US to Slash Payouts From 9/11 Victims Fund

The special master overseeing a U.S. government fund to compensate victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks said Friday that future awards would be significantly reduced, typically by at least 50 percent, because the fund was running short of money. 

 

Rupa Bhattacharyya, the special master, said the reduction in payouts from the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund was necessary because the $2.375 billion remaining in the $7.375 billion fund was not enough to compensate the thousands of additional eligible victims and family members. 

 

“I am painfully aware of the unfairness of this plan,” Bhattacharyya said on a conference call with reporters. “It is the best that we could do.” 

 

Roughly $5 billion has been awarded on more than 21,000 claims, about three-quarters of which came from New York. 

 

Bhattacharyya said the fund would have needed to be $12 billion, instead of $7.375 billion, to compensate everyone fully. 

 

Nearly 3,000 people died in the 9/11 attacks, when airplanes hijacked by al-Qaida members crashed into New York’s World Trade Center, the Pentagon outside Washington, and a Pennsylvania field.  

The fund opened in late 2011 for first responders, including police officers and firefighters; cleanup and construction crews; and people who lived, worked or went to school near the attacks. A similar fund ended operations seven years earlier. 

 

Nearly 40,000 compensation claims have been filed in the last seven years, but half were filed in 2017 and 2018. 

 

Thousands more are expected. 

 

Bhattacharyya attributed the faster pace of claims to the growing number of cancers, other serious illnesses and deaths linked to the attacks, and the fund’s warning in October that future payouts might be reduced. 

 

The new procedure calls for base payouts, before offsets for sums awarded from other sources for the same injuries, to be reduced by 50 percent for claims submitted before Feb. 2, 2019, and 70 percent for claims submitted later. 

 

Bhattacharyya said she “could not abide” by alternatives that would have awarded nothing to eligible victims. 

 

People have until Dec. 18, 2020, to file claims.  

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump Declares Emergency With Faulty Claims

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

Trump invoked what his aides called the “common authority” of presidents to take unilateral action through the declaration of a national emergency. But there’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

At a Rose Garden news conference, Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

A look at some of his comments:

TRUMP: “I’ve built a lot of wall. I have a lot of money, and I’ve built a lot of wall.”

THE FACTS: He’s built no new miles of wall, lacking the money. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

This month marks the start of construction of 14 miles (22 kilometers) of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the first lengthening of barrier in his presidency. That’s from money approved by Congress a year ago, most of which was for renovating existing barrier.

Money approved by Congress in the new deal to avert another government shutdown would cover about 55 more miles (88 km).

He has often portrayed his wall, falsely, as largely complete, to a point where “Finish the wall” has become his rallying cry, replacing “Build the wall.” That masks a distinct lack of progress in physically sealing the border — a frustration that is now prompting him to find money outside the normal channels of congressional appropriation. Trump inherited about 650 miles (1,050 km) of physical border barrier from previous administrations.

TRUMP, on past presidents declaring national emergencies: “There’s rarely been a problem. They sign it; nobody cares.I guess they weren’t very exciting.But nobody cares. … And the people that say we create precedent — well, what do you have? Fifty-six? There are a lot of times — well, that’s creating precedent.And many of those are far less important than having a border.”

THE FACTS: Those declarations were rarely as consequential, and that’s precisely why they were mostly uncontroversial. He’s roughly correct about the numbers. But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

Emergency declarations by Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were overwhelmingly for the purpose of addressing crises that emerged abroad. Many blocked foreign interests or terrorist-linked entities from access to funds. Some prohibited certain imports from or investments in countries associated with human rights abuses.

Trump’s number resembles findings from the Brennan Center for Justice, which has tracked 58 emergency declarations back to 1978.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

Obama declared a national emergency in July 2011 to impose sanctions on transnational criminal groups, blocking any American property interests and freezing their assets, authorizing financial sanctions against anyone aiding them and barring their members from entering the United States. It authorized sanctions against criminal cartels in Mexico, Japan, Italy and Eastern Europe. It did not direct billions in spending by the U.S. treasury.

TRUMP: “And a big majority of the big drugs — the big drug loads — don’t go through ports of entry.They can’t go through ports of entry.You can’t take big loads because you have people — we have some very capable people; the Border Patrol, law enforcement — looking.

TRUMP: “We have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country, much of it coming from the southern border.When you look and when you listen to politicians — in particular, certain Democrats — they say it all comes through the port of entry. It’s wrong.It’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie.”

THE FACTS: His own administration says illicit drugs come mainly through ports of entry. He has persistently contradicted his officials — never mind Democrats — on this point. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

“Only a small percentage” of heroin seized by U.S. authorities comes across on territory between ports of entry, the agency says, and the same is true of drugs generally. The great majority of heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine and fentanyl is seized at ports of entry. Marijuana is one exception; significant quantities are seized between entry ports.

Even if a wall could stop all drugs from Mexico, America’s drug problem would be far from over. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 40 percent of opioid deaths in 2016 involved prescription painkillers. Those drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies. Some feed the addiction of people who have prescriptions; others are stolen and sold on the black market. Moreover, illicit versions of powerful synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have come to the U.S. from China, not Mexico.

TRUMP: “Take a look at our federal prison population. See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see. Go ahead and see. ”

THE FACTS: About 40 percent of the people who entered federal prison in 2014 were foreigners, according to the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics. The vast majority of the foreigners (20,842 of 28,821) were being held for immigration violations, not violent or property crimes. It’s not clear how many were in the country illegally. The federal prison population is not a solid yardstick of immigrant crime because it represents only 10 percent of the overall prison population of the U.S. Most people convicted of crimes are in state prison.

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump Declares Emergency With Faulty Claims

President Donald Trump on Friday declared a national emergency at the southern border while acknowledging that rapid construction of a wall is not a necessity, but rather his preference. In justifying the extraordinary step, he brushed aside his administration’s conclusions that drugs come into the country primarily at official points of entry, not over remote territory that a barrier could seal off.

Trump invoked what his aides called the “common authority” of presidents to take unilateral action through the declaration of a national emergency. But there’s nothing common about a president taking command of billions of dollars without the approval of Congress to pay for a campaign promise.

“I could do the wall over a longer period of time,” Trump said, raising questions about why he sees an emergency unfolding today. “I didn’t need to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster.”

At a Rose Garden news conference, Trump also claimed progress on wall construction that hasn’t occurred.

A look at some of his comments:

TRUMP: “I’ve built a lot of wall. I have a lot of money, and I’ve built a lot of wall.”

THE FACTS: He’s built no new miles of wall, lacking the money. His new construction to date has replaced existing barriers.

This month marks the start of construction of 14 miles (22 kilometers) of fencing in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas, the first lengthening of barrier in his presidency. That’s from money approved by Congress a year ago, most of which was for renovating existing barrier.

Money approved by Congress in the new deal to avert another government shutdown would cover about 55 more miles (88 km).

He has often portrayed his wall, falsely, as largely complete, to a point where “Finish the wall” has become his rallying cry, replacing “Build the wall.” That masks a distinct lack of progress in physically sealing the border — a frustration that is now prompting him to find money outside the normal channels of congressional appropriation. Trump inherited about 650 miles (1,050 km) of physical border barrier from previous administrations.

TRUMP, on past presidents declaring national emergencies: “There’s rarely been a problem. They sign it; nobody cares.I guess they weren’t very exciting.But nobody cares. … And the people that say we create precedent — well, what do you have? Fifty-six? There are a lot of times — well, that’s creating precedent.And many of those are far less important than having a border.”

THE FACTS: Those declarations were rarely as consequential, and that’s precisely why they were mostly uncontroversial. He’s roughly correct about the numbers. But past declarations did not involve the unilateral spending of substantial sums of money that Congress — which holds the power of the purse — did not approve.

Emergency declarations by Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton were overwhelmingly for the purpose of addressing crises that emerged abroad. Many blocked foreign interests or terrorist-linked entities from access to funds. Some prohibited certain imports from or investments in countries associated with human rights abuses.

Trump’s number resembles findings from the Brennan Center for Justice, which has tracked 58 emergency declarations back to 1978.

“It’s extremely rare for a president to declare a national emergency in a bid to fund domestic construction projects, particularly one that Congress has explicitly refused to fund,” said Andrew Boyle, an attorney in the national security program at the center. “The ones that former presidents declared are of a different sort.”

Obama declared a national emergency in July 2011 to impose sanctions on transnational criminal groups, blocking any American property interests and freezing their assets, authorizing financial sanctions against anyone aiding them and barring their members from entering the United States. It authorized sanctions against criminal cartels in Mexico, Japan, Italy and Eastern Europe. It did not direct billions in spending by the U.S. treasury.

TRUMP: “And a big majority of the big drugs — the big drug loads — don’t go through ports of entry.They can’t go through ports of entry.You can’t take big loads because you have people — we have some very capable people; the Border Patrol, law enforcement — looking.

TRUMP: “We have tremendous amounts of drugs flowing into our country, much of it coming from the southern border.When you look and when you listen to politicians — in particular, certain Democrats — they say it all comes through the port of entry. It’s wrong.It’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie.”

THE FACTS: His own administration says illicit drugs come mainly through ports of entry. He has persistently contradicted his officials — never mind Democrats — on this point. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said in a 2018 report that the most common trafficking technique by transnational criminal organizations is to hide drugs in passenger vehicles or tractor-trailers as they drive into the U.S. at official crossings. They also use buses, cargo trains and tunnels, the report says, citing smuggling methods that would not be choked off by a border wall.

“Only a small percentage” of heroin seized by U.S. authorities comes across on territory between ports of entry, the agency says, and the same is true of drugs generally. The great majority of heroin, methamphetamines, cocaine and fentanyl is seized at ports of entry. Marijuana is one exception; significant quantities are seized between entry ports.

Even if a wall could stop all drugs from Mexico, America’s drug problem would be far from over. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says about 40 percent of opioid deaths in 2016 involved prescription painkillers. Those drugs are made by pharmaceutical companies. Some feed the addiction of people who have prescriptions; others are stolen and sold on the black market. Moreover, illicit versions of powerful synthetic opioids such as fentanyl have come to the U.S. from China, not Mexico.

TRUMP: “Take a look at our federal prison population. See how many of them, percentage-wise, are illegal aliens. Just see. Go ahead and see. ”

THE FACTS: About 40 percent of the people who entered federal prison in 2014 were foreigners, according to the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics. The vast majority of the foreigners (20,842 of 28,821) were being held for immigration violations, not violent or property crimes. It’s not clear how many were in the country illegally. The federal prison population is not a solid yardstick of immigrant crime because it represents only 10 percent of the overall prison population of the U.S. Most people convicted of crimes are in state prison.

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

Anti-Semitic Tweet Highlights Fissures Within the Democratic Party  

The Democratic party is not a monolith or a rubber stamp for any idea or policy position. That’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s oft-repeated way of describing the party she leads. But lately, a handful of House Democratic freshman have tested that approach to its limits, revealing cracks between the party’s traditional support of Israel and progressives’ vocal advocacy for Palestinians. 

Newcomer Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Somali-American, drew widespread condemnation for a tweet last Sunday implying Congressional support for Israel has been bought by money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that supports the U.S.-Israel relationship. 

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted late Sunday, asserting that politicians’ support of Israel is driven by money.

She touched off a firestorm of complaints from Democratic and Republican leaders alike, including Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Omar’s comment invoked offensive tropes about money or “Benjamins”  a reference to $100 bills — that are often used against Jewish people. Her remark was magnified because the freshman holds a coveted seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It’s shocking to hear a member of Congress invoke the anti-Semitic trope of ‘Jewish money.’ I fully expect that when we disagree on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will debate policy on the merits and never question members’ motives or resort to personal attacks,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel of New York said in a statement this week that reflects many of his colleagues’ reactions to the tweet.

“Criticism of American policy toward any country is fair game, but this must be done on policy grounds.” 

Omar apologized for her remarks Monday, tweeting “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.” But she went on to say that AIPAC continues to be an issue of concern, although the highly influential  organization does not make campaign contributions. 

During a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Omar’s apology as “lame” and called on her to resign. Omar replied by calling the president a hypocrite who has “trafficked in hate your whole life  against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more.”

The weeklong dust-up underscored growing divisions within a Democratic Party that for decades provided unalloyed support to the state of Israel but that now must adjust to skepticism within its ranks about the Israeli government and that country’s policies towards the Palestinians. Trump and other Republican leaders are attempting to use their insistence on unqualified support for Israel as a litmus test to drive a wedge through the Democrats, according to media reports.

Omar, 37, was born in Mogadishu and spent her formative years in Somalia. She and her family were resettled as refugees in the United States in 1995, after the start of the Somalia civil war, and subsequently moved to Minneapolis, where she learned English and went to school. She studied political science and international affairs at North Dakota State University, before launching a career in politics. She won a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 — which made her the first Somali-American elected to legislative office in the U.S. Then last November, she won an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Omar and Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, became the first two Muslim-American women elected to Congress.

Omar has been accused of anti-Semitic language in previous tweets expressing support for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), a movement that aims to end international support for Israel because of what the group calls “oppression of Palestinians.” Each time, Omar has apologized and said the controversy was an opportunity for her to learn. 

This week, Omar declined requests to speak with the media following her apology on social media for her “Benjamins” comment. But she showed no signs of backing down from courting controversy on Wednesday, when she challenged U.S. Special Representative to Venezuela Elliott Abrams on his human rights record during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. 

During the contentious exchange, Omar mistakenly referred to Abrams as “Mr. Adams” and told him she did not understand why “this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.” 

Omar is one of several high-profile Democratic freshman members of Congress who have publicly voiced their support for the BDS.

​Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from a heavily Democratic district in New York, has condemned “the occupation of Palestine.” Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, is currently seeking support for a congressional delegation trip or CODEL to Palestine later this year. AIPAC has a long history of organizing yearly congressional CODELs to Israel so that members can learn more about the situation on the ground. 

Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican from Texas, urged Democratic leaders in a letter sent Thursday to “please deny Rep. Tlaib’s request to sponsor and lead a CODEL to Palestinian territories and exercise your authority as chair to deny your consent to any member of your committee who seeks your approval to participate in such a misadventure.” 

Last month, 22 Senate Democrats voted against legislation that would facilitate penalties against American companies that boycott Israel. Six of those votes were from Senate Democrats who are running for president.  

Republicans see the growing support for Palestine on the part of younger, more progressive members of Congress as a possible opportunity to divide Democratic voters ahead of next year’s presidential nomination contest. 

A January 2018 Pew Research Center poll shows the partisan divide over Israel is at its widest point in four decades and that Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than with Palestinians has dropped from 38 percent to 27 percent since 2001. 

The House Republican leadership unexpectedly added a provision to unrelated legislation Wednesday condemning anti-Semitic language, forcing Democrats to go on the record against Omar’s remarks. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California called the vote a defining moment in Congress and for the country. 

“Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division,” McCarthy said in a statement. The provision passed unanimously, 424 to 0 vote. 

McCarthy has also faced criticism about comments invoking stereotypes about Jews. In a now deleted tweet just before the 2018 midterm elections, McCarthy accused three leading Jewish Democratic donors of trying “to buy this election.” 

Leadership in both parties will have to step carefully in the coming months, as a high-stakes 2020 presidential race heats up. Both sides will be looking for divisive tweets and off-the cuff remarks to run in campaign ads, firing up the more committed voters at the extreme ends of the parties who tend to show up at polls in early primary contests. 

Pelosi faces a tough dilemma. For the first time in decades of polling, the majority of Democrats identify themselves as liberal. The handful of progressive new House members are forcing policy discussions on a range of issues  from U.S. support of Israel to climate change to taxation rates  that is commanding media attention in a new way.

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

Anti-Semitic Tweet Highlights Fissures Within the Democratic Party  

The Democratic party is not a monolith or a rubber stamp for any idea or policy position. That’s House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s oft-repeated way of describing the party she leads. But lately, a handful of House Democratic freshman have tested that approach to its limits, revealing cracks between the party’s traditional support of Israel and progressives’ vocal advocacy for Palestinians. 

Newcomer Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, a Somali-American, drew widespread condemnation for a tweet last Sunday implying Congressional support for Israel has been bought by money from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a lobbying group that supports the U.S.-Israel relationship. 

“It’s all about the Benjamins baby,” Omar tweeted late Sunday, asserting that politicians’ support of Israel is driven by money.

She touched off a firestorm of complaints from Democratic and Republican leaders alike, including Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Omar’s comment invoked offensive tropes about money or “Benjamins”  a reference to $100 bills — that are often used against Jewish people. Her remark was magnified because the freshman holds a coveted seat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

“It’s shocking to hear a member of Congress invoke the anti-Semitic trope of ‘Jewish money.’ I fully expect that when we disagree on the Foreign Affairs Committee, we will debate policy on the merits and never question members’ motives or resort to personal attacks,” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel of New York said in a statement this week that reflects many of his colleagues’ reactions to the tweet.

“Criticism of American policy toward any country is fair game, but this must be done on policy grounds.” 

Omar apologized for her remarks Monday, tweeting “Anti-Semitism is real and I am grateful for Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the painful history of anti-Semitic tropes.” But she went on to say that AIPAC continues to be an issue of concern, although the highly influential  organization does not make campaign contributions. 

During a Cabinet meeting Tuesday, U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed Omar’s apology as “lame” and called on her to resign. Omar replied by calling the president a hypocrite who has “trafficked in hate your whole life  against Jews, Muslims, Indigenous, immigrants, black people and more.”

The weeklong dust-up underscored growing divisions within a Democratic Party that for decades provided unalloyed support to the state of Israel but that now must adjust to skepticism within its ranks about the Israeli government and that country’s policies towards the Palestinians. Trump and other Republican leaders are attempting to use their insistence on unqualified support for Israel as a litmus test to drive a wedge through the Democrats, according to media reports.

Omar, 37, was born in Mogadishu and spent her formative years in Somalia. She and her family were resettled as refugees in the United States in 1995, after the start of the Somalia civil war, and subsequently moved to Minneapolis, where she learned English and went to school. She studied political science and international affairs at North Dakota State University, before launching a career in politics. She won a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives in 2016 — which made her the first Somali-American elected to legislative office in the U.S. Then last November, she won an open seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. Omar and Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat, became the first two Muslim-American women elected to Congress.

Omar has been accused of anti-Semitic language in previous tweets expressing support for BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions), a movement that aims to end international support for Israel because of what the group calls “oppression of Palestinians.” Each time, Omar has apologized and said the controversy was an opportunity for her to learn. 

This week, Omar declined requests to speak with the media following her apology on social media for her “Benjamins” comment. But she showed no signs of backing down from courting controversy on Wednesday, when she challenged U.S. Special Representative to Venezuela Elliott Abrams on his human rights record during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. 

During the contentious exchange, Omar mistakenly referred to Abrams as “Mr. Adams” and told him she did not understand why “this committee or the American people should find any testimony that you give today to be truthful.” 

Omar is one of several high-profile Democratic freshman members of Congress who have publicly voiced their support for the BDS.

​Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from a heavily Democratic district in New York, has condemned “the occupation of Palestine.” Tlaib, the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, is currently seeking support for a congressional delegation trip or CODEL to Palestine later this year. AIPAC has a long history of organizing yearly congressional CODELs to Israel so that members can learn more about the situation on the ground. 

Rep. Brian Babin, a Republican from Texas, urged Democratic leaders in a letter sent Thursday to “please deny Rep. Tlaib’s request to sponsor and lead a CODEL to Palestinian territories and exercise your authority as chair to deny your consent to any member of your committee who seeks your approval to participate in such a misadventure.” 

Last month, 22 Senate Democrats voted against legislation that would facilitate penalties against American companies that boycott Israel. Six of those votes were from Senate Democrats who are running for president.  

Republicans see the growing support for Palestine on the part of younger, more progressive members of Congress as a possible opportunity to divide Democratic voters ahead of next year’s presidential nomination contest. 

A January 2018 Pew Research Center poll shows the partisan divide over Israel is at its widest point in four decades and that Democrats who sympathize more with Israel than with Palestinians has dropped from 38 percent to 27 percent since 2001. 

The House Republican leadership unexpectedly added a provision to unrelated legislation Wednesday condemning anti-Semitic language, forcing Democrats to go on the record against Omar’s remarks. Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California called the vote a defining moment in Congress and for the country. 

“Amid the troubling rise of anti-Semitism, including attacks on synagogues and Jewish cemeteries, it is our duty as a nation to stand firmly against intolerance and division,” McCarthy said in a statement. The provision passed unanimously, 424 to 0 vote. 

McCarthy has also faced criticism about comments invoking stereotypes about Jews. In a now deleted tweet just before the 2018 midterm elections, McCarthy accused three leading Jewish Democratic donors of trying “to buy this election.” 

Leadership in both parties will have to step carefully in the coming months, as a high-stakes 2020 presidential race heats up. Both sides will be looking for divisive tweets and off-the cuff remarks to run in campaign ads, firing up the more committed voters at the extreme ends of the parties who tend to show up at polls in early primary contests. 

Pelosi faces a tough dilemma. For the first time in decades of polling, the majority of Democrats identify themselves as liberal. The handful of progressive new House members are forcing policy discussions on a range of issues  from U.S. support of Israel to climate change to taxation rates  that is commanding media attention in a new way.

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

Інсулін не допомагає – адвокат про стан Бекірова

Кримськотатарському активісту Едему Бекірову, якого російські слідчі в окупованому Криму звинувачують у незаконному зберіганні боєприпасів і вибухівки, не допомагає призначений після медичного огляду інсулін. Через це у Бекірова, який перебуває в слідчому ізоляторі, зберігається підвищений рівень цукру в крові, а також з’явився біль у серці, повідомив 15 лютого сайту Крим.Реалії адвокат Іслям Веліляєв.

«У нього постійно високий тиск і рівень цукру. Це при тому, що йому тричі на день роблять ін’єкцію інсуліну. Раніше, коли він брав таблетовані препарати від цукру, вони йому допомагали, рівень цукру був у межах норми. Крім того, через те, що йому колють інсулін, у нього з’явився біль у серці і задишка. Інсулін, як відомо, дає навантаження на серце. Спить він все так само, сидячи, так йому легше», – пояснив адвокат.

Захист планує домогтися вивезення Бекірова в одну з міських лікарень Сімферополя для повторного медичного огляду.

У Федеральній службі виконання покарань Росії поки не коментували заяву адвоката про стан Бекирова.

5 лютого омбудсмен Людмила Денісова повідомила, що стан активіста надкритичний.

Рідні Бекірова заявляли про загрозу його життю. Відомо, що в активіста – цукровий діабет і ампутована нога, через що йому необхідно постійно робити перев’язки.

Житель селища Новоолексіївка Херсонської області Едем Бекіров був затриманий російськими силовиками на в’їзді в анексований Крим вранці 12 грудня 2018 року. Відомо, що він прямував до Криму для відвідування 78-річної матері й родичів. Пізніше його доставили в будівлю ФСБ Росії в Сімферополі. Підконтрольний Кремлю Київський районний суд Сімферополя заарештував Бекірова на два місяці.

Міністерство закордонних справ України висловило «рішучий протест» у зв’язку з рішенням суду.

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

Мюнхенська конференція з безпеки: Порошенко і Столтенберґ обговорили агресію Росії

«Обговорено шляхи посилення співпраці України з Альянсом у відповідь на існуючі загрози в акваторії Чорного та Азовського морів» – президент України

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.

ФСБ Росії перевіряє «на екстремізм» портрет Бандери, вилучений у проукраїнського активіста в Криму

Співробітники кримського главку ФСБ Росії перевіряють на екстремізм портрет одного з лідерів українського націоналістичного руху першої половини ХХ століття Степана Бандери і червоно-чорний прапор ОУН, які російські силовики вилучили в Криму 8 лютого під час обшуку у проукраїнського активіста Олега Приходька. Про це проекту Радіо Свобода Крим.Реалії 15 лютого розповів сам Приходько.

«Залишився у них портрет Степана Бандери і червоно-чорний прапор. «Експерти» ФСБ вивчають їх на екстремізм. Сказали, що ще зв’яжуться зі мною», – розповів Приходько.

Активіст повідомив, що йому повернули макети німецьких автоматів, українські прапори, стрічки та символіку української партії «Свобода». При цьому Приходьку не сказали, чи буде порушено стосовно нього кримінальну справу.

Він повідомив, що у нього розпитували, з якими журналістами і правозахисниками він спілкувався останнім часом. Але Приходько відмовився говорити, пославшись на статтю 51 Конституції Росії.

Публічних коментарів управління ФСБ Росії в Криму з цього приводу немає.

8 лютого співробітники кримського главку ФСБ провели обшук у Олега Приходька в селі Орехово Сакського району. Силовики вилучили у нього українську символіку, прапори партії «Свобода», червоно-чорні прапори, портрет Степана Бандери, техніку і домашні CD-диски. Після обшуку Приходька відвезли до Сімферополя, де допитували, розпитуючи про його діяльність і зв’язки на материковій частині України.

Слідчі дії йому пояснили тим, що напередодні невідомі зруйнували пам’ятник радянським солдатам у парку міста Саки. Приходько заперечує свою причетність до цього і заявляє, що не був у тому парку вже кілька років. Він пов’язує те, що відбувається зі своєю проукраїнською позицією та з тим, що раніше представляв в Сакському районі партію «Свобода», яка з 2014 року заборонена підконтрольними Росії кримською владою.

Російські силовики не коментують проведення обшуку у Приходька.

У червні 2016 року російські силовики затримували активіста за українські номерні знаки на автомобілі.

Після російської анексії в Криму почастішали масові обшуки у незалежних журналістів, громадських активістів, активістів кримськотатарського національного руху, членів Меджлісу кримськотатарського народу, а також кримських мусульман, підозрюваних у зв’язках із забороненою в Росії організацією «Хізб ут-Тахрір».

Build a better website in less than an hour. Start for free at us.