Pastor Jim and Lori discuss end times prophecy, angels, and the uprising of radicals in the church. With special guests Mark Taylor, Mary Colbert, Donna Howell, Jennifer LeClaire. Continue reading
Tag Archives: Donald Trump
Comedian Kathy Griffin says her career is over after gory Trump photo
By Alex Dobuzinskis
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Comedian Kathy Griffin tearfully apologized in a Friday press conference for posing with a fake bloodied and severed head depicting U.S. President Donald Trump, saying that she felt her career was now over and that Trump “broke” her.
Griffin has lost sponsorships and jobs, including her role as co-host of CNN’s New Year’s Eve coverage with journalist Anderson Cooper, since a photograph and video from the shoot appeared on social media on Tuesday.
President Trump said the image of Griffin with the gory mask resembling him was “sick” and that it had traumatized his family, especially his youngest son, 11-year-old Barron. Trump’s oldest son, Donald Jr., called for employers to drop the comedian.
“I don’t think I will have a career after this. I’m going to be honest, (Trump) broke me,” said Griffin, 56, a two-time Emmy-winning performer known for her deliberately provocative brand of humor. She added that she had received death threats.
Griffin reiterated the apology she posted on social media late on Tuesday, but remained defiant, saying, “I’m not afraid of Donald Trump, he’s a bully,” adding that she intended to continue making jokes about the president.
She also described herself as a provocative woman who has often had to deal with older white men in positions of power.
“What’s happening to me has never happened ever, in the history of this great country, which is that a sitting president of the United States and his grown children and the first lady are personally, I feel, trying to ruin my life – forever,” she said.
Griffin said the photo was intended to mock Trump’s comments during the presidential campaign, when he told CNN that Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her – wherever” when she moderated a 2015 presidential debate.
Trump’s remark was widely interpreted as referring to menstrual blood, implying that Kelly was in an unfriendly mood because she was menstruating.
At his daily briefing on Friday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer declined to respond to Griffin’s remarks, saying that the president, the first lady and the Secret Service had made clear their views on the photo.
Katrina Pierson, a former Trump campaign spokeswoman, criticized Griffin on Twitter after her appearance on Friday, saying that Griffin had had a nervous breakdown about “misogyny & mean white men” at the press conference.
The U.S. Secret Service, which is responsible for presidential security, has opened an inquiry into the photo of Griffin posing with the severed-head replica.
(Additional reporting by Laila Kearney in New York and Steve Holland in Washington, D.C.; Editing by Patrick Enright and Andrew Hay)
Trump delays moving U.S. embassy to Jerusalem despite campaign pledge
By Matt Spetalnick
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump signed a temporary order on Thursday to keep the U.S. embassy in Israel in Tel Aviv instead of relocating it to Jerusalem, despite his campaign pledge to go ahead with the controversial move.
After months of fierce debate within his administration, Trump chose to continue his predecessors’ policy of signing a six-month waiver overriding a 1995 law requiring that the embassy be transferred to Jerusalem, an action that would have complicated his efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
The White House insisted, however, that the decision, which is sure to disappoint Israel’s U.S. supporters, did not mean Trump was abandoning the goal of eventually shifting the embassy to Jerusalem. But a U.S. official said no timetable has been set.
“The question is not if that move happens, but only when,” the White House said in a statement.
With a deadline looming, Trump made the decision to defer action on the embassy “to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests,” the White House said.
Palestinian leaders, Arab governments and Western allies had urged Trump not to proceed with the embassy relocation, which would have upended decades of U.S. policy by granting what would have been seen as de facto U.S. recognition of Israel’s claim to all of Jerusalem as its capital.
“Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office said in a statement.
Taking a harder stance, Israeli Education Minister Naftali Bennett, a far-right member of Netanyahu’s coalition, said delaying the move would “damage the prospect of a lasting peace by nurturing false expectations among the Palestinians regarding the division of Jerusalem, which will never happen.”
Nabil Abu Rdainah, a close aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, said Trump’s decision “reaffirms the seriousness of the United States in its efforts to achieve peace.”
NO MENTION OF EMBASSY
Trump avoided any public mention of a potential embassy move during his visit to Israel and the West Bank in May. Despite that, most experts are skeptical of Trump’s chances for achieving a peace deal that had eluded other U.S. presidents.
The status of Jerusalem is one of the major stumbling blocks. Israel captured Arab East Jerusalem during the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed it, a move not recognized internationally. Israel considers all of the city its indivisible capital.
The Palestinians want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state. Jerusalem is home to sites considered holy by the Jewish, Muslim and Christian religions.
Successive U.S. administrations have insisted that Jerusalem’s status must be decided in negotiations.
On the campaign trail, Trump’s pro-Israel rhetoric raised expectations that he would act quickly to move the embassy. But after he took office in January, the issue lost momentum as he met Arab leaders who warned it would be hard to rejuvenate long-stalled peace efforts unless he acted as a fair mediator.
Some of Trump’s top aides pushed for him to keep his campaign promise to satisfy the pro-Israel, right-wing base that helped him win the presidency. The State Department, however recommended against an embassy move, one U.S. official said.
“No one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the president’s strong support for Israel,” according to the White House statement on the signing of the waiver.
(Additional reporting by Ori Lewis in Jerusalem; Writing by Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Bernadette Baum and James Dalgleish)
Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive travel ban
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump’s administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive his plan to temporarily ban travelers from six Muslim-majority nations after it was blocked by lower courts that found it was discriminatory.
In deciding whether to allow the ban to go into effect, the nine justices are set to weigh whether Trump’s harsh election campaign rhetoric can be used as evidence that the order was intended to discriminate against Muslims.
The administration filed emergency applications with the nine high court justices seeking to block two different lower court rulings that went against Trump’s March 6 order barring entry for people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the U.S. government implements stricter visa screening.
The move comes after the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 25 upheld a Maryland judge’s ruling blocking the order.
The administration also filed a separate appeal in that case.
“We have asked the Supreme Court to hear this important case and are confident that President Trump’s executive order is well within his lawful authority to keep the nation safe and protect our communities from terrorism,” Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said in a statement.
The American Civil Liberties Union, one of the legal groups challenging the ban, tweeted in response: “We’ve beat this hateful ban and are ready to do it again.”
At least five votes are needed on the nine-justice court in order to grant a stay. The court has a 5-4 conservative majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy – a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s four liberals – the frequent swing vote. Another of the court’s conservatives, Neil Gorsuch, was appointed by Trump this year.
If the government’s emergency requests are granted, the ban would go into effect immediately.
The court first has to act on whether to grant the emergency applications, which could happen within a fortnight. Then, the justices will decide whether to hear the government’s full appeal. The Supreme Court is not required to hear the case but is likely to due to its importance and the fact that the request is being made by the U.S. government.
The Justice Department has asked the court to expedite the case so that the justices could hear it at the beginning of their next term, which starts in October. That means, if the court allows the ban to go into effect, the final decision would be issued long after the 90 days has elapsed.
In the court filings, Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall highlighted the unprecedented nature of courts second-guessing the president on national security and immigration.
“This order has been the subject of passionate political debate. But whatever one’s views, the precedent set by this case for the judiciary’s proper role in reviewing the president’s national-security and immigration authority will transcend this debate, this Order, and this constitutional moment,” he wrote.
In its 10-3 ruling, the appeals court in Virginia said the challengers, including refugee groups and others represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violated the U.S. Constitution’s bar against favoring or disfavoring a particular religion.
The government had argued that the court should not take into account Trump’s comments during the 2016 U.S. presidential race since he made them before he took office on Jan. 20. But the appeals court rejected that view, saying they shed light on the motivations behind Trump’s order.
During the campaign, Trump campaign called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
His administration has argued that the travel ban is needed to prevent terrorism in the United States.
Federal courts in both Maryland and Hawaii issued rulings suspending key parts of the ban. The appeals court in Virginia upheld the Maryland ruling. A San Francisco-based appeals court is currently considering the Hawaii case.
The administration is asking the Supreme Court to throw out the injunction imposed in both cases.
The March ban was Trump’s second effort to implement travel restrictions on people from several Muslim-majority countries through an executive order. The first, issued on Jan. 27, led to chaos and protests at airports and in major U.S. cities before it was blocked by courts.
The second order was intended to overcome the legal issues posed by the original ban, but it was blocked by judges before it could go into effect on March 16.
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Sue Horton, Christian Schmollinger, Shr Navaratnam and Michael Perry)
Standing Up For Christ (Day 3)
Pastor Jim and Lori, with special guest Pastor Ramiro Peña, discuss the importance of standing up for Christ in America today. Continue reading
Standing Up For Christ (Day 2)
Pastor Jim and Lori, with special guest Pastor Ramiro Peña, discuss the importance of standing up for Christ in America today. Continue reading
Man arrested at Trump’s Washington hotel after guns found in car
By Ian Simpson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A Pennsylvania man was arrested at President Donald Trump’s Washington hotel early on Wednesday after police found a rifle, pistol and ammunition in his car, a discovery they said may have prevented a disaster in the U.S. capital.
Brian Moles, 43, of Edinboro, was taken into custody shortly after checking into the Trump International Hotel a few blocks from the White House, Metropolitan Police Chief Peter Newsham told a news conference.
A tipster had told the Pennsylvania State Police that Moles was traveling to Washington with weapons, and the information was passed on to the Secret Service and Washington police, Newsham said.
“I believe that the officers and our federal partners and in particular the tipster coming forward averted a potential disaster here in our nation’s capital,” Newsham said.
Moles was arrested without incident, the chief said.
Asked about reports that Moles had made threatening remarks, Newsham said his motive was under investigation and there was not enough information to charge Moles with making threats. The nature of the threats has not been divulged.
The Secret Service said in a statement it also was investigating the incident but said that no one under its protection was ever at risk.
Police had been told Moles had a Glock 23 pistol and a Carbon 15 Bushmaster rifle, an incident report said. Officers saw one of the guns in his car and found a second firearm in the glove compartment.
Moles also had 30 rounds of 7.62mm ammunition and 60 .223-caliber rounds, the report said. He was charged with two counts of carrying a pistol without a license and possessing unregistered ammunition.
Police spokeswoman Karimah Bilal had no information about an attorney for Moles.
Trump’s hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue, housed in a landmark former post office, has become a focal point for protests against the Republican president since he took office in January.
Edinboro Police Chief Jeff Craft said by telephone that Moles had no criminal record in the western Pennsylvania town and was not known to police.
(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Colleen Jenkins, Dan Grebler and Jonathan Oatis)
Trump pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal: source
By Valerie Volcovici
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Donald Trump will follow through on a campaign pledge to pull the United States out of a global pact to fight climate change, a source briefed on the decision told Reuters, a move that should rally his support base at home while deepening a rift with U.S. allies.
Trump, who has previously called global warming a hoax, did not confirm the decision in a post on Twitter, saying only, “I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days.”
Trump had refused to endorse the landmark climate change accord at a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations on Saturday, saying he needed more time to decide. He then tweeted that he would make an announcement this week.
The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement. It could have sweeping implications for the deal, which relies heavily on the commitment of big polluter nations to reduce emissions of gases scientists blame for sea level rise, droughts and more frequent violent storms.
The accord, agreed on by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, aims to limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the pact, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Axios news outlet, which first reported the withdrawal, said details of the pullout are being worked out by a team that includes EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The choice is between a formal withdrawal that could take three years or leaving the U.N. treaty that the accord is based on, which would be quicker but more extreme, according to the Axios report.
The decision to withdraw from the climate accord was influenced by a letter from 22 Republican U.S. senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, calling for an exit, Axios reported.
Former President Barack Obama, who helped broker the accord, praised the deal during a trip to Europe this month.
The United States is the world’s second-biggest carbon dioxide emitter behind China.
Supporters of the climate pact are concerned that a U.S. exit could lead other nations to weaken their commitments or also withdraw, softening an accord that scientists have said is critical to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal.
PROMISE KEPT
Trump had vowed during his campaign to “cancel” the Paris deal within 100 days of becoming president, as part of an effort to bolster U.S. oil and coal industries. That promise helped rally supporters sharing his skepticism of global efforts to police U.S. carbon emissions.
After taking office, however, Trump faced pressure to stay in the deal from investors, international powers and business leaders, including some in the coal industry. He also had to navigate a split among his advisers on the issue.
Trump aides including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, lawyer Don McGahn and Peter Navarro, along with EPA chief Pruitt, argued hard for leaving the accord. They said the deal would require the U.S. government to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which would hurt business.
Trump’s administration has already begun the process of killing Obama-era climate regulations.
The “stay-in” camp, which included Trump’s daughter Ivanka, chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry, had argued the United States could reduce its voluntary emission-cuts targets while still keeping a voice within the accord.
Oil majors Shell and Exxon Mobil have also supported the Paris pact, along with a number of Republican lawmakers. Several big coal companies, including Cloud Peak Energy, had publicly urged Trump to stay in the deal as a way to help protect the industry’s mining interests overseas, though others asked Trump to exit the accord to help ease regulatory pressures on domestic miners.
Trump has repeatedly expressed doubts about climate change, at times calling it a hoax to weaken U.S. industry. An overwhelming majority of scientists, however, say climate change is driven by human use of fossil fuels.
(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu)
North Korea fires Scud-class ballistic missile, Japan protests
By Jack Kim and Ju-min Park
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea fired at least one short-range ballistic missile on Monday that landed in the sea off its east coast, the latest in a fast-paced series of missile tests defying world pressure and threats of more sanctions.
The missile was believed to be a Scud-class ballistic missile and flew about 450 km (280 miles), South Korean officials said. North Korea has a large stockpile of the short-range missiles, originally developed by the Soviet Union.
Monday’s launch followed two successful tests of medium-to-long-range missiles in as many weeks by the North, which has been conducting such tests at an unprecedented pace in an effort to develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of hitting the mainland United States.
North Korea was likely showing its determination to push ahead in the face of international pressure to rein in its missile program and “to pressure the (South Korean) government to change its policy on the North,” South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff spokesman Roh Jae-cheon said.
It was the third ballistic missile test launch since South Korea’s liberal President Moon Jae-in took office on May 10 pledging to engage with the reclusive neighbor in dialogue.
Moon says sanctions alone have failed to resolve the growing threat from the North’s advancing nuclear and missile program.
Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshihide Suga attends a news conference after the launch of a North Korean missile at Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s official residence in Tokyo, Japan May 29, 2017. REUTERS/Toru Hanai
The missile reached an altitude of 120 km (75 miles), Roh said.
“The assessment is there was at least one missile but we are analyzing the number of missiles,” he said.
North Korea, which has conducted dozens of missile tests and tested two nuclear bombs since the beginning of 2016 in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions, says the program is necessary to counter U.S. aggression.
The White House said President Donald Trump had been briefed about the launch. The U.S. Pacific Command said it tracked what appeared to be a short-range ballistic missile for six minutes and assessed it did not pose a threat to North America.
The United States has said it was looking at discussing with China a new U.N. Security Council resolution and that Beijing, North Korea’s main diplomatic ally and neighbor, realizes time was limited to rein in its weapons program through negotiations. [nL4N1IS196]
Trump portrayed the missile test as an affront to China in a morning post on Twitter. “North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!” he wrote.
U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, asked what a military conflict with North Korea might look like if diplomacy failed, warned on Sunday it would be “probably the worst kind of fighting in most people’s lifetimes”.
“The North Korean regime has hundreds of artillery cannons and rocket launchers within range of one of the most densely populated cities on Earth, which is the capital of South Korea,” Mattis told CBS news program “Face the Nation”.
“And in the event of war, they would bring danger to China and to Russia as well,” he said.
TESTING NEW CAPABILITIES
China reiterated that U.N. Security Council resolutions had “clear rules” about North Korean missile activities and it urged Pyongyang not to contravene them.
“The situation on the Korean peninsula is complex and sensitive, and we hope all relevant sides maintain calm and exercise restraint, ease the tense situation as soon as possible and put the issue back onto the correct track of peaceful dialogue,” China’s foreign ministry said in a statement.
Russia condemned the launch and also called for restraint, “including toward military activity,” from the partners it was working with, the RIA news agency quoted a deputy Russian foreign minister as saying.
Japan lodged a protest against the test missile, which appeared to have landed in its exclusive economic zone.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed action along with other nations to deter Pyongyang’s repeated provocations.
“As we agreed at the recent G7, the issue of North Korea is a top priority for the international community,” Abe told reporters in brief televised remarks. “Working with the United States, we will take specific action to deter North Korea.”
Seoul’s new liberal administration has said Pyongyang’s repeated test launches were dashing hopes for peace.
South Korea’s Moon called a meeting of the National Security Council, South Korea’s Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement.
North Korea last test-fired a ballistic missile on May 21 off its east coast and said on Sunday it had tested a new anti-aircraft weapon supervised by leader Kim Jong Un. [nL3N1IU014]
It has tested Scud-type short-range missiles many times in the past, most recently in April, according to U.S. officials. However, experts say it may be trying to test new capabilities that may be fed into its efforts to build an ICBM.
“There are many possibilities … It could have been a test for a different type of engine. Or to verify the credibility of the main engine for ICBM’s first stage rocket,” said Kim Dong-yub, a military expert at Kyungnam University’s Far Eastern Studies department in Seoul.
Modified versions of the Scud have a range of up to 1,000 km (620 miles).
On Tuesday, the United States will test an existing missile defense system to try to intercept an ICBM, the first such test, officials said last week.
(Additional reporting by Doina Chiacu Matt Spetalnick in WASHINGTON, Ben Blanchard in BEIJING, William Mallard in TOKYO, Soyoung Kim and Christine Kim in SEOUL, and
Trump travel ban fight heads toward Supreme Court showdown
By Lawrence Hurley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The fate of President Donald Trump’s order to ban travelers from six predominantly Muslim nations, blocked by federal courts, may soon be in the hands of the conservative-majority Supreme Court, where his appointee Neil Gorsuch could help settle the matter.
After the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined on Thursday to lift a Maryland federal judge’s injunction halting the temporary ban ordered by Trump on March 6, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said the administration would appeal to the Supreme Court.
A second regional federal appeals court heard arguments on May 15 in Seattle in the administration’s appeal of a decision by a federal judge in Hawaii also to block the ban. A ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is pending.
The Justice Department has not made clear when the administration would make its formal appeal or whether it would wait for the 9th Circuit ruling before appealing.
If they take it up, the justices would be called upon to decide whether courts should always defer to the president over allowing certain people to enter the country, especially when national security is the stated reason for an action as in this case. They also would have to decide if Trump’s order violated the U.S. Constitution’s bar against the government favoring one religion over another, as the ban’s challengers assert.
Gorsuch’s April confirmation by the Republican-led Senate over Democratic opposition restored the court’s 5-4 majority, which means that if all the conservative justices side with the administration the ban would be restored regardless of how the four liberal justices vote.
During his Senate confirmation hearing, Gorsuch was questioned about Trump’s criticism of judges who ruled against the ban. Gorsuch avoided commenting on the legal issue, saying only that he would not be “rubber stamp” for any president.
While the justices could decide in the coming weeks whether to hear the case, they likely would not hold oral arguments until late in the year, with a ruling sometime after that. A final resolution may not come until perhaps a year after Trump issued the executive order.
The justices are not required to hear any case, but this one meets important criteria cited by experts, including that it would be the federal government filing the appeal and that it involves a nationwide injunction.
The administration could file an emergency application seeking to put the order into effect while the litigation on its legality continues. At least five justices must agree for any such request to be granted.
While the court could split 5-4 along ideological lines, it also is possible some conservative justices could join the liberals in overturning the travel ban, libertarian law professor Ilya Somin of George Mason University said.
“Conservatives in other contexts often take a hard line against any kind of government discrimination (based) on race or religion or the like, even if the motivation may be benign. Also conservatives have concerns about government infringements on religion,” Somin said.
The 4th Circuit said the ban’s challengers, including refugee groups, in the case argued by the American Civil Liberties Union were likely to succeed on their claim that the order violated the Constitution’s prohibition on the government favoring or disfavoring any religion. In the 10-3 ruling, three Republican-appointed judges dissented.
The Republican president’s March 6 order, replacing an earlier Jan. 27 one also blocked by the courts, called for barring people from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days while the government implements stricter visa screening. It also called for suspending all refugee admissions for 120 days.
KENNEDY’S REASONING
The travel ban’s challengers may take some comfort from the appeals court ruling’s reliance on a concurring opinion in a 2015 Supreme Court immigration case by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a conservative who sometimes sides with the court’s liberals in big cases.
In the 2015 case, Kennedy wrote that in the immigration context, the government’s actions can be questioned if there is evidence of bad faith.
“As with any opinion by Justice Kennedy, I think the million-dollar question is just what he meant in his concurrence, and this may be a perfect case to find out,” University of Texas School of Law professor Stephen Vladeck said.
In Thursday’s ruling, 4th Circuit Chief Judge Roger Gregory wrote that the plaintiffs had shown there was “ample evidence” of bad faith, which gave the green light to probe whether there were reasons for the order other than the administration’s stated national security rationale.
The administration has argued the temporary travel ban was needed to guard against terrorist attacks. Gregory wrote that the order uses “vague words of national security, but in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination.” Trump during the presidential campaign called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”
(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Additional reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Will Dunham)
