Washington (CNN)The Donald Trump-Rosie O’Donnell feud is back in the 2016 spotlight.

O’Donnell slammed Trump on Twitter Monday night after he resurrected their longtime feud during the first presidential debate, saying that comments he made about the comedian and TV host in the past including calling her a “pig” were justified.
    Declaring her support for Clinton, O’Donnell tweeted, “HE WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT” and then later called on people to “shame the Donald.”
    Trump’s comments on O’Donnell came after Clinton accused Trump of sexism during the debate, saying, “This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs.”
    “Hillary is hitting me with tremendous commercials. Some of it I said in entertainment, some of it said to somebody who has been very vicious to me, Rosie O’Donnell,” Trump responded. “I said very tough things to her and I think everybody would agree she deserves it and nobody feels sorry for her.”
    But this is only the latest development in the feud between the real estate mogul and his favorite nemesis.
    Here is a timeline of the highlights from their highly public feud:

    December 2006

    When Trump decided not to fire Miss USA Tara Conner after revelations of drug use, underage drinking and sexual activities, the co-owner of the Miss USA pageant raised some eyebrows.
    “I’ve always been a believer in second chances. Tara is a good person. Tara has tried hard. Tara is going to be given a second chance,” Trump said on December 19. Conner was allowed to keep her crown but had to go to rehab.
    The next day O’Donnell, who was a co-host of “The View” at the time, criticized his decision, saying that she doesn’t “enjoy” Trump and said he went bankrupt — a claim Trump continues to deny, most recently at Thursday’s GOP debate.
    She added that Trump is “not a self-made man” but a “snake-oil salesman on Little House On The Prairie,” and she proceeded to slam his multiple marriages: “[He] left the first wife — had an affair. [He] had kids both times, but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America. Donald, sit and spin, my friend.”
    Following those comments, Trump fired back at the comedian and told People Magazine that O’Donnell is “a real loser” and “a woman out of control.”
    “You can’t make false statements. Rosie will rue the words she said,” referencing her claims that he went bankrupt. “I’ll most likely sue her for making those false statements — and it’ll be fun. Rosie’s a loser. A real loser. I look forward to taking lots of money from my nice fat little Rosie.”

    May 2007

    Only eight months after joining “The View,” O’Donnell left the show after a heated spat with fellow co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck over the war in Iraq.
    Trump, who insulted both hosts, surprisingly took O’Donnell’s side because he was also against the war.
    “On this one I think Rosie should win, but Rosie is not much herself. I think anybody that’s against the war in Iraq is the winner of the fight, because to justify the war in Iraq — only an imbecile could do that,” he told “Extra,” calling Hasselbeck “not a very smart person, she’s one of the dumber people in television.”
    But this was not the beginning of a change of heart.

    December 2011

    After O’Donnell announced her engagement to then-girlfriend Michelle Rounds in December, Trump took to Twitter to share his thoughts, tweeting, “I feel sorry for Rosie ‘s new partner in love whose parents are devastated at the thought of their daughter being with @Rosie–a true loser.”
    O’Donnell responded promptly by calling him “an a–.”
    Trump also called O’Donnell’s new show on Oprah Winfrey’s network OWN “a complete and total disaster.”
    Trump tweeted a video simultaneously bashing O’Donnell’s show “Rosie” and MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell, who has also been the subject of Trump social media insults multiple times.
    “Same last name, same bad ratings- @lawrence and @rosie,” Trump tweeted.
    “It’s really amazing. When I don’t like somebody their shows do really badly,” he said, adding that it “upsets” him that O’Donnell’s show is a “disaster” because he loves Oprah and wants her to be successful.

    May 2012

    While attacking Cher for slamming then-Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, Trump snuck in an insult directed at his favorite nemesis, tweeting “.@Cher attacked @MittRomney. She is an average talent who is out of touch with reality. Like @Rosie O’Donnell, a total loser!”

    August 2012

    When O’Donnell suffered a heart attack, she got well wishes from none other than The Donald himself.
    “Rosie, get better fast. I’m starting to miss you!” he tweeted.
    O’Donnell acknowledged that his well wishes took her by surprise and tweeted, “well thank u donald – i must admit ur post was a bit of a shock … r u trying to kill me ?”

    April 2014

    After undergoing a weight-loss surgery in 2013, O’Donnell revealed her 50-pound weight loss.
    “I did what many women do, and I did not take care of myself,” she said during a speech at an American Heart Association luncheon in Detroit in February. “And that’s why I’m here, to try to get women to know you’re worth it, take care of yourself and know the symptoms.”
    Trump tweeted the following month, “Rosie O’Donnell just said she felt ‘shame’ at being fat-not politically correct! She killed Star Jones for weight loss surgery, just had it!”
    O’Donnell responded with “Donald go away.”

    July 2014

    On July 10, ABC officially announced that O’Donnell would be returning to “The View” as a co-host in September.
    And while her former co-host Hasselbeck was not pleased with the news, Trump welcomed it, calling it a “good move on ABC’s part.”
    But his reaction didn’t end there.
    Trump added that O’Donnell’s addition to the show will “have a short term positive effect. The show has really missed not having Barbara [Walters] on it.”
    He then later tweeted: “Rosie is back on the View which tells you how desperate they must be. It is the standard short term fix and long term disaster.”
    He followed up an hour later with, “Rosie is crude, rude, obnoxious and dumb – other than that I like her very much!”

    September 2014

    Upon making her comeback as a co-host of “The View,” O’Donnell discussed her emotional journey following her weight loss and told “People” that the criticism she got from Trump was the worst bullying she had been through.
    “Probably the Trump stuff was the most bullying I ever experienced in my life, including as a child,” O’Donnell said. “It was national, and it was sanctioned societally. Whether I deserved it is up to your own interpretation.”
    Trump responded to her comments by tweeting, “RosieNo offense, and good luck on the new show, but remember, you started it!”

    February 2015

    After joining the “The View” in September, 2014, O’Donnell left the talk show for the second time.
    “The truth is, I had a heart attack two years ago and stress is very bad for a heart-attack survivor,” the comedian said in a video for her fans. “I’m minimizing my stress by leaving ‘The View.’ The stress I’m having at home is not easily as remediable … There’s lots of stuff going on at home.”
    Asked about the struggling show, Trump said, “Well, it’s very sad what’s happened to ‘The View’ and I predicted that with Rosie O’Donnell it would fail. I guess the prediction is correct, but, I mean she’s a total trainwreck, so let’s see what happens and I hope it works out well. … I like the show a lot, but let’s face it, Rosie is a loser.”

    August 2015

    The Trump-O’Donnell feud first made its way into the 2016 campaign spotlight during the first Republican presidential primary debate.
    When Republican frontrunner Donald Trump was asked by Fox News host and debate moderator Megyn Kelly about his use of language like “fat pigs,” “dogs,” “slobs” and “disgusting animals” to describe some women, The Donald didn’t miss a beat.
    “Only Rosie O’Donnell,” he interjected, generating gasps, applause and laughter from the crowd.
    O’Donnell, who has been an arch-nemesis of the billionaire mogul for about a decade, responded to Trump’s dig by tweeting, “try explaining that 2 ur kids.”
    The morning after the debate, Trump appeared on “Fox and Friends” and noted that the crowd was pleased with his comments about the comedian and former host of “The View.”
    “And then [Megyn Kelly] hit me with a very, very hard question,” Trump said. “That was when I came up with the Rosie O’Donnell statement, which really got a tremendous applause. That was the biggest applause in the evening actually, so it was sort of interesting.”

    Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

      Recommended Products

    • WP Backup Vault Quickly and securely backup, migrate or clone your WordPress sites. It's easier than any other backup tool, and it works without any monthly fees.
    • Tuberank Jeet Still spending hours struggling to optimize your Youtube videos? Get the tool developed and used by a winner. Tuberank Jeet makes Youtube optimization a piece of cake.
    • Insta-Consultant Hotels PRO Upgrade Grab our Insta-Consultant Hotels Pro Upgrade and start charging RECURRING FEE to the local businesses.
    • Reseller Box Gold Lite Amazing WordPress Bundle

    (CNN)Josh and Anna Duggar have not been seen together much in public since scandal rocked their marriage more than a year ago.

    That changed on Monday.
      The Duggar family posted a photo of the pair on their Facebook page in honor of their eighth wedding anniversary.
      “Happy Anniversary, Josh and Anna,” the post said. “We are so thankful for God’s redemptive love in your lives.”
      In May 2015 Josh Duggar issued an apology after it was revealed that he had allegedly molested girls within his family when he was a teen.
      Duggar is the oldest of the children who were featured on TLC’s hit show “19 Kids and Counting.” The reality series focused on the large family, known for being devout Christians whose beliefs include not practicing birth control and following strict courtship rules.
      Duggar apparently followed those rules, which include chaperoned dates and waiting until marriage to even kiss, while he was courting the former Anna Keller. The pair married on September 26, 2008, and quickly grew their family with the addition of four children.
      Following the revelation about Duggar and the molestations, TLC canceled the reality show.
      Months later Duggar entered a faith-based rehab facility after he was outed as a user of the cheating website Ashley Madison.
      “While espousing faith and family values, I have secretly over the last several years been viewing pornography on the Internet and this became a secret addiction and I became unfaithful to my wife,” Duggar said in a statement at the time. “”I brought hurt and a reproach to my family, close friends and the fans of our show with my actions that happened when I was 14-15 years old, and now I have re-broken their trust.”
      Anna Duggar has appeared on the new TLC show, “Jill & Jessa: Counting On,” which follows the continuing lives of two of the Duggar daughters.

      Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

      Fernando and Ramiro Limon.  (Wilson County Sheriff’s Office)

      Two Mexican nationals have been arrested in Wilson County, Tennessee on multiple child sex charges, the Wilson County Sheriff’s Office reported on Tuesday.

      Working with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and U.S. Marshal’s Task Force, WCSO says 23-year-old Fernando Limon and his brother, 28-year-old Ramiro Limon are each facing four counts of rape of a child.

      Investigators began working the case in 2015, leading to their indictment. The pair was arrested last Tuesday at an Antioch residence.

      WCSO detective Walker Woods says the case involved children “considerably younger” than the 13-year-old age limit sentencing guidelines involving adults charged with sex crimes against children.

      Sheriff Robert Bryan thanked the TBI and U.S. Marshal’s Task Force for “apprehending these suspects on such heinous charges involving our children.

      More on this…

      Source article at =>http://www.foxnews.com/

      File: The United Nations headquarters in New York.  (AP Photo/Jason DeCrow)

      EXCLUSIVE: The head of a low profile but important United Nations agency based in Geneva bent the organizations rules and steered an ultrasensitive cybersecurity contract to a company headed by a business acquaintance, according to a heavily redacted UN report obtained by Fox News.

      The report says that the autocratic Francis Gurry, controversial head of the U.N.s World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO, defended his actions to rewrite normal procurement procedures by pointing out that WIPO manages the worlds leading public databases of patent disclosures, brands, and designs, as well as a variety of IT [information technology] platforms linking the Intellectual Property Offices of the world.

      The U.S. and a number of other countries  that are part of WIPOs 189-nation membership  have been waging a behind-the-scenes struggle for months to get even a glimpse of the redacted, 51-page report by the U.N.s watchdog Office of Internal Oversight Services, which was finally distributed to WIPO member states this week, but is still marked Strictly Confidential.

      Along with alleged corruption of WIPO procurement procedures in 2014, Gurry had been accused of ordering the illegal break-in of offices of his staffers in 2008 to get DNA evidence that some of them had written anonymous letters against him, and then scheming to cover up the action, as well as retaliating against some of the internal whistleblowers against him.   At the time, Gurry was running for WIPOs top job as Director General.

      The report also says, among other things, that there is an acquaintanceship dating back to 2002 between Gurry and the principal of a firm that he championed in a bidding process he halted and then restarted; that Gurry suggested overriding WIPO rules that weighted the cost of that firms proposalnearly twice that of its next competitoragainst it; and ignored staff objections to the process. 

      The cost of the winning bid, the report says,  was subsequently bargained down to meet the original cap of the request for bidding proposals.

      The document, the result of an 11-month probe, was written last March, and examines alleged Gurry wrongdoings dating back to 2008. It will likely be discussed at a meeting of WIPOs 189-member General Assembly meeting next week.


      If so, it could finally provide a culmination to long-running battles involving Gurry, an aloof, Australian-born bureaucrat,  with member states including the U.S. that have been rocked by Gurrys spectacularly high-handed maneuvers, and a bevy of whistle-blowing WIPO employees who charge they have suffered retaliation and abuse for questioning Gurrys actions.

      (In 2015 and again this year, the U.S. State Department sanctioned WIPO for failing to uphold best practices in whistleblower protection by cutting of 15 per cent of its donations to the agencythe first time any U.N. agency had incurred such a sanction.. That did virtually nothing, since WIPO, uniquely among U.N. agencies, makes hundreds of millions of dollars through its management of international patents.)

      Along with alleged corruption of WIPO procurement procedures in 2014, Gurry had been accused of ordering the illegal break-in of offices of his staffers in 2008 to get DNA evidence that some of them had written anonymous letters against him, and then scheming to cover up the action, as well as retaliating against some of the internal whistleblowers against him.   At the time, Gurry was running for WIPOs top job as Director General.

      The break-in and cover-up charges were aired by Miranda Brown, a former strategic advisor to Gurry, in a complaint filed in February, 2014 before a U.N. labor dispute tribunal. 

      They boiled up two months later  into a broader series of accusations, including the procurement charges,  from the top U.S. official at WIPO at the time, James Pooley, who has since left the organization.

      Pooleys accusations that Gurry had been involved in serious misconduct and violations of national and international law,  in turn, led to the OIOS probe.

      While the investigation has long ago concluded, elaborate maneuvering at WIPO has kept the full report under wraps ever since.

      The investigation report should have been delivered to the U.S. and other countries as soon as it was done, Pooley, who had not seen the redacted report, told Fox News. I don’t understand why there has been such a delay. The member states of WIPO own the organization. They need to have access to all the facts, so they can decide what to do.

      A two-page version of the reports conclusions was made public in Maystripping away the context, and according to whistleblowers the seriousness of the evidence behind the brief summary.

      (Gurry himself , on the other hand, has had a completely uncensored copy of the report since May, including the names of witnesses who testified against him, in violation of both WIPO and U.N. witness protections.)

      In the case of Gurrys procurement decision, the two-page summary had observed delicately that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that  Gurrys actions may be inconsistent with the standards expected of a staff member of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

      It added, evidently as a mitigating circumstance,  that there is no evidence that Mr. Gurry directly or indirectly gained any financial or personal benefit from the procurement processesand the eventual contract award.

      But regarding the alleged DNA theft, the truncated conclusions said that although there are strong indications that Mr. Gurry had a direct interest in the outcome of the DNA analysis, there was no evidence he was involved in the [illegal] taking of DNA samples.

      Nor was there evidence, the two-page version concluded,   that he attempted to suppress a subsequent investigation of the incident.

      The redacted version of the full report  is so heavily drenched in black ink that no names other than Gurrys remain –even pronouns that might identify a persons gender are blacked out. Nor are the names or officials of companies involved in the cybersecurity contract revealed.

      The result is a visual hodge-podge that is also virtually unreadable to anyone not well versed in the issues involved.

      Nonetheless, the much-censored document shows:

      • One reason there may be no evidence of Gurrys involvement in the DNA caper is that Swiss police and justice authorities, who had aided Gurry in legally collecting DNA evidence from U.N. staffers after the anonymous letters were published the previous year, refused to cooperate with the OIOS investigation.

      The scandal concerning illegally obtained DNA evidence emerged after it was included  among the legal samples collected by the Swiss police and sent to a lab for analysis. One sample, according to the lab analysis, also contained DNA from a U.N. security staffer, who denied taking it. The police who had gained possession of the samples seemed likely to know who had provided thembut they are not talking.

      • For his part, Gurry denied any involvement in the collection of personal DNA samples and said he simply did not have any authority, as the report puts it, over WIPO security services.
      • A six-figure settlement agreement between WIPO and a staffer whose DNA was illegally taken was worked out, according to a WIPO official who signed the deal , in response to several cases that the aggrieved person brought against WIPO. They included a proposed transfer to Singapore described by the complainant as retaliation.

      The outcome included money plus a promise never to move the staffer outside Geneva without her written permission, in exchange for withdrawal of a criminal complaint as well as internal complaints before U.N. tribunals, which a witness told OIOS  the complainant stood a good chance of winning. All such payouts, one witness said, required the Director Generals approval.

      For his part, Gurry disagreed that a reasonable inference can be drawn that the primary aim of the Settlement Agreement was to avoid further attention being given to the DNA Case. He also produced emailscontents not revealed in the report– that disputed that WIPO had lost  the internal casesthough the report features part of a later email chain in which  Gurry discussed the timing of having the staffer drop the complaints as part of the deal.

      • So far as the cybersecurity contract is concerned, an executive of the unnamed company that won the award, according to the redacted report, refused to be interviewed.  A legal letter  said  allegations regarding the contract were false, and  grossly defamatory, and another legal letter, according to the report, said a company member is not a friend or a personal acquaintance of Mr. Gurry and had dealt with Mr. Gurry on very infrequent occasions in the course of professional intercourse.  

      The U.S. State Department, for one, argued strongly in meetings of WIPO member nations  for release of the redacted version of the report. With the document now in U.S. hands, a State Department official told Fox News that Washington  believes that this investigation process and report revealed flaws in the organizations investigative procedures, internal oversight charter, and procurement process shortcomings that the United States and other concerned member states believe need to be addressed by the WIPO member states.

      So far as any penalties for  Gurry are concerned, however, the official said that the final recommendation in the report– that the Chair of the General Assembly of the World Intellectual Property Organization consider taking appropriate actions against Mr. Francis Gurry–was dispositive.

      Translation: who knows? As little as a reprimand might still be possible.

      To many WIPO insidersand outsiders too–there is considerable irony in the statements by Gurry of concern for WIPOs intellectual property assets in the face of cyber threats.

      Gurry has often earned international notoriety since 2012 by putting sensitive technology close to harms way. That case involved the delivery by WIPO of a secretive shipment of sophisticated computers, a highly-restricted network security system and other advanced equipment to nuclear-ambitious North Korea and Iran. 

      The American-made equipment, some of it considered dual-use technology, was  ostensibly intended to bolster WIPO operations there,  but it went unannounced despite U.S. and U.N. sanctions against both nuclear-ambitious regimes.  Payment for the equipment, until it was discovered, had been carefully structured to bypass U.N. safeguards installed after an earlier sanctions scandal. 

      A subsequent investigation ruled there were no express sanctions forbidding his action, though the investigators declared Gurrys actions unjustified and unfathomable.

      Within two years, North Korea officially added major-league cyber-crime to its dubious international accomplishments. Hackers based there invaded the  databases of entertainment giant Sony, in a bid to abort the release of The Interview, a far-out comedy about an assassination attempt on North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un. 

      Within a year of his arbitrary 2014 cybersecurity contract decision, Gurry had further  shocked the U.S. and other Western nations by failing to notify them that he was opening WIPO intellectual property offices in Russia and Chinacountries now considered to be two of the worlds most aggressive sponsors of cyber-crime and hacking.

      The offices are still there.

      George Russell is Editor-at-Large of Fox News. He is reachable on Twitter at @GeorgeRussell and on Facebook at Facebook.com/George.Russell

      Source article at =>http://www.foxnews.com/

      After School Satan logo  (The Satanic Temple)

      The Portland chapter of the Satanic Temple has reportedly succeeded in bringing its “After School Satan Club” to an elementary school within city limits.

      Finn Rezz, one of two heads of the chapter, told the Oregonian that the organization has been approved to begin its program, which focuses on “on science and rational thinking,” on Oct. 19 at Sacramento Elementary School.

      Rezz previously told the paper that most members of the Satanic Temple are atheists who see Satan as an allegory for free thought, and that the program is intended to promote “benevolence and empathy for everybody.”

      The purpose, Rezz told the paper, is meant to counter “the Good News Club,” an after-school club put on by the Child Evangelism Fellowship, “a Bible-centered organization. 

      “Across the nation, parents are concerned about encroachments by proselytizing evangelicals in their public schools, and are eager to establish the presence of a contrasting voice that helps children to understand that one doesnt need to submit to superstition in order to be a good person,” the After School Satan Clubs (ASSC) says on its website.

      “Our goal, ultimately, is to place an ASSC in every school where the Good News Clubs, or other proselytizing religious groups, have established a presence,” it said.

      In August, the Satanic Temple of Seattle asked the Mount Vernon School District for permission to start an after-school program in direct response to the Good News Bible Club run by the Child Evangelism Fellowship at Centennial Elementary School.

      Satanic Temple of Seattle spokesman Tarkus Claypool said a parent brought the Bible club to their attention because the parent was concerned the club was teaching children to evangelize to other children, according to the Associated Press.

      Claypool said their curriculum teaches children logic, self-empowerment and reasoning, and they don’t worship a deity.

      School District Superintendent Carl Bruner said a 1991 Supreme Court ruling stated that if schools allow any organization to use school property, they must allow access to all organizations, religious and secular. He said the district will explore how to respond to the application. 

      The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

      Source article at =>http://www.foxnews.com/

      In this undated image, Dr. John Zhang holds a baby believed to be the first-ever born using DNA from three people  (New Hope Fertility Center)

      Scientists say the first baby has been born from a new technique that combines DNA from three people.

      The goal is to prevent the child from inheriting a fatal genetic disease from the mother.

      The birth, of a boy, is revealed in a research summary published by the journal Fertility & Sterility. Scientists are scheduled to make a fuller presentation at a meeting next month.

      The magazine New Scientist said the baby was born five months ago to Jordanian parents, and that they were treated in Mexico by a team led by Dr. John Zhang of the New Hope Fertility Center in New York. The technique is not approved in the United States, but Zhang told the magazine, “To save lives is the ethical thing to do.”

      A spokesman for the fertility center said Zhang was not available for further comment on Tuesday. Others involved in the research referred questions to Zhang.

      The child was at risk of inheriting DNA for Leigh syndrome, a severe neurological disorder that usually kills within a few years of birth. Only a minority of Leigh syndrome cases are inherited through the type of DNA that is targeted by the new method.

      The technique involved removing some of the mother’s DNA from an egg, and leaving the disease-causing DNA behind. The healthy DNA was slipped into a donor’s egg, which was then fertilized. As a result, the baby inherited DNA from both parents and the egg donor.

      Source article at =>http://www.foxnews.com/

      Washington (CNN)The FBI has asked to examine the cell phones of a small number Democratic Party staffers as it investigates a possible hack, law enforcement and Democratic sources told CNN Tuesday.

      The development comes on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told lawmakers that 18 states have asked for help in warding off cyberattacks on their electronic voting systems.
        Law enforcement officials have reached out to the staffers individually about “imaging” their phones to search for evidence of hacking, such as malware. Investigators are still probing whether this attempted hack is part of the original breach of Democratic National Committee emails — which is widely thought to be the work of the Russian government — or a new hacking attempt.
        “Our struggle with the Russian hackers that we announced in June is ongoing — as we knew it would be — and we are choosing not to provide general updates unless personal data or other sensitive information has been accessed or stolen,” interim DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile told CNN.
        Meanwhile, Johnson outlined to the Senate Homeland Security Committee the concerns states had about defending their voting systems from hackers.
        “We are seeing a limited number of instances where there have been efforts through cyberintrusions to get into the online presence of various state election agencies,” Johnson said.
        Law enforcement and election officials said in August that hackers had breached databases for election systems in Arizona and Illinois.
        “What we are seeing are efforts to get into voter registration rolls, the identity of registered voters,” Johnson added.
        While Johnson would not say who was behind the latest hacks, their reveal comes less than a week after the top Democrats on Congress’ intelligence committees blamed Russian intelligence agencies for a series of hacks designed to influence the US presidential election.
        California Sen. Dianne Feinstein and California Rep. Adam Schiff, the ranking members on the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, respectively, released a joint statement Thursday blaming Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Russian government for the cyberintrusions.
        “Based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the US election,” they wrote.
        Russia’s suspected role in efforts to hack systems relating to US elections was a major theme in Monday’s debate between Republican nominee Donald Trump and his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
        Clinton also faulted the Russians for the election-related cyberintrusions while Trump said “it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”
        Asked about the latest hacking reports, Schiff told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on “The Situation Room” Tuesday that it was “very serious business,” adding that, “Unfortunately, I think we are going to see more of it.”
        Schiff called Trump’s refusal to blame the Russians for the cyberintrusions “troubling,” saying Trump “has essentially become an apologist for the Kremlin.”
        “My guess, Wolf, is if this guy weighs 400 pounds, he is sitting somewhere in Russia right now,” Schiff added.
        Asked in July whether Russia was trying to use cyberattacks to influence US elections, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Russia believes it is reacting to what it sees as US attempts to destabilize Russia.
        “Try to look at things from their vantage, I think. They are paranoid,” he told an audience at the Aspen forum.
        “They believe that we are trying to influence political developments in Russia and trying to effect change and so their natural response is to retaliate and do unto us as they think we have done unto them,” Clapper added.

        Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

        (CNN)LeBron James has three children. And while his oldest, LeBron Jr. just started the sixth grade, that hasn’t stopped the Cleveland Cavaliers forward from thinking about what it could be like if he was old enough to drive.

        “I look at my son being four years removed from driving his own car and being able to leave the house on his own,” James said Monday, a day before the defending NBA champions begin training camp. “It’s a scary thought right now to think if my son gets pulled over, and you tell your kids if you just (comply), and you just listen to the police that they will be respectful and things will work itself out.
          “And you see these videos that continue to come out. It’s a scary-ass situation that if my son calls me and said he’s been pulled over, that I’m not that confident that things are going to go well and that my son is going to return home.”
          James also said Monday that he will stand for the national anthem before games this season. That came in response to a question directed to him about the actions of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who started a protest to raise awareness about racial issues affecting the country.


          “We stood up there understanding what the state of America was in at that point in time and what our personal feelings were,” James said. “We’re not politicians, so we weren’t up there saying America is bad, things of that nature. That’s not our position because America has done so many great things for all of us. Those were our personal feelings, and the one thing that we wanted to get out of that is that we continue the conversation.”

          Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

          (CNN)America’s pastime has lived its share of tragedy over the years but Miami Marlins pitcher Jos Fernndez’s death in a boating accident feels different.

          Maybe it was his raw talent and potential. At 24, he was the ace of the Marlins franchise, a 2013 National League Rookie of the Year and a two-time All-Star. This season he was 16-8 with a 2.86 ERA and 253 strikeouts.
            There was his rags-to-riches story. How he went from selling vegetables in his native Santa Clara, Cuba, to become a beloved and respected figure in Miami’s exile community.
            He was jailed as a teenager after one of his four attempts to flee the communist island.
            During his final attempt, Fernndez, then 15, jumped in the water to rescue someone who had fallen off the boat. He only realized it was his mother, Maritza, when he reached her in the ocean.


            On March 22, 1993, Cleveland Indians pitchers Tim Crews, Steve Olin and Bobby Ojeda spent a day together at Crews’ home on Lake Little Nellie in Tavares, Florida.
            Crews and Olin died when the bass boat that Crews was piloting crashed into a dock. Ojeda suffered head injuries but survived. He retired the following season.

            Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

            (CNN)For one little girl, Adrian Young turned out to be more than a crossing guard. Young became her guardian angel.

            The crossing guard had just finished her shift at Alexandria Avenue Elementary School in Los Angeles when she heard the girl screaming.
              “She was like ‘Please don’t let her take me. I don’t know her. She’s not my mom,'” Young told CNN affiliate KABC.
              “I kind of went into mother mode … because I couldn’t see myself letting this little girl be taken. I’m just grateful I was there.”
              At a public event last week, Los Angeles City Council Member Mitch O’Farrell honored Young for her heroism.
              “Sometimes superheroes come in small packages,” O’Farrell said, referring to Young’s height. “And because of her diligence, training and awareness and just because she cares so much about children, she prevented what could have been a kidnapping of a child.”
              Police were able to find the suspect after Jones and the 8-year-old rendered a description.
              The woman, 50-year-old Maria Ramirez, was charged with one count of felony kidnapping.

              Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

              Colombias President Juan Manuel Santos, front left, and the top commander of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) Rodrigo Londono, known by the alias Timochenko, shake hands after signing the peace agreement between Colombias government and the FARC to end over 50 years of conflict in Cartagena, Colombia, Monday, Sept. 26, 2016.  (AP Photo/Fernando Vergara)

              Colombia’s government and the country’s largest rebel movement signed a historic peace accord Monday evening ending a half-century of combat that caused more than 220,000 deaths and made 8 million homeless.

              Underlining the importance of the deal, President Juan Manuel Santos and Rodrigo Londono, leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, signed the 297-page agreement before a crowd of 2,500 foreign dignitaries and special guests, including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

              Many in the audience had tears in their eyes, and shouts rose urging Santos and Londono to “Hug, hug, hug!” But in the end, the two men just clasped hands and the rebel commander, also known as Timochenko, put on a pin shaped like a white dove that Santos has been wearing on his lapel for years. Seconds later five jets buzzed overhead in formation trailing smoke in the colors of Colombia’s flag.

              During a minute of silence for the war’s victims, 50 white flags were raised. Everyone at the event wore white as a symbol of peace.

              “Viva Colombia,” Ban shouted at the conclusion of his speech welcoming the peace deal.

              Earlier in the day, Santos and foreign dignitaries attended a Mass celebrated by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, the Vatican’s secretary of state, at a baroque church named for St. Peter Claver, a 17th century Jesuit priest revered as the “slave of slaves” for his role aiding tens of thousands of African slaves brought to the New World as chattel.

              In a stirring homily, Pope Francis’ envoy praised Colombians for overcoming the pain of the bloody conflict to find common ground with the rebels.

              “All of us here today are conscious of the fact we’re at the end of a negotiation, but also the beginning of a still open process of change that requires the contribution and respect of all Colombians,” the cardinal said.

              Across the country Colombians marked the occasion with a host of activities, from peace concerts by top-name artists to a street party in the capital, Bogota, where the signing ceremony was to be broadcast live on a giant screen. It was also celebrated by hundreds of guerrillas gathered in a remote region of southern Colombia where last week top commanders ratified the accord in what they said would be their last conference as a guerrilla army.

              The signing didn’t close the deal, however. Colombians will have the final say on endorsing or rejecting the accord in an Oct. 2 referendum. Opinion polls point to an almost-certain victory for the “yes” vote, but some analysts warn that a closer-than-expected finish or low voter turnout could bode poorly for the tough task the country faces in implementing the ambitious accord.

              Among the biggest challenges will be judging the war crimes of guerrillas as well as state actors. Under terms of the accord, rebels who lay down their weapons and confess their abuses will be spared jail time and be allowed to provide reparations to their victims by carrying out development work in areas hard hit by the conflict.

              That has angered some victims and conservative opponents of Santos, a few hundred of whom took to the streets Monday to protest what they consider the government’s excessive leniency toward guerrilla leaders responsible for scores of atrocities in a conflict fueled by the country’s cocaine trade.

              To shouts of “Santos is a coward!” former President Alvaro Uribe, the architect of the decade-long, U.S.-backed military offensive that forced the FARC to the negotiating table, said the peace deal puts Colombia on the path to becoming a leftist dictatorship in the mold of Cuba or Venezuela two countries that along with Norway played a vital role sponsoring the four-year-long talks.

              “The democratic world would never allow bin Laden or those belonging to ISIS to become president, so why does Colombia have to allow the election of the terrorists who’ve kidnapped 11,700 children or raped 6,800 women?” he told protesters gathered in a working-class neighborhood on the outskirts of Cartagena.

              The stiff domestic opposition contrasts with widespread acclaim abroad for the accord a rare example in a war-torn world of what can be achieved through dialogue. On Monday, European Union foreign policy coordinator Federica Mogherini said that with the signing of the peace agreement, the EU would suspend the FARC from its list of terrorist organizations.

              Asked whether the U.S. would follow suit, Kerry was less willing to commit but expressed a possible openness to similar action.

              “We clearly are ready to review and make judgments as the facts come in,” he told reporters. “We don’t want to leave people on the list if they don’t belong.”

              The FARC was established in 1964 by self-defense groups and communist activists who joined forces to resist a government military onslaught. Reflecting that history, the final accord commits the government to addressing unequal land distribution that has been at the heart of Colombia’s conflict.

              But as the war dragged on, and insurgencies elsewhere in Latin America were defeated, the FARC slipped deeper and deeper into Colombia’s lucrative cocaine trade to the point that President George W. Bush’s administration in 2006 called it the world’s biggest drug cartel.

              As part of the peace process, the FARC has sworn off narcotics trafficking and agreed to work with the government to provide alternative development in areas where coca growing has flourished.

              Only if the accord passes the referendum will the FARC’s roughly 7,000 fighters begin moving to 28 designated zones where, over the next six months, they are to turn over their weapons to U.N.-sponsored observers.

              Negotiations, which had been expected to take a few months, stretched over more than four years and had to overcome a number of crises, from the military’s killing of the guerrilla group’s then top commander, known as Alfonso Cano, shortly after he authorized a secret back channel with the government, to the rebels’ capture of an army general who until a few months ago would have been a trophy prisoner.

              “This is something I waited for my whole life that I dreamed of every day,” said Leon Valencia, a former guerrilla who is one of the most respected experts on Colombia’s conflict. “It’s like when you’re waiting for a child that is finally born, or seeing an old love or when your favorite team scores a goal.”

              Source article at =>http://www.foxnews.com/

                Recommended Products

              • Self Help Fitness PLR - Done For You Set-up Brand New, High Converting Biz in a Box You Can Sell As Your Own And Keep 100% Of The Cash In Your Pockets For Years To Come
              • Kickstart Agency Kickstart Agency
              • WP-Lead Locator - Mobile App Offer
              • PushLotus Send 'push notifications' to your website visitors. Just copy/paste a piece of code on to your site to start building your list. The Standard version ($67) works in Chrome, Mozilla and Safari. No software installation necessary. The Pro version ($97) work
              Image copyright Getty Images

              Conservative MP Jake Berry has called for the Royal Yacht Britannia to be brought back into service to help the UK strike trade deals as it negotiates its withdrawal from the EU. Why does he think a yacht could boost trade, and how likely is the proposal?

              What is the royal yacht?

              Image copyright Fox Photos/Getty
              Image caption The Royal Yacht Britannia is followed by HMS Vanguard as it is escorted to the River Thames, near Plymouth, 1954

              The 83rd royal yacht’s time in service began very soon after the Queen’s reign began, as it was commissioned only a few days after the death of her father in 1952.

              Thousands came to watch when the young Queen launched the yacht the following year, from the John Brown & Company shipyard on a gloomy day in Clydebank.

              “Special buses had brought from all parts of the county 5,000 children, who waited in the rain to cheer the Queen,” the Times reported.

              That pattern was repeated on a larger scale as the yacht travelled around the Commonwealth and to other European countries, taking Princess Margaret, the Duke of Edinburgh and the Queen on trips to the Caribbean, Australia and Canada.

              Image copyright Daily Express/Hulton Archive/Getty
              Image caption The Royal Family aboard at the Port of Southampton in 1958

              Britannia went on to undertake 968 official visits, including the handover of Hong Kong, and received guests including Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela and four US presidents.

              The yacht, 412ft with a crew of 240, was a kind of floating palace, including a state drawing room, a state dining room and the Queen’s sitting room as well as numerous bedrooms.

              It was also seen as an asset in Britain’s efforts to forge diplomatic and trade links, particularly when it came to what was known as “British invisibles” – exports such as shipping and insurance.

              The Queen is reputed to have a strong attachment to Britannia, once describing it as “a place where I can truly relax” and appearing emotional at its decommissioning ceremony.

              Why was it taken out of service?

              Image caption The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh are piped aboard Britannia for the last time in 1997

              Britannia’s future was a talking point in the run-up to the 1997 general election.

              Prior to the poll, on 1 May, the Conservative government announced Britannia would be retired and replaced with a new yacht.

              Labour, however, refused to commit itself, and after the party’s election victory – and consultations with the Queen – the decision was taken not to replace it.

              But the role and maintenance of Britannia had been a political issue for much longer – since its launch, in fact.

              In the early 1950s, Labour MPs suggested it was “a useless symbol of luxury” and deplored the “frightful expense” of building and modifying the yacht.

              Defenders of the yacht said it was the best way for the Queen to travel long distances and that it was in line with Britain’s maritime traditions.

              Since it was decommissioned, Britannia has been moored in the Port of Leith, and maintained by the Royal Britannia Trust, where it attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors each year.

              Why bring it back?

              Image copyright AFP
              Image caption Lord West says trade deals were signed on Britannia when he sailed it to Hong Kong in 1997

              Almost as soon as the yacht was decommissioned in 1997, people began to call for its return, with strongly worded letters written to newspapers, and MPs repeatedly raising the issue in Parliament.

              The question of the yacht’s future resurfaced prominently at the time of the Diamond Jubilee, in 2012.

              Former cabinet minister Michael Gove wrote to then Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt, saying: “In spite and perhaps because of the austere times, the celebration should go beyond those of previous jubilees,” and proposing “a gift from the nation” in the form of a royal yacht.

              He was mocked at the time by opponents, with Labour calling him “out of touch”.

              But now the proposal is front-page news again.

              Conservative MP Jake Berry is leading calls for a revival of the royal yacht, telling the Sun: “it could bring in billions of pounds’ worth of trade deals for post-Brexit Britain.”

              Former head of the navy and Labour peer Lord West of Spithead would also like to see it make a comeback.

              He told the BBC: “It was a terrible shame we got rid of it, especially since her majesty was so fond of it.”

              He was on the vessel when it sailed to Hong Kong as part of the 1997 handover process, and said: “There were lots of deals signed on it, and it would certainly be useful as we try to carve out new trade deals after Brexit.”

              But Deirdre Brock, the SNP MP for Edinburgh Leith, where the vessel currently resides, said: “While it’s an incredibly successful tourist attraction, it’s a museum piece, and the calls to revive it or replace it seem to be harking back to the days of empire.”

              And Jonathan Reynolds, a Labour MP who sits on the Business Select Committee, said: “If that’s their answer to the serious economic questions we’re facing after Brexit, it’s very worrying”.

              How likely is it?

              Image copyright Getty Images
              Image caption Britannia is currently moored at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh

              Rear Adm Neil Rankin, who chairs of the Royal Yacht Britannia Trust, told the Telegraph bringing the original vessel back into service was a “non-starter”.

              The yacht is now considered out of date and sailors would need to be retrained in order to man it, meaning a new yacht would probably need to be built.

              Lord West said there was “no we could revive” Britannia but there were other options, such as “a sailing ship on which we could train youngsters”.

              He said it would need a Royal Navy crew, and the “nation should be willing to pay for it”, although, in his view, the money should not come from the defence budget.

              There are conflicting reports over the appetite at the top for a replacement royal yacht.

              Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is said to be a fan of the idea (Jake Berry is one of his closest allies in Parliament), as is Shipping Minister John Hayes.

              Meanwhile, the Huffington Post has suggested the prime minister is not on board – and, as Lord West points out, it would also need a seal of approval from the Queen.

              But on 11 October the government will have to respond to a debate in Parliament on the topic, and nail its colours to the mast.

              Source article at =>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk

              Image copyright Getty Images

              A new report has called for the practice of some British Asian men mistreating women and leaving them soon after getting married in South Asia, to be treated as a form of domestic violence.

              Academics at the University of Lincoln have discovered that these men have been taking thousands of pounds from their new wife’s family and using the women as domestic slaves for their in-laws.

              These “disposable women”, as the report calls them, are also often physically abused and then abandoned either once they have moved to the UK, or – more commonly – while still in India.

              Some are brought temporarily to the UK but later taken on a pretend holiday back to India, where they have their passport taken away.

              Many women hide the fact that this has happened to them, so academics spent more than a year finding 57 women in India who had experienced the phenomenon and would share their stories.

              Dream wedding

              Marriage for Sunita, not her real name, began how she had always dreamed it would in a grand venue in India’s Punjab region, with hundreds of guests and a beautiful red dress.

              “Everything was great,” she says, as she runs through photos of her big day on her phone.

              After the wedding, her new husband stayed with her for a month in India before returning to his home in the UK. Sunita expected him to come back to India shortly afterwards and take her back to live with him there, but things then started to go wrong.

              Media captionOne woman tells how she discovered her husband was already married

              “It was coming up to a year and he still didn’t return,” she says. “I asked him many times ‘Come back to India, when are you coming?’ but he would just say ‘Not now, another time’.

              “He demanded a lot from me too. At times ‘give money’ and at other times ‘give furniture’.”

              Sunita’s husband eventually stopped talking to her on the phone. She hasn’t seen him since and has also since found out he was already married to another woman in the UK.

              As is common in India, and some other countries in South Asia, Sunita’s family had given her husband’s family almost 3,000, as well as around 4,000 in gold as a dowry – money or goods given by the wife’s family to the husband’s when they get married.

              Find out more

              The Victoria Derbyshire programme is broadcast on weekdays between 09:00 and 11:00 on BBC Two and the BBC News channel.

              Sunita says her husband and in-laws were also physically abusive towards her.

              “When I used to question if he had a wife [in the UK], and why did he marry me – they would beat me just for asking.”

              Her family is not rich and her father is watching on as she speaks, clearly devastated by what has happened. He spent thousands of pounds on a marriage he thought would give his daughter a happy future.

              “I’m very upset. I’m finding it hard to talk about. He made [sexual] relations with me, my life is ruined,” she says.

              Image copyright Getty Images
              Image caption Dr Sundari Anitha says the stigma surrounding abandoned wives is “massive”

              Researchers point out that this problem also exists in Pakistan and Bangladesh – countries where marriages to people living in the UK, the US, Canada, and other nations with a large South Asian diaspora are common.

              Dr Sundari Anitha, from the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln, spoke to women personally affected on a number of trips to Punjab, Delhi and Gujarat in India.

              She met women who had paid as much as 25,000 in dowry before being abandoned, women raped by their new husbands, some who were used to have a child and then abandoned and others left in India to act as carers and domestic slaves for their in-laws.

              She says patriarchal culture in South Asia means being abandoned can ruin a woman’s life.

              “The stigma is massive and it even has an impact on other people in the family. So a woman’s sister will find it harder to get married. She will find it harder to get a job, she faces financial insecurity and she’s seen as damaged goods – primarily because the assumption is she’s had sex.”

              The report recommends that the British state recognises abandonment as a form of domestic violence and offers protection to women “disposed of” by British men, even if they never travel to the UK.

              Image caption Pragna Patel says recognising abandonment as domestic abuse will improve legal rights

              Pragna Patel, director of campaign group Southall Black Sisters, worked with academics on the study and says this would offer recourse to some sort of justice for women who at the moment have none.

              The group says that the constituent parts of abandonment – such as blackmail, fraud, emotional abuse, financial abuse, controlling and coercive behaviour and domestic servitude – can be prosecuted under existing laws, but that “few, if any, perpetrators face any consequences”.

              The victims may be unaware of their rights or feel too ashamed or frightened to report their abuse, it is suggested.

              Ms Patel explains, however, that “once it is recognised as domestic violence then all the legal avenues that should be open to women either to seek protection or prosecution, or other legal remedies, would be available to abandoned women”.

              She says that in the last month, staff at Southall Black Sisters have encountered a case in which a man had married and abandoned five different women – each time profiting financially.

              “It’s like a business for him,” she says. “The perpetrators are British nationals. If the British state turns a blind eye or is indifferent to this abuse then it is contributing to this culture of impunity – these men are not held to account by anyone.

              “We have to wake up to the fact that violence in transnational spaces is a new and emerging form of violence against women.”

              Source article at =>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk

              (CNN)Here’s a look at some of the most important cases decided by the US Supreme Court since 1789.

              1803 – Marbury v. Madison
              This decision established the system of checks and balances and the power of the Supreme Court within the federal government.
              Situation: Federalist William Marbury and many others were appointed to positions by outgoing President John Adams. The appointments were not finalized before the new Secretary of State James Madison took office, and Madison chose not to honor them. Marbury and the others invoked an Act of Congress and sued to get their appointed positions.
                The Court decided against Marbury 6-0.
                Historical significance: Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “An act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void.” It was the first time the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a law that had been passed by Congress.
                1857 – Dred Scott v. Sandford
                This decision established that slaves were not citizens of the United States and were not protected under the US Constitution.
                Situation: Dred Scott and his wife Harriet sued for their freedom in Missouri, a slave state, after having lived with their owner, an Army surgeon, in the free Territory of Wisconsin.
                The Court decided against Scott 7-2.
                Historical significance: Slaves are not citizens and thereby cannot sue in federal court. The decision overturned the Missouri Compromise, where Congress had prohibited slavery in the territories. The Dred Scott decision was overturned later with the adoption of the 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery in 1865 and the 14th Amendment in 1868, granting citizenship to all born in the US.
                1896 – Plessy v. Ferguson
                This decision established the rule of segregation, separate but equal.
                Situation: While attempting to test the constitutionality of the Separate Car Law in Louisiana, Homer Plessy, a man of 1/8 African descent, sat in the train car for whites instead of the blacks-only train car and was arrested.
                The Court decided against Plessy 7-1.
                Historical significance: Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote, “The argument also assumes that social prejudice may be overcome by legislation and that equal rights cannot be secured except by an enforced commingling of the two races… if the civil and political rights of both races be equal, one cannot be inferior to the other civilly or politically. If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane.” The Court gave merit to the “Jim Crow” system. Plessy was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
                1954 – Brown v. Board of Education
                This decision overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and granted equal protection under the law.
                Situation: Segregation of the public school systems in the United States was addressed when cases in Kansas, South Carolina, Delaware, and Virginia were all decided together under Brown v. Broad of Education. Third-grader Linda Brown was denied admission to the white school a few blocks from her home and was forced to attend the blacks-only school a mile away.
                The Court decided in favor of Brown unanimously.
                Historical significance: Racial segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
                1963 – Gideon v. Wainwright
                This decision guarantees the right to counsel.
                Situation: Clarence Earl Gideon was forced to defend himself when he requested a lawyer from a Florida court and was refused. He was convicted and sentenced to five years for breaking and entering.
                The Court decided in favor of Gideon unanimously.
                Historical significance: Ensures the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to counsel is applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
                1964 – New York Times v. Sullivan
                This decision upheld the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
                Situation: The New York Times and four African-American ministers were sued for libel by Montgomery, Alabama, police commissioner L.B. Sullivan. Sullivan claimed a full-page ad in the Times discussing the arrest of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his efforts toward voter registration and integration in Montgomery were defamatory against Sullivan. Alabama’s libel law does not require Sullivan to prove harm since the ad did contain factual errors. He was awarded $500,000.
                The Court decided against Sullivan unanimously.
                Historical significance: The First Amendment protects free speech and publication of all statements about public officials made without actual malice.
                1966 – Miranda v. Arizona
                The decision established the rights of suspects against self-incrimination.
                Situation: Ernesto Miranda was convicted of rape and kidnapping after he confessed, while in police custody, without benefit of counsel or knowledge of his constitutional right to remain silent.
                The court decided in favor of Miranda 5-4.
                Historical significance: Upon arrest and/or questioning, all suspects are given some form of their constitutional rights – “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”
                1973 – Roe v. Wade
                This decision the right to privacy extends to include a woman’s right to choose pregnancy or abortion.
                Situation: “Jane Roe” (Norma McCorvey), single and living in Texas, did not want to continue her third pregnancy. Under Texas law, she could not legally obtain an abortion.
                Historical significance: Abortion is legal in all 50 states. Women have the right to choose between pregnancy and abortion.
                1974 – United States v. Nixon
                This decision established that executive privilege is neither absolute nor unqualified.
                Situation: President Richard Nixon’s taped conversations from 1971 onward were the object of subpoenas by both the special prosecutor and those under indictment in the Watergate scandal. The president claimed immunity from subpoena under executive privilege.
                The Court decided against Nixon 8-0.
                Historical significance: The president is not above the law. After the Court ruled on July 24, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned on August 8.
                1978 – Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke
                This decision ruled that race cannot be the only factor in college admissions.
                Situation: Allan Bakke had twice applied for and was denied admission to the University of California Medical School at Davis. Bakke was white, male, and 35 years old. He claimed under California’s affirmative action plan, minorities with lower grades and test scores were admitted to the medical school when he was not, therefore his denial of admission is based solely on race.
                The Court decided in Bakke’s favor, 5-4.
                Historical significance: Affirmative action is approved by the Court, schools may use race as an admissions factor. However the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment works both ways in the case of affirmative action; race can not be the only factor in the admissions process.
                2012 – Dept. of HHS v. Florida (11-398); Florida v. Dept. of HHS (11-400); Natl. Federation of Business v. Sebelius (11-393) – Healthcare Reform
                Situation: The constitutionality of the sweeping health care reform law championed by President Barack Obama.
                Historical significance: The ruling upholds the law’s central provision – a requirement that all people have health insurance.
                2013 – United States v. Windsor
                This decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined the term “marriage” under federal law as a “legal union between one man and one woman” deprived same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law.
                Situation: Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer were married in Toronto, Canada in 2007. Their marriage was recognized by New York state, where they resided. Upon Spyer’s death in 2009, Windsor was forced to pay $363,000 in federal taxes, because their marriage was not recognized by federal law.
                The court voted 5-4 in favor of Windsor.
                Historical significance: The court rules that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.
                2015 – King et al, v. Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al
                Situation: Determining whether or not the portion of the Affordable Care Act which says subsidies would be available only to those who purchase insurance on exchanges “established by the state” is referring to the individual states.
                Historical significance: The court rules that the Affordable Care Act federal tax credits for eligible Americans are available in all 50 states, regardless of whether the states have their own health care exchanges.
                2015 – Obergefell et al, v. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al.
                Situation: Multiple lower courts had struck down state same-sex marriage bans, with the number of states allowing gay marriage to hit 37 before the issue goes to the Supreme Court.
                Historical significance: The court rules that states cannot ban same-sex marriage and must recognize lawful marriages performed out of state.
                Situation: Abigail Fisher sued the University of Texas after her admission application was rejected in 2008. She claimed it was because she is white and that she was being treated differently than some less-qualified minority students who were accepted. In 2013 the Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower courts for further review.
                The Court ruled 4-3 in favor of the University of Texas. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because she dealt with it in her previous job as solicitor general.
                Historical Significance: The court rules that taking race into consideration as one factor of admission is constitutional.
                2016 – Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt
                Situation: Determining whether two key provisions in Texas’ House Bill 2, enacted in 2013, constituted an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions in Texas.
                Historical Significance: The provisions provide “few, if any, health benefits for women, poses a substantial obstacle to women seeking abortions, and constitutes an “undue burden” on their constitutional right to do so.” This is the most significant decision from the Supreme Court on abortion in two decades.
                Honorable mentions:
                1944 – Korematsu v. United States
                – The Court ruled Executive Order 9066, internment of Japanese citizens during World War II, is legal, 6-3 for the United States.
                1961 – Mapp v. Ohio – “Fruit of the poisonous tree,” evidence obtained through an illegal search cannot be used at trial, 6-3 for Mapp.
                1967 – Loving v. Virginia – Prohibition against interracial marriage was ruled unconstitutional, 9-0 for Loving.
                1968 – Terry v. Ohio – Stop and Frisks, under certain circumstances, do not violate the Constitution. The Court upholds Terry’s conviction and rules 8-1 that it is not unconstitutional for police to stop and frisk individuals without probable cause for an arrest if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is about to occur.
                2008 – District of Columbia v. Heller – The Second Amendment does protect the individual’s right to bear arms, 5-4 for Heller.
                2010 – Citizens United v. FEC – The Court rules corporations can contribute to PACs under the First Amendment’s right to free speech, 5-4 for Citizens United.

                Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/

                  Recommended Products

                • WP Backup Vault Quickly and securely backup, migrate or clone your WordPress sites. It's easier than any other backup tool, and it works without any monthly fees.
                • Animated Web Concepts Animated Web Concepts is a collection of animations and animation creation assets to create a massive amount of animations for your videos and web animations. The collection includes over 1800 pre-made plus over 1000 SVG images that can be animated in mil
                • Graphics Diamond Box V2 - Reselling Millionaire Megabundle Ultimate Collection of 500+ "Best-Of-The-Best" Graphic Templates! Must-Have Toolkit For Serious Marketers!
                • Membersite Live by Ron Douglas and Alice Seba Recurring income coaching program and done for you membership site setup.

                Image caption Helen Clarkson (left, pictured with Elaine Sammarco) has found the summer ‘disheartening’

                Relief that it is all over.

                That seems to be the common sentiment of Labour activists at the party conference in Liverpool in the aftermath of Jeremy Corbyn’s re-election as Labour leader.

                “I am very happy and a lot of people are very happy the decision has been made and we can move forward,” says Jacqueline Griffiths, from Sevenoaks.

                There is frustration that the leadership squabbles have left Labour in virtual limbo with, according to one party member, “no ability to focus on the issues affecting the country”.

                Helen Clarkson, from Central Suffolk, says the last few months have been very “disheartening” and Mr Corbyn now needs “time to lead” and show what he can do.

                But she worries his re-election will not put an end to the battles between the leadership and many of the MPs.

                “There is a lot of manoeuvring behind the scenes that we are not privy to. What general members have to say, what we feel and how people have voted is one thing but getting the work done is another.”

                ‘Second coup’

                Image caption Marie (right, pictured with friend Daisy) is concerned there may be a ‘second coup’

                And there are those who believe opponents of the leader will stop at nothing to get rid of him.

                “I am slightly concerned there will be a second (coup) attempt,” says Marie, a member of Mr Corbyn’s own Islington North constituency party. “They will find other ways of gradually destroying him.”

                Those in positions of power, she argues, should have spent more time listening to party members and defending the elected leader of the party.

                “We could do with an alternative deputy leader. I actually voted for Tom (Watson) but he has not been supportive of Jeremy and seemingly behind the plotters.”

                While Mr Watson – who was elected with his own mandate last year – is not likely to be going anywhere, the future of other leading MPs is occupying the thoughts of many members.

                “The obvious problem is that a lot of the MPs are unhappy and that is difficult,” says Rob Hall from Bedford.

                While he does not support the deselection of dissenting MPs in the run-up to the next election, he can see a scenario in which it could not be avoided.

                Image caption Rob Hall says he does not support the deselection of dissenting MPs

                “People have been very difficult with Corbyn right from the very start, just because it was him,” he says. “If I had someone as an MP who was making life difficult for the leader, I would be wanting a deselection frankly.”

                But he says it should not be in Mr Corbyn’s gift to get rid of MPs who disagree with him: “I don’t think anyone nationally, like Jeremy Corbyn, should be saying to people deselect. It is up to people in their constituencies.”


                Amid talk of the return of shadow cabinet elections as a way of appeasing Corbyn critics, there are those who just can’t see how the party leader can co-exist with MPs who openly disagree with him.

                “When Jeremy appointed (former shadow defence secretary) Maria Eagle who disagreed with him (on Trident) it was farcical,” Mr Hall says.

                For some local activists, including one Birmingham councillor elected in May, it really has been business as usual and the turmoil at the top of the party has made little difference to their day-to-day work.

                “While this has been going on upstairs, we have been concentrating on local issues,” she says.

                But don’t people she represent have strong feelings about Mr Corbyn? “Some do, some don’t,” she replies. “Some just want to make sure they get their rubbish cleared every week – what they see as important in their life.”

                But others believe it is naive to pretend that the leadership issue doesn’t come up on doorsteps and won’t have an impact on Labour’s chances in the next election.

                “The party has to come together but – and it is a big but – there are members of the top team, possibly including Jeremy, which need to be more inclusive,” says Elaine Sammarco, from Lewes in Sussex.

                “We are hearing the slate is being wiped clean which is very helpful and Jeremy is reaching out but it is the next step and how is that going to happen. I would like to be optimistic that will happen but I am sceptical.”

                ‘Broad church’

                While Theresa May’s grammar school expansion plan has galvanised Labour and, in the words of one member “done Jeremy’s job for him”, many are openly speculating about whether the PM will be “tempted” to call an early election.

                While many genuinely believe Labour can climb an electoral mountain and prevail if the poll is held in 2020, there is trepidation about what might happen if the prime minister goes to the country early.

                “Obviously I hope we would have a Labour leader but my fair is that Theresa May will call an election quite quickly and we won’t have time for people to truly come together and mobilise properly,” says Elaine Clarkson.

                In the meantime, Labour members can only cross their fingers and hope for the best and there are many who believe the party may have already touched its electoral nadir.

                “Everyone shares the same beliefs,” says Daisy, from Wallasey, who was motivated to join Labour by its 2015 election defeat. “It is a broad church but everyone has the same aim which is a Labour government.”

                Related Topics

                Source article at =>http://www.bbc.com/news/uk

                  Recommended Products

                • Easy Web Video Generator Epic Easy Web Video Generator is a video creating and marketing solution all wrapped up into one. It also introduces the first ROUND player! Check it out today!
                • InstaGram Master Plan Paying ONE BILLION DOLLARS For A Photo Sharing Site Is No Joke... But Here's How YOU Can Laugh All The Way To The Bank!
                • Massive Traffic Membership Done-For-You Membership Site with 12 months content. Will be installed and set up for you!
                • (OTO) Katoko WP Theme

                Donald Trump’s 6 debate tactics

                New York (CNN)There’s one thing Donald Trump brings to the debate stage Monday night: unpredictability.

                The Republican nominee and his allies hope his unconventional style will be a huge asset when he squares off against Hillary Clinton — a skilled debater in her own right.
                  But with 11 debates under his belt from the brutal Republican primary season, Trump has plenty of go-to moves when it comes to debating.
                  Here’s what we’ve learned from Trump’s primary debate performances and what they could tell us to expect Monday night:

                  Face-to-face insults

                  Trump’s affinity for insults and name-calling quickly became a staple of his presidential campaign. Jeb Bush may forever be remembered for the “low energy” moniker the billionaire coined.
                  But Trump’s name-calling on the stump before friendly crowds didn’t stop when he joined his opponents on the same stage. Trump repeatedly called Texas Sen. Ted Cruz a liar to his face in several of the debates, and even pulled out the “Lyin’ Ted” moniker.
                  And when Marco Rubio repeatedly needled Trump, the brash billionaire didn’t think twice before throwing “Little Marco” and “lightweight” in the Florida senator’s face.
                  “This guy’s a choke artist and this guy’s a liar,” Trump once said of Cruz and Rubio during a debate.
                  The name-calling and insults served the dual purpose of drawing attention to the core vulnerabilities of Trump’s opponents, while also deflecting from whatever attack they were throwing his way.
                  If Trump sticks to this pattern, Clinton should gird herself for the “Crooked Hillary” moniker and a volley of adjectives from “corrupt” to “criminal.”

                  There’s nowhere he won’t go

                  Trump has done more than just name-calling in the debates.
                  A big reason his attacks have been so effective has been his willingness to strike where traditional politicians would hold back or take a less direct tack.
                  After all, Trump is the candidate who suggested Ben Carson was incurably mentally ill due to childhood anger issues and floated the conspiracy theory that Cruz’s father was involved in JFK’s assassination.
                  Perhaps most memorably, during the March 3 debate, Trump defended himself from Rubio’s attacks on the size of his hands — and the implications about his manhood.
                  “He referred to my hands, if they are small something else must be small. I guarantee you there is no problem, I guarantee,” Trump said.
                  And physical appearance wasn’t beyond the pale for Trump, who once threw this zinger at Rand Paul: “I never attacked him or his looks and believe me there’s plenty of subject matter right there.”
                  Trump has already thrown every scandal and conspiracy theory Clinton’s way. He’s raised her husband’s sex scandals and called her a “nasty, mean enabler.” He’s also revived the debunked theory that she was involved in the death of White House staffer Vince Foster and has suggested she’s mentally and physically unfit to serve as president.
                  Trump has already hinted that there’s a chance he’ll cross that line, but only if Clinton does first.

                  Belittles canned responses

                  The canned zinger is a staple of presidential debates that, if done right, can leave a mark. But Trump loves to slap down anything he considers to be a pre-packaged, poll-tested line.
                  During the late February GOP debate, Rubio hit Trump with an seemingly prepared line: “If he builds the wall the way he built Trump Towers he’ll be using illegal immigrant labor to do it.”
                  “So cute. Such a cute soundbite,” Trump fired back, undercutting the zing of Rubio’ line.
                  Clinton can expect a similar retort if she deploys the same tactic. It’s part of a larger theme of Trump’s candidacy — one that bemoans and belittles “all talk, no action” career politicians and makes a mockery of tired political tropes.

                  That’s not to say he won’t bring any prepared materials

                  Trump hasn’t brought any focus grouped zingers to his debate performances, but he has frequently recycled lines he’s prone to use during rallies and in interviews.
                  Whether it’s about the “third world” nature of US infrastructure or lamenting the US trade imbalance with Mexico while saying their leaders are “much smarter” than those in America, Trump’s debate performances are laced with Trump’s favorite throwaway lines.
                  But while his campaign has consistently sought to lower expectations and downplay the amount of effort the billionaire puts into debate prep, Trump has also arrived prepared.
                  After Cruz attacked Trump on his “New York values,” Trump arrived at the following debate with a well thought out and even uncharacteristically poignant rebuttal.
                  “When the World Trade Center came down, I saw something that no place on Earth could have handled more beautifully, more humanely than New York,” Trump said.

                  Rapid fire

                  Trump has prided himself on being a counter-puncher. He waits for his rivals to go after him and then he hits them back twice as hard.
                  Throw that into a debate context and Trump’s counter punching gives him a chance to show voters he’s quick on his feet to dismiss rivals’ attacks or deflect with one of his own.
                  But Trump’s knack for returning fire is also a tactic to try and knock his rivals off kilter and make them look weak.
                  Rather than wait for his rivals to finish their attack, Trump might interject with a snide comment belittling the line or deploy one of his many facial expressions that will catch the attention of the television audience.
                  The goal for Trump is to get under his rivals’ skin, poking at them to draw them into a back-and-forth — one Trump likely won’t back down from.
                  When it comes to Clinton, Trump’s rapid-fire put downs are likely to sound a lot like the schoolyard put down, “I know you are but what am I.”
                  Pressed on his biggest weaknesses by Clinton, Trump has frequently replied in boomerang fashion, flinging Clinton’s words right back at her.

                  Go after the moderator

                  If all else fails, Trump will turn to his favorite tactic of attacking the media — in this case, the debate moderator Lester Holt of NBC.
                  Faced with tough questions during the primary from conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly — in two separate debates — Trump deflected with a personal attack or threat.
                  “First of all, very few people listen to your radio show, that’s the good news,” Trump responded when Hewitt asked Trump about releasing his tax returns.
                  And when Kelly asked Trump during the first primary debate last August about the disparaging comments he’s made about women, Trump famously retorted with a warning.
                  “I’ve been very nice to you, although I could probably maybe not be, based on the way you have treated me. But I wouldn’t do that,” Trump said.
                  Already, Trump has sought to work the refs, suggesting Holt would be unfair to him and arguing that moderators shouldn’t play the role of fact-checkers.

                  Source article at =>http://edition.cnn.com/