Datasets:

k3w15hu8h

/

MissBert-Data

like 0

U.S. Senator Chris Coons, a Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said on Wednesday the panel should hold hearings on Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch but that Democrats would seek a 60-vote threshold for his confirmation in the full Senate. President Donald Trump announced his nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Gorsuch on Tuesday night to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia last year. The seat has remained vacant for nearly a year because Republicans refused to consider former President Barack Obama’s nominee.

Says he didnt have an involvement withnutritional supplement company Mannatech.

@JHW252 @onelove6113 @stand4all @ScottLofquist @NBCNews Am guessing investigation took longer to protect witnesses & town was being burned.

Explained: To what extent did the Covid-19 lockdown affect global temperatures?

It wasn’t that long ago that Bill de Blasio was the face of progressive politics in America, winning an election in which he was not initially favored by riding the theme of Dickensian inequity that has animated the current presidential campaign. Two years ago it would have been easy to imagine him playing a central role in a national election in which his former employer, Hillary Clinton, needed to fortify and telegraph her leftist credentials. Instead, Mayor de Blasio delivered his speech at the Democratic convention late on Wednesday afternoon, between a presentation from the mayor of Tallahassee, Fla. and a video montage of Democrats who are no longer with us. Lena Dunham, who was given the lectern on Tuesday, got it in prime time Bill de Blasio got rush hour. What happened? Certainly it did not serve the mayor well that he was as slow to endorse Mrs. Clinton as a is to acknowledge that a curfew is good for you. But relevance, or rather the ebbing away of it, has played as much a part as retribution for Mr. de Blasio. Two polls conducted this spring among New York City voters had the mayor receiving his lowest poll numbers to date. Among whites the statistics are especially shocking: in both surveys, one conducted by Quinnipiac and the other by Marist, only 27 percent expressed approval of his job performance. A recurrent strain of complaint from the affluent white liberals who elected Mr. de Blasio revolves around a perception of arrogance, which seems laid bare by his recurrent lateness (though his punctuality has improved) and his centralized style of management. The distaste for him is visceral, if often vague. Arrogance can be a political virtue, a truth nowhere more obvious than in the rising fortunes of the current Republican presidential nominee, whose campaign has been conducted as a spectacle of . But for Mr. de Blasio the opposite has been true ambitions to go bigger — to hold a national forum on progressive ideas as he had hoped to do in Iowa earlier this year — are rejected, and swatted down as grandiose. How come? Baroque arrogance, of the kind we have been witnessing recently, is easier to take than an egotism attached to earnestness, because we can always imagine that the baroque variety is just an act. Beyond that, arrogance finds its reward when it doesn’t submit or concede, when it doesn’t betray a fear of alienating nonbelievers. Mr. de Blasio’s convention speech came on the heels of a decision by the state’s attorney in Baltimore to drop all remaining charges against three police officers awaiting trial in the case of Freddie Gray, a young black man who died in custody last year. Given his position overseeing the largest police force in America, Mr. de Blasio might have used some of his time to advocate the kind of accountability police departments around the country must bear to help stem the cycle of distrust and violence that is currently fraying cities. But Mr. de Blasio, cowed by the police unions, has not been forceful on that issue himself. How humiliating it might have been for the current mayor to have been upstaged by his predecessor, Michael R. Bloomberg, we don’t know. Mr. Bloomberg’s convention speech on Wednesday night had the billionaire’s air, while Mr. de Blasio’s seemed in some sense an effort to ingratiate his way back under the Clinton canopy. And it wasn’t over for Mr. de Blasio on Wednesday night he still faced a speech the following evening by his Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, who has been walking away with credit for progressive changes, like a higher minimum wage, that he didn’t always champion. This past week, old pictures of Mr. Bloomberg and Donald J. Trump, in golf hats, surfaced on the internet to remind us that despite the former mayor’s evisceration of the candidate as a dangerous demagogue, a con man and a lazy heir, wealth is essentially a clubby place. Photographs of the Clintons and the Trumps, seen together in happier times, do the same work, showing us that in New York, money is the ultimate affinity group. Both political conventions — each celebrating a certain kind of New York power broker — happened to unfold as the Four Seasons, the city’s high church of transactional dining, was closing its doors and auctioning off its linens. It is easy to imagine the Clintons, the Trumps, the Cuomos, Mr. Bloomberg and Rudolph W. Giuliani all having bumped into one another in the pool room at some point and enjoyed it. It is harder to picture Mr. de Blasio digging his hand into a swath of the famous cotton candy. Maybe, in the end, that’s just something else people hold against him.

President Donald Trump’s signal of a new openness to immigration reform in a speech to the U.S. Congress did little to win over Democrats who would be essential to revamping the nation’s immigration laws. Any goodwill Trump may have sparked with his mention of a chance for “real and positive immigration reform” in Tuesday’s speech, his first to a joint session of Congress, was soon dashed by rhetoric that Democrats said tarred and misrepresented most immigrants. “The speech he gave was one of the most anti-immigrant speeches that we heard any president ever give,” Senate Democratic leader Charles Schumer said on Wednesday. What offended Democrats, a minority in both chambers, was Trump’s reference to past incidents in which one illegal immigrant “viciously gunned down” two California law enforcement officers and another “viciously murdered” a 17-year-old boy. Trump built a base of support for his 2016 presidential campaign by vowing to fight illegal immigration, including a pledge to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. On becoming president in January, he immediately issued a temporary visa ban against seven Muslim-majority countries, later blocked by federal courts. He also suspended a refugee program and initiated tougher deportation procedures. Major immigration reform efforts failed in Congress under Trump’s predecessors, Democratic President Barack Obama and Republican George W. Bush, because of deep divisions among lawmakers and Americans over the issue. The challenges include how to protect illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children, and how to deal long-term with the estimated 11 million people living in the country without proper documentation. Legislation putting illegal immigrants in line for citizenship threatens to alienate Trump’s core conservative voters. Trump said in his speech that reform was possible if both Democrats and Republicans were willing to compromise. Even before Tuesday’s address, immigration reform-minded Republicans and Democrats in Congress were holding informal lunches and dinners, as well as conversations on the floors of the House of Representatives and Senate about the possibility of Trump eventually moderating his stance. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus will meet on Thursday and discuss how, or whether, to react to Trump’s signal of openness to reform at a time when a feeling of “fear and hopelessness” pervades Latino communities, one House Democratic aide said. Republican Representative Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida, a leading voice for overhauling immigration laws, hoped that once the White House dealt with healthcare and tax reforms this year, Trump might tackle vexing immigration problems. “Remember that old adage that only Nixon could go to China,” said Diaz-Balart, a self-described optimist and son of Cuban immigrants who has labored for years over immigration laws. He was referring to Richard Nixon, who in 1972 became the first U.S. president to visit the People’s Republic of China despite having built his political career as the arch-enemy of communist governments. After Tuesday’s speech, a major change in tone will likely be needed for Democrats to engage with Republicans. Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez of Illinois challenged Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who have both taken a hard line on illegal immigration, to pledge support for immigration reform, “Absent that, I don’t believe a thing (they) have to say” on the administration’s interest in reforming immigration law, Gutierrez told reporters. Gutierrez is of Puerto Rican descent and has worked in the past with Republicans on immigration legislation. Some prominent Republicans said progress on the first major immigration reform since 1986 was still possible. Senator John McCain of Arizona, who helped win Senate passage in 2013 of a sweeping bipartisan immigration law rewrite that subsequently died in the House, said of Trump’s upbeat remarks: “I would hope that would open the door for negotiations and support” for legislation. Senator Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who joined with McCain and others in 2013, said if there was an opportunity to go forward, Trump would likely want to pair bills that would be supported by opposing sides in the immigration debate. For example, Flake speculated, the president might support putting into law temporary protections shielding “dreamers” from deportation

Great interview!

Teen Mom 2's Jenelle Evans Responds to Emergency Custody Filing By Ex’s Mom

The head of the Boy Scouts of America apologized to members of the youth organization on Thursday for the “political rhetoric that was inserted” into its national gathering this week by U.S. President Donald Trump. “I want to extend my sincere apologies to those in our Scouting family who were offended by the political rhetoric that was inserted into the jamboree,” Michael Surbaugh wrote in an open letter published on the Scouts’ website. “That was never our intent.” He said that every U.S. president, who serves as the Scouts’ honorary president, has been invited to speak at the national jamborees held every four years since 1937, but that the Scouts were nonetheless “steadfastly” non-partisan. “We sincerely regret that politics were inserted into the Scouting program,” Surbaugh wrote. He said there were 40,000 participants, including Boy Scouts, volunteers, staff and visitors. Trump, a Republican, started his speech before thousands of boys aged 12 to 18 in a West Virginia field on Monday evening lauding hard work and perseverance, then quickly turned to partisan attacks and ridicule of “fake media”. He attacked Democratic rivals, lambasted the current healthcare law and reminisced about a cocktail party he went to decades ago filled with “the hottest people in New York.” Trump’s speech drew intense criticism from former Scouts, parents of Scouts and others, with many saying the speech was not in keeping with Scout values and inappropriate. While many Scouting families expressed outrage, a few said the reaction was overblown, arguing that exposure to political speech in all forms was an important part of a Scout’s development. White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said she had not seen Surbaugh’s letter of apology, and said she attended the event. “I saw nothing but roughly 40,000 to 45,000 Boy Scouts cheering the president on throughout his remarks and I think they were pretty excited that he was there,” Sanders said.

A US B-52 bomber accidentally dropped a B-61 nuclear bomb on a town in Lithuania, causing an apartment building to be engulfed in flames according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email. Security Question: What is 12 + 15 ? Please leave these two fields as-is: IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-) Doom and Bloom

21st Century Wire says This is a new geopolitical war, taking place between the United States and China.The rise of the so-called BRICS countries Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, along with countless other emerging economies, means that global power relations are gradually tipping away from the Anglo-American Axis, and towards Eurasia.The Anglo-American corporate confab will not allow this tectonic shift threaten their interests. Collectively, what the TPP, TTIP and TISA really are is a new global governance super structure that overrides individual sovereign nations and their laws, and even the rights of their individual citizens.Under this new secretive regime, all are subservient to the transnational corporate hive WATCH: WikiLeaks The US strategy to create a new global legal and economic system: TPP, TTIP, TISA:

A research division of the World Health Organization announced Monday that bacon, sausage and other processed meats cause cancer and that red meat probably does, too. The report by the influential group stakes out one of the most aggressive stances against meat taken by a major health organization, and it is expected to face stiff criticism in the United States. The WHO findings were drafted by a panel of 22 international experts who reviewed decades of research on the link between red meat, processed meats and cancer. The panel reviewed animal experiments, studies of human diet and health, and cell processes that could explain how red meat might cause cancer. But the panel’s decision was not unanimous, and by raising lethal concerns about a food that anchors countless American meals, it will be controversial. The $95 billion U.S. beef industry has been preparing for months to mount a response, and some scientists, including some unaffiliated with the meat industry, have questioned whether the evidence is substantial enough to draw the strong conclusions that the WHO panel did. In reaching its conclusion, the panel sought to quantify the risks, and compared to carcinogens such as cigarettes, the magnitude of the danger appears small, experts said. The WHO panel cited studies suggesting that an additional 3.5 ounces of red meat everyday raises the risk of colorectal cancer by 17 percent; eating an additional 1.8 ounces of processed meat daily raises the risk by 18 percent, according to the research cited. “For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” says Kurt Straif, an official with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which produced the report. “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.” About 34,000 cancer deaths a year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meats, according to figures cited by the panel. [WHO says hot dogs, bacon cause cancer. Does this mean we should all become vegetarians?] The research into a possible link between eating red meat and cancer has been the subject of scientific debate for decades, with colorectal cancer being a long-standing area of concern. But by concluding that processed meat causes cancer, and that red meat “probably” causes cancer, the WHO findings go well beyond the tentative associations that some other groups have reported. The American Cancer Society, for example, notes that many studies have found “a link” between eating red meat and heightened risks of colorectal cancer. But it stops short of telling people that the meats cause cancer. Some diets that have lots of vegetables and fruits and lesser amounts of red and processed meats have been associated with a lower risk of colorectal cancer, the American Cancer Society says, but “it’s not exactly clear” which factors of that diet are important. Likewise, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the U.S. government’s advice compendium, encourage the consumption of protein-containing foods such as lean meats as part of a healthy diet. Regarding processed meats, though, the Dietary Guidelines offer a tentative warning: “Moderate evidence suggests an association between the increased intake of processed meats (e.g., franks, sausage, and bacon) and increased risk of colorectal cancer and cardiovascular disease.” The Dietary Guidelines do not assert that processed meats cause cancer. Officials from the Department of Health and Human Services, which is updating the Dietary Guidelines with the USDA, have not yet reviewed the WHO report, a spokesperson said. [95 percent of the world's people may be wrong about salt] For consumers, the WHO announcement offers scant practical advice even while casting aspersions over a wide array of foods. Red meat includes beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton and goat. Processed meat includes hot dogs, ham, sausages, corned beef and beef jerky — or any other meat that has been cured, smoked, salted or otherwise changed to enhance flavor or improve preservation. How much of those is it safe to eat? The group doesn’t offer much guidance: “The data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.” Should we be vegetarians? Again, the group does not hazard an answer. And how exactly does red meat and processed meat cause cancer? The group names a handful of chemicals involved in cooking and processing meat, most of them nearly unpronounceable, and some believed to be carcinogenic. “But despite the knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat,” the group wrote. Despite the voids in the science, the WHO findings might cast a pall over diners and those who serve them. At The Pig Restaurant on 14th Street NW in Washington, where the menu includes an array of pork products - kielbasa, prosciutto, pork cheek, etc - a worker sweeping the tables outside encouraged a reporter to look elsewhere for comments about cancer and red meat. Around the corner, outside the Whole Foods grocery, shoppers evinced a weary of fatalism regarding authoritative diet advice. “It makes some sense,” said Nassrin Farzaneh, a development consultant, carrying a bag out of the store, said of the WHO finding on processed meat. “But they say one thing and then two or three years later they something that contradicts it. It goes on and on.” “Everything causes cancer,” said Caroline Rourke, an energy policy analyst, also on her way out of the grocery. “Life causes cancer. Who cares what food does? Life is terminal, isn’t it?" [Another food to worry about? Honey not as healthy as we think.] In recent years, meat consumption has been the target of multi-faceted social criticism, with debates erupting not just over its role on human health, but the impact of feedlots on the environment and on animal welfare. The public debate over the WHO’s findings will probably play out with political lobbying and in marketing messages for consumers. An industry group, the North American Meat Institute, called the WHO report “dramatic and alarmist overreach,” and it mocked the panel’s previous work for approving a substance found in yoga pants and treating coffee, sunlight and wine as potential cancer hazards. The WHO panel “says you can enjoy your yoga class, but don’t breathe air (Class I carcinogen), sit near a sun-filled window (Class I), apply aloe vera (Class 2B) if you get a sunburn, drink wine or coffee (Class I and Class 2B), or eat grilled food (Class 2A),” said Betsy Booren, vice president of scientific affairs for the group. “We simply don’t think the evidence supports any causal link between any red meat and any type of cancer,” said Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. But at its core, the issue revolves around science, and in particular the difficulty that arises whenever scientists try to link any food to a chronic disease. Experiments to test whether a food causes cancer pose a massive logistical challenge: they require controlling the diets of thousands of test subjects over a course of many years. For example, one group might be assigned to eat lots of meat and another less, or none. But for a variety of reasons involving cost and finding test subjects, such experiments are rarely conducted, and scientists instead often use other less direct methods, known as epidemiological or observational studies, to draw their conclusions. “I understand that people may be skeptical about this report on meat because the experimental data is not terribly strong,” said Paolo Boffetta, a professor of Tisch Cancer Institute at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine who has served on similar WHO panels. “But in this case the epidemiological evidence is very strong.” [Why the Bureau of Prisons stripped pork from the menu for federal inmates] Some scientists, however, have criticized the epidemiological studies for too often reaching “false positives,” that is, concluding that something causes cancer when it doesn’t. “Is everything we eat associated with cancer?” asked a much noted 2012 paper in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. That paper reviewed the academic studies conducted on common cookbook ingredients. Of the 50 ingredients considered, 40 had been studied for their relation to cancer. Individually, most of those studies found that consumption of the food was correlated with cancer. But when the research on any given ingredient was considered collectively, those effects typically shrank or disappeared. “Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak,” the authors concluded. Although epidemiological studies were critical in proving the dangers of cigarettes, the magnitude of the reported meat risk is much smaller, and it is hard for scientists to rule out statistical confounding as the cause of the apparent danger. Moreover, some skeptics noted that two experiments that tested diets with reduced meat consumption, the Polyp Prevention Trial and the Women’s Health Initiative, found that people who reduced their meat intake did not appear to have a lower cancer risk. It is possible, though, that the reductions in animal flesh were too small to have an effect. “It might be a good idea not to be an excessive consumer of meat,” said Jonathan Schoenfeld, the co-author of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition article and an assistant professor in radiation oncology at Harvard Medical School. “But the effects of eating meat may be minimal, if anything.” Was it wrong that the government steered people away from whole milk for decades? How Coca-Cola has tricked everyone into drinking so much of it What Americans do with fish is shocking Why Americans are falling out of love with one of their favorite fruits Whole milk, butter and eggs are now okay to eat. What's next?

A man in Red Army garb hits the pavement during a simulated attack during a re-staging of part of the Long March. The scene brings alive an extraordinary chapter in China s history that established the supremacy of Chairman Mao Zedong and the Communist Party. Deep in the mountains of Jinggangshan in the southeastern province of Jiangxi, a classroom of bank tellers participates in an ideological boot camp that plays into Chinese President Xi Jinping s drive to further consolidate his grip on power. Jinggangshan is considered the cradle of the Chinese revolution and, in 1927, was the official birthplace of the Red Army, now known as the People s Liberation Army of China. Reliving the revolution, students walk the route of the Long March, a series of retreats by the Red Army, led by Mao, to evade the pursuing Nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek between 1934 and 1935. I can feel the spirit of the revolution, said Wang Pingzhu, a 32-year old garment company employee from the southern province of Fujian. As soon as I got here I could see it along the road. I could imagine the scene at the time, she said. During the three-day course, participants visit historical sites, pledging allegiance to the Communist Party and Xi s dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation ahead of a key party congress next month. I think the Communist Party emphasizes this sort of education, to try to control the thinking of party members and at the same time control a portion of the population who still have faith in the party, so they can support the leadership, said Zhang Lifan, an independent political commentator. In reviving Maoism and courting powerful conservative elements in the party, Xi seeks to remind people that China s dramatic ascent to become the world s second-largest economy was not simply a case of ditching Marx for markets. The Red Culture training camp for private and public sector workers aims to rekindle faith in the founding principles of the party and drown out critics who say it has lost its ideological soul after more than three decades of free-market reforms. Its program fits with Xi s push for patriotic education and ideological control of the people, an agenda he has promoted since coming to power in 2012 and is expected to further build on in October s five-yearly leadership reshuffle. Under the leadership of President Xi, ideological belief education has set off a new wave in China, said Zuo Jianxing, a forestry official in the northern province of Inner Mongolia. Harking back to Mao s time still resonates with some of the population, 41 years after his death. But the fear is that the younger generation of Chinese may be too preoccupied with the fruits of capitalism to care much about Red Culture. That may explain why, five years after taking power, Xi continues to espouse old school Maoism as a way to reassert the primacy of the party. If the Communist Party loses power, they are finished, said political commentator Zhang. (This version of the story refiles to add dateline.)

The best part of the 60 Minutes interview was when Trump told the dumb@@ Leslie Stall this when asked if he would build the wall: What we are going to do is get the people that are criminal and have criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, where a lot of these people, probably 2 million, it could be even 3 million, we are getting them out of our country or we are going to incarcerate, he said in the interview, to air on 60 Minutes But we re getting them out of our country; they re here illegally. Only then, Trump said, will he figure out a plan to deal with the terrific people who are in the U.S. illegally but have otherwise clean criminal histories. Securing the border, he said, is a prerequisite for any other action on immigration One unchanged part of his immigration platform has been his plan for the construction of a wall along America s southern border with Mexico, something he said he would force the Mexican government to pay for by threatening to cut off the flow of money from immigrants to their families south of the border. Trump said Sunday that while an actual wall will be necessary along some portions of the border, a mere fence will suffice in others. I m very good at this; it s called construction, he said.President-elect Donald Trump says the wall on the Mexican border may have fence segments, tonight on #60Minutes: https://t.co/n4ZKu8f3mk pic.twitter.com/bCmtXgcyFh 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) November 13, 2016

@MSharqawii @RitaPanahi @nixiberry we wouldn't go round killing people you filthy arse wipe

On the Monday edition of Breitbart News Daily, broadcast live on SiriusXM Patriot Channel 125 from 6AM to 9AM Eastern, Breitbart Alex Marlow will continue our discussion of President Trump’s first foreign trip. [Dr. Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant to President Trump and author of the bestselling book Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, will discuss Trump’s speech in Riyadh on the issue of Islamic terror. We’ll also hear from Pamela Geller, president of the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and author of The Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America and Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance. Live from London, Rome, and Jerusalem, Breitbart correspondents will provide updates on the latest international news. Breitbart News Daily is the first live, conservative radio enterprise to air seven days a week. SiriusXM Vice President for news and talk Dave Gorab called the show “the conservative news show of record. ” Follow Breitbart News on Twitter for live updates during the show. Listeners may call into the show at: .

Voter identification laws make it complicated and expensive to get an ID, essentially instituting a modern-day poll tax.

Surrogate Mother Compensation

Jennifer Lawrence

The European Union will have to reconsider its Brexit strategy if Britain fails to improve its offers to Brussels significantly by the end of the year, European Council President Donald Tusk said on Tuesday. Effectively ruling out that EU leaders will agree to British demands to open talks on a future free trade pact when Tusk chairs a summit with Prime Minister Theresa May in Brussels next week, he said he still hoped for such a move in December. Responding to renewed suggestions from May s government that Britain could simply leave the EU in March 2019 without a negotiated settlement, Tusk said the EU was not working on a no deal scenario. But he warned that if, by the end of this year, progress was still slow then it would be time to think again. EU negotiators have stepped up contingency planning for a breakdown in talks and warn that time is short to agree even a basic divorce treaty. The more time passes, the less likely they can negotiate the kind of bespoke transition and future close trading relationship that May says she wants. We hear from London that the UK government is preparing for a no deal scenario, Tusk told EU regional leaders in Brussels. The EU is not working on such a scenario. We are negotiating in good faith, and we still hope that the so-called sufficient progress will be possible by December. However, if it turns out that the talks continue at a slow pace, and that sufficient progress hasn t been reached, then together with our UK friends we will have to think about where we are heading. Though Tusk did not specify what that might mean, EU officials say that without agreement to move into a second phase of talks on the future early next year, there will be insufficient time to negotiate much more than a very limited exit treaty. May lent new impetus to negotiations by making concessions in a speech at Florence last month, but a new round of talks in Brussels this week ahead of the summit is not expected to even touch on how much London may pay on Brexit the biggest of three key areas on which the EU demands sufficient progress . The other 27 national leaders could offer May some hope of opening trade and transition talks in December, which could help in her struggle with party rivals pushing for a clean break hard Brexit , diplomats say. But Tusk s warning is an indication that May should not expect the EU to ease up much. This week has seen some sign of public tension. May said on Monday that the ball was in the EU s court to make concessions and the European Commission retorted that it was in Britain s. Pressed further on the sporting metaphor on Tuesday, EU negotiator Michel Barnier told reporters after what he called a constructive lunch with British Brexit Secretary David Davis: Brexit is not a game. Further technical talks among officials were scheduled for Wednesday, as British officials rejected suggestions that they had not been available to negotiate. The day had originally been left blank on the schedule agreed by the two sides.

@TheDailyEdge @marcylauren Good one!

Secretary Of Interior Unveils Plans For New High-Speed Creek WASHINGTON—Calling the $650 million project the “future of America’s pastoral waterways,” Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell unveiled the agency’s plans for a new high-speed creek Thursday that would reportedly connect Weybridge, VT with the adjacent town of Addison. Americans Confused By System Of Government In Which Leader Would Resign After Making Terrible Decision WASHINGTON—In the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron’s announcement that he would leave office following the United Kingdom’s vote to exit the European Union, tens of millions of Americans expressed their confusion to reporters Friday about a system of government in which a leader would resign after making a terrible decision. The Pros And Cons Of Affirmative Action The Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the University of Texas at Austin’s affirmative action program Thursday, reigniting debate over the merits of policies that favor members of groups frequently targeted by discrimination. Here are the pros and cons of affirmative action 47 Weak-Willed Senators Bend To Interests Of Powerful American People WASHINGTON—Saying the closely watched Senate vote clearly demonstrated where the elected officials’ loyalties lay, political observers confirmed that 47 weak-willed lawmakers bent to the interests of the powerful American public Monday by voting in favor of measures that would bar anyone on government terror watchlists from purchasing firearms. Dianne Feinstein Horrified After New Gun Control Bill Disintegrates Immediately Upon Crossing Into Senate Chamber WASHINGTON—Staring down in shock at her empty hands where the piece of legislation had been only seconds earlier, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was reportedly left horrified Monday after her gun control bill disintegrated immediately upon crossing into the Senate chamber. John Kerry Jettisons Russian Henchmen From International Space Station Airlock LOW EARTH ORBIT—Having stowed away aboard a Soyuz resupply rocket and silently slipped into the International Space Station as part of a high-level fact-finding mission, Secretary of State John Kerry reportedly found himself forced to jettison two Russian henchmen from an airlock Monday after being set upon by the thugs in an ambush that resulted in a violent zero-gravity struggle to the death. ‘There Is Beauty In Decay,’ Says Head Of Federal Highway Administration While Surveying Nation’s Crumbling Roads CHICAGO—Inspecting a lengthy fissure cutting across two lanes of U.S. Route 34, Federal Highway Administration head Gregory G. Nadeau told reporters Wednesday that while the nation’s infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, there was “a certain kind of beauty in decay.” CDC Horrified After Discovering Existence Of Thousands Of Public Pools WASHINGTON—Calling the finding an imminent threat to public health nationwide, horrified officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened an emergency press conference Wednesday to announce they had discovered the existence of thousands of public pools throughout the country.

Russian president using lions to ensure people stayed indoors in Russia.

House Speaker Paul Ryan is a snake, a hypocrite, and a weasel. He is also an incredible coward. Part of being a public servant is listening to the people. However, that is definitely not a value that Speaker Ryan shares. On Friday, Planned Parenthood advocates showed up at his Capitol Hill offices, only to be greeted with guards at every turn. It seemed that Ryan and his cronies were expecting the people to show up, sporting their pink I Stand With Planned Parenthood shirts, with boxes and boxes of petitions in tow, signed by tens of thousands of Americans who are demanding answers to Ryan s plans to take away healthcare from millions of American women.When the advocates were blocked by Capitol Hill police, finally a staffer had to escort them to Ryan s office. When they got there, the door was locked and heavily guarded. There was a sign that read, Please knock, only scheduled appointments will be admitted. Since this was Ryan s regular office and not the one reserved for the Speaker of the House whomever that may be at any given time there is no way to know if Ryan himself was there. However, it is reasonable to assume that people were in there, oh, you know working, during the day on a Friday.Finally, after being turned away from Ryan s office, the advocates were allowed into the office of Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI), who fully backs what they were doing. People in that office listened to what they had to say, and they were able to leave their petitions there, and Speaker Ryan will be getting a large delivery later. Here are the photos of the advocates waiting patiently outside Ryan s office:.@SpeakerRyan's office sent 6 security guards to block delivery of 87K #IStandWithPP petitions telling Ryan not to defund Planned Parenthood pic.twitter.com/56QHwhjR2q Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 6, 2017.@SpeakerRyan's office is appointments-only & conveniently closed now right when we came by to drop off thousands of #IStandWithPP petitions pic.twitter.com/wCqOjzZION Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 6, 2017.@SpeakerRyan wouldn't listen to the thousands of people who say #IStandWithPP but #reprohealth champ @RepGwenMoore opened her doors to us! pic.twitter.com/seHrZJoxZw Planned Parenthood (@PPact) January 6, 2017Eric Carthart, who works with Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says of what Ryan did: Paul Ryan may have locked his doors, but he can t drown out our voices, said Eric Carhart of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Millions of women, men and young people, nearly half of whom are people of color, rely on Planned Parenthood for reproductive health care, including nearly 60,000 in Wisconsin. If Paul Ryan is going to take away our health care and the care of millions of people the least he can do is meet us face to face. Paul Ryan should be ashamed of himself. It s his JOB to listen to the taxpaying citizens who pay his salary. He works for us, not the other way around. We will keep fighting. We are not going away. His extreme, draconian, anti-woman agenda will not be tolerated in the United States of America in the year 2017.Featured image via Mark Wilson/Getty Images

@sfpelosi @3ChicsPolitico @DrRickHendrix Black pain is like black unemplymt."They"deserve it.Make it white & the media's sympathy tap opens

The jobs report met expectations for once, and that's good news for stock and bond investors. The U.S. economy added 223,000 jobs in April, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Economists missed by just a whisker: The consensus from Action Economics was 225,000 new jobs. The unemployment rate, at 5.4%, would be the lowest since May 2008. For once, there wasn't much to hate about the jobs report. Stock investors liked the signs of a growing economy. For example, construction added 45,000 jobs, and those are good jobs that pay well. "That's a very good sign for things to come," says Joanie Courtney, senior vice president, market development at Monster.com. And the bond market, which is usually only happy when it rains, rallied on the report as well. The bellwether 10-year Treasury note yield fell to 2.19% in early trading. It wasn't all puppies and unicorns.The March report was revised down strongly, to 85,000 jobs from 126,000. Manufacturing added just 1,000 jobs, and the oil sector lost 3,000 jobs. Because all investment questions these days seem to revolve around when the Federal Reserve will raise interest rates, the April report didn't add much pressure to the Fed to nudge its key fed funds rate higher. You need strong wage increases to create a wage/price spiral, and the 0.1% increase in hourly wages wasn't strong. "I'm surprised we're not seeing more movement in wages," Courtney says. "Usually in a recovery, you start to see more movement." But the April report looks only at hourly wages, and not the wages of salaried workers. For investors, then, the April jobs report was the best of all possible worlds. It showed decent hiring, but nothing so exuberant that would push the Fed to tap the brakes.

President Donald Trump’s dismissal of Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey has raised questions about the future of the agency’s probe into Russian attempts to sway the 2016 presidential election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign. Democrats are worried Comey’s firing on Tuesday could jeopardize the ongoing FBI probe and have renewed calls for an independent investigation. Some Republicans have said that could undermine concurrent investigations underway in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives. Here is what could happen next: * The investigations already underway could continue. Comey’s firing does not necessarily mean the FBI’s investigation into Moscow’s role in the 2016 election will be disrupted or end, legal experts told Reuters. The career FBI staffers Comey put in charge of the probe will likely continue it, even as the search for a new director begins. The parallel inquiries underway in Senate and House committees could likewise progress. * The Justice Department, other federal agencies or the U.S. Congress could conduct independent investigations. The Justice Department could conduct a criminal investigation. But other federal agencies and departments have the power to conduct fact-finding inquiries, according to University of Southern California law professor Sam Erman. Congress could also create a special commission or appoint a special master separate from the committee probes, Erman said. * The Justice Department could appoint a special counsel. Most Democrats have said they prefer the appointment of a special counsel at the Justice Department to oversee the probe since it is the only agency that can bring a criminal case. A law related to the appointment of a special prosecutor lapsed in the 1990s but department regulations provide that the attorney general can appoint a special counsel from outside the federal government. If the attorney general ignores the recommendations of a special counsel, the rules specify that a report must be sent to Congress, according to Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. The attorney general can hire staff to do the job of a special counsel without triggering department rules. This occurred in 2003 when a special counsel investigated the disclosure of the identity of intelligence officer Valerie Plame. * Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would likely appoint a special counsel. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from involvement in Russia-related probes after misstating his own contacts in 2016 with Russia’s ambassador in Washington. Rosenstein would likely appoint a special counsel. Some Democrats, however, have already raised questions about Sessions’ role in advising Rosenstein on Comey’s firing and called for a nonpolitical appointee at the Justice Department to make the special counsel decision. * The appointment of a special counsel would not end the congressional probes. Senate Republicans, including some from leadership, have said a special counsel should not be appointed because it would imperil ongoing congressional probes but a special counsel would not have the authority to demand Congress halt a probe. Criminal probes can at times complicate congressional matters, particularly with witness testimony. But an investigation undertaken by a special counsel would be no different than the one already underway at the FBI. “It wouldn’t interfere any more or any less if a special counsel were appointed,” Levitt said.

On Tuesday, Donald Trump announced the identity of his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch. At first glance, Trump s pick appears to be a typical, hardworking Aryan man who pledges to uphold the Constitution. Unfortunately, he is not the man he pretends to be.The Denver Post notes that Gorsuch is best known for siding against reason and sanity in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. On top of that, he feels that anything related to Christianity including attempts to use the religion as a shield while a bigoted corporation denies women full access to their healthcare options is above secular courts. It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a religious teaching about complicity imposes too much moral disapproval on those only indirectly assisting wrongful conduct, Gorsuch wrote in his opinion. Ultimately, the then conservative-heavy Supreme Court ruled in favor of corporations right to deprive people to healthcare options if they slap a Bible verse next to their explanation of their decision. Gorsuch also sided with a Catholic organization in another anti-Obamacare case. Judge Gorsuch has a record of ruling in a way that does not reflect Colorado values on reproductive rights. This is a pro-choice state that supports the constitutional right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade and the right to privacy enshrined in Griswold v. Connecticut beliefs that are contradicted in Judge Gorsuch s ruling in Hobby Lobby and Little Sisters, Karen Middleton, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado, said following Trump s announcement. Colorado has a long, bipartisan history of supporting reproductive rights. Judge Gorsuch does not reflect the will of our state or the constitutional rights of American women and we would oppose his nomination. It s not just Colorado whose values Gorsuch doesn t reflect. A full 89 percent of Americans say that birth control is morally acceptable, compared to 72 percent who say the same about divorce and 13 percent who are in favor of cloning human. He and Trump may be in the minority, but nevertheless Gorsuch has taken his first step toward a lifetime position where he can continue to push his poisonous views and agenda.It might seem like an attractive idea to hope that Gorsuch will do his job well, but we cannot gamble with a lifetime position. It is up to us as Americans to demand that our elected officials say no to this man, who clearly is unable to think rationally wherever moral issues are concerned.Featured Image via Getty Images/Alex wong

Patrick Henningsen 21st Century WireThe longer this soap opera drags on, it s becoming more and more evident that the Russian government did not hack into the DNC, and Moscow is not feeding John Podesta s emails to Wikileaks. For those who are deeply invested in this now official conspiracy theory, however, this might be a hard pill to swallow. The White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign are now married to the idea that Putin is hacking the US elections. In response, the President is weighing his options tougher economic sanctions, revoking diplomatic status to Russian envoys in the US, or even deploying his newly developed malicious cyber-activity tools.Even VP Joe Biden wants in on the action, threatening Moscow by saying, We re sending a message. We have the capacity to do it. Presumably, he s referring to a cyber counter attack by Washington.It seems that where ever you turn nowadays, someone in Washington is issuing a threat against Russia. Are US-Russian relations really that bad, or does this trend have more to do with the defense industry and power struggles within the US?What was previously a stance reserved for right-wing neoconservative hawks and Cold War hold-outs has now infected America s left-wing, and is a firm plank in the Democratic Party platform, as evidenced by Hillary Clinton s constant anti-Russian rhetoric throughout this 2016 election cycle. Along with the White House, Clinton has now transformed the Democrats into the vanguard of Washington s new anti-Russia movement.On July 27th, Josh Rogin from the Washington Post wrote, The Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. After Trump suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton s private email server it should release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans. Anyone who was paying attention back then knew this Russian hack talking point was purely political, but then again, who s really paying attention these days? Certainly not the US media.You can trace the genesis of the Democratic Party s hardcore anti-Russian strategy back to when President Vladimir Putin made a mild passing remark about Donald Trump s GOP primary success. From that point on, Trump s political opponents saw this as an open target. In their words, comparing one dictator to another. Never one to pass up an opportunity to score cheap political points, President Obama got in on the act, intensifying the Trump-Putin narrative to the level of bromance. If you ve made a career out of idealizing Ronald Reagan, then where were you when your own party s nominee for president was kissing up to Vladimir Putin? said Obama on Oct 20th at a Clinton rally in Miami.Backed by the Obama White House, Clinton and the media felt they had a green light to keep pressing ahead with blaming Russia not only for the controversial DNC leaks, but also for hacking into US election systems in Arizona a charge devoid of any evidence other than innuendo and speculation. The media s coverage on this issue was deceptive from the onset. In a leading news release, entitled, Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system, we can see how after the cock-sure headline, the first paragraph would always sound definitive: Hackers targeted voter registration systems in Illinois and Arizona, and the FBI alerted Arizona officials in June that Russians were behind the assault on the election system in that state. But then by the time you advanced down the story, the report would quickly retreat into a zone of uncertainty: The bureau described the threat as credible and significant, an eight on a scale of one to 10, Matt Roberts, a spokesman for Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R), said Monday. As a result, Reagan shut down the state s voter registration system for nearly a week. And then, down to almost nothing It turned out that the hackers had not compromised the state system or even any county system. They had, however, stolen the username and password of a single election official in Gila County. At no point was any evidence ever given. Only ambiguous statements like, Cyber security officials agree that this looks very much like a Russian government-directed hack. Are American politicians so callous as to tempt geopolitical conflict in order to further their short-term political ambitions? Better yet, has American political life really arrived in such a dark cul de sac (translated in French: bottom of the bag ) where politicians in power are so insecure as to make-up and propagate wild international conspiracy theories in the middle a national election cycle? It s a very depressing prospect, and yet, this is exactly what we are seeing in this 2016 Presidential Election.Behind Clinton s wild hyperbolic rants about the Kremlin and Wikileaks, you will find the White House On October 7th, the Obama Administration formally accused the Russian government of stealing emails from the Democratic National Committee and other high-profile individuals including Hillary Clinton s campaign manager John Podesta giving them to Wikileaks. Soon, there was a queue of national security politicians eager to hitch a ride on this bandwagon. Senator Ben Sasse (NE-R), a member of the Homeland Security Committee spouted out, Russia must face serious consequences. Moscow orchestrated these hacks because [Russian President Vladimir] Putin believes Soviet-style aggression is worth it. The United States must upend Putin s calculus with a strong diplomatic, political, cyber and economic response. According to a Washington Post report by technology editor, Ellen Nakashima, the only evidence that seems to be available on this story is a corporate analysis of the alleged Russian government hacks provided by a US cyber security company called Crowdstrike. No actual specifics are given, so we are meant to take private firm Crowdstrike s word for it.IMAGE: Crowdstrike cyber security.The Post s Nakashima then added: The administration also blamed Moscow for the hack of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and the subsequent leak of private email addresses and cellphone numbers of Democratic lawmakers. An online persona calling himself Guccifer 2.0 has claimed responsibility for posting the material. Those sites and that persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts, the joint statement said. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. Moscow s press secretary s reply: This is some sort of nonsense, said Dmitry Peskov.Despite the constant repetition by Democrat media surrogates, and as CNN s Maria Cardona said last night, no US national intelligence agency has really confirmed that Russia was behind the email hacks and still no evidence, other than speculative guesswork, has been presented.Likewise, US intelligence agencies have never actually said definitively on record that Russia did it, thus, leaving the door open to walk-back the accusation at a later date. Standard Washington procedure of ambiguity. This little detail doesn t seem to matter in this hyperbolic political climate though. It seems that the White House, Hillary Clinton and media operatives like Cardona are quite happy living in what John Kerry recent dubbed as a parallel universe. The announcement, albeit vague, actually originated from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.Still, during the final Presidential debate, Hillary Clinton proudly crowed how 17 US intelligence agencies aka the Intelligence Community all agreed that Russia did it. We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election, said Clinton. I find that deeply disturbing. What s even more disturbing is the fact that Clinton is lying in front of a national audience. The highest levels of the Kremlin? Here are Clinton s 17 agencies :Air Force Intelligence, Army Intelligence, Central Intelligence Agency, Coast Guard Intelligence, Defense Intelligence Agency, Energy Department, Homeland Security Department, State Department, Treasury Department, Drug Enforcement Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Marine Corps Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, Navy Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.What does the Coast Guard Intelligence, National Geospatial Intelligence Agency or the Drug Enforcement Administration know about John Podesta s emails? Answer: nothing.The exact same thing happened following Wikileaks first trove of DNC emails back in July 2016. The US government issued a vague accusatory statement, but would not actually name the culprit. Some might call that propaganda.In both instances, the Obama Administration refused to present any evidence. Translated: there was no evidence. If there had been, the White House would have been shouting from the rooftops and using it as leverage to apply muscle in the UN over Washington s flagging efforts in Syria. Both Obama Administration announcements were nothing more than dog whistles for Democrats and journalists working for hopelessly partisan outlets like New York Times and CNN none of whom have bothered to press the White House for one ounce of evidence pertaining to the Party s decree that Russia is hacking the US election process. If you actually look at the joint DNI-DHS statement issued on the matter, it contains no definitive statement: [the hacks] are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities. According to NSA intelligence worker-turned whistleblower William Binney, when asked about WikiLeaks and whether the Russians are hacking US elections, he concluded that the cyber efforts against the DNC were more likely to be the work of a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker. Under partisan pressure from senior Democrat Senator Harry Reid, the FBI also initiated another investigation into people linked to the Trump team with Russia. Reid was unset about the DNC hacks and the Podesta emails and demanded the FBI do something about the Trump campaign. To date, the FBI haven t come up with anything.To be fair, Hillary would have every reason to believe that the Kremlin is behind the hack because her staff read it to her from the campaign s daily intelligence briefings, presumably, supplied from the US government s much vaunted Intelligence Community. Of course, that s the same Intelligence Community that briefed George W Bush about Saddam s nonexistent nuclear weapons program, and who also briefed Colin Powell about Iraq s imaginary Winnebagos of Death aka mobile anthrax labs disguised as senior double-wide camper vans. So, of course, they would know if Putin directed the DNC leaks and Podesta email hacks.For those us who are skeptical of the great oxymoron known as Washington Intelligence, I can almost hear the mainstream rebuttal now, No, that was Iraq, that was Bush. We re not like that. No, this time it s different. This time we are sure the Russians did it! In 2014, Obama claimed that Kim s notorious Bureau 121 hacked into Sony Pictures. This isn t the first time that President Obama has cried wolf on a foreign hack and then tried to sell it for political purposes. Back in December 2014, Obama claimed that North Korea had hacked Sony Pictures in Hollywood. Pentagon-CIA media proxy CNN quickly chimed in to support Washington s conspiracy theory, floating a colorful story that Kim Jing-Un had deployed a secret underground hacking unit called Bureau 121. Just like with today s Russian Hack theory, no member of the mainstream press dared to question the White House s ridiculous North Korean claim, and like the Russian Hack claims, the only source cited for Sony hack was analysis provided by US firm Crowdstrike.Jumping the SharkAfter their Democratic Party Convention on July 27th, the Clinton campaign machine put all of its chips on their Putin narrative.Soon after, a cadre of top Clinton national security surrogates then accused Trump of emboldening Russia in their evil plot to destabilize and dominate the West. Tom Donilon, a former national security adviser then accused Russia of interfering with elections all over Europe and then accused Trump is helping Russia directly. At that point, they were in too deep to turn back.The biggest impact of @wikileaks? Shining a spotlight on Russia s attempt to undermine American democracy and Trump s refusal to condemn it https://t.co/ALzpYm1Bb5 Josh Schwerin (@JoshSchwerin) October 21, 2016Clinton spin doctors Josh Schwerin and Michael Fallon would stoop even lower by accusing RT of having possession of the Podesta emails even before Wikileaks did. Their only evidence seemed to be Twitter posts by RT News which Clinton held up as proof that the Kremlin was front-running Wikileaks email dumps. The Clinton braintrust failed to note that the Podesta emails were posted on Wikileaks own website well before RT News had tweeted about them. At that point it became obvious that the Clinton campaign was panicking and hysterically grabbing for any excuse they could get their hands on. We then watched, as one RT reporter after another dismantled the Clinton campaign s desperate claims. It was embarrassing.They could not face the uncomfortable fact that it was WikiLeaks head Julian Assange who chose the timing of the release of the DNC and Podesta emails. Rather than attack Assange himself, who happens to be popular with millennials (the very group Clinton struggles to connect with), her operatives opted to target Russia and Trump instead.Either way, the political strategy here is clear to shoot the messenger. The Clinton campaign is stuck in permanent rear-guard mode, because based on the content of both the DNC Leaks, Wikileaks files, and Project Veritas video their own Democratic Party has been discredited and exposed as a corrupt political organization.Their other big problem is that despite all the outrage from Democrats and their mainstream media surrogates, none of the leaked content has been challenged on the basis of its authenticity. The results speak for themselves. The initial DNC leak of 20,000 emails resulted in the resignation of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. They revealed the unthinkable: the Democratic National Committee actively worked to undermine the Presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders in favor of the establishment choice in Hillary Clinton. Sanders never had a chance. Honest commentators called this an affront to the democratic process, while party insiders and Clinton supporters pretended to be aloof as if it never happened.To prove this point, both President Obama and Hillary Clinton then gave Wasserman-Schultz a glowing endorsement on the way out. For the last eight years, Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz has had my back. This afternoon, I called her to let her know that I am grateful, said Obama. Not surprisingly, Clinton thanked Wasserman Schultz, presumably for helping to knock her only competitor Sanders out of the Democrat primary race. I am grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year s historic convention in Philadelphia, and I know that this week s events will be a success thanks to her hard work and leadership, said Clinton.The party had sold its soul to devil and no one seemed to care too much about it.Party MeltdownWasserman Schultz s replacement didn t fair much better. DNC Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile was installed to serve as interim chair through the remainder election, but Brazile was soon skewered by subsequent Wikileaks batches showing how, on more than one occasion, she fed debate questions obtained from corrupt mainstream media operatives straight to Hillary Clinton. A March 12 email exchange shows Brazile stating that she received a town hall question from Roland Martin, a TV One host who co-moderated a March 13 town hall with CNN s Jake Tapper. A March 5 email shows that she shared a question with Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications director Jennifer Palmieri that was to be asked in a March 6 debate hosted by CNN in Flint, Mich. (Source: Daily Caller)Brazile s audacious fraud also helped contribute to her party s planned sabotage of Democrat challenger Bernie Sanders. Watch Brazile go into full meltdown when confronted here: In addition, it was also revealed how CNN s head political commentator, Gloria Borger, was named by Podesta as one of a shortlist of journalists the Clinton campaign would work with to gain favorable coverage. You d think that CNN would have dropped Borger after this was revealed, but no. Amazingly, Borger is still leading CNN s election coverage.Clearly, CNN cannot be trusted to police itself when it comes to matters of outright collusion with Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.Ever-unbiased CNN's Gloria Borger refers to being in "GOP hell" and says she'll "reach out soon" to Podesta. Heart-warming #PodestaEmails13 pic.twitter.com/CQFdcJ12Q5 400-lb Hacker Owens (@NubianAwakening) October 21, 2016Worse Than WatergatePerhaps a bigger scandal which the Obama White House and Clinton campaign operatives would like to bury is the FBI s investigation into the Clinton Foundation. Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal confirmed the existence of an internal feud between the FBI and the Justice Department, over whether or not to pursue an investigation into Clinton issue: Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case. It isn t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundation show the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president. There s more. It was also revealed last week how Jill McCabe, the wife of FBI Deputy Director, Andrew McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 for her Virginia State Senate run. This unusually large donation came via a political action committee run by Virginia Gov.Terry McAuliffe a Clinton Foundation board member. After the funds were donated, Andrew McCabe was then put in charge of the Clinton Email case. In normal times, this one scandal would be bigger than Watergate, but these are not normal times.So why is Washington going all out to deflect to Russia, and cover-up the Clinton scandals, and the Wikileaks document dumps? One reason is because the Clinton email issue goes all the way to the top to the President himself.What 21WIRE reported on Oct 21st is how President Obama lied when first confronted about whether or not he knew about the existence of Hillary s unauthorized private server. Obama told CBS News on March 7, 2015 that he only found out about Clinton s server the same time everybody else learned it through news reports. The President s lie was confirmed when newly released FBI documents showed that: Obama used a pseudonym [bobama@ameritech.net] when communicating with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by email, and at least one of those emails ended up on Clinton s private email server. So, not only did Obama lie on national TV, but he also broke strict White House security protocols by carelessly exchanging private emails off grid with Hillary Clinton on a unsecured and unauthorized mail server maybe to avoid the same scrutiny one would have on a government system. Who knows why he did it.Sure, he s not the first US President to lie, but like, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, Obama just joined that exclusive liars club caught out lying to the American people.On top of this, any communications made by the President of the United States are de facto labeled as born classified. The same goes for any State Department communications with other foreign ministers. COVER-UP: John Podesta and Huma Abedin on the Hillary campaign jet (Image: ABC News)It should be well known by now after watching both Attorney Generals Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch in action that the Obama Justice Department (DOJ) is one of the most politicized in history. Bear that in mind when looking at the latest leg of the Hillary Email case.On Friday, FBI Director James Comey set the election alight after announcing that the FBI would be reopening the Clinton email case currently examining 650,000 emails found while investigating a laptop belonging to former US Congressman Anthony Weiner (estranged husband of top Clinton aid and long-time confidant Huma Abedin) who was snared in a sexting scandal, allegedly involving a underaged female. So which DOJ person is in charge of this investigation? None other than Assistant Attorney General Peter J. Kadzik. Who is Kadzik? Zero Hedge reports: Oh yes. Recall our post from last week, Clinton Campaign Chair Had Dinner With Top DOJ Official One Day After Hillary s Benghazi Hearing in which we reported that John Podesta had dinner with one of the highest ranked DOJ officials the very day after Hillary Clinton s Benghazi testimony? It was Peter Kadzik. Oh, and if that wasn t good enough, Kadzik was also Podesta s lawyer back in 1998 when Ken Starr was investigating Podesta over his role in helping Bill Clinton intern/mistress Monica Lewinsky land a job at the United Nations. The two were described as best friends. FOX News confirms: Fantastic lawyer. Kept me out of jail, Podesta wrote on Sept. 8, 2008 to Obama aide Cassandra Butts, according to emails hacked from Podesta s Gmail account and posted by WikiLeaks.To call the Clinton circle incestuous would be an understatement, and on the whole, Americans are sick of it.Russia The Party ScapegoatFormer Democratic Party leader Howard Dean was so incensed about the FBI reopening the case, he accused the FBI director of being in league with Russia, Tweeting: Ironically Comey put himself on the same side as Putin. Ironically Comey put himself on the same side as Putin. Howard Dean (@GovHowardDean) October 29, 2016Another veteran party operative and lifetime Clinton defender, James Carville, was so upset by the FBI announcement that he accused the KGB working with Republicans to hijack the election during his wild rant on MSNBC. I think this an outrage and I think the fact that the KGB is involved in this election is an outrage and I think the American people ought to take their democracy back regardless of what the press wants to do and the excuses they want to make for Comey. That s what I think, said Carville.Maybe someone can remind Carville that there is no KGB, and that the Soviet Union actually dissolved in 1991.These are just a few scandals surrounding the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, along with the many expos s revealed through Wikileaks, and the Podesta email batches. Those are actual scandals with real tangible evidence unlike the Russians hacking the DNC and John Podesta and passing those to Wikileaks. Suffice to say, the Democratic Party machine has already demonstrated that it is prepared to say anything in order to deflect and divert attention away from the damning Wikileaks material, and also blame Donald Trump in the process. It should be obvious by now that in their desperation to push a highly comprised Hillary Clinton over the finish line on November 8th, the Washington establishment has concocted the story that Putin is trying to influence our electoral process in the US. They ve tried to lay this at the feet of Donald Trump, who Obama and Clinton claim has some secret special relationship with Vladimir Putin. The liberal mainstream media have made a meal out of this talking point, and anti-Russian war hawks on the Republican side love it too. For the White House and the Clinton campaign this seemed like the ultimate clean sweep a perfect double entendre.The geopolitical strategy behind this move was twofold. First, this non event would be used to advance immediate calls for sanctions against Russia. Secondly, the US could continue to lean on Russia in the UN over Syria. Previously, 21WIRE reported how Washington s State Dept and UN delegations, led by the dynamic trio of John Kerry, Samantha Power, and John Kirby, already lied when levelling charges against Russia for war crimes in Aleppo, and again while accusing Russia and Syria of conducting an airstrike on a UN Aid Convoy in Syria. As we have already shown that raid was most likely a ground attack carried out of US-backed rebels Al Nusra Front, or Nour al-Din al-Zenki.With so much at stake geopolitically, why would Washington lie about a potential World War III trigger event? If they are prepared to lie about this, what else are they prepared to lie about?The demonization of all things Russian has definitely accelerated since late 2013 when the US engineered a coup d etat in Kiev, Ukraine. Ever since that it s been a go-to talking point for ginning-up and new transaltlantic arms race, as with Republican war hawks and a convenient scapegoat for any politician requiring misdirection, like Clinton and the Democrats. When the new year rang in 2015, the newly appointed head of the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, Andrew Lack, announced the new challenges facing America s own state-run media arm that includes U.S. overseas propaganda assets including Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks and Radio Free Asia. Lack said, We are facing a number of challenges from entities like Russia Today which is out there pushing a point of view, the Islamic State in the Middle East and groups like Boko Haram, He was forced to resign shortly after that.What s clear is that when it comes to all things Russian, there is an established pattern of compulsive lying by this US Administration. The list is too long to chronicle here, although Russian-backed Rebles Shootting Down MH17, and Assad Regime Sarin Attack in Damascus in 2013 certainly comes to mind.That said, it s hard to imagine a lie as egregious and potentially destructive than one which accuses the Russia government, a world nuclear power and member of the UNSC, of Hacking Into the US Electoral Process. When you examine history however, what you will find is plenty of evidence documenting exactly how the US government and the CIA have altered and flipped 100 foreign elections throughout history, the attempted assassination of over 50 foreign leaders. Knowing all this, one might find it hard to take seriously Washington s claims that Putin and Trump are trying manipulate the 2016 ElectionOn Oct 9, 2016, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov laid it all on the table: We have witnessed a fundamental change of circumstances when it comes to the aggressive Russophobia that now lies at the heart of U.S. policy towards Russia. It s not just a rhetorical Russophobia, but aggressive steps that really hurt our national interests and pose a threat to our security. Self-serving, career political operatives in Washington are playing a dangerous game. History will mark this as one of the biggest political follies of the Obama-Clinton era.Knowing what we now know about the NSA and its ability to hack and grab any email or text message from anyone, anywhere if Washington really wanted to know where the hacks came from, maybe they could start there. Far be it from anyone in Washington or the media to ever adopt that line of inquiry.Still, we re waiting for the emergence of an adult in the room in Washington before it s too late.READ MORE ELECTION NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire 2016 FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

**Want FOX News First in your inbox every day? Sign up here.** Buzz Cut: • The Edge: Cruz, Trump get media attention post-Paris • Trump touts government registry of Muslims • Hillary: Muslims ‘have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism’ • Can security focus save Vitter? • So you’re saying it could have gone better… THE EDGE: CRUZ, TRUMP GET MEDIA ATTENTION POST-PARIS Among top-tier GOP presidential contenders, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, saw the least drop off in media coverage in the week since the Islamist raid in Paris. Not all media attention is helpful, but you can’t run for president without it. And when major news happens, like the wall-to-wall coverage of the Paris attacks, candidates struggle to be heard above the roar. That’s one of the reasons we bring you The Edge. The Edge is a one-of-a-kind measurement from the New Analytics Company that “scrubs” television, radio, print, internet and social media for mentions of the 2016 candidates. The team at New Analytics has built unique tool to measure which candidates are being talked about the most and the data are compiled into a single score and provided to Fox News First. Every candidate saw a drop in coverage from the week before when the Fox Business Network/WSJ debate was driving the discussion, but some managed to still get into the conversation more than others. Here are their rankings for media mentions this week, with their decline from last week in brackets. You can view the full results here. AT LAST, A REAL POLL! After a two-week drought in national Republican primary polling that covered not just the fourth GOP debate and the most significant Islamist attack in the West in a decade, Bloomberg has finally delivered the goods.  And… not much seems to have changed. The poll mirrors the last useful national survey, which was taken by Fox News at the beginning of the month before the debate and attacks. Donald Trump leads with 24 percent of the vote, but close behind is Ben Carson with 20 percent. Then come Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz with 12 percent and 9 percent respectively. The rest are, well, the rest. There are some takeaways, though: Trump tops Carson on foreign policy and leadership but Carson tops Trump on questions of character. Carson leads Trump with two key GOP demographic groups: Southerners and Christian conservatives. Rubio bests Cruz on most attribute qualities, including a 19-point advantage on “presidential temperament.” Trump touts government registry of Muslims - WaPo: “Donald Trump said Thursday the United States should create a database of Muslims in the country. ‘Oh, I would certainly implement that — absolutely,’ Trump said in a brief interview with NBC News following a town hall event in Iowa on Thursday evening. …  When directly asked Thursday evening by NBC reporter Vaughn Hillyard about the possibility of a database of Muslims, Trump agreed with the idea, using the words ‘certainly’ and ‘absolutely.’ But when asked again about this database by a swarm of reporters later in the night, Trump acted confused. ‘What? Why are you asking me that question?’ Trump said to one reporter following a rally. Trump then ignored a wave of follow-up questions. ‘Where did you hear that?’ he said to another reporter. ‘I don't know where you heard that.’” Rubio’s ObamaCare bailout blocker hits home - A little-discussed provision from Sen. Marco Rubio in a federal funding bill last year may have dealt a devastating blow to ObamaCare. Rubio’s measure to clamp down on what conservatives call insurance “bailouts” but the law calls “risk corridors” to help big insurance with higher costs under ObamaCare seems to have landed on its intended target. The White House downplayed the possible consequences, arguing that the mechanism wouldn’t be necessary anyway because of the success of the law. But with enrollments, especially of healthy customers, lagging, America’s largest health insurer UnitedHealth says it may stop selling ObamaCare policies in the face of forecast losses of $500 million for next year. [Rubio joins “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace” this weekend. The show airs at 2 p.m. and 6 p.m. ET on the Fox News Channel. Check local listings for broadcast times in your area.] “We know that ISIS is deliberately using the refugee crisis to insert fighters into Europe. Why wouldn't they do the same in the United States?” – Sen. Marco Rubio on “The Kelly File.” Watch here. POWER PLAY: CRUZ AND RUBIO HAVE AT IT The open conflict between Sen. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio has happened sooner and with more intensity than may predicted. What’s next? The Weekly Standard’s Daniel Halper and Brendan Bordelon of National Review share their forecasts on “Power Play with Chris Stirewalt.” WATCH HERE. [No luv for the guvs - Despite great expectations, GOP governors have been a flop in the 2016 stakes. Stirewalt asks Halper and Bordelon what happened and why. WATCH HERE.] CARLY: BOMBS NOT BOOTS FBN: “Hillary Clinton might support boots on the ground, but Carly Fiorina explained why she’s not ready to send 10,000 troops to the Middle East just yet, during an interview with the FOX Business Network’s Stuart Varney. ‘…The false choice that Obama presents to the American people is, if you don’t agree with what I am not doing, then the only option is tens of thousands of boots on the ground. It’s simply false,’ she said. She criticized the Obama administration for not supplying Middle East allies with support sooner. ‘We’ve had a fairly effective bombing campaign over the last couple of days. Why haven’t we been doing that for a year and a half? Because we’ve had politically expedient rules of engagement, that’s why. Why haven’t we provided the Jordanians with the bombs and material for their air force [that] they’ve asked us for?’” [The super PAC supporting Fiorina, CARLY for America, snagged Rick Perry alum Lexi Stemple Swearingen as its senior communications adviser.] WITH YOUR SECOND CUP OF COFFEE… The trials of Nazi leaders for war crimes began in Nuremburg, Germany 70 years ago today. It was a pivot point in Western history in which “crimes against humanity” would be addressed by the victorious side in a war rather than either rough justice at the end of a rope or unaccountability as part of a treaty. The America idea was that offenders would be fairly tried before they were sent to the gallows. But following proper protocols meant that the accused prisoners would have to be afforded access to clergy. But who would sign up to minister to some of the most despicable creatures in history? Author Tim Townsend shares the story of a pastor and a priest who brought their faith’s message of grace and mercy to the most hated men in the world. HILLARY: MUSLIMS ‘HAVE NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH TERRORISM’ When it comes to theology, politicians are pretty dire. When it comes to the theology of Islam, American politicians are the pits. Good intentions have led many astray since the start of the current war with Islamist militants. President Obama has been one of the prime offenders, often expounding on what Islam really is and isn’t. The president took plenty of heat for his head-snapping claim last year that the Islamic State is “not Islamic.” Wanting neither to dignify ISIS as a legitimate power nor to suggest that there is any clash between the Islam and the West, Obama runs in circles. The West is not at war with Islamists, therefore the Islamists with which the West is at war must not really be Muslims. Poof. The relative merits of an enemy’s theology would seem to be no matter for an American president’s attention, but it has become a gag reflex for Democrats when confronted with escalations of the ongoing struggle. Which brings us to Hillary Clinton, United Methodist, presumptive Democratic nominee and, now, amateur theologian and sociologist. In her speech calling for an escalation of the war against ISIS, Clinton explained who Muslims are. “Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people,” she said. “And have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.” Good luck with the base, Hillary! - WaPo: “A 32-hour protest about the racial climate at Princeton ended Thursday night when the president and students reached an agreement that included consideration of the idea of renaming the university’s storied Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.” [#mediabuzz - Host Howard Kurtz breaks down all the latest on coverage of the Paris attacks and the political consequences with guests including Mary Katherine Ham. Watch “#mediabuzz” Sunday at 11 a.m. ET, with a second airing at 5 p.m.] CAN SECURITY FOCUS SAVE VITTER? Democrats are hoping that a late turn toward national security doesn’t upend their chances for a rare Southern statewide victory. Louisiana voters head to the polls election runoff Saturday after a brutal battle for the governor’s mansion between Democrat John Bel Edwards and Republican Sen. David Vitter. Edwards seemed to be cruising to the finish line powered a vicious attack ad aimed at Vitter’s involvement in a 2008 prostitution scandal. Debates have been a bloodbath with Edwards and Vitter calling each other liars before a heckling crowd in their final faceoff on Tuesday. But the focus in the state, as elsewhere, has turned to current national security concerns after the Paris attacks and Vitter is seizing on the Syrian refugee issue to tie Edwards to President Obama’s ISIS woes. A PAC backing Vitter is running a chilling ad that points to Edwards partnering with Obama, noting refugees have already been relocated in the state and the risks of a new influx to Louisiana. Come Saturday, the party hopes the focus on current issues translates into a redo of the outcome in Kentucky’s gubernatorial race last month, where what was predicted to be a close contest turned out to be a resounding victory for Republican Matt Bevin. Vitter’s challenge seems to be substantially greater, however. There’s been a dearth of reliable polling and runoffs pose special challenges on turnout models, but a University of New Orleans poll taken a week after the Oct. 24 primary election showed Edwards with a 22 point lead. Early snapshot - WSJ: “Early voting has jumped significantly in Louisiana’s race for governor—up 58% compared to 2011—giving Democrats some reasons for cautious optimism in a race with national implications. By any modern political calculus, it’s the Republican, U.S. Sen. David Vitter, who should win when voters go to the polls on Saturday.” Draw! - NYT: “[I]n Mississippi…a mathematically improbable tie in a State House of Representatives race has triggered a state statute that calls for the winner to be determined ‘by lot.’’ On Friday the two candidates, the Democratic incumbent, Blaine Eaton II, and his Republican challenger, Mark Tullos, will meet in Jackson, the state capital, and draw straws to determine the victor. In a vote tallied earlier this month, each candidate received exactly 4,589 votes.” SO YOU’RE SAYING IT COULD HAVE GONE BETTER… WMUR: “A crane crashed through the roof of a Merrimack home Thursday where workers were cutting trees. The owner of the house on Turkey Hill Road said she hired Healey Tree Works to cut down 20 trees on her property. The crew was cutting down the last tree when the crane hit a septic tank in the backyard, which opened a sinkhole. The crane toppled over and smashed into the roof of the home, where two people were inside. The people inside weren't hurt, but a worker was left dangling from the tree. When the operator tried to move the crane, the climber was injured when it hit his foot. The injured climber was taken to a nearby hospital. The homeowner said she has owned the house for 28 years but never knew about the second septic system that caused the problem.” Chris Stirewalt is the digital politics editor for Fox News. Want FOX News First in your inbox every day? Sign up here. Chris Stirewalt joined Fox News Channel (FNC) in July of 2010 and serves as digital politics editor based in Washington, D.C.  Additionally, he authors the daily "Fox News First" political news note and hosts "Power Play," a feature video series, on FoxNews.com. Stirewalt makes frequent appearances on the network, including "The Kelly File," "Special Report with Bret Baier," and "Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace."  He also provides expert political analysis for Fox News coverage of state, congressional and presidential elections.

Says if we do nothing and continue to let Obamacare siphon off that $700 billion dollars off the top of it, Medicare goes away in less than 10 years -- certain accounts of it -- and it just falls apart at the seams.

@thejenwilkinson @Sophie_Choudry Eh....i never said all Muslims were terrorists...don't twist things. I have Muslim friends !

By Jason Easley on Sun, Oct 30th, 2016 at 2:37 pm Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace tried to blame Hillary Clinton for the email scandal that Republicans created and got destroyed by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook. Share on Twitter Print This Post Fox News Sunday’s Chris Wallace tried to blame Hillary Clinton for the email scandal that Republicans created and got destroyed by Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook. This exchange between Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace and Clinton campaign manager Robbie Mook highlighted why the email scandal isn’t working for the GOP. Video: Transcript via Fox News Sunday: WALLACE: The last question I want to ask you is that you’re acting as if it was the director who brought this into the election when the fact is that it was Hillary Clinton who brought this into the election. I want to go back to the e-mail exchange on March 2nd, 2015, when The New York Times broke the story about Hillary Clinton using private e-mails. We’re going to put it up on the screen. Clinton adviser Neera Tanden, “Why didn’t they get the stuff out like 18 months ago? So crazy.” Campaign chairman John Podesta, “Unbelievable.” Tanden, “I guess I know the answer, they wanted to get away with it.” Robby, it was Clinton who delayed and it was Clinton who brought this into the presidential campaign. MOOK: And it is Secretary Clinton who has said this was a mistake. It is Secretary Clinton who cooperated fully with the investigation. And it was Secretary Clinton who accepted the outcome of that investigation. And what secretary Clinton is doing now is saying, if there’s new information, get it out on the table. Let’s get it out. These could be duplicates. Again, it’s been reported these e-mails may not have been sent or received by Secretary Clinton. We don’t know anything. And this close to an election, this unprecedented announcement of new information, when – when, again, it’s been reported by Yahoo! News that – that the FBI may have not even seen it. That – that – that Director Comey sent this unprecedented letter shortly before the election when he doesn’t even know what the information is. That’s disturbing. And we’re just asking him, get everything out there that he knows. Fox News has no evidence of wrongdoing on the part of Clinton, so they have been reduced to whining about why she didn’t release the emails sooner. What Wallace left out was that the release of Clinton’s emails represented an unprecedented level of disclosure. Hillary Clinton didn’t cause this email scandal. House Republicans misused their Benghazi Select Committee to go on a fishing expedition for Hillary Clinton’s emails. Robbie Mook destroyed Fox News with facts, because unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton hasn’t worked to keep information hidden from the public. Trump has not released his tax returns, medical records, or an accounting of his business dealings with Russia. Trump has been the least transparent nominee in more than 40 years. Republicans and conservative media are blaming Clinton for the scandal that they created as justification for continuing the investigations of her after the election. Clinton’s campaign manager was able to wipe the floor with the Republican talking points because at the end of the day the email scandal remains a conspiracy about nothing.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In Friday’s speech laying out his strategy toward Iran and his decision not to certify it is complying with the 2015 nuclear agreement, U.S. President Donald Trump made a series of statements that analysts questioned. Trump said he might terminate the deal under which Iran agreed to curb its disputed nuclear program in return for the lifting of economic sanctions, and laid out a more aggressive approach to counter Iran’s ballistic missile programs and its support for militant groups. Below are some of Trump’s controversial comments, along with analysis of their basis in fact. TRUMP: “The previous administration lifted these sanctions, just before what would have been the total collapse of the Iranian regime, through the deeply controversial 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.” Several foreign policy analysts said there was no reason to believe that the government of Iran, whose economy suffered from economic sanctions that targeted its oil industry, was close to falling apart. “There is no evidence that I’ aware of that would suggest that regime was on the verge of collapse,” said Michael Singh, an expert with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who served on Republican President George W. Bush’s National Security Council staff. “The sanctions were having a pretty strong impact on the Iranian economy. Especially because of the oil sanctions, you had a real contraction of Iranian economy,” he said. “But saying anything beyond that is a matter of speculation.” In fact, Singh argued, the pressure brought on Tehran from international sanctions “could actually help to unite factions within Iran” and thereby strengthen its rulers. TRUMP: “The nuclear deal threw Iran’s dictatorship a political and economic lifeline, providing urgently needed relief from the intense domestic pressure the sanctions had created. It also gave the regime an immediate financial boost and over $100 billion its government could use to fund terrorism.”     The $100 billion, in fact, already belonged to Iran and represented foreign assets blocked by sanctions. It was unfrozen with the lifting of international sanctions under the deal, formally called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). But, experts said that Tehran would see only a fraction of that sum because of debts it owed, including $20 billion to China for infrastructure projects. Various estimates put the actual amount Tehran received at between $60 and $35 billion. In addition, roughly $1.7 billion was handed over to Iran that stemmed from an uncompleted arms deal between the United States and the government of the late Shah, which paid a $400 million deposit before being toppled in Iran’s 1979 revolution. The remaining $1.3 billion represented interest owed on the $400 million, according to U.S. officials, who used the money as leverage to obtain the release of five U.S. citizens held in Iran. The Obama administration repaid the deposit with pallets of cash delivered by aircraft. ON IRAN HAVING MADE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF THE NUCLEAR DEAL TRUMP: “The Iranian regime has committed multiple violations of the agreement. For example, on two separate occasions, they have exceeded the limit of 130 metric tons of heavy water. Until recently, the Iranian regime has also failed to meet our expectations in its operation of advanced centrifuges.” The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog charged with monitoring the deal, says that Tehran is in full compliance – a judgment the Trump administration twice previously affirmed - and that “nuclear-related commitments undertaken by Iran under the JCPOA are being implemented.” “At present, Iran is subject to the world’s most robust nuclear verification regime,” IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano said in a statement after Trump’s speech.  Iran has exceeded the 130-metric-ton cap on its heavy water stockpile and run more advanced centrifuges – the devices that purify uranium – than permitted by the deal and arguably exceeded the limits on its low-riched uranium supply. But experts say that Iran quickly corrected all of the infractions and, most importantly, argued that Iran had not committed a deal-rupturing “material breach.” “Multiple violations is an exaggeration. There are very few actual violations,” said Robert Einhorn, a nonproliferation expert who worked at the State Department under former President Barack Obama and is now at the Brookings Institution think tank. “They sought to exploit any ambiguity in the text, but when they did that the United States pushed back and a reasonable outcome was reached in every case,” he said.

Says food stamp growth, while high, lagged the rise in unemployment.

@laflare_corleon @JacquelineHine1 @corruptcopsTX They shoot a black kid in the back and then try to intimidate the crowd. F*ck police!

Crimea has not been annexed by Moscow. On the contrary, for the first time in the history of mankind, it joined Russia following and respecting all the norms and rules of international law.

HERE S THE BACKGROUND:On January 11, 2017, the media reported on the existence of a private intelligence dossier containing unverified allegations of misconduct and ties between then President-elect Donald Trump and the Russian government. The dossier was written by a former British MI6 intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, who went into hiding after the release of the dossier.The media and the intelligence community have stressed that accusations in the dossier have not been verified. Most experts treated the dossier with skepticism and caution. Trump himself has denounced the report, calling it fake news and phony. A Russian government spokesman dismissed the dossier, saying its allegations were false.The document alleges that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) has kompromat on Trump damaging or embarrassing material which could be used to blackmail him, including allegations about Trump s sexual and financial activities in Russia. The dossier also states that the Russian government promoted Trump s candidacy to create divisions in Western alliances, and that during his presidential campaign there was exchange of information between Russian sources and people associated with Trump s campaign.The dossier was produced as part of opposition research during the 2016 United States presidential election. The research was initially funded by Republicans who did not want Trump to be the Republican Party nominee for president. After Trump won the primaries, a Democratic client took over the funding; and, following Trump s election, Steele continued working on the report pro bono.In a Monday letter to FBI Director James Comey, Grassley asked for records pertaining to any agreements the agency may have had with Christopher Steele. The MI6 agent wrote an explosive memo on behalf of Trump s political enemies alleging that the Russians had compromising information on the president.Comey briefed Trump on the existence of the memo in a private meeting in January.Shortly after, several news organizations published the unverified allegations, which the White House denied.In late February, The Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement with Steele whereby the British spy would continue his investigation on behalf of the bureau.Read more The Hill

Turkey intends to open an embassy in East Jerusalem, President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday, days after leading calls at a summit of Muslim leaders for the world to recognize it as the capital of Palestine. It was not clear how he would carry out the move, as Israel controls all of Jerusalem and calls the city its indivisible capital. Palestinians want the capital of a future state they seek to be in East Jerusalem, which Israel took in a 1967 war and later annexed in a move not recognized internationally. The Muslim nation summit was a response to U.S. President Donald Trump s Dec. 6 decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel s capital. His move broke with decades of U.S. policy and international consensus that the city s status must be left to Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. Erdogan said in a speech to members of his AK Party in the southern province of Karaman that Turkey s consulate general in Jerusalem was already represented by an ambassador. God willing, the day is close when officially, with God s permission, we will open our embassy there, Erdogan said. Jerusalem, revered by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, is home to Islam s third holiest shrine as well as Judaism s Western Wall

The Hill: Op-Ed: Go natural, go nuclear

Proof that George Clooney's Dog Is the Luckiest in the World

WASHINGTON — Days after Islamist militants stormed the American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012, Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn reached a conclusion that stunned some of his subordinates at the Defense Intelligence Agency: Iran had a role in the attack, he told them. Now, he added, it was their job to prove it — and, by implication, to show that the White House was wrong about what had led to the attack. Mr. Flynn, whom Donald J. Trump has chosen to be his national security adviser, soon took to pushing analysts to find Iran’s hidden hand in the disaster, according to current and former officials familiar with the episode. But like many other investigations into Benghazi, theirs found no evidence of any links, and the general’s stubborn insistence reminded some officials at the agency of how the Bush administration had once relentlessly sought to connect Saddam Hussein and Iraq to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Years before Mr. Flynn met Mr. Trump, his brief tenure running the Defense Intelligence Agency foreshadowed some of the same qualities he has exhibited more recently as he has plunged into politics and controversy as a key campaign adviser to Mr. Trump, who shared his desire to usurp what he viewed as Washington’s incompetent and corrupt elite. Many of those who observed the general’s time at the agency described him as someone who alienated both superiors and subordinates with his sharp temperament, his refusal to brook dissent, and what his critics considered a conspiratorial worldview. Those qualities could prove problematic for a national security adviser, especially one who will have to mediate the conflicting views of cabinet secretaries and agencies for a president with no experience in defense or foreign policy issues. Traditionally, the job has gone to a Washington veteran: Condoleezza Rice, for instance, or Thomas E. Donilon. The new job will give Mr. Flynn, 57, nearly unfettered access to the Oval Office. Whether it is renewed bloodletting in Ukraine, a North Korean nuclear test or a hurricane swamping Haiti, he will often have the last word with Mr. Trump about how the United States should react. For Mr. Flynn, serving as the president’s chief adviser on defense and foreign policy matters, represents a triumphal return to government after being dismissed as agency director in 2014 after two years there. Heading the agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm, was supposed to be the capstone of a storied career. Through tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Mr. Flynn had built a reputation as a brash and outspoken officer with an unusual talent for unraveling terrorist networks, and both his fiercest critics and his outspoken supporters praise his work from those wars. In numerous interviews and speeches over the past year, Mr. Flynn, who did not respond to requests for comment for this article, has maintained that he was forced out as director for refusing to toe the Obama administration’s line that Al Qaeda was in retreat. The claim has made the general something of a cult figure among many Republicans. “D. I. A. has always been a problem child and it remains that way,” said Representative Devin Nunes, the California Republican who is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a member of Mr. Trump’s transition team. “Flynn tried to get in there and fix things and he was only given two years until they ran him out because they didn’t like his assessment. ” The congressman added: “They didn’t have an excuse to fire him, so they made it up. Nobody has been able to fix that place. ” But others say he was forced out for a relatively simple reason: He failed to effectively manage a sprawling, largely civilian bureaucracy. At the agency, “Flynn surrounded himself with loyalists. In implementing his vision, he moved at light speed, but he didn’t communicate effectively,” said Douglas H. Wise, deputy director from 2014 until he retired in August. “He didn’t tolerate it well when subordinates didn’t move fast enough,” he said. “As a senior military officer, he expected compliance and didn’t want any pushback. ” Founded in 1961, the Defense Intelligence Agency has long been in the shadow of the Central Intelligence Agency, and with the end of the Cold War it lost its primary mission of collecting and analyzing information about the Soviet military. Strained by a decade of conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, it was performing an uncertain role within the constellation of American spy agencies when Mr. Flynn arrived at headquarters in . The agency’s system of human intelligence collection was perceived as largely broken. The effort to rebuild it was underway when Mr. Flynn took control in 2012, but he made it immediately known that he had a dim view of the agency’s recent performance. During a tense gathering of senior officials at an retreat, he gave the assembled group a taste of his leadership philosophy, according to one person who attended the meeting and insisted on anonymity to discuss classified matters. Mr. Flynn said that the first thing everyone needed to know was that he was always right. His staff would know they were right, he said, when their views melded to his. The room fell silent, as employees processed the lecture from their new boss. Current and former employees said Mr. Flynn had trouble adjusting his style for an organization with a work force that was 80 percent civilian. He was used to a strict military chain of command, and was at times uncomfortable with the that is common among intelligence analysts. Some also described him as a Captain character, paranoid that his staff members were undercutting him and credulous of conspiracy theories. At times, the general also exhibited what a number of officials described as on the larger strategic challenges confronting the nation. The most glaring example came in early March 2014, just after Russia had seized Crimea. American officials were weighing whether to impose sanctions in response, but Mr. Flynn was pushing ahead with plans to travel to Moscow to build on an existing initiative with his Russian counterparts. He also wanted to invite Russian military intelligence officials to Washington to discuss the threat of Islamist militants. His superiors ordered both canceled. By the end of his tenure, he had largely cut out senior staff members from significant relying instead on a small circle of trusted advisers he had come to know during his overseas military deployments. His bosses — Michael G. Vickers, the under secretary of defense for intelligence, and James R. Clapper, the director of national intelligence — came to think that the agency was adrift, and that Mr. Flynn refused to address its biggest problems. “Regrettably, he got engaged in an increasingly bitter and organizationally paralyzing feud with his senior staff when he should have been focused on building the intelligence capabilities” of the agency, said Mr. Vickers, who was Mr. Flynn’s immediate boss at the Pentagon. During his tour in Iraq, he served under Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, running intelligence for the military’s Joint Special Operations Command, whose relentless campaign of raids and airstrikes hollowed out Al Qaeda in Iraq. When General McChrystal went to run the war in Afghanistan in 2009, Mr. Flynn signed on as his intelligence chief. “He wasn’t a staid intelligence officer. He was aggressive. He was about the mission,” said Richard M. Frankel, a former senior F. B. I. official who worked with Mr. Flynn at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. “He can have sharp elbows because he is about the mission. ” He burnished his reputation as an intelligence officer — but also for controversy. He a paper, “Fixing Intel,” that offered an early hint of his disdain for the civilian intelligence analysts he would later clash with at the Defense Intelligence Agency. Published by a Washington think tank, it bluntly stated that “the U. S. intelligence community is only marginally relevant to the overall strategy,” infuriating officials at the D. I. A. and the C. I. A. More problematic from the military’s perspective was Mr. Flynn’s willingness to share intelligence with other countries. He returned to Washington at the end of 2010, and found himself under investigation for sharing sensitive data with Pakistan about the Haqqani network, arguably the most capable faction of the Taliban, and for providing highly classified intelligence to British and Australian forces fighting in Afghanistan. His superiors eventually concluded that he was trying to prod Pakistan to crack down on the Haqqanis (they have yet to do so) and the general remains unapologetic about sharing intelligence with British and Australian forces. “They’re our closest allies! I mean, really, we’re fighting together and I can’t share a single piece of paper?” he said in an interview last year. Around the same time, he was also getting to know Michael A. Ledeen, a controversial writer and former Reagan administration official. The two men connected immediately, sharing a similar worldview and a belief that America was in a world war against Islamist militants allied with Russia, Cuba and North Korea. That worldview is what Mr. Flynn came to be best known for during the presidential campaign, when he argued that the United States faced a singular, overarching threat, and that there was just one accurate way to describe it: “radical Islamic terrorism. ” He has posted on Twitter that fear of Muslims is rational, written that Islamic law is spreading in the United States, and said that Islam itself is more like a political ideology than a religion. The United States, he wrote in “Field of Fight,” a book about radical Islam he with Mr. Ledeen, is “in a world war, but very few people recognize it. ” Mr. Flynn saw the Benghazi attack in September 2012 as just one skirmish in this global war. But it was his initial reaction to the event, immediately seeking evidence of an Iranian role, that many saw as emblematic of a conspiratorial bent. Iran, a Shiite nation, has generally eschewed any alliance with Sunni militants like the ones who attacked the American diplomatic compound. For weeks, he pushed analysts for evidence that the attack might have had a state sponsor — sometimes shouting at them when they didn’t come to the conclusions he wanted. The attack, he told his analysts, was a “black swan” event that required more creative intelligence analysis to decipher. “To ask employees to look for the . 0001 percent chance of something when you have an actual emergency and dead Americans is beyond the pale,” said Joshua Manning, an agency analyst from 2009 to 2013. Beyond Benghazi, American officials said that in time, the general grew angrier at what he saw as the Obama administration’s passivity in dealing with worldwide threats — from Sunni extremist terrorism to Iran. He also saw the C. I. A. an organization he had long disdained, as overly political and too willing to advance the White House’s agenda. In particular, he became convinced that the C. I. A. was refusing to declassify many of the documents found at Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, because they seemed to undercut the administration’s narrative about Qaeda strength at the time Bin Laden was killed. “If they put out what we knew, then the president could’ve not said, in a national election, Al Qaeda’s on the run and we’ve killed Bin Laden,” Mr. Flynn said before the latest election, referring to Mr. Obama’s 2012 bid. “Even today, he talks about Bin Laden as though that was a stroke of genius. I mean, c’mon!”

World champion Sebastien Ogier won the Rally of Portugal for a record-equaling fifth time on Sunday to stretch his championship lead to 22 points. The M-Sport Ford driver sealed his second win of the season by finishing 15.6 seconds clear of Thierry Neuville with the Belgian’s Hyundai team mate Dani Sordo third in the gravel event. The victory equaled the five in Portugal chalked up by retired Finnish great Markku Alen. M-Sport’s Ott Tanak, who had led on Saturday until he damaged his car’s rear suspension, won the final power stage for a five-point bonus, with Neuville collecting four after finishing second. Four-times world champion Ogier was fifth in the stage and took only one additional point. The Frenchman now has 128 points to Neuville’s 106.

Opponents of Brexit will be forcefully dispersed by Britain’s military and police announced Russia’s Strategic Culture Foundation. The anti-Brexit protests may lead to high crime rate, food shortages, lack of medical supplies, rising costs of goods and services and road and port blockages. The British police "already has a plan for suppressing street riots".

A woman attempting to spread coronavirus in Delhi’s Super store.

Two hundred thousand Uber users deleted the app from their phones after the company supported its New York drivers’ making trips out of Kennedy Airport while taxi companies refused to drive in protest of the Trump administration’s travel ban. From some, it was a moment to switch to rival companies like Lyft, which recently pledged a million dollars to the American Civil Liberties Union. But what does switching from one Silicon Valley corporation to another really accomplish? Aren’t they all basically the same? “If you’re going to ban Uber, throw your iPhone in the trash, delete your Facebook account, stop using Twitter,” Jenna says on this week’s episode of Still Processing. “All of these companies are, in some way, supporting this administration. ” As Wesley puts it: “It’s a protest . ” Also, with the final season of “Girls” beginning on Sunday night on HBO, we take a moment to talk about the show’s legacy. And after we talk about the show, we talk to it, with excerpts from Jenna’s recent conversation with the cast: Lena Dunham, Allison Williams, Zosia Mamet and Jemima Kirke. They discuss the show’s early lack of diversity, why “Silicon Valley” gets off easy and what it’s like to have the public completely conflate actors and the characters they play. We’ve got excerpts! Finally, we play a new game that we hope to come back to. It requires zero expertise, just lots and lots of speculation. From a desktop or laptop, you can listen by pressing play on the button above. Or if you’re on a mobile device, the instructions below will help you find and subscribe to the series. On your iPhone or iPad: 1. Open your podcast app. It’s a app called “Podcasts” with a purple icon. (This link may help.) 2. Search for the series. Tap on the “search” magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the screen, type in “Still Processing” and select it from the list of results. 3. Subscribe. Once on the series page, tap on the “subscribe” button to have new episodes sent to your phone free. You may want to adjust your notifications to be alerted when a new episode arrives. 4. Or just sample. If you would rather listen to an episode or two before deciding to subscribe, tap on the episode title from the list on the series page. If you have an internet connection, you’ll be able to stream the episode. On your Android phone or tablet: 1. Open your podcast app. It’s a app called “Play Music” with an icon. (This link may help.) 2. Search for the series. Click on the magnifying glass icon at the top of the screen, search for “Still Processing” and select it from the list of results. You may have to scroll down to find the “Podcasts” search results. 3. Subscribe. Once on the series page, click on the word “subscribe” to have new episodes sent to your phone free. 4. Or just sample. If you would rather listen to an episode or two before deciding to subscribe, click on the episode title from the list on the series page. If you have an internet connection, you’ll be able to stream the episode.

Stop counting the votes! Your candidates nomination based strictly on the number of delegates they are able to obtain from each state following their elections.WATCH this great video explaining how Hillary can receive less votes, but still win with super delegates:The nominating contests that will determine the Democratic and Republican nominees for the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election are about to enter a critical phase. On March 1, known as Super Tuesday, primaries or caucuses are being held in about a dozen states, and they could be turning points in both parties.But the key to winning the nomination for each party is ultimately not about the popular vote. It is about securing the number of delegates needed to win the nomination at each party s convention July 18-21 in Cleveland for the Republicans and July 25-28 in Philadelphia for the Democrats.Like so many things in politics, there are twists and turns in how the popular vote is used to select each party s candidate.The following is a guide to the nominating process:Q: Is the delegate selection process the same for the Republican and Democratic parties?A: No. The parties set their own rules. One thing that is the same is that at each party convention, a candidate needs to reach only a simple majority of the delegate votes to win the nomination.Q: How many delegates are there?A: The Democratic convention will be attended by about 4,763 delegates, with 2,382 delegates needed to win the nomination. The Republican convention will be attended by 2,472 delegates, with 1,237 delegates needed to win.Q: I keep hearing about superdelegates. Are they different from other delegates? Do both the Republicans and Democrats have superdelegates?A: Superdelegates, officially known as unpledged delegates, are a sort of wild card in the nominating process, but only the Democrats have them.The category was created for the 1984 Democratic convention, and according to political scientists, they are a legacy of the 1980 convention when there was a fight for the nomination between President Jimmy Carter, who was seeking a second term in the White House, and Senator Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. Members of Congress were frustrated by their lack of influence, because delegates elected to support one candidate could not switch to support another. So Democratic members of the House of Representatives led an effort to win a role for themselves. That resulted in the creation of superdelegates. Unlike other delegates, superdelegates may change what candidate they are supporting right up to the convention.There is no fixed number of superdelegates because the group is defined by various categories whose members change from one election cycle to another. Here is who gets to be a superdelegate:All Democratic members of the House of Representatives and the Senate; the Democratic governors; the Democratic president and vice president of the United States; former Democratic presidents and vice presidents; former Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate; former Democratic speakers of the House and former Democratic minority leaders. Throw in the members of the Democratic National Committee and the former chairs of the DNC and you finally have the whole pool of superdelegates.Q: What about the other delegates? Do they get to choose which candidate to support?A: Both the Democratic and Republican parties send delegates to their conventions based on the popular vote in the primary elections and caucuses held in each of the 50 states. But the parties have different rules on how delegates are allotted to a candidate.The Democratic Party applies uniform rules to all states. In each state, delegates are allocated in proportion to the percentage of the primary or caucus vote in each district. But a candidate must win at least 15 percent of the vote to be allocated any delegates.The Republican Party lets states determine their own rules, although it does dictate some things. Some states award delegates proportionate to the popular vote, although most such states have a minimum percentage that a candidate must reach to win any delegates. Some other states use the winner-take-all method, in which the candidate with the highest percentage of the popular vote is awarded all the delegates. Other states use a combination of the two methods.States that use the proportionate method may instead use the winner-take-all method if one candidate wins more than 50 percent of the popular vote.In addition, the Republican Party requires that all states with nominating contests held between March 1 and March 14 use the proportional method, meaning that all the states holding votes on Super Tuesday will have to award delegates proportionally.Q: What happens to delegates if a candidate drops out of the race?A: Another good question, because we have certainly seen that happen this year.For the Democratic Party, in every state, delegates are reallocated to the remaining candidates.Nomination About Delegates, Not VotesThe power brokers of the Democrat party are not about to let crazy uncle Bernie represent them in the presidential election this year. He is anxious to flatten the economic map in the nation and go much further than Obama has in stealing from the rich and destroying the wealth generating engine of the country. Perhaps the elite wish things to do down a bit differently than what Sanders has in mind.It turns out that the New Hampshire primary, which Bernie won in a landslide, will probably award him fewer delegates than Hillary receives.Sanders won 60 percent of the vote, but thanks to the Democratic Party s nominating system, he leaves the Granite State with at least 13 delegates while she leaves with at least 15 delegates.New Hampshire has 24 pledged delegates, which are allotted based on the popular vote. Sanders has 13, and Clinton has 9, with 2 currently allotted to neither.Under Democratic National Committee rules, New Hampshire also has 8 superdelegates, party officials who are free to commit to whomever they like, regardless of how their state votes. Their votes count the same as delegates won through the primary.New Hampshire has 8 superdelegates, 6 of which are committed to Hillary Clinton, giving her a total of 15 delegates from New Hampshire as of Wednesday at 9 a.m.The two remaining superdelegates remain uncommitted, so Hillary actually comes out ahead in overall delegate count. Clinton has 394 delegates that includes both super delegates and ones that are picked up in primary elections, while Bernie now has only 42. In other words the fix is in, and Clinton will absolutely be the Democrat nominee for president unless she is indicted for her illegal acts dealing with top secret government documents.But as with the assigning of delegates, it seems that the will of the people, along with their clearly declared votes, will be ignored and the coronation will still take place. As some of my friends like to say, Hillary for Prison, 2016! May it be so.For the Republican Party, it varies by state. In some states, delegates are required to stick with their original candidate at least through the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. In some other states, if a candidate drops out, his or her delegates may immediately pledge to another candidate. There is also a middle ground in which those delegates are reallocated to the remaining candidates. Via: NYPost

@AntonioFrench was this the same name released by anonymous yesterday?

Think the world is your oyster? Think again! From top secret HQ's to secretive underground train networks – we run through the Top 10 places you won't be entering anytime soon for love nor money. 10. Bohemian Grove Like something out of a cult thriller film, Bohemian Grove is a 2,700 acre rural location somewhere in Monte Rio, California. The land is owned by private San-Fran based arts club known – surprisingly – as the Bohemian Club. Every summer, the club host a two-week, three weekend camp in the woods for the most powerful men in the world. It all looks a bit weird. 9. Vatican Secret Archive This isn't just any old library, this is a Vatican library! Only a sacred few have access to the vaults – but feat not, if you need to read one of the books (which by the way are owned by the Pope) you can receive the manuscript via email – how very modern! 8. Lascaux Caves – France Found in South West France, Lascaux is complex of caves that are world-renowned for its Palaeolithic cave paintings that are estimated to be over 17,500 years old. Although these caves were once open to the public, they have since been closed to preserve the original artwork. 7. Pine Gap – Australia Known as Australia's equivalent of Area 51. Located in central Australia, and run the by the government and the CIA, it's the only place in the land down under designated as a no fly zone and is used as a monitoring station. What they're monitoring, we don't know. But according to recent news, Pine Gap operate a number of drone strike programmes. 6. Moscow Metro-2 Metro-2 is a secret underground tube system which runs parallel with the public metro system in Moscow. The system was built during the reign of Stalin and was code-named, D-6 by the Russian intelligence organisation – the KGB. When quizzed on this secret underground system, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation (FSB) would not confirm or deny its existence. It's rumoured that the underground system dwarfs the public Metro with 4 lines that run between 50-200m deep allowing the Kremlin to connect directly with FSB HQ, the government airport and an underground town at Ramenki. 5. Room 39 North Korea Based in North Korea, Room 39, also known as Bureau 39 is a secretive organisation thats sole purpose is to find ways to obtain foreign currency for Kim Jong-un. Established in 1970, the organisation has been described as the kingpin of North Korea's so-called, ‘court economy’. Although very little has been published on Room 39, it's believed that the organisation has over 20 bank accounts in Switzerland and China and are used solely for the purpose of money laundering and other illegal transactions. It has also been reported that the organisation is involved in drug smuggling and illicit weapon sales. What is known, is that the secretive group have over 130 trading companies under its jurisdiction which are controlled by Kim Jong-un. If you ever fancy popping over to North Korean and attempting to enter the organisations HQ, you need to head towards the Workers Party building in Pyongyang. 4. Mezghorye, Russia This place has been reported as Russia's secret nuclear missile site. There are two battalions permanently stationed here to ward off visitors. The base contains automatic ballistic missiles which can be remotely activated in the event of a nuclear strike which is detected by seismic, light and pressure sensors. 3. Disney Club 33 Exclusive Club Located at Disneyland, Florida, this fairly unobtrusive looking front door is actually the entrance to a highly exclusive members only club. How do I get in? I hear you cry. Well firstly, you need to locate it. Without giving too much away, head to New Orleans Square and look for the Blue Bayou. Getting in won't be as easy – the club is not open to the public. However, members, which include Presidents of the United States, business leaders and actors – can bring friends and associates along, so you better start networking! 2. Area 51 Probably the worst kept secret, Area 51 is the alias for a military base that is located in Nevada – around 80 miles north-west of downtown Las Vegas. In the centre of the base is a large military airfield. According to insiders, the base's main purpose is research and development of experimental aircrafts and weaponry. What's bizarre is that the U.S Government doesn't acknowledge it's existence – adding fuel to conspiracy theories that the base is used for analysis of UFO's and aliens or is that what they want you to think? 1. Google Data Center Home of big brother. this is as heavily guarded as Area 51, Google's first data center is a high security location with trillions of records of OUR DATA. Related:

@Bejje nja, snarare 94% av terrordåden i Europa utförs av icke-muslimer. https://t.co/8YYACF0ouF @LocalStigmatic

Read by 353 people One of the worst case scenarios is happening again. According to reports, Fukushima is being struck again by a tsunami after a large 7.4 earthquake – just updated from reports of a 7.3 earthquake – struck off the main island directly in front of the Fukushima Prefecture where the beleaguered TEPCO nuclear plant is situated. via CNN : A tsunami warning is in effect for Japan’s Fukushima Prefecture after a 7.3-magnitude earthquake struck off Honshu at 5:59 a.m. Tuesday (3:59 p.m. Monday ET), according to the Japan Meteorological Agency.A tsunami wave of 1-3 meters (3-10 feet) is possible, according to the agency. Numerous aftershocks, somewhere in the range of 5.0 to 5.4 are being widely reported as well. According to RT , that tsunami has advanced and has now affected the cooling system at Fukushima. Seriously – this is reportedly happening! Fukushima reactor cooling system stops following quake & tsunami The cooling system of the third reactor at the Fukushima nuclear power plant has stopped circulating water following a powerful 7.3 offshore earthquake. Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) told national broadcaster NHK that the cooling system in the Reactor 3 spent fuel pool stopped working. Japan’s national nuclear agency has confirmed that the temperature rise in the pool is “gradual.” The exact cause of the cooling system stoppage is currently unknown. However, the system might have been “shaken” during the earthquake, according to nuclear agency officials, as reported by NHK. No cooling water leaks or any other “abnormalities” have been reported. According to NHK, cooling equipment for the spent nuclear fuel pool in the reactor No. 3 of Tepco’s Fukushima No. 2 power plant has stopped. — The Japan Times (@japantimes) November 21, 2016 There may still be large waves – potentially as big as 10 feet – that hit the shores of Japan, though the size and extend, and the potential scope of the damage and/or loss of life remains to be seen. On March 11, 2011 a 9.0 magnitude earthquake struck near Japan and triggered an enormous and devastating tsunami that crippled the nuclear power plant, and exposed that world’s oceans and biosphere to potential contamination. Fukushima is already an open wound but these new events could exacerbate the problems – or magnify them. That’s why it is so completely disturbing that the powers that be never properly fixed the problems that were still ongoing after years. The situation at Fukushima Daiichi was never fully contained, and the reactors continued to leak; there is no way to stop the reactions or disable the rods. The authorities simply lied and killed all the press coverage, forcing silence on the issue, except for the online blogosphere, where the issue has lived on as a hotly debated topic that people believe is causing health problems and environmental issues on a widespread basis. RT: Video of blast at Fukushima nuke plant, radiation leak reported 2013:Fukushima Nuclear Disaster Going From Horrible To Horrendous But whatever has been swept under the rug is likely to come to the forefront if a new tsunami brings massive destruction to Japan’s mainland again. The failure of the cooling systems is – for now – only the first problem to be acknowledged in news reports. The situation is ongoing, and less than 24 hours have passed. Considering that the corporate and government authorities in Japan made a concerted effort to silence bad news and pretend the problem away, there is no reason to believe that transparent coverage about what happens after this new earthquake and tsunami will be forthcoming. So keep your eyes open, and your screen’s recording what is being reported and what other information comes out. RT has continued live coverage of the events in Japan. The reality of a potential catastrophe compounding the existing damage at Fukushima, and to everything its waters touch, simply may not be reported. The powers that be on the Internet, and in the spheres of politics, are going out of their way to censor the grassroots media that thrives online, and are using 21st Century gestapo tactics to silence what they are labeling “false news.” This story may be updated as more information becomes available. Flashback:

COX S BAZAR, Bangladesh (Reuters) - When his family of six crossed the monsoon-soaked Mayu mountains last week, Mohammed Ishmail tied his four-year-old daughter to his back with a longyi, or Myanmar sarong. His wife carried their two-year-old the same way. Some parts were so steep we had to pull ourselves up by tree roots, said Ishmail, a Rohingya Muslim, in an interview near the Kutapalong settlement for refugees in Bangladesh, shortly after arriving on Tuesday. At night, we just cut a clearing in the bush and slept there. We had two umbrellas for shelter. The trek through the dense bush of the mountains took two days, but the journey from his home in Khin Tha Ma village which he says was on fire the last time he saw it - took 10. He says it felt like a month. The number of refugees who have arrived in Bangladesh from Myanmar s Rakhine state since militant attacks there on Aug. 25 stands at nearly 150,000. They have come by land, river and sea. Many have died along the way. Others have found themselves detained by human traffickers, demanding payment for their rescue. Their destination is the Cox s Bazar region of impoverished Bangladesh, where hundreds of thousands of Rohingya already live in makeshift camps, reliant on overstretched aid agencies. Once through the mountains, Ishmail s family came across villages in the northern part of the Maungdaw district the epicenter of violence in the state since October - that had been abandoned. By his count, only about one in 20 houses had survived fires that have swept the area. Some people are still hiding in the forest on the Maungdaw side but in some villages there s no one, he said. There was no one to ask directions. But then there was. As they reached a canal and were trying to find a way to cross it, he said, two young Myanmar soldiers spotted them and aimed their guns, he said. I put my hands up and shouted, We re going to Bangladesh , he said. There was a tense silence before the soldiers lowered their weapons. After that they showed us the best way to cross the canal, he added. In one village, to escape the rain, Mohammed Ishmail entered a house still standing to find the bodies of five boys, who appeared to be teenagers, their necks hacked and heads nearly severed. The death toll in the conflict is more than 400 and rising. Myanmar says most of those killed have been insurgents, but accounts from new arrivals in Bangladesh suggest reprisals by Myanmar security forces and Buddhists against Rohingya civilians the government says are in cahoots with extremist Bengali terrorists . Myanmar rejects accusations that its security forces are targeting civilians saying they are fighting terrorists . Dozens of bodies, including those of women and children, have washed up on the Bangladesh side of a border river, many with bullet or knife wounds, according to Bangladesh border guards. Fishermen report seeing bodies floating in the river. Reuters was shown one cadaver what looked to be a teenage boy lying face up on the muddy river bank, a gaping wound on his face washed clean by the river. In Maungdaw, thousands of people are on the move. A Rohingya aid worker, who was in touch with Reuters during his flight, recorded video of the journey on his mobile phone. It s like something I ve never seen before, not even in any film, the refugee said after his arrival in Cox s Bazar. The footage appears to show hundreds of people lining up to cross a river in Laung Don village. Some swim across, as two small ferries run back and forth. At one river crossing, the aid worker said, fighters from the Arakan Rohingya Solidarity Organization (ARSA) prevented ferries from crossing for half a day, telling civilians to return to their homes. Campaign group Fortify Rights has documented how ARSA has prevented men and boys from leaving the area. The refugee, who asked not to be identified so he could freely discuss his journey, said the fighters backed down when villagers pleaded with them. In southern Maungdaw, the military s campaign has driven tens of thousands of people to the coast. Bangladeshi boatmen, in their hundreds, are going to pick them up. Mostly by night, the wooden crescent-shaped boats that normally ply the fishing grounds of the Bay of Bengal, make the journey across the 5.7-km (3.6 mile) mouth of the Naf river that separates Myanmar and Bangladesh. The 5-metre boats are loaded with as many as 50 people and their belongings. Soon after the conflict blew up, boats began landing at Shah Porir Dwip, a remote island off the southernmost tip of Bangladesh. But after three boats capsized in two days last week, killing 24 women and children, authorities launched a crackdown on boatmen and brokers they call human traffickers. They bring these stranded people here. If they are not able to pay, the money, they imprison them, Pronay Chakma, assistant commissioner for land in Teknaf sub-district. More than 50 people have been sentenced to short jail terms as a warning to others not to take advantage of the crisis. It s mercenary interest, nothing else, he said. They tried to profit from stranded women and children.

@USATODAY Still that shouldn't be an excuse.God never said kill for me #CharlieHebdo #ParisShootings

Check Out Jade Roper & Carly Waddell's Baby Photoshoot

WASHINGTON — The two most influential social liberals in President Trump’s inner circle — daughter Ivanka and Jared Kushner — helped kill a proposed executive order that would have scrapped L. G. B. T. protections, according to people familiar with the issue. A third, Gary D. Cohn, the chairman of the president’s National Economic Council, a Democrat who was brought to the West Wing by Mr. Kushner and reflects the socially liberal and economically conservative views of many Wall Street power brokers, privately told aides to the president that he was disturbed it was even being considered. The executive order has exposed what is likely to be a persistent schism in Mr. Trump’s paradoxical presidency: He is a cosmopolitan New Yorker who has long operated in an environment where sexual orientation is often an afterthought, but is nonetheless beholden to the social conservatives who backed him overwhelmingly in 2016, despite reports of his crudeness and sexual misdeeds. Mr. Kushner, a lifelong Democrat, and Ms. Trump, an independent, travel in liberal social circles and have long supported L. G. B. T. rights. Neither had seen the order before details were leaked. They expressed their dissatisfaction to Mr. Trump’s other advisers, and then weighed in directly with the president, who opposes marriage but has spoken out against discrimination. On Monday night, reports had swirled that Mr. Trump would sign some version of the rollback as a concession to social conservatives ahead of the president’s announcement of a United States Supreme Court nominee. As a result, White House officials pushed out a statement asserting that Mr. Trump “is determined to protect the rights of all Americans, including the L. G. B. T. Q. community,” adding that the president “continues to be respectful and supportive of L. G. B. T. Q. rights, just as he was throughout the election. ” The draft order, circulated by religious conservatives allied with Mr. Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, was one of about 250 edicts that have been sent to federal agencies for vetting. Mr. Trump never seriously considered signing the order, and did not need much convincing, people close to him said. Still, conservatives inside the Trump camp pressured the president to consider a version of a “religious freedom” measure, similar to one supported by Mr. Pence in 2015 while he was the governor of Indiana, according to two senior administration officials. Mr. Pence, however, did not personally push for the White House order, according to one of his allies. Mr. Kushner and Ms. Trump’s opposition to the draft was first reported by Politico. It came on the heels of an announcement by the Nordstrom department store chain that it will scale back on featuring Ms. Trump’s clothing line from its stores, a public blow to a brand she has spent years cultivating. A day after the White House quashed the religious freedom order, at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Mr. Trump offered religious conservatives an olive branch by proposing to eliminate a law that bars churches with Internal Revenue Service charity designations from making political endorsements. Some conservative leaders warned Mr. Trump that his decision to retain former President Barack Obama’s order on L. G. B. T. rights could have political implications. “Our base would want to know who is responsible for what we believe is an issue of religious liberty — that would be of concern to us,” said Bob Vander Plaats, the chief executive of The Family Leader, a socially conservative organization. “We have been consistent,” Mr. Vander Plaats added. “We’ve cheered President Trump a lot. But on this one, our base is wondering why Obama’s executive order would be allowed to stand?” Tony Perkins, the president of the conservative Family Research Council, backed the draft order and said he believed Mr. Trump’s opposition was only temporary. He pointed out that evangelicals were supportive of Mr. Trump during the campaign, and that there would need to be reconciliation between his support for religious liberty and his decision to uphold the L. G. B. T. order. “He gets it,” Mr. Perkins said of the president. “They will have to fix it and they will. I’m confident they will. Am I concerned? No. Not at this point. ” The topic of the order was a sensitive one in a West Wing that prides itself on decisiveness and bombast. “There are a lot of ideas that are being floated out,” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, told reporters on Thursday. “Part of it is, the president does all the time, he asks for input, he asks for ideas. And on a variety of subjects there are staffing procedures that go on where people have a thought or an idea and it goes through the process. ”

Evidence shows the WHO director-general overstated COVID-19 fatality rate

Study Finds Racial Discrimination by Uber and Lyft Drivers Eric Newcomer, Bloomberg, October 31, 2016 Drivers for Uber Technologies Inc. in Boston canceled rides for men with black-sounding names more than twice as often as for other men. Black people in Seattle using Uber and Lyft Inc. faced notably longer wait times to get paired with drivers than white customers. The findings come from a study published on Monday by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University and the University of Washington. {snip} A new generation of technology companies have begun to grapple with how they can minimize racial discrimination. Airbnb Inc. recently released an extensive report studying racial bias on the site and proposed some changes to its policies. The home-rental company committed to offering more training for its hosts and hiring a more diverse workforce. It sent e-mails to customers over the weekend saying they must agree not to discriminate in order to use the site starting next month. However, Airbnb has resisted advocates’ calls to remove photos of guests and hosts from its platform. In the case of ride-hailing apps, researchers similarly believe that names and photos are an issue. Such information gives drivers the means to discriminate against prospective riders. Uber doesn’t show customer photos to drivers. Lyft does, but passengers aren’t required to provide a headshot. Both San Francisco-based companies give riders’ names to their drivers. {snip} The study, conducted in Seattle and Boston, included almost 1,500 rides. Four black and four white research assistants–split evenly among men and women–ordered cars over six weeks in Seattle. All used their photos on the ride-sharing apps. A second test was held in Boston with riders “whose appearance allowed them to plausibly travel as a passenger of either race,” although they used either “African American sounding” or “white sounding” names, the researchers said. The study found that Uber drivers disproportionately canceled on riders with black-sounding names, even though the company penalizes drivers who cancel frequently. {snip} The research also observed discrimination in the taxi industry–a well-known, decades-old issue. The paper doesn’t compare the rate of discrimination between traditional drivers for taxis or ride-hailing apps. Uber has suggested that it doesn’t offer tips in its app, as many drivers have asked for, because they can introduce racial biases. Lyft and Uber face different issues. While researchers found that drivers took noticeably longer to accept ride requests from black men on both services in Seattle, total wait times were the same for both races on Lyft. On Uber, total wait times were longer for black men. Drivers using Lyft didn’t cancel on black riders disproportionately, but the researchers said that because Lyft shows riders’ names and faces upfront, its drivers could simply screen out black passengers. Uber doesn’t show names until after the driver accepts the fare. “In Lyft, you can discriminate without ever having to accept and hit cancel,” Knittel said. {snip}

Max Ritvo, an accomplished poet who spent much of his life under the cloud of cancer while gaining wide attention writing and speaking about it, died of the disease on Tuesday at his home in Los Angeles. He was 25. His mother, Dr. Ariella confirmed his death. Mr. Ritvo talked about his work and illness in interviews on radio programs including “Only Human” on WNYC and “The New Yorker Radio Hour. ” His poems have appeared in Poetry Magazine and The New Yorker, and his first published volume of poetry, “Four Reincarnations,” will appear in the fall. The poet Louise Glück, who taught Mr. Ritvo at Yale, called the book “one of the most original and ambitious first books in my experience,” adding that his work is “marked by intellectual bravado and verbal extravagance. ” Mr. Ritvo was 16 when he learned he had Ewing’s sarcoma, a rare pediatric cancer. He had gone to doctors after feeling pain in his side. At first they suspected pneumonia, but fearing something worse they took a tissue sample while he was under sedation. He woke up in a cancer ward. “I remember thinking, ‘This is so terrible! ’” he told Mary Harris of WNYC. “‘I’m just a young, acrobatic, wiry, handsome bloke of 16, and it’s so sad for all these old people, because they must have run out of beds and I just have pneumonia. ’” A year of aggressive treatment brought about remission, and over the next four and a half years he finished high school and attended Yale. The cancer returned in Mr. Ritvo’s senior year. He nevertheless completed his degree in 2013 and this year earned a master of fine arts from Columbia University, where he became a teaching fellow. He also served as poetry editor at Parnassus: Poetry in Review. Throughout his illness, he rejected the clichés of being an “inspiring victim of cancer,” his mother said. He counseled other families going through treatment for Ewing’s sarcoma, and spoke out often about the disease and the importance of research. His poetry, said a writer for Boston Review, is composed “of candor, of splendor and of abandon. ” It could veer from despair to humor in lines like these, from “Radiation in New Jersey, Convalescence in New York”: I come from a place where the water is so barren that when you drink it the fish of the throat die, causing malignant thirst. What’s a dazzler like you doing in a dump like my bed? Last August Mr. Ritvo married Victoria now a doctoral student in psychology at Princeton. They had met during a summer academic program at Cambridge University in 2005. After she moved from England to the United States, they began dating in 2013. Dr. a research scientist, recalled that her son, thinking about marriage but knowing his prospects for survival were questionable, had asked her, “Is it fair of me to propose?” Max Joseph Ritvo was born Dec. 19, 1990, in Los Angeles. A literary prodigy, he was writing at 3, his mother said. At Yale, he joined an experimental comedy group called His Majesty, the Baby. He entertained its other members with outlandish and often profane riffs, said Andrew Kahn, the group’s producer and manager. His sketches could be challenging for audiences: in one, he used the medical port in his chest as a kind of ventriloquist’s dummy, putting googly eyes on the protrusion and jiggling it with his hand while chatting with it about cancer treatments. Mr. Ritvo’s body bore three tattoos depicting birds that he had acquired after enduring each new wound or scar. “He wanted to juxtapose it,” Ms. Ritvo explained, referring to his cancer, “with something beautiful. ” In “Poem to My Litter,” which The New Yorker published in June, Mr. Ritvo wrote of an experiment in which cells cloned from his tumors were placed in mice in the hope of finding more promising treatments. He names each of the mice Max. He wrote: My doctors split my tumors up and scattered them into the bones of twelve mice. We give the mice poisons I might, in the future, want for myself. We watch each mouse like a crystal ball. The therapies did not emerge. He wrote: And since I do absolutely nothing (my pride, like my fur, all gone) nothing happens to me. And if a whole lot of nothing happens to you, Maxes, that’s peace. Which is what we want. Trust me. Along with his wife and mother, Mr. Ritvo is survived by his father, Edward Ritvo his sisters, Victoria Ritvo Black and Skylre Oryx and a stepbrother, David Slifka. His stepfather, Alan B. Slifka, a New York investor and philanthropist who was the founding chairman of the Big Apple Circus, died in 2011. Dr. leads a foundation that bears Mr. Slifka’s name and which, among other missions, supports research into sarcoma. In Max Ritvo’s final weeks, he remained cleareyed. In a podcast interview on Aug. 14 with the media personality Dr. Drew Pinsky, he said, his voice weak, “This is stuff. ” Over time, he said, his work had shifted “away from sort of ebullient death poetry and fighting poetry and poetry of, sort of, the bloods and the squirmies and the guts, and more toward trying to figure out what death is, and what my place in the world is. ” His poetry sustained him, his family said. “He said the day he stopped writing, that would be the end of it,” his wife said in an interview. She added: “He was writing three days before he died. ” On Monday, Dr. said, her son was too weak to write poetry. “That’s it,” she said quoting him. “I can’t write any more. ” The family called in the hospice nurses, who gave him sedatives. He died the next morning.

Vigils held around France, condemning attacks in Paris http://t.co/tJAOSPVT2b #CharlieHebdo #JeSuisCharlie http://t.co/VGJjbyJYvQ via @WSJ

Taylor Swift Is Countersuing for Just $1 in Her Sexual Assault Trial

@TyAmend ok. but they did execute him. this is them steering away from that.

Supermarkets are recalling coronavirus-infected toilet paper.

@machhiavelli u can question Islam but can't insult it. there is a line u should not cross. #ZeroToleranceToBlasphemy @infkornz

@Ms_LAUGHSalot @PrestonMitchum no. Its not. The problem is the media only reports it when minorities have it happen.

Image of Tabligi Jamaat members caught with arms.

Lupita Nyong’o’s Makeup Artist Reveals His Lipstick Hack

The 2016 election is shaping up to be the year of angry voters, the disgruntled Americans shaking up the establishment by fueling the presidential campaigns of two very different candidates

This Week's Trend: The city of Kherson will follow Donbass. The local people suffer from a Ukrainian batallion; and they are afraid that a new muslim Tatar-Turkish batallion will be created.

October 30, 2016 In what is being described as another ‘bizarre’ attempt to sabotage her own campaign, Hillary Clinton has desecrated a series of beloved US symbols, including punching a bison, setting fire to the Stars & Stripes and spitting at Jerry Seinfield. The Presidential hopeful seems determined to make a series of unprovoked errors, not least of which was agreeing to Bill hosting a sleepover for a group of Girl Guides. Short of dressing the Statue of Liberty in a Burka, Mrs Clinton has lurched from one PR blunder to another. Commented one journalist: ‘The Presidential race is entering the final furlong and if Mrs Clinton was horse – and before you can say Benghazi – she’s gone from bookie’s favourite to an ingredient at the local glue factory’. Having already become the unwitting focus of various health scares and FBI investigations, Mrs Clinton’s campaign is as orderly as a Marx Brothers movie. Her lead in the polls has been cut as video emerges of her lighting a cigar with a rolled up Bill of Rights, then proceeding to take a dump on the White House lawn. Hillary’s erratic behaviour has seen her sing the Star-Spangled Banner in Korean, dress as Oprah Winfrey for Halloween and pebble-dash Mount Rushmore. Remarked a flummoxed advisor: ‘She keeps doing the unthinkable – like making Donald Trump electable’. Share this story...

Jeopardy Just Made History With Its First-Ever Sudden Death Tiebreaker

French university academics have made an extraordinary intervention in the French election, emailing students and urging them to back establishment candidate Emmanuel Macron. [The president of the University of Angers in Western France, Christian Roblédo, claimed in an email to students that, “as a university professor” it was his “duty to denounce the harmful ideology that [Marine Le Pen] conveys”. He characterised this ideology as “withdrawal into oneself, intolerance, fear of the other [and] refusal of differences” in opposition to “humanism, openness, pluralism and freedom of expression” — the values which, in Roblédo’s estimation, “constitute the very essence of higher education and research in France”. “Already in 2002, we were placed before such a choice,” he said, recalling the second round showdown between Jacques Chirac and Marine Le Pen’s father, . Mr. Le Pen was expelled from the Front National by his daughter as she reformed it into a moderate, populist movement. “[In 2002] a Republican front had come together to make the Front National score as low as possible,” wrote Roblédo. “[Again] we have to vote massively so that [Marine Le Pen] does not win the presidential election. ” Anticipating criticism of his intervention as an abuse of his public position, the professor concluded by saying that “[Sometimes] the values of a man’s life take precedence over all other considerations. In addressing you as president of the University, the duty of reserve is obliterated by the threats to the institutional foundations on which our University is based. ” WATCH | @MLP_officiel to @EmmanuelMacron: ”France will be led by a woman, either me or Angela Merkel!” 👏🇷😂 pic. twitter. — LEAVE. EU (@LeaveEUOfficial) May 3, 2017, Colleague Manuel Tunon de Lara, president of the University of Bordeaux, was equally unabashed, writing of his “responsibility to call on the academic community to vote next Sunday to block … the accession of Marine Le Pen to the presidency of the French Republic. ” He claimed that the “Marine Le Pen programme” was incompatible “with the academic values we have hitherto defended”. “How to defend openness in a country that would close its borders?” he asked. “My position is not an isolated position,” he declared. “It is associated with that advocated by the Conference of University Presidents, which called for ‘voting against the extremism of the candidature of Marine Le Pen’. ”

Whenever we have a terror attack in America, the media goes to great lengths to make sure no one assumes of the killer was a Muslim. Meanwhile, the media has gone out of their way to convince Americans that all Hispanics hate Trump. Isn t it interesting how quickly they print a story about the murderer of two Muslim men who witnesses describe as a tall Hispanic man and then blame Trump?An imam and his assistant were shot and killed in broad daylight as they walked home from a mosque in Queens. That s not what America is about, Khairul Islam, 33, a local resident told the Daily News. We blame Donald Trump for this. Trump and his drama has created Islamophobia. Another Imam, whose name is unknown at the moment, also blamed the real estate mogul and former NYC mayor for the shooting. For those in leadership like Trump and Mr. Giuliani, and other members of other institutions that project Islam and Muslims as the enemy, this is the end result of their wickedness, the Imam said at a gathering of Muslims protesting the shooting.Other Muslim gatherings were chanting This is Donald Trump s fault, and Muslim hate crime. Witnesses providing leads to the NYPD described the shooter as a tall man of Hispanic descent. The NYPD is currently conducting an extensive canvass of the area for video and seeking additional witnesses as the shooter remains at large. Breitbart

Outbreak of COVID-19 is a worldwide fake. The fatality rate is too low for an epidemic. The WHO admitted causing the SARS outbreak in 2003.

Home / Badge Abuse / Police Admit Officers May Also Be Responsible For Gunning Down Orlando Nightclub Patrons Police Admit Officers May Also Be Responsible For Gunning Down Orlando Nightclub Patrons Jay Syrmopoulos June 14, 2016 233 Comments Orlando, FL – New details have emerged that may shed more light on the extreme casualty count in the Orlando nightclub killings. On Monday, Orlando Police Chief John Mina intimated that some of the victims may have been killed by officers trying to perform a rescue operation. “I will say this, that’s all part of the investigation,” Mina said. “But I will say when our SWAT officers, about eight or nine officers, opened fire, the backdrop was a concrete wall, and they were being fired upon.” A confidential law enforcement source close to the investigation said a crowd of up to 300 people within the club — combined with the complex layout of the structure — may have resulted in numerous patrons being struck by gunfire from officers, according to WFAA-ABC 8 . Mina stood by his decision to employ a tactical strike amidst the rising likelihood that a number of the dead were the result of “friendly fire” from officers. “It was a hard decision to make, but it was the right decision,” he said. “Our No. 1 priority is on saving lives, and it was the right decision to make.” Details of the investigation are a being pieced together by local, federal and state investigators, as they continue to process the gruesome scene from a number of law enforcement mobile command units. Authorities have determined that Mateen, 29, walked to the club at 2:02 a.m. armed with a semi-automatic long rifle and a Glock handgun. An off-duty police officer working security at the club was outside investigating an underage drinker when he heard gunshots inside the club. The off-duty officer then proceeded to run inside the club and exchange gunfire with Mateen, with three additional officers soon arriving to back up the off-duty cop, law enforcement sources told WFAA-ABC 8. As the officers fired at Mateen, he retreated into a bathroom toward the rear of the club with a number of hostages. “Those additional officers made entry while the suspect was shooting,” Mina said. “They forced him to stop shooting and retreat to the bathroom where we believe he had several hostages.” While in the bathroom Mateen called 911 three times, pledging his allegiance to the Islamic State during one of the calls, although currently he has no known affiliation with any specific terrorist group. Mateen has been linked with American suicide bomber Moner Abu-Salha — who drove 16 tons of explosives into a Syrian government facility on behalf of Al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front in late May of that year. The men had also attended the same Eastern Florida mosque. It has since come to light that he was a regular at the gay club, which raises serious questions about the credibility of his Islamist “terrorist” connection, and raises the possibility that Mateen suffered from severe identity issues that manifested in violence. The FBI confirmed that Mateen had been on their radar and had been interviewed on 3 separate occasions. “He was in one bathroom fortified with hostages,” Mina said. “There were people in the opposing bathroom, about 15 or 20 people. And the details are unknown, they’re part of the investigation.” Orlando police crisis negotiators that spoke with Mateen said he remained calm during the talks, but that he intimated that he intended to kill more people, Mina said. “Based off statements made by the suspect and based on information we received by the suspect and from the hostages and the people inside,” Mina said, “we believe further loss of life was imminent. I made the decision to commence the rescue operation and do the explosive breach.” The SWAT team attempted to topple the exterior wall leading to the bathroom that held 15 to 20 people, but failed, so Mina decided to use a Bearcat to break a hole in the wall. The vehicle rammed the wall, creating a small opening — about 3 feet wide and 2 feet off the ground — that captives could use to escape. “We were able to rescue dozens and dozens of people who came out of that wall,” Mina said. “The suspect came out of that hole himself with a handgun and a long gun and engaged in a gunbattle with officers where he was ultimately killed.” Mateen engaged officers immediately , striking one of them in his helmet, as officers returned fire striking the assailant several times. The exterior concrete wall where the siege occurred is dotted with dozens of bullet holes, evidence of a shootout that included dozens of rounds fired by officers that likely hit and killed many hostages. The final exchange of gunfire Mateen had with law enforcement occurred at 5 a.m., ending the three-hour ordeal. Officers then walked into the nightclub and found the dead bodies of club patrons strewn about the club, with more bodies found in a nearby bathroom. There is a strong likelihood that we will never find out how many of the victims were ultimately killed by “friendly fire”. Jay Syrmopoulos is a political analyst, free thinker, researcher, and ardent opponent of authoritarianism. He is currently a graduate student at University of Denver pursuing a masters in Global Affairs. Jay’s work has been published on Ben Swann’s Truth in Media, Truth-Out, Raw Story, MintPress News, as well as many other sites. You can follow him on Twitter @sirmetropolis, on Facebook at Sir Metropolis and now on tsu. Share swat teams are responsible for cleaning up the scene the fbi created Prince Where’d they put all dead bodies? john smith wut? the swat teams have been proven to be the real killers in these false flags..so ummm they did not put them anywhere Prince Just wondering, as I didn’t see any footage of mass bodies being loaded into hearses. Mighty-Morphin Larry only time will tell… mrshouse Why won’t we find out? Can’t they tell from the bullets used to kill the victims? Matthew Shapiro The forensic examination and reconstruction will most definitely determine which rounds were fired by police vs. terrorist, even if it is not possible to identify the particular officer who fired each shot. Sangreaal They would be able to tell which gun fired what bullet via the rifling signature, so sure, they can indeed find out which officer fired the shot. Anon22385 lol, all of the bullets fired by the officers will be found to be “significantly damaged as to prohibit accurate analysis”… 2broke4 her exactly, and the rounds would go through most people if not all of them, unless damaged by ricocheting off something and stayed intact in the victim, then too distorted to pin point which cop..imagine a cop being told he/she killed several people.. that should make his/her day! Jo6346 I make in the range of $6.000-$8.000 /month doing an online job. So if you are willing to work simple online jobs for several hours /a day from your house and earn good payment in the same time… This is perfect for you… http://ur1.ca/p7vx2 hkhjhj The sarcasm was wasted on you. spg210 Rounds do NOT go through most people. Even at close range, unless a high powered weapon is being used. Even then the range is a deciding factor. Where did you even get that from? 2broke4 her funny the ones i knew in Nam went through their bodies! A 22 magnum will go through a person unless it hits bone.. the .44 special Bulldog, i have the round travels around 850 fps, it wont go through a person unless the area is unobstructed and soft tissue.. a .45 Colt 875fps wont go through either.. a cop i know was shot with a .223 at about 150 feet away and it went clean through.. in reality it comes down the factors of ballistics and if the round is affected by an obstacle, as in Bone or soft tissue.. They may go through, but they may also turn, and fragment. There is some very dense, and hard tissue in humans, and also tissue that is very light. benbernecky you’re overlooking the trail that is always left by the spent casings on the ground. How many of which caliber and their location gives a lot of clues as to how a shooting went down. If for instance they find 30 spend casings in the bar with the shooters firing pin “finger print” and other firearm indicatives like extractor marks etc. That’s why you always see spent casings designated wi5th a marker. The only problem, besides grief obviously, I have is the knee-jerk reaction to enact more inane stupid senseless gun laws that only disarm citizens of their 2nd amendment rights. You are supposed to have access “shall not be infringed” access to the heaviest firepower it takes to prevent your government from putting you into a FEMA camp. The 2nd amend. is NOT a duck-hunting right. Its for self protection. One person armed with a concealed gun would have made a world of difference and you ALL know it. CA just passed a pile of anti-gun, anti-citizen gun laws. One requires ALL parts of guns to have serial numbers? That’ll really make the jihadists think twice huh? We are not fighting a gun, we are at war with Islam jihadist which their Quran -only one- calls for all adherent’s to kill infidels- like myself. Good luck with that any of you jihadists out there. Molon Labe! Tothe FMJ v. JHP? Do we know which bullets were used by either side yet? 2broke4 her true Jeremy Shives My rounds go through 250lb deer at well over 100 hundred yards. Since they haven’t yet released which MCX setup the guy had we don’t know if it was 5.56, 7.62, or 300 BLK. I can assure you that 7.62 and 300 BLK will def go through a human at close range. You have to remember though the officers who may have hit patrons fired through a concrete wall first so I would suspect those rounds would be pretty messed up prior to hitting club goers… disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi of course. Bill Garrett The shooter was using .223. The SWAT team was most likely using 5.56 NATO which fires the exact same bullet. Most likely 90% of the bullets fired that night were 77 grain Sierra Match King hollow point .223. Good luck guessing which rifle they came out of. Friend of Tibet Even for 9mm the cops were most likely equipped with Glock pistols as well. NortonSmitty Orlando issues .40 S&W. Bill Garrett Looks like the reporting was wrong (really? the media calling a random rifle AR-15 because it was black and magazine fed?). If the shooter was using a Sig MCX then it would have been 300BLK rather than .223. LE may have been using 300BLK as well, but it was most likely 5.56. benbernecky I seriously doubt they won’t be able to identify any bullet. If you believe that you do not know ballistics or what rounds police prefer/required to use in close encounters. A FMJ will usually get cleanly through a human without causing blood loss trauma. That is what kills is massive blood loss. That’s why anyone trained to use a gun shoot at the core of a human target -head included. At a distance as the 223/5.56 slows down it has time to mushroom and deform causing massive soft tissue damage but can still be survivable. At close range most high powered bullets do not have time to distort even hollow points that hit nothing solid .Been doing ordinance, and ballistics all my life kids. katz ro They probably can’t tell if the bullet went all the way through Friend of Tibet Both sides used .223/5.56mm ammunition during the attack. So we are talking about exact same bullets here. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi or so we’ve been told. (both sides using same ammo) Friend of Tibet Police uses ar15 and Suspect used SIG MCX, both chambered in .223/5.56 NATO round. So yep…… Robert Karp No. The difference would be the the ones used by the terrorist was a hunting round and the bullet would perform differently from the rounds used by the police. The police rounds do less damage to the body, because the hunting round is designed to most assuredly kill it’s target. They both kill but you’re more likely to survive a police round because it doesn’t expand and splinter as much. Friend of Tibet Gimme a break. Orlando shooter used a SIG MCX as primary weapon. It is a Tactical Semiautomatic rifle intended for LEO market. As someone who regular shoots ar15 with friends for .223/5.56 there are no so called “hunting round “and “Police round”. Both sides use off the shelf Ammunition and both sides used FMJ type ammunition. Police do not and will never choose ammunition of ” less damage to the body” on their duty rifle because they are looking at maximum stopping power. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi that’s what we’ve been told, kind of convenient, no? Lily Munster They’re going to shut your theory down. Tom Losh The active shooter and many of the police were using the same ammo – .223/5.56 – and at the distance they were firing from I suspect many/most of the bullets went right through the victim so all you have is a quarter inch entry wound and a larger exit wound with no hint of what weapon it came from… The cartridges used may be the same as the M-16s used by the police. The rifling may be different, but high velocity rifle rounds often break up when hitting flesh, walls or floor at short range. kat If you google the location you will see that the bar was not very big. I can’t see how 300+ people fit into the place. The parking lot holds no more than 20 cars and it is bigger than the bar. The videos that you see on tv of people carrying other people actually shows them walking towards the bar and not away from it. You can see for yourself. https: [email protected] Oh fucking please! Get an education fool! Prince Flagged for profanity, and not a false flag John J Publicus! WestDetroitNigga Can you be flagged for stupidity? Bobby5939 Perhaps you better open yours eyes son. The raw footage is everywhere of the errors they made. Education means nothing without common sense, and common sense would dictate if you are helping injured people that were shot in the club, they would be walking AWAY from the club, not towards it. You lose bucko. John J Publicus Sure you would. Except for the hospital that’s two blocks away in that direction. Do you need to work hard to get to your level of batshit crazy or is it more something you’re born with? kat So they carried everyone in the wrong direction first then they decided that the hospital was in the other direction so they turned around and started carrying people 4 blocks in the other direction. Is that correct? Where would ambulances be at this point? Or even police cars would be better then people carrying people with no blood what so ever on them……. John J Publicus Go it. You need to work REALLY hard to reach your level of utter stupidity. Funny, I’d have thought it more of a calling…. kat The video’s are very clear, I’m not the utterly stupid one here. You and your actors failed to fool the public once again. John J Publicus You’re cute!. Do you actually think I’m ‘debating’ you? disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi Can you send me links to where I can see this footage? I haven’t seen it- or noticed the observations you noticed. But i did notice a lack of bodies. Pist-Off http://investmentwatchblog.com/100-proof-nobody-died-in-the-orlando-homocaust-doctors-victims-are-fake-lone-gunman-doesnt-seem-possible/ kat Go to youtube Orlando false flag and you will see many videos of mistakes they made while producing this false flag. john smith excellent point. Mark Choi No it’s not. Anyone who has ever gone to clubs that size knows full well what capacity they have. The idea that there could not have been 300+ patrons would only come from an ignoramus with no experience with matters at which he pretends expertise. John Willis yaa like 300 plus fit in there no way Rogue cops cost us money Bullshit It is called ballistic…….. There is a strong likelihood that we will never find out how many of the victims were ultimately killed by “friendly fire”. We may never know it depends on how FDLE does their job. Past performances dictate it will be a shit job, and all ballistics related information will be ignored tainted or covered up. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi Unfortunately, we will never know. Has our gov’t or any other governmental entity every admitted to fault or wrongdoing? (serious question) I mean even on a different scale hell- cops kill black kids in plain sight and not one has been charged/convicted. Bob Btme Good thing law enforcement was focused on “underage drinking” Andy Cripps Multiple shooters theory kind of proved, just not quite as the conspiracy theorists had imagined. All so tragic. I suppose a fast acting consciousness blocking gas canister through the hole created in the walls to subdue the shooter was out of the question, do they exist even? spg210 I guess that’s kind of like asking why didn’t the cop use his taser instead of shooting the suspect. David Hall Cowards waited almost three hours to breech the bar and ended up killing probably 15-20 hostages. They will never release how many were killed by cops. 50 fucking people get killed and that one cop running around showing everyone he got shot in his kevlar helmut. Like anyone is worried about the little knick in his helmut, compared to over 100 people being shot. Guy Easy enough for you to accuse people of cowardice as you sit safe, fuzzy and warm in your easy chair while, weekend quarterbacking of police who were trying to make safe almost 300 people from a deranged homicidal killer armed with a AR-15 type of assault rifle and a clock, who is shooting and killing people, in a very enclosed space with no rear exits ! Be sure to let everyone know how you from your vast experience, would have done it differently to keep people from being hurt or killed, from sniper or friendly fire, in a situation that was changing from minute to minute. Guy’s like you, who take cheap shots, piss me off ! Easy enough for you to flap your opinion about it, as long as there is a captive audience ! But put your ass on the line were it counts, and you all become very quiet ! SexForUs There is no such thing as an assault rifle. An assault is an action. My fist is a weapon. Me throat punching you with it for being a fucking idiot, would be an assault. Guy’s like you talk a lot of shit defending people who did what was mentioned and yet, where is your fucking vast experience? spg210 “‘GUYS’ like you” I see what you did there. John J Publicus The military themselves named this type of rifle an ‘assault’ rifle when it was developed around the time of Vietnam. It was developed to REPLACE a ‘wood’ rifle, the kind your type like to compare the AR-15 to (the rifle used was a ‘souped up’ version of an AR-15) and claim its ‘just like the other rifle, with different pajamas’ or some such shit. No morons, the military developed this weapon to REPLACE rifles like the Garrand specifically BECAUSE is performed better. Faster rate of fire, more reliable, larger magazines that are faster to load, lighter and changes very quickly. They also required a smaller, lighter round that would have the same or similar stopping power to the 30.xx cal that was in current use (they did this with added velocity). I’m actually paraphrasing the requirements that the armed services had developed for this weapon. The ‘auto fire’ feature was almost dropped and later modified to 3 round bursts for accuracy and because troops could not keep the weapon on target under auto fire. Different suppressor/compensator fixtures were later added to correct that. So you see, this rifle and all it’s variants were originally developed to do one thing, kill people, as quickly and as efficiently as possible. Nothing you ammosexuals say or do can change this history and frankly, the more you continue to padal this crappola, the more you will look like utter morons to anyone who actually KNOWS the development history of this weapon! John Willis and the military designates that as a “select fire ” small arm ,,youre blowing smoke troll or youre chooomin benbernecky yes there are assault weapons, a 50 cal is most certainly an assault weapon. But since they are illegal -assault weapons that is -then when the media starts doing the AR-15 monkey dance and screaming assault weapons we all know what they’re trying to spite out is the term “semi-automatic rifle”, but assault weapon sounds more dramatic, to hell with truthful accurate journalism. it all went out with the ol “untouchable” supreme court. Rights judge Roberts? SexForUs FDR’s NFA of 1934 already requires machine guns to be heavily taxed, highly regulated and registered with the federal government but it isn’t an assault weapon. An assault is an action and regarding the Jackals in Black Robes, I’ll refer to Thomas Jefferson’s take on that Bench of Control Freaks. homas Jefferson strongly opposed the doctrine of judicial review, and feared it would lead to “judicial despotism,” an opinion he voiced often. Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams (wife of former President John Adams) in 1804: “The Constitution… meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” to Spencer Roane in 1819: “In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that ‘the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.’ If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se[act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow… The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” to William C. Jarvis in 1820: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” and to Edward Livingstone in 1825: “This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” ~ Thomas Jefferson. John J Publicus “There is no such thing as an assault rifle” Actually, there is. The weapon and the round itself was designed from the ground up to kill as many people as efficiently as possible on the battlefield-by DEFINTION, it’s an ‘assault rifle’. By definition, this weapon is NOT “just like any other semi auto rifle”. If you actually knew what you were shooting off your mouth about this would be self evident… SexForUs What you are saying is, it’s the only military grade assault rifle not used by any military anywhere in the world. Got t. Yeah them clocks sure are deadly Brandon Swords You’re a credulous moron. Sangreaal Ummm…there was NO AR15 John J Publicus Oh really? So he was using a sling shot? Moron… Need_to_Know No, Moron, it was a Sig MCX, which is NOT an AR-15. John J Publicus Oh, so,it was an AR-15 VARIANT? Silly me Yeah, get your money back from school, you were robbed…. John J Publicus Yes it was Einstein. Here’s a little from the brochure for,the MCX; “Even while in the field, you can configure the SIG MCX as needs or conditions change. The combination of the 13″ monolithic upper receiver and handguard create a 17 3/4″ continuous top rail. The upper is backwards compatible with any mil-spec AR lower, allowing you to upgrade your existing AR platform to the SIG MCX. The AR upgrade kit includes side-folding stock assembly and adapter.” Yeah, sounds to me like it was nothing like an AR-15. More like an AR on steroids if you ask almost anyone…. Apparently you are a bigger moron than first thought!! IT’S A CARBINE!! A Carbine is NOT an AR. John J Publicus ‘Carbine’ describes a style of weapon whose most recognizable feature is a short barrel length. You might want to stop using words that you don’t actually know the meaning of. Even while in the field, you can configure the SIG MCX as needs or conditions change. The combination of the 13″ monolithic upper receiver and handguard create a 17 3/4″ continuous top rail. The upper is backwards compatible with any mil-spec AR lower, allowing you to upgrade your existing AR platform to the SIG MCX. The AR upgrade kit includes side-folding stock assembly and adapter. A carbine is a style of rifle, most usually defined by a shooter barrel. Are you really this arrogantly misinformed? Need_to_Know Carbines have a shorter and different gas system than AR-15’s, thus making the difference much more than barrel length. John J Publicus “most usually defined by a (shorter) barrel.” I was very specific in what I said. James Paul John, you are a idiot. The media has said the shooter had a handgun, a Glock. He didn’t have a AR-15. Look up the fact before making a fool of yourself. John J Publicus It was an AR-15 variant. Fool NortonSmitty You know what is easy to say? THE ASSHOLES WAITED THREE HOURS IN SWAT GEAR WHILE UNTOLD DOZENS BLED OUT ON THE FLOOR! That, sir, is the very definition of cowardly incompetence. Mark Choi You have no information on which to make that claim. You do however, appear to have a broken shift key. NortonSmitty It was in every story on every venue if you actually paid attention. Moron. Mark Choi No it wasn’t. But thanks for your superficial analysts of events that were too complex for you to understand. First, the shooting began at a little after 2:00. Almost IMMEDIATELY he is engaged by gunfire by an OPD officer, at 2:02 AM. Within MINUTES more OPD backup arrives, engaging Mateen and forcing him to retreat into a bathroom, taking hostages. It is now about 2:30. Mateen calls 911 several times. Meanwhile, he has taken hostages in the restroom, preventing a direct, all out assault. OPD SWAT requests a bomb unit. It is now 4:10 AM. A controlled explosion demolishes a small section of exterior wall of Pulse, leading to the aforementioned restroom. The hole is not large enough to allow a breach, so another officer uses his vehicle to ram the wall, making an opening large enough to enter. Police immediately engage Mateen in gunfire, and rescue 30 hostages. It is now 5:05 AM. Mateen is pronounced dead. It is now 5:53. NONE of this timeline backs up your claim, either of cowardice, or that anyone bled out in the intervening time. Moreover, you most certainly can NOT state definitely that more people would not have been killed, particularly those 30 hostages, had they performed a full frontal assault on the building. In fact, even as it was, the OPD can not be sure their officers did not accidentally shoot some of the victims in the ensuing chaos. It is you, sir, who are the one who is mentally deficient. But at least you appear to have fixed your keyboard. Mark Choi http://www.laweekly.com/news/did-swat-wait-too-long-to-storm-the-orlando-nightclub-7027891 Mark Choi No it wasn’t you microcephalic idiot. As already mentioned, what WAS on the news coverage was the fact that during that three hours, the shooter repeatedly called 911 claiming that he had an explosive vest, and that he had set booby traps all throughout the building, that nevertheless the police were actively accessing the building and evacuating as many people as possible, and that no additional shots were fired during that standoff, changing the situation from an active shooter protocol to a hostage negotiation protocol. What is also known is that you’re a bloviating, misinformed idiot. Funny how after all this went mainstream, and the 911 tapes were released, all of a sudden you began radio silence. You would have done well to start there. John Willis it was televised ding dong ,and there are records showing time elapsed from police arrival till mop up , where do you morons come from ? John J Publicus From under the nearest rock. The real question is; will they crawl back under those rocks once tRump loses in a landslide? Mark Choi No it wasn’t you idiot. What WAS televised is that during that three hours, during which the shooter repeatedly called 911 claiming that he had an explosive vest, and that he had set booby traps all throughout the building, nevertheless the police were actively accessing the building and evacuating as many people as possible. What is also known is that no additional shots were fired during that standoff, changing the situation from an active shooter protocol to a hostage negotiation protocol. Did I happen to mention that you’re an idiot? You’re an idiot. Tothe I’m not the one whose alleged job is charging into dangerous situations and putting my life on the line. Isn’t that what people say when I argue that the law enforcement monopoly is ever in the wrong? “You aren’t the one charging into dangerous situations,” or something, right? Remember when cops sat on the sidelines during the Columbine massacre, too? David Hall You stupid POS, I have put my ass on the fucking line for 27 months. I lost my right eye, half of my face, back of my right leg nearly blown off and a bayonet ripped throught 17 inches of my right arm. Dude I have earned to say what I damn well please. Have you?. I spent 23 months in hospitals in three Countries.Arm chair asshole like you is what pisses me off. If you bothered to read 3 of the best guys in the business that trains the SWAT officers said the same thing, that they should have went in hours sooner. Policy is now with a mass type shooter to immediately engage the shooter. Learn before speaking, go back to you Mom’s basement and take some meds. I went into a hundred fucking places tighter and smaller than that with many hostages. James Paul Listen up Guy, The official story says the shooter had a hand gun, not a AR-15. Get your facts straight before making a fool of yourself. James Paul The truth is, it never happened. It was a staged event, false flag, just like Sandy Hook. The powers that be want our guns and will do anything to get them. Staging a event like this to push gun legislation is not out of the realm of possibility. if the event actually happened there would not be so many discrepancies spotted so quickly. Interrupting Reply Bot 2014 I’d like to see things from your point of view. But no sane person can possibly shove their head that far up their assholes. Lily Munster It’s a secret! Ed There is a strong likelihood that we will never find out how many of the victims were ultimately killed by “friendly fire”. But we better thoroughly investigate, no matter the cost! Prince Where’s all the dead bodies? John J Publicus Idiot,,what makes you think you’ll see dead bodies? Prince An off-duty police officer working security at the club was outside investigating an underage drinker when he heard gunshots inside the club. The off-duty officer then proceeded to run inside the club and exchange gunfire with Mateen, with three additional officers soon arriving to back up the off-duty cop, law enforcement sources told WFAA-ABC 8. Well why were there 3 additional cops so close to the off duty cop? Dark_Space I’m guessing they were close to where they get regular calls… stubbikins It was Saturday night in an area with a lot going on, probably several places with private security. Three is not that many Sangreaal No wonder there were witness reports of there being more than one shooter killing people. spg210 Police tend to hang out around night club areas, especially close to last call, for obvious reasons. Marlene Piazza and what about all the reports that state the officer engaged in a shoot out with the gunman OUTSIDE the club first, before he went in. And stories about one victim and his girlfriend being shot when they were walking to their car, as they passed the gunman on his way to the club? Paul Val there is absolutely NO REASON why they can’t figure out who was shot by friendly fire, it’s called BALLISTICS Dan Bray You watch too much CSI. Prince youre :john q pubiclikus jean boyd People saw the cops shooting so they had to cover their butts somehow. Same thing happened in San Bernadino. People saw SWAT type soldiers at the scene but they just ignored it on the news. These are False Flags and look at the family members crying and reading scripts. Been going on for a while. The Government and news stations are allowed to produce propaganda for the continuation of their agenda and the American people just buy it up. Please investigate people. They just want a gun grab. Alberto Who’s to take responsibility for the victims the swat team killed, it was a moronic decision that took place. The swat team probably killed or injured most of the victims. Lets take a close look at the weapon the shooter had with him a semi-automatic long rifle carries 10rounds per clip and a Glock handgun 10-15 rounds depending on the type of hand gun. I’m puzzled how did the shooter managed to shoot and kill 50 people and injured 53 more. This shooter must’ve been an expert at changing his clips. stubbikins He was in there for 3 hours. Taylor Franklin It’s a magazine and a standard mag holds 30 rounds but even so he would have had to have 31 of them to have that many rounds Dan Bray Allegedly 202 rounds fired. Less than 10 mags. Patrick I suspect the real culprits were actually the first four ‘police’ on the scene 🙁 Samantha Atkins Uh, ballistics can tell you how many of the dead were not killed by Mateen. Lily Munster You think we’ll ever know that? It will destroy Obama and Billary’s master plan a-la Wasserman. Wild_Bill_vintage_1948 Why would anyone be interested in doing such ballistics? I’m sure they won’t. Windell Clark No excuse – You have adrenaline pumping – you dont want to hurt any innocents now add in the fact YOU dont want to die and its not a drill and you cant take back a bullet and start over. You can have the best gear with lights on the front, laser sights etc but add emotion and someone trying to kill you and things change. Ask any cop whats going through his of her mind when just room clearing in the most basic form – its tough. Now add an active shooter(s) with an Auto or Semi Automatic weapon(s) and the stakes jump. Add people begging for help but you cant stop and render aid because the threat is not neutralized -so you must leave them for time being-. Oh did i mention this is only the first 30 seconds of a dynamic entry? If other Officers have entered at another point you dont want to shoot them by accident – someone runs at you with something in hand you have maybe a fraction of a second to determine if its a cellphone in hand or a weapon guess wrong and you’re dead or that innocent with a cell phone is dead. Ok now that either you have killed an innocent or your team is stepping over your body because you guessed wrong the mission must go on. You still have 5 or 10 of the longest nerve racking minutes of your life to clear a building you’ve never been in..Good luck Kyle Pinson That sounds compelling, but this took three hours. Care to revise your fantasy here? Windell Clark Only painting a picture of what a person MIGHT possibly come up against in that situation. Bud Miser Me. Lie_Buster Relax, children. Normal logical questions are rendered “conspiracy theory” and “tinfoil hats” etc when the rulers do their false flag thing. Its starting to look obvious that MOST of the victims were murdered by sharp, accurate-shooting members of the police force. Oops – sorry for questioning the guvmint’s tall tale(s). Now, if the truth turns out to be that the cops are responsible for most of the deaths, I want y’all to hold your breath that some “forensics” lab is gonna tell y’all that truth. Sirios “Our number one priority is on saving lives” WTF? The cops were saving the people from the shooter as they were shooting the people they were saving? Ghassan Awada We had to destroy the village to save it That strategy is longstanding policy in the US 2broke4 her a 3 hour wait because cops thought explosives might be there.. meanwhile a turkey shoot is going on and then the cops killing people.. sounds like an excellent plan! Contrarianthefirst No film, no pics, it never happened. John J Publicus “There is a strong likelihood that we will never find out how many of the victims were ultimately killed by “friendly fire”.” Oh fucking please! Do they really think we are that stupid? Of COURSE they will be able to tell which bullets came from who’s weapon! Do,they think we’re in the 18th century? Every bullet in every single body will be catalogued and identified. I was wondering why the LE suits were pushing how many lives they saved by rushing the club. I’m betting that the coming weeks will show how much of a police induced cluster duck it REALLY was….. Prince John J Publicus – Flagged again for profanity. Can’t stop using the “F” word, can you? John J Publicus Can’t stop being bat$hit crazy, can you? David Nininger So just to recap, collateral damage is allowed on US citizens from police but is a war crime when out military does it…. ? spg210 Uh… NO. Collateral damage is NOT a war crime. Collateral damage is not purposely killing civilians. Purposely killing civilians is a war crime. So just to recap, if you drop a bomb on a verified enemy stronghold and kill some civilians in the process, that’s not against the Geneva Convention. bf110c4 “Our No. 1 priority is on saving lives, and it was the right decision to make.” The lives he is speaking of were the cops. They let dozens of victims bleed out during the 3 hour stand-off. Mateen basically had his way with the patrons and the cops. Thunder_Kiss_1965 This should be kept out of the public domain. Before anyone jumps me you should take into account what happens the next time . A SWAT team leary of hitting civilians doesn’t go in and the death toll is higher you can’t reason with a radical. Kevis They can get a very good idea on how many were hit by whom. Even where exact matching isn’t possible marks on fragments can exclude or include certain guns fired. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi Orlando Alligator Detractor/Distraction? Anyone else think this 2 yr old Alligator Death was set up to distract the American Public away from critically analyzing and questioning this night-club shooting? I do. Very much so. The vast majority of our pubic are just “sheep” ;( blindly following without questioning Prince Didn’t some singer in Orlando that was on the T.V. show The Voice supposedly also get killed too while signing autographs? Reuel Excalibur Francis That happened before the shooting tho disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi It’s true: WHERE ARE THE BODIES?! Zero footage?!? No way. Prince Don’t worry they’ll splash around some fake blood for post event pictures to be taken. lancelotlink “It was a hard decision to make, but it was the right decision,” Madeline Allbright “We went, we saw and he died.” Hillary Clinton MrMiran Just how big is that bathroom, and how many people were in it when the gunman was forced to retreat into it? I mean once he was pinned down in there by the officers on location, evacuate the club… then work on rescuing the hostages in the bathroom. Hey, I wasn’t there… I don’t have all the facts… I’m just asking questions about how it was handled. With cops on-site when it went down… and the gunman’s quick retreat… I’m just trying to get my head around how over 100 people were shot. My thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families and friends. Andy Cripps Apparently this guy was a regular visitor. Looks like he was in two minds. Instinctual same sex urges and ideological nonsense that bans it. How about a system where you could be honest about your personal situation to get the help required without fear of character annihilation to maybe stop some of this sort of stuff happening. The war on crime has been as successful as prohibition of alcohol was and the war on drugs is. Maybe time to address what it is to be human and assess the damage crass ideologies have on people and start banning shit that really damages society! Chris Shirah Who gives a rats ass who did what. Peoples lives were saved and peoples lives were taken, that’s all that matters. When the dust cleared that fruit cake was dead. On to the next one, people will die then too just hope it isn’t your family grieving while a bunch of tardos make dumb ass remarks about the police that do the saving of the rest. Prince What R U, a cop lover? Chris Shirah I don’t know. Is a convicted felon a lover of cops? All I care about is that a lot of lives were saved. I wouldn’t have cared if it was Minnie and Mickey Mouse that saved them. What are you? A hater of human life? NortonSmitty This makes no sense. If the officer(S) chased the shooter into a bathroom with 15 or 20 hostages within seconds how did over 100 people get shot with a semi-automatic weapon. As a veteran I can tell you it’s impossible. Prince It most likely didn’t happen. Lily Munster Hey, Boo! Mark Choi As a person who can read, I can tell you that you’re a misinformed idiot. d griffin Grossly irresponsible “reporting.” The death-toll inside the club would have been in the hundreds, had police not responded forcefully. Also, the terrorist made it very clear what his motivation and allegiance were, and his being probably gay is a sidenote. Get a clue, kiddies. The war is against Islamic terror, and you’ll be fighting it for the next hundred years or so. Prince The club didn’t even hold that many people. d griffin The Miami Herald reports that as many as 800 people have packed that club. On that night, at closing, there were upwards of 300 people inside at closing time. So go back to being dead from a stupid overdose, you. lol Bud Miser Aren’t you just a ray of sunshine! Prince Not what Eye heard. It could have been a murder as well… John J Publicus Why can’t you stay dead? Bobby5939 Your attempt at disinformation is pathetic. Martin351 False flag is a false flag. While were talking about cops in this case… why on earth when you get of a report of an armed gunman with either an AR15 or AK47 (yes botth of these being reported showing they can’t even get that right).. Why on earth would they send conventional cops to the scene with no armor, no kevlar, and no helmets? Seriously people, how stupid can you be to believe this garbage? People being carried TOWARDS the club? People being caught off camera standing on their own and moving around after they were shot in the leg? Then their rescuers laughing and smiling? News reports can’t decide if an armored vehicle crashed into the club or explosives were used? It is clear either a sledgehammer was used and a special cutting saw. We have the same person conducting multiple interviews under different names yet never bothered to even change her shirt to attempt to deceive? We have “survivors” of the shooting with time and location stamps on social media pitting them completely out of the state 1-2hrs before hand? No bodies, no blood, no ambulances, no Swat, no bullet holes, no ID when entering the club (think about that one for a second), people having oodles of time to post on facebook during the incident? Even the nightclubs webpage has time to update to get out of the club and keep running?? LMFAO And to think some of you bought this hook, line, and sinker.. unbelievable. Bob413 You can easily tell by some of the comments on this article that the people are commenting to spread disinformation and divert attention away to the errors made in the cover up. Sorry folks, there are more critical errors and holes in this incident and cover up than swiss cheese. You really dropped the ball on this one, and the whole world knows it now. The rest of the countries have washed their hands of this story and calling it like it is, a false flag. That’s bad when massive media outlets across the globe are now calling it a false flag not even 4 days after. Patricia Golding Now they have released this crock of a florida gator eating a baby story because now they realize they’ve made so many mistakes with this shooting they are quickly trying to divert people’s attention John J Publicus So many stunningly stupid people. You as much a moron as the last one… disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi YES I said this yesterday. And guess what? It worked! I’m so glad others are wise enough to realize the staged gator incident. The vast majority of American People are “sheep” following without questioning. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi But my genuine question is this: Do they get families to cooperate (family of the boy)? Or would the family be completely unsuspecting? How does this whole thing work? (even with the “survivors” of orlando and witnesses) kat Did you not see the same people interview over and over again. They are called actors. Go to youtube and watch how the one Mother smiles and laughs through the entire video with CNN after she finally finds out her son is dead. You can’t make this crap up. Lily Munster A Philadelphia native and Fox 29 intern who survived the Orlando mass shooting has disputed claims on social media that she was a “crisis actor” for the station, and was not actually at Pulse nightclub when the incident occurred. Lily Munster Lord, don’t let my tears fail me now! She could have at least got a wig that doesn’t sit 3 inches behind her forehead. John J Publicus You just can’t fake stupid like you…. Fardale Labradors I guess you didn’t see the kevlar helmets that save a few cops? Know what you;re talking about before you post bs. Autumn It was one cop, and the kevlar helmet had a hole in it and damage that was not consistent with a bullet’s entry point. Rather, it looked as though it had been bashed against some concrete. No ambulances. People declared dead inside the nightclub (that can’t be done until you reach the hospital.) Injured being carried from down the block toward the club. One loaded into a truck. I understand that part of you may feel wrong to question a tragedy, but when something doesn’t feel right, you should follow your gut. That’s what I did for Sandy Hook and have been doing ever since. Look into the points that have been made, Faradale, and see for yourself. Fardale Labradors Were you there Autumn? My husband, a retired Port Authority 911 P.O had friends on the scene , a relative working in the hospital and others I can’t discuss on the scene. What we can ALL do is show some respect to those lost and stop arguing about what went on and what didn’t. Trysmiling We certainly can and should show respect to those that lost loved one during this shooting. No one is trying to disrespect them or the pain they are experiencing. But they need to know that those they loved and lost were sacrificed by a sick government for their agenda of immigration and gun control. That is all those poor people were, pawn is a huge game of chess.We never saw what happened inside, but what we saw outside was nothing but crisis actors. Your husbands friend probably has no clue that this was a staged event. It’s not like everyone has to be in the know to pull something like this off. Nahla Salvia The article was stating that it never happened. That’s why he mentioned no ambulances. A set up or not people died and out of respect for their families, maybe people should wait and let them mournemourne before busting out conspiracy theories George I guess that people died in Star Wars too. I mean really died. Fardale Labradors Shooting? I was talking about 911. When we reach FL next month we will both CONCEAL CARRY by Law. He has his badge, we have to with his retirement badge on him. No further discussion, we will carry. Lily Munster Is’t that ALWAYS the case when the truth must be shrouded? Sanders vs. Billary – same thing. Lily Munster All mainstream media publications, gay and straight alike have been compromised by the same entity. The want to shut Indie press down too. Nahla Salvia Why isn’t anyone in Orlando saying it never happened? Did you watched the local news of that city, when they were showing the live broadcast? George LMAO No helmets? It says right there in the article that when mateen emerged he engaged the officers immediately and even hit ONE IN THE HELMET. Cry wolf. How long have you been insane, son? You know they have meds for that, now. John J Publicus i see,you’ve posted all those facts her for all to see…oh, wait. disqus_s4n9NxE7Bi @Martin351:disqus my gut instinct also feels it is false flag. Not being facetious, but where/what footage photos etc have you seen that confirms what you posted above? I personally didn’t notice the reporter with the same shirt and many psuedonyms (do you have a name or channel she reports for?) Also, I didn’t see any footage of rescuers laughing or carrying people towards club. I did notice there were no bodies. I did notice it took 4 days for “vine” clips to emerge (doubt their authenticity). In these circumstances, does the govt recruit and compensate people to make such statements in their interviews? Genuine Question. Pist-Off E7Bi, this site may shed some lite on things for you. I believe that Martin is rite on. http://investmentwatchblog.com/100-proof-nobody-died-in-the-orlando-homocaust-doctors-victims-are-fake-lone-gunman-doesnt-seem-possible/ John J Publicus That ‘gut instinct’ is the compacted shit in your colon. A diet that didn’t include Taco Bell and McDonald’s washed down with non stop soda. Just because you have a great big gut, doesn’t mean you have the first clue of what reality looks like. It’s assholes like you that give syphilis a bad name! Nahla Salvia They don’t really show bodies in US news, i don’t really see them on the news I watch. Also too, no one that lives there is saying anything about it never happening. If it didn’t, l know for sure that Orlandoneans would be talking not foreigners. This is an ongoing investigation, they have to withhold information devontae hook ‘no bodies’ what a piece of shit you are, i went to school with 2 people that died in that club that shit wasnt fake, you moron fgvyti what school and what are their names shill

Video of the funeral of coronavirus patients in Italy who died.

Trump Warns Of ‘Vote Flipping’ On Machines "People are not happy. BIG lines. What is going on?" Steve Watson | Infowars.com - October 27, 2016 Comments GOP Nominee Donald Trump, who has for weeks warned that the election could be rigged against him, shot out a tweet Thursday indicating that he is aware of reports of machines ‘flipping’ to register votes for Hillary Clinton, when voters choose Trump. “A lot of call-ins about vote flipping at the voting booths in Texas,” Trump tweeted. “People are not happy. BIG lines. What is going on?” A lot of call-ins about vote flipping at the voting booths in Texas. People are not happy. BIG lines. What is going on? — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 27, 2016 As Infowars has highlighted , there have already been numerous reports of early voters in Texas seeing their ballots flipped from Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton. While election officials have dismissed the reports, suggesting ‘user error’ is to blame, tech experts have long warned that the machines can become less accurate over time. Larry Norden, a voting technology expert, told NPR that the reports usually arise where outdated technology is being employed. “Over time, as people vote, that calibration becomes less and less accurate,” Norden noted. During elections over the past decade and more there have been reports of voting machines ‘flipping’. Indeed, the reports were so widespread that even entertainment shows such as The Simpsons drew attention to it: Meanwhile, The Washington Post has admitted that the press is engaging in voter suppression, bizarrely claiming it is a legitimate way of countering Trump’s ‘rigged’ election claims. Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix writes: Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov. 8. A day later, the Times’s Upshot blog increased Clinton’s chances of winning to 93 percent , an all-time high. On Monday, Politico’s Ben Schreckinger wrote that “ Donald Trump’s path to an election night win is almost entirely closed .” Here at The Fix, Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake wrote that “ Donald Trump’s chances of winning are approaching zero .” These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee’s warning that the “rigged” election could be “ stolen from us .” The latest polls, which Trump insists are rigged due to oversampling, show Clinton with a double digit lead. However, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager Robby Mook has warned that Trump’s suggestions that the polls are wrong and he can still win are “absolutely right.” “We’ve seen polls tighten since the third debate and we expect things to get even closer before Election Day.” Mook said, urging Clinton supporters to vote. “Make no mistake. With only 10 percent of votes cast, Donald Trump could win this election,” Mook said. NEWSLETTER SIGN UP Get the latest breaking news & specials from Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew. Related Articles

Three men in Uppsala have been arrested on suspicion of rape after they raped a young woman and sent it live on Facebook, just as it was warned about would happen when Facebook introduced the feature.The arrest was made during a police action shortly after nine o clock in the morning. They were arrested between nine and nine fifteen. The alert came in at 8:24, says Uppsala police officer, Ivan Aslund, to the Swedish news outlet Fria Tider.On Flashback, the men accused of the rape are identified as Middle Easterners. The rape was conducted at an address in Uppsala, and the men filmed themselves and sent the assault live via Facebook.According to a person who saw the live broadcast, the woman who was raped looked quite intoxicated and appeared completely dead while one of the men molested her. Several people alerted the police when they saw the film.The live broadcast on Facebook was not stopped until the police stormed into the room where the woman and the men were. The men will now be interrogated by the police. Before prosecutors can make a decision, the policemen have to document everything, a complaint, write down observations and conduct interviews with those who have something to say. Once that is done, they will present it to the prosecutor, so it takes time, says Aslund.He is otherwise very secretive about the investigation and would not say anything about the rape that was sent live worldwide on Facebook from the new Sweden.The last transmission shows the police breaking into the apartment and arresting the rapists:

Consortium News Exclusive: The neocon royalty Kagans are counting on Democrats and liberals to be the foot soldiers in the new neocon campaign to push Republicans and President Trump into more regime change wars Robert Perry Consortium News The Kagan family, America s neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency.Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow s alleged help in electing Donald Trump.In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan (photo,left), a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as Russia s accomplices after the fact by not investigating more aggressively.Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15.Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington s world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open.Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or like Robert Kagan they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose liberal interventionism matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars.There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan s neocon wife, Victoria Nuland (photo, left), from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State.Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting regime change back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money.A Family BusinessAs I noted two years ago in an article entitled A Family Business of Perpetual War : Neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan and his wife, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, run a remarkable family business: she has sparked a hot war in Ukraine and helped launch Cold War II with Russia and he steps in to demand that Congress jack up military spending so America can meet these new security threats. This extraordinary husband-and-wife duo makes quite a one-two punch for the Military-Industrial Complex, an inside-outside team that creates the need for more military spending, applies political pressure to ensure higher appropriations, and watches as thankful weapons manufacturers lavish grants on like-minded hawkish Washington think tanks. Not only does the broader community of neoconservatives stand to benefit but so do other members of the Kagan clan, including Robert s brother Frederick at the American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly, who runs her own shop called the Institute for the Study of War. But things didn t quite turn out as the Kagans had drawn them up. The neocon Republicans stumbled through the GOP primaries losing out to Donald Trump and then after Hillary Clinton muscled aside Sen. Bernie Sanders to claim the Democratic nomination she fumbled away the general election to Trump.After his surprising victory, Trump for all his many shortcomings recognized that the neocons were not his friends and mostly left them out in the cold. Nuland not only lost her politically appointed job as Assistant Secretary but resigned from the Foreign Service, too Continue this story at Consortium NewsREAD MORE NEOCON NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire NeoCon FilesSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

Behati Prinsloo

We dont show people playing these games. We dont show them winning playing the video lottery games.

@TrenchantTroll @megynkelly When the U.S. Government drop bombs and kill innocent women and children is that terrorism

Prince's 'Deliverance' EP Removed From Streaming Services

Why Time Magazine’s Joe Klein Is So Wrong About Hillary Clinton Rebutting the absurd claims of my namesake. November 4, 2016 Joseph Klein Time Magazine’s Joe Klein has just penned an article entitled “Why Hillary Clinton Is the Only Choice to Keep America Great.” I feel duty bound to respond to at least the most absurd of the comments made by namesake and author of Primary Colors, the novel based on about Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign in 1992. The other Joe Klein laments that Hillary has been so “severely damaged in the course of the 30-year battering she’s received at the hands of extremists and the media.” Sorry, but Hillary’s wounds are self-inflicted. Her lies, greed and corruption go back decades and have now reached a crescendo with the dual scandals of her use of a private server for State Department business while she was Secretary of State and of the pay-for-play Clinton Foundation. “There is one part of Trump that is indisputably real: his ego,” the other Joe Klein wrote, as if Hillary were the epitome of humility and grace. “Those who would put Clinton’s failings in the same league as Trump’s depravities are delusional,” declared Klein. I agree with his statement, but for precisely the opposite reason that he advances. Trump did not abuse a public office for personal gain. He did not “hand pick” (Hillary’s word) an ambassador to serve in one of the most dangerous countries in the world and then never respond to his multiple requests for enhanced security, let alone pick up the phone and contact Ambassador Chris Stevens directly. "The government was not able to save four lives, to keep four lives safe. How can you keep a country safe?" asked Stevens’ former fiancé in a rhetorical question that Hillary would be unable to answer. Trump did not lie to the families of those slain in Benghazi, as Hillary did. Trump did not put national security at risk by using a private server for government e-mails in order to evade the Freedom of Information Act, as Hillary did. In short, anyone who thinks that Hillary’s proven record of recklessness, mendacity, and indifference is not more troubling by several orders of magnitude than Trump’s “depravities” is “delusional.” The other Joe Klein complains that Trump deals in “stereotypes” - “the blacks,” “the Hispanics,” “the Muslims,” “the women” and, yes, even “the veterans.” Yet much of Hillary’s pitch is gender-based. Elect her because she is a woman. And she attacks millions of people who support her opponent with vile epithets – “deplorable,” “racist,” “sexist,” “homophobic,” “xenophobic,” “Islamaphobic,” and – for good measure - “irredeemable.” The other Joe Klein charges that Trump is “about all that has gone wrong in our society, and nothing of what has gone right.” To paraphrase Bill Clinton, that would depend on what your definitions of “wrong” and “right” are. Is Hillary Clinton really right when she parrots Black Lives Matter’s stereotypical attacks on what she herself has characterized as white “privilege” and “systemic racism” in this country? Is she right when she leaps to conclusions about police “brutality” aimed against African-Americans before the evidence in specific cases is carefully examined? I don’t think so. Hillary also represents the political correctness and anti-religious bigotry of the secular left elite that many Americans believe are what truly have gone wrong in our society. At the Women in the World Summit last year, for example, Hillary said that in order to fully secure the reproductive rights of women, “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.” Hillary demeaned the sincerely held religious belief in the sanctity of life held by millions of Americans, reminiscent of President Obama’s contemptuous ‘clinging to religion’ quote back in 2008. Hillary’s key supporters and top aides have targeted the Catholic Church in particular for their notion of progressive reform. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church,” wrote Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress, in an e-mail to Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. In response, Podesta picked up on the “spring” theme. He wrote, “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.” When Time Magazine’s Joe Klein talks about what is right or wrong in American society, he should get out of his Washington D.C. bubble more often and actually speak with the American people about their day-to-day concerns. Even if Hillary Clinton ends up winning the election, the country will remain divided and she will have no mandate whatsoever to advance her progressive agenda.

@israfilaydemir One of the people in the world I hate the most is Laden, because he tarred the bright face of Islam.*** #CharlieHebdo

While President Donald Trump has suggested that the United States must expand its nuclear arsenal, many experts say U.S. nuclear forces are unrivaled and will remain so as they undergo a modernization program that could cost more than $1 trillion. In an interview with Reuters on Thursday, Trump said the United States has “fallen behind on nuclear weapon capacity.” He pledged to ensure that, “We’re going to be at the top of the pack.” While Moscow currently deploys 200 more strategic nuclear warheads than the United States does, both countries are bound by the 2010 New START treaty to slash their deployed strategic warheads to no more than 1,550 each by February 2018, the lowest level in decades. The accord also limits their deployed land- and submarine-based missiles and nuclear-capable bombers. However, nuclear weapons experts say, the 30-year modernization program, which maintains many existing weapons and their computers, communications, electronics, and other systems, is more important than having as many warheads as Russia has. Trump “says we can’t fall behind. Fall behind who and how?” said Stephen Schwartz, an independent nuclear weapons expert. “It is not clear to me, and it’s not clear to many of my colleagues” what the president is talking about when he pledges to expand U.S. nuclear weapons capacity, Schwartz said. Moreover, the U.S. advantage is based not on the numbers of warheads it can field compared to Russia, but on more advanced delivery systems. Most of Moscow’s nuclear force

LONDON (Reuters) - Turkey s crucial tourism sector should see revenues grow to $30 billion in 2018, helped by planned new incentives for tour operators and rising visitor numbers, the country s tourism minister, Numan Kurtulmus, said on Wednesday. Increased security fears following an attempted coup and a series of militant attacks slashed Turkey s tourism revenues in 2016 to $22.11 billion from $31.46 billion in 2015. But numbers turned around in April, thanks to a surge in Russian tourists following an improvement in relations between Moscow and Ankara. Data for the third quarter of 2017 showed a rebound of nearly 40 percent year-on-year. We are expecting 31.4 million visitors this year, and from that, revenue of $26 billion, Kurtulmus told Reuters during a visit to London. In 2018, this would rise to 37 million to 38 million visitors, generating revenue of $30 billion, he said. Turkey s finance ministry in October predicted that tourism would generate $20 billion of revenue in 2017. Tourism has generated significant revenue for the $860 billion economy, which straddles Europe and Asia. In 2016, the government launched a plan to bolster the beleaguered sector. reut.rs/2jbKTa2 Kurtulmus said the cabinet was expected to sign off later this month on proposed new incentives to tour operators, offering them as much as $9,000 for every planeload of tourists they brought to the country, depending on the season. Turkey also hopes to become a greater health and sports tourism destination, he said, and to revive cruise travel, which suffered after concern over security led a number of operators to cancel trips in recent years. We are working with other countries around the Mediterranean to come up with packages, to attract Westerners, especially visitors from the U.S., he said. We are talking to Greece and others. Turkey is also trying to attract visitors from Asia to broaden its appeal beyond its usual markets in Europe. We are trying to open the doors of Far East countries - namely China, India, Japan, Korea, Indonesia and Malaysia, Kurtulmus said. They also have new real middle classes, especially China and India.

@joshuacrime @jhobag @guardian @commentisfree no not at all. I agree with you entirely. It has to be said, Islam is a fascist ideology.

The Supreme Court gutted a key portion of the law in 2013 and told Congress to provide a fix. But only a handful of Republicans support a House bill that would do so by specifying which states and localities with a history of minority voter suppression require extra scrutiny when changing their voting laws. In the Senate, Democrats still can't find a single GOP co-sponsor for their forthcoming bill. "I think if someone is judged to have completed their debt to society, then that's certainly something that should be seriously considered," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). "I don't think someone -- if they paid their debt to society -- why they can't re-enter society." Currently, the question of whether an ex-offender can vote in a state or federal election is largely determined by where the person lives. Some states permanently revoke voting rights for people convicted of a felony. Other states, like Maine and Vermont, never strip felons of their voting rights, even while they are in prison. Most states do restore voting rights to ex-felons after they have served their full sentence, but the process for registering again to vote can be burdensome. Myrna Pérez, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center, said that states are taking action on this front and the “general trajectory is to ease restrictions.” Since 1997, Brennan reports, at least 23 states have expanded voter eligibility or eased the process by which rights are restored. The issue is also forging unusual alliances on Capitol Hill. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential 2016 presidential candidate, and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) are co-sponsors of the Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act of 2015, which would reinstate voting rights to nonviolent ex-offenders for federal elections, unless an individual is serving a sentence or a term of probation at the time of the election. "A criminal record is currently one of the biggest impediments to voting in federal elections," Paul said in a statement. "The Civil Rights Voting Restoration Act will reform existing federal law and give low-level ex-offenders another opportunity to vote. This is an issue that I feel strongly about, and I will continue to fight for the restoration of voting rights in the hopes of giving non-violent ex-offenders a second chance." Their bill doesn't have any other co-sponsors. But given the sentiments of Graham and McCain, for example, that may be more because it's not on people's radars right now. But that bill goes further than the Paul-Reid plan: It would restore voting rights for federal elections to anyone, including violent offenders, who is not incarcerated and serving a felony sentence at the time of the election. That appears to be a line Republicans won't cross, given that none are signed onto that bill in either chamber. HuffPost counted 10 Senate Republicans who are co-sponsors of at least one criminal justice reform bill, and reached out to all of them to see if they support restoring voting rights to ex-offenders. Besides Paul, Graham and Hatch, those senators include John Cornyn (Texas), Mike Lee (Utah), Ted Cruz (Texas), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), Marco Rubio (Fla.) and David Perdue (Ga.). Cardin did a little test recently to see what kind of support he'd get on a voting rights measure -- and he got decent results. During last week's Senate budget debate, he offered an amendment to fund an initiative to notify inmates of their voting rights and produce a report on the effect of criminal disenfranchisement laws on minorities. The vote was purely symbolic, but four Republicans supported it: Paul, Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Lamar Alexander (Tenn.).

Yeah...we know how that bitch rolls...she's another one!!...ughhhh @jayeshdewana12 @Kelawalababa

Next Swipe left/right 8 classic football banners of our time Proof that sometimes the most entertaining part of a football match is the banners made by fans – here are 8 from over the years that have brightened up the beautiful game. 1. Aston Villa v Fulham, 2006

Pinterest Today, Project Veritas released the fourth video in their “Rigging the Election” series, titled, “ Rigging the Election – Video IV: $20K Wire Transfer From Belize Returned .” In it, Democracy Partners founder Robert Creamer, who visited the White House 342 times during President Obama’s time there — 45 times with Obama himself — and has since resigned from his position, is on tape talking about shady, offshore donations. At the beginning of the video, Creamer admits how close he is to the White House: “I’ve known the president since he was a community organizer in Chicago […] Every morning, I am on a call at 10:30 that goes over the message being driven by campaign headquarters […] I do a lot of work with the White House.” MRC TV reported about the video that unearthed major donations from offshore accounts in Belize that were “mysteriously returned”: O’Keefe then claims the Clinton campaign violated Federal Election Campaign (FEC) coordination laws. He alleges they sent a fake possible donor, named Charles Roth III, to speak with members of Americans United for Change (AUFC), another organization working with the Clinton campaign, to see how they would go about helping a “donor” who wanted to stop Donald Trump from winning the presidency. “Roth” spoke to Creamer about donating $20,000, and also inquired about how to affect Trump campaign events. According to Creamer, who responded to Roth: “Now, Trump events is fine and frankly I spent most of my time overseeing the Trump events around the country. I mean that’s what I do, that’s what I do for the Clinton campaign…so that’s interesting as well.” Creamer then instructed Roth to send a check to AUFC — the group that O’Keefe reported Creamer was a general consultant for. Creamer admitted that he was a consultant for AUFC, but conveniently, after the first two Project Veritas videos were releaed, Creamer’s name was scrubbed from their site. Project Veritas dug even deeper into the corruption after AUFC confirmed that they got the $20,000 donation check from Roth via the offshore Belize account. To do so, Project Veritas sent another undercover journalist to intern with Democracy Partners and work with Creamer. Scott Foval, who we met in the previous “Rigged Election” series videos, is now the former national field director for AUFC and spoke to who he believed was a representative for Roth: “If he wants to get dirty, we can get dirty.” Much more was unearthed in the video — including Cesar Vargas, an illegal alien and founder of the Dream Action Coalition — who talked about conducting voter fraud in a meeting with Foval. “What’s the goal of the campaign right,” Vargas asked and added, “Yeah and for me I totally get it, this is illegal, this is something that can be done.” Project Veritas created a fictitious “money man” for Roth named Michael Carlson to see what these Democrat operatives would do with the promise of more money dangled in front of them. Creamer spoke to Carlson on the phone about a fictitious, wealthy client living in Syria that wanted to come to the U.S. Creamer told Carlson: I just need to, I will try and find a couple of good referrals to you and get back to you pretty quick then. Okay? On the first…Well, I’ll just talk to…the guy I’m going to talk to first, to see if this is up his alley, the first thing is up his alley. It’s the guy who ran the campaign for President Obama. He has a firm that’s pretty well connected. Now, where did the $20,000 go? MRC-TV reported: The shocker of why the $20,000 was mysteriously returned led back to the direction of Woodhouse [AUFC President Brad Woodhouse]. O’Keefe claims that once Woodhouse learned of the future release of the undercover videos, the money was wire returned back to the offshore account in Belize with Woodhouse claiming suspicion of a foreign donation. Make sure to watch the entire Project Veritas video so you can see the corruption for yourself — including a pay-to-pay situation involving Creamer who was caught admitting that a donation could buy a meeting with Clinton.

in: General Health , Medical & Health , Sleuth Journal , Special Interests I’ve written many articles on the hazards and drawbacks of getting a mammogram, which include: • The risk of false positives . Besides leading to unnecessary mental anguish and medical treatment, a false cancer diagnosis may also interfere with your eligibility for medical insurance, which can have serious financial ramifications • The risk of false negatives , which is of particular concern for dense-breasted women • The fact that ionizing radiation actually causes cancer and may contribute to breast cancer when done over a lifetime. Results published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) show that women carrying the BRCA1/2 gene mutation are particularly vulnerable to radiation-induced cancer 1 • The fact that studies repeatedly find that mammograms have no impact on mortality rates As so expertly demonstrated in the video above, created by Dr. Andrew Lazris and environmental scientist, Erik Rifkin, Ph.D., it’s easy to misunderstand the benefits of mammograms. Mammograms are said to reduce your risk of dying from breast cancer by 20 percent, but unless you understand where this number comes from, you’ll be vastly overestimating the potential benefit of regular mammogram screening . Most doctors also fail to inform patients about the other side of the equation, which is that far more women are actually harmed by the procedure than benefit from it. 1 in 1,000 Women Is Saved by Regular Mammogram Screening While 10 Undergo Cancer Treatment for No Reason Incredible as it may sound, the 20 percent mortality risk reduction touted by conventional medicine actually amounts to just 1 woman per 1,000 who get regular mammograms. How can that be? As explained in the video, for every 1,000 women who do not get mammograms, 5 of them will die of breast cancer. For every 1,000 women who do get mammograms, 4 will die anyway. The difference between the two groups is 20 percent (the difference of that one person in the mammogram group whose life is saved). On the other side of the equation, out of every 1,000 women who get regular mammograms over a lifetime: HALF will receive a false positive. So while they do NOT have cancer, about 500 out of every 1,000 women getting mammograms will face the terror associated with a breast cancer diagnosis 64 will get biopsies, which can be painful and carry risks of adverse effects 10 will go on to receive cancer treatment for what is in actuality NOT cancer, including disfiguring surgery and toxic drugs or radiation. Surgery, chemo and radiation are all risky, and dying from the treatment for a cancer you do not have is doubly tragic All things considered, the evidence seems quite clear; most women should probably avoid mammograms, as they cause far more harm than good. Many studies have now come to that conclusion, and the most recent research, 2 published just in time for Breast Cancer Awareness Month, again hammers home that point. Harms of Mammography Eclipse Benefits For this study, the researchers analyzed U.S. cancer statistics collected by the government in order to estimate the effectiveness of mammography. By comparing records of breast cancers diagnosed in women over the age of 40 between 1975 and 1979 — a time before mammograms came into routine use — and between 2000 and 2002, three key findings emerged. 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 The incidence of large tumors (2 centimeters or larger) has declined, from 68 percent to 32 percent The number of women diagnosed with small tumors has increased, from 36 to 64 percent The incidence of metastatic cancer, which is the most lethal, has remained stable This may initially sound like good news for mammograms, but in absolute numbers, the decrease in large tumors was actually rather small — a mere 30 tumors less per 100,000 women. Meanwhile, the dramatic increase in small tumors was mostly attributed to overdiagnosis — an estimated 81 percent of these small tumors did not actually need treatment. The fact that metastatic cancer rates remained even suggests we’re not catching more of them, earlier. Instead, we’re catching and treating mostly harmless tumors. The researchers also found that two-thirds of the reduction in breast cancer mortality was attributable to improved treatment, such as the use of tamoxifen. Breast cancer screening only accounted for one-third of the reduction in mortality. Lead researcher Dr. H.Gilbert Welch explains the findings of the study in the video above. As reported by WebMD: 9 “The upshot, according to Welch, is that mammography is more likely to ‘overdiagnose’ breast cancer than to catch more-aggressive tumors early. What’s more, the researchers said that while breast cancer deaths have fallen since the 1970s, that is mainly due to better treatment — not screening. Welch noted the current study’s findings have nothing to do with women who feel a lump in the breast. ‘They need to get a mammogram,’ he stressed. But, Welch suggested, when it comes to routine screening, women can decide based on their personal values.” Screening as Personal Choice When speaking to NBC news, Welch went on to say that “screening is a choice. It’s not a public health imperative.” 10 At present, most conventional cancer specialists do view mammograms as an imperative, although recommendations vary depending on who you listen to. As of last year, the American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends women of average risk should have their first mammogram at age 45, followed by an annual mammogram up until age 55. Women 55 and older should have them every other year. 11 Meanwhile, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends waiting until the age of 50, and only getting a mammogram every other year thereafter. 12 In response to heated debate over the varying guidelines, the U.S. Congress passed legislation requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms regardless of age. Not surprisingly, the ACS has sharply criticized the latest study. In a statement, chief cancer control officer of ACS, Dr. Richard Wender, said: “These conclusions are bold, attention-grabbing and should be taken with a grain of salt — actually, an entire spoonful.” The problem with Wender’s attitude is that this is by no means the first or only study suggesting that mammography has been vastly oversold. In fact, a number of studies have now refuted the validity of mammography as a primary tool against breast cancer. The Evidence Overwhelmingly Refutes Routine Use of Mammography Other studies that support the findings of the featured study include the following: ✓ Archives of Internal Medicine, 2007 : A meta-analysis of 117 randomized, controlled mammogram trials. Among its findings: Rates of false-positive results are as high as 56 percent after 10 mammograms. 13 ✓ Cochrane Database Review, 2009 : This review found that breast cancer screening led to a 30 percent rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, which actually INCREASED the absolute risk of developing cancer by 0.5 percent. The review concluded that for every 2,000 women invited for screening throughout a 10-year period, the life of just one woman was prolonged, while 10 healthy women were treated unnecessarily. 14 ✓ New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 2010 : This study concluded that the reduction in mortality as a result of mammographic screening was so small as to be nonexistent — a mere 2.4 deaths per 100,000 person-years were spared as a result of the screening. 15 ✓ The Lancet Oncology, 2011 : This study described the natural history of breast cancers detected in the Swedish mammography screening program between 1986 to 1990, involving 650,000 women. Since breast lesions and tumors are aggressively treated and/or removed before they can be determined with any certainty to be a clear and present threat to health, there has been little to no research on what happens when they are left alone. This study however, demonstrated for the first time that women who received the most breast screenings had a HIGHER cumulative incidence of invasive breast cancer over the following six years than the control group who received far less screenings. 16 ✓ The Lancet, 2012 , showed that for every life saved by mammography screening, three women are overdiagnosed and treated with surgery, radiation or chemotherapy for a cancer that might never have given them trouble in their lifetimes. 17 ✓ Cochrane Database Review, 2013 : A review of 10 trials involving more than 600,000 women found mammography screening had no effect on overall mortality. 18 ✓ NEJM, 2014 : Drs. Nikola Biller-Andorno and Peter Jüni published a paper in which they describe the findings of an independent health technology assessment initiative to assess the effectiveness of mammography, of which they were a part: 19 “First, we noticed that the ongoing debate was based on a series of reanalyses of the same, predominantly outdated trials … Could the modest benefit of mammography screening in terms of breast-cancer mortality that was shown in trials initiated between 1963 and 1991 still be detected in a trial conducted today? Second, we were struck by how nonobvious it was that the benefits of mammography screening outweighed the harms. The relative risk reduction of approximately 20 percent in breast-cancer mortality associated with mammography that is currently described by most expert panels came at the price of a considerable diagnostic cascade, with repeat mammography, subsequent biopsies and overdiagnosis of breast cancers — cancers that would never have become clinically apparent … Third, we were disconcerted by the pronounced discrepancy between women’s perceptions of the benefits of mammography screening and the benefits to be expected in reality. The figure shows the numbers of 50-year-old women in the United States expected to be alive, to die from breast cancer, or to die from other causes if they are invited to undergo regular mammography every [two] years over a 10-year period, as compared with women who do not undergo mammography … The Swiss Medical Board’s report was made public on February 2, 2014. 20 It acknowledged that systematic mammography screening might prevent about one death attributed to breast cancer for every 1,000 women screened, even though there was no evidence to suggest that overall mortality was affected. At the same time, it emphasized the harm — in particular, false positive test results and the risk of overdiagnosis … The board therefore recommended that no new systematic mammography screening programs be introduced and that a time limit be placed on existing programs. In addition, it stipulated that the quality of all forms of mammography screening should be evaluated and that clear and balanced information should be provided to women regarding the benefits and harms of screening.” ✓ British Medical Journal (BMJ), 2014 : A Canadian study put the rate of overdiagnosis and overtreatment from mammography at nearly 22 percent. 21 ✓ JAMA Internal Medicine, July 2015 : Here, researchers concluded mammography screenings lead to unnecessary treatments while having virtually no impact on the number of deaths from breast cancer. A positive correlation between breast cancer screening and breast cancer incidence was indeed found, but there was no positive correlation with mortality. 22 , 23 ✓ Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, September 2015 : The conclusion of this study is stated right in the title, which reads: “Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned.” 24 , 25 In short, the authors concluded that decades of routine breast cancer screening using mammograms has done nothing to decrease deaths from breast cancer, while causing more than half (52 percent) of all women undergoing the test to be overdiagnosed and overtreated. According to lead author Peter C. Gøtzsche, had mammograms been a drug, “it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago.” It’s Time to Revise the ‘When in Doubt, Cut It Out’ Mentality Going back to where we started, even when using the cancer industry’s own statistics mammography comes up short, provided you understand what the 20 percent actually means. To reiterate, the difference between getting routine mammograms and not getting them is that the life of 1 in 1,000 women is saved. Four die even with mammograms, compared to five deaths among those who do not get screened. And again, 10 of those 1,000 screened women will be treated for cancer even though they do not actually have it. Clearly the choice is yours. If you find comfort in thinking you may be that one person who is saved, then by all means follow your heart or gut instinct. Just be clear about the risks, because the chances are far greater you could be one of the 10 who ends up undergoing chemo or a mastectomy for a tumor that would not have caused you harm. As noted by Dr. Joann Elmore of the University of Washington School of Medicine: 26 “We get credit for curing disease that never would have harmed the patient. We receive positive feedback from patients thanking us for ‘saving my life,’ alarming feedback from patients with ‘missed diagnoses’ and no feedback at all from patients whose cancer was overdiagnosed. The mantras, ‘All cancers are life-threatening’ and ‘When in doubt, cut it out’, require revision.” Solid Evidence for Vitamin D as a Cancer Prevention Tool Mammograms are portrayed as the best form of “prevention” a woman can get. But early diagnosis is not the same as prevention. And when the cancer screening does more harm than good, how can it possibly qualify as your best hope? I believe the evidence really speaks for itself when it comes to mammography. The same can be said for research into vitamin D, which repeatedly shows that optimizing your vitamin D level within a range of 40 to 60 nanograms per milliliter (ng/ml) provides impressive cancer protection. I believe testing your vitamin D level is one of the most important cancer prevention tests available. Ideally get tested twice a year. There are exceptions, of course. If you feel a lump in your breast, a mammogram may be warranted, although even then there are other non-ionizing alternatives, such as ultrasound, which has been shown to be considerably superior to mammography, especially for dense-breasted women who are at much higher risk of a false negative when using mammography. One of the most recent studies 27 looking at vitamin D for breast cancer found that vitamin D deficiency is associated with cancer progression and metastasis. As noted by Stanford University researcher, Dr. Brian Feldman: 28 “A number of large studies have looked for an association between vitamin D levels and cancer outcomes, and the findings have been mixed. Our study identifies how low levels of vitamin D circulating in the blood may play a mechanistic role in promoting breast cancer growth and metastasis .” Having higher levels of vitamin D has also been linked to increased likelihood of survival after being diagnosed with breast cancer. 29 In one study, breast cancer patients who had an average of 30 ng/ml of vitamin D in their blood had a 50 percent lower mortality rate compared to those who had an average of 17 ng/ml of vitamin D. I am really grateful that the medical community has embraced vitamin D and started using it. However, it’s important to understand that the best way to get vitamin D is from sensible sun exposure, and if you’re really interested in optimal health and healing you will do everything in your power to get it. This is one of the reasons I moved to Florida. I have not swallowed vitamin D in over 8 years and still have levels over 60 ng/ml. There are many other benefits of sunlight exposure other than vitamin D. Over 40 percent of sunlight is near-infrared rays that your body requires to structure the water in your body and stimulate mitochondrial repair and regeneration. If you merely swallow vitamin D and avoid the sun, you are missing a primary benefit of sensible sun exposure. If you are stuck in the winter and have low vitamin D, it is probably best to swallow oral vitamin D like a drug, but please recognize that this is a FAR inferior way to optimize vitamin D levels and you are missing many important biological benefits when you avoid sun exposure. You can learn more about vitamin D’s influence on cancer and other health problems in my previous article, “ The Who, Why and When of Vitamin D Screening .” The fact of the matter is there are many strategies that are far more beneficial in terms of breast cancer prevention than mammography. So if you’re hitching your fate on mammograms, you’re doing yourself a huge disservice. For key dietary guidelines and lifestyle strategies that can help reduce your cancer risk, please see my previous article, “ Top Tips to Decrease Your Breast Cancer Risk .” Another excellent resource is Dr. Christine Horner’s book, “Waking the Warrior Goddess: Dr. Christine Horner’s Program to Protect Against and Fight Breast Cancer ,” which contains scientifically validated all-natural approaches that can protect against and treat breast cancer. Submit your review

John Cena's New Comments About Nikki Bella Suggest He Wants A Reconciliation — VIDEO

What will the new cold war look like? (Illustration by Brad Holland)William Blum ICHThe anti-Russian/anti-Soviet bias in the American media appears to have no limit. You would think that they would have enough self-awareness and enough journalistic integrity - just enough - to be concerned about their image. But it keeps on coming, piled higher and deeper.One of the latest cases in point is a review of a new biography of Mikhail Gorbachev in the New York Times Book Review (September 10). The review says that Gorbachev was no hero to his own people because he was the destroyer of their empire . This is how the New York Times avoids having to say anything positive about life in the Soviet Union or about socialism. They would have readers believe that it was the loss of the likes of Czechoslovakia or Hungary et al. that upset the Russian people, not the loss, under Gorbachev s perestroika, of a decent standard of living for all, a loss affecting people s rent, employment, vacations, medical care, education, and many other aspects of the Soviet welfare state.Accompanying this review is a quote from a 1996 Times review of Gorbachev s own memoir, which said: It mystifies Westerners that Mikhail Gorbachev is loathed and ridiculed in his own country. This is the man who pulled the world several steps back from the nuclear brink and lifted a crushing fear from his countrymen, who ended bloody foreign adventures [and] liberated Eastern Europe. Yet his repudiation at home could hardly be more complete. His political comeback attempt in June attracted less than 1 percent of the vote. Thus is Gorbachev s unpopularity with his own people further relegated to the category of mystery , and not due to the profound social changes.It should be noted that in 1999, USA Today reported: When the Berlin Wall crumbled [1989], East Germans imagined a life of freedom where consumer goods were abundant and hardships would fade. Ten years later, a remarkable 51% say they were happier with communism. Earlier polls would likely have shown even more than 51% expressing such a sentiment, for in the ten years many of those who remembered life in East Germany with some fondness had passed away; although even 10 years later, in 2009, the Washington Post could report: Westerners [West Berliners] say they are fed up with the tendency of their eastern counterparts to wax nostalgic about communist times. It was in the post-unification period that a new Russian and eastern Europe proverb was born: Everything the Communists said about Communism was a lie, but everything they said about capitalism turned out to be the truth. The current New York Times review twice refers to Vladimir Putin as authoritarian , as does, routinely, much of the Western media. None of the many such references I have come across in recent years has given an example of such authoritarian policies, although such examples of course exist, as they do under a man named Trump and a woman named May and every other government in the world. But clearly if a strong case could be made of Putin being authoritarian, the Western media would routinely document such in their attacks upon the Russian president. Why do they not?The review further refers to Putin to as the cold-eye former K.G.B. lieutenant colonel . One has to wonder if the New York Times has ever referred to President George H.W. Bush as the cold-eye former CIA Director .Just as in the first Cold War, one of the basic problems is that Americans have great difficulty in believing that Russians mean well. Apropos this, I d like to recall the following written about George Kennan, one of the most prominent American diplomats ever:Crossing Poland with the first US diplomatic mission to the Soviet Union in the winter of 1933, a young American diplomat named George Kennan was somewhat astonished to hear the Soviet escort, Foreign Minister Maxim Litvinov, reminisce about growing up in a village nearby, about the books he had read and his dreams as a small boy of being a librarian. We suddenly realized, or at least I did, that these people we were dealing with were human beings like ourselves, Kennan wrote, that they had been born somewhere, that they had their childhood ambitions as we had. It seemed for a brief moment we could break through and embrace these people. It hasn t happened yet.Kennan s sudden realization brings George Orwell to mind: We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. The plague of nationalismThe world has enough countries. Too goddamn many if you ask me. Is there room for any more delegations at the United Nations? Any more parking spots in New York? Have the people of Catalonia, who are seeking independence from Spain in an October 1 vote, considered that their new nation will have to open hundreds of new embassies and consulates around the world, furnish them all, fill them all with paid employees, houses and apartments and furniture for many of them, several new cars for each diplomatic post. How many billions of dollars in taxes will be taken from the Catalan people to pay for all this?And what about the military? Any self-respecting country needs an army and a navy. Will the new Catalonia be able to afford even halfway decent armed forces? The new country will of course have to join NATO with its obligatory minimum defense capability. There goes a billion or two more.Plus what it will have to pay the European Union, which will simply be replacing Madrid in imposing many legal restrictions upon the Catalan people.And for what noble purpose are they rising up? Freedom, democracy, civil liberties, human rights? No. It s all for money. Madrid is taking in more in taxes from Catalonia than it returns in services, something which can be said about many city-state relationships in the United States. (Presumably there are also some individual Catalans who have their odd personal reasons.)Catalan nationalists insist that self-determination is an inalienable right and cannot be curbed by the Spanish Constitution. Well, then, why stop with an autonomous community as Catalonia is designated? Why don t provinces everywhere have the right to declare their independence? How about cities? Or neighborhoods? Why not my block? I could be the president.And there are many other restive independence movements in the world, like the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey; in Scotland, Belgium and Italy; and California. Lord help us. Many countries are very reluctant to even recognize a new state for fear that it might encourage their own people to break away.If love is blind, nationalism has lost all five senses. If nature were a bank, they would have already rescued it. Eduardo GaleanoU.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told a New York investor conference that Hurricane Irma would ultimately boost the economy by sparking rebuilding. There clearly is going to be an impact on GDP in the short run, we will make it up in the long run. As we rebuild, that will help GDP. It won t have a bad impact on the economy. Hmmm very interesting Can we therefore assume that if the damage had been twice as bad it would have boosted the economy even more?Meanwhile, in the non-Trump, non-fantasy world, there is a thing called climate change; i.e. the quality of our lives, the survival of the planet. What keeps corporations from modifying their behavior so as to be kinder to our environment? It is of course the good old bottom line again. What can we do to convince the corporations to consistently behave like good citizens? Nothing that hasn t already been tried and failed. Except one thing. unmentionable in polite company. unmentionable in a capitalist society. Nationalization. There, I said it. Now I ll be getting letters addressed to The Old Stalinist .But nationalization is not a panacea either, at least for the environment. There s the greatest single source of man-made environmental damage in the world The United States military. And it s already been nationalized. But doing away with private corporations will reduce the drive toward imperialism sufficiently that before long the need for a military will fade away and we can live like Costa Rica. If you think that would put the United States in danger of attack, please tell me who would attack, and why.The argument I like to use when speaking to those who don t accept the idea that extreme weather phenomena are man-made is this:Well, we can proceed in one of two ways:1: We can do our best to limit the greenhouse effect by curtailing greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were not in fact the cause of all the extreme weather phenomena, then we ve wasted a lot of time, effort and money (although other benefits to the ecosystem would still accrue).2: We can do nothing at all to curtail the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and if it turns out that these emissions were in fact the leading cause of all the extreme weather phenomena (not simply extreme, but getting downright freaky), then we ve lost the earth and life as we know it.So, are you a gambler?The new Vietnam documentaryAt the beginning of Ken Burns new documentary on the American war in Vietnam the narrator says the war was begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings, American overconfidence and Cold War misunderstandings. The early American involvement in Vietnam can be marked by two things in particular: (1) helping the French imperialists in their fight against the forces led by Ho Chi Minh of North Vietnam and (2) the cancellation of the elections that would have united North and South Vietnam as one nation because the US and its South Vietnam allies knew that Ho Chi Minh would win. It was that simple.Nothing of good faith or decency in that scenario. No misunderstandings. Ho Chi Minh was a great admirer of America and its Declaration of Independence. His own actual declaration of 1945 begins with the familiar All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But Ho Chi Minh was what was called a communist . It was that simple. (See the Vietnam chapter in my book Killing Hope for the details.)Daniel Ellsberg s conclusion about the US in Vietnam: It wasn t that we were on the wrong side; we were the wrong side. Ms. HillaryShe has a new book out and lots of interviews, all giving her the opportunity to complain about the many forces that joined together to deny her her rightful place as queen. I might feel a bit, just a bit, of sympathy for the woman if not for her greatest crime.There was a country called Libya. It had the highest standard of living in all of Africa; its people had not only free education and health care but all kinds of other benefits that other Africans could only dream about. It was also a secular state, a quality to be cherished in Africa and the Middle East. But Moammar Gaddafi of Libya was never a properly obedient client of Washington. Amongst other shortcomings, the man threatened to replace the US dollar with gold for payment of oil transactions, create a common African currency, and was a strong supporter of the Palestinians and foe of Israel.In 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the prime moving force behind the United States and NATO turning Libya into a failed state, where it remains today.The attack against Libya was one that the New York Times said Clinton had championed , convincing President Obama in what was arguably her moment of greatest influence as Secretary of State. The people of Libya were bombed almost daily for more than six months. The main excuse given was that Gaddafi was about to invade Benghazi, the Libyan center of his opponents, and so the United States and NATO were thus saving the people of that city from a massacre. The American people and the American media of course swallowed this story, though no convincing evidence of the alleged impending massacre has ever been presented. The nearest thing to an official US government account of the matter a Congressional Research Service report on events in Libya for the period makes no mention at all of the threatened massacre.The US/NATO heavy bombing sent Libya crashing in utter chaos, leading to the widespread dispersal throughout North African and Middle East hotspots of the gigantic arsenal of weaponry that Gaddafi had accumulated. Libya is now a haven for terrorists, from al Qaeda to ISIS, whereas Gaddafi had been a leading foe of terrorists. He had declared Libya as a barrier to terrorists, as well as African refugees, going to Europe. The bombing has contributed greatly to the area s mammoth refugee crisis.And when Hillary was shown a video about the horrific murder of Gaddafi by his opponents she loudly cackled (yes, that s the word): We came, we saw, he died! You can see it on Youtube.There s also her support of placing regime change in Syria ahead of supporting the Syrian government in its struggle against ISIS and other terrorist groups. Even more disastrous was the 2003 US invasion of Iraq which she as a senator supported.If all this is not sufficient to capture the utter charm of the woman, another foreign-policy adventure, one which her swooning followers totally ignore, the few that even know about it, is the coup ousting the moderately progressive Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in June, 2009. A tale told many times in Latin America: The downtrodden masses finally put into power a leader committed to reversing the status quo, determined to try to put an end to two centuries of oppression and before long the military overthrows the democratically-elected government, while the United States if not the mastermind behind the coup does nothing to prevent it or to punish the coup regime, as only the United States can punish; meanwhile Washington officials pretend to be very upset over this affront to democracy .District of ColumbiaHow many people around the world know that in Washington, DC (District of Columbia, where I live), the capital city of the United States - the country that is always lecturing the world about this thing called democracy - the citizens do not have the final say over making the laws that determine life in their city? Many Americans as well are not aware of this.According to the US Constitution (Section 8) Congress has the final say, and in recent years has blocked the city from using local tax dollars to subsidize abortion for low-income women, blocked the implementation of legal marijuana use, blocked needle exchanges, blocked certain taxes, blocked a law that says employers cannot discriminate against workers based on their reproductive decisions, imposed private schools into the public-school system, and will soon probably block the District s new assisted-suicide law (already blocked in the House of Representatives). On top of all this, since DC is not a state, its citizens do not have any representatives in the Senate and their sole representative in the House has only the barest non-voting, token rights. DC residents did not even have the right to vote for the president until 1964.In 2015 in Brussels, the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization formally voted to accept the District of Columbia as a new member. UNPO is an international democratic organization whose members are indigenous peoples, minorities and unrecognized or occupied territories who have joined together to protect and promote their human and cultural rights, to preserve their environments and to find nonviolent solutions to conflicts which affect them.NOTES1: USA Today, October 11, 1999, p.1 2: Washington Post, May 12, 2009; see a similar story November 5, 2009 3: Walter Isaacson & Evan Thomas, The Wise Men (1986), p.158 4: Associated Press, September 21, 2017 5: New York Times, February 28, 2016 6: Libya: Transition and U.S. Policy , updated March 4, 2016. 7: RT (Russia Today) television station, January 8, 2016 8: See Mark Weisbrot s Top Ten Ways You Can Tell Which Side The United States Government is On With Regard to the Military Coup in Honduras ***TO READ MORE ON THE NEW COLD WAR: THE 21WIRE COLD WAR FILESSUPPORT 21WIRE SUBSCRIBE & BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama, taking on Republican presidential candidates for stirring up anxiety among Americans, told leaders at Washington’s national prayer breakfast on Thursday that faith could conquer fear brought on by war, technology, and economic troubles. “It is a primal emotion, fear, one that we all experience.  And it can be contagious, spreading through societies, and through nations,” Obama said. “For me, and I know for so many of you, faith is the great cure for fear. Jesus is a good cure for fear. God gives believers the power, the love, the sound mind required to conquer any fear. And what more important moment for that faith than right now?” he said. Obama’s remarks came a day after his first visit to a U.S. mosque, where he sought to allay fears of Americans accustomed to pop-culture portrayals of Muslims as terrorists and to reassure Muslim American youth about their identity. Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has called for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States. Obama, a Christian, said his faith had helped him deal with the challenges of being president and was bolstering him as his children grew up and prepared for adulthood. “It helps me deal with the common, everyday fears that we all share. The main one I’m feeling right now is that our children grow up too fast. They’re leaving!” he said to laughter.  The president said he had drawn on his faith when comforting the parents of children killed by gun violence, a subtle reference to his failed effort to sharpen U.S. gun control laws. He said that people of faith had helped take in Syrian refugees, a subtle jab at Republicans who oppose allowing them into the country.

@BBCBreaking @BBCWorld No leads to holed up rats,they are well equipped,it was a planned strike,catching the police laden footed once again.

Assange Points Out Hillary’s Emails Confirm Oligarchic Control https://www.rt.com/news/365404-assange-pilger-clinton-fbi/ https://www.rt.com/news/365405-assange-pilger-full-transcript/ The post Assange Points Out Hillary’s Emails Confirm Oligarchic Control appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org .

@NegarMortazavi @hussain_aadil Stop lying about #CharlieHebdo : This Attack Was Nothing To Do With Free Speech  https://t.co/odHoHQB11a

Home » Headlines » World News » FBI Discovered Emails Weeks Ago, Stash Includes Classified Emails “Likely” Deleted By Clinton – Wikileaks JACKPOT… — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 31, 2016 Lost in all this is further criminal revelations from Wikileaks regarding donations: Tina Flournoy, Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton, tells Hillary Clinton campain chair John Podesta: https://t.co/xPuAzjvBEM pic.twitter.com/PhMvUu7m3F Meanwhile, Wikileaks begins “Phase 3” of the Hillary leaks this week: We commence phase 3 of our US election coverage next week. You can contribute: https://t.co/MsNZhrTzTL @WLTaskForce pic.twitter.com/XferJnMGux 2017 Gold Pandas and 2017 Silver Panda Coins Are Now Available! Secure Your 2017 Panda Coins Today at SD Bullion!