text
stringlengths 1
134k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
King Salman of Saudi Arabia has departed Japan and arrived in Beijing where he and President Xi Jinping are expected to discuss expanding economic ties between their two nations, shortly after Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman completed his visit to the White House Tuesday. [King Salman will stay in Beijing for three days, according to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, and meet with Xi as well as Premier Li Keqiang and National People’s Congress (NPC) Chairman Zhang Dejiang. “China attaches great importance to the friendship and cooperation with Saudi Arabia,” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying told reporters on Tuesday. “We stand ready to take King Salman’s visit as an opportunity to take Arabia comprehensive strategic partnership to a higher level. ” While King Salman’s visit to Tokyo involved an honorific meeting with Emperor Akihito, the Chinese hope to use his presence to strengthen their foothold in the Middle East. Chinese state media outlets are heralding the visit as a chance for China to take over what was once considered America’s market to exploit. Xinhua calls the visit an attempt to silence voices around the world. “As some scapegoat globalization for their sluggish economy, others remain open and cooperative to explore business opportunities and reap fruits,” a Xinhua column on the visit reads, a clear reference to U. S. President Donald Trump’s opposition to globalist forces. Xinhua credits China for having “helped build 56 economic and trade cooperation zones in 20 countries along the routes with a combined investment surpassing 18. 5 billion U. S. dollars, generating nearly 1. 1 billion dollars in tax revenue and 180, 000 jobs in those countries. ” Saudi Arabia, the outlet concludes, is seeking to be a part of that development. The Global Times, often the more combative alternative to Xinhua, suggests Salman’s presence in Beijing means he “puts Beijing ahead of Washington in his diplomatic visits. ” “This reflects Riyadh’s tendency to ‘Look East,’” the Times suggests. “The country is willing to develop a friendly relationship with Beijing on the premise that its ties with Washington remain intact. Saudi Arabia wants China’s support in regional and international affairs. ” The king’s visit has some competition, however, as Saudi officials celebrate the deputy crown prince’s visit with President Trump on Tuesday. The Gulf news organization cites Saudi officials calling the Trump meeting “a historic turning point” for bilateral relations. cites Bloomberg, which quotes a senior adviser to Mohammed bin Salman claiming the meeting “put things on the right track, and marked a significant shift in relations, across all political, military, security and economic fields. ” Among the most prominent points of agreement is the mutual distrust of Iran, newly emboldened by the Obama administration’s concessions package to Tehran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) or the Iran nuclear deal. Trump had already discussed other Middle East hotspots, including Yemen and Syria, with King Salman in a phone conversation. Unlike relations with the White House, regional rival Iran is not a subject that Saudi Arabia and China appear to agree on. China has historically supported Russia in the UN Security Council, which has developed a particularly strong alliance with Iran in Syria. Neither China nor Saudi Arabia have entered the fray in Syria, though both have expressed concerns that the civil war appears nowhere near its conclusion. China will also have to overcome Saudi distrust as it ramps up an internal war on Islam. While Chinese Communist Party officials have been permissive of Islamic practices, particularly among its Hui minority, it has taken the opposite position in western Xinjiang, home to the nation’s Turkic Uighur minority. Uighurs are a people in their region, the Communist Party has banned Islamic garb on public transportation, forced shops to sell items like alcohol and cigarettes, and banned children from religious observance. This attitude appears to be trickling east into regions. This week, the Communist Party secretary in Ningxia province, Li Jianguo, warned that the Islamic State was attempting to recruit Chinese people to engage in “jihad, terror, violence,” urging more vigilance over Muslim populations. The result of the government’s warnings over Islam has been a growing popular distaste for the religion, according to a social media overview by the South China Morning Post. Such a policy is anathema to the Saudi government, which sees itself as the preeminent defender of Islam globally. “We confirm that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands with all its might behind the Islamic causes in general and we are fully ready for assistance and cooperation with your sisterly country as regards any effort or movement that serves Muslims’ issues,” King Salman asserted in Malaysia last month. | 1 |
MANAMA, Bahrain — The United States is sending 200 additional troops to Syria, nearly doubling the Pentagon’s presence there, to help thousands of Kurdish and Arab fighters massing for an assault on the Islamic State’s stronghold of Raqqa, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said here on Saturday. Mr. Carter said the reinforcements would include American commandos and specialists. They will join the 300 Special Operations forces already working in eastern Syria to recruit, train and advise local Syrian militias to combat the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS. “This latest commitment of additional forces within Syria is another important step in enabling our partners to deal ISIL a lasting defeat,” Mr. Carter told a security conference here. The deployment of more American troops to Syria, which Mr. Carter said President Obama had approved in recent days, comes as questions are arising in the Middle East and in Washington about the level of support Donald J. Trump will maintain for rebel groups in Syria combating the Islamic State and others fighting the government of President Bashar . Mr. Trump has expressed a desire to work with Russia and the Syrian government to defeat the Islamic State, rejecting the rebels by saying that “we have no idea who these people are. ” The battle for Raqqa — the de facto capital of the extremist group’s caliphate — is entering a crucial phase as a coalition of 45, 000 fighters, including more than 13, 000 Arabs, has moved within 15 miles of the city. Their initial goal is to encircle the city and largely cut off the resupply of arms, supplies and fighters, American commanders say. In the last month, the air campaign has carried out nearly 300 airstrikes around Raqqa, including attacks last week that destroyed 188 oil tanker trucks, the largest strikes of their kind in the effort. Sending more American commandos to Syria will allow the Pentagon to train more Arab volunteers in more places in a wider array of skills, American officials said Saturday. Most of the Arab fighters are recently recruited residents who are not particularly well trained or equipped but are needed to carry out the bulk of the fighting in Raqqa itself, a Sunni Arab city. The Pentagon plans to give these local forces more arms and ammunition. “By combining our capabilities with those of our local partners, we’ve been squeezing ISIS by applying simultaneous pressure from all sides,” Mr. Carter said. The military advance is complicated by the predominant role played by Kurdish militia members, who make up a majority of the 45, 000 fighters and are the most effective American partner against the Islamic State in Syria. But the Kurdish militia fighters are viewed by Turkey — a pivotal American ally — as a terrorist threat. Turkey regards the Syrian Kurdish fighters, known collectively as the Y. P. G. as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, the Kurdish rebel group that has sought autonomy from Turkey since the 1980s. Ankara has demanded that the Y. P. G. not take part in the fight to retake Raqqa. Turkish forces in recent months have swept across the border into Syria to attack Islamic State strongholds, an offensive the Pentagon has applauded. But the Turkish advance has also served to blunt the Kurdish fighters’ efforts to carve out a contiguous swath of territory inside Syria stretching to the Iraqi border. As Turkish and Kurdish forces repeatedly clashed, American officials and commanders intervened to curtail the fighting. Washington desperately needs the two sides to focus on fighting the Islamic State in Raqqa, not each other. To that end, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr. the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has met twice in the last month with his Turkish counterpart, Gen. Hulusi Akar, to consult on battle plans for Raqqa. American Special Operations troops were assigned to accompany Turkish troops in Syria, giving the Pentagon liaisons. In another unusual move, Brig. Gen. Jon K. Mott of the Air Force, a senior operations officer from the Pentagon’s Central Command, was recently dispatched to the Turkish Army’s operations center in Ankara to help coordinate the war effort and defuse any conflicts with the Kurds. Pentagon officials are also toning down their vocal support for Kurdish fighters to avoid further inflaming Turkish domestic political sensitivities about any collaboration between Turkish troops and Kurdish fighters. Addressing the Manama Dialogue, a conference here sponsored by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, Mr. Carter defended the Obama administration’s security commitment in the Persian Gulf, and the Middle East more broadly, but repeatedly scolded Middle Eastern partners for failing to provide more military muscle in the broader campaign to defeat the Islamic State and counter extremism. Without singling out any country by name, Mr. Carter suggested that the United States had been the target of disingenuous criticism from “regional powers here in the Middle East” for not doing more to help fight extremism. “I would ask you to imagine what U. S. military and defense leaders think when they have to listen to complaints sometimes that we should do more, when it’s plain to see that all too often, the ones complaining aren’t doing enough themselves,” said Mr. Carter, who is in the middle of a farewell trip as defense secretary. Mr. Carter also noted that many nations in the Gulf region had expressed concern about the spread of Iranian influence in the region — a threat that Mr. Trump and his security team have also said will be a top priority. “The fact is, if countries in the region are worried about Iran’s destabilizing activities — a concern the United States shares — they need to get in the game,” Mr. Carter said. “That means getting serious about starting to partner more with each other, and investing in the right capabilities for the threat. ” | 1 |
Not all rookie quarterbacks are the same. Here’s what else we learned in Week 11 in the N. F. L.: ■ Dak Prescott is not a product of weak competition. Facing the No. 1 defense in the N. F. L. Prescott, the Dallas Cowboys’ rookie quarterback, had a few poor throws early in the game but recovered to have his second consecutive effort and added three more touchdown passes. Most impressively, he did it with his offensive line allowing a great deal of pressure and without his customary amount of help from Ezekiel Elliott who had a hard time finding running lanes other than in a big third quarter. ■ Playing quarterback as a rookie is not as easy as Prescott makes it look. Carson Wentz of the Eagles looked lost against Seattle’s defense, Cody Kessler of the Browns once again had to leave because of a concussion, and Jared Goff of the Rams, the player drafted ahead of all of them, finally got his first start and managed just 131 passing yards in a losing effort. ■ are hard now. The play may have been too easy prior to last season, but the rule change that pushed it back to being the equivalent of a field goal continues to confound . On Sunday, kickers combined to set an N. F. L. record with 12 misses, breaking the previous mark of 10 that was most recently accomplished in 1985. Mike Nugent of the Bengals and Robbie Gould of the Giants each missed two and even Stephen Gostkowski of the Patriots, who went 52 for 52 in the first year of the change, missed one, giving him three misses for the season. ■ Seattle might be getting scary. The Seahawks’ defense has been stellar all season, but Russell Wilson showed glimpses of his old self, throwing balls downfield, giving himself extra time on passes with his mobility, and even catching a touchdown pass from Doug Baldwin. If Thomas Rawls and C. J. Prosise can become a duo at running back, the Patriots and Cowboys might have some real competition to be the best team in the N. F. L. ■ The Browns might also have some competition to be the worst team in the N. F. L. Cleveland is but the San Francisco 49ers, despite holding the Patriots to just 13 points through three quarters, ended up allowing 30 in the loss. It was the seventh time this season that the 49ers allowed 30 or more points, and it was the team’s ninth consecutive loss after a shutout victory over Los Angeles in Week 1. Sadly the 30 points improved San Francisco’s season average which was 31. 4 coming into the game. The rest of the N. F. L. could be in a lot of trouble if Russell Wilson is back to being himself. With his mobility seemingly having returned after injuries had forced him into being a pocket passer for much of the season, Wilson led the way and his team’s defense followed suit as the Seattle Seahawks beat the Philadelphia Eagles, . Wilson completed 18 of 31 passes for 272 yards, but it was his lone touchdown pass, a to Jimmy Graham, that was a blast from the past. Facing a great deal of pressure, Wilson broke to his left and outran the defensive line. He looked like he would keep the ball for a run, but without stopping or setting himself to throw, and with linebacker Jordan Hicks in his face, he launched the ball to his right, and Graham caught it for the score. If that was not enough to convince people that Wilson had his legs back, he also engaged in some trickery in the second half, flipping the ball back to Doug Baldwin and then sprinting for the end zone. Baldwin was undeterred by pressure and lofted the ball into the end zone, finding Wilson for a touchdown pass. Seattle had mixed results in its endless search for a reliable running back. The rookie C. J. Prosise broke free for a touchdown run in the first quarter, but Prosise, a converted wide receiver making his second career start, was limited to 76 yards on four carries before being forced out of the game by a shoulder injury. There was some room for optimism, however, in the play of Thomas Rawls. The running back had not played since Week 2 because of injuries, but he carried 14 times for 57 yards. Considering their remarkably different running styles, Prosise and Rawls could seemingly be a strong combination if they are both healthy going forward. The game was far more lopsided than it appeared, with all but seven of Philadelphia’s points coming after the game was essentially decided. Seattle’s defense helped drop the Eagles back to . 500 with a great deal of help from Philadelphia’s rookie quarterback, Carson Wentz. Wentz, who had been praised for much of the year for not showing his inexperience, fell into too many traps, including a play late in the first half when he failed to account for the veteran safety Kam Chancellor as he threw across the field. Chancellor intercepted the pass and ended what looked like a promising drive. Wentz was also intercepted by Richard Sherman in the second half and finished the day with passing for 218 yards and 2 touchdowns. If there was anything qualifying as bad news for Seattle, it was Earl Thomas and DeShawn Shead leaving the game because of injuries. Thomas, a veteran free safety and has never missed a game in his career and his status had not been announced. It seems odd for 1977 to come up so often during Dallas Cowboys games, but with Dak Prescott leading the team to its ninth consecutive win, breaking the franchise record set in 1977, and Ezekiel Elliott passing Tony Dorsett for the franchise record for rushing yards by a rookie, also set that season, the parallels between the seasons are natural. It is a little history lesson for a quarterback born in 1993 and a running back born in 1995. But as for the present day, Sunday’s victory over the Baltimore Ravens proved the Cowboys can succeed against a top defense even when things are not going their way early in the game. It was Dallas’s first ever win over the Ravens. Prescott, who this week was named the team’s starting quarterback rather than being designated an injury initially looked lost. The Ravens’ defense was able to get intense pressure from its forcing punts on Dallas’s first four possessions. The rookie Prescott completed just four of his first 10 passes and was not getting much help from Elliott, who was struggling to find holes against the league’s best rush defense. That all turned around with just under nine minutes left in the second quarter. Down and facing a Prescott came alive, tearing down the field for a run. Over the next five plays, he drove his team 60 yards, tossing an throw to Cole Beasley for a touchdown. From that point, a familiar formula of gutsy passes by Prescott and tough runs by Elliott kicked in and Baltimore was powerless to stop it. Prescott ended up completing 27 of 36 passes for 301 yard and 3 touchdowns, topping 300 yards for the second consecutive week. Elliott chipped in with 127 yards from scrimmage and has 1, 102 rushing yards, which tops Dorsett’s 1, 007 in 1977. He is on pace for 1, 763 yards, which would put him just short of Eric Dickerson’s rookie record of 1, 808. Through 10 games, Dickerson had 1, 223. The Ravens, meanwhile, were unable to enjoy Steve Smith becoming the 14th player to top 1, 000 career receptions as the team saw its winning streak end, and its vaunted defense allowed an uncharacteristic 417 yards. Dallas will try to make it 10 wins in a row when it hosts the Washington Redskins on Thanksgiving. But with 1977 coming up so often, Cowboys fans may already be thinking of how that season ended: A win over the Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XII. Redskins Extend Packers’ : Kirk Cousins threw for 375 yards and three touchdowns to lead Washington to a victory over Green Bay, which has lost four consecutive games and five of six, allowing 30 or more points in all of those defeats. The Redskins ( ) have won six of their past eight games going into a showdown with the Cowboys, and chants of “We Want Dallas!” filled FedEx Field in the final minutes. — Associated Press Giants Improve to : The Giants played so lifelessly in the first half, the home crowd responded with sustained booing. But they rebounded for a victory over the Bears to achieve their best record after 10 games since 2008, when they were . Played in blustery conditions, the game featured three missed extra points, which had not happened in a N. F. L. game since 1993. Read our report here. It was seemingly a mismatch for the ages, with the New England Patriots traveling to San Francisco to face one of the worst teams in N. F. L. history in terms of points allowed. But somehow the Patriots went into the fourth quarter clinging to a lead over the 49ers. Things then normalized, with Tom Brady finding Danny Amendola for a touchdown pass on the first play of the fourth quarter — one of his four touchdown passes in the game — as the Patriots rolled to a victory. It was an easy win for New England, but perhaps a satisfying one for Brady, playing in San Francisco for the first time after having grown up a 49ers fan. The weather certainly was not helping New England’s offense in the first three quarters, with rain falling steadily, but the 49ers’ defense, which had previously allowed an N. F. L. 31. 4 points a game, seemed undaunted until it simply had nothing left to give in the final quarter. Brady completed 24 of 40 passes for 280 yards, and LeGarrette Blount contributed 124 rushing yards. Colin Kaepernick threw two touchdowns for San Francisco, but that was not enough to keep the game competitive. The loss and the rain somewhat marred the team’s legendary former owner, Eddie DeBartolo Jr. receiving his Hall of Fame ring at halftime. The stands were largely empty as fans sought out dry concourses rather than seeing the ceremony for the man who owned the team during its run of five Super Bowl wins. The Cleveland Browns ran the team’s losing streak to 11 games by falling to the Pittsburgh Steelers, . Along the way, the team also lost its starting quarterback, yet again, as Cody Kessler had to leave the game with a concussion and was replaced by Josh McCown. Who was at quarterback for Cleveland hardly seemed to matter as the Pittsburgh defense collected eight sacks, including two and a half by Stephon Tuitt, as the Steelers seemed to have players in the Browns’ backfield on every play. Pittsburgh did not get a lot of production out of Ben Roethlisberger, who threw for just 167 yards, but Le’Veon Bell gave the Steelers all of the offense they needed as he carried the ball 28 times for 146 yards and caught 8 passes for 55 more yards. The Browns will try to end their losing streak next week when they host the Giants. Colts Get Big Division Win: Indianapolis beat the Tennessee Titans, but saw Adam Vinatieri’s N. F. L. record streak of consecutive field goals made end at 44. The Colts were able to improve to . 500, leapfrogging the Titans into second place in the A. F. C. South, thanks largely to Andrew Luck’s 262 passing yards and 2 touchdowns. That was enough to overcome another great statistical performance by Marcus Mariota of the Titans (25 of 38 passing, 290 yards and 2 touchdowns). But one of the more impressive streaks in league history came to an end in the second quarter when Vinatieri missed a attempt . His last miss had come in Week 2 of the 2015 season. Bills end Slide: Buffalo preserved its hopes of making the playoffs by beating the Cincinnati Bengals, . The Bengals dropped to and lost A. J. Green to a hamstring injury. The Bengals had led, at halftime but managed just five first downs in the second half as Buffalo’s defense held strong and its offense did enough to get a pair of field goals. The win came in spite of a key injury. LeSean McCoy, who ran for a touchdown in the first half, sustained a thumb injury late in the second quarter and did not return. | 1 |
Secrets of the US Election: Assange Talks to Pilger November 5, 2016
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange denies the Russian government was the source of leaked emails about Hillary Clinton and says her “neo-McCarthy” Russia-bashing is just part of a cover-up, in an interview with John Pilger.
By John Pilger
This interview was filmed in the Embassy of Ecuador in London – where Julian Assange is a political refugee – and broadcast on Nov. 5, 2016
John Pilger: What’s the significance of the FBI’s intervention in these last days of the U.S. election campaign, in the case against Hillary Clinton? WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. (Photo credit: Espen Moe)
Julian Assange : If you look at the history of the FBI, it has become effectively America’s political police. The FBI demonstrated this by taking down the former head of the CIA [General David Petraeus] over classified information given to his mistress. Almost no one is untouchable. The FBI is always trying to demonstrate that no one can resist us. But Hillary Clinton very conspicuously resisted the FBI’s investigation, so there’s anger within the FBI because it made the FBI look weak. We’ve published about 33,000 of Clinton’s emails when she was Secretary of State. They come from a batch of just over 60,000 emails, [of which] Clinton has kept about half – 30,000 — to herself, and we’ve published about half. Then there are the Podesta emails we’ve been publishing. [John] Podesta is Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign manager, so there’s a thread that runs through all these emails; there are quite a lot of pay-for-play, as they call it, giving access in exchange for money to states, individuals and corporations. [These emails are] combined with the cover-up of the Hillary Clinton emails when she was Secretary of State, [which] has led to an environment where the pressure on the FBI increases.
John Pilger: The Clinton campaign has said that Russia is behind all of this, that Russia has manipulated the campaign and is the source for WikiLeaks and its emails.
Julian Assange : The Clinton camp has been able to project that kind of neo-McCarthy hysteria: that Russia is responsible for everything. Hilary Clinton stated multiple times, falsely, that 17 had assessed that Russia was the source of our publications. That is false; we can say that the Russian government is not the source.
WikiLeaks has been publishing for ten years, and in those ten years, we have published ten million documents, several thousand individual publications, several thousand different sources, and we have never got it wrong.
John Pilger : The emails that give evidence of access for money and how Hillary Clinton herself benefited from this and how she is benefitting politically, are quite extraordinary. I’m thinking of when the Qatari representative was given five minutes with Bill Clinton for a million dollar cheque.
Julian Assange : And twelve million dollars from Morocco …
John Pilger: Twelve million from Morocco yeah.
Julian Assange : For Hillary Clinton to attend [a party].
John Pilger: In terms of the foreign policy of the United States, that’s where the emails are most revealing, where they show the direct connection between Hillary Clinton and the foundation of jihadism, of ISIL, in the Middle East. Can you talk about how the emails demonstrate the connection between those who are meant to be fighting the jihadists of ISIL, are actually those who have helped create it. speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at Carl Hayden High School in Phoenix, Arizona, by Gage Skidmore)
Julian Assange : There’s an early 2014 email from Hillary Clinton, not so long after she left the State Department, to her campaign manager John Podesta that states ISIL is funded by the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Now this is email in the whole collection, and perhaps because Saudi and Qatari money is spread all over the Clinton Foundation. Even the U.S. government agrees that some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIL, or ISIS. But the dodge has always been that, well it’s just some rogue Princes, using their cut of the oil money to do whatever they like, but actually the government disapproves. But that email says that no, it is the governments of Saudi and Qatar that have been funding ISIS.
John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the Saudis and the Qataris, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation while Hilary Clinton is Secretary of State and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly to Saudi Arabia.
Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton, the world’s largest ever arms deal was made with Saudi Arabia, [worth] more than $80 billion. In fact, during her tenure as Secretary of State, total arms exports from the United States in terms of the dollar value, doubled.
John Pilger : Of course the consequence of that is that the notorious terrorist group called ISIL or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.
Julian Assange : Yes.
John Pilger: That’s extraordinary.
Julian Assange : I actually feel quite sorry for Hillary Clinton as a person because I see someone who is eaten alive by their ambitions, tormented literally to the point where they become sick; they faint as a result of [the reaction] to their ambitions. She represents a whole network of people and a network of relationships with particular states. The question is how does Hilary Clinton fit in this broader network? She’s a centralizing cog. You’ve got a lot of different gears in operation from the big banks like Goldman Sachs and major elements of Wall Street, and Intelligence and people in the State Department and the Saudis.
She’s the centralizer that inter-connects all these different cogs. She’s the smooth central representation of all that, and ‘all that’ is more or less what is in power now in the United States. It’s what we call the establishment or the DC consensus. One of the more significant Podesta emails that we released was about how the Obama cabinet was formed and how half the Obama cabinet was basically nominated by a representative from Citibank. This is quite amazing.
John Pilger: Didn’t Citibank supply a list …. ?
Julian Assange : Yes.
John Pilger: … which turned out to be most of the Obama cabinet.
Julian Assange : Yes.
John Pilger: So Wall Street decides the cabinet of the President of the United States?
Julian Assange: If you were following the Obama campaign back then, closely, you could see it had become very close to banking interests.
Julian Assange : So I think you can’t properly understand Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy without understanding Saudi Arabia. The connections with Saudi Arabia are so intimate. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets with Saudi King Abdullah in Riyadh on March 30, 2012. [State Department photo] John Pilger : Why was she so demonstrably enthusiastic about the destruction of Libya? Can you talk a little about just what the emails have told us, told you about what happened there, because Libya is such a source for so much of the mayhem now in Syria, the ISIL jihadism and so on, and it was almost Hillary Clinton’s invasion. What do the emails tell us about that?
Julian Assange : Libya, more than anyone else’s war, was Hillary Clinton’s war. Barak Obama initially opposed it. Who was the person championing it? Hillary Clinton. That’s documented throughout her emails. She had put her favored agent, Sidney Blumenthal, on to that; there’s more than 1,700 emails out of the 33,000 Hillary Clinton emails that we’ve published, just about Libya. It’s not that Libya has cheap oil. She perceived the removal of Gaddafi and the overthrow of the Libyan state — something that she would use in her run-up to the general election for President.
So in late 2011 there is an internal document called the Libya Tick Tock that was produced for Hillary Clinton, and it’s the chronological description of how she was the central figure in the destruction of the Libyan state, which resulted in around 40,000 deaths within Libya; jihadists moved in, ISIS moved in, leading to the European refugee and migrant crisis.
Not only did you have people fleeing Libya, people fleeing Syria, the destabilization of other African countries as a result of arms flows, but the Libyan state itself was no longer able to control the movement of people through it. Libya faces along to the Mediterranean and had been effectively the cork in the bottle of Africa. So all problems, economic problems and civil war in Africa — previously people fleeing those problems didn’t end up in Europe because Libya policed the Mediterranean. That was said explicitly at the time, back in early 2011 by Gaddafi: ‘What do these Europeans think they’re doing, trying to bomb and destroy the Libyan State? There’s going to be floods of migrants out of Africa and jihadists into Europe,’ and this is exactly what happened.
John Pilger: You get complaints from people saying, ‘What is WikiLeaks doing? Are they trying to put Trump in the White House?’
Julian Assange: My answer is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he’s had every establishment off side; Trump doesn’t have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment, but banks, intelligence [agencies], arms companies … big foreign money … are all united behind Hillary Clinton, and the media as well, media owners and even journalists themselves.
J ohn Pilger : There is the accusation that WikiLeaks is in league with the Russians. Some people say, ‘Well, why doesn’t WikiLeaks investigate and publish emails on Russia?’
Julian Assange: We have published about 800,000 documents of various kinds that relate to Russia. Most of those are critical; and a great many books have come out of our publications about Russia, most of which are critical. Our [Russia] documents have gone on to be used in quite a number of court cases: refugee cases of people fleeing some kind of claimed political persecution in Russia, which they use our documents to back up.
John Pilger : Do you yourself take a view of the U.S. election? Do you have a preference for Clinton or Trump? Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Arizona State Fairgrounds in Phoenix, Arizona. June 18, 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore)
Julian Assange: [Let’s talk about] Donald Trump. What does he represent in the American mind and in the European mind? He represents American white trash, [which Hillary Clinton called] ‘deplorable and irredeemable’. It means from an establishment or educated cosmopolitan, urbane perspective, these people are like the red necks, and you can never deal with them. Because he so clearly — through his words and actions and the type of people that turn up at his rallies — represents people who are not the middle, not the upper-middle educated class, there is a fear of seeming to be associated in any way with them, a social fear that lowers the class status of anyone who can be accused of somehow assisting Trump in any way, including any criticism of Hillary Clinton. If you look at how the middle class gains its economic and social power, that makes absolute sense.
John Pilger: I’d like to talk about Ecuador, the small country that has given you refuge and [political asylum] in this embassy in London. Now Ecuador has cut off the Internet from here where we’re doing this interview, in the Embassy, for the clearly obvious reason that they are concerned about appearing to intervene in the U.S. election campaign. Can you talk about why they would take that action and your own views on Ecuador’s support for you?
Julian Assange : Let’s let go back four years. I made an asylum application to Ecuador in this embassy, because of the U.S. extradition case, and the result was that after a month, I was successful in my asylum application. The embassy since then has been surrounded by police: quite an expensive police operation which the British government admits to spending more than £12.6 million. They admitted that over a year ago. Now there’s undercover police and there are robot surveillance cameras of various kinds — so that there has been quite a serious conflict right here in the heart of London between Ecuador, a country of 16 million people, and the United Kingdom, and the Americans who have been helping on the side. So that was a brave and principled thing for Ecuador to do. Now we have the U.S. election [campaign], the Ecuadorian election is in February next year, and you have the White House feeling the political heat as a result of the true information that we have been publishing.
WikiLeaks does not publish from the jurisdiction of Ecuador, from this embassy or in the territory of Ecuador; we publish from France, we publish from, from Germany, we publish from The Netherlands and from a number of other countries, so that the attempted squeeze on WikiLeaks is through my refugee status; and this is, this is really intolerable. [It means] that [they] are trying to get at a publishing organization; [they] try and prevent it from publishing true information that is of intense interest to the American people and others about an election. Ecuadoran President Rafael Correa.
John Pilger: Tell us what would happen if you walked out of this embassy.
Julian Assange : I would be immediately arrested by the British police and I would then be extradited either immediately or to Sweden. In Sweden I am not charged, I have already been previously cleared [by the Senior Stockholm Prosecutor Eva Finne]. We were not certain exactly what would happen there, but then we know that the Swedish government has refused to say that they will not extradite me we know they have extradited 100 per cent of people whom the U.S. has requested since at least 2000. So over the last 15 years, every single person the U.S. has tried to extradite from Sweden has been extradited, and they refuse to provide a guarantee [that won’t happen].
John Pilger: People often ask me how you cope with the isolation in here.
Julian Assange: Look, one of the best attributes of human beings is that they’re adaptable; one of the worst attributes of human beings is they are adaptable. They adapt and start to tolerate abuses, they adapt to being involved themselves in abuses, they adapt to adversity and they continue on. So in my situation, frankly, I’m a bit institutionalized — this [the embassy] is the world … it’s visually the world [for me].
John Pilger: It’s the world without sunlight, for one thing, isn’t it?
Julian Assange: It’s the world without sunlight, but I haven’t seen sunlight in so long, I don’t remember it.
John Pilger : Yes.
Julian Assange: So, yes, you adapt. The one real irritant is that my young children — they also adapt. They adapt to being without their father. That’s a hard, hard adaption which they didn’t ask for.
John Pilger: Do you worry about them?
Julian Assange : Yes, I worry about them; I worry about their mother.
John Pilger: Some people would say, ‘Well, why don’t you end it and simply walk out the door and allow yourself to be extradited to Sweden?’
Julian Assange : The U.N. [the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention] has looked into this whole situation. They spent 18 months in formal, adversarial litigation. [So it’s] me and the U.N. versus Sweden and the U.K. Who’s right? The U.N. made a conclusion that I am being arbitrarily detained illegally, deprived of my freedom and that what has occurred has not occurred within the laws that the United Kingdom and Sweden, and that [those countries] must obey. It is an illegal abuse. It is the United Nations formally asking, ‘What’s going on here? What is your legal explanation for this? [Assange] says that you should recognize his asylum.’ [And here is]
Sweden formally writing back to the United Nations to say, ‘No, we’re not going to [recognize the UN ruling],’ so leaving open their ability to extradite.
I just find it absolutely amazing that the narrative about this situation is not put out publicly in the press, because it doesn’t suit the Western establishment narrative — that yes, the West has political prisoners, it’s a reality, it’s not just me, there’s a bunch of other people as well. The West has political prisoners. Of course, no state accepts [that it should call] the people it is imprisoning or detaining for political reasons, political prisoners. They don’t call them political prisoners in China, they don’t call them political prisoners in Azerbaijan and they don’t call them political prisoners in the United States, U.K. or Sweden; it is absolutely intolerable to have that kind of self-perception.
Julian Assange : Here we have a case, the Swedish case, where I have never been charged with a crime, where I have already been cleared [by the Stockholm prosecutor] and found to be innocent, where the woman herself said that the police made it up, where the United Nations formally said the whole thing is illegal, where the State of Ecuador also investigated and found that I should be given asylum. Those are the facts, but what is the rhetoric?
John Pilger: Yes, it’s different.
Julian Assange : The rhetoric is pretending, constantly pretending that I have been charged with a crime, and never mentioning that I have been already previously cleared, never mentioning that the woman herself says that the police made it up.
[The rhetoric] is trying to avoid [the truth that] the U.N. formally found that the whole thing is illegal, never even mentioning that Ecuador made a formal assessment through its formal processes and found that yes, I am subject to persecution by the United States.
John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London. Pilger’s Web site is: www.johnpilger.com . To support Julian Assange, go to: https://justice4assange.com/donate.html | 0 |
Actor and former professional wrestler Dwayne Johnson added more fuel to speculation surrounding his political future with an appearance on Good Morning America Thursday, during which he said he has the skill set required to run for President of the United States. [“It’s really been the most flattering thing,” the San Andreas star said in response to media reports that suggested he would make a good president. When asked why he thinks he would make a good president, Johnson laughed off the question, and said he had never said that. “I don’t know if I would make a good president,” he added. “I know that I have a certain skill set, and I think it’s in that skill set that people see, and that people would want me to run. And I also think that’s reflective of them wanting to see a better leadership happening right now. ” ”I don’t know if I would make a good President, but I know I have a certain skill set … ” — Dwayne @TheRock Johnson on running for President pic. twitter. — Good Morning America (@GMA) May 18, 2017, Johnson, who went by the moniker The Rock in his pro wrestling days, first discussed the “real possibility” he could run for president in an interview with GQ this month. “A year ago, it started coming up more and more,” Johnson told GQ. “There was a real sense of earnestness, which made me go home and think ‘Let me really rethink my answer and make sure I am giving an answer that is truthful and also respectful. ’” While not much is known about Johnson’s policy positions, the actor is reportedly a registered Republican, and has voiced his opposition to President Donald Trump’s executive actions on immigration from some countries. “I completely disagree with it,” he told GQ. “I believe in our national security to the core, but I don’t believe in a ‘ban’ that bans immigrants. I believe in inclusion. Our country was built on that, and it continues to be made strong by that. And the decision felt like a snap judgment. I feel like the majority of, if not all, Americans feel that protection is of huge importance,” he said. In his interview with GMA, Johnson was asked whether his presidential slogan might me “Make America Rock Again. ” “It would be, right now, for Good Morning America, yes,” Johnson said with a laugh. Follow Daniel Nussbaum on Twitter: @dznussbaum | 1 |
Posted on October 29, 2016 by WashingtonsBlog
Washington’s Blog asked the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”), Bill Binney – what he thought about the FBI’s announcement that it was re-opening the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails.
He told us:
They must have something significant for the FBI to reopen the investigation. Plus I think [FBI Director] Comey had to inform congress of his incomplete testimony to them or else he could be charged with perjury to congress and impeached.
***
Any way you look at it, FBI has a black black eye over this. I have been saying for a long time that when you couple secret intelligence agencies with the police, you get a secret police. In German, that’s a GESTAPO (meaning “State Secret Police”). Plus, when you add to that what the DOJ has been doing relative to this, you have a Department of “Just Us.” Not good for the citizens of this or any other country.
Similarly, one of the two reporters who broke the Watergate story – Carl Bernstein – said :
We don’t know what this means yet except that it’s a real bombshell . And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly , that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation . | 0 |
‹ › Arnaldo Rodgers is a trained and educated Psychologist. He has worked as a community organizer and activist. Exhibit of veterans’ art Downtown depicts war through their eyes By Arnaldo Rodgers on November 8, 2016 veterans
By Holly Zachariah
Raine McMullen pushes certain chapters of the 10 months she spent in Afghanistan to the back of her mind.
There are things she saw and heard and experienced while deployed there that she doesn’t like to talk about. But the children? She will never forget them and is always eager to share their stories.
“They were so curious of the American soldiers,” said McMullen, who spent six years with the Army Reserve’s 412th Civil Affairs Battalion, based at the Defense Supply Center Columbus in Whitehall. “And they were especially curious of me because I was the only female on my whole base.”
Read the Full Article at www.dispatch.com >>>> Related Posts: The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VNN, VNN authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. Notices Posted by Arnaldo Rodgers on November 8, 2016, With 0 Reads, Filed under Veterans . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 . You can leave a response or trackback to this entry FaceBook Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment Login WHAT'S HOT | 0 |
(Want to get this briefing by email? Here’s the .) Good evening. Here’s the latest. 1. Divisions deepened over President Trump’s order barring entry to refugees and citizens from seven countries. Some of Mr. Trump’s supporters applauded the order, but other citizens organized on social networks, business leaders registered objections, and State Department diplomats circulated a dissent cable. The White House press secretary said government workers should “get with the program” or go. Donations poured into the A. C. L. U. and other rights groups, lawsuits proliferated and acting Attorney General Sally Yates, a holdover from the Obama administration, was fired after she ordered the Justice Department not to defend the order in court. President Obama saying through a spokesman that the order was discriminatory and that he was “heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country. ” You can see more of our coverage here — including Iran’s missile launch, a test of Mr. Trump. Above, Syrian families at a U. N. office in Beirut, Lebanon. _____ 2. We took a look at why the order sparked such chaos. It received little or no legal review. The secretary of homeland security, above, was not asked for guidance, and Customs and Border Protection officers were unaware of it. And we collected the stories of people covered by the ban, which delayed families from reuniting and students returning to universities in the U. S. The U. N. estimates 20, 000 refugees wouldn’t be able to be resettled during the suspension. Here’s a look at the rigorous vetting process refugees already face the debate over whether the ban is legal and our updated explainer about the executive order. _____ 3. President Trump appeared to try to shift the public’s focus to another hot topic, by tweeting that he would announce his pick for the Supreme Court on Tuesday at 8 p. m. Our legal reporter says abortion rights and affirmative action appear secure for now, but unions and environmentalists have cause for concern. And this may not be Mr. Trump’s only appointment during his term. _____ 4. Messages of solidarity poured into Canada from around the world after a shooting at a Quebec mosque that left six dead. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau assailed what he called “this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge,” and issued a statement saying: “It is to see such senseless violence. Diversity is our strength, and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear. ” Local media reported that the suspect had a history of provocative views and antisocial behavior. _____ 5. The “nerd prom” that is normally the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner has some competition. The comedian Samantha Bee promises to “properly roast the president” at “Not the White House Correspondents’ Dinner” the same night, April 29. The lineup has not been finalized but she says there are “binders full” of possibilities. _____ 6. The Ringling Bros. and Barnum Bailey Circus is shutting down, after dwindling attendance and criticism from animal rights’ groups. Some extreme fans are extremely upset. They include a Queens man who has created a scale model of the circus at Madison Square Garden, above. The president of the Circus Fans Association of America got existential, saying, “To me, the circus has always been the elixir of youth. When I visit the circus, I’m 5 years old again and I have no life span. That immortality has been destroyed. ” _____ 7. The personal stenographer of the Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels died in Munich at 106. Brunhilde Pomsel was one of the last surviving members of the group that hid in a Berlin bunker with Hitler in his final days. “We tried to make sure we didn’t run out of alcohol,” she said. “That was urgently needed in order to retain the numbness. ” _____ 8. The ground cracks underfoot, and pools of acidic water bubble between odd formations of rocks and minerals. Sulfur and chlorine create neon patches. In fact, the Danakil Depression in Ethiopia, an oppressively hot and dry volcanic region, might as well be Mars. That’s precisely why scientists visited, hoping to learn about the possibility of life on other planets. _____ 9. When the Falcons and the Patriots meet in the Super Bowl this Sunday, the average cost of a ad will be in the vicinity of $5 million. One novelty: Snickers aims to do the game’s first live commercial, starring Adam Driver (above in cardboard form) from the HBO series “Girls. ” _____ 10. A new documentary, “Becoming Warren Buffett,” looks at the personal relationships of America’s most famous investor, the tycoon said to be worth $74 billion. “People watching it expecting to learn how to buy cheap stocks will be disappointed,” Mr. Buffett said with a chuckle during a telephone interview. (10 p. m. Eastern, HBO and streaming) _____ 11. Finally, a note about apologies. Most times when we say, “I’m sorry,” it’s for something trivial. But when it matters, watch your wording. Psychologists and other experts say the best apologies are short and don’t include rationalizations or requests for forgiveness. And “I’m sorry you feel that way” really means “I’m not really sorry at all. ” Photographs may appear out of order for some readers. Viewing this version of the briefing should help. Your Evening Briefing is posted at 6 p. m. Eastern. And don’t miss Your Morning Briefing, posted weekdays at 6 a. m. Eastern, and Your Weekend Briefing, posted at 6 a. m. Sundays. Want to look back? Here’s Friday night’s briefing. What did you like? What do you want to see here? Let us know at briefing@nytimes. com. | 1 |
Disgraced Black Lives Matter activist Shaun King has published a new in the New York Daily News, calling President Trump’s budget “the most cruel, destructive, and inhumane” budget ever released by a sitting president. [To save you the torture of reading it, I’ve gone through it line by line and picked out the most rhetoric and outrageous claims. King begins by blaming everything on White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, possibly a bigger boogeyman for the left than the President himself. “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment. ” These are the words uttered by White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon. When someone tells you who they are — believe them. “If someone tells you who they are, believe them?” I’m sure Shaun King would like us to, given that he’s spent much of his professional career dodging uncomfortable questions about his true ethnicity, and continues to claim his father was black, despite the fact that he has never met him and has never released the results of a DNA test to the public. Bannon, who was the CEO of Trump’s campaign and is now widely seen as a mix between being his and even a An image created and sustained by the media, with virtually no basis in reality. It’s almost as if the media were so desperate for the return of “ ” Clinton that they fabricated a . It is, unequivocally, the most cruel, destructive, dangerous and inhumane federal budget ever released by an American President. By a Republican president. You can rest assured that King would be singing a different tune if this were an Obama budget. At first, I aimed to write about it soon after it was released, but it honestly took me an additional 24 hours to wrap my mind around what we had seen. Translation: I am lazy and can’t finish my articles on time. Trump’s budget completely eliminates 19 federal agencies — including funding for PBS, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It cuts funding for Meals on Wheels. Who the hell cuts funding for Meals on Wheels? Translation: I can’t defend budget cuts to leftist propaganda, so I’ll focus on an entirely unrelated service to tug on heartstrings and hope people won’t notice (or highlight in bold!) the first three things I mentioned. It also eliminates funding for 49 National Historic Sites. What are they supposed to do without this funding? Collect donations, just like Meals on Wheels does? (Donations have actually spiked since the budget announcement) Perhaps a progressive billionaire could help, instead of ploughing millions into socially destabilizing like Black Lives Matter. Trump aims to drastically slash the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by 31% Oh no! Fewer lightbulbs?? The 29% budget cut to the State Department completely eliminates many peacekeeping missions and cultural exchange programs. Peacekeeping in the Obama era was so effective, it gave rise to ISIS. It clearly deserves those funds! Even the NYPD is outraged by the budget, which would cut millions upon millions of dollars from the department’s efforts to fight terrorism. Finally! The first reasonable concern in King’s piece. The Defense Department increase in Trump’s budget was a staggering $54, 000, 000, 000. I added the zeroes for effect — that’s $54 billion. Our nation already spends more on defense than most of the developed nations of the world combined. This increase is simply absurd and unnecessary. So, according to Shaun King, cutting funds to fight terrorism is bad, but increasing funds to fight terrorism is … Also bad? It’s almost as if King is a leftist who automatically condemns anything Trump does! I will concede that $54 billion is a big number. Much bigger than the $240, 000 in missing Haiti donation funds that Shaun King managed, and is still unaccounted for. In short, King believes the Trump budget to be a more questionable document than his own birth certificate. Breitbart readers can of course decide for themselves if the rhetoric matches the reality. You can follow Allum Bokhari on Twitter and add him on Facebook. Email tips and suggestions to abokhari@breitbart. com. | 1 |
First Lady Melania Trump’s small hometown in central Slovenia is booming with business thanks to her ascendance to power and fame in the United States, according to the town’s mayor. [In Sevnica, Slovenia, Melania Trump was born Melanija Knavs before she came to the U. S. eventually marrying future U. S. President Donald Trump. Now, Sevnica, with a population of about 5, 000 people, is enjoying its position of having a connection to one of the world’s most famous women. “Melania put us on the world map,” Sevnica Mayor Srecko Ocvirk told NPR in an interview. “A lot of people are coming from Europe, Japan, China and the U. S.,” Ocvirk said in the interview. “From an anonymous little town, we are now on the world tourist map. ” Now, tourists to Sevnica can visit Melania’s hometown elementary school and apartment building, and can take a walking tour of the neighborhood in which she grew up, for just $90. The tour is just one of many that tourists can choose from in the tiny town. Also, the Kruhek bakery in Sevnica now offers a apple pie, known officially as the “First Lady Apple Pie. ” The bakery also offers a sweet cake. “We wanted to do something that is a mix of America and Sevnica,” Maja Kozole Popadic, whose family owns the bakery, told NPR. Additionally, the Kopitarna shoe store in Sevnica has gotten in on the Melania craze, creating “White House slippers” that retail for $60 a pair. The designer of the slipper, Maja Stamol, told NPR he has made 300 pairs and is almost sold out at this point. Melania has not gone back to the region in more than a decade, though her parents reportedly still own a home in Sevnica. John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. | 1 |
In the spring of 2014, when our daughter, Najya, was turning 4, my husband and I found ourselves facing our toughest decision since becoming parents. We live in a heavily black, rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of brownstones in central Brooklyn. The nearby public schools are named after people intended to evoke black uplift, like Marcus Garvey, a prominent black nationalist in the 1920s, and Carter G. Woodson, the father of Black History Month, but the schools are a disturbing reflection of New York City’s stark racial and socioeconomic divisions. In one of the most diverse cities in the world, the children who attend these schools learn in classrooms where all of their classmates — and I mean, in most cases, every single one — are black and Latino, and nearly every student is poor. Not surprisingly, the test scores of most of ’s schools reflect the marginalization of their students. I didn’t know any of our neighbors, black or white, who sent their children to one of these schools. They had managed to secure seats in the more diverse and economically advantaged magnet schools or programs outside our area, or opted to pay hefty tuition to progressive but largely white private institutions. I knew this because from the moment we arrived in New York with our we had many conversations about where we would, should and definitely should not send our daughter to school when the time came. My husband, Faraji, and I wanted to send our daughter to public school. Faraji, the oldest child in a military family, went to public schools that served Army bases both in America and abroad. As a result, he had a highly unusual experience for a black American child: He never attended a segregated public school a day of his life. He can now walk into any room and instantly start a conversation with the people there, whether they are young mothers gathered at a tenants’ meeting or executives eating from small plates at a ritzy cocktail reception. I grew up in Waterloo, Iowa, on the wrong side of the river that divided white from black, opportunity from struggle, and started my education in a school that my mother says was distressingly chaotic. I don’t recall it being bad, but I do remember just one white child in my class, though there may have been more. That summer, my mom and dad enrolled my older sister and me in the school district’s voluntary desegregation program, which allowed some black kids to leave their neighborhood schools for whiter, more well off ones on the west side of town. This was 1982, nearly three decades after the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that separate schools for black and white children were unconstitutional, and near the height of desegregation in this country. My parents chose one of the whitest, richest schools, thinking it would provide the best opportunities for us. Starting in second grade, I rode the bus an hour each morning across town to the “best” public school my town had to offer, Kingsley Elementary, where I was among the tiny number of children and the even tinier number of black children. We did not walk to school or get dropped off by our parents on their way to work. We showed up in a yellow bus, visitors in someone else’s neighborhood, and were whisked back across the bridge each day as soon as the bell rang. I remember those years as emotionally and socially fraught, but also as academically stimulating and . Aside from the rigorous classes and quality instruction I received, this was the first time I’d shared dinners in the homes of kids whose parents were doctors and lawyers and scientists. My mom was a probation officer, and my dad drove a bus, and most of my family members on both sides worked in factories or meatpacking plants or did other manual labor. I understood, even then, in a way both intuitive and defensive, that my school friends’ parents weren’t better than my neighborhood friends’ parents, who worked hard every day at hourly jobs. But this exposure helped me imagine possibilities, a course for myself that I had not considered before. It’s hard to say where any one person would have ended up if a single circumstance were different our life trajectories are shaped by so many external and internal factors. But I have no doubt my parents’ decision to pull me out of my segregated neighborhood school made the possibility of my getting from there to here — staff writer for The New York Times Magazine — more likely. Integration was transformative for my husband and me. Yet the idea of placing our daughter in one of the small number of integrated schools troubled me. These schools are disproportionately white and serve the middle and upper middle classes, with a smattering of poor black and Latino students to create “diversity. ” In a city where white children are only 15 percent of the more than one million students, half of them are clustered in just 11 percent of the schools, which not coincidentally include many of the city’s top performers. Part of what makes those schools desirable to white parents, aside from the academics, is that they have some students of color, but not too many. This carefully curated integration, the kind that allows many white parents to boast that their children’s public schools look like the United Nations, comes at a steep cost for the rest of the city’s black and Latino children. The New York City system is 41 percent Latino, 27 percent black and 16 percent Asian. of all students are . In 2014, the Civil Rights Project at the University of California, Los Angeles, released a report showing that New York City public schools are among the most segregated in the country. Black and Latino children here have become increasingly isolated, with 85 percent of black students and 75 percent of Latino students attending “intensely” segregated schools — schools that are less than 10 percent white. This is not just New York’s problem. I’ve spent much of my career as a reporter chronicling rampant school segregation in every region of the country, and the ways that segregated schools harm black and Latino children. One study published in 2009 in The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management showed that the academic achievement gap for black children increased as they spent time in segregated schools. Schools with large numbers of black and Latino kids are less likely to have experienced teachers, advanced courses, instructional materials and adequate facilities, according to the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Most black and Latino students today are segregated by both race and class, a combination that wreaks havoc on the learning environment. Research stretching back 50 years shows that the socioeconomic makeup of a school can play a larger role in achievement than the poverty of an individual student’s family. Getting Najya into one of the disproportionately white schools in the city felt like accepting the inevitability of this system: one set of schools with excellent resources for white kids and some black and Latino kids, a second set of underresourced schools for the rest of the city’s black and Latino kids. When the New York City Public Schools catalog arrived in the mail one day that spring, with information about Mayor Bill de Blasio’s new universal prekindergarten program, I told Faraji that I wanted to enroll Najya in a segregated, school. Faraji’s eyes widened as I explained that if we removed Najya, whose name we chose because it means “liberated” and “free” in Swahili, from the experience of most black and Latino children, we would be part of the problem. Saying my child deserved access to “good” public schools felt like implying that children in “bad” schools deserved the schools they got, too. I understood that so much of school segregation is structural — a result of decades of housing discrimination, of political calculations and the machinations of policy makers, of simple inertia. But I also believed that it is the choices of individual parents that uphold the system, and I was determined not to do what I’d seen so many others do when their values about integration collided with the reality of where to send their own children to school. One family, or even a few families, cannot transform a segregated school, but if none of us were willing to go into them, nothing would change. Putting our child into a segregated school would not integrate it racially, but we are and would, at least, help to integrate it economically. As a reporter, I’d witnessed how the presence of even a handful of families made it less likely that a school would be neglected. I also knew that we would be able to make up for Najya anything the school was lacking. As I told Faraji my plan, he slowly shook his head no. He wanted to look into parochial schools, or one of the “good” public schools, or even private schools. So we argued, pleading our cases from the living room, up the steps to our office lined with books on slavery and civil rights, and back down, before we came to an impasse and retreated to our respective corners. There is nothing harder than navigating our nation’s racial legacy in this country, and the problem was that we each knew the other was right and wrong at the same time. Faraji couldn’t believe that I was asking him to expose our child to the type of education that the two of us had managed to avoid. He worried that we would be hurting Najya if we put her in a school. “Are we experimenting with our child based on our idealism about public schools?” he asked. “Are we putting her at a disadvantage?” At the heart of Faraji’s concern was a fear that grips black families like ours. We each came from roots, fought our way into the middle class and had no family wealth or safety net to fall back on. Faraji believed that our gains were too tenuous to risk putting our child in anything but a school. And he was right to be worried. In 2014, the Brookings Institution found that black children are particularly vulnerable to downward mobility — nearly seven of 10 black children born into families don’t maintain that income level as adults. There was no margin for error, and we had to use our relative status to fight to give Najya every advantage. Hadn’t we worked hard, he asked, frustration building in his voice, precisely so that she would not have to go to the types of schools that trapped so many black children? Eventually I persuaded him to visit a few schools with me. Before work, we peered into the classrooms of three neighborhood schools, and a fourth, Public School 307, located in the Vinegar Hill section of Brooklyn, near the East River waterfront and a few miles from our home. P. S. 307’s attendance zone was drawn snugly around five of the 10 buildings that make up the Farragut Houses, a project with 3, 200 residents across from the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The school’s population was 91 percent black and Latino. Nine of 10 students met federal poverty standards. But what went on inside the school was unlike what goes on in most schools serving the city’s poorest children. This was in large part because of the efforts of a remarkable principal, Roberta Davenport. She grew up in Farragut, and her younger siblings attended P. S. 307. She became principal five decades later in 2003, to a school. Davenport commuted from Connecticut, but her car was usually the first one in the parking lot each morning, often because she worked so late into the night that, exhausted, she would sleep at a friend’s nearby instead of making the long drive home. Soft of voice but steely in character, she rejected the spare educational orthodoxy often reserved for poor black and brown children that strips away everything that makes school joyous in order to focus solely on improving test scores. These children from the projects learned Mandarin, took violin lessons and played chess. Thanks to her hard work, the school had recently received money from a federal magnet grant, which funded a science, engineering and technology program aimed at drawing children from outside its attendance zone. Faraji and I walked the bright halls of P. S. 307, taking in the reptiles in the science room and the students learning piano during music class. The walls were papered with the precocious musings of elementary children. While touring the schools, Faraji later told me, he started feeling guilty about his instinct to keep Najya out of them. Were these children, he asked himself, worthy of any less than his own child? “These are kids who look like you,” he told me. “Kids like the ones you grew up with. I was being very selfish about it, thinking: I am going to get mine for my child, and that’s it. And I am ashamed of that. ” When it was time to submit our school choices to the city, we put down all four of the schools we visited. In May 2014, we learned Najya had gotten into our first choice, P. S. 307. We were excited but also nervous. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t feel pulled in the way other parents with options feel pulled. I had moments when I couldn’t ignore the nagging fear that in my quest for fairness, I was being unfair to my own daughter. I worried — I worry still — about whether I made the right decision for our little girl. But I knew I made the just one. For many white Americans, millions of black and Latino children attending segregated schools may seem like a throwback to another era, a problem we solved long ago. And legally, we did. In 1954, the Supreme Court issued its landmark Brown v. Board of Education ruling, striking down laws that forced black and white children to attend separate schools. But while Brown v. Board targeted segregation by state law, we have proved largely unwilling to address segregation that is maintained by other means, resulting from the nation’s long and racist history. In the Supreme Court’s decision, the justices responded unanimously to a group of five cases, including that of Linda Brown, a black who was not allowed to go to her white neighborhood school in Topeka, Kan. but was made to ride a bus to a black school much farther away. The court determined that separate schools, even if they had similar resources, were “inherently” — by their nature — unequal, causing profound damage to the children who attended them and hobbling their ability to live as full citizens of their country. The court’s decision hinged on sociological research, including a key study by the psychologists Kenneth Clark and Mamie Phipps Clark, a team who gave black children in segregated schools in the North and the South black and white dolls and asked questions about how they perceived them. Most students described the white dolls as good and smart and the black dolls as bad and stupid. (The Clarks also found that segregation hurt white children’s development.) Chief Justice Earl Warren felt so passionate about the issue that he read the court’s opinion aloud: “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other ‘tangible’ factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. ” The ruling made clear that because this nation was founded on a racial caste system, black children would never become equals as long as they were separated from white children. In New York City, home to the largest black population in the country, the decision was celebrated by many liberals as the final strike against school segregation in the “backward” South. But Kenneth Clark, the first black person to earn a doctorate in psychology at Columbia University and to hold a permanent professorship at City College of New York, was quick to dismiss Northern righteousness on race matters. At a meeting of the Urban League around the time of the decision, he charged that though New York had no law requiring segregation, it intentionally separated its students by assigning them to schools based on their race or building schools deep in segregated neighborhoods. In many cases, Clark said, black children were attending schools that were worse than those attended by their black counterparts in the South. Clark’s words shamed proudly progressive white New Yorkers and embarrassed those overseeing the nation’s largest school system. The New York City Board of Education released a forceful statement promising to integrate its schools: “Segregated, racially homogeneous schools damage the personality of children. These schools decrease their motivation and thus impair their ability to learn. White children are also damaged. Public education in a racially homogeneous setting is socially unrealistic and blocks the attainment of the goals of democratic education, whether this segregation occurs by law or by fact. ” The head of the Board of Education undertook an investigation in 1955 that confirmed the widespread separation of black and Puerto Rican children in dilapidated buildings with the and teachers. Their schools were so overcrowded that some black children went to school for only part of the day to give others a turn. The Board of Education appointed a commission to develop a citywide integration plan. But when school officials took some token steps, they faced a wave of white opposition. “It was most intense in the white neighborhoods closest to neighborhoods, because they were the ones most likely to be affected by desegregation plans,” says Thomas Sugrue, a historian at New York University and the author of “Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North. ” By the ’60s, there were few signs of integration in New York’s schools. In fact, the number of segregated schools in the city had quadrupled by 1964. That February, civil rights leaders called for a major boycott of the New York City schools. Some 460, 000 black and Puerto Rican students stayed home to protest their segregation. It was the largest demonstration for civil rights in the nation’s history. But the boycott upset many white liberals, who thought it was too aggressive, and as thousands of white families fled to the suburbs, the integration campaign collapsed. Even as New York City was ending its only significant effort to desegregate, the Supreme Court was expanding the Brown ruling. Beginning in the ’60s, the court handed down a series of decisions that determined that not only did Brown v. Board allow the use of race to remedy the effects of schools, it also required it. Assigning black students to white schools and vice versa was necessary to destroy a system built on racism — even if white families didn’t like it. “All things being equal, with no history of discrimination, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes,” the court wrote in its 1971 ruling in Swann v. Board of Education, which upheld busing to desegregate schools in Charlotte, N. C. “But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation. The remedy for such segregation may be administratively awkward, inconvenient and even bizarre in some situations, and may impose burdens on some but all awkwardness and inconvenience cannot be avoided. ” In what would be an extremely rare and fleeting moment in American history, all three branches of the federal government aligned on the issue. Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, pushed by President Lyndon B. Johnson, which prohibited segregated lunch counters, buses and parks and allowed the Department of Justice for the first time to sue school districts to force integration. It also gave the government the power to withhold federal funds if the districts did not comply. By 1973, 91 percent of black children in the former Confederate and border states attended school with white children. But while Northern congressmen embraced efforts to force integration in the South, some balked at efforts to desegregate their own schools. They tucked a passage into the 1964 Civil Rights Act aiming to limit school desegregation in the North by prohibiting school systems from assigning students to schools in order to integrate them unless ordered to do so by a court. Because Northern officials often practiced segregation without the cover of law, it was far less likely that judges would find them in violation of the Constitution. Not long after, the nation began its retreat from integration. Richard Nixon was elected president in 1968, with the help of a coalition of white voters who opposed integration in housing and schools. He appointed four conservative justices to the Supreme Court and set the stage for a profound legal shift. Since 1974, when the Milliken v. Bradley decision struck down a lower court’s order for a desegregation program between nearly Detroit city schools and the white suburbs surrounding the city, a series of major Supreme Court rulings on school desegregation have limited the reach of Brown. When Ronald Reagan became president in 1981, he promoted the notion that using race to integrate schools was just as bad as using race to segregate them. He urged the nation to focus on improving segregated schools by holding them to strict standards, a tacit return to the “separate but equal” doctrine that was roundly rejected in Brown. His administration emphasized that busing and other desegregation programs discriminated against white students. Reagan eliminated federal dollars earmarked to help desegregation and pushed to end hundreds of court orders. Yet this was the very period when the benefits of integration were becoming most apparent. By 1988, a year after Faraji and I entered middle school, school integration in the United States had reached its peak and the achievement gap between black and white students was at its lowest point since the government began collecting data. The difference in black and white reading scores fell to half what it was in 1971, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics. (As schools have since resegregated, the gap has only grown.) The improvements for black children did not come at the cost of white children. As black test scores rose, so did white ones. Decades of studies have affirmed integration’s power. A 2010 study released by the Century Foundation found that when children in public housing in Montgomery County, Md. enrolled in schools, the differences between their scores and those of their wealthier classmates decreased by half in math and a third in reading, and they pulled significantly ahead of their counterparts in poor schools. In fact, integration changes the entire trajectory of black students’ lives. A 2015 longitudinal study by the economist Rucker Johnson at the University of California, Berkeley, followed black adults who had attended desegregated schools and showed that these adults, when compared with their counterparts or even their own siblings in segregated schools, were less likely to be poor, suffer health problems and go to jail, and more likely to go to college and reside in integrated neighborhoods. They even lived longer. Critically, these benefits were passed on to their children, while the children of adults who went to segregated schools were more likely to perform poorly in school or drop out. But integration as a constitutional mandate, as justice for black and Latino children, as a moral righting of past wrongs, is no longer our country’s stated goal. The Supreme Court has effectively sided with Reagan, requiring strict legal colorblindness even if it leaves segregation intact, and even striking down desegregation programs that ensured integration for thousands of black students if a single white child did not get into her school of choice. The most recent example was a 2007 case that came to be known as Parents Involved. White parents in Seattle and Jefferson County, Kentucky, challenged voluntary integration programs, claiming the districts discriminated against white children by considering race as a factor in apportioning students among schools in order to keep them racially balanced. Five conservative justices struck down these integration plans. In 1968, the court ruled in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County that we should no longer look across a city and see a “’u2009‘white’ school and a ‘Negro’ school, but just schools. ” In 2007, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote: “Before Brown, schoolchildren were told where they could and could not go to school based on the color of their skin. The school districts in these cases have not carried the heavy burden of demonstrating that we should allow this once again — even for very different reasons. . .. The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. ” Legally and culturally, we’ve come to accept segregation once again. Today, across the country, black children are more segregated than they have been at any point in nearly half a century. Except for a few remaining desegregation programs, intentional integration almost never occurs unless it’s in the interests of white students. This is even the case in New York City, under the stewardship of Mayor de Blasio, who campaigned by highlighting the city’s racial and economic inequality. De Blasio and his schools chancellor, Carmen Fariña, have acknowledged that they don’t believe their job is to force school integration. “I want to see diversity in schools organically,” Fariña said at a meeting in Lower Manhattan in February. “I don’t want to see mandates. ” The shift in language that trades the word “integration” for “diversity” is critical. Here in this city, as in many, diversity functions as a boutique offering for the children of the privileged but does little to ensure quality education for poor black and Latino children. “The moral vision behind Brown v. Board of Education is dead,” Ritchie Torres, a city councilman who represents the Bronx and has been pushing the city to address school segregation, told me. Integration, he says, is seen as “something that would be nice to have but not something we need to create a more equitable society. At the same time, we have an intensely segregated school system that is denying a generation of kids of color a fighting chance at a decent life. ” Najya, of course, had no idea about any of this. She just knew she loved P. S. 307, waking up each morning excited to head to her class, where her two best friends were a little black girl named Imani from Farragut and a little white boy named Sam, one of a handful of white students at the school, with whom we from our neighborhood. Four excellent teachers, all of them of color, guided Najya and her classmates with a professionalism and affection that belied the school’s dismal test scores. Faraji and I threw ourselves into the school, joining the association and the school’s leadership team, attending assemblies and chaperoning field trips. We found ourselves relieved at how well things were going. Internally, I started to exhale. But in the spring of 2015, as Najya’s first year was nearing its end, we read in the news that another elementary school, P. S. 8, less than a mile from P. S. 307 in affluent Brooklyn Heights, was plagued by overcrowding. Some students zoned for that school might be rerouted to ours. This made geographic sense. P. S. 8’s zone was expansive, stretching across Brooklyn Heights under the Manhattan bridge to the Dumbo neighborhood and Vinegar Hill, the neighborhood around P. S. 307. P. S. 8’s lines were drawn when most of the development there consisted of factories and warehouses. But gentrification overtook Dumbo, which hugs the East River and provides breathtaking views of the skyline and a quick commute to Manhattan. The largely and white and Asian children living directly across the street from P. S. 307 were zoned to the heavily white P. S. 8. To accommodate the surging population, P. S. 8 had turned its drama and dance rooms into general classrooms and cut its but it still had to place up to 28 kids in each class. Meanwhile, P. S. 307 sat at the center of the neighborhood population boom, half empty. Its attendance zone included only the Farragut Houses and was one of the tiniest in the city. Because Farragut residents were aging, with dwindling numbers of children, P. S. 307 was underenrolled. In early spring 2015, the city’s Department of Education sent out notices telling 50 families that had applied to kindergarten at P. S. 8 that their children would be placed on the waiting list and instead guaranteed admission to P. S. 307. Distraught parents dashed off letters to school administrators and to their elected officials. They pleaded their case to the press. “We bought a home here, and one of the main reasons was because it was known that kindergarten admissions [at P. S. 8] were pretty much guaranteed,” one parent told The New York Post, adding that he wouldn’t send his child to P. S. 307. Another parent whose twins had secured coveted spots made the objections to P. S. 307 more plain: “I would be concerned about safety,” he said. “I don’t hear good things about that school. ” That May, as I sat at a meeting that P. S. 8 parents arranged with school officials, I was struck by the sheer power these parents had drawn into that auditorium. This meeting about the overcrowding at P. S. 8, which involved 50 children in a system of more than one million, had summoned a state senator, a state assemblywoman, a City Council member, the city comptroller and the staff members of several other elected officials. It had rarely been clearer to me how segregation and integration, at their core, are about power and who gets access to it. As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 1967: “I cannot see how the Negro will totally be liberated from the crushing weight of poor education, squalid housing and economic strangulation until he is integrated, with power, into every level of American life. ” As the politicians looked on, two white fathers gave an impassioned PowerPoint presentation in which they asked the Department of Education to place more children into classrooms rather than send kids zoned to P. S. 8 to P. S. 307. Another speaker, whose child had been choked up as he talked about having to break it to his son that he would not be able to go to school with the children with whom he’d shared play dates and Sunday dinners. “We haven’t told him yet” that he didn’t get into P. S. 8, the father said, as eyes in the crowd grew misty. “We hope to never have to tell him. ” The meeting was emotional and at times angry, with parents shouting out their anxieties about safety and low test scores at P. S. 307. But the concerns they voiced may have also masked something else. While suburban parents, who are mostly white, say they are selecting schools based on test scores, the racial makeup of a school actually plays a larger role in their school decisions, according to a 2009 study published in The American Journal of Education. Amy Stuart Wells, a professor of sociology and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College, found the same thing when she studied how white parents choose schools in New York City. “In a era, we don’t have to say it’s about race or the color of the kids in the building,” Wells told me. “We can concentrate poverty and kids of color and then fail to provide the resources to support and sustain those schools, and then we can see a school full of black kids and then say, ‘Oh, look at their test scores.’ It’s all very tidy now, this whole system. ” I left that meeting upset about how P. S. 307 had been characterized, but I didn’t give it much thought again until the end of summer, when Najya was about to start kindergarten. I heard that the community education council was holding a meeting to discuss a potential rezoning of P. S. 8 and P. S. 307. The council, an elected group that oversees 28 public schools in District 13, including P. S. 8 and P. S. 307, is responsible for approving zoning decisions. School was still out for the summer, and almost no P. S. 307 parents knew plans were underway that could affect them. At the meeting, two men from the school system’s Office of District Planning projected a rezoning map onto a screen. The plan would split the P. S. 8 zone roughly in half, divided by the Brooklyn Bridge. It would turn P. S. 8 into the exclusive neighborhood school for Brooklyn Heights and reroute Dumbo and Vinegar Hill students to P. S. 307. A tall, white man with brown hair that flopped over his forehead said he was from Concord Village, a complex that should have fallen on the 307 side of the line. He thanked the council for producing a plan that reflected his neighbors’ concerns by keeping his complex in the P. S. 8 zone. It became clear that while parents in Farragut, Dumbo and Vinegar Hill had not even known about the rezoning plan, some residents had organized and lobbied to influence how the lines were drawn. The officials presented the rezoning plan, which would affect incoming kindergartners, as beneficial to everyone. If the children in the part of the zone newly assigned to P. S. 307 enrolled at the school, P. S. 8’s overcrowding would be relieved at least temporarily. And P. S. 307, the officials’ presentation showed, would fill its empty seats with white children and give all the school’s students that most elusive thing: integration. It was hard not to be skeptical about the department’s plan. New York, like many deeply segregated cities, has a terrible track record of maintaining racial balance in formerly underenrolled segregated schools once white families come in. Schools like P. S. 321 in Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood and the Academy of Arts and Letters in Fort Greene tend to go through a brief period of transitional integration, in which significant numbers of white students enroll, and then the numbers of Latino and black students dwindle. In fact, that’s exactly what happened at P. S. 8. A decade ago, P. S. 8 was P. S. 307’s mirror image. Predominantly filled with black and Latino students from surrounding neighborhoods, P. S. 8, with its low test scores and low enrollment, languished amid a community of affluence because white parents in the neighborhood refused to send their children there. A group of parents worked hard with school administrators to turn the school around, writing grants to start programs for art and other enrichment activities. Then more white and Asian parents started to enroll their children. One of them was David Goldsmith, who later became president of the community education council tasked with considering the rezoning of P. S. 8 and P. S. 307. Goldsmith is white and, at the time, lived in Vinegar Hill with his Filipino wife and their daughter. As P. S. 8 improved, more and more white families from Brooklyn Heights, Dumbo and Vinegar Hill enrolled their children, and the classrooms in the lower grades became majority white. The whitening of the school had unintended consequences. Some of the black and Latino parents whose children had been in the school from the beginning felt as if they were being marginalized. The white parents were able to raise large sums at and could be dismissive of the much smaller efforts that had come before. Then, Goldsmith says, the new parents started seeking to separate their children from their poorer classmates. “There were kids in the school that were really kids, kids who were homeless, living in temporary shelters, you know, poverty can be really brutal,” Goldsmith says. “The school was really committed to helping all children, but we had white parents saying, ‘I don’t want my child in the same class with the kid who has emotional issues. ’’u2009” The parents who had helped build P. S. 8, black, Latino, white and Asian, feared they were losing something important, a truly diverse school that nurtured its neediest students, where families held equal value no matter the size of their paychecks. They asked for a plan to help the school maintain its black and Latino population by setting aside a percentage of seats for children, but they didn’t get approval. P. S. 8’s transformation to a school where only one in four students are black or Latino and only 14 percent are began during the administration of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, known for its indifference toward efforts to integrate schools. But integration advocates say that they’ve also been deeply disappointed by the de Blasio administration’s stance on the issue. In October 2014, after the release of the U. C. L. A. study pointing to the extreme segregation in the city’s schools, and nearly a year after de Blasio was elected, Councilmen Ritchie Torres and Brad Lander moved to force the administration to address segregation, introducing what became the School Diversity Accountability Act, which would require the Department of Education to release figures and report what it was doing to alleviate the problem. “It was always right in front of our faces,” says Lander, a representative from Brooklyn, whose own children attend heavily white public schools. “Then the U. C. L. A. report hit, and the segregation in the city became urgent. ” The same month that Lander and Torres introduced the bill, Fariña, the schools chancellor, took questions at a meeting for area schools held at P. S. 307. A group of four women, two white, two black, walked to the microphone to address Fariña. They said that they were parents in heavily gentrified Park Slope, and that Fariña’s administration had been ignoring their calls to help their school retain its diminishing black and Latino populations by implementing a policy to set aside seats for children. Fariña, a diminutive woman with a attitude, responded by acknowledging that there “are no easy answers” to the problem of segregation, and warned that there were “federal guidelines” limiting “what we can do around diversity. ” What Fariña was referring to is unclear. While the Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Parents Involved tossed out integration plans that took into account the race of individual students, the court has never taken issue with using students’ socioeconomic status for creating or preserving integration, which is what these parents were seeking. In addition, the Obama administration released guidelines in 2011 that explicitly outlined the ways school systems could legally use race to integrate schools. Those include drawing a school’s attendance zone around black and white neighborhoods. At another meeting in Manhattan last October, Fariña said, “You don’t need to have diversity within one building. ” Instead, she suggested that poor students in segregated schools could be pen pals and share resources with students in wealthier, integrated public schools. “We adopt schools from China, Korea or wherever,” Fariña told the room of parents. “Why not in our own neighborhoods?” Integration advocates lambasted her for what they considered a callous portrayal of integration as nothing more than a cultural exchange. “Fariña’s silly comment shows how desensitized we’ve become,” Torres told me. “It could be that the political establishment is willfully blind to the impact of racial segregation and has led themselves to believe that we can close the achievement gap without desegregating our school system. At worst it’s a lie at best it’s a delusion. ” He continued, “The scandal is not that we are failing to achieve diversity. The scandal is we are not even trying. ” Fariña would only talk to me for 15 minutes by phone. She told me in May that her comments had been taken out of context. “If you hear any of my public speeches, this has always been a priority of mine,” she said. “Diversity of all types has always been a priority. ” She went on to talk about the city’s special programs for autistic students and about how Japanese students have benefited from the expansion of programs. But students are already the group most integrated with white students. When pressed about integration specifically for black and Latino students, Fariña said the city has been working to support schools that are seeking more diversity and mentioned a socioeconomic integration pilot program at seven schools. “I do believe New York City is making strides. It is a major focus going forward. ” On May 30, four days after our interview, the Department of Education said in an article in The Daily News that it was starting a voluntary systemwide “Diversity in Admissions” program and would be requesting proposals from principals. In 2014, several principals said they had submitted integration proposals and had not gotten any response from Fariña. The announcement of the new initiative caught both principals and parents by surprise. Jill Bloomberg, principal at Brooklyn’s Park Slope Collegiate, which teaches sixth through 12th grade, says she learned about the initiative from the news article but otherwise had heard nothing about it, even though the deadline to submit proposals is July 8, about a month away. “I am eager for some official notification for exactly what the program is,” she told me. David Goldsmith, who has been working on desegregation efforts as a member of the community education council, says he found the initiative, its timing and the short deadline for submitting proposals “puzzling. ” “We could be very cynical and say, ‘They are not serious,’’u2009” he says. Last June, de Blasio signed the School Diversity Accountability Act into law. But the law mandates only that the Department of Education report segregation numbers, not that it do anything to integrate schools. De Blasio declined to be interviewed, but when asked at a news conference in November why the city did not at least do what it could to redraw attendance lines, he defended the property rights of affluent parents who buy into neighborhoods to secure entry into heavily white schools. “You have to also respect families who have made a decision to live in a certain area,” he said, because families have “made massive life decisions and investments because of which school their kid would go to. ” The mayor suggested there was little he could do because school segregation simply was a reflection of New York’s stark housing segregation, entrenched by decades of discriminatory local and federal policy. “This is the history of America,” he said. Of course, de Blasio is right: Housing segregation and school segregation have always been entwined in America. But the opportunity to buy into “good” neighborhoods with “good” schools that de Blasio wants to protect has never been equally available to all. To best understand how so many poor black and Latino children end up in neglected schools, and why so many white families have the money to buy into neighborhoods with the best schools, you need to look no further than the history of the Farragut Houses and P. S. 307. Looking at P. S. 307 today, you might find it hard to imagine that the school did not start out segregated. The brick elementary school, which opened in 1964, and the Farragut projects right outside its front doors once stood as hopeful, integrated islands in a city fractured by strict color lines in both its neighborhoods and its schools. The 10 Farragut buildings, spread across roughly 18 acres, opened in 1952 as part of a scramble to house returning G. I. s and their families after World War II. When the first tenants moved in, the sprawling campus — named for David Farragut, an admiral of the United States Navy — was considered a model of progressive housing, with its open green spaces, elevators, modern heating plant, laundry and community center. In 1952, a black woman named Gladys McBeth became one of Farragut’s earliest tenants. Nearly three generations later, when I visited her in November, she was living in the same apartment, where she paid about $1, 000 a month in rent. Back then, she said, Farragut was a place for strivers. “I didn’t know nothing about projects when I moved in,” she said. “It was veteran housing. ” The project housed roughly even numbers of black and white tenants, including migrants escaping hardship from Poland, Puerto Rico and Italy, and from the feudal American South. To get in, everyone had to show proof of marriage, a husband’s papers and pay stubs. Robert McBeth, Gladys’s husband, drove a truck, while she stayed home raising their four children. In the years before the Brown decision, the oldest of the McBeth children went to a nearby school where the kids were predominantly black and Latino, because the New York City Board of Education bused white children in the area to other schools, according to the N. A. A. C. P. School officials at the time, as today, claimed the racial makeup of the schools was an inevitable result of residential segregation. Though Farragut was not yet segregated, most of the city was. And that segregation in housing often resulted from legal and open discrimination that was encouraged and condoned by the state, and at times required by the federal government. Nowhere would that become more evident than in Farragut, which by the 1960s was careering toward the same fate overtaking nearly all public housing in big cities. White residents used Federal Housing loans to buy their way out of the projects and to move to shiny new subdivisions. This subsidized boom led to one of the broadest expansions of the American middle class ever, almost exclusively to the benefit of white families. The F. H. A. ’s explicitly racist underwriting standards, which rated black and integrated neighborhoods as uninsurable, made federally insured home loans largely unavailable to black home seekers. percent of these loans made between 1934 and 1968 went to white Americans. Housing discrimination was legal until 1968. Even if black Americans managed to secure home loans, many homes were either because they had provisions in their deeds prohibiting their sale to black buyers or because entire communities — including publicly subsidized developments like Levittown on Long Island and Stuyvesant Town in Manhattan — barred black home buyers and tenants outright. The McBeths tried to buy a house, but like so many of Farragut’s black tenants, they were not able to. They continued to rent while many of their white neighbors bought homes and built wealth. Scholars attribute a large part of the yawning wealth gap between black and white Americans — the typical white person has 13 times the wealth of a typical black person — to discriminatory housing policies. But before Farragut’s white tenants left, parents of all colors sent their children to P. S. 307. Gladys McBeth, who died in May, sent her youngest child across the street to P. S. 307 and worked there as a school aide for 23 years. “It was one of the best schools in the district,” she reminisced, sitting in a worn paisley chair. But by 1972, Farragut was more than 80 percent black, and to fill the vacant units and house the city’s growing indigent population, the city changed the guideline for income and work requirements, turning the projects from largely to . At some point, P. S. 307’s attendance zone was redrawn to include only the Farragut Houses, ensuring the students would be black, Latino and poor. The New York City Department of Education does not keep attendance data before 2000, but as McBeth remembered it, by the late ’80s, P. S. 307 was also almost entirely black and Latino. McBeth, who sent all four of her children to college, shook her head. “It all changed. ” P. S. 307 was a very different place from what it had been, but Najya was thriving. I watched as she and her classmates went from struggling to sound out words to reading entire books. She would surprise me in the car rides after school with her discussions of hypotheses and photosynthesis, words we hadn’t taught her. And there was something almost breathtaking about witnessing an auditorium full of mostly black and Latino children confidently singing in Mandarin and beating Chinese drums as they performed a fan dance to celebrate the Lunar New Year. But I also knew how fragile success at a school like P. S. 307 could be. The few segregated, schools we hold up as exceptions are almost always headed by a singular principal like Roberta Davenport. But relying on one dynamic leader is a precarious means of ensuring a quality education. With all the resources Davenport was able to draw to the school, P. S. 307’s test scores still dropped this year. The school suffers from the same chronic absenteeism that plagues other schools with large numbers of families. And then Davenport retired last summer, just as the clashes over P. S. 307’s integration were heating up, causing alarm among parents. Najya and the other children at P. S. 307 were unaware of the turmoil and the battle lines adults were drawing outside the school’s doors. Faraji, my husband, had been elected of P. S. 307’s P. T. A. along with Benjamin Greene, another black parent from who also serves on the community education council. As the potential for rezoning loomed over the school, they were forced to turn their attention from and planning events to working to prevent the city’s plan from ultimately creating another mostly white school. It was important to them that Farragut residents, who were largely unaware of the process, had a say over what happened. Faraji and I had found it hard to bridge the class divides between the Farragut families and the black families, like ours, from outside the neighborhood. We parents were all cordial toward one another. Outside the school, though, we mostly went our separate ways. But after the rezoning was proposed, Faraji and Benjamin worked with the Rev. Dr. Mark V. C. Taylor of the Church of the Open Door, which sits on the Farragut property, and canvassed the projects to talk to parents and inform them of the city’s proposal. Not one P. S. 307 parent they spoke to knew anything about the plan, and they were immediately worried and fearful about what it would mean for their children. P. S. 307 was that rare example of a segregated school, and these parents knew it. The Farragut parents were also angry and hurt over how their school and their children had been talked about in public meetings and the press. Some white Dumbo parents had told Davenport that they’d be willing to enroll their children only if she agreed to put the new students all together in their own classroom. Farragut parents feared their children would be marginalized. If the school eventually filled up with children from white families — the median income for Dumbo and Vinegar Hill residents is almost 10 times that of Farragut residents — the character of the school could change, and as had happened at other schools like P. S. 8, the results might not benefit the black and Latino students. Among other things, P. S. 307 might no longer qualify for federal funds for special programming, like free care, to help families. “I don’t have a problem with people coming in,” Saaiba Coles, a Farragut mother with two children at P. S. 307, told those gathered at a community meeting about the rezoning. “I just don’t want them to forget about the kids that were already here. ” Faraji and Benjamin collected and delivered to the education council a petition with more than 400 signatures of Farragut residents supporting the rezoning, but only under certain conditions, including that half of all the seats at P. S. 307 would be guaranteed for children. That would ensure that the school remained truly integrated and that new parents would have to share power in deciding the direction of the school. In January of this year, the education council held a meeting to vote on the rezoning. Nearly four dozen Farragut residents who’d taken two buses chartered by the church filed into the auditorium of a Brooklyn elementary school, sitting behind a cluster of anxious parents from Dumbo. Reporters lined up alongside them. In the months since the potential rezoning plan was announced, the spectacle of an integration fight in the progressive bastion of Brooklyn had attracted media attention. Coverage appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and on WNYC. “Brooklyn hipsters fight school desegregation,” the news site Raw Story proclaimed. The meeting lasted more than three hours as parents spoke passionately, imploring the council to delay the vote so that the two communities could try to get to know each other and figure out how they could bridge their economic, racial and cultural divides. Both Dumbo and Farragut parents asked the district for leadership, fearing integration that was not intentionally planned would fail. In the end, the council proceeded with the vote, approving the rezoning with a 50 percent but children living in P. S. 307’s attendance zone would receive priority. But that’s not a guarantee. White children under the age of 5 outnumber black and Latino children of the same age in the new zone, according to census data. And the white population will only grow as new developments go on the market. Without holding seats for children, it’s not certain the school will achieve 50 percent enrollment. David Goldsmith, president of the council, told me he didn’t believe that creating in only one school made sense he is working to create a plan that would try to integrate the schools in the entire district that includes P. S. 8 and P. S. 307. But Benjamin Greene, who voted against the rezoning because it did not guarantee that half of the seats would remain for children, said: “We cannot sit around and wait until somebody decides on this wonderful formula districtwide. We have to preserve these schools one at a time. ” In voting for the rezoning, the council touted its bravery and boldness in choosing integration in a system that seemed opposed to it. “With the eyes of the nation upon us,” Goldsmith began. “Voting ‘yes’ means we refuse to be victims of the past. We are ready to do this. The time is now. We owe this to our children. ” But the decision felt more like a victory for the status quo. This rezoning did not occur because it was in the best interests of P. S. 307’s black and Latino children, but because it served the interests of the wealthy, white parents of Brooklyn Heights. P. S. 8 will only get whiter and more exclusive: The council failed to mention at the meeting that the plan would send future students from the only three Farragut buildings that had been zoned for P. S. 8 to P. S. 307, ultimately removing almost all the students from P. S. 8 and turning it into one of the most affluent schools in the city. The Department of Education projects that within six years, P. S. 8 could be white in a school system where only of the kids are white. P. S. 307 may eventually look similar. Without seats guaranteed for children, and with an increasing white population in the zone, the school may flip and become mostly white and overcrowded. Farragut parents worry that at that point, the project’s children, like those at P. S. 8, could be zoned out of their own school. A decade from now, integration advocates could be lamenting how P. S. 307 went from nearly all black and Latino to being integrated for a period to heavily white. That transition isn’t going to happen immediately, so some Dumbo parents have threatened to move, or enroll their children in private schools. Others are struggling over what to do. By allowing such vast disparities between public schools — racially, socioeconomically and academically — this city has made integration the hardest choice. “You’re not living in Brooklyn if you don’t want to have a diverse system around your kid,” Michael Jones, who lives in Brooklyn Heights and considered sending his twins to P. S. 307 for because P. S. 8 no longer offered it, told me over coffee. “You want it to be multicultural. You know, if you didn’t want that, you’d be in private school, or you would be in a different area. So, we’re all living in Brooklyn because we want that to be part of the upbringing. But you can understand how a parent might look at it and go, ‘While I want diversity, I don’t want profound imbalance.’ ” He thought about what it would have meant for his boys to be among the few children in P. S. 307. “We could look at it and see there is probably going to be a clash of some kind,” he said. “My kid’s not an experiment. ” In the end, he felt that he could not take a chance on his children’s education and sent them to private preschool they now go to P. S. 8. This sense of helplessness in the face of such entrenched segregation is what makes so alluring the notion, embraced by liberals and conservatives, that we can address school inequality not with integration but by giving poor, segregated schools more resources and demanding of them more accountability. True integration, true equality, requires a surrendering of advantage, and when it comes to our own children, that can feel almost unnatural. Najya’s first two years in public school helped me understand this better than I ever had before. Even Kenneth Clark, the psychologist whose research showed the debilitating effects of segregation on black children, chose not to enroll his children in the segregated schools he was fighting against. “My children,” he said, “only have one life. ” But so do the children relegated to this city’s segregated schools. They have only one life, too. | 1 |
Without apology or even a trace of sheepishness, Travis Lett confessed to being a thief. Of course, the only person this pensive chef ever steals from is himself. At Gjelina, his Los Angeles restaurant with a large, menu, “We’re constantly appropriating elements from dishes we’ve done in the past to create new combinations,” he said. Upon receiving a delivery of squid so fresh it luminesces, he won’t conceive of a whole new way to serve it. Instead he’ll scan the previous night’s menu for the right sauce to repurpose, an enlivening texture or flavor. Soon, last night’s rack of lamb with preserved lemon tapenade becomes today’s grilled squid with green olives and preserved lemons. There’s a lesson here: To improve your cooking, learn how to make and use sauce like a professional. Chefs are masters of efficiency in the kitchen: maximum flavor for minimum effort. Shouldn’t that be your motto, too? The right sauce can elevate any dish — improving and balancing flavor, compensating for underseasoning or adding striking visual contrast. Five basic types of sauces appear over and over again on menus and in cookbooks that feature the kind of food that cooks and eaters favor today: yogurt sauce, pepper sauce, herb sauce, tahini sauce and pesto. Master each one, and you’ll immediately have access to the dozens of variations that descend from them, too. Think of them as the new mother sauces, an updated version of the five mother sauces of French cuisine — which, after a century of guiding chefs and cooks, deserve a promotion to mother superior status. Building on the work of the chef Carême from the early 19th century, Auguste Escoffier laid out his tidy thinking about sauces in his encyclopedic textbook, “Le Guide Culinaire,” published in 1903: First, master those mother sauces (béchamel, espagnole, velouté, hollandaise and tomate). Then, gently tinker with any one of them to create an entirely new sauce. Add shallots, chervil, peppercorn and tarragon to hollandaise to get béarnaise for garnishing steak frites. Add grated Gruyére to béchamel to get Mornay, the classic cheese sauce. For decades, professional cooks faithfully abided by these rules. Then, in the 1960s, Julia Child introduced the mother sauces to home cooks, who suddenly found themselves scurrying around town in search of gelatinous beef bones for making the stock required for sauce espagnole. But over the last generation, the mother sauces have fallen out of favor with home cooks and professionals alike. They are rich and thick and involve extensive (or at least attentive) cooking time. “The problem with the classic mother sauces,” according to the chef Michael Solomonov, who cooks modern Israeli food at his restaurant Zahav in Philadelphia, “is that most of them are made with roux. Now, roux is out. Nobody uses it, except when you’re making macaroni and cheese. ” Mr. Lett, of Gjelina, finds that lighter condiments are far more versatile than their richer ancestors, especially with the shifting emphasis toward fresh seasonal ingredients. “If I’m going to make a lamb reduction out of lamb stock and red wine and tomato and fennel, that can be delicious, and that has a place in the culinary world,” Mr. Lett said. “I think it’s safe to say that that belongs on a piece of lamb, and a piece of lamb only. However, if I make a pesto, I can throw that on anything. ” The pesto may not be as technically difficult to execute, he said, or require as much forethought. “But these herby sort of bright, aromatic emulsions that we can make quickly and repurpose into other things just fit into the sensibility of how we are cooking. ” Then, like Mr. Lett, go on and cook what you’re most comfortable cooking: roast chicken, grilled steak or fish, roasted vegetables, a pot of beans or rice. Pair it with a sauce to add vibrant flavor, texture and color. Like an artfully chosen belt or pair of shoes, the right sauce will transform the distinct elements of a dish into a unified statement of taste. Eventually, you’ll start thinking of meat and vegetables as accompaniments to sauce, instead of the other way around. Learn more about the new mother sauces and find recipe pairings for each here. Recipes: Basic Yogurt Sauce | Basic Tahini Sauce | Basic Pepper Salsa | Basic Herb Salsa | Basic Pesto Sauce | 1 |
House GOP leadership told members of the House of Representatives on Wednesday evening that the House will vote on a revised version of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) on Thursday. [The announcement comes after a tumultuous process for the bill, which has seen previously scheduled votes pulled after Speaker Paul Ryan failed to accumulate enough Republican support on prior attempts to pass the bill. House Freedom Caucus chairman Rep. Mark Meadows ( ) stepped up and helped negotiate, with Tuesday Group Rep. Tom MacArthur ( ) a revised version of the bill — dubbed the MacArthur amendment — that revived the effort and collected presumably enough Republican votes to pass the bill. Meadows’ efforts in no small part seem to have succeeded where Ryan failed, rallying his House Republican colleagues behind a campaign promise to repeal and replace Obamacare — despite the fact this bill doesn’t constitute a full repeal of the previous president’s signature law. Vice President Mike Pence, White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, and others have worked alongside congressional Republicans, especially Meadows — who has emerged as a force in the negotiating process so strong some have begun calling him the acting speaker of the House in the wake of Ryan’s failures — to bring the new bill to the brink of passage. Vice President Mike Pence visited the Capitol building Wednesday afternoon to reassure lawmakers about the Obamacare repeal bill. At the Capitol this afternoon for various meetings on health care and other important issues with @SeemaCMS @SecPriceMD. pic. twitter. — Vice President Pence (@VP) May 3, 2017, Meadows, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News, commended the actions of President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and Congressman Tom MacArthur for bringing the Obamacare repeal package this close to passage. He said: Not only have we made good progress, we have to get give a good shout out to Tom MacArthur and the President and the Vice President for their efforts in the last couple of weeks. It would be a mistake to suggest that had Tom MacArthur, the President, and the Vice President have not gotten involved in this process, then we would not have the options now for everyone to consider. Tom has worked closely hard with Energy and Commerce Chairman Greg Walden and the committee to make sure that what we do is keeping in line with repealing and replacing Obamacare and drives down premiums and keeps conditions. Meadows told Breitbart News, “I fully expect that we will repeal most aspects of Obamacare by the end of May. It may have been a deterrent in the first 100 days, but by the end of the first 120 days or so it will be seen as a significant accomplishment. It’s not how you start, it’s how you finish, as the song used to say. We will have an excellent finish. ” | 1 |
By anonews
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance” – Albert Einstein
Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings.
Firemen discuss how bombs were going off in the lobby of WTC1 as they were staging to move up the building.
They explain how the building had already been hit by the plane and fires were already burning. After two explosions in the lobby, a third went off and the whole lobby collapsed.
Listen To 9/11 Firefighters Tell How Bombs Were Going Off In The Lobby Of World Trade Center 1:
Even though it’s an old video, it’s useful to share given the fact that people are still waking up to the possibility that the official story presented to the public was false. | 0 |
As I have repeatedly shown in my articles, I am a fan of all aspects of fitness—not just strength and developing muscular mass, but also cardiovascular endurance and flexibility as well. You likely knew this already.
You are also likely aware that I have done several articles on stretching, most recently the “relax into stretch” technique that I state can be used predominantly for lower body stretching such as the splits, which are and will likely always be considered the benchmark of hip and leg flexibility.
But what about upper body flexibility? Most people don’t focus on that, and that is just as important to train as lower body flexibility (namely for purposes of increased athletic performance, reduction of joint aches and pains, and, in some cases, increased strength). I have taught the readers some basic upper body stretches in the past, such as the chest stretch and the door frame stretch. But in my opinion, if you’re going to do any one stretch for upper body flexibility, that would have to be the seated twist stretch.
How It Works This stretch involves crossing your legs in a manner that will be discussed below, and twisting the torso while simultaneously locking your arm onto your bent knees. This stretch will hit most of your most prominent upper body muscles—the latissimus dorsi, the triceps, the deltoids, the obliques, the neck, and the pectorals.
In addition to those visible muscles, the twist stretch will work the deep spinal muscles , and even the muscles of the buttocks (the gluteus maximus, medius and minimus) as well.
Many athletes perform the twist stretch, particularly combat athletes such as wrestlers, judokas, and mixed martial artists that need great torso flexibility to escape from holds and pinfalls.
Sounds like something you ought to learn, doesn’t it? But how?
As I have happily admitted in the past, and will likely do so again, Paul Wade’s outstanding Convict Conditioning series has taught me this and many other exercises, and I cannot advocate Wade’s writing enough. More specifically, the Twist Stretch comes from Convict Conditioning 2 . The first book deals with the core calisthenic series—push-ups, squats, and the like. I have already gone over these in detail. In contrast, the second book deals with static holds that develop strength and flexibility such as the L-Sit and today’s topic.
While the third book deals with explosive movements such as the back and front handsprings, that will be a topic for another time. Instead, let’s go into the steps of the Twist Stretch.
All of the pictures here are taken directly from the book.
The Exercises The first twist stretch is the “Easy twist stretch.” Sit down on the floor with your feet extended. Take one foot, and put it “inside” the other leg, resting that foot next to the opposite knee, as shown.
Now, twist your body so the opposite shoulder turns towards the raised kneed (ie: if the left knee is raised, turn the right shoulder, and vice versa). Keep the foot flat on the ground and the knee stationary-just twist the torso. Allow your neck to turn as it naturally wants to turn.
Then, “lock” your torso by placing your elbow against the opposite side of the knee, while holding your body up with the other hand.
You should immediately begin to feel a stretch all around your torso.
Hold the stretch for 10 seconds, for each side. When this is comfortable for you, move on.
Step 2 is the simple twist stretch, which requires a little bit more flexibility. Place one foot over the other leg as shown above. Then, take the foot that is not flat on the ground, bend the leg back and touch the heel of that foot to the opposing buttock (ie: the right heel touches the left buttock).
This foot position will be used for all twist stretches from henceforth.
Now, as before, rotate your torso towards the opposite knee (right shoulder to left knee, and vice versa), locking yourself by placing your elbow on the opposite side of the knee, and again supporting your body with the other hand. Hold for 10 seconds, and move on.
Stretch 3 is where things become more difficult. Assume the position from Stretch #2. But this time, you will have to rotate the torso with much more force, as the goal of this stretch is to extend your arm and touch the instep of the foot that is flat on the floor. Your arm won’t be able to stretch on its own (and I don’t advise you try), you will have to accomplish this with proper torso rotation.
Stretch 4 has the difficulty increase further: Get a hand towel or some other object that is about a foot long. Assume the stretching position, and rotate the torso while holding said towel. Remove the supporting hand from the floor, and flick the towel through the “hole” made by your raised leg (obviously your hand is not extending down to your instep here). Wrapping the “support” hand around your back, grab the other end of the towel. This begins the stretch.
Each time you stretch, you will assume this position holding the towel in two hands. You will work your hands up and down the towel, slowly bringing your hands together by gripping greater portions of the towel. Eventually, you will be able to clasp fingers, and that is the final level of the twist stretch.
This process will be slow and arduous—“Coach Wade” himself admits that it took him the better part of a year to accomplish this by moving his fingers together inch by inch. I myself am not quite at the final level yet-a rough measurement shows that I have about 4 more inches of towel to go before my fingers touch, but I have certainly noticed increased mobility and flexibility already.
The towel stretch can be made easier by remembering to “worm” both hands up the towel, not just one. Actively use both to secure deeper stretches, and you will notice progress.
Doing even the easiest variations of this stretch will make you notice an immediate healing of the spine: your back will deliciously crack and you’ll feel warm and limber afterwards. And with practicing the more advanced variants, you will make yourself more limber for whatever physical activity you engage in, ranging from dancing to getting out of submission holds.
Or you could be one of millions of Americans with bad backs and hips. The choice is yours.
Read More: Why It’s Necessary To Relax Into A Stretch
| 0 |
43 Shares
8 34 0 1
ISIS terrorists have executed scores more people around the northern Iraqi city of Mosul this week and are reported to be stockpiling dangerous chemicals in civilian areas, the U.N. human rights office said on Friday.
A mass grave with over 100 bodies found in the town of Hammam al-Alil was one of several ISIS killing grounds, spokeswoman Ravina Shamdasani said. She cited testimony gleaned from sources including a man who had survived an execution of some 50 former Iraqi soldiers by playing dead.
"Clearly there are many other killing fields. We also have reports of other mass graves which we haven’t yet been able to verify,” Shamdasani told reporters, mentioning sites at Mosul airport and the village of Tal al-Thahab.
Iraqi troops had found large stockpiles of sulfur and there were credible reports that ISIS had used "phosphor projectiles" over Qayyara, close to Mosul, Shamdasani said.
"Similar credible reports in Mosul state that they have placed sulfur pits in close proximity to civilians," she said.
MORE... New ISIS Video Threatens Putin While Russian Child Executioners Execute 4 Men Saudis Foil ISIS Terror Attacks on Packed Stadium U.S. Commander John Nicholson: ISIS Attempting to Establish Khorasan Caliphate in Afghanistan ISIL executes Iraqi citizens listening to gov't radio The U.N.'s sources of information include people living in ISIS-held areas who risk their lives to speak out.
"We get so much information," Shamdasani said, without going into details. "We’ve been in Iraq a very long time.”
Shamdasani said 40 civilians were reportedly shot on Tuesday for "treason and collaboration" with Iraqi government forces, and their bodies hung from electrical poles around Mosul.
The same day a 27-year-old man was shot for using a mobile phone, Shamdasani said. Six others had been hanged on Oct. 20 for hiding SIM cards, and 20 more were reportedly shot on Wednesday for leaking information to the Iraqi security forces.
ISIS had deployed what it calls "sons of the caliphate" wearing explosive belts in the alleys of Old Mosul, and the U.N. had unconfirmed reports that they were teenagers and young boys, Shamdasani said.
ISS also announced on Nov. 6 that it had beheaded seven of its own fighters for deserting the battlefield at Kokjali, Shamdasani said.
The U.N. had also verified an ISIS propaganda video showing four children, purportedly including one Russian and one Uzbek, executing four people for spying.
The U.N. had information that abducted women, including from the Yazidi minority, were being "distributed" to fighters or told they would be used to accompany ISIS convoys, Shamdasani said.
"We're talking about war crimes, crimes against humanity, even genocide," she said. | 0 |
For a year and a half, Halliburton and Baker Hughes, two big oil field services companies, had been focused on their $35 billion merger. That distraction, even as commodity prices deteriorated and their peers cut costs to survive, is finally over. The two companies announced in a statement on Sunday that they had decided to terminate their merger. The news came after an excruciatingly long regulatory review process that culminated in a lawsuit last month by the Justice Department to block the deal on antitrust grounds. “While both companies expected the proposed merger to result in compelling benefits to shareholders, customers and other stakeholders, challenges in obtaining remaining regulatory approvals and general industry conditions that severely damaged deal economics led to the conclusion that termination is the best course of action,” said Dave Lesar, chairman and chief executive of Halliburton, in Sunday’s statement. The deal was one that raised eyebrows from the start on whether it would get past regulators. The two companies were seeking to band together to compete with the likes of Schlumberger, and, in the meantime, to erase billions in costs related to operations and research and development. Things changed drastically soon after the deal was signed in November 2014. Oil prices sank to their lowest levels in years, a burden that has affected the entire industry. Sales of assets, which were necessary to appease regulators’ concerns that the combination was just too big, suddenly became more challenged. buyers turned inward to manage their own business during the downturn, and private equity stayed on the sidelines. With the companies’ inability to shrink, the Justice Department sued in April to block the deal, saying it would “eliminate vital competition, skew energy markets and harm American consumers. ” That left the companies with little will to fight. “What Halliburton may have miscalculated here is the severity of the downturn and certainly the appetite of the Department of Justice to flex its muscles in a large corporate merger,” said Matt Marietta, an analyst at Stephens Inc. As compensation for the breakup, Halliburton agreed to pay Baker Hughes $3. 5 billion by May 4, according to Sunday’s statement. It is a lofty price, especially when cash flow is tight in the energy industry. That high fee was necessary because the deal almost did not happen two years ago. The two companies struggled initially, in the fall of 2014, to find a suitable price and breakup fee. But then, Halliburton threatened to turn over Baker Hughes’s board to restart discussions. The plan worked, with Halliburton raising its bid and agreeing to a fee if the deal were to fail to win regulatory approval. At the time, the fee was a symbolic commitment from Halliburton to do whatever it took to make sure the deal cleared the Justice Department. As companies, though, analysts say both Halliburton and Baker Hughes should be able to survive. Halliburton has about $10 billion of cash on its balance sheet that it could use toward the breakup fee or potentially other transactions, according to data by SP Capital IQ. “I don’t see a risk of either of the companies being bankruptcy risks,” Mr. Marietta said. “I think both companies are well positioned to manage through the downturn. ” Shares of both companies have surged about 20 percent each since the Justice Department’s lawsuit was disclosed on April 6. For many investors, the lawsuit was a way of dissipating the cloud of uncertainty that had covered the deal for 18 months. The move by the Justice Department was the latest tough stance from an administration that has been seen as taking more aggressive actions against large deals. The previous one was Pfizer’s attempted $152 billion merger with Allergan, which was terminated after the Treasury Department came out with new rules that eliminated many of the benefits of the deal. The European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, also raised concerns about the Hughes deal. “The transaction raised competition concerns on a very large number of markets related to oil field services provided to oil and gas exploration and production companies” in Europe, Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition commissioner, said in a statement. She said that “a number of customers contacted us to raise issues with the proposed transaction. ” The date by which Halliburton and Baker Hughes would have to decide whether to continue on their path of regulatory approval or terminate their merger agreement was extended to April 30. As a result, Halliburton postponed its earnings call to Tuesday, which many analysts assumed was done to discuss the deal. Since the downturn started at the end of 2014, Halliburton has reduced its head count by about a third, the company said in its April 22 earnings statement. The company also said it would reduce the infrastructure that it had kept in anticipation of a deal with Baker Hughes. Both companies have experienced significant slumps in revenue and reduced rig counts over the year. | 1 |
Here be dragons! Since ancient times we hear stories and legends of dragons and brave knights sent to slay said beasts seeking heroic fame or treasure. Dragons have many different characteristics depending on the culture, for example western dragons have large wings and easter dragons are more serpent like. But whatever appearance they had, the beasts were accounted as terrifying and extremely durable with super thick scaled skin. They were also known to be keepers of relics and treasure.
But these were just legends from old dark times, right? Well apparently not!
Recently footage of a dragon went viral on the internet showing the creature flying above some mountains, supposely located near Laos, China .
Some days later, footage of a man showing his family some holiday photos with one particular picture of a demonic looking dragon photobombing the view.
Conspiracy theorists were sent on a frenzy because of these recent sightings.
Watch the following video to know more!
Disclose TV SOURCE | 0 |
Get short URL 0 1 0 0 A 19-year-old was charged on suspicion of making or possessing an explosive substance after a terror alert in London’s North Greenwich Underground Station, local media reported.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Last week, UK transport police evacuated the station after a suspicious item was found on one of the trains. It was later blown up in a controlled explosion.
According to the BBC, Damon Smith was charged on suspicion of making or possessing an explosive substance with intent to endanger life, while the Metropolitan Police said he also faced a charge of intent to cause serious injury to property.
The UK security agency, MI5, said earlier this month that the level of terrorist threat to Britain was severe. ... | 0 |
Diamond Reynolds was cool and composed as an anchorwoman on Wednesday night, her voice strong as she narrated the horrific scene around her into her phone that was streaming live on Facebook. “Please, officer, don’t tell me that you just did this to him,” she said, as her boyfriend, Philando Castile, lay slumped and bleeding in the car next to her, fatally shot by a police officer. “You shot four bullets into him, sir. He was just getting his license and registration, sir. ” By Thursday, Ms. Reynolds had given in to tears, fury and grief. “She’s not calm right now,” said an aunt, Joyce Doty, who lives in Indiana and was rushing to Minnesota to be with her niece. “She’s a hot mess. She is very, very upset right now. ” About Ms. Reynolds’s Facebook video, which had been viewed more than four million times by Thursday afternoon, Ms. Doty said, “She was doing what she had to do. ” Overnight, Ms. Reynolds, 26, has emerged as an extraordinary figure in the latest shooting of an at the hands of a police officer. Apparently seconds after Mr. Castile was shot, she began to broadcast the scene live on Facebook, pointing her phone in the direction of the police officer, whose gun was still drawn, and at Mr. Castile, who was in the driver’s seat and wearing a seatbelt, his soaked in blood. In doing so, she became not only a poised and influential witness, but a teller in real time of her own treatment by the police. Ordered out of the car, then to kneel near the car, she was handcuffed and put in the back of a police cruiser. Yet the Facebook report continued, a mix of confusion, outrage, shock and poised determination to tell her version of what had happened. On social media and on television, Ms. Reynolds was praised for her strength. “I truly believe Diamond Reynolds was spared her life because she’s got a greater purpose,” wrote the user @full_of_moxie on Twitter. “She’s going to get justice for #PhilandoCastile. ” Mr. Castile, Ms. Reynolds and her daughter spent part of Wednesday running errands and going grocery shopping, she told reporters. Around 9 p. m. she said, they were pulled over by the police, apparently for a traffic violation. While she streamed video in the aftermath of his shooting, dozens of friends on Facebook wrote messages of concern. Some said they were praying. Others urged her to stay calm and avoid angering the officer. A few tried to ascertain where she was and coordinate efforts to go pick her up. But she was taken into police custody immediately after the shooting and was not released, she said, until police officers dropped her off at her home at 5 a. m. Hours later, Ms. Reynolds stood in front of the governor’s mansion, surrounded by crowds of people protesting the killing of Mr. Castile, who was a longtime employee of the St. Paul school district. “I didn’t do it for pity, I didn’t do it for fame,” she told the cameras and people assembled. “I did it so that the world knows that the police are not here to protect and serve us. They are here to assassinate us. They are here to kill us. Because we are black. ” It was unclear if Ms. Reynolds had slept since her boyfriend was killed. She met with Gov. Mark Dayton of Minnesota, who later spoke about the shooting in unusually forceful terms, saying that he did not believe it would have happened if Mr. Castile was white. Ms. Reynolds, who goes by Lavish on Facebook, identifies herself on her page as a native of Chicago who works as a housekeeper at a hotel. She said on Thursday that she had no family in Minnesota. Family members said she spent her early childhood living on the South Side of Chicago. “They took my lifeblood,” she told reporters. “That was my best friend. I never got to say my last words to that man. ” Dawn Spikes, Ms. Reynolds’s said from her home in Chicago that the day had passed in a haze of confusion. For hours early on Thursday, they did not know where Ms. Reynolds was and feared that she had been harmed. By the end of the day, she was surrounded by friends and activists. The Rev. Al Sharpton, Ms. Spikes said, had called to offer plane fare to Ms. Reynolds’s mother so she could travel from Indiana to be with her daughter. Ms. Spikes had not brought herself to watch the full video from Wednesday night. But she said she was not surprised that Ms. Reynolds, who she described as strong and outspoken, reacted the way that she did. “Diamond was calm, and the baby was calm,” she said. “Like they go through this every day. But they don’t. ” | 1 |
Another U.S. Massacre in Afghanistan By Jacob G. Hornberger
November 08, 2016 " Information Clearing House " - " fff " - The latest massacre of many innocent people by U.S. forces in Afghanistan provides another demonstration as to why it is imperative that the American people stop deferring to the authority of the national security state and demand the immediate withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Afghanistan.
In a war that has now gone on for 16 years, U.S. forces just killed at least 32 more civilians, many of whom were children. Another 25 people were wounded. Of course, this is on top of all the wedding parties, hospitals, and other victims of U.S. bombing attacks that have brought the death toll from U.S. interventionism in Afghanistan to more than 200,000, not to mention the wounded, maimed, homeless, and refugees. In the last seven days alone, 95 civilians have been killed in Afghanistan and 111 injured.
How many of those 30 people, including the children, who are now being buried had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks? It is a virtual certainty that none of them did.
How did this latest U.S. massacre occur? Afghan government forces, assisted by U.S. troops, decided to raid a home in a densely populated neighborhood in a village where a Taliban commander was supposedly having a meeting. The soldiers got trapped in a narrow dead-end street, where they began taking enemy fire from surrounding homes.
So, what did they do? Naturally, to save their lives, they called in air strikes, which necessarily involved firing missiles into the neighborhood, which killed those 32 people, including children.
The U.S. militarys position is the standard one: The military regrets the loss of innocent life but, they say, they didnt really have a choice. If they didnt fire the missiles, the U.S. and Afghan troops would be killed. If they did fire the missiles, the innocent people living in the neighborhood would die. Not surprisingly, the military chose to protect the lives of the soldiers at the expense of those innocent people living in the neighborhood.
But lets be mindful of an important fact: If U.S. troops had not still be intervening in Afghanistan, there never would have been a U.S. bombing raid on that neighborhood.
How do the people who survived the massacre feel about what happened? Not surprisingly, they were chanting Death to America! Americans should think about that the next time there is a terrorist attack in the United States.
Despite the bombing attack, two U.S. soldiers Captain Andrew Byers and Sgt. First Class Ryan Gloyer were killed in the battle.
What did they die for? No, they did not die protecting our freedom or keeping us safe. Thats nothing but pabulum for the families of those two soldiers to make them feel okay about losing their loved ones. fThey died for nothing, the same thing that those 58,000 plus U.S. soldiers died for in Vietnam.
Freedom and security of the American people have nothing to do with Americas 16-year war in Afghanistan. The Taliban are not coming to get us, any more than the North Vietnamese were coming to get us. The conflict in Afghanistan is nothing more than a civil war, one in which one side is battling to oust a regime that has been installed into power by the U.S. government.
Once the U.S. presidential race is over a race in which the 16-year-old war in Afghanistan has barely been mentioned the American people need to demand an immediate end to the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan. Continued U.S. interventionism is accomplishing nothing positive and is only pouring fuel on the fire, making matters worse for everyone, including innocent women, children, and others in Afghanistan.
Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. | 0 |
Apple vuelve a presentar el iPhone 5 porque “es la hostia” EL TERMINAL LLEVA YA MÁS DE MEDIO AÑO EN EL MERCADO Este sitio web utiliza cookies para analizar cómo es utilizado el sitio. Las cookies no te pueden identificar. Si continuas navegando supone la aceptación de la Política de Cookies. Estoy de acuerdo. Más info. | 0 |
A Lot of People in the US Are Suddenly Identifying as “White” Eric D. Knowles and Linda R. Tropp, Quartz, October 25, 2016
Many political commentators credit Donald Trump’s rise to white voters’ antipathy toward racial and ethnic minorities. However, we believe this focus on racial resentment obscures another important aspect of racial thinking.
In a study of white Americans’ attitudes and candidate preferences, we found that Trump’s success reflects the rise of “white identity politics”–an attempt to protect the collective interests of white voters via the ballot box. Whereas racial prejudice refers to animosity toward other racial groups, white identity reflects a sense of connection to fellow white Americans.
We’re not the first to tie Trump’s candidacy to white identity politics . But our data provide some of the clearest evidence that ongoing demographic changes in the United States are increasing white racial identity. White identity, in turn, is pushing white Americans to support Trump.
White identity
When we talk about white identity, we’re not referring to the alt-right fringe, the white nationalist movement, or others who espouse racist beliefs. Rather, we’re talking about everyday white Americans who, perhaps for the first time, are racially conscious.
{snip}
Non-Hispanic whites are projected to become a minority in the year 2044. This increasing diversity across the country is making whites’ own race harder and harder to ignore. {snip}
Trump and white identity politics
As whites increasingly sense that their status in society is falling , white racial identity is becoming politicized. Trump’s promise to “make America great again” speaks to these anxieties by recalling a past in which white people dominated every aspect of politics and society. {snip}
{snip}
To test our ideas about Trump and white identity politics, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of about 1,700 white Americans. The survey covered racial identities, attitudes, and political preferences. In examining the relationship between white identity and ethnic diversity, we chose to focus on an ethnic minority of particular salience in contemporary politics: Hispanics. {snip}
Do whites from heavily Hispanic neighborhoods show stronger white racial identity? To measure identity, we used a widely-used questionnaire . On a five-point scale, participants rated their agreement with items such as “Being a white person is an important part of how I see myself” and “I feel solidarity with other white people.” As shown in the graph below, there is a positive relationship between exposure to Hispanics and white respondents’ sense of racial identity.
And does white identity lead to support for Donald Trump? We examined the relationship between white identity and respondents’ likelihood of supporting Trump for the presidency versus Hillary Clinton or several Republican primary challengers. Consistent with others’ analyses , white identity strongly predicts a preference for Trump.
Whites at the high end of the racial identity scale are more than four times as likely to support Trump than those at the low end of the scale. Perhaps that’s because whites highest in racial identity are also the ones most likely to harbor negative attitudes against Latinos. Indeed, we found white identity was significantly correlated with another characteristic–prejudice.
However, differences in prejudice don’t explain the relationship between white identity and Trump support. The pattern in the figure above was tested while statistically controlling for levels of anti-Hispanic prejudice. Because the relationship between identity and support for Trump remains strong, we are confident that white identity independently predicts greater Trump support.
We’ve seen that living close to Hispanics leads whites to develop a strong sense of racial identity and that strong racial identity is associated with support for Donald Trump. We should therefore expect that whites in heavily Hispanic neighborhoods support Trump more often than those in neighborhoods with fewer Hispanics. This prediction gains credence from work by political scientist Ryan Enos, who finds that everyday exposure to Latinos can increase support for restrictive immigration policies.
Whites’ support for Donald Trump is, in fact, greatest in areas with a large Hispanic population.
{snip} | 0 |
Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI, who turned 90 years old on Easter Sunday, gave a rare birthday speech inside the Vatican expressing his thanksgiving to God for the gift of life. [“My heart is filled with gratitude for the 90 years that the good God has given me,” said Benedict, who retired as pope on Feb. 28, 2013, the first pontiff to do so in 600 years. “There have also been trials and difficult times, but through it all He has always led me and pulled me through, so that I could continue on my path,” he said. Prior to his election as Pope Benedict on April 19, 2005, Joseph Ratzinger enjoyed a brilliant career as university professor, bishop and author and has been acclaimed as one of the most eminent Catholic theologians of the late 20th century. Saint John Paul II brought Ratzinger to Rome in November 1981 to serve as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a role he held for more than 20 years until the death of Pope John Paul in 2005. Although a gentle, man in person, Ratzinger proved a faithful caretaker of Catholic doctrine, and was especially tough on “Liberation Theology,” which attempted to salvation history through the prism of the Marxist ideology of class struggle between social classes. Surrounded by friends and from his native Bavaria on his birthday, Benedict said he was full of thanks in a special way for his “beautiful homeland,” adorned with “church towers, houses with balconies filled with flowers, and good people. ” Bavaria is beautiful, Benedict reminisced, “because God is known there and people know that He has created the world and that we do well to build it up together with Him. ” “I am glad that we were able to gather together under the beautiful blue Roman sky,” he continued, “which with its white clouds also reminds us of the white and blue flag of Bavaria — it is always the same sky. ” “I wish you all God’s blessings,” he said. “Carry my greetings home, as well as my gratitude to you. How I enjoy to continue living and walking about amidst our landscapes in my heart. ” Follow Thomas D. Williams on Twitter Follow @tdwilliamsrome | 1 |
From Sprott’s Thoughts :
The yellow metal advanced mightily in the first six months of this year and then held those gains for the next three, so it was not a surprise to see it give up some ground in October.
The correction is providing an opportunity to enter stocks that we thought got away. The question is precisely when to make those moves.
That’s both tough and easy. It’s tough – impossible actually – to know exactly when and how this correction will bottom. It is much easier to look at historic patterns and overlay significant pending events to estimate likely time frames.
Looking ahead from here, there are a couple pertinent patterns. Gold’s strength declines in the final months of the year. September is almost always good and October often is as well, though the tenth month starts with a weeklong holiday in China that creates an opportunity for gold shorters to hammer the price while Chinese traders, who would usually counter such a push, are away. Shorters used that opportunity this year: gold started to fall the first trading days of the month, precisely when China was on vacation. Had Chinese traders been at their desks, I imagine the fall would have been less. The Indian wedding season runs from October through December, after the monsoons are over and before the heat really ramps up. You have undoubtedly heard about the importance of Indian weddings to gold demand, but it’s a topic worth repeating. A large percentage of the money spent on an Indian wedding goes into gold, which adds up to a lot in a nation as populous as India. And the season could be especially good this year because the monsoons were fantastic, which means Indian farmers are not stressing about a third year of drought. Indian farmers make up about a third of the country’s gold demand. Broadly speaking, 2016 has seen two kinds of gold investors: short-term speculators and long term value hunters. The first group moved into gold as it gained and many of them likely ditched in the drop. The second group probably took some money off the table during the year but left core positions intact, guided by the belief that the run is just getting going. As we approach the end of the year, these two groups have different concerns: Short term specs: Want to book gains. If they didn’t sell already, they will sell once the sector strengthens some. That being said, if the public narrative turns pro-gold again this group will buy back in, which is possible if 2017 starts the way 2016 started. Long term value hunters: Want to position in stocks offering the best leverage to gold and/or exploration opportunity, while also managing capital. On that second point, I expect to see some tax gain selling before the end of the year. I know, after five bad years that concept may seem foregin – but investors booked a lot of tax losses in the bear market and many will look to lock in some gains against which they can apply those losses, especially in jurisdictions where tax losses expire. More generally, why not lock in some tax-free gains and then re-enter on a down day? The December Fed meeting is very significant for gold. If things continue the way they are now, expect a rate hike. Gold will sell down in advance of and right after that event – but remember, gold’s early 2016 rally got going only a few weeks after the last rate hike. Corrections are rarely V-shaped. Instead, they often look more like a W. The gold price decline we just went through is likely the first low point in the pattern. The forces outlined above could create a small lift over the next few months (Indian buying on the gold side, value hunter buying on the equities side) that leads into a second low (selling by specs who aren’t already out, tax gain selling by long terms players, apprehension around the Fed meeting), all of which sets up for the W to wrap up in a January rally.
Jordan Roy-Byrne of TheDailyGold.com demonstrated this pattern fantastically:
The chart uses the HUI Index as a proxy for gold stocks and compares today with corrections in 2001, 2002, and 2006. Each followed a very strong advance, like we just experienced.
The corrections in 2001 and 2006 show the W pattern, though the 2001 W is pretty flat. In 2002 the correction followed a W pattern until falling for a third time.
History doesn’t repeat, but it does rhyme. The rhyming pattern to note is that corrections don’t have flat bottoms; they oscillate, often twice but potentially thrice (or otherwise). Be aware such oscillations are pending and try to time your buys accordingly.
The durations are also interesting – the 2001 and 2006 corrections lasted 5 months, which takes us from early August (when HUI peaked) through to early January- right on schedule.
Of course when it comes to gold, the metal itself is only part of the equation. Also important are the US dollar and rates.
The dollar was the main culprit behind gold’s October slide. The US Dollar Index gained 2.6% in the first two weeks of the month, a significant move largely because it broke above the highpoint of the band in which the greenback had been trading since the spring.
Why the rise? Largely because the pound has been getting hammered since Theresa May started talking about Brexit realities: timelines for negotiations and her preference for a “hard Brexit” to speed things along. When one currency declines another has to rise, and so it was with the pound and the dollar.
As for rates, US data continues to be middling. The market hoped for some clarity on inflation with the release of the September Consumer Price Index, but the numbers were nonchalant. Headline consumer inflation rose 0.3% month-over-month as expected, but core inflation rose just 0.1%, which was less than expected.
Expectations aside, it is notable that the core rate has now stayed above 2% year-over-year for eleven months. Stronger oil prices should add to headline inflation going forward, so inflation has met the Fed’s target.
Inflation, however, is one of three targets the Fed says need to be met for a rate hike. The other two are unemployment below 5%, which has been essentially the case for some time now, and GDP growth of at least 2%, which is looking less and less likely with each passing day.
I’m not sure the GDP miss matters. What is really on the line right now is Federal Reserve credibility. And if that sounds familiar, it’s because we had this exact conversation around this time last year, leading up to the December meeting where Yellen and Co. did raise rates.
The situation was strikingly similar. The dollar was very strong, having retained its big 2014 move to stay above 93 all through 2015. That greenback strength was all but preventing inflation and hurting US corporations. Raising rates supports the dollar, which had Yellen in a difficult position. But after talking about hikes for so long, the Fed had to move.
A year later, the same thing. Dollar strength is hurting earnings for multinational US companies, hampering inflation, and slowing GDP growth, but Yellen has a credibility problem and so a rate hike is likely.
So oscillations until December because of seasonal pressures and rate hike expectations…and then, if historic patterns around W-shaped corrections and gold’s reaction to rate hikes persist, we could be looking at a strong start to 2017.
That means this fall may be the time for patience and using patterns to position your portfolio for gold’s next leg up.
This entry was posted in Gold News and tagged gold update , Sprott's Thoughts . Bookmark the permalink . Post navigation | 0 |
More Election Coverage Millions Gather Under Times Square Countdown Clock To Celebrate End Of 2016 Election More than 10,000 balloons and nearly two tons of red, white, and blue confetti were released at the moment polls closed. Close More than 10,000 balloons and nearly two tons of red, white, and blue confetti were released at the moment polls closed. NEWS November 8, 2016 Vol 52 Issue 44 · News · Politics · Election 2016
NEW YORK—Marking the joyous occasion with singing, dancing, and a chorus of ecstatic cheers, an estimated 2 million citizens gathered beneath the Times Square countdown clock Tuesday night to celebrate the end of the 2016 election season, sources reported.
The crowd of revelers—many of whom had arrived in the early morning to stake out prime viewing locations—reportedly swelled in volume throughout the night, spilling over into nearby streets as many popped bottles of champagne, embraced loved ones, and finally joined together in a boisterous countdown seconds before the polls were scheduled to close.
“God, this is so amazing,” said local man Mark Edwards, gazing up at a fireworks display signaling the conclusion of the incessant media coverage, debates, stump speeches, and campaign advertisements of the election cycle. “I can’t even begin to describe how excited everyone is here. It’s really unbelievable.”
“W !” he shouted, his voice nearly drowned out by the sound of Kool & The Gang’s “Celebration” emanating from loudspeakers situated on buildings around the square.
According to witnesses, the scene was one of unbridled merriment, with roars of delight sweeping through the crowd every time the enormous LED screens in Times Square showed that voting had ended in another state. As vote totals began to come in, thousands in attendance reportedly raised their arms in jubilation, unfurled homemade banners, or placed calls to family members, often yelling to be heard over the sound of whistles, noisemakers, and the exuberant din of the crowd.
Throughout the night’s revelry, celebrants were also seen craning their necks and hoisting children onto their shoulders to view the One Times Square Astrovision screen displaying live feeds of equally raucous celebrations in downtown Los Angeles, Chicago’s Loop, Miami Beach, Market Square Park in Houston, and other locations throughout the country
“We stood out in the cold all day to get a good spot, but what’s a few extra hours of discomfort when you’ve been looking forward to this for so long?” said Alice Castillo, who told reporters she had driven there from Baltimore with her two daughters to be part of the excitement. “Could we have stayed home and watched it all on TV? Of course. But nothing compares to the thrill of sharing this incredible moment with so many other people.”
“When the clock struck zero and everyone erupted into cheers, it was pretty magical,” Castillo added.
While the crowd was said to have thinned after the polls closed along the East Coast, a reported 250,000 remained well into the night to take in the joyful atmosphere and pack the area’s overflowing bars. One of the Times Square celebrants, 36-year-old Brett Cleaver, said the night’s festivities had caused him to reflect on the past year and consider how tonight represented a fresh start.
“Beginning tomorrow, I’m going to try to cherish every second I have where I don’t hear the phrase ‘swing state’ or see footage from a campaign rally,” Cleaver told reporters, beaming at the prospect of never again looking at an article that speculated on how undecided voters would react to Donald Trump’s or Hillary Clinton’s latest statements. “For tonight, though, I’m just soaking up as much of this moment as I can.”
Added Cleaver, “I’m already excited to come back and do this again in 2020.” Share This Story: WATCH VIDEO FROM THE ONION Sign up For The Onion's Newsletter
Give your spam filter something to do. Daily Headlines | 0 |
Poor and Americans have fallen behind over the last generation, receiving few of the gains of an expanding economy. But we could change that by using one of the most powerful tools in the federal government’s policy arsenal. Donald J. Trump says he will do this by using large tax cuts on business and to wealthy families to encourage more business investment, while aiming to create more jobs in construction and manufacturing by spending more on new infrastructure projects and renegotiating trade deals. But another, more direct approach is possible, one aimed at turbocharging the wages of people who have lost out on the economic gains of the last few decades. That could be done by expanding a tax credit that is already in place and enjoys bipartisan support. With the help of some smart policy wonks in Washington, I examined using tax policy this way. We found that it could work, but at no small cost. On the positive side: You could replace every dime of income that the bottom 20 percent of earners have lost compared with the average family since 1979 by radically expanding a tax credit. But the main problem is this: It would be really expensive, at more than $1 trillion over the next decade, and therefore a hard sell in any political environment. The lessons from this project have more relevance for the Trump administration — which isn’t likely to embrace this kind of technocratic wonkery — than it might seem at first glance. Consider that Mr. Trump is betting on lower taxes on businesses and the investor class unleashing faster economic growth and preventing the budget deficit from skyrocketing. But he may want to consider hedging his bets. Policies that funnel direct benefits to workers might complement his approach. Put another way, as long as you’re cutting taxes by $6 trillion (that is the direct cost estimate of Mr. Trump’s plan from the Tax Foundation) carving out $1 trillion for workers who haven’t seen large raises in years may just pay some dividends. The background is that economic growth has far outpaced income growth for decades. Gross domestic product for each person in the United States was 78 percent higher in 2015 than in 1979. But the average income for those households at the 20th percentile of the income distribution rose only 6. 9 percent in that span. The reasons for this gap are endlessly debatable. Here are a few: The modern economy offers higher rewards for those with advanced education globalization has diminished the prospects of the industries where Americans once found lucrative jobs a decline in the power of labor unions has left workers with less negotiating leverage. Whatever the true cause, it is clear that the tax code could fix at least some of the imbalance. And there is already a program on the books that supplements the earnings of Americans. It is the tax credit, often simply called the E. I. T. C. and it could be used much more aggressively. The tax credit already supplements the wages of people at the lower end of the pay scale, especially those with children. In its current form, for example, a married couple with two children that makes $30, 000 a year receives a tax credit of $4, 201. The tax credit is accepted across the political spectrum: Both President Obama and the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan, favor expanding it. It rewards only those who work, is efficiently administered through the tax code and phases out automatically as a person’s income rises. How much more money in tax credits would be required to replace the income shortfall left by poorer people in recent decades? Experts at two Washington think tanks — Bob Greenstein, Chuck Marr and Huang of the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, along with the staff of the Tax Policy Center — examined that question at my request. The first step was to design a tax credit expansion that would raise the income of the bottom 20 percent of families to where they would be if they shared equally in the gains since 1979. That meant figuring out a tax change that would put an extra $2, 889 in the pockets of a family of three that in 2013 made $20, 420. An increase in benefits also helps families with somewhat higher incomes. For example, a family of four making $40, 000 would receive about $6, 000 a year in this expanded E. I. T. C. compared with the $2, 142 they get now. The benefits wouldn’t completely phase out for a family of four until they hit nearly $70, 000 of income. So what would it all cost? The Tax Policy Center crunched the numbers: The policy would deplete federal coffers by $1. 02 trillion over a decade. That is serious money. There are many ways of raising it, none of them easy. If you wanted to soak the wealthy to pay for it, for example, you could enact a 5. 6 percentage point surtax on families with income over $1 million, as Senate Democrats once proposed — yet that would cover only about 45 percent of the cost. If you favor a more approach, you could give companies tax incentives to repatriate money they are stashing abroad. But that would get you only about 30 percent of the way there. So even if you conclude that a radical expansion of tax credits for Americans is desirable, the politics of paying for it are somewhere between very hard and impossible. But that is where the Trump presidency comes in. Mr. Trump’s campaign tax plan already implies a far greater reduction in federal revenue than this idea does. He may be betting that lower taxes on businesses and the wealthy will spur investment that increases the productive potential of the economy — a classic “supply side” approach to taxes. But skeptics may argue that what ails the economy right now is inadequate demand for goods and services, and that people don’t have enough money. If they had extra cash in their pockets from an expanded E. I. T. C. they would be more likely than millionaires to spend the money, many economic studies suggest. That means that including help for the working class in any tax overhaul would add a “demand side” source of economic growth. That won’t solve the problems of Americans. The dissatisfaction with the modern global economy that helped propel Mr. Trump to office is deep rooted. It involves a feeling of lost possibility that a bit of money alone won’t solve. That is especially true for people who once saw manufacturing jobs as both a pathway to a income and a sense of purpose in life. But while technocratic solutions involving tweaking the tax code won’t relieve the angst of Trump voters, if there are going to be big tax cuts in the months ahead, there is an economic rationale for spreading the benefits beyond the top. | 1 |
MANILA — Philippine officials confirmed on Tuesday that a Canadian man held captive by the militant group Abu Sayyaf had been decapitated, the second hostage from Canada killed in the southern Philippines this year. The man, Robert Hall, was abducted in September with three other people — one of dozens of such abductions carried out in the last few decades by Abu Sayyaf, an organization of several hundred fighters that has functioned as a gang. The group has pledged allegiance to the Islamic State. The severed head of a man believed to be Mr. Hall was found in a plastic bag near a Roman Catholic church on the southern Philippine island of Jolo on Monday night, the Philippine police said on Tuesday. A video of Mr. Hall’s beheading was released on Tuesday, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist activity online. The video shows a masked man quoting the Quran while an unmasked man pushes Mr. Hall’s head to the ground and decapitates him. “We strongly condemn the brutal and senseless murder of Mr. Robert Hall, a Canadian citizen, after being held captive by the Abu Sayyaf group in Sulu for the past nine months,” Sonny Coloma, a spokesman for President Benigno S. Aquino III, said on Tuesday. “We extend our deepest sympathy and condolences to his bereaved family. ” “We truly regret that our people’s cherished tradition of extending gracious hospitality toward foreign nationals has been marred by a small band of criminals,” Mr. Coloma added. Mr. Hall, a former welder who was sailing around the Pacific, was abducted in September with his companion, Marites Flor, a Philippine citizen, from a resort on Samal Island, in the country’s south. Also abducted from the resort at the time were John Ridsdel, a Canadian mining executive, and Kjartan Sekkingstad, a Norwegian hotel manager. In April, Mr. Ridsdel was beheaded after ransom demands were not met. Ms. Flor and Mr. Sekkingstad are thought to be alive. Officially, the Canadian and Philippine governments do not pay ransom, but Philippine officials said last week that family members of those who had been abducted were negotiating to pay about $6. 5 million each for the release of Mr. Hall and Mr. Sekkingstad. Abu Sayyaf militants had said they would behead Mr. Hall on Monday afternoon if the ransom was not paid. In March, Abu Sayyaf abducted 10 sailors from Indonesia, and in April the group seized four sailors from Malaysia. The Indonesians were released in May, and the Malaysians in June. According to local news reports, both groups paid ransoms, but the Philippine government has not confirmed this. A Philippine police official said during a news briefing in Manila on Tuesday that only the head believed to be Mr. Hall’s had been found, and that it had been brought to Manila for DNA testing. The Philippine military is looking for Mr. Hall’s body to help with identification and to be able to return his remains to Canada. In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau vowed on Monday to find those responsible for killing Mr. Hall and Mr. Ridsdel. “We are more committed than ever to working with the government of the Philippines and international partners to pursue those responsible for these heinous acts and bring them to justice, however long it takes,” Mr. Trudeau said. He reiterated Canada’s policy of not paying for the release of hostages, “as doing so would endanger the lives of more Canadians. ” Both Mr. Ridsdel and Mr. Hall lived in Calgary, Alberta, for some time. Mr. Ridsdel was a former journalist and oil industry executive with a large circle of friends that included many prominent Canadians. Mr. Hall generally worked as a welder and acted in community theater productions, sometimes in starring roles, according to several Canadian accounts. A statement from his family to Maclean’s magazine gave his year of birth as 1949. Before sailing across the Pacific in 2014, Mr. Hall was said to have been living in at least two communities in British Columbia. | 1 |
Getty - Thomas Cooper
Support for a ban on “assault weapons” is at the lowest rate in two decades, according to a poll released Wednesday.
In an October survey from Gallup, 36 percent of Americans favor an assault weapons ban, down 21 percent since the pollster asked the same question in 1996. Image Credit: Gallup
And the decrease in support for broader gun control measures spans all political affiliations.
While 50 percent of Democrats support a ban, Independents and Republicans are more closely aligned with 31 percent and 25 percent support for an assault weapons ban, respectively.
The only part of Gallup's survey that had Americans favoring stricter gun laws north of 50 percent centered on firearm sales specifically. According to Gallup, 55 percent of Americans think gun transactions should be more strict. However, that figure is also lower than levels from the 1990s.
While assault rifles with selective fire are limited to military use absent a very rare and special permit, proposed assault weapons bans generally encompass semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns that some lawmakers deem too dangerous for public use.
Gun rights and gun violence issues have been at the forefront of the presidential election for much of the year. But with many terrorist attacks and mass shootings resulting politicians' calls for bans, the opposition has only grown stronger. | 0 |
By Catherine J. Frompovich This is the continuation of the testimony I will present before the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s Administrative Law Court November 2... | 0 |
Molly Guy, the owner of Stone Fox Bride, a SoHo bridal shop, often finds herself catering to an unconventional client, one inclined to tweak or entirely dispense with tradition — and with it the wearing of a wedding veil. That bride, she said, “can barely stomach the idea of wearing a white dress, let alone a veil. ” Another type, Ms. Guy said, is more likely to conform. “Her mother and grandmother got married in a veil, and she will adhere to tradition. ” Yet a third, she said, reads Vogue and doesn’t care about the traditional: “She loves the accessory element of a veil. ” Whichever type of bride — in favor, opposed or simply on the fence — her decision to wear a veil, or reject it, is apt be fraught, heavily weighted by considerations of faith, family pressures, feminist principles and the no less compelling dictates of style. But what sets this bride apart from her mother’s generation is a ringing conviction that wearing a veil is less often a matter of custom than it is one of personal choice. Allison Shoening, 33, of Centennial, Colo. a project manager for a law firm, is to marry in September. She chose to wear a veil with the blusher, the portion that covers her face. “I struggled with the decision myself for a while,” Ms. Shoening said. “Over all, I like the look of a veil. It adds an element to my wedding. ” And a wisp of decorum. “If I go strapless, I want to keep my look balanced,” she said. “I just don’t want everything bare. ” Others drop the veil, or at least the blusher, dismissing these elements as relics of male oppression, about as unwelcome on one’s wedding day as a pair of manacles. When she married four years, ago, Jessica Huseman, 26, left her head bare. “My and I both find the idea of a veil to be a little silly,” she said. Pointedly, Ms. Huseman said: “We had this mutual agreement to share our lives. It was troubling, if you saw marriage as a partnership of equals, to wear a veil. ” “The idea of my husband lifting a veil over my face as his possession in front of our family and friends would have made me feel objectified,” she said. Those saying no to the veil included a number of women with deeply held religious convictions and strong family ties. Emily Dause, 30, who grew up in a family of evangelical Christians, saw no betrayal of her faith in replacing the veil with a headband for her coming May wedding. “It seemed to me that a veil is connected to being seen as a package, something to be given away on her wedding day,” said Ms. Dause, a teacher from Mechanicsburg, Pa. “It was disturbing that the veil has been viewed historically as connected to superstitions about warding off demons. ” She and others also see the veil as a symbolic reference to the virginity of the bride. Some brides sidestep the issue entirely, said Alexis Swerdloff, the editor of New York Weddings. She said they replace the frothy length of cloth with a smaller, more discreet head covering, something like the birdcage (a small veil that cups the face) or the more fascinator, an ornamental headpiece customarily embellished with a wisp of tulle extending slightly over one eye. Such choices tend to be governed less by custom than by taste. Wearing a fascinator, or alternately, a garland of flowers or comb, “is a way of saying, ‘Oh, so, I’m a modern, cool bride, and I just like the way this looks,’” Ms. Swerdloff said. Meghan Boledovich, a restaurant forager at Print in New York, plans to wear a small veil when she marries in July. “I would wear it mostly because of how it looks,” she said. According to the Wedding Report, which tracks industry trends, based on government data and surveys of couples, the average amount spent on dress accessories (mostly veils, but other items, too) was $226 in 2015, a drop of 1. 3 percent from 2014. In a culture, it’s not surprising that brides favoring the veil tend to be swayed by images of muses like Princess Grace of Monaco, Bianca Jagger, Stevie Nicks or more contemporary figures, like Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, or Jerry Hall, who married Rupert Murdoch in March with her head covered by a cloud of lavishly embroidered tulle. As with many stylistic choices, “These things really come down to what people seeing in magazines, on blogs and on the runway,” said Ms. Guy of Stone Fox Bride. For inspiration, she refers her clients to a roster of hip role models, Gwen Stefani and Solange Knowles, among others, never mind that on her wedding day, Ms. Knowles had subbed the veil for a white cape. Lindsay Short, a senior accessories buyer for David’s Bridal in Conshohocken, Pa. said she is seeing an uptick in brides who wear veils. “In particular to a return to the cathedral veil,” she said. “Our customer tends to be the bride that wants the ball gown and the fairy tale. ” A recent resurgence of formfitting gowns calls for the trailing veil and train, Ms. Short said. “It gives her that showstopping moment many brides still dream of. ” Kristen Maxwell Cooper, the executive editor of The Knot, said surveys last year of brides who use that website showed that 57 percent bought a veil. In contrast, in 2013, only 31 percent of the brides surveyed said they bought one. “Sometimes choosing to wear a veil has nothing to do with tradition,” Ms. Cooper said. “The feeling is that it’s just something beautiful. If you’re going to wear it, it’s now or never. ” Mara Urshel, an owner of Kleinfeld Bridal in Brooklyn, said that the company is selling as many veils as it did four or five years ago, despite price increases: Some cost $6, 000 or $7, 000, or even as much as $10, 000, for the type of elaborately embellished variations some luxury houses now offer to match their gowns. (Veils more typically start at $300 and may go up to $2, 500.) Ms. Swerdloff, who skipped the veil at her own wedding this month, was somewhat startled to discover that, contrary to her expectations, most of brides who were photographed for New York Weddings’ spring 2016 issue did indeed wear a veil. So eager were some New Yorkers to make a style splash on their day of days, they insisted on wearing an ultralong veil, once relegated to the formal setting of a church or palatial estate, in the most informal surroundings. “I’ve seen a lot of long veils on brides wearing short dresses, and getting married in a community garden,” Ms. Swerdloff said. For some an elaborate veil remains the single most effusive expression of a long cherished fantasy. “I always imagined I would wear a cathedral veil,” said Allison Appell Cohen, 27, an account manager for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas in Dallas. “Every girl wants to be princess for a few hours,” Ms. Cohen said. “The veil is a statement maker, it’s so regal. Just to have it and the train of my dress trailing behind me: I knew that’s what I wanted. ” Others, loath to sacrifice tradition, cling to the veil’s symbolism. Karen Salva, 28, a location scout and makeup artist in the film industry, was married this month in Mystic, Conn. in a Jewish ceremony, her face and hair concealed. “As I got to the huppah,” she recalled, “my mother lifted the veil up and presented my husband to me. ” Benjamin Stern, her fiancé, had covered her face with the blusher veil, a variation on a Jewish wedding custom known as the badeken. Ms. Salva was moved: “It was symbolically a way of for him to say: ‘Let me do this one last thing for you. Let me protect you and shelter you. ’” Posting on the wedding blog “Love My Dress,” Jennifer Cranham commented that she initially hesitated to wear a veil. “But now, it’s one of the things I’m most excited about,” said Ms. Cranham, who will marry this year. Her mother was as well. Ms. Cranham wrote that when she tried on her veil in the fitting room, her mother gazed at her raptly. “The dress didn’t get tears,” Ms. Cranham said. “But the veil did. ” | 1 |
LONDON — She is known in the British civil service as Theresa May, or Maybe Not. But after months in which she has provided little clue as to how she intends to negotiate Britain’s exit from the European Union, Mrs. May could soon have a harder time dodging the question. Mrs. May, the surprising successor as prime minister to David Cameron, who said a day after losing the June referendum on membership in the bloc that he would step down, has largely kept her own counsel. Although she was a quiet and perhaps lukewarm supporter of staying in the European Union, she has made it clear that she views the vote as democratic and that there would not be a . Mrs. May got through the summer by saying, “Brexit means Brexit,” a gnomic statement that raised countless questions left cabinet ministers trying to shape the debate to their own, often diverging, views and annoyed her counterparts in Europe, who are eager to get on with the negotiations. The leaders of the 27 other European Union nations will meet on Friday in Bratislava, Slovakia, but Mrs. May has been conspicuously excluded from the gathering, intended to begin discussing the shape and direction of the bloc after a British exit. Like much of Britain, the European leaders are still trying to discern her priorities and to size up her approach to carrying out a historic and complex rupture. If Mrs. May has signaled any strategy, it is to play for time, giving her government — well stocked with members who were among the most prominent supporters of an exit — a chance to hash out a negotiating position, and perhaps to allow the political passions of the spring and summer to subside somewhat. Despite pressure from Brussels to move quickly, she has said that Britain will not invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, formally notifying an intention to quit the bloc and beginning a negotiation process, until the first quarter of 2017. The choices ahead are extremely complex and contentious, and for now, Mrs. May is letting various members of her cabinet set their own priorities, while emphasizing that the government — namely, she — has not yet taken official positions. She has no intention, she told Parliament, of giving “a running commentary” of the negotiations. In her cabinet, she put prominent advocates of leaving the European Union in central positions to manage that exit: Boris Johnson, the popular former London mayor who was the face of the campaign to leave the bloc, as foreign secretary David Davis, a veteran Conservative lawmaker, as secretary of state for exiting the European Union and a former defense secretary, Liam Fox, in charge of international trade. Mrs. May then set them, and some of their more colleagues, against one another. They have been fighting over turf, and over how many Foreign Office staff members could be sent to work at the other ministries. And she ruled that all three should share the use of Chevening House, a country mansion in Kent that is traditionally assigned to the foreign secretary, but that is now nicknamed Brexit Towers. While Mrs. May has remained nearly mute on the subject of the path leading to a British exit, her ministers have managed to inject their views into the public debate. Mr. Johnson, for one, wrote her a “private” memo setting out his position, which was promptly leaked. In it, Mr. Johnson, reflecting concern among campaigners from the “Leave” camp that Mrs. May would water down their victory by negotiating a break from Brussels, laid down four red lines: control over immigration from European Union countries, an end to British contributions to the European budget, ceasing the application of European legislation to Britain, and removing the country from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Mr. Johnson has also thrown his support behind a new lobbying group, Change Britain, introduced over the weekend and intended to maintain pressure on the prime minister to have what is known as a “hard exit” from the European Union, with control over immigration and no attempt to bargain with it to preserve access to the single European market of 500 million people. Other supporters include prominent Conservatives like Michael Gove, the former justice minister, and Nigel Lawson, a former chancellor of the Exchequer under Margaret Thatcher. At some point, Mrs. May’s studied silence risks creating a leadership vacuum or feeding into the economic uncertainty that has hung over Britain since the referendum. The most fundamental decision may be how much to prioritize control over immigration, one of the clear demands from the referendum, and ending the freedom of movement and labor that membership in the European Union requires. While those favoring a British departure promised during the referendum campaign that immigration could be controlled and that Britain could retain access to the single market, agreement by the other 27 countries is nearly inconceivable, as it would overthrow one of the basic tenets of the bloc: that market access and freedom of movement are inextricably linked. While reclaiming control over the nation’s borders seems to be the priority for many of the voters who favored leaving the bloc, many business interests in Britain — not least the financial services industry in the City of London and big manufacturers — want to retain access to the single market. That and the degree to which Britain would be willing to make other concessions to Europe to retain market access, is likely to be the trickiest issue confronting Ms. May. Mr. Johnson aside, would Britain be willing to pay into the European Union budget as a nonmember, as Norway does, and if not, what kind of trade deal could Britain negotiate, sector by sector, and how long would that take? When Mr. Davis told the House of Commons this month that it was “very improbable” that Britain would remain in the single market, Mrs. May, through her spokeswoman, chided him and said he was only “setting out his opinion. ” “The prime minister’s view is that we should be ambitious and go after the best deal we can,” said the spokeswoman, Helen Bower. Britain’s financial sector, which represents 10 percent of gross domestic product, wants to preserve “passporting rights,” the ability to offer services throughout the rest of the bloc, including in the 19 countries that use the euro. The chancellor of the Exchequer, Philip Hammond, who backed remaining in the European Union, also wants to preserve passporting rights. But French officials like Emmanuel Macron, the former economy minister and a possible presidential candidate, are dead set against that. In an interview in London, Mr. Macron said that financial institutions based in Britain must be prevented from selling their services in the eurozone after the country leaves the European Union. Passporting is an integral part of the single market, he said, and “should not be seen as a technical issue but a matter of sovereignty. ” He continued: “We have the eurozone. Could we accept to be cleared, regulated and de facto have inflows and outflows from a country that has decided to leave the E. U.? For me, definitely not. ” In the meantime, Mrs. May and her country are getting a taste of what it will mean to be outside Europe. While the summit meeting of the other European Union leaders on Friday in Bratislava is expected to produce little of substance, its theme is “security,” including borders, migration, terrorism and further defense cooperation. These are issues in which Britain, still a full member of the European Union, has a considerable interest and stake. How much cooperation will Britain after its departure want or expect from the European Union on such matters as policing, intelligence sharing, arrest warrants, extradition? Mrs. May, Britain’s home secretary for six years, will have to make some choices there, as well. | 1 |
A Texas pup is recovering today after being left inside the sweltering heat of a car. The dog’s owner finds himself in legal trouble and may lose his rights to the dog. [Witnesses discovered Anabella, a German mix, locked inside a car in Manor, Texas, where temperatures reached a 109 degrees, CBSDFW reported. Manor is located just east of the state’s capital city, Austin. After freeing the puppy, officials transported her to a local veterinarian, Dr. Katharine Lund, at the Austin Animal Center. Lund told reporters the puppy was near death when she received it. However, after receiving treatment, little Annabella is showing signs of a “miraculous recovery,” the Dallas CBS affiliate reported. She said that when a dog gets heat stroke, it is very difficult to get them back. Police arrested Annabella’s owner. Police identified the man as Chandler Allen Bullen. KVUE reported Bullen told police he left the puppy in the car without the engine running because he didn’t “want to waste gas. ” He faces charges of cruelty to a animal. “When we find these animals in the car, they are either on the ground or on the floor board, at the lowest point of the car because obviously heat rises,” Austin Police Animal Cruelty Officer Alan Schwettmann told the reporter. “I’m not sure what people are thinking — maybe they’re thinking they’re going into a location and just going to be there for a minute. ” As for Annabelle, “She’s running around the exam room, wagging her tail — she ate all of her food. ” Dr. Lund told the Austin ABC affiliate. “She’s very healthy. She’s very lucky. ” Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter @BobPriceBBTX and Facebook. | 1 |
Face It. Nobody Cares About Wikileaks Because Trump Doesn't Have The "Temperament" To be President. He's Scary. He taunts and threatens people on twitter. He hints at enemies lists. He says Saudi Arabia should be free to develop nukes along with South Korea and Japan.no one trusts Trumps temperament with the nuclear football.He is a dangerous idiot.He is also against free speech and would probably shut down this board just like you shut down people who say things YOU don't like.That is not to even mention his racism and sexism.It's ironic that glp backs a guy who will shut down glp if elected once his surveillance state finds criticism of him here which I will make sure it does. Anonymous Coward | 0 |
What powerful political woman is mocked for her clothes, is the target of pictures on Twitter depicting her as haggard and is routinely called a witch and a bitch? If you guessed Hillary Clinton, you’re right. But if you guessed Kellyanne Conway, you’re right, too. Misogyny, it seems, remains a bipartisan exercise. Whatever legitimate criticisms can be leveled at each woman, it’s striking how often that anger is expressed using the same sexist themes, from women as well as men. Mrs. Clinton “repeats her tacky outfits,” one Twitter critic sniped. The Inauguration Day outfit of Ms. Conway, a counselor to President Trump, looked like “a night terror of an android majorette. ” Mrs. Clinton’s hair has drawn relentless derision one Twitter user recently asked: “Why does Kellyanne Conway always look like she’s still drunk wearing make up from last night’s bender?” And both women have been repeatedly compared to witches from “The Wizard of Oz,” most recently in pictures shared on Twitter tying Ms. Conway to the witch killed under Dorothy’s house. The two women are at opposite ideological poles, but they stir up the same lingering cultural discomfort with ambitious, assertive women. “These sexist memes are not the purview of one party,” said Karen Finney, a senior adviser to the Clinton campaign. “We fear strong women and women with power. These attacks are meant to delegitimize that power. ” Ms. Conway has drawn scorn, and been disinvited from some news programs, for her references to a “Bowling Green massacre” that never took place and her defense of claims about the size of the crowd at Mr. Trump’s inauguration as “alternative facts. ” Yet some of the criticisms have taken on a distinctly sexualized tone. Witness the furor over her sitting on her knees on a couch in the Oval Office during a reception for presidents of historically black colleges. While she drew fire for disrespect, some of the criticisms included digs about her spreading her legs and raunchy allusions to oral sex, Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. Representative Cedric L. Richmond, Democrat of Louisiana, told a joke that hers was a “familiar” position in the Oval Office of the 1990s, drawing a rebuke from none other than Chelsea Clinton. (Mr. Richmond apologized Sunday evening.) A “Saturday Night Live” skit riffed on Ms. Conway as a “Fatal Attraction” stalker, breaking into the CNN correspondent Jake Tapper’s house to seduce him into having her on his show. “There seems to be great resentment of both as power hungry and wanting to control men,” said Marjorie J. Spruill, the author of “Divided We Stand: The Battle Over Women’s Rights and Family Values That Polarized American Politics. ” “Whereas Hillary is called castrating or shrewish, Conway is often called a slut. The implication is that she is using femininity to control men. ” Ms. Spruill noted that Ms. Conway had leaned back to take pictures as a favor to the participants, but that some critics had cast the pose as a sexual . Ironies abound. Ms. Conway is loathed by many Clinton aides as the architect of a presidential campaign that they felt used overtly and implicitly sexist messages. Mr. Trump repeatedly denigrated women for their appearance and, after taking office, directed his female staff members to “dress like women. ” Many conservative women, from Sarah Palin to Ann Coulter, have emphasized their femininity to distance themselves from feminists, whom they accuse of hating men. In a recent interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Ms. Conway said she supported many feminist principles but said she would not call herself one because feminism is and identified with the left. “I think some of the reticence that might be coming across in not a huge chorus of defense of Kellyanne Conway in the face of these sexist comments is the feeling that she doesn’t have our back,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff lawyer of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It’s a shame,” Ms. Thomas continued. “If women were more united and speaking up at this behavior, including when it’s perpetrated by the left, we’d all be a lot better off. ” Ms. Conway suggested in an interview with The Daily Caller that there would have been more outrage at the comments if she had been a liberal woman, adding, “And it is not just if I were a liberal woman, but if I were a one. ” Ms. Conway did not respond to a message left with her assistant requesting comment for this article. Still, Ms. Conway has spirited defenders on the right on social media who say she should be championed as an example of a groundbreaking woman in politics instead of mocked in sexist terms, and some liberal women in Facebook comments chided others for sexism. “Ladies Gents, I disagree with her as much as anyone,” wrote someone identified as Melissa Mae. “It would be nice to see comments sticking to valid points instead of ALWAYS going after women on the basis of ‘looks. ’” Mirya R. Holman, an assistant professor of political science at Tulane University who studies gender and politics, said, “This does mimic what conservative women have said in the past: ‘You liberals think you’re so enlightened, but we still get people saying vile things about us. ’” Jennifer Palmieri, the director of communications for the Clinton campaign, who memorably clashed with Ms. Conway at a postelection forum at Harvard, also sees echoes of the sexism that dogged her candidate in the attacks on Ms. Conway. She said she believed Ms. Conway should be held accountable for her actions. But she noted that while Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trump’s chief strategist, is portrayed as an “evil genius” who cannily promotes images of an America at risk from immigrants and foreign competitors, Ms. Conway is depicted as “crazy” for devising and promoting similar messages. “What I find really disturbing is because he’s a man, that’s really smart and strategic,” Ms. Palmieri said. “Why is there not a theory behind what Kellyanne does?” Whether the attacks come from the right or the left, they show a persistent anger toward women who step outside conventional roles. Social media has long enabled a thriving subculture of the violent disparagement of women, such as the GamerGate threats toward those who challenged the male bastion of video games. Much as latent racism surfaced during the presidency of Barack Obama, this election exposed a vitriol toward powerful women that continues to erupt, beyond the confines of Twitter or Reddit. “To me, the 2016 election was hopefully an opportunity to be reminded that we’re not in some kind of postgender society,” Professor Holman said. “There’s a smaller set of acceptable behaviors for women. ” Ms. Finney, a longtime Clinton aide, has watched those issues play out for more than 20 years in public life as Mrs. Clinton served as a for debates about women’s roles. She said she and conservative women would sit in green rooms awaiting television appearances and trade stories about how they were attacked. “There is this sense: ‘Are you kidding me? ’” she said. “‘Are we going back to this?’ Maybe we have to go back to go forward. ” | 1 |
President Elect Trump is the new title for New York businessman, millionaire and Republican candidate Donald J. Trump, who yesterday on November 8th, 2016 successfully won the US presidential election.
Via HumansAreFree
Trump managed to defeat favorite Hillary Clinton by a relatively narrow margin. The victory came as a shock to many Americans, regardless of where they reside on the political spectrum.
For many in the alternative media, the victory of President Elect Trump comes with a great sense of relief that career criminal Hillary Clinton was not elected (or installed) as so many had expected. Clinton had already showed a propensity to collude, cheat and lie during the Democratic Primaries where she triumphed with dirty tactics over Bernie Sanders.
For many others, turned off by Trump’s racism, sexism, xenophobia, Islamophobia and generally flippant comments, the Trump victory is devastating and will challenge them psychologically and emotionally to accept the reality for the results. Hillary Clinton: What Went Wrong?
The result is especially surprising given the degree to which Hillary Clinton had ingratiated herself with the upper echelons of the NWO (New World Order). From an outside perspective, it seemed Clinton had left no stone unturned in brown-nosing and sucking up to the most powerful people and organizations in the world, including the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) and many many more.
Additionally, given her propensity for criminality and her powerful backers such as George Soros, coupled with the serious problems electronic voting machines possess in being able to be hacked and the vote flipped, many are left wondering how Hillary lost . What went wrong? At this stage in the game of post-election analysis, we can point to a few things. Hillary’s criminal past clearly caught up with her. It is unprecedented in the history of US presidential elections for a leading candidate to be under an on-again, off-again criminal investigation.
Clinton simply has so many scandals in her recent and distant past that it’s like trying to stop a ship with 30 holes from sinking; you can’t plug them all. She was also running up against the problem that the Democrats had been in power for 8 years, when recent history shows that power seems to change hands in around that time frame.
Clinton represented the establishment, and as the popularity of both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump has shown, people are tired of the same. They intuitively know the system is rigged and corrupt, even if they can’t exactly put their fingers on it. Obama, Mr. “Hope and Change”, got in with a slick campaign of promising something different (upon which he didn’t deliver).
Trump represented anti-establishment, and whether he truly embodies that or not is an entirely different matter, because it’s all about perception. Does a Trump Victory Show that NWO Powerbrokers Are Less in Control than It Seems?
The win of President Elect Trump is truly shocking and monumental event. Many people (including myself) were predicting that it was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would win. For instance, founder of WikiLeaks Julian Assange stated before the election that “Trump would not permitted to win”. The MSM (Mainstream Media) were clearly favoring Clinton at almost every turn.
Whatever you think of Trump, we can at least say the will of the majority of American voters was respected, which is a relief, given how much corruption exists in our society today. The question now is this: is a Trump victory the result the NWO powerbrokers wanted all along, for reasons we are yet to see? Or is it a genuine uprising against these forces?
What Does a Trump Presidency Mean for Liberty and Freedom?
For me, Trump can be summarized in one word: unpredictable . President Elect Trump truly embodies unpredictability more than any other high-level politician around. One moment he is railing against the 9/11 official story, then he is declaring his love for Israel, then he is bringing up the vaccine-autism connection, then he is suggesting Snowden be killed.
Next he is suggesting GMO corn makes you stupid, then he suggesting Muslims be banned from the US, then he is calling global warming a hoax, then he is suggesting the Government be given the power to shut down the internet.
Then, after all of that, he makes friendly overtures to Russia while demonizing the hell out of Iran. What does he stand for? Peace or war? Freedom or tyranny? At this stage no one knows, probably not even Trump himself.
He has contradicted himself numerous times throughout his campaign, and merely once suggesting a good idea (i.e. looking at who controls the issuance of money instead of letting the international bankers via the Federal Reserve control it) doesn’t mean it will become his policy.
Unpredictability is one of Trump’s great qualities, but also one of his most dangerous. A lot will depend on with whom he surrounds himself once becoming President Trump, and what kind of advice they give him.
His VP Mike Pence is a standard conservative Republican who will be no doubt far more to the liking of the NWO conspirators, but Trump is also taking advice from retired DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) chief Michael Flynn, the man who came out and highlighted how the US created ISIS in a declassified DIA document. For now, America and the world have around two-and-a-half months to get over the incredible shock of yesterday’s result and psychologically prepare itself for a Trump presidency.
Meanwhile, it would be foolish for us to expect that one man can fix all of America’s problems. It will be the job of the independent and alternative media to hold Trump to his promises and his word, and to continue to share ideas of how we can truly create a better, freer and more just society. This necessarily involves questioning the very structures and systems of society, and will never magically improve with just the passing of the baton from one politician to another.
| 0 |
Troubles — like ants — seldom walk alone. In GHACHAR GHOCHAR (Penguin, $15, paper) a new novella by the Indian writer Vivek Shanbhag, translated from Kannada by Srinath Perur, a family is besieged by both and develops a taste for responding with imaginative cruelty. Sudden wealth only makes them more ruthless. “It’s true what they say — it’s not we who control money, it’s the money that controls us,” the nameless narrator realizes, a little late in the day. “When there’s only a little, it behaves meekly when it grows, it becomes brash and has its way with us. Money had swept us up and flung us in the midst of a whirlwind. ” This spiny, scary story of moral decline, crisply plotted and no thicker than my thumb, has been heralded as the finest Indian novel in a decade, notable for a book in bhasha, one of India’s vernacular languages. The Great Indian Novel has almost always referred to a particular kind of book: big, baggy, polyphonic and, crucially, written in English — “Midnight’s Children,” say, or “The God of Small Things. ” Admirers of this austere little tale, who include Suketu Mehta and Katherine Boo, have compared Shanbhag to Chekhov. Folded into the compressed, densely psychological portrait of this family is a whole universe: a parable of rising India, an indictment of domestic violence, a taxonomy of ants and a sly commentary on translation itself. The title is a nonsense phrase, meaning tangled beyond repair. Our narrator (who, with his excellent intentions and total lack of initiative, recalls Nick Carraway) hears it for the first time on his honeymoon. He has pounced on his new wife, Anita, in their hotel room, but can’t untie the drawstring of her sari’s petticoat. It’s all knotted up — ghachar ghochar, she says, reaching for a word from her childhood, a word invented by her little brother to describe a snarled kite string. The narrator is thrilled by this intimacy, to be welcomed into her secret language. In the morning, he gestures at the disheveled bedsheets, their entwined legs: ghachar ghochar. All families are their own countries, with their own idioms, rites and taboos. Anita is not the only character who has grown up within the borders of a particular culture, yet when the narrator tries to share something of his own world, as new lovers will, Anita is understandably less charmed. To survive years of privation, his peculiar family has learned to move as one. The narrator can scarcely extricate himself in his own mind: “What can I say of myself that is only about me and not tied up with the others? Wherever I try to start, I quickly run into one of three women . ’u2008. ’u2008. each more fearsome than the other. ” Everyone has a specific role. His uncle runs the family business, a spice packaging company. His fearsome mother and sister fight the family’s battles and keep his father, a of the business, appeased until he makes a will. The narrator’s job is to stay out of the way, mainly, “killing time with great dedication. ” Anita is repulsed by her new husband’s passivity and the family’s brutal, bullying tactics. “She would need to have lived through those earlier days with us,” the narrator laments. “When the whole family stuck together, walking like a single body across the tightrope of our circumstances. Without that reality behind her, it’s all a matter of empty principle. ” Shanbhag is excellent on the inner logic of families, and of language, how even the most innocent phrases come freighted with history. In the book’s funniest set piece, the narrator’s mother tells him she’s cooking him a special breakfast. He recognizes her announcement for what it is — a declaration of war — and flees the house. His mother has chosen to make this particular dish because the smell of it nauseates Anita. Anita takes the bait, the narrator’s sister is drawn into the quarrel, then his father. The powder keg explodes. “Ghachar Ghochar” is one of the first books written in Kannada — a language with around 40 million speakers — to be published in America. And much about its provenance and its passage into English is distinct — it’s the product of a true collaboration between Shanbhag and Perur, a translator whose interest in this kind of work came not from his closeness to the language but his distance. He felt divorced from his mother tongue, he told me, and hoped translation would help him find his way back. For 18 months, author and translator worked on the book, taking it apart in Kannada and putting it back together in English — lightly editing it here and there, even adding a scene or two. The actual translation wasn’t the tricky part, even though Kannada is a very different language — looser, more permissive about repetition. In fact, the translation brought certain elements into sharper focus. To establish the past tense in Kannada requires some elaborate grammatical framing. But English is efficient and allows the action of the book to move as a mind moves, to leap between present and past. If anything, translating the book from Kannada into Indian English (for a version published in India last year) proved less complicated than the subsequent jump from Indian to American English small turns of phrase evocative to the Indian reader — “washing vessels” for washing dishes, “iron box” for iron — had to be tweaked. Perur did retain one lovely local detail. The family is accused of using umbrellas to shelter them from moonlight. In the village, where no one can afford umbrellas or knows what they are, the nouveau riche put them to absurd uses. The real work of translation is always in carrying over the unsaid — never more important than in a book like “Ghachar Ghochar,” where the characters are impelled by forces within themselves, their families and their communities that feel so furtive, even unspeakable. For Perur it was a matter of establishing a voice that could be convincingly savvy and blind. He wrote and rewrote the early pages until he settled on a tone he believed could carry the novel. The book in our hands is elegant, lean, balletic — but how can we know if the essence of the original has been communicated? When this question has been put to Vivek Shanbhag, who has himself also worked as a translator, he has recalled one particular passage from the novel. It is, notably, one of the scenes he added specifically for the translation. The narrator’s wife has gone out of town and he is idly rifling through her closet, touching her clothes, her jewelry. He catches scent of her suddenly. He presses his face into her saris to smell more, but the closer he gets, the more the smell retreats. “Whatever fragrance the whole wardrobe had was missing in the individual clothes it held. The more keenly I sought it, the further it receded. A strange mixture of feelings I could not quite grasp — love, fear, entitlement, desire, frustration — flooded through me until it seemed like I would break. ” The essence of a novel, Shanbhag seems to imply, floats like fragrance through the book. It is the emanation of the sum of its parts and cannot be isolated. And perhaps any attempt to single it out is beside the point. Translation isn’t merely an act of transportation, after all, of carrying something over. It’s asymptotic (“the more keenly I sought it, the further it receded”) a kind of contented yearning and act of ardor every bit as mysterious as the narrator’s efforts to find his beloved among her belongings. | 1 |
SYDNEY, Australia — The annual beach pilgrimage during the height of summer in Melbourne, Australia’s city, is threatened by an unsettling phenomenon: shores where the tides are tainted with excrement. The Environment Protection Authority in the state of Victoria said on Monday that heavy rains had caused fecal pollution to wash into Port Phillip from rivers, creeks and drains. It advised against swimming at 21 beaches because of poor water quality. “It’s poo in all its luxurious forms that is causing the problem,” said Anthony Boxshall, the agency’s manager of applied sciences, noting that the waste was coming from people, dogs, horses, cows, birds and other animals. Fecal pollution can cause serious health problems, including gastroenteritis. Mr. Boxshall said much of the waste had been washed down the Yarra River that runs through Melbourne into Port Phillip, affecting the city’s bayside beaches the most. The agency, which takes regular water samples, rates beaches. A “good” rating means that the water is suitable for swimming. “Fair” means that rainfall has affected the water. “Poor” means people should avoid it. Residents said that the pollution had deterred them from indulging in a favorite summer ritual. “When the temperature gets above 86 Fahrenheit, Melbournians typically pack the family in the car with food and drink and spend the day at the beach,” said Sam Riley, who lives in the city. “I was going to take my two young boys to the beach myself over the summer, but now I’m concerned about whether the water is clean. ” Mr. Boxshall said any improvement in the beaches’ water quality was uncertain as long as the rain continued. The agency says it usually takes between 24 and 48 hours for the waters to clear after the rain stops. | 1 |
An investigation conducted by the Morton County Sheriff’s Department has concluded that the Frost Kennel dog-handlers hired by the DAPL, were not properly licensed to handle security in the State of North Dakota, nor are they a registered security company in the State of Ohio. On Sept. 3, Democracy Now journalist, Amy Goodman, and film crew captured Frost Kennel workers attacking land protectors with guard dogs, sparking a national outcry.
Dakota Access Pipeline Company Attacks Native American Protesters with Dogs & Pepper Spray:
According to North Dakota’s Grand Forks Herald , Frost Kennels, who was working under a private security company called Silverton, refused to cooperate with investigators, and as a result, they were supposedly only able to identify the Frost Kennel workers exposed in social media . This includes Ashley Nicole Welch, who was the main aggressor.
Ashley Nicole Welch. Source: Facebook | 0 |
Good morning. (Want to get California Today by email? Here’s the .) The Democrats’ power in the State Capitol is ironclad. And it was wielded in startling fashion last week when a Republican state senator defied a demand to stop speaking and was physically removed from the Senate floor by law enforcement. The senator, Janet Nguyen, had stood up to criticize Tom Hayden, the 1960s radical, over his opposition to the Vietnam War. Days earlier, Mr. Hayden had been honored in the Capitol for his service in the Legislature. He died in October. But as Ms. Nguyen, who fled Communist Vietnam as a child, was speaking, the presiding senator declared her out of order. When she refused to sit, he summoned the . “Have her removed immediately,” said the senator, Ricardo Lara, a Democrat. If the plan was to silence Ms. Nguyen, it backfired. Captured on video, the commotion drew wide news coverage. Republicans circulated their outrage on social media, with some adopting the #shepersisted hashtag that became a rallying cry after Senator Elizabeth Warren was herself cut off during a speech. At the California Republican Party’s convention over the weekend, Ms. Nguyen was held up as a symbol of free speech. Hundreds of stickers were printed that read: “I stand with Janet. ” “It’s unknowable for us why they wouldn’t allow it,” Jean Fuller, the Senate Republican leader, said of the action against Ms. Nguyen. Some Democrats accused Ms. Nguyen of having violated parliamentary rules. Mr. Lara declined through a spokesman to offer specifics. On Monday, Kevin de León, the Senate president pro tempore, addressed the controversy on the Senate floor, saying he was “troubled” by what happened. “Thursday was not one of the finest moments in the Senate’s history,” he said. “As the leader of this body, I take full responsibility for what transpired and for making sure it never happens again. ” That may not be enough for Republicans who are calling for an investigation. “My constituents are extremely upset,” said Ms. Nguyen, who represents a part of Orange County with a large Vietnamese population. “They’re upset that their voices were shut down. ” Even so, as happened with Ms. Warren, Ms. Nguyen’s speech got far more attention than it otherwise would have. You can read it here. (Please note: We regularly highlight articles on news sites that have limited access for nonsubscribers.) • A small plane crashed into a Riverside neighborhood. At least three people died. [The Press Enterprise] • Making sense of Measure S, the latest battle in Los Angeles’s war over development. [Los Angeles Times] • A judge affirmed a blogger’s right to publish the home addresses of California lawmakers who backed gun legislation. [The Associated Press] • Unauthorized immigrants in Sacramento are selling their furniture and cars in case they are deported. [Sacramento Bee] • California leaders demanded details from the Trump administration on immigration arrests in the state. [Reuters] • It’s science, minus the swearing. A Los Alamitos school is using a PG edition of the book “The Martian” to teach physics, astronomy and chemistry. [The New York Times] • SpaceX plans to send two tourists around the moon and back in 2018. [The New York Times] • An Uber official resigned after the company learned he was accused of sexual harassment while working at Google. [The New York Times] • How apparent human error combined with live television to effect at the Oscars. [The New York Times] • Photos: Ten images that show the extensive damage to the Lake Oroville spillway. [KCRA] • San Diego County was deluged with its heaviest rain of the winter. [San Diego ] It was “the worst party ever. ” That’s how Bill Schutt, author of the gripping new book “Cannibalism: A Perfectly Natural History,” titled his chapter on the Donner Party tragedy. In the summer of 1846, a group of 87 pioneers set out from Missouri to settle the California coast. Led by George Donner, a businessman with no trail experience, the group took a misguided shortcut that in fact put them weeks behind schedule. Still, by late October, they stood before the final mountain pass in the Sierra Nevada, just a day or two from civilization on the other side. They rested for the night. And in a stroke of colossally bad luck, disaster hit. It snowed. They were stuck. Through the winter months, the group descended into starvation, madness and, infamously, cannibalism. The last survivor, found surrounded by half eaten corpses, wasn’t rescued until . All told, 35 died during the winter encampment or trying to escape it. We caught up with Mr. Schutt, who is a professor of biology at Long Island University, by phone. Some excerpts from the conversation: Q. I get the sense that your book tries to normalize cannibalism. Is that right? A. That’s a fine line to walk. If you’re not careful it sounds like you’re condoning that behavior. And I’m not. What I’m doing is taking a look at it through the eyes of a zoologist, of a scientist. . .. When looking at survival cannibalism like the Donners, I’m not trying to normalize that, I’m trying to say that it’s predictable behavior. Q. What did you learn about human nature researching this story? A. Just how strong and rugged these people were. … They showed incredible bravery all along the way. There was individual heroism, group heroism on a scale that makes you glad that you’re human. Q. Why do you think the Donner Party attracts such fascination? A. They came so close to getting across that pass. They missed it by a night. And if you’ve ever stood in the Donner Pass and looked down and realized that they got this far — that blew me away. California Today goes live at 6 a. m. Pacific time weekdays. Tell us what you want to see: CAtoday@nytimes. com. The California Today columnist, Mike McPhate, is a Californian — born outside Sacramento and raised in San Juan Capistrano. He lives in Davis. Follow him on Twitter. California Today is edited by Julie Bloom, who grew up in Los Angeles and attended U. C. Berkeley. | 1 |
A gunman shot and killed an imam and his assistant on the street near their mosque in a corner of Queens on Saturday afternoon, the police said. The police said the imam, whom they identified as Alauddin Akonjee, 55, and the assistant, Thara Miah, 64, were shot shortly before 2 p. m. near the mosque, Jame Masjid, in the Ozone Park neighborhood. Officers found them with gunshot wounds to their heads when they arrived at the scene, at the corner Liberty Avenue and 79th Street. The police said that both men were taken to Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, where they died. The crime, during a wave of hostility across the country, unsettled many in the neighborhood, an enclave that area leaders described as a growing hub of Muslim families from Bangladesh that straddles the border between Brooklyn and Queens. The two men had just left a prayer session at the mosque, according to Misba Abdin, 47, who attends the mosque and is a leader of an area nonprofit that works with Bangladeshi residents. Mr. Abdin and other congregants said that Mr. Akonjee, originally from Bangladesh, lived in the area. The police said it appeared that Mr. Akonjee and Mr. Uddin were targeted but did not immediately release a motive for the shooting. They were wearing religious garb, and Mr. Akonjee was carrying more than $1, 000, the police said. The money was not taken. They were approached from behind by a man wearing a dark polo shirt and shorts as they were turning onto Liberty Avenue, according to witnesses and video footage from the area, the police said. Witnesses saw a man running away with a gun, the police said, and they released a sketch of the suspect on Sunday morning. The police said that they were investigating what led to the shooting, saying they did not know whether it was related to a botched robbery, a dispute or anything tied to their religion or race. “There’s nothing in the preliminary investigation that would indicate that they were targeted by their faith,” said Henry Sautner, a deputy inspector in the New York Police Department. A law enforcement official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the active investigation, said that the crime did not fit any existing pattern and cautioned that the motive was still wide open. “What it does seem is that it was planned, to some extent,” the official said. “It looks more like a targeted shooting than anything else. ” Detectives have not found video footage of the shooting itself, nor have they located an eyewitness, the official said. That video shows the gunman following the two victims. “There is no question that he was targeting them,” the official said. “But it’s hard to say why. ” One snippet of video shows the victims walking, with the suspected gunman following deliberately behind, the official said. Then, they go out of the frame of the camera. Around 15 seconds later, another video shows the same man “running back,” alone, after the shooting, the official said. “Unfortunately, because we don’t have yet good video coverage of the actual shooting, it’s hard to say what transpired,” the official said. “Witnesses said they heard several shots. They saw the guy running with the gun in his hand. ” No one has said they heard the gunman speak during the shooting. Hundreds of Ozone Park residents rallied Saturday evening at the crime scene, a nondescript block underneath elevated subway tracks, to denounce the shooting. “We want justice!” they chanted over the sounds overhead of the subway and helicopters. A few hours later, another group of residents, religious leaders and members of groups gathered in front of the mosque several blocks away. Mohammed Abu Yusuf, 67, a travel consultant and a longtime resident, said he came out because the shooting had angered him. “Here, it is surprising,” he said. Many people said that the nature of the shooting, in the middle of the day with no obvious motive, led them to conclude that the men were targeted because of their race or religion. “It could have been me over here,” said Kobir Chowdhury, 40, the president of Masjid a nearby mosque in Brooklyn. Zead Ramadan, the board president of the Council on Relations in New York, connected it to the current political discourse, where rhetoric and a rise in Islamophobia have left many feeling strained. “This is a crime against humanity,” he said. In the United States, there has been an average of 12. 6 suspected hate crimes a month in recent years, according to an analysis of F. B. I. statistics, but that number appeared to spike late last year. “Of course we’re afraid,” said Jamil Kahn, 38, who has attended Mr. Akonjee’s mosque and who works in the neighborhood. Those who knew and worshiped with Mr. Akonjee described him as a quiet and pious man. “He doesn’t talk, unless he acts,” Mr. Abdin said. “He just comes to the mosque and comes home. ” Out of many imams, Mr. Chowdhury said, “he was a imam who you would want to hear his sermon. ” | 1 |
Guilt By Association Smear In NYT Gets Virginia Dare Wrong AGAIN > November 7, 2016, 10:20 am
The New York Times has done the usual guilt-by-association thing in blaming Trump for us here at VDARE.com, people like us, and people we don’t even know (which last would include David Duke ) For his part, Mr. Trump has not expressed support for the white nationalist groups that have rallied to his candidacy. But neither has he distanced himself from them, with the exception of David Duke , the former Klansman who is running for Senate and whom Mr. Trump disavowed after some initial wavering last winter. It’s nonsense to say he wavered on this–see Ann Coulter’s Ann Coulter: Trump Wins “Disavowal” Game, Then Super Tuesday. [White nationalists]are now beginning to grapple with how to best harness the energy that his campaign has stirred up. Mr. Spencer’s group, the National Policy Institute, which says it is “dedicated to the heritage, identity and future of people of European descent in the United States, and around the world,” is organizing a valedictory conference in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington shortly after the election. The aim is to take stock of the presidential campaign — “when our ideas began invading the mainstream” — and figure out what’s next. In addition to Mr. Spencer, the speakers will include Peter Brimelow, the founder of Vdare.com , an anti-immigration website named for Virginia Dare, the first white baby born in the English colonies.
Donald Trump’s Extremist Supporters Feel Like Winners Either Way, By Jonathan Mahler And Julie Turkewitz, The New York Times, November 6, 2016
That’s better than the way they frequently get it wrong, when they say she was the first white child born in America, but the way we put it is this: “the first English child to be born in the New World. ” That, by the way, is the way a lot of historians put it.
However, a pre-multicultural poem by Rosemary and Stephen Vincent Benet put it better:
Peregrine White
Were the first real Americans
Anywhere. | 0 |
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — The Cannabis Culture Lounge has everything a pothead might need to feel right at home: $3 marijuana buds, bongs for rent, bags of Skittles and Doritos for sale, and black leather couches where customers can recline in contemplation in a pungent haze. Never mind that it is all technically prohibited by Canadian law. Still, some enthusiasts have higher hopes for the business, which opened more than a decade ago as a kind of speakeasy for marijuana smoking — long tolerated by the city’s authorities. The lounge began selling marijuana after Justin Trudeau was elected prime minister in November. “This is what recreational marijuana legalization in Canada looks like,” said Jodie Emery, an activist and the of the lounge and several medical marijuana dispensaries across Canada. Mr. Trudeau has promised to make recreational marijuana legal in Canada as soon as next year, bypassing the nation’s strict medical marijuana regulations. Under the latest rules for medical use, announced last week, patients must be registered, have a prescription and obtain their supplies only by mail from a producer or by growing a limited amount privately. Impatient to test the shifting political boundaries, entrepreneurs have opened hundreds of illicit dispensaries across Canada, selling products like organic marijuana buds and potent cannabis concentrates, while local governments and the police have tended to look the other way. The marijuana boom they hope for has yet to materialize, though the Canadian government is now doing preliminary work on a measure to govern recreational use. Even so, the authorities in some cities have begun to crack down, raiding scores of the illegal dispensaries and arresting dozens of owners and workers. And a lobbying battle is raging between the new entrepreneurs and the licensed medical marijuana producers, who were the only ones allowed to grow and provide the plant under the old regulations. One side complains about being shut out by a politically connected cartel, while the other complains about unfair and damaging competition from those who are breaking the law. The collision of money, politics and policing has made recreational marijuana a major test for Mr. Trudeau. How he solves it will be watched closely in Canada and the United States, where federal law bans marijuana but state laws are inconsistent. “Canada is looking to hit a home run, rather than singles and doubles,” said Allen St. Pierre, the executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, based in the United States. “What Mr. Trudeau is trying to do is something we can only dream about here. ” But it will not come quickly. A task force will take a few months to gather comments from local officials and the public before the Canadian Parliament starts to draft a measure. “It’s a long process, and we’re hard at it,” said Bill Blair, a Liberal Party lawmaker and former Toronto police chief whom Mr. Trudeau has put in charge of the marijuana effort. Mr. Blair said in an interview that the government’s top priorities were to keep marijuana away from minors and the profits out of the hands of organized crime. That may point to a system similar to the way liquor is sold in some Canadian provinces and American states: strictly through or licensed stores. Some cities in British Columbia are unwilling to wait for Ottawa, though, and are introducing their own marijuana policies in defiance of federal law. The province has been a center of marijuana growing and culture for decades, and it borders Washington State, where recreational marijuana is legal — and extremely profitable. In Victoria, the provincial capital, where more than 30 dispensaries have opened in recent years, city leaders proposed new regulations in late July that would allow such businesses to operate if they abide by certain restrictions. Victoria is following Vancouver, which has begun issuing licenses to some of the 120 or so marijuana shops in the city, provided they comply with rules, like being at least 1, 000 feet away from the nearest school. Two licenses were granted in the spring, and at least 11 more are in the pipeline, officials said. Dispensaries that do not obtain a license will be shut down, according to Kerry Jang, a Vancouver city councilor. Mr. Jang dismissed complaints that the regulations and fees — up to 30, 000 Canadian dollars, or about $23, 000, for a license, and fines for violations — were too onerous. “They got used to making money hand over fist with very little oversight,” he said. Krystian Wetulani, 32, who owns three shops, said he felt he was stuck in red tape. Only one of his shops has been approved, and he is appealing a denial for another. Fines are mounting while he seeks locations that will conform to regulations. “It’s impossible,” Mr. Wetulani said. “Landlords hear the word ‘weed’ and just say no. ” In the Downtown Eastside, a gritty Vancouver neighborhood, a crowd of people were smoking crack and shooting heroin on the sidewalk outside Farm, a dispensary with a mission. It employs only women, many of them immigrants, former prostitutes or victims of sexual assault, and its proceeds help finance neighborhood programs like needle collection and a community garden. The city tolerates open use of illegal drugs in the neighborhood and a local site for heroin users, but Farm still fell afoul of the distance restrictions in the new marijuana regulations, and had to win an appeal to stay open. Wang Jingzhi, 83, an immigrant who lives in the nearby Chinatown neighborhood, said she frequently bought marijuana from Farm to soothe the aches and pains of old age. “Whenever I smoke it, my whole body feels better,” she said in Chinese. Like many in the local marijuana business, Cait Hurley, 28, the dispensary’s manager, said she was worried that new government regulations would favor corporate interests and exclude women and the working class. “There’s a lot of fear this will all be taken away from us,” she said. Under Mr. Trudeau’s conservative predecessor, Stephen Harper, the government stripped patients of the right to grow their own medical marijuana in 2013, and centralized production and distribution through a few licensed companies. But in February, a federal court reinstated patients’ growing rights the new rules announced on Aug. 11 put that ruling into effect. Facing greater competition, the 34 producers are calling for everyone to be held to the same rules they must follow, said Colette Rivet, the executive director of a producers’ trade association, Cannabis Canada. “We would be shut down if we tried to sell to dispensaries,” Ms. Rivet said. Some critics of Mr. Trudeau’s legalization efforts see a conflict of interest in the close ties between political insiders shaping marijuana policy and the licensed producers. The head of the task force, A. Anne McLellan, is a former cabinet minister who advises a law firm that represents clients in the industry, and Chuck Rifici, a founder of one of the licensed producers, was the volunteer treasurer of Mr. Trudeau’s Liberal Party until June. Mr. Rifici said he had no personal or political connection to the government’s legalization process, but he acknowledged that the licensed companies “typically pull in people who know how to navigate government. ” While lawmakers design new legalization policies, entrepreneurs like Ivan Miliovski say they feel caught in the middle. Mr. Miliovski said his company, Vodis Pharmaceuticals, had spent years and millions of dollars seeking a license to produce medical marijuana under the existing regulations. His entire business plan is now in doubt. “We don’t know what’s going to happen,” Mr. Miliovski said. “The fear is that it won’t help all the people who have struggled and advocated and pushed to make this industry legitimate. ” | 1 |
Stamptastic / Shutterstock.com
Oh good. The world reaches a crossroads, or probably a road off a cliff, just when I want to relax and watch gratuitous violence on the tube. To judge by the rapid drift of events aboard our planetary asylum, the talons of Washington and New York on the world’s throat are fast being pried a-loose. The Global American Imperium is dying. Or so it sure looks anyway.
I say talons of “New York and Washington” because America’s foreign policy, forged in those two cities, belongs entirely to them. Americans have no influence on it. Further, none of what the Empire does abroad is of any benefit to Americans. Do you care at all what happens in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, or the South China Sea? Do you want to pay for it? America has been hijacked.
And the Empire prospereth not. It prospereth very not. Consider the recent record of the world’s hyperpower:
Washington does not have control of Afghanistan, and obviously is not going to.
Washington does not have control of Iraq, and appears unlikely to.
Washington did not back Iran down, and isn’t going to.
Washington did not back Russia down in Ukraine and Crimea, and isn’t going to.
Washington did not back China down in the South China Sea and, while this is perhaps not over, the Empire seems to be losing.
Washington has not backed North Korea down and is not going to.
In the Philippines, President Duterte has told Obama to “go to hell” as being “the son of a whore,” which may be taken to indicate latent hostility. He is vigorously seeking rapprochement with China. While Washington may have him murdered, it seems to be losing control of the Little Vassals of ASEAN.
Turkey seems to be cuddling up to Russia–that is, looking East like Duterte. Maybe Washington can turn this around temporarily, but there’s a whole lot of wavering going on.
Meanwhile Washington thrashes around impotently as per usual in Syria, and, though the jury remains out on this one, looks to have poor prospects. If Washington–AKA New York–loses here, after doing so in Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and Afghanistan, the Empire will beyond redemption be on the downward slope.
The United States is not in danger. The Empire is. This is not good. Empires, the Soviet Union notwithstanding, seldom go quietly. Either Washington gambles on war of some sort against Russia, or Russia and China, in the desperate hope of reversing things, or the Empire gets slowly eaten. Or not so slowly. Once one country pries itself loose, many may rush for the door.
New York may go for calculated war against Russia–say, cyberwar expected not to turn into shooting war, shooting war in Syria not expected to turn into global shooting war, global shooting war not expected to turn into nuclear war. This will be a crapshoot. Note that America has badly misguessed the outcomes of every war since Korea.
This is why the American election actually matters, unusual in Presidential contests. It is Blowhard against Corruption, a swell choice, but Trump is firmly against war with Russia, and Hillary for. Her military understanding is that of a fried egg.
The woman is both a fool and a knave but, it seems, Trump has talked trash, and therefore she will likely be President. Weirdly, the future of the world depends on how an excited electorate of political middle-schoolers responds to one candidate’s dirty talk. From a curmudgeon’s point of view, it is pretty funny. It is funnier if one lives outside of the radiation footprint.
But back to business. The seaboard Axis of Evil needs a war because almost every tide runs against it. Proximately, the Axis has pushed China, Russia, and Iran together against the Empire. (First rule of empire: Do not let the dissidents unite.) Many signs suggest that the world, or much of it, is beginning to see China as its future. The BRICS, the SCO, the NDB, the AAIB–all exclude the US. China becomes the major trading partner of country after country. The twilight deepens.
Not all goes wrong for the Empire–not yet, but things are getting spooky. On the European Peninsula of Asia, countries remain docile, especially England and, much more importantly, Germany. Yet even among Washington’s European harem, there seem to be faint stirrings of a forgotten independence. As I understand it, Germany’s businessmen would very much like to end Washington’s sanctions on Russia and improve trade with China, which would be greatly to the benefit of the Peninsula. Washington won’t let them. It can’t. If the Europeans did what would be good for themselves, and looked to Eurasia, then the fat lady, already warming up, would burst into full bellow.
Which, methinks, raises the likelihood that Washington will in desperation do something phenomenally stupid. At this writing Hillary’s camp seems to be prepping the public for war with Russia. The telescreen tells us day after day that Putin is Hitler, that Russia is expanding, that the Russkies are hacking the election, that they cause indigestion and falling hair. Is this just Hillary waggling her codpiece in the expectation that Moscow will demurely back down, as God intended? Or will she again send other people’s children to fight for her in somebody else’s country?
The larger picture, assuredly obvious to New York, is truly grim–for New York, not for Americans. China has a huge population of a billion Han Chinese, versus two hundred million Caucasian Americans–these being the scientific, technological and entrepreneurial brains of the Empire. One must not notice this, but you can bet that New York and Beijing do. Economically China is growing hugely, advancing technologically at a high rate, building rail lines that now extend from the Chinese Pacific coast to Madrid. It will increasingly dwarf the Empire no matter what happens–short of a world war.
The curtain falls in ways unnoticed. China recently launched a communications satellite, the world’s first employing quantum cryptographic links, which cannot be intercepted. The intention of this, as well of the QC link from Beijing to Shanghai, is to keep the NSA off China’s back. A small thing, perhaps. Yet if successful and adopted en masse by other countries weary of Washington’s meddling, the result will be a loosening of the Empire’s grip on everybody’s communications.
For the Empire it is, as Elvis sang, “now or never.” Lenin spoke of “useful idiots.” Ours aren’t even useful, but they call the shots.
Fred can be reached at [email protected]. Put the letters pdq in the subject line or your email will be heartlessly autodeleted by a raging spam filter. (Reprinted from Fred on Everything by permission of author or representative) | 0 |
US Promises 'Further Investigation' Into Attack in Fadhiliya by Jason Ditz, November 01, 2016 Share This
On October 22, US warplanes carried out airstrikes against the village of Fadhiliya, a few kilometers away from the city of Mosul. Two of the strikes hit a civilian house within, killing eight civilians from a single family, including three children.
It is unclear why the report of this airstrike is just coming to light now, over a week later, but it marks the first significant civilian casualties in a US airstrike related to the Mosul invasion. A previous incident the day before, initially reported as a US airstrike against a Shi’ite mosque near Kirkuk, is now being reported as likely an attack by the Iraqi Air Force, and not the US.
Pentagon officials confirmed conducting a number of airstrikes against Fadhiliya at the time of the civilian deaths, and say they are conducting “further investigation” to determine all the facts related to the attack. Saying the take the allegations seriously.
As the fighting around Mosul advances into more densely populated areas around the city itself, the concerns are growing that such airstrikes are going to cause a number of civilian casualties. This is doubly true because now Iraq is warning residents of Mosul against fleeing, and the US has announced its intention to carry out airstrikes to prevent “fleeing ISIS” from getting away. Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz | 0 |
France — His bike crushed under a motorcycle’s tires, his Tour de France lead in jeopardy and his rivals pedaling away, Chris Froome did the only thing he could think to do: He ran toward the finish line. It was a stunning moment in a modern Tour de France: The holder of the race leader’s yellow jersey suddenly turning into a runner, heading up a mountain pass without his bike. It took an appeal to prevent Froome, a Briton with Team Sky, from losing the race lead. The chaotic string of events began on Thursday when spectators swarmed over the road about one kilometer from the finish of Stage 12’s truncated climb up Mont Ventoux. They forced a television motorbike to stop suddenly at the same time that Richie Porte, an Australian with the American BMC team, attacked Froome. Some reports said the motorcycle hit a spectator who was blocking the road. Porte smashed into transmission equipment on the back of the motorbike. Bauke Mollema, who was also with Porte and Froome, cartwheeled into the air. Froome hit the ground on the other side of the motorcycle, out of its camera’s sight, with Mollema ending up on top of him. Adding to the confusion, a large police motorcycle then ran over Froome’s Pinarello bicycle, breaking it. Immediately on the scene were mechanics who provide service to riders when their team cars are not nearby. But they were traveling by motorcycle and had only spare wheels to offer. That’s when Froome changed sports. Uncertain about when a team car might arrive with his spare bike, he propped his broken machine against a photographer’s motorcycle and began running. For about 40 agonizing seconds, he chugged along at a remarkably good pace, considering he was wearing shoes with rigid carbon fiber soles and heading up a steep mountain road. Porte, after fiddling with his bike, remounted it and wobbled past Froome, who kept looking backward for salvation. Another group of neutral service mechanics appeared in their yellow station wagon and gave Froome one of the rarely used generic bicycles from its roof. It was too small for Froome. Even worse, he was unable to clip into its pedals, which were not compatible with shoe cleats. One of Froome’s team cars finally arrived, and he changed bikes again. By the time he crossed the line, Froome had lost the yellow jersey, on paper at least, to another British rider, Adam Yates, of the team. Froome, realizing that was the case, shook his head when he crossed the line. Cycling’s rule book includes a section that prevents riders from incurring a time penalty if they crash or have a mechanical problem within the final three kilometers of a stage, provided that they eventually make it across the finish line. But that does not apply to mountain stages like the one on Thursday. Froome’s team appealed to the race referees, who represent the International Cycling Union, the sport’s governing body, not the Tour organization. They agreed that the unusual circumstance warranted a time adjustment for Froome. “What a finish Ventoux is full of surprises,” Froome told France Télévisions as he thanked the jury of referees and the race organization. “I’m very content. ” Yates, if anything, appeared relieved. “You don’t want to take the yellow jersey like that you want to take it with your legs,” he said. “He’s the rightful holder of the yellow jersey. ” The incident is likely to increase growing concern among riders about the dangers posed by the 70 motorbikes within the race and the behavior of some fans, many of them apparently less than sober. Even after the crash, a man with a handwritten sign supporting the Polish climber Rafal Majka repeatedly blocked a television motorbike as it tried to follow Froome’s run. “If you can’t control the crowds, what can you control?” Porte said. “It’s not really the motorbikes, it’s the crowd. They’re just in your face the whole time, pushing riders, and at the top there, that was just crazy. ” On most days at the Tour, at least in the final kilometer, crowd barriers line the road to the finish line and the police deal severely with fans who try to circumvent them. That was not the case on Thursday because of a decision made the previous night, paradoxically, in the interests of safety. The finish line was moved six kilometers down Mont Ventoux to avoid fearsome winds that were blowing down recreational riders at its summit. On Thursday, the winds flipped over a tourist’s camping trailer near the top. Christian Prudhomme, the Tour’s director, said wind problems at the revised finish line, on a road in a forested area, prevented crews from putting up the normal number of barriers. He did not offer any apology to the riders when speaking to reporters. While the failure to control the crowd had an obvious cause, motorcycles are a more thorny issue. Some riders have proposed that they be replaced by scooters. But that idea has gone only as far as a single mechanical service scooter. It seems unlikely, however, that scooters could carry the equipment needed for live television transmission or provide adequate speed for the gendarmes who patrol the race route. Almost lost in all the confusion was the day’s racing. For the first time in this Tour, Nairo Quintana, a Colombian with Movistar, who is seen as a top challenger, attacked Froome on the Ventoux climb. But he was unable to cause any grief for Froome, who left Quintana behind in the closing moments of the stage. But up to the point of the crash, Froome had been unable to shake Porte, who previously rode for Sky and was Froome’s key assistant in the mountains. Ahead of the chaos and the impromptu running competition, the stage was won by Thomas De Gendt, a Belgian with Lotto Soudal, who outdistanced another Belgian, Serge Pauwels, of the Dimension Data team. Afterward, they said that they struggled to make it through the crowd that set off the chain reaction that brought down Froome, Porte and Mollema. Neither De Gendt nor Pauwels is a likely threat to win the overall title. On Friday, the riders will contest the Tour’s first time trial, in which they individually race against the clock. The event is one of Froome’s specialties. | 1 |
by Outis Philalithopoulos By Outis Philalithopoulos, who met an untimely end five years ago, and now “wears the chains he forged in life” as an economist. In the previous episode of this series , the ghost Outis was guided by the Spirit of Liberalism Past to 1996, where a younger Outis had gone to hear a popular liberal speaker. Afterward, his girlfriend Corinne was eager to catch a talk by a postmodern scholar she held in high esteem; eventually, Outis agreed to come along. The speaker was a critical theory/political science professor named Wendy Brown, and she was presenting themes from her recent book, States of Injury . I tried to keep from glancing over at where Corinne and the young Outis were sitting. But my mind kept wandering, and Brown’s style hardly aided my efforts to stay focused on her lecture. The first ten minutes of her talk were spent explaining why her book had notbeen written, the boundaries it would not respect, how not only the first description she gave of her book but also the second were “disingenuous,” with such a cascade of negations that her prefatory remarks alone contained 2 no ’s, 2 neither ’s, 9 not ’s, and 6 nor ’s. To me, it all started to seem hazy, but my ghostly companion must have been enjoying himself. A person listening to Brown might have imagined that human thought was one colossal debate between Marx, Nietzsche, and Foucault, with Max Weber and Jean Baudrillard in supporting roles. Meanwhile, the unappeased menace of Catharine McKinnon lurked on the horizon. But then, something in what Brown was saying started to sound familiar: Postmodern power is often characterized as decentered and diffuse even while it incessantly violates, transgresses, and resituates social boundaries; it […] irrigates through networks rather than consolidating in bosses and kings […] We are today very susceptible to simply getting lost […] insofar as being lost means being without (fixed) means of orientation […] Brown was describing a disorienting world without clear standards of truth. But did she mean that the world was naturally like this, as Foucault seemed to believe, or did she see this “postmodern condition” as something the system had inflicted upon everyone, upon Allan Bloom as well as upon Al Franken? In our efforts to “cope” with our “lost” condition in postmodernity, Brown explained that one strategy was fundamentalism, or “reactionary foundationalism.” Quoting Feher and Heller, Postmodern Political Condition : fundamentalists select one aspect of the dogma, one “text of foundation” with regard to which they declare all attempts at hermeneutics politically subversive. That did sound like the fundamentalists I’d seen on TV. “What’s hermeneutics?” I whispered to Foucault. “Interpretation,” he whispered back. Brown had more to say about fundamentalism. Reactionary foundationalism is not limited to the political or intellectual Right, but emerges across the political spectrum from those hostile to what they take to be postmodern politcal decay and intellectual disarray. What? Apparently others were startled as well, because she immediately followed up on her point. When these precepts “without which we cannot survive” issue from the intellectual or political Right, they are easy enough to identify as both reactionary and fundamentalist. It is fairly clear what they oppose and seek to foreclose: inter alia , democratic conversation about our collective condition and future. But when they issue from feminists or others on the “Left,” they are more slippery, especially insofar as they are posed in the name of caring about political things, caring about “ actual women” or about womens’s “ actual condition in the world” […] So: the Right is trying to stop us from thinking democratically about the future, and the Left cares about real problems and real women – so why is it a problem that we believe that we are right? I want to suggest that much North Atlantic feminism partakes deeply of […] ressentiment and that this constitutes a good deal of our nervousness about moving toward an analysis as thoroughly Nietzschean in its wariness about truth as postfoundational political theory must be. Whoa, whoa, whoa. How are we swimming in ressentiment ? Doesn’t she mean right wingers ? Why should our analysis be thoroughly Nietzschean? Why should it be “wary” about the truth? Why feminists? What [is it about] identity’s desire for recognition that seem[s] often to breed a politics of recrimination and rancor, of culturally dispersed paralysis and suffering […]? I found Brown hard to understand. And the things I did understand, I wasn’t sure I liked. She closed by saying that the Left should give up substituting Truth and Morality for politics. Are we willing to engage in struggle rather than recrimination, to develop our faculties rather than revenge our subordination with moral and epistemological gestures, to fight for a world rather than conduct process on the existing one? The audience began to applaud, who knows with how much sincerity. I was annoyed, and I knew one person who I was pretty sure had understood the talk better than I had. “Michel,” I said urgently. He turned to me. “There are two things I don’t understand. First, Brown criticizes the Left for believing in myths like “truth is always on the side of the damned and excluded,” and “truth is clean of power and always positioned to reproach power,” and advocates instead “living and working without such myths, without insisting that our truths are less partial and more moral than theirs.” “Yes,” Foucault agreed. “But isn’t she insisting precisely that her postmodern, Nietzschean ideas about politics and rhetoric are less mythical, more true than those of the less reflective people she criticizes?” “Ah,” he said. “I understand. And your other question?” “When she says we need to do all these things, give up on ressentiment , make our analysis more Nietzschean, stop talking about absolute truth – why should we? Once you and she demonstrate to everyone that morality and truth are inseparable from power, and people merely engage in ‘wars of position’ and ‘amoral contests about the just and good’ – why would anyone bother to use postmodernist rhetoric?” “Well…” he began. I cut him off, with some heat. “Why wouldn’t they just continue to talk about morality and truth the way they do now? If all that matters is winning, and morality and truth help one side to win, then according to you , why care if they are myths?” “Right,” Foucault said, his eyes sparkling. “About those two questions…” He was not alarmed by my questions in the least, and I feel sure he would have addressed my doubts. But I stopped paying attention to him as Corinne and the young Outis walked toward me. The moment I had been dreading had come. Corinne’s eyes were shining. “Did you see what she was saying? Wasn’t it brilliant? And she’s so courageous, willing to criticize even Left political movements that she identifies with…” Outis looked reluctant to disappoint her. “She’s definitely very intelligent… It’s just that…” Corinne froze. “What?” she said in a suddenly much more subdued voice. He seemed to be gathering his courage. “It’s just that I don’t see why it has to be so complicated. Why can’t she just say what we ought to do?” Corinne retorted, “But don’t you see – that’s the problem. Smart people have always been trying to tell people what is true and what to think. It’s a form of power. And she doesn’t want to fall into that trap.” “Right,” Outis said, “but it feels like she sees the whole world as ringed by traps, so that everything a person could possibly say might somehow be wrong.” “But Outis,” Corinne said, “lots of things people say really are problematic. Lots of times their wording shows habits of thought that are precisely the ones we can recognize as having underpinned horrible things like colonialism.” “Does that mean we’re all going to have to talk like her ?” Outis muttered. “What do you mean, like her ? What’s so bad about the way she talks?” “It’s like she believes we’re all under surveillance by a Great and Powerful Monster. And so she has to speak in code so that that neither the Monster nor anyone else will be able to prove that she’s opposing it.” “You’re making it sound completely childish!” Corinne said with indignation. “Well, maybe it is!” Outis said, his voice rising. I turned to the Spirit in anguish. “Leave me!” I cried. “Take me back, haunt me no longer!” He looked at me with surprising gentleness in his eyes. “There are two shadows more,” he said, “that you must see; and yet, a respite will give you space to consider the points of fixity, of immobilization, in your position, so you can begin to see them as elements in a strategy…” And with these words, he and everything else vanished, and I found myself alone in the abyssal vale. There were things then that I did not wish to remember, and I forced my mind onto other topics. “Postmodernism,” I repeated darkly to myself. Even the word sounds pretentious. What does it mean, anyway? It seemed to be in opposition to “modernism,” which in turn meant how people in the early twentieth century often believed that humanity could work toward absolute truth, and that current Western society represented the culmination of historical progress. For reasons Brown seemed to think were obvious, modernism was not good, and so it had been replaced by the “postmodernism” that had bestrode the academic world like a colossus. Postmodernist irony, cultural relativism, skepticism about objective truth – in various guises, these could be seen not only in Foucault and Brown, but also in Franken, and echoes of it were present in Bloom’s critique. So who killed it? And why was its death a secret? If the most brilliant liberals of the 1990s had been convinced that all attempts to establish absolute truth were fundamentally flawed and problematic, how had we solved the problem and successfully created a set of fixed reference points for orienting ourselves? Had we, paraphrasing Feher and Heller, chosen a dogma and “declared all attempts at interpreting it critically to be subversive”? * * * In the next episode, Outis moves closer to the present, and watches as the outlines of modern progressivism become more discernible. Sources: Wendy Brown’s book is online here . 0 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 |
Breitbart October 26, 2016
A Syrian Christian mother shared her story of escaping the Islamic State terrorist group in a suburb of Damascus while losing her son, George, after he refused to identify himself to the terrorists by a Muslim name.
The woman, Alice Assaf, said that she had heard that her son, who was beaten and shot to death, was spared a much worse fate: being baked in the ovens of the local bakery or “kneaded” to death in the bakery’s industrial-sized mixer.
Assaf told her story to Roads of Success , a human rights NGO with a focus on the rights of women and Christians in the Middle East. The group has provided testimony of the plight of Christians and Yazidis persecuted by the Islamic State to the House Foreign Relations Committee and regularly publishes video interviews with ISIS attack survivors.
The Christian Post picked up the story and video interview, in which Assaf narrates the final days of her 18-year-old’s life. This article was posted: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 6:30 am Share this article | 0 |
Email
An Oregon jury delivered a stunning blow to federal prosecutors Thursday, acquitting seven principal defendants in the five-week long trial of participants in the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge that riveted national attention on southeastern Oregon earlier this year.
The jury acquitted brothers Amman and Ryan Bundy, the most high-profile of the occupation participants, along with five of their co-defendants, of charges of conspiring to use “force, intimidation, and threats” to prevent federal employees from working at the refuge. They were also charged with possessing a firearm in a federal facility with the intent that it “be used in the commission of a crime.” Also acquitted were: Shawna Cox, Kenneth Medenbach, Jeff Banta, David Fry and Neil Wampler (shown).
The 41-day occupation of the wildlife refuge was launched in protest over the prosecution (and persecution) by federal authorities of Harney County ranchers Dwight Hammond, Jr. and Steven Hammond , who were charged with arson and received harsh prison sentences for setting controlled burns on their own range that got out of control, and did minor damage to small plots of federal land. As we have reported previously, federal agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the National Park Service regularly burn up huge tracts of “public land” — as well as private homes, farms, ranches, and businesses — with virtually no legal consequences. The hypocrisy, injustice, and viciousness of the federal prosecution of the Hammonds, a respected ranching family, played strongly with the many supporters — both local and from across the country — who flocked to their defense.
Although there was plenty of photographic, video, and eye-witness evidence that many, if not most, of the participants in wildlife refuge were indeed armed, the jury noted that the prosecution had failed to prove “intent.” In an e-mail to the Oregonian/Oregon Live , one of the jurors, known only as Juror 4, stated that the defense lawyers' arguments, coupled with the jury instructions on how to apply the law to the evidence, resonated with the jury. The juror also suggested that the arrogance of the federal prosecutors offended members of the jury. "Inference, while possibly compelling, proved to be insulting or inadequate to 12 diversely situated people as a means to convict,'' Juror 4 wrote. "The air of triumphalism that the prosecution brought was not lost on any of us, nor was it warranted given their burden of proof.”
A melee of sorts broke out in the courtroom after the jury verdicts were read, resulting in Ammon Bundy’s attorney, Marcus Mumford being tasered and taken down by several U.S. Marshalls. The courtroom drama began, reportedly, when Mumford protested U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown’s order that Ammon and Ryan Bundy remain in custody. Mumford approached the bench and argued that his client should be allowed to leave the courtroom a free man, along with the other acquitted defendants, unless he was presented with papers providing the authority to place Bundy in custody. As the noise and commotion escalated, Judge Brown ordered, “Everybody out of the courtroom!” Mr. Mumford was briefly detained and then joined the celebrating defendants and their supporters on the courthouse steps. He said he was "very pleased, very gratified,” by the verdicts. “This jury was dedicated,” he said. “They listened to our case.”
"I had a very peaceful feeling but I didn't know we'd all be found not guilty," said defendant Shawna Cox. "I'm so grateful to the jury.''
Defendant Neil Wampler told reporters, "It's a tremendous victory for rural America.''
U.S Attorney Billy Williams, who was in charge of the prosecution, was obviously disappointed. "While we had hoped for a different outcome, we respect the verdict of the jury and thank them for their dedicated service during this long and difficult trial,'' Williams said. "We strongly believed that this case needed to be brought before a Court, publicly tried and decided by a jury.''
Not surprisingly, Williams disappointment was shared by activists on the Left. The Oregonian/OregonLive quoted Jennifer Rokala, executive director of the Colorado-based Center for Western Priorities (CWP), one of the anti-ranching Big Green attack groups. "We are deeply disappointed in today's verdict, which puts our park rangers and scientists at further risk just for doing their jobs. The outcome of today's trial will undoubtedly embolden extremist groups,'' Rokala said. "It's imperative that local, state, and federal law enforcement ensure the safety of our land managers.''
However, Rokala and her faux environmentalist colleagues at CWP, are likely more concerned with expanding federal control over lands in the western states than with any real danger to “rangers and scientists” posed by “extremists” such as the Bundys. Rokala’s Center for Western Priorities is part of an immense network of Astroturf “environmental” organizations fronting for Big Business/Big Foundation globalists, and retailing the smears of the radical Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC).
Echoing the CWP’s Rokala, the Washington Post used the verdict to cite so-called “experts” about the rise of “rightwing extremists.” Citing the subversive and discredited SPLC the Post reported: Experts say right-wing extremists were emboldened by the outcome of that standoff. The Southern Poverty Law Center issued a report stating that the Bundy ranch standoff “invigorated an extremist movement” across the country.
The only violence or shooting that came out of the occupation was initiated by federal and state authorities when, on January 26 of this year, they shot to death rancher LaVoy Finicum , in a highway ambush they euphemistically called a “traffic stop.”
The Bundy brothers and their father, Cliven Bundy, are still slated to stand trial on federal charges related to the 2014 standoff with federal authorities at their Nevada ranch .
And another seven Malheur Wildlife Refuge defendants are scheduled to go on trial in Oregon in February. However, it is difficult to see how federal prosecutors intend to get a conviction on these lesser occupation participants, some of whom were merely visiting supporters, if they couldn’t get a jury to convict the “ringleaders.” Photo of defendant Neil Wampler being greeted by supporters after acquittal: AP Images
Related stories : | 0 |
Twitter has reversed one of its new features following complaints that it encouraged even more abuse on the platform. [After Twitter announced on Monday that a new feature would stop notifying users when they’d been added to a list, several complaints started to immediately gain traction. We want you to get notifications that matter. Starting today, you won’t get notified when you are added to a list. https: . — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) February 13, 2017, “Being added to a list and knowing what list you were added to was literally the last useful thing about Twitter,” complained one user. @TwitterSafety Being added to a list and knowing what list you were added to was literally the last useful thing about Twitter. — Anthony Quintano 🌴 (@AnthonyQuintano) February 13, 2017, “This isn’t a good move. Please reconsider,” added another. @TwitterSafety @Support @mrdonut @peterseibel This isn’t a good move. Please reconsider. — EricaJoy (@EricaJoy) February 13, 2017, “Yeah no this update is bad and seems to misunderstand the nature of abuse on the platform,” another user proclaimed, while one verified account simply added: “you just made it easier for people to stalk other people so good job. ” @SwiftOnSecurity @TwitterSafety @Support yeah no this update is bad and seems to misunderstand the nature of abuse on the platform cc @jack, — jake (@jakebeckman) February 13, 2017, @TwitterSafety you just made it easier for people to stalk other people so good job. — Carli Velocci (@velocciraptor) February 13, 2017, @TwitterSafety @Support Man, I was having hope y’all would make one smart move to start 2017. Come on. — Austin Braun (@AustinOnSocial) February 13, 2017, @TwitterSafety lol you are so fucking bad at this, — Lev Novak (@LevNovak) February 13, 2017, @TwitterSafety how boneheaded. — Stephen Toulouse (@Stepto) February 13, 2017, Following complaints, Twitter quickly reversed their decision, announcing, “We heard your feedback — this was a misstep. We’re rolling back the change and we’ll keep listening,” just hours later. We heard your feedback — this was a misstep. We’re rolling back the change and we’ll keep listening. https: . — Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) February 13, 2017, Twitter first announced their new wave of features in a blog post last week. The changes reportedly include extra measures to stop suspended users from creating new accounts, “safer search results,” and the collapsing of “potentially abusive or Tweets. ” “In the days and weeks ahead, we will continue to roll out product changes — some changes will be visible and some less so — and will update you on progress every step of the way,” declared Twitter in their post. “With every change, we’ll learn, iterate, and continue to move at this speed until we’ve made a significant impact that people can feel. ” Charlie Nash is a reporter for Breitbart Tech. You can follow him on Twitter @MrNashington or like his page at Facebook. | 1 |
November 17, 2016 - Fort Russ News - PolitNavigator - translated by J. Arnoldski -
Petro Poroshenko’s regime has initiated criminal proceedings in which figure around 10,000 participants of the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation in Donbass. This was stated on the sidelines of the Verkhovna Rada by the former head of the Donbass Nationalist Battalion and PM, Semen Semenchenko.
According to Semenchenko, “volunteers” have come under criminal proceedings insofar as they do not have the right to bear arms and use them in Donbass, since martial law has not been instituted in the country. Now all such “volunteers” could theoretically be declared war criminals.
Semenchenko stated:
“Those volunteers whose situation is discussed every day from the parliamentary podium are currently under threat. More than 10,000 criminal cases have been initiated for various reasons. Noncompliance with the law on defense, the fact that martial law has not been imposed and, accordingly, part of the functions carried out by servicemen are now de jure a crime. For example, in 2014, the National Guard of Ukraine added, so to say, more than 10,000 reservists to the ATO. These servicemen did not have the rights of National Guardsmen, did not have the right to bear arms, and did not have the right to participate in the war - they did not have the right to kill people and be killed. Now more than thousands of people could at any moment be charged as criminals if the government or political situation changes.”
Follow us on Facebook!
Follow us on Twitter!
Donate!
| 0 |
Masoud Barzani Pledges That Kurdish Forces Won’t Enter Mosul Posted on Oct 29, 2016
By Juan Cole / Informed Comment
Masoud Barzani, the president of the Kurdistan Regional Government (a super-province of Iraq) said Thursday that the KRG paramilitary, the Peshmerga, will not enter Mosul.
He also remarked that last week’s Daesh attack on Kirkuk was an attempt to divert attention from the terrorist organization’s failures in Mosul.
At a news conference in Ninewah Province with Ammar al-Hakim, leader of the National Coalition (and of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, a Shiite clerically led party), Barzani said, “Peshmerga forces will not enter the city. The counter-terrorism brigades will be the ones who go in . . .” He was referring to the Iraqi army special forces, 3 brigades under the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Service, which are crack troops who have been at the forefront of the liberation of Iraqi cities from Daesh (ISIS, ISIL).
Barzani presumably made this announcement to assuage fears of Iraqi Arabs that the KRG would take advantage of the campaign against Daesh to annex Mosul or parts of Mosul to Iraqi Kurdistan, as they annexed Kirkuk province in 2014. It is significant that he said this in the presence of al-Hakim, an important Shiite clerical and political leader who is supporting the government of prime minister Haydar al-Abadi. Barzani is underlining that the Mosul campaign is national and not ethno-sectarian.
Meanwhile, Central Command head, Gen. Joseph Vitel, estimated that in the week and a half of the Mosul campaign, some 900 Daesh fighters have already been killed. There were only an estimated 3500 to 5000 fighters in Mosul when the campaign began, with another 2000 in positions around the city. Presumably most of those killed belong to the latter group, meaning that the outskirts now have as few as 1100 fighters.
Advertisement Square, Site wide
Vitel admitted that because the Iraqi army left the western gate of the city open and did not completely encircle Mosul, small bands of Daesh fighters were slipping out of the city in civilian clothing. Letting them escape, he suggested, was preferable to having to fight them all hand-to-hand in Mosul’s back alleys. Moreover, civilians can escape by the same route, and some 10,000 have already fled.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians could be displaced by the campaign, in a city of about 1 million (half its size before it fell to Daesh in 2014). TAGS: | 0 |
Wed, 26 Oct 2016 16:06 UTC © podesta.com Because there's no job like being an agent for a country that kills Christians, gays, critics of the government, treats women like dirt, massacres thousands of foreigners, and funds terrorists. Good job, Tony! Tony Podesta — brother of the now-disgraced Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, whose files Wikileaks has been publishing — is not only a powerful Democratic Party lobbyist, but a registered foreign agent receiving a hefty monthly paycheck from the nefarious government of Saudi Arabia. No — as tinfoil-hat conspiracy theorist as it might sound — that scenario is the absolute truth. In 1988, John and Tony Podesta formed the Podesta Group and have used their bigwig party-insider status to lobby and influence government policies — while, at various times, simultaneously holding positions of power — which has created a number of glaring conflicts of interest . According to the March 2016 filing made in accordance with the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, Tony Podesta is an active foreign agent of the Saudi government with the "Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court," and acts as an officer of the Saudi Arabia account. At this point, the web of pay-for-play between the Washington, political heavyweights, and foreign governments comes lurching into the spotlight. For starters, the Podesta brothers' lobbying firm receives $140,000 every month from the Saudi government , which, in no uncertain terms — and despite a status as privileged U.S. ally — wages a bloody campaign of censorship, murder, suppression, human rights abuse, and worse against its civilian population, while bombing hospitals, schools, and aid convoys in neighboring nations. John Podesta previously served as President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, founded the think tank Center for American Progress ( which oh-so-coincidentally touts the need to reframe Saudi Arabia's hopelessly tarnished image ), counseled President Obama, and now chairs Hillary Clinton's campaign. Tony Podesta acts as a foreign agent for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — lobbying to influence government policy in favor of the Kingdom — while also contributing to and bundling for Hillary Clinton's campaign. Think about that for a moment. One brother uses the influence of money to both affect United States foreign policy and infuse the Clinton campaign with cash — while the other wields the influence of power as a political insider for the same entities. As the Washington Post reported months ago in July, Tony Podesta's lobbying efforts "raised $268,000 for the campaign and $31,000 for the victory fund." "The Saudis hired the Podesta Group in 2015 because it was getting hammered in the press over civilian casualties from its airstrikes in Yemen and its crackdown on political dissidents at home, including sentencing blogger Raif Badawi to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for 'insulting Islam,'" Alternet reported . "Since then, Tony Podesta's fingerprints have been all over Saudi Arabia's advocacy efforts in Washington DC. When Saudi Arabia executed the prominent nonviolent Shia dissident Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, causing protests throughout the Shia world and inflaming sectarian divisions, The New York Times noted that the Podesta Group provided the newspaper with a Saudi commentator who defended the execution." Comment: Think about that for a moment. Notably, the Saudis' reputation has only worsened as further atrocities pile up — concerning not only a record number of barbaric beheadings this year, but suspiciously reckless and errant U.S.-backed coalition bombings of civilian sites in several regions of active conflict. Additionally, Tony Podesta's status as a registered foreign agent for Saudi Arabia is at least obliquely discussed in an email from April 15, 2015 — ironically revealed by Wikileaks' publishing of his brothers personal communiques — in which former Clinton Foundation chief development officer and now campaign national finance director Dennis Cheng wrote to a small group of insiders: "Hi all - we do need to make a decision on this ASAP as our friends who happen to be registered with FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] are already donating and raising. "I do want to push back a bit (it's my job!): I feel like we are leaving a good amount of money on the table (both for primary and general, and then DNC and state parties)... and how do we explain to people that we'll take money from a corporate lobbyist but not them; that the Foundation takes $ from foreign govts but we now won't. Either way, we need to make a decision soon." To which general counsel to the Clinton campaign, attorney Marc Elias, replied [all errors original and emphasis added], "Responding to all on this. I was not on the call this morning, but I lean away from a bright line rule here. It seems odd to say that someone who represents Alberta, Canada can't give, but a lobbyist for Phillip Morris can. Just as we vet lobbyists case by case, I would do the same with FARA. While this may lead to a large number of FARA registrants being denied, it would not be a flat our ban. A total ban feels arbitrary and will engender the same eye-rolling and ill will that it did for Obama." As the exchange continues, how to precisely handle the campaign's image with potentially controversial donors — while, at all costs, maintaining the flow of cash — becomes even more apparent. As strategist and campaign manager Robby Mook responds, "Where do we draw the line though?" Elias suggests a particularly intricate solution: "If we do it case by case, then it will be subjective. We would look at who the donor is and what foreign entity they are registered for. In judging whether to take the money, we would consider the relationship between that country and the United States, its relationship to the State Department during Hillary's time as Secretary, and its relationship, if any, to the Foundation . In judging the individual, we would look at their history of support for political candidates generally and Hillary's past campaigns specifically. "Put simply, we would use the same criteria we use for lobbyists, except with a somewhat more stringent screen. "As a legal matter, I am not saying we have to do this - we can decide to simply ban foreign registrants entirely. I'm just offering this up as a middle ground." Mook eventually decides plainly, "Marc made a convincing case to me this am that these sorts of restrictions don't really get you anything...that Obama actually got judged MORE harshly as a result. He convinced me. So...in a complete U-turn, I'm ok just taking the money and dealing with any attacks . Are you guys ok with that?" All of this political wrangling appears to have had the desired effect — despite increasing calls for the United States to either rein in or sever completely its support for the bloody Saudi regime — the U.S. approved a stunning $1.29 billion sale of smart bombs to the Kingdom in November 2015. Tony Podesta's specific contract with the government-run Center for Studies and Media Affairs at the Saudi Royal Court, which will earn $1.68 million by year's end, does, indeed, suggest the infusion of a pro-Saudi message into the U.S. media propaganda machine . "Saudi Arabia is consistently one of the bigger players when it comes to foreign influence in Washington," Sunlight Foundation spokesman Josh Stewart told the Washington Post . "That spans both what you'd call the inside game, which is lobbying and government relations, and the outside game, which is PR and other things that tend to reach a broader audience than just lobbying." That broader audience — the American public — has indeed been manipulated courtesy of at least the thoroughly-corrupt Clinton campaign if not surreptitiously by the Saudis, as well. As The Free Thought Project has repeatedly reported , the evidence of collusion among the Democratic National Committee, Hillary Clinton's campaign, and the mainstream presstitutes is indisputable — including no less than 65 so-called journalists listed by name in various leaks as darlings of the campaign. Although this level of corruption and collusion would be considered intolerable in nearly any other nation on the planet. And yet, at the center of this shit storm of contention is an official nominee for the White House — who will not be held responsible for any number of questionable and criminal acts. The system isn't rigged — it's performing exactly as intended — and always will as long as the vote validates its existence. Comment: More from the Podesta front: | 0 |
Hey Anon Void, I’m woman enough to admit when I’m wrong, you were right about Russia, well, Putin at least 🙂 He’s not bad at all. | 0 |
Email
Every four years, Americans are treated to a tawdry, months-long spectacle pitting two typically (but not always) establishment-anointed candidates against one another for the ultimate prize: a four-year stint as the “most powerful person on Earth.” That, at least, is the establishment media’s term for the president of the United States. And it would have appalled the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution, who never intended to create in the office of the U.S. presidency a magistracy far more powerful than the English monarchy they had only recently shaken off.
But the de facto reality of modern America is that the executive branch of the U.S. government has usurped an enormous portion of government powers reserved by the Constitution in its original form to other branches of the federal government or to state governments. The president, for example, now sends U.S. troops into war at his personal whim, completely ignoring the constitutional stipulation that Congress issue a declaration of war first. A huge percentage of federal laws that control virtually every activity are issued in the form of federal regulations — which are created not by the legislative but by the executive branch of government, under the direction of the president.
The president also wields tremendous power with his authority to nominate Supreme Court justices — since the Supreme Court is regarded as a body whose decisions cannot be appealed or overturned. Presidents from FDR to the present have tried to customize the court to their preferred ideology, and the court has responded by issuing a range of unpopular decisions, from abortion on demand to the recent vindication of ObamaCare, that have left ordinary Americans frustrated and angry. By all accounts, the will of the people is systematically ignored by Washington, and there appears to be nothing that can change this state of affairs. This is the reason that every presidential race has become the ultimate high-stakes battle of partisan wills; the winner — and his party — will wield enormous de facto (if not de jure) power over the affairs of the nation and the world, and has the ability, via Supreme Court appointments, executive orders, involvement in foreign wars, regulations, and many other powers now accorded to him, to shape the destiny of the nation decades after his term in office ends.
In recent decades, most of the power in government has migrated from Congress — the only part of the government truly elected by the people — to the two unelected branches of government, the executive branch and the Supreme Court. In particular, the power to legislate has largely been usurped by the executive branch via a noxious system of federal regulatory agencies staffed by unelected bureaucrats wielding enormous, unaccountable power, and by an unelected Supreme Court that does not hesitate to legislate from the bench. The sheer volume and scope of federal regulations promulgated every year far surpasses the number of laws passed by Congress.
In its original form, things were far different. The Founders intended Congress to be the most powerful branch of government, with the Senate representing the interests of the states and the House of Representatives those of the people. The president was largely a caretaker. Bereft of any “bully pulpit,” “big stick,” or other tools of modern American autocracy, he largely acted under the direction of Congress, which, in turn, carried out the will of the people and of the state legislatures. The executive branch as a whole was primarily concerned with foreign affairs and with adjudicating disputes between the states. Few Americans prior to the early 20th century had any contact with the federal government other than at the post office, and many would not have recognized the president had they passed him on the street.
Today, of course, the U.S. president is the superstar of superstars, an elected Caesar who controls the destinies of billions, thanks to his ascendency over the U.S. military and economy. Small wonder that Americans focus all their combative energies on getting “their man” elected. In the modern American game of thrones, the presidency has become the ultimate spoils.
But there are constitutional remedies for all of this. The Constitution has not yet been repealed or amended beyond recognition — though there are many who are pushing to do just that, via a modern constitutional convention. And the Constitution provides a series of ingenious remedies, some of them all but forgotten, for the disfigurement of our original checks and balances that generations of unscrupulous political elites have created. Here are a few of them.
Cut the Purse Strings
No federal program can operate without funding, and on paper at least, the House of Representatives still holds the purse strings for the entire government, as the Founders intended it to. As the first clause in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 7, clearly stipulates, “All bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.” The House of Representatives, be it remembered, was designed to represent the voice of the people directly; this is why House members are reelected more often than any other officials in the federal government (every two years), and also why House members have the smallest constituencies. To change the direction of the federal government, it is first necessary to change the House, and it just happens that it is the House where turnover is the highest and candidacy the easiest. The House being the largest elected body in government, it is impossible for all House races to be controlled by special interests (although many of them certainly are).
All this being the case, the House is the first line of defense against an abusive and overweening executive branch. If the House refuses to authorize spending for a given bill, program, initiative, or policy, it will not be funded.
What if the president ignores Congress, and uses unauthorized funds, as the Clinton administration did in the 1995 bailout of the Mexican government? In 1995, President Clinton, frustrated by Congress’ refusal to authorize an emergency bailout of the Mexican economy to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in loan guarantees, went ahead and did it anyway. These funds were taken from a then little-known fund controlled by the Treasury Department, the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), which was created in 1934 as part of the Gold Reserve Act, to provide emergency funds to shore up the dollar in the event of severe foreign exchange fluctuations. The ESF was made necessary by the United States’ departure from the gold standard, along with most other countries, during the 1930s. Absent the discipline and stability imposed by a precious-metal standard, currency values are prone to wild swings as governments engage in various inflationary policies. With the passage of decades, the central banks of the world have learned to coordinate their inflationary policies in secret, but the ESF remains, and as of 2009, held more than $100 billion — enough to fund a significant amount of presidential financial and economic priorities, should Congress demur.
Another clever way that the executive branch has discovered for circumventing congressional checks on funding is via Department of Justice lawsuits. This trick has been used to particular effect by the Obama administration, and it works like this: The Justice Department launches a lawsuit for perceived violations of federal regulations (bank regulations, for example) against a well-heeled target or targets, and as part of the settlement, directs large payments to be made to selected special interests — for example, anti-bank activist groups. Hundreds of millions of off-budget dollars have been funneled to a wide panoply of leftist activist groups in this way, in return for their support of Obama’s anti-business policies. Of particular notoriety is the Obama administration’s recent disposal of hundreds of millions in settlement monies from the likes of Citigroup, Bank of America, and JP Morgan, of which an appreciable amount was permitted, under Justice’s terms of settlement, to be “donated” to various activist groups that serve the Democratic Party’s interests. This money all belongs, in theory, to the Treasury, and therefore cannot be disposed of without Congress’ say-so. In fact, Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution anticipated the potential for executive monkeyshines with Treasury funds, stipulating that “no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” But that hasn’t stopped the Obama administration from using vast sums of extortion payments originating in legal settlements to finance many left-wing NGO (non-governmental organization) allies.
The executive branch has devised and continues to devise methods to circumvent constitutional prohibitions on executive authority to raise money. For as one congressman closely allied with President Grover Cleveland is alleged to have told a fellow congressman who criticized one of his initiatives as unconstitutional, “What’s the Constitution between friends?”
But can Congress do anything about it? All executive expenditures, from the constitutionally dubious ESF to DOJ settlement monies, must originate with the Treasury — but, as the Constitution makes crystal clear, although the Treasury pertains to the executive branch, its funds cannot be disbursed without congressional authorization. It is this stipulation, even more than the “origination” clause in Article 1, Section 7, that assigns the purse strings ultimately and unavoidably to Congress.
All Congress needs to do in cases of executive innovation, such as the creative use of DOJ settlement monies, is to pass a law clarifying constitutional limits on Treasury spending. In the case of the Exchange Stabilization Fund, it could simply legislate the unneeded entity out of existence, for example. In the case of the DOJ settlement slush fund, legislation outlawing such practices is already working its way through Congress.
The framers of the Constitution anticipated that the executive branch would seek to raise funds by going around Congress. This is why the Constitution makes plain that measures for raising revenue must originate in the House, and that no money may be spent from the Treasury except by congressional authorization.
This congressional authorization applies not only to money raised by taxes, but to all other ways the government has to raise money. In the latter category the most traditional way, of course, is borrowing money. Since the beginning of the Republic, this has been accomplished by the issuance of various “Treasuries,” financial instruments such as Treasury bonds that can be purchased by anyone wishing to loan money to the U.S. government in the hope of achieving a modest return upon maturation. The Constitution delegates the authority to “borrow money on the credit of the United States” to Congress in Article 1, Section 8. Yet this power was quickly delegated to the secretary of the treasury upon ratification of the Constitution, in 1789, and has been carried out by the Treasury, ostensibly under congressional oversight, ever since. Today, all decisions made regarding the issuance of debt emanate from the Office of Debt Management (ODM) within the Treasury. Congress takes little notice of the day-to-day operations of this office, which has broad discretionary power to issue as much or as little debt as it sees fit, constrained only by the congressionally mandated debt limit — which Congress raises as frequently as political pressure, mostly orchestrated by the executive branch, demands. In other words, even though the Constitution assigns responsibility for the issuance of debt — as with all other fiscal powers — to Congress, the legislative body has delegated almost all of its authority over the creation of debt to the executive, reassuring itself that its authority remains supreme as long as the constantly rising debt ceiling limits are respected. Added to this is the fact that a large part of U.S. Treasury debt ends up being monetized by the Federal Reserve, an entity under neither presidential nor congressional control, whose financial activities are completely opaque to Congress and the president alike. In practice, though, the Fed is an ally of the executive branch, inasmuch as its “open market operations” (the purchase and sale of Treasury-issued debt on the secondary markets) has created a vast and constant demand for government debt that would not exist were private investors and foreign governments the Treasury Department’s only customers.
Thus the executive branch may have little de facto authority to raise revenue directly, but it has come to enjoy — thanks to two centuries of congressional neglect — enormous and almost unchallenged de facto power over the issuance of debt, buttressed by the modern Federal Reserve System, and restrained only by occasional feeble congressional blandishments regarding the debt ceiling.
This is a much knottier problem than reining in executive abuse of Treasury funds. It will require nothing less than the repeal of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and the re-assertion of congressional responsibility for the issuance of debt. The transfer of the ODM and its operations to full and constant congressional oversight via the congressional Ways and Means Committee would be a good start in this regard, as would the instatement of a robust, long-term debt ceiling. But the best measure of all would be to begin shrinking the size and cost of government to within constitutionally mandated limits, and to pay down the massive debt that is now used as a political weapon to hold the entire country hostage — usually by ambitious, big-spending presidents and their allies in Congress.
Other Remedies
But what if the president starts another war? War is a powerful political distractor and disincentive for dissent. The laws, as Cicero once observed, have a tendency to fall silent in times of war. In our time, the very waging of war has become a lawless act, since no U.S. president since FDR, at the onset of World War II, has gone to war authorized by a congressional declaration. The Korean, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghanistan wars have all been waged by presidential edict, as have countless smaller military actions from the former Yugoslavia to Haiti to Panama to Libya, among many others. The constitutional authority to declare war, delegated to Congress in Article 1, Section 8, has become all but a dead letter, not by direct repeal but by decades of congressional spinelessness and public apathy. For 15 years, the United States has been engaged in a series of international wars under the banner of a “War on Terror,” costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, without a constitutionally mandated declaration against any hostile power — and with no end in sight. Quite aside from the horrific human toll, the vaguely defined, open-ended War on Terror has created a constant rationale for more and more debt, mostly urged on a reluctant Congress and ever-more-hard-beset American people by an executive branch energized by the prospect of war without end.
The solution to the executive war card is simple, but will require considerable political will: restore the congressional declaration of war as a check on the war-making ambitions of the executive branch. This would include determining whether America’s seemingly endless involvement in Middle Eastern broils is worthy of a declaration of war, and winding down our commitments in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Afghanistan once and for all if it isn’t. Such would not lead to instant relief from our gargantuan war debts, but it would be a huge step in the right direction, reducing the likelihood of future foreign wars for our descendants to die in and pay for.
How can we stop the growth of federal regulations by unelected bureaucrats? The easiest way would be for Congress to legislatively shut down and defund the departments and agencies that produce them. For decades, conservatives have vowed to close various executive branch departments, with the Department of Education a perennial favorite. But because of public apathy, such promises have not been kept.
What about the Supreme Court? Another area in which the executive branch, bolstered by a sympathetic majority in Congress, might seem unstoppable is in the matter of Supreme Court appointees. One of the major self-justifications of the Trump campaign has been that a President Hillary Clinton will stack the Court with ultra-liberal justices who will roll back the gains of the Scalia/Roberts court, ensuring that abortion on demand continues and possibly overturning the recent ruling in favor of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment under the District of Columbia v. Heller. But the actions of the Republican-controlled Senate have already shown how such concerns can be exaggerated. The Senate notified President Obama after the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia that it would not consider any of his nominations so close to a presidential election. Despite withering pressure from Democrats and the kept media, Senate Republicans have been as good as their word — so far. Left out of the discussion, however, is that there is no constitutional stipulation on the number of Supreme Court justices, nor even that the number be odd to ensure a tiebreaker vote. The original Supreme Court had six justices, requiring that a tiebreaker be by a two-thirds majority (four out of six). Such a configuration was itself a powerful limit on the ability of the Supreme Court to impose its will. But there is nothing save perhaps an act of legislation that prevents the Supreme Court from returning to such an arrangement — or to any other number of judges Congress might deem appropriate.
But aside from the number of justices, Congress possesses an even more powerful check against the Supreme Court. One of official Washington’s best-kept secrets is the fact that the Constitution provides, in Article 3, Section 2, for Congress to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The precise wording of this oft-overlooked provision is: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction . In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction , both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. [Emphasis added.]
In other words, Congress may pass legislation instructing the Supreme Court that it has no jurisdiction over cases involving, for example, gun rights or abortion. In this way, a court deemed a threat to the body politic could be hamstrung. In practice, this option has seldom been used, and is almost never discussed in “respectable” Washington circles, because it poses a mortal threat to the legal hegemony the supremes have enjoyed for so long — usually to the advantage of Big Government and their cultural Marxist allies. Indeed, Congress might easily have gotten rid of ObamaCare by now if it had chosen this option instead of relying on the Supreme Court — which, of course, refused to find yet another Big Government program unconstitutional.
If All Else Fails?
From time to time, presidents (and Supreme Court justices) simply refuse to acknowledge limits on their power, and persist in defying the will of the people and the authority of Congress. In such cases, there is one final recourse: impeachment and removal from office. Congress has been reluctant to exercise this option, but were it used more freely, presidents and Supreme Court justices would be much more leery of abusing their powers.
In short, there is an array of options available to keep the executive and judicial branches from running roughshod over Congress and the American people. The only thing required is better understanding of the Constitution’s intricate checks and balances and the political will to put them into effect.
This article is an example of the exclusive content that's available by subscribing to our print magazine. Twice a month get in-depth features covering the political gamut: education, candidate profiles, immigration, healthcare, foreign policy, guns, etc. Digital as well as print options are available! Please review our Comment Policy before posting a comment
Thank you for joining the discussion at The New American. We value our readers and encourage their participation, but in order to ensure a positive experience for our readership, we have a few guidelines for commenting on articles. If your post does not follow our policy, it will be deleted.
No profanity, racial slurs, direct threats, or threatening language.
No product advertisements.
Please post comments in English.
Please keep your comments on topic with the article. If you wish to comment on another subject, you may search for a relevant article and join or start a discussion there. | 0 |
On April 28, ’s Chris Cox lauded President Trump’s first 100 days for bolstering the Second Amendment and the exercise of the rights it protects. [Writing in USA Today, Cox pointed to the nomination and confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, Jeff Sessions to attorney general, and Ryan Zinke to secretary of the Interior. The confirmation of Gorsuch means that “we are now back to having a majority on the U. S. Supreme Court” and upholding the crucial decision in District of Columbia v Heller (2008). Sessions’ confirmation means “the Department of Justice will return to focusing on prosecuting violent criminals instead of targeting gun owners. ” And the confirmation of Zinke as secretary of the Interior means “hunting and shooting” opportunities on our public lands will be protected. In addition to these nominations and confirmations, Cox points out that Trump has repealed Obama’s Social Security gun ban, a ban which would have allowed the Social Security Administration to strip elderly beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights without due process. Cox pointed out that more must be done. For example, the gun ban for military veterans needs to be repealed, national reciprocity for concealed carry needs to become law, and firearm suppressors need to be deregulated via the Hearing Protection Act. Yet the successes of Trump’s first 100 days suggest the remaining Amendment proposals will also succeed. Cox wrote, “After eight long years, we once again have a president who respects and cherishes individual freedom. For America’s gun owners, the Trump administration is proving to be among the best in history. ” AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart. com. | 1 |
What, if anything, is the Congress doing to stop this complete waste of taxpayer money? Next time someone says Social Security must be cut to balance the budget, remember this news item! Multiply this by our foreign aid worldwide (38 billion dollars for Israel?) and it is no wonder we are running a national deficit! | 0 |
Главная » News » U.S. Navy: Personal data of sailors hacked U.S. Navy: Personal data of sailors hacked Thursday, 24 November, 2016 - 11:45
US Navy reports about the unauthorized access to confidential information, including social security numbers of 134386 current and former sailors. Despite the fact that there is no information about the using of this data, but this event is an extremely serious danger.
Vice Admiral Robert P. Burke said: «The Navy takes this incident extremely seriously - this is a matter of trust for our sailors».
The leakage has happened because of hacking the laptop of one of the employees of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Services, working under contract with the US Navy. Related links | 0 |
President Donald Trump ridiculed former National Security Adviser Susan Rice after a televised interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. [“Take a look at what’s happening,” Trump told the New York Times. “I mean, first of all her performance was horrible yesterday on television even though she was interviewed by Hillary Clinton’s P. R. person, Andrea Mitchell. ” Trump said he thought that the media was not covering the story enough, pointing to some Democratic friends of his who were disturbed by the civil liberties aspects of Rice’s behavior. The president did not share any new details, but encouraged the press to keep digging. “I don’t want to comment on anything about — other than to say I think it’s a — I think it’s truly one of the big stories of our time,” he said. The president also dismissed the media’s obsession with the Russia story. “The Russia story is a total hoax,” he said. “There has been absolutely nothing coming out of that. But what, you know, what various things led into it was the story that we’re talking about, the Susan Rice. What’s happened is terrible. ” | 1 |
See Dems accept foreign cash to disrupt Trump rallies Undercover footage catches Hillary operative red-handed Published: 7 mins ago Bob Unruh About | | Archive Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially. Print
A Hillary Clinton-supporting advocacy organization had no trouble accepting a $20,000 donation funneled through a Belize bank to use in this year’s presidential election campaign – until its decision was about to be made public in a series of undercover videos by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas Action.
Suddenly, the head of the organization expressed suspicion about the donation’s overseas origin and decided to return it.
That’s one of the significant revelations in the latest in a series of videos released by O’Keefe called “Rigging the Election.”
O’Keefe explained he had a fictitious donor meet with Bob Creamer, who was a staffer at Americans United for Change, a group supporting Clinton for president, until the videos started appearing last week.
He said Creamer, who boasted of working directly for the Clinton campaign, directed that the $20,000 donation go to AUFC “to disrupt rallies and fund bracketing ops.”
O’Keefe said he and his colleagues were very careful not to violate the law themselves.
Creamer was clear about his ties to Clinton, stating, “Every morning I am on a call at 10:30 that goes over the message being driven by the campaign headquarters.”
Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!
Project Veritas’ first video explained how the Clinton campaign uses “hidden connections” to incite violence at Donald Trump rallies. Its second video showed plans for step-by-step voter fraud and the third exposed “prohibited communications” between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, “the DNC and the nonprofit Americans United for Change.”
The fourth video “breaks down the process of the long-term investigation.” It comes after Creamer’s announcement that he was stepping down from campaign responsibilities.
O’Keefe and Project Veritas Action have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Among the revelations in the latest video was Creamer was boasting of his close links to President Obama.
“Oh, Barack Obama’s was the best campaign in the history of American politics, I mean the second one, I mean the first was good, too. I was a consultant to both, the second one, was everything hit on every level and every aspect,” he said. “He’s a pro, I’ve known the president since he was a community organizer in Chicago.”
When asked whether a potential donor could meet Obama, Creamer said: “OK, you may have a lot more opportunity once he is done in 98 days, 97. I was just at an event with him in Chicago, Friday of last week, he is just as good as ever. I do a lot of work with the White House on their issues, helping to run issued campaigns that they have been involved in. I mean, for immigration reform for the … the health care bill, trying to make America more like Britain when it comes to gun violence issues.”
Explained Project Veritas: “The more that was promised to Creamer, the more access Project Veritas Action journalists seemed to get. Project Veritas Action’s $20,000 investment paid off. The story was solid. Robert Creamer, Scott Foval, Jenna Price from the DNC, Brad Woodhouse from AUFC, Cesar Vargas and others opened the door to their smoke filled rooms of illegal and dirty campaign dealings, as seen in the three previous PVA videos.”
In the first video, Foval, a Democratic operative, boasted of what he called “conflict engagement,” or sending protesters to disrupt Trump events.
“We’re starting anarchy here,” he said. “And he needs to understand that we’re starting anarchy.”
In the second video, Creamer explained Clinton’s direct control over those disruption operations.
“In the end it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future President of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground, so by god we would get ducks on the ground,” Creamer said.
Creamer, the husband of Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, has starred in several of the undercover videos.
Here’s the third:
That video also revealed a direct conflict between what Creamer was confirming – Clinton’s active involvement in such decisions and campaigns – and the claim of her campaign manager, Robby Mook.
Mook told CNN over the weekend that there was no pathway between the activists staging violence and Clinton.
Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!
“These individuals no longer have a relationship with the DNC,” he said. “They’ve never had a relationship with the Clinton campaign and my understanding is that the events that are referenced happened I think in February of last year.
“They did not have a contract with the DNC until June. But putting all that aside, this was again a video that was leaked out with the purpose of damaging the campaign, it is edited so we don’t know what the full context is. And there’s no evidence whatsoever … that anyone ever did anything like this when they were working for the DNC.”
His comments:
After confirming it was Clinton or “wanted ducks on the ground,” Creamer warned undercover Project Veritas journalists, “Don’t repeat that to anybody.”
Creamer ran Democracy Partners, a consulting company with ties to Clinton.
He has been to the White House 342 times while Obama has been president, including 47 meetings directly with Obama.
O’Keefe’s organization reported that the coordination between the campaign, the DNC and the Americans United for Change “smacks of illegal coordinated campaign expenditures.”
Last week , Project Veritas filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking for an investigation into the Clinton campaign’s “criminal conspiracy.”
The filing of the complaint with the federal agency follows the release of two videos in which Democrats explain how they can attempt to change the outcome of the election through apparently fraudulent means, such as having people travel across state lines to vote illegally.
The video have resulted already in two Democratic operatives losing their jobs.
Editor’s Note: Be aware of offensive language throughout videos and in quotes from videos.
One is Scott Foval, who had worked for People for the American Way, a George Soros-funded group, and more recently with Americans United for Change.
In the video, he said: “You know what? We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f—ing a—–es for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now.”
Also, he said he and his agents are “starting anarchy” by creating “conflict engagement … in the lines at Trump rallies.”
Also out of work is Creamer.
See the second video:
Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh said the evidence is worrisome.
“Every Trump rally would feature none of this [violence] unless the Democrats were paying for it. I think it’s a big deal, folks. The media is complicit. They know who these people are. … They’re in on it. They’re part of the game. … None of it’s organic. None of it’s natural. None of it’s real. Every bit of it is bought and paid for.
“[Democrats] can’t leave elections to chance because they know that, despite the way it may look, the majority of Americans would not support them if they knew who they are.”
The first video: | 0 |
Did a Dakota Access Pipeline Guard Carry an AR-15 Into Peaceful Protests?
Last week, a series of peaceful protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline ended in the arrests of over 140 demonstrators . North Dakota law enforcement used rubber bullets, pepper spray, sound cannons and rubber bullets on the self-named “water protectors,” causing Amnesty International to send in a delegation of “human rights observers” to keep an eye on the tense situation.
Evidence of the mistreatment of the peaceful demonstrators continues to emerge in the days since Thursday’s intense confrontation. Shocking new video footage shows what appears to be a private security contractor wielding an AR-15 rifle, and members of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe have since stated that the man attempted to enter one of the main encampments.
Amy Goodman from Democracy Now! spoke with Dallas Goldtooth , an organizer with the Indigenous Environmental Network , to discuss the video footage and the escalating aggression by North Dakota law enforcement.
“It was a very terrifying moment for a lot of us watching, I mean, to see this man pulling an assault rifle at our water protectors,” Gooldtooth explains. “I think that he’s a security contractor that has been hired by Dakota Access to guard its equipment, from what I believe, or at least to protect, you know, the workers or whatever it may be.”
Goodman asks Goldtooth about the security contractor’s intentions. “There’s a variety of accounts, but it was—from what I understood, that was told to me, that he was tasked with also identifying and being within the crowd, watching internally with the crowd, and that there was some suggestion that he might—he might have been tasked with instigating some sort of violence from within the crowd and to garner a reaction from law enforcement,” Goldtooth says.
Advertisement Square, Site wide
Watch the full discussion below:
In addition to the possible infiltration by a private security guard, a brush fire began on Saturday night near the main encampment. The water protectors allege that the fire was intentionally set by Dakota Access Pipeline forces. Goodman asked Goldtooth about the mysterious fire and the broader forces of repression working against the peaceful demonstrators.
“[I]t was very, very clear that that brush fire that happened was an act of arson by unknown individuals,” Goldtooth says. “But given the recent events with the Dakota Access worker, given the escalation of law enforcement, that, you know, a lot of fingers are pointing towards Dakota Access that—as being a culprit behind this late fire.”
Watch the interview below: | 0 |
A rare cancer first linked to breast implants in 2011 has now been associated with nine deaths, the Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday. As of Feb. 1, the agency had received a total of 359 reports of the cancer associated with the implants. The deaths were not caused by breast cancer, the agency said, but by a rare malignancy in the immune system, anaplastic lymphoma. In cases linked to implants, this rare form of cancer grows in the breast, usually in the capsule of scar tissue that forms around an implant. It is usually treatable and not often fatal. The problem is more likely to occur with textured implants, which have a pebbly surface, than with smooth implants, the agency said. Of the 359 reported cases, 231 included information about the implant surface: 203 were textured, and 28 smooth. The contents of the implants appeared much less important: Of 312 cases where the contents were known, 186 were filled with silicone gel, and 126 with saline. Cases generally come to light when symptoms develop, like lumps, pain, fluid buildup and swelling. The agency said it was impossible to say how many cases exist, because of limited reporting of problems and a lack of worldwide sales data on implants. About 290, 000 women in the United States had implants for breast enlargement in 2016, and 109, 000 received them for reconstruction after breast cancer, according to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. In many cases when the lymphoma occurs, just removing the implant and the tissue around it eliminates the disease. But some women may need chemotherapy and radiation. Why there is a difference in risk related to the surfaces is not known, but the body’s reaction to textured implants is different from its reaction to smooth ones, according to Dr. Alex K. Wong, a plastic surgeon and researcher at the University of Southern California’s Keck School of Medicine. Tissue grows into microscopic grooves in the textured implants. “When we take these out, you can hear a peeling sound,” Dr. Wong said. “Whereas with a smooth implant, it’s like . You can spin it around. It moves really easily. ” Studies in rats in his laboratory show different levels of genetic activity in the animals’ tissues in response to smooth versus textured implants. “We’re still trying to find out why the surface matters,” he said, adding that in some cases the cancer seems also to be associated with a certain bacterial infection. Surgeons use textured implants if they want the implant to stick in place and not move, which is important for newer, anatomically shaped implants that would look bad if they were to shift or turn upside down. The F. D. A. says doctors should consider the possibility of lymphoma in women who start having breast problems a long time after implant surgery. If a woman with implants has no problems, there is no reason to remove them, the F. D. A. says, emphasizing that the lymphoma seems to be very rare. But women receiving implants should be aware of the potential problem and the increased risk with textured implants, the agency says. A spokeswoman for the F. D. A. Stephanie Caccomo, said Tuesday’s announcement was made because “in 2016, there were several advances in the description of the disease and treatment recommendations, including recognition of the disease by the World Health Organization and publication of diagnosis and treatment guidelines by the Plastic Surgery Foundation and National Comprehensive Cancer Network. ” | 1 |
X Dear Reader! VDARE.com isn’t just a website. We are the voice of the Historic American Nation . Our goal is nothing less than to develop a full spectrum media network to speak up for our people during this difficult time for our country. Part of that means building institutions which are offline and in the real world. There’s something about a paper journal that suggests permanence, which inclines people to take it more seriously. And because the news cycle is so fast, some of the most important, substantial, and potentially influential writings fall through the cracks and don’t get the attention they deserve. For that reason, we’re proud to announce the creation of VDARE QUARTERLY, a print journal featuring the best material from our webzine. This will replace our yearly anthologies and ensure that the information and analysis you really don't want to miss will get in front of you as quickly as possible. However, we need your help. For us to unveil this exciting new product we need 600 magazines ordered to cover the print expenses. Fill out the form below to instantly receive a digital copy of VDARE QUARTERLY, and when we have the number of necessary subscribers it will go to print and your exclusive paper copy will ship directly to you! Depending on the package you choose, you will receive multiple paper copies (provided enough readers support the community effort). We encourage you to pass these around – they serve as an excellent gift for friends and family, while at the same time helping to build our community. VDARE QUARTERLY is aesthetically pleasing as well as ideologically powerful. But this isn’t just a service we are providing. VDARE QUARTERLY is a tangible manifestation of your investment in us, and in our country. A subscription is one of the most effective ways you can help us build our media network, expand our influence, and build the kind of movement we will need to take back our country and ensure our children have a recognizable America.
We count on your support! Yours sincerely, Peter Brimelow, Editor of VDARE.com VDARE QUARTERLY countdown: 258 already ordered, 342 still to go | 0 |
Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture October 28, 2016
Perhaps one of the most used and abused political expressions in recent years has been that of “American exceptionalism.” Politicians and commentators routinely invoke it as a high principle and accuse their opponents of insufficient devotion to it, or contrariwise blame it for all the ills of the world.
For example, in 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin ruffled many Americans’ feathers:
“It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. . . . We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Hillary Clinton weighed in on exceptionalism in an August speech before the American Legion, in which she also took a swipe at Donald Trump :
The United States is an exceptional nation. . . . But, in fact, my opponent in this race has said very clearly that he thinks American exceptionalism is insulting to the rest of the world. In fact, when Vladimir Putin, of all people, criticized American exceptionalism, my opponent agreed with him, saying, and I quote, ‘if you’re in Russia, you don’t want to hear that America is exceptional.’ Well maybe you don’t want to hear it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.
It needs to be asked, though: when people praise or criticize “American exceptionalism,” are they always talking about the same thing?
America, like any country, has its own distinctive history, culture, and traditions. America’s unique founding principles—consent of the governed, due process, a constitutionally limited division of powers, representative government—justly have been an inspiration to the world for over two centuries. Thomas Jefferson wrote of the “palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.”
This “exceptional” idea was new in human history. Any American worthy of the name justly takes pride in it. This is the genuine American exceptionalism of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, lately championed by Reagan. The fact that we have strayed so far from it, both domestically and internationally, is shameful.
The unique moral revolution to which the Founding Fathers pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor has little connection to the bastard term (usually capitalized as “American Exceptionalism”) that describes post-Cold War U.S. global behavior, by which policymakers in Washington assert both an exclusive “leadership” privilege and unsupportable obligation to undertake open-ended international missions in the name of the “Free World” and the “international community.” This is the counterfeit “Exceptionalism” of a tiny clique of bipartisan apparatchiki —GOP “neoconservatives” and Democrat “liberal interventionists” and their mainstream media mouthpieces —who have little regard for our country’s oldest traditions or the security and welfare of the American people. Tags: Edward Lozansky is president of the American University in Moscow. | 0 |
Saudi Film Days, a two-day showcase designed to celebrate filmmakers from Saudi Arabia, will be held in Los Angeles, on Nov. 3-4, 2016. Paramount Studios and the Ace Hotel will hold screenings of the short films for free, on November 4.
This is the first showcase for Saudi Arabian films and the creators. Seven talented and dynamic filmmakers will present their fresh perspectives on the silver screen. The event will include the complete Hollywood experience: the red carpet, Gala dinner, presenters and an MC.
The Saudi Film Days showcase is hosted by The King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture. This institution strives to offer multiple avenues for people to experience other ways of life.
Short Films and Interviews “I Can’t Kiss Myself”: follows a man who is surrounded by fame and attention, until someone causes him to question what these accolades truly mean for him. Directed by Ali Alsumayin.
Alsumayin began his career in advertising before becoming a broadcast designer for The Middle East Broadcasting Corporation Group. He directed television programs and a web series before making his debut as an independent film director. He strove for this new career because it allows him to present an idea in a different form and give it emotion. He said the concept is taken from the human mind and given breath on the screen, touching the audience.
He believes, as a director, it is important to relate to the topic of the film. “I Can’t Kiss Myself,” was created to reach the people of his generation. The goal was to show people that being popular on social media is only an illusion. Nevertheless, it still changes how people view themselves and how they behave.
The Saudi filmmaker is currently working on a new television series and is hoping to begin filming when he returns after the showcase. He is reviewing two other scripts for a possible mini-series. Television commercials are a major part of his career, and there are many for him to finish when he arrives in Saudi Arabia.
He would like to direct more dialogue-based movies. He is writing an outline for a film about a troubled married couple talking over dinner. When asked where he wanted his career to be in the future, Alsumayin said, “I just want to do more films and read more scripts that would blow my mind.”
“Is Sumyati Going to Hell?”: Sumyati is the family maid. This film is shown through the eyes of the family’s youngest child, Layan, as he watches her navigate her way around racist employers.
Meshal Aljaser enjoys sharing his different opinions with an audience through social media and creative film. At a young age, he began his career as a producer and director and has continued to build on these skills to attain his goal of becoming a well-known Saudi Arabian director.
He uses his YouTube show, “Folaim,” to share his viewpoints and unique perspective. The show recently earned him an award from Qomra, the Ramadan Program competition. He won the award through audience voting.
Since Aljaser was a small child, movies have fascinated him. Watching the characters live the story was a time-traveling experience for him. Now, he is expanding his career to include acting.
In the future, the filmmaker wants to establish a Saudi HBO. When asked about his future, he responded:
To where my career is heading exactly doesn’t matter, what matters that it is within the amazing and fascinating world of filmmaking and i am enjoying every minute of it.
Spokesman for the King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture Albara Auhaly talked about the opportunities Saudi Film Days could bring. “By offering [these young Saudi filmmakers] this showcase to come together and show their talents, we hope to lead them down the path to transition from digital to successful film and television careers.” The filmmakers have expressed how excited they are to be part of such a groundbreaking Hollywood endeavor. These young directors are hoping to affect society and culture outside Saudi Arabia.
By Jeanette Smith
Sources:
Interview: Ali Alsumayin
Interview: Meshal Aljaser
Press Release: Saudi Film Days
Images Courtesy of Saudi Film Days – Used With Permission filmmakers , hollywood , King Abdulaziz Center for World Culture , saudi , spot | 0 |
Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman met with Secretary of Defense James Mattis on Thursday following what the Saudi government proclaimed to be a successful meeting with President Donald Trump. The two reportedly discussed tensions in the Middle East with a focus on “confronting Iran’s destabilizing regional activities. ”[According to Gulf news network Salman and Mattis held a discussion for “over three hours” and created an “atmosphere of consensus” regarding the Islamist threats facing both countries in the region. The Pentagon statement confirmed that containing the influence of Iran — whose terror proxies are playing major roles in conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen — took up much of their conversation. The prince, who also serves as Saudi Arabia’s defense minister, told reporters, “Saudi Arabia is ready to send its troops to Syria as the country would do all it takes to eradicate terrorism,” according to . The network adds that Mattis and Salman were joined by “Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joseph Dunford, the National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, the President’s senior counselor for economic initiatives Dina Powel, the White House chief strategist Steve Bannon, and senior defense and foreign ministry officials. ” The conversation followed a meeting with President Trump Wednesday, after which a spokesman for the prince issued a glowing statement of the U. S. president. “Prince Mohammed considers his Excellency [Trump] as a true friend of Muslims who will serve the Muslim World in an unimaginable manner,” the statement read in part, “opposite to the negative portrait of his Excellency [Trump] that some have tried to promote. ” The prince also appeared to support President Trump’s plans to build a wall on the American southern border: “Both sides discussed the Saudi successful experience in building a fence on the border, which led to preventing illegal entrance of individuals, as well as preventing smuggling operations. ” The prince also appeared to support President Trump’s plans to build a wall on the American southern border: “Both sides discussed the Saudi successful experience in building a fence on the border, which led to preventing illegal entrance of individuals, as well as preventing smuggling operations. ” Mohammed bin Salman’s meeting with President Trump occurred as King Salman attended scheduled meetings with senior Communist Party officials in China, seeking further investment into the Saudi economy. The emphasis on containing Iran highlights Saudi tensions with the largest Shiite Muslim country in the world, which it regularly accuses of playing a key role in exporting terrorism worldwide. Saudi Arabia itself has a checked history of exporting Wahhabism, an extremist strain of jihadist Islam, and Saudi government officials have been implicated in some of the deadliest terrorist attacks in the world. Saudi Arabia is currently seeking to overturn a law that allows the victims of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks to sue the kingdom for damages, citing ’s communications with Saudi government officials. Iran’s Foreign Ministry has taken the opportunity of the meeting between Mattis and the prince to condemn Saudi Arabia once again, calling his visit to Washington “deluded and fallacious” and accusing Saudi Arabia of war crimes. Mohammed bin Salman, Foreign Ministry spokesman Bahram Qassemi said, was “one of the main directors of the Saudi war on the innocent and defenseless Yemeni nation, and the manifestation of terror and horror in Syria, Bahrain and other regional and world countries. ” “The history of the Middle East will teach all, especially states who have through the fantasy and illusion [of being able] to buy security moved to offer a green light to the intervention of foreign players, that they are making a huge mistake because previous interventions by powers have only led to insecurity in countries and the states that have summoned the foreign powers,” Qassemi warned. | 1 |
ENTER HELENThe Invention of Helen Gurley Brown and the Rise of the Modern Single WomanBy Brooke HauserIllustrated. 462 pp. Publishers. $28. 99. NOT PRETTY ENOUGHThe Unlikely Triumph of Helen Gurley BrownBy Gerri HirsheyIllustrated. 500 pp. Sarah Crichton Straus Giroux. $27. Provocation does not age well. Those who succeed make it difficult to appreciate how radical they were. When Helen Gurley Brown published “Sex and the Single Girl” in 1962, her frankness about the fact that unmarried women had sex — and liked it — shocked reviewers and sold millions of copies. When she took over Cosmopolitan in 1965, staff members grumbled. But over the 32 years she served as editor in chief, her message became mainstream. “There is a catch to achieving single bliss,” Brown told her “Single Girl” readers. “You have to work like a son of a bitch. ” Cosmo reiterated that any girl could diet, exercise, groom, shop, flirt and sleep her way into having it all — another phrase that Brown helped make ubiquitous. The trick was indefatigability. Today, when career advisers exhort us to “do what you love, and love what you do” and pop songs tell us to “work it,” to be sexy at work and to work at being sexy not only isn’t shocking it’s expected. This may be why, four years after her death at the age of 90, Helen Gurley Brown is experiencing something of a revival. Matthew Weiner, the creator of “Mad Men,” frequently cited “Sex and the Single Girl” as a source of inspiration and urged writers for the show to read it. In the introduction to her 2014 memoir “Not That Kind of Girl,” Lena Dunham identified Brown as a key influence. The pilot that Dunham is currently developing for HBO revolves around a writer for women’s magazines during the early years of feminism. A play based on Brown’s life is also in the works. Now, two new biographies of Helen Gurley Brown have arrived within months of each other: “Enter Helen,” by Brooke Hauser, a contributing writer at Allure and “Not Pretty Enough,” by the longtime culture journalist Gerri Hirshey. (The feature film rights for “Enter Helen” were optioned before the book was even finished.) Both books draw heavily on the personal papers that Brown bequeathed to Smith College, as well as published works by Brown and her husband, the film producer David Brown. Both authors interviewed colleagues, friends and the few relatives who survived Helen. And both highlight the exhausting feedback loop between her anxieties and her ambition. Hauser and Hirshey are not the first. In her 2009 biography “Bad Girls Go Everywhere,” the gender and women’s studies professor Jennifer Scanlon presented a rigorous assessment of the relationship between “Gurley girl feminism” and the more privileged precincts of the women’s movement. “Enter Helen” and “Not Pretty Enough” offer engaging takes on Brown’s life for a popular audience. “Enter Helen” focuses on the 1960s and 1970s, the decades when Hauser’s heroine took off. Hauser lifted the title from a repeated stage direction in a musical that Brown tried to write about her own life, and the book has the footed and slightly manic quality of a revue. Most chapters run only a few pages. All are signposted with dates and epigraphs. We enter in medias res, shortly before Helen married David, and follow her rise for 165 pages before flashing back to her childhood in Arkansas. “Genteel poor” was a phrase Helen used to describe it. She felt a keen need to compensate for her “mouseburger” origins for the rest of her life. “Her insecurity was cellular,” Hauser writes. It was also her great selling point. The improbability of her success proved that her methods worked. Throughout, Hauser weaves in passages connecting Brown to her contemporaries and the cultural landscape of the 1960s. These side glances not only help situate her life in the context of its times. They remind us of how many of her stances were truly progressive — her vocal support of access to contraception and legal abortion, for instance. They also offer amusing glimpses into friendships and catty contretemps. We learn that Hugh Hefner was an early ally and that Gloria Steinem was often dismissive. Joan Didion was agnostic. A 1965 profile by Didion, published in The Saturday Evening Post, observed that Brown seemed mostly “very tired. ” Gerri Hirshey’s “Not Pretty Enough” presents a narrower, but deeper, perspective. As Hirshey states in her introduction, her book is concerned more with the character and psychology of its protagonist than with her cultural surroundings. Where Hauser’s method is montage, Hirshey suggests her own approach is “pointillist. ” “Not Pretty Enough” begins with contemporary reminiscences before it dissolves, like a classic Hollywood flashback, to 1893, when Brown’s mother, Cleo Sisco, was born in the Ozarks. Brown’s father died in a freak elevator accident in June 1932, when Helen was only 10 and her sister, Mary, was 14. Their childhood was impoverished and itinerant. Cleo moved her daughters across state lines several times before settling in Los Angeles and remarrying. Mary was afflicted by polio, while Helen suffered from disfiguring acne. Hirshey makes a strong case that the “intimate rituals of utter frustration and despair” that Brown shared with her hapless mother, along with her idealization of her dead father, shaped her forever. Indeed, they may have shaped the entire Cosmopolitan empire: “Cleo’s basic message was a dour version of the one Helen would banner with cheer in her own best sellers and in her magazine: Honey, do the best with what you have. ” Hirshey’s psychological insights into Brown’s childhood, as well as the book’s treatment of Brown’s long partnership with her husband, deepen and complicate the plucky image that Brown projected in public. Given how fixated she was on the connections between sex appeal and success, it’s unsurprising she struggled as she got older. After her death, Brown was treated with the special cruelty that our culture reserves for women who do not know when to desist from trying to be desirable. Even her obituary in The Times included a snide remark: “She was 90, though parts of her were considerably younger. ” Hauser speeds over Brown’s twilight, when she turned into a grim caricature of herself, the emaciated octogenarian in fishnets doling out oral sex tips and saying reprehensibly ignorant things about H. I. V. and sexual harassment. “For all her confessions,” Hauser concludes, “Helen remained unknowable, even to those who knew her best. ” Hirshey lingers over the denouement, taking several chapters to chronicle Helen’s later years as the editor of Cosmopolitan’s international editions, her declining health, her weight gain and her stunned grief after the death of David. When people asked how she was dealing with it, she offered a pantomime of nonchalance that sounds like a kind of despair: “Well, I come to work every day. ” “Write the way you speak,” Brown admonished, and for better or worse, both Hauser and Hirshey use prose strongly inflected — you might even say infected — with Brown’s own idioms and idiosyncrasies. “Was he riding on his wife’s coattails?” Hauser writes of David Brown. “Absolutely! And why not? She had ridden on his. ” The new Cosmo that he and Helen cooked up would consist of “frank discussions about sex, money, careers, apartments, fashion and beauty — oh, and men, men, men. ” The prose of “Not Pretty Enough” is less cartoonish, but Hirshey’s attempts to ventriloquize sometimes verge on pastiche. She describes one early lover as “a Wow” and a title Brown wrote as “a grabber. ” From time to time, Hirshey adopts the kind of innuendo Cosmo favored. Helen’s speaking voice was “well suited to the dark, whispery in tone, pleasant and with a musky minor note of boudoir. ” These biographies convey the sense of desperation that attended someone whose success depended so fundamentally on . “Enter Helen” shows Brown trying to become everything anyone else wanted. She insisted that she loved sex even when she did not orgasm: “It was the most marvelous feeling because, my goodness, he was looking at me, at me. ” “Relax chin, stay at 105 pounds . ’u2008. ’u2008. torture!” was her New Year’s resolution for years. “Not Pretty Enough” announces this central problem in the title. Yet neither book quite answers the deepest questions it poses. Why does Helen Gurley Brown matter now? Why does her story feel so timely? Hauser, despite her vivid treatment of Steinem and Betty Friedan, simply neglects to discuss contemporary feminism. Hirshey, from the outset, dismisses questions about Brown’s legacy the way she imagines Brown herself would: “Aw, pippy poo. ” “I do find much of the revisionist analysis and H. G. B. to be tedious, solipsistic and drearily beside the point,” Hirshey sighs. It’s a standard kind of complaint for popular writers to lob at academics. But refusing to situate Brown in the current context seems like a missed opportunity. The past few years have seen a powerful revival of feminism in the United States, along with its commercial acceptance — or, depending on your perspective, its appropriation. In “Bad Girls Go Everywhere,” Scanlon presented Brown as a complicated feminist figure: Cosmopolitan may have been crass, but it also disseminated feminist messages to a audience whom the canonical front of the women’s movement didn’t reach. These two biographies matter precisely because Brown’s life and career anticipated the tensions that countless women are talking about now. She offered a blueprint for success in a sexist world, telling readers how to game a system that was set up to exploit them. Was this the right approach? Whatever your answer, this is the same debate we are still having about the most powerful women in America, from Hillary Clinton to Beyoncé. Paradoxically, the most prominent heir to Brown’s feminism may be Sheryl Sandberg. In a 1982 interview with Gloria Steinem, Brown conceded that women faced obstacles specific to their gender, but, she insisted: “You can do pretty well anyway. You can rise above it. ” Sandberg hardly shares Brown’s mouseburger origins, but in “Lean In” she delivers a message Brown would have recognized. “We can reignite the revolution by internalizing the revolution,” Sandberg promises. A girl can hope, and as Brown knew, hope sells eternal. | 1 |
WARSAW — After growing protests from Polish women and an embarrassing debate in the European Parliament, Poland’s governing party retreated Thursday from a proposed law that would have made virtually all abortions illegal. Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the party, the Law and Justice Party, said that while the government agreed with the intent of such a law, it opposed the version proposed by an group. “Observing the social developments, we have come to a conclusion that this legislation will have an opposite effect to the one that was intended,” he said. “This is not the right way to proceed. ” The Polish government has clashed often with European Union officials, particularly over moves that effectively hobbled the country’s constitutional tribunal, the main check on the governing party. So the clash over abortion, a delicate social issue, was scrutinized throughout Europe for signs of how far Law and Justice could go in enacting its conservative agenda at a time of rising nationalism across the Continent. Poland already has among the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, providing exceptions only in cases of incest, rape, severely damaged fetuses and threats to the mother’s life. Three days after thousands of women dressed in black protested nationwide, 352 of the 428 lawmakers present in Poland’s lower house of Parliament voted against the proposal, which would have eliminated all of the exceptions but one: threat to the mother’s life. Tightening abortion laws has been a priority for the Catholic Church, which plays a powerful role in the country and is closely allied with Mr. Kaczynski’s party, which has a solid parliamentary majority. The vote came a day after a parliamentary body, the Justice and Human Rights Commission, surprised government opponents by voting not to support the legislation in Thursday’s second round of voting, presaging the measure’s defeat. The commission’s ruling was followed by 90 minutes of heated discussions that did not end until early Thursday. Stanislaw Tyszka, deputy marshal of the lower house of Parliament, ended the debate by scolding members. “You are behaving like mad monkeys,” he said. Law and Justice members had voted overwhelmingly to move the bill forward in the first round of voting last month, but party leaders had a change of heart. Party officials said they now objected to the bill in part because it would have punished women who received abortions, including potential prison terms. The bill also called for imprisoning doctors who performed abortions. Before Wednesday’s commission vote, the Conference of the Polish Episcopate posted a statement on its website saying that the church also does not support any legislation that calls for punishing women for having abortions. Krystyna Pawlowicz, a commission member and one of the governing party’s most outspoken politicians, posted on her Facebook page that the Episcopate’s position had effectively “authorized” the vote against the measure. Also on Wednesday, the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, held an emotional debate over the bill, a debate that Law and Justice had tried to avert as an intrusion into Poland’s sovereignty. Malin Björk, from Sweden’s Left Party, called the proposed law “a huge blow against women’s rights. ” Gianni Pittella, president of the European Parliament’s Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, said the legislation undercut European Union values “and threatens the right to health of women. ” Speakers for the Polish government said the debate should never have happened. “You are talking about something on which you don’t have the right to legislate,” said Jadwiga Wisniewska, a European Parliament member from Law and Justice. The government had insisted throughout the debate that the legislation had not been its project, but a proposal from citizen groups. Leaders of those groups reacted with outrage to what they saw as a betrayal. Joanna Banasiuk, a leader of Ordo Iuris, the group that had written the legislation, said that despite the anger, the organization would accept changing the measure to remove punishments for women. Another Ordo Iuris official, Mariusz Dzierzawski, took on the governing party’s leader directly. “Jaroslaw Kaczynski just honestly thinks that sick children should be aborted,” he said. Opposition politicians and leaders of the protests against the legislation were triumphant. “Kaczynski caved from the wrath of thousands of women,” said Marcelina Zawisza, from the Together Party that coordinated the street protests, on her Facebook page. “This is the first victorious battle in our fight for our dignity and rights. But the war is not over yet. ” Law and Justice officials said that the government intended to stick with the current law, for the time being, but was considering possible future changes. Prime Minister Beata Szydlo told Parliament just before Thursday’s vote that her government continued to believe that its main job was to protect human life from the moment of conception. She added that by the end of the year, the government would prepare a national program to support families with disabled children and women who give birth even after their fetuses have been found to have genetic disorders. Rafal Chwedoruk, a political scientist at the University of Warsaw, said the government was scrambling to do “damage control” over its miscalculation in pushing the issue. “This vote is obviously an attempt to put an end to this issue as soon and as painlessly as possible,” he said. | 1 |
MIAMI — Alexis K. Manigo closes her eyes to sleep and sees images of her mother. She recalls the doting mom who took her to zoos, aquariums and SeaWorld, and marvels at how fortunate she was to have a parent who loved her unconditionally. But those memories are now complicated by an extraordinary drama that has played out over the week since Ms. Manigo, 18, found out that she had been spirited away as a newborn from a hospital in Jacksonville, Fla. that her real name is Kamiyah Mobley, and that the woman she still thinks of as her mother has been charged with her abduction. She is still trying to make sense of it all. She met with her birth parents, Craig Aiken and Shanara Mobley, last weekend. But in her first newspaper interview since the case made headlines on Friday, she said she did not have a cross word for Gloria Williams, the woman who now stands accused of lurking for more than a dozen hours around a Jacksonville hospital on the July 1998 day Ms. Manigo was born, looking for a newborn to snatch. “I feel like I was blessed,” Ms. Manigo said in a telephone interview. “I never had a reason to question a blessing like that, someone loving you so much. ” Ms. Manigo said she never had cause to doubt her mother in the rural South Carolina community where she grew up. But the police say someone else clearly did. At least two tips were called in late last year to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office, some 200 miles away, where the police still had an open case. “A woman posing as a health care worker approached a young mother, then 16, with a newborn, and walked out of what was then University Medical Center with a baby and disappeared,” Sheriff Mike Williams recounted at a news conference on Friday. The woman wore flowered hospital scrubs and carried a purse, which seemed odd. “What’s she doing with a pocketbook?” the baby’s grandmother, Velma Aiken, recalled thinking in a report on the 10th anniversary of the case. “That lady could be stealing your baby. ” She thought, “I’m picking up a bad spirit. ” The woman spent hours with the family and then left with the baby, saying the girl had a fever and needed some tests. They never came back. “In the 18 years since that child’s abduction, we have received and followed up on more than 2, 500 investigative leads,” Sheriff Williams said, recalling an “intense, lengthy, detailed, multiagency investigation. ” The family reached a legal settlement with the hospital two years later. And every year, the baby’s mother would wrap a slice of birthday cake in tinfoil and freeze it. The case also went cold. Late last year, two fresh tips came in, and they led detectives to Walterboro, S. C. a town of just 5, 000 people an hour west of Charleston. There, the investigators found a young woman who had been born on July 10, 1998, just like Kamiyah, but with a different name. Her documents were fraudulent, Sheriff Williams said, and “interviews with people” supported the idea that the two women were one and the same. The detectives asked Ms. Manigo for a DNA sample. “And of course, like someone who understands their rights, she said: ‘What is this about? Do you have a warrant? ’” said her lawyer, Justin Bamberg. The investigators returned with one. Ms. Manigo gave her DNA and in short order found out the truth: She was someone else’s child. Conscious of the fact that the woman she knew as her mother will now face trial for kidnapping, Ms. Manigo is unwilling to discuss a lot about the case, including how her family life finally unraveled. She does not want to say which name she plans to use in the future, and she insisted that she was never suspicious — although the police said otherwise at a news conference on Friday. “I never had any ID or a driver’s license, but other than that, everything was totally normal,” she said. She did acknowledge being stymied a few months ago when she applied for work at Shoney’s but lacked the Social Security card she needed to get the job. “She took care of everything I ever needed,” Ms. Manigo said. “I never wanted for anything. I always trusted her with it. ” She said that Ms. Williams was not mentally ill and that she had not been overprotective. Ms. Williams worked at a Navy yard handling medical records and was set to receive her master’s degree this year. “She was a very smart woman,” Ms. Manigo said. Ms. Manigo met her biological parents on Saturday, at a teary reunion followed by a trip to the mall. She called them Mom and Dad, because she figured those were words they had been waiting a long time to hear. “You can tell she has a lot of love for me as well,” Ms. Manigo said about her biological mother, who could not be reached for comment. “They don’t feel like . They feel like distant family. ” She said she felt an innate trust toward them. Her father, Craig Aiken, told in Jacksonville the meeting was “beautiful. ” “It’s a feeling that you can’t explain,” he said. Mr. Bamberg, Ms. Manigo’s lawyer, said there were now practical matters to attend to. She needs identification and a Social Security card. A large financial settlement was won on her behalf, and now that she is 18, it has to be determined whether any money was set aside for her. “You have incidents where people’s lives were turned upside down, and then you have this: a life that was essentially erased,” he said. Among the few people who can really relate to what Ms. Mobley is experiencing is Sarah Cecilie Finkelstein Waters. When she was a preschooler living with her mother, her father took her, and it was not until she was a teenager and saw her picture on a milk carton that she realized that she had been abducted. Ms. Waters eventually reconnected with her mother, distanced herself from her father and, as an adult, befriended other survivors of abduction. “It turns reality upside down and forces you to question every core thing you ever believed to be true,” said Ms. Waters, now 46, married and a mother herself, living on Long Island. “You have to really struggle to come to terms with all these shades of gray, make sense of them, and hopefully some sort of peace with them: What is reality? Who is wrong and who’s right? Who really loves me? Who is telling the truth?” Since Ms. Mobley seems devoted to the woman she believed was her mother, Ms. Waters said, “She needs to feel like she can embrace her new family without giving up on her old one. ” Geoffrey Greif, a professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work who has studied abduction cases, said some psychological effects were common. “As you connect the dots over a period of time, it’s a pretty normal reaction to become upset with the abductor, and a child who was abducted may have trouble developing intimacy and trust with other people,” he said. “We often see a degree of anger at the parents who were left behind, even if that’s not really justified, like ‘Why didn’t you look harder for me? ’” But cases like Ms. Mobley’s are quite rare. Thousands of children are abducted each year, but usually the abductor is a family member, most often a parent. And abduction by a stranger often has a tragic end — sexual abuse, death or both. A spokesman for the hospital, which is now called UF Health Jacksonville, said the medical center was thrilled that the young woman had been found. “We share in the joy of this discovery with her family, the northeast Florida community, and law enforcement as they celebrate this news,” the spokesman, Dan Leveton, said in a statement. “Like most hospitals, we currently have specialized, security measures in place, both and electronic, to protect newborns and their mothers. ” Ms. Manigo, somehow, has taken it all in stride so far. And for her, Mom still means Ms. Williams, who is being held at the Jacksonville jail without bond. “When I close my eyes, I see my mother,” she said. “I like that. I love that. ” | 1 |
Volkswagen solved one big problem stemming from its diesel emissions deception, agreeing on Tuesday to pay up to $14. 7 billion to settle claims in the United States. But the final financial toll — once the company deals with a long list of fines, lawsuits and criminal investigations around the world — may well be far higher. The continuing fallout could leave Volkswagen vulnerable to billions of dollars more in expenses at a time when profit is already under pressure. So far, Volkswagen has set aside 16. 2 billion euros, or about $17. 9 billion, for costs related to its public admission last September that its supposed “clean diesel” cars had been deliberately designed to cheat on tests. Matthias Müller, Volkswagen’s chief executive, said less than two weeks ago that the amount was adequate. But the American settlement with the government and car owners will consume a big chunk of that money. And Volkswagen faces even more scrutiny in the United States and around the world, most notably as authorities pursue criminal investigations. The Volkswagen scandal is “one of the most flagrant violations of environmental and consumer laws,” Sally Q. Yates, deputy attorney general of the United States, said at a news conference in Washington on Tuesday. “We can’t suck the nitrous oxide out of the air,” Ms. Yates said. But the settlement, she said, would help repair some of the damage. The deal, in which Volkswagen did not admit to wrongdoing, includes $10. 03 billion to buy back affected cars at their prescandal values and pay additional cash compensation to owners. Additionally, the company has agreed to put $2. 7 billion into a government fund to compensate for the environmental impact of the cars and to spend $2 billion on projects. “This is by no means the last step,” Ms. Yates cautioned. “The settlements do not address any potential criminal liability. ” She said the United States was aggressively pursuing a criminal investigation of the company and individuals. Volkswagen said the settlement was covered by the money already set aside, though it did not rule out the possibility of allocating more. “Today’s announcement is within the scope of our provisions,” Frank Witter, Volkswagen’s chief financial officer, said in a statement. “We are in a position to manage the consequences. ” One big risk to the carmaker is in Europe. The American deal focuses on nearly 500, 000 Volkswagen vehicles. But the carmaker admitted to installing the cheating device on more than 11 million cars worldwide, with 8. 5 million in Europe. European legal systems do not favor consumers as much as those in the United States do. And the emissions rules in the region are more lenient than in the United States, which will make it harder for European owners to pursue claims. Still, Volkswagen may have to pay up. There is an increasing outcry from European owners and politicians for compensation. “Now that this is done, attention should turn to Europe,” said Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer whose firm represents aggrieved owners and shareholders on both sides of the Atlantic. The settlement “is a strong foundation for what Volkswagen needs to do for European owners as well as for the environment. ” In addition, it may not be clear for many months how much Volkswagen will ultimately have to pay to American car owners. A maximum of around $10 billion has been allocated in the settlement. The actual cost to Volkswagen will depend on how many owners exercise their option to sell their cars back to the company at the prescandal value, which will vary according to the age and mileage of the cars. The Federal Trade Commission said consumers could expect to get from roughly $12, 500 for an Jetta to as much as $44, 000 for a 2014 Audi. The settlement works out to about $21, 000 a car. If Volkswagen is lucky, the total paid to car owners could turn out to be less than $10 billion. Analysts at Kelley Blue Book estimate that the cost of buying back all the offending diesels would be $7. 3 billion. Volkswagen also owes owners additional compensation of $5, 100 to $10, 000, or at least another $2. 4 billion. Another big uncertainty is Volkswagen’s fix for the problem. VW owners can have the company retool the emissions systems. But the company has not yet come up with solutions that pass regulatory muster — and it is unclear what they will cost Volkswagen. While they would improve emissions, any fixes might not also make the cars fully compliant with American rules and could create more challenges for already frustrated car owners. George Farquar, a plaintiff named in the consumers’ suit, said he was interested in getting his 2010 Volkswagen Jetta TDI fixed. Mr. Farquar said he had reluctantly continued to drive his Jetta, even though he thinks he “gets nasty looks from every Prius car that passes. ” But he said he worried that the eventual fix would require him to drive to the dealer more frequently for maintenance, defeating the purpose of a cleaner car. Even now, he said, “many things aren’t clear. ” Then there is the issue of what Volkswagen will do with all the cars it buys back from owners in the United States. The settlement bars Volkswagen from simply exporting the cars, without fixes, to countries with emissions standards. “We are not shipping the air pollution elsewhere,” Gina McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator, said on Tuesday, noting that Volkswagen was required to fix the cars that it bought back or scrap them. Volkswagen representatives portrayed the settlement as a good deal for the company under the circumstances. “It would have been counterproductive for Volkswagen to engage in a multiyear, litigation with the U. S. government, 50 states and private plaintiffs,” said Robert J. Giuffra Jr. a lawyer with the firm Sullivan Cromwell who represented Volkswagen. But the swell of scrutiny worldwide will only add to the financial pressure. German prosecutors are looking into whether Volkswagen and top executives, including the former chief executive Martin Winterkorn, waited too long to inform shareholders about the looming scandal. Investors are also suing Volkswagen over similar disclosure issues. Volkswagen faces an inquiry by attorneys general in 42 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Eric T. Schneiderman, the attorney general of New York, one of the states leading the investigation, announced on Tuesday the states’ own settlement with Volkswagen for $500 million in penalties for defrauding consumers. A separate investigation by the state attorneys general into possible environmental misconduct by Volkswagen is continuing. In addition, the criminal investigation of Volkswagen in the United States looms large. Senators Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, both Democrats and members of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, pressed authorities for further action. “We continue to call on the Department of Justice to vigorously pursue its criminal investigation,” they said in a joint statement. “All the facts point to criminal culpability, and officials should be held accountable as appropriate. ” Volkswagen’s credibility with investors, already strained, could deteriorate further if the company is forced to increase the money it has set aside for costs. Shares of Volkswagen are down more than 20 percent since the scandal erupted late last year. And the deception itself has been a major drag on sales. Never fabulously profitable, the company reported a record loss in 2015, while earnings and sales declined in the first quarter of 2016. Volkswagen is also trying to quell a potential backlash by dealers in the United States. The carmaker is facing a lawsuit filed by the owner of three dealerships, seeking compensation for lost sales suffered by the more than 600 dealers in the United States. Separately, a group of dealers has been trying to work with Volkswagen to win financial support. “As dealers, we are very anxious to get a settlement,” said Wade Walker, owner of a Volkswagen dealership in Montpelier, Vt. “We’re customers, too — of Volkswagen — and we’ve been hurt in this process, tremendously. ” | 1 |
A black and white photograph shows Adolf Hitler reading on a deck chair on the veranda of his Bavarian Alps headquarters. In another image, he pauses during a stroll, an easy grin on his face. He looks into the camera, and smiling onlookers look at him. The photographs, chilling in their casual depiction of the murderous dictator, were among dozens of images of Nazi officials in an album that was discovered among the belongings of his companion, Eva Braun, in Hitler’s bunker in Berlin in 1945, according to CT Auctioneers of Britain. The album was found in a drawer in her bedroom. The album was sold at an auction on Wednesday in Royal Tunbridge Wells, Britain, to an unidentified bidder for 34, 000 pounds, or about $41, 000, the auctioneers said. The images could not be republished without permission, but they remained visible on the auction site and in a Reuters video. “Very few significant artifacts liberated from the Fuhrer Bunker in 1945 exist today in the open market, especially with such concrete provenance dating all the way back to the time of liberation,” the auction house said in a statement. Matthew Tredwen, an owner of the auction house, said in a telephone interview that it was not clear who took the photographs, but that the proximity to Hitler, and to other officials in the Nazi Party including Joseph Goebbels, Hermann Göring and Heinrich Himmler, suggested the person or people behind the camera had trusted access. Braun, a photographer, is credited with other surviving pictures and films of Hitler. “The photographs had to be taken by someone who was very close,” Mr. Tredwen said. “All photographs of Adolf Hitler were very much controlled because obviously they did not want photographs coming out that made him look bad. They would not have been made for the general public. ” There were no signatures in the book to suggest ownership, or the identity of the photographer, he said. He described the bidding as “very competitive,” with telephone bidders from Britain and the United States, as well as interest online from Germany, China, South Africa and other countries. Mr. Tredwen, a specialist of more than a dozen years in military history items, said buyers of Nazi memorabilia were generally historians. “I have never in my life met anyone who shared the political views of the Third Reich,” he said. “They are literally only there to collect. World War II was one of the biggest events to affect the world. ” “People are fascinated by how evil the Third Reich were,” he added. The description of the item online traced its journey from April 1945, when a British Fleet Street photographer, Edward Dean, “obtained” it from a Russian soldier whom he had watched find the album in a drawer in Braun’s bunker bedroom, shortly after the couple committed suicide. The item changed hands several times after Mr. Dean auctioned it. In one photograph, Hitler salutes as he walks toward the camera down a path at his Berghof headquarters in the Bavarian Alps. His guards are also depicted on duty and in relaxed poses in the images, which date mostly from the early to . Ownership of items related to Nazi history poses ethical questions. Some art collectors have stepped forward to try to find out whether their art was looted from Jews. A replica of a gate that was believed to have been stolen from the Dachau concentration camp in Germany was recovered last year. And an attraction in Berlin that recreates the interior of Hitler’s bunker and opened last year suggests an uncomfortable phenomenon — that Hitler sells. Memorials dedicated to preserving the historical context of the Holocaust, in which six million Jews were killed, have often called on collectors or people with personal items from survivors to donate the artifacts. In January, in commemorating the 72nd anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration and death camps at in Poland, the memorial director, Dr. Piotr M. A. Cywinski, issued a statement calling for donations. “We kindly ask the public to hand over any documents, photos, personal letters, diaries, or other materials that are in private hands,” he said. “I am absolutely convinced that only mutual effort can lead to a fuller understanding of the mechanisms of hatred, and analyses from the perspective of the victims, given the course of events, cannot fully serve the purpose,” he added. “Today, we need new sources for a comprehensive picture of the history of Auschwitz and the Holocaust. ” | 1 |
European banks have rushed to cut deals with prosecutors over longstanding claims that they pushed toxic mortgage securities in the years before the financial crisis. The payouts are steep: Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse said that they would disgorge nearly $13 billion combined to settle with the United States Justice Department. But with the clock ticking before Donald J. Trump takes over, there appears to be an eagerness in Washington to conclude cases before a new, potentially more sympathetic, administration begins. As a result, these banks may have benefited from paying billions less than once proposed. The $7. 2 billion settlement with Deutsche Bank was a relief on Friday to its investors, who were rattled when it emerged in September that prosecutors were seeking a penalty of as much as $14 billion. Shares of Deutsche Bank rose as much as 5 percent in Frankfurt, before settling up 0. 8 percent. A smaller player in the securities market, the British bank Barclays, appears to be willing to take its chances under the administration of Mr. Trump. Barclays said on Thursday that it would “vigorously defend” itself in court against a complaint brought by the Justice Department after settlement talks collapsed. Its shares fell 0. 9 percent in London trading as investors weighed the legal risk. The government says that Barclays, which like Deutsche Bank has significant operations in New York, sold more than $31 billion in mortgage securities that turned out to be “catastrophic failures. ” A decade ago, bundling and structuring mortgages on American homes into securities to be sold to investors around the world was a hugely profitable business for Wall Street banks, American and European. But as risky mortgages began tumbling into default, the securities turned toxic, and the resulting panic led to a global financial crisis in 2008. Holding the banks accountable for that meltdown continues to be debated in political campaigns, books, articles and movies like “The Big Short. ” The crackdown on banks for those tainted securities was the Obama Justice Department’s biggest and most prominent legal effort by far. Banks, most of them American, have paid more $100 billion in settlements with the government. Yet the Obama administration has been criticized for allowing banks to write big checks to settle claims and for not prosecuting Wall Street executives. Now, as the end of the administration nears, recent legal setbacks may have emboldened Barclays. (The Swiss bank UBS and the Royal Bank of Scotland remain in settlement talks with the Justice Department.) In May, a federal appeals court overturned a $1. 27 billion penalty against Bank of America over the sale of troubled mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The appeals panel found that prosecutors did not provide sufficient evidence that either the bank’s Countrywide unit or a former Countrywide executive had committed fraud in a loan program known as “the hustle. ” For its fight with the Justice Department, Barclays is bringing in a team of lawyers from Williams Connolly who represented Bank of America in that case. Barclays will also rely on its usual counsel at Sullivan Cromwell. Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse have been eager to move past their troubled legal legacies and overhaul their respective banks. Credit Suisse said on Friday that it would pay $5. 3 billion over its role in mortgage securities. For Deutsche Bank, a settlement lifts a cloud that had been hanging over the bank, and making it all the more difficult for its leader to break with its past. In recent years, its legal woes have surpassed mortgage securities to include manipulating benchmark interest rates and allegations of Russian money laundering. Since taking over in John Cryan, Deutsche Bank’s chief executive, has been trying to undo this legacy. But the settlement does not dispel doubts about whether Mr. Cryan can retain membership among the world’s top investment banks. Especially in the United States, Deutsche Bank’s ability to compete with Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase is likely to be hampered by the costly settlement. And no institution can call itself a global investment bank without a strong presence on Wall Street. “It’s the most important market for investment banking,” said Ingo Speich, a fund manager at Union Investment in Frankfurt. “If they want to offer investment banking services globally, they can’t get around the U. S. ” One American tie of Deutsche Bank has drawn attention lately. In a financial disclosure form filed in 2015, Mr. Trump said that the wealth management division of the bank was among the firms that managed his stock investments. His transition team has since said it had sold the ’s stock holdings. In that same filing, Mr. Trump said that his businesses have loans or mortgages from Deutsche worth as much as $125 million. Some critics have suggested that Mr. Trump’s business and personal dealings with Deutsche Bank could pose a conflict of interest. As for Mr. Cryan, he is trying to pull off several transformations. He has been hacking away at a catalog of charges of wrongdoing and litigation that, in the bank’s most recent quarterly report, required more than eight pages to explain. Other charges include violating international embargoes against countries like Iran and manipulating currency markets. In addition, Mr. Cryan has been trying to infuse the bank with a stronger sense of ethics to avoid future scandals. He also has been shrinking the bank’s assets — the sum of its outstanding loans, derivatives and other holdings — to reduce its need for capital and meet stricter regulatory requirements. And he has been trying to cut costs and improve efficiency, including laying off thousands of workers and bringing order to the bank’s Balkanized information technology systems. As Deutsche Bank made acquisitions over the years to expand its services, it acquired a variety of computer systems that were never properly integrated. American regulators have criticized Deutsche for not being able to provide information because of antiquated technology. Most important, Mr. Cryan has been trying to convince investors and demoralized employees that Deutsche Bank can find new sources of profit and growth despite its setbacks. Only then can it avoid the fate of European rivals that have slashed their investment banks, like Credit Suisse. Deutsche Bank’s supporters say it still has many strengths. It ranks among the top currency traders. With its operations in Frankfurt and London, the bank could benefit as clients shift financial operations to the Continent because of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union. The bank may also be well positioned to take advantage of growth in Europe’s corporate bond markets. Companies in Europe tend to rely on traditional bank loans, but increasingly are turning to debt markets, as is already the case in the United States. Deutsche Bank is a leading issuer of corporate debt. And some clients are wary of the dominance of the big American investment banks and are eager to do business with a European bank instead. But efforts to capitalize on those opportunities are likely to be hampered for years by past errors. “The question is how many risks are still in the pipeline,” Mr. Speich of Union Investment said. “It’s too early to say the worst is over. ” | 1 |
Speaker Paul D. Ryan treads a fine line between disavowing some of the Republican presidential nominee Donald J. Trump’s more inflammatory remarks and disavowing Mr. Trump himself. We mapped out Mr. Ryan’s rhetorical footwork: A statement from Donald Trump’s campaign on barring Muslim immigrants: “Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. ” He added, “Until we are able to determine and understand this problem and the dangerous threat it poses, our country cannot be the victims of horrendous attacks by people that believe only in jihad, and have no sense of reason or respect for human life. ” Mr. Ryan: “This is not conservatism. What was proposed yesterday is not what this party stands for and, more importantly, it’s not what this country stands for. ” _____ Mr. Ryan, on endorsing Mr. Trump: “I’m just not ready to do that at this point. I’m not there right now. And I hope to, though, and I want to. ” _____ Mr. Ryan, on a meeting with Mr. Trump: “It was important that we discussed our differences that we have. But it was also important that we discuss the core principles that tie us together. ” _____ Mr. Ryan on when he might give his endorsement: “I don’t have a timeline in my mind, and I have not made a decision. Nothing has changed from that perspective, and we’re still having productive conversations. ” _____ Mr. Ryan endorses Mr. Trump: “Through these conversations, I feel confident he would help us turn the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people’s lives. That’s why I’ll be voting for him this fall. ” _____ Mr. Trump, on a judge of “Mexican heritage” presiding over Trump University cases: “I’m building a wall. It’s an inherent conflict of interest. ” Mr. Ryan: “I disavow these comments — I regret those comments that he made. Claiming a person can’t do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. ” But not retracting his endorsement: “I believe that we have more common ground on the policy issues of the day and we have more likelihood of getting our policies enacted with him than with her. ” _____ Mr. Ryan, addressing the Republican National Convention: “Only with Donald Trump and Mike Pence do we have a chance at a better way. ” _____ Mr. Trump, on Khizr Khan’s remarks that he has not sacrificed: “I think I’ve made a lot of sacrifices. I work very, very hard. ” Mr. Trump, on Ghazala Khan: “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably — maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me. ” Mr. Ryan’s spokeswoman, AshLee Strong, after Mr. Khan called on Mr. Ryan to repudiate Mr. Trump: “The speaker has made clear many times that he rejects this idea, and himself has talked about how Muslim Americans have made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. ” _____ Mr. Ryan, in a statement, on honoring military sacrifice: “America’s greatness is built on the principles of liberty and preserved by the men and women who wear the uniform to defend it. As I have said on numerous occasions, a religious test for entering our country is not reflective of these fundamental values. I reject it. Many Muslim Americans have served valiantly in our military, and made the ultimate sacrifice. Captain Khan was one such brave example. His sacrifice — and that of Khizr and Ghazala Khan — should always be honored. Period. ” | 1 |
A cable and internet provider decides to buy an entertainment conglomerate. The merger is met with skepticism by industry analysts and outrage by consumer groups, who complain that it would thwart competition, create unfair pricing and incite more media consolidation. That was 2009, when the cable giant Comcast announced it would acquire NBC Universal. When the next administration in Washington takes up the $85. 4 billion deal between ATT and Time Warner that was announced on Saturday evening, the Comcast acquisition will be used as the lens to examine the changing media landscape. In the end, the Justice Department and the Federal Communications Commission approved the acquisition of NBCUniversal, requiring some small management concessions but few divestitures. But ATT and Time Warner will probably face a much sterner test. With a huge wireless business, too, the combination would be a new kind of media juggernaut. Donald J. Trump has already condemned the deal. Campaigning in Gettysburg, Pa. on Saturday, Mr. Trump said he would block it if he were president, “because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few. ” Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has promised to be tough on corporate megapowers and consolidation. Regardless of who wins next month, the ATT acquisition of Time Warner will be among the biggest and most important regulatory cases to await the next administration. “By standard antitrust metrics, this deal should be O. K. in Washington,” said Paul Gallant, a technology, media and telecommunications policy analyst with Cowen Company. “But the Democratic Party is moving left, and if Clinton wins, this could become an early test for her ‘tougher on business’ rhetoric. ” ATT will be viewed with particular scrutiny because of the company’s acquisition of DirecTV in July 2015. The deal made ATT the largest provider in the nation, with more subscribers than Comcast. After a string of telecommunications mergers during the Obama administration, including Charter Communications’ acquisition of Time Warner Cable, which was approved this year, consumer interest groups have complained that there are fewer options for customers to choose from. Those deals were known as “horizontal integration” because similar businesses merged. ATT’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner, however, is considered “vertical” because the two companies largely do not compete against each other but operate on the same supply chain. Still, regulators may look at other ways ATT could affect the media ecosystem if the deal is completed. ATT could make it more expensive for its competitors to gain access to Time Warner’s content or give preferential treatment to its own programming, said John Bergmayer, senior counsel at Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group. The merger would make ATT unmatched in its size and reach to consumers through smartphones, home broadband, satellite television and a broad portfolio of cable channels and movies. For that reason, it may raise more cautionary flags than Comcast’s merger with NBCUniversal, which did not involve a wireless carrier. Many experts in Washington still look unfavorably at the outcome from Comcast and NBCUniversal because the terms of their settlement were too difficult to enforce. “It was an unsuccessful merger from a regulatory point of view,” said Andrew Schwartzman of the Georgetown University Law Center’s Institute for Public Representation. In the case of Comcast, some smaller competitors, particularly programmers that compete with NBC, complained that the company did not fulfill promises it made with the approval by the Justice Department and the F. C. C. The financial information company Bloomberg L. P. complained that Comcast had put its business news channel, which competes with CNBC, in the equivalent of the channel menu hinterlands. Comcast had promised not to discriminate against competing programmers by putting only its own channels in prime locations on the dial next to similar and popular programming. Bloomberg sued Comcast, saying that its channel was put on odd channels, far away from other business news, and that consumers had a hard time reaching it. Consumer advocates said Comcast’s merger with NBCUniversal had not decreased prices or created greater options for consumers. “It’s a massive deal concentrating a huge amount of media power under one corporate umbrella,” said Craig Aaron, president of the consumer advocacy group Free Press. “Consumers benefit when companies have to negotiate and fight with each other. ” In their favor, ATT and Time Warner may avoid a review by the Federal Communications Commission because the deal may not involve the acquisition of television stations. Time Warner owns a station in Atlanta, but could sell the station to avoid a F. C. C. review, which is much broader than the mandatory antitrust review of large mergers by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission. In a blog post on Saturday, Richard Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG, noted that Time Warner recently acquired a 10 percent stake in the streaming television service Hulu, which “is one of the lightning rods that regulators have focused on as an example of Comcast’s bad behavior with NBC. ” “In our view, regulators will fear that ATT will use its distribution footprint to favor Time Warner content vs. third parties,” Mr. Greenfield wrote. Still, any concerns that ATT would treat Time Warner programs like HBO’s “Game of Thrones” or cable networks like CNN favorably, or that it would withhold them from competitors, could be addressed in conditions attached to an approval. Regulators may seek commitments from ATT and Time Warner to make content from HBO available through streaming or through apps, according to Amy Ray, an antitrust partner at Cadwalader, Wickersham Taft. “I don’t think they would have inked a deal this big if there wasn’t a good possibility of it going through,” Ms. Ray said. “The real question is, will it go through without any sort of remedy or commitment? I’d put that chance very low. ” | 1 |
NSA contractor accused of spying stole real names of US undercover officers Intel News
Classified information stolen by a United States federal contractor, who was charged with espionage last month, includes the true identities of American intelligence officers posted in undercover assignments abroad, according to court documents. In August of this year, Harold Thomas Martin III, was arrested by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on charges of stealing government property and illegally removing classified material. Martin, 51, served as a US Navy officer for over a decade, where he acquired a top secret clearance and specialized in cyber security. At the time of his arrest earlier this year, he was working for Booz Allen Hamilton, one of the largest federal contractors in the US. Some media reports said Martin was a member of the National Security Agency’s Office of Tailored Access Operations, described by observers as an elite “hacker army” tasked with conducting offensive cyber espionage against foreign targets.
Last week, after prosecutors alleged that the information Martin removed from the NSA was the equivalent of 500 million pages, a judge in the US state of Maryland ruled that the accused might flee if he is released on bail. Soon afterwards, Martin’s legal team filed a motion asking the judge to reconsider his decision to deny him bail. That prompted a new filing by the prosecution, which was delivered to the court on Thursday. The document alleges that the information found in Martin’s home and car includes “numerous names” of American intelligence officers who currently “operate under cover outside the US”. The court filing adds that Martin’s removal of the documents from secure government facilities constitutes “a security breach that risks exposure of American intelligence operations” and “could endanger the lives” of undercover intelligence officers and their agents abroad.
It is alleged that Martin told the FBI he never shared classified information with anyone, and that he removed it from his office at the NSA in order to deepen his expertise on his subject. His legal team argues that Martin suffers from a mental condition that compels him to be a hoarder. But prosecutors for the government argue in court documents that Martin appears to have communicated via the Internet with Russian speakers, and that he was learning Russian at the time of his arrest. The case is expected to be tried later this year. | 0 |
Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton 2016 In Their Own Words 2016 Election Through the Eyes of Prophecy
By Dave Robbins
As we approach the presidential election on November 8, 2016 I don’t think the candidates could be more divided.
One is pro-life, the other is pro-choice. One is pro-gun, while the other is anti-gun. One believes global warming is a hoax, and the other claims the science is settled. One wants to build a wall, while the other is essentially for opening the borders. One believes in a traditional marriage between one man and one woman, while the other supports same-sex marriage. And the list goes on and on.
Each of these issues is certainly important and should be considered before making a final decision on who to vote for in November.
However, for those who follow prophecy, this upcoming election goes beyond that. Knowing that a world government is prophesied for the near future, one area that we are following closely is the ongoing process of globalization. (moving toward a global governing system)
It is possible that this upcoming election will set the course of the United States of America on a path toward either full involvement or total dissention from this prophesied world government. If everyone understood the prophecies concerning the future global political authority, the entire election would be determined on that issue alone. That is why we chose to devote an entire article to that subject in this magazine.
And yes, one candidate is vehemently opposed to globalization, while the other supports it in every way.
Since the next President of the United States will serve at least a four-year term, and quite possibly eight, we thought it would be important to let you see where each candidate stands on the important issues.
Why? With all the prophecies converging at the same time, it is likely that the next president will be in office during some of the most significant prophetic fulfillments concerning the end time.
Although there are more technical issues at hand (i.e. taxes, infrastructure, job creation, etc.), these do not necessarily show the character of an individual. That is why we have chosen the more defining topics which let us see the person behind the persona. In our opinion, these are the most critical.
Therefore, instead of giving you my opinion, I will let the candidates speak for themselves… Abortion
Trump: Pro-Life
Are you pro-life? Mr. Trump, “Yes…It’s an issue. I mean it’s an issue, and it’s a strong issue…What I am saying is this: With caveats – life of the mother, incest, rape. That’s where I stand. So, I’m pro-life, but with the caveats. You have to have it with the caveats.” Pregnancy outside of those caveats? Mr. Trump stated, “It depends why?” “I’m, pro-life…very simple, pro-life.” [i]
“…friends of mine years ago were going to have a child, and it was going to be aborted. And it wasn’t aborted. And that child today is a total superstar, a great, great child. And I saw that. And I saw other instances. And I am very, very proud to say that I am pro-life.” [ii]
Clinton: Pro-Choice
“Politicians have no business interfering with women’s personal health decisions. I will oppose efforts to roll back women’s access to reproductive health care, including Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. As president, I’ll stand up for Planned Parenthood and women’s access to critical health services, including safe, legal abortion,” [iii]
“The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” [iv]
“I believe we need to protect access to safe and legal abortion, not just in principle, but in practice.” [v] Climate Change
Trump: “It’s a Hoax…”
On December 30, 2015, Trump told the crowd at a rally in Hilton Head, S.C., “Obama’s talking about all of this with the global warming and…a lot of it’s a hoax. It’s a hoax. I mean, it’s a money-making industry, okay? It’s a hoax, a lot of it.” [vi]
In an “Energy Policy” speech in North Dakota on May 26, 2016 Trump stated, “…rescind all the job-destroying Obama executive actions including the Climate Action Plan…We’re going to cancel the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments of U.S. tax dollars to U.N. global warming programs.” [vii]
“There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy–so-called green energy–from renewable sources. That’s a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don’t buy that–and I don’t–then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.” [viii]
Clinton: The Science is Settled.
“It’s hard to believe that people running for president refuse to believe the settled science of climate change.” [ix]
“I believe in science. I believe that climate change is real and that we can save our planet while creating millions of good-paying clean energy jobs.” [x]
“Go talk to a scientist!” she said. “I really am tired of the debate, which is a phony debate. Climate change is real. It is here. It has to be dealt with.” [xi] Gun Control
Trump: Pro-Gun
“The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period…The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple…It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment.” [xii]
Clinton: Anti-Gun
George Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you believe that an individual’s right to bear arms is a constitutional right; that it’s not linked to service in a militia?” Mrs. Clinton replied, “I think that for most of our history there was a nuanced reading of the Second Amendment until the decision by the late Justice (Antonin) Scalia. And there was no argument until then that localities and states and the federal government had a right – as we do with every amendment – to impose reasonable regulations. So I believe we can have common-sense gun safety measures consistent with the Second Amendment…But I’m going to continue to speak out for comprehensive background checks; closing the gun show loophole; closing the online loophole; closing the so-called Charleston loophole; reversing the bill that Sen. (Bernie) Sanders voted for and I voted against, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and sellers. I think all of that can and should be done, and it is, in my view, consistent with the Constitution.” [xiii]
“When it comes to guns, we have just too many guns,” Clinton said. “On the streets, in our homes, in our neighborhoods.” [xiv]
“I am not here to make promises I can’t keep. I am here to tell you I will use every single minute of every day, if I am so fortunate enough to be your president, looking for ways that we can save lives, that we can change the gun culture…It is just too easy for people to reach for a gun to settle their problems. It makes no sense.” [xv]
“I was proud when my husband took [the National Rifle Association] on, and we were able to ban assault weapons, but he had to put a sunset on so, 10 years later, of course [President George W.] Bush wouldn’t agree to reinstate them…We’ve got to go after this…And here again, the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment. And I am going to make that case every chance I get.” [xvi]
“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Clinton said at a New Hampshire town hall…The Australian program reduced the number of firearms in circulation by implementing a gun buy-back plan for citizens. [xvii] Immigration
Trump: “I will Build a Great, Great Wall…”
“You cannot have…illegal immigration. You don’t have a country if you have that…As has been stated continuously in the press, people are pouring across our borders unabated. Public reports routinely state great amounts of crime are being committed by illegal immigrants. This must be stopped and it must be stopped now.” [xviii]
“I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” [xix]
Mr. Trump responded to a question on mass deportation: “No, I would not call it mass deportations…We’re going to do it (deport illegals) in a very humane fashion. Believe me. I have a bigger heart than you do. We’re going to do it in a very humane fashion…I want terrorists out. I want people that have bad thoughts out. I would limit specific terrorist countries, and we know who those terrorist countries are.” [xx]
Clinton: “We will not Build a Wall.”
“We will not build a wall. Instead, we will build an economy where everyone who wants a good paying job can get one. And we’ll build a path to citizenship for millions of immigrants who are already contributing to our economy…I believe that when we have millions of hardworking immigrants contributing to our economy, it would be self-defeating and inhumane to kick them out.” [xxi]
“In 2003, I sponsored the DREAMER (sic) Act. I sponsored I think in every Congress after that. I have been consistent and committed to comprehensive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.” [xxii]
Mrs. Clinton made this statement concerning Syrian refugees: “We’re facing the worst refugee crisis since the end of World War II and I think the United States has to do more…I would like to see us move from what is a good start with 10,000 to 65,000 (incoming refugees) and begin immediately to put into place the mechanisms for vetting the people that we would take in.” [xxiii]
“I would stop (deportations) of the undocumented (illegal) people living in our country,” Clinton responded. “I do not want to see them deported…I want to see them on a path to citizenship. That’s exactly what I will do.” [xxiv]
“You can count on me to defend President Obama’s executive actions on DACA and DAPA when I am president,” Clinton said, referring to Obama’s 2012 (DACA) and 2014 (DAPA) executive amnesties, which gave work permits and access to federal benefits to millions of illegal immigrants. [xxv] Obamacare
Trump: “…Repeal and Replace Obamacare…”
Speaking at the Iowa Freedom Summit in January 2015, Mr. Trump stated, “Someone has to repeal and replace Obamacare… (Obamacare is) a total catastrophe. It kicks in in 2016 and it will be a disaster. People are closing shops. Doctors are quitting the business. I have a friend who was a doctor and he says he has more accountants than patients. He needs that because it is complicated and terrible.” [xxvi]
“We are going to repeal Obamacare. We are going to replace Obamacare with something so much better.” [xxvii]
Clinton: “I will Defend the Affordable Care Act…”
“I will defend the Affordable Care Act, but as president I want to go further…I want to strengthen the Affordable Care Act.” [xxviii]
“You know, before it was called Obamacare it was called Hillarycare…”I am a staunch supporter of President Obama’s principal accomplishment, namely the Affordable Care Act.” [xxix]
Concerning Obamacare for illegal immigrants: “There are two steps here. If someone can afford to pay for an insurance policy off the exchanges that were set up under the Affordable Care Act, I support that. If they can afford it, they should be able to go into the marketplace and buy it. However, it is not going to apply to people who are in need of subsidies in order to afford that…What I do want to see is that we have more options for undocumented (illegal) people to be able to get the health care they need…It’s not only the right and moral thing to do for them. It’s also important that we keep ourselves healthy, and public health requires that. So I see this as a two-step process.” [xxx] Warrantless Surveillance/Database
Trump: Bulk Data Collection is Fine
Mr. Trump said that he would be “fine” with restoring provisions of the Patriot Act to allow for the bulk data collection. “As far as I’m concerned, that would be fine,” Trump said. [xxxi]
Mr. Trump also told the Daily Signal , “I support legislation which allows the NSA to hold the bulk metadata. For oversight, I propose that a court, which is available any time on any day, is created to issue individual rulings on when this metadata can be accessed.” [xxxii]
Clinton: Does not Regret Her Vote on Patriot Act
Concerning plans for expanded online surveillance of potential extremist attackers: “We already know we need more resources for this fight. The professionals who keep us safe would be the first to say we need better intelligence to discover and disrupt terrorist plots before they can be carried out…That’s why I’ve proposed an ‘intelligence surge’ to bolster our capabilities across the board, with appropriate safeguards here at home.” [xxxiii]
During the Democratic Presidential debate on October 13, 2015 Anderson Cooper asked: “Governor Chafee, you and Hillary Clinton both voted for the Patriot Act which created the NSA surveillance program. You’ve emphasized civil liberties, privacy during your campaign…Secretary Clinton, do you regret your vote on the Patriot Act?”
Clinton replied, “No, I don’t. I think that it was necessary to make sure that we were able after 9/11 to put in place the security that we needed. And it is true that it did require that there be a process. What happened, however, is that the Bush administration began to chip away at that process. And I began to speak out about their use of warrantless surveillance and the other behavior that they engaged in. We always have to keep the balance of civil liberties, privacy and security. It’s not easy in a democracy, but we have to keep it in mind.” [xxxiv]
“Well, the NSA has to act lawfully. And we as a country have to decide what the rules are. And then we have to make it absolutely clear that we’re going to hold them accountable. What we had because of post-9/11 legislation was a lot more flexibility than I think people really understood, and was not explained to them.” [xxxv] Real ID/National ID | 0 |
Democracy Now Standing Rock Special Share on Facebook Tweet Part 1 - Unlicensed #DAPL Guards Attacked Water Protectors with Dogs & Pepper Spray Many across the United States are celebrating this Thanksgiving holiday. But many for Native Americans observe it as a National Day of Mourning, marking the genocide against their communities and the theft of their land. We spend the hour looking at the standoff at Standing Rock in North Dakota—the struggle... read more
Part 1 - Unlicensed #DAPL Guards Attacked Water Protectors with Dogs & Pepper Spray
Many across the United States are celebrating this Thanksgiving holiday. But many for Native Americans observe it as a National Day of Mourning, marking the genocide against their communities and the theft of their land. We spend the hour looking at the standoff at Standing Rock in North Dakota—the struggle against the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline that has galvanized the largest resistance movement of Native Americans in decades. The movement has largely been ignored on this year’s presidential campaign trail and by the national corporate media. But Democracy Now! has been covering the standoff closely. We begin with our report from North Dakota Labor Day weekend. It was Saturday, September 3, when unlicensed Dakota Access security guards attacked water protectors trying to defend a sacred tribal burial site from destruction. - 13mins
Part 2 - Standing Rock Special: Historian Says Dakota Access Co. Attack Came on Anniv. of Whitestone Massacre
While reporting from the standoff at Standing Rock in September, Democracy Now! sat down with Standing Rock Sioux tribal historian LaDonna Brave Bull Allard to speak about another attack against her tribe—this one on the same day 153 years before. On September 3, 1863, the U.S. Army massacred more than 300 members of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe in what became known as the Whitestone massacre. LaDonna Brave Bull Allard is not only the tribal historian, she’s also one of the founders of the Sacred Stone Camp, launched on her land April 1, 2016, to resist the Dakota Access pipeline. - 7mins
Part 3 - Dakota Excess Pipeline? Media & Water Protectors Face Strip Searches, Jail
Today we’re revisiting Democracy Now! reports on the ongoing standoff at Standing Rock in North Dakota, where thousands of Native American water defenders are resisting the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline, over concerns a pipeline leak could contaminate the Missouri River, which provides water for millions of people. Their resistance has been met by increasing repression by hundreds of police officers from North Dakota and surrounding states, as well as by unlicensed pipeline security guards, who unleashed dogs and pepper spray against Native American protectors on September 3. Five days after the Democracy Now! report on the attack went viral, Morton County issued an arrest warrant for Amy Goodman. The original charge against her was criminal trespass. Yet, on Friday, October 14, after Democracy Now! returned to North Dakota to challenge the charges and to continue covering the resistance to the Dakota Access pipeline, we learned that the state’s attorney, Ladd Erickson, had dropped the criminal trespass charge for lack of evidence, but had filed a new charge: riot. We feature part of our live broadcast from outside the Morton County Courthouse on the morning of October 17 as we waited to see whether Judge John Grinsteiner would approve the new riot charge, and speak with Tara Houska, national campaigns director for Honor the Earth, and with Anishinaabe activist Winona LaDuke, co-founder of Honor the Earth. - 21mins
Part 4 - Dallas Goldtooth on Police Violence & Repression of Movement Against DAPL
We continue our look back at Democracy Now!'s coverage of the ongoing standoff at Standing Rock in North Dakota, where thousands of Native American water defenders are resisting the construction of the $3.8 billion Dakota Access pipeline. In recent months, the repression against the water protectors—and journalists covering the movement—has continued to intensify. The state of North Dakota has approved $10 million to police the ongoing protest, and Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirchmeier has called in hundreds of deputies from neighboring states. North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple has also activated the National Guard. Riot police with military-grade equipment have attacked the Native American protectors with pepper spray, tear gas, bean bag rounds, rubber bullets and sound cannons called LRADs—that's a long-range acoustic device. Water protectors also report near-constant surveillance from police planes and helicopters. Over 400 people have been arrested during the ongoing protests, and many report being subjected to strip searches while in the Morton County jail in North Dakota. On October 31, we spoke with Dakota and Dine activist Dallas Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental Network about a violent police raid on a frontline camp established at the site of the same sacred tribal burial ground where unlicensed Dakota Access security guards attacked Native Americans with dogs and pepper spray on September 3. - 14mins [watch video below] | 0 |
Then you beat me by a quarter because all I got was horrendous premonitions of war, scandal, corruption, global economic collapse and impeachment. | 0 |
Physical Gold Demand and Fear Posted on Home » Silver » Silver News » Physical Gold Demand and Fear
These two factors are clearly in play today as the metals move higher in a surge we’ve been expecting since late last week. However, these gains might just as quickly be reversed so there are a few indicators you’d better be watching…
From Craig Hemke, TFMetals : As mentioned in the title of this post, both physical demand and fear seem to be driving price today. How can we measure physical demand? Sometimes it shows up as a lack of overnight “London Monkey” trading. As prices were firming last week, we noticed this phenomena occurring again: http://www.tfmetalsreport.com/blog/7941/some-possible-encouragement And now look at the action overnight (earlier today) in London: Don’t ask me to quantify this because I can’t. This is pure conjecture based upon learned experience. As I’ve followed this stuff daily for nearly seven years now, I’ve noticed a clear correlation between London demand and the London Monkey daily price smash. And this clearly correlates with price trend. So, when The London Monkeys stand down…as they have more than half the time the past two weeks…this tells me that demand for physical is strong on London and, consequently, you can expect price to rise in New York, too. Also affecting things today is fear. This is the fear that Donald Trump is going to be the next president of The United States…I guess. Why this is such a “fear”, I don’t know. Perhaps, instead, a better word is “uncertainty”. The gold price is anticipating the uncertainty that a Trump victory would bring. Either way, when you get a 14-point turnaround in a major national poll just one week before the election, the effect is rather startling. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/01/post-abc-tracking-poll-clinton-falls-behind-trump-in-enthusiasm-but-has-edge-in-early-voting/ And it’s not just the metals. We’ve been tracking the impending breakout and surge in Bitcoin, too, and it’s up 3% today and back through $700. Since the previous breakouts on this weekly chart added 40% or so to the Bitcoin price, I’d say your next target is likely near $1000. Turning to the metals…Just yesterday, we discussed the likelihood of a surge higher. Prices had found support at/near the respective 200-day MAs and, with copper surging higher, we thought that a move like we’re seeing today was coming. And while this is all very nice, well and good, we really haven’t accomplished anything significant until prices move back above the 50-day moving averages. Yes, silver never closed below its 200-day and gold is now more than 1% back above its own 200-day…BUT…if you want to reverse the recent downtrend and get the hot, momo-chasing Spec HFT algo money to come charging back into the synthetic paper gold derivative, then you need this move to extend up, to and through the 50-day. For the sake of clarity, the charts below show nothing but the location of the 50-day MA for both the Dec16 gold and Dec16 silver. THESE ARE THE KEY LEVELS TO WATCH. A move through and close above these levels should excite the algos and drive price even higher. So, watch them both very closely and be sure to note the sharp down angle of both, too. This makes the pressure to jump to and through even greater. Two other key indicators we’re going to be sure to keep watching are copper and the HUI. Copper is up another 1% as I type. This is the 7th consecutive up day and I have a last of $2.222. The HUI is also higher but not as much as you might hope/expect. I’ve got it at 218 and up about 5.5 points. What should you be watching? Let’s get copper to continue higher and move up and out of this pennant AND let’s get the HUI back above 220. Both of these would help spur the metals even higher, too. There’s a lot more going on but I think I’ll stop here so that we can get this posted for everyone. TF | 0 |
Johnny Depp is back as the swashbuckling Jack Sparrow in the first full trailer for Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, the fifth installment in the Pirates franchise due out this May. [The film’s synopsis, courtesy of Disney: Thrust into an adventure, a Captain Jack Sparrow finds the winds of blowing even more strongly when deadly ghost pirates led by his old nemesis, the terrifying Captain Salazar, escape from the Devil’s Triangle, determined to kill every pirate at sea … including him. Captain Jack’s only hope of survival lies in seeking out the legendary Trident of Poseidon, a powerful artifact that bestows upon its possessor total control over the seas. In addition to Depp, Pirates 5 stars Javier Bardem as the villainous Captain Salazar, Geoffrey Rush as Barbossa, Brenton Thwaites, Stephen Graham and Orlando Bloom returning as Will Turner in his first appearance in the franchise since 2007’s At World’s End. Dead Men Tell No Tales is directed by Joachim Ronning and Espen Sandberg ( Bandidas) off of a script from Jeff Nathanson (Tower Heist, The Terminal). The film hits theaters May 26. Watch the first full trailer above. Follow Daniel Nussbaum on Twitter: @dznussbaum | 1 |
This article was written by Jay Syrmopoulos and originally published at The Free Thought Project .
Editor’s Comment: He who holds the gold makes the rules? Fresh attempts at containing Russia and continuing the empire have been met with countermoves. Russia appears to be building strength in every way. Putin and his country have no intention of being under the American thumb, and are developing rapid resistance as the U.S. petrodollar loses its grip and China, Russia and the East shift into new currencies and shifting world order.
What lies ahead? It will be a strong hand for the countries that have the most significant backing in gold and hard assets; and China and Russia have positioned themselves very well. Prepare for a changing economic landscape, and one in which self-reliance might be all we have.
Russia is Hoarding Gold at an Alarming Rate — The Next World War Will Be Fought with Currencies
by Jay Syrmopoulos
With all eyes on Russia’s unveiling their latest nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), which NATO has dubbed the “SATAN” missile , as tensions with the U.S. increase, Moscow’s most potent “weapon” may be something drastically different.
The rapidly evolving geopolitical “weapon” brandished by Russia is an ever increasing stockpile of gold, as well as Russia’s native currency, the ruble.
Take a look at the symbol below, as it could soon come to change the entire hierarchy of the international order – potentially ushering in a complete international paradigm shift – and much sooner than you might think.
image: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/bankofrussia-e1475520013798.png
The symbol is the new designation of the Russian ruble, Russia’s national currency.
Similar to how the U.S. uses the dollar sign ($), the U.K. uses the pound sign (£), and the European Union uses the euro symbol (€), Russia is about to begin exporting its symbol internationally.
After the failed “reset” in U.S./Russian relations by the Obama administration, and the continued deterioration of the countries relationship, Washington began targeting entire sectors of the Russian economy, as well as specific individuals, meant to impose an economic burden so severe that it would force Moscow into compliance.
Instead of decimating Russia, what it precipitated was a Russian response of gradually weaning themselves off of the hegemony of the U.S. petrodollar, and working with China to create an alternative to the SWIFT payment system that isn’t solely controlled by Western interests (see Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank , New Development Bank).
According to the Corbett Report :
New reports indicate that China is ready to launch its SWIFT alternative, and for those who have their ear to the ground this is the most significant move yet in the unfolding process of de-dollarization that is seeing the BRICS-led “resistance bloc” breaking away from the financial stranglehold of the US-led “Washington Consensus.”
For those who don’t know, SWIFT stands for the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication and is shorthand for the SWIFTNet Network that is used by over 10,500 financial institutions in 215 countries and territories to transmit financial transaction data around the world. SWIFT does not do any of the clearing or processing for these transactions itself, but instead sends the payment orders that are then settled by correspondent banks of the member institutions. Still, given the system’s near universality in the financial system, it means that virtually every international transaction between banking institutions goes through the SWIFT network.
This is why de-listing from the SWIFT network remains one of the primary financial weapons wielded by the US and its allies in their increasingly important financial warfare campaigns.
Recently, financial guru Jim Rickards, author of the book “Currency Wars,” wrote that “Russia is poised for a major comeback in its economy. Russian bonds and stocks and the Russian currency, the ruble, will all benefit.” Rickards believes a “strong turnaround” is coming within Russia, and that this comeback will benefit the ruble.
While still suffering from the economic warfare being waged by the U.S., Russia has realized that as long they are subservient to the petrodollar, there remains a clear and present danger of the Russian economy being devastated by the whims of Washington.
The Bank of Russia, that nation’s central bank, is extremely clear about its mission, and monetary policy declaring on its website:
Monetary policy constitutes an integral part of the state policy and is aimed at enhancing well-being of Russian citizens. The Bank of Russia implements monetary policy in the framework of inflation-targeting regime, and sees price stability, albeit sustainably low inflation, as its priority. Given structural peculiarities of the Russian economy, the target is to reduce inflation to 4% by 2017 and maintain it within that range in the medium run.
In layman’s terms, that means that monetary policy, similar to nuclear weapons and the military, are “an integral part of the state policy” in Russia. While many analysts have noted the increased build-up in Russia’s military arsenal, seemingly few have highlighted the massive build-up of Russian gold reserves over the past decade.
Below is a chart showing Russian gold reserves between 1994 and last year, 2015:
Since 2006, there has been a year-on-year increase that reveals a significant upward trend. The chart clearly reveals that Russia’s state policy of increasing state monetary assets, in the form of gold. Additionally, the Russian government has been converting state rubles into gold assets. From 2006 to 2015, Russia’s state holdings of gold tripled.
Within just the past year Russia has substantially increased its gold holdings
According to the Business Insider :
In July of this year, the central bank of Russia added 200,000 ounces of gold to its reserves. The one-month uptick in Russian gold reserves — 200,000 ounces — is approximately equal to the entire annual output of Barrick Gold’s Turquoise Ridge gold mine in Nevada.
At that same rate — 200,000 ounces per month — in a mere five months, Russia would add to state gold reserves the equivalent of the entire annual output of Barrick’s massive Goldstrike mine in Nevada.
Currently, Russian gold reserves rank seventh in the world. It’s clear that there is a concerted effort by Russian authorities to build up the country’s gold reserves as part of a national strategy to negate the effects of economic warfare waged by the United States.
Rickards, in his 2011 book “Currency Wars,” theorized that Russia and China could combine their gold reserves to form a global gold-backed currency to compete against the U.S. dollar. Currently, Russian reserves stand at roughly 1,500 tonnes, with Chinese reserves totaling over 1,800 tonnes (according to China — it’s likely more), which would amount to a combined total of roughly 3,300 tonnes of gold.
The U.S. is about to lose overarching control of policymaking within the International Monetary Fund (IMF), thus the U.S. lockup on global gold is about to vanish, according to Business Insider.
Imagine for a moment the distinctly real possibility that Russian-Chinese alliance could exercise indirect (or even direct) control over the IMF’s gold reserve of over 2,800 tonnes. Russian, Chinese and IMF gold combined would equal roughly 6,100 tonnes, and would allow for direct competition with the U.S. gold reserves, estimated at 8,100 tonnes.
Russia and China have realized that the petrodollar is wielded by Washington as it’s weapon of choice when opposing a well-armed state, and clearly see the writing on the wall – thus working together to create a new global financial paradigm.
The reality is that the United States is $20 trillion dollars in debt, and eventually the time will come when the U.S. economy begins to implode — and all the fiat currency people are stuck holding will essentially be worth nothing more than the paper it’s printed on. Hard assets, such as gold and silver, should be bought and taken custody of while there is still an opportunity to do so, as a means of hedging against the potentially disastrous results of the U.S. using the petrodollar as a “weapon.”
Ultimately, the United States, Russia and China are all controlled by centralized power-hungry tyrants attempting to command powerful global bureaucracies like the IMF, the World Bank, SWIFT, New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.
It’s not Russian nuclear weapons that people should fear, as the policy of mutually assured destruction essentially voids any benefit of a state launching a first-strike nuclear attack. The true threat to America is our economic house of cards, built upon the back of a neoliberal trade policy that puts the “rights” of corporations over that of people .
This article was written by Jay Syrmopoulos and originally published at The Free Thought Project . | 0 |
Mass Fish Deaths: Millions Have Been Found Dead All Over The World In The Past Month May 20th, 2014
Millions of fish are suddenly dying all over the planet. In fact, there have been dozens of mass fish death events reported in the past month alone. So why is this happening? Why are fish dying in unprecedented numbers all over the world? When more than six tons of fish died in Marina Del Ray over the weekend, it made headlines all over the United States. But the truth is that what just happened off the southern California coast is just the tip of the iceberg. In 2014, mass fish die-offs have pretty much become a daily event globally. Individually, each event could perhaps be dismissed as an anomaly, but as you will see below when they are all put together into one list it truly is rather stunning. So is there a reason why so many fish are dying? Is there something that connects these mass fish death events? Has something about our environment changed? The following are just a few examples of the mass fish death reports that have been coming in day after day from all over the globe…
*Over the weekend, thousands upon thousands of fish died just off the southern California coastline …
California Fish and Wildlife workers are still scooping dead sea life from the surface of the harbor Monday after thousands of dead anchovies, stingrays and even an octopus died and floated up over the weekend.
So far officials have cleaned up 6 tons of dead fish , and they still have a long way to go.
*The death of approximately 35,000 fish up in Minnesota is being blamed on a “ lack of oxygen “.
*The recent die off of thousands of fish in the Shark River near Belmar, New Jersey is also being blamed on “ oxygen depletion “.
*Officials in Menifee, California are still trying to figure out what caused the death of thousands of fish in Menifee Lake a few weeks ago…
Authorities continued testing the water in Menifee Lake Friday after thousands of dead fish have been seen floating since last weekend.
Menifee city officials first heard reports Saturday of floating fish at the lake, which is located on private property about a half-mile east of the 215 Freeway.
*In the Gulf of Mexico, dolphins and sea turtles are dying “ in record numbers “.
*Maryland officials are still puzzled by the death of 7,000 Atlantic menhaden last month…
State environmental scientists are investigating the cause of a fish kill that left about 7,000 dead Atlantic menhaden in waters that include the Inner Harbor and Fells Point.
Jay Apperson, spokesman for the Maryland Department of the Environment, said that biologists went by boat on Tuesday to the area of Monday’s fish kill. He says the area extended from the mouth of the Patapsco River, up the Baltimore Harbor to Fells Point and Fort McHenry.
*Mass fish die-offs in Lake Champlain up in Vermont are being called “ the new normal ” by government officials.
*Along the coast of northern California, seals and young sea lions are dying “ in record numbers “.
*Three months ago, farmers in Singapore lost 160 tons of fish to a mass die-off event.
*Back in September, approximately 40 kilometers of the Fuhe River in China “ was covered with dead fish “.
*Also during last September, close to ten tons of dead fish were found floating on a lake near the town of Komotini, Greece .
The following are some more examples of mass fish death events from just the past several weeks that come from a list compiled on another website …
17th May 2014 – Masses of fish turn up dead in a marina in Pultneyville, New York, America . Link
16th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Aragatsotn, Armenia . Link
15th May 2014 – Hundreds of fish dying off ‘due to pollution’ in the wetlands of Rewalsar, India . Link
14th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing ashore in Cootes Paradise, Hamilton, Canada . Link
13th May 2014 – Tens of thousands of dead fish wash up along coast of Tasmania, Australia . Link
12th May 2014 – Mass death of fish in the river Eden ‘is a mystery’ in Cumbria, England . Link
11th May 2014 – Thousands of dead Puffer Fish, also dead turtles washing up on various beaches in Colombia and Costa Rica . Link and here
11th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish found in a pond is ‘a mystery’ in Southborough, England . Link
10th May 2014 – Thousands of fish dead due to pollution in spring in Sikkim, India . Link
9th May 2014 – Die off of Fish ’causes panic’ in the Luda Yana River in Bulgaria . Link
8th May 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake ‘shock residents’ in Mangalore, India . Link
8th May 2014 – 12 TONS of dead fish removed from lakes in Chisago County, Minnesota, America . Link
7th May 2014 – Massive die off of fish in reservoirs in Quanzhou, China . Link
7th May 2014 – Thousands of fish found dead on the shores of Roatan, Honduras . Link
5th May 2014 – Hundreds of dead fish wash up on a beach ‘a mystery’ in San Antonio Oeste, Argentina . Link
5th May 2014 – Mass death of fish found in lakes in Almindingen, Denmark . Link
4th May 2014 – Mass die off of fish in a river in Fujian, China . Link
3rd May 2014 – 1,000+ dead fish wash ashore along a lake in Ontario, Canada . Link
2nd May 2014 – 40,000 fish die suddenly in a dam in Piaui, Brazil . Link
30th April 2014 – Mass fish kill ‘worst I’ve seen in 26 years of working here’ in Iowa, America . Link
30th April 2014 – Large amount of dead fish found floating along a river in Xiasha District, China . Link
29th April 2014 – Dozens of sea turtles are washing up dead in South Mississippi, America . Link
29th April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish washing up along the shores of Lakes in Wisconsin, America . Link
28th April 2014 – Turtles and other marine life continue to wash up dead in Bari, Italy . Link
28th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in the Mogi River in Brazil . Link
25th April 2014 – Large fish kill found in a reservoir in Nanchong, China . Link
24th April 2014 – Large amount of fish wash up dead along a river in La Chorrera, Panama . Link
23rd April 2014 – 2 Million fish found dead in a dam in Tehran, Iran . Link
23rd April 2014 – Mass die off of fish in Island lake in Ontario, Canada . Link
23rd April 2014 – Thousands of dead fish appear in a lake in Mudanjiang, China . Link
22nd April 2014 – 1,000 fish found dead in Oona River, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland . Link
21st April 2014 – Large amounts of fish washing up dead along the Panchganga River in India . Link
19th April 2014 – MILLIONS of dead fish found floating in Thondamanaru Lagoon, Sri Lanka . Link
And remember, this list represents events that have happened in just a little over the past month.
So what is causing all of these mass fish death events?
Please feel free to share your opinion by posting a comment below… krinks
Rev 6: The Fourth Seal: Death 7When the Lamb broke the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth living creature saying, “Come.” 8I looked, and behold, an ashen horse; and he who sat on it had the name Death; and Hades was following with him. Authority was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword and with famine and with pestilence and by the wild beasts of the earth. MichaelfromTheEconomicCollapse
Interesting parallel. Obviously we are not at that point yet, but without a doubt lots of death is coming in the future.
Michael Baby Monster
Any baby born in the future during the great tribulation, you should kill it. It will bring A curss it you look at it’s face. Thoes are going to be very evil children born then. People Monster
I hope the human race goes next. People are just to rude and evil. Gay Veteran
yes, you are a monster highpriestess
it’s already here The Fisherman
The Gates of hell might be coming up out of the center of the earth. That might be killing all the fish.Gases are coming up out of hell and killing all the fish. Satan you stay the F in hell where you belong K
Just remember oxygen deprivation is what they always claim. When they either don’t know, or do not want you to know. Harry Paranockus
How do turtles and dolphins fit into that scenario? K
That is in the Gulf of Mexico. Still plenty of chemicals from the oil and corexit there. If the various small oil leaks were ever stopped. The gulf would still need a decade, before I would eat anything out of it. Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
Exactly! I have sworn off anything from the Gulf and because they’re such a large shrimp region, I stopped eating shrimp for the next 15 years. That BP oil spill and the Corexit chemicals they dumped, only destroyed sea life. There is sea life washing up on the shores with all kinds of tumors, never before seen. I’ll pass; growing my own food. K2
If they say pollution…will you agree with them? K
Yes, as long as they explain how broad a term pollution can be. Chemical, viral, radioactive. K2
All those are already considered different kinds of……pollution. K2
And what makes you think it might not be oxygen deprivation? Joshua Manevitz
It says in the Talmud that before the Messiah comes that fish will be sought for the sick and none will be found ! The torah’s profound accuracy ! guesto3
Fish has been and still is the symbol for Christians….they too are being slaughtered all over the world….or threatened in places like the EU, Canada, and U.S.; places in general un-thought of for such in the past. M Gjerdrum
Really? Could you sound any more stupid! Gay Veteran
sorry, I only speak English jack nichols
Death is fleeting let us reframe from sinning. Gay Vet is too gay to understand Virginia Lee
You’re a complete idiot! Rodster
The answer is under everyone nose. Does anyone recall all the floating debris floating in the ocean when they went looking for the missing plane?
It turns out that debris was garbage. Gerald Celente has mentioned this for quite some time now that governments are using the ocean as their underwater garbage dumps. You have all kinds of garbage, probably tens of millions of tons of trash which no doubt includes toxins and chemicals dumped in the ocean floors. Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
Yes you are right, not to mention all the missing oil after the Gulf Oil spill. It didn’t just evaporate like some people want to suggest, which is of course impossible.
How about fracking in the USA. That’s one reason. Off the coast of Somalia, developed countries have dumped chemical wastes off their coast, creating dead-zones. They’ve been begging us for years but they were considered throw away people. They couldn’t feed their families so they captures ships which entered the region; held them for ransom. Developed countries does this around the world. There was an investigation of the electronic wastes that are collected in the USA for recyclying.
They’re then dumped in regions in China and off various African coasts. Now that it’s come home to affect us from our own fracking and nuclear wastes, we’re recognizing the problem. DJohn1
Oxygen deprived fish? Most of the world’s oxygen comes from plants in the oceans. If they are suddenly dying off, we are in big trouble. The entire supply for the planet is in jeopardy. The key here is balance between carbon dioxide and oxygen. If that goes south then all the life on this planet could go with it. Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
How about fracking in the USA. That’s one reason. Off the coast of Somalia, developed countries have dumped chemical wastes off their coast, creating dead-zones. They’ve been begging us for years but they were considered throw away people. They couldn’t feed their families so they captures ships which entered the region; held them for ransom. Developed countries does this around the world. There was an investigation of the electronic wastes that are collected in the USA for recyclying.
They’re then dumped in regions in China and off various African coasts. Now that it’s come home to affect us from our own fracking and nuclear wastes, we’re recognizing the problem. We can’t blame anyone but corporations. FirstGarden
The balance of the world’s ecosystems is very delicate. Altho I don’t always agree with the environmentalists, this is one area where I believe they’re correct.
I have a hard time believing any official reports regarding this underwater holocaust. In fact, there have been many similar reports of birds falling out of the sky, en masse. Probably not at the magnitude of fish, and other water-dwelling creatures. But this problem seems to have no serious precedence in history. Maybe some isolated cases, but nothing like this. (?)
Oxygen depletion?? Ok, even if that were possible, what causes global oxygen depletion in our waters??? I don’t know about you, but things like nuclear radiation, or heavy chemical dumping comes to mind. Maybe even some secret spent rod-cooling down deep. Who knows. Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
How about fracking in the USA. That’s one reason. Off the coast of Somalia, developed countries have dumped chemical wastes off their coast, creating dead-zones. They’ve been begging us for years but they were considered throw away people. They couldn’t feed their families so they captures ships which entered the region; held them for ransom. Developed countries does this around the world. There was an investigation of the electronic wastes that are collected in the USA for recyclying.
They’re then dumped in regions in China and off various African coasts. Now that it’s come home to affect us from our own fracking and nuclear wastes, we’re recognizing the problem.
Oxygen depletion has been happening for awhile. It’s called dead zones when nothing lives in those certain areas; as a result of pollution. Fish die and so do marine plants. marty
The world will shake us off like a bad case of fleas . Oldphartbsa
Lessee…we’ve got Fukushima radiation washing through the Pacific, cycling around South America and the Horn. In the Gulf we’ve got hundreds of thousands of tons of corexit and a billion or so gallons of oil sludge and that’s cycling into the Atlantic. Pollution in India and China are so off the scale that we, here in America, would have to personally remember the 60’s to fathom (I was a kid in the 60’s and California Smog was what you see in China today). I don’t know why river systems would be affected other than the water flowing to the oceans is constantly picking up contaminants along the way. (In California it is unsafe to drink from any natural source of water.) Between Fukushima, Corexit and Oil sludge…I think we’ve hit the lotto for the spreading die off. K2
In many areas sewage from cities and industrial refuse is dumped into rivers. Not just in the states but in many countries. jaxon64
I believe I can explain some of the river and bay die-offs from “lack of oxygen” Here in the Chesapeake region we are now seeing “dead zones” in the glorious Chesapeake Bay. The cause?.. ETHANOL… Increased demand for ethanol has caused many local farmers to turn away from traditional crops and convert to farming massive amounts of corn. The corn requires large amounts of nitrate additives to the soil. Nitrate run-offs into the rivers, creeks and tributaries have caused large amounts of algae bloom on the surface of the water–underneath, the natural, oxygen producing sea grasses that grow from the floor of the rivers and bay are dying for lack of sunlight. When the O2 producing seagrasses die off-EVERYTHING in the “dead zone” dies off–sort of like a permanent red tide zone. Crabs, fish, skates, oysters, mussles clams…all die in the dead area….these keep growing in the bay as more nitrates from corn growerss get run off into the tributaries. So there is the cause of the biggest problem in the Chesapeake Bay—our government regulations to increase ethanol levels is killing our Bay–one of the most beautiful and unique estuaries of abundant life on the planet.. chris
It could be bacterial and spread by the wind. It could be many things but the question is what are the government officials with their well equipped microbiological and chemical labs saying it is? Are they not doing any research? Is it really just a case of scooping up the dead fish and not investigating why? jaxon64
The govt, of course, will blame it on man–then increase his taxes and increase their control and regulation. ( but never actually address the problem) ….OR– option #2–they will place a media ban on mentioning the die-offs and call anyone who is concerned a “conspiracy nut” right wing extremist” or “climate change denier” Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
The government and the EPA has been warning against this for decades. The greedy oil companies and the chemical fertilizer companies have been pushing back. Of course they have their chosen Republican politicians who they pay to block legislation; which would tighten up on the fracking chemicals forced into the ground in their tar sands quest. Reason
How about radiation from Japan’s disaster. I think that alone could contaminate all the waters of the world. Let’s pressure our govs. to get rid of nuclear energy and learn to do without so many plug in gadgets!!! Adrian Johnson
Too late ! Nothing done now can undo contamination of the seas from Fukushima’s radiation. Cynical Guy 42
I find it interesting how in the csmonitor article, one die-off is blamed on a heat wave, while the other is blamed on excessive snow. Question: Heat waves and heavy snow have happened for a very long time. Why are they suddenly causing die-offs? Jørn Andreassen
plastic – manmade waste – is to blame. The plastic breaks down to microparticles and enter the gills of every fish in the ocean. Everyone who have thrown plastic in nature is to blame. (The same thing is happening to birds as well. Every bird you find dead will get plastic in their bellies.) RapidRay01 .
Just more signs of the end times. Come quickly Lord Jesus! U-Betcha
Minnesota? This is normal, especially in shallow lakes. They all recover quickly, and most often better. The die off of rough fish is beneficial to any lake. Don’t fall for this hype. jaxon64
Wow, you can refute 1 of the above items on a list of hundreds ( if you go to the full linked website)..and have the deep thought to correlate it as all just “hype”.. Unbelievable…and if you lived in a flood zone you’d probably have water up to your chin saying, ” this is the Mississippi shoreline, we’ve had floods like this before and the water always goes down–telling me to evacuate is a bunch of hype” People like you end up locked in the Superdome when a Hurrican Katrina hits … noname
U-Betcha should go eat some Japanese sushi. bmr22
Well all of the other people here sure seem to get it. I get so tired of hearing about some die off or outbreak of disease or other man made disaster and the officials are all left scratching their heads. We dont know what may have caused this we are clueless. We have to study this for another five years before we have an explanation. Well unless you have been living under a rock for the past couple of decades or maybe a brainwashed tv addicted sheeple with no clue as to how nature works and what we have been doing to the earth and our ecosystem the answers is slapping everyone right upside their heads. We have polluted and raped the land we are killing off the bees, butterflies, birds, fish, frogs, and everything else. All of these things work and feed off of each other hence the ecoSYSTEM. You can’t just go around spraying weed killer and insecticide by the millions of tons and not have unexpected results. You can’t raise 100,000 pigs chickens or cows in filth and feed them all gmo corn and antibiotics and expect a good result and a healthy product. Best advice is for all of us who are awake is to grow whatever you can not just so that you can survive the shtf crisis but so that you can eat a healthy diet full of vitamins and natural minerals. The meat you eat can be raised well and healthy and have a good life before it feeds you. We have become way to detached from our food and nature in general turn off the tv go outside grow a garden raise some animals stop supporting the system that is killing us all. B.M.
Do you think it may have anything to do with the Chemtrails the DOD has been spraying over the air for 40+ years? Gay Veteran
wow, you mean that dumping millions of tons of pollution into the air, water and land actually leads to disaster? noname
Don’t be silly. They don’t know why the fish are dying, but it certainly has no connection to any pollutants or possible radiation in the water. “Not even a smidgen” of a connection. Gay Veteran
r ght M Gjerdrum
Keep your head in the sand as long as possible. Hide from the truth, that helps a lot. brads
I know this conversation is 9 months old but I would tend to agree. If we have been polluting for the last 60 years then wouldn’t you have records of mass die offs over the last 50 or so years?? why are ALL of these within the last year or so?? Pollution does not make sense! well, maybe the radiation in the water from Japan.. but if it was the pollution we would have evidence spanning decades and not just the last two years! Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
How about fracking in the USA. That’s one reason. Off the coast of Somalia, developed countries have dumped chemical wastes off their coast, creating dead-zones. They’ve been begging us for years but they were considered throw away people. They couldn’t feed their families so they captures ships which entered the region; held them for ransom. Developed countries does this around the world. There was an investigation of the electronic wastes that are collected in the USA for recyclying.
They’re then dumped in regions in China and off various African coasts. Now that it’s come home to affect us from our own fracking and nuclear wastes, we’re recognizing the problem. Teri
You nailed it! Crowline
Geologists said the earth ‘went bonkers’ in April this year with some very large earthquakes all over starting with Peru’s huge quake. Up until that point there was just the usual although in ‘diverse places’. Perhaps the fish have been shocked to death due to underground tremors, cracks etc being amplified through water. Jason7189
God said this would happen and it’s commonly believed by many Christians, this is a very end time Prophetic event.
Hosea 4:3 “Therefore the land will mourn; And everyone who dwells there will waste away With the beasts of the field. And the birds of the air; Even the fish of the sea will be taken away.”
Zephaniah 1:3 “I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land,” Says the Lord.”
Ezekiel 38:20 “So that the fish of the sea, the birds of the heavens, the beasts of the field, all creeping things that creep on the earth, and all men who are on the face of the earth shall shake at My presence. The mountains shall be thrown down, the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.” Dan grizz
I like what many of you said. Especially what Jaxson64 has said about ethanol. Our corn crops for food is all being denied by that giant food company, I forgot the name…someone think of it…..oh, something Santo! liberals and their ethanol and yet the stupid republicans do nothing. I also wonder if this santo corp. is working with HARRP, and maybe sending electromagnetic pulses beaming off from space to hit parts of the ocean? They talk about how HARRP, controls weather. someone could be doing this but I believe what many of you said. mankind is out of control and is polluting oceans on all 4 corners. I think if the public really knew what was going on…where is greenpeace and other radical lib organizations crying about all the toxins we are dumping into the greatest creation of all time, our oceans? Where are they? you never hear any news network talk about this that goes on behind our noses. It’s terrible Sharon Equality-Now Johnson Mi
Monsanto has been making deadly chemicals for decades. in your mention of party politics, why do Republicans continue to block bills that reign in Monsanto? TheLulzWarrior
Test. Bergie
Yes, oxygen deprived fish. Lakes in Minnesota freeze. Grand Lake MN is very shallow, and we had extremely thick ice this last winter. It does happen! Marco Saba
Fukushima fall out. Brandon Bowers
Rev 16:3 And the second angel poured out his vial upon the sea; and it became as the blood of a deadman: and every living soul died in the sea. Faith
Prophecy,why cant humans stop sinning? stingray
how old earth? maybe earth time Ashley Law
Methane – yes I also think methane clusters have been and are continuing to be disturbed. Reason – the massive energy release in March 2011. If you understand what happened and in what order it fits together. It is the reason Germany shut down all of it’s nuclear plants. If interested there is a video in Finnish (English subtitles) that explains much. Claudia
What is with HAARP and the Chemtrails? May be a answer … Mike Lutterschmidt
For the last 10 years, there has been numerous signs of drastic changes to our planet. The wide spread of die off occurrences correlates to the short period of time and shines a light on the dark secrets of our corporations and governing bodies. If you really want to know how bad it is, look up “Peek Oil” and see how close we are to serious global changing disasters. There is an evil that has literally consumed our planet. Our government knows that effects of there actions. They pay billions of dollars for the research, however, if it effects the goal of profit, that research is swept under the rug by corrupt politics. Remember the last oil spill? There are regulations to put shut off valves on the pipes for each segment of specified distance to avoid these problems. Just like the code states for residential plumbing. But it would have cost too much and took too much time. So evil took over and we raped our planet. Other significant signs would be the number of natural disasters tripled compared to the previous 10 years. There are 12 times more tornadoes occurring now compared to the last decade. UV rays from the sun have become 25% stronger and there is 20% more acidity in our rainfall. 25 years ago we had over 500 major meat suppliers for distribution. Today, we have three which means we are at the mercy of the governing body to fight off corruption and evil. Yet the number of autistic children has tripled. McDonald’s meat has 40% meat and the rest filler. You think you are buying better meat at the grocery store, but it’s still coming from the same distributor with the same practices. Is it odd that in the last 5th. years the northeast has experienced a dramatic and alarming increase of allergens. This is due to changes in our climate that are just not natural. The world has fallen to gluttony and greed. Think about it, you would like to do something to help stop the destruction and leave our children with a righteous coarse, but you can’t do anything because you have to go to work. You need to make that ridiculous car payment because its just too important for you not to have a nicer car than the neighbors. Oh yea, and you don’t have time because you have fantasy football leagues, and Country Clubs to attend. So you turn your back and worry about you and your life. And our government knows it. You think debt is a choice? It is a control tactic to keep you in line like a sheep because gluttony has been ingrained in our souls and no one is willing to sacrifice their time to take control of our world. If just 50 % of our population protested and did not buy gas until the price was lowered to 2.00, we would let serious results. But you can’t do that, you have to drive the fancy car to the vacation house. It’s time we stood up and said enough. It’s time we form a mob with like purpose and use the power to stop this corrupt destruction of our world. If we organize and pull together as a force, we could stop the dumping in our water, we could stop the additives that are put in our children’s food, we can clean the pharmaceuticals out of our drinking water, and we could perhaps salvage our planet for human kind. Enough is enough, it hasto start now. ThomasW
This has been happening as long as there have been fish in water… causes are localised and cannot possibly be connected. This artical is silly, its like saying “there were 100 car accidents world wide today, they were all connected but I don’t know why” Dan
They are a criminal assault on the living. Alive4Jesus
For fish to die in rivers, lakes, and oceans all over the world in such massive quantities over such a brief time, I suspect it has something to do with new technology—perhaps some type of radio frequency transmission to/from a satellite(s), EMF waves, or a new/different type of chemtrail ingredient. joanr
New global threat- a third of the fish will die! Gardeners have long been aware that if you water a pot plant with a small amount of green washing up liquid, then the molecules in the washing up liquid bind together to form a seal which excludes the air and keeps the plant hydrated for a longer period, used by those going on holiday. People have been using green washing up liquid for decades, it has been washing down drains and rivers into the ocean. I wrote to the chairman of one of the leading manufacturers of cleaning products with this information some time ago. Are these sudden deaths among the fish stocks anything to do with this I ask? Rauh
Our solar system has moved below the galactic equator after 2012, things are beginning to happen that we don’t know about. Fukushima is spewing radiation into the Pacific Ocean too, nothing can be done about it. Weather changes all over the world like we’ve never experienced before. It’s a matter of time. M Gjerdrum | 0 |
As dawn broke over the Caribbean on Thursday, Chris Bertish, bearded and shirtless, paddled toward Antigua’s English Harbour more than three months after leaving Africa, successfully finishing the first crossing of the Atlantic Ocean in a paddleboard. Bertish, a South African sailor and surfer, had paddled through the night and was now approaching the island under stormy skies, listening to “Impi” by Johnny Clegg and Juluka. “The sky was really fierce and ominous,” Bertish, 42, said in his first interview after arriving. “But then the sun peeked its way through with this incredible gold and black beaming through the clouds. It was just beautiful, and it was just me in the middle of it. ” He pushed hard over the last three days, covering 125 nautical miles. “The last few days were super intense,” he said, his voice weak and croaky. “It’s just so nice to be on dry land and not to have to worry about all the billions of things that could wrong. ” Bertish left the Agadir Marina in Morocco on Dec. 6. and planned to make the passage unsupported and unassisted on a paddleboard to Florida in four months. He changed course south to Antigua because of low pressure systems and volatile weather, completing the crossing in 93 days, arriving at 8:32 a. m. local time. Bertish averaged 44 miles a day — mostly at night to avoid exposure to the sun — and alternated between resting and paddling every two or three hours. He made an estimated two million paddle strokes during the journey. “You can feel very inconsequential at sea,” said Bertish, who won the renowned Mavericks surf contest in Northern California in 2010. “When that happens, you have to tune in and get in sync with what’s around you and go with the flow. “It’s the only thing that’s going to help you survive out there for that amount of time. That said, there were definitely times when I was hanging on by a thread, just trying to keep it together. ” One of those times involved being caught in a storm for days near rocks off the Canary Islands. “The hatch was leaking, and I was running out of water, Bertish said. “I thought I was going to sink. ” During the first five days of the journey, he fought to avoid being blown back to land. And over the final 72 hours, the weather and the difficult angles for the final approach were scary, he said. Then there were the sharks. One charged at his craft, another bumped him in the middle of the night. Neither bit his vessel. Bertish used a $120, 000 watertight craft, which was designed for the crossing by the naval architect Phil Morrison. Bertish could seek shelter from rough weather, sleep and have access to navigational and communications instruments. He could stabilize the vessel when necessary, using anchors and drogues. The craft was also capable of righting itself after capsizing and submerging. In a telephone interview in February from the middle of the Atlantic, he said there had been a string of failures with the craft. “Everything that could possibly have gone wrong, went wrong,” he said last month. “It’s been constant stress. ” But the craft did not sink. He had 12 items that had broken on the craft, and tended to leaks constantly. When he ran out of lubricant for the craft’s moving parts, he improvised with sunscreen. Bertish also endured some medical problems, including a torn rotator cuff. Now back on land, he plans to have surgery. Last year, Nicolas Jarossay of France attempted an Atlantic crossing by paddleboard. He was rescued one night into the journey by a crew that pulled him from the water after his craft capsized. | 1 |
Share on Twitter The Wildfire is an opinion platform and any opinions or information put forth by contributors are exclusive to them and do not represent the views of IJR.
In a campaign ad for Donald Trump, Laura Wilkerson talks about her horrific experience of her son being doused with gasoline and set on fire by an illegal alien. In the ad called “Laura,” she explains why Hillary Clinton's policies are harmful for America. | 0 |
There were so many lies surrounding the creation and implementation of the ACA. It was sold by the Obama administration as healthcare reform when in reality it was forced adherence to an already corrupt, profit driven healthcare system. Even if the ACA fails, which is almost a certainty now, it will act as a poison pill, giving opponents of single payer or govt administered healthcare plenty of ammunition to claim govt has no place in health care. It has delayed, and will continue to delay, true reform for years. Obama should be ashamed for selling out. | 0 |
There’s still a story buried somewhere in the Washington Post’s February 4 article “Inside the White Battle Over Trump’s Immigration Order,” but you have to wade through a deep moat of corrections and retractions to reach it. [The Post tried a hit on White House strategist (and former Breitbart News executive) Steve Bannon, describing a hostile meeting between him and Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly that didn’t actually happen. As the Washington Post’s editors eventually admitted, reporter Josh Rogin went with the same sort of anonymous sourcing that has produced so many Fake News debacles since the election, without contacting the White House to verify the account. According to the original story, Secretary Kelly wanted to “issue a waiver for lawful permanent residents, a. k. a. holders, from the seven countries whose citizens had been banned from entering the United States,” but Bannon “wanted to stop Kelly in his tracks and told him not to issue the order. ” A battle royale supposedly ensued: The disagreement between Bannon and Kelly pitted a political operator against a military disciplinarian. Two administration officials gave the following account of their exchange: Respectfully but firmly, the retired general told Bannon that despite his high position in the White House and close relationship with President Trump, the former Breitbart chief was not in Kelly’s chain of command. If the president wanted Kelly to back off from issuing the waiver, Kelly would have to hear it from the president directly, he told Bannon. It was only a matter of hours before an editorial correction was appended to that paragraph, and acknowledged at the top of the article: White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Kelly and Bannon spoke on Jan. 27 and 29, but denied they had a confrontation over the green card waiver. In an email sent late Saturday, Bannon also denied a confrontation with Kelly and said he had not told him to withhold the waiver. Spicer didn’t merely deny the confrontation he told the Huffington Post it was a “patently false, story,” and said the Washington Post’s failure to seek White House comment before publishing the article was “unbelievably unprofessional. ” “Prior to publication of this column, The Post sought comment from the Department of Homeland Security but not from the White House. We should have done both. The article has been updated,” editor Fred Hiatt conceded, in a notice that now appears at the top of the piece. “I think we got things wrong in this column. That’s why we published an editor’s note and a correction. I regret getting things wrong. We try really hard not to, but we do make mistakes. And when we make mistakes, we try to correct them and be transparent to the readers what we got wrong,” Hiatt told the Huffington Post. On February 7th, Mediaite quoted Secretary Kelly dismissing the Washington Post piece as a “fantasy story,” and throwing in some harsh words for reporter Josh Rogin. “Every paragraph, every sentence, every word, every space, every comma, every period is wrong. It was a fantasy story,” Kelly told Rep. Kathleen Rice ( ) when she asked if he was worried about pressure from White House political operatives. “This reporter, whoever he is, got it so wrong that’s assuming he’s not making it up,” Kelly added. The Secretary of Homeland Security proceeded to emphasize that “I work for one man. His name is Donald Trump. He has told me one thing: Secure the border. ” The Washington Post article was a lengthy discourse on debates that really are occurring within the Trump administration, over a policy that has generated much debate among the public. It would have worked just fine without the disputed anecdote, but then it would have lacked the “White House political operators bullying Cabinet officials” angle. (Especially this particular White House political operative, Bannon, having assumed totemic stature among adversarial media, and adversarial media having returned from an hiatus on the morning of November 9th, 2016.) The Post’s failure to consult the people actually involved in the alleged showdown between Bannon and Kelly is cast in an especially poor light by the speed of the administration’s response to their post. How can reporters and editors justify not even trying to solicit a comment from the White House on an explosive story from anonymous sources? Contrary to Hiatt’s statement to the Huffington Post, his team didn’t “try really hard” not to get this one wrong. Also, as the Huffington Post observed, that little story about the row between Bannon and Kelly zoomed around cyberspace many times before the corrections were made. In the Internet era, it’s more critical than ever to get the story right the first time. Fake News gets thousands of Retweets, while the corrections get hundreds at best. Isn’t that precisely the point mainstream media apologists made, when they launched their crusade against Fake News from alternative outlets? Didn’t they boast of their superior reporting and editorial standards as vital tools for successfully pursuing the truth in a time of disinformation? Perhaps the road to recovery could begin with more healthy skepticism toward stories pushed by anonymous sources who might be nursing grudges against the new administration. | 1 |
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans, under increasing pressure to ensure that Donald J. Trump’s nominees are fully vetted by federal authorities, have delayed the hearings of four potential cabinet members, three of whom have not been cleared by the agency charged with unraveling potential conflicts of interest. As frustrations over confirmations grow, a group that supports Republicans accused the ethics office and its leader — in a highly unusual attack on the nonpartisan agency — of politicizing a process long viewed by both parties as arduous but essential for anyone serving in government. Hearings for Betsy DeVos, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the Department of Education Andrew Puzder, his labor secretary nominee and Representative Mike Pompeo, Republican of Kansas, Mr. Trump’s pick to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, have all been pushed back as Democrats clamor for more time to collect and review the standard background checks that nominees traditionally undergo before their hearings commence. Wilbur Ross, Mr. Trump’s pick for secretary of commerce, will also be delayed several days because his ethics agreement is not complete, according to the chairman and ranking Democrat of the commerce committee. The delays represent a stumble for the incoming Trump administration, which has vowed to run government with a businesslike efficiency, and highlights how in several respects its preparation to take office is behind that of predecessors. In the case of Ms. DeVos, a billionaire, a complex web of financial holdings may be slowing down the Office of Government Ethics, which helps federal officials address conflict of interest matters, while Mr. Puzder’s background documents are also not in order. Walter M. Shaub Jr. the director of the ethics office, said in a letter to Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, that he did not know when Ms. DeVos would be cleared by his agency as this was “dependent on the nominee to provide needed information, respond to questions and accept the terms of an ethics agreement. ” Republicans have vowed hearings for as many nominees as possible before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, so that they can be cleared to served immediately, particularly those posts associated with national security. “We will be in a position to confirm a significant number of the president’s nominees on day one,” said the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky. Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader, said Tuesday on the Senate floor, “This new hearing schedule is a very good first step, but we still have a ways to go. ” Mr. Trump’s aides have been pressuring the ethics office to expedite its processes, even though it did not get the necessary paperwork from most of his nominees until recently, putting Republicans in a difficult position of either pushing forward with hearings without proper vetting — something most of the chairmen are loath to do — or delaying them in some cases indefinitely. “Trump is the latest to begin the process in contemporary history,” said Paul C. Light, a professor of Public Service at New York University who worked on Capitol Hill as an adviser on transitions. “This puts the Republicans under pressure and sets up possible problems down the road. Mr. Trump is asking the Senate to make up for his own failures here. ” The conservative organization America Rising PAC took aim at Mr. Shaub on Monday, highlighting his “history as a Democrat and the double standard he employed as head” of the agency, highlighting his political donations to President Obama as well as his office’s “utter incompetence” in policing financial matters related to Hillary and Bill Clinton. The PAC chided Mr. Shaub for wading into the politics of the transitions, saying his public comments and criticisms had become fodder for “Congressional Democrats to try and score points. ” The PAC noted an informal — and — series of postings on Twitter from the office’s official account congratulating Mr. Trump on divesting from his real estate business — a move he had not made. “The head of President Obama’s ethics department has absolutely zero credibility to criticize others,” Scott Sloofman, a spokesman for America Rising PAC, said in an email, adding that Mr. Shaub’s “outburst over the weekend reeks of partisan politics from an embittered Democrat still reeling from November’s election result. ” In messages posted to Twitter on Tuesday, the office wrote that it is “Moving quickly!” — noting that it had 54 percent of the nominees it has received from the Trump transition team, compared with 29 percent at the same point in 2009. “OGE is expediting reviews of the financial disclosure reports of the ’s nominees, without sacrificing quality,” the agency said on Twitter. An employment lawyer by trade, Mr. Shaub joined the Office of Government Ethics in 2006, during the administration of George W. Bush, working as a supervisory lawyer. In 2008, he became a deputy general counsel, and then President Obama in 2013 nominated Mr. Shaub as director of the office. Ethics experts who have worked closely with the office and Mr. Shaub said the criticisms of him seemed unfair. “For simply doing his job, director Shaub is now being unfairly attacked,” Norman L. Eisen, a former special counsel for ethics and government reform under Mr. Obama, and Richard W. Painter, the chief White House ethics lawyer to Mr. Bush, said in a joint statement. “It seems that it is open season on ethics in Washington, D. C. Last week the nonpartisan, independent Office of Congressional Ethics was attacked, and now the nonpartisan, independent Office of Government Ethics and its director are being targeted. ” They added, “This attempt to bully and intimidate a hardworking, understaffed agency like O. G. E. must not go unchecked. ” The compliance office work on the transition got off to a cordial and even enthusiastic start during the final months of the campaign, and continued after the election, according to a series of emails between ethics officials and Mr. Trump’s representatives obtained through public records requests by MSNBC and the James Madison Project. “Congratulations on the campaign’s victory,” Mr. Shaub wrote members of Mr. Trump’s transition team on the morning after Election Day, just hours after his victory, adding, “We’re really looking forward to getting down to work on this presidential transition — which we’re going to make one of the best in history!” | 1 |
President Donald Trump honored prisoners of war and soldiers missing in action, flying the flag above the White House on Wednesday. [The black flag with the silhouette of a soldier by a guard tower and barbed wire honors those soldiers that have not returned from war. The flag was adopted by the National League of Families in 1970. A White House source cited the 1998 Defense Authorization Act as the reason for the flag placed above the president’s home on Wednesday, as Congress designated Flag Day as a day for the flag to be displayed. All war memorials, major military installations, the Pentagon, and the Capitol are expected to fly the flag on Flag day. White House flying the flag, A post shared by Charlie Spiering (@charliespiering) on Jun 14, 2017 at 11:42am PDT, Trump issued a statement earlier today proclaiming June 14 as Flag Day. “By honoring our flag, we pay due respect to the patriots and heroes who have laid down their lives in defense of the liberty it represents,” he wrote. The president also said he was “blessed” to share his birthday with the national flag. “I am blessed to have shared my birthday with the Star Spangled Banner and the U. S. Army for 71 years now,” his statement read. “Again, on Flag Day, I am deeply grateful to live under the red, white, and blue, and all for which it stands. ” | 1 |
Debbie Dooley of Main Street Patriots is hoping hundreds will gather at the headquarters of CNN in Atlanta on Saturday to protest what its members consider fake news being produced by the giant media corporation. [Specifically, Dooley told Breitbart News that they object to the fake news being put out about President Donald Trump. “We’re encouraging people to come out and support our president,” said Dooley, one of 22 national of the Tea Party and of Main Street Patriots. “And to condemn the extreme biased coverage at CNN. ” Dooley said she hopes the crowd is large enough to surround the building. So far, people from Georgia and neighboring states have signed on to participate, including one man from Pakistan who told Dooley he was having a “fake news” made for the protest. Dooley said: CNN threw objective journalism out the window once Donald Trump was elected President and have begun to report DNC talking points as news. CNN can no longer claim to be a news organization that reports facts without bias, because they report innuendo with no facts as news with the intent on bringing down a President. They have simply become an entertainment network not to be taken seriously. “Time for Trump supporters to get active and show the Democrats that we are very passionate about our support of President Trump and we will fight hard to pass his agenda,” the notice of the event states on Main Street Patriots’ website. “Bring your signs and let’s show CNN that we support President Trump and call them out for becoming an arm of the DNC intent on bringing down President Trump with biased coverage and false innuendos,” the invitation on Main Street Patriots’ Facebook page states. Main Street Patriots was by Ralph King, a Tea Party activist who served as a Trump delegate from Ohio, served as a Presidential Elector from Ohio in the Electoral College, and is the national of Tea Party for Trump. The protest will take place from 11 a. m. to 12:30 p. m. Saturday at CNN, located at 190 Marietta St. NW, Atlanta, Georgia. | 1 |
Existing Home Sales- Another Reason Why You Should Take the Money and Run By Lee Adler. The Wall Street Journal reported today that existing home sales, “rose in October for the second straight month to a new cyclical high despite rising prices and shrinking inventory, a sign housing demand remains buoyant as the year comes to a close.” The headline was less cautious. | 0 |
Draining The Swamp 2.0: Trump Versus Reagan By David Stockman. After nearly three decades of Bubble Finance, Wall Street is populated with stimulus addicts and gamblers, while the financial press has been reduced to a collection of megaphones, stenographers, dopes, parasites, propagandists and webbots. In that milieu, the capacity for critical thinking and historical perspective has not merely been weakened; it has been extinguished entirely. | 0 |
In his lengthy interview with AFP on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad mused that the American “Deep State” was more responsible for pelting his Sharyat airbase with 59 cruise missiles than President Donald Trump. [When the interviewer proposed that the retaliatory missile strike marked a drastic change in Trump’s position on Syria, Assad insisted the U. S. and Syria could still be partners in fighting terrorism, once Trump wrested control of Washington away from the complex. “If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States. Whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners,” said Assad, in the transcript provided by Syria’s SANA news service. “This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say,” he continued: Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists. Assad said the American missile strike was “the first proof that it’s not about the President of the United States — it’s about the regime and the Deep State, or the deep regime in the United States. ” He said the Deep State “is still the same, it doesn’t change. ” “The president is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every president there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree otherwise he would pay the price politically,” said Assad. Asked if he anticipated another U. S. attack, Assad replied: As long as the United States is being governed by this complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria. Assad lamented that his military could not retaliate against the American ships that fired cruise missiles at Syria but expressed hope the Russians might do it for him. “For us, as a small country, yeah, of course it is, everybody knows that. It’s out of reach. I mean, they can have missiles from another continent. We all know that. They are a great power, we’re not a great power. Talking about the Russians, this is another issue,” he said. | 1 |
New York Times columnist Frank Bruni takes aim at Trump’s and administration in an titled “Jared Kushner, Man of Steel. ” [From Bruni’s column: Why don’t we just stitch him a red cape, put him in spandex, affix a stylized “S” to his chest and be done with it? SuperJared has taken flight. He’s President Trump’s point man with the Chinese, having finalized the details of the big meeting at later this week. He was Trump’s middleman with the Mexicans not long ago. “A shadow secretary of state,” The Washington Post called Jared Kushner, and that was well before he traveled to Iraq on Monday, beating the actual secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to one of the most consequential theaters of American foreign policy. … Trump’s overreliance on Kushner illustrates the extraordinary premium he places on loyalty. Kushner’s status as a visionary is entirely disputable: His company was a birthright, not a and as an article by Charles Bagli in The Times this week demonstrated, one of Kushner’s key acquisitions, the skyscraper at 666 Fifth Avenue, turned into an albatross. But he married Ivanka. He’s family. And he chose the political ambitions of his over his own previous reputation as a reasonably enlightened man. Read the rest here. | 1 |
BEIJING — A city official in southwest China unleashed a barrage of gunfire on the city’s mayor and Communist Party secretary during a meeting on Wednesday, injuring them before fleeing and killing himself, the official news media reported. Privately owned guns are rare in China, because of a virtual ban on civilian use, and grisly attacks on officials by colleagues are also uncommon. So rumors of the shooting in Panzhihua, an industrial city in Sichuan Province, rippled quickly across the Chinese internet even before the local authorities confirmed the news. Panzhihua was built as part of Mao’s plans to relocate factories deep inland, where they would be protected from a feared war. But the violence in this isolated site was nonetheless an embarrassing breach of the efforts by China’s president, Xi Jinping, to remake officialdom into a clean, impeccably disciplined bureaucracy. Details were sparse, and there were no clues to the gunman’s motives. But the brief initial report in the state media sketched a scene of the head of the Panzhihua Land and Resources Bureau, Chen Zhongshu, bursting into a meeting at an exhibition center and opening fire on officials there. “The gunman stormed into the meeting, fired repeatedly at the main leading comrades of the city party committee and government and then fled,” said an online report by Sichuan Daily, an official provincial newspaper, citing the Panzhihua government press office. The suspect in the shooting, Mr. Chen, was found dead in the exhibition center. He had taken his own life, the report said without giving details. The mayor, Li Jianqin, and party secretary, Zhang Yan, were wounded and sent to the hospital, but their injuries were not considered the report said. Mr. Zhang, the party secretary, has worked in Panzhihua since 2006, and the mayor, Mr. Li, has worked there since last year, according to Chinese news reports. Both officials went to meetings and inspection visits with Mr. Chen previously, but there was nothing in the earlier reports to suggest that trouble had been brewing. Photographs on Chinese news websites showed armored vehicles and paramilitary troops massed outside the exhibition center in the aftermath of the violence. | 1 |
Region: Southeast Asia An enormous rally shook Jakarta on the 4th November. With unusual zeal, between 50 and 100 thousand protesters managed to trash several parts of the capital. Cars were torched; traffic in the center came to a standstill. Police fired teargas canisters at the protesters and water cannons were used. According to the AP, one elderly man died and scores of demonstrators and policemen were injured. These were the biggest demos in recent years. Considering how many profound problems Indonesia is facing, the country is shockingly compliant. Were these protests against the on-going genocide in Papua, where Indonesian forces are massacring the mostly defenseless local population on behalf of Western companies? Or perhaps, were they against the corrupt turbo capitalist regime, which has governed this virtually collapsed nation ever since the 1965 US-sponsored military coup against the progressive President and the father of the Non-Aligned movement, Sukarno? Frankly, none of the above! In Indonesia, the horrors committed in Papua are not discussed publicly at all, and capitalism remains sacred here; even the poorest of the poor are conditioned to revere it. The riots were actually over alleged ‘blasphemy’, and the participants consisted mainly of hard-line Muslim fundamentalists. Lately, religious ‘topics’ are the only ones that are managing to mobilize crowds of ‘outraged’ citizens. So what went wrong this time? Actually, nothing really! As reported by the BBC and others, “Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, a Christian, is the first ethnic Chinese to hold the governor’s post in the capital of the majority Muslim Indonesia.” His nickname is ‘Ahok’, he is extremely popular, and he is one of the very few Indonesian politicians who are determinedly cracking down on corruption while introducing various social programs for the poor. Most Indonesian hardcore Islamists are extreme-right wingers. They regularly attack and disperse even the most ‘benign’ political gatherings where the introduction of free medical care and other social benefits are shyly suggested and discussed. To them, everything social stinks of ‘Communism’, and Communism has been banned here ever since the 1965/66 Suharto bloodlettings. The religious rightwing cannot win politically; therefore it regularly plants seeds of disinformation and chaos. “Ahok said, during a meeting with voters, that there are those who are misleading the population, while using verses of the Holy Koran,” explained Ms. Ira Muslim, a Jakarta-based engineer. “They say that people should not vote for Ahok, because the Koran says that Muslims are not supposed to have a non-Muslim, kafir, as a leader. Nine days later, a man called Buni Yani, edited the official video into a much short version. He omitted several words in the transcript, and the document totally changed its meaning, reading that Muslims are actually deceived by the Koran itself.” Mr. Buni Yani (interestingly a graduate of Ohio University, Southeast Asian Studies) later admitted his deed, which should have closed the matter. But it didn’t. The demands of Ahok’s opponents soon ranged from dragging him to the courts, and to directly murdering him. Several preachers demanded Ahok’s blood, despite the fact that the two largest Muslim organizations in the country ordered their members to stay home and not to join the protests. Professor Isna Wijayani, a lecturer at Bina Darma University in Palembang, explained: “I personally like the way Ahok works. As for those ‘religious statements’, controversy could have been easily resolved if things would have been openly discussed. But Indonesian mass media does not want people to stay calm; it ignites dangerous passions. Anyway, even if Ahok would be guilty of blasphemy, things could have been resolved within the legal framework, not by trashing the capital city.” Most Indonesian linguists agree that there was no trace of blasphemy in the original discourse by the Governor of Jakarta. Ms. Yeyen Maryani from the Ministry of Education and Culture publicly stated it, and so did many others. For now, the riots are over, but the anti-Ahok activists demand that decisive legal action is taken within two weeks, “or else”! * Who is behind this embarrassing mess? Surely it is not just some bunch of religious fanatics. In Indonesia, things are never that simple! Mr. Agus Suhartono shared with me his belief that there are clear signs of the involvement from the highest ranks of the Indonesian political ‘elites’: “The situation in Indonesia is now very dangerous. SBY [Susilo Banbang Yudhoyono, former President of Indonesia, a retired general] has been using his leverage to stir up the conflict at any cost. Ahok incident is just the tip of the iceberg. I am afraid that the real problem is much bigger than that.” Most likely it is: SBY’s son is now running against ‘Ahok’ for the post of Governor of Jakarta. “What do they really want?” Ms. Susy Nataliwati, a researcher of Japanese Studies at the University of Indonesia, asked this rhetorical question: “It appears that they want Ahok to be disqualified from running for his second term in office”. While the Western mass media is only talking about the blasphemy case and the radical Islamist groups, the true issues are much bigger: corrupt, right wing, pro-Western and pro-business elites of Indonesia are jealously guarding their ruling position in this already plundered and devastated archipelago. There is still plenty of booty above and below the surface! After 1965, money and ‘control’ over people is all that matters. Is this the final assault against Ahok, or just a warning? The current President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo (nicknamed “Jokowi”), began his political career as a ‘pro-people reformist’, but after he encountered determined hostility, even menace, from the true rulers of this country, he lost his courage and briskly converted himself into a spineless ‘centrist’. And how does Islamic extremism fit into all this mayhem? For decades it was actually only a tool of the corrupt generals and extreme right wing market fundamentalists, many of whom were not even Muslims. Andre Vltchek is philosopher, filmmaker, investigative journalist and writer who has recently finished his new novel Aurora , especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” | 0 |
By Cassius Kamarampi (Era of Wisdom) In 2008, a man named Michael Heston hung himself in incarceration at Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, after being forced to endure injections of... | 0 |
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter The title of this article might give you the impression that my aim is to frighten you. I assure you it is not. The realities of the pharmaceutical industry are admittedly difficult to swallow, but this is important information given the fact that so many people are taking anti-depressant drugs. While these details may be disturbing, especially if you or someone you know takes anti-depressant drugs, it is important to move past the fear of information and really look at what has happened with the modern day medical industry and the pharmaceutical stranglehold that plagues it today. “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry. I think it’s disgraceful.” – ( source )( source ) Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal The most recent example of this kind of corruption comes from a study that was published last week in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials. Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:
We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data. ( source ) Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and researcher at University College London, elaborates:
[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing. ( source ) Peter Gotzsche, a clinician researcher at Cochrane and the co-author of the study, actually tried to gain access to clinical trial reports almost a decade ago for anti-obesity pills. Unfortunately, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) denied them the reports:
They talked about commercial confidentiality although there was absolutely nothing in these reports that was commercially confidential. We explained that all this secrecy actually cost human lives, but they weren’t interested in that at all. ( source ) It took years of requests and complaints for this to happen and, while Gotzsche is pleased they were able to achieve this breakthrough, he reminds us that similar progress has yet to made in the United States. He went on to state that researchers need better access to data from clinical trials to conduct assessments unimpeded by industry influence:
It’s deeply unethical when patients volunteer to benefit science and then we let drug companies decide that we cannot get access to the raw data. The testing of drugs should be a public enterprise. ( source ) Moncrieff (quoted above) then goes on to express further concerns:
We really don’t have good enough evidence that antidepressants are effective and we have increasing evidence that they can be harmful. So we need to go into reverse and stop this increasing trend of prescribing [them]. ( source ) This Is Not The First Time This is not the first time that pharmaceutical companies have been caught manipulating science in order to get antidepressants onto the shelves. It was only a couple of months ago that an independent review found that the commonly prescribed antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers, even though a large amount of literature had already suggested this previously. The 2001 drug trial that took place, funded by GlaxoSmithKline, found that these drugs were completely safe, and used that ‘science’ to market Paxil as safe for teenagers. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine and co-author of the study, is also the author of the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), titled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False . In the report, he states that “most current published research findings are false.” And this was more than 10 years ago — the situation has undeniably worsened in the interim. This echoes the words of Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-In-Chief of one of the most reputable reviewed medical journals in the world:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. ( source ) The Editor in Chief of the New England Medical journal, which is also considered to be one of the best in the world, has made similar assertions:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. ( source ) A couple of years ago, Lucia Tomljenovic, a PhD in biochemistry and a senior postdoctoral fellow in UBC’s Faculty of Medicine, uncovered documents that reveal vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. The documents were obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunization (JCVI), who advise the Secretaries of State for Health in the UK about diseases preventable through immunizations. The JCVI made “continuous efforts to withhold critical data on severe adverse reactions and contraindications to vaccinations to both parents and health practitioners in order to reach overall vaccination rates.” She goes on to explain that, The transcripts of the JCBI meetings also show that some of the Committee members had extensive ties to pharmaceutical companies and that the JCVI frequently co-operated with vaccine manufactures on the strategies aimed at boosting vaccine uptake. Some of the meetings at which such controversial items were discussed were not intended to be publicly available, as the transcripts were only released later, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOI). These particular meetings are denoted in the transcripts as “commercial in confidence,” and reveal a clear and disturbing lack of transparency, as some of the information was removed from the text (i.e., the names of the participants) prior to transcript release under the FOI section at the JCVI website. ( source ) Below is a clip taken from the One More Girl documentary, a film which looks at the Gardasil vaccine, a medicine designed to prevent Human Papillomavirus. In it, Dr. Peter Rost, MD, a former vice president of one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Pfizer), shares the truth about the ties between the medical and pharmaceutical industry. Rost is a former vice president of Pfizer, and a whistleblower of the entire pharmaceutical industry in general. He is the author of The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman . Considering his work experience, it would be an understatement to say that he is an insider expert on big pharma marketing. It’s time to re-think current medical research and look at the bigger picture. Related CE Article: | 0 |
A San Antonio police detective who was shot to death while sitting in a squad car was apparently killed just for being on the force, the city’s police chief said on Monday, a day after the detective and three officers were shot in separate episodes around the country. There was no apparent link among the killing of Detective Benjamin Marconi and the three other shootings, in which officers were wounded, and officials cautioned that many questions about the shootings remain unanswered. But they added to the sense of a profession under siege, coming after a series of killings in which officers were singled out. “I feel we were targeted,” said the San Antonio police chief, William McManus. “I think the uniform was the target, and the first person who happened along was the target. ” Late Monday, Chief McManus said that Otis Tyrone McCain, 31, had been arrested without incident after the car he was in was stopped on Interstate 10. In July, a gunman killed five police officers and wounded nine other people in Dallas, and days later, another gunman killed three officers and wounded three others in Baton Rouge, La. Both gunmen were killed by the police, but they first made clear that they were angry about police killings of black men. This month, in the Des Moines area, two officers were gunned down in their patrol cars, and the police arrested a man who had been described as having a hatred of law enforcement. Sunday’s shootings prompted strong reactions on social media, including some posts calling the episodes part of a war on law enforcement, or blaming people who have criticized the police over a string of highly publicized deaths at the hands of officers. Violence against the police dropped to 31 officers fatally shot (aside from accidents) in the line of duty in 2013, from a high of 144 in 1973, according to records kept by Officer Down Memorial Page, a nonprofit group that tracks such episodes. Last year, there were 39. But so far in 2016, there have been 58 killings — a pace that would make this the worst year since 2011. “People are reacting to this phenomenon of police being specifically targeted, which we saw some of in the ’70s, but we haven’t seen it recently,” said Geoffrey P. Alpert, a professor of criminology and criminal justice at the University of South Carolina. “It’s hard to do community policing when you don’t know if somebody’s going to take you out. ” Detective Marconi, who was 50, had stopped a driver near Police Headquarters and was sitting in his car writing a ticket when a person unconnected to the traffic stop walked up and shot him at close range. The Police Department later showed reporters surveillance video of an unidentified person, taken a few hours earlier, at the front entrance of the police building. The video shows a young man pacing and speaking into an intercom. The doors open and he enters, then he leaves seconds later. “He talked to the clerk at the desk,” Chief McManus said at a news conference. “He asked a question, and the clerk said that they would help him with that, and he said, ‘Never mind,’ and walked out. ” “I don’t know why he was in headquarters,” he added. “There’s several motives we’re looking at. ” The chief would not say what the man had asked, or why he was considered a suspect, but he said the dashboard camera in Detective Marconi’s car had provided important evidence. On Sunday evening in St. Louis, a car pulled up alongside a police S. U. V. and shot the sergeant at the wheel. The sergeant, 46, whose name was not released, was hit twice in the face but was expected to survive, officials said. The gunman was a suspect in a recent crime spree — robberies, a carjacking and possibly a homicide — said the city’s police chief, D. Samuel Dotson III, “and when he saw the officer, he became concerned that he would be recognized, and we believe he fired at the officer for that reason. ” “He was targeted because he was a police officer,” Mayor Francis Slay said. “This tells you how dangerous of a job it is. ” A few hours after the shooting, officers caught up with the man, who was a passenger in a friend’s car. Chief Dotson said the man had jumped out of the car and run, and shot at pursuing officers, who returned fire, killing him. The gunman was identified as George P. Bush III, 19. A similar shooting took place in Gladstone, Mo. near Kansas City, when an officer stopped a car and a passenger ran away. Shots were fired, the passenger died, and the officer was wounded. Neither person’s name was released. In Sanibel, Fla. Officer Jarred Ciccone was wounded in a shooting while sitting in his patrol car. The officer, who was hit in the shoulder, was treated at a hospital and released. A short time later, the police exchanged gunfire with a suspect — Jon W. Hay, 49 — and arrested him. Officials declined to discuss a possible motive, but Mr. Hay had a history of making complaints to the police that he was a victim of various crimes — stalking, fraud, attempted burglary, computer hacking and sexual abuse, among others. | 1 |
President Obama weighed in on the right-wing efforts to revive the Hillary Clinton “email scandal” witch hunt by publicly chastising his own appointed FBI Director, James Comey, for the FBI’s unnecessary decision to inform Congress that they had found new emails that may be “pertinent.”
The President reiterated his determination to not be seen as “meddling” in the case , but rightfully criticized Comey for stirring up undue controversy over pure speculation on emails that were neither sent nor received by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
“Setting aside the particulars of this case, I know that [Hillary Clinton] is somebody who has always looked out for the interests of America and the American people first, and I do think that there is a norm that when there are investigations, we don’t operate on innuendo, we don’t operate on incomplete information, we don’t operate on leaks, we operate based on concrete decisions that are made.
When this was investigated thoroughly the last time, the conclusion of the FBI, the conclusion of the Justice Department, the conclusion of repeated congressional investigations was that, you know, she had made some mistakes, but that there wasn’t anything there that was, you know, prosecutable.”
The president hit the nail right on the head. This “investigation” is over and done with; for Comey to throw fuel on the fire of right-wing paranoia this close to the election cannot be seen as anything but a partisan effort to derail the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, especially after it became clear that Comey tried to suppress news of the investigation into Republican nominee Donald Trump’s ties to the Russian Federation – a much more serious and potentially seditious allegation.
Watch the President speak here: ‘We don’t operate on innuendo’ — President Obama discusses Hillary, emails, and the FBI in an exclusive interview with NowThis pic.twitter.com/0J6tJyEYSh | 0 |
The propaganda popsicle stand that is The New York Times is floating the idea that Trump supporters are calling for a new American Revolution if Hillary wins.
But beneath the cheering, a new emotion is taking hold among some Trump supporters as they grapple with reports predicting that he will lose the election: a dark fear about what will happen if their candidate is denied the White House. Some worry that they will be forgotten, along with their concerns and frustrations. Others believe the nation may be headed for violent conflict.
Jared Halbrook, 25, of Green Bay, Wis., said that if Mr. Trump lost to Hillary Clinton, which he worried would happen through a stolen election, it could lead to “another Revolutionary War.”
“People are going to march on the capitols,” said Mr. Halbrook, who works at a call center. “They’re going to do whatever needs to be done to get her out of office, because she does not belong there.”
“If push comes to shove,” he added, and Mrs. Clinton “has to go by any means necessary, it will be done.”
What’s ominous about this level of programming is that we know the system is already gearing up for this possibility with an election military drill that could go live at any time until a month after the election, as previously reported:
According to an unnamed source – who has provided accurate intel in the past – an unannounced military drill is scheduled to take place during a period leading up to the election and throughout the month after.
It appears that the system is gearing up to handle outbreaks of violence, chaotic rallies and poll stations, and the possibility that the people of the United States may become very dissatisfied with the outcome by using military force and martial law.
The drill could, of course, go live at any time; Homeland Security and the military are prepared to contend with a period of unrest, and restore order to a divided and broken country – regardless of whether people like their new leader or not.
As you know, DHS is already monitoring this election and prepared to take over its ‘critical infrastructure’. The scope of this drill would, of course, take things much further:
Hi Guys,
I got some gouge from a former military colleague who is in contact with active duty personnel and he received an email about an upcoming drill. We need confirmation on this, but if we put it out there we might get a leaker to come forward and confirm:
Date: October 30th – 30 days after the election Suspected Region: Northeast, specifically New York
1st Phase: NROL (No Rule of Law) – drill involving combat arms in metro areas (active and reserve). Source says active duty and reserve service members are being vaccinated as if they are being deployed in theatre.
2nd Phase: LROL (Limited Rule of Law) – Military/FEMA consolidating resources, controlling water supply, handing out to public as needed.
3rd Phase: AROL (Authoritarian Rule of Law) – Possible new acronym or term for “Martial Law”. Curfew, restricted movements, basically martial law scenario.
Source said exercise involves FEMA/DHS/Military
If the Powers That Shouldn’t Be are planning to steal this election for Hillary as hard as it appears they are , then it makes sense they’d be planning to try and clean up their mess afterward.
Either way, the people have about reached their limit and are sick and tired of this level of corruption coming out of this government… and we know what happened the last time America finally got fed up with a tyrannical government. Piper writes for The Daily Sheeple . There’s a lot of B.S. out there. Someone has to write about it. Don't forget to follow the D.C. Clothesline on Facebook and Twitter. PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks. Share this: | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.