|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
So Trump wants to keep America safe? The man doesn't even know that taking the federal funds eliminates Homeland Security and Police in those cities. These cities follow the immigration rules as to felonies and not petty misdemeanor cases.
Does Trump think trying to bankrupt California is going to ensure safety?
New York is praying they will be reimbursed the exorbitant cost of protecting Trump Tower. We are talking many millions! |
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 8:51 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Friday, Sep 30, 2016 05:01 AM CDT
Idiocracy now: Donald Trump and the Dunning-Kruger effect — when stupid people don’t know they are stupid
Trump is not merely ignorant. He is also supremely confident and feels superior — the most dangerous kind of idiot
Topics: 2016 Elections, Donald Trump, Psychology, Republican Party, Republicans, Elections News, News, Politics News
Idiocracy now: Donald Trump and the Dunning-Kruger effect — when stupid people don't know they are stupid
(Credit: AP/John Locher)
Donald Trump is a political brawler. He is also a raconteur, a self-styled maverick, a political “outsider,” an adult male adolescent and the drunk guy at the local bar who picks fights with strangers by yelling racial and ethnic slurs or harassing women.
As I watched Hillary Clinton pummel Donald Trump during Monday’s debate, it occurred to me that beyond being merely unprepared to be president of the United States — see also Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson and his inability to answer basic questions about international politics — that Trump is, in fact, supremely confident in his ignorance and sense of intellectual superiority over other people.
This is the psychological concept known as the “Dunning-Kruger” effect — put very simply, when stupid people don’t know that they are stupid — in action.
Writing for Pacific Standard, psychologist David Dunning explained it as:
In many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize — scratch that, cannot recognize — just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers — and we are all poor performers at some things — fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack. What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.
VideoTrump Deposition Video
Sound familiar? Trump’s first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton was replete with examples of this phenomenon.
Trump believes that the United States could have defeated ISIS by stealing other Middle Eastern countries’ oil in the form of a bounty. Beyond being militarily impractical it is also a violation of international law.
As Trump has said:
“Or, as I’ve been saying for a long time, and I think you’ll agree, because I said it to you once, had we taken the oil — and we should have taken the oil — ISIS would not have been able to form either, because the oil was their primary source of income. And now they have the oil all over the place, including the oil — a lot of the oil in Libya, which was another one of her disasters.”
Trump does not understand cyber warfare or espionage. Yet, he persists in making references to “400-pound” hackers sitting on their beds and his child’s skill with computers.
And Trump has also said:
“So we have to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is — it is a huge problem. I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.”
Trump believes that China should invade North Korea in order to create more stability in the region. China is a sponsor of North Korea. Both countries are also armed with nuclear weapons.
The Republican presidential nominee has stated:
“I think that once the nuclear alternative happens, it’s over. At the same time, we have to be prepared. I can’t take anything off the table. Because you look at some of these countries, you look at North Korea, we’re doing nothing there. China should solve that problem for us. China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea. And by the way, another one powerful is the worst deal I think I’ve ever seen negotiated that you started is the Iran deal. Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran has power over North Korea. And when they made that horrible deal with Iran, they should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea. And they should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places.”
Trump actually believes that Clinton, a former secretary of state and U.S. senator, lacks “basic ability” as compared to him, a man who has no experience in politics or public policy. This is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
He has said:
“And she doesn’t say that, because she’s got no business ability. We need heart. We need a lot of things. But you have to have some basic ability. And sadly, she doesn’t have that. All of the things that she’s talking about could have been taken care of during the last 10 years, let’s say, while she had great power. But they weren’t taken care of. And if she ever wins this race, they won’t be taken care of.”
Yet despite such incompetence, Trump remains in a virtual tie with Hillary Clinton, and is several weeks from potentially being elected President of the United States. This is both a scathing indictment of the right-wing political elites that paved the way for Trump’s ascendance as well as his “basket of deplorables” — members of the public with racial resentment who are more compelled to vote for a reality TV star than they are to uphold civic virtue and the common good.
A democracy does not need to elect a person who fits the mold of Plato’s philosopher king in order to be healthy and successful. For example, the United States has had presidents who were intemperate (Lyndon Johnson), lacked preparation (Ronald Reagan) and overwhelmed by the demands of the office (George W. Bush). But Trump is something different. He is a fascist who wallows in his ignorance and stupidity about public affairs and then willfully confuses such attributes with wisdom and intellectual acumen.
The weeks between now and Election Day will provide an opportunity for Trump to demonstrate if he is ready to do the hard work — and yes, studying and preparation required — to be president of the United States of America.
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to successfully do this. To borrow from one of my favorite movies, “Star Wars,” on Nov. 8, the American people will have to ask themselves, “Who’s the more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?”
A vote for Trump is an indictment of one’s intelligence. Trump’s voters, sad proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect themselves, are pointing a dagger at the heart of the republic.
Chauncey DeVega is a politics staff writer for Salon. His essays can also be found at Chaunceydevega.com. He also hosts a weekly podcast, The Chauncey DeVega Show. Chauncey can be followed on Twitter and Facebook. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:00 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Detroit News
Some Mich. Republicans assail Trump’s immigration order
Melissa Nann Burke , Detroit News Washington Bureau Published 8:58 a.m. ET Jan. 29, 2017 | Updated 9:24 a.m. ET Jan. 30, 2017
2016 323369099-
Some Michigan Republicans criticized President Donald Trump’s immigration ban over the weekend, joining Democrats in arguing that temporarily denying entry to citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries is unwise and unconstitutional.
Trump’s directive also suspended the entry of all refugees to the United States for 120 days and to Syrian refugees indefinitely.
The director of Gov. Rick Snyder’s Michigan Department of Civil Rights said Sunday that, while the federal government has primacy over border and security issues, “every person must be judged by the content of their character, not by the country of their origin.
“When government treats entire groups of people based on its worst elements, it not only harms other members of the group, it hurts us all,” Agustin V. Arbulu said in a statement.
“It is particularly damaging in times like now, when we must work to mend our divisions, not multiply them. Relying on stereotypes instead of facts will always foster unintended consequences, like bias, hate and prejudice. It strengthens our enemies and drives away our friends.”
Royal Oak-born U.S. District Judge Ann Donnelly in Brooklyn temporarily blocked the Trump administration from deporting refugees and visa holders from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen after an emergency hearing Saturday.
Arbulu said he was encouraged that the court order would prevent anyone already legally approved to enter the country from being returned to their home nations, and hoped it would encourage the Trump administration “to reconsider the breadth of the executive order.”
The White House on Sunday clarified a portion of Trump’s order, saying that people from the seven affected countries with green cards wouldn’t necessarily be kept from returning to the U.S. from overseas.
Trump also defended his order in a statement, saying the United States will “continue to show compassion to those fleeing oppression, but we will do so while protecting our own citizens and border.”
“To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” Trump added. “This is not about religion — this is about terror and keeping our country safe.”
Notably, Trump’s order gives preference to Christian refugees from majority-Muslim countries over other refugees. Earlier Sunday, Trump tweeted that “Christians in the Middle-East have been executed in large numbers. We cannot allow this horror to continue!”
Snyder, who was traveling in Israel, has not commented on Friday’s executive order, which included reducing the number of refugees admitted annually to the United States by more than half to 50,000.
“Gov. Snyder believes that legal immigration has helped build a strong and diverse talent base and culture in Michigan,” spokeswoman Ann Heaton said.
“We will work with the Trump administration on the best way forward to keep Michigan a welcoming place while ensuring the safety of all residents.”
Oakland County Executive L. Brooks Patterson has supported a pause in the refugee program to ensure more thorough security checks for people from terror-prone nations, including Syria.
“This wholesale immigration into this country of people who are not properly vetted was ridiculous,” said Patterson, whose county last year resettled the most Syrian refugees of any in Michigan.
“We know there are terror groups from these countries, and our own intelligence community has said there’s no way to properly vet them. The FBI and the NSA said it (last year).”
In a series of Saturday tweets, Republican Rep. Justin Amash criticized Trump’s immigration order as overreaching and unconstitutional, “like Pres. Obama’s executive actions on immigration.”
“It’s not lawful to ban immigrants on basis of nationality. If the president wants to change immigration law, he must work with Congress,” Amash wrote.
Amash, who represents a district in the Grand Rapids area, said if the concern is the threats from radicalism and terrorism, “then what about Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and others?”
Experts have noted that Trump did not exclude the countries of origin of radicalized Muslims who came to carry out deadly attacks on U.S. soil, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan and Egypt.
Amash finds Trump’s denial of entry to green-card holders, who are lawful permanent residents of the United States, “particularly troubling.”
“Green card holders live in the United States as our neighbors and serve in our Armed Forces. They deserve better,” Amash wrote.
Amash, an attorney and the son of a Syrian immigrant, also said that admitting immigrants, non-immigrants, and refugees on a “case-by-case basis” would violate the rule of law due to arbitrariness.
“Finally, we can’t effectively fight homegrown Islamic radicalism by perpetuating ‘us vs. them’ mindset that terrorists use to recruit,” Amash wrote.
“We must ensure U.S. remains dedicated to Constitution, Rule of Law, and liberty. Capitalism creates prosperity and improves assimilation.”
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declined to offer “blanket criticism” of Trump’s order.
“It’s going to be decided in the courts as to whether or not this has gone too far,” McConnell of Kentucky said on ABC’s “This Week.”
McConnell agrees with attempts to improve the vetting process, but “we also need to remember that some of our best allies in the war against Islamic terrorism are Muslims.”
Another Michigan Republican, Rep. Dave Trott, R-Birmingham, said he supports Trump’s order.
“The scenes of refugees fleeing their homes across the Middle East are absolutely heartbreaking. As a father, I feel for these families who have been ripped from their homelands. However, I understand that our first and foremost priority must be to ensure the safety of American families — our children and loved ones,” Trott said in a statement.
In a joint statement, Democratic Reps. John Conyers Jr. of Detroit, Dan Kildee of Flint Township, Debbie Dingell of Dearborn, and Brenda Lawrence of Southfield slammed Trump’s directive as a “thinly veiled ban on entry based on religion.”
“As members of Congress, we take a back seat to no one in our nation’s efforts to combat the ongoing threat of terrorism. That is why our refugee system already extensively vets and confirms every individual seeking entry to our country, subjecting them to a series of security screenings and checking against multiple law enforcement databases,” lawmakers wrote.
“But giving in to our worst fears — as this order does — will do nothing to make America safer or weaken our adversaries.”
mburke@detroitnews.com |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:10 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
How Trump can defund 'sanctuary cities' protecting undocumented immigrants
Alan Gomez , USA TODAY Published 1:36 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2017 | Updated 5:00 p.m. ET Jan. 25, 2017
Pause
0:29
0:51
President Donald Trump will begin rolling out executive actions on immigration Wednesday, beginning with steps to tighten border security.
President Trump signed an executive order Wednesday directing the government to identify federal money it can withhold to punish "sanctuary cities" — a term for up to 300 communities that have policies protecting the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Trump vowed to "crack down" on those cities during a speech at the Department of Homeland Security.
"These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic," Trump's executive order said.
A showdown between Trump and local governments over "sanctuary cities" likely will result in legal challenges testing how far the White House can go in dictating its priorities.
Trump orders clamp down on immigrant 'sanctuary cities,' pushes border wall
Trump will be armed with a range of powerful options, including federal lawsuits and the power to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that states and cities rely on.
"The Trump administration can largely get the results it is seeking and a real meaningful end to most of these sanctuary policies through a combination of carrots and sticks," said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, who has advised the Trump transition team on immigration enforcement options. "The point is not to go around whacking all these little cities and counties, it's to get them to do the right thing. And for the die-hards, to confront them."
Local communities are digging in for a fight. Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel created a task force to help undocumented immigrants and pledged $1 million for a legal defense fund. "Chicago always will be a sanctuary city," he said.
Some cities — including San Francisco, Chicago and New York — proudly declare themselves sanctuaries and have enacted policies that prohibit municipal employees from turning over residents or information on them to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Other cities more narrowly restrict police from inquiring about the immigration status of detained suspects. There also are cities that work with federal immigration authorities but refuse to hold suspects in jail solely so ICE agents can pick them up.
President Trump: A new era in Washington begins
Beyond city governments, institutions that include churches and universities vow to fight federal efforts to round up undocumented immigrants on their grounds.
Here are the two most powerful weapons the Trump administration will have to fight back:
LAWSUITS
If Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., one of the most outspoken critics of illegal immigration, is confirmed as attorney general, he will be able to sue cities on the grounds they are violating federal law by refusing to cooperate with immigration enforcement.
Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of immigration policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, said that kind of lawsuit fits Trump's "big and showy style," but the law is murky.
The Justice Department under the Obama administration ruled last summer that local law enforcement agencies are required by federal law to at least share that information. However, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled in 2014 that local police departments are not required to hold undocumented immigrants for ICE.
"Justice could spend all of its time and resources going after these cases," Brown said.
GRANT MONEY
The two most likely federal agencies that could cut off funding are Justice and Homeland Security. They provide grants for local law enforcement agencies to hire officers; bolster prosecutions, courts and jails; provide drug treatment, prepare for terrorist attacks, and assist crime victims and witnesses.
The Trump administration has the power to cut off much of that funding. For example, Justice's State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, or SCAAP, distributed $165 million in 2015 to local agencies that detained undocumented immigrants in its jails.
Laurie Robinson, a former assistant attorney general under Presidents Clinton and Obama who headed the Office of Justice Programs, which oversees grants, said the statute implementing SCAAP gives an attorney general broad power to decide who gets money.
"They could cut off drug programs, domestic violence grants, violence against women grants," she said.
Other grants won't be as easy to end. Justice's Community Oriented Policing Services program distributed $208 million in 2015 to local agencies. But that money is distributed using a formula established by Congress, meaning an attorney general can't revoke grants without lawmakers' approval.
"Unless Congress were to change something, the executive branch cannot really decide on its own to cut off a grant that is by statute designated to go to a local jurisdiction," said Robinson, now a criminology professor at George Mason University.
Help won't be hard to find. Republicans in Congress, including Rep. Duncan Hunter of California and Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, have tried in recent years to pass laws establishing those kinds of cuts, but they always faced a veto threat from Obama. Republicans filed similar bills this week, and those have a far better chance of becoming law now that Republicans control Congress and the White House.
Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, which favors lower immigration levels, said it's impossible to know how nasty the fight will get over sanctuary cities given the raw emotions on both sides. "I'm not going to rule anything out," she said. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Trump Meets With Big Pharma CEOs But Won't Get His Wish List ...
fortune.com/2017/01/31/trump-pharma-ceos-meeti...
Jan 30, 2017 · President Donald Trump met with major pharma CEOs from Merck, Novartis, and others. But they won't be able to grant his wish list.
FORTUNE
BIG PHARMA CEO's MET WITH TRUMP BUT THEY WON'T GIVE IN TO HIS DEMANDS
President Donald Trump sat down with a host of major pharma company CEOs Tuesday morning to address pressing issues like high drug prices, the future of the FDA, and where treatments are produced. But a number of his demands will have a hard time becoming a reality.
Meeting attendees included CEOs such as: Merck's (mrk, +0.91%) Ken Frazier; Novartis' (nvs, +1.23%) Joe Jimenez; Eli Lilly's (lly, +3.12%) David Ricks; Johnson & Johnson's (jnj, +0.11%) Alex Gorsky; Amgen's (amgn, +1.46%) Robert Bradway; Celgene's (celg, +2.62%) Mark Alles; and Stephen Ubl, head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) lobbying powerhouse.
Trump pressed the bigwigs to bring down drug prices, which he described as "astronomical."
"We have to get prices down for a lot of reasons," he said. "We have no choice, for Medicare and Medicaid."
Click here to subscribe to Brainstorm Health Daily, our brand new newsletter about health innovations.
He went on to insist that drug makers should bring manufacturing and production, much of which is done in countries like India and China, back to the United States. In exchange, Trump asserted that he would work to remove burdensome regulations, appoint an FDA director who will focus on speeding up drug approvals, and reduce the American corporate tax burden.
While several of the present CEOs responded optimistically to the meeting - praising the deregulation and tax reduction components in particular - and many of their companies' shares rose on hopes that Trump won't be as antagonistic toward drug makers as his recent comments that they're "getting away with murder" on prices would suggest, don't count on the wish list to come true. Here's why.
Drug prices
There's been a recent trend in biopharma where some companies, led by Allergan (agn, +3.31%) CEO Brent Saunders' new "social contract" with patients, are voluntarily pledging to limit drug price hikes and being more transparent about which products have seen price increases. But there's more than meets the eye going on here.
The most outrageous price hikes - the ones that have drawn the most public attention - number in the 1,000%-plus range, have been imposed on therapies for vulnerable and niche populations, or both. However, it's far simpler to do consistent, smaller price hikes on drugs used by a far greater number of people in order to make up for revenue gaps. These increases look far more reasonable than Martin Shkreli or Valeant-like shenanigans. But they add up to a pretty big chunk of change that can still put the squeeze on insurers, patients, and the broader health system.
Which brings us to the price increase-limiting pledges. Saunders has openly argued that pharma can head off more stringent drug price regulation in the U.S. (such as Trump's suggestions of competitive bidding and direct negotiations in Medicare) by self-policing. The companies signing on to this technique have sworn annual hikes on branded products that remain in the single digits.
The question is: Why is a 9% price hike on an existing therapy reasonable, other than by comparison to far more outlandish price gouging? Inflation certainly isn't anywhere near that high; the chemical compositions of the drugs themselves aren't changing; existing therapies aren't magically becoming more effective on a year-over-year basis.
So it's not hard to imagine a scenario where Trump is mollified by companies swearing that they're acting responsibly when, really, they're mostly just redirecting how they conduct their price hikes. And the tactic isn't all that surprising: big pharma's return on R&D investments has been plummeting over the last decade, and price increases are an easy way to bolster companies' bottom lines.
At the end of the day, drug makers are allowed to price their products however they want to in the U.S. Barring some of the regulatory reforms that Trump has previously proposed but have an extremely rocky path through a GOP-controlled Congress, it's difficult to see the more subtle price hike dynamic change. (One possible exception: Novartis chief Joe Jimenez's idea for tying drug prices to their demonstrated effects on health - a tactic that an increasing number of insurers are trying out.)
Domestic manufacturing
Trump's advocacy for bringing wide swaths of pharmaceutical manufacturing back to the U.S. is even less likely to come to fruition for a number of reasons.
For one, big pharma's supply chain is a global enterprise with global ambitions, and manufacturing is cheaper in countries like India and China. That's why such a huge share of finished medications in the U.S. stem from outside the country (and the number's even higher for generic therapies).
Furthermore, having these manufacturing footprints in emerging markets is tactically smart for drug makers that are trying to expand their presence in these countries, where a growing number of residents will be able to afford their treatments. Research and initial development, on the other hand, will always have a robust presence in the U.S. thanks to the plethora of academic and biopharma hubs here.
Speeding drug approvals
Of all the items Trump addressed (possibly with the exception of corporate tax reform), this has the best chance of becoming a reality. But the president's own executive actions in recent days could make it a lot harder to pull off in a safe, effective manner.
Getting more therapies to the finish line is controversial among some scientists who worry that lackluster treatments will make it to the market. But it's widely supported by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who have faced intense lobbying campaigns by patient groups and the biopharma industry. That's why the 21st Century Cures Act, which aims to streamline the drug approval process, was overwhelmingly approved by Congress last year and signed into law by President Barack Obama.
But actually implementing the massive FDA overhaul will require many new regulations, rules, and guidance from federal agencies. And that could hit a buzzsaw given Trump's recent executive actions ordering a government hiring freeze and requiring agencies to nix two old regulations for every new one they propose.
It's unclear how the FDA will go about honoring that regulations order on a practical level, especially as it gears up for big changes to the drug approval process. And the hiring freeze will make matters even more difficult seeing as there are currently 1,000 vacancies at the FDA, with many of them in the critical Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). (The Cures Act actually also called for a hiring push at the agency to help implement its provisions.)
A number of lawmakers have recently sent letters to Trump asking him how the freeze might hamper the FDA's mission. "A hiring freeze at the FDA would conflict with and do significant damage to these bipartisan efforts to fill vacant positions and expand the scientific and technical workforce needed for a robust review of drugs and medical devices," wrote Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. "Patients and their families can't freeze the progress of a disease while the FDA waits to fill critical positions."
Santa Fe Mayor: Sanctuary Cities Won’t Be Bullied by Trump
De Blasio Hosts Mayors Immigration Summit With White House Officials
Hedge Funds
The Founder of the World’s Biggest Hedge Fund Has a Bleak Warning About Trump’s Policies
Delivering Alpha - Season 2016
Politics
Survey: Less Than a Third of Americans Believe Trump’s Immigration Order Makes Them Safer
Immigration Activists Demonstrate Against's Trump Recent Ban
Newsletter |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:29 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Hunter
House Republicans to target Trump opponents for House Oversight investigations
By Hunter
Tuesday Jan 31, 2017 · 1:34 PM CST
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 07: Committee chairman Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) (L) talks to Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) (R) during a hearing before House Oversight and Government Reform Committee July 7, 2016 on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC. The committee held a hearing "Oversight of the State Department," focusing on the FBI's recommendation not to prosecute Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for maintaining a private email server during her time as Secretary of State. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Protecting Trump at all costs?
RSS
REBLOGGED BY
Daily Kos
As part of the new Republican push toward authoritarianism, the party has indicated we can expect absolutely no House Oversight inquiries into Trump's refusal to divest from businesses that he will now be profiting from as president. Yes, it quite likely runs afoul of the Constitution itself. No, committee chair Jason Chaffetz will not be allowing his committee to so much as investigate that breach.
But he will make time to explore making changes at the Office of Government Ethics, the government agency that pointed out Trump's egregious violations of long-held ethical standards.
Democrats proposed several Trump-related investigations in different formats, they said. But so far, they said Chaffetz has expressed more interest in non-Trump inquiries, including a recent letter to the FBI asking for more detail about Hillary Clinton’s email operations. Another asked about the conduct of the director of the Office of Government Ethics, who was critical of Trump’s decision not to divest his personal holdings.
“There is great irony here,” said ranking Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.). “The very first letter to come out of our Committee regarding the Trump Administration’s conflicts of interest was the Chairman’s letter attacking the head of the Office of Government ethics for raising concerns about the president’s refusal to divest.”
The government officials who have stood up for longstanding ethical norms, then, can expect to be investigated by Chaffetz's committee so that Republicans can determine if their statements require, for example, imprisonment. The White House itself has declared that those government employees objecting to Trump's moves can expect to be fired. Also still in the line of fire: Trump election opponent Hillary Clinton.
But Chaffetz's committee will not, as of yet, be investigating charges that the sitting president is profiting off foreign gifts to his businesses, nor charges of coordination between his presidential campaign and a foreign government, nor payments from that government to campaign members, nor Trump's apparent eagerness to violate the rights of federal workers, nor the various other charges that have come to light as the result of foreign investigations into Trump's dealings.
Those that oppose Trump or determine his extraordinary acts to be either illegal or unethical, though? House Republicans will be launching formal inquiries as to whether those Americans need to be punished. And yes, you should be very, very alarmed by that. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:56 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
By Peter Schroeder - 02/01/17 10:00 AM EST
GOP changes rules to push through nominees after Dem boycott
© Getty
Senate Republicans pushed through a pair of President Trump’s Cabinet nominees Wednesday, upending standard committee rules to circumvent a Democratic boycott.
The Senate Finance Committee advanced a pair of Trump’s nominees with only Republican members present — Steven Mnuchin to head the Treasury Department, and Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) as secretary of Health and Human Services.
By unanimous consent, the Republicans gathered in the hearing room agreed to change the committee’s standing rules, which normally require at least one member of each party to be in attendance for committee work to proceed.
“It’s just another way of roughing up the president’s nominees,” said committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). “They have been treated fairly. We have not been treated fairly.”
Republicans made the unusual move after Democrats refused to attend a vote on the nominees for two days running, arguing the pair had made misleading statements to lawmakers that needed to be rectified.
The nominees now head to the Senate floor, as partisan tensions over filling out Trump’s White House continued to intensify.
Democrats are crying foul over Mnuchin’s answers over how OneWest Bank, which he headed after the financial crisis, handled foreclosures for mortgages it held, and also whether he was sufficiently forthcoming about foreign entities he helped establish.
And questions have swirled for weeks around Price’s investment activity, including whether his political actions benefitted his personal portfolio.
“Both nominees have yet to answer important questions that impact the American people,” committee Democrats wrote in a letter sent to Hatch Wednesday.
“Further, we have significant concern that both Mr. Mnuchin and Mr. Price gave inaccurate and misleading testimony and responses to questions to the Committee. These cabinet nominees should answer basic questions that the American people deserve answers to before moving forward.”
Hatch was dismissive of that argument Wednesday.
“Oh, come on. Come on,” he said. “They don’t have one argument that’s worthwhile. Not one. And if they had, they should have shown up.”
The Democratic blockade is the most visible example of that party’s renewed efforts to slow the consideration of Trump’s nominees to a c |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:19 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Europe Edition
Ukraine, François Fillon, Quebec: Your Wednesday Briefing
European Leaders Reject Trump’s Refugee Ban as Violating Principles
By ALISON SMALEJAN. 29, 2017
President Trump with British Prime Minister Theresa May fielding questions during a news conference on Friday at the White House. Credit Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
BERLIN — Reflecting mounting European anger and astonishment at President Trump, several countries on Sunday rejected — sometimes in blunt terms — his ban on all refugees and the citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries entering the United States.
The spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said there was no justification for the policy — not even the fight against terrorism — of refusing to admit refugees fleeing war. Prime Minister Theresa May of Britain revised her stance on the American directive to take a harder line, while Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni of Italy said that Mr. Trump’s approach ran counter to basic European principles.
Steffen Seibert, a spokesman for Ms. Merkel, said in a statement that she had reminded Mr. Trump during their telephone conversation on Saturday that the Geneva Convention on refugees obliges all member states to take in those fleeing war.
The chancellor “is convinced that the resolute fight against terrorism does not justify blanket suspicion on grounds of origin or belief,” Mr. Seibert said, a day after Ms. Merkel and Mr. Trump talked at length for the first time since his inauguration on Jan. 20. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 10:39 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Download the application RT News
Israel will be ‘destroyed’ if Trump sparks war in Middle East – Iran defense minister
Published time: 12 Dec, 2016 12:56
Edited time: 13 Dec, 2016 13:39
Iranian Defence Minister Hossein Dehghan. © Sergei Karpukhin / Reuters
The Iranian defense minister says Donald Trump’s election has led to "unease," and that any war with Iran caused by his administration would "destroy" Israel and smaller Gulf states. It comes amid concern Trump will pull out of the nuclear pact agreed with Tehran last year.
Hossein Dehghan said on Sunday that the possibility that Trump may take a "different path" regarding the nuclear deal arranged between Tehran and six world powers last year has led to "unease, particularly among Persian Gulf countries," the semi-official Mehr news agency reported, as cited by Reuters.
He said that "enemies may want to impose a war on us based on false calculations and only taking into consideration their material capabilities."
Read more
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends the weekly cabinet meeting at his office in Jerusalem December 11, 2016. © Abir Sultan Netanyahu has ‘about 5’ ideas for Trump to undo Iran nuclear deal
If such a war were to occur, it "would mean the destruction of the Zionist regime [Israel]...and will engulf the whole region and could lead to a world war," Dehghan said.
He went on to note that city-states on the southern shore of the Persian Gulf would also be destroyed, "because they lack popular support." That statement was reportedly in reference to Western-allied Gulf states such as the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Qatar.
However, Dehghan admitted it seems unlikely that Trump would take "strong action" against Iran, considering his "character and that he measures the cost of everything in dollars."
Trump said during his campaign that he would tear up the nuclear deal agreed between Iran and six major world powers in 2015, calling it "disastrous" and the "worst deal ever negotiated." He told an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference in May that his “number one priority” was to dismantle the deal.
Trump's attitude toward the deal is a far cry from that of the Obama administration, with Secretary of State John Kerry saying earlier this month that the deal's monitoring provisions allow for the ability to detect any nuclear progress made by Tehran.
Read more
British Prime Minister Theresa May (L) arrives with Bahrain's King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, (R) for a group photo with the Gulf Cooporative Council's (GCC) leaders during the first GCC British Summit, in Sakhir Palace Bahrain, December 7, 2016. © Hamad I Mohammed Theresa May pledges to stand by Iran nuclear deal that Trump promises to ‘dismantle’
As part of the deal, Iran agreed to reduce the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds, cap its uranium enrichment below the level needed for weapons-grade material, reduce its enriched uranium stockpile by 98 percent from around 10,000kg to 300kg for 15 years, and allow international inspections.
This was done in exchange for lifting international sanctions on Iran. However, the US president is allowed to impose new restrictions if Tehran violates the nuclear accord.
Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Iran's arch-enemy Israel, told CBS' '60 Minutes' that he has "about five thing in his mind" that could undo the deal. He refused to elaborate on any of them during the interview, saying he would like to talk to Trump before speaking to the news program.
Netanyahu did state, however, that a reversal of the deal would mean "many more" options to prevent Iran from manufacturing nuclear weapons.
The Israeli prime minister's statements came just one week after he told a Washington conference on the Middle East that he would speak to Trump about the "bad deal."
For its part, Iran has repeatedly denied developing atomic weapons, claiming its nuclear program is solely for civilian purposes. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:02 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
RT360
HomeAmerica
Lawsuits pile up against Trump travel ban and anti-sanctuary city executive orders
Published time: 1 Feb, 2017 05:09
Edited time: 1 Feb, 2017 10:48
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera (L) and Mayor Ed Lee © Kate Munsch / Reuters
Four states are suing over President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting US entry, as is the city of Boston, while other lawsuits were filed in Colorado and Texas. At the same time, San Francisco is challenging the constitutionality of his sanctuary cities order.
On Tuesday, Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington all separately challenged the executive order that the Trump administration says will protect the US from “radical Islamic terrorists,” but which the states say is actually a violation of religious freedom, Reuters reported.
Read more
U.S. President Donald Trump looks on as Neil Gorsuch (L) approaches the podium after being nominated to be an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 31, 2017. © Carlos Barria Trump nominates Neil Gorsuch to fill Supreme Court vacancy
The order, signed last Friday, puts a 90-day pause on US entry for those with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, while also halting for 120 days, the resettlement of refugees program and barring any Syrian refugees indefinitely.
New York joined the ACLU’s lawsuit, which was the first against Trump’s order temporarily prohibiting US entry, filed on behalf of Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi; both Iraqis detained at JFK International Airport on Saturday. Virginia joined with the suit brought Monday by the Council on American Islamic Relations on behalf of 27 people.
"It discriminates against people because of their religion, it discriminates against people because of their country of origin," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said Tuesday, according to Reuters. The state is supporting a lawsuit initially brought by two Iranians who teach at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, which prompted a federal judge to block any effort to send the men back to Iran and halt enforcement of the executive order for seven days.
Tuesday also saw foreign nationals take individual action, with a Libyan college student filing in Colorado and an Iranian father of three bringing a lawsuit in Chicago. The Iranian is a young doctor whose visa was canceled after he traveled to the United Arab Emirates to get married, the Chicago Tribune reported.
Another of Trump’s controversial executive orders dealt with sanctuary cities, a broadly defined term for cities that do not fully cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. In it, Trump threatened to cut funding to such cities, which include Los Angeles and New York. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera called it “not only unconstitutional, it's un-American."
Along with San Francisco, Boston is also suing over the order, which it says runs counter to the separation of state and federal powers as codified in the Tenth Amendment. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:10 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Reuters
Politics | Wed Feb 1, 2017 | 9:24am EST
Challenges to Trump's immigration orders spread to more U.S. states
By Scott Malone and Dan Levine
(In this Jan. 31 story, in 11th paragraph corrects to show two Iranian plaintiffs are a man and a woman, not two men)
By Scott Malone and Dan Levine
Legal challenges to President Donald Trump's first moves on immigration spread on Tuesday, with three states suing over his executive order banning travel into the United States by citizens of seven majority-Muslim countries.
Massachusetts, New York, Virginia and Washington state joined the legal battle against the travel ban, which the White House deems necessary to improve national security.
The challenges contend the order violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantees of religious freedom.
San Francisco became the first U.S. city to sue to challenge a Trump directive to withhold federal money from U.S. cities that have adopted sanctuary policies toward undocumented immigrants, which local officials argue help local police by making those immigrants more willing to report crimes.
The legal maneuvers were the latest acts of defiance against executive orders signed by Trump last week that sparked a wave of protests in major U.S. cities, where thousands of people decried the new president's actions as discriminatory.
Both policies are in line with campaign promises by Republican businessman-turned-politician Trump, who vowed to build a wall on the Mexican border to stop illegal immigration and to take hard-line steps to prevent terrorist attacks in the United States.
The restrictions on the seven Muslim-majority countries and new limits on refugees have won the support of many Americans, with 49 percent of respondents to a Reuters poll conducted Monday and Tuesday saying they agreed with the order, while 41 percent disagreed.
Massachusetts contended the restrictions run afoul of the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits religious preference.
Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey (2nd R) announces the state will join a lawsuit, along with plaintiffs Oxfam President Ray Offenheiser (L) and University of Massachusetts President Martin Meehan (3rd L), challenging U.S. President Donald Trump's executive order travel ban in Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. January 31, 2017. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
"At bottom, what this is about is a violation of the Constitution," Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey said of the order halting travel by people with passports from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days. The order also barred resettlement of refugees for 120 days and indefinitely banned Syrian refugees.
"It discriminates against people because of their religion, it discriminates against people because of their country of origin," Healey said at a Boston press conference, flanked by leaders from the tech, healthcare and education sectors who said that the order could limit their ability to attract and retain highly educated workers.
Massachusetts will be backing a lawsuit filed over the weekend in Boston federal court by two Iranian men who teach at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth. A federal judge blocked the government from expelling those men from the country and halted enforcement of the order for seven days, following similar but more limited moves in four other states.
The attorneys general of New York and Virginia also said their states were joining similar lawsuits filed in their respective federal courts challenging the ban.
"As we speak, there are students at our colleges and universities who are unable to return to Virginia," Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring told reporters. "This is not an action I take lightly, but it is one I take with confidence in our legal analysis."
On Monday, liberal-leaning Washington state became the first U.S. state to have its attorney general initiate a lawsuit against Trump to challenge the travel ban.
Multiple foreign nationals have also filed lawsuits challenging the ban. They included one filed in Colorado on Tuesday by a Libyan college student and two filed in Chicago, including one on behalf of an Iranian father of three children all living in Illinois.
Protests against Trump's executive action continued on Tuesday in several cities.
A crowd of several thousand demonstrators gathered at the federal courthouse in Minneapolis, chanting "Hey, hey, ho, ho Muslim ban has got to go!" Dozens of protesters chanted the same slogan at Los Angeles International Airport, and more than 400 demonstrators gathered in downtown Miami to protest both the travel ban and Trump's crackdown on sanctuary cities.
SANCTUARY CHALLENGE
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit over Trump's order threatening to cut funds to cities with sanctuary policies, a move that could stop the flow of billions of dollars to major U.S. population centers including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
"If allowed to be implemented, this executive order would make our communities less safe. It would make our residents less prosperous, and it would split families apart," Herrera said.
Sanctuary cities adopt policies that limit cooperation, such as refusing to comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer requests. Advocates of the policies say that, beyond helping police with crime reporting, they make undocumented immigrants more willing to serve as witnesses if they do not fear that contact with law enforcement will lead to their deportation.
Both the San Francisco and Massachusetts actions contend that Trump's orders in question violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that powers not granted to the federal government should fall to the states.
Michael Hethmon, senior counsel with the conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute in Washington, called the San Francisco lawsuit a "silly political gesture," noting that prior federal court decisions make clear that the U.S. government "can prohibit a policy that essentially impedes legitimate federal programs."
(Additional reporting by Mica Rosenberg, Curtis Skinner, Adam Bettcher, Olga Grigoryants, Zachary Fagenson, Alex Dobuzinskis, Timothy McLaughlin, Ian Simpson and Keith Coffman; Editing by Tom Brown and Cynthia Osterman) |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:19 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Bipartisan Report
CNN Producer Detained At Airport Just Issued This Threat To President Trump (DETAILS)
By Eliza Mayhew -
February 1, 2017
As if Donald Trump hasn’t dealt with enough lawsuits over the years, he has just tacked another one onto his docket.
Mohammed Tawfeeq, a CNN editor and producer has filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Customs, and Border Protection, and other federal agencies.
Tawfeeq was detained Sunday as a result of Donald Trump’s recent executive order banning travel and immigration from seven Muslim-majority countries, including Iraq. Mohammed Tawfeeq is an Iraqi national who has been living permanently and legally in the United States for nearly four years.
The lawsuit challenges the legality specifically of Trump’s executive order, claiming that Tawfeeq and many like him have to travel internationally regularly as a result of their employment. The letter allegedly asserts that:
‘The executive order has greatly increased the uncertainty involved in current and future international travel for returning lawful permanent residents like Mr. Tawfeeq.’
The Middle East is certainly among the places that Mohammed Tawfeeq must travel for his work with CNN, which alongside his background will likely result in delays each time he travels. Reasonably, Tawfeeq has concerns about being repeatedly additionally screened, delayed, and detained.
Mr. Tawfeeq’s harassment and detainment took place at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, but it is not an isolated story. There have been a huge number of reports of innocent people being detained across the country because of the order, including children.
Tawfeeq alleges that the named Departments unlawfully detained him in trying to fulfill Trump’s recent executive order. No doubt this was the result of the profound lack of communication leading up to the signing of the order. Departments operated for hours without written directions on how to apply the order, and the reports allege that these written specifics were still extremely vague.
Tawfeeq seeks a declaration of his rights as a result of the lawsuit. The award-winning journalist and manager of CNN’s International Desk claims that his detainment was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit furthers states that applying the executive order to any lawful permanent residents or green card holders returning after a brief trip abroad would violate the aforementioned legislation.
Tawfeeq’s lawsuit certainly isn’t the first to grace Trump’s desk in the Oval Office either. It has been reported that as of Tuesday midday, Donald Trump had been served with 42 lawsuits against his person specifically, and an unknown number have been served against various federal agencies as a result of his orders.
The first to challenge the executive order by taking legal action was the Americans Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) which put forth a class action lawsuit to release and protest Hameed Khalid Darweesh and Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi. The former worked in support of the United States during the Iraq War and the latter had a visa in hand, seeking to join his wife and seven-year-old old son who already live here as refugees.
Despite all of these lawsuits however the statements coming from the White House are not changing:
‘All stopped visas will remain stopped. All halted admissions will remain halted. All restricted travel will remain prohibited. The executive order is a vital action toward strengthening America’s borders, and therefore sovereignty. The order remains in place.’
We can only hope that these lawsuits add to the growing public displays of opposition to the order, and that sooner rather than later the President and his administration will rescind it.
Feature Image via Getty Images/Drew Angerer. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 12:33 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:32 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
30, 2017 at 3:29 pm Updated January 30, 2017 at 4:15 pm
Dakota Access Pipeline protesters outside of the Westlake Center Wells Fargo Jan. 24. Wells Fargo is one of 17 lenders to the pipeline project. (Lindsey Wasson/The Seattle Times)
Dakota Access Pipeline protesters outside of the Westlake Center Wells Fargo Jan. 24. Wells Fargo is one of 17 lenders to the pipeline project. (Lindsey Wasson/The Seattle Times)
The Seattle City Council should sever its banking relationship with Wells Fargo because of its past fraudulent activities and its partial funding of the highly controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Both are clearly in violation of socially responsible banking practices.
Share story
By Nick Licata
Special to The Times
GIVEN the current attack by President Donald Trump’s administration to halt efforts to address the threat of climate change’s impact on our environmental safety, it is critical that cities around the country respond. Their actions may be local, but they will have a national ripple effect. We can begin that surge in Seattle by building and expanding the legislation that has leveraged its power as a large banking customer to encourage socially responsible banking practices in the wider community.
In 2013, I introduced a Socially Responsible Banking ordinance to the Seattle City Council. That ordinance meant that socially responsible criteria accounted for 15 percent in the city’s decision-making rubric when considering banking contracts. Currently, the council is considering an ordinance that would take this a step further, meaning that socially responsible banking would be considered as a factor worth at least 20 percent in the city’s decision making process when it is deciding who it wants to work with on its banking business.
The proposed ordinance would also see the city end its current $3 billion relationship with Wells Fargo when its current contract expires at the end of 2018. The reason for this is Wells Fargo’s high-profile corporate malpractice as well as its funding of the highly controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Both are clearly in violation of socially responsible banking practices.
Wells Fargo, along with 16 other banks, is a lender to the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Wells Fargo is lending $120 million as partof a $2.5 billion credit agreement funding the project, according to The Seattle Times.
The Council should pass this bill.
The rationale is clear: Wells Fargo was recently fined $185 million by federal and local regulatory bodies after directing employees to engage in fraud. Consumers paid dearly for Wells Fargo’s deceptive practices.
The public will again pay a hefty price for Wells Fargo’s practices if it continues to invest millions in the Dakota Access Pipeline, a project that has abused the treaty and water rights of the Standing Rock Sioux and would be a disaster for our climate. Seattle should not be in a relationship with a bank that engages in anti-consumer and anti-environmental practices.
The Standing Rock Sioux have stated repeatedly that allies in their fight need to target the investors of the pipeline by divesting from those funding the pipeline.
The time is now to take a stand for protecting our citizens from the consequences of these activities. In particular, since President Trump recently signed an executive order stating that construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline should be restarted as quickly as possible, it is critical that the City Council pass this ordinance.
What happens in Seattle does matter. Seattle was the first major city to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and the state of New York soon followed suit. And this is what is going to concern Wells Fargo executives: the thought that Seattle divesting will inspire other cities to do likewise. Such a scenario may have them worried enough to rethink their investments in the pipeline. If Wells Fargo rescinded its loans from the pipeline — which it is entitled to do under the Equator Principles, a guiding framework for responsible lending that Wells Fargo is a signatory to — it would open the doors for others to do likewise.
If enough banks pulled their funding, the project would collapse resulting in both financial and environmental savings for the general public. But first Seattle must align its dollars with its values and pass this ordinance.
The City Council should do so without delay by scheduling this important ordinance for a vote at the finance committee meeting on Wednesday.
Nick Licata, a former Seattle City Councilmember, is author of the book “Becoming a Citizen Activist.” |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:35 pm |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
Bloomberg.com
Bloomberg Politics
Businessweek
Trump Pins Keystone, Dakota Pipeline Fate on Renegotiation
by Jennifer A Dlouhy
, Meenal Vamburkar
, and Jennifer Jacobs
January 24, 2017, 10:28 AM CST January 25, 2017, 12:24 AM CST
Trump says he will demand a better deal and use of U.S. steel
Pipelines are flashpoints among environmentalists, activists
Trump Signs Memoranda on Keystone, Dakota Access
President Donald Trump took steps to advance construction of the Keystone XL and Dakota Access oil pipelines, while demanding a renegotiation to get a better deal for the U.S. government.
Trump stopped short of green lighting construction on either pipeline but put a deadline on the government’s review of TransCanada Corp.’s proposed Keystone XL to transport Alberta oil sands crude to U.S. refineries. Trump also announced policies to encourage the use of American-made products in U.S. pipeline projects and to curtail federal environmental reviews for major infrastructure projects.
“If we’re going to build pipelines in the United States, the pipes should be made in the United States,” Trump said.
The moves, taken on Trump’s fourth full day in office, are a major departure from the Obama administration, which rejected the Keystone proposal in 2015 and has kept Dakota Access blocked since September. Environmentalists, concerned about climate change and damage to water and land, now face an executive branch that’s less sympathetic to their efforts. For the oil industry, it heralds more freedom to expand infrastructure and ease transportation bottlenecks.
White House spokesman Sean Spicer cast that possible renegotiation of the Dakota Access project as a way to address concerns by stakeholders, including the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, which is concerned about Native-American cultural sites and the safety of its water supply.
While both projects will create jobs and grow the economy, they also will enrich the companies behind them, Spicer told reporters. “If we’re going to do all these things to expedite these projects that go over or under American soil,” then Trump wants to make sure American taxpayers get “the best deal possible,” he said.
QuickTake: Tar Sands and the Environmental Debate Over Keystone
TransCanada closed 2.7 percent higher at C$64.24 in Toronto on Tuesday. Energy Transfer Equity LP and Energy Transfer Partners LP, the developers of the Dakota project, climbed 2 percent and 3.5 percent, respectively.
TransCanada is preparing its re-application and intends to submit it, the company said in a statement.
The documents signed Tuesday include an executive order designed to expedite “high-priority infrastructure projects.” Under the directive, Trump said projects that win that classification from the White House Council on Environmental Quality will be given swifter reviews, under “expedited procedures and deadlines for completion” of necessary environmental analysis.
A separate memo asks the Secretary of Commerce to develop strategies for streamlining permitting and reducing regulatory burdens for domestic manufacturers.
“We intend to fix our country, our bridges our roadways,” Trump said. “We can’t be in an environmental process for 15 years if a bridge is going to be falling down or if a highway is crumbling.”
Read more: Keystone’s Thousands of Jobs Fall to 20 When Opened
Trump also told the Commerce Department to develop a plan to force a “Buy America” requirement on all new pipelines, so they “use materials and equipment produced in the United States.” In a memo outlining the change, Trump said the rules should apply “to the maximum extent possible.”
About half of Keystone XL was set to be built with steel fabricated in the U.S., according to a 2012 breakdown from TransCanada of an earlier version of the project. Roughly a quarter was set to be supplied by Canada, TransCanada said at the time, with Italy and India providing the rest. Most of the Dakota Access pipeline is already finished, with 57 percent of the project manufactured in the United States.
Jack Gerard, head of the American Petroleum Institute, said he was “pleased to see the new direction being taken by this administration to recognize the importance of our nation’s energy infrastructure by restoring the rule of law in the permitting process that’s critical to pipelines and other infrastructure projects.”
Canada has not received any formal notice of action by Trump on the pipelines but still supports Keystone, a project for which Canadian approvals remain in place.
“It’s good for Canada and it’s particularly good for the people of Alberta,” Canada’s natural resources minister Jim Carr told reporters Tuesday in Calgary.
Environmental activists vowed to continue battling both projects.
The Standing Rock tribe said it “will take legal action to fight” Trump’s action, terming it a “politically motivated decision” that “violates the law.”
“President Trump is legally required to honor our treaty rights and provide a fair and reasonable pipeline process,” said Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. “The existing pipeline route risks infringing on our treaty rights, contaminating our water and the water of 17 million Americans downstream.”
To accelerate the Dakota Access pipeline, Trump directed the Army secretary to reconsider its earlier decision to conduct deeper environmental scrutiny of the project. The Army Corps of Engineers should consider relying on an earlier, broader assessment from July instead, Trump said in a memo. Project foes would almost certainly challenge any decision by the Army Corps to abandon the environmental analysis ordered under the Obama administration.
Trump compelled similar action to speed permitting of Keystone XL, asking TransCanada to re-submit its application for the project and giving the State Department a 60-day deadline for determining whether the pipeline is in the U.S. national interest. In a memo, Trump asks the State Department to rely on an earlier environmental review of the project for its determination, rather than conducting new analysis that could take months or years.
The company’s plans for Keystone XL have already been vetted, with years of environmental scrutiny culminating in Obama’s 2015 decision rejecting the project.
Environmentalists’ Fight
The makeup of Keystone XL has come under scrutiny before. When the Senate considered legislation that would force approval of the project in 2015, Republicans blocked attempts to require the project be built with domestically produced steel.
Environmentalists fiercely battled Keystone XL, making it a flashpoint in broader debates about U.S. energy policy and climate change. Landowners in the pipeline’s path have warned that a spill of dense crude could contaminate the Ogallala aquifer, a source of drinking water that stretches from Texas to South Dakota. And activists said it would promote further development of oil sands in Alberta, Canada that generally require more energy to extract.
Violent Protests
Dakota Access opponents say the pipeline would damage sites culturally significant to Native Americans and pose an environmental hazard where it crosses the Missouri River. Earlier this month, the Department of the Army withheld the final easement necessary for construction beneath the lake.
Swift approval of Dakota Access could reinvigorate the sometimes violent protests at the site of the proposed construction.
Josh Nelson, the deputy political director of the CREDO activist group said the action shows Trump is “in the pocket of big corporations and foreign oil interests.”
“Fierce grassroots activism has stopped these pipelines over and over again,” he said. “CREDO will do everything in its power to stop the Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, and keep dirty fossil fuels in the ground where they belong.”
Energy Infrastructure
Pipeline supporters said a final easement for the project would illustrate Trump’s commitment to building out energy infrastructure needed to ferry oil and gas around the U.S. Although Keystone XL would transport oil sands crude from Canada, some space on the line is slated to be filled by supplies from North Dakota’s Bakken shale play.
Dakota Access, likewise, is aimed at giving Bakken producers a new route to energy markets, allowing them to forgo more costly rail shipments that have been a backstop when existing pipes fill up. With a capacity of about 470,000 barrels a day, Dakota Access would ship about half of current Bakken crude production and enable producers to access Midwest and Gulf Coast markets.
“What we saw today was bold and decisive action by President Trump,” Terry O’Sullivan, general president of LiUNA, said in a conference call with reporters. “He said he was going to create middle-class jobs, and by what he did today, that’s exactly what he’s going to do.”
Energy Transfer owns the Dakota Access project with Phillips 66 and Sunoco Logistics Partners LP. Marathon Petroleum Corp. and Enbridge Energy Partners LP announced a venture in August that would also take a minority stake in the pipeline. |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:44 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
