Write a summary based on this article:

"This is a very weak claim. Their real beef is with the federal government for not enforcing the federal drug laws," said Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, who has argued a marijuana case before the U.S. Supreme Court. "It is not up to the states to sue each other when the federal government is not enforcing the law." ||||| Two lawsuits filed in federal court Thursday aim to shut down Colorado's regulated marijuana industry, claiming that the state's recreational marijuana laws are in violation of federal law.

 The suits, filed by the anti-drug group Safe Streets and three other plaintiffs, target a number of Colorado lawmakers, including Gov. John Hickenlooper (D), Revenue Department Executive Director Barbara Brohl and Marijuana Enforcement Division Director W. Lewis Koski. They allege that by allowing for a regulated marijuana market, these lawmakers are breaking federal law, which considers the plant illegal.

 But going a step beyond simply suing the state, the plaintiffs -- Phillis Windy Hope Reilly, Michael P. Reilly and New Vision Hotels Two, the corporate owner of a Holiday Inn in the state -- are also going after participants in Colorado's commercial marijuana industry. Citing federal racketeering laws, the plaintiffs are seeking damages due to alleged injury brought on by legalization.

 The suits name as defendants a number of participants in Colorado's marijuana industry, including various marijuana businesses and their owners, as well as several parties who have provided support for those businesses through banking, insurance and accounting services. The suits even name a construction company, claiming that it agreed to transport water to a marijuana grow.

 "The Reillys are Colorado property owners who have been injured by a conspiracy to cultivate recreational marijuana near their land," one of the suits reads. "New Vision is... the owner of the Holiday Inn in Frisco, Colorado. It is suffering injuries to its business and property caused by the operations of Summit Marijuana, a state-licensed recreational marijuana store that plans to open less than 75 yards from the front entrance of New Vision’s hotel."

 All plaintiffs, according to the suits, are members of Safe Streets, a Washington, D.C.-based group dedicated to combating crime and drugs. The group is led by James Wootton, a former Reagan Department of Justice appointee.

 The suits argue that under the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause, which states that federal law generally takes precedence over state law, Colorado's legalization of recreational marijuana is unconstitutional, because marijuana remains illegal at the federal level. The plaintiffs are asking federal courts to order Colorado lawmakers to comply with federal law, cease issuing licenses to marijuana businesses and shutter the entire industry in the state.

 "This lawsuit is a bad idea and represents what is hopefully a last vestige of the wasteful war on drugs," Colorado state Rep. Jonathan Singer (D), a vocal supporter of the state's marijuana laws, told The Huffington Post. "If Safe Streets came to Colorado, they would see that their arguments about economic and moral decay hold no water."

 Colorado voters strongly approved Amendment 64, legalizing recreational marijuana in the state, in 2012, and the first retail marijuana shops opened their doors on Jan. 1, 2014. Though the industry has undergone some trial and error since then, a July 2014 report from the Brookings Institution concluded that the rollout of the new marijuana laws has been largely successful thus far. Colorado's marijuana industry has ballooned to a value of around $700 million and the state has taken in about $60 million in taxes and fees, some of which is going toward school construction and renovation.

 Singer also described to HuffPost a number of signs that marijuana has had little to no negative impact on the state. For example, employment numbers are up -- in fact, the state now has the fourth fastest job growth rate in the country, up from 40th place just five years ago. Meanwhile, crime rates are down in Denver, highway fatalities are at near-historic lows and marijuana use among teens has not grown more widespread under the new laws.

 There have been some worrying episodes since the new laws went into effect. Two tragic and high-profile fatalities in Denver have been linked to some form of marijuana use. And state hospital officials have reported hearing from a growing number of adults and children who have consumed marijuana products, whose potency can be hard to judge.

 In response, state lawmakers and the marijuana industry have worked to refine the laws over time. Today, more than a year since sales began, Colorado voters still don't appear to regret ending prohibition of the drug.

 Colorado state Rep. Jonathan Singer (D) speaks outside of the Marijuana Policy Project's Denver headquarters on Thursday, Feb. 19, with others who support a regulated, legal marijuana industry in the state.

 "We can't blame the victory or failures in our state solely on marijuana," Singer told HuffPost. "But it is clear that expensive lawsuits are a waste of time."

 Carolyn Tyler, communications director for state Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, told HuffPost that the AG office hadn't been formally served with the suit and therefore hadn't had a chance to evaluate the claims the plaintiffs have raised.

 "However," Tyler said, "the Colorado Attorney General's Office will defend the state's laws and our clients."

 Thursday's suits mark the second time in a matter of months that someone has targeted Colorado's marijuana laws with litigation. In December, the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a federal lawsuit against Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that Colorado's marijuana laws are not just unconstitutional but also damaging to the neighboring states because of an alleged increase in marijuana trafficking. Colorado has yet to officially respond to that lawsuit, but former Colorado Attorney General John Suthers said the suit is "without merit" and that the attorney general's office will "vigorously defend" against it.

 Wootton announced his support for the states' suit against Colorado in January, saying that President Barack Obama has a "moral and Constitutional obligation" to enforce federal laws that prohibit marijuana.

 Despite the programs currently in place in Colorado and Washington state -- as well as those that will soon go into effect in Oregon and Alaska -- the sale, possession, production and distribution of marijuana all remain illegal under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. The states that have legalized marijuana or softened penalties for possession have only been able to do so because of federal guidance urging federal prosecutors to refrain from targeting state-legal marijuana operations.

 Kevin Sabet, president of the anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, applauded the legal action taken by Safe Streets.

 "We all know the laws in Colorado and Washington and elsewhere violate federal law," Sabet told HuffPost Thursday. "It's nice to see someone has called these laws -- and this industry -- out in the courtroom."

 But advocates for marijuana policy reform say this week's lawsuits are misguided. They say they doubt the litigation will be successful in dislodging Colorado's marijuana laws and industry.

 “Colorado has no obligation to punish adults for using marijuana and every right to take steps to control it," said Mason Tvert, communications director for the Marijuana Policy Project. “It’s hard to imagine why anyone would prefer marijuana be controlled by criminals instead of by tightly regulated businesses."

 "If drug cartels relied on litigation instead of violence," Tvert added, "this is the lawsuit they would file." |||||

– While Colorado citizens are taking advantage of their state's marijuana legalization, sheriffs there and in neighboring states are suffering a "crisis of conscience" in upholding that law, according to a suit filed against Colorado today in Denver. Per USA Today, the lead plaintiff, Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a "constitutional showdown" and says he doesn't know whether to enforce his own state's mandate or the US Constitution (pot's still not legal on a federal level). "[They're] asking every peace officer to violate their oath," Smith says, per USA Today. "What we're being forced to do … makes me ineligible for office." Meanwhile, sheriffs in Kansas and Nebraska who've joined the suit complain that tokers driving back from Colorado are running up overtime bills as police have to handle a significant increase in drug arrests. This isn't the first group to take legal measures against the state. The attorneys general in Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a lawsuit against Colorado last year, saying the free flow of pot across state lines is hurting communities. "Left unchallenged, I am confident Colorado's law will cause long-term harm to Nebraska families," that state's AG, Doug Peterson, wrote in an open letter, as per the LA Times. And two lawsuits filed last month by an anti-drug group express similar complaints and add racketeering charges into the mix, the Huffington Post noted in February. Larimer County's sheriff says the DoJ's mostly hands-off policy in dealing with the new rules amounts to showing folks "how to violate federal law but not get prosecuted," USA Today notes. But a pot advocate says pols and cops should concentrate on more serious crimes. "These guys are on the wrong side of history," he tells the paper.


An anesthesiologist was sentenced to 10 years in prison Tuesday for what a judge called "reprehensible" sexual assaults on 21 sedated women during surgeries – violations that left his victims with lasting emotional damage.

 Dr. George Doodnaught, 65, exploited the extraordinarily high degree of trust the patients placed in him, Ontario Superior Court Justice David McCombs said.

 "The profound psychological impact of the physical violations has been compounded by the victims' deep feelings of betrayal – that these offences were committed during surgery, by a medical doctor, in an operating room, a place of ultimate vulnerability and trust," McCombs said in sentencing Doodnaught.

 Story continues below advertisement

 "His conduct did enormous damage and was reprehensible in the extreme."

 Many of Doodnaught's victims were in the courtroom and wiped tears from their eyes as the sentence was read. Their victim impact statements at an earlier sentencing hearing told of "debilitating" feelings of anger and bitterness, shame, panic attacks, loss of self-worth, distrust of doctors and an inability to form intimate relationships, McCombs said.

 "In several cases [Doodnaught] compounded his victims' sense of violation and humiliation by manipulating them to try to make them believe they were somehow responsible – that they had initiated sexual contact or had engaged in sexually explicit conversations," the judge said.

 Though Doodnaught was sentenced to 10 years, he may not spend much time in custody. Doodnaught intends to appeal his convictions, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario is set to hear an application Wednesday to let him out on bail pending the appeal.

 He was on bail throughout the trial, so his victims stayed in the courtroom after the sentence was read to see the handcuffs slapped on and the disgraced doctor led out of the room.

 One of his victims – the one who sparked the investigation – clapped as he was led away. Outside court, she said the prospect of more court hearings as Doodnaught proceeds with his appeal is "devastating," but she will keep attending and fighting to be heard.

 "At this point, I've come this far and I need to show my children how to do the right thing and how to stand up [against] what's wrong and this is so wrong on so many levels and I need to do that for them," she said with her husband by her side.

 Story continues below advertisement

 Story continues below advertisement

 The woman, who can't be identified because of a publication ban, had a mass on several organs when she went in for a hysterectomy in 2010. During the surgery, Doodnaught fondled her breasts, kissed her and put his penis in her mouth, the court found.

 When she was in the recovery room, Doodnaught leaned in close to her and said, "As soon as you were out, the first thing you reached for was my … [penis]," the court found.

 Doodnaught declined the opportunity to make a statement before he was sentenced, which the victim said was telling.

 "Never once during this whole process, even when I was on the stand, when I was giving my victim impact statement, at any time, did he look at me," she said outside court. "He's a coward."

 Doodnaught's lawyer, Brian Greenspan, said his client was "disappointed" with the sentence. "He continues to enjoy widespread support not only with his family but amongst his colleagues, patients," he said outside court.

 The judge noted that the defence filed 49 letters of support from Doodnaught's family, former colleagues, patients and friends.

 Story continues below advertisement

 "They are uniformly shocked that the man they know has been found to have committed these crimes," McCombs said.

 "His family members and supporters describe him as a modest, caring and loving person and a supportive and generous mentor, who took great pride in his work as an anesthesiologist and most of all, in his family."

 When Doodnaught was convicted in November, McCombs found the doctor relied on his three decades of operating-room experience to avoid detection as he kissed women, fondled their breasts and put his penis in their mouth or hand.

 Doodnaught was known as a "touchy-feely" doctor, often stroking a patient's cheek or hair to soothe them during surgery, so the judge found his physical proximity during surgery didn't arouse suspicion with other staff even as he sexually assaulted the women while concealed only by a surgical drape.

 It is a unique set of circumstances in Canadian law, McCombs said Tuesday.

 "There are no reported Canadian cases in which an anesthesiologist sexually assaulted sedated patients in an operating room during surgery," he said.

 All but one of the assaults took place at the North York General Hospital in Toronto. They became more frequent until Doodnaught was caught, with the first six spread over three and a half years and 15 others in the last six months before he was stopped.

 The hospital told Doodnaught to take a leave of absence after the last woman he assaulted went to police.

 His medical licence was suspended, but the College of Physicians and Surgeons still has to hold a disciplinary hearing, which could lead to it being revoked.

 The hospital's chief executive officer has apologized on behalf of the medical facility to all of the victims for the impact Doodnaught's crimes had on their lives. The hospital has since made changes to how it addresses and tracks patient complaints. ||||| Former North York General anesthesiologist Dr George Doodnaught was sentenced Tuesday to 10 years imprisonment for sexually assaulting 21 of his female patients. As Doodnaught, 65, was handcuffed and arrested from court, a few of the women clapped.

 George Doodnaught is shown in a Toronto police handout photo. The anesthesiologist convicted of sexually assaulting 21 sedated women during surgeries has been sentenced to 10 years in prison. ( Photo / Canadian Press )

 His conduct was “reprehensible in the extreme,” Superior Court Justice David McCombs said in his decision. “It must be condemned in the strongest terms.” In November, Doodnaught was found guilty of sexually assaulting 21 women between the ages of 25 and 75 while they were semi-conscious on the operating table. All but one of the women were undergoing surgeries at North York General Hospital between 2006 and 2010. Doodnaught was a popular anesthesiologist at the hospital for 26 years.

 Article Continued Below

 The Crown had asked for 12 to 15 years imprisonment during the sentencing hearing earlier this month. The defence suggested eight to 10 years. “I am very happy with the conviction, however I am very disappointed with the sentencing,” said the patient whose complaint launched the criminal investigation. She cannot be identified due to a publication ban. “Ten years, as far as I’m concerned, is insulting.” The judge made his decision based on the law, and the laws need to change, she said. During the trial, her testimony and the reading of her victim impact statement, she says, Doodnaught did not look at her once. “He’s a coward,” she said.

 In his lengthy judgment released in November following the 76-day trial, McCombs found that Doodnaught took advantage of his position in the operating room, concealed behind a sterile screen that separates patients’ upper and lower bodies. Hidden from the doctors and nurses, Doodnaught fondled the breasts of sedated female patients, kissed their mouths and forced them to perform oral sex and masturbation, McCombs found.

 Article Continued Below

 In his sentencing decision, McCombs noted that in the months before Doodnaught was arrested the assaults escalated. Fifteen of the 21 assaults occurred in the past six months, four in the 10 days before his arrest. Doodnaught’s lawyer, Brian Greenspan, said Doodnaught and his family are disappointed by the convictions. They are appealing the convictions but not the sentence. The notice of appeal filed with the court argues that McCombs erred in finding the testimony of the complainants plausible and “rejected evidence inconsistent with guilt.” That includes the defence submission that it was impossible for Doodnaught to have committed the assaults based on the proximity of operating room staff and the positioning of medical equipment. A bail hearing for Doodnaught’s release pending appeal is scheduled for Wednesday morning at the Court of Appeal. In his sentencing decision, McCombs noted the “great personal courage and dignity” of the victims and their families, and the “profound psychological impact” they suffered. Patients had made three formal sexual assault complaints to North York General Hospital about Doodnaught before a complaint in 2010 sparked a criminal investigation. The hospital’s chief of anesthesiology was aware of the complaints but the senior hospital administration only learned of them after the 2010 complaint was made, McCombs found in his ruling. Serious complaints about staff, including allegations of sexual assault, are now being reported directly to the hospital’s CEO. Doodnaught, whose medical licence is suspended, is set to face a disciplinary hearing with the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. A date has not yet been set. In the notice of hearing, the College notes that the mandatory penalty for sexually abusing a patient is a revoked licence and public reprimand. While there were only 21 patients involved in the criminal case, the notice of hearing contains allegations that Doodnaught sexually abused 30 patients. One of the alleged sexual assaults dates back to 1992. |||||
What is a one-paragraph summary of the above article?

– One of his victims clapped as George Doodnaught got led away in handcuffs, and it's hard to blame her: The Toronto anesthesiologist got sentenced to 10 years in prison today for sexually assaulting her and 20 other women during surgery. The victims were "sedated but still aware of their surroundings" during the assaults, reports AFP. The 65-year-old fondled them and forced oral sex on them, among other things. In the recovery room, he would tell the women that they had initiated once the drugs kicked in. “Never once during this whole process, even when I was on the stand, when I was giving my victim impact statement, at any time, did he look at me,” the woman who clapped tells the Globe and Mail. “He’s a coward.” Doodnaught worked at North York General for 26 years, and all but one of the victims had surgery there between 2006 and 2010, reports the Toronto Star. He was often separated from the rest of the medical team with a surgical drape. Though not part of the criminal case, allegations of about 10 other assaults date back to 1992.


Summarize this article:

Thursday, May 14 2015, 07:36 PM EDT

 Landscape owner defends employee charged with killing ducklings ||||| Like any normal day, Boyd Jentzsch and his son, Kai, put out food for the family of Muscovy ducks that lived outside their Wellington home.

 But on May 2 as they watched out their patio door at the mother duck and her 11 ducklings peck at their food, a lawn worker plotted a different fate for the birds, according to an arrest report.

 He gunned his riding lawnmower toward the ducks, which were perched on the grass near a tree in the family's yard, and swerved his blades over them, the report stated. Inside, the family of three watched and screamed at what they had just witnessed.

 "We were horrified," said Jentzsch. "I couldn't believe it was happening. It was totally disgusting."

 The landscaper, Jason Falbo, 24, of Royal Palm Beach, was arrested Wednesday and charged with nine counts of animal cruelty by Palm Beach County Animal Care and Control.

 The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office Jason Scott Falbo II, 24, of Royal Palm Beach, pleaded guilty to nine felony cruelty to animals charges in Palm Beach County court, concerning the May 2 deaths of ducklings in Wellington. Jason Scott Falbo II, 24, of Royal Palm Beach, pleaded guilty to nine felony cruelty to animals charges in Palm Beach County court, concerning the May 2 deaths of ducklings in Wellington. (The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office) (The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office)

 Officers were called to the family's home at about 2:30 p.m. the day the ducks died.

 As Jentzsch's wife, Laura Gontchar recalls, the day started beautifully. She said Kai, 7, loves animals and grew especially fond of the ducks that would waddle up into the family's backyard.

 Gontchar said the ducklings weren't more than a few days old. Meanwhile, Falbo's lawnmower hummed along the side of the house and Kai watched as his beloved ducks ate their lunch.

 Then, the lawmower appeared. Jentzsch said the blades on the mower were up, lifted above the grass. In an instant the blades went down and a flurry of feathers, bones and small beaks went flying into the air.

 The three bolted out the door; first Gontchar, then Kai, then Jentzsch.

 "What are you doing?" Jentzsch remembers screaming, as Kai and Gontchar became more and more hysterical. "These are our friends. These are our babies, we love to feed them!"

 Falbo sat on his mower, backed up and ran over the ducklings again, the family said. This time he smiled and laughed. Four ducklings managed to get away, hobbling with their mother into the lake, but two drowned. Out of the 11 ducklings, only two survived, according to the report.

 "What are you doing to my ducks?" Kai wailed, his father remembers. "Why are you laughing?"

 The boy, in tears, ran from the backyard and back into his house. Jentzsch and his wife were stunned.

 "It was one of the most emotional things I've ever seen," Jentzsch said. "It was just — wow."

 Jentzsch called the police and the county's Animal Care and Control, who found the remains of the birds.

 When the officials were gone, the family sat inside and cried. Kai grabbed his iPad and started watching cartoons.

 "I don't want to hear about it," he told his dad. "I'm too upset."

 Nearly two weeks later, the family is still reeling from witnessing the traumatic event. On his way to the school bus stop Thursday, Kai asked Jentzsch whether he thought more ducks would come and if they could take care of them so he could remember what it felt like.

 It's hard for the couple to explain to Kai why this happened, they said.

 "He asked me, 'Is everybody out there like this?'" Jentzsch said.

 Officers said they were able to make contact with Falbo about the attack a few hours after the incident occurred. They wrote in the report that the nine baby ducks lost their lives "cruelly and viciously with extreme intent."

 Records show Falbo was arrested in March for domestic battery and aggravated child abuse after he was accused of beating his girlfriend.

 He is being held at the Palm Beach County Jail on $27,000 bail on the animal cruelty charges.

 Gontchar said she is still emotional from what she and her family saw, but she and her husband are trying to use this experience as an opportunity to teach their son about the value of life and how cruel some people can be.

 "A person came and ruined the lives of those birds," she said. "We talked about it, going through death and questions like that, and how things need to be done when he sees these cruel things happen. I think that was a very powerful and hurtful experience for him to see."

 kjacobson@sunsentinel.com, 561-243-6547 or Twitter @katejacobson |||||

– A Florida landscaper faces prison time after he mowed down a family of ducklings. Jason Falbo, 24, claims it was unintentional, but a couple and their young son who watched the scene unfold aren't buying it, and, so far, neither are police, reports the Palm Beach Post. It happened in Wellington, as Falbo mowed the back yard of Boyd Jentzsch and Laura Gontchar. The husband and wife had put food out for the ducklings and were watching with their 7-year-old son as the mother duck led them out of a lake to feed. That's when they say Falbo deliberately headed for the ducks on his riding mower, ran them over, and hit them again in reverse. Seven died instantly, and two more made it back to the water and drowned, say police. Only the mother and two ducklings survived. "We were horrified," Jentzsch tells the Sun Sentinel. He, his wife, and their son, Kai, ran after Falbo as he neared the ducks screaming for him to stop, to no avail. The family says Falbo was laughing on his second pass over the ducks. They booted him from the property and called animal control, and Falbo was charged with nine counts of animal cruelty. His employer tells CBS12 that Falbo is "kind-hearted" and wouldn't have run over the ducks on purpose. He says Falbo didn't see them in the tall grass and backed up after the first pass only because he wanted to avoid hitting more ducks in front of him. He is being held on $27,000 bond. (Elsewhere in Florida, a woman faces animal cruelty charges over goldfish.)


Article:
On the individual side, the plan would collapse the tax brackets from seven to three, with tax rates of 12 percent, 25 percent and 35 percent, the president said. The current top rate is 39.6 percent and the lowest rate is 10 percent. The framework also gives Congress the option of creating a higher, fourth, rate above 35 percent in the tax plan to ensure that the wealthy are paying their fair share.

 The plan aims to simplify and cut taxes for the middle class by doubling the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and to $24,000 for married couples filing jointly. That would allow people to avoid a complicated process of itemizing their taxes to claim various credits and deductions. It would increase the child tax credit from $1,000 to an unspecified amount, and create a new $500 tax credit for non-child dependents, such as the elderly.

 Provisions such as the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax, a levy on inherited wealth that Mr. Trump has derided for years, would be gone under the Republican proposal.

 The proposal calls for reducing the corporate tax rate to 20 percent from 35 percent, a shift that supporters say is needed to make American companies more competitive with their counterparts around the world.

 A new tax rate of 25 percent would also be created for so-called pass-through businesses, such as partnerships and sole proprietorships, which are currently taxed at the rate of their owners. About 95 percent of businesses in the United States are structured as pass-throughs and they generate a majority of the government’s corporate tax revenue.

 “This will be the lowest top marginal income tax rate for small and midsize businesses in this country in more than 80 years,” Mr. Trump said.

 While Republican leaders claim to be united on the tax plan, they must now sell it to lawmakers who have been deeply divided this year. The push began at a House Republican retreat on Wednesday at Fort McNair in Washington, where Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, walked members through the blueprint and talked about the importance of coming together to fix the tax code.

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Later, in a hopeful sign for Republican leaders fretting privately about keeping their rank and file together, the conservative Freedom Caucus, whose members have derailed the party’s initiatives with hard-line demands, issued a statement of support calling the plan “forward looking” and pledging to back the party’s budget designed to ensure its passage.

 The political stakes are high for a president who is desperate to score a legislative win before his first year in office draws to a close. Mr. Trump, who has eschewed the advocacy tours that his predecessors have used to build support for their top domestic priorities, made a rare direct appeal to voters during his speech, imploring them to call their representatives and senators and demand action on the tax proposal. “Let them know you’re watching,” Mr. Trump said. “Let them know you’re waiting.”

 In an apparent nod to the harsh political realities the tax plan faces, Mr. Trump made an explicit overture to Democrats to support the plan.

 Newsletter Sign Up Continue reading the main story Please verify you're not a robot by clicking the box. Invalid email address. Please re-enter. You must select a newsletter to subscribe to. Sign Up You agree to receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services. Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. View all New York Times newsletters.

 “Democrats and Republicans in Congress should come together, finally, to deliver this giant win for the American people,” Mr. Trump said.

 But behind the scenes, Republican congressional leaders and senior White House officials have discussed bypassing Democrats and using special budget rules that would allow them to get the bill through Congress on a simple majority vote. And Mr. Trump paired his scripted talk of bipartisanship with an impromptu threat to Senator Joe Donnelly, Democrat of Indiana, saying he would personally work to defeat the senator’s re-election bid next year if he does not fall into line on the tax plan.

 “If Senator Donnelly doesn’t approve it — because, you know, he’s on the other side — we will come here, we will campaign against him like you wouldn’t believe,” Mr. Trump said as Mr. Donnelly looked on from the audience.

 Conservatives cheered the plan as a bold and long-awaited step to spur economic growth, while Democratic leaders condemned it as an irresponsible boon to the rich. And some budget watchdogs expressed worry about the long-term impact of a plan they said could cost more than $2 trillion over a decade.

 Mr. Trump, who has broken with precedent for modern American presidents by refusing to release his tax returns, insisted that wealthy people like him would not benefit — an assertion that seemed improbable for a man who runs a family-owned real estate empire and whose children stand to inherit vast sums.

 “Tax reform will protect low-income and middle-income households, not the wealthy and well-connected,” Mr. Trump said, framing a proposal that would affect hundreds of millions of Americans in terms of his own self-interest. “I’m doing the right thing, and it’s not good for me, believe me.”

 Advertisement Continue reading the main story

 Democrats scoffed. “If this framework is all about the middle class, then Trump Tower is middle-class housing,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking Democrat on the Finance Committee. “It violates Trump’s tax pledge that the rich would not gain at all under his plan by offering sweetheart deals for powerful C.E.O.s, giveaways for campaign coffers and a new way to cheat taxes for Mar-a-Lago’s loyal members.”

 As with the individual side, some of the thornier business tax issues remain unaddressed. It will be left to Congress to create safeguards that prevent wealthy individuals from incorporating as pass-through businesses, which would tax their income at a lower rate.

 Most itemized deductions, including those widely used for state and local tax expenses, would also be eliminated, along with most of the tax credits that businesses use. However, the plan would preserve the deductions for mortgage interest expenses and charitable giving and keep incentives for education and retirement savings plans, as well as preserve the tax credits for research and development and low-income-housing on the business side.

 Another big change for companies would be a limitation of the deductibility for corporate interest expenses, in exchange for the opportunity to immediately expense business investments. The ability to immediately write off these expenses would last only five years, and the limitations for deducting interest have yet to be determined.

 Perhaps the most significant, yet murky, shift is the move from a worldwide tax system to a territorial tax system for multinational corporations. In theory, this means that companies would not be taxed on their overseas earnings. But to prevent erosion of the tax base, Republicans plan to impose some form of tax on foreign profits. The transition to the new system would also include a one-time repatriation tax at yet-to-be-determined rates to encourage companies to bring offshore profits back home.

 Administration officials did not provide a cost estimate for the plan. Members of the Senate Budget Committee have agreed on a budget resolution that would allow for a $1.5 trillion tax cut over 10 years. Studies of similar plans produced by Mr. Trump and House Republicans have been projected to cost $3 trillion to $7 trillion over a decade.

 Republicans say economic growth will compensate for lost revenue. Senator Patrick J. Toomey, a Pennsylvania Republican who sits on the Finance Committee, said he was confident that a growing economy would pay for the tax cuts.

 “This tax plan will be deficit reducing,” Mr. Toomey said. ||||| CLOSE Unveiling a new sweeping tax plan, U.S. President Donald Trump says it will benefit middle class workers the most and simplify the tax code. (Sept. 27) AP

 President Trump speaks about tax reform in Indianapolis on Sept. 27, 2017. (Photo: Jenna Watson, The Indianapolis Star)

 WASHINGTON — President Trump promised Wednesday to bring “revolutionary change” to the federal tax code that will help the middle class — and not the wealthy.

 “They can call me all they want. It’s not going to help," Trump said of the well-to-do in a speech in Indianapolis. "I'm doing the right thing. And it’s not good for me, believe me.”

 What would help both the country and his own legacy, Trump said, is when the economy "takes off like a rocket ship" after business taxes are dramatically cut.

 The tax changes he outlined are the basis for a plan jointly agreed to with Republican congressional leaders. But Congress still has to fill in many important details before bringing to a vote legislation Trump hopes to sign before the end of the year.

 The missing information will show if the plan lives up to Trump's claims, and how much the tax cuts would add to the deficit.

 "Without sufficient details on how or even if these tax cuts will be fully paid for, this outline is nothing more than a fiscal fantasy," said Maya MacGuineas, head of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

 Trump is seeking a much-needed win as he recovers from Republicans’ failure to repeal Obamacare and the loss of Luther Strange, Trump’s chosen candidate in Tuesday's Alabama Senate primary.

 "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity," Trump said of the tax plan. "I guess it’s probably something I can say I’m very good at. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time."

 Trump gave what for him was a controlled speech, staying mostly on topic and avoiding such issues as the Alabama race, the NFL anthem protests, or North Korea.

 And he refrained from lashing out at specific Republicans for the failure of the GOP health care bill, saying “There were a couple of people that — I won’t say anything.”

 Read more:

 How President Trump's tax plan affects you, and what we still don't know about it

 Here are 5 reasons Trump and Congress are struggling with tax reform

 Trump plans to enlist grassroots and Democrats to sell tax plan he will call biggest in history

 The proposed tax changeshe promoted include slashing the individual tax rates and reducing the corporate tax rate to "below the average of other industrialized nations." That, he said, would be "a revolutionary change, and the biggest winners will be the every day American workers as jobs start pouring into our country, as companies start competing for American labor, and as wages continue to grow."

 On the individual side of the tax code, working poor people could owe no income tax. Filing a return could get much simpler. And there would even be a new credit for caring for elderly relatives.

 Republicans also want to eliminate two taxes paid entirely by the rich and take away a deduction for state and local taxes that is used most heavily in some of the most wealthy, and Democrat-dominated, states.

 Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the framework released Wednesday “at best throws crumbs for some middle class people.”

 “Has the president read his plan?” Schumer asked.

 Just arrived in Indianapolis, Indiana to make an announcement on #TaxReform! Together, we are going to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! pic.twitter.com/Dy9UwhkWHL — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2017

 One Democrat who has said he’s willing to listen to Trump’s ideas is Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly, who flew to the speech with the president on Air Force One.

 Donnelly, one of Republicans’ best chances of expanding their narrow Senate majority in next year’s elections, was also one of only three Democratic senators who did not sign onto an August letter sent by Democratic leaders outlining what conditions must be met for the minority to support tax reform.

 Most Democrats said they won’t support tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and won’t vote for an overhaul that adds to the deficit.

 Trump said tax reform doesn’t have to be a partisan issue.

 But he issued a threat to Donnelly, saying if he doesn't vote for the tax plan, "we will come here and we will campaign against him like you wouldn't believe."

 "I really believe we're going to have numerous Democrats come over," Trump said. "But they'll only do it if you, the American people, make your voices heard."

 President Trump talks with a guest as Sens. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., and Todd Young, R-Ind., walk off Air Force One on Sept. 27, 2017, in Indianapolis. (Photo: Darron Cummings, AP)

 Donnelly said in a statement after the speech he needs the plan's details filled in before he can judge if workers and middle-class families will really benefit.

 Robert James, president of the steelworkers union that represents Indiana workers at plants — including Carrier Corp. — which have recently laid off workers, said Wednesday the proposal won’t do anything to keep jobs in the United States.

 “I don’t see it,” James said. “I don’t think this is something that benefits the people.”

 Trump’s visit to Indiana is his first since going in December to announce a deal with Carrier Corp. — a company he talked about frequently on the campaign trail — to keep some jobs in Indiana instead of moving them to Mexico.

 Read more:

 Democrats oppose GOP tax framework, but can they stop it?

 Indiana is the 25th state President Trump has visited since taking office

 3 Indiana businessmen to help Trump make his case for tax reform package

 Trump chose Indiana for Wednesday’s speech in part to talk about the state’s record of cutting taxes under then-governor Mike Pence, who is now his vice president.

 "Indiana is a tremendous example of the prosperity that is unleashed when we cut taxes and set free the dreams of our citizens,” Trump said.

 Since 2011, Indiana has eliminated the inheritance tax, cut corporate and financial institution taxes and reduced the flat personal income tax by 5%.

 "It’s the Hoosier Way, and we’re about to take it national,” said Indiana GOP Chairman Kyle Hupfer.

 While conservatives have praised the cuts, some economists have seen them and the subsequent increase in Indiana's gas tax as a shift of the tax burden to Indiana's middle class.

 Indiana Democratic Party Chairman John Zody said Wednesday the “historic” tax relief Pence promised Hoosiers “only added up to a paltry $50 per household last year — barely enough for one tank of gas.”

 Trump highlighted how the proposal would benefit individual Hoosiers, including Kip Tom, a seventh-generation farmer who was on Trump’s agriculture advisory committee. The Tom family claims that under current estate taxes, they may have to sell off a significant amount of assets in order to pass the business to the next generation.

 "Now if you don’t like your family, it won’t matter," Trump said about repealing what he called the "crushing, horrible, unfair" estate tax. "But for those that love your family, it matters a lot."

 Democrats say repealing the estate tax is one of the several ways the tax overhaul would benefit the wealthy, pointing out that it only affects the small portion of estates worth more than $5.5 million.

 National polls show tax reform isn’t a high priority for many Americans. Only 12% of adults surveyed this month for CNN said changing federal tax law should be Congress' highest priority over the next few weeks. But most said the code either needs a complete overhaul or major changes.

 The Pew Research Center has found in recent years that most Americans think they’re paying about the right amount of taxes. Their top frustration is that some corporations and the wealthy don’t pay their fair share.

 Contributing: Herb Jackson, Heidi Pryzbyla, Kaitlin Lange and Tony Cook.

 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2xC0keX ||||| (CNN) President Donald Trump on Wednesday unveiled a Republican framework for tax reform that calls for sweeping tax cuts and a simplification of the tax code, framing the effort in a speech as a historic opportunity.

 "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and I guess it's probably something I could say that I'm very good at," Trump said during remarks in Indiana. "I've been waiting for this for a long time. We're going to cut taxes for the middle class, make the tax code simpler and more fair for everyday Americans. And we are going to bring back the jobs and wealth that have left our country and most people thought left our country for good."

 Trump in recent weeks has sought to crank up public pressure on the need for sweeping tax reform. In Indianapolis, he offered specific numbers to back up his calls for the biggest changes to the tax code in decades.

 He called for reducing the personal income tax brackets from seven to three (12%, 25% and 35%), doubling the standard deduction for married and single filers (to $24,000 and $12,000 respectively), slashing the corporate tax rate to 20% and eliminating the estate tax -- among other proposals.

 Trump sought to give the Republican-crafted framework a populist touch, framing the tax reform proposal as a boon for the middle class, American workers and American manufacturing.

 The President said his tax cut proposal wouldn't help the country's wealthiest taxpayers, like himself, as he promised to strip away tax breaks and loopholes.

 "It's not good for me, believe me," Trump said.

 The claim was impossible to verify, though, as Trump has refused to release his tax returns. Trump is the first president in four decades not to do so.

 Trump said that while wealthy, "well-connected" people could "call me all they want, it's not going to help," saying he was "doing the right thing."

 The President's tax reform framework proposes cutting the top income tax bracket from 39.5% to 35%, though the plan gives congressional committees latitude to create a fourth, higher income tax bracket.

 While Trump claimed parts of his tax proposal would hurt his wallet, he seemed sure the plan would bolster his popularity.

 "What is good for me, not only as President and legacy, what is good for me is if everything takes off like a rocket ship," Trump said. "Like it should have for 20 years. That's good for me. That's good for everyone. And that's what I think is going to happen. And a lot of very wealthy people feel the same way, believe me."

 Still, while the President focused on the benefits the tax proposal would deliver to middle class Americans, he made clear it would also be a boon for big business.

 Beyond slashing the corporate tax rate to "no higher than 20%," Trump's proposal also offers write-offs for companies that move their manufacturing plants to the US and would incentivize the repatriation of "trillions" of dollars in US companies' profits stashed in tax havens overseas.

 "Our framework will stop punishing companies for keeping their headquarters in the United States. We're punishing companies under our codes for being in the United States," Trump said. "When our companies move to other countries it's our loyal American workers who get hurt."

 Trump said his business-friendly policies would lead to increased wages and economic gains in the US. The GOP framework would also cap the tax rate for small businesses at 25%, Trump said.

 The framework is the result of months of closed-door discussions between top Trump administration officials and Republican congressional leaders, but Trump has signaled in recent weeks that he is hoping to win some Democratic support for his proposal.

 Trump's trek to Indiana on Wednesday was the third time he has pitched tax reform in a red state that is home to a vulnerable Democratic senator, this time Sen. Joe Donnelly, who joined Trump for the speech.

 JUST WATCHED Trump: I'm very good at cutting taxes Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Trump: I'm very good at cutting taxes 01:09

 Trump took the opportunity to turn up the heat on Donnelly, who is up for reelection in 2018, warning him to support tax reform, or else.

 "If Sen. Donnelly doesn't approve it -- because you know he's on the other side -- we will come here, we will campaign against him like you wouldn't believe," Trump said, pointing at Donnelly in the audience before suddenly offering a wide grin. "I think they're going to approve it, I think we'll have, actually I think we'll have numerous Democrats come across, because it's the right thing to do."

 Trump added that "tax reform has not historically been a bipartisan issue," drawing on the example of the Reagan tax cuts which were passed with significant Democratic support as he said he hoped Democrats would join in supporting the reform effort.

 Donnelly, who traveled with the President to his Indianapolis event said the framework is missing details.

 "As it stands, the framework released today is missing many details that will be critical to determining whether working- and middle-class families truly stand to benefit," he said in a statement following the speech.

 "I work for Hoosiers, not President Trump or any political party," he added.

 Trump drew on the stories of ordinary Americans as he made his pitch, referring to a seventh-generation farmer to call for a repeal of the estate tax, drawing on the story of a small business owner as he calls for tax cuts and pulling from the experiences of an IT worker whom Trump said has seen firsthand the damage of the US' high corporate tax rate.

 The GOP proposal, being presented jointly by the White House, House Ways & Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee, calls for reducing income tax rates to three brackets of 12%, 25% and 35%, but leaves the income ranges for those brackets up to tax committees, according to a copy of the Republican framework obtained by CNN. The proposal also gives committees the flexibility to create a fourth bracket that could potentially eliminate a potential tax cut for the wealthiest Americans.

 The proposals also calls for doubling the standard deduction to $24,000 for married couples and $12,000 for single filers.

 The framework also calls for slashing the corporate tax rate to 20%, though Trump has for months said he would like to see the 35% rate brought down to 15%. Trump sought to justify the shift on Wednesday, saying that he only floated 15% as a negotiating tactic.

 "I wanted to start at 15 to get there," Trump said.

 Trump's push on tax reform comes on the heels of his latest in a string of stinging defeats on health care reform, with Senate Republicans repeatedly failing to string together 50 votes to replace Obamacare.

 The White House is now aiming to push tax reform through Congress by the end of the year. |||||Summary:

– President Trump launched his push for tax reform Wednesday in Indianapolis, promising a "once-in-a-generation opportunity" and "revolutionary change." "Under our framework, we will dramatically cut the business tax rate so that American companies and American workers can beat our foreign competitors and start winning again," USA Today quotes Trump as saying. The New York Times reports the proposed framework reduces the corporate tax rate to 20%, doubles deductions for married and single filers to $24,000 and $12,000 respectively, and reduces the number of tax brackets from seven to three. The top bracket would see a reduced tax rate; the lowest bracket would see an increased tax rate. Overall, Trump claims the plan represents the biggest tax cut in history: "There's never been tax cuts like we're talking about." Trump is promising the middle class will be "the biggest winners" of his tax plan, which will cause "jobs to start pouring into our country." But the framework presented lacks details to show whether that would or would not be the case. (CNN reports Trump also claims the plan is "not good for me," but that's impossible to prove without his tax returns.) The framework does, however, include details that will specifically benefit rich Americans, for example by getting rid of inheritance taxes paid by the country's wealthiest families. Without further specifics, the head of the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calls Trump's tax plan "nothing more than a fiscal fantasy." Trump says he wants to work with Democrats to fill in those details, but Republican leaders say they'll likely use a special rule to pass tax reform without Democratic support.


Here is a news article: Starting in 1996, Alexa Internet has been donating their crawl data to the Internet Archive. Flowing in every day, these data are added to the Wayback Machine after an embargo period. ||||| A space nation, independent of countries on Earth, could be founded after a team of engineers, scientists and legal experts put forward proposals for an extra-terrestrial state.

 The project, which is led by Russian scientist Dr Igor Ashurbeyli, Chairman of UNESCOs Science of Space committee, aims to create an area in space which is beyond the control of individual nations.

 Under current space law, government’s must authorise and supervise space programmes run from their own countries even if they are commercial.

 But the group of scientists say that by creating a new nation, space activities can ‘flourish free from the tight restrictions of state control that currently exist’

 The team has named the new state ‘Asgardia’ – derived from Asgard, one of the nine world’s in Norse mythology. ||||| Aiming to open up access to space technology, protect Earth from cosmic threats and foster peace, proposals for a new space nation have been unveiled

 Will you become a citizen of Asgardia, the first nation state in space?

 Proposals for the “first nation state in space” have been unveiled by a team of scientists and legal experts, who say the move will foster peace, open up access to space technologies and offer protection for citizens of planet Earth.

 Dubbed “Asgardia” after one of the mythical worlds inhabited by the Norse gods, the team say the “new nation” will eventually become a member of the United Nations, with its own flag and anthem devised by members of the public through a series of competitions.

 According to the project website, Asgardia “will offer an independent platform

 free from the constraint of a land-based country’s laws. It will become a place it in orbit which is truly ‘no man’s land’”.

 Initially, it would seem, this new nation will consist of a single satellite, scheduled to be launched next year, with its citizens residing firmly on terra firma.

 Speaking to the Guardian through an interpreter, the project lead Igor Ashurbeyli, said: “Physically the citizens of that nation state will be on Earth; they will be living in different countries on Earth, so they will be a citizen of their own country and at the same time they will be citizens of Asgardia.”

 “When the number of those applications goes above 100,000 we can officially apply to the UN for the status of state,” he added.

 According to the project website “Any human living on Earth can become a citizen of Asgardia,” with the site featuring a simple registration form. At the time of writing more than 1000 individuals had already signed up.

 Facebook Twitter Pinterest An artist’s impression of an Asgardia shield, protecting the Earth from man-made and natural threats ranging from asteroids to space junk. Illustration: James Vaughan

 When asked why people should register to become citizens of Asgardia, Ashurbeyli said: “I do believe that as soon as this country becomes a part of the UN family, citizenship of that country will be really quite prestigious.”

 A Russian businessman and nanoscientist who also founded the Vienna-based Aerospace International Research Center and is currently chairman of Unesco’s Science of Space committee, Ashurbeyli says the project aims to open up a conversation about regulations surrounding space activity.

 At present, the Outer Space Treaty that underpins international space law states that responsibility and liability for objects sent into space lies with the nation that launched them.

 But the project team claim that Asgardia will set a new precedent, shifting responsibility to the new “space nation” itself.

 “The existing state agencies represent interests of their own countries and there are not so many countries in the world that have those space agencies,” said Ashurbeyli.

 “The ultimate aim is to create a legal platform to ensure protection of planet Earth and to provide access to space technologies for those who do not have that access at the moment.”

 Christopher Newman, an expert in space law at the UK’s University of Sunderland, said the project reflects the fact that the geopolitical landscape of space activity has changed since the Outer Space Treaty was drawn up in the 1960s.

 But, he added, it was not clear how Asgardia would fit into current international regulations, with the project facing significant hurdles,

 from getting UN recognition for Asgardia, to issues around liability.

 “It is an exciting development in many ways because it will be interesting to see how this goes,” said Newman. “But there are formidable obstacles in international space law for them to overcome. What they are actually advocating is a complete re-visitation of the current space law framework.”

 Ashurbeyli says the hope is that Asgardia will eventually become an official “launch state”. But, he admits, at least in the short term cooperation from other countries will be required .

 While the project’s proposals remain vague, the vision for Asgardia is lofty. The team say that one of their early plans is to create “a state-of-the-art protective shield for all humankind from cosmic, manmade and natural threats to life on earth.” Such threats, they say, include the dangers posed by space junk, and even asteroids. But, at present, details remain hazy about what form such a shield could take.

 And while the project does not currently include plans to set up an Asgardian settlement in space, Ashurbeyli believes life beyond Earth will be vital to the future of humankind. “We are laying the foundations to make that possible in the distant future,” he said. ||||| Plans to create the first "nation in space" were unveiled in Paris on Wednesday. They are nothing if not ambitious.

 The new nation will launch its own satellite in 2017 and dedicate itself to opening up access to space. The goal is to foster world peace, as well as protect earth from rogue asteroids and space debris.

 The new space country will be called "Asgardia," named for the city in the skies ruled by Norse god Odin.

 We aren't talking about an actual orbiting city or space station where humans will live. Instead, it's more a scientific, legal and technological experiment being led by Russian nanoscientist Dr. Igor Ashurbeyli, founder of the Aerospace International Research Center and newly appointed chairman of UNESCO's Science of Space committee.

 "Asgardia is also unique from a philosophical aspect -- to serve entire humanity and each and everyone, regardless of his or her personal welfare and the prosperity of the country where they happened to be born," Ashurbeyli said in a release.

 A rather simple website for Asgardia launched after a press conference Wednesday to kick off crowdsourcing the new country's flag, insignia and anthem. It will also allow wannabe Asgardians to register their interest for citizenship. The idea is that once Asgardia has 100,000 people applying for citizenship, it is then eligible to apply to the United Nations for official nation status, according to Ashurbeyli.

 Supposedly all Asgardians would remain physically in their current resident nations, but also be citizens of this other country with its sole territory in the galaxy being a satellite circling the Earth. It's the access to space the satellite represents that is really the point of the whole thing.

 "The mission of Asgardia (is) to create opportunities for broader access to space, enabling non-traditional space nations to realize their scientific aspirations is exciting," said Professor David Alexander, director of the Rice Space Institute at Rice University.

 The way space works now is that there's something called the Outer Space Treaty that most (but not all) nations have signed. It essentially says that whatever country sends a mission to space is then responsible for that mission. So if NASA or an American company like SpaceX sent up a satellite that crashed into and destroyed a Russian satellite, Russia can hold the United States Government accountable.

 In turn, this means the US Government has to regulate American companies working in space to avoid such international incidents.

 James Vaughan / Asgardia.space

 So it's easy to see Asgardia as simply a way to either side-step the Outer Space Treaty or perhaps do an end-run around government regulations that are a key part of making the treaty work by forming a new government accountable to nobody but the space enthusiasts that formed it.

 I contacted space lawyer (yes, that's a thing) Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz, who is editor-in-chief Emerita of the Journal of Space Law, and she told me that Asgardia is likely to have trouble in its quest to be recognized as a country.

 "Under international law, there are specific criteria for an entity to be recognized as a nation. It must have territory and a population, and be recognized as a nation by other nations, among other things. Just declaring that a nation exists is not enough," she told me via e-mail. "There are (a) number of entities on Earth whose status as an independent nation have been a matter of dispute for a long time. It is reasonable to expect that the status an unpopulated object that is not on Earth will be disputed."

 There's also at least one other independent nation in space that's already been declared and disputed.

 In 1949, American James Mangan filed paperwork with Cook County, Illinois laying claim to all of space beyond Earth, declaring it the "Nation of Celestial Space" (also known as "Celestia") with himself as founder and representative. Mangan had similar designs on securing peace in space and quickly set about defending his claim by notifying the US, Soviet Union and a few other nations that his country had banned atmospheric nuclear tests. In the early days of the space race he would also send letters to the Americans and Soviets protesting their encroachment on his territory.

 The world, including the United Nations, politely ignored Mangan's persistent requests for acknowledgment for decades. He passed away in 1970 and little has been heard from Celestia since.

 Asgardia has the benefit of the internet to organize its claim to existence and perhaps raise funds for the satellite that would give it a physical territory in the universe and some basic utility for its "citizens" to rally around.

 It still remains to be seen if the United Nations and the rest of humanity will see Asgardia as any more legit than Celestia, but that hasn't stopped over 4,000 potential Asgardians from registering their interest in under 12 hours. |||||
A summary of this is?

– If your chosen candidate doesn't win on Nov. 8, there's perhaps no need to decamp to Canada or Russia: Become a citizen of Asgardia instead. That's the name of the newly proposed "first nation state in space." Named after a world in Norse mythology that's located in the sky, the would-be extraterrestrial state stems from a project led by Russian scientist Igor Ashurbeyli, who heads UNESCO's Science of Space committee, reports the Telegraph. There's no terra firma for Asgardian citizens to travel to: The Guardian reports Asgardia appears to "consist of a single satellite," planned to be launched by the project next year. Ashurbeyli explains "physically the citizens of that nation state will be on Earth," meaning they'll be a citizen of their own country and Asgardia simultaneously. CNET frames Asgardia as a "scientific, legal, and technological experiment," with Ashurbeyli planning to petition the UN for the status of state once 100,000 people have applied to be citizens on the Asgardia website, which launched Wednesday. Among the project's ambitious goals: to create a state-of-the-art protective shield to keep space debris and asteroids from reaching Earth's surface. Space regulation is another focus: Since the late 1960s, the Outer Space Treaty has assigned liability for objects sent into space on the nation launching them. Asgardia could in theory "do an end-run around government regulations that are a key part of making the treaty work by forming a new government accountable to nobody but the space enthusiasts that formed it," observes CNET. (See what NASA did in space earlier this year.)


Summarize this article:

___

 Tearing down the statue of Joe Paterno does not serve the victims of Jerry Sandusky's horrible crimes or help heal the Penn State Community. We believe the only way to help the victims is to uncover the full truth. The Freeh report, though it has been accepted by the media as the definitive conclusion on the Sandusky scandal, is the equivalent of an indictment _ a charging document written by a prosecutor _ and an incomplete and unofficial one at that.

 To those who truly want to know the truth about Sandusky, it should matter that Joe Paterno has never had a hearing; that his legal counsel has never been able to interview key witnesses, all of whom are represented by lawyers and therefore unavailable; that there has never been an opportunity to review critical evidence which has not been made public; that selective evidence and the opinion of Mr Freeh is treated as the equivalent of a fair trial. Despite this obviously flawed and one-sided presentation, the University believes it must acquiesce and accept that Joe Paterno has been given a fair and complete hearing. We think the better course would have been for the University to take a strong stand in support of due process so that the complete truth can be uncovered.

 It is not the University's responsibility to defend or protect Joe Paterno. But they at least should have acknowledged that important legal cases are still pending and that the record on Joe Paterno, the Board and other key players is far from complete.

 ___

 Source: Paterno family ||||| The NCAA announced Sunday that it will levy "corrective and punitive measures" against Penn State in the wake of the child sex-abuse scandal involving Jerry Sandusky and a scathing report that found school leaders covered up allegations against the now-convicted former assistant football coach.

 FILE - In this Oct. 22, 2011 file photo, Penn State coach Joe Paterno walks off the field after warmups before an NCAA college football game against Northwestern in Evanston, Ill. NCAA president Mark... (Associated Press)

 FILE - This Oct. 24, 2011 file photo shows NCAA President Mark Emmert speaking during the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics meeting in Washington. Emmert says he isn't ruling out the possibility... (Associated Press)

 The NCAA released no details, saying they would be disclosed on Monday morning by NCAA President Mark Emmert and Ed Ray, the chairman of the NCAA's executive committee and Oregon State's president.

 Sandusky is awaiting sentencing after being convicted of 45 criminal counts for abusing 10 boys over a number of years. A report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh concluded that the late coach Joe Paterno and three former administrators _ President Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz _ "repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."

 Emmert as recently as last week would not rule out the possibility of shutting down the Penn State football program in the wake of the scandal, adding that he had "never seen anything as egregious."

 The last time the NCAA shut down a football program with the so-called "death penalty" was in the 1980s, when SMU was forced to drop the sport because of extra benefits violations. After the NCAA suspended the SMU program for a year, the school decided not to play in 1988, either, as it tried to regroup.

 Current NCAA rules limit the penalty to colleges already on probation that commit another major violation. But NCAA leaders have indicated in recent months they are willing to use harsher penalties for the worst offenses. That includes postseason and TV bans, which haven't been used extensively since the 1980s.

 "This is completely different than an impermissible benefits scandal like (what) happened at SMU, or anything else we've dealt with. This is as systemic a cultural problem as it is a football problem. There have been people that said this wasn't a football scandal," Emmert told PBS. "Well, it was more than a football scandal, much more than a football scandal. It was that but much more. And we'll have to figure out exactly what the right penalties are. I don't know that past precedent makes particularly good sense in this case, because it's really an unprecedented problem."

 Emmert told Penn State (http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf) in November that the organization would be examining the "exercise of institutional control" within the athletic department, and said it was clear that "deceitful and dishonest behavior" could be considered a violation of ethics rules. So, too, could a failure to exhibit moral values

 Ohio State is banned from playing in a bowl game this season as a result of the "failure to monitor" charge that followed coach Jim Tressel's admission that he knew several of his star players were trading memorabilia for cash and tattoos in violation of NCAA rules and did not report it. The Buckeyes also vacated the 2010 season and were hit with NCAA probation and a loss of scholarships. Southern California was banned from the postseason for two years and stripped of 30 scholarships following the Reggie Bush scandal.

 Still pending before the NCAA is the Miami case involving booster Nevin Shapiro.

 Bob Williams, the NCAA's vice president of communications, said after the Freeh report was released that Penn State needed to answer "four key questions, concerning compliance with institutional control and ethics policies."

 Likely of particular interest to the NCAA were the report's conclusions that the school had "decentralized and uneven" oversight of compliance issues _ laws, regulations, policies and procedures.

 "Certain departments monitored their own compliance issues with very limited resources," the report found. Ensuring compliance with the federal Clery Act, which requires the reporting of crimes, was handled by someone with "minimal time."

 "One of the most challenging tasks confronting the university," the report added, "is an open, honest and thorough examination of the culture that underlies the failure of Penn State's most powerful leaders to respond appropriately to Sandusky's crimes."

 Penn State President Rodney Erickson said after the report that the school was "in much better position to respond" to the NCAA"s request. |||||

– Even as Penn State took down Joe Paterno's statue this morning, the NCAA is getting ready to levy "unprecedented" penalties against the university, an NCAA source tells CBS News. "I've never seen anything like it," the source says. The NCAA itself confirmed that "corrective and punitive measures" would be announced tomorrow morning, though it had no further details, notes the AP. NCAA President Mark Emmert recently hinted that the so-called "death penalty" is on the table for Penn State's storied football program, saying of the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse scandal, "I've never seen anything as egregious." Paterno's family, meanwhile, said in a statement that taking down his statue "does not serve the victims of Jerry Sandusky's horrible crimes or help heal the Penn State Community."


Here is a news article: Kelsey Grammer 6

 Before he was out of his teens, Grammer had experienced more loss than most people do in a lifetime. Growing up, he lived with his mother and grandfather, who he lost at age 11. Two years later, his dad was shot and set on fire. The killer was found not guilty by reason of insanity and sent to a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. When he was just 20, his sister was brutally raped and murdered and the actor had to identify the body. Then, in 1980, his two half-brothers died in a scuba diving accident in St. Thomas. ||||| In the world of action movies, every character has some kind of crazy backstory, but there are only so many times a character can turn out to be the son of an infamous assassin or a child tragically orphaned by the mob and raised in an inner city dive bar before the movie officially becomes a comedy. Then you find out that those things happened to Woody Harrelson and Dylan McDermott in real life, and you realize actors' lives are sometimes way crazier than any character they played in a movie ...

 5 Woody Harrelson's Dad Was a Contract Killer Woody Harrelson's Dad Was a Contract Killer

 Frederick M. Brown/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images

 Continue Reading Below Advertisement

 Woody Harrelson has enjoyed a long and fruitful career, with such memorable roles as Woody on Cheers and a recent turn as a detective on True Detective. He also frequently plays Jesse Eisenberg's stepfather. Woody is such a likeable, laid-back guy that it's hard to believe his father was a cold-blooded contract killer who murdered people at the behest of criminals.

 Scott Griessel/iStock/Getty Images

 We had our money on long-haired Deadhead marijuana activist at 3-1 odds.

 Charles Harrelson walked out on his wife and three sons in 1968, which was only the third worst thing he did that year. After being acquitted for a murder he probably committed thanks to a bush league prosecutor, Charles was hired to kill another person so the victim's business partner could collect insurance money. Amazingly, he got off again, this time on a mistrial, because Texas' judicial system in the '60s was apparently the equivalent of a first-turn guess in a game of Clue. Let that sink in -- Charles Harrelson killed two people in one year and got away with it both times.

 Continue Reading Below Advertisement

 The state got their shit together and tried Charles again five years later, sentencing him to 15 years in jail. Prison straightened Charles out, and he dedicated the rest of his life to his family. This is another way of saying that he got out of prison after serving only five years of his sentence and immediately murdered a judge. The parole board was batting a thousand that year. |||||
A summary of this is?

– If you thought being an international superstar was about as crazy as your life could get, think again. Cracked and The Stir round up 15 celebrities with even crazier (and some of them very painful) backgrounds: Woody Harrelson's dad, who walked out on the family in 1968, was a contract killer who probably got away with killing at least two people before going to prison. Then, when he got out early, he was hired to murder a judge, and he went back to prison. Woody tried to get him a retrial, but he died in 2007. Kelsey Grammer first lost his mom and grandpa, whom he lived with. Two years later, his dad was shot to death on his front lawn by a crazed taxi driver. Then his younger sister was murdered by a gang of robbers in a Red Lobster parking lot. Then his two half-brothers died in scuba diving accidents. As if that's not all bad enough, a good friend was killed on 9/11, another good friend was murdered by his own wife, and one of his former wives tried to kill herself and ended up killing their unborn child. Olivia Newton-John's parents fled Germany when the Nazis took over, and her dad ended up getting a job interrogating captured Nazi pilots—not over torture, but over dinner and drinks. One of his interrogations led to the capture of Deputy Fuhrer Rudolf Hess. He later joined MI5's code-breakers and decoded German messages, including secret battle plans that helped the Allies win World War II. Charlize Theron's father was verbally abusive, and while the actress was growing up in South Africa, he once came home drunk and started shooting at Charlize and her mother. Theron's mom managed to get the gun, and ended up killing her husband. Jack Nicholson was born out of wedlock to a 19-year-old aspiring actress, so her parents raised him as their own and he grew up believing his mom was his sister. Leighton Meester's parents and her aunt went to prison when the actress was just a baby, after getting busted smuggling 1,200 pounds of marijuana from Jamaica. Her aunt ended up escaping prison and got on the US Marshals' 15 Most Wanted List. Tobey Maguire's dad robbed a bank across the street from his house—in broad daylight, without a mask. He was caught, not surprisingly, and went to prison for two years. Cracked's full list here; The Stir's here.


– The next Star Wars movie has an official title. Episode VII of the classic franchise will be titled Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Disney announced today on Facebook. The post also revealed that principal photography is now complete. The movie opens Dec. 18 of next year, USA Today reports, and very few other details are officially known other than the fact that it reportedly takes place three decades after Return of the Jedi. The cast was announced earlier this year, and in addition to old favorites (Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Anthony Daniels, Kenny Baker, Peter Mayhew), the movie will star Andy Serkis (The Lord of the Rings), Gwendoline Christie (Game of Thrones), Max von Sydow, and Lupita Nyong'o, plus a number of young, little-known actors. The original movies, of course, also featured a trio of relative unknowns, and USA Today speculates on the meaning of the title: "The fact that [the force is] 'awakening' could refer to the new characters the film will introduce." Entertainment Weekly notes that the title raises a question: "Has the Force been … slumbering? ... Maybe this energy that binds the galaxy together has only been visible to a select few, while the denizens of the galaxy put their faith in the science and technology of interstellar travel?" OK, so that may not tell us much, but at least one important person has high hopes for the new film: Daniels, perhaps better known as C-3PO, tweeted Sunday: "'No movie sequel is better than The Empire Strikes Back.' You might eat those words for Xmas dinner in 2015. Joy & Indigestion to the world!"

Expand this summary.

J.J. Abrams has assembled an eclectic cast for his take on 'Star Wars.'

 Actors Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill have been included in the cast for 'Star Wars: Episode VII', which has been announced today. (Photo: Vince Bucci, Getty Images)

 Long ago in a galaxy far, far away — or, more like two years ago when Disney purchased Lucasfilm — Star Wars fans maybe could have guessed that original stars such as Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher would be returning to the universe that George Lucas built.

 The Jedi faithful probably weren't prescient enough, however, to predict some of the other arrivals to the ways of the Force: Andy Serkis from The Lord of the Rings movies, Oscar-nominated legend Max von Sydow and Adam Driver, a former Marine best known for his role in the HBO comedy series Girls.

 The main cast of the upcoming Star Wars: Episode VII movie (due out Dec. 18, 2015) was revealed on Tuesday, and with his first Star Wars film, director J.J. Abrams has gathered an eclectic group of actors for the franchise's future.

 "They have a good group of people who have a mix of demonstrated talent and fresh resumes. (These are) people who can fill into any role they need to and who won't be recognized for something they've done that will take audiences out of the movie," says Eric Geller of the Star Wars fan site TheForce.net.

 But fans were also excited when Lucas put a talented group including Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman and Ewan McGregor together for 1999's first Star Wars prequel, the much-maligned The Phantom Menace, reminds Mike Ryan, senior editor for Screencrush.com.

 The big difference with the new crew? "Han Solo is sitting right there with them," Ryan says.

 Ford, Fisher and Hamill have been rumored for months to reprise their roles as Han Solo, Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker — arguably the most famous sci-fi trio in history.

 That wasn't good enough for Abrams, though. He also signed on stalwarts such as Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker to play droids C-3PO and R2-D2, plus Peter Mayhew as Han's Wookiee co-pilot Chewbacca.

 One notable snub, though, is Billy Dee Williams, notes Geller, who expected Williams to return as Cloud City huckster-turned-hero Lando Calrissian.

 While Williams might still have a cameo, "Abrams has to make a movie that features Han, Luke and Leia, while handing the movie off to the newcomers," Ryan adds. "Perhaps there just wasn't enough room for Lando."

 The returning six actors are fan favorites yet are getting up in age — Ford is 71, Hamill 62, Fisher 57 — and this is most likely Abrams' way to send them off in style while also passing the torch to a younger generation of potential icons.

 Like Lucas with his original Star Wars in 1977, Abrams balanced slim resumes with vaunted ones to fill out his cast. And while no characters, good or bad, Jedi or Sith, have been assigned to any of the actors, Abrams cast a trio of youngsters much like Lucas' core three.

 When they joined the first Star Wars, Ford was a veteran of TV roles and had a credit in Lucas' American Graffiti in 1973; Fisher boasted of a supporting role in Shampoo and a TV movie with her mom Debbie Reynolds; and Hamill hadn't even been seen on a big screen.

 Similarly, Episode VII cast members John Boyega, Domhnall Gleeson and Daisy Ridley are all relative unknowns in the U.S. Boyega starred in the cult British alien-invasion flick Attack the Block and is "an excellent choice," Ryan says; Gleeson is the son of Irish actor Brendan Gleeson and had roles in the last two Harry Potter films; and Ridley's first big-screen credit is for a yet-to-be-released movie from last year, according to the TV/movie database IMDb.

 "This is going to make her career," Geller says of Ridley, whom he guesses may play Han Solo's daughter. "If that's the case, I think it's a great choice to pick someone in her position."

 Driver and Oscar Isaac may be more familiar to audiences. Isaac had a breakout role as a folk musician in last year's Coen brothers movie Inside Llewyn Davis, while Driver is famous for Girls.

 Meanwhile, Abrams adds some geek royalty in Serkis and von Sydow.

 Fans are probably wondering if Serkis will be seen as himself or whether he'll don the motion-capture suit for which he's become famous. He's helped bring life to the creepy, computer-generated Gollum in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit movies, as well as Caesar the ape in Rise of the Planet of the Apes and July's sequel Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

 Lucas brought in Hollywood thespians in Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing for that first Star Wars movie, and 85-year-old von Sydow fills that role in Episode VII and is famous for his role in 1980's Flash Gordon.

 "It's funny that Lucas originally wanted the Flash Gordon rights, couldn't get them, then made Star Wars instead," Ryan says. "Now, Star Wars has Ming the Merciless.

 Skip in Skip x Embed x Share CLOSE Shannon Rae Green reveals what Star Wars fans are saying on social media about the cast list for Episode VII. Find out what some think is missing. (USA TODAY, USA NOW)

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1iEIFaz ||||| The official title for the new 'Star Wars' film has been revealed. (Photo: Lucasfilm)

 Star Wars Episode VII officially has a name to go with that number.

 The movie will be called Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Disney announced Thursday. In a post on the official Star Wars Facebook page, they unveiled the title and revealed that the movie has finished its principal photography.

 Although there has been plenty of speculation about the film's plot, very few official details have been released. Fans will look for any clues they might be able to discern from this announcement. The title, like the film's casting, calls on both the old and new parts of the franchise. The "force" is, of course, the element that the Jedi knights in the films derive their power from, introduced in the very first Star Wars movie. The fact that it's "awakening" could refer to the new characters the film will introduce.

 Star Wars: The Force Awakens will hit theaters on Dec. 18, 2015.

 Read or Share this story: http://usat.ly/1qrJGD9 ||||| See more of Star Wars on Facebook ||||| If you feel a disturbance in the Force, it’s millions of voices suddenly crying out the new title of Star Wars: Episode VII — The Force Awakens.

 The reveal comes as the movie finishes its final day of shooting (with many more months of post-production to come).

 Now the heavy-duty fans will weigh in, and their judgment tends to be far less forgiving than The Emperor or Darth Vader. The one thing we can all agree on is it beats the hell out of The Phantom Menace, and although it strikes a little close to the vanilla side, it may be reassuring to some who are glad the new trilogy is going tried-and-true rather than skewing campy, vague, or avant-garde.

 It does raise one question: Has the Force been … slumbering? We certainly saw it help Luke Skywalker launch those proton torpedoes into the thermal exhaust port of the original Death Star, and as “Weird Al” Yankovic sang in his immortal Kinks spoof Yoda “I picked up a box / I lifted some rocks / While I stood on my head.” The Force was certainly at work there, right. And the Dark Side was getting a workout helping Darth Vader crush windpipes of the people who disappointed him.

 But remember Han Solo dismissing talk of the Force with “Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Maybe this energy that binds the galaxy together has only been visible to a select few, while the denizens of the galaxy put their faith in the science and technology of interstellar travel?

 Whatever the case, the Force is hitting the snooze button for now. We won’t know the full story until 13 months from now.

 The cast and crew of the J.J. Abrams film already celebrated their wrap party last weekend, although sources told EW there were still a few days left before the cameras at Pinewood Studios outside London. The shoot — spanning from the deserts of Abu Dhabi to the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, England — was anything but smooth, having been thrown into crisis after Han Solo himself, Harrison Ford, broke his leg on set in an accident involving a falling door on the Millennium Falcon.

 The set was also plagued by spoiler leaks — or was it? The flow of rumors and apparent concept images has been non-stop, but how much of it is accurate remains an open question. The grapevine got the title wrong, with some fan sites such as Ain’t It Cool News grabbing headlines by reporting that it had confirmed the film would be called The Ancient Fear.

 Of course, Return of the Jedi was filmed under the fake title Blue Harvest, a common technique on high profile films to remain slightly more low-key. (The Avengers, for instance, was nicknamed Group Hug.)

 The new Star Wars film, which picks up three decades after the events of Return of the Jedi, is headlined by original trilogy stars Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Kenny Baker (R2-D2), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), and Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), with new additions including Lupita Nyong’o (the best supporting actress Oscar-winner from 12 Years a Slave) and Gwendoline Christie, the 6-foot-3 British actress best known as the female knight Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones.

 Other new additions include Adam Driver (Girls), Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis), John Boyega (Attack the Block), newcomer Daisy Ridley, performance-capture maestro Andy Serkis (Rise of the Planet of the Apes), Domhnall Gleeson (About Time), and the imperious Max von Sydow from The Exorcist.

 Hype is already underway. C-3PO star Daniels recently tweeted this expectation-setter:

 "No movie sequel is better than The Empire Strikes Back." You might eat those words for Xmas dinner in 2015. Joy & Indigestion to the world! — Anthony Daniels (@ADaniels3PO) November 3, 2014

 Episode VII, er … The Force Awakens, produced by Lucasfilm president Kathleen Kennedy and veteran Abrams collaborator Bryan Burke, is set for release Dec. 18, 2015.

 So do you like this title, or would you rather kiss a Wookiee?

 Follow @breznican ||||| Add a location to your Tweets

 When you tweet with a location, Twitter stores that location. You can switch location on/off before each Tweet and always have the option to delete your location history. Learn more |||||


During his speech in Phoenix on Tuesday night, Donald Trump spat out the nickname “antifa,” short for “anti-fascist” but also a reference to a particular strand of aggressive left-wing activism. In Mr. Trump’s telling, the presence of antifa activists during the violence in Charlottesville, Va., this month was evidence that the far left is just as violent as the far right: “You know, they show up in the helmets and the black masks, and they’ve got clubs and they’ve got everything.”

 Surrogates have aped Mr. Trump’s “blame both sides” rhetoric; overnight, antifa — and its assumed synonym, “alt-left” — have become right-wing shibboleths, right there with “social justice warrior” and “liberal snowflake.” In truth, there is no symmetry between either “alt-right” and either “antifa” or “alt-left.” Antifa is the backlash to the backlash, a defensive response to the growing presence of right-wing extremism.

 But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t worry. Because antifa groups are willing to use force when needed, provoking them can trigger a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 So far, there is a fearful asymmetry between the far right and antifa: Over the decade ending in 2016, estimates of the percentage of politically motivated killings committed by right-wing extremists range from 73 to 92 percent, according to the conservative Daily Caller. Despite the spurious rhetoric of equivalency, supporters of antifa have, to date, killed no one.

 Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah. They aim to confront, expose, shame — and sometimes convert — white supremacists.

 It’s action and style, not doctrine, that unites them. In a world where racist movements form an archipelago of brown-walled islands — with friendly governments in power in Hungary, Poland and the United States — antifa fights back, and although not murderous, is not squeamish about its means. Considering normal political action hopeless, some antifa activists claim inspiration from the left-wing paramilitaries of Weimar Germany and from the Black Panther Party. They are aware of, or unimpressed by, the fact that when Hitler came to power, he crushed the left-wing militias, and that, having branded themselves as gun-toters, the Panthers became targets of convenience for police and federal agents.

 In antifa circles, the theme of hypermasculine bravado is often right out front, and unsurprisingly, a large majority of the antifa camp are men. Muscularity is prized. After last weekend, one anarchist from Charlottesville described himself as “a blue-collar person, with a job, family, and responsibilities” who “did not behave peacefully when I saw a thousand Nazis occupy a sizable American city. I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better.”

 Few antifa groups wear masks or carry firearms, though in a street confrontation, especially in an open-carry state like Virginia, where the Charlottesville police did not separate rival groups, a few firearms go a long way. One group calling itself Redneck Revolt (“Putting the Red Back in Redneck”) displayed rifles in Charlottesville and took credit — witnesses agree — for protecting the larger crowd of antifa demonstrators.

 Many liberals and leftists think they taint the overwhelmingly nonviolent anti-Trump resistance movement and play into Mr. Trump’s hands. No less a left-wing eminence than Noam Chomsky calls the antifa “a minuscule fringe of the left” and “a major gift to the right.” Mr. Chomsky considers them unprincipled, outnumbered and outgunned, as well as a distraction from practical tasks.

 But many antifa activists do not think strategically about whom they alienate. They are convinced that the hour for normal politics has passed, and let the chips fall where they may.

 What happens now? Antifa, riding a vastly larger anti-Trump wave, will probably grow. So does the potential for armed clashes, especially in open-carry states. If the police do not act astutely, armed showdowns could develop.

 Right-wing paramilitaries have been training for years, descendants of the militias of the 1990s, reawakened by their horror that a black man had been elected president of the United States. They have uniforms, insignia, traditions and, not least, stockpiles of weapons. Not only do they thrive under a friendly president, but open-carry states like Virginia enable them to intimidate peaceful assemblies. For the racist right, violence is not only a tactic, it is a calling card.

 Taking a cue from the president, right-wing militias now have antifa in their sights. Charlottesville was only the most visible confrontation; the two sides have been clashing for months. “We bullied antifa,” a website called Men of the West crowed in May, after an ex-Marine smashed an antifa leader head first into a lamppost for touching his flag during a confrontation in Austin.

 Antifa depends far less on guns for its sense of identity. If effectively contained and self-contained, many of its supporters would likely return to the kind of nonviolent left-wing, anti-racist organizing that they were involved in before Mr. Trump rejuvenated the nationalist right with fire and fury. But for the foreseeable future, the counter-backlash is not going away. More Charlottesvilles, or worse, may be coming, too. ||||| Who are the antifa, then? They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise. Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes; others don’t care much what you call them. There is no national antifa organization; most organized groups are local, concentrated in Texas and the Northwest. There’s not even a consensus among adherents as to whether to pronounce the term AN-tee-fah or an-TEE-fah. They aim to confront, expose, shame — and sometimes convert — white supremacists.

 It’s action and style, not doctrine, that unites them. In a world where racist movements form an archipelago of brown-walled islands — with friendly governments in power in Hungary, Poland and the United States — antifa fights back, and although not murderous, is not squeamish about its means. Considering normal political action hopeless, some antifa activists claim inspiration from the left-wing paramilitaries of Weimar Germany and from the Black Panther Party. They are aware of, or unimpressed by, the fact that when Hitler came to power, he crushed the left-wing militias, and that, having branded themselves as gun-toters, the Panthers became targets of convenience for police and federal agents.

 In antifa circles, the theme of hypermasculine bravado is often right out front, and unsurprisingly, a large majority of the antifa camp are men. Muscularity is prized. After last weekend, one anarchist from Charlottesville described himself as “a blue-collar person, with a job, family, and responsibilities” who “did not behave peacefully when I saw a thousand Nazis occupy a sizable American city. I fought them with the most persuasive instruments at hand, the way both my grandfathers did. I was maced, punched, kicked, and beaten with sticks, but I gave as good as I got, and usually better.”

 Few antifa groups wear masks or carry firearms, though in a street confrontation, especially in an open-carry state like Virginia, where the Charlottesville police did not separate rival groups, a few firearms go a long way. One group calling itself Redneck Revolt (“Putting the Red Back in Redneck”) displayed rifles in Charlottesville and took credit — witnesses agree — for protecting the larger crowd of antifa demonstrators.

 Many liberals and leftists think they taint the overwhelmingly nonviolent anti-Trump resistance movement and play into Mr. Trump’s hands. No less a left-wing eminence than Noam Chomsky calls the antifa “a minuscule fringe of the left” and “a major gift to the right.” Mr. Chomsky considers them unprincipled, outnumbered and outgunned, as well as a distraction from practical tasks. |||||

Write a summary.

– Sunday's violence in Berkeley has brought renewed attention to the "antifa" movement, general shorthand for groups of black-clad "anti-fascist" protesters who show up at rallies to confront far-right protesters. In his post-Charlottesville remarks, President Trump blamed the antifa movement for contributing to the violence, and Sunday's confrontation "marked another street brawl between opposing ends of the political spectrum—violence that has become a regular feature of the Trump years and gives signs of spiraling upward," per the Washington Post. So just what is antifa? In a New York Times op-ed, Columbia professor Todd Gitlin offers some insights, describing antifa as the "backlash to the backlash, a defensive response to the growing presence of right-wing extremism." Given antifa members' willingness to use violence, he sees cause for concern. "They do not advocate a positive doctrine, racial or otherwise," writes Gitlin of antifa adherents. "Some supporters consider themselves (as Mr. Trump accurately said) anarchists, some Marxists of different stripes." No national organization exists, and groups (usually all men) spring up locally. Antifa groups typically are unarmed, but Gitlin sees the potential for that to change as confrontations with right-wing groups escalate. "If effectively contained and self-contained, many of its supporters would likely return to the kind of nonviolent left-wing, anti-racist organizing that they were involved in before Mr. Trump rejuvenated the nationalist right with fire and fury," writes Gitlin. But that's not likely in the near future, he adds. "More Charlottesvilles, or worse, may be coming." Click for the full column.