• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Издания361
      • Показать ещё
      Люди1417
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы1178
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации192
      • Показать ещё
      Разное651
      • Показать ещё
      Компании699
      • Показать ещё
      Формат10
      Показатели36
      • Показать ещё
Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Еж ...

Foreign Policy («Форин полиси» ) — дословно «Внешняя политика» (то есть «Международные отношения»), американский журнал со штаб-квартирой в столице США. Тираж более ста тысяч экземпляров, выходит каждые два месяца (изначально выходила раз в квартал). Ежегодно публикует собственную версию списка ста мировых мыслителей (The FP Top 100 Global Thinkers).

http://inosmi.ru/foreignpolicy_com/

Журнал основан в 1970 году Самюэлем Хантингтоном, американским политологом, автором концепции «столкновения цивилизаций», и Уорреном Маншелем, американским дипломатом и инвестором, при поддержке Фонда Карнеги.

Идея выпускать журнал раз в два месяца (вместо раза в квартал) принадлежит редактору Моисею Наиму (1996–2010), под чьим руководством журнал выигрывал премии National Magazine Awards в 2003, 2007 и 2009 годах. Журнал затрагивает темы глобальной политики, экономики, мировой интеграции, политических идеологий и теории международных отношений. 29 сентября 2008 года The Washington Post Company объявила о приобретении прав на издание журнала у Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

В начале 2006 года запущен блог Foreign Policy Passport, а 5 января 2009 года перезапущен сайт издания, который репозиционирован как «ежедневный сетевой журнал».

В 2012 году Foreign Policy вырос до группы (The FP Group)  – расширение журнала включает ForeignPolicy.com и проект FP Events («FP События»).

По утверждению сайта The FP Group количество читателей онлайн версии журнала достигает 2,4 миллиона в месяц.

Foreign Policy издается сегодня под руководством генерального директора и главного редактора The FP Group Дэвида Роткопфа (David Rothkopf), который присоединился к FP в этой роли в 2012 году после того, как был постоянным автором этого издания с 1997 года.

https://www.youtube.com/user/FPRIVideo

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

Развернуть описание Свернуть описание
25 февраля, 05:09

Why Brian Hook Is an Empty Suit

Daniel R. DePetris Politics, Americas Brian Hook, who is being touted for a senior State Department post, is a consummate creature of Washington conventionality. Brian Hook, unlike a number of members of the Republican foreign-policy establishment and, apparently, his own wife, never said Never Trump during the campaign. But he would still be a startling choice for the Trump administration, which is apparently considering him for the post of director of the policy planning staff at the State Department. It’s a post that legendary figures such as George F. Kennan have occupied. Kennan used it to help further conceptualize and implement his new containment doctrine in the late 1940s. If Hook is given the post, however, he’s unlikely to shake up American foreign policy the way Kennan did. On the contrary; the chance of any change in the foreign-policy thinking that has held sway in Washington in recent decades is next to nil. Hook, a cofounder of the neoconservative John Hay Initiative, is a consummate creature of conventionality. His selection would be an indication that the discrepancy between the change that Trump promised during the election and his actions as president isn’t a small gap. It would be a chasm. Yet according to John Hudson of Foreign Policy magazine, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson wants Hook as a key deputy. In Hook, Trump and Tillerson would get a card-carrying member of the Republican foreign-policy establishment who is far more comfortable espousing the strengths and virtues of the NATO alliance than he is questioning its value or utility. As an integral member of the Mitt Romney–aligned Hay Initiative—a group of GOP national-security heavyweights who advised Republican presidential candidates during the election last year—Hook concentrated on ensuring that the party’s foreign policy orthodoxy remained the dominant narrative. Indeed, a cursory glance at Hook views and those of his colleagues make it abundantly clear that they aren’t fans of Trump’s “America First” policy—a term that conventional Republicans read as a return to 1940s-style isolationism. Read full article

Выбор редакции
25 февраля, 04:23

If China Wants To Prevent Trade Wars It Should Stop Waging Them

The simple fact of the matter is that for China, trade and investment are key levers of foreign policy and are routinely deployed at an instrumental level in the service of precise foreign policy objectives.

25 февраля, 01:21

Weekend Roundup: A Hard Look At The Long Past And The Near Future

Sorting out the present global turmoil understandably demands our attention. But fathoming the lessons of the long past and anticipating the near future is no less important in framing the consequential choices we make today. Warning to the reader: what follows will likely disturb the safe space of those with a Panglossian outlook. A decided pessimism prevails among today’s key thinkers who look at the times ahead through the prism of historical experience. This week, Stanford University classics historian Walter Scheidel outlines the theme of his new book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. “For hundreds and perhaps thousands of years,” Scheidel writes, “peace, stability and development have rewarded those at the top of the food chain more than anybody else. Profits from business, connections and power multiplied in the hands of the few and passed between generations. But the inverse is also true: Every time the gap between rich and poor narrowed ― during the two world wars, for example ― there was massive violence, a shock to the established order.” “Yet,” he continues, “inequality” is “resilient” ― it “regularly advances once violent shock retreats.” Despite our idealistic hopes, Scheidel concludes, there is no reason to believe the future will be any different than the past: “Once genetic and cybernetic enhancements of the human body migrate from the domain of science fiction to real-life labs and clinics, the well-off will inevitably be in the best position to take advantage of these offerings, both for themselves and their offspring.” In an interview, Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees ― famous for asking whether we are living through humankind’s “final century” ― tallies the promise and perils ahead. Above all, Rees is concerned about the uses and misuses of biotechnology in the coming decades. “We are already seeing that it’s becoming easier to modify the genome,” he says, “and we heard about experiments on the influenza virus to make it more virulent and transmissible. These techniques are developing very fast and have huge potential benefits but unfortunately also downsides. They are easily accessible and handled. It’s the kind of equipment that’s available at many university labs and many companies. And so the risk of error or terror in these areas is quite substantial, while regulation is very hard. It’s not like regulating nuclear activity, which requires huge special purpose facilities. Biohacking is almost a student-competitive sport.” Like Scheidel, Rees’ reading of history casts a dark shadow on the future. As he puts it, “what can be done, will be done.” And in the near term, Rees see the main challenge as intelligent robots replacing workers with living wages. “We will have to accept a big redistribution in the way the labor market is deployed,” he warns. “And in order to ensure we don’t develop even more inequality, there has to be a massive redistribution of wealth too. The money earned by robots can’t stay with a small elite ― Silicon Valley people, for instance.” Rees’ advice for the short and long-term future: “There is a great saying, ‘fortune favors the prepared mind.’” Back in the present, defenders of liberal democracy are preparing for the worst. Human Right Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth writes with alarm that, “I’ve spent years defending human rights around the world, but I’ve never been this worried about the future of the United States.” Roth warns that, “Experience elsewhere teaches us that [autocratic governments] can arrive with extraordinary speed, signaled not by tanks surrounding the presidential palace but by the erosion of democratic norms.” Writing from Hong Kong, Chandran Nair has had enough of America “bullying” everyone else, especially now that President Donald Trump is the culprit in the pulpit. “In response,” Nair writes in a defiant call to action, “the world should now get tough with America, and let it know that the global majority will no longer be pushed around.”  Graham Fuller, a former vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, sees some value in Trump’s penchant to candidly acknowledge what everyone knows to be true but won’t say. Though perhaps not quite as the president meant it when he recently said that he is open to a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Fuller agrees that “the two-state solution in practice is essentially a fraud.” Drawing on his long experience in the Middle East, he writes, “honest observers know full well that the mantra of preserving ‘the peace process’ for the two-state solution is now little more than a cover by hard-line Zionists for full Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands.” The impacts of Trump’s America are also being felt in Africa. As China widens the scope of its activities there and the U.S. steps back from the world, Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden find that many are scrutinizing whether Beijing is a partner or predator on the continent.  Turkish journalist Ilgin Yorulmaz talks with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man most known for his role in a controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near ground zero in New York. He says Muslims in America should create an “American Islam” in order to assimilate with other like-minded people of faith to combat the extremist rhetoric in their respective religions. He also notes that his Cordoba House is, “training imams who are culturally integrated into the American life and can deal with the issues of it.”  Writing from Berlin, Yermi Brenner looks at how the marginalized Roma minority community in Germany continues to struggle against racism, invisibility and the threat of deportation over seven decades after a significant fraction of its population was murdered during the Holocaust. Reporting on the tensions between South Africans and Nigerian immigrants and shopkeepers in Johannesburg, Sipho Hlongwane reminds us that xenophobia is not limited to America or Europe these days. Finally, our Singularity series this week showcases a “one-cent lab-on-a-chip” that “can diagnose cancer and infections.” WHO WE ARE   EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Executive Editor of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Suzanne Gaber is the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is News Director at The Huffington Post, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. Rowaida Abdelaziz is World Social Media Editor. EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar (First Look Media), Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun). VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large. The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea. Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the “whole mind” way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine. ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council — as well as regular contributors — to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail and Zheng Bijian. From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherland and Guy Verhofstadt. MISSION STATEMENT The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets. We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out. -- 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.

25 февраля, 01:21

Weekend Roundup: A Hard Look At The Long Past And The Near Future

Sorting out the present global turmoil understandably demands our attention. But fathoming the lessons of the long past and anticipating the near future is no less important in framing the consequential choices we make today. Warning to the reader: what follows will likely disturb the safe space of those with a Panglossian outlook. A decided pessimism prevails among today’s key thinkers who look at the times ahead through the prism of historical experience. This week, Stanford University classics historian Walter Scheidel outlines the theme of his new book, The Great Leveler: Violence and the History of Inequality from the Stone Age to the Twenty-First Century. “For hundreds and perhaps thousands of years,” Scheidel writes, “peace, stability and development have rewarded those at the top of the food chain more than anybody else. Profits from business, connections and power multiplied in the hands of the few and passed between generations. But the inverse is also true: Every time the gap between rich and poor narrowed ― during the two world wars, for example ― there was massive violence, a shock to the established order.” “Yet,” he continues, “inequality” is “resilient” ― it “regularly advances once violent shock retreats.” Despite our idealistic hopes, Scheidel concludes, there is no reason to believe the future will be any different than the past: “Once genetic and cybernetic enhancements of the human body migrate from the domain of science fiction to real-life labs and clinics, the well-off will inevitably be in the best position to take advantage of these offerings, both for themselves and their offspring.” In an interview, Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees ― famous for asking whether we are living through humankind’s “final century” ― tallies the promise and perils ahead. Above all, Rees is concerned about the uses and misuses of biotechnology in the coming decades. “We are already seeing that it’s becoming easier to modify the genome,” he says, “and we heard about experiments on the influenza virus to make it more virulent and transmissible. These techniques are developing very fast and have huge potential benefits but unfortunately also downsides. They are easily accessible and handled. It’s the kind of equipment that’s available at many university labs and many companies. And so the risk of error or terror in these areas is quite substantial, while regulation is very hard. It’s not like regulating nuclear activity, which requires huge special purpose facilities. Biohacking is almost a student-competitive sport.” Like Scheidel, Rees’ reading of history casts a dark shadow on the future. As he puts it, “what can be done, will be done.” And in the near term, Rees see the main challenge as intelligent robots replacing workers with living wages. “We will have to accept a big redistribution in the way the labor market is deployed,” he warns. “And in order to ensure we don’t develop even more inequality, there has to be a massive redistribution of wealth too. The money earned by robots can’t stay with a small elite ― Silicon Valley people, for instance.” Rees’ advice for the short and long-term future: “There is a great saying, ‘fortune favors the prepared mind.’” Back in the present, defenders of liberal democracy are preparing for the worst. Human Right Watch Executive Director Kenneth Roth writes with alarm that, “I’ve spent years defending human rights around the world, but I’ve never been this worried about the future of the United States.” Roth warns that, “Experience elsewhere teaches us that [autocratic governments] can arrive with extraordinary speed, signaled not by tanks surrounding the presidential palace but by the erosion of democratic norms.” Writing from Hong Kong, Chandran Nair has had enough of America “bullying” everyone else, especially now that President Donald Trump is the culprit in the pulpit. “In response,” Nair writes in a defiant call to action, “the world should now get tough with America, and let it know that the global majority will no longer be pushed around.”  Graham Fuller, a former vice chairman of the CIA’s National Intelligence Council, sees some value in Trump’s penchant to candidly acknowledge what everyone knows to be true but won’t say. Though perhaps not quite as the president meant it when he recently said that he is open to a “one-state solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Fuller agrees that “the two-state solution in practice is essentially a fraud.” Drawing on his long experience in the Middle East, he writes, “honest observers know full well that the mantra of preserving ‘the peace process’ for the two-state solution is now little more than a cover by hard-line Zionists for full Israeli annexation of Palestinian lands.” The impacts of Trump’s America are also being felt in Africa. As China widens the scope of its activities there and the U.S. steps back from the world, Eric Olander and Cobus van Staden find that many are scrutinizing whether Beijing is a partner or predator on the continent.  Turkish journalist Ilgin Yorulmaz talks with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the man most known for his role in a controversial plan to build an Islamic community center near ground zero in New York. He says Muslims in America should create an “American Islam” in order to assimilate with other like-minded people of faith to combat the extremist rhetoric in their respective religions. He also notes that his Cordoba House is, “training imams who are culturally integrated into the American life and can deal with the issues of it.”  Writing from Berlin, Yermi Brenner looks at how the marginalized Roma minority community in Germany continues to struggle against racism, invisibility and the threat of deportation over seven decades after a significant fraction of its population was murdered during the Holocaust. Reporting on the tensions between South Africans and Nigerian immigrants and shopkeepers in Johannesburg, Sipho Hlongwane reminds us that xenophobia is not limited to America or Europe these days. Finally, our Singularity series this week showcases a “one-cent lab-on-a-chip” that “can diagnose cancer and infections.” WHO WE ARE   EDITORS: Nathan Gardels, Co-Founder and Executive Advisor to the Berggruen Institute, is the Editor-in-Chief of The WorldPost. Kathleen Miles is the Executive Editor of The WorldPost. Farah Mohamed is the Managing Editor of The WorldPost. Alex Gardels and Peter Mellgard are the Associate Editors of The WorldPost. Suzanne Gaber is the Editorial Assistant of The WorldPost. Katie Nelson is News Director at The Huffington Post, overseeing The WorldPost and HuffPost’s news coverage. Nick Robins-Early and Jesselyn Cook are World Reporters. Rowaida Abdelaziz is World Social Media Editor. EDITORIAL BOARD: Nicolas Berggruen, Nathan Gardels, Arianna Huffington, Eric Schmidt (Google Inc.), Pierre Omidyar (First Look Media), Juan Luis Cebrian (El Pais/PRISA), Walter Isaacson (Aspen Institute/TIME-CNN), John Elkann (Corriere della Sera, La Stampa), Wadah Khanfar (Al Jazeera) and Yoichi Funabashi (Asahi Shimbun). VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS: Dawn Nakagawa. CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: Moises Naim (former editor of Foreign Policy), Nayan Chanda (Yale/Global; Far Eastern Economic Review) and Katherine Keating (One-On-One). Sergio Munoz Bata and Parag Khanna are Contributing Editors-At-Large. The Asia Society and its ChinaFile, edited by Orville Schell, is our primary partner on Asia coverage. Eric X. Li and the Chunqiu Institute/Fudan University in Shanghai and Guancha.cn also provide first person voices from China. We also draw on the content of China Digital Times. Seung-yoon Lee is The WorldPost link in South Korea. Jared Cohen of Google Ideas provides regular commentary from young thinkers, leaders and activists around the globe. Bruce Mau provides regular columns from MassiveChangeNetwork.com on the “whole mind” way of thinking. Patrick Soon-Shiong is Contributing Editor for Health and Medicine. ADVISORY COUNCIL: Members of the Berggruen Institute’s 21st Century Council and Council for the Future of Europe serve as theAdvisory Council — as well as regular contributors — to the site. These include, Jacques Attali, Shaukat Aziz, Gordon Brown, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Juan Luis Cebrian, Jack Dorsey, Mohamed El-Erian, Francis Fukuyama, Felipe Gonzalez, John Gray, Reid Hoffman, Fred Hu, Mo Ibrahim, Alexei Kudrin, Pascal Lamy, Kishore Mahbubani, Alain Minc, Dambisa Moyo, Laura Tyson, Elon Musk, Pierre Omidyar, Raghuram Rajan, Nouriel Roubini, Nicolas Sarkozy, Eric Schmidt, Gerhard Schroeder, Peter Schwartz, Amartya Sen, Jeff Skoll, Michael Spence, Joe Stiglitz, Larry Summers, Wu Jianmin, George Yeo, Fareed Zakaria, Ernesto Zedillo, Ahmed Zewail and Zheng Bijian. From the Europe group, these include: Marek Belka, Tony Blair, Jacques Delors, Niall Ferguson, Anthony Giddens, Otmar Issing, Mario Monti, Robert Mundell, Peter Sutherland and Guy Verhofstadt. MISSION STATEMENT The WorldPost is a global media bridge that seeks to connect the world and connect the dots. Gathering together top editors and first person contributors from all corners of the planet, we aspire to be the one publication where the whole world meets. We not only deliver breaking news from the best sources with original reportage on the ground and user-generated content; we bring the best minds and most authoritative as well as fresh and new voices together to make sense of events from a global perspective looking around, not a national perspective looking out. -- 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.

24 февраля, 22:38

State Dept. will resume briefings in March

The State Department will soon break its silence.The department announced Friday that it will resume regular news briefings sometime during the week of March 6. The briefings, a fixture for many years in Washington, have not been held since President Donald Trump took office more than a month ago. They are usually held daily, but the department's brief statement did not specify whether that would be the case under Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.The announcement comes amid growing questions in Washington and beyond about the unusual quiet emanating from Foggy Bottom, where many U.S. diplomats fear the new administration is sidelining the State Department. International leaders, foreign policy analysts and journalists traditionally have paid close attention to the State Department briefings to get a sense of where the U.S. stands on a range of foreign policy topics. Whoever delivers the briefing in the Trump era will face the unusual challenge of having to articulate a U.S. stance under a president who often shifts his views on global affairs. The department has yet to name a new official spokesman, though it has an acting spokesman, Mark Toner, with extensive experience conducting the briefings.Earlier this week, the department said it is looking at changing the format of the briefing to possibly allow questions from reporters connecting via the Internet. The White House began letting reporters Skype into briefings this month.

24 февраля, 21:13

The Foreign-Policy Contradictions of the Trump Administration: A Crib Sheet

America appears to be pursuing four Mexico strategies at once.

24 февраля, 21:06

Remarks by President Trump at the Conservative Political Action Conference

Gaylord National Resort & Convention Center 10:23 A.M. EST THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, everybody.  So great to be with you.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Great to be back at CPAC.  (Applause.) The place I have really -- AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you! THE PRESIDENT:  I love this place.  Love you people.  (Applause.)  So thank you.  Thank you very much. First of all, I want to thank Matt Schlapp, and his very, very incredible wife and boss, Mercedes, who have been fantastic friends and supporters, and so great.  When I watch them on television defending me, nobody has a chance.  So, I want to thank Matt and Mercedes.   And when Matt called and asked, I said, absolutely, I'll be there with you.  I mean, the real reason I said it -- I didn’t want him to go against me because that one you can’t beat.  So I said, absolutely.  And it really is an honor to be here. I wouldn't miss a chance to talk to my friends.  These are my friends.  (Applause.)  And we’ll see you again next year and the year after that, and I’ll be doing this with CPAC whenever I can, and I’ll make sure that we’re here a lot. You know, if you remember, my first major speech -- sit down, everybody.  Come on.  (Applause.)  You know, the dishonest media, they’ll say he didn’t get a standing ovation.  You know why?  No, you know why?  Because everybody stood and nobody sat, so they will say he never got a standing ovation, right?  (Applause.)  They are the worst. AUDIENCE:  USA! USA! USA!  (Applause.)  THE PRESIDENT:  So -- sit down.  (Laughter.)  Donald Trump did not get a standing ovation.  They leave out the part, they never sat down.  They leave that out.  So I just want to thank -- but you know, my first major speech was at CPAC.  And probably five or six years ago -- first major political speech.  And you were there. And it was -- I loved it.  I love the people.  I love the commotion.  And then they did these polls where I went through the roof, and I wasn’t even running, right?  But it gave me an idea, and I got a little bit concerned when I saw what was happening in the country, and I said, let’s go do it.  So it was very exciting.  I walked the stage on CPAC.  I’ll never forget it, really.  I had very little notes, and even less preparation.  So when you have practically no notes and no preparation, and then you leave and everybody was thrilled, I said, I think I like this business. I would have come last year, but I was worried that I would be, at that time, too controversial.  We wanted border security.  We wanted very, very strong military.  We wanted all of the things that we’re going to get, and people consider that controversial.  But you didn’t consider it controversial.  (Applause.)  So I’ve been with CPAC for a long time.  All of these years, we've been together.  And now you finally have a president.  Finally.  Took you a long time.  Took you a long time.  (Applause.)  And it’s patriots like you that made it happen, believe me -- believe me.  You did it because you love your country, because you want a better future for your children, and because you want to make America great again.  (Applause.)  The media didn't think we would win.   AUDIENCE MEMBER:  They knew. (Laughter.) THE PRESIDENT:  The pundits -- you’re right.  They had an idea.  The pundits didn't think we would win.  The consultants that suck up all that money.  Oh, they suck it up, they’re so good.  (Laughter.)  They’re not good at politics, but they’re really good at sucking up people’s money.  Especially my opponent’s, because I kept them down to a minimum. THE PRESIDENT:  But the consultants didn’t think we would win.  But they all underestimated the power of the people -- you.  And the people proved them totally wrong.  Never -- and this is so true, and this is what’s been happening -- never underestimate the people.  Never.  I don’t think it will ever happen again. And I want you all to know that we are fighting the fake news.  It’s fake -- phony, fake.  (Applause.)  A few days ago, I called the fake news “the enemy of the people” -- and they are.  They are the enemy of the people.  Because they have no sources, they just make them up when there are none.  I saw one story recently where they said nine people have confirmed.  There are no nine people.  I don’t believe there was one or two people.  Nine people.  And I said, give me a break.  Because I know the people.  I know who they talked to.  There were no nine people.  But they say, nine people, and somebody reads it and they think, oh, nine people.  They have nine sources.  They make up sources. They are very dishonest people.  In fact, in covering my comments, the dishonest media did not explain that I called the fake news the enemy of the people -- the fake news.  They dropped off the word “fake.”  And all of the sudden, the story became, the media is the enemy.  They take the word “fake” out, and now I’m saying, oh, no, this is no good.  But that’s the way they are.  So I’m not against the media.  I’m not against the press.  I don’t mind bad stories if I deserve them.  And I tell you, I love good stories, but we won’t -- (laughter) -- I don’t get too many of them. But I am only against the fake news media or press -- fake, fake.  They have to leave that word.  I'm against the people that make up stories and make up sources.  They shouldn’t be allowed to use sources unless they use somebody’s name.  Let their name be put out there.  Let their name be put out.  (Applause.)  A source says that Donald Trump is a horrible, horrible human being.  Let them say it to my face.  (Applause.)  Let there be no more sources.   And remember this -- and in not all in all cases.  I mean, I had a story written yesterday about me in Reuters by a very honorable man.  It was a very fair story.  There are some great reporters around.  They’re talented, they’re honest as the day is long.  They’re great.  But there are some terrible, dishonest people, and they do a tremendous disservice to our country and to our people.  A tremendous disservice.  They are very dishonest people, and they shouldn’t use sources.  They should put the name of the person.  You will see stories dry up like you’ve never seen before. So you have no idea how bad it is, because if you are not part of the story -- and I put myself in your position sometimes, because many of you, you’re not part of the story, and if you’re not part of the story, then you sort of know.  If you are part of the story, you know what they’re saying is true or not.  So when they make it up, and they make up something else, and you saw that before the election -- polls, polls.  The polls.  They come out with these polls, and everybody was so surprised.  Actually, a couple of polls got it right.  I must say, Los Angeles Times did a great job.  Shocking, because -- you know.  They did a great job.  (Applause.)  And we had a couple of others that were right. But generally speaking, I mean, I can tell you the network.  Somebody said a poll came out.  And I say, what network is it?  And they’ll say, a certain -- let’s not even mention names right?  Should we? Well, you have a lot of them.  Look, the Clinton new network is one.  (Applause.)  Totally.  Take a look.  Honestly.  Take a look at their polls over the last two years.  Now, you would think they would fire the pollster, right?  After years and years of getting battered.  But I don’t -- I mean, who knows, maybe they’re just bad at polling.  Or maybe they’re not legit.  But it’s one or the other.  Look at how inaccurate -- look at CBS, look at ABC also.  Look at NBC.  Take a look at some of these polls.  They’re so bad, so inaccurate.   And what that does is it creates a false narrative.  It creates like this narrative that’s just like we’re not going to win, and people say, "Oh, I love Trump, but you know I’m not feeling great today.  He can’t win.  So I won’t go and vote.  I won’t go and vote."  It creates a whole false deal and we have to fight it folks.  We have to fight it.  They’re very smart, they’re very cunning, and they’re very dishonest. So just to conclude -- I mean, it’s a very sensitive topic, and they get upset when we expose their false stories.  They say that we can't criticize their dishonest coverage because of the First Amendment.  You know, they always bring up the First Amendment.  (Laughter.)  And I love the First Amendment.  Nobody loves it better than me.  Nobody.  (Applause.)  I mean, who uses it more than I do? But the First Amendment gives all of us -- it gives it to me, it gives it to you, it gives all Americans -- the right to speak our minds freely.  It gives you the right and me the right to criticize fake news, and criticize it strongly.  (Applause.)   And many of these groups are part of the large media corporations that have their own agenda, and it’s not your agenda, and it’s not the country’s agenda.  It’s their own agenda.  They have a professional obligation as members of the press to report honestly.  But as you saw throughout the entire campaign, and even now, the fake news doesn’t tell the truth.  Doesn’t tell the truth. So just in finishing, I say it doesn’t represent the people.  It never will represent the people.  And we’re going to do something about it, because we have to go out and we have to speak our minds, and we have to be honest.  Our victory was a win like nobody has ever seen before.  (Applause.)  And I’m here fighting for you, and I will continue to fight for you.   The victory and the win were something that really was dedicated to a country and people that believe in freedom, security, and the rule of law.  (Applause.)  Our victory was a victory and a win for conservative values.  (Applause.)  And our victory was a win for everyone who believes it’s time to stand up for America, to stand up for the American worker, and to stand up for the American flag.  (Applause.)  Yeah, there we should stand up.  Come on.  (Applause.)  There we should stand up.  Okay.  (Applause.) And, by the way, we love our flag.  By the way, you folks are in here, the place is packed -- there are lines that go back six blocks.  And I tell you that because you won’t read about it, okay?  (Laughter.)  But there are lines that go back six blocks.  There is such love in this country for everything we stand for.  You saw that on Election Day.  (Applause.)  And you’re going to see it more and more.  (Applause.)   So we’re all part of this very historic movement, a movement the likes of which, actually, the world has never seen before.  There’s never been anything like this.  There’s been some movements, but there’s never been anything like this.  There’s been some movements that petered out, like Bernie -- petered out.  (Laughter.)  But it was a little rigged against him -- superdelegate, superdelegate.  She had so many delegates before the thing even started.  I actually said to my people, how does that happen?  (Laughter.)  Not that I’m a fan of Bernie, but a lot of Bernie people voted for Trump.  You know why?  Because he’s right on one issue:  Trade.  He was right about trade. Our country is being absolutely devastated with bad trade deals.  So he was right about that, but we’ve got a lot of Bernie support.  So actually, I like Bernie, okay?  I like Bernie.  (Applause.)   But I’m here today to tell you what this movement means for the future of the Republican Party and for the future of America.   First, we need to define what this great, great unprecedented movement is, and what it actually represents.  The core conviction of our movement is that we are a nation that put and will put its own citizens first.  (Applause.)  For too long we’ve traded away our jobs to other countries -- so terrible.  We’ve defended other nations’ borders while leaving ours wide open; anybody can come in.   AUDIENCE MEMBER:  A wall! THE PRESIDENT:  Oh, we’re going to build the wall, don’t worry about it.  We’re building the wall.  We’re building the wall.  In fact, it’s going to start soon, way ahead of schedule, way ahead of schedule.  (Applause.)  Way, way, way ahead of schedule.  It’s going to start very soon.  General Kelly, by the way, has done a fantastic job.  Fantastic job he’s done.  (Applause.)   And remember, we are getting the bad ones out.  These are bad dudes.  We’re getting the bad ones out, okay?  We’re getting the bad -- if you watch these people it’s like, oh, gee, that’s so sad.  We’re getting bad people out of this country, people that shouldn’t be -- whether it’s drugs or murder or other things.  We’re getting bad ones out.  Those are the ones that go first, and I said it from day one.  Basically all I’ve done is keep my promise.  (Applause.)   We’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas while allowing our own infrastructure to fall into total disrepair and decay.  In the Middle East, we’ve spent as of four weeks ago $6 trillion.  Think of it.  And, by the way, the Middle East is in what -- I mean, it’s not even close -- it’s in much worse shape than it was 15 years ago.  If our Presidents would have gone to the beach for 15 years, we would be in much better shape than we are right now, that I can tell you.  (Applause.)  Yeah, a hell of a lot better.  We could have rebuilt our country three times with that money.   This is the situation that I inherited.  I inherited a mess, believe me.  We also inherited a failed health care law that threatens our medical system with absolute and total catastrophe. Now, I’ve been watching -- and nobody says it -- but Obamacare doesn’t work, folks.  I mean, I could say -- I could talk -- it doesn’t work.  And now people are starting to develop a little warm heart, but the people that you’re watching, they’re not you.  They’re largely -- many of them are the side that lost.  You know, they lost the election.  It’s like, how many elections do we have to have?  They lost the election.  (Laughter.)   But I always say, Obamacare doesn’t work.  And these same people two years, and a year ago, were complaining about Obamacare.  And the bottom line:  We’re changing it.  We’re going to make it much better.  We’re going to make it less expensive.  We’re going to make it much better.  Obamacare covers very few people. And remember, deduct from the number all of the people that had great health care that they loved, that was taken away from them; was taken away from them.  (Applause.)  Millions of people were very happy with their health care.  They had their doctor, they had their plan.  Remember the lie -- 28 times.  “You can keep your doctor, you can keep your plan” -- over and over and over again you heard it.   So we’re going to repeal and replace Obamacare.  (Applause.)  And I tell Paul Ryan and all of the folks that we’re working with very hard -- Dr. Tom Price, very talented guy -- but I tell them from a purely political standpoint, the single-best thing we can do is nothing.  Let it implode completely -- it’s already imploding.  You see the carriers are all leaving.  I mean, it’s a disaster. But two years don’t do anything.  The Democrats will come to us and beg for help.  They’ll beg, and it’s their problem.  But it’s not the right thing to do for the American people.  It’s not the right thing to do.  (Applause.)  We inherited a national debt that has doubled in eight years.  Think of it -- $20 trillion.  It’s doubled.  And we inherited a foreign policy marked by one disaster after another.  We don’t win anymore.  When was the last time we won?  Did we win a war?  Do we win anything?  Do we win anything?  We’re going to win.  We’re going to win big, folks.  We’re going to start winning again, believe me.  We’re going to win.  (Applause.)   AUDIENCE:  USA!  USA!  USA! THE PRESIDENT:  But we’re taking a firm, bold and decisive measure -- we have to -- to turn things around.  The era of empty talk is over.  It’s over.  (Applause.)  Now is the time for action.  So let me tell you about the actions that we’re taking right now to deliver on our promise to the American people, and on my promise to make America great again. We’ve taken swift and strong action to secure the southern border of the United States and to begin the construction of great, great border wall.  (Applause.)  And with the help of our great border police, with the help of ICE, with the help of General Kelly and all of the people that are so passionate about this -- our Border Patrol, I’ll tell you what they do.  They came and endorsed me, ICE came and endorsed me.  They never endorsed a presidential candidate before.  They might not even be allowed to.  (Laughter.)  But they were disgusted with what they saw.  And we’ll stop it.  We’ll stop the drugs from pouring into our nation and poisoning our youth.  (Applause.)  Pouring in, pouring in.  We get the drugs, they get the money.  We get the problems, they get the cash.  No good, no good.  Going to stop.  By stopping the flow of illegal immigration, we will save countless tax dollars, and that's so important because the tax -- the dollars that we're losing are beyond anything that you can imagine.  And the tax dollars that can be used to rebuild struggling American communities -- including our inner cities.  (Applause.) We are also going to save countless American lives.  As we speak today, immigration officers are finding the gang members, the drug dealers and the criminal aliens, and throwing them the hell out of our country.  (Applause.)  And we will not let them back in.  They're not coming back in, folks.  (Applause.)  If they do, they're going to have bigger problems than they ever dreamt of. I'm also working with the Department of Justice to begin reducing violent crime.  I mean, can you believe what's happening in Chicago, as an example?  Two days ago, seven people were shot -- AUDIENCE MEMBER:  It's Iraq! THE PRESIDENT:  -- and, I believe, killed.  Seven people.  Seven people.  Chicago, a great American city.  Seven people shot and killed.   We will support the incredible men and women of law enforcement.  (Applause.)  Thank you.  And thank them.  I've also followed through on my campaign promise and withdrawn America from the Trans-Pacific Partnership -- (applause) -- so that we can protect our economic freedom.  And we are going to make trade deals, but we're going to do one-on-one, one-on-one.  And if they misbehave, we terminate the deal.  And then they'll come back, and we'll make a better deal.  (Applause.)  None of these big quagmire deals that are a disaster.  Just take a look -- by the way, take a look at NAFTA, one of the worst deals ever made  by any country having to do with economic development.  It's economic undevelopment as far as our country is concerned.  We're preparing to repeal and replace the disaster known as Obamacare.  (Applause.)  We're going to save Americans from this crisis, and give them the access to the quality healthcare they need and deserve. We have authorized the construction, one day, of the Keystone and Dakota Access pipelines.  (Applause.)  And issued a new rule.  This took place while I was getting ready to sign.  I said, who makes the pipes for the pipeline?  Well, sir, it comes from all over the world, isn't that wonderful?  I said, nope, it comes from the United States or we're not building one.  (Applause.)  American steel.   If they want a pipeline in the United States, they're going to use pipe that's made in the United States, do we agree?  (Applause.) But can you imagine -- I told this story the other day -- can you imagine the gentleman -- never met him, don't even know the name of his company.  I actually sort of know it, but I want to get it exactly correct.  Big, big, powerful company.  They spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the pipeline -- same thing with the Dakota, different place.  They got their approvals, everything, in the case of Dakota, then all of a sudden they couldn't connect it because they had people protesting that never showed up before. But with the Keystone -- so they spend hundreds of millions of dollars with bloodsucker consultants, you know, sucking the blood out of the company -- "don't worry, I use them all my life; okay, don't worry, we're going to get it approved, I'm connected, I'm a lobbyist, don't worry."  Bottom line, Obama didn't sign it.  Could be 42,000 jobs -- somewhere around there.  A lot of jobs.  Didn't sign it.  But can you imagine -- he gave up.  A year ago it was dead.   Now he's doing nothing, calling his wife, "Hello, darling, I'm a little bored, you know that pipeline?"  That has killed us, that has killed our company.  Knock, knock.  "Mr. so-and-so, the Keystone pipeline, sir, out of nowhere, has just been approved."  (Applause.)  Now, can you imagine the expression?  And you know the sad part?  The same bloodsucking consultants that hit him for all the money and failed?  They're now going to go back to him and say, didn't we do a great job?  We want more money, right, because that's the way the system works.  A little bit off, but that's the way the system works. We're preparing bold action to lift the restrictions on American energy, including shale, oil, natural gas, and beautiful clean coal, and we're going to put our miners back to work.  (Applause.)  Miners are going back to work.  (Applause.)  Miners are going back to work, folks.  Sorry to tell you that, but they're going back to work.   We have begun a historic program to reduce the regulations that are crushing our economy -- crushing.  And not only our economy, crushing our jobs, because companies can't hire.  We're going to put the regulation industry out of work and out of business.  (Applause.)  And, by the way, I want regulation.  I want to protect our environment.  I want regulations for safety.  I want all of the regulations that we need, and I want them to be so strong and so tough.  But we don't need 75 percent of the repetitive, horrible regulations that hurt companies, hurt jobs, make us noncompetitive overseas with other companies from other countries.  That, we don't need.  But we're going to have regulations.  It's going to be really strong and really good, and we're going to protect our environment, and we're going to protect the safety of our people and our workers.  (Applause.) Another major promise is tax reform.  We are going to massively lower taxes on the middle class, reduce taxes on American business, and make our tax code more simple and much more fair for everyone, including the people and the business.  (Applause.) In anticipation of these and other changes, jobs are already starting to pour back into our country -- you see that.  In fact, I think I did more than any other pre-President -- they say President-elect.  President-elect is meeting with Ford, he's meeting with Chrysler, he's meeting with General Motors.  I just wanted to save a little time.  (Laughter.)  Because Ford and Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Intel and so many others are now, because of the election result, making major investments in the United States, expanding production and hiring more workers.  And they're going back to Michigan, and they're going back to Ohio, and they're going back to Pennsylvania, and they're going back to North Carolina, and to Florida.  (Applause.) It's time for all Americans to get off of welfare and get back to work.  You're going to love it!  You're going to love it.  You are going to love it.  (Applause.) We're also putting in a massive budget request for our beloved military.  (Applause.)  And we will be substantially upgrading all of our military -- all of our military.  Offensive, defensive, everything.  Bigger and better and stronger than ever before.  And hopefully, we'll never have to use it.  But nobody is going to mess with us, folks.  Nobody.  (Applause.) It will be one of the greatest military buildups in American history.  No one will dare to question -- as they have been, because we're very depleted, very, very depleted.  Sequester.  Sequester.  Nobody will dare question our military might again.  We believe in peace through strength, and that's what we will have.  (Applause.)   As part of my pledge to restore safety for the American people, I have also directed the defense community to develop a plan to totally obliterate ISIS.  (Applause.)  Working with our allies, we will eradicate this evil from the face of the Earth.  (Applause.) At the same time, we fully understand that national security begins with border security.  Foreign terrorists will not be able to strike America if they cannot get into our country.  (Applause.)  And by the way, take a look at what's happening in Europe, folks.  Take a look at what's happening in Europe.  I took a lot of heat on Sweden.  (Laughter.)  And then a day later, I said, has anybody reported what's going on?  And it turned out that they didn't -- not too many of them did.  (Laughter.)  Take a look at what happened in Sweden.  I love Sweden.  Great country.  Great people.  I love Sweden.  But they understand I'm right.  The people over there understand I'm right.  Take a look at what's happening in Sweden.  Take a look at what's happening in Germany.  Take a look at what's happened in France.  Take a look at Nice and Paris.   I have a friend -- he's a very, very substantial guy.  He loves the City of Lights.  He loves Paris.  For years, every year, during the summer, he would go to Paris -- it was automatic -- with his wife and his family.  I hadn’t seen him in a while.  And I said, Jim, let me ask you a question:  How’s Paris doing?  "Paris?  I don’t go there anymore.  Paris is no longer Paris."  That was four years -- four, five years -- hasn’t gone there.  He wouldn’t miss it for anything.  Now he doesn’t even think in terms of going there.  Take a look at what’s happening to our world, folks, and we have to be smart.  We have to be smart.  We can’t let it happen to us.  (Applause.)  So let me state this as clearly as I can:  We are going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country.  (Applause.)  We will not be deterred from this course, and in a matter of days, we will be taking brand new action to protect out people and keep America safe.  You will see the action.  (Applause.)  I will never, ever apologize for protecting the safety and security of the American people.  I won’t do it.  (Applause.)  If it means I get bad press, if it means people speak badly of me, it’s okay.  It doesn’t bother me.  The security of our people is number one -- is number one.  (Applause.)  Our administration is running with great efficiency, even though I still don’t have my Cabinet approved.  Nobody mentions that.  Do you know I still have people out there waiting to be approved?  And everyone knows they're going to be approved.  It’s just a delay, delay, delay.  It’s really sad.  It’s really sad.  And these are great people.  These are some great people.  We still don’t have our Cabinet.  I assume we’re setting records for that.  That’s the only thing good about it is we’re setting records.  I love setting records.  (Applause.)  But I hate having a Cabinet meeting and I see all these empty seats.  I said, Democrats, please, approve our Cabinet and get smart on health care too, if you don’t mind.  (Applause.)  But we’re taking meetings every day with top leaders in business, in science, and industry.  Yesterday, I had 29 of the biggest business leaders in the world in my office -- Caterpillar tractor, Campbell’s Soup.  We had everybody.  We had everybody.  I like Campbell’s Soup.  (Laughter and applause.)  We had everybody, and we came to a lot of very good conclusions, and a lot of those folks that are in that room are going to be building big, big massive new plants, and lots of jobs.  And you know what?  They’re going to be building them in this country, not in some other country.  (Applause.)  We’re meeting with unions, meeting with law enforcement, and we’re meeting with leaders from all around the world, where the White House doors used to be totally closed -- they were closed, folks.  You don’t realize that.  They were closed.  They’re now wide open.  And they’re open for people doing business for our country and putting people to work.  (Applause.)  And when they come into the White House, we’re translating these meetings into action.  One by one, we’re checking off the promises we made to the people of the United States.  One by one -- a lot of promises.  And we will not stop until the job is done.  We will reduce your taxes.  We will cut your regulations.  We will support our police.  We will defend our flag.  (Applause.)  We will rebuild our military.  We will take care of our great, great veterans.  We’re taking care of our veterans.  (Applause.)  We will fix our broken and embarrassing trade deals that are no good -- none of them.  You wonder, where did the people come from that negotiated these deals?  Where did they come from? AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Government. THE PRESIDENT:  Well, they came also from campaign contributions, I must be honest with you.  They’re not as stupid as you think.  (Laughter.)  We will cut wasteful spending.  We will promote our values.  We will rebuild our inner cities.  We will bring back our jobs and our dreams.  So true.  (Applause.)  So true. And, by the way, we will protect our Second Amendment.  (Applause.)  You know, Wayne and Chris are here from the NRA, and they didn’t have that on the list.  It’s lucky I thought about it.  (Laughter.)  But we will indeed.  And they’re great people.  And by the way, they love our country.  They love our country.  The NRA has been a great supporter.  They love our country. The forgotten men and women of America will be forgotten no longer.  That is the heart of this new movement and the future of the Republican Party.  People came to vote, and these people -- the media -- they said, where are they coming from?  What’s going on here?  These are hardworking, great, great Americans.  These are unbelievable people who have not been treated fairly.  Hillary called them “deplorable”.  They’re not deplorable. AUDIENCE:  Booo -- lock her up!  Lock her up!  Lock her up! THE PRESIDENT:  Who would have thought that a word was going to play so badly.  That’s the problem in politics.  One wrong word and it’s over.  She also said irredeemable, but we won’t mention that.   The GOP will be, from now on, the party also of the American worker.  (Applause.)  You know, we haven’t been, as a group, given credit for this, but if you look at how much bigger our party has gotten during this cycle.  During the early days when we had 17 people running -- the primaries -- millions and millions of people were joining.  Now, I won’t say it was because of me, but it was, okay.  (Applause.)  And we have an amazing, strong, powerful party that truly does want to see America be great again, and it will see it.  And it’s going to see it a lot sooner than you think, believe me.  A lot sooner than you think.  (Applause.)  We will not answer to donors or lobbyists or special interests, but we will serve the citizens of the United States of America, believe me.  Global cooperation -- dealing with other countries, getting along with other countries -- is good.  It’s very important.  But there is no such thing as a global anthem, a global currency, or a global flag.  This is the United States of America that I’m representing.  I’m not representing the globe.  I’m representing your country.  (Applause.)  AUDIENCE:  USA! USA! USA!  THE PRESIDENT:  There is one allegiance that unites us all, and that is to America.  America -- it’s the allegiance to America. No matter our background, or income, or geography, we are all citizens of this blessed land.  And no matter our color, or the blood, the color of the blood we bleed, it’s the same red blood of great, great patriots.  Remember.  Great patriots.  (Applause.)  We all salute, with pride, the same American Flag.  And we are equal -- totally equal -- in the eyes of Almighty God.  We’re equal.  (Applause.)  Thank you. And I want to thank, by the way, the evangelical community, the Christian community.  (Applause.)  Communities of faith -- rabbis and priests and pastors, ministers -- because the support for me was a record, as you know, not only in terms of numbers of people, but percentages of those numbers that voted for Trump.  So I want to thank you folks.  It was amazing -- an amazing outpouring, and I will not disappoint you.   As long as we have faith in each other, and trust in God, then there is no goal, at all, beyond our reach.  There is no dream too large, no task too great.  We are Americans, and the future belongs to us.  The future belongs to all of you.  (Applause.)  And America is coming about, and it’s coming back, and it’s roaring and you can hear it.  It’s going to be bigger and better.  It is going to be.  It is going to be.  Remember.  And it’s roaring.  It’s going to be bigger, and better, and stronger than ever before.  (Applause.)  I want to thank you.  And Matt and Mercedes, I want to thank the two of you, and all of the supporters that I have.  I see them.  They’re all over the place.  You are really great people.  I want to thank you. And I want to say to you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.  Thank you, folks.  Thank you.  (Applause.)  END  11:04 A.M. EST

24 февраля, 20:24

Muslim Brotherhood Terror Designation Will Lead To 'Witch-Hunt,' Rights Groups Say

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); Over 80 prominent American civil rights and faith-based groups have come out against President Donald Trump’s reported plan to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization, arguing it would provide a smokescreen to smear and persecute American Muslims and shut down important Muslim organizations.  An open letter published Thursday by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Brennan Center for Justice, and dozens of faith-based and social justice groups argued the terror designation could give a White House already hostile to Muslims the power to lead a “witch-hunt against Muslim society in the U.S.” The designation, the letter states, would allow the administration to “destroy reputations and chill lawful activity,” and “runs the serious risk of stifling religious and political freedom and the ability to assist and represent Muslim communities without fear of retaliation.”   Anti-Muslim groups in the U.S. have long salivated over the prospect of designating the Muslim Brotherhood ― a culturally conservative political movement founded in Egypt to push for Islamic-based governments ― as a foreign terror organization. For years, these groups have promoted paranoid conspiracy theories wherein the brotherhood is actively coordinating a massive, subversive plot among American Muslims to destroy the U.S. from within. Thursday’s letter notes how right-wing groups and leaders have for years “used false ‘six degrees of separation’ accusations about the Muslim Brotherhood as a way to smear prominent Muslims, American Muslim civic and religious institutions, as well as a range of other people.”  CAIR and the Islamic Society of North America ― and everyone from Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin to conservative activist Grover Norquist ― have been baselessly accused of working for the brotherhood, most notably by anti-Muslim figurehead Frank Gaffney. And while Gaffney’s theories were once relegated to the fringe of American politics, they now carry real currency in a Trump White House with deep ties to anti-Muslim hate groups. A terror designation would make it illegal for anyone in the U.S. to provide “material support or resources” to or be “otherwise associated with” the brotherhood, allowing the Trump administration to target groups like CAIR and ISNA. This would enable the government to conduct warrantless searches and to seize the assets of these organizations over the course of yearslong investigations, effectively shutting the groups down. As Thursday’s letter states, the government wouldn’t even require proof that CAIR and ISNA had “actual intent or knowledge of wrongdoing” to prosecute them. “As a result, the potential negative impact on American Muslim civil society of false and unjust smears and investigation resulting from a terrorism designation of the Muslim Brotherhood is high,” the letter states.  The destruction of these Muslim groups, the letter contends, could leave American Muslims vulnerable to persecution. “Muslim civil rights groups work to protect communities against discriminatory laws and policies,” it says, “a role that is critical at a time when the threat of anti-Muslim measures is extraordinarily high and hate crimes against those perceived as Muslim have soared.”  The Muslim Brotherhood, which counts millions of members across the Middle East, renounced violence decades ago, and won elections in Egypt after President Hosni Mubarak was deposed during the Arab Spring in 2011. In 2013, the group fell into disarray after Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, a brotherhood member, was deposed.  Thursday’s letter marks the most comprehensive and organized opposition to date against Trump’s reported plan to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terror organization.  Foreign policy and counterterror experts across the political spectrum have vocally opposed the designation. And the editorial boards of both The New York Times and The Washington Post have also come out against it. Last year, an investigation by the U.K. government determined that the brotherhood is not a terrorist organization. There is literally not a single U.S. expert on the Muslim Brotherhood that I'm aware of who supports designating it as a terrorist group— Shadi Hamid (@shadihamid) February 9, 2017 Aside from the designation’s implications for American Muslim groups, experts have noted that it might also be illegal for the U.S. to designate a terror organization on solely ideological grounds, without evidence that it is actively committing or plotting terror attacks. Moreover, experts have argued that the designation would not only deeply disrupt U.S. relations with Middle Eastern allies where the brotherhood or its offshoots hold some level of power, but could also increase terrorism itself. Politico obtained a CIA memo last month noting that the terrorist designation would “fuel” extremism in the Middle East. The designation “would probably weaken” brotherhood leaders’ arguments against violence “and provide ISIS and al-Qaeda additional grist for propaganda to win followers and support, particularly for attacks against U.S. interests,” the memo said. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the civil rights’ groups letter against the Muslim Brotherhood terror designation.  You can read the full letter below:   -- 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.

24 февраля, 17:24

Le Pen: Finish with bureaucratic monster, artificial construction called the EU

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen has set out her foreign policy goals. In a speech in Paris, she criticized the European Union and NATO, and raised concerns that Russia is being mistreated both by France and the EU. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.

24 февраля, 14:54

TRUMP’s embrace of the House GOP tax plan, and what it means -- Ike Perlmutter SPOTTED at Mar-a-Lago -- CNN: W.H. tried to get FBI to push back on RUSSIA stories -- new TUCKER CARLSON profile

Listen to Playbook in 90 Seconds http://bit.ly/2lRiTYY ... Subscribe on iTunes http://apple.co/2eX6Eay ... Visit the online home of Playbook http://politi.co/2f51JnfGood Friday morning. THIS IS A HEADLINE MANY HOUSE REPUBLICANS LIKE: “Trump says Republican border tax could boost U.S. jobs.” President Donald Trump’s remark that the border-adjustment tax “could lead to a lot more jobs in the United States” perked up many an ear in the House GOP leadership, which has been pushing the proposal for some time and believes it’s the only way to get tax reform done. THIS LOOKS LIKE A SMART MOVE BY TRUMP and could show he understands the legislative game. Either he likes the plan -- which taxes imports instead of exports -- and is going to become the vocal supporter he needs to be to get it through. Or he’s showing its chief supporter Speaker Paul Ryan that he’s trying his way first, and if it fails, he at least gave it a shot. THE QUESTION REMAINS: Is it too little, too late? Retailers opposed to the package have focused squarely on Senate Republicans to serve as the backstop to blocking the plan. Many top Senate Republicans have already come out against the proposal. Check out the Reuters interview http://reut.rs/2lClvXW … And Sean Spicer speaking kindly about the proposal http://cs.pn/2lMttjkTRUMP SPEAKS – HE SAYS HE WANTS A TWO-STATE SOLUTION -- “Trump wants to make sure U.S. nuclear arsenal at ‘top of the pack,’” by Reuters’ Steve Holland: “President Donald Trump said on Thursday he wants to ensure the U.S. nuclear arsenal is at the ‘top of the pack,’ saying the United States has fallen behind in its weapons capacity. In a Reuters interview, Trump also said China could solve the national security challenge posed by North Korea ‘very easily if they want to,’ ratcheting up pressure on Beijing to exert more influence to rein in Pyongyang's increasingly bellicose actions. Trump also expressed support for the European Union as a governing body, saying ‘I’m totally in favor of it,’ and for the first time as president expressed a preference for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but said he would be satisfied with whatever makes the two sides happy.” http://reut.rs/2mjUWa7BUZZ -- TRUMP is not expected to spend the weekend in Palm Beach this week after heading to the “Southern White House” three weeks in a row. SPOTTED at Mar-a-Lago last night: Marvel Comics CEO and Trump friend Ike Perlmutter. TRUMP’S FRONTS -- NYT: Large photo of Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus striding down the CPAC stage with smiles on their faces http://nyti.ms/2lCuJUa … WAPO: Another photo of Bannon and Priebus, and the headline “Bannon presses ‘deconstruction’” http://bit.ly/2kTBFPW … N.Y. POST: “Who was behind the Trump tape leak” http://nyp.st/2algwpl THE PRESIDENT’S FRIDAY -- TRUMP is speaking at CPAC around 10 a.m. He’ll sign an executive order, and will meet with Ohio Gov. John Kasich. In the afternoon, Trump is meeting with President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski of Peru.-- CPAC today: LOU DOBBS at 9:55 a.m., NIGEL FARAGE at 11:55 a.m., NRA’s WAYNE LAPIERRE at 12:55 p.m., JOHN BOLTON at 2:20 p.m.MUST READ, NO. 1 -- “FBI refused White House request to knock down recent Trump-Russia stories,” by CNN’s Jim Sciutto, Evan Perez, Shimon Prokupecz, Manu Raju and Pamela Brown: “The FBI rejected a recent White House request to publicly knock down media reports about communications between Donald Trump's associates and Russians known to US intelligence during the 2016 presidential campaign, multiple US officials briefed on the matter tell CNN. But a White House official said late Thursday that the request was only made after the FBI indicated to the White House it did not believe the reporting to be accurate. White House officials had sought the help of the bureau and other agencies investigating the Russia matter to say that the reports were wrong and that there had been no contacts, the officials said. The reports of the contacts were first published by The New York Times and CNN on February 14.“The direct communications between the White House and the FBI were unusual because of decade-old restrictions on such contacts. Such a request from the White House is a violation of procedures that limit communications with the FBI on pending investigations. Late Thursday night, White House press secretary Sean Spicer objected to CNN’s characterization of the White House request to the FBI. ‘We didn’t try to knock the story down. We asked them to tell the truth,’ Spicer said. The FBI declined to comment for this story.” http://cnn.it/2lMlL9fMUST READ, NO. 2 -- RARE TRIPLE-BYLINED NEW YORKER BLOCKBUSTER – “Active Measures: What lay behind Russia’s interference in the 2016 election—and what lies ahead?” by David Remnick in New York, Evan Osnos in D.C., and Joshua Yaffa in Moscow (online headline: “Trump, Putin and the New Cold War”): “For many national-security officials, the e-mail hacks were part of a larger, and deeply troubling, picture: Putin’s desire to damage American confidence and to undermine the Western alliances— diplomatic, financial, and military—that have shaped the postwar world. ... The working theory among intelligence officials involved in the case is that the Russian approach—including hacking, propaganda, and contacts with Trump associates—was an improvisation rather than a long-standing plan. [An] official said, ‘After the election, there were a lot of Embassy communications”—to Moscow—‘saying, stunned, “What we do now?”’ http://bit.ly/2lCFaqP--To accompany the story, BARRY BLITT is behind the week’s cover -- “In a riff on the magazine’s first cover, from 1925, by Rea Irvin, Blitt imagines a future in which The New Yorker’s dandy mascot has become Eustace Vladimirovich Tilley and the lepidopteran under scrutiny is none other than a stunned Donald Trump”: http://bit.ly/2mjOEam JONATHAN MARTIN and ALEX BURNS on A1 of the NYT, “Weakened Democrats Bow to Voters, Opting for Total War on Trump”: “Reduced to their weakest state in a generation, Democratic Party leaders will gather in two cities this weekend to plot strategy and select a new national chairman with the daunting task of rebuilding the party’s depleted organization. But senior Democratic officials concede that the blueprint has already been chosen for them — by an incensed army of liberals demanding no less than total war against President Trump.“Immediately after the November election, Democrats were divided over how to handle Mr. Trump, with one camp favoring all-out confrontation and another backing a seemingly less risky approach of coaxing him to the center with offers of compromise. Now, spurred by explosive protests and a torrent of angry phone calls and emails from constituents — and outraged themselves by Mr. Trump’s swift moves to enact a hard-line agenda — Democrats have all but cast aside any notion of conciliation with the White House. Instead, they are mimicking the Republican approach of the last eight years — the ‘party of no’ — and wagering that brash obstruction will pay similar dividends.” http://nyti.ms/2mjInvz WALL STREET LOVES TRUMP -- “Trump’s ‘big fat bubble’ trouble in the stock market,” by Ben White and Mary Lee: “Seen from Wall Street, the Trump presidency is going perfectly. Travel ban troubles? Whatever. Russian revelations? Meh. Staffing woes? Who cares. Stocks continue to shrug it all off and rocket to new highs on the promise of big tax cuts, infrastructure spending and mass deregulation. But analysts now caution that Trumphoria in the stock market could soon crash into a harsh Washington reality. Before even getting to tax reform - where there is little agreement on the way forward - Republicans have to figure out how to repeal and replace Obamacare, win confirmation for a Supreme Court justice and deal with Democrats eager to slam the brakes on anything and everything President Donald Trump tries to do. The result could be that a frothy stock market Trump derided as a ‘big fat bubble’ before the election - but now takes credit for - suddenly plummets back to Earth.” http://politi.co/2lCBxkV-- WE SAID IT YESTERDAY, but we’ll say it again for effect: Tax reform is likely a multi-year process. Any deal could die for a thousand reasons that have nothing to do with Donald Trump. But, the president hasn’t yet helped build the case for Republicans to line up behind him on it. And, he certainly isn’t making the case for Senate Democrats to break ranks to get behind a massive bipartisan tax deal. WHAT BANNON’S REALLY THINKING -- “Bannon vows a daily fight for ‘deconstruction of the administrative state’,” by WaPo’s Phil Rucker and Bob Costa: “The reclusive mastermind behind President Trump’s nationalist ideology and combative tactics made his public debut Thursday, delivering a fiery rebuke of the media and declaring that the new administration is in an unending battle for ‘deconstruction of the administrative state.’ Stephen K. Bannon, the White House chief strategist and intellectual force behind Trump’s agenda, used his first speaking appearance since Trump took office to vow that the president would honor all of the hard-line pledges of his campaign. “Appearing at a gathering of conservative activists alongside Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Bannon dismissed the idea that Trump might moderate his positions or seek consensus with political opponents. Rather, he said, the White House is digging in for a long period of conflict to transform Washington and upend the world order. ‘If you think they’re going to give you your country back without a fight, you are sadly mistaken,’ Bannon said in reference to the media and opposition forces. ‘Every day, it is going to be a fight.’ He continued, 'And that is what I’m proudest about Donald Trump. All the opportunities he had to waver off this, all the people who have come to him and said, ‘Oh, you’ve got to moderate’ — every day in the Oval Office, he tells Reince and I, ‘I committed this to the American people, I promised this when I ran, and I’m going to deliver on this.’” http://wapo.st/2meFAHh … Full video of Bannon/Priebus/Matt Schlapp http://bit.ly/2lMEMZ7 --BURIED NUGGET in Rucker/Costa story: “Writers for Breitbart, a main sponsor of CPAC, were treated as if they were ESPN anchors at a major sports event. Washington editor Matthew Boyle, who has scored several Trump interviews and counts Bannon as a mentor, was trailed by a photographer from a magazine that is profiling him.”-- “Priebus and Bannon push back on the idea they are warring forces,” by Annie Karni and Louis Nelson: “For weeks, Bannon and Priebus have been mounting a charm offensive -- privately -- with reporters in an effort to counter seemingly endless palace intrigue stories about their rivalry inside the White House. Their talk at CPAC, the annual conservative gathering, was their first time taking their buddy comedy act public. … Press secretary Sean Spicer said that the idea of the duo appearing together was pitched to them by CPAC Chairman Matt Schlapp, who moderated the conversation. At the end, Schlapp suggested a group hug.” http://politi.co/2mezLJH-- @KJAlvarado124: “Please tell me somebody else saw Priebus’ reaction to Bannon trying to touch him. #CPAC2017” http://bit.ly/2lyJlFM ALL IN THE FAMILY -- “Kushner, Ivanka Trump Pushed to Remove Words Critical of Climate Deal From Executive Order,” by WSJ’s Amy Harder and Peter Nicholas: “At the request of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and his wife, Ivanka Trump, language critical of a global climate deal was struck from an executive order that Mr. Trump is planning to sign soon, according to multiple people familiar with the move. Mr. Trump is expected to sign within days at least two executive orders that will begin the process of trying to dismantle former President Barack Obama’s climate and environmental regulations. Mr. Kushner, a senior adviser to Mr. Trump, and Ms. Trump, the president’s eldest daughter, intervened to strike language about the climate deal from an earlier draft of the executive order, according to these people. The executive order, which targets Mr. Obama’s broad climate agenda, now includes no mention of the climate deal, which nearly 200 nations struck in Paris in 2015, in large part due to a strong push by the Mr. Obama’s administration.” http://on.wsj.com/2meOwfR-- MARIN COGAN’S RETURN TO THE PAGES OF POLITICO with the Friday Cover: “How Do You Solve a Problem Like Ivanka?: She’s a fashion icon. She’s also the president’s daughter. How will magazines cover the new Ivanka Trump?" http://politi.co/2lMJwxU TRUMP’S CABINET -- “Trump’s words send Cabinet on perpetual clean-up mission,” by Nahal Toosi: “With each passing day, Donald Trump’s Cabinet looks more like a clean-up crew. The president’s undiplomatic comments are repeatedly forcing his foreign policy and national security appointees into the awkward position of telling an anxious world that, basically, their boss didn’t really mean what he said. The latest example came Thursday, as Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson visited Mexico, a frequent target of Trump’s ire. Trump declared in the morning that the U.S. deportation program he wants to ramp up is ‘a military operation.’ Later in the day, Kelly insisted to Mexican officials that it was no such thing. ‘No — repeat — no use of military force in immigration operations. None,’ the secretary said in a public statement. White House press secretary Sean Spicer dismissed questions about Trump’s use of the term ‘military,’ saying the president was using the word as an adjective to describe how efficiently his immigration-related orders are being implemented.” http://politi.co/2lCtKnbTHE. BEST. EVER. -- “Adelson: Trump likely to be ‘best president for Israel ever,’” by CNN’s Teddy Schleifer: “The laudatory comments, described by multiple attendees of the private event, came as Dick Cheney, the powerful Vice President in George W. Bush’s administration, sat among the audience munching on salmon and brisket. Adelson did not say that Trump was guaranteed to be better than the 43rd president, only that he was poised to do so based on his early moves. Despite sharing the stage with Republican National Committee finance chair Steve Wynn, little of the conversation centered on politics, attendees said. Most of the conversation between the two casino titans revolved around their business principles and how the pair built Las Vegas.” http://cnn.it/2lyJo4tHEADLINE OF THE DAY -- “Boehner: Republicans won’t repeal and replace Obamacare: ‘They’re basically going to fix the flaws and put a more conservative box around it,’ Boehner said. http://politi.co/2kTEf8s ABOUT THAT BOEHNER COMMENT … When the former House speaker told an Orlando health care conference that a repeal and replace of Obamacare in GOP D.C. is “not going to happen,” longtime Boehner watchers like us laughed. Why? This is vintage John A. Boehner. Behind the scenes, when the cameras were away and Boehner was dishing with his fellow Republicans, the Ohio Republican would take a drag of his cigarette, a sip of his Merlot and tell the truth about what could and could not happen in D.C. Now he’s freed from the political considerations that bogged him down as speaker, and saying publicly what most everyone is saying privately: Obamacare repeal is a bear. BUT, BUT, BUT … To the extent this has any impact in the real world, it could help Speaker Paul Ryan. Ryan is going to have a tough enough time dealing with Obamacare that he could use a foil. Boehner -- who is seen as a hardly Republican-enough squish to many conservatives -- is the perfect detractor for Ryan. THE JUICE … -- CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL XAVIER BECERRA will keynote the DNC’s gathering in Atlanta. Becerra is expected to focus on how Democrats “passed Medicare, Social Security, civil rights and put a man on the moon,” according to a spokesman. He will also emphasize that the Democratic Party “knows how to pass real health security, protect hardworking immigrants and keep our families safe by preventing gun violence, protecting our environment.” A SOURCE CLOSE to DNC chair candidate Pete Buttigieg tells Playbook Becerra is scheduled to meet privately with the South Bend mayor before Saturday’s DNC chair vote.-- SPOTTED: OHIO GOV. JOHN KASICH, rocking a Kasich jacket and on a flip phone, in business class from London to Washington Thursday. His aides were in economy. The State of Ohio’s plane is coming to D.C., presumably to pick him up after he meets with the president. http://bit.ly/2lCyclV -- HEATHER HIGGINBOTTOM and MACON PHILLIPS -- two top Obama White House officials -- are heading to CARE, the massive humanitarian aid agency headed by Michelle Nunn. Higginbottom, who was deputy secretary of State for management and resources, will be chief operating officer. Phillips -- who founded the White House office of digital strategy before revamping the International Information Program -- will be chief digital officer. -- MARTY OBST and KATHLEEN ROONEY joined the Maverick PAC board: Obst, a partner at MO Strategies, started the 2016 cycle as campaign manager for then Gov. Mike Pence. He ran VP operations on the Trump-Pence campaign and was deputy CEO of the Inaugural Committee. Kathleen Rooney, daughter of Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), is VP of Rooney Holdings, a privately-held investment company. GET SMART FAST -- “Takeaways from a week of raucous town halls,” by Kyle Cheney: “The angst is real … The surest applause line: Break with the GOP … Moscow on their minds … Growing fear of a viral moment.” http://politi.co/2lCnNq1-- “No evidence town hall protesters are being paid,” by Elana Schor: http://politi.co/2lgxIRhWHAT SENATE REPUBLICANS ARE SMILING ABOUT -- RBG ON GORSUCH -- AP’s Sam Hananel: “At her university appearance [at GWU], Ginsburg had some kind words about Judge Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court. Ginsburg said she got to know Gorsuch during a trip to England a few years ago to meet with judges there. ‘I’ve worked with him and I think he’s very easy to get along with,’ she said. ‘He writes very well.’” http://detne.ws/2lR87C6 K-FILE – “Trump Israel ambassador pick bragged of removing two-state solution from GOP platform at November event,” by CNN’s Andrew Kaczynski: “In the speech delivered in his hometown of Woodmere, NY, video of which was reviewed by CNN’s KFile, [David] Friedman boasted of removing references of the two-state solution and occupation of the West Bank from the Republican Party platform, called the Jewish group J-Street ‘a dangerous organization,’ and said the Anti-Defamation League had ‘lost all credibility.’ He said it would be ‘ludicrous’ to pressure Israel to make peace to create ‘another Arab dysfunctional state.’ Friedman also falsely asserted that Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a far-right conspiracy theory that has been debunked by several fact-checking organizations.” http://cnn.it/2mjyWvUFOR YOUR RADAR -- “Kim Jong Nam Killed With U.N.-Banned VX Nerve Agent, Malaysia Says,” by WSJ’s Ben Otto and Yantoultra Ngui in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: “The chemical substance used to kill Kim Jong Nam last week was an extremely toxic United Nations-banned nerve agent called VX, police here said, significantly raising the political stakes in a case that has already frayed diplomatic ties between Malaysia and North Korea. Experts believe North Korea possesses several thousand metric tons of chemical weapons and nerve agents—including VX—that are banned by the U.N. and considered weapons of mass destruction.” http://on.wsj.com/2lgn90DK STREET WATCH -- “INFLUENCE GAME: GM bill is self-driving and self-interested,” by AP’s Joan Lowy: “With states seizing the initiative on shaping the future of self-driving cars, General Motors is trying to persuade lawmakers across the country to approve rules that would benefit the automaker while potentially keeping its competitors off the road. The carmaker denies trying to freeze out other brands, but legislators in four states say GM lobbyists asked them to sponsor bills that the company’s competitors contend would do just that. The bills set a blueprint for the introduction of fully self-driving cars that are part of on-demand, ride-sharing fleets, but they must be owned by an automaker. Competitors working on self-driving technology like Uber and Alphabet's Waymo fear the measures could shut out their companies because they don't manufacture cars.” http://apne.ws/2lQSHO0DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO -- “Zuckerberg group that fought Trump gave to transition,” by Tony Romm and Theo Meyer: “At the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, the immigration reform group FWD.us took aim at then-GOP candidate Donald Trump and blasted him for pursuing policies that might lead to ‘mass deportations.’ But months later the nonprofit founded by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg wrote a $5,000 check to Trump’s presidential transition — the latest indication that it’s still business as usual for the tech industry in Washington despite the revulsion many Silicon Valley engineers and executives feel toward Trump. Hoping to curry early favor and help shape the incoming administration, FWD.us joined a handful of tech and telecom companies like AT&T, Microsoft and Qualcomm in funding Trump’s months-long transition operation, which raked in roughly $6.5 million through Feb. 15, according to a transition disclosure report filed last weekend and obtained by POLITICO on Thursday.” http://politi.co/2lyFHf8TUCKER CARLSON PROFILE – MCKAY COPPINS in The Atlantic, “The Bow-Tied Bard of Populism”: On Washington D.C. and his neighbors: “‘I’m so pathetically eager for people to love D.C.,’ he admits. ‘It’s so sad. It’s like I work for the chamber of commerce or something.’ If this boosterism seems out of character for a primetime populist like Carlson, he doesn’t seem to mind the dissonance. He speaks glowingly of his Northwest Washington neighborhood, a tony enclave of liberal affluence where, he tells me, he is surrounded by diplomats, lawyers, world bankers, and well-paid media types. They are reliably ‘wonderful’; unfailingly ‘nice’; ‘some of my favorite people in the world.’ If you’ve watched Carlson on TV lately, you know they are also wrong about virtually everything.” http://theatln.tc/2lgox3fWEST COAST WATCH -- “Can the Calif. Republican Party bounce back in 2018? Here’s the chairman’s game plan,” by LA Times’ Phil Willon and Christine Mai-Duc: http://lat.ms/2lCa0Qv -- FLASHBACK to 2012: “GOP's California dreams dashed,” by Jake Sherman in Sacramento. http://politi.co/2kTLRYq HOT VIDEO -- BENNY JOHNSON offered Brexit leader Nigel Farage an Irish Car Bomb yesterday at CPAC. “He drank half of it in one gulp. I drank the other half.” 42-second video http://bit.ly/2kTqOp6MEDIAWATCH -- COMING ATTRACTIONS -- THE PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS -- TWITTER and the PBS NEWSHOUR will live stream Trump’s address to a joint session next Tuesday. Their joint Inauguration Day live stream was the most viewed live stream ever on Twitter.-- GABRIELLE BLUESTONE, the pride of the Upper East Side and GW, is starting at Vice as an editor next month. Gabby most recently worked at Gawker.SPOTTED -- Wayne Gretsky at Fiola Mare … Ed Henry at MGM National Harbor … Judge Neil Gorsuch eating dinner at 1789 last night. He took photos with wait staff and other diners ... Justice Stephen Breyer at Rasika in Penn Quarter ... Valerie Jarrett sitting across the aisle (literally and figuratively) from Bush/Cantor alum Rory Cooper and Bush/Romney alum Brian Bartlett on the 11 a.m. Acela from D.C. to New York ... Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) wearing a red Wisconsin jacket at DFW ... UAE Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba at one table and Inter-American Development Bank President Luis Alberto Moreno at another at the Four Seasons for breakfast ... Chris Matthews in first class on yesterday’s 12 p.m. American Airlines shuttle from LGA to DCAWELCOME TO THE WORLD – Natalie Munoz, SVP at SKDKnickerbocker, and Rene Munoz, a longtime Hill staffer and Obama administration appointee, have welcomed Michael Joseph Munoz, born Feb. 14. Baby Mikey was welcomed to the world by dad Rene and big brother Lucas. Pic http://bit.ly/2mrX2nv--Erin Vieira, associate director for regional sales at digital ad firm Undertone, and Paulo Vieira, a plant nematologist, welcomed a baby boy on Wednesday named Raffaele Matticola Vieira. Pic http://bit.ly/2mjLIuFTRANSITIONS -- Steven D’Amico has started D’Amico Strategy http://bit.ly/2lglQPj … Sen. David Perdue’s (R-Ga.) aides PJ Waldrop and Megan Whittemore have both been promoted to deputy chief of staff. They will also continue in their current roles as legislative director and communications director while assuming more day-to-day responsibilities. … Rebecca Schieber just started at the Locust Street Group, focusing on grassroots and advocacy. She’s Carly Fiorina’s former body woman (AP story on her: http://apne.ws/2lMkLBR) and most recently regional field director for the Toomey campaign. ... The global poverty fighting organization CARE announced that Beth Solomon has been named managing director, external affairs and development, and will be based in its Washington office. http://bit.ly/2l6wVl5 ... Maggie Dougherty starts on Monday as policy adviser for U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley in the D.C. office. She previously was senior congressional advisor for the British Embassy and is a Rubio alum.OBAMA ALUMNI -- TEDDY GOFF, co-founder and partner at Precision Strategies, was selected as a part of the American Association of Political Consultants (AAPC)’s 40 Under 40 yesterday. Other Playbookers on the list include: Gary Coby, Vince Harris, Nick Everhart, Seth Colton, Emily Cornell, Scott Zumwalt, Kelly Ward and Karl Frisch. http://bit.ly/2meDeYZSUNDAY SO FAR -- ABC’s “This Week”: House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Panel: Alex Castellanos, Stephanie Cutter, Amy Holmes, Robert Reich, and David Remnick.--“Fox News Sunday”: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker ... Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe ... Power Player: Dan Scavino, White House director of social media. Panel: Steve Hilton, Julie Pace, Lisa Boothe, Juan Williams--CBS’ “Face the Nation”: Ben Domenech, Ezra Klein, Lanhee Chen & Molly Ball--CNN’s “State of the Union”: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). Panel: Former Gov. Jennifer Granholm, former Sen. Rick Santorum, Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.)--CNN’s “Inside Politics,” hosted by John King: Abby Phillip, Jeff Zeleny, Margaret Talev, Reid WilsonBIRTHDAY OF THE DAY: Kevin Lewis (@klewis44), spokesperson for former President Obama, celebrating by going to NYC tonight to see Hamilton and having dinner with family and friends in Brooklyn over the weekend – read his Playbook Plus Q&A: http://politi.co/2lCEIJ9 BIRTHDAYS: Mark Salter, the pride of Davenport, Iowa ... Paula Zahn is 61 ... former Sen. Joe Lieberman, now No Labels co-chair, is 75 (h/t Dennis Craig) ... NYT’s Sabrina Tavernise ... Blake Waggoner, managing partner of HomeState Media, is 31 ... Nilda Pedrosa ... Juliet K. Choi, former COS at USCIS ... Secretary of the Senate Julie Adams (paw tip: Maggie) ... Joshua Gardner, VP for MSL Washington ... Emily Feldman, who works at education nonprofit AMIDEAST, is 24 (h/t Brendan Holman) ... former Mass. Gov. Jane Swift is 52 -- she was acting governor at the age of 36 and lt. governor at 34 (h/t Ed Cash) ... Hemant Taneja, managing director at General Catalyst ... Karen Olick, managing director at SKDKnickerbocker and Boxer alum (h/ts Jon Haber) ... former Sen. Zell Miller is 85 ... Kevin Dando, PBS’ senior director of social media strategy and digital comms ... Kate Kelly of Interior fame ... Politico’s Connor O’Brien ... Paula Stannard ... Politico Europe’s Tom McTague ... Will Gattenby, co-founder and CEO at William & Lauren Custom Clothiers ...... Jacqueline Alemany, White House reporter for CBS News ... Chris Chocola, former Club for Growth President, is 55 ... Lindsay Hamilton, COS and VP at Center for American Progress (hubby tip: Phil Elwood) ... Jacqueline Hackett ... Allison Branca, assistant to the VP of comms. at Brookings … Reagan McGrath ... Emily West … former Commerce deputy secretary Bruce Andrews is 49 … “Fix Jr.” Cillizza … Abram Olmstead, digital director at the National Automobile Dealers Association and a Chamber alum, is 32 … Jacqueline Hackett, drug-abuse prevention advocate and deputy director for policy at ONDCP ... Peter Lovett ... Nina Hutchison, soon to be proud H.S. graduate from Green Bay ... Fred Martin ... Sam Teller ... Sam Novey (h/ts Teresa Vilmain) ... Abdul Wahid Sanjar ... Andrew Giacini, LA for Rep. Jason Lewis ... Rudy Mendoza of Rep. Nunes’ office ... Kavontae Smalls, comms director for Rep. Matt Gaetz ... Jennifer Griffith of Senate Rules (h/ts Legistorm)

24 февраля, 13:38

Lavrov: Churkin left bright mark in history of Russian diplomacy

Russia’s former Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin, who died on February 20 in New York, has left a bright impression in history of the Russian foreign policy and diplomacy, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said at the farewell ceremony, TASS reports. "Today, we are saying farewell to our friend, an outstanding diplomat, man," the foreign minister said on Feb. 24. "Vitaly was the best professional and a national diplomat." Vitaly Churkin died on Feb. 20, a day before his 65th birthday. He had been Russia’s UN ambassador since April 8, 2006, representing the country in the United Nations Security Council. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, the ambassador died while on duty. Russia appoints acting permanent representative to UN after Churkin’s death

24 февраля, 07:39

Trump's words send Cabinet on perpetual clean-up mission

Allies around the world aren't sure whether to listen to Trump or members of his team running damage control after the fact.

24 февраля, 04:06

Why America's Military Shouldn't Be Managing International Affairs

Ted Ellis Security, Americas U.S. policymakers need to re-examine their habits of using the military to solve foreign-policy problems. Last year, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign-policy roundtable. One of the discussion prompts was: Our current foreign policy is problematic because . . . Click here to watch the rest of the videos in the series “On the Home Front: The Domestic Side of International Relations.” According to retired Army colonel and bestselling author Andrew Bacevich, the American military is today being used to solve problems it was not designed to solve. Current U.S. foreign policy, he said, is “based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the efficacy of military power, particularly American military power,” which leads foreign-policy elites to select objectives that do not align with our frequently misunderstood strategic reality. As a result, Bacevich concludes, “we engage in wars that are unnecessary and counterproductive, notably in large parts of the Islamic world.” At the end of the Cold War, the United States found itself in an “astonishingly favorable” position. Thanks to peaceful, friendly neighbors to the north and south, large oceans separating it from hostile powers abroad, and a level of economic might that dwarfs its closest competitors, the United States was ensured a high degree of prosperity and security. However, Bacevich warns, “The record of the past . . . twenty-five years is one of squandering those advantages.” Columbia University’s Richard Betts attempted to explain why the United States misunderstands the role of its military forces. He argues that the First Gulf War had a “pernicious effect” on policymakers bridging the gap between the Cold War and post-Cold War era. Many elites perceived the First Gulf War as a “perfect military success” that came at “negligible cost.” According to Betts, this “naturally encouraged people to assume” that the U.S. military could be used to manage global affairs “very effectively at acceptable cost.” Read full article

24 февраля, 04:04

McMaster's Experiences with Strategic Failures Will Lead Him to Success

Daniel R. DePetris Security, Americas Time for America to ditch its whack-a-mole counterterrorism strategy. Of all of the candidates that President Donald Trump interviewed to be his next national security advisor, Lt. Gen. H. R. McMaster was by far the most unconventional. A veteran of multiple U.S. wars, commander during numerous deployments and acclaimed by his peers as a strategist who prides himself on innovative thinking, McMaster will undoubtedly meet his match in his new position. A national security advisor must have the complete confidence of the president and the bureaucratic fortitude to play the honest broker between the national-security community’s numerous departments and agencies, namely the Department of Defense and Department of State. And as Condoleezza Rice quickly experienced firsthand during President George W. Bush’s first term, the national security advisor is only as good as his or her ability to manage the large egos who serve on the president’s cabinet. The important responsibilities of a national security advisor are almost endless: knowing when to speak truth to power; when to challenge the more hawkish elements of the Washington foreign-policy community; how to provide the full range of options to the president’s desk during principals committee meetings; and when to exhibit the qualities of the hardheaded quarterback to ensure the trains run on time and all of the departments effectively implement the president’s national policies. None of this, however, will matter at all if the United States continues to avoid establishing grand strategy that has largely been missing from the discussion since the advent of the war on terrorism. To put it in another way, you can be the most talented CEO in the world and still watch your company go bankrupt if you aren’t able to find a strategy suitable to the times. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, the United States has primarily approached the world through the prism of being the lone superpower—the one nation that calls the shots, advocates for universal liberal values, and guarantees that the international system that the United States established after World War II continues to define how the world operates. Read full article

24 февраля, 01:33

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Sean Spicer, 2/23/2017, #15

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room  2:58 P.M. EST MR. SPICER:  I was thinking about not doing a briefing today, and then I saw Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon give that talk and I thought they were infringing on my ratings, so we figured we had to do something to keep up our record. It’s been another busy day today.  This morning, after receiving his daily intelligence briefing, the President welcomed some of the world’s top business and manufacturing leaders to the White House to continue the administration’s effort to engage with the private sector to create jobs and expand opportunities for America’s workers.  The 24 CEOs spent the morning in working sessions with the Vice President, Cabinet members and key aides, and came together with the President to brief him on their discussions and recommendations. The group discussed the need to roll back burdensome regulations that are stifling economic growth.  The CEOs thanked the President for the actions that he’s already taken to address the issues, and the President pledged to do even more, both through the executive branch and by working with Congress to pass legislation that will help further economic growth and job creation. The business leaders recommended that the administration take a multifaceted approach to tax and trade policies, including tax reform, toward which Secretary Mnuchin said that progress is continuing to be made.  The President committed to working to lower taxes and level the playing field with other countries when it comes to trade and taxation. The group held a lengthy discussion about the need to invest in the American worker to prepare for the manufacturing jobs of the future, especially the key role of vocational schools in training the workforce of the 21st century.  The CEOs and administration officials agreed that public-private partnerships will be the cornerstone of a robust plan to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure.  The President committed to streamlining a permitting process that is holding back so many key projects.   At the end of the discussion, the group expressed their excitement for having a true partner in economic growth in the White House, and Andrew Liveris, the CEO of Dow Chemical, even said that this is probably the most pro-business administration since the Founding Fathers.  The President conveyed his intention to assemble the industry leaders on a regular basis to discuss progress towards these important goals.  A full list of the participants is available. This afternoon, the President spoke with Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau by phone.  We’ll have a readout on that call soon.  Right now, many of you just came from the President, who is involved in another listening session with leaders in the fight against domestic and international human trafficking, including representatives from International Justice Mission and United Way.  Their expertise will be invaluable to the President as he engages with members of Congress to raise awareness about, and push through, legislation aimed at preventing all forms of the horrific and unacceptable practice of the buying and selling of human lives. Human trafficking is a dire problem, both domestically and internationally.  And solving this epidemic is a huge priority for the President.  Dedicated men and women from across the federal government have focused on this for some time, and the President is committed to continue working with these organizations and departments.  A participant list for this listening session is also going to be available. The President this evening will attend a dinner with the Business Council.   Today in Mexico, Secretaries Tillerson and Kelly had productive meetings at the Cabinet level with officials from the Mexican government.  They were forward-looking meetings focused on finding common-ground ways to advance both of our countries’ security and economic wellbeing.  Both sides had a candid discussion on the breadth of challenges and opportunities as part of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. The conversation covered a full range of bilateral issues, including energy, legal migration, security, education exchanges, and people-to-people ties.  The parties also reiterated our joint commitment to maintaining law and order at our shared border by stopping potential terrorists and dismantling the transnational criminal networks that are moving drugs and people into the United States. Under this President there is no mistaking that rule of law matters along both sides of our border.  Both Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Kelly are meeting with President Peña Nieto this afternoon.  That will be a continuation of the productive dialogue that is setting our two countries down a pathway to greater security and long-term prosperity. Looking ahead to our upcoming schedule, tomorrow the President will welcome President of Peru for a working-level visit.  The President of Peru is in town for a separate visit and requested a meeting with the President.  There will be a spray at the top of that.  Further guidance will be provided later today.  The President will also speak at CPAC tomorrow.  I know the President is looking forward to addressing this group of conservative-committed individuals. Our nation’s governors are starting to gather in Washington this week for a meeting of the National Governors Association.  The President and the First Lady will welcome the governors to the White House on Sunday evening.  The Vice President and members of the Cabinet will also be in attendance.  While the governors are in town, they will be meeting with members of the Cabinet, White House staff, and other Secretaries including Kelly, Price, and Secretary Chao have also set up a series of meetings.   The President, Vice President, and senior White House staff will also participate in a portion of the business session of NGA’s winter meeting that takes place on Monday morning. Next week, of course, the President will give a joint session address before both Houses of Congress.  He’s currently working closely with the speechwriting team on presenting his vision to Congress and the American people.  I’ve got a few updates that I want to just -- as we’re now a few days out.  The theme of the address will be the renewal of the American spirit.  The address will particularly focus on public safety, including defense, increased border security, taking care of our veterans, and then economic opportunity, including education, job training, healthcare reform, jobs, and tax and regulatory reform. With that, I’d be glad to take a few of your questions.   Q    Two questions.  First, the White House said previously that that travel ban was pushed quickly out of necessity for national security, and now we’re hearing there’s these repeated delays while the new one is being drafted.  How do we reconcile those two talking points?  That’s question one. And then secondly, the President said today that the deportations taking place under his watch are a military operation.  Secretary Kelly said the military won’t be involved in deportations.  Did the President misspeak? MR. SPICER:  So I’ll take the latter first.  The President was using that as an adjective.  It’s happening with precision, and in a manner in which it’s being done very, very clearly.   I think we’ve made it clear in the past, and Secretary Kelly reiterated it, what kind of operation this was.  But the President was clearly describing the manner in which this was being done.  And so just to be clear on his use of that phrase.  And I think the way it’s being done, by all accounts, is being done with very much a high degree of precision and a flawless manner in terms of making sure that the orders are carried out, and it’s done in a very streamlined and efficient manner. I’m sorry, the first part was? Q    The first one was about the travel ban. MR. SPICER:  Yeah.  And I think, look, we have made it very clear that we believe that the first one was done in compliance with U.S. code and the authority granted to the President.  This time, the order is finalized.  What we are doing is now in the implementation phase of working with the respective departments and agencies to make sure that when we execute this, it’s done in a manner that’s flawless. And so it’s not a question of delaying, it’s a question of getting it right.  We’ve taken the Court’s opinions and concerns into consideration, but the order is finalized.  It’s now awaiting implementation.  What we want to do is make sure that we’re working through the departments and agencies so that any concerns or questions are handled on the front end.  But we are acting with appropriate haste and diligence to make sure that the order is done in an appropriate manner. Q    I want to ask you about a comment that the Treasury Secretary made today.  He was asked if we should assume that the tax plan that the President is about to roll out will take effect in 2018.  He said, and I’m quoting, “I think we’re looking at that.”  So my question to you is, would the President accept a tax proposal that deals with the timeline of implementation in 2018 but not 2017? MR. SPICER:  So, Secretary Mnuchin also made it very clear that his goal is to have this wrapped up by August and implemented.  The question is, or what you’re referring to is what year it actually takes place? Q    Right. MR. SPICER:  Right, so whether it’s retroactive to tax year 2017 or fiscal year '17.  And I think as the details get --  Q    (Inaudible.) MR. SPICER:  Yeah, we’ll have more details on that as it moves forward.  I think there’s two issues -- fiscal year '17 and calendar year '17.  And, for taxpayers, it’s obviously calendar year 2017 that they’re probably most concerned with, and I think the President, as we work with Congress, will have those details to be able to flush out. I want to go to our first Skype seat of the day.  Neil Vigdor with Hearst Connecticut Media Group. Q    Good afternoon, Sean.  Thanks for taking my question.  I appreciate it.  Connecticut’s governor directed police chiefs across the state Wednesday to avoid taking any special action against undocumented immigrants, including honoring immigration detainer requests from ICE.  What will the repercussions be for this state in terms of federal funding it receives from the Trump administration? And secondly, does the President’s executive order on sanctuary cities apply to those that are undeclared sanctuary cities? MR. SPICER:  Well, Neil, I think there’s a couple things.  The idea that Governor Malloy would not want the law followed as enacted by Congress or by the Connecticut legislature in any fashion seems to be concerning, right?  Whether you’re a governor or mayor or the President, laws are passed in this country and we expect people and our lawmakers and our law enforcement agencies to follow and adhere to the laws as passed by the appropriate level of government. So it’s obviously concerning, I think, and it’s troubling that that’s the message that he would send to his people and to other governors.  Because we are a nation of laws, and I think that people need to understand that whether it’s the laws that he passes as the Governor of Connecticut or the laws that are passed through Congress and signed by the President, there’s a reason that our democracy works.  It’s because the people speak, our representatives at every level pass a law, and the executive in that particular branch of government signs or vetoes it, and then we live by those rules.  And the idea that you can decide which laws to agree or not to agree with, or follow or not follow, undermines our entire rule of law. And so I would suggest that that is not a great sign to be sending to the people of Connecticut and the people of this country, that a particular governor chooses not to follow the duly-passed laws of this nation.   With respect to sanctuary cities, I think this is an area that the American people by huge amounts support.  They recognize their tax dollars shouldn’t be spent supporting programs and activities to which people are not entitled to.  And so I think the President has been very clear on this -- that if you are a sanctuary city, declared or undeclared, if you are providing benefits or services, we are going to do everything we can to respect taxpayers and ensure that your states follow the law. April. Q    Sean, on the bathroom issue, there was a different comment from the President about, you know, if people like Caitlyn Jenner wanted to use this bathroom in Trump Tower, she could now.  What’s happened? MR. SPICER:  No, I think that’s -- so just to be clear, the President was asked -- at one point Caitlyn Jenner was in Trump Tower, and he said, that’s great.  That’s consistent with everything he’s said.  It’s a states' rights issue.  And that’s entirely what he believes -- that if a state wants to pass a law or rule, or an organization wants to do something in compliance with the state rule, that’s their right.  But it shouldn’t be the federal government getting in the way of this.   I mean, if you look at this, the law that was passed in 1972 did not contemplate or consider this issue.  Number two, the procedure for this guidance letter that was done through the Obama administration was not properly followed.  There was no comment period.  There was no input from parents, teachers, students or administrators.  None.   So if we think about how this was implemented last administration, there was zero input, there was zero comment period offered.  Teachers and students never had any say in how this was implemented.  Number three, there’s a reason that the Texas court had this matter enjoined.  It’s because it didn’t follow the law and it had procedural problems. Four, as I mentioned, it’s a states' rights issue.  And then five is, I think that we do have to recognize that children do enjoy rights, from anti-bullying statutes that are in almost every state, and that there’s a difference between being compassionate for individuals and children who are struggling with something and wanting to make sure they’re protected, and how it’s being done.  And I think that the President has a big heart, as we’ve talked about in a lot of other issues, and there’s a big difference.  Personally, he addressed this issue when it came up with respect to one of his properties. But he also believes that that’s not a federal government issue.  It’s an issue left to the states, and it’s an issue that -- I mean, there’s a reason in August of last year that the court enjoined this, because it hadn’t followed the law and it hadn’t -- the procedure, the comment period and the solicitation of opinions and ideas wasn’t followed.  It was jammed down the process. And so we’re actually following the law on this one, and I think that’s the way it’s supposed to be done. John. Q    If I could just follow on what April said.  The Human Rights Campaign --  Q    I wasn’t finished, I’m sorry.   Q    Well, I’m following on your question.  Let me follow -- Q    I understand that, but -- MR. SPICER:  Why don’t we let April follow on and then we’ll get to John, Kristen and Brian.  Q    Yeah.  So I have one on -- I have something on another issue really fast, then John can do that.  On the HBCU executive order, we understand the executive order that’s coming out sometime later this month, it’s supposed to open -- you’re working out issues of opening an office specifically to take the HBCU initiative out of the Department of Education and bring it directly under the purview of the White House.  Who will be heading that?  Have you figured that out?  Have you also figured out how you will build that office out?  Because from what I understand, that is one of the big pieces of this. MR. SPICER:  Well, respectfully, that’s why it hasn’t been issued yet.  We’re working it through the process.  Obviously, that is something that we’re committed to getting done by the end of Black History Month.  So our days are numbered, but there’s a commitment by the President and the staff to really focus on this issue and give it the proper respect that it deserves.  So if you’ll bear with us a couple more days, I promise you we’ll have more to say on that. Q    So it will be a department with the full --  MR. SPICER:  No, no, I just want to be clear, I’m not going to get into the details.  Sort of my blanket statement on non-issued executive orders.  But I do know that there is a commitment by the President and the staff that he has been very clear with us that he wants that done by the end of this month for obvious reasons. Now John. Q    Let me get back to where we were.  The Human Rights Campaign, in responding to rescinding the guidance last night, said that this is not a states' rights issue, it’s a civil rights issue, and therefore is in the purview of the federal government.  Do you disagree that this a civil rights issue? MR. SPICER:  It’s not a -- it’s a question of where it’s appropriately addressed.  And I think there’s a reason -- like, we’ve got to remember, this guidance was enjoined last August by a court.  It hasn’t been enforced.  There was no comment period by anyone -- by the Human Rights Campaign, by teachers, parents, students.  Nobody had any input of this. And it seems to me a little interesting that if this was any other issue, people would be crying foul that the process wasn’t followed.  The reality is, is that when you look at Title IX, it was enacted in 1972.  The idea that this was even contemplated at that is preposterous on its face.  But that doesn’t mean that the President -- the President obviously understands the issue and the challenges that especially young children face.  He just believes that this is a state issue that needs to be addressed by states, as he does with a lot of other issues that we’ve talked about. And so this is -- we are a states' rights party.  The President on a lot of issues believes in these various issues being states' rights.  I don’t see why this would be any different.  And again, if you go through it, it’s not just -- it’s how the guidance was issued, it’s the legal basis on which it was ordered.  It fell short on a lot of stuff. It wasn’t us that did this; it was the court that stepped in and said that they hadn’t followed the procedure of the law back in August of last year and enjoin the case. Q    I understand all that, I’m just wondering if -- does the White House disagree with the position that this is a civil right? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think it’s not a question of whether it’s a civil right, it’s where is it appropriately addressed.  And as I noted, it’s appropriately addressed at the state level. Kelly. Q    Can I follow on that?  Sean, does the President believe, personally believe that any student who is transgender should be able to use the bathroom of their choice?  His personal belief? MR. SPICER:  The President believes it’s a states' rights issue.  And he’s not going to get into determining -- I understand what you’re asking, Kelly.  And I think that, as April pointed out, when the issue came to one of his own properties he was very clear.  But again, what he doesn’t want to do is force his issues or beliefs down -- he believes it’s a states' rights issue -- Q    But the public may want to know where the President is on this issue. MR. SPICER:  I understand that, and I think that he is very sympathetic to children who deal with that and that this is up to states and schools within a particular district to address how they want to accommodate that, and not sort of be prescriptive from Washington.  That’s what the President believes. Zeke. Q    Thanks, Sean.  You mentioned that this order was enjoined by a court and there was criticism about the process.  That exact same criticism has been levied on the administration’s first executive order, on the travel ban.  I mean, can you help us square the circle here?  Why are you relying on that same “enjoined by a federal court” criticism of the process for one but not the other? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think there’s a big difference.  There’s no way that you can read Title IX from 1972 -- anybody -- and say that that was even contemplated back then.  It just -- there’s nobody that is possibly suggesting that the law that was passed in 1972 did that. Number two, there was zero comment period put forward on this guidance, which is in violation of how it was executed, okay?  And so there’s a big difference -- hold on, hold, on let me answer the question, Zeke.  There is also a strong reading when you read 1182 U.S. Code that it is very clear that the President does have the authority. So they are very much apples and oranges issue.  One, it’s very clear that the President is told by Congress in U.S. code that he has the authority to do what’s necessary to protect the American people.  And there’s no way that anybody above a fifth grade reading level could interpret that different.  There is a difference between looking at a statute from 1972 and saying that something was complicated back then.   Not only that -- again, it’s a multifaceted thing.  When you look at how the guidance was issued, there was a zero comment period.  Nobody was able to weigh in on that situation back then.  And so when you’re talking about forcing schools to make a huge accommodation from the federal level, and schools, parents, teachers, kids were not able to have any input in that decision from Washington, I think it’s a very, very clear difference.   John Gizzi.   Q    Thank you, Sean.  Just going back two weeks, in a story that got relatively little attention at the time -- Chuck Cooper, a very distinguished lawyer, asked that his name be withdrawn when he was on the periphery of being named U.S. Solicitor General.  So my question is a two-parter.  First, can you confirm or deny the administration is now vetting Mr. Miguel Estrada, who was a former nominee for the Court of Appeals, as Solicitor General before the visa delay case gets to the Supreme Court? And second, Mr. Cooper said that he did not want to go through the same experience that Jeff Sessions, his good friend, did when he had the confirmation hearings and the vote in the Senate.  Does that make the President a little bit discouraged about getting the nominees he wants for some very important positions? MR. SPICER:  Well, thanks, John.  And I’d say - on the first part, as you know -- and I’ll give you the same answer we give executive orders -- we don’t comment on personnel decisions until they’re made, until they’re finalized.  So I’ve got nothing for that. On the second part, what I would say is that the President is very confident we have a deep bench of folks who -- during the transition, we talked about this -- a number of people who have expressed a huge interest in joining the President in fulfilling this agenda.  And that list is robust and long. However, that being said, I think for folks who have to go through the Senate confirmation and to watch what has happened to some of these fine individuals -- the delay tactics, the tearing apart of their personal lives -- it is discouraging for some of these people, I think, in terms of Mr. Cooper and others who are looking at the process saying, I would like to be part of this administration, help fulfill this vision and this agenda, but this is what I’m going to have go through. So while this is somewhat of an isolated case, I definitely understand what he’s talking about here.  And I think those are few and far between, but I think that when you realize what is happening largely at the expense of Senate Democrats, in terms of dragging these people through a very, very delayed and arduous process for purely political points, I think that there are some people who could look at the process and potentially say I don't want to serve. Luckily, we've not come to that beyond a handful of folks.  Largely, people have huge desire and are willing to make great sacrifice -- both financially and personally -- to serve in the administration because I think they understand what potential change this President is bringing to this country and to the city.  But I understand his point. Q    This morning, the President talked about, as he often does when he talks about immigrants, he talks about really bad dudes.   MR. SPICER:  Yeah. Q    You talked about precision.  The Homeland Security Secretary this morning insisted there won’t be mass deportation.  MR. SPICER:  Right.  Q    Is it the President’s intent or desire, as some advocates worry, that people who are here illegally with something as simple as a traffic violation, that those people will be subject to deportation?  Yes or no? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think everybody who is in this country for obvious reasons -- if you overstay a visa, if you commit a crime, you can't -- by the very nature of you not being legal, you can be subject to deportation.  That's by definition.  Being in this country is a privilege, not a right, if you are a visitor.  And I think we have a right to make sure that the people who are in this country are here for good and peaceful processes.   And as I’ve said over and over again, there is a big difference.  The President recognizes that there are millions of people in the country who are not here legally, and that we have to have a very systematic and pragmatic and methodical process of going through those individuals to make sure that the people who pose a threat to public safety or have a criminal record are the first that are gone. What we've done -- just to be clear -- is to untie the hands of ICE and Border Patrol agents and say, your job is to enforce the law -- first and foremost to figure out who poses a threat to us.  But in the previous administration their hands had been tied.  There was exception after exception after exception.  And the fact of the matter is, is that we have to -- we are a nation of laws, and we have to have a system of legal immigration that is respected. So I’m not going to be prescriptive in terms of what ICE’s job is.  But needless to say, their job and their mission is to protect the country and to enforce our borders and our immigration laws.  And the President has basically instructed them to carry out their mission.  And so the priorities, as we've discussed over and over and over again, is to do that is in accordance with the law but also prioritizes those people that pose a threat. I’m going to go to Roby Brock from the Talk Business & Politics in -- where is he from?  Arkansas.   Q    Thanks, Sean.  Roby Brock with Talk Business & Politics here in Arkansas, the home of the rowdiest town halls in the nation.   I have a question on medical marijuana.  Our state voters passed a medical marijuana amendment in November.  Now we're in conflict with federal law, as many other states are.  The Obama administration kind of chose not to strictly enforce those federal marijuana laws.  My question to you is:  With Jeff Sessions over at the Department of Justice as AG, what’s going to be the Trump administration’s position on marijuana legalization where it’s in a state-federal conflict like this? MR. SPICER:  Thanks, Roby.  There’s two distinct issues here: medical marijuana and recreational marijuana.   I think medical marijuana, I’ve said before that the President understands the pain and suffering that many people go through who are facing especially terminal diseases and the comfort that some of these drugs, including medical marijuana, can bring to them.  And that's one that Congress, through a rider in 2011 -- looking for a little help -- I think put in an appropriations bill saying the Department of Justice wouldn’t be funded to go after those folks.   There is a big difference between that and recreational marijuana.  And I think that when you see something like the opioid addiction crisis blossoming in so many states around this country, the last thing that we should be doing is encouraging people.  There is still a federal law that we need to abide by in terms of the medical -- when it comes to recreational marijuana and other drugs of that nature.   So I think there’s a big difference between medical marijuana, which states have a -- the states where it’s allowed, in accordance with the appropriations rider, have set forth a process to administer and regulate that usage, versus recreational marijuana.  That’s a very, very different subject. Shannon. Q    What does that mean in terms of policy?  A follow-up, Sean.  What does that mean in terms of policy? MR. SPICER:  Shannon.  Glenn, this isn’t a TV program.  We’re going to -- Q    What is the Justice Department going to do? MR. SPICER:  Okay, you don’t get to just yell out questions.  We’re going to raise our hands like big boys and girls. Q    Why don’t you answer the question, though? MR. SPICER:  Because it’s not your job to just yell out questions.   Shannon, please go. Q    Okay.  Well, first, on the manufacturing summit, was the AFL-CIO invited?  And then, yeah, I did want to follow up on this medical marijuana question.  So is the federal government then going to take some sort of action around this recreational marijuana in some of these states? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think that’s a question for the Department of Justice.  I do believe that you’ll see greater enforcement of it.  Because again, there’s a big difference between the medical use which Congress has, through an appropriations rider in 2014, made very clear what their intent was in terms of how the Department of Justice would handle that issue.  That’s very different than the recreational use, which is something the Department of Justice I think will be further looking into.   I’m sorry, Shannon, what was the first part? Q    Was the AFL-CIO invited to the manufacturing meeting today with the CFOs?  Because they are part of this manufacturing -- MR. SPICER:  Right.  I think this was just focused on people who actually -- they were not, I don’t believe, part of this one.  As you know, that we’ve had union representation at other meetings.  I think this was specifically for people who are hiring people and the impediments that they’re having to create additional jobs, hire more people.  And obviously, while the President values their opinion -- and that’s why they’ve been involved in some of the past -- this was specifically a manufacturing -- people who hire people, who manufacture, who grow the economy, who grow jobs.  And that is a vastly different situation. Andrei. Q    I specifically sat here next to John to have -- MR. SPICER:  One can see -- Q    You know me.  (Laughter.)  Thank you.  A question on Russia.  Secretary Tillerson and General Dunford have had meetings with their Russian counterparts.  Is the President pleased with the results of the meetings? MR. SPICER:  Yes. Q    And what comes next? MR. SPICER:  Yeah, both of them had an opportunity to meet with their counterparts in different locations, ironically on the same day.  I believe that was yesterday.  And they both had very, very productive discussions.  The President was very pleased with the outcome of that, and so I would refer you back to both General Dunford and Secretary Tillerson on those.   Q    You started discussing the where and when for the summit for the leaders meeting? MR. SPICER:  I don’t have any updates on that, but I’ll look into that.   Cecilia. Q    Sean, I just want to follow up.  I want to clarify, make sure I understand what you said.  You said, you will see greater enforcement of it?  MR. SPICER:  I would refer you to the Department of Justice -- Q    But you said, you said there will be greater enforcement. MR. SPICER:  No, no.  I know.  I know what I -- I think -- then that’s what I said.  But I think the Department of Justice is the lead on that.  It is something that you should follow up with them, but I believe that they are going to continue to enforce the laws on the books with respect to recreational marijuana versus -- Q    Okay.  And my real question if you don’t mind. MR. SPICER:  That first one was pretty real. Q    Ivanka Trump was in the White House today for a meeting on human trafficking.  She had this meeting on CEOs.  We saw her in a smaller session here at the White House today.  What exactly is her role here? MR. SPICER:  I think her role is to be helpful and provide input on a variety of areas that she has deep, passionate concerns about, especially in the area of women in the workforce and empowering women.  She is someone who has a lot of expertise and wants to offer that, especially in the area of trying to help women.  She understands that firsthand.  And I think because of the success that she’s had, her goal is to try to figure out -- and the understanding that she has a businesswoman -- to use her expertise and understanding to empower and help women have the same kind of opportunity and success that she’s had.  So --  Q    But still not a formal role? MR. SPICER:  No, nothing more than you’ve seen now.  I think, last night, the meeting that she had in Baltimore was one that was done on her own.  There’s areas that she’s cared very passionately about before her time in the White House, or before her father coming to the White House, rather.  And now that her father is in the White House, she continues to seek a platform that helps empower and lift up women, and give them opportunities and think of ways that they can be -- Q    Sean, thanks.  On the human trafficking meeting today, the President said, well, when you talk about solving this kind of problem, that’s a nice word, but it’s really -- he suggested that, more likely, he could just help out on that problem.  What’s his definition of success in this?  What’s his goal?  Is he looking at stronger criminal penalties? MR. SPICER:  Well, Dave, I think that’s, as I read out earlier, that the President understands that this is a serious problem both for adults, but particularly for children who are being sold both domestically and internationally, and it’s why we brought these groups in.  It’s to make sure that we figure out how do we make that number as close to zero as possible and that we institute policies both domestically, but then abroad, and working with our partners to figure out how do we combat the trafficking of people.   So it’s things that we can be forceful in terms of the rhetoric that the President uses, but also the enforcement tools that he uses both domestically and internationally. Trey. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Has the President been briefed at all on the situation at Standing Rock?  And is he concerned that a stand-off with protesters could slow down his executive orders on pipelines? MR. SPICER:  Our team has been involved with both the tribe and the governor there, and so we are not only -- we are constantly in touch with them.  And I think we feel very confident that we will move forward to get the pipeline moving.  And so we’ll have a further update on that, but I think we're in constant contact with the officials there.  Kristen. Q    Sean, thank you.  Two topics I’d like to ask, but I wanted to start off by following on the transgender directive.  Eight-two percent of transgender children report feeling unsafe at school.  So isn’t the President leaving some of these children open to vulnerable -- to being bullied at school? MR. SPICER:  No.  I mean, there are bullying laws and policies in place in almost every one of these schools. Q    Transgender children say their experience is --  MR. SPICER:  But I don't think -- hold on -- Q    -- not being able to use the bathroom that they feel comfortable using because of vulnerability to bullying. MR. SPICER:  But again, you're missing the point here, Kristen.  The President said literally it should be a state decision.  He respects the decision of the state.  So therefore --  Q    So respecting kids is a states’ rights issue? MR. SPICER:  No, no, that's not -- you're trying to make an issue out of something that doesn't exist.  It was the court who stopped this in August of last year.  So where were the questions last year in August about this?  It wasn’t implemented correctly, legally, and the procedure wasn’t followed because the court found, at the time, that it didn't have the authority to do that.  So you’re asking us why we're following the law that wasn’t followed.  And the reality is -- Q    Well, I'm asking you why you're reversing the Obama directive --  MR. SPICER:  Hold on.  No, no, we're not reversing it.  Hold on.  We're not reversing it.  That is a misinterpretation of the scenario.  The court stopped it.  It enjoined it in August of last year because it wasn’t properly drafted, and it didn't follow the procedures, and there was no legal basis for it in a law that was instituted in 1972.  So hold on -- for you to use those terms, frankly, doesn't reflect what the situation actually is and how it happened.  That's just -- so to talk about us reversing something that was stopped by the courts. Q    I understand that -- MR. SPICER:  No, no, but --  Q    -- but you're sending a message -- MR. SPICER:  No, we're not.  We're basically saying that it’s a states’ rights issue.  If a state choses to do it, as I mentioned to April, when this circumstance came up at one of the President’s own properties, he was very clear about his position on this.  So for you to turn around and say what message is the President saying, where was the message when he sent it last year?  I think the message shows that he’s a guy with a heart that understands the trouble that many people go through. But he also believes that the proper legal recourse for this is with the states.  He believes in the states’ ability to determine what’s right for their state versus another state.   Q    I understand what you're saying.  But the LGBTQ community yesterday said they felt --  MR. SPICER:  I understand what --  Q    -- that what they perceiving is that those kids are not being respected.    MR. SPICER:  But there’s a difference what people may or may not feel and the legal process and the law.  And the law right now doesn't allow for it under Title IX that was passed in 1972.  And the procedure wasn’t followed.  The court saw this in August of last year for a reason.  And all we're doing is saying that the proper place for this is in the states. And so for you to suggest what message is this sending, it’s very simple:  that it’s a states’ rights issue, and the states should enact laws that reflect the values, principles, and will of the people in their particular state.  That's it, plain and simple. Q    Moving on to Obamacare very quickly, former House Speaker John Boehner predicted that a full repeal and replace of Obamacare -- his words -- “is not going to happen.”  He went on to say, “Most of the framework of the Affordable Care Act, it’s going to be there.”  Do you think that he has a point?  Are you going to -- MR. SPICER:  Well, no, I think -- look, I think what we're going to end up with is something that I’ve talked about over and over again.  We're going to end up with a more accessible plan that will allow people to see more doctors, have more providers, and drive costs down.  Those are the two guiding principles that we're going to have in what the President is going to work with Congress to put forward on.  That's it, plain and simple. Yes. Q    Sean, on roads and highways in the United States, in many places around the country potholes and other issues are affecting the way in which Americans travel.  And the President has said he would fix these issues during the campaign.  What is the status on that?  And has the President spoken to heads of DOT or other people?  MR. SPICER:  Well, I think the President is starting to address that through the budget process we talked about yesterday.  It will be out in mid-March.  And so the infrastructure projects and priorities that the President has talked about -- whether it’s air control, and our airports, or the roads and bridges -- will be something that he’s going to work with DOT, but also talk about in his budget.  And you’ll see more in his joint address to Congress.  With that, Laurel Staples of KECI-NBC in Montana. Q    Montana has hundreds of miles of border with Canada.  And according to the U.S. Department of Transportation, almost 1 million people come across that border into Montana each year.  What are the administration’s plans to increase security on the Canadian border?  And does the administration have any plans to build a wall there?  (Laughter.)   MR. SPICER:  Well, we're obviously concerned -- thank you -- at all sorts of immigration in this country, whether it’s from our northern border or our southern border.  I think the President understands that our southern border is where we have more of a concern in terms of the number of people and the type of activity that's coming over there in terms of the cartels and drug activity.  But that doesn't mean that we're not paying attention to our northern border, as well.  And we will continue to both monitor and take steps necessary at our northern border to ensure the safety of all Americans. Yes, sir. Q    One question on the South China Sea and a follow-up on the Dakota Access Pipeline. This week was the first week, I believe, that the Trump administration launched freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea.  Can you give us a sense of how frequently you are going to be doing those? And then on the Dakota Access Pipeline, a few weeks ago President Trump said he would try to negotiate a solution between the Standing Rock Sioux and Energy Transfer Partners.  Why hasn’t the President intervened and tried to initiate those negotiations yet? MR. SPICER:  So on the latter, our team has been in contact with all the parties involved.  They have been working and communicating back and forth.  So if we have an update on that -- but there has been work at the staff level between the parties. And then on the second -- on the first part, I’ve got no further update in terms of the frequency by which we will have stuff. Alexis. Q    Sean, in the Reuters interview with the President, he described again his interest in seeing the nuclear arsenal expand in the United States.  Can you describe what it is that the President has in mind -- the timeframe and how he would like to pursue that? MR. SPICER:  Yes, let’s just be clear.  He didn't -- what he was very clear on is that the United States will not yield its supremacy in this area to anybody.  That's what he made very clear in there.  And that if other countries have nuclear capabilities, it will always be the United States that has the supremacy and commitment to this. Obviously, that's not what we're seeking to do.  The question that was asked was about other people growing their stockpiles.  And I think what he has been clear on is that our goal is to make sure that we maintain America’s dominance around the world, and that if other countries cloud it, we don't sit back and allow them to grow theirs. Francesca. Q    Sean, a domestic policy question and then a foreign policy question, if you will.  You said yesterday that the President had named a task force on the voter fraud probe.  When did he name that task force specifically?  MR. SPICER:  I think two weeks ago he announced that Vice President Pence would lead that task force, and that the Vice President and his team were starting to look at members to do that. Q    So you were referring to the interview in which he said there would be a task force. MR. SPICER:  That's right.  Q    Not that something has happened since then. MR. SPICER:  That's correct.  Q    Okay.  And then on foreign policy, the President had said in his Saturday campaign speech that the Gulf States would be paying for that safe zone in Syria.  Which Gulf States was he referring to?  Have any committed to paying for that? MR. SPICER:  So if you look at the readouts that he’s had with several of the foreign leaders that is brought up and mentioned in almost every one of them.  And I think he’s talked about the financing of the safe zones and the commitment that they need to make to those.  And I think by and large, we've had widespread commitment.  When we have an update on -- and I think that's an issue that's going to be ongoing at the Secretary of State level, as well, where you saw Secretary Tillerson follow up on that with numerous folks. We will have further updates on the funding of safe zones as we go forward.  But there has been a general commitment by most of these heads of government to share in the President’s commitment to help fund these things. Can I go to Steve Gruber of WJIM in Michigan? Q    Thank you, Sean.  I greatly appreciate it.  I’d like to talk to you more about tax policy, if I may.  President Trump, of course, on the campaign trail talked a lot about tax policy and tax reform.  That hasn’t happened yet, as we know.  But I want to talk about something different.  That's the border adjustability tax.  With the manufacturers that were at the White House again today, states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, others have a great concern about this tax, and there seems to be a disconnect between some of the CEOs, some of the Republicans on Capitol Hill and the President as to whether or not this is appropriate.   And I guess the question is:  Could this tax have a chilling effect on manufacturing at a time when places like Ohio, and Michigan, and the Upper Midwest are trying to jumpstart the economy with manufacturing jobs?  I wish for you to clarify, if you could, the President’s position. MR. SPICER:  Yes, Steve, thank you.  I think the President has been very clear from the beginning that there is no tax if companies manufacture in the United States.  We are one of only a handful of countries that doesn't tax the imports that come into our country.  Almost every other country operates their tax code under that system. And so what happens is we have a system by which companies abroad can send their products -- tax our products going into their country and institute an import tax, and then their products come into the United States with no import tax -- which, frankly, gives a disincentive to companies to stay in the United States, to manufacture in the United States, to hire in the United States.  And it tilts the field against the American worker. And so the President is looking at tax policy that encourages manufacturing and job creation in the United States.  And if you think about it --  Q    So where is he on this border adjustability tax?   MR. SPICER:  Hold on. Q    Where is he on this tax specifically?  MR. SPICER:  I understand that.  And I think that what he is doing is he met yesterday with his team on the budget.  He’s talked to Secretary Mnuchin and others who are working on a comprehensive tax reform plan.  And remember, Steve, this isn’t something that's been done since 1986.  And so as we look at it, part of that is to make sure that we lower our corporate tax rate, that we make it more attractive to manufacture and grow jobs in the United States, to make our companies more competitive with companies overseas that, frankly, have better tax treatment than our own companies who stay in the United States.  So creating more of a playing field that encourages manufacturing and growing and creating in the United States.   But make no mistake, if a company is in the United States already and expanding in the United States, it will be only to their benefit.  Actually, if you think about it right now, the way the current tax code works, it almost incentivizes companies from leaving the United States, manufacturing, and expanding overseas, and then sending their goods and services back to the United States, which undermines our own economy, it undermines our workers. Q    But the question is about components coming back in the United States being manufactured. MR. SPICER:  I understand, Steve.  Okay, I know that you're on the Skype, but we only do like one or two follow-ups.   But the answer is, is that he’s working towards comprehensive tax reform, and we’ll have a plan out within the next few weeks that will address that. Yes. Q    On the transgender guidance, the administration not only rescinded it, but sent a letter to the Supreme Court informing them about the change as they consider a related case.  Does the termination of the guidance present an administration position on the way the Supreme Court should rule? MR. SPICER:  I’m sorry, on?  Well, obviously, we’re -- I’m sorry -- removing the guidance clearly does.  The guidance that was put forward by the Obama administration, which clearly hadn’t been done in a proper way in terms of how they solicited, or, rather, didn’t solicit comments -- the guidance it puts forward obviously sends a signal to the Court on where the administration stands on this issue. Q    Can I ask you about Syria?  Two quick questions.  First, the talks have started again, peace talks in Geneva.  The man convening them, Staffan de Mistura, says he’s not detected a clear strategy on the political track from the administration.  So what is the President’s thinking on that?  And in particular, what’s his thinking on the future of President Assad, whether he can stay on in a transition or --  MR. SPICER:  I will refer you to the State Department on the status of the talks. Q    But the overall strategy comes from here.   MR. SPICER:  Right, I understand that.  And that’s one of the things that the President, whether it’s safe zones or how we deal with Syria and the problems that -- Q    What's the President thinking on Assad’s future?  Just the key points. MR. SPICER:  I understand that, thank you. Q    One other question then on Syria, if you don’t mind.  The fall of al-Bab in northern Syria, an important development on the battlefield, creates some space in that town that’s fallen to the Turks and opposition.  Is that the sort of space that the President would like to see a safe zone? MR. SPICER:  I don’t -- we’re not trying to be prescriptive right now in terms of the geographic location of a safe zone.  It’s something that -- right now, the President’s goal is to get commitments from other world leaders, both in terms of the funding and the commitment to share in how we do that. So I don’t want to get -- we’re not looking to be prescriptive today in how it’s done.  I think, overall, we need a greater commitment in the region to make sure that people are committed to a strategy and to safe zones to allow that to stop some of the human suffering that’s going on and create -- while the rest of the conflict ensues.  And I think that we’ve got to dual-track this -- deal with the conflict as a whole and how we address it, how we deal with ISIS in combatting it, but then we also have to -- there’s a humanitarian piece to this as well with respect to the safe zones. And I think that we were looking at both pieces of this as well. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Since the election, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has expressed some disquiet about pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change.  And the President has also heard from some world leaders about that.  Can you tell us, is the President still committed to pulling out of the Paris agreement on climate change? MR. SPICER:  I think I will leave that to Secretary Tillerson.  That’s a conversation that he’s having with him as far as where we are on that. Q    Sean, thank you very much.  I just have a follow-up to the Syria question first.  Do you have any timeline when it comes to when he wants to see those safe zones actually being built?  And I wanted to go back to the executive order on immigration.  You’ve talked about these dual-tracks, where you’re going to be doing the new executive order but also continuing to fight that in court.  Can you give us a status update on where that legal fight is and what we should see happening? MR. SPICER:  So with respect to the executive order, there are several courts that this is being fought in -- 10 or so -- and we continue to deal with that in all of those venues.  And then again, I guess, the only way to say this is, then obviously on the dual-track side we have the additional executive order that we’ve talked about earlier that will come out and further address the problems. We continue to believe that the issues that we face specifically in the 9th district -- 9th Circuit, rather, that we will prevail on, on the merits of that.  But on the other challenges that have come and the other venues and the others -- that we feel equally confident, as we did in Massachusetts and other venues.  So it’s not a single-track system.   And I’m sorry, I know you -- Q    Have you made a decision yet about the Supreme Court taking it there?  And then the other question was on the safe zones and the timeline. MR. SPICER:  So with respect to the Supreme Court, I mean, we’ve got to continue to work this through the process.  So right now it’s at the 9th Circuit.  That’s the primary problem that we are addressing.  And then we don’t have any timeline that I can announce today on Syrian safe zones. Q    I just want to follow up to this morning’s meeting.  And the President said that he gave authorization to a couple of countries to buy military equipment from the United States.  Which countries was he referring to?  And has he gone to Congress to ask for permission to do this? MR. SPICER:  We’ll follow up and get a list for you on that.   Jeff. Q    Sean, if I could ask again about the delay of the executive order until the next week.  Is the administration still trying to craft its legal argument to this to withstand scrutiny, or why again the delay?  I’m not sure I understand -- MR. SPICER:  Yeah, and I think I asked and answered this earlier.   Q    Sorry, I don’t understand the delay. MR. SPICER:  Okay, then I’ll explain it to you.  I think the President this time -- we were very careful to understand what the court’s concerns were and address them in the follow-up executive order.  With respect to when we’re going to announce it, part of this is to make sure that we work with the appropriate departments and agencies on the implementation of it to make sure that it is executed and it continues to be executed in a flawless manner, and that it meets the intent that it would serve. We understand the challenges that may come, and so we want to do this in a manner that makes sure that the Hill, other members of Congress, the appropriate agencies and departments are fully ready to implement this when it’s issued.  And so that’s it.  There’s really nothing more to it. Q    There also is some concern -- if I can follow up -- there also is concern inside the Justice Department and in Homeland Security by some officials this afternoon that we’re reporting that the White House is looking for them to help build this legal argument, to find a conclusion here. MR. SPICER:  No, that’s not -- basically, you’re saying that we did our due diligence.  We looked to the departments to ask them to review certain things.  So last week it was we rushed stuff; this week, you’re saying that we are taking our time and --  Q    Has it been more difficult than you thought it would be? MR. SPICER:  No, that’s not true.  I don’t think so.  And I think you using continued unnamed sources -- I think it actually is a -- it will be implemented flawlessly because we’ve done the right thing and gone to these individuals, sought feedback and guidance, and done this in an unbelievably comprehensive way to ensure that departments and agencies that are going to be executing and implementing this fully are aware of what’s happening.  But this has been done in a very, very comprehensive way.   Yeah, sorry. Q    Thank you, Sean.  Melanie Arter, CNSNews.com.  Former Labor Secretary nominee Andrew Puzder admitted that for a few years he unwittingly employed an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper.  Is this administration committed to holding employers accountable when they employ illegal aliens?  And how does the administration plan to do so? MR. SPICER:  Yeah, I think that was -- that issue was something that Mr. Puzder was very forthcoming on.  And when he recognized the situation that had occurred, he paid all the appropriate taxes and tried to help the individual go through the proper process.  And so, yeah, we’re going to continue to make sure that we hold individuals in compliance with the law.  And he did the right thing then, but whether it’s companies or individuals, I think, we are committed to making sure that people do what’s right.  Yes, ma’am. Q    Veronica Clearly, with Fox 5.  I have two questions.  Janet Evancho -- she sang the National Anthem -- she requested a meeting with the President.  Her sister is transgender.  Is he going to take that meeting, or meet with anyone from the transgender community during this conversation? MR. SPICER:  Yeah, I think the President would be welcome to meet with her. Q    The second question -- second question.  Steve Bannon today called the media the opposition party.  Last week, there was lots of conversation about the fake news and us being the enemy of the people.  Some have said that this is really just a branding of the media, where he did that in the primaries, branding “Little Marco” and “Lyin’ Ted”.  Is this -- MR. SPICER:  Well, no, that was the President.  Just to -- Q    Right, of course.  But is this a branding strategy to --  MR. SPICER:  No, I think that’s what Steve believes. Q    But this is real. MR. SPICER:  Absolutely, of course, it’s real.  I don’t think he’d go out -- Steve has been very clear about his position on the media and how he believes it distorts things.  So I don’t think there’s -- Q    From the whole administration? MR. SPICER:  No, no.  Hold on.  I just said that that is what Steve’s view is.  He’s made it several times, and I think he’s very clear on that. Sarah. Q    Thanks, Sean.  Back to the border adjustment tax.  President Trump has told Reuters that he does support some form of a border tax.  How does the President respond to critics that are saying the border adjustment tax will be passed on to lower-income and middle-class families in the form of higher prices for goods and higher prices for gas? MR. SPICER:  Well, I think if you look at holistically -- I mean, the first thing to understand is that there is no tax if you’re manufacturing in the United States, so there can be no higher cost.  But if you think about it right now, we have to look at this in a holistic way, which is, when a company chooses to leave our country and shed American jobs so they can move overseas, and then sell back to us at a lower price, there’s a big cost that comes to our economy and to our workers.  And so we’ve got to look at this comprehensively.   But if a company chooses to stay and grow in the United States, hire more people, it actually will be a net savings, if you think about it, because it will be the companies who are overseas, who have chosen to move out of the country who will face a higher cost under these kind of plans.   And that’s a big difference.  It will actually benefit consumers, benefit workers, and benefit out economy.  And that’s -- when you really think about the economic impact about that, that benefits our economy, it helps our American workers, it grows more jobs, it grows the manufacturing base.  And again, we are probably one of only a handful of developed countries that don’t have a tax system that looks at this.  And so right now, it’s America and American workers and American manufacturing that are the disadvantage of the current regulatory and tax system, not the other way around. Thank you, guys.  Have a great day.  We’ll touch base tomorrow in some way.  I will see you then.  Tune in to CPAC to see the President. END  3:52 P.M. EST #15-02/23/2017

24 февраля, 00:47

Beware the Blob: How Not to Oppose Donald Trump

Those alarmed by the president’s blundering around the world should be careful who they empower.

24 февраля, 00:00

Who, Exactly, Is Running U.S. Foreign Policy?

Frida Ghitis, CNNWith a President and Cabinet who seem to contradict each other, never before has there been a greater need for an official translator of US policies to the world. Yet the State Department is mum, Frida Ghitis says.

Выбор редакции
24 февраля, 00:00

Trump's 'Madman Theory' Diplomacy

Charles Krauthammer, Investor's Business DailyAt the heart of Donald Trump's foreign policy team lies a glaring contradiction. On the one hand, it is composed of men of experience, judgment and traditionalism. Meaning, they are all very much within the parameters of mainstream American internationalism as practiced since 1945. Practically every

23 февраля, 22:30

CSPAN Just Released a New List of America's Best (and Worst) Presidents

Lee Edwards Politics, Where did Obama rank?  Abraham Lincoln, who preserved the Union and ended slavery, is our greatest president while immediate predecessor James Buchanan, who dithered and dallied while war clouds gathered, is the worst of 43 presidents. Ronald Reagan, who ended the Cold War without firing a shot and restored Americans’ confidence in themselves, ranks ninth while Barack Obama, who presided over the slowest economic recovery since World War II and failed to live up to his own transformational expectations, ranks 12th. These are some of the headline findings of C-SPAN’s third survey of historians on presidential leadership, just released. The survey, following one in 2000 and one in 2009, didn’t include Donald Trump, the 44th man to hold the office. Who make up the Top 10 presidents on the Presidential Historians Survey? They are, in descending order: Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry Truman, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Reagan, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Obama followed Woodrow Wilson (at 11) but beat contemporaries Bill Clinton (15) and George W. Bush (33). He also bested James Monroe (13) and James Madison (17). While in general agreement with my fellow historians (I was honored to be among the 91 experts consulted), I take exception in the following instances: Notwithstanding Lincoln’s leadership in the Civil War, Washington should be ranked first. Our first president won the war that secured our liberty. And he made wise executive decisions regarding the number of terms a president should serve, his respect for the checks and balances of the Constitution, and his call for a prudent foreign policy. Although Reagan moved up from 11th to ninth in the latest C-SPAN survey of historians, he belongs in the top five for the reasons I cited earlier plus the lasting economic prosperity sparked by his historic tax cuts. Read full article

23 февраля, 20:34

The Deafening Silence in Foggy Bottom

When the State Department loses its voice, so does America.

24 июля 2016, 21:21

Константин Черемных. "Недопереворот в Турции и другие события в контексте внешней политики США."

Беседа Дмитрия Перетолчина и эксперта Клуба динамического консерватизма Константина Черемных о подоплёке событий в Турции, Франции и на Ближнем Востоке в свете борьбы за власть в высшем правительственном эшелоне США. #ДеньТВ #Перетолчин #Черемных #Турция #переворот #США #НАТО #ЕС #Великобритания #Франция #БлижнийВосток #Эрдоган #БорисДжонсон #теракт #Ереван #Ницца #Гюлен #исламисты #военные #Стамбул #Генштаб #суды #полиция #democracy #Foreignpolicy #NATO #USA #EU #Britain #Brexit #Turkey

18 июля 2016, 08:15

Станет ли Фетхулла Гюлен турецким Хомейни?

Президент Турции Эрдоган назвал организатором неудавшегося военного переворота Фетхуллу Гюлена, своего бывшего соратника, ныне проживающего в США, в штате Пенсильвания. Так оно или нет, проверить вряд ли удастся, но даже если знаменитый писатель и проповедник не причастен к попытке турецких военных свергнуть Эрдогана, его деятельность и влияние настолько масштабны, что в 2008 году Гюлен был назван самым влиятельным интеллектуалом мира по версии журналов Prospect и Foreign Policy, а журнал Time включает его в список «100 самых влиятельных людей мира».Гюлен реально один из наиболее влиятельных людей в мире хотя бы по той причине, что при его участии создана широкая сеть университетов и школ (свыше тысячи в более чем 160 странах, а общее количество выпускников составляет несколько миллионов человек.Известный российский аналитик Шамиль Султанов считает Гюлена «одним из наиболее талантливых, а может и гениальных специалистов в сфере оргоружия. Фактически он создал и руководит одной из самых крупных в мире многослойных эшелонированных масонских организаций («Хикмет» - В.П.)…Об этой корпорации мало, что известно. И это уже ее огромное преимущество в мире, где тайные организации становятся все более и более влиятельными».Основа «Хизмета»(по-турецки - служение) - классическая закрытая суфийская структура, основанная на принципах безусловного подчинения мюрида(ученика) шейху. Внешняя оболочка такой структуры - «Хизмет», вполне открытая организация, владеющая сотнями лицеев, колледжей, университетов, мечетей, молельных домов и общежитий по всему миру. Официальный мессидж «Хизмета»- идея служения обществу. Сам Гюлен пропагандирует духовное наследие великого поэта-суфия Джалаледдина Руми. А скрытая, и «гораздо более существенная ее функция», как пишет Шамиль Султанов, заключается в том, что «она ищет, вербует, готовит профессиональные кадры, причем особый упор делается на поиске талантливых людей».Вокруг «Хизмета» постепенно создается неформальная общественных и государственных организаций, куда команда Гюлена внедряет своих людей. В 90-е годы гюленисты прочно укрепились в жандармерии, прокуратуре, полиции и профсоюзах Турции. Общая численность гюленистов в Турции - от 3 до 6 миллионов членов «Хизмета» и «сочувствующих», причем значительная часть - в госаппарате.Турецкий исследователь Сонер Чагатай считает, что Гюлен прибрал к рукам более 70 проце6нтов личного состава полиции и полностью управляет спецслужбами страны. Турецкий историк Неджип Хаблемитоглу в книге «Крот» разоблачил приверженцев Гюлена в силовых структурах Турции. Незадолго до издания своей книги – 18 декабря 2002 года – Хаблемитоглу был убит у своего дома». Справка:Суфи́зм или тасаввуф — эзотерическое течение в исламе, проповедующее аскетизм и повышенную духовность, одно из основных направлений классической мусульманской философии. Последователей суфизма называют суфиями.В суфизме существует несколько тарикатов (направлений). Фетхулла Гюлен воспитывался в традициях одного из самых распространенных и влиятельных - тариката Накшбандийа. Кстати, знаменитый русский маг двадцатого века, капитан военной разведки российской императорской армии, Георгий Гурджиев во время выполнения своих спецзаданий на Востоке тесно контактировал с накшбандийскими суфиями. Великий шейх суфиев Идрис Шах, большую часть своей жизни проживавший в Лондоне(говорим - Лондон, подразумеваем - МИ-6), был одним из основателей Римского клуба. Идрис Шах в своих многочисленных книгах пишет о последователях Накшбанди как о главных хранителях суфийской традиции, «Материнском» тарикате.Будучи достаточно независимым мыслителем, Идрис Шах различал «Традицию Накшбанди» и «Орден Накшбанди». «Традиция Накшбанди» это способ передачи бараки- божественного благословения, благодеяния. Или Высшего Знания, по Идрис Шаху.А «Орден Накшбанди» – это уже социальная организация с чисто конкретными земными целями. Идрис Шах считал, что в двадцатом веке ведущие тарикаты выродились в ордена.Шамиль Султанов называет Фетхуллу Гюлена теоретиком и вождем «соглашательского, политического суфизма, то есть суфизма, который стремится не только к духовной, но и светской власти, используя самые различные технологии, приемы и методы». По мнению российского аналитика Гюлен вырос из рамок «Ордена Накшбанди» и создал свой собственный тарикат.В конце 90-х годов у Гулена сложился тактический союз с тогдашним мэром Стамбула - Реджепом Эрдоганом, видным деятелем того направления в исламском движении, которое практически смыкается с «Братьями-мусульманами». Союз этот продержался более десяти лет. Разрыв Гюлена с Эрдоганом во многом был спровоцирован расстрелом военными кораблями Израиля так называемой «флотилии свободы» - кораблей с гуманитарным грузом для населения заблокированной Газы. Эрдоган резко осудил действия Израиля, а Гюлен, напротив, дал интервью газете Wall Street Journal, где выразил негодование по поводу «безответственности турецкого правительства», которое «не попыталось заранее договориться с официальными представителями Израиля для того, чтобы получить у них официальное согласие на оказание гуманитарной помощи жителям Газы» и обвинил правительство Эрдогана в «игнорировании авторитета» Израиля.В российской и украинской прессе можно встретить публикации, в которых Гюлена подозревают в сотрудничестве с ЦРУ. «Именно ЦРУ «успешно» ходатайствовало о предоставлении ему вида на жительство в США», пишет Шамиль Султанов.Влияние Гюлена основано на том, что в суннитском секторе исламского мира возник серьезный вакуум влиятельных и харизматических лидеров. И если с помощью своих западных покровителей Гюлен сможет устранить с политической арены Эрдогана, то у него есть все шансы стать турецким аятоллой Хомейни и опровергнуть знаменитые слова Кемаля Ататюрка: «Турецкая Республика не может быть страной шейхов, дервишей, мюридов и их приверженцев».Версий по поводу неудавшегося переворота не так уж много - числом всего три.Американский след.То, что Гюлен живет в США, - в пользу этой версии. Против нее - неудача переворота. Экспертное сообщество склонно считать, что если уж американцы затевают переворот, то он удается, как это было на протяжении четверти века.Германский след.Эрдоган сильно разгневал ведущие державы Евросоюза своей жесткой позицией, а реально - выламыванием рук (читай - шантажом) - по поводу проблемы с беженцами. Но способна ли БНД организовать даже неудачный переворот? Сомнительно. Не говоря уже о том, что германские спецслужбы полностью контролируются американцами.Инсценировака самого Эрдогана.В пользу этой версии - бенефициаром подавления мятежа стал сам Эрдоган. То есть на вопрос, кому выгодно: ответ - Эрдогану.На мой взгляд - американский след не стоит сбрасывать со счетов. Непрекращающиеся теракты в Казахстане, теракт в Ницце, мятеж в Армении, - считать это случайным совпадением могут лишь домохозяйки, воспитанные на слезливых сериалах.Мой выбор - с вероятностью 60 процентов здесь «порылась» американская «собака», причем задача свержения Эрдогана не ставилась. С вероятностью 40 процентов - неудавшийся переворот является инсценировкой самого Эрдогана. Так в свое время поступили Шеварднадзе и Саакашвили с целью укрепления своей власти. У них получилось, а чем Эрдоган хуже?+Впрочем, с точки зрения российских интересов, всматриваться в кривое конспирологическое зеркало и гадать на кофейной гуще (кстати, эффективность такого гадания - около 80 процентов), кто устроил «активку» на Босфоре - мало пользы.Вместо этого я предложил бы отдать должное американским мастерам мягкой силы, которые бережно и неторопливо создают всецело зависящую от самого главного «Материнского тариката» ( и это вовсе не вполне управлемый своими предполагаемыми кураторами из Лэнгли суфий Гюлен с его «Хизметом») глобальную сеть агентов влияния, которые рано или поздно придут на смену импульсивному реаниматору Османской империи Эрдогану. Как говорил изобретатель голографии Нобелевский лауреат Дэннис Габор, - «будущее невозможно предсказать, его можно изобрести».Будущее за теми, кто его изобретает. Жаль, что это не мы.Автор: Владимир Прохватилов, Президент Фонда реальной политики (Realpolitik), эксперт Академии военных наук http://argumentiru.com/society/2016/07/433655

28 декабря 2015, 18:12

ДВА-ТАЛИБАНА-ДВА

Константин Черемных Третья мировая война не будет нефтяной НЕ СТУЧИТЕ, И НЕ СТУЧИМЫ БУДЕТЕ В 2015 году Foreign Policy включил в свою традиционную «десятку мыслителей современности» не Алексея Навального, а Владимира Путина. Тем не менее, освещение президентского послания Федеральному собранию в западной прессе навязчиво жонглировало двумя именами: Путин–Навальный, Путин–Навальный. По той причине, что бывший «мыслительный столп» подгадал ко дню послания детальнейший, в украинском стиле, компромат на руководство российской Генпрокуратуры.

24 октября 2015, 20:46

Возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны

Возможности России по ведению электронной войны произвели на армию США отрезвляющий эффект. Столкнувшись в Сирии и на Украине с комплексами радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4″, которые подавляют радары и авиационные системы, американские военные чиновники были вынуждены признать, что им не удается догнать Россию. Об этом пишет известный своим беспристрастным анализом мирового рынка вооружений Foreign Policy. Издание цитирует командующего военной группировкой США в Европе генерала Бена Ходжеса, который сказал, что «возможности России в ведении электронной войны невероятны». В свою очередь замначальника кибернетического командования американской армии Рональд Понтиус признал, что «продвижение США в этом вопросе не соответствует имеющимся угрозам». С начала операции в Крыму украинские военные отмечали, что их радиопередатчики и телефоны могли не функционировать в течение нескольких часов, пишет. А специальная мониторинговая миссия ОБСЕ сообщала, что их беспилотники сталкивались с глушением GPS, в связи с чем БПЛА приходилось сажать. У России есть целые боевые подразделения, которые занимаются ведением электронной войны, считает руководитель направления радиоэлектронной борьбы армии США Джефри Черч. По его словам, эти подразделения располагают специальной техникой, у них специальный порядок подчиненности для радиоэлектронной борьбы. При этом в американской армии данные задачи обычно выполняют два солдата из батальона, обеспечивающих круглосуточное функционирование. Всего в армии США предусмотрено более 1000 таких позиций, но реально существует только 813, говорит военный. Черч признает, что значительная часть имеющегося у американской армии оборудования, закупленного в последние 10 лет, было профинансировано из дополнительных средств, в связи с чем оно в основном лежит на полках и требует ремонта и переоборудования. «Без регулярного финансирования оно устаревает», — говорит специалист. Военные США разрабатывают несколько программ по обновлению и улучшению интеграции средств радиоэлектронной борьбы, однако ни одна из них не будет реализована в ближайшее время, пишет Foreign Policy.     Новая машина «Красуха-4″ — грозное оружие борьбы практически с любыми воздушными целями противника. Только побеждает она их не мощными ракетами, скорострельными орудиями или зенитными крупнокалиберными пулеметами. «Красуха» в буквальном смысле делает самолеты и ракеты слепыми и глухими. Репортах о новом уникальном комплексе радиоэлектронной борьбы подготовил телеканал «Россия-24″.   Еще вчера об этой машине нельзя было говорить не только в медиа, но и за пределами оборонных заводов и особо охраняемых воинских частей. Было, что скрывать. «Красуха-4″ — новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК.   «Система создает такие условия, что попасть противникам в нашу авиацию и сбить тот или иной самолет очень сложно при комплексе «Красуха-4″. 99%, что это невозможно», — рассказал гендиректор КРЭТ Николай Колесов. Такие умные машины — на вес золота. Их задача — действовать на стратегически важных направлениях. Там, где особенно активная разведовательная авиация и даже спутники-разведчики космической группировки противника. Тактико-технические характеристики «Красухи-4″ — военная тайна. Однако известно из открытых источников, что радиус ее действия превышает 300 км. На вопрос о высоте разработчики с улыбкой отвечают: «достаточно, мало не покажется».   При помощи уникального оборудования «Красуха-4″ может работать практически по любым воздушным целям одинаково эффективно. Невозможно, но факт: ни скорость, ни высота воздушного супостата на боевые качества комплекса не влияют. По словам Федора Дмитрука, гендиректора Брянского электромеханического завода, средство позволяет обнаружить воздушное судно, произвести захват-сопровождение и, в случае необходимости, поставить помеху.   Четвертая модель комплекса радиоэлектронной борьбы — усовершенствованная версия. Вместо аналога — цифра, вместо трех машин — две. Изделие «Красуха-4″ расположено на двух шасси, что является заметным преимуществом. Предыдудыщая модель располагалась на трех автомобилях. Каждая такая плата для «Красухи» изготавливается минимум две недели. Зато заменяет несколько громоздких шкафов с аппаратурой и километры проводов. Новые детали позволяют антеннам вращаться не просто на 360 градусов, а в абсолютно любых направлениях. Необычна и технология изготовления антенны. Форму тарелки ей придают в гидравлическом прессе. 400 литров воды и давление в 12 атмосфер обеспечивают идеальный силуэт приемного и передающего устройств. Первое антенное устройство обеспечивает прием сигнала, второе — передачу. Тарелка скрепляется с каркасом и устанавливается на колесную базу — четырехосный КАМАЗ-вездеход. Так что работать мобильный комплекс может и в Заполярье, и Аравийской пустыне. Надежность гарантирована при температурах от минус до плюс пятидесяти градусов.   «Красуха-4″ прошла государственные испытания. Выпущено и отдано в войска на сегодняшний день 10 комплексов. Это серьезная помощь для нашей стратегической авиации, истребительной авиации», — отмечает Николай Колесов.     Красуха в Сирии   Стало известно о прибытии в Сирию новейших комплексов радиоэлектронной борьбы «Красуха-4» вооруженных сил России. Так, новейшая и одна из самых высокотехнологичных разработок российского ВПК, комплекс «Красуха-4», был развернут в расположение российской военной базы вблизи населенного пункта Латакия в Сирии. А вот тут я вам подробно рассказывал про НЕВИДИМОЕ ОРУЖИЕ РОССИИ Вот еще РЛК «Барьер-Е» — нет аналогов в мире и РЭБ «Инфауна», «Лесочек» и «Дзюдоист» ну и конечно же ответ на вопрос Что делает «Ртуть» в войсках РФ ? Оригинал статьи находится на сайте ИнфоГлаз.рф Ссылка на статью, с которой сделана эта копия - http://infoglaz.ru/?p=79352

19 сентября 2015, 14:51

Пентагон и планы войны против России

В американском издании Foreign Policy вышла примечательная статья http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/18/exclusive-the-pentagon-is-preparing-new-war-plans-for-a-baltic-battle-against-russia/, где с ссылками на действующих и отставных сотрудников Пентагона рассматриваются актуальные планы войны США против РФ.Примечательные моменты:1. Вопросы военного противостояния с РФ за последнее время переходят у американцев из умозрительных построений к вопросам актуальной политики. Старые планы войны против РФ вновь стали актуальными. Россия открыто названа угрозой.2. В качестве возможного театра военных действий в статье рассматриваются страны Прибалтики, на территории которых идет "гибридная война", причем рассматривается как самостоятельное участие США, так и участие в составе НАТО.3. Утверждается, что еще в 2008 году после Олимпийской войны НАТО начало пересмотр своей стратегии в отношениях с РФ, однако США на тот момент продолжали рассматривать в качестве приоритетной угрозы "мировой терроризм", а не Россию.4. Длительное время, аналитики Пентагона ориентировались на то, что Россия слишком слаба, чтобы представлять угрозу, поэтому в качестве основных проблем указывался "терроризм" и возвышение Китая.5. Теперь же Россия называется "экзистенциальной угрозой" и политика в отношении нее должна выстраиваться как против безусловного соперника и даже врага. О концепции "партнерства" можно забыть.6. Недовольство Кремля расширением НАТО на восток не считалось чем-то существенным и этот порядок вещей считался на Западе вполне естественным по принципу "собака лает, караван идет".7. Олимпийскую войну в Пентагоне расценивали как разовую акцию Москвы и в повторение такого сценария не очень верили, потому что считали, что виноват Саакашвили, которого Россия поймала на военной авантюре.8. В целом же, в Пентагоне допускали, что Россия при определенных обстоятельствах может интегрироваться в западный мир и отношение к ней было "иногда боль в заднице, но не угроза".9. Крымская операция и "вежливые люди" как утверждается в статье, стали для Пентагона неприятным сюрпризом, их полностью проморгали и тут де-факто можно говорить о провале американской разведки.10. На военных играх, где прорабатывался сценарий боевых действий между американской и российской армиями на территории стран Балтии. Рассматривался сценарий задействования в боевых действиях всех американских сил в восточной Европе + переброски на ТВД 82-й воздушно-десантной дивизии.11. В процессе выяснилось, что даже в этом случае РФ сохранит на ТВД общее превосходство в силах и с военной точки зрения одержит безусловную победу. В ходе игры "красные" разгромили "синих" и Прибалтика была потеряна.12. На следующий день игру повторили с улучшенными для США и НАТО параметрами. Результат был примерно тот. Всего проводилось 16 игр, где обыгрывался сценарий войны США и НАТО против РФ в Прибалтике. Игры проводились в Пентагоне и на авиабазе в Рамштайне. Играло 8 разных команд. В подавляющем большинстве случаев результаты прямого столкновения были неблагоприятны для "синих".13. Были сделаны выводы, что в среднесрочной перспективе США и НАТО скорее всего потеряют Прибалтику в ходе прямого конфликта с РФ, но в долгосрочной перспективе ее как-нибудь да вернут в ходе дальнейшей войны.14. Отправка техники и войск США в Прибалтику, это элемент доктрины сдерживания России, хотя в Пентагоне особых иллюзий не питают насчет того, смогут ли эти войска защитить Прибалтику.15. В Пентагоне есть определенная оппозиция "конфронтационному сценарию" из числа желающих "вновь сотрудничать с Россией" и что несмотря на текущее положение дел, Россия лишь отвлекает США от более важных угроз, в первую очередь от Китая. И что совместные военные программы и распределение рынков оружия важнее, нежели суверенитет какой-то там Украины.16. По мнению этих условных "миротворцев", планы Пентагона и бряцанье оружием, лишь подпитывают "параноидальные фантазии Путина" и делают разборки РФ с США и НАТО из иллюзорных реальными. В итоге конфликт США и РФ стал реальностью. В этой связи постулируется, что Пентагон неизбежно будет планировать действия направленные против России.17. Под эту лавочку "ястребы" в Пентагоне и в Сенате уже ведут работу по приостановке процесса сокращения численности американских вооруженных сил и уменьшения их финансирования. Идущий конфликт, потенциал которого таков, что он может продолжаться годами, явно будет выгоден тем, кто зарабатывает на войне.В целом же, статья с одной стороны выражает обеспокоенность неготовностью США эффективно противостоять России (ветер тут конечно дует со стороны республиканцев обвиняющих Обаму в "неэффективной политике по отношению к России) и подспудно подводящая к мысли, что надо бы увеличивать армию и расходы на нее. С другой стороны, прослеживается мысль, что США слишком много времени уделяют России, которая конечно угроза, но не такая как Китай и в долгосрочной перспективе, эта холодная война с РФ может выйти боком. Разумеется, по одной только Прибалтике о ходе и исходе войны судить не стоит, все таки есть и другие потенциальные ТВД - Украина, Сирия, Арктика, Кавказ, страны Средней Азии и поэтому тут конечно надо смотреть в комплексе на возможные "гибридные" столкновения между США и РФ на территории других государств. В этом плане, открытый конфликт между США и РФ, который начался в ходе переворота на Украине ныне уже вышел за ее пределы и де-факто либо уже затрагивает, либо затронет в ближайшей будущем другие страны и народы.

29 января 2015, 15:22

Обострение интриг в Вашингтоне начало 2015

Кризис, поразивший правительственный аппарат США, представляет собой непосредственную угрозу для жизни Империи. И это не только мнение Тьерри Мейсана – теперь этот кризис наводит на правящий класс в Вашингтоне такой страх, что почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям (Council on Foreign Relations) требует отставки главных советников президента Обамы и назначения новой команды. Этот конфликт не имеет ничего общего с противостоянием демократов и республиканцев или голубей и ястребов. Под угрозой политика лидерства, проводимая Соединёнными Штатами и НАТО. Ракета «Смерч» угодила в жилой дом Собчак живьём. Александр Лукашенко В ПАСЕ издевались и ржали над Россией Бразильская полиция во время обыска склада обнаружила два танка Уже несколько месяцев я говорю и пишу о том, что у Вашингтона больше нет никакой внешней политики. Он разделён на две фракции, которые во всём противостоят друг другу, а их политические линии несовместимы и противоречивы [1]. Наибольшего обострения эта ситуация достигла в Сирии, где Белый Дом сначала поддержал организацию Даеш и направил её в Ирак для проведения этнической чистки, а затем стал её бомбить, хотя ЦРУ продолжало её поддерживать. Эта несогласованность постепенно дошла и до союзников. Франция, к примеру, вступила в коалицию по борьбе против Даеш, тогда как некоторые из её легионеров входят в состав руководства Даеш [2]. Когда министр Обороны Чак Хейгел затребовал письменное разъяснение, ему не только не дали никакого ответа, его просто послали куда подальше [3]. В самом НАТО, которое было создано для борьбы против СССР, а теперь используется против России, тоже воцарился беспорядок сразу после того, как президент Турции подписал масштабные экономические соглашения с Владимиром Путиным [4]. Нарушив молчание, почётный президент Совета по международным отношениям [5] Лесли Гелб бьёт тревогу [6]. По его мнению, «команда Обамы лишена основного инстинкта и не имеет решений по проведению политики национальной безопасности на ближайшие два года». И далее, от имени всего правящего класса США: «Президент Обама должен обновить свою команду сильными личностями и опытными специалистами. Он должен также заменить главных советников в министерстве Обороны и в Госдепе. Наконец, он должен проводить регулярные консультации с президентом Комиссии по международным отношениям Бобом Коркером и председателем Комиссии по вооружённым силам Джоном Маккейном [7]». Никогда за всё время своего существования с 1921 года Совет по международным отношениям не высказывал подобных суждений. Но теперь разногласия внутри государственного аппарата могут привести Соединённые Штаты к гибели. Среди главных советников, которые, по его мнению, должны уйти в отставку, г-н Гелб называет четырёх человек интеллектуально и эмоционально близких действующему президенту: Сьюзан Райс (советник по национальной безопасности), Денис Макдоноу (руководитель Администрации Белого дома), Бенжамин Родес (уполномоченный по связям) и Валери Джаретт (советник по внешней политике). Правящая верхушка Вашингтона обвиняет их в том, что они не представили президенту ни одного оригинального предложения, не противоречили ему, но всегда поддерживали его в заблуждениях. Единственный, кто пользуется благосклонностью в глазах Совета по международным отношениям, это «либеральный ястреб» Энтони Блинкен, второе лицо в госдепе. Совет по международным отношениям является двухпартийным органом, соответственно, г-н Гелб предлагает президенту Обаме ввести в своё окружение четырёх республиканцев и четырёх демократов, согласно приводимому им списку. Прежде всего, это демократы Томас Пикеринг (бывший представитель в ООН), Уинстон Лорд (бывший ассистент Генри Киссинджера), Френк Уиснер (официально один из руководителей ЦРУ и, между прочим, тесть Николя Саркози) и Мишель Флюрнуа (руководитель Центра новой американской безопасности) [8]. Затем республиканцы Роберт Зеллик (бывший патрон Всемирного Банка) [9], Ричард Армитидж (бывший ассистент Колина Пауэла) [10], Роберт Киммит (возможно, будущий патрон Всемирного Банка) и Ричард Берд (в прошлом, участник переговоров по сокращению ядерных вооружений). Для проведения бюджетных урезаний в министерстве Обороны г-н Гелб прочит раввина Доу Закгейма [11], адмирала Майка Мюллена (бывшего начальника межармейских штабов) и генерала Джека Кейна (бывшего начальника штаба Сухопутных войск). Наконец, г-н Гелб считает, что стратегия национальной безопасности должна быть разработана в тесном сотрудничестве с четырьмя «мудрецами»: Генри Киссинджером [12], Брентом Скоукрофтом, Збигневом Бжезинским [13] и Джемсом Бейкером [14]. При более тщательном анализе этого списка становится ясно, что Совет по международным отношениям не делает выбора между двумя фракциями, противостоящими друг другу в составе администрации Обамы, он лишь намеревается навести порядок на высшем уровне власти. В этом отношении нелишне упомянуть, что в стране, которой до последнего времени руководил белый англо-саксонский протестант, два советника, которых собираются отправить в отставку, являются чернокожими женщинами, а четырнадцать из пятнадцати предлагаемых кандидатур, являются белыми мужчинами, протестантами или ашкеназами. Таким образом, наведение порядка в политике сопровождается превращением власти в этническо-религиозную. [1] См. : « Есть ли у Обамы военная политика? », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 1 декабря 2014. [2] « D’"anciens" militaires français parmi les jihadistes de Daesh », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 21 января 2015 г. [3] « Contre qui le Pentagone se bat-il en Syrie ? », интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 1 ноября 2014 г. [4] « Как Владимир Путин разрушил стратегию НАТО », Тьерри Мейсан, Однако (Российская Федерация), Сеть Вольтер, 8 декабря 2014. [5] « Как Совет по международным отношениям определяет дипломатию США », Сеть Вольтер, 25 июня 2004. [6] « This Is Obama’s Last Foreign Policy Chance », Лесли Гелб, The Daily Beast, 14 января 2015 г. [7] « Дирижёр «арабской весны» Джон Маккейн и халиф Ибрагим », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 18 августа 2014. [8] « ЦНАБ – демократический оплот колониального империализма », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Сеть Вольтер, 6 января 2015. [9] « Роберт Б. Золлик – идейный вдохновитель глобализации », Тьерри Мейсан, Сеть Вольтер, 10 марта 2005. [10] « Richard Armitage, le baroudeur qui rêvait d’être diplomate », Réseau Voltaire, 8 octobre 2004. [11] « Доув Закхейм, поручитель Пентагона », Поль Лабарик, Сеть Вольтер, 9 сентября 2004. [12] « Le retour d’Henry Kissinger », Тьерри Мейсан, интернет-издание Réseau Voltaire, 28 ноября 2002 г., 28 novembre 2002. [13] « Антироссийская стратегия Збигнева Бжезинского », Артур Лепик, Сеть Вольтер, 3 августа 2005. [14] « Джеймс А. Бейкер III, верный друг », Сеть Вольтер, 12 декабря 2003. Источник: http://www.voltairenet.org/article186521.html

11 января 2015, 17:18

ЦНАБ (CNAS) – демократический оплот колониального империализма (Ястребы США против Обамы)

Вашингтон не проводит единую внешнюю политику - он действует противоречиво и лишь в ответ на внешние вызовы, а «либеральные ястребы» объединяются вокруг генерала Дэвида Петреуса и Центра новой американской безопасности (ЦНАБ). Тьерри Мейсан представляет нам этот мозговой центр, который сегодня играет ту же роль, что и Проект нового американского века при Буше – обеспечивать американскую экспансию и доминирование над всём миром. Сирийский кризис, выход из которого был предложен ещё во время первой конференции в Женеве в июне 2012 г., продолжается, несмотря на все соглашения, заключённые с США. По-видимому, администрация Обамы не подчиняется президенту, и она разделена на две политические линии: с одной стороны, империалисты, склонные к разделу мира с Китаем и, возможно, с Россией (это позиция президента Обамы), а, с другой стороны, империалистические экспансионисты, объединившиеся вокруг Хиллари Клинтон и генерала Дэвида Петреуса. Ко всеобщему удивлению, отставка директора ЦРУ и госсекретаря после переизбрания Барака Обамы не только не положила конец разногласиям в администрации, но и обострила их. Именно экспансионисты возобновили войну против Корейской народной республики под предлогом кибер-атаки против Sony Pictures, якобы предпринятой Пхеньяном. Президент Обама, в конечном счёте, согласился с их доводами и подписал декрет о «санкциях». Представляется, что сторонники имперской экспансии первоначально объединились вокруг Центра новой американской безопасности, который в Демократической партии играл роль ту же самую роль, что и Проект нового американского века (а сегодня также и Foreign Policy Initiative) в Республиканской партии. Важную роль они играли и во время первого мандата Барака Обамы, и по некоторым данным образовали «глубинное государство», откуда продолжают дёргать за верёвочки. Либеральные ястребы Центр новой американской безопасности был создан в 2007 г. Куртом Кэмпбеллом и Мишель Флурнуа. Ранее оба эти интеллектуала работали в Центре стратегических и международных исследований (ЦСМИ - Center for Strategic and International Studies). В нём спустя два месяца после событий 11 сентября они руководили публикацией книги To Prevail : An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism (Всё для победы: американская стратегия по борьбе с терроризмом) [1]. В книге развивалась идея о том, что необходимо атаковать не только террористические группировки, о чём говорил президент Буш, но и государства, если им самим не удавалось эти группировки уничтожить на своей территории. Вдохновившись работами оперативной группы по борьбе с терроризмом из ЦСМИ, они выступали за значительное увеличение разведывательных агентств для наблюдения за всем миром. Короче, Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа принимали официальные представления о терактах и оправдывали «войну против терроризма», которая на целое десятилетие погрузила в траур весь мир. В 2003 году Кэмпбелл и Флурнуа вместе с другими тринадцатью демократами-интеллектуалами подписали документ под названием Progressive Internationalism : A Democratic National Security Strategy (Прогрессивный интернационализм: демократическая стратегия национальной безопасности) [2]. Этот манифест поддерживал все войны после 11 сентября и критиковал дипломатическую слабость президента Буша. После выборов кандидата-демократа в 2004 г. подписанты намеревались продвигать американский имперский проект (сторонником которого был Джордж Буш-младший) при этом критикуя его за то, что он оказывал пагубное влияние на руководителей, и, в частности, сеял сомнения среди союзников. Всем подписантам тогда приклеили ярлык «либеральных ястребов». ЦНАБ Во время своего создания в 2007 г. ЦНАБ выражал стремление обновить американскую стратегическую мысль после Комиссии Бейкера-Гамильтона и отставки министра Обороны Дональда Рамсфельда. На открытии центра присутствовали такие лица как Мадлен Олбрайт, Хиллари Клинтон и Чак Хейгел. В ту пору Вашингтон пытался выпутаться из трясины, в которую он попал в Ираке. Кемпбелл и Флурнуа выступали за военное решение, которое позволило бы американским войскам продолжать оккупировать Ирак, не истощая при этом свои силы. Для продолжения имперской экспансии американский империализм должен был прежде всего выработать определённую антитеррористическую стратегию, которая позволила бы сократить численность американских войск в Ираке. Нет никакого противоречия в том, что Кемпбелл и Флурнуа работали совместно с генералом Дэвидом Петреусом, которого только что назначили командующим военной Коалицией в Ираке, потому что он был автором пособия по предотвращению смуты в сухопутных войсках США. Они склоняют на свою сторону австралийского эксперта Дэвида Кикуллена, который станет гуру генерала Петреуса и разработчиком плана Surge (Удар). Согласно этому плану переориентация иракских повстанцев должна осуществляться путём использования двух факторов (пряник и кнут): с одной стороны, платить деньги боевикам, которые перейдут на сторону агрессора и будут устанавливать порядок на своей территории, а, с другой стороны, оказывать на них принудительное воздействие путём временного усиления военного присутствия США. Эта стратегия будет успешно использована: страна вначале погружается в фазу интенсивной гражданской войны, а затем после глубокой разрухи она медленно возвращается в состояние покоя. Но на самом деле частичная переориентация иракского сопротивления стала возможной лишь потому, что оно было организовано на племенной основе. Весь этот период ЦНАБ и генерала Петреуса водой не разлить. Килкуллен становится сначала советником Петреуса, а затем госсекретаря Кондолизы Райс. Сплав этот настолько прочен, что полковник Джон Нейгл, советник Петреуса, станет президентом ЦНАБа после того, как Кемпбелл и Флурнуа войдут в администрацию Обамы. Особенность ЦНАК состоит в том, что он является мозговым центром демократов, но с ним сотрудничают и в него входят республиканские ястребы. Впрочем, он не отказывается от встреч и дебатов с членами Проекта нового американского века. Финансирование центра осуществляется производителями вооружений и компаниями, сотрудничающими с оборонным ведомством (AccentureFederal Services, BAE Systems, Boeing, DRS Technologies, Northrop Grumman), финансовыми компаниями (Bernard L. Schwartz Investments, Prudential Financial), фондами (Carnegie Corporation of New York, The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, PloughsharesFund, Smith Richardson Foundation, ZakFamily Charitable Trust) и иностранными правительствами (Израиль, Япония, Тайвань). Во время предвыборной кампании Кемпбелл и Флурнуа издают для будущего президента рекомендации The Inheritance and the Way Forward (Наследие прошлого и путь в будущее) [3]. Начиная с периода президентства Буша они ставят под сомнение принцип «превентивной войны» и использование пыток. Кроме того, они выступают за переориентацию войны с терроризмом с тем, чтобы избежать «столкновения цивилизаций», которое могло бы лишить Вашингтон его мусульманских союзников. Администрация Обамы После избрания президентом Барак Обама поручает Мишель Флурнуа контроль за перестройкой оборонного ведомства. По логике, она становится заместителем министра Обороны по политической части, то есть она должна вырабатывать новую оборонную стратегию. Она при этом считается вторым лицом в министерстве и распоряжается бюджетом в 200 миллионов долларов. Курт Кемпбелл, в свою очередь, назначается в госдепартамент и руководит в нём отделом по Дальневосточному и Тихоокеанскому регионам. И Кемпбелл, и Флурнуа придерживаются стратегии типа «оплот». Согласно этой стратегии США должны готовиться к будущему столкновению с Китаем. С этой точки зрения, они должны постепенно передислоцировать свои вооружённые силы из Европы и Большого Среднего Востока на Дальний Восток. ЦНАБ настолько популярен, что его сотрудники скоро войдут в состав администрации Обамы: Ренд Бирс станет секретарём госбезопасности, Эштон Картер, замминистра Обороны по закупкам, а затем министр Обороны, Сьюзан Райс, представитель ООН, а затем советник по национальной безопасности, Роберт Уорк, заместитель министра Обороны и далее: Шон Бримли, специальный советник министра Обороны, а затем директор по планированию в Совете национальной безопасности, Прайс Флойд, ассистент помощника министра Обороны по связям с общественностью, Элис Хант, специальный ассистент в министерстве Обороны, Колин Кал, ассистент министра Обороны по Ближнему Востоку, затем советник по национальной безопасности при вице-президенте, Джеймс Миллер, заместитель помощника министра обороны США по вопросам политики, Эрик Пирс, заместитель министра Обороны, ответственный за связи с Конгрессом, Сара Сьюэлл, назначена в 2014 году заместителем госсекретаря по вопросам демократии и прав человека, Уэнди Шерман, назначена в 2011 году заместителем госсекретаря по политическим вопросам, Викрам Сингх, специальный советник министра обороны по Афганистану и Пакистану, Гейл Смит, директор по развитию и демократии при Совете национальной безопасности, Джеймс Стейнберг, заместитель госсекретаря, Джим Томас, заместитель помощника министра Обороны США по финансам, Эдвард (Тед) Уорнер III, советник министра Обороны по контролю над вооружениями. В настоящее время ЦНАБ уже готовит программу для будущего президента США. Влияние ЦНАБ Мишель Флурнуа всё время стремилась занять пост министра Обороны, но не была допущена на эту должность в 2012 году, так как считалось, что она слишком тесно связана с Израилем. Однако сегодня она присутствует почти во всех инстанциях министерства Оброны, занятых планированием: она является членом научного Совета Обороны (Defense Science Board), политического Совета Обороны (Defense Policy Board) и консультативного президентского совета по разведке (President’s Intelligence AdvisoryBoard). Видно, что все её политические рекомендации учитываются как по «Большому Среднему Востоку», так и по Дальнему Востоку. ЦНАБ поддержал усилия Уэнди Шермана по возобновлению дипломатических отношений с Тегераном. Было отчётливо заявлено, что проблема Ирана в большей степени связана не с ядерным вопросом, а с экспортом иранской революции. Им была предложена серия чрезвычайно суровых мер по урезанию иранских трубопроводов в Африке, Латинской Америке и на Ближнем Востоке [4]. В отношении Сирии ЦНАБ считает, что невозможно свергнуть власть в республике в короткий срок. Поэтому он выдвинул «стратегию турникета» : использовать сложившийся против Исламского государства консенсус и принудить все вовлечённые в конфликт государства оказать давление на Дамаск и оппозиционные формирования для того, чтобы добиться военной деэскалации, при этом не вступая в коалицию с президентом аль-Ассадом против Исламского государства. Будут предприняты усилия по включению в состав правительства республики представителей проатлантической оппозиции и предоставлению гуманитарной и материально-технической помощи в районы, занятые повстанцами, с тем, чтобы привлечь к ним внимание. После того, как проатлантисты войдут в правительство, их задача будет состоять в том, чтобы распознать все секреты государственного аппарата, чтобы после этого уничтожить его. Но главная цель этого плана состоит в том, чтобы потребовать для повстанцев, которые отказываются войти в правительство, всю сирийскую пустыню. А эта пустыня представляет около 70% всей территории, и в ней расположены основные газовые месторождения [5]. Особое внимание в ЦНАБ уделяется Интернету. Речь идёт об ограничении правительственной цензуры с тем, чтобы облегчить контроль со стороны АНБ [6]. Вместе с тем там обеспокоены тем, что народный Китай защищает себя от шпионажа со стороны АНБ [7]. В тихоокеанском регионе ЦНАБ выступает за сближение с Индией, Малазией и Индонезией. С этой целью разработан план совершенствования механизма, направленного против Северной Кореи. Ответственные лица ЦНАБ из бывшего органа по сотрудничеству демократов с республиканскими неоконсерваторами постепенно превратился в главный исследовательский центр колониального империализма. Кроме Курта Кемпбелла и Мишель Флурнуа в состав администрации входят: генерал Джон Аллен, командующий Коалицией сил по борьбе с ИГИЛ, Ричард Эрмитейдж, бывший помощник госсекретаря, Ричард Данциг, вице-президент компании Rand Corporation, Джозеф Либерман, бывший пресс-секретарь израильского Сената, генерал Джеймс Маттис, бывший командующий ЦентрКома. ЦНАБ и в дальнейшем будет развиваться, потому что теперь он является главным мозговым центром, способным повлиять на оборонный бюджет и перевести экономику страны на военные рельсы. [1] To Prevail: An American Strategy for the Campaign Against Terrorism, Csis Significant Issues Series, CSIS, ноябрь 2001. [2] Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy, Институт прогрессивной политики (Progressive Policy Institute), 30 октября, 2003 г. [3] The Inheritance and the Way Forward, Курь Кемпбелл, Мишель Флурнуа, ЦНАБ (CNAS), 2007. [4] Pushback Countering the Iran Action Network, Скотт Модель и Дэвид Ашер, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2013 г. [5] The Tourniquet. A Strategy for Defeating the Islamic State and Saving Syria and Iraq, Марк Линч, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), октябрь 2014. А также How This Ends. A Blueprint for De-Escalation in Syria, Дафна Ранд и Николас Герас, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), ноябрь 2014 г. « Американский «мирный план» для Сирии », Тьерри Мейсан, Перевод Эдуард Феоктистов, Al-Watan (Сирия), Сеть Вольтер, 1 января 2015. [6] Bringing Liberty Online. Reenergizing the Internet Freedom Agenda in a Post-Snowden Era, Ричард Фонтен, Центр новой американской безопасности (Center for a New American Security), сентябрь 2014 г. [7] Warring State: China’s Cybersecurity Strategy, Эми Чанг, Центр новой американской безопасности ( Center for a New American Security), декабрь 2014г. http://www.voltairenet.org/article186374.html

06 мая 2013, 05:45

Американский журнал Foreign Policy опубликовал список 500 самых влиятельных людей мира, в который вошли 23 россиянина

...Это российские политики и крупные бизнесмены, один военный и один криминальный авторитет. В список самых влиятельных людей по версии Foreign Policy вошли президент России Владимир Путин, глава правительства Дмитрий Медведев, министр иностранных дел Сергей Лавров, глава Мифина Антон Силуанов и глава Минобороны Сергей Шойгу, председатель Банка России Сергей Игнатьев, директор ФСБ Александр Бортников, мэр Москвы Сергей Собянин и другие.Из российских бизнесменов в список вошли также основатель USM Holdings Алишер Усманов (№1 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $17,6 млрд), совладелец «Альфа-Групп» Михаил Фридман (№2 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $16,5 млрд), председатель правления «Новатэка» Леонид Михельсон (№3 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,4 млрд), владелец «Реновы» Виктор Вексельберг (№4 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $15,1 млрд), президент нефтяной компании «Лукойл» Вагит Алекперов (№5 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,8 млрд), председатель совета директоров «Еврохима» Андрей Мельниченко (№6 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,4 млрд), глава холдинга «Интеррос» Владимир Потанин (№7 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,3 млрд), председатель совета директоров НЛМК Владимир Лисин (№8 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $14,1 млрд), глава «Газпрома» Алексей Миллер (№2 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России), совладелец Mail.ru Group Юрий Мильнер (№102 в рейтинге 200 богатейших бизнесменов России — 2013, состояние — $1,1 млрд), президент «Роснефти» Игорь Сечин  (№3 в рейтинге самых высокооплачиваемых топ-менеджеров России). Из иностранных политических лидеров журнал включил в список президента Палестины Махмуда Аббаса, лидера австралийской оппозиции Тони Эбботта и премьер-министра Японии Синдзо Абэ. По мнению издания, влиятельными также являются исполнительный директор газеты The New York Times Джил Абрамсон и "король игорного бизнеса", американский магнат Шелдон Адельсон. Список составлен в алфавитном порядке, в нем преобладают американцы — 142 человека. При составлении перечня редакция Foreign Policy пользовалась всеми доступными рейтингами влиятельности, в том числе публикациями Forbes, Times, Vanity Fair, Wall Street Journal, Global Finance и другими. Mahmoud Abbas President, Palestinian Authority West Bank Tony Abbott Liberal Party leader Australia Shinzo Abe Prime minister Japan Jill Abramson New York Times executive editor USA Sheldon Adelson Las Vegas Sands CEO and chair USA Aga Khan IV Ismaili Muslim imam Britain Daniel Akerson General Motors CEO and chair USA Rinat Akhmetov System Capital Management owner Ukraine Karl Albrecht Aldi Süd owner Germany Vagit Alekperov Lukoil president Russia Keith Alexander National Security Agency director USA Paul Allen Microsoft co-founder and Vulcan Inc. chair USA Yukiya Amano International Atomic Energy Agency director-general Japan Shlomo Amar Sephardic chief rabbi Israel Mukesh Ambani Reliance Industries chair and managing director India Yaakov Amidror National security advisor Israel Celso Amorim Defense minister Brazil Marc Andreessen Andreessen Horowitz co-founder USA A.K. Antony Defense minister India Catherine Ashton European Union foreign minister Britain Taro Aso Finance minister Japan Bashar al-Assad President Syria Ibrahim bin Abdulaziz al-Assaf Finance minister Saudi Arabia Aung San Suu Kyi Opposition leader Burma Jean-Marc Ayrault Prime minister France Alberto Baillères Grupo Bal chair Mexico John Baird Foreign minister Canada Bernard Bajolet Directorate-General for External Security head* France Steve Ballmer Microsoft CEO USA Ban Ki-moon United Nations secretary-general South Korea Mario Barletta Radical Civic Union president Argentina José Manuel Barroso European Commission president Portugal Bartholomew I Ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople Turkey Omar Hassan al-Bashir President Sudan Fatou Bensouda International Criminal Court prosecutor Gambia Ben Bernanke Federal Reserve chair USA Pier Luigi Bersani Democratic Party secretary Italy Jeff Bewkes Time Warner Inc. CEO and chair USA Jeff Bezos Amazon CEO USA Ted Bianco Wellcome Trust acting director Britain Joseph Biden Vice president USA Carl Bildt Foreign minister Sweden Robert Birgeneau U.C. Berkeley chancellor USA Tony Blair Former prime minister Britain Lloyd Blankfein Goldman Sachs CEO and chair USA Len Blavatnik Access Industries chair USA Michael Bloomberg New York mayor USA John Boehner Speaker of the House of Representatives USA Jean-Laurent Bonnafé BNP Paribas CEO and director France Alexander Bortnikov FSB director Russia Leszek Borysiewicz Cambridge University chief executive Britain John Brennan CIA director USA Sergey Brin Google co-founder USA Andrew Brown Church Commissioners CEO and secretary Britain Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway CEO USA Ursula Burns Xerox CEO USA David Cameron Prime minister Britain Bob Carr Foreign minister Australia Vicente Carrillo Fuentes Juárez cartel leader Mexico John Chambers Cisco CEO and chair USA Margaret Chan World Health Organization director-general China Norman Chan Hong Kong Monetary Authority CEO Hong Kong Stephen Chazen Occidental CEO and president USA Dhanin Chearavanont Charoen Pokphand Group chair Thailand Chen Yuan China Development Bank chair China Cheng Yu-tung Investor Hong Kong Palaniappan Chidambaram Finance minister India Jean-Paul Chifflet Crédit Agricole CEO France James Clapper Director of national intelligence USA Helen Clark U.N. Development Program administrator New Zealand Joseph Clayton Dish Network CEO and president USA Bill Clinton Former president USA Hillary Clinton Former secretary of state USA Tim Cook Apple CEO USA Jean-François Copé Union for a Popular Movement president France Michael Corbat Citigroup CEO USA Ertharin Cousin U.N. World Food Program executive director USA James Cuno J. Paul Getty Trust CEO and president USA Siyabonga Cwele State security minister South Africa Ophelia Dahl Partners in Health executive director USA Dai Xianglong National Council for Social Security Fund chair China Dalai Lama Tibetan spiritual leader Aliko Dangote Dangote Group CEO and president Nigeria Kim Darroch National security advisor Britain Ahmet Davutoglu Foreign minister Turkey Henri de Castries AXA CEO and chair France Michael Dell Dell CEO USA Leonardo Del Vecchio Luxottica chair Italy Thomas de Maizière Defense minister Germany Christophe de Margerie Total CEO and chair France Martin Dempsey Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff USA Hailemariam Desalegn African Union chair Ethiopia Cobus de Swardt Transparency International managing director South Africa Philip de Toledo Capital Group Companies president USA Michael Diekmann Allianz CEO and chair Germany Jeroen Dijsselbloem Dutch finance minister and Eurogroup president Netherlands Sheila Dikshit New Delhi chief minister India Jamie Dimon JPMorgan Chase CEO, chair, and president USA Daniel Doctoroff Bloomberg L.P. CEO and president USA Tom Donilon National security advisor USA Thomas Donohue Chamber of Commerce CEO and president USA Jack Dorsey Twitter founder and Square Inc. CEO USA Mario Draghi European Central Bank president Italy Abu Dua al Qaeda in Iraq leader Iraq Jean-François Dubos Vivendi chair France Bob Dudley BP CEO USA Mike Duke Walmart CEO and president USA Mark Dybul Global Fund executive director USA Nabil Elaraby Arab League secretary-general Egypt Mohamed A. El-Erian Pimco CEO and co-CIO USA John Elkann Exor chair Italy Larry Ellison Oracle CEO and chair USA Erik Engstrom Reed Elsevier CEO Sweden Recep Tayyip Erdogan Prime minister Turkey Sergio Ermotti UBS CEO Switzerland Laurent Fabius Foreign minister France Richard Fadden Canadian Security Intelligence Service director Canada Teuku Faizasyah International affairs advisor Indonesia Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahabadi Nuclear scientist Iran John Fallon Pearson CEO Britain Fan Changlong Central Military Commission vice chairman China Fang Fenghui People's Liberation Army chief of general staff China Drew Gilpin Faust Harvard University president USA Jon Feltheimer Lionsgate CEO and co-chair USA Hakan Fidan National Intelligence Organization undersecretary Turkey Laurence Fink BlackRock CEO and chair USA Chris Finlayson BG CEO Britain Jürgen Fitschen Deutsche Bank co-chair Germany James Flaherty Finance minister Canada Maria das Graças Silva Foster Petrobras CEO Brazil Mikhail Fradkov Foreign Intelligence Service head Russia Pope Francis Head of Catholic Church Vatican City Vagner Freitas Unified Workers' Central president Brazil Mikhail Fridman Alfa Group Consortium chair Russia Fu Chengyu Sinopec chair China Osamu Fujimura Chief cabinet secretary Japan Robert Gallucci MacArthur Foundation president USA Sonia Gandhi Indian National Congress party president India Bill Gates Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation co-chair and Microsoft co-founder USA Melinda Gates Gates Foundation co-chair USA Valery Gerasimov Armed forces chief of general staff Russia Rostam Ghasemi Iranian oil minister Iran Carlos Ghosn Nissan and Renault CEO and chair France Julia Gillard Prime minister Australia Ivan Glasenberg Glencore CEO South Africa Robert Glasser Care International secretary-general USA Pravin Gordhan Finance minister South Africa Terry Gou Foxconn CEO Taiwan Mario Greco Assicurazioni Generali CEO Italy Brad Grey Paramount Pictures CEO and chair USA William Gross Pimco co-CIO and managing director USA Sérgio Guerra Brazilian Social Democracy Party president Brazil Abdullah Gul President Turkey Fethullah Gulen Muslim religious leader Turkey Stuart Gulliver HSBC group CEO Britain Guo Jinlong Beijing Communist Party secretary China Guo Shengkun Minister of public security China Ángel Gurrí­a OECD secretary-general Mexico António Guterres U.N. high commissioner for refugees Portugal Javier Gutiérrez Ecopetrol CEO Colombia Joaquín Guzmán Loera Sinaloa drug cartel leader Mexico Fernando Haddad São Paulo mayor Brazil Chuck Hagel Defense secretary USA William Hague Foreign minister Britain Tony Hall BBC director-general Britain Andrew Hamilton Oxford University chief executive Britain Ingrid Hamm Robert Bosch Stiftung executive director Germany John Hammergren McKesson CEO, chair, and president USA Philip Hammond Secretary of state for defense Britain Han Zheng Shanghai Communist Party secretary China Jalaluddin Haqqani Haqqani network leader Afghanistan Stephen Harper Prime minister Canada Toru Hashimoto Osaka mayor Japan Gerald Hassell Bank of New York Mellon CEO and chair USA Jimmy Hayes Cox Enterprises CEO and president USA John Hennessy Stanford University president USA Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert Defense minister Netherlands Stephen Hester Royal Bank of Scotland CEO Britain Christoph Heusgen National security advisor Germany Marillyn Hewson Lockheed Martin CEO and president USA Hisashi Hieda Fuji Media Holdings CEO and chair Japan Nobuyuki Hirano Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group CEO and president Japan Ho Ching Temasek CEO and executive director Singapore Reid Hoffman LinkedIn co-founder and executive chair USA François Hollande President France Jan Hommen ING CEO Netherlands Mahabub Hossain BRAC executive director Bangladesh Hyun Oh-seok Finance minister South Korea Carl Icahn Icahn Enterprises chair USA Robert Iger Walt Disney Co. CEO and chair USA Sergei Ignatiev Central Bank of Russia chair Russia Jeffrey Immelt General Electric CEO and chair USA Naoki Inose Tokyo governor Japan Zaheer ul-Islam Inter-Services Intelligence director-general Pakistan Jonathan Ive Apple senior VP for industrial design Britain Paul Jacobs Qualcomm CEO and chair USA Mohammad Ali Jafari Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Iran Anshu Jain Deutsche Bank co-chair Britain Paul Jean-Ortiz Diplomatic advisor France Antony Jenkins Barclays Group CEO Britain Jiang Jianqing Industrial and Commercial Bank of China executive director and chair China Jiang Jiemin State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission chair* China Jiang Zemin Former president China Edward Johnson Fidelity Investments CEO and chair USA Goodluck Jonathan President Nigeria Alok Joshi Research and Analysis Wing chief India Banri Kaieda Democratic Party of Japan president Japan Unni Karunakara Médecins Sans Frontières president India Hamid Karzai President Afghanistan Ashfaq Parvez Kayani Chief of army staff Pakistan Muhtar Kent Coca-Cola CEO and chair USA Neal Keny-Guyer Mercy Corps CEO USA John Kerry Secretary of state USA Ali Khamenei Supreme leader Iran Salman Khurshid Foreign minister India Paal Kibsgaard Schlumberger CEO Norway Kemal Kilicdaroglu Republican People's Party chair Turkey Kim Jang-soo National security advisor South Korea Jim Yong Kim World Bank president USA Kim Jong Un Supreme leader North Korea Kim Kwan-jin Defense minister South Korea Ian King BAE Systems CEO Britain Mervyn King Bank of England governor Britain Cristina Fernández de Kirchner President Argentina Fumio Kishida Foreign minister Japan Henry Kissinger Former secretary of state USA Susanne Klatten Investor Germany Bill Klesse Valero CEO and chair USA Philip Knight Nike chair USA Charles Koch Koch Industries CEO and chair USA David Koch Koch Industries executive VP USA Nobuaki Koga Japanese Trade Union Confederation, president Japan Larry Kramer Hewlett Foundation president USA William Kumuyi Deeper Christian Life Ministry general superintendent Nigeria Haruhiko Kuroda Bank of Japan governor Japan Raymond Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Thomas Kwok Sun Hung Kai Properties co-chair Hong Kong Oh-Hyun Kwon Samsung CEO South Korea Christine Lagarde IMF managing director France Arnaud Lagardère Lagardère CEO and chair France Pascal Lamy World Trade Organization director-general France Ryan Lance ConocoPhillips CEO and chair USA Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco Grupo México president Mexico Carol Larson Packard Foundation president USA Risa Lavizzo-Mourey Robert Wood Johnson Foundation CEO and president USA Sergei Lavrov Foreign minister Russia Jean-Yves Le Drian Defense minister France Lee Shau-kee Henderson Land Development chair Hong Kong Thierry Lepaon General Confederation of Labor secretary-general France Richard Levin Yale University president USA Jacob Lew Treasury secretary USA Li Hongzhi Falun Gong founder China Li Jianguo All-China Federation of Trade Unions chair China Li Ka-shing Hutchison Whampoa chair Hong Kong Li Keqiang Premier China Li Lihui Bank of China president China Robin Li Baidu CEO China Alfredo Lim Manila mayor Philippines Lim Siong Guan Government of Singapore Investment Corp. president Singapore Vladimir Lisin NLMK chair Russia Liu Zhenya State Grid Corp. president China Andrés Manuel López Obrador Opposition leader Mexico Hernán Lorenzino Economic minister Argentina Peter Löscher Siemens CEO and president Austria Lou Jiwei Finance minister China Emilio Lozoya Austin Pemex CEO Mexico Helge Lund Statoil CEO and president Norway Michael Lynton Sony Entertainment CEO and chair USA Peter MacKay Defense minister Canada Andrew Mackenzie BHP Billiton CEO South Africa Gregory Maffei Liberty Media CEO and president USA Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Defense minister UAE Miguel Ángel Mancera Mexico City mayor Mexico Guido Mantega Finance minister Brazil Lutz Marmor ARD chair Germany John Mars Mars Inc. chair USA Agus Martowardojo Finance minister Indonesia Masayuki Matsumoto NHK president Japan Isao Matsushita JX Holdings CEO and president Japan Shigeo Matsutomi Intelligence chief Japan Peter Maurer International Committee of the Red Cross president Switzerland Marissa Mayer Yahoo! CEO USA Timothy Mayopoulos Fannie Mae CEO USA Lowell McAdam Verizon CEO and chair USA Margot McCarthy National security advisor Australia Mitch McConnell Senate minority leader USA William McNabb Vanguard CEO and chair USA James McNerney Boeing CEO and chair USA José Antonio Meade Foreign minister Mexico Mourad Medelci Foreign minister Algeria Dmitry Medvedev Prime minister Russia Hakimullah Mehsud Pakistani Taliban leader Pakistan Andrey Melnichenko Siberian Coal Energy Co. chair Russia Shivshankar Menon National security advisor India Angela Merkel Chancellor Germany Khaled Meshaal Hamas leader West Bank Gérard Mestrallet GDF Suez CEO and chair France Yona Metzger Ashkenazi chief rabbi Israel Leonid Mikhelson Novatek executive director Russia Carolyn Miles Save the Children CEO and president USA Ed Miliband Labour Party leader Britain Alexey Miller Gazprom CEO and chair Russia Yuri Milner Digital Sky Technologies founder Russia Le Luong Minh Association of Southeast Asian Nations secretary-general Vietnam Lakshmi Mittal ArcelorMittal CEO and chair India Semion Mogilevich Mafia boss Russia Nadir Mohamed Rogers Communications CEO and president Canada Moon Hee-sang Democratic United Party leader South Korea Pedro Morenés Defense minister Spain Mohamed Morsy President Egypt Pierre Moscovici Finance minister France Heydar Moslehi Intelligence minister Iran Brian Moynihan Bank of America CEO USA Fahad al-Mubarak Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency governor Saudi Arabia Alan Mulally Ford CEO and president USA Tom Mulcair New Democratic Party leader Canada Rupert Murdoch News Corp. CEO and chair USA Elon Musk PayPal, SpaceX, and Tesla Motors founder USA Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foreign minister UAE Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan Abu Dhabi crown prince UAE Ali al-Naimi Minister of petroleum Saudi Arabia Hiroaki Nakanishi Hitachi president Japan Nam Jae-joon National Intelligence Service chief South Korea Janet Napolitano Homeland security secretary USA Óscar Naranjo National security advisor Mexico Hassan Nasrallah Hezbollah secretary-general Lebanon Marty Natalegawa Foreign minister Indonesia Mohammed bin Nayef Interior minister Saudi Arabia Benjamin Netanyahu Prime minister Israel Maite Nkoana-Mashabane Foreign minister South Africa Indra Nooyi PepsiCo CEO and chair USA Phebe Novakovic General Dynamics CEO and chair USA Christian Noyer Bank of France governor France Barack Obama President USA Michelle Obama First lady USA Frances O'Grady Trades Union Congress general secretary Britain Mullah Mohammed Omar Taliban leader Afghanistan Keith O'Nions Imperial College London rector Britain Itsunori Onodera Defense minister Japan Amancio Ortega Inditex founder Spain George Osborne Chancellor of the Exchequer Britain Paul Otellini Intel CEO and president USA Michael Otto Otto Group chair Germany Ricardo Paes de Barros Secretary of strategic affairs Brazil Larry Page Google CEO USA Tamir Pardo Mossad director Israel Park Geun-hye President South Korea Park Won-soon Seoul mayor South Korea Antonio Patriota Foreign minister Brazil Nikolai Patrushev National Security Council secretary Russia Enrique Peña Nieto President Mexico Yves Perrier Amundi CEO France Stefan Persson H&M chair Sweden Navi Pillay U.N. high commissioner for human rights South Africa François-Henri Pinault Kering CEO and chair France Juan Carlos Pinzón Defense minister Colombia Georges Plassat Carrefour CEO France Vladimir Potanin Interros owner Russia Scott Powers State Street Global Advisors CEO and president USA Sunil Prabhu Mumbai mayor India Vladimir Putin President Russia Yusuf al-Qaradawi Sunni cleric Egypt Thomas Rabe Bertelsmann CEO and chair Germany Bertrand Ract-Madoux Army chief of staff France Baba Ramdev Hindu spiritual leader India Rafael Ramírez PDVSA president Venezuela Anders Fogh Rasmussen NATO secretary-general Denmark Sumner Redstone Viacom and CBS chair USA Olli Rehn European Commission finance minister Finland Harry Reid Senate majority leader USA L. Rafael Reif MIT president USA Stephen Rigby National security advisor Canada Rebecca Rimel Pew Charitable Trusts CEO and president USA Georgina Rinehart Hancock Prospecting chair and director Australia Brian Roberts Comcast CEO and chair and NBCUniversal chair USA John Roberts Supreme Court chief justice USA Virginia Rometty IBM CEO, chair, and president USA Kenneth Roth Human Rights Watch executive director USA Dilma Rousseff President Brazil David Rubenstein Carlyle Group co-CEO USA George Rupp International Rescue Committee CEO and president USA Bader al-Saad Kuwait Investment Authority managing director Kuwait Alfredo Sáenz Banco Santander CEO Spain Joseph Safra Grupo Safra chair Brazil Atsuo Saka Japan Post Holdings CEO Japan Sheryl Sandberg Facebook COO USA Norio Sasaki Toshiba president Japan Yasuhiro Sato Mizuho Financial Group CEO and president Japan Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud King Saudi Arabia Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Crown prince Saudi Arabia Saud bin Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud Foreign minister Saudi Arabia John Sawers Secret Intelligence Service chief Britain Paolo Scaroni Eni CEO Italy Wolfgang Schäuble Finance minister Germany Gerhard Schindler Federal Intelligence Service president Germany Dieter Schwarz Schwarz Group owner Germany Igor Sechin Rosneft president and chair Russia Pierre Servant Natixis CEO France Sri Sri Ravi Shankar Hindu spiritual leader India Mohamed Raafat Shehata General Intelligence Service chief Egypt Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh Grand mufti Saudi Arabia Salil Shetty Amnesty International secretary-general India Sergei Shoigu Defense minister Russia Faisal Al Shoubaki General Intelligence Department director Jordan Radoslaw Sikorski Foreign minister Poland Anton Siluanov Finance minister Russia Mehmet Simsek Finance minister Turkey Manmohan Singh Prime minister India Carlos Slim Helú Grupo Carso founder Mexico Yngve Slyngstad Norges Bank Investment Management CEO Norway James Smith Thomson Reuters CEO and president USA Stephen Smith Defense minister Australia Sergei Sobyanin Moscow mayor Russia Michael Sommer Confederation of German Trade Unions president Germany Masayoshi Son SoftBank Mobile CEO Japan George Soros Soros Fund Management chair USA Sterling Speirn Kellogg Foundation CEO and president USA Richard Stearns World Vision president USA Peer Steinbrück Social Democratic Party leader Germany Randall Stephenson AT&T CEO and chair USA John Strangfeld Prudential Financial CEO and chair USA Megawati Sukarnoputri Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle chair Indonesia Bandar bin Sultan General Intelligence Presidency chief Saudi Arabia Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. New York Times Co. chair USA William Swanson Raytheon CEO and chair USA Sushma Swaraj Bharatiya Janata Party opposition leader India Alwaleed bin Talal Kingdom Holding Co. chair Saudi Arabia Ahmed al-Tayeb Grand sheikh of al-Azhar Egypt Johannes Teyssen E.ON CEO and chair Germany Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani Foreign minister Qatar Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani Emir Qatar Thein Sein President Burma Peter Thiel PayPal co-founder USA David Thomson Thomson Reuters chair Canada Shirley Tilghman Princeton University president USA Rex Tillerson Exxon Mobil CEO and chair USA Héctor Timerman Foreign minister Argentina Robert Tjian Howard Hughes Medical Institute president USA Alexandre Tombini Central Bank of Brazil governor Brazil Akio Toyoda Toyota CEO Japan Miguel Ángel Treviño Morales Zetas drug cartel leader Mexico Richard Trumka AFL-CIO president USA Kazuhiro Tsuga Panasonic president Japan Kevin Tsujihara Warner Bros. Entertainment CEO USA Yoshinobu Tsutsui Nippon Life Insurance president Japan Donald Tusk Prime minister Poland Luis Ubiñas Ford Foundation president USA Hiroo Unoura Nippon Telegraph and Telephone CEO Japan Alisher Usmanov Investor Russia Herman Van Rompuy European Council president Belgium Viktor Vekselberg Renova Group chair Russia Luis Videgaray Finance minister Mexico Antonio Villaraigosa Los Angeles mayor USA Ignazio Visco Bank of Italy governor Italy Peter Voser Royal Dutch Shell CEO Switzerland Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb emir Algeria Jimmy Wales Wikipedia founder USA Peter Wall Chief of general staff Britain S. Robson Walton Walmart chair USA Wan Qingliang Guangzhou Communist Party secretary China Wang Yi Foreign minister China Wang Yilin CNOOC chair China Nick Warner Australian Secret Intelligence Service director-general Australia Rick Warren Evangelical pastor USA John Watson Chevron CEO and chair USA Jens Weidmann German Federal Bank president Germany Bob Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Harvey Weinstein Weinstein Company co-chair USA Justin Welby Archbishop of Canterbury Britain Guido Westerwelle Foreign minister Germany Guy Weston Garfield Weston Foundation chair Britain Meg Whitman Hewlett-Packard CEO and president USA Joko Widodo Jakarta governor Indonesia Steve Williams Suncor CEO and president Canada Oprah Winfrey Harpo Productions and Oprah Winfrey Network CEO and chair USA Martin Winterkorn Volkswagen CEO Germany Penny Wong Finance minister Australia Carolyn Woo Catholic Relief Services CEO and president USA George Wood Assemblies of God general superintendent USA Nasir al-Wuhayshi al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula emir Yemen Xi Jinping President China Xu Qiliang Central Military Commission vice chairman China Moshe Yaalon Defense minister Israel Yang Jiechi State councilor China Yi Gang Foreign exchange reserves administrator China Ismet Yilmaz Defense minister Turkey Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono President Indonesia Yun Byung-se Foreign minister South Korea Syed Hashim Raza Zaidi Karachi administrator Pakistan Lamberto Zannier Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe secretary-general Italy Ayman al-Zawahiri al Qaeda leader Egypt Dieter Zetsche Daimler CEO Germany Zhang Jianguo China Construction Bank president and executive director China Zhang Yuzhuo Shenhua Group CEO and president China Zhou Jiping China National Petroleum Corp. and PetroChina chair* China Zhou Xiaochuan People's Bank of China governor China Helen Zille Democratic Alliance leader South Africa Robert Zimmer University of Chicago president USA Mark Zuckerberg Facebook CEO and founder USA Jacob Zuma President South Africa http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/the_500_most_powerful_people_in_the_worldhttp://www.forbes.ru/news/238657-prezident-lukoil-stal-samym-vliyatelnym-v-mire-rossiyaninom