Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trump. Show all posts

March 26, 2017

Dems Are Introducing a Bill to Take the Fun Out of Mar-A-Lago: Secrecy






Trump loves Mar A- Lago. He feels unrestricted, he feels is his property even though the government foots all the bills. He also feels he can bring anyone there without anyone in the knowing. Not so in the White House where everything is recorded for the record and posterity.  Since President Trump is proven he needs to be watch and check since he on many times fibs, the Democrats are introducing a law instituting a sign in reference for everyone that comes and go
                                                                      
                                                                          _*_       
Democrats are giving Donald Trump a transparency gut check in the form of a new bill with a mouthful of a name — and an acronym that takes an unsubtle dig at the president.

The "Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness Act" — or MAR-A-LAGO Act — would require the Trump administration to disclose the names of anyone who visits the White House or "any other location at which the President or the Vice President regularly conducts official business."

The legislation, introduced in the House and Senate on Friday, calls for the creation of a publicly available database to be updated every 90 days.

Play Spicer: Trump's Mar-A-Lago Weekend Trips 'Part of Being President' Facebook TwitterEmbed
 Spicer: Trump's Mar-A-Lago Weekend Trips 'Part of Being President' 1:43
Democrats say the move is necessary after a Whitehouse.gov page featuring visitor access records has said "this page is being updated" ever since Trump took office — and remains unchanged. In addition, they want the public to know who has been visiting Trump's private club in Florida, known as Mar-a-Lago — the namesake of the bill — because he conducts presidential business there.

"He basically moved the office of the presidency," said Richard Painter, the former ethics czar for the George W. Bush administration and vice chair of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. "Under those circumstances, in which taxpayers are paying for you to do government work and for your Secret Service protection, they're entitled to know what private parties are moving in and out of there."

CREW introduced the concept of a publicly accessible White House visitor log in 2009, when they sued the Obama administration to create one. The last White House maintained those logs for the next seven years, jotting down the names of more than 6 million visitors.

According to a CREW spokesman, the organization is currently weighing its options for an administration still in its infancy, as the logs are "a key component of government transparency."

But Trump has shown no indication that he plans to continue the practice in either Washington, D.C., or at Mar-a-Lago — dubbed his “Winter White House” — a place where anyone can gain access with the purchase of a $200,000 membership fee. 

Trump has used the Florida country club to meet with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, members of his cabinet and other leaders at a premium cost to taxpayers.

A senior White House official told NBC News that Trump plans to host Chinese President Xi Jinping at the club next month. But under current rules, he wouldn't have to disclose that.

"If the Trump administration isn't going to continue a practice that was widely lauded by leaders across the political spectrum, Congress should mandate disclosure to guarantee public access to the visitor log records," said John Wonderlich, executive director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government transparency watchdog group.

Taxpayers are “entitled to know what private parties are moving in and out of there.”
And mandating disclosure is what the MAR-A-LAGO Act intends to do, say the Democrats who introduced it: Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Tom Carper of Delaware, and Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed, both of Rhode Island, as well as Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois.

Earlier this month, the four senators and other Democratic colleagues wrote an official letter to the president demanding the publication of the visitor logs. In February, Udall and Whitehouse also inquired about who was buying access to Trump through the purchase of a Mar-a-Lago membership.
But there's been no response from the White House, they say. A White House spokeswoman and the National Republican Senatorial Committee did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the bill.

"The American people need to know who has access to the White House if we're going to 'drain the swamp'. So far, all we've seen from the President is murk," Whitehouse said in a statement. "His Administration has stonewalled congressional requests for information about his advisors and appointees' conflicts of interest."

Stonewalling over key transparency details is a common occurrence in the Trump administration, according to these Democratic lawmakers, many of whom have consistently asked for the president to release his tax returns.

The visitor logs would be a productive step in growing public confidence and trust, the Democrats added.

Observers say they're not holding out hope the president or his White House will comply or want to voluntarily release the logs.

"I think that's wishful thinking," Painter said. “I think it will only happen if the law passed.”

by 

NBCnews.com

March 24, 2017

Immigrant Married to American CitizenTrump Backer is being Deported



 Trump promised if elected President he would get rid of the rapping, stealing, drug importing Mexicans and illegal immigrants. Some hispanics and even some Mexicans who had made it to the middle class believed that is what he was looking for (rapists, criminals) and had no problem in voting for him. After the election they found themselves in the ICE waiting line to take busses and planes back to the country of their origin. With them there were plenty of poor immigrants from all over, not druggies and rapists because there are a lot more decent, poor immigrants than criminals of those Trump mentioned and in any case they don’t live openly like someone who thinks they will get brownie points to live in this country and votes, even speaks for Donald Trump, so they are harder to find. Easy to find would be the ones being deported first, like the ones the government know where they are, be a church, a court house or parking lot or Marriage Application. 




Federal immigration officials could begin deporting Roberto Beristain, owner of the popular Eddie's Steak Shed in Granger, as early as Friday, according to his family.

But Beristain’s family is still hoping a federal immigration judge in New York will reopen the case, buying them some time. They’ve gathered more than 600 signatures of support, said his stepson, Phil Kolliopoulos.

And South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg wrote an essay, arguing that the “conservative community” would lose a “model citizen,” that was published online Tuesday on The Huffington Post.

Roberto Beristain, 43, who’s lived in Mishawaka with Helen and three of their children, has been detained since Feb. 6 when he checked in, as he does every year, with officials from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

Kolliopoulos said Beristain’s attorney in Chicago heard from ICE, then relayed to the family Tuesday that Beristain would be deported Friday.

Tuesday night was the last time the family had spoken with Beristain, Kolliopoulos said. He most recently had been lodged in a county jail in Kenosha, Wis. But the “detainee locator” on ICE’s website doesn’t provide his current location.

An ICE spokeswoman said Wednesday that, for security reasons, ICE doesn’t release information about “upcoming removals.”

Beristain had worked at Eddie's Steak Shed for eight years until January, when he bought and took over the restaurant from his wife's sister. It employs about 20 people.

As the Tribune reported earlier this month, Beristain had received a voluntary deportation order from a federal immigration judge in New York in 2000 after he and his wife inadvertently crossed the Canada border while visiting Niagra Falls. Agents there discovered that he was in the U.S. illegally. Beristain, who is Mexican, opted to stay since he was concerned about his wife, Helen, a U.S. citizen, who had high blood pressure and was pregnant with their daughter.

Ever since, he has checked in once a year with ICE officials and kept a clean criminal record. ICE agents allowed him to gain a work permit, driver's license and a legal Social Security number and card, which is marked "Valid only with Department of Homeland Security authorization."

ICE detained him Feb. 6. It came shortly after President Donald Trump’s executive order that vastly broadened the priorities for whom ICE agents should deport — out of nearly 1 million immigrants who reportedly linger in the U.S. with a deportation order.

Beristain had come to the U.S. in 1998 to visit his aunt in California, then decided to stay. Helen said the couple have sought to rectify Roberto’s immigration status in 2007, making an appeal since he’s married to a citizen. That case has been pending.

March 23, 2017

How isTrump aTerrible Pres?Don’t knowHowDemocracyWorks^Cats






Donald Trump was supposed to be the guy who would fix everything in Washington, but after two months in office he’s proving to be a terrible leader.

Trump was never very popular, but he got high marks for his leadership. Now that’s fading. In November just after the election, 56% of Americans thought he was a good leader — now it’s fallen to just 40%.

After two months, here’s what we know: He’s not going to fix everything. He’s not going to drain the swamp. He’s not going to make America great again. He’s not going to unite all Americans. He’s not going to replace Obamacare with something “terrific.” He’s not going to bring back the manufacturing jobs or the America dream. He won’t make America respected around the world. He won’t make us safer. 

Medicaid Work Requirement Added to GOP Health Bill(2.0)The House Republican health-care bill includes the biggest structural overhaul of Medicaid in its 52-year history — including work requirements for certain recipients. Why the change?  

Why not is He not? Because Trump isn’t the strong leader he pretends to be. Even if he believed in all the things he promised and wanted to accomplish them, he would fail because he doesn’t understand how to govern.


Trump is a failure because he ignored Ronald Reagan’s most important lesson about leadership: “There is no limit to the amount of good you can do if you don’t care who gets the credit.”

Trump is still a great campaigner, no doubt. He can work a crowd like few others can.

But working the levers of policy, administration, legislation and diplomacy is beyond him. His whole career, he was the boss of an organization that he controlled 100%, but governing in a democracy isn’t like that. Democracy is about compromise, about give-and-take, about sharing the credit and the blame. And successful governing is about getting results for the people who elected you, and for the ones you hope will vote for you next time.

There’s an old joke in Washington that running the U.S. Senate is like herding cats. But Donald Trump thinks cats can be herded. All you have to do is say in a stern voice: “I’m coming after you!”

The voters who believed Trump would be a transformational leader thought that he would set the agenda in Washington, just like he did a year ago in the primaries when he was running circles around the field of traditional Republican candidates. He mocked John McCain, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Those humiliated Republicans degraded themselves by crawling back to Trump Tower to lick the spittle off Trump’s boots, and Trump’s supporters loved it.

Trump’s core supporters believed that Trump would rule the Republican Party with an iron fist, bending it to their will. They believed that Trump would force the establishment Republicans to come up with an Obamacare replacement that would cover everybody at lower costs. They believed that Trump would protect the safety net — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — against the establishment Republicans who only care about how much taxes rich people pay.


They believed that Trump’s populist movement would transform Washington.

But that hasn’t happened.

On the policies that matter to people, all of the initiative is coming from traditional Republicans, not from the radical outsiders Trump brought in. Trump campaigned against Paul Ryan, but he now allows Ryan control his agenda. Trump campaigned against Goldman Sachs and rich elites, but he hired Goldman alumni and billionaires to run economic policy.

What’s the result of Trump conceding policy to the establishment Republicans he ridiculed during the campaign? Things like the train wreck of a “health care” bill and the “budget” blueprint, both of which confer huge tax cuts on the very elites that Trump once attacked, paid for by the evisceration of the public services that are vital to the very people who most enthusiastically supported Trump in November.

And what did Trump say when Tucker Carlson asked him if the “health care” bill would screw over his supporters?

“Oh, I know.”


The president said he knew that the bill would devastate struggling families all across our land, that it would drive 24 million people off health insurance, send premiums and out-of-pocket costs through the roof, and kill a bunch of people. And he didn’t care. Because Ryan told him that he had to repeal Obamacare before he took up any of his other causes, like rebuilding America’s infrastructure, or bringing back the jobs, or remembering the forgotten people.

And every compromise that was struck to get the conservatives in the House to back the bill only made it worse for Trump’s forgotten people.

Trump promised us that the greatest dealmaker in the history of dealmaking would be on our side in the corridors of power in Washington. Not only was he not on our side, he didn’t even show up. Trump was too busy tweeting insults at Snoop Dog and Arnold Schwarzenegger, enriching his family, and trying to cover up the fact that he hired people who were loyal to Vladimr Putin.

It was the bigly-est bait-and-switch ever.

It’s hard to fathom that it was only two months ago that Trump took the oath of office and mouthed these lies: “I will fight for you with every breath in my body — and I will never, ever let you down.”

I dare any Trump supporter to watch that inaugural address now.

Listen to this, if you can stomach it: “The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.”

Trump promised that “the forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”

Trump is a terrible leader because he has forgotten who elevated him to this sacred trust. A politician who forgets that is nobody.

March 22, 2017

Trump’s Reverse on LGBT ’s Hurts Republicans








 During Donald Trump’s campaign, he repeatedly cast himself as a supporter of L.G.B.T. rights. As president, however, he is being urged by fringe-right groups and raging extremists to sign a “religious liberty” executive order that would allow discrimination against gays, women and religious minorities.

As one Republican to another, I’d like to offer this bit of advice to President Trump: Don’t do it.

I wish it were as simple as pointing out that supporting discrimination against anyone is just a bad idea and that doing so in the name of religion is hypocritical as well. But just for good measure, I’ll offer a few more reasons.

The prospective executive order would authorize wide-ranging, taxpayer-funded discrimination against women, gays and members of minority faiths across federal programs and services. For example, a Social Security Administration employee could cite his religious beliefs to refuse benefits to the surviving spouse of a married same-sex couple.
  
The idea itself is extraordinarily unpopular. According to an August poll by the Public Religion Research Institute, 63 percent of Americans oppose these religious exemptions, and only 30 percent back them. The survey affirms what polling has found over the last several years: Americans are becoming more tolerant and inclusive, with support for equal rights continuing to grow. Sixty-two percent of Americans in the survey say they favor same-sex marriage, compared with 47 percent just five years ago.

But Mr. Trump, if you don’t trust the polls, then trust the people. When a White House draft of the executive order was leaked several weeks ago (yes, I know that’s painful), it unleashed a wave of negative news coverage and backlash from voters across the country. Most of them were plain dumbfounded, wondering why a president who just days before had crowned himself a steadfast supporter of the L.G.B.T. community would even consider signing an executive order that would license discrimination.

Even faith leaders (400 of them) sent you a letter last month urging you not to further pursue this executive order, reasoning that, because religion is already fully protected under the law, this would then amount to something even worse: taxpayer-funded discrimination.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

 So, you say you aren’t afraid of political consequences, and you don’t care what other people think? Well, will you at least consider the rest of your Republican Party? You ran on its ticket.

This executive order would be a political tinderbox that could explode in the faces of Republicans everywhere, reinforcing negative stereotypes about the party’s dislike of L.G.B.T. Americans, women, and religious and ethnic minorities. It reignites a feckless debate that time and time again has forced Republicans to retreat, as we’ve seen with North Carolina’s bathroom bill, the Arizona bill that would have let businesses refuse to serve gay customers and Indiana’s similar “religious freedom” law. Vice President Mike Pence might consider telling you about the last of these because he spearheaded the effort as governor. It was quite a doozy.

If you still aren’t concerned about dragging the entire party into another swamp of political quicksand, then let’s focus on what you do care about: the art of the deal.

What would you get out of signing this executive order? You would placate a vocal minority that includes some certified hate groups and far-right activists who are truly out of step with most Americans and many Republicans across the country. What would the other side get — or in other words, what gifts will you be handing to Democrats and others on a silver platter? A great cause, new supporters, new energy and money, the mother’s milk of politics.

Aside from being plain cruel and ugly, permitting discrimination against L.G.B.T. Americans in the name of religion would fuel the progressive Democratic base, which devours these morsels of archaic predisposition and then expertly seizes on them — and the big bucks it raises would most likely be used to take you to court.

That brings us to the judiciary. It’s been a thorn in your side, I know. But based on decisions from around the country, the judiciary is just not buying the pitch that these exemptions have anything to do with “religious freedom.” Rather, it has ruled that these religious exemptions are discriminatory, plain and simple. Maybe those around you don’t care what the courts think, but wouldn’t it stick in your craw to have another embarrassing rebuke of your policies, another executive order stopped dead in its tracks?

I would respectfully suggest that you expend your time and energy on other issues — the solvency of Social Security, the cost of health care, humane immigration reform, building infrastructure and educating kids to succeed — that Republicans could leverage for broad support and for more praise for you and the party as it creeps closer to the midterm elections in 2018.

Please consider this a little helpful advice, offered from one maverick Republican to another.

By 

Alan K. Simpson, a former co-chairman of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, was a Republican senator from Wyoming from 1979 to 1997.



March 21, 2017

Trump: “I will Come After You” Threatens Lawmakers Not to Vote “No”





 

President Trump went to Capitol Hill on Tuesday morning to sell the House GOP leadership’s plan to overhaul the health-care system as the legislation races toward an expected vote on the House floor by the end of the week. Assuring Republicans that they would gain seats if they passed the bill, the president told Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, to stand up and take some advice.

“I’m gonna come after you, but I know I won’t have to, because I know you’ll vote ‘yes,’ ” Trump said, according to several Republican lawmakers who attended the meeting. “Honestly, a loss is not acceptable, folks.”

But after the meeting, Meadows told reporters that the president had not made the sale, that the call-out was good-natured and that conservative holdouts would continue to press for a tougher bill.

“I’m still a ‘no,’ ” he said. “I’ve had no indication that any of my Freedom Caucus colleagues have switched their votes.”

Trump is putting his considerable weight behind a proposal crafted by House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) that would represent a big win for the president and the speaker if the House approves it.
 
“We made a promise and now it is the time to keep that promise,” Ryan said. “If we keep that promise, the people will reward us. If we don’t keep our promise, it will be very hard to manage this.”

Ryan played down the chance that Freedom Caucus members could band together to bring down the measure. He insisted that conservatives should be happy that many of their demands, such as limiting the expansion of Medicaid and including work requirements for those who do receive coverage from the program for the poorest Americans, were part of his legislation. Ryan insisted that conservatives will realize that pushing for more significant changes, such as ending payments to states that accepted the Medicaid expansion, could jeopardize the legislation’s chances of passing in the Senate.

“If you get 85 percent of what you want, that’s pretty darn good,” Ryan said. “We don’t want to put something in this bill that the Senate is telling us is fatal.”


But the House vote is still expected to be narrow, and the package faces skepticism from conservatives and moderates in the Senate after a Congressional Budget Office study found that 14 million fewer people would have insurance by 2018 under the GOP proposal.

Trump arrived on the Hill to address a private meeting of House Republicans shortly after 9 a.m. Tuesday, bringing with him many of his top White House aides. They included senior adviser Steven K. Bannon, Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and senior policy adviser Stephen Miller.

After the meeting, he predicted that the legislation will pass the House.

“We’re gonna have a real winner,” he told reporters. “There are going to be adjustments but I think we’ll get the vote on Thursday.”
 
Inside the room, however, Trump did not get into much detail about what needed to be adjusted for the bill to win approval. He focused more on the political risks and rewards of passage, telling Republicans that they “kept passing and passing and passing” repeal bills under President Obama and would be punished if they did not make good on their campaign promises.

“We won’t have these crowds if we don’t get this done,” he said, referring to his Monday night rally in Kentucky.

“If we get this done, and tax reform, he believes we pick up 10 seats in the Senate and we add to our majority in the House,” said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), the first member of Congress who endorsed Trump’s presidential bid. “If we don’t get it done, we lose the House and the Senate.”

The president’s sales push comes after Ryan and other House leaders released key proposed changes to the legislation on Tuesday night that they hope will help secure the bill’s passage.

The tweaks addressed numerous GOP concerns, including the flexibility the package would give states to administer their Medicaid programs and the amount of aid it would offer older Americans to buy insurance. The changes are the product of two weeks of negotiations that stretched from the Capitol to the White House to Trump’s Florida resort.


The bill’s proponents also appeared to overcome a major obstacle Monday after a key group of hard-line conservatives declined to take a formal position against the bill, known as the American Health Care Act.

The House Freedom Caucus has threatened for weeks to tank the legislation, arguing that it would not do enough to undo the seven-year-old Affordable Care Act. Their neutrality gives the legislation a better chance of passage: If the group of about three dozen hard-right GOP members uniformly opposed the bill, it could block its passage.

Their decision not to act as a bloc frees House leaders and White House officials to persuade individual Freedom Caucus members to support the measure — a process that Meadows, the caucus chairman, said is ­underway.

“They’re already whipping with a whip that’s about 10 feet long and five feet wide,” he said Monday. “I’m trying to let my members vote the way that their constituents would want them to vote. . . . I think they’re all very aware of the political advantages and disadvantages.”

Some of the changes announced Monday were made to placate conservatives, such as accelerating the expiration of the ACA’s taxes and further restricting the federal Medicaid program. But a major push was made to win moderate voters, including a maneuver that House leaders said would allow the Senate to beef up tax credits for older Americans whose premiums could increase greatly under the GOP plan.

There were signs Monday that the bill had growing support among the moderate wing of the House GOP. Rep. Tom MacArthur (N.J.), who had voted against the leadership in an early procedural vote on the health-care legislation, said that he was “satisfied enough that I will support the bill.”

MacArthur said he was assured that the measure would do more for older and disabled Americans covered under Medicaid and that an additional $85 billion in aid would be directed to those ages 50 to 65.

“That’s a $150 billion change in this bill to help the poor and those who are up in years,” he said.


MacArthur told reporters Tuesday that he is satisfied with the way the House amendment is structured and that he trusts that the Senate will further refine the legislation. He also said he is confident that the new changes will be enough to sway many of the approximately 50 members of the Tuesday Group, which he co-chairs.

“I believe the majority will vote for the bill,” MacArthur said after the meeting with Trump.

Several House Republicans from Upstate New York won an amendment that would allow counties in their state to keep hundreds of millions of dollars of local tax revenue that they forward to the state government to fund its Medicaid program. One member, Rep. Claudia Tenney, told the Syracuse Post-Standard on Monday that her support of the bill was conditioned on the amendment’s inclusion.

Opponents of the measure — Republicans and Democrats alike — called the deal a sordid giveaway on social media networks Monday night. Many compared it to the state-specific deals that were cut to pass the Affordable Care Act in 2009 and 2010 and panned by Republicans — such as the Medicaid reimbursement boost that then-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) secured for his home state that Republicans mocked as the “Cornhusker Kickback.”

The Freedom Caucus had pushed for a variety of alterations, including an earlier phaseout of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and a more thorough rollback of the insurance mandates established under the law.

But for political and procedural reasons, few of the group’s major demands stand to be incorporated into the bill.

“It’s very clear that the negotiations are over,” said Meadows, who met with White House officials at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on Saturday.

Many Freedom Caucus members left Tuesday’s meeting resolved to continue to oppose the bill.

“The president always does a good job in these settings,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), a co-founder of the caucus. “But the legislation is still bad, and doesn’t do what we told voters we would do.” 

Under the group’s rules, it can take a formal position to oppose the bill if 80 percent of its members agree. No Democrats are expected to support the legislation, meaning Republican leaders can afford to lose no more than 21 of their members.

Meadows said after Monday night’s meeting that taking a hard position against the bill “creates some dynamics within the group that perhaps we don’t want to create,” hinting at tensions in the group’s ranks.

One of its members, Rep. Gary Palmer (R-Ala.), provided one of just three votes against the AHCA in the budget committee. But he decided to support the bill last week when he met with Trump in the Oval Office, emboldening House leaders who think that even hard-liners will be hard-pressed to oppose Trump.

Said Meadows: “This is a defining moment for our nation, but it’s also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus. There are core things within this bill as it currently stands that would violate some of the principles of the Freedom Caucus.”

Attending the group’s meeting Monday were three senators who oppose the House bill: Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.). They hold leverage to block the bill in their chamber, where Republicans hold a two-seat majority. Cruz said he told the House members that the leadership strategy of pursuing distinct “phases” of legislation was a dead end and that they need to push for changes in the present bill.

“The Senate Democrats are engaging in absolute opposition and obstruction, and it is difficult to see that changing anytime soon,” Cruz told reporters after leaving the meeting.

Trump’s visit to the Hill on Tuesday signals that GOP leaders and the president consider bigger talks with key blocs of House members to be essentially complete. The effort now turns toward persuading individual members to vote for the package.

Ryan credited Trump’s backing in a statement Monday: “With the president’s leadership and support for this historic legislation, we are now one step closer to keeping our promise to the American people and ending the Obamacare ­nightmare.”

Trump’s visit Tuesday was his first appearance at the weekly House Republican Conference meeting since he became president. He last privately addressed Republican lawmakers as a group at the party’s policy retreat in Philadelphia in late January and has met with small groups of members on several occasions since.

Trump won the backing of Palmer and several other conservative House members Friday when he agreed to change the Medicaid portion of the bill, including giving states the option to institute a work requirement for childless, able-bodied adults who receive the benefit. Those changes were included in the leadership-backed amendments that will be incorporated into the bill before it comes to a final vote.
 
To address concerns expressed by a broader swath of GOP lawmakers — conservatives and moderates alike — leaders said they hoped to change the bill to give older Americans more help to buy insurance.

In an extreme case laid out in the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill, annual premiums for a 64-year-old earning $26,500 a year would rise from $1,700 under the ACA to $14,600 under the Republican plan.

House leaders said they intended to provide an additional $85 billion in aid to those ages 50 to 64, but the amendment announced late Monday did not do so directly. Instead, the leaders said, it “provides the Senate flexibility to potentially enhance the tax credit” for the older cohort by adjusting an unrelated tax deduction.

That workaround, aides said, was done to ensure that the House bill would comply with Senate budget rules and to ensure that the CBO could release an updated analysis of the legislation before the Thursday vote.

But it also means that the House members who pushed for the new aid will have to trust the Senate to carry out their wishes. And neither Meadows nor the Republicans marching in line behind Ryan took the president’s comments about the holdouts as a threat.

“I didn’t take anything he said as threatening anybody’s political future,” Meadows said.

“Oh, he was kidding around,” said Rep. Harold Rodgers (R-Ky.), a supporter of the bill. “I think.”


                                                             We Have a Fake President!

March 15, 2017

The Perfect Storm to Kill Socialist Programs Particularly One that Says ‘Social’





 

The President works with a man who has admitted he wants to break up the structure of the nation. 
In another time this man would be in close watch by the FBI (Ive read he is under investigation by FBI but I can’t talk about that because is not confirm), Not working at the white house by the side of a President who has promised to do just that. 
Yes, Trump has but because of the nature of how many people listen, they only listen to what they want to hear. 

When Trump said he would break up Washington and goes and hires the Washington insiders and billionaires, wouldn’t that be a clue that he meant it when he said he would break up Washington?  Well not Washington the town and its Congress but its agencies and programs. From school lunch to health care and ultimately the socialist program that it even says socialist on its name, Social Security. 

This is what republicans have been wanting to change and eventually kill since its passage (against the GOP votes). They have always been opposed to it and have tried to change it in different forms. Up to now no one would dare come straight out against killing. The most I’ve heard lately is been by the Speaker of the House Ryan, who was elected with on the promise to privatize it, which means the same thing but not on his constituency ears. Now is the perfect storm to do just that and other things that would have been impossible under Bush. You have an all Republican House of Reps., Senate, White House, appointments to all agencies and the nation,  if you count the governorships that the GOP has obtained. Yes,  the Dems have more people registered who describe them selves as such but it doesn’t help if you are a democrat who doesn’t vote because you always see two devils on the candidates so you stay home and help the worse devil to win. Or you have a majority like millennial’s
but not the political experience to the difference from improving but dismantling first, which means dismantle period. Many times they have n ignorance of American and world history together with political systems which is the blood of the democracies and republics but also it can be the quick dead if poison is swallowed by conning liars. 

You have a president who is being back up by a serious amount of people (around 35 Mil) who are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt even when he gets caught red handed with a sexual bodily part on his hands that is not his wife’s and he admits to it. They would say it was the Chocha’s fault for landing on him.

You have a media afraid of the president because he knows a lot of bad people and the individual reporter is out there on his/her own when asking the tough questions.They know their network wont back them up if the WH threatens to kicked them out of the Press corps. Just go to YouTube and search and watch the white house press corps asking  the past president the most offensive offensive questions without any basis sometimes. Never mind the previous Dem President who got caught getting a BJ from an intern who made it her job to give one. It was a massacre each time there was a press conference or just the daily beefing. 

Watch the press corps ask questions now. Even when one solitary gutsy reporter goes out of the reservation on one question or follow up you have the Press Secretary go after them and the whole corp. You’ve had Trump personally insult and embarrass CNN reporters calling them fake and giver of fake news. You have the WH called CNN CEO over Anderson Cooper’s remarks from his own program. Anderson Cooper still there because it’s ‘Anderson’.  What this is done is have reporters in the Wh or on TV not call events not by the real names but by what so ever socialite equivalent, like if the Press room was the Palace of the Queen of England.   Trump used to lie according to the media, after the first 2 wks he stopped lying and now alleges.

When would all these events and organization be where they are and with a public that sometimes doesn’t care or are waiting for the day the president destroys the government so they can be closer a government closer to god? (I know people in my own family who believe that)
There are people out there who wants to destroy and rebuilt.  Too bad we wont get back all those lives lost and treasure put to work to have the Republic we have now. 

Never have the  modern world seen all these events and people come together in one thought, search and destroy. No one is stopping to think what are the results of Millions of people crowding the emergency rooms because they can’t afford health insurance. We had some of that in 1970-85 when the private sector stopped giving affordable rates for health insurance as one of the perks of employment. Hospitals started gong out of business and it took a virus call AIDS 6 years to change the mind of the politicians and the one who didn’t change got voted out of office. Ask a talking head by the name of  Santorum one of the unemployed senators. What happens when we go back to the times of pre Social Security? Why would it be better this time? These programs were not in place to waste money like the GOP keeps saying, there were put inlace because there was a persistent acute human need! It took a lot of convincing and fighting with the  GOP then that it was needed and it was done with some of their help. 
                                                                              
                                                                      

                                                                           _*_
It is nearly impossible for Republicans to claim that the GOP’s agenda is even remotely popular with the people whether Donald Trump is in the White House or not. Of course, it’s true there are the evangelical fanatics who pretend to support anything if they think it brings them closer to implementing a theocratic government, and the bigot crowd will cheer losing everything they have if they think it will make America an Aryan Utopia. However, nearly everything else Republicans have already put in motion is highly unpopular and there is one GOP voting bloc that is about to see a Trump campaign promise broken with extreme prejudice when seniors comprehend their Social Security and Medicare are set for “reforms” Republican style.

“I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid” Trump said on the campaign trail to appeal to the elderly vote. As late as January it was an oft-echoed refrain by his spokespeople to keep the old white Republican voters in the fold. However, as Paul Krugman wrote in November and Forbes reported yesterday, and a “secret” Trump meeting with Paul Ryan last June revealed – Trump was lying and Social Security and Medicare cuts are being “looked at” with a plan to use an old lie to make cuts look appealing. It is implausible they will ever appeal to the elderly, but these days nothing whatsoever is unbelievable.

Last June despite his stump promise, Trump met with Ryan and told him not only that he was on board with cuts to Social Security and Medicare, but he believed they had to be cut from a moral standpoint. He just couldn’t say it in front of one his primary support groups; the elderly and those nearing retirement age. Trump was in a storied meeting with Ryan and the subject of cutting Social Security came up prompting the Trump to assure the House Speaker that despite what he had been saying on the campaign trail,

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it. But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’ ”

Now it is reported that the White House budget director, Mick Mulvaney, the guy running the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) that just announced cuts to the Coast Guard, FEMA, and airport security to fund Trump’s wall is working on cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Mulvaney is preparing a “reform” plan for the Trump to “look at” and still keep his campaign pledge to “not to touch Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.” No kidding, they say this crap in public without blinking; it is how easy lying comes to them.

Mr. Mulvaney said, “There are ways that we can not only allow the president to keep his promise but to help him keep his promise by fixing (cutting) some of these mandatory programs.” 
 
Republicans have been using false information as a scare tactic to provide justification to start dismantling these mandatory programs, piecemeal to start with, for over a decade. In this particular case they will attempt to convince voters that slashing Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is crucial to save the programs. In fact, they claim that getting rid of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is just one of the means of saving Medicare and Medicaid along with cutting them. Both healthcare programs have been greatly strengthened by the ACA’s implementation and it is just one of the main reasons Republicans are desperate to repeal the health law; to inflict a fatal blow to the long-term solvency of both healthcare programs.

There is a similar ploy in the works to allow Trump to keep his pledge not to cut Social Security while justifying slashing the retirement savings program. This is despite it is not in any danger of not being able to provide “75 or 80 percent benefits in a short period of time.” That is a favorite recurring theme from Republicans as a frightful ploy to justify “reforming” that highly-popular program.

According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Social Security trust fund will not have to reduce benefits until 2030 at the earliest, and only then if Congress does nothing whatsoever to increase system funding like raising the cap on high-income earners. Even if Congress stays in Republican control over the next couple of decades, and at some point the Social Security Trust fund “balances to zero, it will still pay benefits.” That is a damn sight different than the Trust is going broke in a couple of years without drastic Republican intervention.

No matter what justification either Trump or Republicans devise to cut Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, Trump’s campaign pledge to preserve them untouched is just another lie. This lie, however, may cost Republicans one or two seats in Congress in the next election but even that is doubtful. Because Republicans have pledged to “reform” (cut) Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid openly for over a decade and since it is a drastic move Trump believes in from a moral standpoint, his pledge “not to touch them” is about to be another in a very long line of broken promises.

March 14, 2017

Trump Vs. Gay Pride




 Getty image by Spencer Platt


This a page taken from  Rolling Stone Magazine on monday night March 13, written by Jeremy Lybarger
(Image by Getty tittle by adamfoxie blog)


On a mild night in January, the buttoned-up enclave of Washington D.C.'s Chevy Chase neighborhood was suddenly overrun. The invaders – more than 200 of them, some in rainbow suspenders, others in tutus, a few toting homemade signs – gathered outside the house of the neighborhood's newest (albeit temporary) resident, Mike Pence, who would be sworn in as Vice President just 48 hours later. They were there for a "queer dance party," organized via Facebook, with the purpose of letting Pence know that homo- and transphobia would not be tolerated in this country. While Beyoncé, Lady Gaga and Madonna blared, the invaders, such as they were, tweaked atop a parked car and chanted, "Daddy Pence, come dance with us!"
Pence, who was having dinner out with Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, was a no-show. But that didn't stop the disco block party, which continued for nearly three hours, and was reportedly cheered on by neighbors in the heavily Democratic district. "It tarnished [Pence's] image of being this straight, homophobic guy," says Firas Nasr, one of the activists behind the event. "Here I am in booty shorts shaking my ass in front of his house." Nor was it the first time Pence was trolled in his own backyard. Days after moving into his new rental, many neighbors hung rainbow flags outside their homes in a not-so-subtle rebuke. 
Despite this outpour of support, even before Inauguration Day the LGBTQ community was in crisis mode, braced for whatever outrages and rollbacks the new White House has in store. Pence's anti-LGBTQ record is well known, from the religious freedom bill he signed as governor of Indiana, to the ambiguous nod toward conversion therapy made during his congressional bid in 2000. Donald Trump's own tepid endorsement of LGBTQ rights – particularly his view that same-sex marriage is a "settled" issue – is in stark contrast to the GOP and the conservative, evangelical base that rallies around him. It's also in contrast to many members of his cabinet. More recently, the administration rescinded Obama's directive allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice. And rumors of an executive order that will chill workplace protections for LGBTQ people panicked many liberal tweeters last month, including Anthony Oliveira, who advised his 23,000-plus followers to "get married, insurance, passports now."
Resistance to Trump has become a new national pastime, at least for the millions who swelled Women's Marches across the country, besieged airports, upended town halls and who continue to hound politicos on everything from healthcare to immigration. This summer, when LGBTQ people and their allies hit the streets for annual Pride celebrations – in cities from coast to coast, in states red and blue – they will confront the question of how to mix partying with protest. It's a question that's faded in and out of urgency over the past half-century as the gay rights movement rode the currents of post-Stonewall liberation, AIDS anxiety, "don't ask, don't tell" compromises and same-sex marriage, all the way to last summer's massacre at Pulse nightclub in Orlando. This year, with a far-right administration taking office, the stakes are once again high. Pride organizers – who, at this point, oversee a year-round operation that's far bigger than one day or one parade – are looking to history for inspiration. Activists like Firas Nasr, meanwhile, see the coming culture war less as a battleground than as a dance floor. Pride 2017 has three months to figure out its message.



On June 28th, 1970, between 2,000 AND 3,000 LGBTQ people and allies marched from Greenwich Village to Central Park in New York, a roughly three-mile trek. Drag queens with bouffant wigs and feather boas marched alongside activists whose signs proclaimed "All Power to Butch Bull-Dykes" and "I am your worst fear, I am your best fantasy." The event, dubbed Christopher Street Gay Liberation Day, was replicated more or less simultaneously in Chicago, San Francisco and L.A., where nearly a thousand people paraded down Hollywood Boulevard. The march was organized to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the uprising at New York's Stonewall Inn, during which gay men, drag queens, transgender patrons, street hustlers and assorted others fought back against an early morning police raid. The rioters threw bottles and bricks, lit garbage on fire and erupted into a spontaneous chorus line – all of it lasting until about 4:00 AM on two consecutive nights. It wasn't the first such clash – others, like the 1966 Compton's Cafeteria riot in San Francisco and the 1967 Black Cat Tavern riot in L.A. set the stage. However, Stonewall's press coverage, including write-ups in The Village Voice, inspired a groundswell of LGBTQ pushback, such as a community newspaper bluntly titled Gay, and a collective called the Gay Activists Alliance. Stonewall is credited as the beginning of the gay liberation movement in America and it continues to be the spiritual touchstone for Pride today.
In the 1980s, as AIDS ravaged the country, Pride intensified as a theater of political critique. One of the more acerbic floats from the 1987 New York City Pride parade, for example, was a mock quarantine camp replete with barbed wire and paramilitary guards in surgical masks, a response to the then-prevalent suggestion that AIDS patients be isolated from society. By the mid-1990s, with the death toll slowing, big-city Prides evolved into slick corporate machines with their own sales, marketing and PR arms. Companies hoping to rehab their image or court gay dollars – Coors, for example, which had been boycotted because of its alleged anti-gay practices in the Seventies – ponied up Pride sponsorships. That trend has continued. Last year, NYC Pride estimated that half of its $2.4 million budget came from sponsorships. Activists like Ann Jane in San Francisco see this Fortune 500 iteration as a betrayal of Pride's roots. "It feels more performative and for a straight audience," she says. Lesbians and the transgender community organized their own marches in 1993 and 2004 respectively, which Jane considers more "organic and real expressions of queer community and resistance." 



Today, it's standard for progressives to bemoan Pride as an outdoor frat party plastered with corporate logos. It's hard to say just when Pride jumped the shark for critics like Jane, but surely it was long before Burger King unveiled the "Proud Whopper" in 2014 or Apple bloated San Francisco Pride with 8,000 marchers a year later – a display of corporate goodwill that was almost militaristic. In the past two years, though, Pride has found itself coinciding with flashpoints. In June 2015, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, and last June, the Pulse shooting turned Pride into an impromptu memorial for the 49 people killed.
"Pulse made a very big impact," says Ryan Bos, director of Capital Pride Alliance in Washington D.C., the organization that produces D.C.'s Pride. "Folks who never came to Pride before came out to feel part of the community. It's the same feeling this year." 
This year, too, members of the LGBTQ community have seen widespread violence against them. The Southern Poverty Law Center reports that approximately 95 of 867 post-election hate crimes were directed at LGBTQ people. ThinkProgress tallied 261 hate crimes in the first three months of Trump's presidency, with about 36 targeting LGBTQ people. (Not to mention the Jews, Muslims, immigrants, African Americans, and assorted others who've found themselves in the crosshairs.) 
"We've planned Pride in the midst of hostile administrations before, but Trump represents a whole new set of challenges," says James Fallarino, media director of New York City Pride. He's particularly troubled by Trump's pledge to defund Planned Parenthood, which provides Fallarino and many other gay men with pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a pill that when taken daily is 99 percent effective at preventing HIV transmission. As to whether NYC Pride will be more confrontational this year, Fallarino says, "We need to find a balance between being political and being a celebration – even during AIDS people still danced."
That balance may not be as easy to find in rural America, where many state legislatures are working to revoke or undermine LGBTQ protections. In Montana, for example, it's still legal for landlords and businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people. On February 20th, the state's House Judiciary Committee voted 11-8 along party lines to kill a bill that would outlaw such discrimination. In South Dakota, meanwhile, lawmakers recently advanced a bill that will allow religious adoption agencies to discriminate against same-sex parents, while another bill, one of the anti-transgender laws sweeping the nation, died in committee last month. (South Dakota's Republican governor had vowed to veto it anyway, insisting that these matters are best decided by local school officials.)



Such tense environments are one reason that Prides in Louisville, Sioux Falls, Billings, Birmingham and other metro areas in conservative states punch far above their weight politically. As Fallarino says, "Local Prides can really change people in a way that even New York City Pride can't." Pride in Birmingham, Alabama, resonates differently since, according to organizer Destiny Clark, it's still risky for a gay couple in parts of the state to hold hands while walking down the street. In Montana, Big Sky Pride director Kevin Hamm says that the event's annual economic windfall has endeared the LGBTQ community to the locals. 
"We had a $175,000 economic impact in Butte over one weekend [in 2014]," Hamm says. "We had just under a $200,000 impact in Great Falls [in 2016]. They love us now." This year, Hamm expects 5,000 Pride attendees to descend on Billings, almost 5 percent of the city's total population. 
In South Dakota, Pride organizer Ashley Gaddis has witnessed a similar culture shift. Last year she persuaded Sioux Falls to light the city's iconic namesake waterfalls in rainbow colors – a hard-won victory for a town that has only one "unofficial" gay bar and where Trump carried the county with 53 percent of the vote. In fact, Trump-Pence signs still linger in Gaddis' neighborhood, a confederate flag hangs in a nearby window and there's even a lingering Ben Carson bumper sticker. 
"People aren't walking around Sioux Falls embracing their queerness," Gaddis says. "The word queer is still a slur here."
It's a slur in parts of Kentucky and Alabama too, where Pride organizers have contended with bullying and violence. In Birmingham, for instance, two transgender women were shot just days apart last fall. One died; the other sustained life-threatening injuries. In Louisville, Kentucky, Pride organizer Rodney Coffman recalls a gay friend who received an image of the grim reaper via social media.
"It's like the Seventies and Eighties when somebody would drive by and yell 'fag,'" Coffman says. "They didn't have the balls to say it to your face."
Yet all of these suburban and rural Pride organizers are committed to fighting back. Destiny Clark, director of Central Alabama Pride, says that Trump's election brought the LGBTQ community in Birmingham closer than anything else she's experienced in the past decade. In Kentucky, Coffman notes that companies that never sponsored Pride before have expressed interest this year. And in Montana, Hamm expects more attendees and a more strident political tone – eruptions not often seen in a state whose two gay bars are separated by a five-hour drive.
"In order to survive this, we have to come together," Clark says. "Rosa Parks didn't stop. Martin Luther King didn't stop. [Transgender activist] Sylvia [Rivera] didn't stop. Stonewall didn't stop." 
If Pride is more political this year, equal parts protest and celebration, what should it look like? And is there a playbook for how to be joyfully incensed? 



History offers some examples. In a recent essay for BookforumSarah Jaffe points to ACT UP, the AIDS advocacy group whose flamboyant actions in the 1980's and early 1990's – putting a jumbo condom over Jesse Helms's house, occupying Times Square during rush hour – provoked both headlines and reforms. "The lesson from ACT UP... is that a small but intensely motivated group can cause enough trouble to make even the most oblivious and hostile administration change its policies," Jaffe writes. 
Andrew Velez, a Bronx-born activist who joined ACT UP in 1987, offers another lesson: "good taste is too expensive." He recalls an action at the Albany statehouse in which ACT UP members dumped stage blood over their faces and stormed the legislature chanting, "The government has blood on its hands!" The event made international news – and made legislators wary of antagonizing this band of guerilla activists. 
"AIDS threw a spotlight on everything that was broken in our society," Velez says, checking off the failures: housing, economics, race, gender, children's welfare. Two generations later, the Trump Administration puts in the spotlight everything that's still broken. Noted activist Peter Staley argues that Trump could politicize Pride in the same way that AIDS did in the 1980s and early 1990s, provided that progressives continue to push organizers in that direction. Humor and humiliation, he adds, could again become powerful centerpieces for Pride, just as they were powerful for ACT UP, Queer Nation, Lesbian Avengers, Guerilla Girls and Stop AIDS Now.
Waiyde Palmer, another ACT UP veteran who joined the group's San Francisco chapter in 1987, puts it this way: "Protest without humor is just rage unsatisfied." His philosophy of activism is that every movement needs a "pitbull portion" that's confrontational, along with a more "reasonable legislative portion" that will actually get invited into City Hall and the Capitol. Given the spate of anti-protester bills now wending through at least 10 state legislatures, it's unlikely that ACT UP-style mayhem would go unpunished today.
"[We] were able to do in-your-face stuff that got a public pass because we were desperate people who had only a few years to live," Staley says. "I'm not sure you could count on that kind of leeway for those in the resistance now."
But following the example of the Women's March and the queer dance party, playful yet subversive opposition is what Pride organizers are after in 2017. In fact, the Women's March seems to be the inspiration for the Equality March for Unity and Pride slated for Washington, D.C. on June 11th. (At press time, 33,000 people had RSVP'd on Facebook, with another 112,000 interested.) Smaller solidarity marches are planned in Austin, Seattle, Indianapolis and Portland, Maine. "Pride organizers worldwide have been talking about how to best capture this energy and create change," says Ryan Bos of Capital Pride Alliance in Washington D.C. "It's a global movement."



Like the resistance at large, Pride is bigger than one day. Many Pride organizations, rural and urban alike, sponsor smaller LGBTQ nonprofits and host town halls and other community forums year-round. Chris Classen, president of L.A. Pride, says he "can't think of another event that's 50 years old and still relevant to the current generation." Criticisms aside – corporate sponsorships, for example, which Classen sees as evidence of LGBTQ influence in the workplace – Pride has been central to the LGBTQ movement over the past half-century. It's been a political bellwether, a coming-of-age ritual and an explicitly gay noisemaker in towns not renowned for diversity. 
"The gays know how to celebrate," Classen says, "but we've also been fighting for 50 years. It's not like we've put down our swords." He adds that this year, L.A. Pride will return to its 1970 incarnation, featuring a solidarity march and rally, with grassroots activists taking the streets. In Washington D.C., the theme of this year's event is "unapologetically proud," which director Ryan Bos defines as pride in one's race, gender, sexual orientation, and individuality – a one-size-fits-all rallying cry that nonetheless harkens back to the Stonewall era and the days of ACT UP. As activist Andrew Velez says, their movement was built on the movements for civil rights and women's rights. 
"We were never violent, but we were angry," Velez says. "There was an intelligence to what we did, a wit and humor and passion that crossed every age group, gender, and background." He chokes up as he remembers friends, long since dead, who spoke out for their lives. "I saw such bravery from faggots." 
In 2017, LGBTQ America once again finds itself under threat and in search of brave, audacious tactics. Perhaps the most audacious – echoed from Birmingham to Billings, Washington to Louisville, Sioux Falls to San Francisco – is also the most obvious: keep fighting, and showing up, no matter what.
"When we take two steps forward and one step back, you can either look at it as regression or as doing the cha-cha," Kevin Hamm says from Montana. "I choose to see it as doing the cha-cha. Because it's the biggest mistake ever to attack queers. Even when we were dying we fought, and we won." 

March 9, 2017

Follow The Money!!Trump with Iran $$ thru Azerbaijan and Military Guard



The Trump Tower Baku never opened. Trump partnered with an Azerbaijani family that U.S. officials called notoriously unethical.Photograph by Davide Monteleone for The New Yorker 



There are some main media reporters looking this up but no one gathers it together like Rachel Maddow of MSNBC.  I listened to her reporting on this for a couple of her programs and lots of things made sense and some of it was easily traceable. That is why Im posting this article that came to the Idaho State Journal down below. No name but with most of the facts mashed together to get someone to look into any part of this or more interesting, all of it and see something is wrong with the picture at the White House.  You need to do the simple leg work and google about this and only go by main sources on the main media (no I don’t mean Breibart because even though they are now connected to the White House thru Steve Bannon, that does not make them main line, they are still and they proudly would agree to the right of the right with their own set of alternate facts). 
Just search Trump and Iran or Trump and Iran money, hotels never opened or any of the names in this article.

One of the things you will find is that Trump is involved in anything around the world that smells of money. This would not surprise anyone because he has business all over the map. There was one point on Trump business life where he screwed up big and was going down fast like a gold fish in the toilet bowl.. This was around 2005 when he failed in the casino business. He was so hard up for money he would do anything from cameos for Playboy to get involved with TV producing. Around that time there was an influx of money and there is no place where you can find legally where it came from unless you are an expert at this or you are the government with subpoenas and his tax returns of where some of that money might have come from.  

As you know, you don’t get money for free. You can get a loan but you need collateral and when you need a billion or so, where would it come from and what collateral would you have if you are going broke?

We have just entered an unlit tunnel of dirty money and dirty politics on the backs of the country as a whole when Trump entered the WH. Things are not getting better and Im sure you already are starting to get a little grumbling from your tummy when you think about it. That is if you have money invested (not millions) that can be lost thru your IRA or bonds, etc. Or you have a pre-existing condition and you are in your 50”s making less than 25k a year or you have a son or daughter in the military or simply if you care that the county that we built is loosing everything that made it great and it was never about how many nukes we had and how many times we can nuke the world over
( with the important people going to the undisclosed locations to start over again, at least they think so and they have the capabilities underground and soon in outer space).

If we demand the truth we will get most of it. The only tool you have on your hands left since your vote is gone, is the politicians in Washington that want very badly to get reelected every two years (the house) and the senators due for reelection. If pressure is put on this people they will do the oversight over the white House but it wont be easy because the voting public decided to give the house and the senate and the white house to the Republicans. But if enough truth comes out like in Watergate you will see this corrupt tree shake and you will be amazed at the few monkeys that might come down kicking, screaming and running for their lives.
                                                                          _*_

We need Congress to get serious about investigating President Trump’s Russian connections now. I think we need an independent, 9/11 style commission to handle this investigation. More of President Trump’s Russian connections are being revealed each day. The recent story in the New Yorker by Adam Davidson is particularly troubling. Trump’s hotel deal in Azerbaijan, a notoriously corrupt State, is linked through Ziya Mammadov, the Transportation Minister of Azerbaijan, to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The US has sanctioned the Guard as a terrorist entity. It sponsors and supports terrorism materially and financially all over the Middle East. The Trump organization entered this hotel deal in Azerbaijan in 2014, and reported receiving $2.8 billion before he backed out of the real estate project a month after the 2016 election.

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act forbids an American company from participating in a scheme to reward a foreign government official in exchange for material benefit or preferential treatment. But the Trump Organization may have broken the law in its work with the Mammadov family. The law even made it a crime for an American company to unknowingly benefit from a partner’s corruption if it could have discovered illicit activity but avoided doing so.


Then there is Trump’s association with Dmitry Rybolovlev, the Russian Fertilizer King. He sold this Russian oligarch a house in Palm Beach, Florida and pocketed a cool $60 million profit on the sale. Neither he nor Rybolovlev ever lived on the property. This sale appears to be a thinly-veiled money laundering transaction to funnel money from Russia to Trump. In addition, Deutsche Bank in Germany was busted for laundering more than ten billion dollars out of Russia and into places like New York. This stood out because Deutsche has also loaned more than a billion dollars to Donald Trump, who just happens to be based out of New York, even at a time when the bank was struggling and Trump was viewed as a poor loan risk by every other bank out there. It turns out Deutsche was funneling that money through Bank of Cyprus. Guess who owns a 9.9% share in Bank of Cyprus? Dmitry Rybolovlev. We can now draw a direct line of more than a billion dollars flowing from Russia, through Rybolovlev, to Donald Trump.

Senator Sherrod Brown has said that: “Congress and the Trump administration has a duty to examine whether the President or his family is exposed to terrorist financing, sanctions, money laundering and other imprudent associations through their business holdings and connections.” We agree with the Senator. It is WAY past time for Congress to insist that President Trump release his tax returns: or if he refuses to do that, Congress needs to subpoena those returns from Treasury.

Featured Posts

Is Trump Dancing to the Putin Orchestra? Put the “Точки вместе"

🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛🔫♛ᙛᙑᙐᙏᙎᙅᙰᙩᙍᙇ ᐗ It’s terrifying to think that the Trump administration is simply wing...