Executive Producers: Sir Nicholas Principe, Sir Roy Pearce, Baronet Sir Milkman Greg Whorley, Sir HMFIC, Alistair Jeffs, Sir Tim Nutting
Associate Executive Producers: Sir Dave Fugazotto, Steve Fisher, Rob Sedlak, Sir Paul of Winooski, Anonymous CPA, John Selle, Sir Don, Joseph Amato, Henry Claeys, Tristan Banning, Sarah Coble, Francis Lambert Sir Cravado
Become a member of the 864 Quarters Club, support the show here
I attended a dinner party last night. My friend's cousin who was there worked closely with Dr Drew on his show. She is no longer employed, as you can imagine.
So, I had to ask, was the show canceled because of his Hillary remarks? Her initial answer was no, but then she added, "It was canceled because it was a shitty show. He was told not to make those comments, and he chose to anyway...." i forget her specific words after that moment, but basically he felt his show was crap and wanted to transition away from it. He used his Hillary comments as a tool to distract people onto that, when he really just wanted an out.
When asked about Drew not going onto Adam Carolla's show she mentioned that Adam had said some mean things about Drew, basically he's not going on Adam's show because the two are having a behind the scenes spat.
My thoughts: confirmation that he was specifically instructed not to say negative comments about Hillary
and...
Why did he want out instead of a change of format of show? Could it be that he had the same realization as you about rampant purposeful deception in the media?
In hindsight I wished I had asked her more questions. Feel like I let you down. Sorry.
UPDATED: In the past, Kim Kardashian has been pretty vocal about her support for Hillary Clinton. But in a recent interview with Wonderland Magazine, the reality star apparently revealed she's now ''on the fence'' about her presidential pick, thanks to a few conversations she's had with Caitlyn Jenner.
''At first I thought, 'Oh my god, I'm so Hillary [Clinton],' but I had a long political call with Caitlyn last night about why she's voting Trump. I'm on the fence,'' she purportedly said in an excerpt posted by The Evening Standard.
After the comment went viral, a representative for Wonderlanddenied the Kardashian quotes appear in the published issue, or online; according to The Huffington Post, however, the quotes are legitimate. Kardashian's Trump statement also still appears on the Evening Standard website.
Jenner has been outspoken about her politics, and on her now cancelled docu-series I Am Cait, professed support for Trump. ''[H]e would be very good for women's issues,'' she said, adding that Clinton was a ''political hack.''
As for Kardashian, she came out in support of Clinton after posting a selfie with the Democratic nominee for president last year.
While the interview with Wonderland does not include the specific quotes about Trump, there is a mention of Trump's wife, Melania. Speaking about a potential presidential run by Kanye West, Kardashian's husband, the reality television star said, ''Look at all the awful things they're doing to Melania [Trump], putting up the naked photos [of her]'... I'll say to Kanye: 'Babe, you know the kind of photos they'd put up of me!' Haha.''
As for what party West would run under, Kardashian didn't say specifically. ''I don't wanna put words in his mouth, but I'm pretty sure the Democrats. Maybe independent? I don't know how serious he is about it. We'll see'...''
At last year's MTV Video Music Awards, West said he would run for president in 2020. In an interview with Vanity Fair last year, West said he was ''definitely'' thinking about running for the country's highest office. ''When I run for president, I'd prefer not to run against someone,'' he added at the time. ''I would be like 'I want to work with you.' As soon as I heard [Ben] Carson speak, I tried for three weeks to get on the phone with him. I was like this is the most brilliant guy. And I think all the people running right now have something that each of the others needs. But the idea of this separation and this gladiator battle takes away from the main focus that the world needs help and the world needs all the people in a position of power or influence to come together.''
Check out the rest of Kardashian's interview here.
Hillary Clinton for President - The New York Times
Similarly, Mrs. Clinton's occasional missteps, combined with attacks on her trustworthiness, have distorted perceptions of her character. She is one of the most tenacious politicians of her generation, whose willingness to study and correct course is rare in an age of unyielding partisanship. As first lady, she rebounded from professional setbacks and personal trials with astounding resilience. Over eight years in the Senate and four as secretary of state, she built a reputation for grit and bipartisan collaboration. She displayed a command of policy and diplomatic nuance and an ability to listen to constituents and colleagues that are all too exceptional in Washington.
Mrs. Clinton's record of service to children, women and families has spanned her adult life. One of her boldest acts as first lady was her 1995 speech in Beijing declaring that women's rights are human rights. After a failed attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system, she threw her support behind legislation to establish the Children's Health Insurance Program, which now covers more than eight million lower-income young people. This year, she rallied mothers of gun-violence victims to join her in demanding comprehensive background checks for gun buyers and tighter reins on gun sales.
After opposing driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants during the 2008 campaign, she now vows to push for comprehensive immigration legislation as president and to use executive power to protect law-abiding undocumented people from deportation and cruel detention. Some may dismiss her shift as opportunistic, but we credit her for arriving at the right position.
Mrs. Clinton and her team have produced detailed proposals on crime, policing and race relations, debt-free college and small-business incentives, climate change and affordable broadband. Most of these proposals would benefit from further elaboration on how to pay for them, beyond taxing the wealthiest Americans. They would also depend on passage by Congress.
That means that, to enact her agenda, Mrs. Clinton would need to find common ground with a destabilized Republican Party, whose unifying goal in Congress would be to discredit her. Despite her political scars, she has shown an unusual capacity to reach across the aisle.
When Mrs. Clinton was sworn in as a senator from New York in 2001, Republican leaders warned their caucus not to do anything that might make her look good. Yet as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, she earned the respect of Republicans like Senator John McCain with her determination to master intricate military matters.
Her most lasting achievements as a senator include a federal fund for long-term health monitoring of 9/11 first responders, an expansion of military benefits to cover reservists and the National Guard, and a law requiring drug companies to improve the safety of their medications for children.
Below the radar, she fought for money for farmers, hospitals, small businesses and environmental projects. Her vote in favor of the Iraq war is a black mark, but to her credit, she has explained her thinking rather than trying to rewrite that history.
As secretary of state, Mrs. Clinton was charged with repairing American credibility after eight years of the Bush administration's unilateralism. She bears a share of the responsibility for the Obama administration's foreign-policy failings, notably in Libya. But her achievements are substantial. She led efforts to strengthen sanctions against Iran, which eventually pushed it to the table for talks over its nuclear program, and in 2012, she helped negotiate a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas.
Mrs. Clinton led efforts to renew diplomatic relations with Myanmar, persuading its junta to adopt political reforms. She helped promote the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an important trade counterweight to China and a key component of the Obama administration's pivot to Asia. Her election-year reversal on that pact has confused some of her supporters, but her underlying commitment to bolstering trade along with workers' rights is not in doubt. Mrs. Clinton's attempt to reset relations with Russia, though far from successful, was a sensible effort to improve interactions with a rivalrous nuclear power.
Mrs. Clinton has shown herself to be a realist who believes America cannot simply withdraw behind oceans and walls, but must engage confidently in the world to protect its interests and be true to its values, which include helping others escape poverty and oppression.
Mrs. Clinton's husband, Bill Clinton, governed during what now looks like an optimistic and even gentle era. The end of the Cold War and the advance of technology and trade appeared to be awakening the world's possibilities rather than its demons. Many in the news media, and in the country, and in that administration, were distracted by the scandal du jour '-- Mr. Clinton's impeachment '-- during the very period in which a terrorist threat was growing. We are now living in a world darkened by the realization of that threat and its many consequences.
Mrs. Clinton's service spans both eras, and she has learned hard lessons from the three presidents she has studied up close. She has also made her own share of mistakes. She has evinced a lamentable penchant for secrecy and made a poor decision to rely on a private email server while at the State Department. That decision deserved scrutiny, and it's had it. Now, considered alongside the real challenges that will occupy the next president, that email server, which has consumed so much of this campaign, looks like a matter for the help desk. And, viewed against those challenges, Mr. Trump shrinks to his true small-screen, reality-show proportions, as we'll argue in detail on Monday.
Through war and recession, Americans born since 9/11 have had to grow up fast, and they deserve a grown-up president. A lifetime's commitment to solving problems in the real world qualifies Hillary Clinton for this job, and the country should put her to work.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
A version of this editorial appears in print on September 25, 2016, on page SR10 of the New York edition with the headline: Hillary Clinton for President.
President Obama used a pseudonym when sending or receiving emails through the private server system Hillary Clinton used as secretary of state, according to nearly 200 pages of documents released Friday by the FBI.
Included in the documents are notes from an April 2016 interview with long-time Clinton aide Huma Abedin, conducted in connection with the FBI's two-year investigation into Clinton's use of the private server for official correspondence.
One note was about the FBI showing Abedin an email address ''believed to be a pseudonym used by the President,'' as reported by Politico and other news-gathering agencies.
Abedin said she didn't recognize the name and ''expressed her amazement'' that Obama apparently used a pseudonym.
She also exclaimed, ''How is this not classified?'' according to the documents.
That email exchange occurred in June 28, 2012, with the subject line ''Congratulations,'' perhaps regarding a Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare. However, federal lawyers will not release the emails, citing executive privilege.
The FBI concluded its investigation this summer, finding that several Clinton emails included at least parts of classified information and that the now-Democratic presidential nominee was ''extremely careless.''
However, the agency did not recommend criminal charges, and the investigation was concluded.
Abedin also reportedly told the FBI that Clinton's team had to inform the White House that Clinton was changing her email address so that Obama could receive her messages.
Obama used a pseudonym in emails with Clinton, FBI documents reveal - POLITICO
The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Hillary Clinton exchanged with Barack Obama. | Getty
President Barack Obama used a pseudonym in email communications with Hillary Clinton and others, according to FBI records made public Friday.
The disclosure came as the FBI released its second batch of documents from its investigation into Clinton's private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.
Story Continued Below
The 189 pages the bureau released includes interviews with some of Clinton's closest aides, such as Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills; senior State Department officials; and even Marcel Lazar, better known as the Romanian hacker ''Guccifer.''
In an April 5, 2016 interview with the FBI, Abedin was shown an email exchange between Clinton and Obama, but the longtime Clinton aide did not recognize the name of the sender.
"Once informed that the sender's name is believed to be pseudonym used by the president, Abedin exclaimed: 'How is this not classified?'" the report says. "Abedin then expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
The State Department has refused to make public that and other emails Clinton exchanged with Obama. Lawyers have cited the "presidential communications privilege," a variation of executive privilege, in order to withhold the messages under the Freedom of Information Act.
The report doesn't provide more details on the contents of that particular email exchange, but says it took place on June 28, 2012, and had the subject line: "Re: Congratulations." It may refer to the Supreme Court's ruling that day upholding a key portion of the Obamacare law.
It's been known since last year that Obama and Clinton corresponded occasionally via her private account, but the White House has insisted Obama did not know she relied on it routinely and exclusively for official business.
A report on the FBI's June 7, 2016 interview with "Guccifer" confirms FBI Director James Comey's claim that Lazar falsely asserted that he'd surreptitiously accessed Clinton's server.
"Lazar began by stating that he had never claimed to hack the Clinton server. [An FBI agent] then advised that Fox News had recently published an article which reported that Lazar had claimed to hack the Clinton server. Lazar then stated that he recalled the interview with Fox News, and that he had lied to them about hacking the Clinton server."
Additional FBI interviewees whose reports were made public Friday included Jake Sullivan, Clinton's policy planning director; Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton technology aide; Monica Hanley, a veteran Clinton aide who worked for her in the Senate and at State; and Sidney Blumenthal, Clinton's longtime confidant.
Hanley revealed in her FBI interview that she had no idea where a thumb drive she used to store an archive of Clinton's emails had gone. Hanley searched for the thumb drive, which the FBI described as "something she happened to have laying around the house," several times but was unable to find it.
The interviews provide more insight into Clinton's lack of technical acumen. According to the FBI's Abedin writeup, she "could not use a computer"; Hanley said Clinton had no idea what her own email password was, and had to rely on aides.
The so-called "302" reports also detail FBI interviews with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA acting director Mike Morell, State Department official Pat Kennedy, State Department Inspector General Steve Linick, Bill Clinton aide Justin Cooper, former diplomatic security chief Eric Boswell and longtime diplomat Lewis Lukens.
Some of the interview reports had the subject's name removed on privacy grounds before the records were released. Many of those people seem to be computer technicians or lower-level State Department officials.
The FBI published 58 pages of documents earlier this month that revealed Clinton had relied on others' judgment to not send her classified material during email correspondences.
''Clinton did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not be on an unclassified system,'' the FBI said in its Sept. 2 report. ''She relied on State officials to use their judgment when emailing her and could not recall anyone raising concerns with her regarding the sensitivity of the information she received at her email address.''
Clinton will meet with the prime minister of Israel, which has been called an ''apartheid state'' by Black Lives Matter activists.
U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has postponed a trip planned for Sunday to the city of Charlotte, site of intense anti police brutality protests, and will instead meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
RELATED:Rage, Defiance as Charlotte Rises Up Against Police Terror
"Hillary is grateful for, and intends to honor, the invitation from faith leaders to visit with the Charlotte community," her campaign said in a statement on Friday.
"After further discussion with community leaders, we have decided to postpone Sunday's trip as to not impact the city's resources," it said, adding that Clinton will visit the city on the following Sunday.
Instead Clinton will meet with Netanyahu, who will also meet separately with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, sources with knowledge of the meeting told CNN.
Both Clinton and Trump are attempting to court Black voters ahead of the November election. Though polls indicate Clinton is the overwhelming favorite, she is unpopular in Black Lives Matter activist circles for her tepid response to their demands.
During the Democratic primaries Clinton famously brushed off a young Black woman who confronted her for her racist comments regarding Black people earlier in her career.
RELATED:Black Lives Matter Refuse to Vote for Hillary Clinton
Clinton has also been accused of failing to take a clear stance in support of Black Lives Matter following a recent string of fatal police killings of Black men.
Her decision to meet with Netanyahu is likely to further exacerbate tensions between the Democratic party's candidate and anti police brutality activists.
A platform released by the Movement for Black Lives proclaimed their support for Palestine and declared Israel an ''apartheid state'' which ''practices systematic discrimination and has maintained a military occupation of Palestine for decades.''
' The first general-election debate of the 2016 presidential campaign takes place Monday, Sept. 26, at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. ' The debate starts at 9:00pm EST. ' The 90-minute debate will be divided into six 15-minute time segments. ' The topics: ' America's Direction, ' Achieving Prosperity and ' Securing America.
According to an upcoming WSJ report candidate Donald Trump held a 5 hour no-break preparatory murder-board debate session last weekend'...
(Via Drudge Exclusive) If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!
''There are no commercial breaks,'' a commission source explains. ''Period.''
Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
Clinton has experienced severe coughing episodes throughout the election year. During a Labor Day campaign stop she suffered a 4-minute choking marathon.
Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4'" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2'" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature. (link)
Donald Trump Gives Media Cuban Sandwich for Pre Debate Discussion'...
In the cacophony of the 2016 campaign, you may have missed this startling fact: From March to June, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, applications by lawful permanent residents to naturalize and become voting-eligible citizens were up 32% over the previous year. In the first quarter of 2016, they were up 28% and in the last half of 2015, they were up about 14%.
These are big jumps. From 2012 through 2014, the annual rate of growth in applications averaged only 2%.
Many of these recent naturalization applicants may make it through the process in time to vote in November. (Republicans are suggesting that speedily processing the application surge represents a security danger, but they may be more worried about an electoral danger; the process now, as always, takes at least five or six months.) This late-breaking wave of Americans will join an already large group: Naturalized citizens are nearly 9% of all citizens who are old enough to vote in the U.S.
A new report from the Center for the Study of Immigration Integration, which I direct at USC, examines how big an impact naturalized citizen voters could have on the 2016 election.
Historically, naturalized citizens underperform the U.S.-born at translating eligibility into actual votes. Registration is one key: Once registered, immigrants' voting rates are similar to native-born voting rates, and the longer someone has been a citizen the more likely he or she is to be registered and to vote.
However, one part of this pattern may be changing. Research over the last few general election cycles shows that the gap in registration rates between recent and long-term naturalized citizens is closing. The probable reason is alluded to in news reports about the latest applicants: Anti-immigrant politicking has been motivating legal residents '-- especially Latinos '-- to become citizens, register and vote.
''I want to vote so Donald Trump won't win,'' Hortensia Villegas, who came to the U.S. from Mexico, told a New York Times reporter early this year. She applied for citizenship in March, after nearly a decade as a legal resident.
We have seen this phenomenon before: In California, in the late 1990s, after the state passed the anti-immigrant measure Proposition 187, foreign-born Latinos outvoted U.S.-born Latinos in the state's elections and came close to meeting the participation rates for non-Latinos.
Are there enough newly minted citizens now to sway election results this year? Our study looked at the voting-age populations in all the states and the number of citizens who naturalized between 2005 and 2015, a period of tumultuous immigration debates and protest that is likely to mean that these potential voters are sensitive to issues such as deportation, ''amnesty'' and border security.
In some states that gained many new citizens, voting patterns probably won't be much affected. California, New York and Texas, for example, added large shares of potential new immigrant voters between 2005 and 2015. These new citizens make up more than 7% of the voting age population in California, more than 6% in New York and nearly 4% in Texas. But these states are already so reliably blue (California and New York) or red (Texas) that those percentages aren't crucial.
However, in a few key battleground states, the newly naturalized voters we counted could make a difference. In Florida, they constitute more than 6% of the voting age population. In Nevada, that share is more than 5%; in Virginia, 4%; and in Arizona, 3%. The results in recent general elections in these states have been so close that these new citizens '-- if they are registered and turn out '-- could tip the tallies.
Moreover, newly naturalized voters could have an effect long beyond any one election: In California, the generation of voters that acquired citizenship and punished the GOP for leading the fight for Proposition 187 are loyal Democrats. They are a big part of the reason California has been reliably blue for nearly 25 years.
Immigration will always be a hotly debated topic in American politics as the nation tries to reconcile competing points of view about the effect of newcomers on our economy and society. However, politicians who demonize immigrants forget at their peril that newcomers naturalize, have memories and can vote.
Manuel Pastor is a professor of sociology and director of the Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration at USC.
Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinionand Facebook
A previous version of this story said the annual growth rate in naturalization applications from 2012 through 2014 was 5%. It is 2%.
Someone who is indefatigable can go on for a very long time without becoming tired. You might not be so happy to have an indefatigable guide on your walking trip''''you'll have blisters, but she'll see no reason not to keep going.
Indefatigable comes from Latin indefatigabilis, formed from the prefix in- "not" plus defatigare "to tire out." Here the prefix de- means "entirely." You can remember the root fatigare because it sounds so much like the English fatigue.
WASHINGTON (AP) '-- President Barack Obama nixed a bill Friday that would have allowed the families of 9/11 victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia, arguing it undermined national security and setting up the possibility that Congress might override his veto for the first time of his presidency.
The bill had sailed through both chambers of Congress with bipartisan support, clearing the final hurdle just days before the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. But the White House said the bill, which doesn't refer specifically to Saudi Arabia, could backfire by opening up the U.S. government and its officials to lawsuits by anyone accusing the U.S. of supporting terrorism, rightly or wrongly.
"I have deep sympathy for the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001," Obama wrote to the Senate in a veto message about the bill, known as the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. But, he said, "the JASTA would be detrimental to U.S. national interests more broadly, which is why I am returning it without my approval."
The move paves the way for Congress to try to override the veto, which requires a two-thirds vote in the House and Senate. Previous attempts to overturn Obama's vetoes have all been unsuccessful.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., indicated Thursday that there was sufficient support in the House to override Obama's veto. Yet the White House has worked assiduously to try to peel off supporters, and said Friday it was unclear whether enough had defected to avert an override.
With lawmakers eager to return home to campaign ahead of the November election, a vote could come early next week. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's office said the Senate would take up the override "as soon as practicable in this work period."
Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the Senate's No. 3 Democrat and a traditional Obama ally, came out swinging against Obama's veto while predicting lawmakers would reverse it "swiftly and soundly."
"The families of the victims of 9/11 deserve their day in court, and justice for those families shouldn't be thrown overboard because of diplomatic concerns," Schumer said.
A coalition of 9/11 victims' families, meanwhile, said they were "outraged and dismayed." In a response circulated by their lawyers, the families insisted the bill would deter terrorism, "no matter how much the Saudi lobbying and propaganda machine may argue otherwise."
Though the concept of sovereign immunity generally shields governments from lawsuits, the bill creates an exception that allows foreign governments to be held responsible if they support a terrorist attack that kills U.S. citizens on American soil. Opponents say that's a slippery slope considering that the U.S. is frequently accused wrongly by its foes of supporting terrorism.
"Americans are in countries all over the world," House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry, a Republican, wrote Friday in a letter urging colleagues not to support a veto. "Many of those countries do not respect the rule of law, and we cannot expect their responses to be as measured and narrow as ours."
Fifteen of the 19 men who carried out the attacks were Saudi nationals. Families of the victims spent years lobbying lawmakers for the right to sue the kingdom in U.S. court for any role elements of Saudi Arabia's government may have had in the attacks. Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, strongly objected to the bill.
Obama long had objected, too, warning that if U.S. citizens are allowed to take the Saudis into court, then foreign countries could do the same to the United States, its diplomats and its service members. The administration was also apprehensive about undermining a longstanding yet difficult relationship with Saudi Arabia. The U.S. relies on the Saudis as a counter to Iran's influence in the region as well as to help combat the spread of terrorism throughout the Middle East.
Since the bill's passage, the White House has lobbied aggressively to persuade lawmakers to withdraw support, and found some sympathetic listeners. The bill had passed by voice vote '-- meaning lawmakers didn't have to go on the record with their positions '-- and the White House was hoping the prospect of a recorded vote would lead some Democrats to reconsider publicly rebuking their president.
Debate about the bill has spilled onto the presidential campaign trail, as candidates vie to appear tough on terrorism. The issue is one of a few where Democrat Hillary Clinton has publicly disagreed with Obama, with her campaign saying Friday that she supports efforts to "hold accountable those responsible" for the attacks.
In the run-up to Obama's veto, the White House said the system the U.S. uses to identify and punish countries that support terrorism was set by law and is more effective than a "patchwork" of legal decisions. Yet the bill's proponents disputed arguments of a boomerang effect if the measure were to become law.
The bill had triggered a perceived threat by Saudi Arabia to pull billions of dollars from the U.S. economy if it was enacted. But Saudi Foreign Minister Adel bin Ahmed Al-Jubeir denied in May that the kingdom made any threats over the bill. He said his country had merely warned that investor confidence in the U.S. would shrink if the bill became law.
The House vote on Sept. 9 came two months after Congress released 28 declassified pages from a congressional report into 9/11. The pages reignited speculation over links that at least a few of the attackers had to Saudis, including government officials. The allegations were never substantiated by later U.S. investigations into the terrorist attacks.
___
Associated Press writers Richard Lardner, Erica Werner and Lisa Lerer contributed to this report.
Riyadh has expressed its willingness to cut its oil production to levels seen early this year in exchange for Iran freezing its output.
Saudi Arabia has reportedly announced that it is ready to reduce its oil production if Iran agrees to freeze its own output over the remaining months to the end of 2016, Reuters reported on Friday.
RELATED:Winner Takes All in Geopolitical Oil War
The offer, which has yet to be accepted or rejected by Tehran, was made earlier this month, according to unnamed sources.
The report states that the Saudi kingdom has expressed its willingness to cut its oil production to levels seen early this year in exchange for Iran freezing its output at the current level of 3.6 million barrels per day.
However, the source has not specified how much Riyadh would cut if Tehran accepts its offer. From January to May, Saudi Arabia produced around 10.2 million barrels per day.
Until last January, Iran was under sanctions that limited its oil exports to 1 million barrels per day and also barred foreign investments in its oil industry.
This is a notable change in the Saudi policy, which led the current policy implemented by OPEC in 2014 by refusing to cut output alone to support prices and chose to defend market share against rivals, particularly high-cost producers.
RELATED:Venezuela Begins Mission to Request OPEC Cut Production
The move provoked a fall in oil prices which led to a boost in global oil demand and a decline in high-cost supplies affecting several oil producers, especially those in Latin America.
OPEC members like Venezuela and Ecuador have been trying to persuade oil-rich countries to cooperate in cutting oil production amid a supply glut that has pushed prices down.
Saudi Arabia, which maintains huge influence in OPEC, is currently running into economic difficulties after it opted to flood the market and drive out its rivals.
War on Kratom
DEA Reverses Ban On Kratom After Feedback From Supporters
Pill capsules containing kratom powder.With only 9- days until October 1st, 2016, representatives from the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) have announced their intentions to temporarily reverse the scheduled ban of kratom.
The DEA had previously announced that the little known drug would be banned as of October 1st, 2016, and would be classified as a Schedule 1 drug '' meaning that it has absolutely no medical value and has a high potential for abuse. Additional drugs currently under the Schedule 1 umbrella include, heroin, LSD, marijuana, mescaline, and ecstasy.
According to previous statements made by the DEA, kratom was widely viewed by the DEA, FDA, and CDC as an imminent hazard to public safety. The DEA provided a notice of intent to temporarily ban kratom on August 25th, 2016, giving kratom users and vendors a 1-month notice.
Kratom, scientifically referred to as mitragyna speciose, is derived from a tropical evergreen tree in the coffee family and is native to Southeast Asia. The drug is often marketed as an herbal supplement and can be regularly found for purchase in the form of powder or capsule online, at health stores, and smoke shops.
According to kratom users, when taken at low doses, the drug can produce a mild stimulant effect, while when taken at a high dose can produce similar effects as narcotic pain relievers. The drug is regularly utilized by opiate addicts to minimize the effects of heroin or prescription narcotic withdraw symptoms. Many others use kratom as a substitute for prescription anxiety medications or to treat chronic pain.
Upon news of the kratom ban, users and advocates of the drug assembled at the White House to protest the ban and gathered over 134,000 signatures on a We the People petition.
According to DEA spokesperson Marcus Langley, the Drug Enforcement Administration made the decision to temporarily remove the scheduled ban of kratom upon the overwhelming feedback and outrage from those using the herbal drug to treat legitimate medical conditions. Langley told reporters at a press-conference that the DEA has requested the FDA (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) thoroughly investigate the drug prior to a decision being reached regarding the drug's future legality within the United States.
The DEA has announced a January 3rd, 2018, deadline for the FDA to provide the necessary insights into the benefits and risks of kratom use. If the FDA fails to provide conclusive results by the 2018 deadline, the DEA intends to permanently ban the drug and classify it at a Schedule 1 substance.
The reversal of the scheduled kratom ban has many users excited and hopeful for the future of the drug's mainstream use. Daniel McCarthy, a 54-year old kratom user in Dallas, Texas, told a CBS affiliate reporter, ''As someone who attended the White House protest and signed the online petition, it feels amazing to have made a difference for hundreds of thousands of people -being an American is awesome!''
Producer Cory sending me some
I'll ship it "overnight" first thing on Monday. You can promote/tease on today's show that you will be receiving the kratom in the mail before Thursday's show. I won't let you (or the producers) down!
The active alkaloids in kratom can only be utilized through your digestive system. So smoking it would provide no effect. Sometimes online you will see people talk about smoking/burning kratom because the FDA has never allowed kratom to be "sold for consumption" in USA. I'm sending you kratom leaf that was dried and then ground into a fine powder. This is the form in which it is commonly sold in the western world. You can either swallow the powder or brew it as a tea. I just swallow the powder because I don't believe you can extract all the alkaloids out of the plant materiel by brewing a tea, but some people prefer to make tea.
Producer JJ
Hi Adam
Heard you mention kratom on the last show, wanted to let you know I've used it for almost 2 years for severely herniated discs in my lower back. I no longer take any OxyContin and rarely take hydrocodone anymore since discovering this. It's not addictive and there are no withdrawal symptoms if I stop. I have successfully avoided surgery by using this to manage the pain. Being an alkaloid that stimulates opioid receptors in the body means you can take as much as needed to manage pain with no worries of common opioid issues such as death, slow breathing and OD in general. You cannot overdose on this and I've never had any issues no matter how much I've taken. Worse case you just fall asleep and wake up fine the next day. Not sure what I'll do after this becomes illegal as I do not want to go back to opioids or have the back surgery that my doc has been pushing. My MRI looks really bad but I can function normally at work and home with the use of kratom. Long time donor listener - show 1 as bad as it was ;) but I am using this email to stay anonymous for this issue considering what is legally helping me today would be a felony next month. Even though legal in my state marijuana isn't an option due to my job.
You mentioned a listener is sending you some to try, be warned it tastes really bad. Your best bet would be to buy empty gel caps and fill with the amount wanted to take. For a starter 2 grams should give mild stimulant effects. Up to 10 grams for heavy pain or light euphoric feeling. More than that most likely will not make a difference.
Thanks
"JJ"
Producer Michael
Just wanted to give you my personal experience. I used it as part of an opiate detox and it wasn't strong enough to make a significant dent in withdrawal symptoms like many people online claim but it def helped. That being said I don't see any indication that it's strong enough or dangerous enough to warrant joining the likes of smack and meth as schedule 1 narcotic. Love the show and love that you guys are able to talk about stuff like this.
Thanks,
--Michael
Producer Tyler
Hey Adam,
I was an opiate user for many years, i became addicted to Vicodin after a dental procedure and steadily moved to harder opiates. After years of this i tried to quit but found the withdrawal symptoms to be beyond what i was capable of handling. I did some research on some community addiction forums and found Kratom. I was able to transfer to Kratom and was able to stop Kratom very easily. The mental addiction was still there of course but the physical withdrawal symptoms of Kratom are miniscule compared to traditional pharmaceutical opiates.
It truly is a shame that Kratom is being removed from public access, as im sure it has and would have helped many people that were in my situation. All to protect the pharmaceutical companies profits from opiates and opiate related medications
Thanks for a great show
If you want to share my experience please leave my name out..
Please note that due to the high volume of enquiries we receive, we cannot respond to questions sent to the globalcitizen@globalpovertyproject.com (for general inquiries) and festival@globalcitizen.org (for festival inquiries) accounts that are addressed in the FAQ section below.
What is Global Citizen?
Global Citizen is a community of people like you. People who want to learn about and take action on the world's biggest challenges-and use their power to get other people involved too.
We bring you stories and actions that make a difference from the most effective organisations. That help fight extreme poverty and inequality around the world, and support approaches that will make life more sustainable for people and the planet.
Close
In the last 30 years, extreme poverty has halved, plummeting faster than at any time in history. Thanks to human ingenuity, we've pushed back disease, overcome ignorance, and seen the power of potential unleashed when everyone, everywhere has the chance to thrive. A child born today has more chance of surviving, being healthy and getting a quality education than any generation before them.
But 1 billion people are still trapped in extreme poverty, and it's an affront to our common humanity and dignity. 800 million people will go to bed hungry tonight. More than 700 million are drinking dirty water, and more than 2 billion people don't have a toilet.
In 2015 we stand at the turning point for the future of people and the planet. World leaders are setting the global goals that will be the roadmap for how we'll tackle poverty, inequality and climate change. To learn more about how important this year is for the world read more here.
Standing together with partners from across the Action/2015 coalition, we can make sure these are good goals, and that our leaders follow through on their promises.
But, it's not going to happen unless each of us play our part. Everyone from citizens, governments, businesses, and charities have a role '' because none of aid, trade nor charity can do this alone.
It'll be a long and hard path - sometimes we will fall and fail. But, like the great civil rights and anti-apartheid movements before us, we will succeed, because we are more powerful together.
Close
Extreme poverty persists in part because of our own actions and beliefs - including the existence of international policies and systems that keep people living in extreme poverty.
If we learn more about why extreme poverty exists, make informed consumer decisions, and use our voices to advocate for change, we can ensure that the businesses, organizations and governments in our lives are contributing to a world without extreme poverty. Global Citizen and our partners have a track record of running programs and campaigns that have real impact on the lives of the poor '' and we hope that you'll join us.
Global Citizen encourages you to learn more and take action on a range of issues related to extreme poverty, helping to build the movement that will end extreme poverty. We're not going to end extreme poverty by ourselves, and we're not going to do it in a day, a week, or even a year. But, by being a part of a diverse movement of many organisations, all around the world, we can play our part in ending extreme poverty by 2030.
Close
The money we give as individuals is important, but to bring about the end of extreme poverty, we also need governments and businesses to play their part: by changing rules, practices and giving money themselves.
For example, Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance will save 6 million lives in the next 5 years - but to do so, it needs $7.5 billion to be secured by the end of 2015. Global citizens, working in support of partners called on governments and businesses to make this happen, and in January, world leaders came together and committed the money to make this happen.
That's why Global Citizen both supports individual charities, whilst also asking you to use your voice to encourage governments and others to play their part too.
Close
Global Citizen is managed by Global Poverty Project, an international education and campaigning organization that is a registersted 501(c)3 in the USA. Content on global citizen is created by a team of staff writers, editorial partners, and by dozens of amazing NGO partners. If you'd like to work for us, see the jobs page.
Close
We welcome submissions to Global Citizen from non-profits and individuals alike. You can learn more on our submissions page.
Close
Tickets FAQs
What is Global Citizen Rewards?
The brainchild of Kelly Curtis (manager of Pearl Jam and Eddie Vedder) in partnership with Global Poverty Project, Global Citizen Tickets is an initiative through which Artists are donating two guest list tickets to their concerts in order to reward social actions to benefit the world's poor through GlobalCitizen.org
Close
How does it work?
After becoming a Global Citizen, take Actions on GlobalCitizen.org to earn points. These points are redeemable for Rewards such as tickets to concerts or other events. Actions include signing petitions, sharing via social media, writing letters to politicians or calling their offices about issues affecting the world's poor.
Close
How will I know if I've won?
Winners will receive an email 2 - 4 days after the Prize Draw closing date. This email will request confirmation that the winner wants and is able to attend the concert they've won tickets for.
Close
How will I know if I haven't won?
Neither Global Poverty Project nor Global Citizen will be able to individually contact or correspond with those who do not win tickets through our prize draws. We contact the winner 2-4 days after the Prize Draw closing date via email. If you do not receive an email (be sure to check your spam), you have not won.
Close
If I win, what happens next?
Once you confirm that you are able to/want to attend, we'll contact band management and arrange for your name to be placed on the band's guestlist for the night of your event. Approximately 1 week before the show, you'll receive a confirmation that your name will be at the Will Call desk at the venue. In that email we will also include emergency contact details in case of problems on the day and general instructions.
Close
What if I don't respond?
Winners of Global Citizen Tickets are given 5 days (120 hours) to respond to their email notification that they have won. If correspondence is not received within that time frame, an email notification will be delivered to a ''second place'' winner, drawn during the original prize drawing. The process will then be continued once more.
Close
What do I do on the day of the concert?
It's simple: Just head to the venue, pick up your tickets at the will call and have fun! Be sure to post a photo up on Facebook, Twitter or Instagram tagging Global Citizen (@GLBLCTZN on Instagram and Twitter) and tweet a message to us @GLBLCTZN!
Close
Can anyone attend?
As per our terms and conditions, if you're under 18 and the venue permits it, you are allowed to attend a Global Citizen Tickets event. It is the responsibility of the winner to be aware of and comply with age restrictions and/or any other access limitations dictated by the venue.
Close
Can I give my tickets to someone else? Or sell them?
No. Tickets are not transferable. Winners will be asked for photo ID when you pick them up from the venue at Will Call. Selling the tickets is not permitted. If you are unable to attend for any reason, please let us know in reply to the confirmation email as soon as possible.
Close
What is Will Call?
Will Call is a general phrase for a location present at all ticketed venues where individuals with VIP access and on guest lists are given admission to an event.
Close
Can I enter more than one draw at a time?
Yes - you can enter any many different draws as you have points for.
Close
Will I get my points back if I don't win?
No. Points, once used toward a reward, are non-refundable.
Close
How do I follow ticket listings?
Regular and breaking updates will be posted publicly through our Facebook and Twitter accounts.
Close
What is the difference between "Buy Now" and "Prize Draw" tickets?
At the discretion of artists and the Global Citizen team, Global Citizen Tickets ticket pairs are available to users by either a prize draw or a 'buy now' function.
Buy Now: Select ticket pairs will be available through GlobalCitizen.org at a set rate. For these ticket pairs, the first user to 'purchase' a given set will be the winner of that item. Generally, the prices for ''Buy Now'' tickets are far higher than the fee for entering a prize draw. Prices are set using an economic model that powers Global Citizen's point economy. Note that 'Buy Now' denotes 'buying' only through the use of points earned on GlobalCitizen.org.
Prize Draw: The majority of ticket winners will be selected through a prize draw. A random drawing among those Global Citizens who have entered prize draw will take place approximately one month before the date of the event (sometimes sooner if we get last minute access to ticekts), 2 - 4 days from the closing date on the ticket draw.
Close
How are prize draw winners selected?
Prize Draw winners are selected at random by Global Poverty Project staff members.
Close
I don't have enough points, but I'm still able to enter the prize draw. Is the system broken?
Users can pre-enter a prize draw before earning enough points, and will have that point value deducted immediately upon earning the required points for entry. Users will not be eligible to win until earning, and having deducted, the correct amount of points to enter a given draw.
Close
Why can't I click on the "Enter the Prize Draw" button? Why is the button gray?
For "Buy Now": Someone else has already entered this drawing and it has closed.
For "Prize Draw": You may not have enough points to enter. If you believe this is an error, please contact us.
Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.
Leading Democrats on the congressional intelligence committees have accused Russia of trying to influence the November 8 U.S. election via computer hacking and called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "order a halt to this activity."
U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (Democrat-California) and Representative Adam Schiff (Democrat-California) said in a strongly worded statement that "based on briefings we have received, we have concluded that the Russian intelligence agencies are making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election."
"At the least, this effort is intended to sow doubt about the security of our election and may well be intended to influence the outcomes of the election -- we can see no other rationale for the behavior of the Russians," they said.
The lawmakers added that they "believe that orders for the Russian intelligence agencies to conduct such actions could come only from very senior levels of the Russian government."
Officials in President Barack Obama's administration have said that Russia or its proxies are responsible for hacking political party organizations, but have stopped short of directly blaming Russia in public.
The White House said on September 16 it was trying to build a legal case against Russian hackers it believes are behind recent leaks aimed at disrupting the U.S. presidential election.
At the same time, Congress said it was looking at perhaps using sanctions against Russia for the hacks, media reports said.
Reuters said the administration believes that two Russian intelligence agencies -- the military's GRU and the civilian intelligence agency -- are behind recent cyberattacks against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and former top Republican diplomats.
Meanwhile, an image purported to be a scanned copy of first lady Michelle Obama's passport was leaked online on September 22 along with personal e-mails belonging to a former staffer for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.
Feinstein and Schiff said in their statement that they call on Putin "to immediately order a halt to this activity."
"Americans will not stand for any foreign government trying to influence our election," they said. "We hope all Americans will stand together and reject the Russian effort."
There was no immediate public response to the lawmakers' statement from Russian officials.
DNC officials and the Clinton campaign have suggested that Russia is attempting to boost the electoral chances of Clinton's Republican rival, businessman and former reality TV star Donald Trump, who has said he would seek to improve battered bilateral ties with Russia if he is elected to the White House.
Both Trump and the Kremlin have dismissed these suggestions as baseless.
Trump has spoken positively about Putin, saying earlier this month that the Russian president has been more of a leader for his country that Obama has been for the United States.
The latest developments in Syria are not, I believe, the result of some deliberate plan of the USA to help their ''moderate terrorist'' allies on the ground, but they are the symptom of something even worse: the complete loss of control of the USA over the situation in Syria and, possibly, elsewhere. Let me just re-state what just happened:
First, after days and days of intensive negotiations, Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov finally reached a deal on a cease-fire in Syria which had the potential to at least ''freeze'' the situation on the ground until the Presidential election in the USA and a change in administration (this is now the single most important event in the near future, therefore no plans of any kind can extend beyond that date).
Then the USAF, along with a few others, bombed a Syrian Army unit which was not on the move or engaged in intense operations, but which was simply holding a key sector of the front. The US strike was followed by a massive offensive of the ''moderate terrorists'' which was barely contained by the Syrian military and the Russian Aerospace forces. Needless to say, following such a brazen provocation the cease-fire was dead. The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were ''недоÐ"овоÑоÑÐоÑобнÑ''. What that word means is literally ''not-agreement-capable'' or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is ''not-agreement-capable'', and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is ''not-agreement-capable'' is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as ''not-agreement-capable''. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.
Next came the pathetic and absolutely unprofessional scene of US Ambassador Samantha Powers simply walking out of a UNSC meeting when the Russian representative was speaking. Again, the Russians were simply blown away, not by the infantile attempt at offending, but at the total lack of diplomatic professionalism shown the Powers. From a Russian point of view, for one superpower to simply walk out at the very moment the other superpower is making a crucial statement is simply irresponsible and, again, the sign that their American counterparts have totally ''lost it''.
Finally, there came the crowning moment: the attack of the humanitarian convey in Syria which the USA blamed, of course, on Russia. The Russians, again, could barely believe their own eyes. First, this was such a blatant and, frankly, Kindergarten-level attempt to show that ''the Russians make mistakes too'' and that ''the Russians killed the cease-fire''. Second, there was this amazing statement of the Americans who said there are only two air forces which could have done that '' either the Russians or the Syrians (how the Americans hoped to get away with this in an airspace thoroughly controlled by Russian radars is beyond me!). Somehow, the Americans ''forgot'' to mention that their own air force was also present in the region, along with the air forces of many US allies. Most importantly, they forgot to mention that that night armed US Predator drones were flying right over that convoy.
What happened in Syria is painfully obvious: the Pentagon sabotaged the deal made between Kerry and Lavrov and when the Pentagon was accused of being responsible, it mounted a rather crude false flag attack and tried to blame it on the Russians.
All this simply goes to show that the Obama Administration is in a state of confused agony. The White House apparently is so freaked out at the prospects of a Trump victory in November that it has basically lost control of its foreign policy in general and, especially, in Syria. The Russians are quite literally right: the Obama Administration is truly ''not-agreement-capable''.
Of course, the fact that the Americans are acting like clueless frustrated children does not mean that Russia will reciprocate in kind. We have already seen Lavrov go back and further negotiate with Kerry. Not because the Russians are naive, but precisely because, unlike their US colleagues, the Russians are professionals who know that negotiations and open lines of communications are always, and by definition, preferable to a walk-away, especially when dealing with a superpower. Those observers who criticize Russia for being ''weak'' or ''naive'' simply project their own, mostly American, ''reaction set'' on the Russians and fail to realize the simply truth that Russians are not Americans, they think differently and they act differently. For one thing, the Russians don't care if they are perceived as ''weak'' or ''naive''. In fact, they would prefer to be perceived as such if that furthers their goals and confuses the opponent about their real intentions and capabilities. The Russians know that they did not build the biggest country on the planet by being ''weak'' or ''naive'' and they won't be take lessons from a country which is younger that many Russian buildings. The western paradigm is usually like this: a crises leads to a breakdown in negotiations and conflict follows. The Russian paradigm is completely different: a crisis leads to negotiations which are conducted up the the last second before a conflict erupts. There are two reasons for that: first, continuing to negotiate up to the last second makes it possible to seek a way out of the confrontation up to the last second and, second, negotiations up to the last second make it possible to come as close as possible to achieving strategic surprise for an attack. This is exactly how Russia acted in Crimea and in Syria '' with absolutely no warning signs or, even less so, a well-publicized display of power to attempt to intimidate somebody (intimidation is also a western political strategy the Russians don't use).
So Lavrov will continue to negotiate, no matter how ridiculous and useless such negotiations will appear. And Lavrov himself will probably never officially utter the word ''недоÐ"овоÑоÑÐоÑобнÑ'', but the message to the Russian people and to the Syrian, Iranian and Chinese allies of Russia will be that at this point Russia has lost any hope of dealing with the current US Administration.
Obama and Co. now have their hands full with trying to hide Hillary's health and character problems and right now they probably can think of only one thing: how to survive the upcoming Hillary-Trump debate. The Pentagon and the Department of State are mostly busy fighting each other over Syria, Turkey, the Kurds and Russia. The CIA seems to be fighting itself, though this is hard to ascertain.
It is likely that some kind of deal with still be announced by Kerry and Lavrov, if not today, then tomorrow or the day after. But, frankly, I completely agree with the Russians: the American are truly ''not-agreement-capable'' and at this point in time, both the conflict in Syria and the one in the Ukraine are frozen. I don't mean ''frozen'' in the sense of ''no fighting'', not at all, but I do mean ''frozen'' in the same of ''no major developments possible''. There will still be combats, especially now that the Wahabi and Nazi allies of the USA feel that their boss is not in charge because he is busy with elections and race riots, but since there is no quick military solution possible in either one of these wars, the tactical clashes and offensives will not yield any strategic result.
Barring an election-canceling false flag inside the USA, like the murder of either Hillary or Trump by a ''lone gunman'', the wars in the Ukraine and Syria will go on with no prospects of any kind of meaningful negotiations. And whether Trump or Hillary get into the White House next, a major ''reset'' will take place in early 2017. Trump will probably want to meet Putin for a major negotiations session involving all the key outstanding issues between the USA and Russia. If Hillary and her Neocons make it into the White House then some kind of war between Russia and the USA will become almost impossible to prevent.
The Saker
PS: some Russian military experts are saying that the kind of damage shown in the footage of the attack on the humanitarian convey is not consistent with an airstrike or even an artillery strike and that it looks much more like the result of a blast of several IEDs. If so, then that would still not point at Russia, but at the ''moderate terrorist'' forces in control of that location. This could still be a US ordered-false flag attack or, alternatively, the proof that the US has lost control over its Wahabi allies on the ground.
The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world
British firms can reap rich benefits from bold and resolute moves to capitalize on Russia's vast market.
Facebook
LinkedIn
Pinterest
WhatsApp
Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with British Prime Minister Theresa May as part of the G20 Summit in China on Sept. 4. Source: Reuters
Theresa May's call at the G20 summit for ''frank and open dialogue'' with Russia comes in the wake of her telephone conversation in August with President Vladimir Putin, when both leaders underlined their shared interest in fighting terrorism. In the context of post-Brexit uncertainty, it would be unwise to ignore another interest the two nations share '' that of developing business ties.
Surprise callThe recent G20 summit marked the first face-to-face meeting between the British prime minister Theresa May and Russian president Vladimir Putin. The tone of the discussions was broadly positive. While May acknowledged the ''complex and serious areas of concern and issues to discuss,'' she also emphasized the need for ''frank and open dialogue'' between the two governments. A change in tack, perhaps, for May, who had previously indicated that she would continue the policy of her predecessor on Russia.
The meeting was not the first time the leaders had been in contact, though. The British PM surprised Downing Street watchers and Kremlinologists alike by making a direct phone call to her Russian counterpart on Aug. 9. May's choice of topic - that of countering aviation terrorism - was a diplomatic one. Finding common ground is the very basis of diplomacy, and the subject of passenger safety leaves little scope for disagreement.
May's muted but pragmatic overtures to Moscow show that even if governments are divided by political concerns, they continue to face common threats and to share common interests. And now that Britain's future relations with the EU are uncertain, the time is right to search for as many potential political and business partners as possible, to find a basis for economic cooperation where politics divides.David Cant of Albion Overseas, a company that helps businesses export to Russia, told RBTH why it would be shortsighted for British businesses to dismiss Russia as a trading partner. ''Not so long ago, Russia was the UK's fastest-growing export market,'' Cant said. ''That changed largely because of recession. But for those who believe Russia's economy is in a parlous state, think again. Russia is quietly investing in itself, and those companies that believe all they read will not be invited to participate in the business as it grows. Not only will the UK be left behind in Russia's resurgence, so will much of the western world.''
Rich rewardsThe case for doing business with Russia is not always an easy one to make. Political preoccupations have been at the front of many potential exporters' minds in recent years. Yet there is strong demand for UK-produced goods and services in Russia, and if British companies play their cards right, the profits can be significant, according to Trevor Barton, head of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce.
''Almost anything that is produced in Britain can be exported to Russia '' provided that it is well-made, reliable and functions at minus 30 degrees!'' he said. ''Fundamentally, the advantage that British exporters have over, say, Chinese producers, is that the goods and services we export are considered by Russians to be of very high quality, something that they particularly value.''
Barton and Cant are also keen to stress that sanctions have a limited impact on trade with Russia, since they only apply to a small number of goods, services and individuals. ''Unless you are doing business with a Russian company owned by someone on the sanctions 'wanted' list, or you are selling military or dual-use technology, then most companies will find themselves able to do business,'' Cant said.
Opportunity knocksCertain sectors appear to hold particularly high potential for British companies. Hi-tech British-manufactured products for use in the Russian natural resources sector '' measuring equipment or pipeline technology, for example '' are strongly in demand.
''There is a substantial amount of onshore exploration and extraction, which can compensate for potential losses that may be experienced by British exporters in sanctioned offshore oil production,'' Barton said.
Anything to do with Russian railways also provides opportunities for British exporters. Several huge modernization projects are currently under way; 2016 alone will see the renovation of 3,700 miles of track involving all types of repair, according to the official network website.
The 2018 World Cup in Russia also offers potentially rich pickings. Three of the European regional sponsorship slots are still up for grabs, and the event requires massive hotel and transport infrastructure redevelopment in the 12 host cities. Ticketing systems and crowd control models are also areas where British expertise would be welcomed.
''Britain has a fantastic reputation for organizing large-scale events, as the London Olympics showed. Russians in particular think that the British are great at this. Now is the time to push for British businesses to get involved,'' said Barton.The British luxury goods market remains strong. Brands such as Range Rover and Bentley have a real cachet in Russia, according to Barton, as do the names of British boarding schools and universities. ''A house in the Chilterns and an Oxbridge education for their children are aspirations for many wealthy Russians '' and a lot of other Russians have significant disposable income, despite the fall in the value of the ruble, since most don't have mortgages or significant expenditure on insurance. Russians want the best, and they are still prepared to pay for it,'' Barton added.
Accepting sanctions as a minimal constraint, and embracing Brexit as an opportunity for expanded horizons, it is time for British companies to look beyond the mythical ''new Iron Curtain'' to the wealth of opportunities that lies beyond.
The rise of Chinese investment in Hollywood is raising alarms in Congress, which could complicate studios' ambitions to strengthen ties to the Middle Kingdom.
The latest salvo came in a letter from 16 members of Congress last week, which called for closer scrutiny of Chinese investment in the U.S. entertainment and media sectors. The letter cited the Dalian Wanda Group's acquisitions of Legendary Entertainment, AMC and Carmike Cinemas, and warned of ''growing concerns'' of Chinese efforts to exert ''propaganda controls on American media.''
Wanda has been on a buying spree, of late, announcing a merger between AMC and Carmike that would make it the largest exhibitor in the world. Earlier this week, news broke that Wanda plans to form a multi-picture alliance with Sony Pictures.
Rep. Chris Smith, a Republican from New Jersey, warned that growing Chinese investment could raise strategic concerns.
''Would we raise questions if Russia or Iran was buying large parts of U.S. media and entertainment companies? Of course we would,'' Smith said in a statement to Variety. ''Raising questions about Chinese investment is no different.''
The principal author of the letter is Rep. Robert Pettinger, R-North Carolina, who has been outspoken in the past about various Chinese acquisitions in other sectors. Two Democrats joined 14 Republicans in signing the letter, which seeks a review from the Government Accountability Office of existing regulations. Under current law, foreign deals that may pose national security concerns go before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., a body made up of various administration agencies. The letter also warns of foreign investments in agribusiness and telecommunications, and includes some pointed commentary about the level of overseas money in the media business.
''Should the definition of national security be broadened to address concerns about propaganda and control of the media and 'soft power' institutions?'' the letter writers ask at one point.
Derek Scissors, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said that with China breaking records for U.S. investment it was inevitable that Congress would get involved.
''I think we're gonna get Congressional hearings, and I think the entertainment industry is going to get pulled into it,'' he said. ''I'm not sure this is a serious threat, but I am sure the numbers are big enough that you're gonna get Congressional questions about this.''
Spokespeople for Wanda and AMC declined to comment. However, an individual familiar with Wanda's acquisitions process noted that the company follows strict regulatory guidelines and gets the necessary for approvals for its deals.
The prospect of greater government scrutiny comes as Hollywood studios have become increasingly interested in the Chinese market. The country is attractive both because it ranks as the second-largest market for films and because several financiers and conglomerates, such as Hony Capital, Tencent, and Wanda have shown an eagerness to invest in film slates and production entities. The letter may signal that AMC will face more hurdles as it seeks regulatory approval for its purchase of Carmike.
''This is the beginning of a much stronger response to Chinese investment in Hollywood,'' said Aynne Kokas, an assistant professor of media studies at University of Virginia. ''Historically, Hollywood has not needed any kind of protection from foreign investment because film remains a major U.S. export, but the amount of cash being infused by a small group of Chinese companies makes it potentially anti-competitive.''
In his statement, Rep. Smith quoted Dalian Wanda chairman Wang Jianlin as saying that he wants to ''change the world where rules are set by foreigners.''
''If this is the case, we should worry about distorted news and entertainment content and restrictions on creative freedom,'' Smith said. ''We should worry that movies about Tibet will never again get made. Hollywood fought against the 'black list,' but will it accept without question the red-lining of scripts and content to show authoritarian China in the best possible light? It better not.''
Scissors suggested that Congress is unlikely to intervene in deals if Hollywood stays somewhat below the radar. But if a Hollywood studio were to release a film that conveyed overt Chinese propaganda, or if it sold itself to the Wanda Group, that could trigger a backlash.
''I would like to avoid Wanda for a little while,'' Scissors said. ''I'd go deal with somebody else who doesn't have that big of a footprint. Be smart. Don't pour oil on the fire.''
Wanda is facing political scrutiny at the local level as well. UNITE HERE Local 11 on Thursday filed complaints that Wanda is using foreign money to defeat a Beverly Hills ballot measure.
Lindsay Conner, chair of the media and entertainment group at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, has worked on a number of deals between China and Hollywood, including slate deals involving Perfect World and Universal Pictures and STX and Huayi Brothers. He said that the blowback reminded him of the furor over Sony's decision to buy Columbia Pictures in 1989 and Matsushita's purchase of Universal in 1990; moves that triggered alarm about Japanese companies' designs on the media business. A bruising presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump may be stoking these fears, Conner argued.
''Hollywood has welcomed lot of investors from around the globe over the years without serious political interference,'' said Conner. ''So far, the same is true of the Chinese investment that is being welcomed.''
Conner said the rate of dealmaking hasn't changed. But the backlash may be building, particularly as lawmakers find themselves under more public pressure. Richard Berman, a lawyer, public relations executive, and former lobbyist, has launched a campaign called ''China Owns Us,'' that he believes will draw attention to what he views as a dangerous intimacy between media companies and the communist country. Berman is a controversial figure, having represented alcohol and tobacco companies in the past. Yet, he maintains that he is acting out as a concerned citizen.
''Wanda is not buying all these properties because they like buttered popcorn,'' he said. ''Something else is going on here.''
Berman tells Variety that the campaign has solicited some donations from a few friends with ''security interests,'' but that the campaign is mostly self-funded. In addition to a website, he's put up two billboards in Los Angeles and Kansas City criticizing Wanda's investment in AMC and has also has employed someone to lobby lawmakers. Berman said he felt that the issue was taking hold on Capital Hill and expects that a number of senators will echo the sentiments raised in the lawmakers' letter.
''This thing has a life of its own,'' he said. ''The trajectory of interest is going up at a steep angle.''
Loading ...FBI agents conducting undercover investigations have now been given the green light to impersonate journalists, the Justice Department determined last week '-- effectively legalizing the government's most notorious propaganda program, Operation Mockingbird.
Last Thursday, the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General published what's become the subject of outrage for journalists, civil and constitutional rights advocates, and legal experts '-- ''A Review of the FBI's Impersonation of a Journalist in a Criminal Investigation.''
Allowing agents to infiltrate media organizations for any reason threatens to utterly undermine public trust, kill the very concept of journalistic integrity, and throttle the flow of information from sources and whistleblowers concerned with the legitimacy of journalists they contact.
As shocking as the finding sounds, it only validates the practice '-- in fact, the report centers around a case from 2007 in which an FBI agent pretended to be an Associated Press journalist to identify an elusive suspect online. At the time, the FBI ''did not prohibit agents from impersonating journalists or from posing as a member of a news organization,'' the report states.
But even the ubiquitous, mainstream AP '-- whose outlet became an unwitting pawn for the agency '-- sharply criticized the DOJ's announcement.
''The Associated Press is deeply disappointed by the Inspector General's findings, which effectively condone the FBI's impersonation of an AP journalist in 2007,'' Associated Press Vice President Paul Colford said in a statement cited by US News. ''Such action compromises the ability of a free press to gather the news safely and effectively and raises serious constitutional concerns.''
In 2007, a high school student near Seattle emailed a series of bomb threats to his school, but his use of proxy servers thwarted police efforts to learn his identity '-- so they asked for assistance from the FBI's Northwest Cybercrime Task Force.
Agents devised a plan, and, as the Intercept summarized, ''An undercover agent sent the student email impersonating an editor for the Associated Press. The email included links to a fake news site designed to look like the Seattle Times.''
When the student followed the links, malware revealing his actual location installed itself.
It wasn't until an ACLU technologist accidentally discovered copies of the bogus news stories in 2014 '-- buried in pages the Electronic Frontier Foundation obtained from the FBI via a Freedom of Information Act request in 2011 '-- that the plot to pose as journalists came to light, generating massive controversy and consternation.
Furthering the contempt, FBI Director James Comey penned a letter to the editor of the New York Times defending the agency's impersonation, dismissively stating ''we do use deception at times to catch crooks, but we are acting responsibly and legally.''
The Associated Press and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press didn't believe either the veracity or legality of Comey's statement, and sued the FBI to disclose documents relating to the practice '-- ultimately obtaining a redacted memo in which the agency acknowledged the agents violated the FBI's own guidelines. However, the memo also stated that violation, under the circumstances, was not ''unreasonable.''
A review was launched by the OIG, but Thursday's conclusion simply confirmed the FBI's previous finding it had done nothing wrong '-- and may proceed with future journalistic deception.
In June this year, the FBI firmed up its rules for when an agent can pretend to be a journalist '-- but the added rules haven't quelled the ire.
As long as agents receive approval from the head of the FBI field office, the Undercover Review Committee, and the deputy director of the FBI '-- who then must meet with the deputy attorney general '-- they are free to pose as journalists during undercover investigations.
''We believe the new interim policy on undercover activities that involve FBI employees posing as members of the news media is a significant improvement to FBI policies that existed,'' states the inspector general.
But no one outside the FBI or DOJ's Office of Inspector General who grasps the grievous threat to free speech and press '-- or the potential slippery slope law enforcement co-opting the media represents '-- agrees anything short of an abolishment on the practice could be acceptable.
''The FBI guidelines adopted in 2016 in response to this incident still permit the FBI to impersonate news organizations and other third parties without their consent in certain cases, and fail to address the host of other dangers associated with FBI hacking,'' Neema Singh Guliani, ACLU legislative counsel, said in a statement cited by US News.
''The Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press is deeply troubled by today's disclosure,'' David Boardman, RCFP steering committee chairman, wrote in a statement last Thursday, ''that the FBI believes that there is a place in this country for federal agents to impersonate journalists. Such a policy can seriously damage the public's trust in its free press and the ability of journalists to hold government accountable. We urge the Justice Department to take seriously the need for reform and the importance of protecting the integrity of the newsgathering process.''
Anyone with cursory knowledge of the U.S. government's nefarious programs to control its citizenry will undoubtedly see similarities between the FBI's fake journalism plot and the post-World War II CIA propaganda campaign, Operation Mockingbird.
To ensure support for its operations and views, the CIA clandestinely recruited American journalists and media outlets, funded the creation of student and cultural organizations, launched purely propaganda-based print media, and, ultimately, worked its way into political campaigns and employed similar methods abroad.
Mainstream outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, and many others, actively and willingly disseminated propaganda disguised as news '-- through suppression, censorship, and selective focus, etc. '-- in the interest of the government.
Mockingbird covertly influenced national opinion for years, nefariously planting the CIA's narrative on the unwitting collective public mind before finally being at least partially exposed over a decade later. It wasn't until a congressional investigation in 1975 the putative full extent of the program was revealed. Although the CIA claimed it would no longer recruit journalists and media organizations into its folds, Mockingbird has oft been rumored never to have stopped.
Besides the revelations in this article concerning the FBI, documents revealed the government actively tried to influence public thought about Wikileaks and its founder, Julian Assange, in 2011.
It would seem Mockingbird endures to this day '-- and whatever premise the government claims as reason to become the American media '-- the public remains, for the large part, its oblivious, captive audience.
I wanted to share an experience I had while attending university. I had a class that was some liberal arts class where you really just watch movies and write reports on them (bird course) but in this class I first heard the term "othering" which blew me away to hear otherizing on the show. I'm certain we are at the crossroad where my millennial peers are starting to propagate these concepts into modern society.
Side note, I thought of "Hypocrite Hillary" as a good tag line the other day. Not sure if it's got the right sound though.
Cheers
Pre-Knight
Nick Kosterman
Who Is Behind The Riots? Charlotte Police Says 70% Of Arrested Protesters Had Out Of State IDs | Zero Hedge
Confirming what many had suspected when viewing the sudden and intense collapse into anrchy that occurred in Charlotte this week, Todd Walther, spokesman for the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Fraternal Order of Police told CNN's Erin Burnett:
"This is not Charlotte that's out here. These are outside entities that are coming in and causing these problems. These are not protestors, these are criminals."
"We've got the instigators that are coming in from the outside. They were coming in on buses from out of state. If you go back and look at some of the arrests that were made last night. I can about say probably 70% of those had out-of-state IDs. They're not coming from Charlotte."
As shocking as this statement is, it should not be a total surprise. 18 months ago, as the riots flared in Ferguson, there was one man pulling the strings of this 'domestic false flag'... George Soros. In an apparent effort to "keep the media's attention on the city and to widen the scope of the incident to focus on interrelated causes '-- not just the overpolicing and racial discrimination narratives that were highlighted by the news media in August," liberal billionaire George Soros donated $33million to social justice organizations which helped turn events in Ferguson from a local protest into a national flashpoint.As The Washington Times explains,
There's a solitary man at the financial center of the Ferguson protest movement. No, it's not victim Michael Brown or Officer Darren Wilson. It's not even the Rev. Al Sharpton, despite his ubiquitous campaign on TV and the streets.
Rather, it's liberal billionaire George Soros, who has built a business empire that dominates across the ocean in Europe while forging a political machine powered by nonprofit foundations that impacts American politics and policy, not unlike what he did with MoveOn.org.
Mr. Soros spurred the Ferguson protest movement through years of funding and mobilizing groups across the U.S., according to interviews with key players and financial records reviewed by The Washington Times.
Still not buying it? As The New American recently reported, Ken Zimmerman, the director of U.S. programs at Soros's Open Society Foundations (OSF), denied last year that Soros had funded BLM, saying it was just a rumor.
That was before hackers with DCLeaks.com published OSF documents showing that the Soros group had already given at least $650,000 directly to BLM.
Those same documents reveal the reason for OSF bankrolling BLM: the ''dismantling'' of America so that it can be recast according to the vision of Soros and his leftist cohorts.
The communist-on-its-face nature of these and other demands of the organizations under the BLM umbrella are a clear indicator of the real intent of BLM. The deep-pocketed funding by the likes of Soros, the Center for American Progress, the Ford Foundation, and Borealis Philanthropy show that BLM is the means, not the end.
BLM is little more than a tool of social revolutionaries hell-bent on destroying America so they can build their long awaited dystopia which they attempt to pass off as a utopia.
So with Hillary's poll numbers decling rapidly, and a debate looming that she would desperately like to be focused on domestic division as opposed to every email, pay-to-play, foreign policy misstep, and cough or stumble she has taken; is anyone shocked that 'out of state' protesters would turn up in Charlotte suddenly turning a peaceful but angry protest into tear-gas-filled deadly riots? And who is a big donor to Clinton?
George Soros: $7 millionFinancier George Soros founded what would become the Quantum Fund in 1969 with $12 million. According to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he's now worth $24.7 billion and continues to invest through Soros Fund Management, a family firm. As a political donor, Soros has been mercurial. In 2004, he contributed $23.5 million to organizations opposing George W. Bush's reelection effort. In 2008, he donated $2,300 to both Clinton and Barack Obama, and that was it. Soros's Open Society Policy Center, the advocacy arm of his philanthropic network, spent $8.2 million on lobbying Washington in 2015. It focuses on international human rights, immigration, foreign aid, public health and criminal justice reform, among other issues. Since 2003, Soros has contributed $54 million to federal candidates and committees.
Charlotte Shooting
Report: Charlotte's Keith Scott Had History of Violence Including Arrest for Shooting At Police'... | The Last Refuge
According to a story in The Christian Times, who they claim verified with The Charlotte Observer, Keith Lamont Scott had a two decades long history of gun violence, including an arrest/conviction for shooting at police officers in Texas. The New York Times has previously reported on his troubled past but not the 2005 shooting at police incident:
(Via NYT) ['...] According to court records, Mr. Scott was born in South Carolina, was about six feet tall and weighed 230 to 250 pounds. While living in South Carolina in the 1990s, he was charged with a number of offenses including check fraud, aggravated assault and carrying a concealed weapon. Later, he moved to Texas where he shot and wounded a man in San Antonio in 2002, for which he was convicted and sentenced, in 2005, to seven years in prison. He was released in 2011. (link)
The Charlotte Observer also reported on Scott's extensive criminal career ''SEE HERE'' and we did independently identify a criminal record in Texas '' SEE HERE '' which aligns with all of these reports.
(Via Christian Times) Keith Scott had a long police record that included gun violations. Christian Times Newspaper has learned, and it has been confirmed by the Charlotte Observer, that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County, and other charges were dismissed: including felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, assault on a female, and communicating threats. Scott was also charged with assault with intent to kill in 1995. [ Texas Arrest Record Here ]
The most shocking find in Scott's record, however, is what occurred in Bexar County, Texas in 2005. In March of that year, Scott was sentenced to 15 months in state prison for evading arrest, and in July, he was consecutively sentenced to seven years on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
Sources are now coming forward and alleging that those two separate convictions are in fact related, and they both have to do with a confrontation between Scott and Bexar County Police in early 2005.
One source, who asked CTN to refrain from using her name to protect her identity, told reporters that Scott fired a handgun at San Antonio police officers when they attempted to detain him in February 2005 after noticing that he was driving erratically. (Scott had a history of drunk driving, according to court records).
Allegedly, as the officers approached Scott's black Ford sedan, he fired two rounds from the driver's seat and then sped away. Neither of the officers was hit, and they proceeded to give chase and detain Scott several blocks away.
While Scott did leave the gun in his passenger's seat when he attempted to run on-foot, he did, according to our source, assault one officer by punching him in the face.
Scott was released from Texas state prison in 2011. (read more)
Charlotte Observer ['...] A public records search shows that Scott was convicted in April 2004 of a misdemeanor assault with a deadly weapon charge in Mecklenburg County. Other charges stemming from that date were dismissed: felony assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and misdemeanors assault on a child under 12, assault on a female and communicating threats.
In April 2015 in Gaston County Court, Scott was found guilty of driving while intoxicated.
In 1992, Scott was charged in Charleston County, S.C., with several different crimes on different dates, including carrying a concealed weapon (not a gun), simple assault and contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He pleaded guilty to all charges.
Scott also was charged with aggravated assault in 1992 and assault with intent to kill in 1995. Both charges were reduced, but the disposition of the cases is unclear.
According to Bexar County, Texas, records, Scott was sentenced in March 2005 to 15 months in a state jail for evading arrest. In July of that year, records show, he was sentenced to seven years in prison on a conviction of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A Texas Department of Criminal Justice spokesman said Scott completed his sentence and was released from prison in 2011. (more)
An initial sentence of 15 months (March 2005) that gained an additional sentence of 7 more years (July 2005), that took until 2011 to complete, definitely aligns with a much more serious set of charges.
A long history of gun violence '' HERE and HERE '' including shooting at police?
If accurate, those reports when combined with the eye witness who took pictures of the handgun dropped by Keith Scott when shot by police officers (see above and below), the account of the Charlotte police department appears to be validated.
Elite$
Bono
Just a piece of Bono trivia... Bono was one of Bernie Maddoff's early clients... Jony Ives on the other hand was one them that lost MILLIONS... Bono on the other hand made MILLIONS. Funny they are good friends and Bono got Jony to invest with Bernie...
Caliphate!
Manhunt Ends '' Turkish Muslim Arrested For Washington State Mall Shooting '' Five Dead'... | The Last Refuge
Not Hispanic ! A 20-year-old Turkish Muslim named Arcan Cetin has been arrested in Oak Harbor Washington for the murder of five people in the Burlington Mall Shooting. Oak Harbor is about 29 miles southwest of Burlington and roughly 93 miles north of Seattle
BREAKING: Mall shooting suspect is Arcan Cetin, 20-year-old resident of Oak Harbor, Washington, authorities say
'-- The Associated Press (@AP) September 25, 2016
Arcan Cetin (20)
(Via KomoNews) A man suspected of killing 5 people at a Burlington mall Friday night has been arrested in Oak Harbor after a nearly 24-hour manhunt.
Law enforcement sources tell KOMO 4 that the suspect's name is Arcan Cetin. Centin, 20, has not been convicted of any crimes in Washington state, according to state records.
Gunman captured tonight by authorities, Details forthcoming, Press Conference tonight at 1800 Continental Pl. Time TBA
'-- Sgt. Mark Francis (@wspd7pio) September 25, 2016
Press conference scheduled for 9:30P at 1800 Continental Mt Vernon. Press release forthcoming'...
'-- Sgt. Mark Francis (@wspd7pio) September 25, 2016
One of his Twitter Accounts Here
Man pleads guilty to plotting to help Islamic State group behead popular conservative blogger | TheBlaze.com
BOSTON (AP) '-- A man charged with plotting to help the Islamic State group pleaded guilty on Thursday to conspiracy charges, including a plot to behead conservative blogger Pamela Geller.
Nicholas Rovinski, of Warwick, Rhode Island, admitted he conspired with two Massachusetts men to kill Geller and attempted to recruit others to carry out additional violent attacks in the United States. The plots were never carried out.
Conservative blogger Pamela Geller (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan)
A plea agreement between Rovinski, 25, and federal prosecutors calls for a sentence of between 15 years and 22 years. Judge William Young set sentencing for March.
Rovinski, who has cerebral palsy and walks with a limp, answered softly when asked by the judge why he decided to plead guilty instead of going to trial.
''I feel that in the interest of myself and the people of the United States I should pay for the crimes that I have committed,'' he said.
Prosecutors said Rovinski plotted with David Wright, of Everett, and Wright's uncle Usaamah Rahim, of Boston, to kill Geller, who angered Muslims when she organized a Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Garland, Texas, in May 2015. The contest ended in gunfire, with two Muslim gunmen shot to death by police.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Siegmann said Rovinski told authorities after his arrest that he, Wright and Rahim had agreed to kill Geller, who's from New York. Siegmann said Rahim later told Wright he wanted to go after ''those boys in blue,'' a reference to police.
Rahim, who had been under surveillance, was shot and killed by authorities on June 2, 2015, after he lunged at them with a knife when they approached him in Boston, prosecutors said. Wright has pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
Siegmann said that after Rovinski's arrest in June 2015 he sent two letters to Wright in which he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group, talked about beheading people and told Wright he had recruited a fellow inmate to help ''take down'' the East Coast and the U.S. government.
''Can't wait for them juicy necks,'' Rovinski wrote, a reference to beheadings, Siegmann said.
Geller called Rovinski a ''murderous thug'' and said he was right to plead guilty.
''He still deserves the maximum sentence '-- until he proves he is not a danger to human beings who don't accept his beliefs,'' she said.
Rovinski's lawyer, William Fick, said Rovinski was a ''vulnerable young man'' who was ''seduced by extremist ideology.''
''He has unequivocally renounced violence and renounced terrorism,'' Fick said after the court hearing.
Siegmann said Islamic State recruiter Junaid Hussain communicated instructions about the plot to kill Geller directly to Rahim from overseas in May 2015. Hussain was killed in a U.S. drone strike in Syria in August 2015.
Rovinski pleaded guilty to two federal charges: conspiracy to provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization and conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries.
'--
Shut Up Slave!
California May Deny Families Right to See Locked-Up Loved Ones | News | teleSUR English
Families may be forced to pay for a video service to see inmates.
County jails are substituting in-person visitations with expensive video calls, and a bill has made it to California Governor Jerry Brown's desk to stop that from happening'--but he might not sign it. After sitting almost a month on his desk, he has less than a week left to sign.
RELATED: US Prisons Have 5 Times More Blacks Than Whites: Report
The video technology has mostly made inroads into county jails'--others may catch on but had to be written out of the bill because of politics around public funds'--and is already a hit nationwide. This week, Cleveland, Ohio announced it would gain US$3 million a year after introducing the video option, almost four times as much as it currently pockets from Global Tel Link from phone bills.
Mothers, sons and daughters of inmates skipped school and work Tuesday to drive to Sacramento and deliver their petitions for the bill to pass, but they were stood up by Brown without warning. No rescheduling, no referral to anyone in his office, no explanation.
Anita Wills, whose son is serving 66 years to life'--on a wrongful conviction, she told teleSUR'--, said the silence is ''foreboding.'' The Sheriff's Union has been lobbying against the bill, since maintenance for in-person visitation rooms costs money and video calls, operated by for-profit prison communications companies Securus Technologies and Global Tel Link, make money. In two years, 18 counties have adopted the video system and six have entirely replaced them with in-person visitations'--three jails built since the bill was introduced eliminated in-person visitation rooms altogether.
Wills already has to save up to make the eight-hour drive to visit her son, and she occasionally calls'--though she cannot always afford the full call'--but if US$1.50-a-minute video calls were the only option, it would not be an option at all.
''I'd be thinking more about the bill than I would about his voice,'' she said. Beyond the cost of the call, Wills said that elders like her have do not always have internet or the tech savvy to operate the camera.
Not only is the image quality poor, her friends tell her, but with video, without being there physically and looking them in the eyes, ''you really don't know they're doing.''
Going on their sixteenth year of long-distance visits, her son told her that he would ditch the video calls for snail mail. Already, he is locked up eight hours away from the closest relative and can only see them through a glass barrier when they do come'--after routine harassment by the guards, and considering the prison isn't on lockdown.
''The children are traumatized'--it's like a videogame or something,'' she said of her grandchildren. The eldest, who was ten when his father was thrown behind bars, was killed ten years later. Wills had to tell her son over the phone and could only hear him weep.
The Sheriff's Union argues that family visits are a threat to security since connections with the outside could instigate and help organize criminal behavior. A video call could at least be tracked closely by guards'--on top of 24-hour monitoring.
''That's incredibly offensive,'' said Zoe Willmott, a fellow at the Women's Policy Institute who pushed for the bill's creation and passage with the Essie Justice Group. She told teleSUR that on the contrary, multiple studies show that in-person visits both increase security and save money since the contact with loved ones helps improve behavior inside the jail and outside once they're released. A recent bill to reduce prison overpopulation acknowledged that fact by sending inmates closer to their own communities.
Anita (L) and Zoe (second from R) at a mobilization to protect their right to see locked-up family members in-person. Photo: Essie Justice Group
RELATED: Private US Prisons Break Most Rules and It's the Govt's Fault
Yet Brown's biggest bone to pick, said Zoe, is less over security or revenue and more over disturbing the status quo. The jails that anticipated the lucrative trend don't want to build new in-person visitation rooms, even though the bill gives them five years to find rooms and repurpose them. That's more time than it takes to build an entire jail, said Willmott.
Wills admitted that she's not opposed to the option of seeing her son on video, but she's opposed to not being able to choose. Of all the jails with video visits, 74 percent end up eliminating the in-person option. Texas anticipated the trend and passed a similar bill last year, but California, which has a prison population on the level of the top 10 countries in the world, may lose its chance on Friday.
Big Pharma
How the FDA Manipulates the Media - Scientific American
It was a faustian bargain'--and it certainly made editors at National Public Radio squirm.
The deal was this: NPR, along with a select group of media outlets, would get a briefing about an upcoming announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration a day before anyone else. But in exchange for the scoop, NPR would have to abandon its reportorial independence. The FDA would dictate whom NPR's reporter could and couldn't interview.
''My editors are uncomfortable with the condition that we cannot seek reaction,'' NPR reporter Rob Stein wrote back to the government officials offering the deal. Stein asked for a little bit of leeway to do some independent reporting but was turned down flat. Take the deal or leave it.
NPR took the deal. ''I'll be at the briefing,'' Stein wrote.
Later that day in April 2014, Stein'--along with reporters from more than a dozen other top-tier media organizations, including CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times'--showed up at a federal building to get his reward. Every single journalist present had agreed not to ask any questions of sources not approved by the government until given the go-ahead.
''I think embargoes that attempt to control sourcing are dangerous because they limit the role of the reporter whose job it is to do a full look at a subject,'' says New York Times former public editor Margaret Sullivan. ''It's really inappropriate for a source to be telling a journalist whom he or she can and can't talk to.'' Ivan Oransky, distinguished writer in residence at New York University's Journalism Institute and founder of the Embargo Watch weblog, agrees: ''I think it's deeply wrong.''
This kind of deal offered by the FDA'--known as a close-hold embargo'--is an increasingly important tool used by scientific and government agencies to control the behavior of the science press. Or so it seems. It is impossible to tell for sure because it is happening almost entirely behind the scenes. We only know about the FDA deal because of a wayward sentence inserted by an editor at the New York Times. But for that breach of secrecy, nobody outside the small clique of government officials and trusted reporters would have known that the journalists covering the agency had given up their right to do independent reporting.
Documents obtained by Scientific American through Freedom of Information Act requests now paint a disturbing picture of the tactics that are used to control the science press. For example, the FDA assures the public that it is committed to transparency, but the documents show that, privately, the agency denies many reporters access'--including ones from major outlets such as Fox News'--and even deceives them with half-truths to handicap them in their pursuit of a story. At the same time, the FDA cultivates a coterie of journalists whom it keeps in line with threats. And the agency has made it a practice to demand total control over whom reporters can and can't talk to until after the news has broken, deaf to protests by journalistic associations and media ethicists and in violation of its own written policies.
By using close-hold embargoes and other methods, the FDA, like other sources of scientific information, are gaining control of journalists who are supposed to keep an eye on those institutions. The watchdogs are being turned into lapdogs. ''Journalists have ceded the power to the scientific establishment,'' says Vincent Kiernan, a science journalist and dean at George Mason University. ''I think it's interesting and somewhat inexplicable, knowing journalists in general as being people who don't like ceding power.''
The press corps is primed for manipulation by a convention that goes back decades: the embargo. The embargo is a back-room deal between journalists and the people they cover'--their sources. A source grants the journalist access on condition that he or she cannot publish before an agreed-on date and time.
A surprisingly large proportion of science and health stories are the product of embargoes. Most of the major science journals offer reporters advance copies of upcoming articles'--and the contact information of the authors'--in return for agreeing not to run with the story until the embargo expires. These embargoes set the weekly rhythm of science coverage: On Monday afternoon, you may see a bunch of stories about the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA published almost simultaneously. Tuesday, it's the Journal of the American Medical Association. On Wednesday, it's Nature and the New England Journal of Medicine. Science stories appear on Thursday. Other institutions have also adopted the embargo system. Federal institutions, especially the ones science and health journalists report on, have as well. Embargoes are the reason that stories about the National Laboratories, the National Institutes of Health and other organizations often tend to break at the precisely same time.
Embargoes were first embraced by science reporters in the 1920s, in part because they take the pressure off. After all, when everybody agrees to publish their stories simultaneously, a reporter can spend extra time researching and writing a story without fear of being scooped. ''[Embargoes] were created at the behest of journalists,'' says Kiernan, who has written a book, Embargoed Science, about scientific embargoes. ''Scientists had to be convinced to go along.'' But scientific institutions soon realized that embargoes could be used to manipulate the timing and, to a lesser extent, the nature of press coverage. The result is a system whereby scientific institutions increasingly control the press corps. ''They've gotten the upper hand in this relationship, and journalists have never taken it back,'' Kiernan says.
The embargo system is such an established institution in science journalism that few reporters complain or even think about its darker implications, at least until they themselves feel slighted. This January the California Institute of Technology was sitting on a great story: researchers there had evidence of a new giant planet'--Planet Nine'--in the outer reaches of our solar system. The Caltech press office decided to give only a dozen reporters, including Scientific American's Michael Lemonick, early access to the scientists and their study. When the news broke, the rest of the scientific journalism community was left scrambling. ''Apart from the chosen 12, those working to news deadlines were denied the opportunity to speak to the researchers, obtain independent viewpoints or have time to properly digest the published research paper,'' complained BBC reporter Pallab Ghosh about Caltech's ''inappropriate'' favoritism in an open letter to the World Federation of Science Journalists.
When asked about why Caltech chose to release the news only to a select group of reporters, Farnaz Khadem, Caltech's head of communications, stated that she is committed to being ''fair and transparent'' about how and when Caltech shares news with journalists. She then refused to talk about the Planet Nine incident or embargoes or press strategy, and she would not grant access to anyone at Caltech who might talk about such matters. As a consequence, it is hard to know for certain why Caltech decided to share the news with only a select group of reporters. But it is not hard to guess why journalists such as Ghosh were excluded. ''It wasn't that they were not good enough or not liked enough,'' Kiernan speculates. ''There was a real effort here to control things, making sure that the elite of the elite covered this story and covered it in a certain way, which would then shape the coverage of all other journalists. It's very clearly a control effort.''
Caltech is not the only institution that steers coverage by briefing a very small subset of reporters. (As I was writing this piece, I received a note from a U.S. Air Force press officer offering a sneak preview of video footage being offered to ''a select number of digital publications.'') For years the FDA has been cultivating a small group of journalists who are entrusted with advance notice of certain events while others are left out in the cold. But it was not the game of favorites that ignited a minor firestorm in the journalism community in January 2011'--it was the introduction of the close-hold embargo.
Like a regular embargo, a close-hold embargo allows early access to information provided that attendees not publish before a set date and time. In this case, it was a sneak peek at rules about to be published regarding medical devices. But there was an additional condition: reporters were expressly forbidden from seeking outside comment. Journalists would have to give up any semblance of being able to do independent reporting on the matter before the embargo expired.
Even reporters who had been dealing with the FDA for years were incredulous. When one asked the agency's press office if it really was forbidding communications with outside sources, Karen Riley, an official at the FDA, erased all doubt. ''It goes without saying that the embargo means YOU CANNOT call around and get comment ahead of the 1 P.M. embargo,'' she said in an e-mail.
''Actually it does need some saying, since this is a new version of a journalistic embargo,'' wrote Oransky in his Embargo Watch blog. Without the ability to contact independent sources, he continued, ''journalists become stenographers.'' Kiernan echoes the sentiment: ''[When] you can't verify the information, you can't get comment on the information. You have to just keep it among this group of people that I told you about, and you can't use it elsewhere. In that situation, the journalist is allowing his or her reporting hands to be tied in a way that they're not going to be anything, ultimately, other than a stenographer.''
The Association of Health Care Journalists (AHCJ), of which I am a member, publicly objected to the close-hold embargo, noting that it ''will be a serious obstacle to good journalism. Reporters who want to be competitive on a story will essentially have to agree to write only what the FDA wants to tell the world, without analysis or outside commentary.'' Faced by this opposition, the agency quickly backtracked. After a meeting with AHCJ leaders, Meghan Scott, then the agency's acting associate commissioner for external affairs, wrote: ''Prior to your inquiry, the FDA did not have a formal news embargo policy in place.'' The FDA was now establishing new ground rules that ''will better serve the media and the public.''
Initially published online in June 2011, the FDA's new media policy officially killed the close-hold embargo: ''A journalist may share embargoed material provided by the FDA with nonjournalists or third parties to obtain quotes or opinions prior to an embargo lift provided that the reporter secures agreement from the third party to uphold the embargo.'' Due diligence would always be allowed, at least at the FDA.
Health and science journalists breathed a sigh of relief. The AHCJ expressed gratitude that the FDA had changed its tune, and Oransky's Embargo Watch congratulated the agency for backing down: ''For doing the right thing, the FDA has earned a spot on the Embargo Watch Honor Roll. Kudos.'' And the FDA had cleared up the misunderstanding and affirmed that it was committed to ''a culture of openness in its interaction with the news media and the public.''
In reality, there was no misunderstanding. The close-hold embargo had become part of the agency's media strategy. It was here to stay'--policy or no policy.
It is hard to tell when a close-hold embargo is afoot because, by its very nature, it is a secret that neither the reporters who have been given special access nor the scientific institution that sets up the deal wants to be revealed. The public hears about it only when a journalist chooses to reveal the information.
We have a few rare instances where journalists revealed that close-hold embargoes were being used by scientists and scientific institutions after 2011. In 2012 biologist Gilles-Eric S(C)ralini and his colleagues published a dubious'--later retracted and then republished'--paper purportedly linking genetically modified foods to cancer in rats. They gave reporters early access under a close-hold embargo, quite likely to hamstring the reporters' ability to explore gaping holes in the article, a situation science journalist Carl Zimmer described as ''a rancid, corrupt way to report about science.'' In 2014 the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (also called the CSB) released a report to journalists under a close-hold embargo. When challenged, the then managing director of the CSB, Daniel Horowitz, told Oransky's Embargo Watch that the close-hold embargo was used ''on the theory that this would provide a more orderly process.'' He then stated that the board was going to ''drop the policy in its entirety for future reports.'' Privately, however, a CSB public affairs specialist noted in an e-mail, ''Frankly, I wish we did have more stenographers out there. Government agencies trying to control the information flow is an old story, but the other side of the story is that government agencies that do good work often have a difficult time getting their story told in an era of journalistic skepticism and partisan bickering and bureaucratic infighting.''
Also in 2014 the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) used a close-hold embargo when it announced to a dozen reporters that researchers had discovered subtle signals of gravitational waves from the early universe. ''You could only talk to other scientists who had seen the papers already; we didn't want them shared unduly,'' says Christine Pulliam, the media relations manager for CfA. Unfortunately, the list of approved scientists provided by CfA listed only theoreticians, not experimentalists'--and only an experimentalist was likely to see the flaw that doomed the study. (The team was seeing the signature of cosmic dust, not gravitational waves.) ''I felt like a fool, in retrospect,'' says Lemonick, who, as one of a dozen or so chosen journalists, covered the story for Time (at the time, he was not on the staff of Scientific American).
The FDA, too, quietly held close-hold embargoed briefings, even though its official media policy forbids it. Without a source willing to talk, it is impossible to tell for sure when or why FDA started violating its own rules. A document from January 2014, however, describes the FDA's strategy for getting media coverage of the launch of a new public health ad campaign. It lays out a plan for the agency to host a ''media briefing for select, top-tier reporters who will have a major influence on coverage and public opinion of the campaigns.'... Media who attend the briefing will be instructed that there is a strict, close-hold embargo that does not allow for contact with those outside of the FDA for comment on the campaign.''
Why? The document gives a glimpse: ''Media coverage of the campaign is guaranteed; however, we want to ensure outlets provide quality coverage of the launch,'' the document explains. ''The media briefing will give us an opportunity to shape the news stories, conduct embargoed interviews with the major outlets ahead of the launch and give media outlets opportunities to prepare more in-depth coverage of the campaign launch.''
Ten reporters'--from the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CNN and NPR'--were invited to have their stories shaped. The day after the briefing, on February 4, everybody'--except for the New York Times'--ran with stories about the ad campaign. Independent comment was notably missing. Only NPR, which went live hours after the others, and CNN, in an update to its story midday, managed to get any reaction from anyone outside of the FDA. CBS plunked down an out-of-context quotation from the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, probably in hopes that readers wouldn't notice that it was two months old. Nobody else seems to have tried to get anyone who could critique the ad campaign.
The result was a set of stories almost uniformly cleaving to the FDA's party line, without a hint of a question about whether the ad campaign would be as ineffective as many other such campaigns. Not one of the media outlets said anything about the close-hold embargo. From the agency's point of view, it was mission accomplished.
The FDA had a much harder task two months later. The agency was about to make public controversial new rules about electronic cigarettes. It was nearly impossible to keep the story from leaking out ahead of time; days before the new rules were going to be published in April 2014, rumors were flying. Reporters around the country could smell the story and began to e-mail the FDA's press office with questions about the e-cigarette rules. The agency flacks would have to use all the powers at their disposal to control the flow of information.
''I've heard a number of rumors that the FDA will be releasing its proposed e-cigarette regulations on Monday,'' Clara Ritger, then a reporter with the National Journal asked on Friday, April 18. ''I wanted to see if I could confirm that? If that's not accurate, do you have a timeline?'' Stephanie Yao, then an FDA press officer, dodged the question: ''The proposal is still in draft form and under review. As a matter of policy, the FDA does not share draft rules with outside groups while a rule is still under review.''
The fencing match was on. ''Thank you for following up with the statement,'' Ritger responded. ''While I know the proposal is still in draft form and under review, for my planning purposes I wanted to find out when the proposed regulations will be coming out?''
''Have you subscribed to FDA press announcements?'' Jenny Haliski, then another FDA press officer, wrote back on Monday. ''The proposed rule itself will be published in the Federal Register.''
''Thanks for sending! I signed up,'' Ritger responded. ''The only other question I had was when the proposed regulations would come out, off the record, for planning purposes?''
Not even an offer of being off the record could get the agency to spill the beans. ''The FDA can't speculate on the timing of the proposed rule,'' Haliski replied.
But this was a carefully crafted half-truth. There was no need to speculate. Haliski and others in the press office knew quite well not just that the rule was going to be published on Thursday, April 24, but also that there was going to be a close-hold embargoed briefing on Wednesday. It's just that Ritger and the National Journal weren't invited.
The invite list had been drafted days earlier, and, as usual, the briefing was limited to trusted journalists: the same outlets from the ad campaign briefing in February, with the addition of a few more, which included the Wall Street Journal, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg News, Politico and the Congressional Quarterly. At the very same moment that the agency was discussing the embargoed briefing with some of their chosen reporters, anyone outside that small circle, like Ritger, was being thrown off the trail. Not even Fox News was allowed in.
Some within the FDA press office wondered why Fox was excluded, unlike the other major networks. ''BTW, we noticed that Fox still wasn't on the invite list,'' Raquel Ortiz, then an FDA press officer, told Haliski.
''I have no national Fox reporter who had contacted me on this topic,'' Haliski responded. ''All reporters invited to the briefing needed to have covered tobacco regulatory issues before.''
Ortiz realized that this wasn't an honest answer: ''But they definitely cover FDA/CTP [Center for Tobacco Products] and tobacco stories'--[a colleague has] seen them.''
''We don't have a good contact for Fox,'' Haliski insisted, rather lamely. A contact would not have been hard to find had they bothered to look. And, as chance would have it, the contact found them. Early the next morning, with plenty of time before the briefing, Fox's senior national correspondent'--John Roberts, one-time heir apparent to Dan Rather'--contacted Haliski asking for access. ''I'm aware that the FDA will likely come out with its deeming rule regarding e-cigarettes in the next week or so. I'd like to have a story ready to go for the day (holding to any embargo),'' he wrote. ''Can we make that happen?''
''Hi, John, Have you subscribed to FDA press announcements?'' Access denied.
''I was particularly troubled by it because I was the medical correspondent for CBS Evening News for a couple of years, and I had a very good relationship with the FDA and everybody there,'' says Roberts, who found out he was excluded after the other correspondents' stories came out. ''I was told by these folks that Fox news wasn't invited because of 'past experiences with Fox.'''
A little after noon on Wednesday, April 23, the briefing went on as scheduled. All the reporters present understood the terms, as announced: ''As discussed, under this embargo you will not be able to reach out to third parties for comment on this announcement. We are providing you with a preview of the information with this understanding.'' But by 2:30 P.M., the close-hold embargo was already fraying at the edges. FDA officials apparently got wind that a reporter was trying to talk to a member of Congress about the new rules. Even though it was not clear that this was a breach of the embargo'--the interview was scheduled for after the embargo expired, and the reporter presumably did not share any crucial information ahead of time'--it was bending the close-hold rules, and the FDA was livid. Within half an hour, FDA's Jefferson had fired off an angry e-mail to the close-hold journalists.
''It has been brought to our attention that there has already been a break in the embargo'.... Third-party outreach of any kind was and is not permitted for this announcement. Everyone who participated agreed to this,'' she wrote. ''Moving forward, we will no longer consider embargoed briefings for news media if reporters are not willing to abide by the terms an embargo'.... We take this matter very seriously, and as a consequence any individuals who violated the embargo will be excluded from future embargoed briefings with the agency.'' Violate the rules, even in spirit, and you'll be left out in the cold with the rest.
The denials flew in. ''This is very frustrating as someone who has consistently played by the rules and has covered CTP/FDA for years to be lumped in with a group of reporters that cannot respect your requests not to reach out to third parties,'' insisted then AP reporter Michael Felberbaum. ''I have of course always advocated that you work more closely with reporters like myself who clearly understand and cover this area consistently instead of reporters who are just assigned to handle on a whim.''
But despite the scare about a breach, the secrecy held. When the embargo expired and the early news stories went online, the FDA had little to complain about; the embargo had worked once again to shape coverage. Felberbaum's piece, for example, quoted Margaret Hamburg, then head of the FDA, and Mitch Zeller, the head of the agency's CTP, but nobody else. Even after he updated his piece later in the day to get some outside comments, there was little hint of how controversial the new rules were. Members of the tobacco industry were generally unhappy with increased federal regulation of their business, while antitobacco advocates tended to argue that the new regulations were far too weak and took way too long to promulgate. And there was no mention, in Felberbaum's article, at least, that the agency had tried to regulate e-cigarettes several years earlier but was slapped down with a stinging rebuke from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. (When asked about his work for the AP, Felberbaum'--who has since quit his job as a reporter to become an FDA press officer'--said, ''I'm not really sure whether I'm comfortable discussing that at this point.'')
Some of the other outlets, like NPR, injected a little more nuance into their pieces, despite the restrictions, by doing additional reporting after the embargo expired. (In a statement, NPR said that agreeing to the FDA's conditions was not a violation of ethics guidelines and ''in no way influenced which other voices or ideas were included in the coverage.'') Still, even those pieces did not stray far from the key messages that the agency wanted to get across. Again the FDA found little to complain about. Except for one little thing.
Of all the media outlets, the New York Times was the only one to mention the close-hold embargo: ''FDA officials gave journalists an outline of the new rules on Wednesday but required that they not talk to industry or public health groups until after Thursday's formal release of the document.'' (''I felt like I wanted to be clear with readers,'' Sabrina Tavernise, the author of the story, later told Sullivan, the New York Times' public editor at the time. ''Usually you would have reaction in a story like this, but in this case, there wasn't going to be any.'')
The FDA was not pleased that the omert had been broken. ''I have to say while I generally reserve my editorial comments, I was a little surprised by the tone of your article and the swipe you took at the embargo in the paper'--when after combing through the coverage no one else felt the need to do so in quite that way,'' the FDA's Jefferson upbraided Tavernise in an e-mail. ''To be clear, this is me taking stuff personally when I know I shouldn't, but I thought we had a better working relationship than this'.... I never expect totally positive coverage as our policies are controversial and complex, but at least more neutral and slightly less editorialized. Simply put, bummer. Off to deal with a pissed Fox News reporter.''
Tavernise promptly apologized. ''Geez, sorry about the embargo thing. Editors were asking why we didn't get to see it so I was asked to put a line in to explain,'' she wrote. (Tavernise declined to comment for this article; Celia Dugger, one of the New York Times editors who handled the piece, said via e-mail: ''As to the decision to describe the conditions of the embargo in the story, Sabrina and I talked it over and agreed it was best to include them.'')
The FDA was not pleased that the secret of the close-hold embargo was out, and the excluded press was confused and angry. ''In this particular instance, it struck me as very strange,'' says Fox's Roberts. ''It was a government agency picking and choosing who it was going to talk to on a matter of public policy, and then the fact that I had a longstanding relationship with the FDA that, with this new administration, didn't seem to matter.''
Oransky complained again on Embargo Watch about the FDA's attempts to turn journalists ''into stenographers.'' Sullivan asked a few pointed questions of Jefferson, who, in Sullivan's words, insisted that the FDA's intent was ''not to be manipulative but to give reporters early access to a complicated news development'' and noted, in passing, that Tavernise had not objected to the terms of the close-hold embargo. But the damage was short-lived. Very little came of the complaints; Sullivan said that she would ''like to see the Times push back'--hard'--against such restrictions in every instance and be prepared to walk away from the story if need be,'' but there is no evidence of any substantial pushback by anyone.
The two-tiered system of outsiders and insiders that undergirds the close-hold policy is also still enforced. Major press outlets such as Scientific American and Agence France-Presse have written to the FDA to complain about being excluded but have not received any satisfaction from the agency. Months after the e-cigarette affair and following a different FDA story about food labeling that insiders had early access to, Time magazine complained about its lack of access to a select-press-only phone call. ''Time was not included '... (they weren't even on my radar to be honest with you), but we handled all their queries'' the day after the call, then FDA press officer Jennifer Corbett Dooren wrote.
Absent any indications from the agency, it is anyone's guess whether the close-hold embargo is still in use at the FDA and, if so, how frequently. Unfortunately, the FDA refused to answer any questions. Because I am suing the agency for access to documents about embargo practices at the FDA, the press office, in a statement that failed to answer any specific questions, said that news embargoes ''allow reporters time to develop their articles on complex matters in an informed, accurate way'' and that its use of embargoes conforms to relevant government guidelines and best practices. The press office referred all questions to the FDA's Office of the Chief Counsel, which did not supply answers.
Since the New York Times slip, no journalist covering the agency has openly mentioned being subject to such restrictions. Scientific American made a significant effort to contact many of the reporters believed to have agreed to an FDA close-hold embargo'--including the AP's Felberbaum, the Times' Tavernise, NPR's Stein, and other reporters from Reuters, USA Today and the LA Times. None could shed any light on the issue. Some explicitly refused to speak to Scientific American; some failed to return queries; two had no recollection of having ever agreed to a close-hold embargo, including Tom Burton, a Pulitzer Prize''winning Wall Street Journal reporter and the only one willing to answer questions. ''I didn't remember it at all, and [even] after you told me, I didn't remember,'' he said. As far as he knows, Burton added, such embargoes are rare.
No matter how rare it might be, there is documentary evidence of its happening multiple times, and each instance since 2011 is a violation of the FDA's official media policy, which explicitly bans close-hold embargoes. This policy still stands, just as it did before the last close-hold embargo. The smart money says that the agency's unofficial policy still stands, too'--and the favoritism and close-hold embargoes continue. It is apparently too sweet an arrangement for the FDA simply to walk away.
Despite the difficulty of measuring the use of close-hold embargoes, Oransky and Kiernan and other embargo observers agree that they'--and other variations of the embargo used to tighten control over the press'--appear to be on the rise. And they have been cropping up in other fields of journalism, such as business journalism as well. ''More and more sources, including government sources but also corporate sources, are interested in controlling the message, and this is one of the ways they're trying to do it,'' says the New York Times' Sullivan. ''I think it should be resisted.''
As much blame as government and other institutions bear for attempting to control the press through such means, the primary responsibility lies with the journalists themselves. Even a close-hold embargo wouldn't constrain a reporter without the reporter's consent; the reporter can simply wait until the embargo expires and speak to outside sources, albeit at the cost of filing the story a little bit later.
Says Oransky: ''We as journalists need to look inward a little bit and think about why all of us feel we absolutely have to publish something at embargo [expiration] when we don't think we have the whole story?'' Alas, Kiernan says, there isn't any movement within the journalism community to change things: ''I don't know that journalists in general have taken a step back, [looking] from the 50,000-foot view to understand how their work is controlled and shaped by the embargo system.
This article was originally published with the title "How to Spin the Science News"
Epinephrine Prices and Epinephrine Coupons - GoodRx
This website and its contents are intended for use only by residents of the United States. Products discussed may have different label regulatory requirements, and/or medical practices in other countries that may require adherence to different or additional information.
Lineage Therapeutics ' 2 Walnut Grove Dr., Suite 190 ' Horsham, PA 19044Phone: 215-259-3601 ' Fax: 215-674-9817
(C) Lineage Therapeutics Inc. Horsham, PA. All rights reserved.MAR2013006V3
Bank$ters
Deja Vu: Fannie And Freddie Lower Lending Standards
Stop me if you've heard this one before, but Fannie Mae (OTCQB:FNMA) and Freddie Mac (OTCQB:FMCC) are lowering mortgage standards. On Monday, the two government-backed housing giants revealed a new program designed to boost mortgage origination among first-time buyers and those with low-to-medium incomes. The new program, which will initially be limited two non-bank lenders, will allow borrowers to include the income of residents that aren't actually on the mortgage, as well as make it easier for borrowers to include income from second jobs.
While these changes may strike some as sensible, anyone who has seen The Big Short would have valid concerns in the oversight of these looser lending standards - especially when you consider that the companies responsible for mortgage origination will not be the ones holding the mortgages, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will. It's always easier to make loans when you know the taxpayers are the ones that will be holding the risk.
Not only does this program increase taxpayer risk, it does nothing to solve the real issues in the housing market.
While it's true that America's home ownership rate is at a 51-year low, this has less to do with current lending standards and more to do with housing prices rising much faster than household income. One of the factors contributing to this is the interest rate policy, which disincentives traditional savings and has driven would-be savers to look for higher-yield investments. With growing concerns about a bubble in stocks, many Americans have turned to housing, with investment home sales increasing 7% in 2015, the first increase in five years.
Given this problem, a sensible solution would be to reverse the Fed's low interest rate policy and to eliminate various levels of government regulation that make it difficult to build additional housing. But we are not living in sensible times. So the government, instead, will go for this new lending program that will simply make it easier for some families to borrow money for a house whose price may be artificially high.
Of course, while there is reason to worry about history repeating itself in the case of Fannie and Freddie, it's still not quite as crazy as the FHA's decision earlier this year to make it cheaper for first-time home buyers with sub-680 credit scores to get into the housing market.
Because the only thing government is worse at than pricing risk is learning from past mistakes.
Note:The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Disclosure: No positions.
Editor's Note: This article discusses one or more securities that do not trade on a major U.S. exchange. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
DPRK
North Korea at UN: US faces 'tremendous consequences' | Politics - Home
Published On: Sep 22 2016 10:01:24 PM EDT Updated On: Sep 24 2016 01:19:44 AM EDT
(CNN) -North Korea went on the offensive Friday, blasting the United States for "aggression" in Asia, blaming Washington for its pursuit of nuclear weapons and threatening Americans with "tremendous consequences beyond imagination."
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea "had no other choice but to go nuclear," Foreign Minister Ri Yong Ho told the UN General Assembly, to defend itself "from the constant nuclear threats from the United States."
Ri's comments came as the United States and Asian nations gathered in New York on Friday with a fresh reminder of what they consider the gravest threat facing the region: North Korea's announcement this week that it had successfully tested its most powerful rocket engine yet.
The test Tuesday was followed by a U.S. show of force, as the Pentagon on Wednesday flew two B-1B bombers alongside the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, setting the the stage for U.S.-South Korea joint military exercises in October that will include a simulated nuclear facility strike.
The heightened tensions, North Korea's steady drumbeat of tests and its nuclear ambitions have put the region on edge and the Pentagon on notice.
"North Korea's unpredictable behavior and capability development also continues to threaten allies and potentially the homeland," Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday in Maryland. "It's consumed an awful lot of time -- I think it's fair to say -- of senior leadership's time over the past few weeks."
The North Korean minister offered a through-the-looking glass version of the same events. "Only a couple of days ago, the United States has again threatened the DPRK by flying the strategic bombers 'B-1B' over the military demarcation line on the Korean peninsula and landing in South Korea," Ri said. "We will never remain onlookers at it and the United States will have to face tremendous consequences beyond imagination."
Meanwhile, Secretary of State John Kerry met Friday on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly with foreign ministers from the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a 10-member bloc dedicated to economic, political and security cooperation.
"The United States will do whatever is necessary to defend our own citizens and to honor our security commitments to our allies," Kerry told the ASEAN meeting.
He called on allies to "vigorously" enforce sanctions against the isolated regime and urged ASEAN members to "ensure that the DPRK pays a price for its dangerous actions."
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made a blunt call for international action at the UN on Wednesday. "Right before our eyes, North Korea is carrying out a plan about which there can be no doubt," Abe said. "There is no alternative but to say that the threat has now reached a dimension altogether different from what has transpired until now."
The perceived threat is changing regional dynamics, bringing old rivals Japan and South Korea closer together. It's putting China on the spot as Washington pushes Beijing to do more to rein its ally in, even as tensions over the South China Sea complicate cooperation. And it will likely prompt a new international push for tougher sanctions, the likes of which were used to force Iran to the negotiating table.
That's still unlikely to stop North Korea, formally known as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, experts said. Indeed, U.S. officials and scientific experts expect another nuclear test as soon as early October.
"From North Korea's perspective, it only makes sense to continue these tests and continue to develop these weapons until there's a substantial shift in dialogue with the US," said Alison Evans, a country risk senior analyst at the global consulting firm IHS.
"For North Korea, it's the recognition that's the important thing. It needs its status as a nuclear power to be recognized," Evans said, adding that, "The leadership sees developing a nuclear deterrent as a guarantor of survival."
U.S. officials say the Pentagon is watching carefully for another nuclear test. Meanwhile, the Union of Concerned Scientists said there is some speculation that Pyongyang may try another satellite launch around October 10, the anniversary of the founding of its Worker's Party of Korea.
North Korea conducted its fourth nuclear test in January. In the ensuing months, it has followed that detonation with a total of 21 ballistic missile tests, including land- and submarine-based launches.
In May, North Korea's 32-year-old leader Kim Jong-un made the country's ambitions official, announcing that Pyongyang was on a dual track of developing nuclear weapons and the economy.
Pyongyang then staged its largest nuclear test yet on September 9, the anniversary of the DPRK's founding in 1948.
And Tuesday's rocket launch was "substantially larger and more powerful than anything North Korea has tested before," according to 38 North, a program devoted to analyzing North Korea at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies.
All this testing is unlikely to win it the U.S. recognition it craves, though.
After the more recent nuclear test, President Barack Obama made clear that "the United States does not, and never will, accept North Korea as a nuclear state."
Obama said that the US would work with Asian allies, the UN Security Council and international partners to implement existing measures and "take additional significant steps, including new sanctions to demonstrate to North Korea that there are consequences to its unlawful and dangerous actions."
However, the rhetoric from the presidential campaign trail is a constant reminder that Obama administration will soon no longer calling the American shots on the issue.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has held out the possibility of meeting with Kim in a dramatic break with US political conventions. He earned criticism for the remark, as well as for suggesting that South Korea and Japan should consider developing their own nuclear weapons.
"At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea," Trump told Anderson Cooper at a CNN town hall in Milwaukee in March. "We're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself."
The statements have rattled Tokyo and Seoul, and while Trump has said that China must play a stronger role in checking their neighbor and ally, his promise to play tough with Beijing on trade could also roil that effort.
The Republican candidate's tough talk has only heightened the uncertainty surrounding American policy in the region and is likely to be something that U.S. officials are asked to address in their consultations Friday.
Hillary Clinton has also articulated a strong stance on China, but is less likely to take the protectionist steps that could spark a trade war with the Asian power. On North Korea, specifically, she has emphasized ratcheting up U.S. sanctions.
International sanctions levied in March after the January nuclear test were the first on North Korea to do more than target weapons development or luxury goods for the elite. They ban all weapons trade and require inspections of all cargo to and from the country, among other steps.
The international community could squeeze North Korea further by targeting the export of its resources, said Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, echoing the way UN sanctions targeted Iran by banning the export of its oil.
"That is a big step," Klingner said, "it will impact the people of North Korea."
China signed on for the March sanctions, but its officials have repeatedly said they believe sanctions are counterproductive and experts say China historically hasn't thoroughly enforced them against North Korea. U.S. tensions with China over the South China Sea could make it harder to cooperate.
Dunford said Wednesday that "China seeks to limit our ability to project power and to undermine the credibility of our alliances in the Pacific."
The United States can take additional unilateral steps to get tougher on Pyongyang, Klingner said, by sanctioning non-North Korean entities that act as an agent for the country -- most likely Chinese entities and financial institutions.
In the meantime, U.S. military officials are planning.
From October 3 to 21, the United States and South Korea will carry out the joint exercise "Red Flag" in Alaska, which will include an aerial exercise "simulating attacks on nuclear facilities and scenarios of sudden missile attack," a ministry spokesperson with the South Korean Defense Department told CNN.
North Korea derided South Korea as a "puppet warmongers" in a statement about the Red Flag exercises.
SCIENCE!
FBI and DOJ Vow to Continue Using Junk Science Rejected by White House Report
Although a report released this week by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology concludes that there is scant scientific underpinning to a number of forensic practices that have been used, for years, to convict thousands of individuals in criminal cases, the U.S. Department of Justice has indicated that it will ignore the report's recommendations while the FBI has blasted the report as ''erroneous'' and ''overbroad.''
The report, titled ''Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods,'' concludes that a number of common, pattern-matching forensic disciplines '' bite mark analysis, fingerprint and firearm comparison, shoe tread analysis, and complex DNA mixture analysis '' need additional support to be deemed scientifically valid and reliable '' a conclusion in line with that reached in the groundbreaking 2009 report on forensics issued by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council.
In a statement reported by the Wall Street Journal, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said that the agency remains ''confident that, when used properly, forensic science evidence helps juries identify the guilty and clear the innocent, and the department believes that the current legal standards regarding the admissibility of forensic evidence are based on sound science and sound legal reasoning.'' As such, she said, while ''we appreciate their contribution to the field of scientific inquiry, the department will not be adopting the recommendations related to the admissibility of forensic science evidence.''
The DOJ did not respond to The Intercept's request for additional information, but based on her statement, it appears Lynch is saying there's simply nothing to see here and that the criminal justice system is working just fine.
Subjective Eyeballing vs. Scientific MethodThe Intercept first reported on the report's conclusions earlier this month, after obtaining a draft copy. The text of the final report, released Sept. 20, appears to be nearly identical to the leaked draft.
Foundational validity and reliability are essential to shore up forensic practices, the report concludes '' attributes that are largely absent in the disciplines it reviewed, which rely heavily on the subjective determinations of practitioners. Pattern-matching forensics involve an examiner determining whether a piece of crime scene evidence can be visually matched to a suspect '' whether an alleged bite mark on a victim's hand matches a suspect's dentition, for example, or whether a partial, or smudged, fingerprint found at the scene of a crime matches a clean print obtained from a suspect '' determinations currently based primarily on a subjective eyeballing of the objects at issue.
''Foundational validity requires that a method has been subjected to empirical testing by multiple groups under conditions appropriate to its intended use,'' reads the report. Such studies must demonstrate that a practice is ''repeatable and reproducible'' and must provide ''valid estimates of the method's accuracy'' '' in other words, a meaningful error rate. ''The frequency with which a particular pattern or set of features will be observed in different samples, which is an essential element in drawing conclusions, is not a matter of 'judgment.' It is an empirical matter for which only empirical evidence is relevant,'' the report continues. ''For forensic feature-comparison methods, establishing foundational validity based on empirical evidence is thus a sine qua non. Nothing can substitute for it.''
For years forensic practitioners in many of the disciplines included in the White House report (as well as in the National Academy of Sciences report) have overstated in court the validity and reliability of their results. Consider the case of Bill Richards, for example, who spent nearly 23 years in prison for murdering his wife Pamela before the California Supreme Court last May overturned his conviction, concluding that Richards had been a victim of junk science and false testimony. In his case, a renowned forensic dentist testified that a mark found on Pamela's hand was a clear match to Richards's supposedly unique dentition. Notable, the dentist testified, was that Richards had an under-erupted canine tooth that would account for a void in the alleged bite-mark injury to Pamela's hand; only ''one or two or less'' people out of 100 would have such a feature, he testified. The dentist, Dr. Norman ''Skip'' Sperber, ultimately recanted that testimony, saying that it had no scientific basis. The new White House report notes that it is unlikely that bite-mark evidence will ever be scientifically supported.
In all, the report makes eight overarching recommendations for improvement'-- to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, to the FBI, to the attorney general, and to the judiciary '-- and called for ''a vigorous research program'' to improve forensic sciences building off ''recent important'' research conducted into fingerprint analysis, that the judiciary take into account actual scientific criteria when assessing whether forensic evidence and testimony should be allowed into court, and that the attorney general should ''direct attorneys appearing [in court] on behalf of the [DOJ] to ensure expert testimony in court about forensic feature-comparison methods meets the scientific standards for scientific validity.''
''Where there are not adequate empirical studies and/or statistical models to provide meaningful information about the accuracy of a forensic feature-comparison method,'' the report concludes, ''DOJ attorneys and examiners should not offer testimony based on the method.'' And in the event that testimony is necessary, the report says, the expert should ''clearly acknowledge to courts'' the lack of scientific evidence to support the underlying forensic practice.
Current Standards Permit Junk ScienceUnder ''current legal standards,'' and under the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, federal judges are tasked with acting as gatekeepers over what expert testimony will be allowed into evidence. Where scientific '' or supposedly scientific '' evidence is concerned, the Supreme Court concluded that before allowing expert testimony in a case the trial judge must ensure that ''any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but reliable'' which necessitates, in part, an assessment of ''whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the [expert's] testimony is scientifically valid.''
This, the new report correctly notes, is where science and the law intersect. But in practice, legal scholars note, the Daubert standard has not kept pseudoscience out of the courtroom. And when courts rely on precedent to allow certain questionable forensic practices into evidence the result is something like a feedback loop. ''Bite-mark analysis has passed every Daubert challenge that it has ever faced and [yet] there isn't a scientist on the planet that would argue that bite-mark analysis is a valid and reliable science, aside from the few practitioners who still cling to that belief,'' said Chris Fabricant, director of strategic litigation for the Innocence Project and a vocal critic of the use of junk science.
Fabricant said the DOJ's rejection out-of-hand of the White House report is disheartening. ''You would think that they would want to get it right. The idea is not that we're going to spring open the jailhouse doors and let everybody free. The idea is that scientific evidence ought to be scientific,'' he said. ''To simply reject the call for more research and to say that Daubert is sufficient is ludicrous, because Daubert is obviously not sufficient,'' he continued. ''So, the idea that you would point to the courts and to precedent for the idea that forensic evidence is good enough for government work is a joke.''
A Threat to the Forensics IndustryAttorney General Lynch was not alone in her rejection of the science council's report. The FBI also issued a statement taking issue with the group's work. While the ''FBI agrees '... that forensic science plays a critical role in the criminal justice system, and therefore needs to be held to high standards'' and that additional funding ''is needed to develop stronger ties between the academic research community and the forensic science community,'' the agency said that the ''report makes broad unsupported assertions regarding science and forensic science practice.''
Among its concerns: That the report says that the ''only way'' to establish validity as applied is through testing and the development of error rates. The agency contends that this assertion is ''fundamentally at odds'' with the 2009 NAS report. And the agency complains that the report omits ''numerous'' empirical studies into the various practices critiqued in it.
Asked about the FBI's complaints, Eric Lander, co-chair of the presidential council and president and founding member of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a biomedical research group, told The Intercept that the FBI is mistaken. ''Neither report says that proficiency testing be used to estimate the 'error rate' of forensic methods,'' he wrote in an email, and both reports agree that examiners should be subject to proficiency tests. And Lander said he is ''not aware'' of what studies the FBI believes were ignored by the report. ''We specifically received FBI's input on studies to consider and we did so.''
An FBI spokesman told The Intercept he could not offer additional comments on the report outside the agency's published statement, but he did email a list of six studies the FBI believes should have been considered. In a follow-up email, Lander wrote that the presidential council did in fact review the six studies the FBI complains that it missed. ''However, these studies are clearly not empirical studies 'providing support for foundational validity,''' he wrote. ''Indeed, only one of the papers even reports an empirical study of current forensic method at all!'' Still, he wrote, if the FBI can provide an ''actual list of empirical studies providing support for foundational validity'' they would ''be delighted'' to review and comment.
Meanwhile, some of the criticism has turned nasty '-- and personal. On September 21, the American Congress of Forensic Science Laboratories (ACFSL), an industry trade and lobby group formed last year in response to the forensic reform movement, published a ''position statement'' that suggests the White House report's work was motivated by politics or perhaps by some desire to undermine the criminal justice system. ''Our greatest concern is that the intellectual exercise of evaluating the reliability of forensic science '... is too often ignorant of the ugly realities associated with solving crimes like murder and rape as quickly and accurately as possible,'' reads the statement.
''Interestingly, the PCAST report comes during a presidential administration that has demonstrated a deep sensitivity to the needs and demands of trial attorneys, criminal defendants and advocates of sweeping criminal justice reform. Future administrations may take a different approach, tending to champion positions traditionally held by police and prosecutors.'' While the group says it has ''no opinion in these matters'' it also suggests that at least two individuals involved in the report's creation '-- including Lander '-- have some sort of political agenda that is adverse to the ACFSL. Lander is a member of the Innocence Project's board of directors, a group that the forensics congress considers a ''legal-activism group'' that it claims has been ''publicly criticized '... for the unfairness of its public statements'' and says critics have questions about the Innocence Project's ''motives.'' While the forensics congress said its ''intent is not to disparage any individuals'' it nonetheless feels it has ''no choice but to recognize the relevance of these biases as we evaluate the legitimacy of the PCAST report. Indeed, forensic science is being judged by such a standard.''
Fabricant said the congress' assertions were absurd. ''To suggest that the leading scientists in the country would cash in their credibility to do '' what? What possible agenda could they be pursuing except scientific validity?'' he asked. ''I'd like to know what agenda they propose is being driven, and how somebody like Eric Lander '' who mapped the human genome '-- is going to preside over a process that is intended to undermine the criminal justice.''
Ultimately, what actors in the criminal justice system need to accept is that science must be injected into forensics for the disciplines to be legitimized. ''We know that nearly 50 percent of wrongful convictions are attributable, at least in part, to forensic sciences that were misapplied,'' he said. ''So the idea that it's been working great is, at best, whistling past the graveyard.''
Top photo: A fingerprint is scanned at Argus Solutions in Sydney, Australia on August 11, 2005.
Shut Up Slave!
4chan and /pol/ are launching "Operation Google" - Age Of Shitlords
Google has really outdone themselves these past few weeks. As if their new terms of service update that would see several YouTubers lose monetization for their videos wasn't enough, just two days ago, YouTube launched ''YouTube Heroes'', a program that encourages users to mass report and flag videos for deletion. But it gets worse; Google just launched a new AI (Artificial Intelligence) program known as ''Jigsaw Conversation''. The purpose of this AI is to find, delete and block comments and posts deemed as offensive. These includes comments that are ''sexist, racist, transphobic, anti-immigration, Islamophobic'....etc''.
The AI works by detecting keywords and terms related to offensiveness. Typing words like ''Nigger, Faggot, Tranny, Kike'...'' etc, will get you flagged and labeled a harasser. YouTube videos, search results, emails and basically everything you do online including those words will get you in trouble. Blog posts that contain these words will not show up on Google search results (This article you're reading right now will not appear on Google search, because I technically used those words). In short, Google just declared a war on Trolls. The Verge reports that the machine has been trained on over 17 million comments and has perfected navigation of the Internet. Needless to say that this machine is the real deal. Lots of Feminists and SJWs have begun praising the program as a step forward in the fight against ''Online harassment'', but more on that later'...'.....
Since this is a war on Trolls, it sounds to reason that the greatest Trolls online, 4chan, weren't going to take the news very well:
It was from that thread that the idea came from. If Google wants to block offensive words, then they are going to give them the most offensive word to block: GOOGLE.
The plan has already taken root on 8chan's /pol/ board and several other 4chan boards. Every time they want to use the word ''Nigger'', they're going to use ''Google'' instead. Let Google block that:
They have already made several posters and begun spreading it around:
See this racist meme about black people?:
Its now a meme about Google:
Google is about to become the new face of racism:
There's more:
And more:
Since this is /pol/ we're talking about, the meme will not be complete without some Ben Garrison type Antisemitism.
And it seems to be working so far, searching ''Google rapes white woman'' gives you similar results to what you'd expect when you search ''Black guy rapes white woman'':
But they're not only going to replace Nigger with Google, they have alternatives for several other offensive words:
Comments comments
Out There
FAA looks to take over commercial space traffic control -- FCW
FAA looks to take over commercial space traffic controlBy Chase GunterSep 23, 2016The Federal Aviation Administration might be extending its commercial air traffic control responsibilities into space.
The House passed a bill Sept. 22 by a vote of 425-0 to investigate what role the FAA might play in directing commercial and foreign space traffic. The bill would authorize a study of the impact such a shift might have.
Currently, the Defense Department is responsible for alerting satellite operators about potential collisions, and Congress would need to approve a change in authority.
However, with an expected increase in privately operated satellite activity on the horizon, FAA officials are preparing "to actually roll up our sleeves" and take over non-military responsibilities of space traffic control, said George Nield, the FAA's associate administrator for commercial space transportation, at a recent American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics conference. The conference was reported on by Space News and the Wall Street Journal.
Transitioning commercial satellite safety to the FAA would allow DOD to focus to military satellites and national security concerns, while the FAA, a regulatory civilian agency within the Transportation Department, addresses private operations.
"We are in a better position to talk about norms of behavior from a safety perspective rather than having it filtered through the military," Nield said.
There is support for such a transition at the Pentagon as well. During a presentation delivered in April, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Space Policy Douglas Loverro said, "The FAA really should be in charge of managing what's going on in space."
If it were to direct commercial space traffic, Nield said the FAA would want immunity from lawsuits against the information it communicates to satellite operators, "just like DOD has today."
Nield said that because the Air Force is already "doing a much bigger job" of monitoring and cataloging the man-made objects in Earth's orbit, the FAA would primarily focus on playing traffic cop for commercial activity.
"We believe it is possible to do this job for a relatively modest cost," which would depend on price tags for equipment, cybersecurity and personnel training, he added.
About the Author
Chase Gunter is a staff writer covering civilian agencies, workforce issues, health IT, open data and innovation.
Prior to joining FCW, Gunter reported for the C-Ville Weekly in Charlottesville, Va., and served as a college sports beat writer for the South Boston (Va.) News and Record. He started at FCW as an editorial fellow before joining the team full-time as a reporter.
Gunter is a graduate of the University of Virginia, where his emphases were English, history and media studies. Connect with him on Twitter: @WChaseGunter
NA-Tech News
Global Banks Partner to Form Blockchain Payments Network - CoinDesk
Bank of America, Santander and the Royal Bank of Canada have today announced they've joined forces to create a global blockchain payments network using Ripple's distributed ledger technology.
UniCredit, Standard Charted and the Westpac Banking Corporation have also joined the effort, which seeks to form the foundation of a global network that performs a similar service as SWIFT inter-bank messaging but with near-instant settlement times. Canadian bank CIBC is also participating.
Fundamental to the Global Payments Steering Group's early mission is the creation and maintenance of a payments transaction rulebook and formalized standards that they intend to then take to international standards-making bodies.
Marcus Treacher, Ripple's newly hired global head of strategic accounts, told CoinDesk in an interview:
"The messaging today across borders is Swift. The de facto way everyone moves money through countries is Swift. That's what we think we can do better with Ripple."
Treacher invoked cross-border payments solutions like the one Santander announced in May, in which bank employees could issue payments between banks using Ripple's network.
The news closely follows the announcement that the firm had raised $55m earlier this month to expand its existing projects. Ripple has raised more than $90m in venture capital to date.
Right now, the banks involved are focused on hammering out the rules of play, according to Treacher.
The first step is a standardized agreement that establishes the terms and conditions which a bank must agree to in order to join, detailing how transactions will be processed and what kinds of information will be exchanged.
The second step involves creating a ''functional standards document'' that will allow the various banks to interact across currencies and jurisdictions. First on the GPSG's list of priorities is to develop these foundations, followed by creating administrative services to assist the banks.
Previously, Ripple handed over management of its Interledger protocol to the Internet standards body, W3C, and Treacher says his company would like to do something similar to replace the ISO's current 20022 payments standards for messaging.
The banks involved say they see the development of network standards as a key goal for advancing the technology.
"As ever, the devil is in the details," said Julio Faura, head of research and development at Santander, in a statement. "We are joining the GPSG in order to contribute to the definition of the standards and processes which the industry now needs in order to move ahead and build better payments networks."
Disclosure:CoinDesk is a subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which has an ownership stake in Ripple.
Cargo ship image via Shutterstock
RippleSWIFT
Facebook Apologizes for Video Metric Miscalculation - WSJ
Sept. 23, 2016 10:30 a.m. ET Facebook Inc.FB-1.63% on Friday apologized for overestimating a key video metric for two years, a miscalculation that irked advertisers and media companies that have poured resources into video efforts on the social network.
In a Facebook post, David Fischer, vice president of business and marketing partnerships, described in greater detail how the company discovered about a month ago the error in calculating the average time users spent watching videos.
''The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn't '' it reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by only the number of 'views' of a video (that is, when the video was watched for three or more seconds),'' Mr. Fischer wrote. ''And so the miscalculation overstated this metric. While this is only one of the many metrics marketers look at, we take any mistake seriously.''
The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that ad buying agency Publicis Media was told by Facebook that the earlier method likely overstated the metric by between 60% and 80%. That discrepancy means that marketers could have misconstrued the performance of video ads, affecting their decision making when it comes to spending money on Facebook versus competitors like YouTube, Twitter or even television.
''We want our clients to know that this miscalculation has not and will not going forward have an impact on billing or how media mix models value their Facebook video investments,'' Mr. Fischer wrote.
Mr. Fischer said that Facebook noticed the discrepancy about a month ago, fixed it and notified its partners. He also said that the miscounting did not impact other figures, like number of video views. ''We sincerely apologize for the issues this has created for our clients,'' Mr. Fischer wrote.
Facebook stock was down 1.7% on Friday morning.
The error has stoked fears, long percolating in the media industry, about the ''walled gardens'' that publishers and advertisers believe tech giants like Facebook and Google operate. Facebook allows only limited access to third-party measurement specialists to plug into their systems.
''We know we can't have true partnerships with our clients unless we are upfront and honest with them, including when we make mistakes like this one. Our clients' trust and belief in our metrics is essential to us and we have to earn that trust,'' Mr. Fischer wrote.
''That is why we also give marketers choice by offering third-party video verification options with companies like Nielsen and Moat. We want marketers to measure video with us in the way they feel most comfortable,'' he wrote.
A letter Publicis Media sent to clients, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, said the metric issue ''once again illuminates the absolute need to have 3rd party tagging and verification on Facebook's platform. Two years of reporting inflated performance numbers is unacceptable.''
Write to Steven Perlberg at steven.perlberg@wsj.com
Krebs DDoS Akamai (AKAM): A massive attack that may have hijacked online cameras could soon be "the new normal" '-- Quartz
One of the biggest distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks ever was directed at independent security journalist Brian Krebs on Tuesday (Sept. 27), and lasted for three days, leading his service provider to take his website offline. More ominously, the attack could have been originated from a ''botnet'''--a network of devices controlled by a hacker'--comprised of unsecured, internet-connected, cameras.
In a DDoS attack, huge amounts of traffic are directed at a particular online service, like a website. The flood of traffic renders the website unable to cope, much like a crowd of people trying to cram through a single doorway.
The scale of such attacks is measured by the amount of traffic directed at a service per second, and the largest known DDoS attacks to date have been in the 300 to 400 gigabits per second range. The traffic trained at Krebs's site was at least 600 Gbps'--researchers at Akamai, where Krebs hosted his site, are still trying to quantify it.
Akamai's chief security officer, Andy Ellis, says the attack on Krebs is at least twice as large as anything he's encountered before. For Ellis, the attack represents a significant scaling up of DDoS attacks and the size of the botnets harnessed to deliver them. ''We expect this will be the new normal over the next 18 months,'' Ellis says. ''If I were doing business planning about what I'm trying to defend myself from '... People will need to reevaluate their assumptions going forward.''
The type of traffic being generated by the botnet is also different, according to Ellis. Instead of a ''reflection attack,'' where a small amount of traffic is amplified by other servers, the traffic that flooded Krebs' site was direct traffic, Ellis says. This suggests a larger botnet has been harnessed. The previous record-holder for a DDoS attack at Akamai was largely reflected traffic, he says, which was easier to defend against. ''We will probably see more IoT devices with larger botnets and with tight command-and-control, with blends of shaped and reflected traffic,'' he says.
Ellis can't say definitively that it was a network of hijacked cameras that generated the torrent of traffic, because his team is still analyzing the attack, he said, but it's one of his main theories. An attack that harnessed online cameras would likely have tapped networks installed by individuals or small businesses, he said. ''It's probably not a really big office building with a network of cameras, but something like if someone went to Best Buy and bought a DVR and installed it in maybe a small office,'' he says.
If a botnet is indeed running off hundreds of thousands of connected cameras, it would highlight a major flaw in the internet of things, which experts have warned of for years. The software these devices run on is usually not easily upgraded, meaning that security loopholes can remain open for years.
''We're pretty sure IoT is not a passing fad and many devices are unmaintainable,'' Ellis says. ''You can certainly update the firmware manually, but it's not realistic for most consumers.''
As the Internet of Things expands, services tapping into online devices have sprouted. Take Shodan, a search-engine for internet connected devices, which allows users to watch unsecured webcams. These services make it easier for attackers to research botnet targets, Ellis says.
War on Men
NYPD Officer Kills Baby Following Breastfeeding Argument | National Report
In a continuation of the ongoing police scandals rocking the New York City Police Department, three-month old infant Layla Smith has been pronounced dead following an August sixth incident. This closely follows the July seventeenth death of NYC resident Eric Garner after the use of a prohibited choke hold by officers against him. Garners death was ruled a homicide by the NYC medical examiners office.
Suzanne Smith, Layla's mother, had been sitting on a bench in Queens waiting for the bus when Layla began to insistently cry. Knowing that her baby was hungry Ms. Smith began to breastfeed her daughter. Witnesses at the scene report that she was then approached by a NYPD Officer, later identified as Michael Fitzsimmons, who requested that she stop feeding the baby in public as it was ''indecent''. Ms. Smith refused to comply with the directive and told Officer Fitzsimmons that she wasn't doing anything illegal. Officer Fitzsimmons again insisted that she stop and threatened to arrest her for indecent exposure. Ms. Smith calmly responded to the Officer that he could not arrest her because breastfeeding in public wasn't against the law.
''He got so mad at her'', said Tyrone Webb, who witnessed the unfortunate altercation. ''He started yelling at her, saying that he was the police, and that she didn't know s**t about what was against the law. He got all red in the face, pointing his finger right at her nose. She just sat there and kept feeding the baby calm as could be, being real polite and reasonable. Someone else tried to chime in and tell him he was wrong and he told the lady to shut up and mind her business.''
As the argument transpired the bus approached and Ms. Smith stood up and moved Layla to her other arm, momentarily exposing her whole breast to the Officer and other onlookers. Ms Smith then clipped her breastfeeding bra shut and went to get on the bus with her baby.
Sandra Parker, another witness to the incident, described what followed next: ''He screamed at her to stop and told her that she was under arrest. When she ignored him and kept walking toward the bus he grabbed her by the back collar of her shirt and violently yanked her backwards. The poor baby just toppled out of her hands. She hit the ground and the poor little thing just started bleeding from her head. The Officer saw what happened and actually continued to cuff the mother while she began to scream. It was the most horrifying thing I've ever seen!''
Onlookers grabbed the injured baby and attempted to staunch the flow of blood from her split head. Officer Fitzsimmons is reported to have made the statement to the crowd that ''it was an accident but you can't resist arrest''. Layla was transported to Queens Hospital Center. Her mother was taken to the precinct for processing. Layla subsequently died, without her mother, from her injuries at the hospital.
Officer Fitzsimmons has been placed on paid leave pending a full investigation. The NYC Police Department has issued a statement expressing their concern regarding this ''unfortunate'' event and states that all citizens must comply with orders to submit to arrest peacefully so that accidental injuries can be avoided.
Local community leader and Smith family friend Harold Jackson has called for the arrest of Officer Fitzsimmons on charges of murder, calling his actions a travesty of justice. Ms.Smith was released from police custody with no charges being filed against her. The Smith family has not yet commented on the death of their daughter.
Update- A candlelight vigil will be held at Alley Pond Park starting at 6pm Thursday Evening to remember the brief life of Layla Smith.
'---UPDATE'---
Atlanta Officer Kills Black Woman, Injures Child, Following Breastfeeding Argument
In a continuation of the ongoing police scandals rocking the country, 28-year-old Latoya Smith has been pronounced dead following an incident this afternoon in Atlanta, according to multiple local media outlets. This closely follows the recent shooting deaths of Tulsa resident Terence Crutcher, Tyre King of Columbus and Charlotte resident Keith Lamont Scott which have thrown the nation into turmoil resulting in violent demonstrations.
According to eyewitness accounts, Latoya was sitting on a bench in the neighborhood of Marietta Street (recently named one of America's 25 most dangerous neighborhoods) waiting for the bus when her infant child began crying insistently. Knowing that her baby was hungry Ms. Smith began to breastfeed her daughter, Layla. She was then approached by a police officer, later identified as Michael Eaton, who requested that she stop feeding the baby in public as it was ''indecent''. Ms. Smith refused to comply with the directive and told Officer Eaton that she wasn't doing anything illegal. Officer Eaton again insisted that she stop and threatened to arrest her for indecent exposure. Ms. Smith calmly responded to the Officer that he could not arrest her because breastfeeding in public wasn't against the law.
''He got so mad at her'', said Tyrone Webb, who witnessed the unfortunate altercation. ''He started yelling at her, saying that he was the police, and that she didn't know s**t about what was against the law. He got all red in the face, pointing his finger right at her nose. She just sat there and kept feeding the baby calm as could be, being real polite and reasonable. Someone else tried to chime in and tell him he was wrong and he told the lady to shut up and mind her business.''
BREAKING: BOSTON POLICE OFFICER KILLS BLACK MAN OVER MARIJUANA CIGARETTEAs the argument transpired the bus approached and Ms. Smith stood up and moved Layla to her other arm, momentarily exposing her whole breast to the Officer and other onlookers. Ms Smith then clipped her breastfeeding bra shut and went to get on the bus with her baby.
Sandra Parker, another witness to the incident, described what followed next: ''He screamed at her to stop and told her that she was under arrest. When she ignored him and kept walking toward the bus he grabbed her by the back collar of her shirt and violently yanked her backwards. The poor baby just toppled out of her hands. She hit the ground and the poor little thing just started bleeding from her head. At that point, Latoya became extremely upset and the officer was clearly taken aback. She moved forward aggressively when he pulled out his gun and shot her twice, right there on the street. It was the most horrifying thing I've ever seen!''
Onlookers grabbed the injured baby and attempted to staunch the flow of blood from her split head. Officer Eaton is reported to have made the statement to the crowd that ''it was an accident but you can't resist arrest''. Layla was transported to Marietta Central Hospital.
Officer Eaton has been placed on paid leave pending a full investigation. The police department has issued a statement expressing their concern regarding this ''unfortunate'' event and states that all citizens must comply with orders to submit to arrest peacefully so that accidental injuries can be avoided.
Local community leader and Smith family friend Harold Jackson has called for the arrest of Officer Eaton on charges of murder, calling his actions a travesty of justice. The Smith family has not yet commented on the death of their daughter.
War on Vets
Why do so many veterinarians commit suicide? - The Boston Globe
He treated our pig's stomach ulcers, arthritis, and congestive heart failure. He saved our hen's life. And when our beloved border collie, Sally, lay dying in our bedroom, he came to our home, and while I held her and sobbed into the bedspread, he eased her out of her illness.
It's hard to think of many people in our lives more important, more integral, or more venerated than our veterinarians. To those of us who love animals, veterinary medicine is one of the world's noblest professions.
Advertisement
So it was with shock and dismay that I learned that veterinarians suffer alarmingly high rates of depression and suicide.
''It's a big problem,'' says Stephanie Kube, a veterinary neurologist and pain pathologist at Veterinary Neurology and Pain Management Center of New England in Walpole. ''The profession is truly plagued.''
A 2014 federal Centers for Disease Control online survey of 10,000 practicing veterinarians published last year found that more than one in six American veterinarians has considered suicide. Veterinarians suffer from feelings of hopelessness, depression, and other psychiatric disorders two to three times more often than the general population. Two studies published in the British Veterinarian Association's journal, The Veterinary Record, found suicide rates are double or more those of dentists and doctors, and four to six times higher than the general population.
RELATED: Why breeding bulldogs is borderline inhumane
The tragedy is counter-intuitive: Most veterinarians have wanted to go into animal medicine since childhood. They are among the lucky few who achieve their dreams. Devoting careers to saving animals' lives, why would healers choose to end their own?
These findings came as a surprise to veterinarians too. A 2012 survey of veterinary professional association directors across the country and practicing vets in Alabama found only 11'percent of veterinarians were aware that suicide is a problem in their field.
Advertisement
Yet if you ask your vet, chances are he or she knows of a colleague or classmate who has quit the profession, burned out, or killed himself or herself. And almost all American veterinarians have heard about the tragic 2014 case of New York veterinarian Shirley Koshi.
A good Samaritan had rescued a sick cat from a nearby park, and brought him to Koshi, owner of Gentle Hands Veterinary Clinic in Riverdale. Koshi treated the animal and adopted him. Weeks later, a woman appeared, demanding Koshi give her the cat. She claimed the cat was hers because she left food for him, and a number of other cats who roamed the public park. The woman sued; angry demonstrators picketed Koshi's office; organized hate groups attacked the vet online. Koshi, 55, killed herself at her home.
''People have a misconception that being a vet is all about vaccinating puppies and kittens all day long,'' says Marie Holowaychuk, a specialist in emergency and critical care in Calgary, Alberta.
While veterinarians deftly deal with patients who may bite, scratch, and kick, it's often the human clients, vets agree, who push them over the edge.
RELATED: When is pet euthanasia unkind?
''Most of our clients are awesome, and we love them. But all sorts of people have pets,'' Kube says. Some adopt or rescue pets who can't take care of them. Some want healthy pets put down. Some pet owners have emotional disabilities. Some are too financially strapped to pay for veterinary care. ''And some think vets will do everything for free, because we love animals,'' Kube says. ''And we do '-- but we can't.'' Many veterinarians, she mentioned, carry huge debt from vet school, which can cost as much or more than medical school. But most veterinarians will earn less than a third what doctors and dentists do, mainly because they charge less and don't get reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid, and insurance. (Pet insurance does exist, but few people have it.)
Yet veterinarians have to witness, and often assist, in the healer's most wrenching moment, far more often than doctors. ''Many of our patients die during our career,'' my vet, Dr. Chuck DeVinne of Animal Care Clinic in Peterborough, N.H., told me '-- simply because companion animals' lives are shorter than humans.
RELATED: US suicide rate surges to a 30-year high
Vets encounter death frequently, along with some moral issues doctors never face. Consider the vet who needs to counsel an owner forced to choose between a costly operation for their pet or sending their kid to college '-- or worse, a vet who operates on a pet who despite good care still dies.
When things go wrong, veterinarians take it hard. ''Many veterinarians have devoted everything they've got to their profession,'' says DeVinne.
When these stresses combine with long working hours and on-call pressures, it's easy to see how anyone could melt down. And because vets can offer gentle deaths to their patients with euthanasia, they may see death as a way out of pain. All of them have easy access to drugs that can kill.
RELATED: Suicide prevention website targets middle-aged men
What can be done to prevent burnout, depression, and suicide? Holowaychuk took up yoga and meditation, and today, as a certified yoga and meditation instructor, incorporates these practices into wellness retreats and workshops for fellow vets. (Read more about them at www.criticalcarevet.ca/wellness.) She also recommends that clients purchase insurance for their pets so that cost of care isn't an issue. DeVinne points out it's important for veterinarians to develop interests outside of their work: He's a nationally-ranked target shooter and gifted banjo player.
''Educating the public is a first step'' to healing these animal healers, Kube says. I urge you to do as I do when I bring my puppy in for a visit: Tell your vet '-- and their staff '-- that you're grateful for what they do.
Sy Montgomery is the author of 21 books on animals. Send your animal questions to Sy Montgomery and co-columnist Elizabeth Marshall Thomas at syandlizletters@gmail.com.
War on God
LT. COL. ROBERT MAGINNIS Print | Ambassador Christian Motivational Speakers
Expert on national security & foreign affairs who serves as national security and foreign affairs analyst for Moody Broadcasting
Lieutenant Colonel Robert (Bob) Maginnis, US Army (retired) is an experienced and internationally known expert on national security and foreign affairs. He currently serves as a national security and foreign affairs analyst for Moody Broadcasting Radio Network, Salem Radio Network, and is a regular guest on several other radio and television networks. He is a columnist with the publication Human Events and serves as the executive director for Checks for Heroes, a non-profit organization that capitalizes programs serving the families of fallen warriors. He is a senior strategist with the US Army in the Pentagon which is a contracted position with BCP International Limited, an Alexandria, VA-based company. Since October of 2002, Colonel Maginnis has been a member of the Secretary of Defense's retired Military Analyst Group.Before returning to the Pentagon Colonel Maginnis served as the vice president for policy with the Washington, DC-based Family Research Council. While with FRC, Colonel Maginnis supervised a staff of policy experts and also served as the organization's expert for national security, foreign affairs, crime prevent and drug policies. He has testified numerous times before Congressional committees.
In his many roles, Colonel Maginnis has appeared on ABC, NBC and CBS evening news shows, CBS 60 Minutes, CBS This Morning, ABC Good Morning America, PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer, MSNBC Equal Time, Hardball, Internight, and The News with Brian Williams, Court TVs Pro and Con, Fox News The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and is a regular guest on On the Record, CNN's Crossfire, Larry King Live, Talk Back Live, Wolf Blitzer Reports, Late Edition as well as other programs, such as Donahue and The Jenny Jones Show. He has been quoted many times in newspapers and magazines across the world such as The New York Times, US News & World Report and Time Magazine. Since 1993, he has written more than 500 articles, many of which have been published in distinguished newspapers and magazines nationwide. Colonel Maginnis has testified before congressional committees on military personnel issues, drug policy, AIDS, teen violence and homosexuality. His policy papers have been entered into the Congressional Record and his material is frequently used by members during floor debates. He is also a respected anti-drug expert having spoken at conferences in the United States and abroad. His anti-drug insights are sought by the media, grassroots activists, and government officials.
In July 1993, Colonel Maginnis retired from an assignment in the Pentagon where he served as an Inspector General. He is an airborne-ranger infantry officer with an assignment history that includes Korea, Germany, Alaska, and several posts in the continental United States. He served in command and staff positions in four infantry divisions from platoon to division level. The colonel was the chief for the U.S. Army Infantry School's leadership and ethics training branch. He developed curricula, taught, participated in leader development research and consulted with leaders and soldiers throughout the Army. He is the author of more than fifty articles published in professional military journals concerning ethics, leadership, and personnel matters impacting the military. Colonel Maginnis service in the armed forces was commended with the Legion of Merit, one of the highest Army peacetime decorations, as well as with five meritorious medals and four commendation medals.
In the last eight months of his military service, Colonel Maginnis was a member of the Army's study group examining the homosexual ban. He also was advisor to the Defense Department Military Working Group on homosexuals in the military. In that role, he debated the issue in the media as well as speaking in various forums - including testifying before a House subcommittee.
Colonel Maginnis received his B.S. from the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York in 1973 and a M.S. from the Naval Postgraduate School, California, in 1983. He is a graduate of many military schools, including the Command and General Staff College and the US Army's War College strategy course.
The colonel travels overseas as part of his Pentagon job and as a media consultant. He has visited war zones in Iraq, remote South African areas, Australia, Russia and much of the Orient. He has lived, worked and visited numerous European countries for more than 30 years.
Colonel Maginnis was born on October 3, 1950, in Orlando, Florida, and was raised in Alabama, California and Tennessee. He and his wife Jan have two children, Meghan, a graduate of Liberty University and now an employee with Booz-Allen-Hamilton in McLean, Virginia and Grant, a student at Liberty University. They have made their home in Woodbridge, Virginia since 1990. They are active members at Calvary Baptist Church in Woodbridge.
CLIPS AND DOCS
VIDEO-Talk Show Host Wonders Why Black Lives Matter Never Tells Blacks To Obey Police
Black talk show host Larry Elder on Saturday put his finger on a major flaw in the arguments by Black Lives Matter that claim institutional racism is at the heart of the high-profile cases of police-involved shootings.
Elder, speaking to Tucker Carlson on Fox News, said the notion of institutional racism ignores a whole lot of reality, particularly in the case of Keith Scott, who was killed by a black Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officer and whose death set off days of unrest in Charlotte, N.C..
Advertisement - story continues below
''This is a black suspect who was killed by a black police officer whose boss is a black PD chief '-- and rioters are attacking white people. What's wrong with this picture?'' Elder said.
''People complain about institutional racism,'' noted Elder, highlighting the many levels at which black officials have been either appointed or elected, including the presidency. ''How can you complain about institutional racism when blacks are running the institution?''
Elder said that although Black Lives Matter is protesting police conduct, the end result has hurt black citizens.
Advertisement - story continues below
''This whole Black Lives Matter movement, with George Soros' fingerprints all over it, has resulted '... in 25 of the largest cities '... an increase in homicides and the victims of these homicides are the very black people that Black Lives Matter claim that they care about. It's insane,'' Elder said.
Elder also said that the conduct of those who were shot can explain why those incidents ended that way.
''Whatever happened to 'Comply and you won't die?''' he said.
He then broadened his discussion to all of the police-involved shootings that have triggered protests.
Advertisement - story continues below
''In almost all of these high-profile cases '... if these people had just complied, whether it's Tulsa, whether it's Charlotte, these people would still be alive and if the officer has engaged in any kind of misconduct you deal with it while you're still alive,'' he said.
Instead of compliance being considered sound advice, he said it is instead considered ''condescending to tell black people, to tell people in the streets, if you are pulled over by an officer, be polite, be respectful, comply with lawful orders and you will not die,'' he said.
''Why aren't people saying that? They aren't saying that because they will be perceived as blaming the victim.
''The media treats blacks like children to whom the truth cannot be told,'' Elder added.
What do you think?Scroll down to comment below.
VIDEO-Alien 'Snake' Spotted In NASA Mars Photo By Alien Conspiracy Theorists: Alien Life On Mars Coverup By NASA? : SCIENCE : Tech Times
Alien hunters claimed to have spotted what appears to be a snake or a worm-like creature slithering between the rocks on planet Mars in a NASA rover photo.
Alien hunters said there is sufficient evidence to prove that higher life forms are present on the Red Planet but NASA scientists are denying it.
Scientists have explained that a phenomenon known as pareidolia could help explain why people keep finding mysterious objects such as statues, lizards and mermaids in Mars photos. Pareidolia occurs when the brain recognizes a familiar pattern or object even though it is not there.
Conspiracy theorists are not fully convinced by this explanation believing that NASA is making a coverup of alien life on Mars.
Some, however, believe that the space agency is on its way to making a full disclosure of the truth saying that NASA scientists are likely preparing to make a full disclosure as hinted by the recent announcement of the discovery of flowing liquid water on the Red Planet.
UFO chasers believe living creatures thrive on Mars but they are often overlooked despite that they are in plain sight in photos taken by NASA's robotic probes. They explained that one possible reason why it is difficult to spot life forms on the Martian surface is that Martian life comes in forms that are not familiar to humans.
The newly found Martian reptile, claimed to be capable of surviving the harsh environment of the Red Planet, is just one of the hundreds of discoveries that UFO enthusiasts claim to have spotted. The find, however, had some conspiracy theorists question the authenticity of NASA's works in Mars.
Earlier this month, NASA's Mars Curiosity Rover sent photos of stunning layered rock formations at Mount Sharp's Murray Buttes region. The probe has been gathering data on the surface of Mars and has already gathered evidence that show ancient lakes on the planet would have made it possible for microbes to thrive if Mars hosted life.
Some conspiracy theorists, however, think that photos taken in Mars were actually taken on Earth. They raised questions surrounding NASA's Mars missions saying the discovery of Earth-like species in Mars photos provides proof that NASA's rovers are not on the Red Planet but in a secret location here on Earth.
"I'll give you a hint, there is no rover on Mars," said conspiracy theorist secureteam10 on YouTube. "These photos are taken in the desert. Likely in Nevada where area 54 is located."
(C) 2016 Tech Times, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
VIDEO-Eric Trump Explains Why His Dad Is The 'Epitome' Of The American Dream
Eric Trump defended his father's real-estate empire Friday by saying that the GOP nominee was the epitome of the American Dream for having ''gone from just about nothing'' to becoming one of the most successful real estate mogul's in New York.
Trump made the statement on Fox News Channel's Outnumbered, and panelist Julie Roginsky clearly wasn't buying the claim as she let out an outburst of laughter.
''Nothing?'' she said. ''He got a million bucks! Come on, Eric.''
Advertisement - story continues below
If the proverbial apple doesn't fall far from the tree, Eric Trump's view of a million bucks is probably similar to his dad's, who publicly shared the story last year.
''My whole life really has been a 'no' and I fought through it,'' Donald Trump said during an NBC townhall event.
Advertisement - story continues below
''It has not been easy for me, it has not been easy for me. And you know I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars.''
In response to Roginsky's astonishment, Eric Trump then made a comparison to Mark Zuckerberg, the billionaire creator of Facebook.
''Listen, (my dad) built an unbelievable empire. He's epitomized what America is all about '-- opportunity and working hard and being able to achieve your dreams,'' Eric Trump replied.
''It's no different than a Zuckerberg, who went out with a great idea like a Facebook and developed this idea and built it and grew it and grew it. That's achieving something, right?''
Advertisement - story continues below
He then went on to explain how he feels that millennials don't ''relate to foreign policy very well because they haven't lived their lives long enough to understand so many of the issues'' that influence them.
''They obviously understand a lot of issues as it pertains to them. Student debt, and this and that. But I think maybe taxes and things like that might be a little less significant than other issues,'' Trump said.
''And so I just think there is disconnect between somebody who is constantly talking about, you know, policy and this and that and then a man who built a great company.''
What do you think?Scroll down to comment below.
VIDEO-CNN Interview with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi After Meeting With U.S. Presidential Candidates'... | The Last Refuge
CNN waited four days to put the Erin Burnett interview with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi on video. The videos were uploaded last evening, and the full interview is in two parts. The first segment is a discussion of U.S. politics and U.S. foreign policy with the Egyptian President:
In the second, longer, segment Burnett's discussion with al-Sisi centers around domestic Egyptian politics.
In this second segment viewers can see how clear-eyed Sisi is to the issues surrounding extremism in the North African gateway to the Middle-East. In addition, you can gauge the factual bravery of Sisi as he applies the term ''Islamic Extremism'' (@06:30) despite the challenge/risk to himself in calling out the hardline faction that exists.
It is unfair to project the definition of Western democracy -separation of church and state- against the sectarian protections of al-Sisi's governance, who leads nation of 90 million mostly Muslim citizens entirely comfortable with religious values as part of their governing and legislative structure.
No mid-east leader has been as strong against the tide of religious extremism as al-Sisi in Egypt. There is absolutely no doubt the Egyptian people, and al-Sisi himself, can envision a more reasonable relationship, perhaps a partnership, with the United States with a Donald Trump presidency.
The Egyptian people suffered intensely as a direct result of the consequences from U.S. foreign policy carried out by President Obama and Secretary Clinton. It was President Obama's speech in Cairo, February 2009, which unlocked the cages to the big cats -killed the zookeepers- unleashed the Muslim Brotherhood, empowered religious extremists and walked away ambivalent to the consequences.
One of Donald Trump's key policy advisers, Walid Phares, discusses the Egyptian perspective and the meeting between Donald Trump and Fattah el-Sisi:
VIDEO-14 mins-Hillary Clinton "If You Don't Think You Know Someone With A Disability I Promise You You're Wrong!" - YouTube
[ theme music ]Hillary Clinton: Where is he?Wh-Where's Zach?Zach Galifianakis: [ZACH] I was justtrying to scare her.Zach Galifianakis: I was just--Zach Galifianakis: Like in the...Halloween spirit of it all.Hillary Clinton: Not a good idea aroundthe Secret Service.- Are you okay?- I'm fine. I'm fine.Let's start.Zach Galifianakis: Hi, welcome to anotheredition of Between Two Ferns.Zach Galifianakis: I'm your-- your host Zach Galifianakis,and my guest today is Hillary...Zach Galifianakis: Clinton.Zach Galifianakis: Thank you very muchMrs. Clinton for being here.Zach Galifianakis: Critics have questionedsome of your decision making recently,Zach Galifianakis: and by you doing this showI hope it finally lays that to rest.Hillary Clinton: Oh, I think it--it absolutely proves their case.Don't you?Zach Galifianakis: Are you excited to bethe first girl President?Hillary Clinton: Well, I mean being Presidentwould be such an extraordinary honor,Hillary Clinton: and responsibility,but being the first women electedHillary Clinton: President and what thatwould mean for our country,Hillary Clinton: and particularly whatthat would mean for,Hillary Clinton: you know, not just little girls,little boys too.- That's pretty special.- Mmhmm.Zach Galifianakis: Not to take away from the historicsignificance of you perhaps becomingZach Galifianakis: the first female President,but for a younger, younger generation,Zach Galifianakis: you will also become theirfirst white President,Zach Galifianakis: and that's pretty neat too.Zach Galifianakis: As Secretary, how many wordsper minute could you type?Zach Galifianakis: And how doesPresident Obama like his coffee?Zach Galifianakis: Like himself?Zach Galifianakis: Weak?Hillary Clinton: You know Zach, those arereally out of date questions.Hillary Clinton: I... You need toget out more.Zach Galifianakis: What happens if youbecome pregnant?Zach Galifianakis: Are we going to be stuckwith Tim Kaine for 9 months?Zach Galifianakis: How does this work?Hillary Clinton: I could send you some pamphletsthat might help you understand--Zach Galifianakis: First you supported Obama'sTrans Pacific Partnership deal,and then you were against it.Zach Galifianakis: I think that people deserve to know,are you down with TPP?Hillary Clinton: Uh... I'm notdown with TPP.Zach Galifianakis: No, you're supposed to say,"Yeah, you know me."- Like the hip-hop group--- Don't tell me what to say.Zach Galifianakis: Fine, lose.[softly] The country goes to shit.- Let's talk about Trump, um--- Oh, let's.Zach Galifianakis: When you see how well it works forDonald Trump, do you ever think to yourself,Zach Galifianakis: "Oh, maybe I shouldbe more racist?"Zach Galifianakis: When he's elected President,and Kid Rock becomesSecretary of State,Zach Galifianakis: are you going to move toCanada or one of the Arctics?Hillary Clinton: I would stay inthe United States.- And what would you try to--- I would try to prevent himHillary Clinton: destroying theUnited States.Zach Galifianakis: So you're going tolead the Civil War?Hillary Clinton: No. I wouldn't--I wouldn't take up arms.Hillary Clinton: I-I think that mightbe a little extreme.Zach Galifianakis: Oh right, because you were sayingbefore we were rolling that you wantedZach Galifianakis: to take awayeveryone's guns.Zach Galifianakis: Very cool.Cool, cool, cool.Hillary Clinton: I really regretdoing this.Zach Galifianakis: Any regrets over losingthe Scott Baio vote?Hillary Clinton: Not a one.- So it wasn't heartbreaking that--- No.Zach Galifianakis: Yeah, but Chachi.I mean who's going to be next?Zach Galifianakis: Max Headroom?Zach Galifianakis: I'd love to meet the personwho makes your pants suits.Hillary Clinton: Oh really.Zach Galifianakis: Yeah, because for Halloween,I wanted to go as a librarianfrom outer space.Hillary Clinton: I think that would bea good look on you.Zach Galifianakis: Have you thought about what you'regoing to be wearing at the debates?Hillary Clinton: You know, there's this thing calledthe double standard, and so,Hillary Clinton: I think about, well,Hillary Clinton: what should the first woman nomineeof one of our two major parties wearHillary Clinton: to the debate,and I have no idea,Hillary Clinton: so if you've got suggestionsI'm open to them.Zach Galifianakis: Do you wonder what youropponent might be wearing?I mean--Hillary Clinton: I-I assume he'll wear, you know,that red power tie.Zach Galifianakis: Or maybe like awhite power tie.Hillary Clinton: That's even moreappropriate.Zach Galifianakis: When you went to Donald Trump's wedding,did he write his own vows?Zach Galifianakis: And did Michelle Obamawrite Melania's?Hillary Clinton: Um, I...Hillary Clinton: really couldn't see or hear very well.So I'm not quite sure what his vows were,Hillary Clinton: but I'm sure they were greatand huge and wonderful.Zach Galifianakis: Like his bowels.[ she chuckles ]Zach Galifianakis: Chelsea, your daughter, and Ivanka Trump,Trump's daughter, are friends--Zach Galifianakis: does Ivanka ever call Chelsea,you know, to talk about boys thatmight have crushers on her,Zach Galifianakis: like her dad?Hillary Clinton: I don't think so.Zach Galifianakis: What's going to be the numberone focus of your Presidency?Hillary Clinton: Oh Zach, it has to be the economy.We need more good jobswith rising incomes.Hillary Clinton: We gotta make the economywork for everybody,- not just those at the top--- We need to take a...Zach Galifianakis: We need to take a break.Zach Galifianakis: We just need to have aword from our sponsor. Okay.Donald Trump: Washington is broken.Donald Trump: The truth is too many politiciansare totally controlled by specialinterests and lobbyist.Donald Trump: We're going to makeAmerica great again.Donald Trump: [DONALD in voiceover]I'm Donald Trump,and I approve this message.He approves the message.Hillary Clinton: Wh-Why would youplay a commercialHillary Clinton: from my opponent in themiddle of our interview?Zach Galifianakis: He paid me in steaks.Hillary Clinton: I would be afraid toeat them if I were you.Zach Galifianakis: It's a good cut of meat.I think it's part of the [bleep] hole.Zach Galifianakis: Well, this has been a lotof fun Mrs. Clinton.Zach Galifianakis: We should stay in touch.What's the best way to reach you?Zach Galifianakis: Email?[voice from device]You got mail![ theme music ]
VIDEO-Gary Johnson Wants to Ignore Climate Change Because the Sun Will Destroy the Earth One Day | Mother Jones
Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate for president, takes what he calls the "long-term view" of climate change. "In billions of years," he said in 2011, "the sun is going to actually grow and encompass the Earth, right? So global warming is in our future."
The former New Mexico governor did acknowledge that humans are making the world warmer in the near term, too'--but he doesn't think the government should do much about it. In the same speech, he denounced "cap-and-trade taxation," said we "should be building new coal-fired plants," and argued that the "trillions" of dollars it would cost to combat climate change would be better spent on other priorities.
All of that makes Johnson's popularity among younger voters pretty surprising. Surveys have consistently found that millennials care deeply about climate change. A November 2015 ABC News/Washington Post poll, for example, found that 76 percent of 18- to-29-year-olds see global warming as a serious problem, and 64 percent want the federal government to do more to combat it. Nevertheless, a recent Quinnipiac poll found that Johnson is now running second among 18- to-34-year-old voters, just 2 percentage points behind Hillary Clinton.
"At a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that's going to be inevitable."
Johnson's 2011 comments weren't an aberration. Over the past few years, he has spoken out repeatedly against environmental regulation. In a 2011 NPR interview, he instead called for a "free-market approach" to reducing carbon emissions, arguing that consumer demand for cleaner energy, coupled with cheap natural gas, was causing a shift away from coal. He made the same argument during a Libertarian presidential candidate debate in May 2012. "If government gets involved" in fighting climate change, he said, "we are going to be spending trillions of dollars and have no effect whatsoever on the desired outcome."
During his 2012 campaign, Johnson called for cutting federal spending by 43 percent. In one interview, he noted that this would also mean a 43 percent reduction in the Environmental Protection Agency's budget. (During that same interview, he repeated his statement about the sun eventually destroying the planet: "Long-term consequence of our existence in the whole scheme of things is the sun is getting closer to the Earth and that at a point in the very distant future, the sun will actually encompass the Earth. So global warming is something that's going to be inevitable.")
For most of his 2016 campaign, Johnson has maintained his opposition to government efforts to deal with global warming. His campaign website acknowledges that the climate is "probably" changing and that humans are "probably" contributing to that change. But, it adds:
[T]he critical question is whether the politicians' efforts to regulate, tax and manipulate the private sector are cost-effective'--or effective at all. The debate should be about how we can protect our resources and environment for future generations. Governors Johnson and [Libertarian vice presidential nominee William] Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda.
In July, Johnson was asked during on appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher whether he had a "comprehensive plan to combat climate change." Johnson's answer: "No." He went on to argue that the coal industry's recent struggles were a result of free-market forces (such as cheap natural gas) rather than the Obama administration's new climate regulations. (Many experts say both factors have played significant roles in coal's decline. Former Climate Desk reporter Tim McDonnell has argued that of the two, the market forces are indeed more important.)
But then Johnson's stance changed dramatically. In an August interview with the Los Angeles Times, he announced he was "open" to the idea of the federal government imposing a revenue-neutral tax on carbon emissions. Economists have long viewed a carbon tax as the most efficient way of putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit warming'--many see it as preferable to the complex cap-and-trade proposal backed by President Barack Obama during his first term. In a subsequent interview on CNBC, Johnson called a carbon tax a "very libertarian proposal" under which "the market will take care of" climate change. (During the Democratic primaries, Bernie Sanders endorsed a carbon tax; Clinton did not.)
Many Libertarians and conservatives were outraged by Johnson's sudden embrace of a carbon tax. "It's Official: Gary Johnson Is a Left-Wing Candidate," declared the Federalist, a conservative publication. After plenty of public criticism from the right, Johnson changed his mind, telling supporters at a New Hampshire rally that after considering a carbon tax, "I have determined that, you know what, it's a great theory, but I don't think it can work, and I've worked my way through that." His flip-flop drew loud applause from the crowd.
Johnson elaborated in an interview the following day with the libertarian magazine Reason. He declared himself a "skeptic" when it comes to the idea "that government policy can address" climate issues and said a carbon tax "sounds good in theory, but it wouldn't work in practice."
"So, no support for a carbon fee," Johnson added. "I never raised one penny of tax as governor of New Mexico, not one cent in any area. Taxes to me are like a death plague."
And besides, what good will all those taxes do for us when the sun engulfs our planet?
Master image: RomoloTavani/iStock
VIDEO-Facebook Overestimated Key Video Metric for Two Years - WSJ
Sept. 22, 2016 7:29 p.m. ET Big ad buyers and marketers are upset with Facebook Inc.FB-1.63% after learning the tech giant vastly overestimated average viewing time for video ads on its platform for two years, according to people familiar with the situation.
Several weeks ago, Facebook disclosed in a post on its ''Advertiser Help Center'' that its metric for the average time users spent watching videos was artificially inflated because it was only factoring in video views of more than three seconds. The company said it was introducing a new metric to fix the problem.
Some ad agency executives who were also informed by Facebook about the change started digging deeper, prompting Facebook to give them a more detailed account, one of the people familiar with the situation said.
Ad buying agency PublicisPUBGY-0.05% Media was told by Facebook that the earlier counting method likely overestimated average time spent watching videos by between 60% and 80%, according to a late August letter Publicis Media sent to clients that was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
A spokeswoman for Publicis Media, a division of Publicis Groupe SA, referred calls to Facebook. Publicis was responsible for purchasing roughly $77 billion in ads on behalf of marketers around the world in 2015, according to estimates from research firm Recma.
GroupM, the ad buying unit of WPP PLC, also was notified of the discrepancy by Facebook, another person familiar with the matter said.
On Friday, Facebook apologized. ''The metric should have reflected the total time spent watching a video divided by the total number of people who played the video. But it didn't,'' said David Fischer, vice president of business and marketing partnerships, in a Facebook post. ''While this is only one of the many metrics marketers look at, we take any mistake seriously.''
Facebook had said in an earlier statement: ''We recently discovered an error in the way we calculate one of our video metrics.'' It added: ''This error has been fixed, it did not impact billing, and we have notified our partners both through our product dashboards and via sales and publisher outreach. We also renamed the metric to make it clearer what we measure. This metric is one of many our partners use to assess their video campaigns.''
The news is an embarrassment for Facebook, which has been touting the rapid growth of video consumption across its platform in recent years.
Due to the miscalculated data, marketers may have misjudged the performance of video advertising they have purchased from Facebook over the past two years. It also may have impacted their decisions about how much to spend on Facebook video versus other video ad sellers such as Google's YouTube, Twitter,TWTR21.42% and even TV networks.
Media companies and publishers are affected, too, since they've been given inaccurate data about the consumption of their video content across the social network. Many use that information to help determine the types of content they post.
For the past two years Facebook only counted video views of more than three seconds when calculating its ''Average Duration of Video Viewed'' metric. Video views of under three seconds were not factored in, thereby inflating the average. Facebook's new metric, ''Average Watch Time,'' will reflect video views of any duration. That will replace the earlier metric.
In its note to clients, Publicis said the change was an attempt to obfuscate Facebook's earlier miscalculations.
''In an effort to distance themselves from the incorrect metrics, Facebook is deprecating [the old metrics] and introducing 'new' metrics in September. Essentially, they're coming up with new names for what they were meant to measure in the first place,'' the memo said.
The miscounting could also fuel concerns among advertisers and media companies about the so-called ''walled gardens'' that companies including Facebook and Google are often described as operating. Both companies keep a tight grip on data, and only allow limited third-party tracking firms to plug into their systems.
Keith Weed, chief marketing officer of Unilever, said in an interview last year, tech companies that don't let third parties measure their platforms is equivalent to ''letting them mark their own homework.''
The Publicis note said, ''This once again illuminates the absolute need to have 3rd party tagging and verification on Facebook's platform. Two years of reporting inflated performance numbers is unacceptable.''
'--Shalini Ramachandran contributed to this article.
Write to Suzanne Vranica at suzanne.vranica@wsj.com and Jack Marshall at Jack.Marshall@wsj.com
VIDEO-QUANTUM-Charlotte Police Releases Faked CGI Shooting Video Of Keith Lamont Scott.. - YouTube
Video recorded by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police of the fatal shooting of Keith Scott was released by Chief Kerr Putney Saturday.
WCNC6:58 PM. EDT September 24, 2016
Keith Lamont Scott
(WARNING GRAPHIC VIDEO RELEASED BY THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT IS CONTAINED IN THIS STORY)
CHARLOTTE, N.C. '' Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police released the body cam and dash cam video of the Keith Scott shooting Saturday evening.
The video was released to the media at 6:30 p.m.
"There is no single piece of evidence that proves all the complexity of this case," Putney said.
The body cam and dash cam video will be released within the next 30 minutes. Putney said some video will be released Saturday and more will be released after the prosecutor decides it ok.
"I stand behind the facts of this case," Putney said.
CMPD will also release information about other evidence found at scene.
Putney said he decided to release the video Saturday because, "I now have assurance that there is no adverse impact on the investigation."
When asked if the officers will face charges, Putney responded, "Officers are absolutely not being charged (by me) and based on what we see, he (Keith Scott) absolutely was in possession of a handgun."
Putney said it was not lawful for Scott to possess a firearm.
"When you're in possession of marijuana and in possession of a gun, that is a public safely issue," Putney said.
In a release distributed by CMPD with the evidence, officers witnessed Scott rolling what they believed to be a marijuana "blunt." Police say that the officers did not consider Scott's drug activity to be a priority at the time and resumed warrant operations. A short time later, Officer Vinson saw Scott hold up a gun, which CMPD says gave him probable cause to arrest him for the drug violation and further investigate his possession of the gun.
"There are reasons our officers acted appropriately," Putney said.
CMPD says due to the combination of drugs and the gun Scott had in his possession, officers decided to take enforcement action for public safety concerns. Officers then departed the immediate area to outfit themselves with marked vets and equipment that would identify them as police.
When asked why officers shoot to kill, Putney responded, "We don't. We shoot to end the threat."
Officers saw a handgun initially when Scott was inside his vehicle, according to Putney. At this point in the investigation Putney said they only know of one officer who fired shots.
Along with video of the incident, CMPD released photos of the gun, an ankler holster, and marijuana recovered at the scene of the shooting.
The gun recovered by CMPD at the scene of the Keith Scott shooting. (Photo: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police)
The ankle holster recovered at the scene of the Keith Scott shooting by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police. (Photo: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police)
Marijuana recovered by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police from the scene of the Keith Scott shooting. (Photo: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police)
RELATED: Another night of peaceful protests in uptown Friday
On Friday, a cell phone video that was taken by Scott's wife was released by the family. Multiple state and local officials, including Roberts and Attorney General Roy Cooper said that the video should be released to the public. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton tweeted Friday that the video should be released without delay.
Former FBI agent and prosecutor M. Quentin Williams analyzed the video released Friday with NBC Charlotte's Michelle Boudin, saying it's unclear if Scott had a gun in his hand when he was shot. Two screen grabs from the video circulated social media Friday with many people questioning whether a gun was discovered at the scene of the shooting.
RELATED: Former FBI agent breaks down cell phone video of Keith Scott shooting
Governor Pat McCrory said Friday that it would be improper of him to say if the video should be released by local authorities, saying that CMPD was the custodian of the original video and had the legal authority to release it despite the SBI leading initiating its investigation of the shooting.
Governor McCrory released a statement Saturday agreeing with CMPD's release of the shooting video.
"As governor of North Carolina, I concur with the Charlotte police chief's decision to release the tapes. I have been assured by the State Bureau of Investigation that the release will have no material impact on the independent investigation since most of the known witnesses have been interviewed. We have appreciated the ongoing dialogue and team work between state and city officials to seek public transparency while protecting the integrity of the investigation and the rights of all parties involved in this case."
An international, education, and advocacy campaigning community
What We Do
Bring Awareness
That every child needs a loving family
Provide Advocacy
Drive policy and legislative change to achieve breakthroughs
Create Partnerships
Support best in-class programs
Why Family
Family is most important to over 90% of the world's population across all gender and ages.*
Children benefit long-term when in the care of a protective and permanent family. The results are:
Reduced mortality, improved physical growth, higher IQ scores, less grade repetition, increased school completion, decreased future criminal activity, less drug use/abuse, fewer teen pregnancies, and higher earning potential.**
*WORLD VALUES SURVEY Wave 6 2010-2014 OFFICIAL AGGREGATE v.20150418. World Values Survey Association (www.worldvaluessurvey.org).**US Government. (December 2012). United States Government Action Plan on Children in Adversity '-- A Framework for International Assistance: 2012''2017 (APCA).
What We Support
Strengthening Existing Families
Strengthen capacity and willingness to provide adequate care and to build community protection systems.
Reuniting Families
Reintegrate children already in alternative care back into their own families and communities.
Finding Homes with Relatives & New Families
The transfer of children from unsuitable forms of care into more suitable environments.
VIDEO-New Rule: Growth At Any Cost | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO) - YouTube
Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, created his "13 Keys to the White House" more than 30 years ago'--and he's ready to predict who will win in 2016. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 '-- but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in every presidential election since 1984.
When we sat down in May, he explained how he comes to a decision. Lichtman's prediction isn't based on horse-race polls, shifting demographics or his own political opinions. Rather, he uses a system of true/false statements he calls the "Keys to the White House" to determine his predicted winner.
And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.
The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman's book ''Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016'' are:
Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University, sat down with The Fix this week to reveal who he thinks will win in November and why 2016 was the most difficult election to predict yet. Our conversation has been lightly edited for length and clarity.
THE FIX: Can you tell me about the keys, and how you use them to evaluate the election from the point where '-- I assume it's very murky a year or two out, and they start to crystallize over the course of the election.
LICHTMAN: "The Keys to the White House" is a historically based prediction system. I derived the system by looking at every American presidential election from 1860 to 1980, and have since used the system to correctly predict the outcomes of all eight American presidential elections from 1984 to 2012.
The keys are 13 true/false questions, where an answer of "true" always favors the reelection of the party holding the White House, in this case the Democrats. And the keys are phrased to reflect the basic theory that elections are primarily judgments on the performance of the party holding the White House. And if six or more of the 13 keys are false '-- that is, they go against the party in power '-- they lose. If fewer than six are false, the party in power gets four more years.
So people who hear just the surface-level argument there might say, well, President Obama has a 58 percent approval rating, doesn't that mean the Democrats are a shoo-in? Why is that wrong?
It absolutely does not mean the Democrats are a shoo-in. First of all, one of my keys is whether or not the sitting president is running for reelection, and right away, they are down that key. Another one of my keys is whether or not the candidate of the White House party is, like Obama was in 2008, charismatic. Hillary Clinton doesn't fit the bill.
The keys have nothing to do with presidential approval polls or horse-race polls, with one exception, and that is to assess the possibility of a significant third-party campaign.
What about Donald Trump on the other side? He's not affiliated with the sitting party, but has his campaign been an enigma in terms of your ability to assess this election?
Donald Trump has made this the most difficult election to assess since 1984. We have never before seen a candidate like Donald Trump, and Donald Trump may well break patterns of history that have held since 1860.
We've never before seen a candidate who's spent his life enriching himself at the expense of others. He's the first candidate in our history to be a serial fabricator, making up things as he goes along. Even when he tells the truth, such as, "Barack Obama really was born in the U.S.," he adds two lines, that Hillary Clinton started the birther movement, and that he finished it, even though when Barack Obama put out his birth certificate, he didn't believe it. We've never had a candidate before who not just once, but twice in a thinly disguised way, has incited violence against an opponent. We've never had a candidate before who's invited a hostile foreign power to meddle in American elections. We've never had a candidate before who's threatened to start a war by blowing ships out of the water in the Persian Gulf if they come too close to us. We've never had a candidate before who has embraced as a role model a murderous, hostile foreign dictator. Given all of these exceptions that Donald Trump represents, he may well shatter patterns of history that have held for more than 150 years, lose this election even if the historical circumstances favor it.
We're a little bit less than seven weeks out from the election today. Who do you predict will win in November?
Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you're out, and right now the Democrats are out '-- for sure '-- five keys.
Key 1 is the party mandate '-- how well they did in the midterms. They got crushed.
Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.
Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.
Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.
And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.
One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key. One of my keys would be that the party in power gets a "false" if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more. In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent. My rule is that you cut it in half. That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.
So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote.
Do you think the fact that Trump is not a traditional Republican '-- certainly not an establishment Republican, from a rhetorical or policy perspective '-- contributes to that uncertainty over where he fits in with the standard methodology for evaluating the Keys?
I think the fact that he's a bit of a maverick, and nobody knows where he stands on policy, because he's constantly shifting. I defy anyone to say what his immigration policy is, what his policy is on banning Muslims, or whoever, from entering the United States, that's certainly a factor. But it's more his history in Trump University, the Trump Institute, his bankruptcies, the charitable foundation, of enriching himself at the expense of others, and all of the lies and dangerous things he's said in this campaign, that could make him a precedent-shattering candidate.
It's interesting, I don't use the polls, as I've just explained, but the polls have very recently tightened. Clinton is less ahead than she was before, but it's not because Trump is rising, it's because Clinton is falling. He's still around 39 percent in the polls. You can't win if you can't crack 40 percent.
As people realize the choice is not Gary Johnson, the only choice is between Trump and Clinton, those Gary Johnson supporters may move away from Johnson and toward Clinton, particularly those millennials. And, you know, I've seen this movie before. My first vote was in 1968, when I was the equivalent of a millennial, and lots of my friends, very liberal, wouldn't vote for Hubert Humphrey because he was part of the Democratic establishment, and guess what? They elected Richard Nixon.
And, of course, as I have said for over 30 years, predictions are not endorsements. My prediction is based off a scientific system. It does not necessarily represent, in any way, shape or form, an Allan Lichtman or American University endorsement of any candidate. And of course, as a successful forecaster, I've predicted in almost equal measure both Republican and Democratic victories.
VIDEO-Obama Offers Advice To Clinton On How To Defeat Trump In First Debate
During an interview with ABC News' Good Morning America, President Obama, who participated in presidential debates against John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012, revealed what he would do if he were Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in her upcoming debate against Republican nominee Donald Trump on Monday night.
''Be yourself,'' he said, ''and explain what motivates you.''
The president continued, ''I've gotten to know Hillary and seen her work and seen her in tough times and in good times. She is in this for the right reasons. She is motivated by a deep desire to make things better for people.''
Advertisement - story continues below
In the interview, which took place at the new Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, Obama said he believes the fact that Clinton is a woman means she has faced incredible obstacles that no other major party nominee has ever faced.
''I think there is a reason we haven't had a woman president before and so she is having to break down some barriers,'' he said.
Obama added that when it comes to what Clinton is really like, ''There is a level of mistrust and a caricature of her that doesn't jibe with who I know, this person that cares deeply about kids, and wants to make sure they get a good education and wants to make working families have support and wants everyone to succeed and wants to keep America safe.''
Advertisement - story continues below
The president also thinks that Clinton's ability to handle character attacks while still offering what he sees as important policy proposals is proof that she would be a great fit for the presidency.
EXCLUSIVE: Pres. Obama offers his advice for Hillary Clinton as she prepares to debate Donald Trump: 'Be yourself.' https://t.co/XABC9X1hHKpic.twitter.com/dJT2nrlnTH
'-- Good Morning America (@GMA) September 22, 2016
''To the degree to which she can talk not just about policy, but talk about why she has been able to despite all the slings and arrows that have been cast at her, just keep on going,'' he said.
He continued, ''It would be good for the American people to see that and be reminded of that.''
Advertisement - story continues below
More proof that President Obama has poor judgment: His debate advice for Hillary was to "be yourself." He knows she wants to win, right?
'-- JD Rucker (@JDRucker) September 23, 2016
The first presidential debate between Clinton and Trump will take place Monday at Hofstra University on Long Island, New York.
As the debate has drawn closer, the candidates are reportedly preparing in very different ways.
Clinton is said to be meticulously rehearsing while also studying numerous hours of tape, looking for ways to get under her rival's skin in an attempt to show the public that Trump does not have the temperament to be president.
By contrast, Trump '-- who is a political novice in the midst of his first campaign '-- has eschewed more traditional methods of practice, choosing instead to spitball ideas with key members of his team and look for the strengths and weaknesses of his opponent through past debate footage.
What do you think?Scroll down to comment below.
VIDEO-What The Heck is Candidate Gary Johnson Doing Here?'... | The Last Refuge
About C-SPANResourcesFollow C-SPANChannel FinderFind C-SPAN On Your TV");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Channel Finder");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Found C-SPAN On Your TV");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("");if (provider['STATUS'][0] == 1){var cspan1 = provider['CHANNEL'][0].split(',');$.each(cspan1, function(index, value) {cspan1[index] = parseInt(value);});cspan1 = cspan1.sort(compareNumbers).join(', ');$('nav.channel-finder div table').append("C-SPANChannel " + cspan1 + ((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][0] == 'string') ? " & HD " + provider['HDCHANNEL'][0] + "*" : "") + "");}if (provider['STATUS'][1] == 1){var cspan2 = provider['CHANNEL'][1].split(',');$.each(cspan2, function(index, value) {cspan2[index] = parseInt(value);});cspan2 = cspan2.sort(compareNumbers).join(', ');$('nav.channel-finder div table').append("C-SPAN2Channel " + cspan2 + ((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][1] == 'string') ? " & HD " + provider['HDCHANNEL'][1] + "*" : "") + "");}if (provider['STATUS'][2] == 1){var cspan3 = provider['CHANNEL'][2].split(',');$.each(cspan3, function(index, value) {cspan3[index] = parseInt(value);});cspan3 = cspan3.sort(compareNumbers).join(', ');$('nav.channel-finder div table').append("C-SPAN3Channel " + cspan3 + ((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][2] == 'string') ? " & HD " + provider['HDCHANNEL'][2] + "*" : "") + "");}if (hd)$('nav.channel-finder div').append("* Not available in all packages and areas. Please contact your provider if you don't see C-SPAN on your channel lineup.
");}else{$('nav.channel-finder').html("");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Channel Finder");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Your Provider Does Not Carry C-SPAN");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Request C-SPAN");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("C-SPAN is carried by these providers:
");$.each(window.providers['PROVIDER'], function(index, value) {if (value['STATUS'][0] == 1 || value['STATUS'][1] == 1 || value['STATUS'][2] == 1) {$('nav.channel-finder div table').append("" + decodeURIComponent(value['NAME']) + "");$('nav.channel-finder div table tr#' + index).append("");if (value['STATUS'][0] == 1) {$('nav.channel-finder div table tr#' + index + ' .channels').html("C'SPAN, "+((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][0] == 'string') ? "C'SPAN HD, " : ""));}if (value['STATUS'][1] == 1) {$('nav.channel-finder div table tr#' + index + ' .channels').append("C'SPAN2, "+((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][1] == 'string') ? "C'SPAN2 HD, " : ""));}if (value['STATUS'][2] == 1) {$('nav.channel-finder div table tr#' + index + ' .channels').append("C'SPAN3, "+((typeof provider['HDCHANNEL'][2] == 'string') ? "C'SPAN3 HD, " : ""));}}});$('#request-cspan').click(function(e) {$('nav.channel-finder').html("");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Channel Finder");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("Request C-SPAN From Your Provider");$('nav.channel-finder div').append("");$('nav.channel-finder div form').append("* First Name:
");$('nav.channel-finder div form').append("* Last Name:
");$('nav.channel-finder div form').append("* Email Address:
");$('nav.channel-finder div form').append("Message:
");$('nav.channel-finder div form').append("* Denotes a required field
In the midst of a heated but civil debate on CNN Tuesday night, host Erin Burnett admitted on her eponymous show to Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway that her program should not have aired a chyron on Monday's show suggesting that Donald Trump was in favor of ''racial'' profiling.
Burnett was twice pressed by Conway on why her show made such an editorial error and so Burnett paused the debate to offer an explanation of regret.
''I want to interrupt you there, I want to interrupt you there, because that was a lower third as we call them on our screen. It actually happened during this hour and I want to make it clear the word ''racial'' should not have been put in quotes,'' she explained.
Building up to that point, Burnett was questioning Conway about why Trump doesn't follow the lead of Hillary Clinton in having formal press conferences (with Trump's drought at 55 days on Tuesday) irregardless of Clinton's 250-plus days of silence on the press conference front.
In response, Conway pointed out that it's easy for Clinton to be having press conferences now because, as my colleague Scott Whitlock and I havechronicled, many of her questions are nothing but softballs:
Well, when Hillary Clinton is in front of the press, she's got the press asking her these '-- they might as well just ask her, lovely blouse, where did you get it today, Mrs. Clinton? I mean, some of these questions are not journalism. Some of them are just, it's great to see you, do you think this is will hurt Donald Trump because he '-- I mean, did you see this question from a Bloomberg reporter yesterday?
>
Conway's first mention of the chyron was initially shot down by Burnett as she continued pushing about when Trump will have a formal press conference again, so Conway invoked the ''racial'' headline again in talking about how the Trump campaign doesn't ''get fair questions.''
''Just last night, CNN added in the word ''racial'' that he never mentioned with profiling. Your network added in racial to make it look like he has said ''racial profiling'' where he never had,'' Conway again stated.
Having twice arisen in the span of a few minutes, Burnett finally relented and addressed it (to which Conway said, ''thank you'') before going onto offer a defense of the decision:
I want to interrupt you there, I want to interrupt you there, because that was a lower third as we call them on our screen. It actually happened during this hour and I want to make it clear the word ''racial'' should not have been put in quotes. But I want to ask you something about this though, because a lot of other people were happy to describe it as racial profiling without putting quotation marks around it because Donald Trump continually does speak about profiling related to Muslims.
The relevant portions of the transcript from CNN's Erin Burnett OutFront on September 21 can be found below.
ERIN BURNETT: Trump himself has actually not held a formal press conference in 55 days. The last formal one was on July 27th. Will he do it again? Really start having press conferences? Hillary Clinton, I mean, just to fair at this point is now doing this almost every day.
KELLYANNE CONWAY: Well, when Hillary Clinton is in front of the press, she's got the press asking her these '-- they might as well just ask her, lovely blouse, where did you get it today, Mrs. Clinton? I mean, some of these questions are not journalism. Some of them are just, it's great to see you, do you think this is will hurt Donald Trump because he '-- I mean, did you see this question from a Bloomberg reporter yesterday? And so, you know, she also gets words like bombing scrubbed from any '-- you know, I watched CNN all weekend and what are they saying? Donald Trump called it a bomb before it was a bomb. It was a bomb and nobody '-- and very few people were mentioning from a journalistic point of view that Hillary Clinton also said the bombings or the bombing '-- but that was scrubbed. CNN added the word ''racial'' last night.
BURNETT: But again, the question Kellyanne is '-- is he going to take questions?
CONWAY: Well, sure, he'll take questions but, Erin, we're very '-- listen, we '-- Erin, I have to respectfully disagree because Mr. Trump is out there. We have the press pool with us every day. He's in public places at rallies, with voters. Not at fundraisers where the cameras are not allowed like which she does constantly and the press is right there to covering anything and you know what? They really do. A lot of the people who travel with us don't give us a positive tweet. Don't give us positive stories. Are they not there yesterday in Fort Myers where I was with Mr. Trump? There were 10,000 people inside and we had 31,000 RSVPs for a place that only held 8,500 people. I mean, it's just incredible. We don't get these stories from the whole press pool. So, sure, maybe he'll take a question here and there but, you know what? He gives press availability every day by doing these rallies in these swing states where he is every single day and they are there with him. We don't get fair questions. Just last night, CNN added in the word ''racial'' that he never mentioned with profiling. Your network added in racial to make it look like he has said ''racial profiling'' where he never had. So, you know '-- sure, I'm answering questions right now.
BURNETT: I want to interrupt you there, I want to interrupt you there, because that was a lower third as we call them on our screen. It actually happened during this hour and I want to make it clear the word ''racial'' should not have been put in quotes.
CONWAY: Thank you.
BURNETT: But I want to ask you something about this though, because a lot of other people were happy to describe it as racial profiling without putting quotation marks around it because Donald Trump continually does speak about profiling related to Muslims.
VIDEO-Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis: Hillary Clinton from Funny Or Die, Zach Galif...
[ theme music ]Hillary Clinton: Where is he?Wh-Where's Zach?Zach Galifianakis: [ZACH] I was justtrying to scare her.Zach Galifianakis: I was just--Zach Galifianakis: Like in the...Halloween spirit of it all.Hillary Clinton: Not a good idea aroundthe Secret Service.- Are you okay?- I'm fine. I'm fine.Let's start.Zach Galifianakis: Hi, welcome to anotheredition of Between Two Ferns.Zach Galifianakis: I'm your-- your host Zach Galifianakis,and my guest today is Hillary...Zach Galifianakis: Clinton.Zach Galifianakis: Thank you very muchMrs. Clinton for being here.Zach Galifianakis: Critics have questionedsome of your decision making recently,Zach Galifianakis: and by you doing this showI hope it finally lays that to rest.Hillary Clinton: Oh, I think it--it absolutely proves their case.Don't you?Zach Galifianakis: Are you excited to bethe first girl President?Hillary Clinton: Well, I mean being Presidentwould be such an extraordinary honor,Hillary Clinton: and responsibility,but being the first women electedHillary Clinton: President and what thatwould mean for our country,Hillary Clinton: and particularly whatthat would mean for,Hillary Clinton: you know, not just little girls,little boys too.- That's pretty special.- Mmhmm.Zach Galifianakis: Not to take away from the historicsignificance of you perhaps becomingZach Galifianakis: the first female President,but for a younger, younger generation,Zach Galifianakis: you will also become theirfirst white President,Zach Galifianakis: and that's pretty neat too.Zach Galifianakis: As Secretary, how many wordsper minute could you type?Zach Galifianakis: And how doesPresident Obama like his coffee?Zach Galifianakis: Like himself?Zach Galifianakis: Weak?Hillary Clinton: You know Zach, those arereally out of date questions.Hillary Clinton: I... You need toget out more.Zach Galifianakis: What happens if youbecome pregnant?Zach Galifianakis: Are we going to be stuckwith Tim Kaine for 9 months?Zach Galifianakis: How does this work?Hillary Clinton: I could send you some pamphletsthat might help you understand--Zach Galifianakis: First you supported Obama'sTrans Pacific Partnership deal,and then you were against it.Zach Galifianakis: I think that people deserve to know,are you down with TPP?Hillary Clinton: Uh... I'm notdown with TPP.Zach Galifianakis: No, you're supposed to say,"Yeah, you know me."- Like the hip-hop group--- Don't tell me what to say.Zach Galifianakis: Fine, lose.[softly] The country goes to shit.- Let's talk about Trump, um--- Oh, let's.Zach Galifianakis: When you see how well it works forDonald Trump, do you ever think to yourself,Zach Galifianakis: "Oh, maybe I shouldbe more racist?"Zach Galifianakis: When he's elected President,and Kid Rock becomesSecretary of State,Zach Galifianakis: are you going to move toCanada or one of the Arctics?Hillary Clinton: I would stay inthe United States.- And what would you try to--- I would try to prevent himHillary Clinton: destroying theUnited States.Zach Galifianakis: So you're going tolead the Civil War?Hillary Clinton: No. I wouldn't--I wouldn't take up arms.Hillary Clinton: I-I think that mightbe a little extreme.Zach Galifianakis: Oh right, because you were sayingbefore we were rolling that you wantedZach Galifianakis: to take awayeveryone's guns.Zach Galifianakis: Very cool.Cool, cool, cool.Hillary Clinton: I really regretdoing this.Zach Galifianakis: Any regrets over losingthe Scott Baio vote?Hillary Clinton: Not a one.- So it wasn't heartbreaking that--- No.Zach Galifianakis: Yeah, but Chachi.I mean who's going to be next?Zach Galifianakis: Max Headroom?Zach Galifianakis: I'd love to meet the personwho makes your pants suits.Hillary Clinton: Oh really.Zach Galifianakis: Yeah, because for Halloween,I wanted to go as a librarianfrom outer space.Hillary Clinton: I think that would bea good look on you.Zach Galifianakis: Have you thought about what you'regoing to be wearing at the debates?Hillary Clinton: You know, there's this thing calledthe double standard, and so,Hillary Clinton: I think about, well,Hillary Clinton: what should the first woman nomineeof one of our two major parties wearHillary Clinton: to the debate,and I have no idea,Hillary Clinton: so if you've got suggestionsI'm open to them.Zach Galifianakis: Do you wonder what youropponent might be wearing?I mean--Hillary Clinton: I-I assume he'll wear, you know,that red power tie.Zach Galifianakis: Or maybe like awhite power tie.Hillary Clinton: That's even moreappropriate.Zach Galifianakis: When you went to Donald Trump's wedding,did he write his own vows?Zach Galifianakis: And did Michelle Obamawrite Melania's?Hillary Clinton: Um, I...Hillary Clinton: really couldn't see or hear very well.So I'm not quite sure what his vows were,Hillary Clinton: but I'm sure they were greatand huge and wonderful.Zach Galifianakis: Like his bowels.[ she chuckles ]Zach Galifianakis: Chelsea, your daughter, and Ivanka Trump,Trump's daughter, are friends--Zach Galifianakis: does Ivanka ever call Chelsea,you know, to talk about boys thatmight have crushers on her,Zach Galifianakis: like her dad?Hillary Clinton: I don't think so.Zach Galifianakis: What's going to be the numberone focus of your Presidency?Hillary Clinton: Oh Zach, it has to be the economy.We need more good jobswith rising incomes.Hillary Clinton: We gotta make the economywork for everybody,- not just those at the top--- We need to take a...Zach Galifianakis: We need to take a break.Zach Galifianakis: We just need to have aword from our sponsor. Okay.Donald Trump: Washington is broken.Donald Trump: The truth is too many politiciansare totally controlled by specialinterests and lobbyist.Donald Trump: We're going to makeAmerica great again.Donald Trump: [DONALD in voiceover]I'm Donald Trump,and I approve this message.He approves the message.Hillary Clinton: Wh-Why would youplay a commercialHillary Clinton: from my opponent in themiddle of our interview?Zach Galifianakis: He paid me in steaks.Hillary Clinton: I would be afraid toeat them if I were you.Zach Galifianakis: It's a good cut of meat.I think it's part of the [bleep] hole.Zach Galifianakis: Well, this has been a lotof fun Mrs. Clinton.Zach Galifianakis: We should stay in touch.What's the best way to reach you?Zach Galifianakis: Email?[voice from device]You got mail![ theme music ]
VIDEO-Polygraph panic: CIA director fretted his vote for communist - CNNPolitics.com
John Brennan on Thursday recalled being asked a standard question for a top security clearance at his early CIA lie detector test: Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?
"I froze," Brennan said during a panel discussion about diversity in the intelligence community at the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation's annual conference. "This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate,"
Brennan was responding to a question about barriers to recruiting diverse candidates for the intelligence fields, including whether past records of activism could hurt someone applying for a clearance later in life.
The CIA director said the agency's mission is to protect the values of the Constitution -- which include free speech.
"We've all had indiscretions in our past," he said, adding neither some drug experimentation nor activism was a non-starter. "I would not be up here if that was disqualifying."
He proceeded to tell the story of his test.
"I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, 'OK, here's the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens,'" Brennan said.
He said he chose to be forthcoming.
"I said I was neither Democratic or Republican, but it was my way, as I was going to college, of signaling my unhappiness with the system, and the need for change. I said I'm not a member of the Communist Party, so the polygrapher looked at me and said, 'OK,' and when I was finished with the polygraph and I left and said, 'Well, I'm screwed.'"
But he soon got his admission notice to the CIA and was relieved, he said, saying that though the agency still had long strides to make in accepting gay recruits and minorities, even then it recognized the importance of freedom.
"So if back in 1980, John Brennan was allowed to say, 'I voted for the Communist Party with Gus Hall' ... and still got through, rest assured that your rights and your expressions and your freedom of speech as Americans is something that's not going to be disqualifying of you as you pursue a career in government."
VIDEO-House panel recommends holding former Clinton IT aide in contempt | Fox News
The House oversight committee voted Thursday to recommend holding the former State Department IT specialist who set up Hillary Clinton's private server in contempt of Congress, after he again ignored a subpoena to appear before the panel.
The resolution to hold Bryan Pagliano in contempt goes next to the full House, which would ultimately decide whether to hold the controversial figure in the Clinton email case in contempt.
''Subpoenas are not optional,'' committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said. ''This committee cannot operate, it cannot perform its duty '... if subpoenas are ignored.''
Chaffetz swiftly moved to consider the contempt resolution after issuing a subpoena for Pagliano to appear Thursday, following a no-show earlier this month. He said the committee was ''left with no choice'' when Pagliano skipped again.
It's unclear when and whether the full House would vote on the measure, which cleared the committee on a 19-15 vote.
Majority Republicans, though, were accused of partisanship by Democrats and Pagliano's attorneys.
''This is nothing but a blatantly partisan Republican attack'' on Clinton, said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., the top Democrat on the committee.
He read a letter from Pagliano's legal counsel reiterating that Pagliano plans to continue to assert his Fifth Amendment rights not to answer questions. Further, the letter said the subpoena serves no valid legislative purpose and is for a political agenda, according to Cummings.
The move comes after Pagliano earlier ignored a subpoena to appear before the same committee on Sept. 13. Other tech experts who helped maintain the system did attend the hearing but asserted their Fifth Amendment right not to testify.
At the time, Chaffetz vowed the committee would pursue a ''full range of options'' to address Pagliano's ''failure'' to attend.
Pagliano is considered a vital witness in the Clinton email case. He spoke previously to the FBI under immunity, telling the bureau there were no successful security breaches of the server.
On Thursday, Chaffetz noted that Pagliano was brought in in 2009 to help set up Clinton's server at her New York home. Further, he said the State Department has only been able to find a handful of his emails.
''We have questions about this,'' he said.
Pagliano also refused to answer questions last year before a House panel investigating the deadly 2012 attacks in Benghazi, Libya. His lawyers said at the time that Pagliano did not want to relinquish his rights under the U.S. Constitution's Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination.
Pagliano's lawyer earlier said the committee's request was an ''abuse of process.''
Chaffetz, though, rejected the argument that Pagliano does not need to appear before his committee because he already took the Fifth before the Benghazi committee. Chaffetz noted he has questions that fall outside the purview of the Benghazi panel.
''Mr. Pagliano's testimony could provide important information'' informing possible reforms to ensure ''this disaster never happens again,'' Chaffetz said.
Even if the House votes to hold Pagliano in contempt, it would be up to the Justice Department to decide whether to pursue charges '' meaning the contempt bid could start and end at the House.
Fox News' Chad Pergram and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
VIDEO-Hillary Clinton Stops By Between Two Ferns, Takes on Trump | WIRED
Hillary Clinton Stops By Between Two Ferns, Takes on Trump | WIREDAdvertisement.
Skip Article Header. Skip to: Start of Article.''Are you excited to be the first girl president?'' That's just one of many pointed (and pointedly stupid) questions posed by Zach Galifianakis to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton on a just-released installment of Funny or Die's Between TwoFerns. (Other queries include ''Are you down with TPP?'' and ''Any regrets about losing the Scott Baio vote?'') Clinton isn't the first politician to stop by the satirical talk-show'--President Obama's 2014 appearance helped raise awareness of the Affordable Care Act'--but she's certainly the first presidential nominee to endure a sit-down with ace-doofus host Galifianakis, who subjects her to awkward exchanges about pantsuits, her plans to take everyone's guns away, and Donald Trump's ''white power tie.''
Clinton's faux-frustration expressions are well-played here: When Galifianakis asks whether it's a good idea to reach her via email, she glares at him with a look of mock disdain that could melt a BlackBerry. ''I really regret doing this,'' Clinton says at one point. We're pretty sure(?) she's kidding.
Go Back to Top. Skip To: Start of Article.Sponsored StoriesPowered By Outbrain
Powered By Outbrain
Song ExploderSong Exploder: Peter Bjorn and John's 'Young Folks' Almost Didn't Happen2 hours
We RecommendPowered By OutbrainUse of this site constitutes acceptance of our user agreement (effective 3/21/12) and privacy policy (effective 3/21/12). Affiliate link policy. Your California privacy rights. The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written permission of Cond(C) Nast.
VIDEO-Baltimore police searching for 3 shooters after 8 people shot & injured, including toddler '-- RT America
Police have confirmed they are sweeping an East Baltimore area for three shooters thought to be in possession of a shotgun and handguns. At least eight people have been shot, including a parent and a three-year-old child.
Three suspects fled the scene, including one bearing a shotgun and two who had handguns, Chief of Media Relations at Baltimore Police, T.J. Smith, tweeted. Eight people were wounded, he confirmed, but the injuries were ''all non-life threatening.''
Smith added that a father and his three-year-old daughter had been among those wounded.
The shooting took place at around 8:45pm local time at the intersection of E. Preston Street and Greenmount Avenue, not far from Baltimore Penn Station.
Police told CBC's local affiliate WJZ TV that at least three people were sent to local hospitals. The hunt for the suspect remains underway.
