TRUMP USES PRESIDENTIAL PEN TO VOID OBAMA'S CORRUPT TPP DEAL AS PROMISED

TRUMP USES PRESIDENTIAL PEN TO VOID OBAMA'S CORRUPT TPP DEAL:

ANOTHER TRUMP CAMPAIGN PROMISE ENACTED WITHOUT LONG SPEECHES.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND THE U.S. MILITARY.


Sources: C-SPAN, Fox News, NY Times, YouTube


**** Trump Abandons Trans-Pacific Partnership, Obama’s Signature Trade Deal


President Trump upended America’s traditional, bi-partisan trade policy on Monday as he formally abandoned the ambitious, 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership brokered by his predecessor and declared an end to the era of multinational trade agreements that defined global economics for decades.


With the stroke of a pen on his first full weekday in office, Mr. Trump signaled that he plans to follow through on promises to take a more aggressive stance against foreign competitors as part of his “America First” approach.


In doing so, he demonstrated that he would not follow old rules, effectively discarding longstanding Republican orthodoxy that expanding global trade was good for the world and America — and that the United States should help write the rules of international commerce.


Although the Trans-Pacific Partnership had not been approved by Congress, Mr. Trump’s decision to withdraw not only doomed former President Barack Obama’s signature trade achievement, but also carried broad geopolitical implications in a fast-growing region.

The deal, which was to link a dozen nations from Canada and Chile to Australia and Japan in a complex web of trade rules, was sold as a way to permanently tie the United States to East Asia and create an economic bulwark against a rising China.

Instead, Mr. Trump said American workers would be protected against competition from low-wage countries like Vietnam and Malaysia, also parties to the deal.


But some in both parties worry that China will move to fill the economic vacuum as America looks inward, and will expand its sway over Asia and beyond.


Monday was a busy day for the new president. In addition to abandoning the trade deal, he ordered a freeze on federal government hiring, except for the military and other security agencies.

He reinstituted a ban on federal funding for overseas family planning groups that assist or counsel women seeking abortions. He met with congressional, labor and business leaders. And he promised to cut up to 75 percent of federal regulations.

Mr. Trump’s decision to scrap the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or T.P.P., reversed a free-trade strategy adopted by presidents of both parties dating back to the Cold War, and aligned him more with the political left.


When he told a meeting of union leaders at the White House on Monday that he had just terminated the pact, they broke into applause.


“We’re going to stop the ridiculous trade deals that have taken everybody out of our country and taken companies out of our country, and it’s going to be reversed,” Mr. Trump told them, saying that from now on, the United States would sign trade deals only with individual allies. “I think you’re going to have a lot of companies come back to our country.”

Mr. Trump may also move quickly to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He is scheduling meetings with the leaders of Canada and Mexico, the two main partners in that pact, which was negotiated by President George Bush and pushed through Congress by President Bill Clinton.


While Nafta has been a major driver of American trade for nearly two decades, it has long been divisive, with critics blaming it for lost jobs and lower wages.

But free-trade advocates said that in canceling the Pacific pact, Mr. Trump lost an agreement that had already renegotiated Nafta under more modern rules governing intellectual property, internet access and agriculture, since both Mexico and Canada were signatories.

He also undercut Mr. Obama’s so-called pivot to Asia and, critics said, essentially ceded the field to China, which was not part of the agreement.


“There’s no doubt that this action will be seen as a huge, huge win for China,” Michael B. Froman, the trade representative who negotiated the pact for Mr. Obama, said in an interview. “For the Trump administration, after all this talk about being tough on China, for their first action to basically hand the keys to China and say we’re withdrawing from our leadership position in this region is geostrategically damaging.”

Some Republicans agreed, but only a few would publicly challenge the president. Senator John McCain of Arizona called the decision “a serious mistake” that would hurt America. “It will send a troubling signal of American disengagement in the Asia-Pacific region at a time we can least afford it,” he said in a statement.


The Obama administration negotiated the trade pact for nearly eight years. Speaker Paul D. Ryan and other congressional Republicans worked with Mr. Obama to pass legislation granting so-called fast-track authority to negotiate it over Democratic objections.

But Mr. Obama never submitted the final agreement for approval amid vocal opposition.

The agreement, the largest regional trade accord ever, brought together the United States and 11 other nations in a free-trade zone for about 40 percent of the world’s economy. It was intended to lower tariffs while establishing rules for resolving trade disputes, setting patents and protecting intellectual property.

Obama officials argued that it benefited the United States by opening markets while giving up very little in return. In particular, it finally brought the United States and Japan, the world’s largest and third-largest economies, together in a free-trade pact.

Mr. Trump’s decision was crushing for Japan, where Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spent considerable political capital to get the agreement through Parliament, which ratified it Friday.


Just hours before Mr. Trump dispensed with it, Mr. Abe told Parliament that Tokyo would lobby the new administration on the merits of the deal.

Japan was the last to join the pact, which would give its manufacturers tariff-free access to export markets in the United States and other Asian countries, but would bring its automakers into competition with lower-wage countries like Mexico.

Mr. Abe became a strong enthusiast after making politically painful concessions on agricultural imports that the United States had sought.


China, by contrast, welcomed Mr. Trump’s move, although its leaders will probably relish the moment quietly.

Given Mr. Trump’s harsh attacks on China and his appointment of a leading China critic, Peter Navarro, to the new post of trade council director, Beijing is bracing for a potentially combative relationship.

Victor Shih, an expert on China’s political economy at the University of California, San Diego, said withdrawing from the T.P.P. would alter America’s image in the region. “The U.S. will be seen as an unreliable partner both economically and perhaps even in the security arena,” he said. “While some countries in Asia have no choice but to be close to the U.S., others may begin to look to China.”


China has already sought to capitalize by making a push to complete an alternative pact, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, which aims to unite 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations with Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand and India.

Australia’s trade minister, Steven Ciobo, said on Monday that other members of the trade pact were exploring whether to create a “T.P.P. minus one,” without the United States.


“The T.P.P. offers very material benefits for all parties that signed up for the agreement,” he said in an interview. “It would be a great shame to lose those benefits. Notwithstanding President Trump’s decision, there’s still a lot of merits to capturing those gains.”

If Mr. Trump scrambled coalitions overseas, he did so at home, too.


Democrats and labor groups praised his move. James P. Hoffa, general president of the Teamsters union, said Mr. Trump had “taken the first step toward fixing 30 years of bad trade policies.” Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, said it would “bury the moldering corpse” of the Pacific deal, though she expressed concern about how Nafta would be renegotiated.


Some people emerging from the union meeting with Mr. Trump, who won surprising victories in Midwestern labor strongholds, expressed enthusiasm for both his trade action and his promise to build new roads, bridges and other infrastructure.


“We just had probably the most incredible meeting of our careers,” Sean McGarvey, president of North America’s Building Trades Unions, said. “We will work with him and his administration to help him implement his plans on infrastructure, trade and energy policy, so we really do put America back to work.”

HILLARY CLINTON ON PAR TO DEFEAT TRUMP; GOP IMPLODES

HILLARY CLINTON ON PAR TO DEFEAT TRUMP;  THE GOP IMPLODES

A POLITICAL PARTY DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF CAN'T WIN GENERAL ELECTIONS.

Sources:  Salon.com, YouTube

Now that it's crystal clear most GOP establishment leaders have refused to embrace DONALD J TRUMP as their party nominee,  there is no way short of a miracle HILLARY CLINTON will lose in November.

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

The GOP top brass is intentionally choosing to FAIL for Money and Power.

***** Letting Trump and the GOP self-destruct: Hillary and Democrats have the right strategy by laying low

Two weeks ago, I wrote that Hillary Clinton and the Democrats could not afford to take anything for granted this year. Clinton, I argued, is too conventional, too focus-grouped. 

Her fear of unscripted moments has hindered her ability to connect emotionally with voters.

 She’s an unnatural politician whose penchant for moderation is a vulnerability in this political climate.

To be fair, Clinton has been on the ugly end of Republican attacks for decades – a little guardedness is pardonable.

 But a play-it-safe approach seemed unnecessarily risky against an omnipresent juggernaut like Trump.

 The Republican nominee’s campaign depends upon free media. In many ways, what Trump says or does with his airtime is irrelevant – the point is to be seen and heard. 

He can lie and distort with impunity; his supporters don’t care and he dominates headlines all the same.

TRUMP SECURES REQUIRED DELEGATES, RNC STILL WON'T CLOSE THE DEAL (THE COUP)

TRUMP SECURES REQUIRED DELEGATES, RNC STILL WON'T CLOSE THE DEAL

AFTER TRUMP COLLECTED MORE THAN 1237 DELEGATES, RNC & GOP ESTABLISHMENT LEADERS STILL PLAY HARDBALL.

Sources: CBS News, Fox News, Youtube

It's Official people!

Billionaire Business Mogul Donald J. Trump has finally secured the required 1237 delegates to be officially crowned as the 2016 GOP Presidential nominee. Actually Trump garnered more than 1237 delegates.

However RNC officials and GOP Establishment leaders have yet to agree with Voters that Trump is IT!

When GOP party leaders catch up with the Voters who elected them into public office?

Are RNC and GOP party officials still planning a Coup this July at the RNC convention in Cleveland?

Stay tuned.

***** Mister 1,237: North Dakota delegate puts Trump over the top

John Trandem wanted to be the delegate who would put Donald Trump over the top, giving him enough delegates to clinch the Republican presidential nomination.

But when he was contacted by an Associated Press reporter, the AP delegate count stood at 1,235 — two delegates short.

"I'm happy to be No. 1,237," said Trandem, a small business owner from North Dakota. "But I won't commit until you're at 1,236."

Trandem is an unbound delegate, meaning he is free to support the candidate of his choice. All 28 Republican delegates in North Dakota are unbound because the state party declined to have a primary or caucus.

Trandem, who lives north of Fargo, was reached on his wife's mobile phone. He was on his way to an event where he and other North Dakota delegates would meet Trump, giving the billionaire businessman enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

Wanting to break the story first, reporters were calling and emailing unbound delegates across the country.

Trandem was for Trump, but he didn't want to say so unless he was Mister 1,237.

No problem, he had a solution. He handed the phone to another delegate, state Rep. Ben Koppleman, who was riding with him.

After Koppleman confirmed he was committed to Trump, Trandem took the phone back.

"Are you at 1,236?" he asked.

Yes, he was told. "Then I'm the one!"

Minutes later the AP declared that Trump had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination.

Later on Thursday, both men shook hands with Trump before sharing a stage with him during a news conference in Bismarck, North Dakota.

GOP SELF-DESTRUCTS IN 2016; PAT BUCHANAN WEIGHS IN (TRUMP v CRUZ)

GOP SELF-DESTRUCTS IN 2016; PAT BUCHANAN WEIGHS IN:

TRUMP BLAMED FOR SECRET DEAL MADE BY ESTABLISHMENT LEADERS TO LET HILLARY WIN.

Sources: Fox News, Slate, Youtube

**** Let Hillary Win (article written by Jamelle Bouie is Slate’s chief political correspondent.)

If GOP leaders really want to stop Trump, they need to be willing to lose the election.

Donald Trump is a moral monster.

He wants to deport America’s 11 million unauthorized immigrants and build a wall on the Mexican border.

He wants to kill the children of suspected terrorists and bring torture back to American intelligence gathering.

He wants to ban Muslims (including citizens) from entering the United States, and he openly courts white supremacists for support.

And yet, he is leading the Republican race for president, with more votes and delegates than anyone else in the race.

For Republican elites, this fact is intolerable, which is why Mitt Romney—former Massachusetts governor, two-time presidential candidate, and one-time nominee—stepped to the plate on Thursday to oppose Trump’s march to the nomination with a speech at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. His case was simple: “[I]f we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.”

To that point, Romney attacked Trump on all fronts. He blasted him on domestic policy. “His proposed 35 percent tarifflike penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America,” Romney said. “His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt.”

Romney then hit him on foreign policy. “Trump’s bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies.

Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS,” he said. He made real and effective digs at Trump’s business acumen—“His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them”—and questioned Trump’s intelligence and honesty, aiming straight at Trump’s appeal.

“Dishonesty is Trump’s hallmark,” said Romney. “His imagination must not be married to real power.”

Romney was strong and confident. He was detailed and specific. But he wasn’t effective. For all of his vehemence and disgust, Romney fell short with his saturation attack on Trump, for all the reasons that most GOP attacks have missed the mark.

To start, there’s no self-awareness. Romney didn’t say a word about his aggressive play for Trump’s endorsement in the 2012 presidential election. You can watch the press conference, where an effusive Romney hailed Trump as a figure par excellence:

“There are some things that you just can’t imagine happening in your life. This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump’s magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight. I am so honored and pleased to have his endorsement.”

This wasn’t a throwaway moment in Romney’s campaign. By that point, Trump was known for his racist “birtherism” and careless demagoguery. Romney chose to ignore this to win modest support from the GOP base.

And by chasing Trump, Romney helped legitimize him as a figure in the Republican Party. To have any credibility in his present crusade against Trump, Romney needed to apologize. He needed to own his mistake and make that awareness a departure point for his case against “the Donald”—a warning, of sorts, from someone who was taken in by Trump and his charms.

Romney didn’t do this. Instead, well after his speech, he sent a tweet. “If Trump had said 4 years ago the things he says today about the KKK, Muslims, Mexicans, disabled, I would NOT have accepted his endorsement,” said Romney, ignoring Trump’s birtherism.

But then, Romney doesn’t seem to fully understand Trump’s appeal to Republican voters. Racism is one part of it.

The other is deep economic insecurity, fueled by years of declining wages and supercharged by the Great Recession. Which is why Romney’s attack on economics—Trump refuses to “reform entitlements”—is a misfire. Far from undermining Trump, it emphasizes his appeal: that he’ll protect retirement programs and bring security to middle-class (white) Americans. Trump’s voters don’t want to fight for survival in the free market. They want protection. They want to be safe.

By themselves, these mistakes weren’t fatal. The fact that a former GOP presidential nominee is speaking against a prospective one is almost enough—this is the dynamic that presages a failed campaign in November—and Romney deserves credit for it.

But he undermines this by making a moral case against Trump that’s still subordinate to other concerns. Rather than ask Republicans to reject Trump because he’s immoral, Romney (and other Republicans) harp on one particular point: Trump will lose the election. “A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president,” said Romney “But a Trump nomination enables her victory.”

This is the unshielded exhaust pipe of the elite Republican argument against Trump—the fatal flaw that undermines the entire structure. First, there’s the fact that if the core objection is partisan—to stop Hillary Clinton—then Romney is a terrible messenger.

As the GOP nominee in 2012, he didn’t just lose to Barack Obama, he lost badly, in an election that the party sold as a cakewalk, where Americans would welcome Republicans as liberators from a failed administration.

They were wrong. And now, Republican voters believe Trump is their best chance to beat Democrats in the fall. After all, he’s a fighter. Just look at his response to Romney’s speech, mocking Romney for seeking his support: “I could have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.”

Instead of making the morality of the case subordinate to the electoral calculation, Romney and other anti-Trump Republicans need to make the election subordinate to morality. If Trump is more than a threat to the GOP—if he, as Romney says would lead this nation “into the abyss”—then Republicans need to say they’re willing to lose the election, and hand the Oval Office to Hillary Clinton, if it means stopping Trump.

They don’t have to endorse Clinton, but they need to say that, if Trump is the nominee, they will not support him. It’s the only step that might shatter Trump’s coalition, or—in the fall—keep party unity from giving Trump a fighting chance, ending his viability as a general election candidate.

It is a terrible choice to have to make for the party men and women of the GOP. But if Romney is right—if Trump is a threat to American democracy itself—then it’s the only weapon they have left.

CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING GOP'S CHANCES OF REGAINING WHITE HOUSE IN 2016 (NATIONAL REVIEW)

@NationalReview

CONSERVATIVES ARE DESTROYING GOP'S CHANCES OF REGAINING WHITE HOUSE (NATIONAL REVIEW):

CONSERVATIVES WANT TO DETER BLACK VOTERS FROM SUPPORTING TRUMP.

ATTACKING TRUMP IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE & FOOLISH.

WHO IS PAYING OFF CONSERVATIVE LEADERS TO SABOTAGE GOP?


Conservatism or the Conservative movement originated in the 15th century.

Traditional values are the bedrock and foundation of the Conservative movement.

Some founding fathers of the Conservative movement are Edmund Burke, Qutin Hogg, Richard Hook and François-René de Chateaubriand.

Conservatism is a far right-wing faction of the Republican Party, just as Liberalism & Progressives are the far left-wing of Democrats.

During the elections of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush we didn't hear much about Conservative, Liberal or Progressive voters in the Mainstream Media.
Only Democrat and Republican Party voters.

However during the 2008 and 2012 elections when OBAMA was campaigning to become U.S. President suddenly Liberals, Progressives and Conservatives were introduced in American politics.

Following the 2008 election, Conservative leaders now require all GOP Presidential and Congressional candidates to pass a "Conservative litmus test".

It's clear such divisive factions of both major political parties do more harm than good during general elections because these factions create Political Civil Wars.

As we approach the 2016 general election, Conservative leaders and a popular Conservative publication (National Review) threatens to destroy the GOP's real chances of regaining victory.

Conservative leaders and the National Review are attacking presumptive GOP Presidential nominee DONALD J. TRUMP.

Without invoking any Conspiracy Theory rumors, there appear to be some possible Dirty Politics at play.

For example: Promises or deals discussed behind closed doors to help Hillary Clinton win by default.

So is it more important for GOP leaders and GOP Supporters to actually WIN in Nov 2016?

Or is it more important for a small group of GOP leaders and GOP voters to have their own way and risk losing EVERYTHING in Nov 2016??


*** Conservatives Against Trump

As the election of 2008 approached, America was in crisis.
And as we would soon learn, that crisis would not go to waste.

Years after Bill Clinton disingenuously claimed that the era of big government was over, Obama won his party’s nomination by promising its furious revenge.

For constitutional conservatives, the Republican contest functioned less like a primary and more like an abandonment.
Politically orphaned by their party, conservatives were forced to either stay home or hold their noses and vote for a progressive Republican.

There was a silver lining, however. Rising out of the ashes of that electoral defeat came the Tea Party.
The media struggled to explain it away as racist, xenophobic, and jingoistic. But the truth is, the Tea Party did not arise because Barack Obama defeated his opposition. It arose because there was no opposition.

Over the years, there have been endless fractures in the façade of individual freedom, but three policies provided the fuel that lit the tea-party fire: the stimulus, the auto bailouts, and the bank bailouts. Barack Obama supported all three.

So did Donald Trump. While conservatives fought against the stimulus, Donald Trump said it was “what we need,” praising Obama’s schemes of “building infrastructure, building great projects, putting people to work in that sense.”

While conservatives fought against the auto bailouts, Donald Trump claimed “the government should stand behind [the auto companies] 100 percent” because “they make wonderful products.”

While conservatives fought against the bank bailouts, Donald Trump called them “something that has to get done.” Let his reasoning sink in for a second:

“[The government] can take over companies, and, frankly, take big chunks of companies.” When conservatives desperately needed allies in the fight against big government, Donald Trump didn’t stand on the sidelines.

He consistently advocated that your money be spent, that your government grow, and that your Constitution be ignored. Sure, Trump’s potential primary victory would provide Hillary Clinton with the easiest imaginable path to the White House.

But it’s far worse than that. If Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination, there will once again be no opposition to an ever-expanding government.

This is a crisis for conservatism. And, once again, this crisis will not go to waste.



Sources: National Review, Newsmax, Youtube

FLINT WATER CRISIS REEKS OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION (OBAMA'S DIRTY DEALS)

FLINT WATER CRISIS REEKS OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION (OBAMA'S DIRTY DEALS):

GOV SNYDER & MIKE ROGERS' PREVIOUS POLITICAL DEALS WITH OBAMA ARE LINKED TO CURRENT FLINT WATER CRISIS.

NOW IN 2016 OBAMA USES FLINT WATER CRISIS TO DESTROY MICHIGAN'S GOP LEADERS & HELP DEMOCRATS.


In the video above I discuss how the current FLINT Water Crisis is directly linked to dirty Political deals between Pres OBAMA, Michigan governor RICK SNYDER and former Congressman MIKE ROGERS.

I also discuss the fall of BLACK former Detroit mayor KWAME KILPATRICK who was destined to become Michigan's governor before he was caught up in a CORRUPTION Scandal.


~ Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder Releases Emails Tied To Flint Water Crisis

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder released his collection of emails from 2014 and 2015 surrounding the toxic water crisis in Flint today, hoping, as he said in Tuesday’s State of the State address, to provide a better understanding of how the municipal emergency unfolded.

More than 270 pages of emails were released to the public and posted to the governor's website.

The state's Department of Environmental Quality first became aware of the elevated lead levels in children's blood on Aug. 23, 2015, when Virginia Tech professor Marc Edwards notified the department that the school would be studying Flint water quality issues "over the next few months," the emails indicate.

At that point, the city of Flint had already determined that it needed to install corrosion control treatment into the water system leading into the Flint River, the emails read.

Flint had stopped using Detroit's water system in 2014 while a connection to Lake Huron was established. The city switched back to the Detroit system in October 2015.

The DEQ disputed Edwards' test results indicating corrosion and lead leaching in early September, a timeline of the events leading up to Flint created by the Michigan government states.

On Sept. 5, Director of Urban Initiatives Harvey Hollins said to Snyder in an email that more than 1,500 water filters had been distributed to households and that were was a "demand for more."

On Sept. 26, Snyder's chief of staff, Dennis Muchmore, discussed the potential political ramifications, accusing officials in Flint of turning the crisis into "political football."

“The DEQ and DCH feel that some in Flint are taking the very sensitive issue of children's exposure to lead and trying to turn it into a political football claiming the departments are underestimating the impacts on the populations and particularly trying to shift responsibility to the state,” Muchmore wrote.

Flint residents were urged not to drink the water on Oct. 1, the timeline says. But, a press release from DEQ on Oct. 2 said that the water in Flint's system was safe to drink, "but some families with lead plumbing in their homes or service connections could experience higher levels of lead in the water that comes out of their faucets."

A message from the Flint Water Advisory Task Force to Snyder on Dec. 29 ascribed much of blame to the DEQ for the contaminated water.

On Wednesday, Snyder committed $28 million to remedy the water crisis, according to a statement, calling the funding "just one more step toward a long-term solution." He apologized to Flint residents in his state of the state address Tuesday night and promised to take "full responsibility" in solving the problem.

"No citizen of this great state should endure this kind of catastrophe," Snyder said Tuesday.

In the address, Snyder outlined the actions that were taken last October in response to the contaminated water crisis, including daily door-to-door distribution of water, water filters, filter replacements and water testing kits.

More than 21,000 homes in Flint have been visited by emergency responders and volunteers. Snyder vowed to tend to every home that needs attention "until every person has clean water every single day no matter what."
"We need to make sure this never happens again in any Michigan city," he said.

The Michigan government has made budgetary recommendations to replace water supply pipes and fixtures in Flint schools and to fund specialized staff locally in Flint for follow-up care for affected residents, Snyder said.

Provisions in the budget have also been made to keep Flint on the Detroit water line until the end of 2016, Snyder said.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said today during a U.S. Conference of Mayors event in Washington, D.C., that aid provided so far to Flint water is "not enough," adding that the city has been "crying" about the issue for almost two years.

President Obama and White House Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett met with Weaver Tuesday to say that his administration will provide continued support to state and local officials.

Obama declared a state of emergency in Flint on Saturday after a request from Snyder on Jan. 14.

Snyder appealed Obama's decision to deny a federal major disaster declaration for Flint, his office said in a statement Wednesday.


Sources: ABC News, BBC News, Shoebat, USA Today, WXYZ, Youtube

Duke Energy Dumps Progress Energy CEO After Merger: Is North Carolina The "Dirty South"?

Progress CEO is out as Duke, Progress complete merger

After Duke Energy and Progress Energy completed their merger Tuesday morning, the combined utility announced that Progress' top executive, Bill Johnson, who had been designated to lead the new firm, has resigned "by mutual agreement."

In an unexpected turn of events, Duke Chairman and Chief Executive Jim Rogers will be CEO of what is now the nation's largest utility.

Rogers had been scheduled to serve as chairman and Johnson as president and CEO.

However, in the announcement early Tuesday of the formal merger closing and the formation of a new board of directors, the new Duke Energy said Rogers was staying and Johnson was out.

Johnson had been a strong advocate for the merger and was planning to buy a home in Charlotte, according to a report in The Charlotte Observer.

Contacted by WRAL.com, a Duke spokesperson in Charlotte said the company had no further comment about Johnson's departure. Company officials also refused to talk about it during a conference call later Tuesday morning.

"That's it," the Duke spokesperson said, referring to the press announcement.

Johnson would not be made available for comment, the spokesman said when asked. He had been CEO at Progress since October 2007, when his predecessor and friend, Robert McGehee, died of a heart attack.

Asked if Johnson's departure would have any impact on Duke's plans for post-merger Progress operations in Raleigh, he replied: "No."

Still, Raleigh officials were caught off guard by the move and expressed some trepidation about the utility's presence in the Capital City.

"(There's) concern and a little disappointment because I think Progress Energy is a great company (and) has been for us for many, many years in the city of Raleigh," City Councilman John Odom said. "I was hoping that they might be a mainstay in downtown Raleigh and Raleigh all over. Now, we have no idea."

Progress previously said it expected to cut at least 700 jobs in Raleigh, where it's name is on the downtown performing arts center and other local groups count on its philanthropy.

"Even though it's a big shake-up on Day 1, you really have to give them some time and see how it plays out," Mayor Nancy McFarlane said. "We're still the state capital. They're still going to be coming to Raleigh for all sorts of things. Right now, I still take them at their word (that) they plan on being a good presence here (and) a good community partner."

Ed Finley, chairman of the North Carolina Utilities Commission, which approved the merger last week, said that company officials never indicated to the commission that Johnson wouldn't be part of the management of the combined utility.

"His departure on the same day the merger is closed and three days after our order may raise questions in the minds of some as to the timing of the decision by those involved in it," Finley said in a statement. "While management structure and succession are important, a more significant emphasis will be on ensuring that the benefits to the ratepayers will materialize as forecasted.

"There is significant management talent within the two companies, and we hope the best lineup will fall quickly into place," he said.

The regulatory approval from North Carolina and South Carolina, which came Monday, were the final hurdles Duke and Progress needed to close the deal.

Progress will now operate as a subsidiary of Duke.

“Having served as CEO of Duke and its predecessor companies for more than 23 years, Jim Rogers is well-suited to lead the integration effort and to drive our combined businesses forward,” Ann Maynard Gray, the lead director of the Duke board, said in a statement. “The board of directors looks forward to working with Jim and the rest of the executive team to enhance our position as a utility with financial strength and a greater ability to meet the needs of our customers.”

Gray made only a brief comment about Johnson, saying he was “instrumental in helping us close the merger with Progress Energy" and wishing him well in the future.




View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, WCNC, WRAL, Google Maps

Ron Paul Gaining Steam At 2011 Ames Iowa Straw Poll; Major Threat To Romney & Perry (Videos)

Ron Paul could be a surprise victor in Ames straw poll

Texas Rep. Ron Paul has long been regarded as a somewhat entertaining distraction in his two presidential races over the past four years.

But, on the eve of the Ames Straw Poll, the first major organizing test of the 2012 Republican presidential race, there is a strain of thinking that Paul could seriously challenge the likes of Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty for supremacy on Saturday.

“He’s got the supporter passion of a Bachmann with the organization of a Pawlenty,” said one senior Iowa Republican strategist unaffiliated with any of the campaigns. “He builds on 2007 and the caucus last time, and I think he can turn out the 3,000 votes he needs to win.”

The idea of a Paul straw poll victory — while beginning to be discussed more openly — is still far from expected.

Pawlenty has gone all out — organizationally and financially — to make his mark at Ames, recognizing that if he can’t win or come in a very close second it could very well spell the end of his campaign.

Bachmann, too, is making a major play at Ames — her Friday schedule is packed with five events designed to rally supporters in advance of the straw poll — and, if polling is to be believed, she looks something close to a frontrunner in the Iowa caucuses next year.

The conventional wisdom on the ground in Iowa is that Paul, Bachmann and Pawlenty will finish in the win, place and show slots — with Bachmann still regarded as the most likely first place finisher.

But, Paul is clearly hoping to make his mark; his campaign paid $31,000 for the prime spot at tomorrow’s straw poll (right outside the Hilton Coliseum where the voting takes place) — the same plot of land that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney staked out in 2007 when he won the straw poll.

Despite that spending, Paul’s campaign team is doing everything they can to lower expectations.

“Michele is pushing full force, Tim Pawlenty has an expensive team of top-drawer consultants and Mitt Romney, the national front runner, is working hard behind the scenes,” said Paul campaign manager Jesse Benton. “We hope to do well, compete with these big names and finish right there with them in the top four.”

Paul’s chances of pulling off an upset are entirely contingent on the number of people of voting. As he has demonstrated by winning a series of straw votes over the past few years, he has a very dedicated group of supporters who would walk over hot coals — maybe literally — for him.

But Paul has also shown — and he did it again in the debate last night — that he has little interest in expanding beyond that base of people. As the electorate gets larger the ability of Paul’s supporters to dominate it recedes. It’s why he didn’t win a single primary or caucus in the 2008 race.

The operative question in assessing Paul’s chances at winning at Ames tomorrow is just how many people will show up.

Virtually no one expects turnout to come near the 1999 Straw Poll when nearly 24,000 people voted thanks to heavy spending by both then Texas Gov. George W. Bush and wealthy businessman Steve Forbes. Bush won the vote that year with 7,418 votes — a massive total that may not be eclipsed for some time to come.

The two more likely voter universe estimates are 2007 and 1995.

In 2007, 14,000 people voted with Romney emerging victorious with 4,516 votes. (Paul finished fifth in that straw ballot with 1,305 votes.)

In 1995, just 10,500 voted as then Sens. Bob Dole (Kans.) and Phil Gramm (Texas) tied for first place by each winning 2,582 votes.

The 3,500 vote difference between overall turnout in 1995 and 2007 may make all the difference in assessing Paul’s chances of winning.

In a 1995 turnout model, 3,000 votes for any one candidate is likely to win it and several smart strategists in the state believe Paul could get to that number. In the 2007 turnout model, though, 3,000 isn’t enough votes to win — although it would likely guarantee Paul a top three finish.

“Turnout under 12,000 favors Ron Paul,” said one veteran GOP straw poll watcher. “Turnout over 14,000 favors Bachmann.”

There is little expectation that a Paul victory at Ames — even if did come to pass — would mean much of anything in the race to come.

Turnout for next year’s caucuses in Iowa could be as much as ten times that of Ames and, as we noted above, Paul struggles in larger electorates. “He won’t win the caucuses or be the nominee, but it will be a recognition that Iowans are looking for someone who will offer bold answers on our fiscal crisis,” said one Iowa Republican strategist.




Rep. Ron Paul Campaigns in Iowa With Son Sen. Rand Paul in Tow

For the first time since Congressman Ron Paul announced in May that he will be running for president, he was joined on the campaign trail by his son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul.

The two made four stops across Iowa on Wednesday -- speaking on how a Ron Paul presidency would be beneficial to America.

They started their day in Mason City, Iowa – but ABC News caught up with the father-son duo in Waterloo, Iowa. Ron and Rand Paul spoke to a crowd of about 50 people during a lunchtime meet and greet.

Ron Paul had an optimistic assessment of the current economic condition in America, saying that the financial turmoil is temporary. He then presented proposals for what he would do as president to correct the ship, one of which includes eliminating the capital gains tax.

ABC News asked Congressman Paul about President Obama's view that spending cuts alone can't fix American's long-term deficit situation, and that we need to also look at increasing revenue.

"We need to know what the role of government ought to be -- Obama probably endorses entitlements as rights," said Ron Paul. "We can get there -- we can cut entitlements."

Sen. Rand Paul took the microphone and said: "Democrats have to admit that entitlements and welfare need to be reformed. Social spending needs to go down and Republicans need to admit that military spending needs to go down. They say the Tea Party won't compromise -- we will compromise."

When pressed by ABC News about a long-term deficit deal by this Congress -- Ron Paul says there will be something -- but it will have no meaning.

"It will not reassure the markets -- it will not cause us to have a strong dollar and it will not revive the economy," he said.

At the day's third campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, ABC News asked what he would specifically do on day one of his presidency to create jobs. He pointed out the need to control the regulatory system and the tax code -- but offered no specifics. Rand Paul then took the microphone and offered a clearer articulation of his father's vision, specifically pointing out the need to lower corporate tax rates in America.

At the final campaign stop in Des Moines, ABC News caught up with Rep. Paul and asked him about the one clear difference between him and Rep. Michele Bachmann, who has been getting a lot of media attention and, in some polls, is leading Paul.

"I approach this differently than all the other candidates -- Republicans or Democrats," said Paul. "I defend individual liberty in a different way. I am the one that says, 'War -- there is too much of it.' They are undeclared. It's time to end war."

"I am the one that says, 'I'm sick and tired of this Patriot Act -- this pretence to destroy our individual liberties and molest us at the airport.' None of the other candidates are saying that. How many of the other candidates are going to talk about the financial situation and tie it into the reality of the Federal Reserve? Those views are different from other views, and it's my strong defense of liberty that separates me from other candidates."


View Larger Map


Sources: ABC News, AP, Fox News, Politico, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Obama Signs Short Term FAA Agreement; GOP Rejected Long Term Deal

The Impasse Over Putting FAA Employees Back To Work Has Ended Temporarily. Today Pres. Obama Signed A Bill Allowing FAA Employees To Continue Working Until Sept. 16th. What A Shame Those Tea Party Kooks Have High Jacked Our Federal Government Like This! VOTE OBAMA IN 2012 & REHIRE PELOSI!




Obama signs bill ending partial FAA shutdown

President Barack Obama signed legislation Friday temporarily restoring full funding to the Federal Aviation Administration, breaking a political impasse and allowing roughly 4,000 furloughed federal employees to return to work.

The measure also promises to restore tens of thousands of jobs in the construction industry and elsewhere tied to airport improvement projects put on hold as a result of the funding shortfall.

The bill took less than one minute to pass a nearly empty Senate chamber Friday morning. It was cleared with a legislative maneuver known as "unanimous consent," which allows as few as two senators to approve a bill so long as no objections are filed. Most members of Congress are currently away from Washington on their summer recess.

The president hailed the agreement, noting that it removed "the uncertainty hanging over the jobs of thousands of hardworking FAA employees."

"This impasse was an unnecessary strain on local economies across the country at a time when we can't allow politics to get in the way of our economic recovery," Obama said Friday. "I'm glad that this stalemate has finally been resolved."

The political differences that led to the funding shortfall, however, have not been resolved. Democrats and Republicans are still at sharp odds over whether to continue providing subsidies to smaller rural airports. The two parties also differ over whether to make it easier for airline employees to unionize.

Congress will have to revisit the issue within six weeks to avoid another lapse in funding.

Outrage over Congress's decision to adjourn for the summer without providing adequate funding for the approximately 4,000 employees contributed to the push for at least a short-term resolution. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood repeatedly took to the airwaves over the past several days, cajoling lawmakers to come back from their break and reach an agreement.

For workers facing the possibility of lost wages for weeks to come, news of the breakthrough evoked an emotional response. Evelyn Martinez, an FAA inspector, cried when she learned of the deal.

The tears are "out of relief," Martinez said, adding that while her post-graduate education taught her how government works, "what we are experiencing is outside of any textbook."

"This is a tremendous victory for American workers everywhere," LaHood said in a statement Thursday. "From construction workers to our FAA employees, they will have the security of knowing they are going to go back to work and get a paycheck -- and that's what we've been fighting for."

Since authorization for FAA funding expired in late July, the agency has also been unable to collect federal taxes on airline tickets -- leading to a revenue loss of approximately $30 million a day. If the dispute had continued until Congress returned in September, the federal government would have lost over $1 billion in revenue.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, had been in talks this week with House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and administration officials about how to resolve the funding impasse, a Senate Democratic leadership aide told CNN.

Reid noted Thursday that the agreement "does not resolve the important differences that still remain."

"But I believe we should keep Americans working while Congress settles its differences, and this agreement will do exactly that," he said.

The agreement is the 21st short-term funding extension for the FAA. The Republican-led House previously passed a short-term extension, but it included a number of changes opposed in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

One of the changes involves language in the House bill that would reduce or kill subsidies to rural airports, specifically targeting some in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico -- three states with influential Democratic senators.

The Senate ultimately agreed to pass the House bill, but as part of Thursday's agreement, LaHood will notify congressional leaders that he has the authority to grant waivers to affected community airports, which would exempt them from the subsidy cuts.

While no specific exemptions are required, LaHood's authority gives Democrats the assurance that the disputed language they opposed can be overridden, the leadership aide noted.

A larger dispute regarding the unionization of airline workers has not been addressed at all, however.

Republicans are livid over a recent ruling by the National Mediation Board that makes passage of a vote to unionize dependent only on getting more than 50% support from those actually voting. For example, if a company has 1,000 workers but only 200 take part in the vote to unionize, the rule change would mean only 101 "yes" votes were needed for it to pass.

Under old rules, more than 50% of all workers eligible to vote -- or in this example 501 "yes" votes -- would have been required for it to pass. Workers who didn't cast ballots were counted as having voted "no," making it more difficult for supporters to succeed.

It remains unclear what -- if anything -- the divided Congress will ultimately do in response to the change.

Sources: CNN

Harry Reid Announces FAA Congressional Compromise! Real Deal Or Another Tea Party Trick?

Reid announces deal on FAA funding

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, announced Thursday that Democratic and Republican leaders have "been able to broker a bi-partisan compromise between the House and the Senate" to fully fund the Federal Aviation Administration.

"This agreement does not resolve the important differences that still remain," Reid said in a written statement. "But I believe we should keep Americans working while Congress settles its differences, and this agreement will do exactly that."

The dispute could be resolved as early as Friday, a senior Democratic leadership aide told CNN earlier in the day.

The aide described a series of "active, productive discussions" on the issue.

Earlier, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that President Barack Obama called House Speaker John Boehner on Wednesday to discuss ways to resolve the matter.

The impasse has resulted in the furlough of roughly 4,000 aviation workers, as well as tens of thousands of additional layoffs in the construction industry and elsewhere.

The FAA has also been unable to collect federal taxes on airline tickets -- leading to a revenue loss of approximately $30 million a day. If the dispute continues until Congress returns from its summer recess in September, the federal government will be out more than $1 billion in revenue.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has been urging members of Congress to return to Washington from their summer break and, at a minimum, pass a temporary funding measure allowing the FAA and other workers to return to their jobs.

The Democratic-led Senate went on its summer recess Tuesday without approving what would have been the 21st short-term funding extension for the FAA. The Republican-led House previously passed a short-term extension, but included some changes opposed by Democrats.

The dispute over the extension involves language in the House proposal that would reduce or kill subsidies to rural airports, specifically targeting some in Nevada, Montana and New Mexico -- three states with influential Democratic senators.

A larger dispute behind the scenes also is a cause for the inaction. Republicans oppose a recent National Mediation Board decision backed by Democrats that makes it easier for airline employees to unionize.

The board's ruling made passage of a vote to unionize dependent on getting more than 50% support of those voting. For example, if a company has 1,000 workers but only 200 take part in the vote to unionize, the rule change would require 101 "yes" votes for it to pass.

Under old rules, more than 50 percent of all workers eligible to vote -- or 501 "yes" votes -- would have been required for it to pass. Workers who didn't cast ballots were counted as having voted "no," making it more difficult for supporters to succeed.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, told CNN Wednesday he blocked a short-term compromise bid proposed by Democratic and Republican colleagues because of the organized labor issue.

At a news conference Wednesday, top Senate Democrats blamed Republicans for the work stoppage.

"This issue has nothing to do with essential air services (at rural airports) and everything to do with a labor dispute between airlines and the American worker," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

In response, Rep. John Mica, the Florida Republican who chairs the House Transportation Committee, said Senate Democrats have only themselves to blame.

"Senate Democrats had a House-passed FAA extension before them for two weeks but chose to do nothing," Mica said.

But LaHood said controversial items didn't stop lawmakers from passing extensions on other occasions.

"If you've got issues with labor, if you've got issues with money going to small airports to help airlines fly in and out, work that out," he said. "Don't hold the American jobs and American people hostage over controversial issues that were not a problem on 20 other times when Congress passed an extension."

As the dispute drags on, numerous FAA employees are being forced to dig into personal savings, prioritize their bills, and cut back on expenses in order to avoid financial devastation.

"We're pretty much going to burn through all of our savings within a month and ... now we're working on programs out there to give us no-interest loans," said Mark DePlasco, one of the furloughed employees.

"I don't think any of us can even fathom going without a paycheck for another month and a half or even longer."

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Agreement reached in FAA stalemate

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says there is bipartisan compromise to end the partial shutdown of the Federal Aviation Administration that has left 74,000 transportation and construction workers idled.

In a statement Thursday, the majority leader did not specify details.

But other officials say they expect the Senate to accept a House-passed bill as early as Friday.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying the precise terms remain confidential.


View Larger Map

Sources: AP, CNN, MSNBC, Young Turks, Youtube, Google Maps