thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--World Recoils As Trump Threatens Iranian Cultural Sites

President Donald Trump doubled down on threats to Iranian cultural sites on Sunday , warning that he considered them fair targets as tensions escalate following the Trump-ordered assassination of Tehran ’ s top military general Qassem Soleimani last week .
“ They ’ re allowed to kill our people .
They ’ re allowed to torture and maim our people .
They ’ re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people .
And we ’ re not allowed to touch their cultural sites , ” Trump said aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Florida .
“ It doesn ’ t work that way.
” He made similar comments on Twitter on Saturday , when he announced that 52 Iranian sites could be targeted , “ some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.
” In a Monday afternoon interview on CNN , Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly affirmed the U.S. “ will follow the laws of armed conflict ” when asked if he was willing to target cultural sites .
Targeting cultural sites is illegal under the 1954 Hague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which both the U.S. and Iran have ratified .
And as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted in a tweet of his own , the destruction of cultural landmarks is reminiscent of ISIS fighters , who destroyed countless ancient Christian and Muslim holy sites as they took over Syria and Iraq .
A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage : Through MILLENNIA of history , barbarians have come and ravaged our cities , razed our monuments and burnt our libraries .
Where are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here , & standing tall .
— Javad Zarif ( @ JZarif ) January 5 , 2020 On Monday , White House adviser Kellyanne Conway attempted to bolster the legality of Trump ’ s threat by implying that some of Iran ’ s military sites have cultural importance .
“ I think that Iran has many military , strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites , ” she told reporters .
It ’ s unlikely that argument will win over U.S. allies and international nonprofits , however , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats .
Iran houses 24 UNESCO World Heritage sites , the designation given to irreplaceable natural and cultural monuments around the world .
UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay called for their protection Monday , hailing the sites as “ vectors of peace and dialogue between peoples , which the international community has a duty to protect and preserve for future generations.
” A spokesperson for U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson downplayed the likelihood of such an attack , noting it would likely violate international law and could constitute a war crime .
On Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a thread about some of Iran ’ s ancient cultural sites , which he hailed as a “ perfect harmony of materials , engineering , symbolism and function.
” More vaults .
More mathematical and engineering perfection .
Just look at these shapes and shadows .
Only an ignorant who hates humanity ’ s greatest achievements could ever even think of destroying them .
# IranianCulturalSites 9/12 pic.twitter.com/7VxhwuZf7A — Sergio Beltrán-García ( @ ssbeltran ) January 5 , 2020 The crown of the jewel : The entrance of Esfahan ’ s Shah Mosque @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life .
Anyone of us should .
Also the Sheikh Lotfollah mosque , outside proportions are sublime , inside a 360° peacock .
# IranianCulturalSites 10/12 pic.twitter.com/VMvg4GE2UF — Sergio Beltrán-García ( @ ssbeltran ) January 5 , 2020 New York ’ s Metropolitan Museum of Art also denounced Trump ’ s threats , calling them “ abhorrent to the collective values of our society ” in a statement on Monday .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
President Donald Trump doubled down on threats to Iranian cultural sites on Sunday, warning that he considered them fair targets as tensions escalate following the Trump-ordered assassination of Tehran’s top military general Qassem Soleimani last week.
“They’re allowed to kill our people. They’re allowed to torture and maim our people. They’re allowed to use roadside bombs and blow up our people. And we’re not allowed to touch their cultural sites,” Trump said aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from a two-week vacation at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida. “It doesn’t work that way.”
Advertisement
He made similar comments on Twitter on Saturday, when he announced that 52 Iranian sites could be targeted, “some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture.”
Whatever Trump thinks constitutes a legitimate target, it isn’t clear the military agrees.
In a Monday afternoon interview on CNN, Defense Secretary Mark Esper repeatedly affirmed the U.S. “will follow the laws of armed conflict” when asked if he was willing to target cultural sites.
Targeting cultural sites is illegal under the 1954 Hague Convention and the 1972 World Heritage Convention, which both the U.S. and Iran have ratified. And as Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif noted in a tweet of his own, the destruction of cultural landmarks is reminiscent of ISIS fighters, who destroyed countless ancient Christian and Muslim holy sites as they took over Syria and Iraq.
A reminder to those hallucinating about emulating ISIS war crimes by targeting our cultural heritage:
Through MILLENNIA of history, barbarians have come and ravaged our cities, razed our monuments and burnt our libraries.
Where are they now?
We’re still here, & standing tall. — Javad Zarif (@JZarif) January 5, 2020
Advertisement
On Monday, White House adviser Kellyanne Conway attempted to bolster the legality of Trump’s threat by implying that some of Iran’s military sites have cultural importance. “I think that Iran has many military, strategic military sites that you may cite are also cultural sites,” she told reporters.
It’s unlikely that argument will win over U.S. allies and international nonprofits, however, who have recoiled at Trump’s repeated threats.
Iran houses 24 UNESCO World Heritage sites, the designation given to irreplaceable natural and cultural monuments around the world. UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay called for their protection Monday, hailing the sites as “vectors of peace and dialogue between peoples, which the international community has a duty to protect and preserve for future generations.”
A portion of the ceiling of the Masjed-e Jameh mosque, a UNESCO World Heritage site in Isfahan, Iran. Smartshots International via Getty Images
A spokesperson for U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson downplayed the likelihood of such an attack, noting it would likely violate international law and could constitute a war crime.
Advertisement
“There are international conventions in place that prevent the destruction of cultural heritage,” the spokesperson affirmed.
On Twitter, architect and activist Sergio Beltrán-García shared a thread about some of Iran’s ancient cultural sites, which he hailed as a “perfect harmony of materials, engineering, symbolism and function.”
Iranian Islamic architecture is... just too beautiful for words. A perfect harmony of materials, engineering, symbolism and function.
Muqarnasas: representations of God’s honey blessing us from heaven.
Wooden bricks for earthquake-proofing.
#IranianCulturalSites
3/12 pic.twitter.com/4pT9tNHS9r — Sergio Beltrán-García (@ssbeltran) January 5, 2020
More vaults. More mathematical and engineering perfection. Just look at these shapes and shadows. Only an ignorant who hates humanity’s greatest achievements could ever even think of destroying them.
#IranianCulturalSites
9/12 pic.twitter.com/7VxhwuZf7A — Sergio Beltrán-García (@ssbeltran) January 5, 2020
The crown of the jewel: The entrance of Esfahan’s Shah Mosque. I would protect this with my life. Anyone of us should.
Also the Sheikh Lotfollah mosque, outside proportions are sublime, inside a 360° peacock.
#IranianCulturalSites
10/12 pic.twitter.com/VMvg4GE2UF — Sergio Beltrán-García (@ssbeltran) January 5, 2020
Advertisement
New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art also denounced Trump’s threats, calling them “abhorrent to the collective values of our society” in a statement on Monday.
“Our world knows precisely what is gained from protecting cultural sites, and, tragically, what is lost when destruction and chaos prevail,” the museum said.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Democratic Candidates Together Doubled Trump's 2020 Fundraising Numbers

Allies of President Donald Trump gloated last week at the news that his campaign outraised each of the Democratic presidential candidates .
But when taken together , Democrats are outraising the president to an unprecedented degree .
The top nine remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination combined to raise nearly $ 400 million in 2019 .
Trump raised $ 144 million over the same period .
( He raised an additional $ 67 million in the preceding two years . )
There is no recent precedent for the leading presidential candidates of an out-of-power party doubling the fundraising total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidates running to defeat President Barack Obama barely outraised him with $ 156 million combined to Obama ’ s $ 128 million in 2012 .
President George W. Bush raised $ 133 million to the Democratic candidates ’ $ 132 million in 2004 .
( Candidates largely accepted public funds for their campaigns prior to the 2000 election . )
This doesn ’ t mean that the eventual Democratic nominee will receive the benefit of all the money raised by other candidates .
Some donors will give only to their preferred candidate .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What this total shows is that the out-of-office party , in this case , the Democrats , is engaged in the election at a level not seen in 2004 or 2012 .
A CNN poll in December found 50 % of the electorate to be “ extremely enthusiastic ” about the 2020 election .
That is nearly double the 26 % who said the same thing in October 2016 .
A Gallup poll found voter enthusiasm reaching levels in November 2019 previously seen only immediately prior to elections .
That enthusiasm is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Trump supporters are equally , if not more , enthusiastic about voting in 2020 .
And their donations provide Trump a strong position to start the election year .
The Trump campaign boasts more than $ 100 million cash on hand heading into this election year .
The Republican National Committee has also reportedly raised $ 241 million for 2019 .
The Democratic National Committee had raised only $ 86 million by the end of the year .
The eventual Democratic Party nominee will need to be able to tap the broader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to counter Trump ’ s vast resources .
The 2020 Democratic Party candidates included here are former Vice President Joe Biden ; Sens .
Elizabeth Warren ( D-Mass . )
, Amy Klobuchar ( D-Minn. ) , Cory Booker ( D-N.J. ) , Michael Bennet ( D-Colo. ) and Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) ; Rep. Tulsi Gabbard ( D-Hawaii ) ; former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg ; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang .
The total used here excluded self-financed candidates , such as billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ congressional campaigns to current presidential efforts .
( It also does not include Bennet ’ s fourth-quarter fundraising , which he has not yet made public . )
These Democratic presidential candidates aren ’ t just raising an unprecedented combined amount combined compared with the incumbent president .
Their total raised could exceed all previous combined totals raised under the current campaign finance rules .
The only election that could compare to Democratic fundraising in 2020 is the 2008 primary that saw an underdog Obama defeat front-runner Hillary Clinton .
The Democratic Party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million across all of 2007 .
When adjusted for inflation , that total reaches $ 365 million .
But that was a historic clash between Obama and Clinton , two of the greatest fundraisers the Democratic Party has known in the brief history of the 21st century .
They each raised more than $ 100 million ( not adjusted for inflation ) in 2007 .
None of the current candidates raised that much in 2019 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Allies of President Donald Trump gloated last week at the news that his campaign outraised each of the Democratic presidential candidates. But when taken together, Democrats are outraising the president to an unprecedented degree.
The top nine remaining candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination combined to raise nearly $400 million in 2019. Trump raised $144 million over the same period. (He raised an additional $67 million in the preceding two years.) There is no recent precedent for the leading presidential candidates of an out-of-power party doubling the fundraising total of the incumbent.
Advertisement
The Republican Party candidates running to defeat President Barack Obama barely outraised him with $156 million combined to Obama’s $128 million in 2012. President George W. Bush raised $133 million to the Democratic candidates’ $132 million in 2004. (Candidates largely accepted public funds for their campaigns prior to the 2000 election.)
This doesn’t mean that the eventual Democratic nominee will receive the benefit of all the money raised by other candidates. Some donors will give only to their preferred candidate. And other donors give to multiple candidates. What this total shows is that the out-of-office party, in this case, the Democrats, is engaged in the election at a level not seen in 2004 or 2012.
This record fundraising dovetails with polls showing record levels of enthusiasm among voters for the 2020 election.
A CNN poll in December found 50% of the electorate to be “extremely enthusiastic” about the 2020 election. That is nearly double the 26% who said the same thing in October 2016. A Gallup poll found voter enthusiasm reaching levels in November 2019 previously seen only immediately prior to elections.
Advertisement
That enthusiasm is not constrained to Democrats, of course. Trump supporters are equally, if not more, enthusiastic about voting in 2020. And their donations provide Trump a strong position to start the election year. The Trump campaign boasts more than $100 million cash on hand heading into this election year. The Republican National Committee has also reportedly raised $241 million for 2019. The Democratic National Committee had raised only $86 million by the end of the year.
The top Democratic Party presidential candidates combined to raise more than President Donald Trump in 2019. ROBYN BECK via Getty Images
The eventual Democratic Party nominee will need to be able to tap the broader enthusiasm of the party’s base to counter Trump’s vast resources.
The 2020 Democratic Party candidates included here are former Vice President Joe Biden; Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii); former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and entrepreneur Andrew Yang. The total used here excluded self-financed candidates, such as billionaires Tom Steyer and Michael Bloomberg, and also money transferred from previous congressional campaigns to current presidential efforts. (It also does not include Bennet’s fourth-quarter fundraising, which he has not yet made public.)
These Democratic presidential candidates aren’t just raising an unprecedented combined amount combined compared with the incumbent president. Their total raised could exceed all previous combined totals raised under the current campaign finance rules.
Advertisement
The only election that could compare to Democratic fundraising in 2020 is the 2008 primary that saw an underdog Obama defeat front-runner Hillary Clinton. The Democratic Party field of eight candidates raised $295 million across all of 2007. When adjusted for inflation, that total reaches $365 million.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Here's What Americans Think About Trump's Iran Policy

Forty-three percent of Americans approve of the decision to order the airstrike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani , according to the poll , with 38 % disapproving and 19 % unsure .
( Although there ’ s not yet much additional polling on the strike , a separate YouGov survey found the public about evenly divided on Trump ’ s decision to kill Soleimani . )
Views are largely divided along partisan lines .
However , breaking from an often-seen pattern of polarization toward Trump ’ s actions , his supporters are more unified than his opponents : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve of the strike , compared with the 71 % of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who disapprove .
But a 57 % majority of Americans say they believe the strike makes further military conflict between the U.S. and Iran more likely than before , with just 8 % expecting it to act as a deterrent and the rest unsure or saying it would have no effect either way .
The public is also about evenly split on the decision to send 3,500 additional U.S. troops to the Middle East , with 40 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll ’ s results reflect concern over Trump ’ s decision-making ― an argument made by top Democrats , who were not consulted before the airstrike .
Americans say , 43 % to 35 % , that Trump did not plan carefully enough before ordering the strike .
They also say , 44 % to 34 % , that Trump should have gotten authorization from Congress before ordering the killing .
A 71 % majority of Americans now consider Iran at least a somewhat serious threat to the U.S. , with 36 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Forty-three percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners call Iran a very serious threat , while 35 % of Republicans and Republican-leaners say the same .
In the summer of 2018 , Republicans had been modestly more likely than Democrats to rate Iran as a very serious threat .
There ’ s reason to think people ’ s views on the issue remain subject to change .
Past polling on the Iran deal proved widely variable and highly dependent on framing ― Americans , for instance , were more likely to back the nuclear agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons than if they were given less context .
Such variability is often a sign that public opinion on an issue remains malleable and subject to prompting by political leaders .
That ’ s especially true of events about which relatively few people have strong preexisting opinions .
In this survey , only about a quarter of Americans say they ’ d heard of Soleimani prior to his killing .
Because people may sometimes exaggerate their knowledge of current events , and because survey respondents may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ average American , that figure is , if anything , on the high side .
Although this puts him squarely ahead of his rivals , Biden doesn ’ t enjoy a monopoly on the issue : two-thirds of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters say they trust multiple candidates .
About half ― 47 % ― say they have trust in Sanders , with an identical 47 % trusting Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren , 31 % trusting former South Bend , Indiana , mayor Pete Buttigieg , 25 % trusting Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Booker .
Fewer than 20 % expressed trust in any of the other Democratic candidates .
Among the full electorate , 41 % of registered voters say they don ’ t trust any of the Democratic candidates to handle Iran .
About a third trust Biden , with about a quarter trusting Sanders and Warren , and fewer than 20 % picking any of the other candidates .
For now , about half of all voters say foreign policy will be very important to their presidential vote this year .
But that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is at the top of their minds now , or that it ’ ll remain so until November .
When voters are asked about foreign policy in the context of other issues , rather than as a stand-alone topic , it regularly polls toward the bottom of their priorities .
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey , using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups :

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Americans split narrowly in favor of President Donald Trump’s decision to order the airstrike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, a new HuffPost/YouGov survey finds, but express qualms about the president’s decision-making process and the strike’s possible repercussions. Overall views of the administration’s foreign policy remain underwater.
Forty-three percent of Americans approve of the decision to order the airstrike that killed Iranian military commander Qassem Soleimani, according to the poll, with 38% disapproving and 19% unsure. (Although there’s not yet much additional polling on the strike, a separate YouGov survey found the public about evenly divided on Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani.)
Advertisement
Views are largely divided along partisan lines. However, breaking from an often-seen pattern of polarization toward Trump’s actions, his supporters are more unified than his opponents: 84% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents approve of the strike, compared with the 71% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents who disapprove.
Trump said in a statement that the strike was intended “to stop a war,” not “to start a war.”
But a 57% majority of Americans say they believe the strike makes further military conflict between the U.S. and Iran more likely than before, with just 8% expecting it to act as a deterrent and the rest unsure or saying it would have no effect either way. The public is also about evenly split on the decision to send 3,500 additional U.S. troops to the Middle East, with 40% approving and 39% disapproving.
The poll’s results reflect concern over Trump’s decision-making ― an argument made by top Democrats, who were not consulted before the airstrike. Americans say, 43% to 35%, that Trump did not plan carefully enough before ordering the strike. They also say, 44% to 34%, that Trump should have gotten authorization from Congress before ordering the killing.
Most of the public sees the strike as increasing the chances of further military conflict. Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
Advertisement
Americans say, 46% to 40%, that they disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran issues. Back in July 2018, a poll taken shortly after Trump tweeted an all-caps threat to Iran’s president found a similar margin of disapproval.
In the new survey, Americans say 47% to 32% that Trump does not have a clear strategy for dealing with Iran.
Half the public disapproves of Trump’s overall handling of foreign policy, with 39% approving.
Views about Trump's foreign policy -- and strategic vision -- are sharply polarized. Ariel Edwards-Levy/HuffPost
A 71% majority of Americans now consider Iran at least a somewhat serious threat to the U.S., with 36% calling it a very serious threat. Forty-three percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners call Iran a very serious threat, while 35% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say the same. In the summer of 2018, Republicans had been modestly more likely than Democrats to rate Iran as a very serious threat.
There’s reason to think people’s views on the issue remain subject to change. Past polling on the Iran deal proved widely variable and highly dependent on framing ― Americans, for instance, were more likely to back the nuclear agreement when they were reminded that its goal was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons than if they were given less context. Such variability is often a sign that public opinion on an issue remains malleable and subject to prompting by political leaders.
Advertisement
That’s especially true of events about which relatively few people have strong preexisting opinions. In this survey, only about a quarter of Americans say they’d heard of Soleimani prior to his killing. Because people may sometimes exaggerate their knowledge of current events, and because survey respondents may be somewhat more civically engaged than the average American, that figure is, if anything, on the high side.
It’s difficult to predict how public opinion on Iran might evolve in the coming months. It’s even tougher to say how the developments might affect the presidential election.
Iran has already come up in the Democratic primary: former Vice President Joe Biden has used the killing of Soleimani to highlight his foreign policy credentials, and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has touted his antiwar record.
A 62% majority of registered voters who are Democrats or lean toward the Democratic Party name Biden as one of the candidates they trust on Iran.
Although this puts him squarely ahead of his rivals, Biden doesn’t enjoy a monopoly on the issue: two-thirds of Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters say they trust multiple candidates. About half ― 47% ― say they have trust in Sanders, with an identical 47% trusting Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, 31% trusting former South Bend, Indiana, mayor Pete Buttigieg, 25% trusting Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and 24% trusting New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker. Fewer than 20% expressed trust in any of the other Democratic candidates.
Advertisement
Among the full electorate, 41% of registered voters say they don’t trust any of the Democratic candidates to handle Iran. About a third trust Biden, with about a quarter trusting Sanders and Warren, and fewer than 20% picking any of the other candidates.
For now, about half of all voters say foreign policy will be very important to their presidential vote this year. But that’s not a guarantee that the issue is at the top of their minds now, or that it’ll remain so until November. When voters are asked about foreign policy in the context of other issues, rather than as a stand-alone topic, it regularly polls toward the bottom of their priorities.
Neither party holds a substantial advantage on Iran, with 44% of voters saying they trust Democrats more to handle Iran, and 40% saying they have more faith in Republicans.
Use the widget below to further explore the results of the HuffPost/YouGov survey, using the menu at the top to select survey questions and the buttons at the bottom to filter the data by subgroups:
Advertisement
The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Jan. 3 to Jan. 5 among U.S. adults, including 364 Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters, using a sample selected from YouGov’s opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.
HuffPost 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. More details on the polls’ methodology are available here.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Pompeo Tells McConnell He Won’t Run For Kansas Senate Seat: Reports

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) on Monday he would not run to fill a soon-to-be vacated Senate seat in Kansas this year , according to multiple reports .
Pompeo met with the majority leader just days after President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani , dramatically increasing tensions with Tehran .
The secretary told McConnell international diplomacy was too tense to leave his position and focus on a campaign , both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported .
McConnell had been intensely lobbying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the House representing Kansas ’ 4th Congressional District , to run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Pat Roberts ( R ) , who is retiring .
Republicans had hoped the secretary would easily clinch the party ’ s nomination and help retain the GOP ’ s majority in the Senate as the 2020 election season heats up .
Republicans now face a much more difficult race in the state .
Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach ( R ) , who remains controversial over his deeply anti-immigration views , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unsuccessful run for governor in 2018 .
Democrats have put forward Barbara Bollier , a local lawmaker who left the GOP to join the party at the end of 2018 .
National security adviser Robert O ’ Brien first noted last week that Pompeo had reached a similar decision and hoped he would remain in the Trump administration .
“ I hope and I expect Secretary Pompeo will stay , ” O ’ Brien told ABC News .
“ I spoke with him about this two nights ago .
He said he ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said he ’ s staying as secretary of state.
” The Times noted that Pompeo could still change his mind as the filing deadline for the Kentucky primary isn ’ t until June .
“ I ’ ve watched my life take turns that one would never have expected , but it ’ s not something I want to do , ” Pompeo told Fox News last month .
“ I want to stay here and continue to perform the mission that I ’ m serving President Trump , and I hope doing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as well .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Monday he would not run to fill a soon-to-be vacated Senate seat in Kansas this year, according to multiple reports.
Pompeo met with the majority leader just days after President Donald Trump ordered the assassination of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, dramatically increasing tensions with Tehran. The secretary told McConnell international diplomacy was too tense to leave his position and focus on a campaign, both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal reported.
Advertisement
McConnell had been intensely lobbying Pompeo, who was previously a member of the House representing Kansas’ 4th Congressional District, to run for the seat being vacated by Sen. Pat Roberts (R), who is retiring. Republicans had hoped the secretary would easily clinch the party’s nomination and help retain the GOP’s majority in the Senate as the 2020 election season heats up.
Republicans now face a much more difficult race in the state. Former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (R), who remains controversial over his deeply anti-immigration views, is vying for the seat after an unsuccessful run for governor in 2018. Democrats have put forward Barbara Bollier, a local lawmaker who left the GOP to join the party at the end of 2018.
National security adviser Robert O’Brien first noted last week that Pompeo had reached a similar decision and hoped he would remain in the Trump administration.
“I hope and I expect Secretary Pompeo will stay,” O’Brien told ABC News. “I spoke with him about this two nights ago. He said he’s not running for Senate. He said he’s staying as secretary of state.”
Advertisement
The Times noted that Pompeo could still change his mind as the filing deadline for the Kentucky primary isn’t until June.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Ethical Vegan's Beliefs Deserve To Be Protected Just Like Religious Beliefs: U.K. Judge

The decision helped establish the foundation of a case that Casamitjana is still pursuing against his former employer , the League Against Cruel Sports .
Casamitjana claims he was fired because of his ethical veganism ― an allegation that the league disputes .
Casamitjana said Friday that he is “ extremely happy ” with the outcome of the hearing .
He said he ’ s heard from many other ethical vegans who have also experienced discrimination .
For ethical vegans , adopting a vegan lifestyle means much more than making changes to one ’ s diet .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ethical vegans also refuse to purchase animal-based products , such as leather or fur , or support companies that test their products on animals .
“ Better protection means more vegans will be able to be open about their beliefs , ” Casamitjana said in a statement published by his legal team .
“ This can only be a good thing for the billions of animals still exploited by humans , an environment under duress and stressed public health.
” Friday ’ s hearing dealt only with the question of whether ethical veganism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hearing addressing whether Casamitjana was fired for his beliefs is scheduled for February .
Casamitjana previously worked as head of policy and research at the League Against Cruel Sports , which advocates against animal hunting and dog fighting , according to The Guardian .
He claims he was fired after alerting his colleagues that the organization ’ s pension fund was investing in companies that engage in animal testing .
The League Against Cruel Sports does not contest Postle ’ s ruling that veganism is a protected belief , according to Rhys Wyborn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The league maintains that Casamitjana ’ s veganism is irrelevant to the core reason for his dismissal , which Wyborn said was due to “ misconduct.
” It ’ s unclear what that alleged misconduct entailed .
In 2018 , the league released a statement saying that the reason for Casamitjana ’ s dismissal is “ confidential information which we are respecting.
” To satisfy the requirements of the U.K. ’ s Equality Act , Casamitjana had to demonstrate to Postle that his beliefs are genuinely held , concern a substantial aspect of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coherent belief system , and do not conflict with the rights of others , among other legal tests .
Casamitjana has been an ethical vegan for over 18 years .
In a document submitted to the tribunal , his lawyers said he avoids taking the bus to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds and opts to walk instead .
Whenever possible , he avoids social gatherings if not all the food served is vegan .
He refuses to share property with anyone who isn ’ t vegan and hasn ’ t dated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Casamitjana also regularly proselytizes about the ethical vegan lifestyle with the goal of converting others , the document states .
“ Ethical Veganism dictates all of my choices from the products and services that I consume , my interactions with the world and the way that I use my time and my employment , ” Casamitjana said in the document .
Casamitjana ’ s case was heard by an employment tribunal , judicial bodies in the U.K. that decide cases in certain areas of the law .
The tribunal ruling doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cases , but it could still have a far-reaching impact , according to BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman .
“ The implications are considerable , not least because the legal protection will apply beyond employment , in areas such as education and the supply of goods and services , ” Coleman wrote in an analysis .
“ It could also encourage others to seek similar protection for their philosophical beliefs .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A U.K. judge has ruled that people who identify as ethical vegans deserve just as much legal protection from discrimination as those who follow a traditional religion.
The landmark decision, issued by tribunal Judge Robin Postle in Norwich on Friday, suggests that the ethical veganism practiced by complainant Jordi Casamitjana is a “philosophical belief” covered by the U.K.’s Equality Act 2010, an antidiscrimination law.
Advertisement
The decision helped establish the foundation of a case that Casamitjana is still pursuing against his former employer, the League Against Cruel Sports. Casamitjana claims he was fired because of his ethical veganism ― an allegation that the league disputes.
Casamitjana said Friday that he is “extremely happy” with the outcome of the hearing. He said he’s heard from many other ethical vegans who have also experienced discrimination.
For ethical vegans, adopting a vegan lifestyle means much more than making changes to one’s diet. In addition to avoiding eating food derived from animals, ethical vegans also refuse to purchase animal-based products, such as leather or fur, or support companies that test their products on animals.
“Better protection means more vegans will be able to be open about their beliefs,” Casamitjana said in a statement published by his legal team. “This can only be a good thing for the billions of animals still exploited by humans, an environment under duress and stressed public health.”
Advertisement
Jordi Casamitjana after a judge ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief and therefore protected by law. Nick Ansell - PA Images via Getty Images
Friday’s hearing dealt only with the question of whether ethical veganism is a protected philosophical belief. A hearing addressing whether Casamitjana was fired for his beliefs is scheduled for February.
Casamitjana previously worked as head of policy and research at the League Against Cruel Sports, which advocates against animal hunting and dog fighting, according to The Guardian. He claims he was fired after alerting his colleagues that the organization’s pension fund was investing in companies that engage in animal testing.
The League Against Cruel Sports does not contest Postle’s ruling that veganism is a protected belief, according to Rhys Wyborn, a lawyer for the organization. The league maintains that Casamitjana’s veganism is irrelevant to the core reason for his dismissal, which Wyborn said was due to “misconduct.” It’s unclear what that alleged misconduct entailed. In 2018, the league released a statement saying that the reason for Casamitjana’s dismissal is “confidential information which we are respecting.”
To satisfy the requirements of the U.K.’s Equality Act, Casamitjana had to demonstrate to Postle that his beliefs are genuinely held, concern a substantial aspect of human life, are part of a coherent belief system, and do not conflict with the rights of others, among other legal tests.
Advertisement
Casamitjana has been an ethical vegan for over 18 years. In a document submitted to the tribunal, his lawyers said he avoids taking the bus to avoid accidental crashes with insects or birds and opts to walk instead. Whenever possible, he avoids social gatherings if not all the food served is vegan. He refuses to share property with anyone who isn’t vegan and hasn’t dated anyone who isn’t vegan. Casamitjana also regularly proselytizes about the ethical vegan lifestyle with the goal of converting others, the document states.
“Ethical Veganism dictates all of my choices from the products and services that I consume, my interactions with the world and the way that I use my time and my employment,” Casamitjana said in the document.
Jordi Casamitjana leaves court on Jan. 3, 2020. Nick Ansell - PA Images via Getty Images
In addition to religion and belief, the U.K.’s Equality Act prohibits discrimination against people on the basis of eight other personal characteristics, including age, disability, pregnancy, race, sex and sexual orientation.
Casamitjana’s case was heard by an employment tribunal, judicial bodies in the U.K. that decide cases in certain areas of the law. The tribunal ruling doesn’t create a binding legal precedent for future cases, but it could still have a far-reaching impact, according to BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Elizabeth Warren's Support For Trump Trade Deal Chafes Climate Allies

While lamenting that “ we really need trade negotiations going forward that make sure anyone who wants access to our markets is actually helping us in the fight against climate change , ” the Massachusetts senator said Friday that she will vote for the latest version of the agreement dubbed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement , or USMCA .
The final pact makes mostly small changes to the 26-year-old trade agreement , giving the U.S. more access to the Canadian dairy market , encouraging stricter labor laws in Mexico and tightening rules on auto manufacturers .
The tweaks were enough to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s biggest skeptics , including Sen. Sherrod Brown ( D-Ohio ) , Rep. Rosa DeLauro ( D-Conn. ) and the AFL-CIO , the nation ’ s largest federation of unions .
The Democratic-controlled House voted 385 to 41 last month to approve the deal .
But the new pact doesn ’ t even mention climate change , and the final version includes provisions that make it cheaper to export Canadian tar-sands oil , give corporations more power to undercut Mexico ’ s environmental policies and allow foreign companies to challenge proposed regulations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of existing rules .
The Sierra Club , which has called the Trump deal “ an environmental failure , ” declined to comment on Warren ’ s position but pointed HuffPost to its statement on last month ’ s House vote , in which it described the pact as “ nothing short of a giveaway to corporate polluters that will lock in his polluting legacy for years to come.
” Last July , Warren released one of the most comprehensive proposals to use the threat of losing access to the U.S. market as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cut planet-heating gases .
Heralding a “ new approach to trade , ” she vowed to make a country ’ s compliance with the Paris climate accords and the elimination of all domestic fossil fuel subsidies preconditions for any pact with the U.S .
Asked about the senator ’ s decision to support the USMCA , the Warren campaign pointed to a speech from last year in which she said she would vote against the deal “ unless President Trump reopens the agreement and produces a better deal for America ’ s working @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not a great arrangement , it ’ s a better ... it ’ s an improvement over where NAFTA stands right now , ” Warren said on NBC ’ s “ Meet the Press ” on Sunday .
“ Look at the box the president has put us in with farmers .
Farmers have just had their legs taken out from under them in one trade war after another that Donald Trump has initiated on his own .
Farmers need help ― they ’ re in real trouble.
” If elected president , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Mexico to rework the aspects of the new deal that environmentalists find the most destructive .
But that seems unlikely , as it would probably create more hardship for the voters that Warren ’ s compromise this week aims to help , said Daniel Kono , an expert in climate and trade and a professor at the University of California , Davis .
The two candidates diverge on what they see as the ideal scope of federal intervention required to curb greenhouse emissions and improve public health protections in an era of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spending $ 3 trillion , which could , by one estimate , create up to 10.6 million jobs over a decade .
Sanders has pledged to marshal $ 16.3 trillion to provide 20 million good-paying , climate-friendly jobs .
Warren has promised to keep some existing nuclear plants open , while Sanders has vowed to shut down reactors amid a transition from fossil fuels .
Warren has envisioned regulations that would spur sweeping changes to the U.S. electrical source mix .
Sanders has called for creating a public option for renewable electricity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helped electrify underdeveloped areas of the South .
“ Obviously we ’ re not going to get 100 % victories every time we step up to the plate , ” he said .
“ Sometimes we ’ re going to have to take principled stands even though there might be marginal wins for folks we represent .
Other times we ’ ll have to take those small victories where we can get them .
Clearly Warren is the kind of politician who will take the smaller victories .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren is facing criticism from climate advocates over her decision to back President Donald Trump’s updated deal to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.
While lamenting that “we really need trade negotiations going forward that make sure anyone who wants access to our markets is actually helping us in the fight against climate change,” the Massachusetts senator said Friday that she will vote for the latest version of the agreement dubbed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA.
Advertisement
She had previously panned an earlier version of Trump’s deal as “NAFTA 2.0” and vowed to oppose it in the Senate, saying it “won’t stop the serious and ongoing harm NAFTA causes for American workers.”
“It’s disappointing that a progressive and quite radical thinker as Elizabeth Warren has come out in support of this,” said Manuel Perez-Rocha, an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies and co-author of a report criticizing the updated deal’s benefits to polluters.
The announcement marked a split with Warren’s main progressive rival for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who said he opposed the deal during last month’s televised primary debate. (Sanders did grant that Trump’s pending deal was “a modest improvement over what we have right now.”)
The final pact makes mostly small changes to the 26-year-old trade agreement, giving the U.S. more access to the Canadian dairy market, encouraging stricter labor laws in Mexico and tightening rules on auto manufacturers. The tweaks were enough to garner the support of some of NAFTA’s biggest skeptics, including Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and the AFL-CIO, the nation’s largest federation of unions. The Democratic-controlled House voted 385 to 41 last month to approve the deal.
Advertisement
But the new pact doesn’t even mention climate change, and the final version includes provisions that make it cheaper to export Canadian tar-sands oil, give corporations more power to undercut Mexico’s environmental policies and allow foreign companies to challenge proposed regulations in the U.S. or request the repeal of existing rules.
“It’s deeply concerning that Sen. Warren has reversed her stance on this,” said Stephen O’Hanlon, a spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, an influential climate group pushing a Green New Deal. “This trade deal is a huge win for fossil-fuel billionaires and for multinational corporations. It undermines her commitments to the Green New Deal.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren is competing with Sen. Bernie Sanders over climate policy. Daniel Acker / Reuters
The Sierra Club, which has called the Trump deal “an environmental failure,” declined to comment on Warren’s position but pointed HuffPost to its statement on last month’s House vote, in which it described the pact as “nothing short of a giveaway to corporate polluters that will lock in his polluting legacy for years to come.”
Last July, Warren released one of the most comprehensive proposals to use the threat of losing access to the U.S. market as a cudgel to enforce international agreements to cut planet-heating gases. Heralding a “new approach to trade,” she vowed to make a country’s compliance with the Paris climate accords and the elimination of all domestic fossil fuel subsidies preconditions for any pact with the U.S.
Advertisement
That plan served as one of more than a dozen planks in Warren’s Green New Deal platform.
Asked about the senator’s decision to support the USMCA, the Warren campaign pointed to a speech from last year in which she said she would vote against the deal “unless President Trump reopens the agreement and produces a better deal for America’s working families.”
“Look, this is not a great arrangement, it’s a better ... it’s an improvement over where NAFTA stands right now,” Warren said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “Look at the box the president has put us in with farmers. Farmers have just had their legs taken out from under them in one trade war after another that Donald Trump has initiated on his own. Farmers need help ― they’re in real trouble.”
If elected president, Warren could reopen trade talks with Canada and Mexico to rework the aspects of the new deal that environmentalists find the most destructive. But that seems unlikely, as it would probably create more hardship for the voters that Warren’s compromise this week aims to help, said Daniel Kono, an expert in climate and trade and a professor at the University of California, Davis.
“It’s not ideal to keep reopening trade negotiations,” said Kono. “I don’t think Warren and other Democratic leaders want to keep negotiating and renegotiating.”
But a Democratic primary that came down to a competition with Sanders could push Warren to shift her position on the deal, he said.
Advertisement
As it stands, Warren trails Sanders in several green groups’ rankings of presidential candidates’ 2020 climate plans.
“This trade deal is a huge win for fossil-fuel billionaires and for multinational corporations. It undermines her commitments to the Green New Deal.” - Stephen O'Hanlon of the Sunrise Movement
The two candidates diverge on what they see as the ideal scope of federal intervention required to curb greenhouse emissions and improve public health protections in an era of increasing climate chaos. Warren has proposed spending $3 trillion, which could, by one estimate, create up to 10.6 million jobs over a decade. Sanders has pledged to marshal $16.3 trillion to provide 20 million good-paying, climate-friendly jobs. Warren has promised to keep some existing nuclear plants open, while Sanders has vowed to shut down reactors amid a transition from fossil fuels. Warren has envisioned regulations that would spur sweeping changes to the U.S. electrical source mix. Sanders has called for creating a public option for renewable electricity, expanding on the New Deal-era programs that helped electrify underdeveloped areas of the South.
Polling published last month from the left-leaning think tank Data for Progress found that 60% of American voters support trade deals that would put binding limits on pollution and require signatories to adhere to the Paris climate accords. Voters oppose including tax breaks for tar-sands oil by a margin of 48% to 26%.
Advertisement
Warren’s split from Sanders serves as a “barometer of some of the challenges that the progressive movement is going to face as we grow power,” said Julian Brave NoiseCat, Data for Progress’s vice president of policy and strategy.
“Obviously we’re not going to get 100% victories every time we step up to the plate,” he said. “Sometimes we’re going to have to take principled stands even though there might be marginal wins for folks we represent. Other times we’ll have to take those small victories where we can get them. Clearly Warren is the kind of politician who will take the smaller victories.”
And in the case of the USMCA, the United States isn’t the only country whose government favors fossil fuel-friendly provisions.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Harvey Weinstein Charged On More Sex Crimes In Los Angeles

Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been charged with new sex crimes in Los Angeles on Monday , the county district attorney announced .
Prosecutors in LA have brought an indictment against Weinstein , charging the producer with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in separate incidents over a two-day period in 2013 , said Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey .
“ We believe the evidence will show that the defendant used his power and influence to gain access to his victims and then commit violent crimes against them , ” she said in a statement .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ who have come forward and bravely recounted what happened to them.
” Weinstein could face up to 28 years in state prison if convicted , Lacey said Monday in a news conference .
His bail will be set at $ 5 million .
She also noted that each of the women told friends about the attacks in 2013 and reported them to police in 2017 amid the Me Too movement , the sexual misconduct reckoning inextricably linked to Weinstein .
Lacey ’ s office launched a special task force on sexual assault in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the onetime Hollywood kingmaker , whose rape and sexual assault trial in New York began this week .
Sources familiar with the case first confirmed the news of the new charges with The New York Times , the Los Angeles Times and TMZ .
The new charges will intensify the scrutiny against Weinstein , whom more than 80 women accused of sexual assault or battery in 2017 .
He has denied the allegations , with his legal team largely claiming the incidents were consensual .
Jury selection for his trial in New York @ @ @ @ @ @ @ women are expected to testify about sexual attacks they faced from Weinstein , who could face up to 25 years in prison if convicted on all of those counts .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Disgraced Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein has been charged with new sex crimes in Los Angeles on Monday, the county district attorney announced.
Prosecutors in LA have brought an indictment against Weinstein, charging the producer with raping one woman and sexually assaulting another in separate incidents over a two-day period in 2013, said Los Angeles County District Attorney Jackie Lacey.
Advertisement
“We believe the evidence will show that the defendant used his power and influence to gain access to his victims and then commit violent crimes against them,” she said in a statement. “I want to commend the victims who have come forward and bravely recounted what happened to them.”
Weinstein could face up to 28 years in state prison if convicted, Lacey said Monday in a news conference. His bail will be set at $5 million.
She also noted that each of the women told friends about the attacks in 2013 and reported them to police in 2017 amid the Me Too movement, the sexual misconduct reckoning inextricably linked to Weinstein.
Lacey’s office launched a special task force on sexual assault in 2017 amid the litany of accusations against the onetime Hollywood kingmaker, whose rape and sexual assault trial in New York began this week.
Advertisement
Sources familiar with the case first confirmed the news of the new charges with The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and TMZ.
The new charges will intensify the scrutiny against Weinstein, whom more than 80 women accused of sexual assault or battery in 2017. He has denied the allegations, with his legal team largely claiming the incidents were consensual.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--John Bolton Says He'd Testify In Trump's Impeachment Trial If Subpoenaed

Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that he is willing to testify before the Senate in President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed .
“ I have concluded that , if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony , I am prepared to testify , ” Bolton said in a statement .
Bolton ’ s agreement to testify if subpoenaed , however , doesn ’ t necessarily mean the Senate will actually hear from him .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ( R-Ky. ) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on what the rules will be for an impeachment trial .
The Democratic position is that calling witnesses is essential to a fair process , and Schumer has specifically requested the testimony of four people who did not testify before the House ― including Bolton .
But McConnell hasn ’ t agreed to subpoenaing witnesses or additional documents that shed light on the Ukraine scandal and what role Trump specifically played in pressuring the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family .
House Democrats decided not to subpoena Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ draft impeachment articles last year .
They reached the decision after the White House declared it wouldn ’ t cooperate with the hearings and instructed top officials who ’ d already been subpoenaed not to comply .
As a result , numerous top officials familiar with Trump ’ s thinking — including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney , White House attorney and legal adviser to the National Security Council John Eisenberg , and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry ― have remained silent .
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles of impeachment to the Senate , meaning McConnell has not been able to start the trial .
If Bolton genuinely wants to all the information he has about Trump ’ s conduct , there are ways he could do so without waiting for a subpoena , such as talking to Congress voluntarily or even giving an interview to the press .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former national security adviser John Bolton said Monday that he is willing to testify before the Senate in President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial if he is subpoenaed.
“I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,” Bolton said in a statement.
Advertisement
Bolton’s agreement to testify if subpoenaed, however, doesn’t necessarily mean the Senate will actually hear from him.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) are currently trying to work out an agreement on what the rules will be for an impeachment trial.
The Democratic position is that calling witnesses is essential to a fair process, and Schumer has specifically requested the testimony of four people who did not testify before the House ― including Bolton. But McConnell hasn’t agreed to subpoenaing witnesses or additional documents that shed light on the Ukraine scandal and what role Trump specifically played in pressuring the country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his family.
House Democrats decided not to subpoena Bolton while the chamber mulled over whether to draft impeachment articles last year. They reached the decision after the White House declared it wouldn’t cooperate with the hearings and instructed top officials who’d already been subpoenaed not to comply.
Advertisement
As a result, numerous top officials familiar with Trump’s thinking — including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, White House attorney and legal adviser to the National Security Council John Eisenberg, and former Energy Secretary Rick Perry ― have remained silent.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has so far refused to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate, meaning McConnell has not been able to start the trial.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--New York’s Jewish Community Unites Against Anti-Semitism As It Debates How To Stay Safe

A series of anti-Semitic assaults and mass attacks in recent weeks has rattled New York ’ s Jewish communities .
Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn have been assaulted on the street , a deadly shooting at a kosher market in neighboring Jersey City killed three people and a machete-wielding attacker stabbed five at a rabbi ’ s house in Monsey .
These events have renewed fears of growing hate and questions over the safety of visibly Jewish spaces — they ’ ve also sparked a debate about the tradeoffs involved in making the community more secure .
Although white supremacists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jews in America in recent years and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have found supporters at the highest levels of the Trump administration , the recent growth in anti-Semitism isn ’ t exclusive to a sole demographic or political ideology .
Both the attackers in New Jersey and Monsey referenced views from the Black Hebrew Israelites ― a religious movement with some anti-Semitic offshoots ― although were not official members .
In areas of Brooklyn where Hasidic Jews have been frequent victims of street assaults , there are also complicated and long standing divisions between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaders claim gentrification has exacerbated in recent years .
Even though the tropes of anti-Semitism are well understood , anti-hate organizations say there ’ s no straightforward answer for why attacks against Jews are flaring up once again .
“ We need to really get more information .
Right now so much of why this is happening is speculation , ” said Evan Bernstein , regional director for New York and New Jersey at the Anti-Defamation League .
Just as the explanations for the rise in anti-Semitism seem to vary , so have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jewish communities , which consist of over 1.5 million people from across the political spectrum , have taken significantly different stances on how to address the issue .
Progressive groups have called for solidarity with other communities affected by hate crimes , increased dialogue between community leaders within New York and support for educational outreach programs .
Some progressive Jewish groups have also criticized authorities ’ promise to increase police presence in Jewish areas of New York as a move that will further divide neighborhoods .
Meanwhile , conservative activists and politicians are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ harsher criminal penalties , while elected officials from New York ’ s Orthodox communities even released a letter asking Governor Cuomo to deploy the New York National Guard as protection .
Some hard-right members of the Jewish community have also vocally blamed the left for anti-Semitism , resulting in praise from President Donald Trump .
The differing political reactions to anti-Semitic attacks were evident ; signs ranged from vows of unity in fighting against Islamophobia , xenophobia and anti-Semitism to slogans denouncing Rep. Ilhan Omar ( D-Minn. ) and the Boycott , Divestment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hasidic community , the primary target of attacks this past month , were also largely absent and some Hasidic leaders criticized the event in the preceding days .
The rally drew an estimated 25,000 people on Sunday , as demonstrators marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in a show of solidarity for New York ’ s Jewish communities .
Many at the march on Sunday came with their families or as part of Jewish organizations , holding up banners from community centers , synagogues and charities .
Some traveled from out of state to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ groups affected by hate crimes .
Demonstrators massed in Lower Manhattan ’ s Foley Square around 11 a.m. , where organizers handed out signs with the rally ’ s slogan of “ No Hate .
No Fear.
” Some waved Israeli flags and sang songs as they slowly shuffled through the bottleneck of Brooklyn Bridge ’ s narrow pedestrian path .
Families took selfies with the Manhattan skyline behind them along the sides of the walkway , while NYPD officers and members of Jewish volunteer ambulance services waited nearby .
New York is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in nearly two decades , according to researchers , while the number of violent attacks on Jews in the United States has risen across the country in recent years .
There have been at least 13 anti-Semitic attacks in New York City in recent weeks alone , putting neighborhoods with large Jewish populations on edge .
“ It ’ s scary , ” said Rachel Golden , who works at a Jewish elementary school in Brooklyn , which she says has stopped allowing its children to play outside during recess over safety concerns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the kids to have to worry about it.
” But despite the varied reactions from Jewish communities , the prevailing message among organizers and demonstrators at the rally was that it is time for the public to recognize the threat of anti-Semitism and for Jewish people to come together to fight it .
“ The most powerful resistance to anti-Semitism is to be more Jewish and to be more embracing of who we are , ” Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum , senior rabbi at Manhattan ’ s Beit Simchat Torah synagogue , told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ The best way to counter it is to stay unified and focus on positive expressions of our Jewish identity and not just focus on the hate .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
A series of anti-Semitic assaults and mass attacks in recent weeks has rattled New York’s Jewish communities. Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn have been assaulted on the street, a deadly shooting at a kosher market in neighboring Jersey City killed three people and a machete-wielding attacker stabbed five at a rabbi’s house in Monsey. These events have renewed fears of growing hate and questions over the safety of visibly Jewish spaces — they’ve also sparked a debate about the tradeoffs involved in making the community more secure.
Although white supremacists have been behind the most deadly attacks against Jews in America in recent years and anti-Semitic conspiracy theories have found supporters at the highest levels of the Trump administration, the recent growth in anti-Semitism isn’t exclusive to a sole demographic or political ideology. Both the attackers in New Jersey and Monsey referenced views from the Black Hebrew Israelites ― a religious movement with some anti-Semitic offshoots ― although were not official members.
Advertisement
In areas of Brooklyn where Hasidic Jews have been frequent victims of street assaults, there are also complicated and long standing divisions between Black and Jewish communities, which community leaders claim gentrification has exacerbated in recent years. Even though the tropes of anti-Semitism are well understood, anti-hate organizations say there’s no straightforward answer for why attacks against Jews are flaring up once again.
“We need to really get more information. Right now so much of why this is happening is speculation,” said Evan Bernstein, regional director for New York and New Jersey at the Anti-Defamation League.
Around 25,000 people rallied against anti-Semitism in New York on Sunday, following a string of attacks against Jewish people. Nick Robins-Early
Just as the explanations for the rise in anti-Semitism seem to vary, so have the responses. New York’s Jewish communities, which consist of over 1.5 million people from across the political spectrum, have taken significantly different stances on how to address the issue. Progressive groups have called for solidarity with other communities affected by hate crimes, increased dialogue between community leaders within New York and support for educational outreach programs. Some progressive Jewish groups have also criticized authorities’ promise to increase police presence in Jewish areas of New York as a move that will further divide neighborhoods.
Advertisement
Meanwhile, conservative activists and politicians are demanding not only increased policing but also harsher criminal penalties, while elected officials from New York’s Orthodox communities even released a letter asking Governor Cuomo to deploy the New York National Guard as protection. Some hard-right members of the Jewish community have also vocally blamed the left for anti-Semitism, resulting in praise from President Donald Trump.
As a politically diverse range of activists and religious leaders debate what’s driving the violence and how to address it, over a dozen major Jewish advocacy groups and community organizations held a rally Sunday to unite against the rise of anti-Semitism.
The differing political reactions to anti-Semitic attacks were evident; signs ranged from vows of unity in fighting against Islamophobia, xenophobia and anti-Semitism to slogans denouncing Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Members of the Hasidic community, the primary target of attacks this past month, were also largely absent and some Hasidic leaders criticized the event in the preceding days.
Demonstrators crossed the Brooklyn Bridge as they made their way to Cadman Plaza, where community leaders spoke against anti-Semitism. Nick Robins-Early/HuffPost
The rally drew an estimated 25,000 people on Sunday, as demonstrators marched across the Brooklyn Bridge in a show of solidarity for New York’s Jewish communities. Many at the march on Sunday came with their families or as part of Jewish organizations, holding up banners from community centers, synagogues and charities. Some traveled from out of state to show their support while also highlighting other groups affected by hate crimes.
Advertisement
“Hate is hate. It’s unacceptable against Jews, against Blacks and Hispanics, against women and LGBT people,” said Gregg Levine, who took an overnight bus from Cleveland with his husband Howard Epstein to attend the rally.
“We’ve been marching for a long time,” Levine said. “And we’re certainly going to march to fight anti-Semitism.”
Demonstrators massed in Lower Manhattan’s Foley Square around 11 a.m., where organizers handed out signs with the rally’s slogan of “No Hate. No Fear.” Some waved Israeli flags and sang songs as they slowly shuffled through the bottleneck of Brooklyn Bridge’s narrow pedestrian path. Families took selfies with the Manhattan skyline behind them along the sides of the walkway, while NYPD officers and members of Jewish volunteer ambulance services waited nearby.
The rally drew a number of politicians, including Mayor Bill de Blasio, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Governor Andrew Cuomo announced at the march that he would provide $45 million in funding to create a hotline and increase state police patrols to protect religious-based institutions such as schools and community centers.
Marchers hold a sign depicting Trump as a fascist during the rally against anti-Semitism. Nick Robins-Early/HuffPost
Advertisement
New York is experiencing its highest number of hate crimes in nearly two decades, according to researchers, while the number of violent attacks on Jews in the United States has risen across the country in recent years. There have been at least 13 anti-Semitic attacks in New York City in recent weeks alone, putting neighborhoods with large Jewish populations on edge.
“It’s scary,” said Rachel Golden, who works at a Jewish elementary school in Brooklyn, which she says has stopped allowing its children to play outside during recess over safety concerns. “It’s not good for the kids to have to worry about it.”
But despite the varied reactions from Jewish communities, the prevailing message among organizers and demonstrators at the rally was that it is time for the public to recognize the threat of anti-Semitism and for Jewish people to come together to fight it.
“The most powerful resistance to anti-Semitism is to be more Jewish and to be more embracing of who we are,” Rabbi Sharon Kleinbaum, senior rabbi at Manhattan’s Beit Simchat Torah synagogue, told HuffPost in the days before the rally. “The best way to counter it is to stay unified and focus on positive expressions of our Jewish identity and not just focus on the hate.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Koala Mittens And Joey Pouches: Australian Wildfires Spark Global Knitting Frenzy

Jan 6 ( Reuters ) - Knitting needles are clicking furiously around the world to create hundreds of protective pouches and blankets for native wildlife made homeless by Australian wildfires that have razed large swathes of bushland .
The Animal Rescue Craft Guild said on Monday it has been deluged with offers of help after putting out a call for volunteers to make bat wraps , joey pouches , birds nests , possum boxes , koala mittens and other snuggly homes for marsupials .
Donations to the volunteer-run group have come in from as far afield as the United States @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Germany .
Blazes across Australia in recent weeks have scorched through 8 million hectares of bushland , an area the size of Austria .
Some experts estimates put the number of animals , including domestic pets and livestock , killed as high as half a billion , with potentially hundreds of thousands of injured and displaced native wildlife .
“ It ’ s the poor little souls that survived where we come in , ” said Orellana .
“ Our group creates and supplies items to rescue groups and carers around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wildlife.
” Orellana said the guild supplied thousands of rescue groups around the country and demand was growing , adding there was an urgent need for fabric donations .
Originally formed a few months ago to make dog and cat beds and coats for animal pounds , the guild ’ s Facebook page has 75,000 members .
Many of the crafters have crocheted , knitted and sewed a range of items including koala mittens for burned paws and pouches for infant “ joey ” kangaroos who have lost their mothers .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it has been deluged with offers of help after putting out a call for volunteers to make bat wraps , joey pouches , birds nests , possum boxes , koala mittens and other snuggly homes for marsupials .
Lara Mackay , a new volunteer who lives in New Zealand , has just made her first makeshift joey pouch , which she enlisted her cat to test out at home .
“ I ’ m planning to make as many as possible and am asking fabric outlets for fabric donations to sew , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leslie Kok was working on her fourth joey pouch and meeting up with other volunteers to share materials and tips .
“ I will knit as long as there is a need for the pouches , ” Kok said .
Closer to the fires , Simone Watts in the Blue Mountains outside of Sydney , saw the plea for help and set to work turning pillow cases into beds for bats or flying foxes .
“ I looked at the list of what is most needed versus my fairly basic sewing capability and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Watts said .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Jan 6 (Reuters) - Knitting needles are clicking furiously around the world to create hundreds of protective pouches and blankets for native wildlife made homeless by Australian wildfires that have razed large swathes of bushland.
The Animal Rescue Craft Guild said on Monday it has been deluged with offers of help after putting out a call for volunteers to make bat wraps, joey pouches, birds nests, possum boxes, koala mittens and other snuggly homes for marsupials.
Advertisement
Donations to the volunteer-run group have come in from as far afield as the United States, Britain, Hong Kong, France and Germany.
“It’s been going crazy,” Belinda Orellana, a founding member of the guild, told Reuters. “The response has been amazing.”
Blazes across Australia in recent weeks have scorched through 8 million hectares of bushland, an area the size of Austria.
Advertisement
Some experts estimates put the number of animals, including domestic pets and livestock, killed as high as half a billion, with potentially hundreds of thousands of injured and displaced native wildlife.
“It’s the poor little souls that survived where we come in,” said Orellana. “Our group creates and supplies items to rescue groups and carers around the country who take in and care for the wildlife.”
Orellana said the guild supplied thousands of rescue groups around the country and demand was growing, adding there was an urgent need for fabric donations.
Originally formed a few months ago to make dog and cat beds and coats for animal pounds, the guild’s Facebook page has 75,000 members. Many of the crafters have crocheted, knitted and sewed a range of items including koala mittens for burned paws and pouches for infant “joey” kangaroos who have lost their mothers.
The Animal Rescue Craft Guild said on Monday it has been deluged with offers of help after putting out a call for volunteers to make bat wraps, joey pouches, birds nests, possum boxes, koala mittens and other snuggly homes for marsupials. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Advertisement
Lara Mackay, a new volunteer who lives in New Zealand, has just made her first makeshift joey pouch, which she enlisted her cat to test out at home.
“I’m planning to make as many as possible and am asking fabric outlets for fabric donations to sew,” Mackay told Reuters.
In Singapore, Leslie Kok was working on her fourth joey pouch and meeting up with other volunteers to share materials and tips.
“I will knit as long as there is a need for the pouches,” Kok said.
Closer to the fires, Simone Watts in the Blue Mountains outside of Sydney, saw the plea for help and set to work turning pillow cases into beds for bats or flying foxes.
“I looked at the list of what is most needed versus my fairly basic sewing capability and decided I could contribute the bat wraps,” Watts said.
Advertisement


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Julián Castro Endorses Elizabeth Warren For President

Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro , who dropped out of the 2020 Democratic race last week , endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president on Monday .
“ There ’ s one candidate I can see who ’ s unafraid to fight like hell to make sure America ’ s promise will be there for everyone ― who will make sure that no matter where you live in America or where your family came from in the world , you have a path to opportunity , too , ” Castro said in a video endorsement .
Castro dropped out of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismay of some Democrats who thought he was one of the few candidates speaking on behalf of people of color .
Castro and Warren offered similar policy proposals .
Both back a form of Medicare for All and advocated the need for racial justice .
Throughout his campaign , Castro sought to appeal to the Democratic Party ’ s progressive members , routinely criticizing front-runner Joe Biden for policies Castro deemed harmful to Americans .
Castro served with Biden in the Obama administration , but he often differentiated his political stances from Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s vision was not to leave 10 million people uncovered , ” by health insurance , Castro told Biden during a debate in September .
“ He wanted every single person in this country covered .
My plan would do that .
Your plan would not.
” But Castro ’ s campaign failed to gain traction .
In the waning weeks of his campaign , Castro voiced his concerns about the lack of diversity in the Democratic field .
“ What we ’ re staring at is a DNC debate stage with no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Castro said ahead of the debate .
“ That does not reflect the diversity of our party or our country .
We need to do better than that.
” CORRECTION : A previous version incorrectly stated all of the participants in the December Democratic debate were white .
Andrew Yang , who is Asian American , also participated .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Housing Secretary Julián Castro, who dropped out of the 2020 Democratic race last week, endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Warren for president on Monday.
“There’s one candidate I can see who’s unafraid to fight like hell to make sure America’s promise will be there for everyone ― who will make sure that no matter where you live in America or where your family came from in the world, you have a path to opportunity, too,” Castro said in a video endorsement.
Advertisement
“That’s why I’m proud to endorse Elizabeth Warren for president,” he added.
Castro dropped out of the race on Jan. 2, to the dismay of some Democrats who thought he was one of the few candidates speaking on behalf of people of color.
Castro and Warren offered similar policy proposals. Both back a form of Medicare for All and advocated the need for racial justice.
Throughout his campaign, Castro sought to appeal to the Democratic Party’s progressive members, routinely criticizing front-runner Joe Biden for policies Castro deemed harmful to Americans. Castro served with Biden in the Obama administration, but he often differentiated his political stances from Biden’s.
“Barack Obama’s vision was not to leave 10 million people uncovered,” by health insurance, Castro told Biden during a debate in September. “He wanted every single person in this country covered. My plan would do that. Your plan would not.”
Advertisement
But Castro’s campaign failed to gain traction. In the waning weeks of his campaign, Castro voiced his concerns about the lack of diversity in the Democratic field.
“What we’re staring at is a DNC debate stage with no people of color on it,” Castro said ahead of the debate.
“That does not reflect the diversity of our party or our country. We need to do better than that.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--New York Governor Pledges $45 Million To Protect Religious Facilities From Hate

Cuomo announced the funding at an interfaith solidarity march across Brooklyn Bridge on Sunday , following a flurry of anti-Semitic violence that erupted in New York before and during Hanukkah .
The funds will be distributed to religious institutions through a state grant program that Cuomo established in 2017 to boost security at nonprofit schools , day care centers , community centers , museums , and residential camps that are vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks because of their “ ideology , beliefs , or mission.
” The grants give each eligible facility up to $ 50,000 for security training , cameras @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other related upgrades .
Since the program ’ s creation , more than 500 projects have been supported by $ 25 million in state funding , according to a statement from the governor ’ s office .
“ Everyone today says the same thing : No hate in our state , period , ” Cuomo said on Sunday .
“ We won ’ t tolerate it , we condemn it , we stand united against it and we are going to act against it.
” It ’ s not clear that this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein ( D ) , a Hasidic lawmaker from Brooklyn , tweeted on Sunday evening that the same $ 45 million was already approved in the state budget adopted last spring .
He requested additional funding .
Fool me once ... @ NYGovCuomo announced this same funding over and over as if it ’ s new .
This is the same $ 45 million that we passed in the budget last year .
We need additional security funding for schools and houses of worship .
https : //t.co/73WHrLMOah — Simcha @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2020 Sunday ’ s interfaith march was an organized response to a spate of anti-Semitic attacks that broke out in New York and New Jersey in recent weeks .
Last month , a man wielding a machete burst into a Hasidic rabbi ’ s home in Monsey , New York , during a Hanukkah celebration , leaving six people with serious injuries .
The suspect is facing state charges of attempted murder and federal charges for hate crimes .
In addition , Hasidic Jews , who belong to a branch of Orthodox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Brooklyn in recent months .
A flurry of attacks over Hanukkah highlighted the harassment ― people were punched , slapped and subjected to anti-Semitic slurs while walking through their neighborhoods .
Reports of anti-Semitic hate crimes increased by 18 % percent in New York City last year , according to police data obtained by The New York Times .
Thousands of people gathered in Manhattan ’ s Foley Square to begin Sunday ’ s protest march , including such high-profile New York politicians as U.S. Sens .
Chuck Schumer ( D ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio ( D ) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D ) .
The march , which was organized by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups , proceeded across the Brooklyn Bridge , with participants chanting , “ No hate , no fear.
” Speaking at Sunday ’ s rally , Jonathan Greenblatt , CEO of the Anti-Defamation League , said the rise in anti-Semitic violence across the country over the last few years is “ terrifying.
” No matter what denomination of Judaism someone belongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are all part of the same Jewish family and an attack on one Jew is an attack on all Jews .
”

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) said Sunday that New York state has allocated $45 million to protect faith-based institutions, including private schools and cultural centers, against hate crimes.
Cuomo announced the funding at an interfaith solidarity march across Brooklyn Bridge on Sunday, following a flurry of anti-Semitic violence that erupted in New York before and during Hanukkah.
Advertisement
The funds will be distributed to religious institutions through a state grant program that Cuomo established in 2017 to boost security at nonprofit schools, day care centers, community centers, museums, and residential camps that are vulnerable to hate-fueled attacks because of their “ideology, beliefs, or mission.” The grants give each eligible facility up to $50,000 for security training, cameras, better lighting, door hardening and other related upgrades. Since the program’s creation, more than 500 projects have been supported by $25 million in state funding, according to a statement from the governor’s office.
Cuomo also announced the creation of a state telephone and text hotline for people to call if they experience discrimination: 1-877-NO-HATE-NY.
“Everyone today says the same thing: No hate in our state, period,” Cuomo said on Sunday. “We won’t tolerate it, we condemn it, we stand united against it and we are going to act against it.”
New York's top elected officials march across the Brooklyn Bridge during a Jewish solidarity march on Jan. 5, 2020. Steven Ferdman via Getty Images
Advertisement
It’s not clear that this is new money, however. New York state assemblyman Simcha Eichenstein (D), a Hasidic lawmaker from Brooklyn, tweeted on Sunday evening that the same $45 million was already approved in the state budget adopted last spring. He requested additional funding.
HuffPost has reached out to Cuomo’s team for comment.
Fool me once...@NYGovCuomo announced this same funding over and over as if it’s new.
This is the same $45 million that we passed in the budget last year.
We need additional security funding for schools and houses of worship. https://t.co/73WHrLMOah — Simcha Eichenstein (@SEichenstein) January 5, 2020
Sunday’s interfaith march was an organized response to a spate of anti-Semitic attacks that broke out in New York and New Jersey in recent weeks.
Last month, a man wielding a machete burst into a Hasidic rabbi’s home in Monsey, New York, during a Hanukkah celebration, leaving six people with serious injuries. The suspect is facing state charges of attempted murder and federal charges for hate crimes.
Earlier in December, an anti-Semitic attack in Jersey City, New Jersey ― which lies directly across the Hudson River from Manhattan ― left four victims dead.
Advertisement
In addition, Hasidic Jews, who belong to a branch of Orthodox Judaism, have faced numerous physical assaults in Brooklyn in recent months. A flurry of attacks over Hanukkah highlighted the harassment ― people were punched, slapped and subjected to anti-Semitic slurs while walking through their neighborhoods.
Reports of anti-Semitic hate crimes increased by 18% percent in New York City last year, according to police data obtained by The New York Times.
Cuomo said Sunday that state police will continue to maintain an increased presence in Orthodox Jewish neighborhoods across the state.
Thousands walk across the Brooklyn Bridge on Jan. 5, 2020, during a march protesting anti-Semitic hate crimes. Steven Ferdman via Getty Images
Thousands of people gathered in Manhattan’s Foley Square to begin Sunday’s protest march, including such high-profile New York politicians as U.S. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D), New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D). The march, which was organized by the Anti-Defamation League and other Jewish groups, proceeded across the Brooklyn Bridge, with participants chanting, “No hate, no fear.”
Advertisement
Speaking at Sunday’s rally, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, said the rise in anti-Semitic violence across the country over the last few years is “terrifying.”
No matter what denomination of Judaism someone belongs to, he said, “we are all part of the same Jewish family and an attack on one Jew is an attack on all Jews.”


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--The Business Sector Donald Trump Promised A Renaissance Is Tanking

Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to revive American manufacturing when he campaigned for the presidency .
But more than three years into Trump ’ s administration , factory activity has sunk to a 10-year low , battered by Trump ’ s trade war with China .
“ We will bring back our jobs .
We ’ ll bring back our wealth , and we will bring back our dreams , ” Trump said at his inauguration after promising a manufacturing “ renaissance.
” But a monthly index of manufacturing activity plunged in December to the lowest level since 2009 ― lower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fifth consecutive month of shrinking activity .
Demand continued to drop , with factories reporting the lowest level of new orders in more than a decade .
Manufacturing employment is at the lowest since the start of 2016 .
“ This is a seriously weak report , and we see little chance of a sustained near-term recovery , ” Ian Shepherdson , chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics , wrote in a note to clients .
The expected “ phase one ” trade deal with China this month will still leave 25 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That means American manufacturers will continue to pay higher costs for imported parts .
Shepherdson sees little chance of a comprehensive deal to eliminate the tariffs before November ’ s election .
A study released in December by economists for the Federal Reserve found that the Trump trade war tariffs were linked to reductions in manufacturing employment and increases in producer prices .
The “ small positive effect ” of protective tariffs to keep foreign competitors at bay was more than offset by the rising costs of imports and retaliatory tariffs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ noted that Trump ’ s trade war fails to recognize the sophisticated interconnection of global supply chains that benefits U.S. companies .

Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to revive American manufacturing when he campaigned for the presidency. But more than three years into Trump’s administration, factory activity has sunk to a 10-year low, battered by Trump’s trade war with China.
“We will bring back our jobs. We’ll bring back our wealth, and we will bring back our dreams,” Trump said at his inauguration after promising a manufacturing “renaissance.”
Advertisement
But a monthly index of manufacturing activity plunged in December to the lowest level since 2009 ― lower than analysts had predicted. December was the fifth consecutive month of shrinking activity.
Demand continued to drop, with factories reporting the lowest level of new orders in more than a decade. Manufacturing employment is at the lowest since the start of 2016.
“This is a seriously weak report, and we see little chance of a sustained near-term recovery,” Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, wrote in a note to clients.
The expected “phase one” trade deal with China this month will still leave 25% tariffs on key imports, Shepherdson noted. That means American manufacturers will continue to pay higher costs for imported parts. Shepherdson sees little chance of a comprehensive deal to eliminate the tariffs before November’s election.
Advertisement
A study released in December by economists for the Federal Reserve found that the Trump trade war tariffs were linked to reductions in manufacturing employment and increases in producer prices. The “small positive effect” of protective tariffs to keep foreign competitors at bay was more than offset by the rising costs of imports and retaliatory tariffs, the study found.
The economists also noted that Trump’s trade war fails to recognize the sophisticated interconnection of global supply chains that benefits U.S. companies.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Lincoln Chafee Files To Run For President As Libertarian

Former Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee has filed to run for president as a Libertarian .
The former governor of @ @ @ @ @ the “ Lincoln Chafee For President ” campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission , @ @ @ @ @ fundraising website linked to the FEC filing states , “ Lincoln Leads with TRUTH.
” @ @ @ @ @ year and joined the Libertarian Party .
He was a Republican in the U.S. Senate @ @ @ @ @ losing his seat in 2006 .
Chafee was then elected Rhode Island governor in 2010 @ @ @ @ @ a Democrat in office .
He did not run for reelection but mounted a short-lived @ @ @ @ @ nomination in 2015 .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
Former Democratic presidential candidate Lincoln Chafee has filed to run for president as a Libertarian.
The former governor of Rhode Island on Sunday registered the “Lincoln Chafee For President” campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission, online records showed.
Advertisement
A fundraising website linked to the FEC filing states, “Lincoln Leads with TRUTH.”
Chafee moved to Wyoming last year and joined the Libertarian Party.
He was a Republican in the U.S. Senate and became an independent after losing his seat in 2006.
Chafee was then elected Rhode Island governor in 2010 as an independent and became a Democrat in office.


thehuffingtonpost--2020-01-06--Nancy Pelosi: House Will Vote On Resolution To Curb Trump's War Powers This Week

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ( D-Calif. ) announced on Sunday that the chamber will vote this week on a new war powers resolution meant to limit President Donald Trump ’ s military actions against Iran following an escalation in tensions with the country .
“ As Members of Congress , our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe , ” Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats .
“ For this reason , we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress ’ s war powers granted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It reasserts Congress ’ s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken , the Administration ’ s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days , ” Pelosi wrote .
Senate Democrats also are demanding justification and transparency on Trump ’ s actions .
In a letter late Sunday , Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ( D-N.Y. ) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Bob Menendez ( D-N.J. ) called on the president to declassify the notification Congress received about last week ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
“ It is critical that national security matters of such import be shared with the American people in a timely manner , ” the senators wrote .
“ An entirely classified notification is simply not appropriate in a democratic society , and there appears to be no legitimate justification for classifying this notification.
” Trump escalated the United States ’ conflict with Iran last week after he ordered the assassination of Soleimani , one of the most powerful military figures in the Middle East .
The U.S. airstrike on the Baghdad International @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sparked international condemnation and promises of sharp retribution from Tehran .
On Saturday , Trump informed Congress of the drone strike , as was required by the War Powers Act .
However , Pelosi railed against the administration ’ s claims for ordering the strike , saying it raised “ more questions than it answers.
” Pelosi noted she had “ serious and urgent questions about the timing , manner and justification of the administration ’ s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran.
” These Media Posts will serve as notification to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strike any U.S. person or target , the United States will quickly & fully strike back , & perhaps in a disproportionate manner .
Such legal notice is not required , but is given nevertheless !
— Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) January 5 , 2020 Trump also said the U.S. had selected 52 important sites in Iran that it was willing to strike , including cultural landmarks , warning Iran not to retaliate for the killing .
Under international law , purposely destroying a nation ’ s cultural sites could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for its part , has vowed to respond to the assassination in a “ crushing and powerful manner ” and said Sunday it would end all remaining commitments to limit nuclear fuel production as part of the Iran nuclear deal .

LOADING ERROR LOADING
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced on Sunday that the chamber will vote this week on a new war powers resolution meant to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions against Iran following an escalation in tensions with the country.
“As Members of Congress, our first responsibility is to keep the American people safe,” Pelosi wrote in a letter to House Democrats. “For this reason, we are concerned that the Administration took this action without the consultation of Congress and without respect for Congress’s war powers granted to it by the Constitution.”
Advertisement
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues that the chamber will vote this week on a new war powers resolution meant to limit President Donald Trump’s military actions against Iran. ASSOCIATED PRESS
Pelosi said the resolution mirrored a similar effort in the Senate introduced by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
“It reasserts Congress’s long-established oversight responsibilities by mandating that if no further Congressional action is taken, the Administration’s military hostilities with regard to Iran cease within 30 days,” Pelosi wrote.
Senate Democrats also are demanding justification and transparency on Trump’s actions. In a letter late Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) called on the president to declassify the notification Congress received about last week’s airstrike that killed Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
Advertisement
“It is critical that national security matters of such import be shared with the American people in a timely manner,” the senators wrote. “An entirely classified notification is simply not appropriate in a democratic society, and there appears to be no legitimate justification for classifying this notification.”
Trump escalated the United States’ conflict with Iran last week after he ordered the assassination of Soleimani, one of the most powerful military figures in the Middle East. The U.S. airstrike on the Baghdad International Airport in Iraq that killed Soleimani has sparked international condemnation and promises of sharp retribution from Tehran.
On Saturday, Trump informed Congress of the drone strike, as was required by the War Powers Act. However, Pelosi railed against the administration’s claims for ordering the strike, saying it raised “more questions than it answers.” Pelosi noted she had “serious and urgent questions about the timing, manner and justification of the administration’s decision to engage in hostilities against Iran.”
Trump appeared to respond to the criticism on Sunday via Twitter:
These Media Posts will serve as notification to the United States Congress that should Iran strike any U.S. person or target, the United States will quickly & fully strike back, & perhaps in a disproportionate manner. Such legal notice is not required, but is given nevertheless! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2020
Trump also said the U.S. had selected 52 important sites in Iran that it was willing to strike, including cultural landmarks, warning Iran not to retaliate for the killing. Under international law, purposely destroying a nation’s cultural sites could be considered a war crime.
Advertisement
Iran, for its part, has vowed to respond to the assassination in a “crushing and powerful manner” and said Sunday it would end all remaining commitments to limit nuclear fuel production as part of the Iran nuclear deal.