Click:car rims wholesale
This year’s route takes athletes through the northern countryside, starting with a point-to-point from Pennington Flash to Bolton for the first few miles. This will then become a 3-lap bike course with a 650 feet reduction in climbing.
Advertisement
There will be a few technical descents through Edgworth, Turton and Chapeltown at the north end of the course, with a short stint on the A666. This will then lead into the descent through Egerton and Belmont. The 2020 bike course will no longer be using Pickup Bank, Eccleshill, Hoddlesden or Blacksnape Road towards Edgworth.
One of the most memorable part of the Ironman UK 2019 bike course remains, and athletes will still climb past Black Dog Pub in Belmont and onto Sheephouse Lane before heading back towards Bolton. From here competitors will continue east towards Bury and continue the 3-lap bike course.
Ironman UK has also removed the undulating climbs through Ramsbottom, Helmshore and Hoddlesden and as well as the long technical climbs and descents through Eccleshill and Blacksnape.
“Year after year we continue to be inspired by every athlete that has taken on the Ironman UK race. We want to make sure our athletes have the best experience possible and because of this, we have decided to make some changes the 2020 bike course,” said Sam Brawn, Ironman UK Race Director.
“As we always do, we wanted to make sure that the athletes experience was a focal point when planning the 2020 race. We are excited that this year athletes will get to experience more of the iconic Ironman UK spectators support, as their families and friends will get to cheer them on multiple times!”
Ironman UK takes place on Sunday 12 July. For more information on the new bike course and to register, please visit https://www.ironman.com/im-uk
Advertisement
Want to smash it? Here’s some Ironman training advice from top coaches and athletes
Frodeno and Haug’s coach Dan Lorang on how to train for Ironman
Ironman racing and training advice from Tim Don
Ironman race-day: how to pace each leg
Your first Ironman: 30 training and preparation tips
Click:mtp mpo fiber patch cable
Happy Thursday and welcome to Overnight Defense. I’m Rebecca Kheel, and here’s your nightly guide to the latest developments at the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill and beyond. CLICK HERE to subscribe to the newsletter.
THE TOPLINE: The second and final presidential debate of the 2020 campaign is Thursday night, and it will ostensibly be the more foreign policy and national security heavy of the two.
One of the six announced topics for the debate is national security, and foreign policy could also come up during other topics such as the pandemic, climate change and leadership. The Trump campaign, though, complained earlier in the week the whole debate wouldn’t be about foreign policy.
Click Here: cheap Cowboys jersey
Stay tuned to TheHill.com tonight for full coverage of the debate.
In the meantime, get ready for the debate with our previews.
The Hill’s Morgan Chalfant and Brett Samuels took a look at how the debate presents Trump with one last major chance to meaningfully alter the trajectory of the presidential race.
The first contest between the two descended into chaos and was viewed by Republicans as a missed opportunity largely of Trump’s own making. The final debate will feature a new rule allowing both candidates’ microphones to be muted at the start of each segment after Trump repeatedly interjected as Biden spoke in the first debate in Cleveland.
Trump and his allies have spent the week leading up to the debate attempting to lower expectations for the president by preemptively attacking the moderator, NBC’s Kristen Welker, and accusing the debate commission of shielding Biden from scrutiny.
Thursday’s debate comes at a time when the final result is increasingly out of any candidates’ control. Many Americans have already cast their ballots by mail or headed to the polls for early voting.
The Hill’s Max Greenwood also ran down five things to watch for in the debate. Catch up on that here.
FORT BRAGG WASN’T HACKED: Many eyebrows were raised Wednesday when some sexually explicit tweets were sent out from the official Fort Bragg Twitter account.
The Army base originally attributed the tweets to a hack.
But as it turned out, the tweets were sent by someone who had access to the account.
A spokesman at the North Carolina base said Thursday an administrator of the account admitted to sending the tweets, which were graphic replies to a sex worker’s tweets.
“This morning, at the initiation of an investigation into yesterday’s incident regarding inappropriate tweets on the Fort Bragg Twitter account, an administrator for the account identified himself as the source of the tweets,” Col. Joe Buccino, a spokesperson for the XVIII Airborne Corps, said in a statement Thursday.
“Appropriate action is underway,” he added.
CHINA FUMES ABOUT TAIWAN ARMS SALES: As expected, China is not happy about the United States’ latest arms sales to Taiwan.
On Thursday, China threatened retaliation after the Trump administration approved the $1.8 billion arms sales.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian accused the U.S. of “interfering” in Beijing’s affairs and said the sale could lead to regional insecurity.
“It seriously interferes in China’s internal affairs, seriously harms China’s sovereignty and security interests, sends out gravely wrong signals to Taiwan independence forces and severely undermines China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. China firmly opposes it,” Zhao said.
Zhao urged the U.S. to “stop arms sales to and military ties with the Taiwan region, cancel its arms sales plans to avoid further harming China-US relations and cross-strait peace and stability,” warning that “China will make a legitimate and necessary reaction in the light of the development of the situation.”
Zhao also sought to cast doubt on Taiwan’s position that it has no interest in engaging in an arms race with mainland China.
“If they truly don’t want to engage in an arms race, then they should match their words with actions, instead of saying one thing and doing the opposite,” he said.
DEMS BLAST OPEN SKIES WITHDRAWAL: With so much happening, it’d be easy to forget that Trump’s withdrawal from the Open Skies Treaty, which he announced in May, is just less than a month away from becoming official.
On Thursday, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot EngelEliot Lance EngelOvernight Defense: Trump, Biden set to meet in final debate | Explicit Fort Bragg tweets were sent by account administrator | China threatens retaliation over Taiwan arms sale Is Trump a better choice for Jewish voters than Biden? Overnight Defense: Trump says he’s leaving Walter Reed, ‘feeling really good’ after COVID-19 treatment | White House coronavirus outbreak grows | Dems expand probe into Pompeo speeches MORE (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Bill KeatingWilliam (Bill) Richard KeatingOvernight Defense: Trump, Biden set to meet in final debate | Explicit Fort Bragg tweets were sent by account administrator | China threatens retaliation over Taiwan arms sale Overnight Defense: National Guard chief negative in third coronavirus test | Pentagon IG probing Navy’s coronavirus response | Democrats blast use of Russia deterrence funds on border wall Democrats blast ‘blatant misuse’ of Russia deterrence funding on border wall MORE (D-Mass.) put out a statement warning of the “fast approaching” official withdrawal.
They also continued to blast Trump for not submitting the notification to Congress that last year’s annual defense policy bill required.
“At every step of the way, this president has ignored the advice of diplomats, defense experts, and our allies and partners while his notification of U.S. withdrawal from the treaty flagrantly broke the law that he himself signed,” they said. “If the administration is insistent on making this reckless decision, it should submit its official notice to Congress and wait the requisite 120 days before withdrawing from the treaty. The American people, and our allies and partners, deserve at least as much.”
ON TAP FOR TOMORROW
Rep. Anthony BrownAnthony Gregory BrownOvernight Defense: Trump, Biden set to meet in final debate | Explicit Fort Bragg tweets were sent by account administrator | China threatens retaliation over Taiwan arms sale Trump, Pentagon collide over anti-diversity training push Overnight Defense: Appeals court revives House lawsuit against military funding for border wall | Dems push for limits on transferring military gear to police | Lawmakers ask for IG probe into Pentagon’s use of COVID-19 funds MORE (D-Md.) and Bell CEO Mitch Snyder will speak at an online Brookings Institution event on “The defense industrial base and the future of warfare” at 10 a.m. https://brook.gs/34jqZ20
Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology and logistics, will speak at the closing ceremonies of the virtual Air Force Rapid Sustainment Office Advanced Manufacturing Olympics at 1:40 p.m. https://bit.ly/3ohnwZA
Lt. Gen. B. Chance Saltzman, deputy chief of space operations for operations, cyber and nuclear, will speak at an online event hosted by the Space Force Associations at 2 p.m. https://bit.ly/3e1nK2B
ICYMI
— The Hill: Treasury sanctions Iran’s ambassador to Iraq
— The Hill: Bipartisan group of senators call on Trump to sanction Russia over Navalny poisoning
— The Hill: House lawmakers call for continued assistance to Lebanon
— Washington Post: Virus shutdowns took a grim toll on amputee veterans who died by suicide, families say
— Washington Post: Our secret Taliban air force
— Reuters: Russia’s Putin says world has no future without arms control system
— Stars and Stripes: North Korea poised to test next US president with growing nuclear missile threat
Click:Guizhou China Map
China is threatening to retaliate against the U.S. after the Trump administration approved a $1.8 billion arms sale to Taiwan, the autonomous island that Beijing considers its own territory.
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian accused the U.S. of “interfering” in Beijing’s affairs and said the sale could lead to regional insecurity.
“It seriously interferes in China’s internal affairs, seriously harms China’s sovereignty and security interests, sends out gravely wrong signals to Taiwan independence forces and severely undermines China-US relations and peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. China firmly opposes it,” Zhao said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
Zhao urged the U.S. to “stop arms sales to and military ties with the Taiwan region, cancel its arms sales plans to avoid further harming China-US relations and cross-strait peace and stability,” warning that “China will make a legitimate and necessary reaction in the light of the development of the situation.”
The rebuke comes after the Trump administration issued a formal notification of approval for the arms sale, which will include 135 air-to-ground cruise missiles, called Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response missiles, and related equipment; 11 truck-mounted rocket launchers, called High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems; and six MS-110 reconnaissance pods that can be attached to Taiwan’s fighter jets.
“This proposed sale serves U.S. national, economic, and security interests by supporting the recipient’s continuing efforts to modernize its armed forces and to maintain a credible defensive capability,” the administration said in the notices announcing the sale. “The proposed sale will help improve the security of the recipient and assist in maintaining political stability, military balance, economic and progress in the region.”
The administration added the transfer “will not alter the basic military balance in the region.”
Taiwan has repeatedly said it has no interest in engaging in an arms race with mainland China, though Zhao sought to cast doubt on that claim in light of the U.S. arms sale.
ADVERTISEMENT
“If they truly don’t want to engage in an arms race, then they should match their words with actions, instead of saying one thing and doing the opposite,” he said.
The U.S., like many countries around the world, has no formal ties with Taiwan but has emerged as the island’s largest international backer, sparking repeated rebukes from Beijing over Washington’s military assistance.
Click Here: Maori All Blacks Store
Relations between the U.S. and China have severely soured in recent months over the coronavirus pandemic, trade, Chinese human rights violations in Hong Kong and against Uighurs and other Muslim minority groups, and Beijing’s efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. elections.
Click:Luxury Valentine’s Day Necklace for Wife
The fast food industry maintains a more extreme wage disparity between workers and CEOs than any other industry in the economy, according to a report by the public policy organization Demos published Tuesday.
In many cases, income gaps surpass a 1,000-to-1 ratio, a factor that not only impoverishes millions of fast food workers and their families across the country, but also hurts the overall economy, says the report—.
Between 2000 and 2013, the average CEO’s paycheck quadrupled, with averages coming in around $23.8 million. This is a stark comparison to hourly wages of fast food employees, which increased 0.3% since 2000, and currently averages around $9 per hour, the report shows.
This extreme income disparity also poses a risk to the fast food companies themselves, Demos notes. As workers have increasingly risen up over the past year in protest of their poverty wages and poor working conditions, “legal, regulatory, and operating risks” have become a problem for fast food companies.
“The fast food industry is leading the trend of pay disparity in the US, and the negative consequences are surfacing as operational issues, legal challenges, and diminishing worker and customer satisfaction,” said Catherine Ruetschlin, Demos Policy Analyst and author of the report. “Even the industry leader McDonald’s has acknowledged that rising inequality is a risk to their bottom line. These performance issues can manifest in reduced shareholder returns, but the problems extend beyond fast food to the rest of the economy.”
This was evident in March of this year when fast food giant McDonald’s said at its annual filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission that labor organizing campaigns could “promote adverse perceptions of … our brand” and listed it as a profit “risk.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
According to the report, “Millions of dollars in legal fees, increasing customer wait times, and labor unrest are evidence of the systemic problems of income inequality in fast food.”
Click Here: Golf special
Additionally troubling, the report’s finding show that extremely low paying jobs, particularly in the fast food industry, make up a large proportion of job growth since the economic crash of 2008 and will be among the top five occupations expected to add the most jobs through 2022.
“The increasing reliance on employment in these highly unequal industries will make it harder for working people to share in the gains of economic growth as more and more income becomes concentrated at the top,” the report states.
It continues: “The paycheck of the average fast food worker would leave a family of three below the federal poverty line, even if she works 40 hours a week, which is far from the norm in the industry. At an average $9.09 per hour, a full-time, full-year employee earns less than $19,000 a year. But most fast food workers are hired on a part-time basis, making it unlikely that their annual incomes will even approach that sum. At the bottom of the wage scale, the erosion of the real value of the minimum wage has excluded those earners from the benefits of economic growth and the success of the industry.”
“These findings suggest an escalation of income inequality over the next decade, and a break from the kind of employment opportunities that supported middle-class living standards in the past,” Demos concludes.
______________________
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Click:electronic components shop
Vowing to combat the “converging crises” of racism, militarism, climate change, and “extreme materialism,” Dr. Jill Stein on Tuesday announced this week that she is running for president of the United States as a Green Party candidate.
In a campaign kick-off speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday, Stein laid out the major planks of her platform, excerpted below:
Common Dreams is a not-for-profit news service. All of our content is free to you – no subscriptions; no ads. We are funded by donations from our readers.
Our critical Mid-Year fundraiser is going very slowly – only 1,024 readers have contributed so far. We must meet our goal before we can end this fundraising campaign and get back to focusing on what we do best.
If you support Common Dreams and you want us to survive, we need you now.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Stein, who also ran for president in 2012, talked about her candidacy in an exclusive interview with Democracy Now! on Monday. Among other things, Stein highlighted one major difference between Greens and the mainstream political parties: “We are part of a party that does not accept corporate money and that does not accept money from lobbyists nor from corporate CEOs or surrogates of corporations.”
While Stein admitted to similarities between herself and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is running for the presidency as a populist Democrat, she was hard-pressed to find overlaps between her platform and that of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“With Hillary, you know, I think, across the board, Hillary is the Wal-Mart candidate,” Stein said. “Though she may change her tune a little bit, you know, she’s been a member of the Wal-Mart board. On jobs, on trade, on healthcare, on banks, on foreign policy, it’s hard to find where we are similar.”
Speaking of her economic priorities, Stein told Democracy Now‘s Goodman: “We are very focused on reforming the financial system, not only breaking up the big banks, but actually establishing public banks at the community, state and national level, so that we actually can democratize our finance. We can nationalize the Fed and ensure that it’s running for public purpose and not simply for private profit.”
Watch the full Democracy Now! interview below:
A press release sent out by the Jill 2016 campaign notes that Stein’s official entry into the 2016 presidential race coincides with the filing of a lawsuit against the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) on Monday. That lawsuit, brought by the advocacy group Level the Playing Field and the Green and Libertarian parties, seeks to expand the 2016 general-election presidential debates to independent and third-party candidates.
Stein—who was arrested, along with vice presidential candidate Cheri Honkala, trying to enter a presidential debate sponsored by the CPD in the fall of 2012—was reportedly “deeply involved in negotiations with Level the Playing Field to have the Green Party join as co-plaintiff in this suit.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click:cnc machining service
Fighting to protect dark money. Attacking federal efforts to rein in carbon pollution. Undermining local democracy.
These are just some of the “hot topics” on the agenda this week as conservative lawmakers, corporate lobbyists, and top GOP candidates from around the country gather in San Diego for the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)’s annual meeting.
“A dark cloud is headed our way in the form of a shadowy lobbying organization that buys loyalty from state legislatures with untraceable corporate dollars and threatens the very fabric of our democracy.”
—Francine Busby, San Diego County Democratic Party
“A dark cloud is headed our way in the form of a shadowy lobbying organization that buys loyalty from state legislatures with untraceable corporate dollars and threatens the very fabric of our democracy,” San Diego County Democratic Party chair Francine Busby wrote in advance of the conference.
ALEC, Busby explained, “is a ‘bill mill’ funded by corporations and billionaires. It creates ‘model legislation’ by and for industries, which right-wing legislators then take back to their statehouses and enact into law.”
Miles Rapoport, president of the grassroots advocacy organization Common Cause, described the meeting as “a festival of closed-door deal-making by politicians, corporate executives and lobbyists,” at which “[t]hey gather to do the public’s business in private, fashioning legislation that undercuts the public interest in things like clean air and water, quality public schools, economic fairness and participatory democracy.”
Click Here: Rugby league Jerseys
It was with these charges in mind that more than 1,000 labor, social justice, and environmental advocates rolled out the unwelcome mat for the ALEC legislators and lobbyists on Wednesday, saying they didn’t want the corporate-backed group in their city.
“This is a no ALEC zone. I mean, we don’t want ALEC in our city or, quite frankly, in our state,” Mickey Kasparian, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers, said at the rally in downtown San Diego. “This is California. We fight for workers’ rights. We fight for affordable healthcare.”
But as the Center for Media and Democracy’s Brendan Fischer pointed out this week, “[i]n many ways, San Diego is an appropriate setting for ALEC’s conference.”
The city has served as a “petri dish for ALEC’s agenda,” he said, citing a successful and corporate-backed campaign that forced the city council to rescind a popular minimum wage measure.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Meanwhile, environmentalists warn that the draft conference agenda indicates that ALEC will pursue a familiar course in the coming year. According to Aliya Huq, climate change special projects director for Natural Resources Defense Council, the group is pushing measures to “defend polluters, hinder clean energy development, and obstruct climate solutions.”
Model bills up for discussion this week, Huq wrote, include the “State Power Accountability and Reliability Charter (SPARC),” which seeks to chip away at the EPA’s carbon pollution limits on power plants; the “Act Providing Incentives for Carbon Reduction Investments,” aimed at weakening and delaying existing state renewable energy standards; and the “Resolution Concerning Special Markets for Direct Solar Power Sales.”
“ALEC and its corporate backers are taking the fight directly to the local level, urging city and county officials on the one hand to give up their authority to protect the health and economic well-being of their constituents, and on the other to push policy measures to advance corporate interests.”
—Brendan Fischer, Center for Media and Democracy
This final bill, Huq writes, “is a real gem in ALEC’s long-running strategy to subvert solar markets.”
But “[r]ooftop solar gives consumers choice; shouldn’t we be working to make it available to more people not fewer?” Huq asked. “Furthermore, Econ 101 taught us that the hidden costs of fossil pollution is a market failure, and solar incentives level the playing field for clean energy to protect public health and the environment. These attacks are most likely coming from vested polluter interests (including some ALEC members who are actual regulated monopolies) that want to protect their profits.”
In a separate blog post on Monday, CMD’s Fischer noted that ALEC’s new offshoot focused on local government, the American City County Exchange (ACCE), will also meet in San Diego this week.
“Local democracy has led to some significant policy wins in recent years, with cities like Philadelphia guaranteeing workers paid sick days, and places like Denton, Texas banning fracking,” Fischer wrote. “ALEC’s response to cities and counties acting as laboratories of democracy has traditionally been to crush it, through state ‘preemption’ laws that prohibit local governments from raising the minimum wage, or regulating GMOs, or building municipal broadband.”
With ACCE, Fischer charged, “ALEC and its corporate backers are taking the fight directly to the local level, urging city and county officials on the one hand to give up their authority to protect the health and economic well-being of their constituents, and on the other to push policy measures to advance corporate interests.”
According to news reports, two Republican presidential hopefuls—Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Mike Huckabee, the ex-Arkansas governor—are scheduled to speak at the conference on Thursday. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) canceled his scheduled Friday appearance.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click:全国楼凤论坛
The heads of several House subpanels on Friday called for the Pentagon to turn over documents on how it used $1 billion in coronavirus relief funds, citing the Defense Department’s use of much of the money to pay defense contractors rather than buy medical supplies.
“We are investigating whether the Department of Defense (DOD) inappropriately used hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars appropriated by Congress in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,” lawmakers wrote in a letter to Defense Secretary Mark EsperMark EsperOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result MORE.
“These funds were intended to prioritize the domestic production and distribution of urgently needed medical supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE) – many of which are still in short supply – but DOD has reportedly diverted a significant portion of these funds to provide lucrative contracts to defense contractors for non-medical projects.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The letter was sent by the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis Chairman Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.); Committee on Financial Services Chairwoman Rep. Maxine WatersMaxine Moore WatersOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Maxine Waters and Azar in heated exchange at coronavirus hearing: ‘We’re very unhappy’ MORE (D-Calif.); Committee on Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Rep. Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn Bosher MaloneyOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Pelosi, Democrats unveil bills to rein in alleged White House abuses of power MORE (D-N.Y.); and Subcommittee on National Security Chairman Rep. Stephen LynchStephen Francis LynchOVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Top general negative for coronavirus, Pentagon chief to get tested after Trump result l Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Top House lawmakers launch investigation into Pentagon redirecting COVID-19 funds Overnight Defense: Pentagon redirects pandemic funding to defense contractors | US planning for full Afghanistan withdrawal by May | Anti-Trump GOP group puts ads in military papers MORE (D-Mass.).
The Washington Post first reported last month that the Pentagon has used most of the $1 billion on defense contractors rather than medical supplies.
The department awarded contracts for jet engine parts, body armor and dress uniforms, among other military equipment, which critics argue is in contravention of the CARES Act stipulation that the funds be used to “prevent, prepare for and respond to coronavirus.”
Following the report’s release, the Pentagon defended itself, arguing the money was never intended to be restricted to medical supplies, that it kept Congress fully informed of its plans and that helping the defense industrial bases through the pandemic is an appropriate response to the COVID-19 crisis.
The department had also notified Congress in late May that it planned to use $688 million of the funding to shore up the defense industrial base.
ADVERTISEMENT
The lawmakers, however, point to medical supplies and PPE shortages which have persisted more than six months after the Trump administration declared the coronavirus pandemic a national emergency.
While DOD may rightly argue that the goal of its spending was to offset financial distress in the defense industrial base caused by the pandemic, the lawmakers say, the use of CARES Act dollars in this manner “runs counter to Congress’ intent that these appropriations be prioritized to address shortages in medical supplies and equipment.”
The lawmakers asked Esper to hand over documents that show how the Pentagon spent its CARES act money, including the recipient of every contract funded by the money, the amount, the date of the award, what was provided and which senior contracting officer signed off on it.
They also want to know whether the contract recipient received other CARES Act funding, whether they had relevant past performance with DOD, and “all documents related to the decision to use CARES Act funding to stimulate the defense industrial base rather than to support production and distribution of PPE.”
The letter asks for the documents and information by Oct. 16, as well as a staff briefing by that time “to address these issues.”
ADVERTISEMENT
The letter follows calls from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) for the Pentagon’s inspector general to investigate how the department used its coronavirus relief funds.
The two in late September asked the watchdog to “review the potential misuse of funds by the department that were meant ‘to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally.’”
A coalition of 40 organizations from across the political spectrum also last month called for a congressional investigation into how DOD spent the money.
Click:Hyperbaric Chamber 1.5 ATA
U.S. senators are attempting to block the State Department’s deal to sell Saudi Arabia nearly $1.5 billion in weapons, just days after the move was announced by the Obama administration.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Foreign Policy that he would “work with a bipartisan coalition to explore forcing a vote on blocking this sale. Saudi Arabia is an unreliable ally with a poor human rights record. We should not rush to sell them advanced arms and promote an arms race in the Middle East.”
Congressional opposition to the arms sale came as the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed military coalition broke an unsteady five-month ceasefire in Yemen last week and resumed bombing in the capital city of Sana’a—prompting immediate reports of civilian deaths. On Saturday, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that an airstrike on a school in northern Yemen killed 10 children and wounded 28 others.
Paul and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both of whom sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, are outspoken critics of the coalition.
“If you talk to Yemeni Americans, they will tell you in Yemen this isn’t a Saudi bombing campaign, it’s a U.S. bombing campaign,” Murphy said in June. “Every single civilian death inside Yemen is attributable to the United States.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Congress has 30 days after arms sales are announced to block or modify the deal, but actual intervention is rare.
A number of human rights organizations have opposed the deal. Oxfam and CODEPINK, among others, launched a petition to “[f]orce a public debate on U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by advocating for blocking the planned transfer of U.S. tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” which as of Monday had collected 9,500 signatures.
And this specific arms deal is especially important, according to foreign policy experts. As Robert Naiman explains, “In this particular case, it’s plausible that if we can block the Saudi arms sale, or even come close and have a robust public food fight about it, we can help end the catastrophic Yemen war.”
The effort is also supported by many lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Over the weekend, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), warned that “the Saudi military’s operational conduct in Yemen and the killing of civilians with U.S.-made weapons have harmed our national security interests, and I will continue to oppose any arms sale that contributes to its operations in that arena.”
“This approved sale deserves to be scrutinized by Congress rather than rubber-stamped during the summer recess,” he said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Click:ブランド コピー 代引き 国内 発送
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam SchiffAdam Bennett SchiffTrump official releases unverified Russian intel on Clinton previously rejected by Senate panel Schiff subpoenas Homeland Security, charges ‘unlawful obstruction’ Schiff to subpoena top DHS official, alleges whistleblower deposition is being stonewalled MORE (D-Calif.) issued two subpoenas to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday, alleging that agency officials are “unlawfully obstructing” his panel’s investigation related to a whistleblower complaint.
Schiff is seeking public testimony from Joseph Maher, the top official carrying out the duties of the under secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, related to charges from a whistleblower that top political appointees at the department sought to politicize intelligence.
“After weeks, and in some cases months, of attempted accommodation with the Department, we were left with no choice but to issue two subpoenas today,” Schiff said in a statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Simply put, the Committee will no longer tolerate the obstruction and attempts to run out the clock by the Department,” Schiff added.
Democrats want Maher to testify Friday about why the whistleblower, Brian Murphy, was not granted access to classified records related to his complaint.
Schiff also issued a subpoena to compel DHS to produce the records the panel is seeking by next Tuesday.
The subpoenas come after Schiff twice postponed scheduled depositions with Murphy, who was formerly the acting under secretary for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis.
Murphy’s legal team said it had not received access to documents related to his complaint, which detailed allegations that top department officials repeatedly sought to politicize intelligence to match President Trump’s public remarks, including about threats like Russian interference.
ADVERTISEMENT
Murphy alleges in his complaint that there was a pattern of misconduct in which top political appointees repeatedly pressed him to modify or alter intelligence on key issues.
Perhaps the most alarming allegation Murphy makes is his claim that acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad WolfChad WolfTrump administration preparing targeted ICE arrests in sanctuary cities: report Schiff subpoenas Homeland Security, charges ‘unlawful obstruction’ Schiff to subpoena top DHS official, alleges whistleblower deposition is being stonewalled MORE, under the direction of White House national security adviser Robert O’Brien, instructed him earlier this year to stop producing intelligence reports centered on Russian interference efforts and instead focus on the threats posed by China and Iran.
Murphy says he declined multiple orders to alter or modify intelligence products to help support the administration’s agenda, which he claims recently led to a retaliatory demotion.
DHS has denied any wrongdoing by Wolf, who has been formally nominated to serve as head of the agency.
A DHS spokesman denied that the agency was stonewalling Schiff, instead chalking up his subpoenas to being “obvious political theater.”
“The department has produced nearly 3,000 pages of documents and has provided two briefings and three transcribed interviews to date,” the spokesman said in a statement.
The spokesperson also claimed that Schiff is “apparently willing to risk national security” to push forward with his investigation ahead of the 2020 election.
The agency has argued that Murphy, in his current role in DHS’s management division, does not have the “need to know” to access the records he is seeking. They also have defended their efforts to get security clearances for Murphy’s lawyers, arguing that the vetting process takes time and rushing it will jeopardize national security.
Schiff revealed last week that he would move forward with a subpoena if the issues over access to records and Murphy’s lawyers were not resolved, alleging that DHS is stonewalling his committee by blocking Murphy’s deposition by preventing him from being able to properly prepare.
While the deposition was originally slated for Monday, the committee postponed it to Friday, before again postponing it. The new date of when Schiff’s panel is aiming to hear from Murphy is not yet clear.
Still, Democrats on the panel are eager to hear from Murphy, who will be able to discuss the underlying, classified details related to his allegations that could not be included in an unclassified submission to Congress.
This story was updated at 6:57 p.m.
Click:Anti-aging Home Beauty Device
Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerDemocrats blast Trump after report reveals he avoided income taxes for 10 years: ‘Disgusting’ Biden refuses to say whether he would support expanding Supreme Court Schumer says Trump tweet shows court pick meant to kill off ObamaCare MORE (D-N.Y.) said on Tuesday that he will not meet with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President TrumpDonald John TrumpCensus Bureau intends to wrap up count on Oct. 5 despite judge’s order Top House Republican calls for probe of source of NYT Trump tax documents New Yorkers report receiving ballots with wrong name, voter addresses MORE‘s third Supreme Court pick.
“I am not going to meet with Judge Barrett. Why would I meet with a nominee of such an illegitimate process and one who is determined to get rid of the Affordable Care Act?” Schumer said in a tweet.
ADVERTISEMENT
Democrats are weighing whether to meet with Barrett as she begins her Capitol Hill outreach on Tuesday, where she is scheduled to meet with several Republican senators including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellTrump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Supreme Court fight should drive Democrats and help Biden Harris on SCOTUS fight: Ginsburg’s legacy ‘at stake’ MORE (R-Ky.) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamSupreme Court fight should drive Democrats and help Biden Graham to meet with Trump’s Supreme Court pick on Tuesday Democratic super PAC launches .5M ad campaign against Graham MORE (R-S.C.).
Two Democrats on the Judiciary Committee — Sens. Mazie HironoMazie Keiko HironoHarris says she hasn’t ‘made a plan one way or another’ on meeting Supreme Court nominee Hawley warns Schumer to steer clear of Catholic-based criticisms of Barrett Senate GOP set to vote on Trump’s Supreme Court pick before election MORE (D-Hawaii) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — said over the weekend that they won’t meet with her. But Sen. Cory BookerCory Anthony BookerBooker says he will ask Amy Coney Barrett if she will recuse herself from presidential election-related cases Sunday shows preview: Lawmakers prepare for SCOTUS confirmation hearings before election The movement to reform animal agriculture has reached a tipping point MORE (D-N.J.) indicated on Sunday that he wanted to.
“It’s my intention to do so … I’m going to make it very clear. One of the things I want to ask her is will she recuse herself in terms of any election issues that come before us, because if she does not recuse herself, I fear that the court will be further delegitimized,” Booker told “Meet the Press” when asked if he would meet with Barrett.
ADVERTISEMENT
The meetings are not required but give senators a first shot at questioning the Supreme Court nominee ahead of a high-profile hearing.
Trump announced on Saturday that he intended to nominate Barrett to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgHarris says she hasn’t ‘made a plan one way or another’ on meeting Supreme Court nominee Trump, GOP aim to complete reshaping of federal judiciary Compromise, yes — but how? A pre-debate suggestion MORE, setting up a weeks-long fight expected to dominate the final stretch of the campaign.
Graham has said he will start hearings for Barrett on Oct. 12, with a committee vote expected on Oct. 22. That would pave the way for the full Senate to vote on Barrett’s confirmation before the Nov. 3 elections.
Because nominees only need a simple majority to be confirmed, Republicans can seat Barrett on the court without support from Democrats.
Click Here: camiseta rosario central