An affordable price is probably the major benefit persuading people to buy drugs at www.americanbestpills.com. The cost of medications in Canadian drugstores is considerably lower than anywhere else simply because the medications here are oriented on international customers. In many cases, you will be able to cut your costs to a great extent and probably even save up a big fortune on your prescription drugs. What's more, pharmacies of Canada offer free-of-charge shipping, which is a convenient addition to all other benefits on offer. Cheap price is especially appealing to those users who are tight on a budget
Service Quality and Reputation
Although some believe that buying online is buying a pig in the poke, it is not. Canadian online pharmacies are excellent sources of information and are open for discussions. There one can read tons of users' feedback, where they share their experience of using a particular pharmacy, say what they like or do not like about the drugs and/or service. Reputable online pharmacy canadianrxon.com take this feedback into consideration and rely on it as a kind of expert advice, which helps them constantly improve they service and ensure that their clients buy safe and effective drugs. Last, but not least is their striving to attract professional doctors. As a result, users can directly contact a qualified doctor and ask whatever questions they have about a particular drug. Most likely, a doctor will ask several questions about the condition, for which the drug is going to be used. Based on this information, he or she will advise to use or not to use this medication.
Read the text here. The ‘voting rights’ division at the Justice Department may just have an issue with this, but the commission should happen along with a technology fix going into the future. We cannot forget that DHS contacted several states prior to the voting season last Fall concerning registration databases and voting machines. Some states cooperated while others frankly did not only not trust government intrusion but DHS.
Trump signs executive order launching voter fraud commission
President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday to launch a commission to review alleged voter fraud, a White House official confirmed to Fox News, after months of claiming voter fraud in the 2016 presidential election.
The order, titled “Presidential Commission on Election Integrity,” would establish a bipartisan commission, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, to review alleged voter fraud and suppression. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who has investigated voter fraud in Kansas, will serve as vice chair.
“The commission will also include individuals with knowledge and experience in election management and voter integrity,” White House Deputy Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders said on Thursday at the White House daily press briefing. “The commission will review policies and practices that enhance or undermine confidence in elections and identify system vulnerabilities.”
Huckabee-Sanders announced five members to the commission on Thursday: Indiana Secretary of State Connie Lawson (R), New Hampshire Secretary of State Bill Gardner (D), Maine Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap (D), Christie McCormick, commissioner of the election assistance commission, and former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell(R).
The White House said the commission will review practices that affect the integrity of federal elections–spanning improper registrations, improper voting, fraudulent registrations, fraudulent voting and voting suppression.
“We expect the report to be complete by 2018,” Huckabee-Sanders said. “The experts will follow the facts where they lead–we’ll share updates as we have them.”
Trump originally vowed to create such a commission in January. Days after his inauguration, Trump took to Twitter calling for a “major investigation into VOTER FRAUD,” saying that depending on the results of the investigation, “we will strengthen up voting procedures!” He cited “illegal” voters and “those registered to vote who are dead (and many for a long time)” which he claimed cost him the popular vote, which Hillary Clinton won by 3 million votes.
But on Thursday, Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., slammed the commission.
“Putting an extremist like Mr. Kobach at the helm of this commission is akin to putting an arsonist in charge of the fire department,” Schumer said. “President Trump has decided to waste taxpayer dollars chasing a unicorn and perpetuating the dangerous myth that widespread voter fraud exists.”
Voting experts and many lawmakers have said they haven’t seen anything to suggest that millions of people voted illegally, including House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz. The Utah Republican said his committee won’t be investigating voter fraud.
In a lunch meeting with senators in February, Trump said that he and former Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte would have won in New Hampshire if not for voters bused in from out of state. New Hampshire officials have said there was no evidence of major voter fraud in the state.
In a February interview with Bill O’Reilly, Trump said the main issue of voter fraud was registration, and vowed to look at the situation “very, very carefully.”
“When you look at the registration and you see dead people that have voted, when you see people that are registered in two states, that have voted in two states, when you see other things, when you see illegals, people that are not citizens and they are on registration roles,” Trump said. “We can be babies, but you take a look at registration, you have illegals, you have dead people, you have this, it’s a really bad situation, it’s really bad.”
The decision to revisit the voter fraud issue comes during a tumultuous week, after Trump on Tuesday fired FBI Director James Comey. The administration cited Comey’s handling of the Clinton email probe, but Democrats also question what role his bureau investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 race played.
In a House Intelligence Committee hearing on Russian election tampering in March, voter fraud became a topic of questioning — Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked Comey if the FBI had any evidence that votes were changed in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, and Ohio, to which Comey answered “No.”
After winning the election, Trump singled out several states and claimed fraud in their voting system, but officials in those states insisted that his claims were unfounded.
So, do you think your voice regarding the federal government goes unheard? Actually it is heard and it is scored. At issue is whether any substantial corrections are made. This proposed legislation may help and it is a step at least in the right direction.
Most of us don’t bother to even voice or register complaints. Perhaps we should rethink that. Who even knew in the first place there was a tally operation on public comments and it is referred to as ‘customer service’? Hah…
Problem is there is not an agency does not have issues….okay then, let the games begin…read on.
Primer: OMB belongs to the White House:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) serves the President of the United States in overseeing the implementation of his vision across the Executive Branch. Specifically, OMB’s mission is to assist the President in meeting his policy, budget, management and regulatory objectives and to fulfill the agency’s statutory responsibilities.
OMB carries out its mission through five critical processes that are essential to the President’s ability to plan and implement his priorities across the Executive Branch:
Budget development and execution.
Management, including oversight of agency performance, human capital, Federal procurement, financial management, and information technology.
Regulatory policy, including coordination and review of all significant Federal regulations by executive agencies.
Sens. James Lankford, R-Okla., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Wednesday introduced the Federal Agency Customer Experience Act, bipartisan legislation that would simplify the process agencies go through to gather public feedback about their customer service.
The bill would roll back requirements that force agencies to go through lengthy approval processes to gather voluntary feedback from citizens and customers, and further creates both legislative and executive oversight mechanisms to oversee how agencies deliver services.
“The bill also directs agencies to post the results to their websites and requires them to use the feedback they receive to improve government services,” Lankford said in a statement. “We must do more to increase federal customer service and remove unnecessary requirements that make basic services tedious and overly bureaucratic.”
The legislation mandates agency heads—or designated officials—collect voluntary feedback from customers “with respect to services of or transactions” made by the agency.
Feedback would be gathered across all channels based on both standardized questions created in tandem by the leaders of the Office of Management and Budget director and the General Services Administration, and agency-specific questions developed by senior officials. Those questions would revolve around customer satisfaction, such as the professionalism and timeliness of federal action and potentially other metrics.
Agencies would be required to submit customer service reports based on the feedback they collect to OMB and to post it on their websites. In addition, the legislation would create a centralized website that links to all agencies’ customer service reports.
“Most people think interacting with the federal government is unpleasant—but at the same time we’re making it difficult for agencies to ask the public how they can improve—it makes no sense,” McCaskill said. “This law will allow the federal government to better identify specific customer service issues and start to implement changes to make the government work better for the American people.”
Congress, too, would get regular updates on how agencies perform with regards to customer service.
The bill would require the U.S. comptroller general to deliver scorecard reports “assessing the quality of services provided to the public” of agencies to the Senate.
Max Stier, CEO of the government-focused nonprofit Partnership for Public Service, said the Federal Agency Customer Experience Act will help agencies improve their service delivery.
“The important legislation introduced today by Sens. Lankford and McCaskill will allow agencies to continue to improve by helping them better understand the concerns of the public, continue to improve in the delivery of services and increase citizen satisfaction,” he said in a statement.
The case is presented in the other DoJ memo on Comey posted below. Just remember the Deputy Director of the FBI is Andrew McCabe, whose wife Jill, took up to $700,000 for campaign funds in her run for a political seat from Hillary Clinton’s friend Terry McAuliffe.
French presidential candidate Marcon was hacked on Friday before the Sunday voting. Per the NSA Chief, U.S. Tipped Off France on the Russia hacks. The U.S. tipped off France when it saw that Russians were carrying out cyberattacks targeting French President-elect Emmanuel Macron, NSA chief Adm. Mike Rogers told a Senate panel on Tuesday. Macron’s campaign revealed it was hacked just hours before a campaigning blackout in the country ahead of the presidential election on Sunday. Macron ended up handily defeating his rival, Putin-backed Marine Le Pen. “We had become aware of Russian activity. We had talked to our French counterparts and gave them a heads-up—‘Look, we’re watching the Russians. We’re seeing them penetrate some of your infrastructure. Here’s what we’ve seen. What can we do to try to assist?’” Rogers told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
*** Meanwhile….there is no strategy or policy position on U.S. cyber warfare. However…
The failure of the government to provide adequate protection has led many cybersecurity analysts, scholars, and policymakers to suggest that there is a need for private-sector self-help. If the government is unable or unwilling to take or threaten credible offensive actions to deter cyberattacks or to punish those who engage in them, it may be incumbent upon private-sector actors to take up an active defense. In other words, the private sector may wish to take actions that go beyond protective software, firewalls, and other passive screening methods—and instead actively deceive, identify, or retaliate against hackers to raise their costs for conducting cyberattacks. Taking into consideration U.S., foreign, and international law, the U.S. should expressly allow active defenses that annoy adversaries while allowing only certified actors to engage in attribution-level active defenses. More aggressive active defenses that could be considered counterattacks should be taken only by law enforcement or in close collaboration with them.
Key Takeaways
If the government is unable or unwilling to deter cyberattacks, it may be incumbent upon private-sector actors to take up an active defense.
Before the U.S. authorizes private hack back, it must consider not only U.S. laws, but also foreign and international laws governing cyberspace.
Congress should establish a new active cyber defense system that enables the private sector to identify and respond to hackers more effectively.
***
Heritage: Americans want their cyber data to be safe from prying eyes. They also want the government to be able to catch criminals. Can they have both?
It’s an especially pertinent question to ask at a time when concerns over Russian hacking are prevalent. Can we expose lawbreakers without also putting law-abiders at greater risk? After all, the same iPhone that makes life easier for ordinary Americans also makes life easier for criminals.
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. has described the operating system of the iPhone as “warrant-proof,” saying criminals are using the devices – encrypted by default – to their advantage. In one instance, he quoted an inmate who, ironically, called the iPhone a “gift from God.”
Divine involvement is a matter of debate, but there’s no question that when it comes to the choice of breaking the cybersecurity of criminals without also endangering the personal data of ordinary Americans, well, the devil is in the details.
This is especially true given the evolving nature of the threat. Even if we wanted to give the government access to all the metadata it wants (when, where, and who called), technology is moving away from phone calls to text messages and other non-telephony applications. Traditional metadata will be of limited use to law enforcement in pursuit of the savvy criminal of the future. Law enforcement needs to develop new strategies and investigative techniques without making us all prey.
It’s nearly impossible to assess the total monetary value for all successfully prosecuted cybercrimes in the U.S., let alone estimate the number of criminal cases that would have fallen apart without access to a smartphone’s data. The Department of Justice doesn’t publish such data. But, according to the 2014 Center for Strategic and International Studies report “Net Losses: Estimating the Global Cost of Cybercrime,” global cybercriminal activity is valued at $400 billion a year. Cybercrime damages trade, reduces competitiveness, and limits innovation and global growth.
The fundamental problem is that no one in the government is responsible for securing the internet for all of us. The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for safeguarding our nation’s critical infrastructure, yet the insecure internet presents cyberthreats to non-enterprise users affect individual security, safety and economic prosperity. Who is responsible for their security?
Some elements of the federal government are so focused on hunting down information against a few horrendous criminals that they don’t seem to realize they’re doing it at the expense of our right to privacy and online protection. We can appreciate their dedication in these noble causes, but the fact remains that the internet has become a host to more and more personal information ever since Steve Jobs introduced the first iPhone.
Since then, the smartphone has evolved to have much more control over our lives, homes and vehicles. There is no sign of less data being held in the cyberspace.
In attempting to square this cyber-circle, the government would be wise to take a cue from the medical profession, which uses the Hippocratic oath to dictate an underlying requirement to refrain from causing harm to patients.
There is no such oath for members of the Department of Justice. They simply affirm that they will faithfully execute their duties without affirming that they will do so without harming the citizenry as a whole.
DOJ lawyers focus on individual prosecutions. That is too narrow of a definition of success. It forces them to use all means they can muster to make their prosecutions successful with little or no consideration of the larger harm their efforts may cause to the population in general.
That is a problem today and will only be magnified in the coming years as technology advances and the gap between those advances and the DOJ’s understanding of them widens. Within this environment, where insecurity breed’s criminality and stopping individual high-value criminals can motivate the DOJ to undermine security, one can only wonder, who is responsible for our security?
The world has changed. A new paradigm is needed to ensure the safety and security of all American’s data predicated on applying airtight security to our data. There is no return to the past. Perhaps the Trump administration will make this need for security a priority in a manner the previous administration did not.
This is a product of Politico but with shame, Politico wanted to add the race and gender as a twist to the article. Anyway, this Trump White House is busy for sure.
Zimbio
The process and methodology on how Politico compile this report and summary is noted at the base of the post.
The people who have met with Donald Trump since he became president tend to have a lot in common, according to a databasePOLITICO compiled from public documents, media accounts and its own reporting: They’re mostly male, largely Republican and often rich.
Of the more than 1,200 people who have had direct access to the president as of Monday night, the majority — about 80 percent — are white. And almost 63 percent are white men.
Trump has huddled with at least 270 business executives and nearly 350 politicians — mainly Republicans but also dozens of Democrats. And he’s met in person or spoken by phone with 47 world leaders, most often the leaders of Japan and Germany, plus a vast grab bag of other figures, from pro golfers to rocker Ted Nugent to Matt Drudge.
Aside from Democrats in Congress, Trump has met with relatively few ideological opponents, according to the data. But there have been a number of exceptions: Zeke Emanuel, a doctor who served in the Obama administration and helped design Obamacare, took part in an Oval Office discussion in March, and the president has spoken with several CEOs who had previously donated to Democratic politicians.
This database is inevitably incomplete, partly because the White House — unlike the Obama administration — refuses to release a public log of its visitors. (Barack Obama’s version was not a full record of all his meetings either, of course.) Official White House media advisories about Trump’s activities have also left out information at times, failing to mention his encounters with Drudge or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.
But POLITICO has compiled its own log, drawn from sources including White House schedules, news stories and pool reports filed by reporters who follow the president’s travels. The dataset is the most comprehensive public list available of the people who have had access to the president since Jan. 20, either in the White House, on the phone or in locations such as Mar-a-Lago.
Information about who meets with the president would be valuable to understanding any administration, offering a window into the range of interest groups and personalities that have an opportunity to shape the White House’s deliberations. That may be doubly true for Trump, who has been known to make decisions on the fly based on even brief conversations — for example, the 10-minute exchange with Chinese President Xi Jinping that he says changed his thinking about China’s influence on North Korea.
People who have met with Trump say he has a surprisingly informal and improvisational style, sometimes scheduling last-minute meetings after seeing people on cable television. The president is said to make frequent calls at night to his friends and trusted outside advisers, and he often holds court with Mar-a-Lago members during his trips to the club in Palm Beach, Florida.
The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment on this story.
POLITICO will continue to update its records based on feedback from readers and sources inside and outside the administration. For now, here’s a breakdown of what it has found:
Business executives
Trump has talked to or appeared at events with at least 270 business executives, from JPMorgan Chase chief Jamie Dimon to PepsiCo’s Indra Nooyi and United Airlines’ Oscar Munoz.
About 75 percent of the executives who have gotten time with Trump are white men, according to POLITICO’s analysis. That lack of diversity also reflects the reality at many large companies: According to Forbes, women made up just 4.2 percent of the CEOs last year at the 500 largest U.S. companies. And a recent study found that women and minorities make up just 31 percent of the 500 largest U.S. companies’ boards.
Executives representing the finance, manufacturing, auto and energy industries met with Trump most frequently, according to POLITICO’s analysis.
Although all presidents have met with business leaders, Trump, a career businessman, seems particularly comfortable with them. These meetings also foster the public view Trump cultivated while sitting in the biggest chair in the boardroom on his TV series Celebrity Apprentice.
Meg Jacobs, a research scholar at Princeton University who has studied business-government relations, said the meetings with executives project the image “that he can get deals done, he’s a negotiator, a wheeler-dealer and he’s loved and effective.”
And this comfort with CEOs comes across in their meetings. Corporate heads who have met with Trump describe him as curious about which regulations hurt their bottom lines.
“He’s not, from the normal characterization of him, or even from his own tweets sometimes, what you would expect,” said Robert Murray, an outspoken Trump supporter who heads the coal company Murray Energy.
During the campaign, Trump spoke out against Wall Street and Big Business, running as a populist who would “drain the swamp” of Washington influence. For any executive who may have found that rhetoric unnerving, publicly meeting with CEOs sends a reassuring message that Trump will follow the classic Republican playbook of tax cuts and deregulation.
“Not a single member of the Obama administration made anyone from the coal industry welcome, nor would they give us any meetings,” said Murray, who has appeared with Trump twice since he took office. “We have a government now that’s wanting to hear on behalf of the electric power grid and the coal miners.”
Business executives’ priorities often align closely with Trump’s policy agenda. Murray, for example, said the administration has already tackled the first four agenda items on a list of policy recommendations he provided to Trump and Vice President Mike Pence.
Watchdog groups expressed concern over Trump’s heavy interaction with executives.
“There’s a risk of crony capitalism. Individual business leaders are very good at advocating for their individual company’s situation,” said Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations at the Project on Government Oversight. “That does not necessarily translate to being better for the economy as a whole.”
Foreign leaders
Trump has spoken to or met with at least 47 world leaders since his inauguration. He has most frequently been in contact with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, British Prime Minister Theresa May and China’s Xi, based on POLITICO’s analysis.
Abe and Merkel are tied in the data for the most publicly announced interactions with the president, with the records showing that each leader has met with or talked to Trump seven times. Those include their visits to the United States, where Merkel huddled with Trump at the White House and Abe visited Mar-a-Lago.
Who is President Trump meeting with?
47 Foreign leaders
Trump’s meetings reflect his foreign policy objectives, including concerns about North Korea’s aggression — Trump has spoken with South Korea’s acting president, Hwang Kyo-ahn, at least three times — and his ongoing deliberation about how to interact with the European Union.
The president has also made frequent contact with Middle Eastern and North African leaders, including Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi (two phone calls and one in-person meeting), Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi (two phone calls and one in-person meeting) and Tunisian President Beji Caid Essebsi (three phone calls), as well as top officials from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
Politicians
Trump has wooed nearly 350 politicians of both parties since taking office. And according to POLITICO’s data, congressional Republican leaders Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise have been his most regular guests as he pursued priorities including his push for health care legislation.
But Trump has also met with Democrats, including critics like Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who later said he had told the president his rhetoric has been “hurtful” to African-Americans. Democratic House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer also got time with Trump.
Still, his meetings have had a decidedly partisan tilt: He’s met with at least 250 Republican politicians and 92 Democrats, according to POLITICO’s records.
One of Trump’s home-state senators and frequent sparring partners, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), has visited the White House at least five times. Trump has also seemingly taken a liking to Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the moderate West Virginian who faces a contentious reelection fight in 2018 in a state Trump won handily. Trump and Manchin have met at least four times, more than any other Democratic senator except Schumer.
He’s also mingled with his former rivals on the campaign trail more than other Republican senators, based on the data. Trump has met with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at least five times, and with Ted Cruz of Texas and Rand Paul of Kentucky at least four times apiece, including a golf outing with Paul.
Alaska’s Republican senators, Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, have both had above-average face time with the president, with at least five interactions for Sullivan and four for Murkowski.
One early Trump supporter, Georgia Republican Sen. David Perdue, has been rewarded for his loyalty, with at least five interactions with the president. The first-term senator is said to be close to members of Trump’s inner circle.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott has been Trump’s most frequent gubernatorial guest, with at least four interactions. He’s also met at least three times with New Jersey’s Chris Christie, a former presidential rival who briefly headed his transition, and is said to speak with Christie more frequently.
Cabinet secretaries
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson spent Trump’s earliest weeks enduring a reputation as a social outcast in the administration. But his stock has risen as he’s taken a leading role on Syria, Russia, North Korea and China — and the records show he has had more publicly disclosed direct contact with Trump than anyone else in the Cabinet.
Tillerson has met with the president at least 22 times, according to the analysis.
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, national security adviser H.R. McMaster and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao also have had frequent interactions with Trump.
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has also emerged as one of Trump’s go-to Cabinet officials, having joined the president repeatedly at Mar-a-Lago.
Others appear to have spent little time with Trump. POLITICO could document only four instances in which Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson has met with the president since he’s taken office, and just three for Energy Secretary Rick Perry.
The rest
Trump has met with a wide range of other figures. Trump welcomed Palin, Nugent and musician Kid Rock in April to the White House, where they posed mockingly underneath a portrait of Hillary Clinton.
An avid golfer, Trump played rounds with Rory McIlroy and Ernie Els on one of his Florida golf courses in February, which led to online blowback from some of the golfers’ fans. Former Yankees closer Mariano Rivera also sat down with Trump as part of a meeting on the opioid epidemic.
Trump reunited with friends Robert Kraft and Bill Belichick when they visited the White House with their Super Bowl champion New England Patriots in April. Some Patriots skipped the event to protest Trump’s policies, though Trump friend Tom Brady was absent as well. Team owner Kraft, a frequent guest at Mar-a-Lago, has enjoyed unprecedented access to the president, even sitting in on his dinner at the Palm Beach resort with the Japanese prime minister.
Trump has held more traditional meetings and photo opportunities, ranging from the presidents of historically black colleges and universities to Medal of Honor recipients. He’s also met with female small-business leaders and America’s national and state teachers of the year.
The president has also engaged conservative leaders during his first 100 days, meeting with them to discuss health care, abortion and other topics of interest. Former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has been spotted at the White House, as has conservative radio firebrand Laura Ingraham. Fox News mogul Rupert Murdoch reportedly speaks with Trump weekly, and Fox anchor and Trump defender Sean Hannity also advises the president.
Trump has also granted at least 33 interviews with at least 22 news outlets since taking office, not counting off-the-record meetings. While Fox has been Trump’s outlet of choice, The New York Times places second in access to the president, with Times political correspondent Maggie Haberman interviewing him at least three times.
Methodology
This analysis includes publicly available information, media reports and POLITICO reporting regarding meetings President Donald Trump has held since his inauguration. This includes executive order signings, White House meetings, public appearances, phone calls and interactions at Mar-a-Lago. Some events, such as the White House Easter egg roll, inauguration and others were not included because interactions with the president were superficial.
The analysis does not include Trump’s meetings with White House aides or meetings held by Vice President Mike Pence or other administration officials. Trump family members are also not included. It is limited by access to full guest lists as well as knowledge about whom Trump speaks with daily.
Individuals’ races were determined according to definitions used by the U.S. Census Bureau, except in the case of Hispanics, who were treated as a separate racial group for the purposes of this database.
The case is presented in the other DoJ memo on Comey posted below. Just remember the Deputy Director of the FBI is Andrew McCabe, whose wife 
Zimbio
