to Nina Perales, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. “The Fourth Amendment in this context requires probable cause that the individual has committed a crime in order to deprive that person of liberty,” Perales, one of several lawyers representing SB 4’s opponents, told HuffPost. “DOJ cannot hang its hat on the new detainer form when it comes to the stringent requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Read the Justice Department’s statement of interest below.   (function() { var scribd = document.createElement("script"); scribd.type = "text/javascript"; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = "https://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js"; var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })() -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 июня, 23:00

Will Strategic Efforts Lead Publishing Stocks to Growth?

Will Strategic Efforts Lead Publishing Stocks to Growth?

17 июня, 04:00

What Housing Recovery? Real Home Prices Still 16% Below 2007 Peak

Since the financial crisis, home equity has gone from being America’s biggest driver of (illusory) wealth to one of the biggest sources of economic inequality. And while the post-crisis recovery has returned the national home price index to its highs from early 2007, most of this rise was generated by a handful of urban markets like New York City and San Francisco, leaving most Americans behind. To wit: home prices in the 10 most expensive metro areas have risen 63% since 2000, while home prices in the 10 cheapest areas have gained just 3.6%, according to Harvard’s annual State of the Nation’s Housing report. And while nominal prices may have returned to their pre-recession levels, when you adjust for inflation, real prices are as much as 16 percent below past peaks. Despite seven years of rock-bottom interest rates, valuations in 3 out of 5 metropolitan areas remain below their pre-recession peak. Outside, of a few rich coastal cities, the only advantage that this “housing recovery” has brought is that some homes remain affordable for some Americans. However, thanks to the disproportionate rise in home valuations in certain densely populated areas, the number of Americans paying more than 50% of their income in rent is near a record high. US house prices rose 5.6 percent in 2016, finally surpassing the high reached nearly a decade earlier. Achieving this milestone reduced the number of homeowners underwater on their mortgages to 3.2 million by year’s end, a remarkable drop from the 12.1 million peak in 2011.But as Bloomberg reports, nationally, just 1 in 3 homes has recovered peak value. Meanwhile, in the country’s most densely-populated markets, housing supplies are incredibly tight following nearly a decade of historically low construction. The lack of inventory for sale is evident in both the new and existing segments of the market. In 2016, the typical new home for sale was on the market for 3.3 months, well below the 5.1 months averaged since recordkeeping began in 1988. Meanwhile, only 1.65 million existing homes were for sale in 2016, the lowest count in 16 years. And with sales volumes picking up, the inventory represented just 3.6 months of supply, an 11-year low. Conditions are particularly tight at the lower end of the market, likely reflecting both the slower price recovery in this segment and the fact that fewer entry-level homes are being built. Between 2004 and 2015, completions of smaller single-family homes (under 1,800 square feet) fell from nearly 500,000 units to only 136,000. Similarly, the number of townhouses started in 2016 (98,000) was less than half the number started in 2005. Renters, it seems, are bearing the brunt of the US housing stock crunch. Despite a relatively strong pickup in multi-family housing, rental markets are tighter than they’ve been in more than 30 years, though there has been some softening on the high end. According to the Housing Vacancy Survey, the rental vacancy rate fell for the seventh straight year in 2016, dipping to 6.9 percent—its lowest level in more than three decades. MPF Research reports that the vacancy rate for professionally managed apartments was also just 4.4 percent. While some rental markets showed signs of softening in early 2017—most notably in San Francisco and New York—there is generally little indication that increases in supply are outstripping demand. Meanwhile, the number of Americans exceeding the 30%-of-income “affordability threshold” has declined for five straight years, but while homeowners have enjoyed greater financial freedom, rates for renters have barely budged. Indeed, 11.1 million renter households were severely cost burdened in 2015, a 3.7 million increase from 2001. By comparison, 7.6 million owners were severely burdened in 2015, up 1.1 million from 2001. The share of renters with severe burdens varies widely across the nation’s 100 largest metros, ranging from a high of 35.4 percent in Miami to a low of 18.4 percent in El Paso. While most common in high-cost markets, renter cost burdens are also widespread in areas with moderate rents but relatively low incomes. Augusta is a case in point, where the severely cost-burdened share of renters was at 30.3 percent in 2015. In summary, the US housing market's gains since the crisis have disproportionately benefited certain cities, which creates two problems: Renters in markets that have seen the strongest comebacks are being squeezed as wages fail to keep up with runaway rents; and,   Cities in the south and midwest, typically post-industrial towns, are filled with homeowners who might still be struggling with an underwater mortgage, and with only tepid gains in housing prices, many are trapped in their homes.

08 июня, 21:19

Chief Justice In Connecticut Asks ICE To Stay Out Of Courthouses

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Connecticut’s top judge penned a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly last month asking them to stop making immigration arrests at courthouses.   The May 15 letter from Chase Rogers, chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court, marks the latest instance of a high-ranking judge telling federal immigration authorities that their intrusion into courthouses undermines the justice system. The Connecticut Immigrant Rights Alliance, a group that has lobbied to keep the state from cooperating with federal deportation efforts, sent the letter to HuffPost on Wednesday. Rogers asked Immigration and Customs Enforcement to include courthouses as one of the “sensitive locations” ― like churches, funerals or public demonstrations ― that ICE generally avoids when detaining immigrants. “I am fully cognizant of the authority that ICE officers have to detain someone, and we are in full compliance with federal law regarding detainer requests for the surrender of defendants held in custody,” the letter reads. “However, it is of great concern when they take custody of individuals in the public areas of our courthouses.” “I believe that having ICE officers detain individuals in public areas of our courthouses may cause litigants, witnesses and interested parties to view our courthouses as places to avoid, rather than as institutions of fair and impartial justice,” the letter adds. The chief justices for the state supreme courts of California, New Jersey and Washington have all made similar requests. [Detaining] individuals in public areas of our courthouses may cause litigants, witnesses and interested parties to view our courthouses as places to avoid. Chase Rogers, chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court For years, ICE has avoided making arrests at locations of religious significance or where people have a right to go regardless of their immigration status, like public schools and hospitals. While ICE has not officially classified courthouses as a sensitive location in the past, under the Obama administration, the agency specified that agents should only make arrests at courthouses in “priority cases” and that they should try to take people into custody outside public areas. Shortly after President Donald Trump took office, however, ICE scrubbed the section covering courthouses from the sensitive locations policy posted on its website. ICE has carried out several high-profile arrests inside courthouses since Trump took office, raising concerns from some immigrant rights groups and local officials who argue, like Rogers, that those actions will make undocumented immigrants fearful of going to court. Ana Maria Rivera-Forastieri, a member of the Connecticut Immigrant Rights Alliance, described courthouse arrests as “disruptive to our judicial system.” Immigrants have increasingly called CIRA to report courthouse arrests since Trump took office, she said. “The public isn’t very eager to participate in our judicial system if they feel like when they go, they’re going to be apprehended by immigration officers,” Rivera-Forastieri told HuffPost. “Victims of domestic violence and folks that are hoping to serve as witnesses are not showing up to court.” The growing number of courthouse arrests has led advocates and some public officials to accuse the Trump administration of violating the spirit of the sensitive locations policy. In one particularly controversial case, immigration officers arrested a transgender woman seeking a protective order from an alleged abuser at a family courthouse in El Paso, Texas, in February. Victims of domestic violence and folks that are hoping to serve as witnesses are not showing up to court. Ana Maria Rivera-Forastieri, Connecticut Immigrant Rights Alliance Despite the concerns raised by judges, immigrant rights groups and some elected officials, ICE has increasingly looked to courthouses as a convenient place to arrest undocumented immigrants. Kelly and Sessions defended the practice in March in a joint letter saying that courthouse arrests allowed ICE to circumvent so-called “sanctuary” policies in which local jurisdictions limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.   “Some jurisdictions, including the State of California and many of its largest counties and cities, have enacted statutes and ordinances designed to specifically prohibit or hinder ICE from enforcing immigration law by prohibiting communication with ICE, and denying requests ICE officers and agents to enter prisons and jails to make arrests,” Sessions and Kelly wrote. “As a result, ICE officers and agents are required to locate and arrests these aliens in public places, rather than in secure jail facilities.” The letter argued that courthouses are safe places to make arrests since most people are screened before entering. Connecticut passed a statewide law, called the TRUST Act, in 2013 that instructs local law enforcement to disregard ICE’s requests to hold immigrants unless they are accompanied by a judicial warrant. Local police may hold immigrants for ICE without a warrant if they have been deported before, if they have felony convictions or if their names appear on the terrorist watch list, according to the Connecticut Post. CIRA argued that Connecticut legislators should expand the state’s TRUST Act in response to the Trump administration’s more aggressive deportation efforts.   Such changes will have to wait until next year. Connecticut lawmakers declined to take up a bill to expand the state’s TRUST Act before the legislative session ended on Wednesday.   “The legislature’s failure to act represents a lack of political will,” Rivera-Forastieri said in a statement. “As Trump wages war on immigrants around the country, not a single bill that addresses attacks against immigrants in Connecticut was raised by the committee.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

05 июня, 22:49

Lawyers Ask Judge To Block Texas Immigration Crackdown While Lawsuits Move Forward

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); A state immigration crackdown passed last month by the Texas legislature presents too many constitutional problems to be implemented on Sept. 1 as scheduled, lawyers for two heavily Hispanic jurisdictions argued in a court filing Monday.   Calling the legislation, known as SB 4, “patently unconstitutional,” the filing on behalf of the South Texas town of El Cenizo and county of Maverick asked a federal court to keep the law from going into effect. If successful, the filing ― known as a request for preliminary injunction ― would keep Texas from enforcing the law while lawsuits from a handful of local governments play out in court. “This thing has to be stopped before Sept. 1,” Luis Vera, the national general counsel for the League of United Latin American Citizens and the lead attorney for the lawsuit, told HuffPost. “The immigrant community in Texas right now is living in fear.” Lawyers in the other cases are likely to file similar requests to stop the bill’s implementation. The Texas attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.  The Republican-dominated Texas state legislature envisioned SB 4 as a way to crack down on so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Under the bill, which Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed into law last month, any Texas jurisdiction that disregards requests to hold undocumented immigrants on the federal government’s behalf would face the loss of state grant money. Under the new law, elected officials who adopt “sanctuary” policies could be removed from office and face up to a year in jail. SB 4 also gives local police the authority to ask about the immigration status of people they stop. El Cenizo and Maverick County, along with LULAC, a civil rights group, filed the first lawsuit against SB 4 less than 24 hours after Abbott approved it. They argued that the state government doesn’t have the authority to craft its own immigration policy ― a power that belongs to the federal government. The American Civil Liberties Union is helping to litigate the case. LULAC’s Hispanic members also fear the law will spur racial profiling from police officers, who, “due to their lack of training, may use skin color or language as a proxy for immigration status,” according to the filing. “Making matters worse, SB4 is written in such vague and ambiguous terms that local officials will inevitably be left to guess whether any particular action violates the law,” the filing reads. “If they guess wrong and do not engage in full-bore immigration enforcement (such as asking every single motorist about their immigration status), they risk massive penalties and removal from office.” Tom Schmerber, the sheriff of Maverick County, spent 26 years working for the U.S. Border Patrol. Now, he worries that his campaign statements and actions in office to de-emphasize immigration enforcement ― actions that were legal until recently ― might get him dismissed from his position. “Given the lack of clarity in SB4, I fear that I will be required to divert critical and scarce law enforcement resources away from what I believe is necessary to ensure public safety for my constituents,” Schmerber wrote in a declaration that accompanied the request for preliminary injunction. “SB4 will take away my ability to limit my deputies’ participation in immigration enforcement when I believe that resources should be focused on local priorities, such as answering calls for service and investigating and preventing violent and property crimes.” Many law enforcement officials across the state expressed similar concerns as the law was debated this year. Police chiefs and sheriffs for several of Texas’ major cities ― including Austin, San Antonio and Houston ― told lawmakers in committee hearings that the bill would damage their relationships with immigrant communities. Victims of domestic violence and other crimes would avoid calling the police or telling police sensitive information for fear of deportation, the officials argued. But their criticisms did little to deter Republican legislators who have craved a statewide crackdown for years, and who were emboldened last year by the election of Donald Trump ― a hard-liner on immigration whose signature issue as a candidate was a proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. El Paso County filed a lawsuit last month challenging the constitutionality of SB 4 on similar grounds. The county also argues that SB 4 would obligate local law enforcement to abandon a policy of not asking about citizenship status ― a policy the county adopted in 2006 to settle a federal lawsuit over alleged racial discrimination. Last week, the cities of Austin and San Antonio became the latest to take Texas to court over SB 4. Travis County, which encompasses the state capital of Austin, is the only Texas city that has a formal policy limiting which detainer requests it will honor from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. All of the lawsuits seeking to overturn SB 4 have been filed in federal court in San Antonio, according to Vera. They will likely get consolidated and heard together before a single judge, he said.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

05 июня, 22:40

Tesoro Closes Western Refining Merger, To Be Named Andeavor

Tesoro Corporation (TSO) recently announced the much-awaited completion of $6.4 billion acquisition of Texas-based oil refiner Western Refining Inc.

30 мая, 15:13

Texas Democrat Threatens To Kill Republican On Legislative Floor After He Called ICE On Protesting Illegal Immigrants

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com, (Pictured: Texas State Representatives Panco Nevarez (Left) and Matt Rinaldi (Right) Came To Blows On The House Floor Over Illegal Immigration) We’ve repeatedly warned that the division festering among the Left and Right could soon lead to violence across America and the real possibility of a civil war. Earlier this year we reported that Anti-Fascist groups were beginning to arm themselves for physical violence after taking a beat down in Berkeley. And while attacks have thus far been limited to protesters clashing on college campuses and speaking venues for Republicans, things have now taken a drastic turn. Hours ago, as supporters of illegal immigration massed to protest the policies being put into place by the new White House administration and the Texas State government, two Texas legislators nearly came to blows in the Capital. According to Republican legislative representative Matt Rinaldi, he was accosted by Democrat Poncho Nevarez. The argument stemmed from the fact that scores of protesters were waving signs in Austin, TX, with many identifying themselves as illegal immigrants. Rinaldi reportedly had enough of the disturbance and contacted ICE agents. When Rinaldi advised the House Floor that the agents had been contacted, Nevarez apparently lost total control of his faculties and began assaulting him, to the point that other legislators had to step in to break up the fight. Nevarez then directly threatened violence against Rinaldi because of his call to ICE. Reports claim that not only did Nevarez threaten Rinaldi’s life but indicated that he would wait for Rinaldi to leave the legislature and would get him on the way to his car. Rinaldi, who is a concealed handgun licensee, responded by saying that he would shoot in self defense if forced to and reportedly said that he would put a bullet in the head of Nevarez if confronted. But even after the protest ended, tensions remained high. Rep. Ramon Romero, a Democrat from Fort Worth, said he was standing with fellow Democratic Rep. Cesar Blanco of El Paso when Republican colleague Matt Rinaldi came over and said: “This is BS. That’s why I called ICE.”   Rinaldi, of Irving in suburban Dallas, and Blanco then began shouting at each other. A scuffle nearly ensued before other lawmakers separated the two.   Later, a group of Democratic lawmakers held a press conference to accuse Rinaldi of threatening to “put a bullet in the head” of someone on the House floor during a second near scuffle. They said the comment was made in the direction of Democratic Rep. Poncho Nevarez, from the border town of Eagle Pass.   In a subsequent Facebook statement, Rinaldi admitted saying he’d called federal authorities and threatened to shoot Nevarez — but said his life was in danger, not the other way around.   “Nevarez threatened my life on the House floor after I called ICE on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery which said ‘I am illegal and here to stay,'” Rinaldi wrote. He said Democrats were encouraging protesters to ignore police instructions and, “When I told the Democrats I called ICE, Representative Ramon Romero physically assaulted me, and other Democrats were held back by colleagues.”   Star Telegram Rinaldi took to Facebook to share details of the incident and express his concerns: Today, Representative Poncho Nevarez threatened my life on the House floor after I called ICE on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery which said "I am illegal and here to stay." Several Democrats encouraged the protestors to disobey law enforcement.   When I told the Democrats I called ICE, Representative Ramon Romero physically assaulted me, and other Democrats were held back by colleagues.   During that time Poncho told me that he would "get me on the way to my car." He later approached me and reiterated that "I had to leave at some point, and he would get me."   I made it clear that if he attempted to, in his words, "get me," I would shoot him in self defense. I am currently under DPS protection. Several of my colleagues heard the threats made and witnessed Ramon assaulting me. Supporters of undocumented and illegal immigration will no doubt applaud the threats made by Poncho Nevarez, underscoring just how tense the situation has become across the country. The only question now is… how long until the shooting starts?

17 мая, 02:13

Lots Of People To Sue Texas Over Immigration Crackdown

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); AUSTIN, Texas ― Democratic elected officials from across the state gathered in front of the Capitol Tuesday to announce plans to challenge a Republican-backed immigration crackdown that opponents describe as unconstitutional.   Activists and politicians, surrounded by dozens of chanting supporters, said they’d spend the summer rallying opponents of Senate Bill 4 to fight the new law in the courts, and to oppose Republican lawmakers who passed it. “They want elected officials like the ones standing behind me to back down,” Austin City Councilman Greg Casar said. “We’re going to give them a summer of resistance.” Once SB4 takes effect in September, local officials like Casar could find themselves facing criminal charges. Under the law banning sanctuary cities, any jurisdiction that declines to hold an undocumented immigrant in custody on behalf of federal immigration authorities would face fines and the loss of state grant money. Officials who enact such policies face the possibility of prosecution and up to a year in jail. SB4, drawing comparisons with Arizona’s 2010 immigration crackdown bill, allows police to question the immigration status of anyone they stop.   But the anti-sanctuary bill signed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott this month is already facing so many legal battles that opponents said they’re confident the bill will be blocked in court before it’s implemented. “We’ve heard a lot of reasons why SB4 is bad policy,” Marisa Bono, a lawyer with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said. “But let’s be clear. It’s also illegal. It’s unconstitutional.” Critics say there’s no way the law will stand up in court. Federal judges have already ruled that requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to hold undocumented immigrants on their behalf, known as “detainers,” violate the Constitution’s 4th Amendment, if the person would otherwise be eligible for release on bond or because criminal charges were dropped. Imposing state criminal penalties onto federal immigration law likely tramples over the U.S. government’s exclusive authority to set immigration policy. And the provision allowing police to ask for proof of legal residency opens the door to racial profiling in a state where a majority of residents are people of color, critics said. “This law creates a fake narrative that criminalizes an entire ethnicity,” Austin City Councilwoman Delia Garza said. Two local jurisdictions ― the town of El Cenizo and the county of Maverick ― have already filed a lawsuit against the state. They’ll soon be joined by others. El Paso County Commissioners voted Monday to file a challenge. Austin City Council is scheduled to vote Thursday to direct the city’s lawyers to take any action necessary to fight the law in court in order to preserve Travis County’s “sanctuary” policy, which directs local jails to disregard requests to hold undocumented immigrants on the federal government’s behalf unless the suspect is convicted of or charged with one of a few serious felonies. Dallas City Council will also consider whether to take legal action this week. It’s unclear whether the lawsuits will proceed separately or will become consolidated. Hours after Gov. Abbott signed SB4, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to preemptively declare the law constitutional and limit legal challenges the state could face.  Opponents emphasized that legal challenges were only one part of their strategy. They also plan a summer-long campaign to drum up opposition to the Republican-dominated legislature’s hard-line efforts to make life harder on immigrants.  Pointing out that conservatives passed SB4 over the objections of some of the state’s top law enforcement officials, state Rep. Rafael Anchia (D-Dallas) described the bill as an attempt to score political points by targeting immigrants and the state’s Hispanic community. “If it’s not about law enforcement, then it’s about something else,” Anchia said. “It’s about conflating immigrants with lawlessness and criminality.” Karla Pérez, an organizer with the immigrant youth-led United We Dream group and a participant in the government’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, said she viewed laws like SB4 as symptoms of an effort to push people like her out of the state. “This is my home,” Pérez said. “I am prepared to defend it.” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

09 мая, 23:09

Our Schedule for the First ZeroHedge Symposium and Live Fight Club In Marfa, Texas, June 16-18

"Believe me, folks, we do not know it all, and no one should be surprised at that revelation."James BunnellHunting Marfa Lights   The First ZeroHedge Symposium and Live Fight Club In Marfa, Texas, next month, is going to beat the crap out of Burning Man, Davos, Jackson Hole, Berkshire Hathaway's Annual Meeting, and Milken's Global Conference.   Here, at last, is the schedule: Thursday, June 15 Everything is bigger in Texas, including the art.  Come a day early to experience some of it. Purchase tickets in advance: https://www.chinati.org/ 10:00am - 4:30pm Chinati Foundation - Full Collection Tour 10:30am - 5:00pm Chinati Foundation - Full Collection Tour 11:00am - 1:30pm Chinati Foundation - Selections Tour 11:30am - 2:00pm Chinati Foundation - Selections Tour   After dark, go out and try to see The Marfa Lights.   http://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-truth-is-out-there/   Friday, June 16 Marfa Activities Center105 N. Mesa St. (btwn W. Texas St. & W. El Paso St.)Marfa, TX 79843 9:00am Sound check 10:00am ZH Symposium Opening Rant 10:45am Healthcare: hedgeless_horseman,  Negotiating directly with physicians and hospitals   1:45pm Real estate: Forrest Noble, The truth and consequences of being a landlord 3:30pm Distilling and brewing: Ned Rutland, One man's experience with more than 50 years at the still     The University of Texas McDonald Observatory Purchase tickets in advance: https://mcdonaldobservatory.org/calendar 8:15pm Twilight Program 9:45pm Star Party   Saturday, June 17 6:00am Yoga at El Cosmico, under the trees by the community kitchen   9:00am Education: Russell Fish, Disintermediated education in your home and community 10:45am Crypto currencies: Ken Griffith, The Death of Banking and the Rise of New Financial Ecosystems - How to Make it Work For You   1:45pm Media: Robert Gore, Breaking alternative media's dependency on the MSM 3:30pm Agriculture: Susanne Friend, Make backyard and commercial aquaponics easy and inexpensive   8:00pm Free Live Music at the MAC, Shane Walker and Kelley Mickwee, BYOB and wear you best cowboy boots.      Sunday, June 18 9:00am Personal security: Brian Hoffner, When seconds count, the police are only minutes away 10:45am Project Mayhem   This schedule is subject to change.   The symposium is free and open to the public.  No badges.  No registration.  Entry to the symposium is on a first come, first serve, come and go as you like, and space available basis. If more than the max capacity of 1,000 people show up, we have several options, and will just work it out as we go.  Nobody will be, "reaccomodated."  Please donate if you can!  https://www.gofundme.com/2017-hall-rental-in-marfa-for-zh This is a three-day-long Fight Club, and many of you haven't been training.  Fortunately, we may bring in our own Herman Miller Aeron chair, camp chair, inflatable couch, actual couch, bean bag, Persian rug, chunk of old AstroTurf, coolers, mini bar, picnic, drinks, friends, yoga mat, children, grandparents, dogs*, desk, and trading platform.  There will probably also be a couple of hundred folding chairs available for use.  *I am told that dogs are allowed, per City Ordinance #95-05 - It shall be unlawful for any owner to fail to exercise proper care, restraint and control of his animals to prevent them from becoming a public nuisance, by running at large, molesting passersby or attacking other animals.  Basically - dogs stay on leashes, and humans pick up after their dogs. I imagine that there is no smoking in the MAC.  Please, also, go outside to vape.   Allegedly, we can BBQ in Coffield Park, adjacent to the MAC, but the food and beverages in town are pretty darn good.  Some food trucks may show up. We are guests of the people and City of Marfa.  Please clean up after yourself.   All speaker times are West Texas "ish" time, some or all of the speakers may say things you do not agree with, try to get you to change your mind or your life, not show up, show up late, or be under the influence of mind altering substances.  No warranties or guarantees are expressed or implied.  This symposium is nothing more and nothing less than a peaceable assembly of the public.  However...anything can happen...and probably will.   Don't DOX people.  Respect others privacy and anonymity, even if our government does not.  If anyone tries to yank off my wig and dark sunglasses, then I am going to be quite upset. Treat others as you want to be treated.  Look out for yourself.   We don't rent pigs! Peace, prosperity, liberty, and Godspeed! h_h

08 мая, 16:08

Western Refining (WNR) Q1 Earnings Beat Estimates, Rise Y/Y

Western Refining, Inc. reported first-quarter 2017 results, wherein the company reported earnings of 19 cents surpassing the Zacks Consensus Estimate of 14 cents.