rawstory--2020-01-14--Trump scorched for his lies about pre-existing conditions: he has been ‘pressing for full repeal’

On Tuesday , Minnesota Public Radio fact-checked President Donald Trump ’ s latest claims about health care — and utterly demolished them .
“ I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare , you have it now , while at the same time winning the fight to rid you of the expensive , unfair and very unpopular Individual Mandate , ” Trump tweeted on Monday , prompted by a series of brutal ads placed by presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg laying out how the president was undermining health coverage for millions of Americans .
“ People with preexisting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of President Barack Obama ’ s health care law , which Trump is trying to dismantle , ” stated MPR .
Furthermore , the “ short-term ” plans Trump is pushing as his alternative to the ACA marketplace do not cover preexisting conditions , and neither they nor the “ association health plans ” Trump has expanded “ appears to have made much difference in the market.
” Additionally , noted MPR , “ Trump ’ s administration has been pressing in court for full repeal of the Obama-era law , including provisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health insurance discrimination … Before the Affordable Care Act , any insurer could deny coverage — or charge more — to anyone with a preexisting condition who was seeking to buy an individual policy.
” You can read more here .

On Tuesday, Minnesota Public Radio fact-checked President Donald Trump's latest claims about health care — and utterly demolished them.
"I was the person who saved Pre-Existing Conditions in your Healthcare, you have it now, while at the same time winning the fight to rid you of the expensive, unfair and very unpopular Individual Mandate," Trump tweeted on Monday, prompted by a series of brutal ads placed by presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg laying out how the president was undermining health coverage for millions of Americans.
"People with preexisting medical problems have health insurance protections because of President Barack Obama's health care law, which Trump is trying to dismantle," stated MPR. Furthermore, the "short-term" plans Trump is pushing as his alternative to the ACA marketplace do not cover preexisting conditions, and neither they nor the "association health plans" Trump has expanded "appears to have made much difference in the market."
Additionally, noted MPR, "Trump's administration has been pressing in court for full repeal of the Obama-era law, including provisions that protect people with preexisting conditions from health insurance discrimination ... Before the Affordable Care Act, any insurer could deny coverage — or charge more — to anyone with a preexisting condition who was seeking to buy an individual policy."
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Fox & Friends host warns US headed to civil war over actor Vince Vaughn chatting with Trump

A “ Fox & Friends ” host suggested the U.S. was headed to another civil war because of public outrage @ @ @ @ @ to President Donald Trump .
Writer Timothy Burke uploaded a video of the actor and @ @ @ @ @ at Monday night ’ s 2020 College Football National Championship game in New Orleans , @ @ @ @ @ were troubled by the reaction , reported Mediaite .
“ Unless America talks to the @ @ @ @ @ just talk to each other , this is going to be a country — they @ @ @ @ @ country right in half , right down the Mississippi , ” said host Steve Doocy @ @ @ @ @ once , ” Kilmeade said .
“ Well , they did , ” Doocy added @ @ @ @ @ s what we are going to .
If you can ’ t talk to each @ @ @ @ @ big trouble .
”

A "Fox & Friends" host suggested the U.S. was headed to another civil war because of public outrage over actor Vince Vaughn speaking to President Donald Trump.
Writer Timothy Burke uploaded a video of the actor and president shaking hands and chatting at Monday night's 2020 College Football National Championship game in New Orleans, and the Fox News hosts were troubled by the reaction, reported Mediaite.
“Unless America talks to the other side and we can just talk to each other, this is going to be a country — they might as well split the country right in half, right down the Mississippi,” said host Steve Doocy.
Co-host Brian Kilmeade agreed.
“We tried that once,” Kilmeade said.
“Well, they did," Doocy added, "but that’s what we are going to. If you can’t talk to each other, we are in big trouble.”


rawstory--2020-01-14--Surging ten points, Sanders takes lead over Biden, Warren in California tracking poll

Since Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out last month , “ Sanders appears to have gained almost all of [ her ] former supporters in California.
” With a ten-point jump since November , Sen. Bernie Sanders has surged to the lead in a California tracking poll less than two months before the state ’ s Democratic primary on Super Tuesday—March 3 .
The tracking poll Public Policy Institute of California , which was last conducted in November , shows Sanders leading with support of 27 percent of likely Democratic primary voters , followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 23 percent .
With a margin of error of 6.5 percent , the poll revealed a statistically tight race among the top three candidates—though fourth place was occupied by former South Bend , Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg who garnered just 6 percent .
The most striking feature in the trends was that while support for Warren and Biden has plateaued since Sen. Kamala Harrris , who represents California , dropped out in early December , Sanders experienced a significant surge .
“ Sanders appears to have gained almost all of Kamala ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Hill ‘ s Krystal Ball in response .
As other polls in California and nationwide have also shown , the California survey points to a massive advantage for Sanders among the youth vote while Biden—and to a lesser extent Warren—do better with older voters .
“ Among younger voters ( age 18–44 ) , Sanders ( 45 % ) has much more support than Warren ( 25 % ) and Biden ( 12 % ) , ” the PPIC noted , “ while voters age 45 and older favor Biden ( 32 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and Sanders ( 15 % ) .
”

Since Sen. Kamala Harris dropped out last month, "Sanders appears to have gained almost all of [her] former supporters in California."
With a ten-point jump since November, Sen. Bernie Sanders has surged to the lead in a California tracking poll less than two months before the state's Democratic primary on Super Tuesday—March 3.
The tracking poll Public Policy Institute of California, which was last conducted in November, shows Sanders leading with support of 27 percent of likely Democratic primary voters, followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with 24 percent and Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 23 percent.
With a margin of error of 6.5 percent, the poll revealed a statistically tight race among the top three candidates—though fourth place was occupied by former South Bend, Indiana mayor Pete Buttigieg who garnered just 6 percent. The most striking feature in the trends was that while support for Warren and Biden has plateaued since Sen. Kamala Harrris, who represents California, dropped out in early December, Sanders experienced a significant surge.
"Sanders appears to have gained almost all of Kamala's former supporters in California," tweetedThe Hill's Krystal Ball in response.
As other polls in California and nationwide have also shown, the California survey points to a massive advantage for Sanders among the youth vote while Biden—and to a lesser extent Warren—do better with older voters.
"Among younger voters (age 18–44), Sanders (45%) has much more support than Warren (25%) and Biden (12%)," the PPIC noted, "while voters age 45 and older favor Biden (32%) over Warren (22%) and Sanders (15%)."


rawstory--2020-01-14--Harry, Meghan criticized after royal crisis summit

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan faced fresh criticism on Tuesday in the wake an emergency royal meeting to discuss their shock announcement to step back from frontline royal duties .
British newspapers raked over Tuesday ’ s meeting at which Queen Elizabeth II agreed to allow the young couple to split their time between Canada and the UK until a solution was found .
“ It means only one thing — Harry and Meghan have won !
” royal commentator Philip Dampier wrote in the Daily Express .
“ They metaphorically held a gun to her head and she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s editorial said : “ Our Queen ’ s surrender to the petulant , selfish demands of Harry and Meghan may prove the biggest mistake of her reign .
“ This couple have simply raised the bar for self-obsessed , arrogant entitlement.
” The Daily Mirror said the monarch “ displayed a selflessness sadly lacking from the way Harry and Meghan have disrespectfully treated her ” .
The final decisions on the couple ’ s future will be thrashed out in the coming days .
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announced last week they were stepping back as senior royals and wanted financial independence from the monarchy .
The pair , who have a baby son , Archie , have hinted in recent months at their unhappiness about life in the public eye and Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he understood their concerns .
“ I am a massive fan… of the queen and the royal family as a fantastic asset for our country , ” he told BBC television .
“ I ’ m absolutely confident that they are going to sort @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , summoned her eldest son and heir Prince Charles , and his two sons Princes William and Harry to her Sandringham estate in eastern England for crisis talks on Monday .
Meghan was in Canada after briefly returning to Britain last week .
In a rare personal statement afterwards , the monarch said the discussions were “ very constructive ” but admitted the Sussexes ’ decision was not what she would have wanted .
“ My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan ’ s desire to create a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the royal family , we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.
” The queen said the Sussexes made clear they did not want to be reliant on public funds , while a transition period had been agreed in which they will spend time in Canada and Britain .
“ These are complex matters for my family to resolve , and there is some more work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days , ” the sovereign said .
Harry , 35 , is sixth in line to the throne behind 71-year-old Charles , William , 37 , and his brother ’ s three young children .
Meghan , 38 , a mixed-race American who had forged her own television acting career , was seen as a breath of fresh air for the royal family when she married Harry at Windsor Castle in May 2018 .
But in October last year the couple admitted to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Archie ’ s birth in May 2019 .
The couple have lashed out at negative press coverage since their marriage , with Harry claiming British tabloids had mounted a “ ruthless ” and “ malicious ” attempt to vilify his wife .
Online and television debate has raged since Wednesday over whether tabloid coverage had been racist towards the duchess .
A YouGov poll suggested that while 46 percent of respondents supported the couple ’ s decision , 57 percent thought they had treated the queen unfairly in their way of going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be funded is one of the key issues to resolve .
Five percent of the couple ’ s income comes from public funds .
The rest comes from Charles ’ Duchy of Cornwall hereditary private estate .
It dates back to 1337 and has officially reported assets worth £1.1 billion ( $ 1.4 billion , 1.3 billion euros ) .
Besides Britain , Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of Canada and 14 other countries .
The Canadian government has yet to decide whether it will assume the security costs when Harry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday .
Canadian taxpayers have traditionally contributed towards the security costs of royal visits .

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan faced fresh criticism on Tuesday in the wake an emergency royal meeting to discuss their shock announcement to step back from frontline royal duties.
British newspapers raked over Tuesday's meeting at which Queen Elizabeth II agreed to allow the young couple to split their time between Canada and the UK until a solution was found.
"It means only one thing -- Harry and Meghan have won!" royal commentator Philip Dampier wrote in the Daily Express. "They metaphorically held a gun to her head and she has given in."
The Sun tabloid's editorial said: "Our Queen's surrender to the petulant, selfish demands of Harry and Meghan may prove the biggest mistake of her reign.
"This couple have simply raised the bar for self-obsessed, arrogant entitlement."
The Daily Mirror said the monarch "displayed a selflessness sadly lacking from the way Harry and Meghan have disrespectfully treated her".
The Daily Telegraph called the decision "The Queen's reluctant farewell".
The final decisions on the couple's future will be thrashed out in the coming days.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as they are formally known, unilaterally announced last week they were stepping back as senior royals and wanted financial independence from the monarchy.
The pair, who have a baby son, Archie, have hinted in recent months at their unhappiness about life in the public eye and Prime Minister Boris Johnson said he understood their concerns.
"I am a massive fan... of the queen and the royal family as a fantastic asset for our country," he told BBC television. "I'm absolutely confident that they are going to sort this out."
- 'Complex matters' -
Queen Elizabeth, 93, summoned her eldest son and heir Prince Charles, and his two sons Princes William and Harry to her Sandringham estate in eastern England for crisis talks on Monday.
Meghan was in Canada after briefly returning to Britain last week.
In a rare personal statement afterwards, the monarch said the discussions were "very constructive" but admitted the Sussexes' decision was not what she would have wanted.
"My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life," she said.
"Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the royal family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family."
The queen said the Sussexes made clear they did not want to be reliant on public funds, while a transition period had been agreed in which they will spend time in Canada and Britain.
"These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days," the sovereign said.
- Racism to blame? -
Harry, 35, is sixth in line to the throne behind 71-year-old Charles, William, 37, and his brother's three young children.
Meghan, 38, a mixed-race American who had forged her own television acting career, was seen as a breath of fresh air for the royal family when she married Harry at Windsor Castle in May 2018.
But in October last year the couple admitted to struggling with the spotlight following their wedding and Archie's birth in May 2019.
The couple have lashed out at negative press coverage since their marriage, with Harry claiming British tabloids had mounted a "ruthless" and "malicious" attempt to vilify his wife.
Online and television debate has raged since Wednesday over whether tabloid coverage had been racist towards the duchess.
A YouGov poll suggested that while 46 percent of respondents supported the couple's decision, 57 percent thought they had treated the queen unfairly in their way of going about it.
- Finding funding -
How the Sussexes will be funded is one of the key issues to resolve. Five percent of the couple's income comes from public funds.
The rest comes from Charles' Duchy of Cornwall hereditary private estate. It dates back to 1337 and has officially reported assets worth £1.1 billion ($1.4 billion, 1.3 billion euros).
The British police meets their security costs.
Besides Britain, Queen Elizabeth is the head of state of Canada and 14 other countries.
The Canadian government has yet to decide whether it will assume the security costs when Harry and Meghan are in Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Monday.
Canadian taxpayers have traditionally contributed towards the security costs of royal visits.
© 2020 AFP


rawstory--2020-01-14--Trump-loving National Enquirer officials knew they were committing ‘electoral fraud’ during frantic

Trump-loving National Enquirer officials knew they were committing ‘electoral fraud’ during frantic Stormy Daniels negotiations: report

In an excerpt from their book “ The Fixers : The Bottom-Feeders , Crooked Lawyers , Gossipmongers , and Porn Stars Who Created the 45th President , ” authors Joe Palazzolo and Michael Rothfeld reveal executives at American Media ’ s National Enquirer were well aware that they were about to commit fraud as they were negotiating the price to “ catch and kill ” adult film star Stormy Daniels ’ story of her affair with Donald Trump .
The excerpt , published by the Daily Beast notes that Daniels ’ s agent , Gina Rodriguez , had been shopping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including “ Good Morning , America ” just prior to the 2016 election but was finding no takers .
Until the infamous “ Access Hollywood ” tape was released .
“ The media frenzy breathed oxygen into Daniels ’ s flagging efforts to sell the story of her own Trump tryst .
Extramarital sex with a porn star , even one who ’ d slept with Trump willingly , would still damage his fading chances .
Her agent , Gina Rodriguez , had already begun talks about Daniels with Good Morning America .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they were a card Rodriguez could now play , ” the authors wrote .
“ On Saturday , October 8 , following the worst day of Trump ’ s campaign , Rodriguez , Dylan Howard , then the editor of American Media ’ s National Enquirer , and lawyer Keith Davidson began a series of conversations about Stormy Daniels that would last into the night .
They realized her story was more marketable now than it had been when Rodriguez first pitched Howard in April , before the Access Hollywood tape placed Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national spotlight .
According to the authors , Davidson texted Howard that afternoon , writing “ Trump is f*cked , ” with Howard replying , “ Wave the white flag .
It ’ s over people !
” What followed were days of frantic negotiations , after Howard admitted that his boss , Trump pal David Pecker , “ … likely will pay.
” At that point Trump fixer , attorney Michael Cohen , and campaign aide Hope Hicks were brought into the fray .
“ On that Saturday night in London , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Trump , followed by a call with Hicks alone .
Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape , this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013 .
Hicks had been told that TMZ might have access to the tape , and she knew that Cohen was close to Harvey Levin , the gossip outlet ’ s founder , ” the report states .
“ The Moscow tape was bad , but it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a more immediate problem .
He learned from Pecker and Howard that Daniels was still shopping her story .
Cohen , Pecker , and Howard exchanged a series of calls after Cohen got off the phone with Hicks .
“ As negotiations began , Howard was told the price for Daniels ’ story was $ 250K , with Rodriguez insisting that multiple outlets were bidding on it — which turned out to not be true .
“ ’ Woman wants 120k .
Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the denials were made in the past—but this story is true .
I can lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter and we can assess next steps thereafter .
Ok ? '
” Howard texted .
“ ‘ We can ’ t pay 120k , ’ Pecker texted back .
Howard realized that Daniels would be Cohen and Trump ’ s problem now , ” the report continues .
According to the authors , “ Three days after a video of Trump talking about grabbing women by their genitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Davidson had a deal .
Cohen reluctantly agreed to match the offer he believed Daniels had from another company , and , in return , Daniels would sign a contract barring her from discussing her alleged one-night stand with Trump .
American Media ’ s payment to Karen McDougal and involvement in the Stormy Daniels deal would bring the publisher to the brink of criminal prosecution by federal authorities in Manhattan .
But Pecker , Howard and American Media avoided charges by cooperating with the federal prosecutors , who used their information against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ personal risk he had taken in helping Trump , in a series of previously unreported text messages sent on election night , ” the reports states before noting that the editor indulged in some dark — but possibly appropriate — humor on election night .
“ At least if he wins , I ’ ll be pardoned for electoral fraud , ” Howard texted .
You can read more here .

In an excerpt from their book "The Fixers: The Bottom-Feeders, Crooked Lawyers, Gossipmongers, and Porn Stars Who Created the 45th President," authors Joe Palazzolo and Michael Rothfeld reveal executives at American Media’s National Enquirer were well aware that they were about to commit fraud as they were negotiating the price to "catch and kill" adult film star Stormy Daniels' story of her affair with Donald Trump.
The excerpt, published by the Daily Beast notes that Daniels's agent, Gina Rodriguez, had been shopping the story around to various outlets, including "Good Morning, America" just prior to the 2016 election but was finding no takers. Until the infamous "Access Hollywood" tape was released.
"The media frenzy breathed oxygen into Daniels’s flagging efforts to sell the story of her own Trump tryst. Extramarital sex with a porn star, even one who’d slept with Trump willingly, would still damage his fading chances. Her agent, Gina Rodriguez, had already begun talks about Daniels with Good Morning America. They weren’t advanced, but they were a card Rodriguez could now play," the authors wrote. "On Saturday, October 8, following the worst day of Trump’s campaign, Rodriguez, Dylan Howard, then the editor of American Media’s National Enquirer, and lawyer Keith Davidson began a series of conversations about Stormy Daniels that would last into the night. They realized her story was more marketable now than it had been when Rodriguez first pitched Howard in April, before the Access Hollywood tape placed Trump’s treatment of women in the national spotlight.
According to the authors, Davidson texted Howard that afternoon, writing “Trump is f*cked,” with Howard replying, “Wave the white flag. It’s over people!”
What followed were days of frantic negotiations, after Howard admitted that his boss, Trump pal David Pecker, "... likely will pay."
At that point Trump fixer, attorney Michael Cohen, and campaign aide Hope Hicks were brought into the fray.
"On that Saturday night in London, Cohen had a conference call with Hicks and Trump, followed by a call with Hicks alone. Hicks had heard from another campaign aide that a rumor was circulating of another tape, this one of Trump cavorting with prostitutes in Moscow during a trip there for the Miss Universe pageant in 2013. Hicks had been told that TMZ might have access to the tape, and she knew that Cohen was close to Harvey Levin, the gossip outlet’s founder," the report states. "The Moscow tape was bad, but it was just a rumor. Cohen had a more immediate problem. He learned from Pecker and Howard that Daniels was still shopping her story. Cohen, Pecker, and Howard exchanged a series of calls after Cohen got off the phone with Hicks. "
As negotiations began, Howard was told the price for Daniels' story was $250K, with Rodriguez insisting that multiple outlets were bidding on it -- which turned out to not be true.
“'Woman wants 120k. Has offers from Mail and GMA want her to talk and do lie detector live. I know the denials were made in the past—but this story is true. I can lock it on publication now to shut down the media chatter and we can assess next steps thereafter. Ok?'" Howard texted. "'We can’t pay 120k,' Pecker texted back. Howard realized that Daniels would be Cohen and Trump’s problem now," the report continues.
According to the authors, "Three days after a video of Trump talking about grabbing women by their genitals entered the public domain, Cohen and Davidson had a deal. Cohen reluctantly agreed to match the offer he believed Daniels had from another company, and, in return, Daniels would sign a contract barring her from discussing her alleged one-night stand with Trump. American Media’s payment to Karen McDougal and involvement in the Stormy Daniels deal would bring the publisher to the brink of criminal prosecution by federal authorities in Manhattan. But Pecker, Howard and American Media avoided charges by cooperating with the federal prosecutors, who used their information against Michael Cohen."
"Howard acknowledged the personal risk he had taken in helping Trump, in a series of previously unreported text messages sent on election night," the reports states before noting that the editor indulged in some dark -- but possibly appropriate -- humor on election night.
“At least if he wins, I’ll be pardoned for electoral fraud,” Howard texted.
You can read more here.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Rupert Murdoch’s son rips Fox News for pushing falsehoods about Australian wildfires

Rupert Murdoch ’ s younger son and his wife launched an attack on News Corporation for promoting conspiracy theories about Australia ’ s devastating wildfires .
Columnists and broadcasters from News Corp Australia — which dominates the country ’ s media — have questioned climate change ’ s role in the fires and downplayed the devastation , and James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn condemned the family business , reported The Daily Beast .
“ Kathryn and James ’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a spokesperson for the couple .
“ They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.
” James Murdoch is CEO of the investment firm Lupa Systems but sits on the board of News Corp , which publishes more than 140 newspapers in Australia , and his brother Lachlan runs the Fox News Channel in the U.S. “ They are pissing inside the tent and that ’ s unusual , ” said a longtime News Corp executive .
“ It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the family over climate change .
The majority of people who work here agree with James .
We are hoping this may be the tipping point .
”

Rupert Murdoch's younger son and his wife launched an attack on News Corporation for promoting conspiracy theories about Australia's devastating wildfires.
Columnists and broadcasters from News Corp Australia -- which dominates the country's media -- have questioned climate change's role in the fires and downplayed the devastation, and James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn condemned the family business, reported The Daily Beast.
“Kathryn and James’ views on climate are well established and their frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage of the topic is also well known,” said a spokesperson for the couple. “They are particularly disappointed with the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia given obvious evidence to the contrary.”
James Murdoch is CEO of the investment firm Lupa Systems but sits on the board of News Corp, which publishes more than 140 newspapers in Australia, and his brother Lachlan runs the Fox News Channel in the U.S.
“They are pissing inside the tent and that’s unusual," said a longtime News Corp executive. "It’s evidence of how high tensions are within the family over climate change. The majority of people who work here agree with James. We are hoping this may be the tipping point."


rawstory--2020-01-14--Six children died in Border Patrol care. Democrats in Congress want to know why.

Video obtained by ProPublica contradicted the Border Patrol ’ s account of 16-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez ’ s death .
Now , House Democrats are pressuring the agency to explain why six migrant children died under its care in less than a year .
After a ProPublica investigation into the death of a teenager in Border Patrol custody , House Democrats are ramping up pressure on the Trump administration to explain how six migrant children died after entering the U.S. “ I find it appalling that ( Customs and Border Protection ) has still not taken responsibility for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” said Rep. Bennie Thompson , D-Miss.
, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee .
Thompson said that while some of the children ’ s deaths may not have been preventable , Customs and Border Protection , the federal agency that first deals with children who cross the border , seems “ all too quick to pat themselves on the back for their handling of children last year .
These deaths happened under their watch .
I remain skeptical that real changes have been made.
” The Homeland Security border subcommittee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the administration ’ s efforts to treat sick migrant children .
The six who died in government custody between September 2018 and May 2019 were the first such deaths in a decade .
ProPublica ’ s December investigation into the death of Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez , a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in a South Texas Border Patrol cell , raised concerns about actions by Border Patrol agents and contract medical personnel and whether the agency was truthful about the circumstances of the teenager ’ s death .
The boy died on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 , and a surveillance video obtained by ProPublica showed he was left alone for hours as his illness worsened .
Carlos was the last of six children to die .
Three children died from flu-related complications , one died of a massive bacterial infection and two died from chronic conditions they had before crossing the border , according to autopsies and other medical reports .
A spokesperson for CBP , the Border Patrol ’ s parent agency , said the department has made sweeping changes at the border in the past year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any given day at 40 border stations , up from 20 trained medical providers in December 2018 , the spokesperson said .
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General in late December issued one-page findings on the December 2018 deaths of two Guatemalan children .
Investigators “ found no misconduct or malfeasance by DHS personnel ” in the deaths of Jakelin Caal Maquin , 7 , and Felipe Gomez Alonzo , 8 .
“ The inspector general ’ s one-page summaries on the investigation into the December 2018 deaths are clearly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a full accounting of how the investigation took place and how the inspector general came to its conclusions , ” Thompson said .
The inspector general rejected Thompson ’ s criticism , saying the agency has fully briefed his staff on the investigations .
“ We stand by our investigations .
On Jan. 10 , 2019 , the Office of the Inspector General provided the Committee on Homeland Security staff a comprehensive briefing on both investigations and our conclusions .
We have also provided the complete reports of investigation to the committee , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” inspector general spokeswoman Erica Paulson said .
She said complete reports can ’ t be made public because of privacy laws .
A committee spokesman said the inspector general ’ s office has declined to testify at Tuesday ’ s hearing .
Jakelin died of streptococcal sepsis two days after she and her father crossed the border in remote southwest New Mexico .
Felipe died of flu complications six days after he and his father crossed the border in El Paso , Texas .
The DHS inspector general continues to investigate Carlos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complications in a cell in Weslaco , Texas , a week after crossing the border .
The DHS inspector general is not investigating the deaths of three children who died after being released from Border Patrol custody , a CBP spokesperson said .
Two of those children — a 10-year-old Salvadoran girl in September 2018 and a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy in April 2019 — died after being sent from Border Patrol to the Office of Refugee Resettlement , which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services .
No autopsies were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for each was listed as a chronic condition that predated their arrival .
An HHS spokesman didn ’ t respond to questions about whether that agency was investigating the deaths of those two children .
The sixth death involved a 2-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in El Paso in May , several weeks after he and his mother crossed the border .
Both were released from custody while he was in the hospital .
An autopsy found that the boy , Wilmer Josue Ramirez Vasquez , died of the flu and other respiratory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ six children who died were taken into custody by the Border Patrol ’ s El Paso sector .
Rep. Veronica Escobar , an El Paso Democrat , said Trump administration officials have refused to provide her with information on the deaths of the migrant children , citing the need to protect internal investigations .
Escobar in July asked DHS and CBP to preserve videos of border detention facilities since December 2018 and asked for copies of videos of the detention of children and adults who died in custody .
In November , Acting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Escobar telling her that videos are routinely erased .
Morgan said the agency ’ s policy “ does not specifically outline video recording standards.
” He said that because of limited storage capacity , the agencies ’ video systems overwrite recordings every 30 to 60 days .
Morgan said videos are preserved for investigations “ where a death in custody occurred in a CBP controlled space.
” Carlos was the only child to die in a CBP facility ; the others died after being transferred to outside medical facilities .
“ It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my request that the videos be preserved isn ’ t being followed , ” Escobar said .
She added that other records of the deaths haven ’ t been provided by the Trump administration to Congress , which may have to use its subpoena power to obtain them .
ProPublica obtained video of Carlos ’ death through a request under Texas open records laws to the Weslaco Police Department , which briefly investigated the boy ’ s death .
CBP provided video of Carlos ’ cell from the morning of his death to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an unexplained gap of more than four hours .
On Dec. 30 , CBP released a new medical directive on the care of migrants in custody .
The policy replaces an interim plan created in January 2019 in the wake of the deaths of Jakeline and Felipe .
“ We take our responsibility to provide adequate health care to everyone in our custody extremely seriously and will continue to make adjustments and improvements as the situation changes , ” the agency said in a statement .
But a leading public health expert said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is essentially meaningless .
“ What they ’ re saying in the press statement makes it sound like things are moving and going on , but in the official document there ’ s nothing there to be able to parse out to say what are they truly going to do , ” said Dr. Paul Spiegel , director of the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins University .
The directive calls for agents to tell migrants to report if they ’ re feeling sick .
In a second phase , Border @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to all migrants under 18 .
In a third phase , if funding is available , all children under 12 would get a medical assessment .
In the fiscal year 2020 funding bill for DHS that passed in December , Congress directed CBP to develop a medical policy that included clear metrics to determine if detention conditions were creating a public health crisis .
The “ explanatory statement ” for the appropriations bill also calls on CBP to develop a “ peer review process for deaths in custody.
” The Dec. 30 medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a review process when migrants die in custody .
The CBP spokesperson said the agency “ is working with DHS headquarters , multiple federal agencies and other stakeholders to address the items noted in the FY20 appropriations bill .
”

Video obtained by ProPublica contradicted the Border Patrol’s account of 16-year-old Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez’s death. Now, House Democrats are pressuring the agency to explain why six migrant children died under its care in less than a year.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.
After a ProPublica investigation into the death of a teenager in Border Patrol custody, House Democrats are ramping up pressure on the Trump administration to explain how six migrant children died after entering the U.S.
“I find it appalling that (Customs and Border Protection) has still not taken responsibility for the deaths of children in their care,” said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
Thompson said that while some of the children’s deaths may not have been preventable, Customs and Border Protection, the federal agency that first deals with children who cross the border, seems “all too quick to pat themselves on the back for their handling of children last year. These deaths happened under their watch. I remain skeptical that real changes have been made.”
The Homeland Security border subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine the administration’s efforts to treat sick migrant children. The six who died in government custody between September 2018 and May 2019 were the first such deaths in a decade.
ProPublica’s December investigation into the death of Carlos Gregorio Hernandez Vasquez, a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in a South Texas Border Patrol cell, raised concerns about actions by Border Patrol agents and contract medical personnel and whether the agency was truthful about the circumstances of the teenager’s death. The boy died on the floor of his cell on May 20, and a surveillance video obtained by ProPublica showed he was left alone for hours as his illness worsened.
Carlos was the last of six children to die. Three children died from flu-related complications, one died of a massive bacterial infection and two died from chronic conditions they had before crossing the border, according to autopsies and other medical reports.
A spokesperson for CBP, the Border Patrol’s parent agency, said the department has made sweeping changes at the border in the past year. About 300 contract medical personnel work any given day at 40 border stations, up from 20 trained medical providers in December 2018, the spokesperson said.
The Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General in late December issued one-page findings on the December 2018 deaths of two Guatemalan children. Investigators “found no misconduct or malfeasance by DHS personnel” in the deaths of Jakelin Caal Maquin, 7, and Felipe Gomez Alonzo, 8.
“The inspector general’s one-page summaries on the investigation into the December 2018 deaths are clearly insufficient. Congress has yet to get a full accounting of how the investigation took place and how the inspector general came to its conclusions,” Thompson said.
The inspector general rejected Thompson’s criticism, saying the agency has fully briefed his staff on the investigations.
“We stand by our investigations. On Jan. 10, 2019, the Office of the Inspector General provided the Committee on Homeland Security staff a comprehensive briefing on both investigations and our conclusions. We have also provided the complete reports of investigation to the committee, per the chairman’s request,” inspector general spokeswoman Erica Paulson said. She said complete reports can’t be made public because of privacy laws.
A committee spokesman said the inspector general’s office has declined to testify at Tuesday’s hearing.
Jakelin died of streptococcal sepsis two days after she and her father crossed the border in remote southwest New Mexico. Felipe died of flu complications six days after he and his father crossed the border in El Paso, Texas.
The DHS inspector general continues to investigate Carlos’ death. He died of flu complications in a cell in Weslaco, Texas, a week after crossing the border.
The DHS inspector general is not investigating the deaths of three children who died after being released from Border Patrol custody, a CBP spokesperson said.
Two of those children — a 10-year-old Salvadoran girl in September 2018 and a 16-year-old Guatemalan boy in April 2019 — died after being sent from Border Patrol to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. No autopsies were conducted, but the cause of death for each was listed as a chronic condition that predated their arrival.
An HHS spokesman didn’t respond to questions about whether that agency was investigating the deaths of those two children.
The sixth death involved a 2-year-old Guatemalan boy who died in El Paso in May, several weeks after he and his mother crossed the border. Both were released from custody while he was in the hospital. An autopsy found that the boy, Wilmer Josue Ramirez Vasquez, died of the flu and other respiratory and intestinal infections.
Four of the six children who died were taken into custody by the Border Patrol’s El Paso sector. Rep. Veronica Escobar, an El Paso Democrat, said Trump administration officials have refused to provide her with information on the deaths of the migrant children, citing the need to protect internal investigations.
Escobar in July asked DHS and CBP to preserve videos of border detention facilities since December 2018 and asked for copies of videos of the detention of children and adults who died in custody. In November, Acting CBP Commissioner Mark Morgan sent a letter to Escobar telling her that videos are routinely erased.
Morgan said the agency’s policy “does not specifically outline video recording standards.” He said that because of limited storage capacity, the agencies’ video systems overwrite recordings every 30 to 60 days.
Morgan said videos are preserved for investigations “where a death in custody occurred in a CBP controlled space.” Carlos was the only child to die in a CBP facility; the others died after being transferred to outside medical facilities.
“It’s disappointing, obviously, that my request that the videos be preserved isn’t being followed,” Escobar said. She added that other records of the deaths haven’t been provided by the Trump administration to Congress, which may have to use its subpoena power to obtain them.
ProPublica obtained video of Carlos’ death through a request under Texas open records laws to the Weslaco Police Department, which briefly investigated the boy’s death. CBP provided video of Carlos’ cell from the morning of his death to Weslaco police, though the video included an unexplained gap of more than four hours.
On Dec. 30, CBP released a new medical directive on the care of migrants in custody. The policy replaces an interim plan created in January 2019 in the wake of the deaths of Jakeline and Felipe.
“We take our responsibility to provide adequate health care to everyone in our custody extremely seriously and will continue to make adjustments and improvements as the situation changes,” the agency said in a statement.
But a leading public health expert said the medical directive is so vague that it is essentially meaningless.
“What they’re saying in the press statement makes it sound like things are moving and going on, but in the official document there’s nothing there to be able to parse out to say what are they truly going to do,” said Dr. Paul Spiegel, director of the Center for Humanitarian Health at Johns Hopkins University.
The directive calls for agents to tell migrants to report if they’re feeling sick. In a second phase, Border Patrol agents would provide a health interview to all migrants under 18. In a third phase, if funding is available, all children under 12 would get a medical assessment.
In the fiscal year 2020 funding bill for DHS that passed in December, Congress directed CBP to develop a medical policy that included clear metrics to determine if detention conditions were creating a public health crisis. The “explanatory statement” for the appropriations bill also calls on CBP to develop a “peer review process for deaths in custody.” The Dec. 30 medical directive doesn’t mention metrics or a review process when migrants die in custody.
The CBP spokesperson said the agency “is working with DHS headquarters, multiple federal agencies and other stakeholders to address the items noted in the FY20 appropriations bill.”
by Robert Moore, special to ProPublica


rawstory--2020-01-14--What US election officials could learn from Australia about boosting voter turnout

Not every country is plagued by rules that limit voters ’ participation in elections , as is common in the United States .
In the past five years , restrictions on voting and voter registration purges have limited the number of Americans eligible to cast ballots .
In addition , the U.S. is the only major democracy that still allows politicians to draw their own district lines , an often-criticized conflict of interest in which public officials essentially pick their voters , rather than the voters picking their officials .
That computer-aided gerrymandering of electoral districts reduces the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low voter turnout .
Perhaps the fundamental problem , though , is that the system yields results the people don ’ t actually want .
Twice in the last two decades , U.S. voters chose a president , George W. Bush and Donald Trump , who got fewer votes than his rival , Al Gore and Hillary Clinton .
All these problems are avoidable and don ’ t happen in countries that have different voting laws .
Perhaps the best example is Australia , a country which is culturally , demographically and socioeconomically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ book “ Rethinking U.S. Election Law , ” written while I lived and studied their system Down Under , I outline many of the ways Australia has solved voting quandaries that persist in the U.S. Australia ’ s most strikingly different law requires voting .
All Australians must register to vote and actually cast a ballot .
Not voting means a small fine ( AU $ 20 , or about US $ 14 ) will be imposed .
Australians don ’ t have to actually vote for a candidate : They can leave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the above ” or even draw a picture – but they do have to turn in a ballot .
As a result , Australia enjoys voter registration and turnout rates over 90 % .
Voting is easier in Australia than in the U.S.. All voters can cast their ballots by mail , vote in person ahead of Election Day or show up to the polls on Election Day itself – which is always on a Saturday , when most people are off from work .
A different way of counting Australia ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ important ways .
For its House elections , Australia uses what is called “ preferential voting , ” a form of ranked-choice voting .
Voters are allowed to rank their candidates in order of preference – 1st , 2nd , 3rd and so on .
If a candidate ’ s first-choice votes add up to a majority of the overall ballots cast , that candidate wins , just like in any other system .
If no one wins a majority of the votes cast , the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ redistributed according to these voters ’ second choices .
This process of eliminating candidates and redistributing those candidates ’ supporters continues until one candidate has a majority .
This system eliminates what is at times called the “ spoiler ” problem in U.S. elections , where too many similar candidates split the majority ’ s vote , allowing a less-preferred candidate to win with a minority of the votes cast .
For instance , in 2000 , people could have voted for Ralph Nader while also showing that they would have preferred either @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Al Gore or George W. Bush .
Even with ranked-choice voting , any system where a single representative is elected for each district is vulnerable to gerrymandering .
The lines can be drawn to give one party more seats than its mathematical vote share warrants .
To reduce that problem , Australia ’ s election districts are drawn by the Australian Electoral Commission , a politically independent commission of nonpartisan technical experts .
It ’ s well respected for being nonpartisan , with a good track record of keeping politics out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Australian Electoral Commission isn ’ t perfect .
As I detail in my book , like-minded people naturally cluster together in communities .
That creates what some scholars have called “ unintentional gerrymandering.
” In the U.S. , for example , Democratic voters overconcentrated in urban areas are unavoidably consolidated into districts with large Democratic supermajorities .
That partially explains why , until recently , Republicans controlled the Virginia state legislature for years , even as Democrats won all the statewide and presidential elections .
One way to fix the problem of gerrymandering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to move away from the concept of “ winner-take-all ” elections , in which 51 % of the votes yields 100 % of the power .
In that system , significant minority voting blocs end up with no representation , leading to frustration and alienation .
For legislative elections , one potential solution could be proportional representation , in which a party earning 30 % of the vote receives approximately 30 % of the seats available .
Rather than “ winner take all , ” this is “ majority takes most , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ representation systems don ’ t have single-member districts , like having one congressperson per congressional district .
Rather , representatives are elected either at-large or in multi-member districts .
With districting eliminated , gerrymandering becomes impossible .
Australia uses this system for its Senate , using a different form of ranked-choice voting called the single transferable vote .
Like the single-winner ranked-choice voting used in Australia ’ s House , if no candidate wins enough first-place votes to get a seat , weaker candidates are eliminated and their votes transferred to others based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single transferable vote systems also reallocate what might be called “ surplus ” votes of winning candidates – extra votes beyond what candidates need to actually win – to ensure a more proportionate result .
Proportional representation allows third parties to thrive , giving voters more choices .
Australia offers a natural experiment between methods : For the last half-century , Australian voters nationwide have chosen single-member House representatives and used proportional representation to elect its Senate .
The result is that the Green Party consistently gets about 10 % of the national @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House .
However , in the Senate it gets about 10 % of the seats , giving it a voice in the legislative debate .
The difference is the move from winner-take-all in the House to proportional representation in the Senate .
In addition , major parties vie to get second-choice support from Green Party backers , so the Greens ’ concerns have real influence over national policies .
All these ideas – voting by mail , early voting , Saturday voting , ranked-choice voting , an independent redistricting commission and proportional representation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inclusive and representative than in the U.S. [ You ’ re smart and curious about the world .
So are The Conversation ’ s authors and editors .
You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter . ]
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Not every country is plagued by rules that limit voters’ participation in elections, as is common in the United States.
In the past five years, restrictions on voting and voter registration purges have limited the number of Americans eligible to cast ballots.
In addition, the U.S. is the only major democracy that still allows politicians to draw their own district lines, an often-criticized conflict of interest in which public officials essentially pick their voters, rather than the voters picking their officials. That computer-aidedgerrymandering of electoral districts reduces the number of districts with competitive races, contributing to low voter turnout.
Perhaps the fundamental problem, though, is that the system yields results the people don’t actually want. Twice in the last two decades, U.S. voters chose a president, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, who got fewer votes than his rival, Al Gore and Hillary Clinton.
All these problems are avoidable and don’t happen in countries that have different voting laws. Perhaps the best example is Australia, a country which is culturally, demographically and socioeconomically similar to the U.S. In my book “Rethinking U.S. Election Law,” written while I lived and studied their system Down Under, I outline many of the ways Australia has solved voting quandaries that persist in the U.S.
Mandatory voting, made easy
Screenshot from Royal Bank of Australia, CC BY-ND
Australia’s most strikingly different law requires voting. All Australians must register to vote and actually cast a ballot. Not voting means a small fine (AU$20, or about US$14) will be imposed.
Australians don’t have to actually vote for a candidate: They can leave it blank, write in “none of the above” or even draw a picture – but they do have to turn in a ballot. As a result, Australia enjoys voter registration and turnout rates over 90%.
Voting is easier in Australia than in the U.S.. All voters can cast their ballots by mail, vote in person ahead of Election Day or show up to the polls on Election Day itself – which is always on a Saturday, when most people are off from work.
A different way of counting
Hshook/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Australia’s vote-counting rules are also different in important ways.
For its House elections, Australia uses what is called “preferential voting,” a form of ranked-choice voting.
Voters are allowed to rank their candidates in order of preference – 1st, 2nd, 3rd and so on. If a candidate’s first-choice votes add up to a majority of the overall ballots cast, that candidate wins, just like in any other system.
If no one wins a majority of the votes cast, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and their supporters’ votes are redistributed according to these voters’ second choices. This process of eliminating candidates and redistributing those candidates’ supporters continues until one candidate has a majority.
This system eliminates what is at times called the “spoiler” problem in U.S. elections, where too many similar candidates split the majority’s vote, allowing a less-preferred candidate to win with a minority of the votes cast. For instance, in 2000, people could have voted for Ralph Nader while also showing that they would have preferred either of the other two candidates for president, Al Gore or George W. Bush.
Independent redistricting
Even with ranked-choice voting, any system where a single representative is elected for each district is vulnerable to gerrymandering. The lines can be drawn to give one party more seats than its mathematical vote share warrants.
To reduce that problem, Australia’s election districts are drawn by the Australian Electoral Commission, a politically independent commission of nonpartisan technical experts.
It’s well respected for being nonpartisan, with a good track record of keeping politics out of the redistricting process.
But even the Australian Electoral Commission isn’t perfect. As I detail in my book, like-minded people naturally cluster together in communities. That creates what some scholars have called “unintentional gerrymandering.” In the U.S., for example, Democratic voters overconcentrated in urban areas are unavoidably consolidated into districts with large Democratic supermajorities. That partially explains why, until recently, Republicans controlled the Virginia state legislature for years, even as Democrats won all the statewide and presidential elections.
Erinthecute/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA
Proportional representation
One way to fix the problem of gerrymandering – whether intentional or otherwise – is to move away from the concept of “winner-take-all” elections, in which 51% of the votes yields 100% of the power. In that system, significant minority voting blocs end up with no representation, leading to frustration and alienation.
For legislative elections, one potential solution could be proportional representation, in which a party earning 30% of the vote receives approximately 30% of the seats available. Rather than “winner take all,” this is “majority takes most, and minorities take their fair share.”
Proportional representation systems don’t have single-member districts, like having one congressperson per congressional district. Rather, representatives are elected either at-large or in multi-member districts. With districting eliminated, gerrymandering becomes impossible. Australia uses this system for its Senate, using a different form of ranked-choice voting called the single transferable vote.
Like the single-winner ranked-choice voting used in Australia’s House, if no candidate wins enough first-place votes to get a seat, weaker candidates are eliminated and their votes transferred to others based on second and third choices. But single transferable vote systems also reallocate what might be called “surplus” votes of winning candidates – extra votes beyond what candidates need to actually win – to ensure a more proportionate result.
Proportional representation allows third parties to thrive, giving voters more choices. Australia offers a natural experiment between methods: For the last half-century, Australian voters nationwide have chosen single-member House representatives and used proportional representation to elect its Senate.
The result is that the Green Party consistently gets about 10% of the national vote, but zero seats in the House. However, in the Senate it gets about 10% of the seats, giving it a voice in the legislative debate. The difference is the move from winner-take-all in the House to proportional representation in the Senate. In addition, major parties vie to get second-choice support from Green Party backers, so the Greens’ concerns have real influence over national policies.
All these ideas – voting by mail, early voting, Saturday voting, ranked-choice voting, an independent redistricting commission and proportional representation – make Australia’s democracy more inclusive and representative than in the U.S.
[ You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter. ]
Steven Mulroy, Law Professor in Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Election Law, University of Memphis
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


rawstory--2020-01-14--Why it’s wrong to refer to the ‘cult of Trump’

The recent events in Iran have led many to rail against a supposed “ Trump cult.
” But suggestions that supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump are exhibiting cult-like behaviour isn ’ t helpful in an era of significant political polarization .
As those of us who study new religious movements often say , a cult is just a religion that you don ’ t like — and that pertains to political parties too .
Since Benjamin Zeller , an American scholar of new religious movements , published “ The Cult of Trump ?
What ‘ Cult Rhetoric ’ Actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump has spawned a cult are appearing more frequently in the media .
One journalist called upon his peers to “ to realize that when political parties and leaders begin behaving like a cult , we should think about reporting on them as such.
” And Steven Hassan , a former member of Sun Myung Moon ’ s Unification Church who is now a self-described cult deprogrammer , argues in a new book that Trump is a cult leader .
What does it accomplish to allege a Trump cult ?
Generally , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a sorely needed argumentative analysis of how voters generate their own political feelings , fantasies and attachments .
And this feeds the cycle of polarizing political identities and political institutions .
Examples from Twitter , the media and in Hassan ’ s The Cult of Trump highlight instructive differences in how the cult concept is being used — and its impact .
Hassan argues that Trump supporters have been “ brainwashed ” by a charismatic leader .
He sees them as deluded zealots who need his help to “ wake up from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach ignores their agency as well as decades of public education from organizations like INFORM , an independent educational charity that provides information about minority religions and has done important work on discrediting concepts of “ brainwashing , ” “ deprogramming ” and “ cults.
” It ’ s worth remembering that the suggestion that Republican leaders were “ chosen by God , ” as former energy secretary Rick Perry recently described Trump , is nothing new .
It was all the rage under George W. Bush and other Republican politicians who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rick Perry ’ s belief that Trump was chosen by God is shared by many in a fast-growing Christian movement Without question , Trump ’ s insistence that “ we have God on our side ” in the upcoming 2020 presidential election poses a problem for journalists and for public life .
But to describe the entire party as a cult lead by Trump is problematic .
If journalists are going to heed calls to refer to the party as a cult and its supporters as cultists , they must define what cult @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that a cult is some obvious phenomenon and everyone knows what the word means .
The term cult is used frequently by Trump critics on social media .
As he criticized former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley ’ s defence of the Confederate flag , one commentator tweeted : “ Pretty telling that it ’ s a rite of passage into the Cult of Trump and the modern Republican Party that you have to publicly legitimize the Confederacy , a racist , treasonous , nightmarish dystopia founded on white supremacy and stark economic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cult comparison is incidental to the commentator ’ s argument about Republican ideology and partisanship .
He isn ’ t arguing that Trumpism is a cult in any serious sense .
Cult serves as shorthand for Trump ’ s base that simply adds a rhetorical flourish to a condemnation of Trump supporters on the grounds of their political beliefs .
But whether literal or figurative , cult discourse hurts critics ’ ability to understand Trump ’ s appeal .
The cult diagnosis isn ’ t a reasoned argument , or even an objective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s no question Trump policies that hurt people and endanger the world should be denounced .
But the cult epithet doesn ’ t speak to those policies ; it draws a line between Trump opponents and Trump supporters .
And it oversimplifies the way people think and feel about their own beliefs and those on the other side of that line .
So why is it used so often ?
It turns out that avoiding the temptation to make in-groups and out-groups — meaning dividing social groups into those who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ don ’ t — is very difficult .
U.S. politics professor and author Lilliana Mason recently argued that it takes very little to activate a sense of group identity in people , and lead them to become hostile towards the out-group .
Indeed , the fact that we ’ re all susceptible to this kind of in-group/out-group thinking shows that politics is not just about reason , it is also about emotion .
Political emotions are often layered with religion for Trump-supporting evangelicals who believe in a tough love that will lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people as being under the sway of a cult misses what Trumpism offers them .
It therefore makes it harder to understand Trump ’ s power .
It also makes it more difficult to understand the circumstances of Trump supporters ’ lives .
It makes other people ’ s feelings seem foreign , when they may be fundamentally common .
In conclusion , while there are many legitimate ways to critique Trump , demonizing his voters doesn ’ t help us understand why they are attracted to him , how their worldview has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
[ Deep knowledge , daily .
Sign up for The Conversation ’ s newsletter . ]
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

The recent events in Iran have led many to rail against a supposed “Trump cult.”
But suggestions that supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump are exhibiting cult-like behaviour isn’t helpful in an era of significant political polarization.
As those of us who study new religious movements often say, a cult is just a religion that you don’t like — and that pertains to political parties too.
Since Benjamin Zeller, an American scholar of new religious movements, published “The Cult of Trump? What ‘Cult Rhetoric’ Actually Reveals” last fall, allegations that Trump has spawned a cult are appearing more frequently in the media.
One journalist called upon his peers to “to realize that when political parties and leaders begin behaving like a cult, we should think about reporting on them as such.”
There’s a #TrumpCult hashtag on social media platforms.
And Steven Hassan, a former member of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church who is now a self-described cult deprogrammer, argues in a new book that Trump is a cult leader.
What does it accomplish to allege a Trump cult?
Generally, it substitutes a value judgment in place of a sorely needed argumentative analysis of how voters generate their own political feelings, fantasies and attachments. And this feeds the cycle of polarizing political identities and political institutions.
‘Brainwashed’
Examples from Twitter, the media and in Hassan’s The Cult of Trump highlight instructive differences in how the cult concept is being used — and its impact.
Hassan argues that Trump supporters have been “brainwashed” by a charismatic leader. He sees them as deluded zealots who need his help to “wake up from the Cult of Trump.”
Hassan’s approach ignores their agency as well as decades of public education from organizations like INFORM, an independent educational charity that provides information about minority religions and has done important work on discrediting concepts of “brainwashing,” “deprogramming” and “cults.”
It’s worth remembering that the suggestion that Republican leaders were “chosen by God,” as former energy secretary Rick Perry recently described Trump, is nothing new. It was all the rage under George W. Bush and other Republican politicians who have catered to evangelicals.
Read more:
Rick Perry's belief that Trump was chosen by God is shared by many in a fast-growing Christian movement
Without question, Trump’s insistence that “we have God on our side” in the upcoming 2020 presidential election poses a problem for journalists and for public life.
But to describe the entire party as a cult lead by Trump is problematic. If journalists are going to heed calls to refer to the party as a cult and its supporters as cultists, they must define what cult means. Otherwise, they are assuming that a cult is some obvious phenomenon and everyone knows what the word means.
The term cult is used frequently by Trump critics on social media. As he criticized former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley’s defence of the Confederate flag, one commentator tweeted:
“Pretty telling that it’s a rite of passage into the Cult of Trump and the modern Republican Party that you have to publicly legitimize the Confederacy, a racist, treasonous, nightmarish dystopia founded on white supremacy and stark economic hierarchies.”
In this example, the cult comparison is incidental to the commentator’s argument about Republican ideology and partisanship. He isn’t arguing that Trumpism is a cult in any serious sense. Cult serves as shorthand for Trump’s base that simply adds a rhetorical flourish to a condemnation of Trump supporters on the grounds of their political beliefs.
Moral denunciation
But whether literal or figurative, cult discourse hurts critics’ ability to understand Trump’s appeal. The cult diagnosis isn’t a reasoned argument, or even an objective description: it’s moral denunciation.
There’s no question Trump policies that hurt people and endanger the world should be denounced. But the cult epithet doesn’t speak to those policies; it draws a line between Trump opponents and Trump supporters. And it oversimplifies the way people think and feel about their own beliefs and those on the other side of that line.
So why is it used so often?
It turns out that avoiding the temptation to make in-groups and out-groups — meaning dividing social groups into those who believe what we believe and those who don’t — is very difficult.
U.S. politics professor and author Lilliana Mason recently argued that it takes very little to activate a sense of group identity in people, and lead them to become hostile towards the out-group.
Indeed, the fact that we’re all susceptible to this kind of in-group/out-group thinking shows that politics is not just about reason, it is also about emotion. Political emotions are often layered with religion for Trump-supporting evangelicals who believe in a tough love that will lead to salvation for America.
(AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
To dismiss such people as being under the sway of a cult misses what Trumpism offers them. It therefore makes it harder to understand Trump’s power. It also makes it more difficult to understand the circumstances of Trump supporters’ lives. It makes other people’s feelings seem foreign, when they may be fundamentally common.
In conclusion, while there are many legitimate ways to critique Trump, demonizing his voters doesn’t help us understand why they are attracted to him, how their worldview has developed and how to do something about it.
[ Deep knowledge, daily.Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]
Sharday Mosurinjohn, Assistant Professor, Cultural and Religious Studies, Queen's University, Ontario
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


rawstory--2020-01-14--The long history and current consequences of the Iranian-American conflict

Understanding historical cause and effect can be difficult and contentious .
The downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 is a prime example .
While there ’ s now no question about the Iranian regime ’ s responsibility for attack , the broader blame game is ongoing .
Indeed , it is integral to Tehran ’ s defence in the face of international condemnation and increasing domestic unrest .
Historians trace the state of Iranian-American relations to 1953 , when the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup against Mohammed Mossadegh and installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a puppet ruler @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Revolution ensued , ultimately producing the authoritarian theocracy in power today .
Iran ’ s brutal war from 1980 to 1988 with neighbouring Iraq , then an American ally , helped to entrench the Islamist regime and fuelled further enmity with the U.S .
So too has constant American support for Israel and Saudi Arabia , and Iran ’ s wide-ranging “ proxy wars ” in the Middle East through militias and terrorist organizations .
More recently , the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq provided a lightning rod for conflict .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ while creating the conditions for the country ’ s expanded influence in the region through control of disaffected Shia .
The subsequent civil war in Syria , the rise of the Islamic State ( IS ) and the ongoing conflict in Yemen furthered opportunities for Tehran to project its power .
To be sure , there have been glimmers of hope for a better relationship over the years .
The so-called Green Movement in Iran in 2009 signalled that not all was well with the fundamentalist regime .
Support for reformists since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points to a more diverse , progressive society in Iran than is often imagined .
On the international stage , the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action ( better known as the Iran nuclear deal ) provided at least an initial framework for dialogue , however debatable its effectiveness .
But that process ended with the withdrawal from the protocol in 2018 by Donald Trump ’ s administration .
The more recent decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani , major general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ( IRGC ) and commander of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most important officials in the Iranian government — was an even more obvious hard turn away from any diplomacy with Tehran .
After many threats , that response was Iranian missile attacks on American military bases in Iraq .
It was an expected and relatively restrained response from a regime cornered between appearing tough in the face of American aggression and running the risk of a major military escalation with the U.S. that could conceivably imperil its very existence .
Read more : Iran vows revenge for Soleimani ’ s killing , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t seek direct confrontation with the US It is of course too early to know if that ’ s the extent of Tehran ’ s response .
Soleimani ’ s death is a major blow to Iranian operations in Iraq and Syria , where he served as the political and military point-man .
At the head of the Quds Force , he ran myriad clandestine operations through proxies in Lebanon , Palestine , Yemen and Afghanistan .
The U.S. ranked him as one of the most important terrorists in the world .
Soleimani @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , personal attack on the regime and particularly Iran ’ s theocracy .
Quite separate from the Iranian military , the IRGC answers directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei .
Historically , the IRGC has also been a kind of barometer of the regime ’ s integrity with the Iranian populace .
Initially the vanguard of the revolution , the IRGC came to epitomize the oppressive nature of clerical rule and had lost much of its support among Iranians .
Soleimani was key to its rehabilitation , especially in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Middle East .
His status as a national hero was premised largely on the notion that the IRGC was , once again , defending Iranian sovereignty : challenging the U.S. and its allies throughout the region .
In many respects he had tapped into an even deeper sense of Persian nationalism — he represented the legitimate regional aspirations of an ancient and proud people , long besieged by enemies on all fronts .
He was , to some degree , a symbol of unity in a fractured state .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ death to the downing of Flight PS752 , or to ultimately blame Washington as Iran now seeks to do .
But cause and effect still cast their shadows .
Clearly Iranian authorities feared military escalation from the U.S. after their reprisal for the assassination .
And clearly their fears were exacerbated by incompetency evident now on multiple levels , particularly the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority for not closing airspace over Tehran .
Most problematic for the regime is that the IRGC — the only unit with the Russian-made Tor system in question — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Admitting to the attack , especially after a series of vigorous denials , has humiliated the regime .
Evidenced by anti-government protests in Iran soon after its admission , it ’ s also exposed the leadership to precisely what it fears most : the domestic opposition it has been battling for years .
Often overlooked by Westerners in this calculation is the 1988 Iranian Airlines Flight 655 incident , when missiles from the USS Vincennes were mistakenly launched at the civilian jet , killing all on board .
That event became a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to carve a collective Iranian identity built principally on vehement anti-Americanism , and to consequently legitimize their own control .
Commemorated in speeches , educational curriculums , even postage stamps , Flight 655 reinforced notions that Iran was perpetually under attack .
Indeed , just a couple of days before the attack on Ukrainian International Airlines , tweets from senior Iranian officials reminded followers about Flight 655 .
Now , with Flight PS752 , Iran was the attacker .
Hypocrisies were revealed , and opportunities to exploit both domestic and international support in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So what about the United States ?
As Trump so quickly pointed out , the “ mistake ” most definitely came “ from the other side.
” But his decisions still loom large in a fair discussion of cause and effect .
There are serious questions about what went into the decision to kill Soleimani .
Parallels to Osama bin Laden are inevitable , but neither the context nor the consequences are analogous .
Attacks on Iranian interests have the potential of far greater , and faster , escalation than any involving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the initial rationale — that Soleimani was planning an “ imminent attack ” on U.S. interests — has changed .
Instead , Trump argued , the hit was for past actions .
That ’ s a very different calculation , especially in the eyes of public opinion .
Even if the assassination is still considered legitimate , questions about possible consequences seem to have been ignored .
Soleimani ’ s status as a national hero doesn ’ t seem to have registered .
A sophisticated understanding of the Iranian regime and its need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interests also seems to have been lacking .
Historical calculations were probably never even entertained in calculating what might happen after the hit .
In an administration notorious for its revolving door of senior officials and advisers , whose expertise was instrumental in making a decision of that magnitude ?
Was any sought at all ?
Regardless of any moral and ethical considerations , the assassination of Soleimani constitutes a dramatic escalation in a region already dangerously volatile , and it was arguably disproportionate to the threat he posed .
Questions about cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , either .
The 2012 decision by the government of Stephen Harper to cut diplomatic ties with Iran now significantly complicates Ottawa ’ s efforts to take part in the investigation of Flight PS752 and to best represent Canadian victims .
Read more : Canada ’ s non-diplomacy puts Canadians at risk in an unstable Middle East Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ’ s demands for a full , open , international investigation into the incident are helped by Iran ’ s belated admissions , but he can not expect the regime to fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ improvement in Iranian-Canadian relations remains a distant dream .
Perhaps even more important is the disturbing fact that Ottawa was left in the dark about Trump ’ s Soleimani intentions .
Especially with allies so close , it is customary — and necessary — to consult in matters of national security .
Canadians , both soldiers and civilians , who were potentially in danger in the region could have been warned if Ottawa had been informed .
It also raises serious questions about the current state of the Canada-U.S. relationship .
Trump ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evident disregard for Canada , is obvious .
Less clear is how the historically high degree of communication and integration between the two countries has changed under Trump ’ s watch .
Asked directly about whether he thought the U.S. bore some responsibility for the downing of PS752 , Trudeau said : “ I think it is too soon to be drawing conclusions or assigning blame or responsibility in whatever proportions.
” It was a quiet but obvious suggestion that the Trump administration was not above reproach in a great tragedy with significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smart and curious about the world .
So are The Conversation ’ s authors and editors .
You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter . ]
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license .
Read the original article .

Understanding historical cause and effect can be difficult and contentious. The downing of Ukrainian International Airlines Flight PS752 is a prime example.
While there’s now no question about the Iranian regime’s responsibility for attack, the broader blame game is ongoing. Indeed, it is integral to Tehran’s defence in the face of international condemnation and increasing domestic unrest.
Historians trace the state of Iranian-American relations to 1953, when the Central Intelligence Agency orchestrated a coup against Mohammed Mossadegh and installed Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as a puppet ruler for 25 years.
AP Photo, File
The 1978 Iranian Revolution ensued, ultimately producing the authoritarian theocracy in power today. Iran’s brutal war from 1980 to 1988 with neighbouring Iraq, then an American ally, helped to entrench the Islamist regime and fuelled further enmity with the U.S.
So too has constant American support for Israel and Saudi Arabia, and Iran’s wide-ranging “proxy wars” in the Middle East through militias and terrorist organizations.
More recently, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq provided a lightning rod for conflict. It simultaneously threatened Iran with perceived regime change while creating the conditions for the country’s expanded influence in the region through control of disaffected Shia.The subsequent civil war in Syria, the rise of the Islamic State (IS) and the ongoing conflict in Yemen furthered opportunities for Tehran to project its power.
Support for reformists
To be sure, there have been glimmers of hope for a better relationship over the years.
The so-called Green Movement in Iran in 2009 signalled that not all was well with the fundamentalist regime. Support for reformists since the late 1990s, while intermittent, also points to a more diverse, progressive society in Iran than is often imagined.
On the international stage, the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (better known as the Iran nuclear deal) provided at least an initial framework for dialogue, however debatable its effectiveness. But that process ended with the withdrawal from the protocol in 2018 by Donald Trump’s administration.
The more recent decision to assassinate Qassem Soleimani, major general of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and commander of the Quds Force — and one of the most important officials in the Iranian government — was an even more obvious hard turn away from any diplomacy with Tehran.
Soleimani’s murder necessitated a response from Iran.
After many threats, that response was Iranian missile attacks on American military bases in Iraq. It was an expected and relatively restrained response from a regime cornered between appearing tough in the face of American aggression and running the risk of a major military escalation with the U.S. that could conceivably imperil its very existence.
Read more:
Iran vows revenge for Soleimani's killing, but here's why it won't seek direct confrontation with the US
It is of course too early to know if that’s the extent of Tehran’s response. Soleimani’s death is a major blow to Iranian operations in Iraq and Syria, where he served as the political and military point-man. At the head of the Quds Force, he ran myriad clandestine operations through proxies in Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen and Afghanistan. The U.S. ranked him as one of the most important terrorists in the world.
Soleimani a national hero
Soleimani’s assassination was taken as a clear, personal attack on the regime and particularly Iran’s theocracy.
(Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader via AP)
Quite separate from the Iranian military, the IRGC answers directly to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Historically, the IRGC has also been a kind of barometer of the regime’s integrity with the Iranian populace.
Initially the vanguard of the revolution, the IRGC came to epitomize the oppressive nature of clerical rule and had lost much of its support among Iranians.
Soleimani was key to its rehabilitation, especially in the face of what many saw as American military adventurism in the Middle East.
His status as a national hero was premised largely on the notion that the IRGC was, once again, defending Iranian sovereignty: challenging the U.S. and its allies throughout the region. In many respects he had tapped into an even deeper sense of Persian nationalism — he represented the legitimate regional aspirations of an ancient and proud people, long besieged by enemies on all fronts. He was, to some degree, a symbol of unity in a fractured state.
It is dangerous to leap from Soleimani’s death to the downing of Flight PS752, or to ultimately blame Washington as Iran now seeks to do. But cause and effect still cast their shadows.
Iran feared further escalation
Clearly Iranian authorities feared military escalation from the U.S. after their reprisal for the assassination. And clearly their fears were exacerbated by incompetency evident now on multiple levels, particularly the Iranian Civil Aviation Authority for not closing airspace over Tehran.
Read more:
Flight PS752: A deadly combination of Iran's recklessness and incompetence
Most problematic for the regime is that the IRGC — the only unit with the Russian-made Tor system in question — ultimately bears responsibility for launching the missiles. Admitting to the attack, especially after a series of vigorous denials, has humiliated the regime.
Evidenced by anti-government protests in Iran soon after its admission, it’s also exposed the leadership to precisely what it fears most: the domestic opposition it has been battling for years.
Often overlooked by Westerners in this calculation is the 1988 Iranian Airlines Flight 655 incident, when missiles from the USS Vincennes were mistakenly launched at the civilian jet, killing all on board.
That event became a central pillar of the clerics’ attempts to carve a collective Iranian identity built principally on vehement anti-Americanism, and to consequently legitimize their own control.
AP Photo
Commemorated in speeches, educational curriculums, even postage stamps, Flight 655 reinforced notions that Iran was perpetually under attack. Indeed, just a couple of days before the attack on Ukrainian International Airlines, tweets from senior Iranian officials reminded followers about Flight 655.
Now, with Flight PS752, Iran was the attacker. Hypocrisies were revealed, and opportunities to exploit both domestic and international support in the face of American actions were lost.
Justification changes
So what about the United States? As Trump so quickly pointed out, the “mistake” most definitely came “from the other side.” But his decisions still loom large in a fair discussion of cause and effect.
There are serious questions about what went into the decision to kill Soleimani. Parallels to Osama bin Laden are inevitable, but neither the context nor the consequences are analogous.
Attacks on Iranian interests have the potential of far greater, and faster, escalation than any involving al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. And the initial rationale — that Soleimani was planning an “imminent attack” on U.S. interests — has changed. Instead, Trump argued, the hit was for past actions.
That’s a very different calculation, especially in the eyes of public opinion.
Even if the assassination is still considered legitimate, questions about possible consequences seem to have been ignored. Soleimani’s status as a national hero doesn’t seem to have registered. A sophisticated understanding of the Iranian regime and its need to respond to any attack on its interests also seems to have been lacking.
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
Historical calculations were probably never even entertained in calculating what might happen after the hit. In an administration notorious for its revolving door of senior officials and advisers, whose expertise was instrumental in making a decision of that magnitude? Was any sought at all?
Regardless of any moral and ethical considerations, the assassination of Soleimani constitutes a dramatic escalation in a region already dangerously volatile, and it was arguably disproportionate to the threat he posed.
Stephen Harper cut diplomatic ties
Questions about cause and effect don’t spare Canada, either. The 2012 decision by the government of Stephen Harper to cut diplomatic ties with Iran now significantly complicates Ottawa’s efforts to take part in the investigation of Flight PS752 and to best represent Canadian victims.
Read more:
Canada's non-diplomacy puts Canadians at risk in an unstable Middle East
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s demands for a full, open, international investigation into the incident are helped by Iran’s belated admissions, but he cannot expect the regime to fully comply in straightforward fashion. A significant improvement in Iranian-Canadian relations remains a distant dream.
Perhaps even more important is the disturbing fact that Ottawa was left in the dark about Trump’s Soleimani intentions. Especially with allies so close, it is customary — and necessary — to consult in matters of national security.
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Todd Korol
Canadians, both soldiers and civilians, who were potentially in danger in the region could have been warned if Ottawa had been informed. It also raises serious questions about the current state of the Canada-U.S. relationship.
Trump’s personal dislike of Trudeau, and evident disregard for Canada, is obvious. Less clear is how the historically high degree of communication and integration between the two countries has changed under Trump’s watch.
Asked directly about whether he thought the U.S. bore some responsibility for the downing of PS752, Trudeau said: “I think it is too soon to be drawing conclusions or assigning blame or responsibility in whatever proportions.”
It was a quiet but obvious suggestion that the Trump administration was not above reproach in a great tragedy with significant international consequences.
[ You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The Conversation’s authors and editors.You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter. ]
Arne Kislenko, Associate Professor of History, Ryerson University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.