bostonangler

But Wal-Mart didn't like it.... And they have much influence as do their shareholders, these in particular. Between campaign contributions and a vested interest in stock price, they just might not want to hurt the retailer. Members who own Wal-Mart Stores shares: 24 Barton, Joe (R-TX) Black, Diane (R-TN) Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) Cole, Tom (R-OK) Collins, Susan M (R-ME) Conaway, Mike (R-TX) Dingell, Debbie (D-MI) Farr, Sam (D-CA) Heitkamp, Heidi (D-ND) Kennedy, Joe III (D-MA) LoBiondo, Frank A (R-NJ) MacArthur, Thomas (R-NJ) Marchant, Kenny (R-TX) McCaul, Michael (R-TX) Perdue, David (R-GA) Peters, Gary (D-MI) Poliquin, Bruce (R-ME) Renacci, Jim (R-OH) Roe, Phil (R-TN) Rooney, Tom (R-FL) Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) Trott, Dave (R-MI) Westerman, Bruce (R-AR) Wicker, Roger (R-MS) B/A

Republicans kill the border tax Rick Newman Columnist Yahoo FinanceJuly 27, 2017 In a rare break from discord and finger-pointing, Washington’s top Republicans have announced their joint intention to cut taxes and simplify the tax code. It’s not news that President Donald Trump and the Republicans who control Congress want to cut taxes. But House Speaker Paul Ryan has now agreed to abandon a controversial “border-adjustability tax” that would have taxed imports and given an advantage to American-based companies that export. It’s a setback for Ryan and allies who hoped to gain billions in revenue from the BAT that they could use to slash income taxes. But it streamlines the Republican tax-cut plan by removing a measure that drew strident opposition from powerful retailers such as Walmart (WMT) and Target (TGT). A complex plan to raise revenue The BAT was a complicated—and, to some economists, elegant—way of raising new revenue without really harming anybody. That’s the theory, anyway. The plan would have changed tax incentives in a way that made products imported by companies costlier, with a corresponding tax exemption on products exported by US companies. If nothing else changed, those cost increases on imports would be passed along to consumers buying retail products, imposing a big hit on purchasing power. But many economists argued that the dollar would appreciate against other currencies on account of the changes, negating the higher prices, since the US currency would now buy more. If it all worked out, the end result would be additional revenue for Uncle Sam, plus a new set of incentives likely to end the need for US-based companies to relocate overseas in order to take advantage of more favorable tax laws there. The problem, however, is that no country has ever tried a BAT, so it’s not clear if reality would match theory or unintended consequences would arise. And if the dollar didn’t appreciate as expected, it would, in fact, raise prices on millions of everyday items. That’s why retailers fought the BAT, and even Trump himself said the scheme was “too complicated.” Ryan has a detailed tax plan that relies on the BAT, but Senate Republicans have indicated it has little chance of making it into a Senate plan. So dropping the BAT altogether eliminates a key source of friction between House and Senate lawmakers. There’s still no joint plan, but for once, senior people in the House, Senate and White House are essentially saying the same thing on a major policy issue. ‘A shared vision for tax reform exists’ The White House issued a statement on July 27 on behalf of key leaders in the House and Senate, along with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin and Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn, saying, “We are confident that a shared vision for tax reform exists. The goal is a plan that reduces tax rates as much as possible, allows unprecedented capital expensing, places a priority on permanence, and creates a system that encourages American companies to bring back jobs and profits trapped overseas.” There are no further details, yet, but Trump wants to slash the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15% and cut individual rates for the middle class. Such a steep cut would probably cut federal revenue by too much, but a compromise outcome could be a corporate tax rate in the mid 20s. Trump has wavered recently on tax cuts for wealthy Americans, suggesting he may forgo cuts in the top tax bracket in order lend a more populist bent to his tax plan and raise the odds it can pass. The tax plan Trump released as a candidate would have produced far bigger savings for wealthy earners than for those in the middle. Trump and his fellow Republicans desperately need a legislative win, with efforts to repeal Obamacare and fulfill that campaign promise a spectacular flop, so far. Cutting taxes ought to be easier, though there will be pushback from budget hawks to any plan that adds to the $20 trillion national debt. Still, tax cuts have been part of the Republican orthodoxy for decades. If they can’t do this, they can’t do anything. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-kill-border-tax-192050107.html

Sadly these show that politicians on a whole are liars. I'm guessing your list covers 8 years, the list I posted covered 26 hours... Isn't that crazy? B/A

This is one thing I can never wrap my head around. But it certainly isn't a political left or right thing it runs throughout society as a whole. In my hometown a local police officer just pled guilty to this crime. The scary thing is someone like this could be your neighbor, friend or relative. And yes I agree they should suffer the worse punishment... B/A

Jim Smeal/BEI/BEI/Shutterstock July 26, 2017 | 09:32PM PT June Foray, the voice of “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show’s” Rocky the Flying Squirrel and his nemesis Natasha Fatale of Boris and Natasha fame in the early 1960s and a key figure in the animation industry, died Thursday. She was 99. Her close friend Dave Nimitz, confirmed her death on Facebook, writing “With a heavy heart again I want to let you all know that we lost our little June today at 99 years old.” Foray was also the voice behind Looney Tunes’ Witch Hazel, Nell from “Dudley Do-Right,” Granny in the “Tweety and Sylvester” cartoons and Cindy Lou Who in Chuck Jones’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas,” among hundreds of others. The first lady of voice acting, one of the original members of animation organization ASIFA-Hollywood and founder of the annual Annie Awards, was also instrumental in the creation of the Oscars’ animated feature category. “We are all saddened by the news of June’s passing,” said ASIFA-Hollywood executive director Frank Gladstone, who noted that she would have celebrated her 100th birthday in September. “Although it didn’t come as a shock, it has really taken us back a bit.” Gladstone noted her instrumental role in starting the Annie Awards. “It was part of her legacy and a testament to her enduring love for animation and the animation industry.” Said ASIFA president Jerry Beck: “On behalf of ASIFA-Hollywood, of which June was a founder, we are mourning the passing of animation’s best friend. She has touched so many lives: with her voice that of so many classic cartoon character, her efforts to create ASIFA, to maintain the Academy’s Oscar for Best Animated Short and her leadership in crafting the category of Best Animated Feature. She was one of a kind. A trailblazer, a great talent and a truly wonderful person. We will never forget her.” Recently elected Academy board member and animation veteran Tom Sito said of Foray: “She was a mainstay of the animation community in Hollywood and the queen of voice talent.” Foray continued to work late in life, reprising her role as Rocky in director Gary Trousdale’s short “Rocky and Bullwinkle,” released by DreamWorks Animation in 2014. In a 2013 interview with Variety, Foray said: “I’m still going. It keeps you thinking young. My body is old, but I think the same as I did when I was 20 years old.” Foray is credited with coming up with the idea for the Annie Awards, which started out as a dinner honoring the year’s best in animation in 1972, and she presided over what has become a gala event in the animation industry every year since. The Annies created a juried award named for Foray in 1995 that honors individuals who have made significant or benevolent contributions to the art and industry of animation, and she was its first recipient. Foray told Variety that she had been working in the animation business for about 20 years before the group that would eventually become ASIFA-Hollywood casually came to be. “We never did anything. Sometimes we’d have lunch together and call each other on the phone,” she said. Foray was a founding member of what was then called ASIFA West Coast in the early 1960s with fellow animation professionals Les Goldman, Bill Littlejohn, Ward Kimball, John Wilson, Carl Bell and Herbert Kasower. In the early 1970s Foray pitched the idea for an awards show. “I was thinking that there were the Grammys, the Tonys, the Oscars, but nobody recognizes animation,” Foray said. So she suggested the board host a dinner, and though other board members said no one would show up to such an event, they rented space in the Sportsmen’s Lodge in the San Fernando Valley to honor animation pioneers Max and Dave Fleischer. “And 400 people showed up,” boasted Foray. A longtime cheerleader for the animation industry, Foray lobbied for many years to have animated films recognized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. “I was on the board of governors for 26 years and I tried for 20 years” to convince the Academy to have a category for animated features, she told Variety. Finally the Academy created the category in 2001, and DreamWorks Animation’s “Shrek” won the first Oscar for animated feature. Afterward, Foray said, “Jeffrey Katzenberg called me to thank me because he was aware of what I had done.” Though not a superstar in the traditional sense, Foray had an impressive list of fans, as Leonard Maltin relayed in his forward to Foray’s 2009 autobiography “Did You Grow Up With Me, Too?” He wrote: “When I was fortunate enough to attend the Oscar nominees’ luncheon in 2007, I asked director Martin Scorsese who he was excited to have met that day, among the hundred-or-so contenders and Academy guests. He smiled and said, ‘June Foray.’” Foray was born June Lucille Forer in Springfield, Mass., and she was doing vocal work in local radio dramas by the time she was 12. She continued working in radio after her family moved to Los Angeles after she graduated from high school, following her dream of becoming an actress. She even had her own “Lady Make Believe” radio show that showcased her vocal talents, and she appeared regularly on network shows such as “Lux Radio Theater” and “The Jimmy Durante Show.” She met her future husband, writer and director Hobart Donavan, while working on “Smilin’ Ed’s Buster Brown Show,” then moved on to work with Steve Allen on morning radio show “Smile Time,” in which she’d play “everyone and everything. It was there that I perfected my Spanish accent and where my booming Marjorie Main-type voice got a good workout,” she recalled in her autobiography. After “Smile Time,” Foray found work with Capitol Records, where she recorded many children’s albums and where she first met and worked with Stan Freberg and Daws Butler, with whom she recorded several comedy records, including “Dragnet” parody “St. George and the Dragonet.” Later she was a regular cast member of “The Stan Freberg Show” on CBS Radio. Foray got her start in the animation business when someone from the Walt Disney studio called her to ask if she could do the voice of a cat. “Well, I could do anything,” recalled Foray in an interview with Variety. “So he hired me as Lucifer the cat in ‘Cinderella,’ and then I started to work for Disney.” Much of her work for Disney was uncredited, including work as a mermaid and squaw in “Peter Pan.” But she starred as the voice of Hazel the Witch in the 1952 Donald Duck short “Trick or Treat,” using a voice that would later morph into “Looney Tunes” character Witch Hazel. She would often say that she voiced a long litany of cartoon witches, many of them named Hazel. About the same time, the 1950s, Foray worked on a series of cartoons by such animation pioneers as Tex Avery and Walter Lantz. For Warner Bros., she became Granny in the “Tweety and Sylvester” cartoons and Alice Crumden in the cartoon parody of “The Honeymooners,” “The Honey-Mousers.” At Warner Bros. she met Chuck Jones, for whom she worked on several “Looney Tunes” cartoons, starting with “Broom-Stick Bunny” in 1956. She would later star as Cindy Lou Who in Jones’ cartoon adaptation of Dr. Seuss’ “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.” She also voiced Mother Magoo in the “Mister Magoo” series. But her greatest fame came with Jay Ward’s satirical “Rocky and His Friends,” which would later become “The Bullwinkle Show,” eventually known collectively as “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show,” which ran from 1959 through 1964. Foray did most of the female voices for the show, including the voice of Russian villain Natasha Fatale, as well as that of Rocket J. Squirrel. She also voiced characters for other Jay Ward cartoons, such as “Dudley Do-Right” (Nell Fenwick), “George of the Jungle” (Jane) and “Tom Slick” (Marigold). It wasn’t only in animation that Foray got to use her myriad vocal talents. She voiced the demonic doll Talky Tina in “The Twilight Zone” episode entitled “Living Doll” in 1963. Despite her prolific career, she had to wait until 2012 for an Emmy nomination; she went on to win a Daytime Emmy for her performance as Mrs. Cauldron on Cartoon Network’s “The Garfield Show.” A documentary about her life, “The One and Only June Foray,” was produced in 2013. Foray was married to Bernard Barondess from 1941 to 1945. She was married to Donavan from 1954 until his death in 1976.

His senate is beginning to tell him what they think....Hmmmm A prominent Republican senator warned President Donald Trump Thursday “there will be holy hell to pay” if he fires Attorney General Jeff Sessions and dared the commander-in-chief to “accept the consequences” if he made such a move. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the many GOP lawmakers furious over Trump’s escalating attacks on Sessions, let the president know in no uncertain terms that cutting the former Alabama senator loose from his Cabinet would be met with repercussions. "There will be no confirmation hearing for a new attorney general in 2017. If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay," said Graham, who has been critical of Trump. Graham Sounds Off: 'Holy Hell to Pay' If Sessions Is Fired 2:10 "This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate," he added. "I don't think it's going over well in the conservative world." "If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences," Graham warned. Sessions, a loyal Trump supporter who was the first senator to endorse the then-candidate during the GOP primary, has found himself the target of unrelenting public attacks from the president over his decision to recuse himself from the investigation into Russian meddling in last year’s election. Trump has thus far refused to fire Sessions, leading some to speculate he’s waiting until the August congressional recess, when he could name a replacement who would not require Senate confirmation. Republican senators, who served with Sessions for years on Capitol Hill, have increasingly and publicly said they’re angry with Trump’s public attacks on his attorney general. Many have called Sessions offering their support and encouragement as they can't understand why the president would treat one of his most loyal lieutenants in this way. Graham, meanwhile, added Thursday that Sessions isn’t the only person he’s concerned Trump could fire. He revealed he was working on legislation that would dictate "a special counsel cannot be fired when they were impaneled to investigate the president or his team unless you have judicial review of the firing." If Trump "would fire (Special Counsel Robert) Mueller or have somebody fire Mueller because he doesn't like Mueller or Mueller is doing something" he opposes, "then we become Russia." Going after Mueller "could be the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency," Graham said. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/holy-hell-pay-graham-warns-trump-firing-sessions-n787086 B/A

Jax, I may have misunderstood and thought you have a serious medical condition. If that is the case, I wish you best and hope you get well. If I did misunderstand I apologize. As for my thoughts or opinions or the reason I post news articles is simply to help people get a better understanding of what our government is doing. In the case of health insurance, I brought over an article to show Insurance companies set prices and those prices vary state to state. With that in mind, I asked if your state ( I'm guessing New Jersey I could be wrong) is more expensive than others. If your health insurance prices are over the top, you can talk to your government officials and the insurance commissioner. But blaming The Affordable Healthcare Act is not accurate. This was explained it the article. Insurance companies set the rate. They are not controlled in their pricing structure. And rates are not universal, if your state government allows, the insurance companies can and do charge whatever they can get away with. Should they have the right to charge what they see fit? Of course. If they have that right, do individuals have the right to complain? Of course. Without intervention will citizens beat the insurance companies? Nope won't happen. The other article I brought over, again to inform, was to demonstrate where hardline conservatives stand on pre-existing conditions. (Again, I thought this applied to you, perhaps I was mistaken) but the message remains. They desire to eliminate the requirement of covering pre-existing conditions, or at the very least remove cost caps and allow insurance companies to charge so much that it would price out coverage for those who need it most. For me as an individual, I think making insurance too expensive for sick people is well, basically sick. It is my understanding from reading your posts that your insurance is way out of hand. Do you think it will become less expensive if insurance companies have free reign? I don't see them giving away profits. I do think that people in any state should be allowed to shop their insurance nationwide and this would create competition and lower prices, but insurance companies are not going to allow that to happen. Jax, I enjoy reading your posts and find them informative and well thought out. I know there times when we all get a bit emotional and we strike out at each other in ways we normally would not. Several of your replies to me have been, shall we say emotional. I just wanted to let you know I understand and that I am not offended and always enjoy the back and forth. B/A

I couldn't agree more.. And I also whole heartily agree that news from across the ocean is far more "news worthy" than American media. But I think you need to be careful in believing anything Putin says. He most certainly has an agenda. I personally know people who have moved here from Russia and they will be the first ones to tell you Putin is not to be trusted. He is a master at propaganda and uses it to his fullest advantage. JMHO B/A

Jax, I know you are a true conservative. Are you aware of The Freedom Caucus and what they would do to people who are sick with a pre-existing condition? This little tid-bit should be a bit frightening to anyone who may fall into the unwanted category of "pre-existing". Insurance companies will make it impossible for sick people to afford insurance if they get their way. Then all of us will be picking up the tab more than ever. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/03/conservatives-demand-end-pre-existing-conditions-ban/ I guess I was wrong last night. The New York Times says President Trump has caved in to demands to repeal the minimum set of required benefits for health care insurance: President Trump agreed to the demands of conservative House Republicans to remove federal requirements that health insurance plans provide a basic set of benefits like maternity care, emergency services, mental health and wellness visits as he struggles to round up enough votes to pass a broad health care overhaul. But the Washington Post reports that this still wasn’t enough: Conservative House Republicans rebuffed an offer by President Trump on Thursday to strip a key set of mandates from the nation’s current health-care law, raising doubts about whether House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has the votes to pass the bill. ….Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), asked whether the White House had made its final negotiating offer, said that if that’s the case, “They’re not going to pass the bill.”…As of mid-afternoon Thursday, 37 House Republicans — mainly Freedom Caucus members — had announced their opposition to the bill, known as the American Health Care Act. So what do conservatives want? Here’s the Post again: Conservative lawmakers have asked to eliminate much of [Obamacare’s] Title I, which….bars companies from setting insurance rates based on a person’s sex, medical condition, genetic condition or other factors. In other words, insurers could charge you more if you have a pre-existing condition. That would effectively kill off the Obamacare provision that requires insurers to cover everyone who applies. They’d simply price policies out of reach for people with expensive pre-existing conditions and that would be that. Would this pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, who has to agree that repealing Title 1 “directly affects” the budget? I doubt it. Would Mike Pence go ahead and overrule her? Maybe. Is this whole thing a debacle beyond imagining? Oh yes. POSTSCRIPT: It’s worth pointing out that if Republicans go down this road, they’ve essentially killed the filibuster completely. Basically, they would have set a precedent that anything can be added to a reconciliation bill—which can’t be filibustered—and the vice president will overrule the parliamentarian and declare that it’s OK. At that point, the Senate can include reconciliation instructions for just about anything in its annual budget resolution. As long as the president and vice president are from the same party, they can then pass anything they want with 51 votes. Good luck and I sincerely hope you do get better. B/A

Perhaps this clown should take care of his own... JMHO B/A

Jax I do feel bad that you are suffering, but I think you are misinformed. Insurance companies set the prices, not The Affordable Care Act, the government or the exchanges. This is why rates vary dramatically from state to state. In your state, you might want to contact your insurance commissioner. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/aca-doesnt-set-prices-on-exchanges/ Rick Santorum wrongly claimed health plans on the health care exchanges are offering more limited networks of doctors and hospitals “because the Obama bill set prices at such levels” that some doctors and hospitals “do not participate in these programs.” The Affordable Care Act does not set prices for medical care. The private insurance companies participating in the exchanges set prices, which doctors and hospitals can balk at. The insurance companies set those prices in order to be able to offer more affordable plans in a competitive marketplace. Santorum made the claim on CNN’s “State of the Union” during a spirited back-and-forth with Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who once chaired the Democratic National Committee, over the merits of the Affordable Care Act. Santorum, Dec. 1: And here’s the thing that, again, no one’s talking about. The networks, in other words the doctors and hospitals that are in these exchange products, are dramatically smaller. In other words, yes, you’ll be able to get your preventive care from your doctor, but if you want to go to the children’s hospital, sorry, you can’t get that kind of specialized care from specialized doctors. Why? Because the Obama bill set prices at such levels that doctors and hospitals, particularly the ones that are in high demand, do not participate in these programs. So you’re going to see the end result be higher costs, less care, and then as a result, because they’re narrow networks, longer waits and longer lines. This is just beginning, the disaster of Obamacare. No statistics are publicly available to substantiate whether the plans on the exchange are offering more limited networks, but there is anecdotal evidence that some insurance providers are offering plans that restrict choices to a relatively small network of doctors and hospitals. As Jonathan Chait of New York magazine wrote, “It’s making customers more sensitive to price. Of course, the flip side of this dynamic is that the ruthless price competition is encouraging insurers to squeeze doctors and hospitals. The most affordable plans on the exchanges often exclude more expensive providers.” Contrary to Santorum’s assertion, however, the Affordable Care Act does not set the price levels for care. The law requires insurance companies to spend at least 80 percent of premiums on health costs — as opposed to spending on administration, marketing, and profit. But the actual prices for medical services are set by insurance companies offering plans on the exchanges; and those same insurance companies decide what doctors and hospitals will be in the network. In Missouri, for example, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield excluded one of the state’s top hospital systems from policies it offered on the exchange. “The ACA does not set prices related to commercial insurance, for either premiums or payment for care,” Deborah Chollet, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan research firm, wrote to us in an email. “The narrow-network plans offered by some issuers are intended to (a) maximize negotiating leverage with providers by narrowing their PPOs; and (b) thereby reduce premiums to attract consumers. So, this is not regulation; it is competition at work.” “That said,” Chollet added, “consumers need to be aware that if they want to go anywhere to buy care, they will have to pay more for it in premiums, out of pocket, or both.” Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, echoed those sentiments. “The ACA does not set prices for health insurance policies,” Pollitz told us in an email. “Rather, market competition drives insurers to seek ways to hold down premiums. It’s too early to say how many plans offered on Exchanges have narrower networks (compared to, say, what insurers had offered previously on the nongroup market, or compared to what employer plans offer).” In Maine, for example, Pollitz said, Anthem “has gotten lots of press for limiting the number of network hospitals; but a new co-op health plan offered in Maine offers a significantly broader network.” Experts we spoke to agreed that while there are no hard statistics yet on the extent to which plans on the exchanges have limited the doctors and hospitals in their networks, Santorum is correct that there seems to be a trend among insurers participating in the exchanges of limiting those networks. “It’s definitely the case (based on conversations with insurers and with providers) that insurers have decided to limit networks in some instances in order to price their health plans more competitively,” Pollitz said. “It’s also definitely the case that some providers have declined to participate in some of the new health insurance networks, holding out for higher fees from some insurers in return for a promise to participate exclusively in their networks. This is market competition at work — not entirely transparent, unfortunately, so it’s not yet clear what the impact will be on patients.” Paul Ginsburg, president of the nonprofit Center for Studying Health System Change, said the exchanges and the structure of subsidies “have created a highly competitive environment for insurers.” In order to keep premiums low, many insurers have excluded some expensive providers from their networks. “Children’s hospitals have a reputation for being particularly expensive,” Ginsburg wrote to us in an email. The New York Times recently detailed how some in-demand hospitals are able to charge significantly higher prices for medical services than their competitors. While Santorum’s comment makes it seem as though doctors and hospitals opted out, it is insurance companies that ultimately decide what doctors and hospitals will be in their network. “The only role that doctors and hospitals play is deciding whether to offer lower rates to get into these limited networks,” Ginsburg said. And while the process may lead to fewer choices, it’s not all bad for consumers, Ginsburg said. Some hospitals have discounted their rates in order to be included in networks. “Competitive pressure is leading to lower prices, which are pursued through limiting the network,” Ginsburg said. And Larry Levitt, senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, said: “I do believe there are stronger competitive forces operating on insurers in the individual market, and that is helping to keep premiums down.” Limiting networks is nothing new, a fact that was highlighted in a story in the New Republic. “Virtually all insurance now sold includes a limited network of doctors and hospitals (i.e., PPOs, HMOs, POS, and EPOs), and that was true before the Affordable Care Act as well,” Levitt said. The bottom line: It appears to be true that some plans sold on the exchanges will restrict access to hospitals and doctors, but contrary to Santorum’s claim, it’s not because the Affordable Care Act sets prices in a way that discourages doctors and hospitals from participating. The plans are being limited by insurance companies seeking to offer more competitively-priced plans. — Robert Farley

Well then, you certainly can't support our current administration with you stated point of view, so there is one thing we can agree on... And if you do live in New Jersey, I feel bad for you, did you vote for that fat criminal you have in office, perhaps life will get better when that loser is gone. B/A

After "W" there could be no bigger liar... Or at least that was what I thought until recently... I'm sorry health care isn't working for you, but most (the majority) of people I know do not seem to be crying about their healthcare. The only people I can honestly say complain, are those who make a lot of money. Of course your state may be different from mine. My state has no income tax, low property tax, affordable healthcare, a budget surplus... Perhaps, you should ask your governor or state representative where all your tax dollars are going. B/A

Seems those who disagree are the minority... I mean even Shelby from Alabama disagrees on this one. McCain criticizes 'unclear' Trump policy on transgender military ban By Noa Yadidi and Grace Hauck, CNN Updated 1:09 PM ET, Wed July 26, 2017 . Source: CNN Story highlights Veterans Sen. Tammy Duckworth and Rep. Ted Lieu also denounced the decision Sen. John McCain, the chair of the armed services committee, called it 'unclear' Washington (CNN)Sen. John McCain objected to the Trump administration's decision to reinstate the US ban on transgender people serving in the military Wednesday, saying an announcement by President Donald Trump on Twitter was "unclear." "The statement was unclear. The Department of Defense has already decided to allow currently-serving transgender individuals to stay in the military, and many are serving honorably today. Any American who meets current medical and readiness standards should be allowed to continue serving," the Arizona Republican said in a statement. "There is no reason to force service members who are able to fight, train, and deploy to leave the military -- regardless of their gender identity. We should all be guided by the principle that any American who wants to serve our country and is able to meet the standards should have the opportunity to do so -- and should be treated as the patriots they are." McCain, the chairman of the Senate armed services committee, added that no decision is appropriate until the study is complete and reviewed by the secretary of defense, military leadership and Congress. McCain's criticism comes one day after he dramatically returned to Washington following surgery for brain cancer. After voting to advance consideration of Republican health care plans, he delivered a well-received speech on the Senate floor calling for more bipartisanship in the chamber. The Arizona Republican was joined by lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who pushed back against Trump's decision to reinstate the ban barring transgender individuals from serving "in any capacity" in the US armed forces. Read More Trump's plan, which he announced via Twitter on Wednesday morning, reverses a policy initially approved by the Defense Department in 2016, which was still under final review, that would allow transgender individuals to openly serve in the military. Some lawmakers denounced the move as discriminatory while others claimed potential economic benefits of cutting Pentagon funding for transgender-related health care costs. "You ought to treat everybody fairly and give everybody a chance to serve," Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, said on CNN's "Newsroom" Wednesday, adding, "You have to remember our military force is a volunteer force." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi in a statement that the policy change is a "cruel and arbitrary decision designed to humiliate transgender Americans who stepped forward to serve our country." Rhode Island Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the armed services committee, noted the irony of the announcement's date. "Today, on the anniversary of President Harry Truman's order desegregating the United States Armed Forces, President Trump is choosing to retreat in the march toward equality," Reed said in a statement. Several military veterans also spoke out against the decision. "I served on active duty in the military, and I can tell you we don't care about gender orientation or identity or who you love, we just care if you can shoot straight and complete the mission," said Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, on CNN's "Newsroom." "This is actually hurting our military readiness, and I hope he reverses his decision." <img alt="Rep. Lieu calls transgender ban awful decision" class="media__image" src="//i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170726095848-ted-lieu-reacts-transgender-tweet-nr-large-169.jpg"> Rep. Lieu calls transgender ban awful decision Sen. Tammy Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat and retired Army lieutenant colonel, echoed similar sentiments in a statement. Trump to reinstate US military ban on transgender people "When my Black Hawk helicopter was shot down in Iraq, I didn't care if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were ***, straight, transgender or anything else. All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind," Duckworth said. However, not all reactions have opposed the President's new policy. "I'm pleased to hear that President Trump shares my readiness and cost concerns, and I'm glad the President will be changing this costly and damaging policy. Military service is a privilege, not a right. We must ensure all our precious defense dollars are used to strengthen our national defense. Now, we can focus on rebuilding our military and addressing the growing threats around the world," Missouri Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Missouri, told CNN. Hartzler proposed an amendment that was defeated last month that would have banned Pentagon funding for gender reassignment surgery and other transgender-related health care costs.

Do these freaks ever take a day off??? B/A

Yup independent... I voted "W" once. I voted for Obama. I voted for our Republican governor. I have voted for Tea Party candidates. I have voted for Libertarians.... It is great to vote for the person you like instead of voting against the person you don't like... It is very liberating you should try it sometime. B/A

If being independent was your point, glad I could help out. When did being independent become a bad thing? We started with a "Declaration of Independence". B/A

Really? Trey Gowdy: Jeff Sessions works for "a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales," not the president washex.am/2v7B8hY pic.twitter.com/9sWkT6a… 34 mins ago · Twitter

That's not true. I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton... I voted my conscience not along party lines. You guys have been tricked by a terrific conman. Let's be honest he is an elitist. B/A

Facts are facts... This guy needs to get real... As for crying that's outrageous! You guys still cry about Obama and Clinton, that's a joke... Being un-American is blindly excepting your man's lies... Real Americans live by the creed, "Don't Tread On Me". Sadly Trump supporters are getting trampled by lies. B/A

Politics Breitbart turns on Donald Trump with attack on President’s treatment of Jeff Sessions Andrew Griffin,The Independent 20 hours ago Donald Trump is showing he is "weak" by attacking the attorney general, according to Breitbart. The alt-right publication has traditionally been one of the president's most prominent and important supporters. But it launched a scathing criticism upon Mr Trump in a news article published after he attacked Jeff Sessions. The president could be failing to deliver on the wall and the immigration and other policies that were key to his election, the publication said, in an apparent attempt to distance itself from him. In an early morning tweetstorm, Mr Trump had written: "Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillarious Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!" The tweet was widely seen as a significant attempt by Mr Trump to distance himself from Mr Sessions and encourage the Department of Justice to prosecute Hillarious Clinton. Those attacks have lasted days and apparently came because Mr Sessions had recused himself from the investigation into Mr Trump's ties to Russia. But Breitbart reporter Adam Shaw wrote in a news article that the tweets had only served to "only serves to highlight Trump’s own hypocrisy on the issue — and is likely to fuel concerns from his base who see Sessions at the best hope to fulfill Trump’s immigration policies". Mr Shaw also wrote that it was the president's fault – not that of Jeff Sessions – that Ms Clinton hadn't been prosecuted. It isn't the first time that Breitbart has attacked the president for failing to keep his campaign promise to lock up Ms Clinton. But it said that Mr Trump's base was now being sold out on two fronts and was becoming disappointed with the president. Throughout the presidential campaign, Mr Trump said that if he were in power he would send Ms Clinton to prison. He also led supporters in chants of "lock her up", in response to perceived wrongdoing in handling her emails. But soon after he was elected, Mr Trump told the New York Times that he felt sorry for Ms Clinton and wouldn't be having her locked up, despite his promises. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Trump said in the interview. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.” Mr Shaw wrote that many supporters looked past that U-turn because they believed that he would still pursue policies like the building of a wall and the banning of people from Muslim-majority countries from entering the US. But now Mr Trump is attacking Mr Sessions, that may be dropped too. Mr Sessions has been one of the most vocal supporters of Mr Trump's extreme immigration policies, and losing him may delay plans to push them through the courts. Breitbart is also worried that he could be replaced by ex-New York mayor Rudy Giuliani, who has voiced support for undocumented migrants in the past.

Fact Checker Analysis Analysis Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events 26 hours, 29 Trumpian false or misleading claims By Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee By Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee Fact Checker Analysis Analysis Interpretation of the news based on evidence, including data, as well as anticipating how events might unfold based on past events July 26 at 3:00 AM Play Video 2:33 President Trump's Pinocchio filled 26 hours Embed Copy Share President Trump made 29 claims that were false, misleading or flip-flops between his two rallies. President Trump made 29 claims that were false, misleading or flip-flops between his two rallies. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post) President Trump made 29 claims that were false, misleading or flip-flops between his two rallies. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post) In a period of less than 26 hours — from 6:31 p.m. on July 24 to 8:09 p.m. on July 25 — President Trump made two fired-up speeches, held a news conference and tweeted with abandon, leaving a trail of misinformation in his wake. Here’s a roundup of his suspect claims. National Scout Jamboree at Glen Jean, W.Va., 6:31 p.m. EST, July 24, 2017 “19th Boy Scout Jamboree, wow, and to address such a tremendous group. Boy, you have a lot of people here. The press will say it’s about 200 people. It looks like about 45,000 people. You set a record today. You set a record. That’s a great honor, believe me.” The figure of 45,000 is not official but if so, that would not be a record. The most-attended single-site jamboree was held in 1964, in Valley Forge, Pa., with 50,960 attendees. In 1973, the jamboree was held in two sites, in Idaho and Pennsylvania, for a total of 73,610 attendees. (Those are raw numbers. In terms of percentage of Boy Scouts attending, 2010 holds the record.) At last count, 26,000 Scouts were expected at the 2017 event, suggesting it would fall well short of the record. “Our stock market has picked up — since the election November 8th. Do we remember that date? Was that a beautiful date? What a date.” Trump equates the rise of the stock market since the election as a demonstration of a good economy. But the stock market had already been rising for years before he was elected — and he called it “a big, fat, ugly bubble.” “And you know we have a tremendous disadvantage in the Electoral College — popular vote is much easier.” According to a tally by John Pitney of Claremont McKenna College, every Republican president since Rutherford B. Hayes in 1876 won a larger share of the electoral college votes than Trump, with the exception of George W. Bush (twice) and Nixon in 1968. “We had the best jobs report in 16 years. The stock market on a daily basis is hitting an all-time high.” Trump appears to referring to the fact that the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in June, which is a 16-year low. (This was a slight increase from 4.3 percent in May.) The unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in January, when Trump took office — and when he campaigned for president he routinely said the unemployment numbers were phony and were actually as high as 42 percent. (The actual jobs report was nothing special, with fewer jobs created than in June 2016.) As we noted, during the campaign Trump often said the stock market was in “a big, fat, ugly bubble.” Now he celebrates its continued rise. “And very soon, Rick, we will be an energy exporter. Isn’t that nice — an energy exporter? In other words, we’ll be selling our energy instead of buying it from everybody all over the globe.” The United States is already exporting energy, and has exported more than it has imported since 2015. Led by the hydraulic fracturing techniques, the United States and the rest of the world have been in the midst of an energy revolution that began nearly 15 years ago. Saudi Arabia leads the world with one-fifth of the world’s oil reserves. Twitter, through the night and into morning The Washington Post is owned by Jeffrey P. Bezos, the founder of Amazon. Amazon does not own The Post, but in any case the president’s claims about “no-tax” Amazon are out of date. Amazon used to lobby to keep Internet sales free from state taxes, but no more. As of March, Amazon is collecting sales tax on purchases in every state that has one. Trump is referring to efforts by a Ukrainian-American operative to expose former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort’s ties to the Russian government. But the comparison to the Russian probe is overblown and facile, making a similar criminal probe problematic. One fundamental difference is that Ukraine is considered a U.S. ally, and Russia is considered an adversary. Moreover, U.S. intelligence officials found a top-down effort, initiated by Russian President Vladimir Putin, to illegally hack and release information in a deliberate attempt to meddle in the U.S. election and undermine the democratic system. There is no such evidence of a top-down effort in the Ukrainian case. Instead, a Ukrainian American Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa began looking into Manafort’s ties to Viktor Yanukovych, a former pro-Russia president of Ukraine, as a part of her volunteer work in 2014. She apparently received some guidance from the Ukrainian Embassy in order to locate public documents. That’s entirely different from state-sponsored illegal hacking. There’s also no evidence that the DNC used information gathered by Chalupa or that the Ukrainians coordinated opposition research with the DNC. Trump conflates a number of issues here in his continuing effort to force his attorney general from office because of his anger that Sessions followed Justice Department guidance and recused himself from the Russia probe. The Clinton email issue was exhaustively investigated by the FBI, with the conclusion a year ago that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information but did not intend to violate any laws. “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts,” FBI Director James B. Comey said in July 2016. There is no evidence that Clinton was involved in the question of whether the Democratic National Committee’s servers should be turned over to the FBI as part of the investigation into Russian-linked hacking after the DNC was hacked. The FBI and the Democratic National Committee disagree on whether the FBI requested access to the DNC’s servers. Comey testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee that the bureau made “multiple requests at different levels” to access the DNC’s servers, but the DNC said the FBI never requested access. The DNC allowed a private company, CrowdStrike, to review its database and share findings with the FBI. “We got the forensics from the pros that they hired which — again, best practice is always to get access to the machines themselves, but this my folks tell me was an appropriate substitute,” Comey said. It’s worth noting here that the DNC was the victim in this instance, and yet Trump without evidence seems to be accusing it of a crime. Moreover, it was Trump himself who said after the election that it would be not be appropriate to investigate Clinton any further, so Sessions presumably was following his guidance. Here, Trump reprises a Four-Pinocchio claim from the presidential campaign. Andrew McCabe, who is now the acting FBI director, became part of the investigation of Hillarious Clinton’s emails long after his wife, Jill McCabe, unsuccessfully ran for a Virginia Senate seat. The political action committee of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) gave $452,500 to McCabe, and the state Democratic Party gave her campaign an additional $207,788. That was about one-third of the $1.8 million budget for her campaign. McAuliffe is close to Clinton, but there is no evidence she knew of the contributions. Moreover, it stretches the imagination that McAuliffe would know that the husband of someone he was supporting in a Virginia legislative race was going to be promoted months later to a position of authority in the email case. Why is McCabe acting FBI director? Because Trump fired Comey. Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, gave a lengthy statement explaining his side of the story and denying any collusion. That is not Kushner “proving he did not collude with the Russians”; the special counsel’s investigation is still under way. As a part of his statement, Kushner said: “I did not collude, nor know of anyone else in the campaign who colluded, with any foreign government. I had no improper contacts. I have not relied on Russian funds to finance my business activities in the private sector. I have tried to be fully transparent with regard to the filing of my SF-86 form, above and beyond what is required.” Trump news conference, 3:30 p.m., July 25, 2017 “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda and Hezbollah.” Trump made this comment at a joint news conference with Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri. But Hariri is only in power because of a deal he struck with Michel Aoun, Hezbollah’s main Christian ally, to make Aoun president. Hezbollah, the militant group, dominates the Lebanese cabinet and is more powerful than the official Lebanese army, recently launching an operation against a militant group in the eastern town of Arsal. So it’s a bit odd for Trump to suggest the Lebanese government is fighting Hezbollah. “Obamacare is a disaster. It’s failing on every front. It’s too expensive. It gives horrible coverage.” Trump continues with his overheated rhetoric on the Affordable Care Act, with as usual few specifics. Credible estimates suggest the health-care law boosted the number of people with health insurance by 20 million. The Congressional Budget Office, in its reports on the GOP replacement bills, said that the individual market would be stable in most markets at least for the next 10 years under the Affordable Care Act. As for Obamacare being too expensive, most people who participate in the exchanges receive tax subsidies that shield them from premium increases. The health-care costs have slowed since the passage of the ACA, though the jury is out that the law is mostly responsible. The Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that cumulative premium increases were 63 percent for 2001-2006, 31 percent for 2006-2011 and 20 percent for 2011-2016. Trump rally in Youngstown, Ohio, 7:14 p.m., July 25, 2017 “Don’t even think about it, we will build that wall.” Congress refused to provide funding for the wall in the 2017 budget and prospects for funds being approved in the 2018 budget are dim because of continued congressional opposition. Trump has all but dropped mention of the notion of Mexico paying for the cost of the wall, a key campaign promise. “After years and years of sending our jobs and our wealth to other countries, we are finally standing up for our workers and our companies” Of course, Trump himself has a long history of outsourcing a variety of his products and has acknowledged doing so. (During the campaign, we counted at least 12 countries that made Trump products.) Even during Trump’s “Made in America” week, when he urged manufacturers and consumers to “buy American, hire American,” his family’s company continued to rely on foreign workers. Another of Trump’s golf courses recently filed a request to hire 10 foreign workers to be waiters. Further, the fashion line of Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and adviser to the president, is out of step with the principles championed by her father. “Unemployment last month hit a 16-year low.” Trump once again is referring to the fact that the unemployment rate was 4.4 percent in June, which is a 16-year low. (This was a slight increase from 4.3 percent in May.) The unemployment rate was 4.8 percent in January, when Trump took office — and when he campaigned for president he routinely said the unemployment numbers were phony and were actually as high as 42 percent. “Since my election, we’ve added much more than 1 million jobs. Think of that.” It’s unclear why Trump would give himself credit for jobs created in the last three months of President Barack Obama’s term. In the five months since Trump took office, 863,000 jobs have been created — fewer than the last five months of Obama’s second term. Indeed, Trump is falling behind on his promise to create 10 million jobs in his first term. “We’ve achieved an historic increase in defense spending.” Trump’s proposed defense increase is relatively modest — and not yet been approved by Congress. “Boy, have we put those coal miners and coal back on the map.” According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 800 jobs have been created in the coal industry since Trump became president — an increase of less than 2 percent. Administration officials often misleadingly refer to “mining” jobs, which mostly consist of jobs in the oil sector, which has rebounded from a price slump that has little to do with administration policies. “We can’t believe you gave [Iran] between $100 and $150 billion when they were ready to fail.” In knocking the international agreement with Iran to freeze its nuclear ambitions, Trump makes it sound like the Obama administration provided the Islamic republic with U.S. taxpayer money. Because of international sanctions over its nuclear program, Iran had billions of dollars in assets that were frozen in foreign banks around the globe. With sanctions lifted, in theory those funds would be unlocked. Trump uses too high an estimate of the funds made available to Iran. The Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $55 billion left. (Much of the other money was obligated to illiquid projects in China.) For its part, the Central Bank of Iran said the number was actually $32 billion, not $55 billion. “[Harley Davidson says] when we sell a motorcycle in certain countries we have as much as 100 percent tax to pay.” Trump probably is referring to the tariff that Harley-Davidson faces in India, which imposes a 100 percent import tariff on motorcycles. But the company has been able to get around the tariff by assembling its bikes in India. In March 2017, when Trump introduced this talking point, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported: “In India, where big touring motorcycles and cars are saddled with a 100% import tariff, Harley’s sales have grown by a brisk 30% in the past two years. That’s largely because the company has been able to get around the tariff by assembling bikes In India, something it’s done in that country since 2011.” “We have cut illegal immigration on our southern border by record numbers — 78 percent.” Trump’s anti-illegal immigration rhetoric has contributed to lower border crossings along the Southwestern border, experts say. Despite seasonal trends, apprehensions at the U.S.-Mexico border declined steadily since October 2016. In April 2017, apprehensions reached their lowest point since at least 2002. But since then, apprehensions are climbing again, more in line with seasonal trends. The figure Trump uses is exaggerated; he is comparing data from November or December 2016 (before he was inaugurated) compared to the lowest point in April 2017. There was just an 8.1 percent decline from February 2017 (the first full month of data from his presidency) through June 2017 (the latest data available). “We are throwing MS-13 the hell out of here so fast … We are actually liberating towns and cities.” This is yet another exaggeration. Earlier this year, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted the largest gang surge to date. While about 1,000 gang members or affiliates were arrested, they were not yet deported out of the country as of June 2017. Moreover, just 104 were associated with MS-13. Still, there has been an increase in the rate of gang deportations in general to El Salvador (where MS-13 gang’s roots are) and Salvadoran officials are preparing for more. “This month in Chicago there have been more than two homicide victims per day.” The statistic is accurate, according to a database of Chicago-area homicides by the Chicago Tribune. But Trump always uses the outlier city of Chicago in order to paint a picture of widespread increase in violent crimes across the country. Homicides in Chicago are a concern, but it must be noted that overall, violent crime is on a decades-long decline, since the height of the crack cocaine epidemic in the early 1990s. An uptick in crime over a two- or three-year period does not necessarily indicate a new crime wave. “In West Virginia, recent premiums have gone up 169 percent since Obamacare went into effect. In Alaska, over 200 percent.” This is one of Trump’s favorite talking points on Obamacare, yet it’s still misleading. For 2017, the average increase in premiums before subsidies was 25 percent, so he is cherry-picking the highest end of premium increases. Moreover, Trump using data from the Department of Health and Human Services that do not take into account the effect of subsidies, which shield 84 percent of people in the exchanges from such extreme premium hikes. On average, eight out of 10 marketplace enrollees receive government premium subsidies, and they are protected from a premium increase (and may even see a decrease) if they stay with a low-cost plan. “We want millions of Americans lifted from welfare to work and from dependence to independence.” “Welfare” is a broad term and can apply to people who are working but receiving government assistance. If someone is receiving means-tested assistance, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are not working. In fact, eligibility for benefits often is contingent on searching for a job — in other words, working toward the “independence” that Trump mentions. “Actually if I get what I want it will be the single biggest tax cut in American history.” The Trump administration has released no plan beyond a single sheet of paper. Even if it became a reality (there are reports that the tax plan is being scaled back), it still would be smaller than tax cuts passed by Harry Truman and Ronald Reagan. “We have the highest taxes in the world.” Trump almost never gets this correct. The Pew Research Center, using 2014 data, found that the tax bill for Americans, under various scenarios, is below average for developed countries. In 2014, according to comparative tables of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), revenue as a percentage of the gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the economy — was 26 percent for the United States. Out of 34 countries, that put the United States in the bottom third — and well below the OECD average of 34.4 percent. B/A

Apple CEO Promised to Build 3 ‘Big’ Plants in U.S., Trump Says Reuters Jul 25, 2017 Apple CEO Tim Cook has committed to build three big manufacturing plants in the United States, the Wall Street Journal quoted U.S. President Donald Trump as saying. "I spoke to (Cook), he's promised me three big plants—big, big, big," Trump told the Journal in an interview on Tuesday. Trump didn't elaborate on where those plants would be located or when they would be built, the paper reported. Cook said in May that Apple planned to create a $1 billion fund to invest in U.S. companies that perform advanced manufacturing. He also said the company intended to fund programs that could include teaching people how to write computer code to create apps. Apple came under fire from Trump during his campaign because it makes most of its products in China. "We're gonna get Apple to start building their damn computers and things in this country, instead of in other countries," Trump had said in a speech in January last year. Apple, on its part, had been making disclosures to highlight how it had been contributing to job creation in the United States. Cook said in February that Apple spent $50 billion in 2016 with its U.S. suppliers. The world's largest company by market valuation had also claimed that it created 2 million jobs in the United States, 80,000 of which are directly at Apple and the rest coming from suppliers and developers for the company's app ecosystem. Trump's comments on Tuesday were some of the first he has made regarding Apple's manufacturing since assuming the presidency. "I said you know, Tim, unless you start building your plants in this country, I won’t consider my administration an economic success," the Journal quoted Trump as saying. Apple didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump also said that Foxconn, a major Apple supplier, plans to build a big plant in the United States and is "strongly considering" putting it in Wisconsin, the Journal reported. Foxconn said last month it plans to invest more than $10 billion in a display-making factory in the United States. Now that is good news... Let's hope it's not fake. B/A

Oh my bad.... Does that make a difference? Is their news real? Who owns the Washington Times newspaper? Founded on May 17, 1982, by Unification Church leader Sun Myung Moon, the Times was owned by News World Communications, an international media conglomerate associated with the church until 2010, in which Moon and a group of former executives purchased the paper. B/A

I must ask. Why isn't this story from The Washington Post considered Fake News? Is this not more MSM lies? B/A