Mike Posner has officially completed his closely-watched 3,000-mile walk across America.
The singer-songwriter started in Asbury Park, New Jersey six months ago in April and finished in Venice Beach, California on Friday.
“My name is Mike Posner and I walked across America,” Posner said on Twitter, as he stood at the shore of the Pacific Ocean. “Keep Going.”
“Just coming towards the end of my journey here, which is really just the beginning. It’s a feeling I don’t really know how to describe,” Posner posted to Facebook.
According to the “Cooler Than Me” singer’s “Walk Across America” website, his mission was simply to enjoy his life and help others enjoy theirs — and to “help others experience transcendence.”
His goals included to “leave each town we go through a little bit better than when we arrived,” to “practice deep listening,” to “love everybody,” to “sing for people,” and to enjoy the journey. He invited others to join in portions of his journey.
Posner’s trek was no walk in the park, however. In August, he was bitten by a rattlesnake and had to be airlifted to a Colorado hospital.
“Whatup doe!!! Crazy day yesterday!” the 31-year-old post to Instagram. “I had just crushed 16 miles and was going for 8 more when I got bit by a baby rattlesnake! That venom is no joke! I got to the hospital and got the anti-venom in time. Shout outs to G and Mike from the chopper team and Bo and Cassie and Whitney (my nurses).”
“I feel everyone has a list of things they’d like to do in life and then a list of things they have to do,” Posner said. “After (the deaths) I realized I couldn’t wait to do these things I had to do on that list. I’d been putting (the walk) off for years and years and years. The time is now.”
“This cannot continue. Barcelona does not deserve it,” Mayor Ada Colau told reporters, adding that Friday protests — which also drew over a half a million pro-independence supporters to Spain’s capital, Madrid— was the most violent.
Protestors stand by a burning barricade in Barcelona, Spain, Saturday, Oct. 19, 2019. Radical separatists have clashed with police each night in Barcelona and other Catalan cities following huge peaceful protests of people angered by Monday’s Supreme Court verdict that sentenced nine separatist leaders to prison. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)
More than 500 people have been reported injured over the five days of demonstrations– 18 remain hospitalized with serious injuries– and nearly 150 have been arrested, but police have not been able to quell the violence. Rioters burned hundreds of trash bins and hurled gasoline bombs, chunks of pavement, acid, and firecrackers, among other objects, at police. They have used nails to puncture the tires of police vans and fireworks to hit one police helicopter, but no serious damage was reported.
Pro-independence supporters scuffle with rioters trying to set up barricades on the street near a pro-independence demonstration in Barcelona, Spain, Saturday, Oct. 19, 2019. Radical separatists have clashed with police each night in Barcelona and other Catalan cities following huge peaceful protests of people angered by Monday’s Supreme Court verdict that sentenced nine separatist leaders to prison. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti)
Catalonia’s regional police and Spain’s national police fought back using batons, rubber and foam bullets, tear gas and water cannons. At least 101 police officers were injured in Friday’s riots alone, and 264 police vehicles have been damaged throughout the week, according to Spanish Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska.
“The images of organized violence during the night in Barcelona have overshadowed the half a million people who demonstrated in a peaceful and civic manner to show they rejected the verdict,” Catalan interior chief Miquel Buch, who oversees the regional police said.
Riot police get ready in Barcelona, Spain, Saturday, Oct. 19, 2019. Barcelona and the rest of the restive Spanish region of Catalonia are reeling from five straight days of violent protests for the sentencing of 12 separatist leaders to lengthy prison sentences.The riots have broken out at nightfall following huge peaceful protests each day since Monday’s Supreme Court verdict. (AP Photo/Manu Fernandez)
Minister Grande-Marlaska asked Catalonia’s regional president to explicitly condemn the escalating violence and express his support for law enforcement officials.
“We have gone five days in which there has not been a firm condemnation of violence” by Catalan leader Quim Torra, Grande-Marlaska said.
Lawrence and Maroney were first linked in 2018 and got engaged in February 2019 and then celebrated with a party in May in New York City. In September, the two were spotted obtaining a marriage license in the city.
Although Maroney has not publicly walked a red carpet with Lawrence, she has gushed about him in interviews.
Actress Jennifer Lawrence and her boyfriend, art dealer Cooke Maroney, are engaged after Maroney popped the question. (Backgrid)
“He’s just the best person I’ve ever met in my whole life,” she told Entertainment Tonight. “It was a very, very easy decision.”
While appearing on Catt Sadler’s podcast, NAKED, in June, Lawrence said, “I just met Cooke, and I wanted to marry him.”
“We wanted to marry each other. We wanted to commit fully. And, you know, he’s my best friend. I feel very honored to become a Maroney,” she added.
Lawrence also described her low-key wedding planning attitude. “I haven’t been neurotic about it,” she admitted. “I’m too lazy to be neurotic. I like saw a dress I liked. I said, ‘Oh, that’s the dress.’ I saw a venue, and I was like, ‘Cool, we got the venue.'”
Cooke Maroney and Jennifer Lawrence Celebrities at New York Rangers v Buffalo Sabres NHL ice hockey match. (JD Images/Shutterstock)
But Larence did admit that she freaked out about one thing — her bachelorette party.
“I cried because I thought I didn’t want to have a bachelorette party, and then last minute I decided I did. Then nobody was available because it was last minute. And then I started crying,” she described. “I was like, ‘I don’t even know why I’m crying. I didn’t know that I wanted a bachelorette party. I guess I just feel pathetic.’ [Maroney] was like, ‘Oh my god, you don’t need to feel pathetic.’”
Lawrence was previously in relationships with British actor Nicholas Hoult from 2010 to 2014, musician and Coldplay frontman Chris Martin from June 2014 to August 2015, and director Darren Aronofsky from August 2016 to October 2017.
Senator Bernie Sanders wanted a show of force to convince voters he was back from his heart attack, and he produced one on Saturday: At his first rally since the episode just two and a half weeks ago, he reveled in one of the most coveted endorsements in the Democratic Party, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Drawing loud cheers from a large, enthusiastic and diverse crowd that had packed into a park in Queens next to a public housing complex, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez offered resounding words of support, for both Mr. Sanders and his influence in shaping the Democratic primary.
“No one wanted to question the system, and in 2016, he fundamentally changed politics in America,” she said, minutes before Mr. Sanders joined her on the stage. “We right now have one of the best Democratic presidential primary fields in a generation and much of that is thanks to the work that Bernie Sanders has done in his entire life.”
Mr. Sanders declared himself “so delighted” that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez had thrown her support behind his campaign, hailing her as “an inspiration to millions of young people not just here in New York but across this country who now understand the importance of political participation and standing up for justice.”
Mr. Sanders said the crowd exceeded the 20,000 people the campaign had secured a permit for. Campaign officials, keen to affirm Mr. Sanders’s resilience and mindful of the big crowd Senator Elizabeth Warren attracted to her rally last month in Washington Square Park, said more than 25,000 people turned out.
During his remarks, Ms. Sanders also briefly and somewhat indirectly, addressed his health. “I am happy to report to you that I am more than ready, more ready than ever, to carry on with you the epic struggle that we face today,” he said. “I am more than ready to assume the office of president of the United States.”
“To put it bluntly,” he added, “I am back.”
It was a theme that dominated the afternoon, as progressive activists and leaders paraded onto the stage to extend their own words of encouragement.
There was his wife, Jane Sanders, who declared him “healthy” and “more than ready to continue his lifelong struggle to fight for the working people of America.”
There was Michael Moore, the filmmaker, who said he was “glad” Mr. Sanders was 78. “We will benefit from his wisdom.”
And there was Tiffany Cabán, who nearly won the Queens district attorney race earlier this year; Carmen Yulin Cruz, the mayor of San Juan, and Nina Turner, a vocal supporter at his rallies on the campaign trail.
Beyond serving as a show of strength, their presence aligned with a more unifying, inclusive message his campaign is aggressively trying to project.
At the end of his address, he urged audience members to look around and find someone they didn’t know. Then he asked a series of questions designed to promote a sense of unity.
“Are you willing to fight for that person who you don’t even know as much as you’re willing to fight for yourself?” he asked. “Are you willing to fight for young people drowning in student debt even if you are not? Are you willing to fight to ensure that every American has health care as a human right even if you have good health care? Are you willing to fight for frightened immigrant neighbors even if you are native born?”
Last week, the Sanders campaign announced that Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who along with Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is one of the most prominent left-wing women in Congress, had also endorsed him.
The pair of endorsements, jolted the primary race, signaling that Mr. Sanders was still a formidable contender just as it had increasingly seemed like a contest between Ms. Warren and former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. They also shifted the conversation away from his health issues and his age, infusing his campaign with a renewed sense of vitality.
“There’s been some degree of criticism over all — Bernie Sanders can’t win because his movement is tapped out,” Faiz Shakir, Mr. Sanders’s campaign manager, said. “This discounted that.”
But if the endorsements were an obvious indication that Mr. Sanders was not ready to surrender the party’s left flank to Ms. Warren, it is not clear how much they will ultimately change the race — in part because there are signs that voters are not taking their cues from endorsements.
Ms. Warren, for instance, has attracted huge crowds, posted some of the biggest fund-raising numbers, and surged to the top of national and early-state polls despite lacking endorsements from a single governor, big-city mayor or senator outside her home state. At the same time, Senator Kamala Harris of California is struggling to gain momentum even though she has the backing of politicians across the country, including her state’s governor, Gavin Newsom.
Mr. Sanders’s endorsements could inject fresh energy into a campaign that in some respects needed it badly. Consistently trailing Mr. Biden and Ms. Warren in recent polls and struggling to expand his base, he spent the last two weeks facing a barrage of questions about his health. His campaign made a show of financial strength this month when it reported it had collected $25.3 million between July and September — the most of any candidate in that period — but the announcement was quickly eclipsed by the news of his heart attack.
Mr. Sanders’s aides are also confident that the women will motivate young people, a group that was critical to his success in 2016 and that his allies know he must win over again, both in term of perception and for actual votes.
“I don’t think anyone would question or doubt that they, more than a lot of people, have the ability to inspire young people,” Mr. Shakir said, referring to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar. “That in itself is going to be tremendous.”
The endorsements underscore how Mr. Sanders is striving to portray himself as the candidate furthest to the left. In recent months, as support for Ms. Warren has swelled, Mr. Sanders has unveiled policy proposals that have gone beyond hers — including plans to completely eliminate student debt and medical debt, and to impose a wealth tax that would apply to more households and is steeper for rich people than the one Ms. Warren has proposed.
Several Democratic officials and strategists said the endorsements of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar — and possibly Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan — could stoke enthusiasm among the far left and perhaps prompt some of Ms. Warren’s supporters to take a second look at Mr. Sanders.
But some said the endorsements might not do much to grow his existing coalition, pointing out that the two women carry a similar anti-establishment, populist message that already appeals to Mr. Sanders’s voter base. Some suggested the endorsements could even help Ms. Warren by making her appear more moderate and pragmatic in comparison with Mr. Sanders.
Though Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar have a big following nationally, and have become preferred targets of President Trump’s, their support may not help woo voters, particularly in critical early states.
Jess Morales Rocketto, a Democratic strategist who worked on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, said that the endorsements could give Mr. Sanders a fund-raising bump and more news media attention. But she was skeptical that the new support would sway undecided voters.
“I don’t know that a congresswoman from New York, one from Minnesota, one from Michigan are super influential to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina,” she said.
Mr. Sanders’s allies said the visual imagery alone — an older man standing with younger women of color — could be enough of a benefit, especially as he continues to fight the perception that his voter base is skewed white and male.
Cori Bush, who was endorsed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez in her unsuccessful bid for Congress last year in St. Louis, said the endorsements from the two women “knocks away that whole Bernie Bro idea.”
She also said their support “wipes away the idea that maybe he’s not the progressive champion anymore.”
Last month, the Working Families Party, an influential liberal group that backed Mr. Sanders in 2016, endorsed Ms. Warren. The announcement infuriated his supporters. But it also sent a message: It was time for progressives to pick a side and start organizing.
Maurice Mitchell, the Working Families Party’s national director, dismissed the notion that the dueling endorsements would splinter the left.
“We’ve said from the beginning that progressives need to get involved, and that’s exactly what they did,” he said, referring to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar. “It’s a good thing for our movement that folks choose one of these candidates.”
Mr. Mitchell said his group — which endorsed Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s opponent, then-Representative Joseph Crowley, in the 2018 primary — planned to marshal its network of volunteers across the country to work with voters to nominate Ms. Warren.
What is less obvious is the role Ms. Ocasio-Cortez and Ms. Omar will play for the Sanders campaign. Waleed Shahid, the communications director for the progressive group Justice Democrats, which helped propel Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional campaign, said the two women could mobilize their own networks of volunteers and donors. He pointed to Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s influence this year in the Democratic primary for district attorney in Queens, where her support for Ms. Cabán helped to nearly lift her to victory.
And because the two congresswomen represent the activist base of the party, he said, they could galvanize progressive activists around the country.
But perhaps above all, the endorsements will help dispel questions about Mr. Sanders’s viability post-heart attack, he said.
Already, there are some indications the strategy could be working.
“I don’t know if it makes him seem less old,” Rashaun Durden, 29, said on Saturday as he waited for Mr. Sanders’s rally to begin. “But I think it shows that the young generation still wants to support him regardless of his age.”
Ever feel like your smartphone is becoming an extension of yourself? This newly developed phone case breaks down even more barriers between you and your phone with a life-like “skin” which alleged responds to human contact such as pinching and tickling.
Marc Teyssier and his colleagues at Telecom Paris in France have devised an artificial skin for technology devices that detects and interprets a variety of gestures. For example, slapping the case indicates anger, and pinching or pulling its skin indicates an upset user. If a user tickles the accessory, it releases a laughing emoji onto the phone.
“I wanted to pinch my phone,” Teyssier told the New Scientist when asked why he designed such a skin.
In a paper released Saturday, researchers build on a long history of artificial skin in the field of robotics to harvest “interactive properties of the skin that are specifically useful for human computer interaction.” In essence, the researchers believe the phone skin could increase user expressiveness.
The researchers developed “Skin-On” prototypes for smartphones, touchpads and also a wristband for smartwatches. According to the paper, “Skin-On interfaces provide natural physical affordances,” meaning users are more likely to explore the interface and discover new controls.
The creepily realistic skin layer is comprised of one layer of stretchable copper wire in between two layers of silicone. Applying pressure on the skin changes the electrical charge of the wiring.
The Telecom team’s work will be presented this week at the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology in New Orleans.
The team has big plans for the future, such as to make the skin more realistic with embedded hair and temperature features. They may also look to include larger surfaces, as they said one participant put forth the idea of a Skin-On wall. Their paper also mentioned changing the texture of the skin, such as with sweat or goosebumps, to indicate disgust or frustration.
“More generally, our goal is to further explore various types of anthropomorphism towards human-like devices,” the paper concluded.
“The idea is perhaps a bit surprising, but skin is an interface we are highly familiar with so why not use it and its richness with the devices we use every day?” Dr. Anne Roudaut, a professor in Human-Computer Interaction at the University of Bristol and co-author of the study, said in a press release.
“This work explores the intersection between man and machine,” Roudaut said, according to Popular Mechanics. “We have seen many works trying to augment humans with parts of machines, here we look at the other way around and try to make the devices we use every day more like us, i.e. human-like.”
SportsPulse: USA TODAY Sports’ Paul Myerberg provides his opinion of the top three programs in the history of college football. USA TODAY
CHAMPAIGN, Ill. – Illinois deserved this moment.
Thirty-one point underdogs, the Illinois players celebrated on the field with several thousand of their fans from the announced crowd of 37,363 Saturday afternoon at Memorial Stadium.
James McCourt’s 39-yard field goal as time expired gave the Illini a 24-23 victory over No. 6 Wisconsin and the right to linger on the field as long as they wanted.
Just as surely, Wisconsin coach Paul Chryst and his players deserved to feel every bit of anger, disappointment or disbelief after losing for the first time this season.
The offense stalled in the red zone, twice settling for field goals after moving inside the 10, and suffered two critical turnovers in the final 7 minutes, 12 seconds.
Illinois turned those turnovers – a fumble by Jonathan Taylor at the Illinois 19 after a 6-yard gain on second-and-3 and Jack Coan’s third-down interception at the Illinois 47 with 2:32 left – into 10 points to rally for the victory. Overall, the Illini turned three turnovers into 17 points.
The Badgers defense made critical stops at times but also gave up too many big plays, thanks in part to gaping holes at the line of scrimmage and missed tackles in the secondary. That included a pass of 18 yards, a run of 22 yards and a 29-yard touchdown pass on the Illini’s four-play, 75-yard drive after Taylor’s fumble.
Wisconsin’s special teams again faltered, and for the first time this season that miscue contributed to a loss.
Collin Larsh hit field goals of 24, 44 and 20 yards but his miss from 37 yards with 2:39 remaining in the third quarter left the Badgers’ lead at 20-7.
“Its on me,” said Larsh, who has made 6 of 10 field-goal attempts this season. “I just mishit the ball, left it out right.
Taylor, who became the fourth Bowl Subdivision player to reach the 5,000-yard rushing mark in his first three seasons, acknowledged those who watched the Badgers stumble Saturday likely came to the conclusion that perhaps this team is less formidable and more vulnerable than many thought after six victories.
“I think people will probably say that,” said Taylor, who finished with 132 yards and a touchdown on 28 carries. “Especially because we weren’t executing.
“We didn’t do a good job protecting the ball. The coaches do a good job all week of game-planning and scheming all week and they cut us loose on Saturdays. We’ve got to do a (better) job of making those plays come to life.”
The loss dropped Wisconsin (6-1, 3-1 Big Ten) one game behind Minnesota (7-0, 4-0) in the Big Ten West Division, with the Gophers playing Saturday at Rutgers.
It also removed much of the luster ahead of the Badgers traveling to No. 4 Ohio State (7-0, 4-0), which less than 24 hours earlier remained unbeaten by decimating Northwestern.
“It definitely sucks,” tight end Jake Ferguson said. “Put it behind us and it is all about prep for next week.”
The players will begin preparing Sunday to face an Ohio State that appears more talented across the board than Wisconsin.
But first, they’ll re-examine all that went wrong against an Illinois (3-4, 1-3), a team that surrendered 34 points to Eastern Michigan, 42 to Nebraska 40 to Minnesota and 42 to Michigan during a four-game losing streak.
They’ll wonder why they settled for a 24-yard field goal by Larsh for a 10-0 lead early in the second quarter after moving to first and goal at the 7. Taylor rushed for 1 yard on first down; Coan threw incomplete to Quintez Cephus on second down; and Taylor was stuffed for no gain on third down.
They’ll wonder why they settled for a 20-yard field goal by Larsh and a 23-14 lead with 9:46 remaining in the game after moving to first and goal at the 3. Taylor gained 1 yard on first down; fullback John Chenal gained 1 yard on second down; and Chenal got the ball again on third down and this time lost a yard.
The decision to give the ball to Chenal rather than Taylor on third down was dubious but the blocking all three runs wasn’t good enough.
“You win ball games by getting the ball in the end zone,” said senior guard David Moorman, who got extensive playing time with Jason Erdmann hampered by an unspecified injury.
Logan Bruss, who played right tackle and right guard, Saturday, agreed. Wisconsin moved the ball well at times and finished with 420 yards but championship finish drives with touchdowns, not field goals.
“I think we moved the ball pretty well,” he said. “But we didn’t make the plays when we needed to make them.”
The Badgers entered the day with four shutouts on their record, having allowed a total of four touchdowns and 29 points in six games (342 plays).
The Illini generated three touchdowns and a field goal in just 56 plays. They burned Wisconsin’s defense with a 48-yard touchdown pass from Brandon Peters to Donny Navarro to pull within 10-7. Reggie Corbin ripped off 43-yard touchdown run through the middle of the defense made the score 20-14 in the final minute of the third quarter. And Peters hit Josh Imatorbhebhe for a 29-yard touchdown to cap the 75-yard drive after Taylor’s fumble.
Linebacker Jake Hansen, who entered the day with five forced fumbles, had the hit that forced Taylor to fumble.
He walked into the Illinois interview room puffing on a cigar.
“Thirty-one point underdogs, huh?” he asked to anyone willing to listen. “It’ a big (expletive) you.”
Wisconsin’s coaches and players had no recourse to let the Illini celebrate Saturday. The Illini earned this victory. The Badgers earned this stunning defeat.
“I don’t think we played very well,” senior outside linebacker Zack Baun said. “I feel like we didn’t have the fire we had in previous games going in.
“It’s not like we weren’t prepared. It’s not like we didn’t know what they were going to run. They ran all the stuff we expected. …
“We’ve got to do a better job in the second half. They stuck around and took advantage of opportunities and just made more plays than we did.”
I was one of 60 members of the House of Representatives to vote against the resolution condemning President Trump’s removal of American troops from the Syrian conflict zone. I did this because America simply has no business protecting the Turkish or Syrian borders – instead, we should refocus our efforts and energy to protect our own weak borders.
Our Founding Fathers envisioned a nation that limited the power of government, empowered the individual, and could stand the test of time. The Constitution’s brilliance is often found in its simplicity. Enshrined in this simple, yet powerful document is one of the most consequential powers: to authorize the use of military force. This power belongs to Congress, and to Congress alone.
The Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) has been passed by Congress several times.
In September 2001 Congress authorized President Bush to use military force to combat Al Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan following the attacks of 9/11.
More from Opinion
Then in October 2002, Congress passed a second AUMF authorizing military action in Iraq following reports that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
If a president is going to send American troops into combat, he should have the moral courage to honor the Constitution, allow Congress to declare war, and then fight to win.
While there was no AUMF passed to authorize military action in Syria, it is exactly where we have found ourselves since President Barack Obama’s decision to strike in 2013.
My position remains the same today as it did when I spoke on the House floor in 2013: Without congressional approval, we have no business in Syria. Congress never voted to send troops to Syria, but found the courage to pass a resolution condemning President Trump’s removal of troops from Syria. That is the simplest reason for why I voted against it.
Beyond the clear constitutional parameters that enable a president and Congress to authorize military action, the Syrian conflict stuck American troops in a messy proxy war against Russia, aligned with less than ideal strategic partners.
The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a militant group, designated by the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization. The PKK is a coalition of Maoists, Marxist-Leninists and other Communists. While America shares a common enemy with the PKK – the Islamic State (ISIS) – the PKK doesn’t share American ideals or have anything else in common with Western values.
As a member of NATO, the United States is a treaty-bound ally of Turkey. While Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may not be the ideal ally, we are legally obligated to defend Turkey.
I’ve had enough of our good men and women getting killed and wounded in battles that have no valid U.S. interests at stake.
During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union also shared a common enemy: Nazi Germany. Working together, the Allies defeated the Axis forces and the world was saved from evil. Immediately following our victory over the Axis powers, the Soviet Union and the United States entered the Cold War.
In the same fashion, the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS was formed in 2014 and has been remarkably successful in part because of American leadership, and with the help of Kurdish forces.
Now that the ISIS caliphate has been defeated, there is simply no reason for American troops to remain fighting an endless and unauthorized war. President Trump promised he would bring our troops home, stop endless wars, and defeat ISIS. That is exactly what his decision will do.
Instead of fighting wars for other countries and involving ourselves in proxy wars in the Middle East, we are putting America first.
The power to authorize military force belongs to Congress, and to Congress alone. If our great republic is to stand the test of time, we must honor our constitutional obligations and duties.
I say to those politicians who want more war: bring it to the floor of Congress, make your case and let us vote. Put your position firmly in the record. As for me, I’ve had enough of our good men and women getting killed and wounded in battles that have no valid U.S. interests at stake.
The store opened its “pilot” location on Oct. 10 in Reading, which is about an hour and a half drive from London. A mall spokesperson said concerns raised by activists about the chain have made them determine “the right thing to do” is not to extend the restaurant’s lease beyond the “six-month pilot period,” according to reports by BBC.
The restaurant has long faced pushback from LGBTQ groups who have attacked CEO Dan Cathy after he repeatedly made comments condemning homosexuality and gay marriage and donating $1.8 million in 2017 to groups that spread anti-LGBTQ rhetoric, according to reports by Think Progress.
Chick-fil-A defended the donations saying they were intended to “help with economic mobility of young people by focusing on homelessness and poverty, education, and community revitalization, and is done with no political or social agenda,” according to a company statement in March.
Cathy has openly said that America is “inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at him and say we know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,” in a 2012 radio interview.
“I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude that thinks we have the audacity to redefine what marriage is all about,” he added at the time.
LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a stinging defeat on Saturday as Parliament rebuffed his campaign to take Britain out of the European Union by the end of the month and forced him to seek an extension that he had vowed never to pursue.
The turbulent events left Mr. Johnson’s agreement in limbo and threw British politics once again into chaos, with any number of outcomes possible: a no-deal exit from the European Union, a second referendum on whether to leave at all, or a general election that could shift the balance in Parliament. The only sure result was continuing frustration and confusion among the British public.
Late on Saturday night, Mr. Johnson formally applied to the European Union, in an unsigned letter, for another extension of Britain’s departure, something he said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than do.
Mr. Johnson sent a separate signed letter to the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, in which he said a “further extension would damage the interests of the U.K. and our E.U. partners, and the relationship between us.”
“We are now reaching a crucial moment in the Brexit crisis,” organizers of Saturday’s rally in London said.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times
The conflicting letters left it to the European Union to decide how to respond to Mr. Johnson. Most analysts expected it would grant an extension, though that was unlikely to clarify the muddled situation in London.
It capped a dramatic day of legislative maneuvering in which lawmakers debated Mr. Johnson’s deal while enormous crowds of anti-Brexit protesters marched outside Parliament. Mr. Johnson implored lawmakers to approve the agreement, which would pave the way for Britain to leave the European Union at the end of the month.
The prime minister argued that it was the best deal Britain could hope to strike — one that, in his telling, would position the country for a thriving future as an agile, free agent in the global economy — and that any further delay would be “pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.”
Instead, by a vote of 322 to 306, lawmakers passed a last-minute amendment, brought by Oliver Letwin, an expelled member of Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party, that would delay final approval on the agreement until after Parliament passes the detailed legislation to enact it.
How Parliament Voted on a Measure that Disrupted Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal
Scottish Nat. Party
Scottish Nat. Party
A defiant Mr. Johnson said he would push for another vote on his agreement early next week. But that could present opponents with an opportunity to try to amend his plan.
“I’m not daunted or dismayed by this particular result,” Mr. Johnson said.
Still, it was a stinging setback for the prime minister — and as with his previous defeats in Parliament, one that came at the hands of a former member of his own party.
Mr. Letwin, a veteran Conservative lawmaker, was purged from the party last month for supporting a law intended to prevent Britain from leaving the European Union without any agreement, which many see as risking a disorderly, economically damaging rupture.
Mr. Letwin, who supports Mr. Johnson’s Brexit deal, argued that the amendment was simply a safety net to prevent pro-Brexit hard-liners from sabotaging the implementing legislation and, in the ensuing political vacuum before the Oct. 31 deadline, engineering the no-deal rupture that some want.
Yet some opponents of Mr. Johnson’s Brexit deal supported the Letwin amendment, too — in hopes that further delays might open the door to other options.
For the prime minister, who has staked his claim to 10 Downing Street on delivering the withdrawal, the amendment was another in a series of setbacks in Parliament, preventing him from forcing lawmakers into a binary decision on whether to support his plan.
Assuming that Mr. Johnson does request another Brexit extension, the European Union would have to decide whether to grant a delay of a few more weeks to resolve the technical details, or a longer delay to allow a general election or perhaps a second referendum.
Meeting on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands War in 1982, members of the House of Commons rose, one after the other, to fervently endorse or reject Mr. Johnson’s deal. The debate seemed to be ultimately less about the details of the plan, with its fiendishly complicated arrangements for trade with Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, than about whether Britain could finally put Brexit behind it.
Opponents of the plan accused Mr. Johnson of negotiating a shoddy deal that would leave a post-Brexit Britain vulnerable to predatory trade deals with other countries, not least the United States.
“This deal would inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal, forcing the U.K. to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef,” said the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, referring to fears of chemically treated imports from the United States.
For Mr. Johnson, 55, a flamboyant politician and former mayor of London who has been in office since July, it was a crucial moment. He spoke with a tone of gravity and conciliation that contrasted starkly with the inflammatory language he has used during previous parliamentary debates over Brexit.
Mr. Johnson’s deal differs from those of his predecessor, Theresa May, primarily in its treatment of Northern Ireland. Needing to avoid physical border checks, Mrs. May opted to keep the entire United Kingdom in the European Union’s customs union, which was unacceptable to hard-line Brexiteers.
Mr. Johnson sought to satisfy them by keeping Northern Ireland subject to the bloc’s rules in a practical sense, but legally outside it with the rest of Britain.
His deal is at the extreme end of divorce settlements that Britain could have negotiated with the European Union. It commits the country to very little alignment with the bloc on trade or regulations, turning its back on much of the web of rules that critics in Britain consider stifling or a threat to their sovereignty.
By keeping the European Union at arm’s length, Mr. Johnson and his lieutenants contend, Britain can set out to transform itself into an agile, lightly regulated competitor in the global economy — or “Singapore-on-Thames,” to use a phrase coined by Brexit evangelists.
To do that, however, Britain must first negotiate new trade agreements with dozens of parties, including the European Union and the United States, a painstaking process that could take several years. And Mr. Johnson’s plan allows for only a transitional period ending in 14 months, though this could be extended for a maximum of two years.
The debate on Saturday came after more than three tumultuous years of division and discord over Brexit, an ordeal that has shaken British politics and tested traditional loyalties, both among lawmakers and voters.
In 2017, Mrs. May called an election betting that she could persuade voters to give her a big majority in Parliament to negotiate a Brexit accord. That proved a fatal error when she lost her majority — and with it, much of her authority within the governing Conservative Party.
Though she later succeeded in negotiating a Brexit deal, she failed three times to get it through the House of Commons and was ultimately forced to request two Brexit delays. Even before that, her enemies were circling — not least Mr. Johnson, who resigned from her cabinet after complaining that her deal would make Britain a vassal state of the European Union.
That helped feed a narrative that has polarized British politics, with many supporters of Brexit moving toward a more brutal rupture with the European Union than its proponents suggested in the 2016 referendum.
At the same time, Brexit opponents became less inclined to settle on a compromise that they saw as the worst of both worlds. Voters increasingly came to identify themselves more as “leavers” or “remainers” than by traditional loyalty to any party.
Facing competition from the Brexit Party, led by Nigel Farage, the Conservatives have now embraced a hard-line form of exit, a transition that gained momentum last month with the purge of 21 Conservative rebels, including Mr. Letwin.
The Labour Party still says it wants to negotiate a different, softer Brexit deal, and would put that to a referendum, with remaining in the European Union being the alternative. The smaller and more pro-European Liberal Democrats say they would stay in the bloc without holding a second vote.
But while political sentiment has fled the center ground, there is a growing sense of exhaustion among many voters about Parliament’s endless haggling over Brexit.
That has proved a powerful weapon for Mr. Johnson, who has argued that he would “get Brexit done” — even if the reality is that Britain’s legal departure from the European Union is only a stage in a much longer process.
Our system is based on a separation of powers, because liberty depends on preventing any component of the state from accumulating too much authority — that’s how tyrants are born. For the system to work, the components have to be able to check each other: The federal and state governments must respect their separate spheres, and the branches of the federal government must be able to rein in a branch that oversteps its authority.
The steady federal encroachment on state authority has created an imbalance that probably cannot be rolled back. I want to focus on the collapse of inter-branch checks in the federal government.
This was the issue I dealt with in my book “Faithless Execution.” The thesis was that the Framers feared an agglomeration of power in the presidency they were creating, so they endowed Congress with significant checks on the executive. The ultimate one was impeachment. But this was supposed to be reserved for truly abominable misconduct. Though Madison concluded that impeachment was “indispensable” in light of the damage a rogue president could do, it also came with its own set of problems. Not least, impeachment might give Congress too much power over the executive. It might be invoked out of partisan mischief, rather than serious maladministration. Consequently, impeachment was made to be really hard to do.
The Framers were sophisticated men, who saw themselves as both students and victims of executive power run amok (as about two minutes’ perusal of the Declaration of Independence elucidates). They understood that governance would involve tussles between the political branches and episodes of overreach — whether out of incompetence, malevolence, or urgency — for which the extraordinary impeachment remedy would be gross overkill. Routine disputes involving the propensities of both the legislature and the executive to act outside their authorities would be handled by lesser remedies. Congress, most importantly, was given the power of the purse and significant power over executive agencies (to create them, to limit their authority, and, in the Senate’s case, to approve their leaders).