Täällä seurataan Trumpin presidenttikautta

[Pöydällä nakki ja pullo vodkaa]

Photojournalist Eric Rosenwald examined flight logs from airports in the area and found that Kushner arrived in Aspen on Saturday, March 18 — the same day as Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has been described as “one of Putin’s closest confidants.” Abramovich is known to own a home in Aspen.

According to Politico’s Jake Sherman, Abramovich’s wife, Dasha Zhukova, attended President Trump’s inauguration as a guest of Ivanka Trump.

Rosenwald goes on to point out that two days later Abramovich’s plane flew to the Caribbean just as two planes linked to Michael Cohen, special counsel to the president, arrived at nearby airports.

[Poistunut käyttäjä 22a646]

Photojournalist Eric Rosenwald examined flight logs from airports in the area and found that Kushner arrived in Aspen on Saturday, March 18 — the same day as Russian billionaire Roman Abramovich, who has been described as “one of Putin’s closest confidants.” Abramovich is known to own a home in Aspen.

According to Politico’s Jake Sherman, Abramovich’s wife, Dasha Zhukova, attended President Trump’s inauguration as a guest of Ivanka Trump.

Rosenwald goes on to point out that two days later Abramovich’s plane flew to the Caribbean just as two planes linked to Michael Cohen, special counsel to the president, arrived at nearby airports.

katos, tosiaan on jaren tili ihan tyhjä: htttps://twitter.com/jaredkushner

[Poistunut käyttäjä 22a646]

vai olisko vaan alunperinkin ollut tyhjä tili? http://mashable.com/2017/03/27/white-ho ... not-tweet/

[Pöydällä nakki ja pullo vodkaa]

^ voi olla ennenaikaista sillä ei ole todisteita siitä että se olisi edes koskaan twiitannut vaikka tili onkin

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Make America China Again?

[Jesse Python]

Säännöt roskikseen!

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

https://theintercept.com/2017/03/26/tru ... -promised/

Trump’s War on Terror Has Quickly Become as Barbaric and Savage as He Promised

Glenn Greenwald
March 26 2017, 6:00 p.m.

From the start of his presidency, Donald Trump’s “war on terror” has entailed the seemingly indiscriminate slaughter of innocent people in the name of killing terrorists. In other words, Trump has escalated the 16-year-old core premise of America’s foreign policy — that it has the right to bomb any country in the world where people it regards as terrorists are found — and in doing so, has fulfilled the warped campaign pledges he repeatedly expressed.

The most recent atrocity was the killing of as many as 200 Iraqi civilians from U.S. airstrikes this week in Mosul. That was preceded a few days earlier by the killing of dozens of Syrian civilians in Raqqa province when the U.S. targeted a school where people had taken refuge, which itself was preceded a week earlier by the U.S. destruction of a mosque near Aleppo that also killed dozens. And one of Trump’s first military actions was what can only be described as a massacre carried out by Navy SEALs, in which 30 Yemenis were killed; among the children killed was an 8-year-old American girl (whose 16-year-old American brother was killed by a drone under Obama).

In sum: Although precise numbers are difficult to obtain, there seems little question that the number of civilians being killed by the U.S. in Iraq and Syria — already quite high under Obama — has increased precipitously during the first two months of the Trump administration. Data compiled by the site Airwars tells the story: The number of civilians killed in Syria and Iraq began increasing in October under Obama but has now skyrocketed in March under Trump.

What’s particularly notable is that the number of airstrikes actually decreased in March (with a week left), even as civilian deaths rose — strongly suggesting that the U.S. military has become even more reckless about civilian deaths under Trump than it was under Obama:

This escalation of bombing and civilian deaths, combined with the deployment by Trump of 500 ground troops into Syria beyond the troops Obama already deployed there, has received remarkably little media attention. This is in part due to the standard indifference in U.S. discourse to U.S. killing of civilians compared to the language used when its enemies kill people (compare the very muted and euphemistic tones used to report on Trump’s escalations in Iraq and Syria to the frequent invocation of genocide and war crimes to denounce Russian killing of Syrian civilians). And part of this lack of media attention is due to the Democrats’ ongoing hunt for Russian infiltration of Washington, which leaves little room for other matters.

But what is becoming clear is that Trump is attempting to liberate the U.S. military from the minimal constraints it observed in order to avoid massive civilian casualties. And this should surprise nobody: Trump explicitly and repeatedly vowed to do exactly this during the campaign.

He constantly criticized Obama — who bombed seven predominantly Muslim countries — for being “weak” in battling ISIS and al Qaeda. Trump regularly boasted that he would free the U.S. military from rules of engagement that he regarded as unduly hobbling them. He vowed to bring back torture and even to murder the family members of suspected terrorists — prompting patriotic commentators to naïvely insist that the U.S. military would refuse to follow his orders. Trump’s war frenzy reached its rhetorical peak of derangement in December 2015, when he roared at a campaign rally that he would “bomb the shit out of ISIS” and then let its oil fields be taken by Exxon, whose CEO is now his secretary of state.

Trump can be criticized for many things, but lack of clarity about his intended war on terror approach is not one of them. All along, Trump’s “solution” to terrorism was as clear as it was simple; as I described it in September 2016:

The clarity of Trump’s intentions regarding the war on terror was often obfuscated by anti-Trump pundits due to a combination of confusion about and distortions of foreign policy doctrine. Trump explicitly ran as a “non-interventionist” — denouncing, for instance, U.S. regime change wars in Iraq, Libya, and Syria (even though he at some points expressed support for the first two). Many commentators confused “non-interventionism” with “pacifism,” leading many of them — to this very day — to ignorantly claim that Trump’s escalated war on terror bombing is in conflict with his advocacy of non-interventionism. It is not.

To the extent that Trump is guided by any sort of coherent ideological framework, he is rooted in the traditions of Charles Lindbergh (whose “America First” motto he took) and the free trade-hating, anti-immigration, über-nationalist Pat Buchanan. Both Lindbergh and Buchanan were non-interventionists: Lindbergh was one of the earliest and loudest opponents of U.S. involvement in World War II, while Buchanan was scathing throughout all of 2002 about the neocon plan to invade Iraq.

Despite being vehement non-interventionists, neither Lindbergh nor Buchanan were pacifists. Quite the contrary: Both believed that when the U.S. was genuinely threatened with attack or attacked, it should use full and unrestrained force against its enemies. What they opposed was not military force in general but rather interventions geared toward a goal other than self-defense, such as changing other countries’ governments, protecting foreigners from tyranny or violence, or “humanitarian” wars.

What the Lindbergh/Buchanan non-interventionism opposes is not war per se, but a specific type of war: namely, those fought for reasons other than self-defense or direct U.S. interests (as was true of regime change efforts in Iraq, Libya, and Syria). Lindbergh opposed U.S. involvement in World War II on the ground that it was designed to help only the British and the Jews, while Buchanan, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, attacked neocons who “seek to ensnare our country in a series of wars that are not in America’s interests” and who “have alienated friends and allies all over the Islamic and Western world through their arrogance, hubris, and bellicosity.”

The anti-Semitism and white nationalistic tradition of Lindbergh, the ideological precursor to Buchanan and then Trump, does not oppose war. It opposes military interventions in the affairs of other countries for reasons other than self-defense — i.e., the risking of American lives and resources for the benefits of “others.”

Each time Trump drops another bomb, various pundits and other assorted Trump opponents smugly posit that his doing so is inconsistent with his touted non-interventionism. This is just ignorance of what these terms mean. By escalating violence against civilians, Trump is, in fact, doing exactly what he promised to do, and exactly what those who described his foreign policy as non-interventionist predicted he would do: namely, limitlessly unleash the U.S. military when the claimed objective was the destruction of “terrorists,” while refusing to use the military for other ends such as regime change or humanitarianism. If one were to reduce this mentality to a motto, it could be: Fight fewer wars and for narrower reasons, but be more barbaric and criminal in prosecuting the ones that are fought.

Trump’s campaign pledges regarding Syria, and now his actions there, illustrate this point very clearly. Trump never advocated a cessation of military force in Syria. As the above video demonstrates, he advocated the opposite: an escalation of military force in Syria and Iraq in the name of fighting ISIS and al Qaeda. Indeed, Trump’s desire to cooperate with Russia in Syria was based on a desire to maximize the potency of bombing there (just as was true of Obama’s attempt to forge a bombing partnership with Putin in Syria).

What Trump opposed was the CIA’s yearslong policy of spending billions of dollars to arm anti-Assad rebels (a policy Hillary Clinton and her key advisers wanted to escalate), on the ground that the U.S. has no interest in removing Assad. That is the fundamental difference between non-interventionism and pacifism that many pundits are either unaware of or are deliberately conflating in order to prove their own vindication about Trump’s foreign policy. Nothing Trump has thus far done is remotely inconsistent with the non-interventionism he embraced during the campaign, unless one confuses “non-interventionism” with “opposition to the use of military force.”

Trump’s reckless killing of civilians in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen is many things: barbaric, amoral, and criminal. It is also, ironically, likely to strengthen support for the very groups — ISIS and al Qaeda — that he claims he wants to defeat, given that nothing drives support for those groups like U.S. slaughter of civilians (perhaps the only competitor in helping these groups is another Trump specialty: driving a wedge between Muslims and the West).

But what Trump’s actions are not is a departure from what he said he would do, nor are they inconsistent with the predictions of those who described his foreign policy approach as non-interventionist. To the contrary, the dark savagery guiding U.S. military conduct in that region is precisely what Trump expressly promised his supporters he would usher in.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

http://thehill.com/regulation/325963-tr ... sting-rule

Trump repeals 'blacklisting rule'

By Tim Devaney

President Trump repealed the so-called “blacklisting rule” Monday that required federal contractors to disclose labor violations.

The Obama-era rule was intended to prevent the government from contracting with businesses responsible for wage theft or workplace safety violations at any point within the last three years. But business groups feared it gave unions the upper hand at the bargaining table.

Trump struck down the blacklisting rule, along with three other regulations aimed at protecting the environment and students, Monday afternoon during a White House signing ceremony.

The other regulations Trump overturned include the Interior Department’s land use rule, as well as the Education Department’s rules for teacher preparation and school accountability.

The regulatory repeals provide a much-needed distraction for the White House, as Republicans look to quickly turn the page on their failed attempt to eliminate ObamaCare.

“Only one [other] time in our history did a president sign a bill to cancel federal regulations,” Trump told a roomful of Republican lawmakers as he touted their accomplishment.

Employers were particularly concerned about the blacklisting rule.

“The rule violated the due process rights of contractors by forcing them to report mere allegations of misconduct — which are often frivolous and filed with nefarious intentions by special interest groups,” said Ben Brubeck, vice president of regulatory affairs at the Associated Builders and Contractors.

But repealing the blacklisting rule could raise labor concerns for Trump, as many of the working-class voters who supported the president last November may see it as a betrayal of one of his central campaign promises to improve their wages and working conditions.

“The message Donald Trump is sending today is that there are no consequences for companies who break American Labor law,” said Joseph Geevarghese, executive director of Good Jobs Nation, which is part of the movement lobbying for a $15 federal minimum wage.

President Obama’s executive order calling for the blacklisting rule was partly inspired by the Chemical Safety Board, an independent agency that recommended “additional contractor responsibility” in a 2013 report.

But in opposition to efforts from the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers, the Chemical Safety Board said earlier this month that it is “unacceptable” the rule is falling apart.

Republicans lawmakers voted to strike down these regulations through the Congressional Review Act, which allows certain regulations to be undone while preventing the minority in the Senate from using the filibuster.

Before Trump, the seldom-used law had only be used successfully once in 2001 when then-President George W. Bush repealed a Clinton-era labor regulation.

Since January, Trump has repealed seven regulations under the Congressional Review Act, with more expected in the coming weeks.

Amit Narang, regulatory policy advocate at the left-leaning Public Citizen, accused Republicans of challenging “every rule under the sun.”

James Goodwin, senior regulatory policy analyst at the Center for Progressive Reform, criticized GOP lawmakers for the “orgy of Congressional Review Act resolutions” they are sending to Trump.

“It’s an incredibly reckless approach to congressional oversight,” Goodwin said. “We’re talking about rules that have been in the works for four, five, six, seven years. They’re lining them up for repeal, even though they probably have no idea what they do or which agency they came from.”

“That sort of thoughtful deliberation has fallen by the wayside for too many Republicans,” he said.

Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at the conservative American Action Forum, admitted the Congressional Review Act is a “pretty blunt instrument,” because it not only repeals these regulations, but it also prohibits future presidents from issuing similar rules.

What has surprised Batkins and other conservatives are the number of obscure rules Congress is repealing this way.

“One thing I was struck by is that some of the regulations being repealed are not things that were on my radar,” said Susan Dudley, the former administrator of the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under President George W. Bush.

Even in her post-White House days, Dudley keeps a good handle on the regulations making their way through the federal government. “Some of these rules I expected them to repeal, but others I did not,” she said.

Tottakai Trump haluaa tällaiset säädökset pois, rakennuttihan hän itse Trump Towerin puolalaisilla rake tajilla, joista moni oli maassa ilman lupaa ja joille maksettiin poljettuja palkkoja.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Säännöt roskikseen!

Todellakin!

Here’s what Trump and Congress have done so far.
The Security and Exchange Commission’s resource extraction rule issued last July requires oil companies to disclose payments of more than $100,000 made to foreign governments.
Democrats say the rule targets corruption, but Republicans argue it puts U.S. companies at a disadvantage. President Trump signed legislation under the CRA revoking the rule on Valentine’s Day.

The Interior Department’s stream protection rule prohibits coal miners from setting up shop within 100 feet of streams, rivers, or lakes. Democrats say the rule will protect groundwater, but Republicans see it as another example Obama’s so-called “War on Coal.” This was the first disapproval resolution passed by the current Congress, but the second one that Trump signed, on Feb. 16.

The Social Security Administration’s gun regulation requires the agency to report disability beneficiaries who it believes are mentally ill to the FBI’s background check system. Gun control supporters say this will keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. But the National Rifle Association says it violates the Second Amendment and the due process rights of disability beneficiaries, who may be targeted by the government even though they are not be a danger to society. Trump signed a measure repealing the rule on Feb. 28.

Congress has voted to repeal another seven regulations, five of which have been sent to the White House and are awaiting Trump’s signature.

The other two are expected to be sent to the president in the coming week.

As with other pieces of legislation, the president has 10 days to act or the bill automatically becomes law. For some of the regulatory repeals, the 10-day window closes next week.

The “blacklisting” rule requires federal contractors to report labor violations. It was a joint rule issued by the Defense Department, General Services Administration and NASA. Democrats hope the rule will discourage the federal government from doing business with companies that treat their employees poorly. But Republicans say unions could use this information to “blackmail” federal contractors during labor negotiations. Congress voted to repeal the rule on March 6, but it didn’t arrive on Trump’s desk until 10 days later.

The Labor Department’s drug testing rule would apply to people seeking unemployment compensation who lost safety-sensitive jobs. The rule would allow states to deny their benefits claim if they test positive for drugs. Congress voted to overturn the rule on March 14, and sent it to the president’s desk a week later.

The Interior Department’s land use planning rule was overturned by Congress on March 7, and sent to President Trump’s desk on March 16.

The Education Department’s school accountability rule would hold states responsible for providing “every child, regardless of race, income, background, or where they live” with a “high-quality education.” Democrats say the rule protects students who live in low-income neighborhoods who might otherwise receive a poor education. But Republicans argue states should have the final decision on how to best educate their students. Congress voted to repeal the rule on March 9, and sent it to Trump’s desk on March 16.

The Education Department’s teacher preparation standards would measure the performance of educators. Congress voted to strike down the rule on March 8, and sent it to Trump on March 16.

The Interior Department’s predator control regulations would apply to national wildlife refuges in Alaska. Congress voted to overturn the rule on March 21, but has yet to send it to Trump.

The Labor Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) last December finalized new requirements for construction and manufacturing companies to maintain records of workplace-related injuries and illnesses. Congress voted to repeal the rule on March 22, but has yet to send it to Trump.

The House has passed another four disapproval resolutions under the Congressional Review Act and the Senate has passed one, which the other chamber must still vote on.

The Interior Department’s rule for methane and natural gas is intended to limit emissions. The House voted to repeal the rule on Feb. 3, but the Senate has yet to take it up.

The Labor Department issued two rules for government state retirement savings plans. The House voted to overturn those regulations on Feb. 15, but the Senate has yet to take up the legislation.

The Department of Health and Human Services last December issued new healthcare protections for women. The House voted to repeal the rule on Feb. 16, but the Senate has yet to consider the bill.

The Federal Communication Commission’s internet privacy rules would prohibit service providers from selling information about the online search histories of their customers without their permission. The Senate voted to strike down the rule on March 23, but the House has yet to take it up.

Republicans have also introduced at least 14 other disapproval resolutions under the CRA that neither chamber has voted on, which could be taken up in the near future.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Eli tavallisen, Trumpia äänestäneen amerikankansalaisen elämää on parannettu / ollaan pian parantamassa mm. näin:

- öljy-yhtiöt saa maksella muiden maiden hallituksille mitä tykkäävät,
- hiilikaivoksen saa pykätä vesistöön kiinni,
- aseen ostamista ei estä sellaiset pikkuseikat kuin mielenterveysongelmat,
- urakoitsijat saa rauhassa polkea palkkoja ja muuten rikkoa työsopimuksia,
- positiivisen huumetestin takia turvallisuusuhkaduunin menettänyt saa hakea tyttömyyskorvausta,
- maankäyttö vapaammaksi,
- osavaltiot saa tarjota köyhille ja vääränvärisille lapsille niin paskaa koulutusta kuin tahtovat,
- opettajan pätevyyttä ei tarvi seurata,
- RIP Alaskan pedot,
- rakennustyömailla ja tehtailla ei tartte mitään työtapaturmia tai sairauksia listata,
- metaani- ja maakaasusäädökset hittoon,
- eläkesäästöt mitään säädöksiä tarvi,
- naiset ei mitään erityistä terveydenhuoltoa tarvi, ja
- myydään kaupan päälle ihmisten selaushistoriat.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Demokraattiedustaja ja "Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence".

[Poistunut käyttäjä 2a5d66]

Eli tavallisen, Trumpia äänestäneen amerikankansalaisen elämää on parannettu / ollaan pian parantamassa mm. näin:

- öljy-yhtiöt saa maksella muiden maiden hallituksille mitä tykkäävät,
- hiilikaivoksen saa pykätä vesistöön kiinni,
- aseen ostamista ei estä sellaiset pikkuseikat kuin mielenterveysongelmat,
- urakoitsijat saa rauhassa polkea palkkoja ja muuten rikkoa työsopimuksia,
- positiivisen huumetestin takia turvallisuusuhkaduunin menettänyt saa hakea tyttömyyskorvausta,
- maankäyttö vapaammaksi,
- osavaltiot saa tarjota köyhille ja vääränvärisille lapsille niin paskaa koulutusta kuin tahtovat,
- opettajan pätevyyttä ei tarvi seurata,
- RIP Alaskan pedot,
- rakennustyömailla ja tehtailla ei tartte mitään työtapaturmia tai sairauksia listata,
- metaani- ja maakaasusäädökset hittoon,
- eläkesäästöt mitään säädöksiä tarvi,
- naiset ei mitään erityistä terveydenhuoltoa tarvi, ja
- myydään kaupan päälle ihmisten selaushistoriat.

sellattii. tästä ei kyl amerikka enää nouse.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Trumpia kiukuttaa Venäjän kytkösten tutkiminen!




Kiukuttaa niin, että kielitaitokin vähenee entisestään. Sad!

Big Uranium? We had Hillary Clinton give Russia 20 percent of the uranium in our country. You know what uranium is, right? It's a thing called nuclear weapons and other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium, including some bad things," Trump said during a press conference.

The claim isn't true.

Russian speech money ja Podesta Russian Company (vain osittain näkyvä juttu, mutta muut löytämäni oli tasoa breitbart, muu altmedia ja... fox news) on ainakin osittain totta.

Russia reset ja samalla praise of Russia. No joo, sanotaanko näin ettei Hillary ole Putin-fani.

[Nahkanuijan nuupauttaja]

Oman puoueen juipit jurppii nekin.