30 января, 13:06

Сталин против Трумэна: битва за Порт-Артур

Источник: Российская Газета Почему американцам не удалось разместить свои базы на границе Китая и СССР. Второго сентября 1945 года в Токийском заливе на борту американского линкора «Миссури» состоялась церемония подписания Акта о безоговорочной капитуляции милитаристской Японии в войне в Восточной Азии и на Тихом океане. Одновременно ставилась точка в продолжавшейся ровно шесть лет Второй мировой войне. Читать далее »Прочесть полный материал можно в моём блоге.

30 января, 13:00

Сталин против Трумэна: битва за Порт-Артур

Источник: Российская Газета Почему американцам не удалось разместить свои базы на границе Китая и СССР. Второго сентября 1945 года в Токийском заливе на борту американского линкора «Миссури» состоялась церемония подписания Акта о безоговорочной капитуляции милитаристской Японии в войне в Восточной Азии и на Тихом океане. Одновременно ставилась точка в продолжавшейся ровно шесть лет Второй мировой войне.

30 января, 12:00

What Trump's Reshuffling of the National Security Council Means

The president made significant changes to the council’s most influential committees, but the real concern is whether he will incorporate it into his decision-making process at all.

26 января, 21:10

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Newsflash: Obama Was A Historically Unpopular President, According To G…

INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY: Newsflash: Obama Was A Historically Unpopular President, According To Gallup. That poll found that Obama’s overall average approval rating was a dismal 47.9%. Only three presidents scored worse than Obama since Gallup started doing these surveys in 1945: never-elected Gerald Ford (47.2%), one-termer Jimmy Carter (45.4%), and Harry Truman (45.4%). Obama even […]

26 января, 00:00

Trump Could Learn a Lot From Ronald Reagan

Scot Lehigh, Boston GlobeDonald Trump needs to learn from Ronald Reagan. Or perhaps Harry Truman.

24 января, 00:26

Americans Support Obama's Clemency Toward Drug Offenders, But Not Toward Chelsea Manning

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); Americans have mixed feelings about the commutations that former President Barack Obama issued during his last days in office, according to a new HuffPost/YouGov survey. In one of his final acts as president, Obama commuted the sentence of Chelsea Manning, the U.S. soldier who sent classified documents to WikiLeaks, as well as the sentences of hundreds of federal prisoners convicted of drug crimes. A 58 percent majority of Americans say they approve of Obama’s decision to reduce the sentences of hundreds of federal prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses. Just 30 percent disapprove. However, opinions are divided along partisan lines: 81 percent of Democrats and 61 percent of independents, but just under a third of Republicans, approve of the decision. ​ The results are only the latest to show that there’s broad public appetite for some form of drug sentencing reform. A 2015 survey, taken after Obama granted clemency to a previous wave of nonviolent drug offenders, found that Americans agreed 2-to-1 with the decision and that a 40 percent plurality thought sentences for drug crimes were generally too harsh. Obama’s clemency toward Manning is significantly less popular. Just 33 percent of Americans agree with the decision to commute her sentence, while 47 percent disagree, with the remainder unsure. Views on Manning’s commutation are also polarized, with 49 percent of Democrats, but just 36 percent of independents and 13 percent of Republicans, approving. That partisan divide, however, is reversed when it comes to WikiLeaks, the site to which Manning released classified material. While Republicans hold split opinions of WikiLeaks, with 37 percent viewing it favorably and 42 percent viewing it unfavorably, Democrats are solidly opposed, with just 19 percent viewing it favorably, and 52 percent viewing it unfavorably. As a previous YouGov survey found, GOP views of WikiLeaks improved substantially after it published hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee, while Democrats’ opinions soured. During his time as president, Obama used his clemency power for more people than any president since Harry S. Truman, according to Pew Research, which also notes that he received a record level of requests for clemency. Overall, 37 percent of Americans say Obama gave clemency to too many people during his presidency, while 12 percent believe he gave clemency to too few people, and 23 percent think his actions were about right. The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Jan. 19-20 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls.You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov’s nationally representative opinion polling. Data from all HuffPost/YouGov polls can be found here. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here. Most surveys report a margin of error that represents some, but not all, potential survey errors. YouGov’s reports include a model-based margin of error, which rests on a specific set of statistical assumptions about the selected sample, rather than the standard methodology for random probability sampling. If these assumptions are wrong, the model-based margin of error may also be inaccurate. Click here for a more detailed explanation of the model-based margin of error. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

23 января, 19:00

Resident Evil 7: Biohazard review – a masterclass in terror

Capcom’s survival horror series goes back to its origins as a truly shocking, challenging and terrifying experience Who lives in a house like this? It’s a question the Japanese horror series Resident Evil has been asking of its players since 1996, when it first locked us inside an aristocratic mansion on the outskirts of Racoon City, somewhere in the American mid-west. There, behind creaking doors and sliding oak panels, the answer was a grotesque menagerie of ragged zombies, bloody Doberman hounds and terrifying Homeric snakes. Since then both the locale and the locals have changed, from Resident Evil 4’s sojourn to a dejected Spanish forest to the fifth game’s contentious trip to sweltering African townships.Swampy, buzzing Louisiana is the setting for this, the seventh game, which, thanks to the involvement of the Texan writer Richard Pearsey (Spec Ops: The Line; 1979 Revolution) takes its cues not from Hammer Horror but from Truman Capote’s harrowing non-fiction novel In Cold Blood and the 1974 slasher film Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Protagonist Ethan Winters arrives at the gates of a derelict house on the edge of a fetid bayou on the trail of his presumed-dead wife, Mia. Inside the home he finds the Bakers, a hick family who live in squalor. There’s a dead crow in the microwave. There’s a cascade of offal in the fridge. There’s a mangled deer in the cellar. What else would you expect from a family that built a morgue in the basement? Continue reading...

23 января, 00:00

In Some Ways, He's a Bit Like Ike

Bret Baier, Weekly StandardDuring the 1952 campaign, Dwight Eisenhower boldly announced that if he won the presidency, I shall go to Korea. He believed he could broker peace in the Korean conflict, which had reached a stalemate under Harry Truman. About two months before he took office, Ike flew to Korea on a visit that would set the stage for the end of the Korean War six months into his presidency.President Truman was outraged that a president-elect would step into foreign policy in such a direct way. It was an audacious break with protocol. But the public was behind Ike, and, more important, the North Koreans and...

Выбор редакции
20 января, 11:43

ЦРУ между военными и Белым домом: битва «под ковром» и «на ковре»

20 января 1946 года президент Гарри Трумэн создал Группу центральной разведки, будущее Центральное разведывательное управление.  Отцы-основатели разведки Разведка и Американская революция 1775−1783 годов идут рука об руку. Стремление построить новый мир без британского...

20 января, 04:17

From Drunken VPs to Dead Canaries: The Long History of Inauguration Drama

Donald Trump’s inauguration is shaping up to be a contentious one. Just look at the countless articles about all the A-list celebrities and congressional Democrats skipping the event. Even the Springsteen cover band originally scheduled to play has bowed out, fearful of becoming as anathema in New Jersey as the state’s governor. But to me, a historian of presidential campaigns, it’s just another in a long line of messy, chaotic American inaugural circuses—and not a particularly noteworthy one at that. After all, will Trump allow himself to be lassoed by a rope-trick cowboy named Monte Montana, as Dwight Eisenhower did at his 1953 inauguration parade? Almost certainly not. Will the Army have to use flamethrowers to clear 8 inches of snow off Pennsylvania Avenue, as they did before JFK’s 1961 inauguration, leaving people to complain about scorch marks? No—according to a Trump spokesman, “the weather’s going to be unbelievable. It’s going to be great.” The word inauguration has its roots in the Latin word augur—in Roman history, an augur was someone who foretold the future by watching for patterns in flights of birds. Inaugurations are supposed to augur well; when George Washington crossed the Hudson to be sworn in as our first president on April 30, 1790, “a school of porpoises appeared in the midst of the little fleet, bobbing up and down as though inquiring as to the reason there was so much commotion and rejoicing,” according to a 1913 recap of the first inauguration in the Washington Times.Now, that’s a good omen. But there have been very few of these in presidential inaugurations. Usually, half the dignitaries in attendance are unhappy about having been handed an epic defeat, and the weather sucks. At Ulysses S. Grant’s first inaugural ball it was so cold that canaries specially imported to sing for the partygoers froze to death in their cages and people danced with their overcoats on. And there was the time that William Henry Harrison made the longest inaugural address in history while standing outside in the freezing cold without a coat. He contracted pneumonia and died a month later. Some transitions of power have been so contentious that outgoing presidents have refused to show up. After Thomas Jefferson defeated incumbent John Adams in the extremely dirty election of 1800 (which ended up being decided in the House of Representatives) Adams refused to attend the inauguration—perhaps it was because Jefferson’s supporters had called him a “hideous hermaphrodite” during the campaign—becoming one of only three presidents to do so. The second was his son, John Quincy Adams, who, furious at being soundly beaten by Andrew Jackson, got out of town quickly in 1829. Jackson’s inauguration was marred not by his enemies, but by his supporters, who were invited into the White House for a drink and ended up practically destroying the place—spilling tubs of orange punch on the carpets, tearing curtains with their spurs and getting into drunken fistfights. The scene got so rowdy that the new president was forced to escape through a window and spend the night elsewhere. (Jackson, unfazed, received $50,000 from Congress to redecorate the place.) The third and only other president to refuse to attend the inauguration of his successor was Andrew Johnson, who stayed away from Grant’s ceremony in 1869 after Grant refused to ride in the carriage with the outgoing president on the way to the swearing-in. Grant was just one among many who disliked Johnson, who had taken over upon the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and who even after the Civil War referred to African-Americans as “not citizens, but serfs.” Back in 1865, giving his vice-presidential inaugural address (in those days vice-presidents were asked to speak a few words) he was so drunk that Lincoln told a guard: “Do not let Johnson speak outside again.”One of the dirtiest elections in American history came at the end of Grant’s two terms as president. 1876 saw the Republicans of Rutherford B. Hayes fight a bitter campaign against the Democrats led by Samuel B. Tilden. During the course of the campaign, Hayes charged that the only way he would be defeated would be “by crime—by bribery & repeating [voter fraud]” or “by violence and intimidation.” As it turned out, Tilden won the popular vote by 250,000 votes, and won the Electoral College as well—until Republicans, who controlled the electoral boards in the South, changed enough electoral votes to give Hayes the victory. The ensuing battle over the outcome of the election lasted until shortly before inauguration day (which occurred on March 4 at the time), when Hayes was finally awarded a tainted victory. Someone had fired a shot through the window of Hayes’ personal residence shortly after Election Day, so, to be on the safe side, Hayes was sworn in secretly on March 3, lest Tilden supporters disrupt the public ceremony that would follow. (The public ceremony, however, was calm, and Tilden was in attendance.)Franklin Roosevelt’s first election in 1932 was another nasty one. Blamed for presiding over the beginning of the Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover was not just beaten by Roosevelt, a biographer later wrote, he was “excommunicated.” Naturally, this did not lead to an Era of Good Feelings. In what was to become the traditional limo ride to the Capitol Building, a sulking Hoover refused to speak to Roosevelt. Since the limo was open, this was apparent to the spectators, who cheered as Roosevelt doffed his top hat to them. To make matters more chaotic, there was a bank panic in Washington that day and well-heeled inauguration-goers raced from bank to bank, trying desperately to find cash. These limousine rides cause no end of trouble, by the way. Outgoing President Harry Truman and incoming President-elect Eisenhower bickered all the way to the Capitol Building in 1953 over whether or not Truman had ordered Eisenhower—then Army chief of staff—to attend his inauguration back in 1948. In 1980, riding with Jimmy Carter, President-elect Ronald Reagan kept telling jokes, to which Carter barely responded. (“What’s wrong with Carter?” Reagan, not the soul of sensitivity, reportedly asked later.)It’s hard to get a good omen on inauguration day. President Trump is probably not going to see friendly schools of porpoises frolicking in the Potomac. But at least Trump can know that he is not alone. Good omens or bad, inaugurations almost never go off without a glitch. And, given what we are expecting from tomorrow’s ceremony, they have been a lot worse.

19 января, 21:57

Democrats Must Do What They Can to Protect the Supreme Court and the Nation

President-elect Trump is expected to nominate his choice to fill the current vacancy on the Supreme Court in the next couple of weeks. Actually, that sentence conceals more than it reveals. First, it isn’t really “his choice.” In a sharp departure from the norm, Trump last year essentially delegated authority for selecting potential justices to right-wing groups like the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society. To curry favor with the extreme right, including the religious right, he took the unusual (and perhaps unprecedented) step of releasing a list of 21 people he could nominate, promising to limit himself to this list--one that was developed for him by organizations seeking to use the United States judicial system as a tool to impose a troubling ideology that threatens basic freedoms and empowers the already-powerful. More on that below. Another problem with that first sentence is the phrase “current vacancy.” Yes, there is a vacancy on the Court, but there shouldn’t be. It is a longtime vacancy, nearly a year old. It exists only because Senate Republicans took the unprecedented step of refusing to consider President Obama’s nominee, D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland. The GOP did not even hold a hearing for him, as month after month after month went by. Judge Garland should have had a confirmation vote long ago, and since President Obama went out of his way to choose a consensus nominee, Garland likely would have been confirmed with overwhelming bipartisan support. So Trump is in an unusual situation: Most presidents don’t take office with a Supreme Court nomination among the first items on their plate. But Trump has one only because the situation was manufactured by Mitch McConnell to deny President Obama the ability to fill the vacancy and allow Trump instead to fill it with someone on the far-right’s wish list. So how should Senate Democrats approach the nomination once it’s made? Just as always: with a careful analysis of the nominee’s record, exactly as the Constitution requires. A justice should recognize that our Constitution enshrines liberty and equality, and that many of our nation’s most important laws were designed to empower people to exercise those rights. A nominee who would write certain groups out of Equal Protection, who would go out of their way to construe civil rights statutes in a way that frustrates their purpose, who would turn a blind eye to the growing threat to our democracy caused by money in politics, who would find excuses to further undermine criminal defendants’ constitutional protections, who would bend the law and twist logic in order to take power from consumers and workers and give it to corporations that already wield more power than the Founders could have ever imagined ... such a nominee should not be confirmed. Senators would not only be within their rights to do whatever they could to prevent confirmation, but they would also be obligated to do so. Should Democrats opt to filibuster an unqualified nominee, GOP senators would no doubt accuse them of blocking the nominee for partisan purposes. But Republicans are hardly ones to accuse anyone else of partisan obstruction. Their unprecedented refusal to even consider Merrick Garland was just the most visible part of a much larger scheme involving federal courts at all levels. The story of the past eight years is one of the Senate GOP using every tool at their disposal to obstruct the confirmation process, even dragging district court nominees into their partisan fights for the first time. They completely changed the playbook on judicial nominees. Even though they were the minority party for the first six years, they abused Senate rules in order to delay floor votes as much as possible. During Obama’s first term and into his second, the number of judicial vacancies skyrocketed, not because there weren’t nominees, but because Republicans blocked votes indiscriminately. Regardless of whether the nominees were for a district court or a circuit court of appeals, regardless of their records, regardless of anything said in their committee hearings, and regardless of whether Republicans supported or opposed them on the merits, all nominees found themselves part of a deliberately-created bottleneck designed to ensure a maximum number of vacancies for the next president (who they hoped would be a fellow Republican). The few times they agreed to have votes, most of the nominees were confirmed with strong Republican support. Seemingly impossibly, things got worse when the GOP took over the Senate after the 2014 elections. During the 114th Congress, the Senate confirmed only 18 district court and two circuit court judges for a total of 20, the lowest number since the 82nd Congress of 1951-52 during the Truman era. By contrast, during the last two years of George W. Bush’s presidency, the Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed 68 of his judicial nominees. Indefensibly, Majority Leader McConnell ended the year without allowing the Senate to vote on the 23 circuit and district court nominees who had been languishing on the Senate floor for many months, sometimes for over a year, after having been thoroughly vetted and approved by the Judiciary Committee. He allowed no confirmation votes after July 6 of last year. Perhaps President Trump will do as Obama did and nominate a consensus nominee ... but it seems unlikely. Instead, Republican senators will demand that their violations of democratic norms last year be rewarded by giving them a pass to allowing an extremist to serve on the Supreme Court. But in this area as in so many others during the Trump era, we must be especially vigilant to protect our democratic norms if we want to protect democracy itself. -- 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.

18 января, 23:22

Trump dubs Mar-a-Lago the new 'Winter White House'

Donald Trump officially designated Mar-a-Lago his “Winter White House” in Palm Beach in a Twitter message he posted Wednesday that includes a picture of him at the estate penning the first speech he’ll give as president of the United States in 48 hours.“Writing my inaugural address at the Winter White House, Mar-a-Lago, three weeks ago,” Trump wrote. “Looking forward to Friday.”Trump will be the second president behind John F. Kennedy to write his first speech as president on the exclusive island and he’ll be the fourth to make a South Florida residence a second White House, according to James C. Clark, a University of Central Florida history professor and author of the book “Presidents in Florida.”Clark said Trump couldn’t have picked a more historic spot in Florida for a Winter White House than Mar-a-Lago, a stunning Mediterranean-style estate was completed in 1927 by Post Cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, who willed the property to the federal government in 1973 for use as a presidential retreat. Unwilling to pay for the upkeep, the federal government returned the property to the Post Foundation less than a decade later and Trump ultimately purchased it in 1985.“All these years later, it’s finally a Winter White House and Donald Trump will be the president in it,” Clark said. “Who would have dreamed of that?”Clark said “Winter White House” might be a misnomer because Trump loves the 17-acre waterfront estate and might spend some summer days there as well. Trump acquired the property for just $7 million cash — a steal for the mammoth historic treasure. He paid millions more for furnishings. In his "Art of the Deal" book, Trump recounts how he paid less for the property on his second offer after the foundation rejected his first offer.“It just goes to show that it pays to move quickly and decisively when the time is right,” Trump wrote. Soon after the deal, he contested the $11.5 million taxable value assigned by the Palm Beach County property appraiser because he paid $7 million for it just days before. It was the first of numerous fights Trump would have with local governments and island neighbors over the property. JFK made decidedly fewer waves in Palm Beach, where he began recuperating from World War II injuries at a home his father purchased years before. There, Kennedy began writing his well-received “Profiles in Courage” book and, later, his first inaugural address, Clark said.Years later, the man Kennedy beat in his 1960 presidential race, Richard Nixon, made his winter residence farther south, in Key Biscayne. He first traveled there on the recommendation of a mutual friend of Kennedy’s, Florida Sen. George Smathers, who introduced Nixon to another mutual friend, Charles “Bebe” Rebozo, who was later accused of funneling illegal campaign contributions to Nixon. Nixon bought Smathers house on the key and journalists soon dubbed it the first “Winter White House.”In another Florida twist, former Nixon operative Roger Stone lives in Fort Lauderdale and has been a longtime ally and occasional adviser to Trump. “One of the first guys who thought Trump could be president was Richard Nixon,” said Stone, adding that he recounts details of the late 1980s meeting between the two men in his new book “The Making of the President 2016: How Donald Trump orchestrated a revolution.” The first president to spend significant time in Florida was Harry S. Truman, who established the “Little White House” in Key West. Clark said Truman, president for nearly eight years, spent an average of a month a year in Key West. Clark said Truman came to Key West because he realized early in his administration that if he traveled to the southernmost island where there was a Naval station, the Navy would put him up and transport him there and pay for his vacation. That’s not a consideration for Trump. He owns his own airplane and helicopter, which he has landed on the grounds of Mar-a-Lago.“I cannot think of a starker contrast than Trump and Trump,” Clark said. “Truman came here because he was poor and Trump came here because he was rich. That’s Florida.”

18 января, 00:48

Donald Trump, 13th Nuclear Dictator of the United States

January 20 marks a historic transition of power. Donald Trump will swear an oath to the American people. Crowds will shout praise and roar in bitter protest. Speeches, poetry, music. The inaugural parade will wind through Washington, DC, its long vine finally erupting into the bright blooms of celebratory balls. For Trump and his supporters, the night will end in dancing. As the sun rises the next day, Donald Trump will be the 45th president of the United States. But he will also be something else. During the Inauguration Day festivities, a military aide will quietly attach himself to Donald Trump's side. He carries a 45-pound briefcase; inside are the tools to end human civilization. This briefcase will be within Donald Trump's reach for every moment of every day during his presidency, as faithful a companion as his shadow. There is no oath. It won't appear on commemorative mugs or plates. But in that moment, Donald Trump will also become the 13th nuclear dictator of the United States. We often complain about how poorly and haltingly our government operates. In large part, that is by design. The founders feared the threat of corrupted or abused power far more than the risk of gridlock. Power is separated, contradictory, and limited, establishing checks and balances that shackle the Leviathan of the State. Inaction is far easier than action. The power of the State to perform violence is no exception. Granted the role of Commander-in-chief by Article II of the U.S. Constitution, the president is the civilian head of the military. According to Article I, however, the power to declare war rests exclusively with Congress. The founders intended from the start for the executive branch to implement the wars authorized by the legislative branch (except in response to emergencies). This careful separation of power has rarely worked out so neatly. The nature of war, and the tools required, have changed a lot since the first President of the United States was sworn into his office in 1789. The relative powers of the executive and legislative branches in administering conflict have shifted almost continuously over the last several centuries, often accompanied by rigorous debate and deliberation. There is one major exception. The starkest transmutation of the executive branch's power was a largely silent revolution: the introduction of nuclear weapons. Tacitly or unintentionally, Congress allowed the president to assume absolute authority over the use of nuclear weapons, giving him the power to initiate a civilization-ending war at will. There is only one check to the president's authority to launch nuclear weapons. It happened during the election on November 8. The nuclear dictator, once installed, will face no other challenge for the four years of his reign. As Dr. Bruce Blair explained, "with a single phone call, the commander in chief has virtually unlimited power to rain down nuclear weapons on any adversarial regime and country at any time. You might imagine this awesome executive power would be hamstrung with checks and balances, but by law, custom and congressional deference there may be no responsibility where the president has more absolute control." The designers of the Constitution could never have anticipated the development of a power so unrestrained and inhuman. That such a power rests in the hands of a single person is a vile repudiation of the system by which they sought just and limited governance. It makes the scope of the presidency as we know it today completely unrecognizable from the offices held by men like Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt. Donald Trump is only the 13th inheritor of the new office that began with Truman: the nuclear dictator. If it scares you that Donald Trump will command the capacity to wipe entire cities off the map in a matter of minutes, you aren't alone. But the root of that terrifying reality isn't Donald Trump. In four years, the 13th nuclear dictator will only be replaced by the 14th. Unless we dismantle the system that allows one person to hold such absolute power, our democracy and every value central to its design are hostages of the nuclear dictatorship. It's up to us to rescue our democracy from tyranny. Time to get to work. -- 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.

17 января, 18:51

UH-HUH: The Most Successful Democrat Since F.D.R. Most of FDR’s legacy — Social Security, Americ…

UH-HUH: The Most Successful Democrat Since F.D.R. Most of FDR’s legacy — Social Security, American military primacy, the U.N., the permanent expansion of Washington’s size and scope — is still with us, for good and ill. Truman conceived of and built the postwar order which is shaken but still standing. LBJ’s legacy of civil rights […]

13 января, 15:00

Конгресс США одобрил кандидатуру Мэттиса на пост главы Пентагона

Комитет Палаты представителей Конгресса США разрешил минимумом голосов внести в законодательство поправки, которые позволят генералу в отставке Джеймсу Мэттису занять пост министра обороны.

13 января, 10:56

«Экономика вуду» не поможет Трампу решить проблемы США

Каждый январь я пытаюсь сделать прогноз на предстоящий год. Известно, что экономические прогнозы – трудная задача, но, несмотря на справедливость желания Гарри Трумэна найти «одностороннего» экономиста (который не мог бы сказать «с другой стороны»), мой опыт в этой сфере вызывает доверие.

13 января, 04:07

Конгресс США одобрил кандидатуру Мэттиса на пост главы Пентагона

Комитет палаты представителей Конгресса США разрешил минимумом голосов внести в законодательство поправки, которые позволят генералу в отставке Джеймсу Мэттису занять пост министра обороны. Поправки к закону были приняты 34 голосами республиканцев против 28 голосов демократов. Законодательство США запрещает военным лицам в отставке занимать гражданские должности (к которым относится и пост главы Пентагона), пока не пройдет семь лет после их отставки. Мэттис же вышел в отставку в 2013 году, передает РИА «Новости». Стоит отметить, что Мэттис стал лишь вторым лицом за последние 70 лет, для кого комитет по военным делам сделал такое исключение. Ранее отдельного прохождения через поправки в законодательство удостаивался генерал Джордж Маршалл, который работал в администрации президента Гарри Трумэна в начале 1950-х годов. Напомним, генерал морской пехоты США Джеймс Мэттис, за годы службы получивший прозвище Бешеный пес, ранее уже отмечался нелестными отзывами о России. В частности, он заявлял, что скептически относится к вопросу налаживания отношений между США и Россией, а также грозился разработать в Пентагоне целую систему по противодействию России.

Выбор редакции
13 января, 02:28

A Trump White House Without A Pet Would Break A Long, Weird History

Though it’s a move that could land any PR-minded official in the doghouse, there’s a chance the Trump White House might take a paws on presidential pets. So far as anyone knows, the Trump family doesn’t have a history of keeping animals around the house (not even a pet rock, but we’ve found a perfect Trump-appropriate option), and there isn’t any indication ― at least, not yet ― one will frolic down the halls of power in D.C.  A White House without a four-legged friend would be a rarity, says Dave Baker, the co-owner of the Presidential Pet Museum, a donation-based institution not affiliated with the White House or the federal government. “There are only a few administrations that didn’t feature any pets at the White House,” Baker told The Huffington Post. “Martin Van Buren had a couple of tiger cubs that got sent to the zoo. Other than that, he didn’t have dogs or cats or anything like that.” Andrew Johnson also lacked a formal furry companion, though he did make a habit of feeding mice he encountered in the White House, which surely didn’t endear him to many White House staffers. And the third pet-less White House isn’t a clear-cut case ― or at least the argument is a bit (ahem) more hairy: While Harry Truman apparently hated dogs, people nevertheless kept giving him (and his daughter) puppies. “I think you could argue that his was a pet-less administration,” says Baker, “though technically the puppies stayed there for a bit.” Should Trump opt to really stick his neck out there and, say, bring in a giraffe instead of a more standard animal companion, he’d actually be in pretty good company. The list of past pets includes everything from bear and tiger cubs to alligators, goats and raccoons. Teddy Roosevelt’s family alone had a one-legged rooster, a garter snake named Emily Spinach (his daughter Alice carried it around with her), and a pet badger with an admittedly short temper but a “fundamentally friendly” disposition. (”He bites legs sometimes,” Teddy’s son Archie explained, “but he never bites faces.”) Are there limits in place on what a president can have as a pet now, in more modern times? “Not that I’m aware of,” Baker said. “I believe President-elect Trump could move a giraffe into the Roosevelt Room if that’s what he wanted to do.” But Baker said he’d be surprised if a dog doesn’t end up in a Trump White House one way or another, though probably not by burrowing under the fence. (Then again, it may be just as well, given Trump wants to stop federal oversight of dog food safety.) “I fully anticipate there will be a dog running around and wagging his tail, jumping up onto the president and giving him the joy that only a pet dog can,” he said. “In fact, one of Trump’s supporters says she has gifted him a goldendoodle puppy named Patton, but we don’t know yet whether Trump has accepted that gift.” -- 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.

13 января, 01:44

ALL THIS AND WORLD WAR II: ● Anne Frank’s stepsister compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. …

ALL THIS AND WORLD WAR II: ● Anne Frank’s stepsister compares Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. —Headline, CNN.com, January 27, 2016. ● Anne Frank Center: Trump’s ‘Nazi’ quip insults Holocaust survivors. —Headline, Yahoo News, yesterday. Well yes, it does. But so did all of the Godwin-violating insults from the left last year comparing Trump to […]

12 января, 21:12

Генерал Джеймс Мэттис получил разрешение стать министром обороны США

Сенатская комиссия дала в порядке исключения разрешение бывшему генералу Джеймсу Мэттису выдвигаться на пост министра обороны США, который, согласно правилам, должно занимать гражданское лицо, уволившееся из вооруженных сил более 7 лет назад. Подобная норма законодательства была введена для разграничения гражданской администрации и военного руководства американской армии.Разрешение Джеймсу Мэттису занять пост главы Пентагона — второе за время существования Министерства обороны. В 1950 году оно было дано генералу Джорджу Маршаллу, который работал в президентской администрации Гарри Трумэна.О личности Джеймса Мэттиса читайте в материале «Ъ» «Пентагону добавят воинственности».