Tuesday, December 27, 2016


Famed lawyer and liberal icon Alan Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School, is blasting Barack Obama as an “appalling president” for stabbing Israel in the back, with his decision to allow the U.S. to abstain from, and essentially support, a U.N. resolution last week. In an interview with Fox News, Dershowitz said: “What he (Obama) did was so nasty. He pulled a bait-and-switch. He said to the American public: This is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank. And yet he allowed his representative to the U.N. abstain, which is really [support] for, a resolution that says the Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall, Jewish … students can’t go to Hebrew University, Jewish and Arab patients can’t go to Hadassah hospital, Jews can’t live in the Jewish Quarter, where they’ve lived for thousands of years, and he’s going to say, ‘Whoops, I didn’t mean that.’ “Well, read the resolution!” he said. “You’re a lawyer!” 

On Friday, Obama had his U.N. representative abstain from a vote on a resolution that demands Israel “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” t also calls for the Jewish state to be restricted to the borders it had before the 1967 war, when it was attacked by its Arab neighbors. Critics said it effectively strips Israel of any bargaining power in any future peace negotiations by forcing the state to forfeit its biggest bargaining chip. The resolution was approved 14 to 0, with the United States abstaining. To pass, a U.N. resolution requires approval by 9 out of 15 members of the Security Council, and no vetoes by any of the five permanent members, including the U.S. Since the U.S. didn’t veto the plan, the Obama administration effectively endorsed it. Dershowitz said he had met with Obama at one point, and Obama had assured him that he would always have Israel’s back. “I didn’t realize what [Obama] meant is that he would have their back to stab them,” Dershowitz said. He explained a Middle East peace now will be much harder to achieve because Arab interests will believe they have to make no accommodations, that the international processes such as those at the U.N. will give them a nation on their own terms. The result? Obama will be considered “one of the worst foreign policy presidents ever,” he said. He described Obama as an “appalling, appalling president.” 

Friday, December 23, 2016

Obama's Parting Shot at Israel

As most people know by now, the UN security Council today approved a resolution calling on Israel to cease building settlements.
The administration said they abstained from voting because the language mirrored facts on the ground.
Obama could have vetoed the resolution but didn't because they agreed with much of the resolution.
In effect, this is a propaganda victory for Arabs, and another propaganda tool to use while attacking Israel.
This will be a large part of Obama's legacy. mfbsr

Team Obama Lets U.N. Condemn Israel for Settlements
Republicans and Democrats alike excoriated the Obama administration for allowing the Security Council measure to pass.
Andrew Desiderio

12.23.16 2:44 PM ET
In a stinging rebuke to Israel, the United States abstained from a United Nations Security Council vote on a resolution that demands a halt to Israeli settlements, allowing the measure to pass despite vigorous bipartisan opposition at home.
In advance of the vote, Democratic and Republican lawmakers called on the Obama administration to block the measure, saying it would harm peace negotiations between Israel and Palestine. The Obama administration, meanwhile, contends that Israel’s settlements have imperiled the peace process, and that a two-state solution cannot exist while settlement activity increases.
Speaking immediately after the vote, Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., singled out Netanyahu and his allies for their continued support of settlements.

“One cannot simultaneously champion expanding Israeli settlements and champion a viable two-state solution that would end the conflict,” Power said. “One has to make a choice between settlements and separation.”
Of the 15 member states, 14 voted in favor of the measure. As one of the five permanent member states on the Security Council, the U.S. has veto power over any resolution. It decided instead to abstain, prompting rousing applause inside the chamber but vehement criticism from Capitol Hill and the incoming administration.
As drafted, the resolution condemns Israel’s settlements as a “flagrant violation of international law” and as having “no legal validity.” Israel has long maintained that its settlements, particularly those in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, are legitimate and legal.
President-elect Donald Trump had intervened in the process earlier in the week, speaking on the phone with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi in an appeal to delay the vote that was originally scheduled for Thursday. Trump was successful, but the same resolution was put up for a vote by four separate nations—Malaysia, New Zealand, Venezuela and Senegal. After the vote, Netanyahu asked his ambassadors in New Zealand and Senegal to return to Israel.
Trump also personally offered his support to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose government vehemently opposed the resolution. The president-elect tweeted in response to the vote: “As to the U.N., things will be different after Jan. 20th”—the day Trump officially takes office.
That sentiment was echoed by Israel’s ambassador to the U.N., Danny Danon, who said he has “no doubt that the new U.S. administration will usher in a new era.” In a separate statement, Netanyahu called the vote “shameful” and vowed to defy it, accusing the U.S. of sabotaging his government.

In advance of the vote, Rep. Adam Schiff and Sen. Chuck Schumer, both Democrats, were vocal in their opposition to the resolution, and urged the Obama administration to block it. After the vote, critics from both sides of the aisle piled on.
“I am dismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the U.N. resolution regarding Israeli settlements. I continue to believe that a productive path toward peace requires direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians,” said Sen. Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia.
Added House Speaker Paul Ryan: “This is absolutely shameful. Today’s vote is a blow to peace that sets a dangerous precedent for further diplomatic efforts to isolate and demonize Israel.” He pledged that the incoming Trump administration will work to “rebuild our alliance with Israel.”
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said the U.N. as a whole “is increasingly viewed as anti-Semitic and seems to have lost all sense of proportionality.”
Amid the backlash, the White House held a last-minute call with reporters after the vote, during which senior White House officials said the settlements have only contributed to Israel’s “isolation” within the international community, making it harder to achieve a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine.
“The continued pace of settlement activity, which has accelerated significantly in recent years … puts at risk the two-state solution,” said Ben Rhodes, a top national security aide to President Obama.

Enter your email address
By clicking "Subscribe," you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
Rhodes added that the U.N. is a “flawed venue” through which to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it “has frequently been used to single out Israel.” The U.S., Rhodes said, has therefore resisted efforts to hold negotiations on the issue through the international body.
The Obama administration’s opposition to Israel’s settlements has been well-documented. Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry said Israel was “heading to a place of danger” with its construction in disputed territory. The White House said Friday that opposition to Israeli settlements and “incitements of terrorism” are “consistent with longstanding bipartisan policy.” Breaking with her colleagues, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein praised the Obama administration for acting to preserve the U.S.’s support for a two-state solution.
Responding to the vote, GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, a foreign policy hawk, suggested that the U.S. should consider pulling out of the international body.
“Time for complete review of our U.N. policy, not just funding. Open question whether U.S. should remain member & allow U.N. to disgrace our soil,” Cotton wrote on Twitter. White House officials characterized similar suggestions as an overreaction.
The incoming Trump administration has signaled its intention to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and critics suggested the Obama administration’s decision to abstain from the U.N. vote was intended to rebuke Trump. Rhodes shot down that suggestion.
“It is absurd to suggest this action is related some way to police positions that the incoming administration has already said it was going to pursue,” Rhodes said, adding: “There’s one president at a time.”



Monday, November 28, 2016

Forces of Decency Punishing Daesh

Daesh Cowards Dressing as Women to Escape Justice

Iraqi special forces battling to clear Islamic State from eastern Mosul have killed nearly 1,000 militants but fighting has slowed as troops face a mobile enemy hidden among thousands of civilians in the city, a top commander said.

Six weeks into a major offensive, Iraqi forces have captured nearly half of eastern Mosul, moving from district to district against jihadist snipers, suicide attackers and car bombs.

Elite Iraqi troops, known as the "Golden Division", are the only brigades to have entered Mosul from the east, with Iraqi army, federal police and Kurdish Peshmerga units surrounding the city to the north and south. Shi'ite militias are trying to complete the encirclement from the west.

The U.S.-trained Counter Terrorism Service unit breached Islamic State's defenses at the end of October, but has been slowed by the militants' mobile tactics and concern over civilian casualties preventing the use of tanks and heavy armor.

Major General Abdul Ghani al-Asadi, one of the commanders of the special forces, said troops had adapted their tactics, surrounding one district at a time to cut off the militants' supplies and protect civilians.

"Progress was faster at the start. The reason is we were operating before in areas without residents," Asadi told Reuters in Bartella, on Mosul's outskirts.

"We have arrived in populated districts. So how do we protect civilians? We have sealed off district after district."

He said around 990 militants had been killed in fighting in the east so far. He would not say how many casualties there were among government special forces.

"We have made changes to plans, partly due to the changing nature of the enemy ... Daesh (Islamic State) is not based in one location, but moving from here to there," he said.

"Tanks don't work here, artillery is not effective. Planes from the coalition force and the air force are restricted because of the civilians."


The Iraqi government has asked civilians in Mosul to stay at home during the offensive, as humanitarian organizations say they cannot cope with an influx of hundred of thousands of people displaced from the city.

More than one million people are believed to remain in the city, the largest in northern Iraq.

Defeating Islamic State in Mosul, Islamic State's last major bastion in Iraq, is seen as vital to destroying the "caliphate" declared by the group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, from the pulpit of Mosul's Grand Mosque in July 2014.

But commanders have said the battle could take months. Dozens of districts must be taken in the east before attacking forces reach the Tigris River which splits Mosul into east and west. U.S. air strikes have taken out four of the five river bridges used by the militants.


Iraqi special forces screen Mosul men in hunt for suicide bombers
Major General Najm al-Jubbouri, one of the army's top commanders, told Reuters that the western part of the city could be the more dangerous.

To the south, Iraqi army brigades are now advancing slowly on the remaining Islamic State-held villages before reaching the city limits. To the west, the mostly Iranian-backed Shi'ite militias known as Popular Mobilisation have cut off the highway to Syria, but they have yet to close in on the city.

"The force left in front of us is small, unable to stop our advance. Their spirit is broken," Asadi said.

"We have killed more than 992 fighters on our front plus more wounded ... Their supplies and communications to the outside world are cut. They stage fewer suicide bombings."

Iraqi military estimates initially put the number of insurgents in Mosul at 5,000 to 6,000, facing a 100,000-strong coalition force. But Asadi said the figure for the Islamic State presence may have been too high.

Iraqi authorities have not released estimates of civilian casualties but the United Nations says growing numbers of injured, both civilians and military, are overwhelming aid groups.

By Patrick Markey and Ulf Laessing | BARTELLA, IRAQ

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Trump Name Removed From Trump NYC Buildings

"Having the Trump Name on the Buildings is  Embarrassing" Says Realtor

Trump real estate holders have banded together to remove the President-elect's name from their buildings.

According to the New York Times, residents at 140, 160, and 180 Riverside Boulevard received an email today from Mary Pawlisa, a senior regional manager for Equity Residential, the group that owns the building. It said: "This week, the Trump Place building names will change to the street addresses — 140, 160 and 180 Riverside Boulevard. The purpose of this change is to assume a neutral building identity that appeals to all current and future residents."

This email appears to be the direct result of an online petition titled "Dump the TRUMP Name," which received hundreds of tenant signatures in October.

Last month, Trump press secretary Hope Hicks told the Times that Trump had not heard of the petition and that it seemed like "an inappropriate thing to do."

"If the name comes off, the building will lose tremendous value," she said.

In reality, the Trump name has been discredited.

 Linda Gottlieb, the resident who started the petition feels like the tenants won. "We used the power of protest to say that we don't have to accept the spread of the man's influence into our very homes," she told the Times. "To me, it feels like a cleansing of the place where I live."

 NOV 15, 2016

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Kate Bush - Them Heavy people & Moving

This is Kate Bush's incredible tribute to the philosopher George Gurdjief...mfbsr

Saturday, November 12, 2016

Simone Simmons and the Definitive Biography of Princess Di

I've considered Simone Simmons to be a very special friend for close to twenty years. More importantly, of course, is her friendship with Princess Di. Paul Burell, the man who Princess Diana called called 'my rock' and 'the only man I can trust' said that not only was Simone Simmons Di's spiritual advisor, "she was her closest friend in the world." She has appeared on all of the cable talk shows, and on a recent trip to America, (she resides in London) she graciously answered questions informing the media's still deep interest in the Late Princess. Simone is also an indefatigable defender of the Middle Easts only Democracy, Israel. She has been a hero of mine for a long time. I said to her once, "Simone, it is such an honor to know you." She replied, "Michael, it's an honor to know YOU." And I believed that she meant it. That's the kind of person she is, she treated me, a humble man, the same way she treated Sir Lawrence Olivier, the same way she treated Diana. The book is fascinating, you feel like you know the "People's Princess" after reading Simone's intimate biography. Frankly, I wasn't a Di "fan". I was a Simone Simmons fan, so I read her book and BECAME a fan of the incredible human being that was Princess Diana. Michael F. Blackburn, Sr. During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana's social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess. Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend's candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self. In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to "tell it like it is." This is that book. It is truly the last word. With her extraordinary insight into Diana's life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling--with John F. Kennedy, Jr.--at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles. Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone's help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA--THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana's life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death. During the last five years of her life, Princess Diana had one friend and confidante who was special to her. She was not part of Diana's social circle; she was not a family friend. That woman was Simone Simmons, a healer, who devoted herself to the troubled Princess. Simone formed a unique bond with Diana. They met almost everyday and spent hours on the telephone. Diana opened her heart and mind to Simone, who always told the Princess the unvarnished truth. No subject was taboo, and the two women discussed everything and anything, sharing laughter and tears over cups of chamomile tea. Since Diana appreciated and trusted her friend's candor, Simone got to know the Princess in a way no one else has ever done. With Simone, Diana felt confident enough to express her true self. In 1997, Diana told her friend she wanted her to write a book which revealed the truth about her, to "tell it like it is." This is that book. It is truly the last word. With her extraordinary insight into Diana's life, Simone captures the soul of the Princess and creates an intimate and rich portrait of one of the great icons of the 20th Century. In these pages, Simone describes how it really was: who among the royals was good to Diana and who was hateful; her need to be in love and to have an affair; her only fling--with John F. Kennedy, Jr.--at the Carlisle hotel; her real relationship with Paul Burrell; why she inflicted self-harm; how she wanted to move to New York or Los Angeles; how Mother Teresa hurt her; why her relationship with Dodi never would have ended in marriage; and her enduring love for Prince Charles. Though Diana was extremely insecure, with Simone's help and work she became strong and learned that she could heal others around her. DIANA--THE LAST WORD is the fascinating story of how she reached that point. It finally settles the unanswered questions of Diana's life and addresses the many revelations that have materialized since her death.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Famous Stupid Ideas

Well...they let trump be trump.
If trump wasn't a bigot, a liar, a serial abuser of women, a bully, a crook and a weakling, it would have been a great idea.
Now that he is losing by double digits....NOT SO MUCH.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Trump: Lies, Lies and More Lies Trump: The Worst Liar of Any Candidate, EVER

On Sunday, Donald Trump denied that he had any relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview with ABC News.

Trump added his previous talk of him having a relationship with Putin was just the two saying nice things about each other.

“I don’t know what it means by having a relationship,” Trump added. “I mean, he was saying very good things about me. But I don’t have a relationship with him.”

In 2014, during a speech at CPAC[,] Trump, though, boasted about meeting with Putin’s advisers — even receiving a gift and personal note from Putin during the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow. . . .

In 2013, Trump told MSNBC he had a relationship with Putin. Mother Jones posted video last week of Trump saying he talked “indirectly and directly” with Putin in a 2014 press conference.

Trump also repeatedly said in the GOP presidential debates that he got to know Putin when both were on 60 Minutes. Now he says he wouldn’t know him from Adam (considering he doesn’t know Russia troops are in the Crimea, the last part might be true).

As with so many things, the question for Donald Trump is: Was he lying then or lying now? It’s equally likely he was lying back in 2013 and 2014 to make himself sound more important as it is that he is lying now to avoid sounding too chummy with the authoritarian he openly admires and consistently praises.

Meanwhile, Trump’s campaign manager Paul Manafort asserts the Trump team never did anything to take out of the platform support for defensive arms to Ukraine. My colleague Josh Rogin reports otherwise and says Manafort is lying. I’m going with Josh’s version on this one — as should any sentient being.

What Donald Trump is doing on the campaign trail
View Photos The GOP presidential nominee is out on the trail ahead of the general election in November.
Trump says he got a letter from the NFL pleading with him to reschedule the debates. The NFL says there was no letter. In the absence of, well, the letter, I’ll believe the NFL on this one.

Trump repeatedly said he would release his tax returns. Then he said he couldn’t because some years were being audited. No, he’s produced no audit letter nor logically explained why he couldn’t release some years’ returns. Now he says Mitt Romney lost because of his tax returns, suggesting that he just doesn’t want to release them because the demands for the returns are less painful than releasing what is in the returns.

Opinions newsletter
Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily.
Sign up
A boastful billionaire who says he’s been super generous to charity, you’d think, wouldn’t mind showing us just how rich and generous he is. Trump, a raving narcissist, however won’t let them out. I’m going with the theory they show he’s not so rich, not so generous and very good at paying little or no tax.

He lied about giving all that money to veterans’ charities — until The Post’s reporting forced him to cough up some money. The Post’s reporting says he has not given a dime to charity since 2008. He claims to have given “anonymously.” No recipients offered to come forward at the convention or anywhere else. Given that Trump brags incessantly about his charitable giving, there should be loads of beneficiaries, so I’ll go with the theory he’s not been charitable at all since 2008.

Trump lied, saying that it wasn’t his voice on a tape pretending to be his own publicist, even though in the past he said he would do this sort of thing.

He lied about seeing widespread celebrations by American Muslims on 9/11. He lies about what Hillary Clinton is proposing (e.g. “repeal the Second Amendment,”). He lies when caught saying something objectionable (e.g. his ear piece wasn’t working).

No wonder he’s gotten 4 Pinocchios from The Post — 33 times. Perhaps we should instead start keeping track of the times he tells the truth. It would be less work.

Jennifer Rubin
Jennifer Rubin writes the Right Turn blog for The Post, offering reported opinion from a conservative perspective.
  Follow @JRubinBlogger

Friday, October 14, 2016

GOP Big Donors "We Won't Support trump".

WASHINGTON — Several of the Republican Party’s most generous donors called on the Republican National Committee on Thursday to disavow Donald J. Trump, saying that allegations by multiple women that Mr. Trump had groped or made inappropriate sexual advances toward them threatened to inflict lasting damage on the party’s image.

To an elite group of Republican contributors who have donated millions of dollars to the party’s candidates and committees in recent years, the cascade of revelations related to Mr. Trump’s sexual conduct is grounds for the committee to cut ties with the party’s beleaguered standard-bearer, finally and fully.

“At some point, you have to look in the mirror and recognize that you cannot possibly justify support for Trump to your children — especially your daughters,” said David Humphreys, a Missouri business executive who contributed more than $2.5 million to Republicans from the 2012 campaign cycle through this spring.

Bruce Kovner, a New York investor and philanthropist who with his wife has given $2.7 million to Republicans over the same period, was just as blunt. “He is a dangerous demagogue completely unsuited to the responsibilities of a United States president,” Mr. Kovner wrote in an email, referring to Mr. Trump.

“Even for loyalists, there is a line beyond which the obvious moral failings of a candidate are impossible to disregard,” he wrote. “That line has been clearly breached.”

Mr. Kovner argued that the Republican National Committee should shift its attention to candidates who reflected its core values, like free markets and limited government. “I hope the R.N.C. sticks to candidates who articulate these principles!” he said.

Reince Priebus, the Republican National Committee chairman, in August. He has been criticized for staying loyal to Mr. Trump. Credit Mark Makela for The New York Times
Outrage among the party’s largest financiers over Mr. Trump’s behavior has also stirred questions about the leadership of Reince Priebus, the national committee’s chairman, who has remained loyal to Mr. Trump even as dozens of Republican elected officials have abandoned his candidacy. Mr. Priebus told members of the committee on Monday that the party was enthusiastically supporting Mr. Trump, reassuring some of them.

But to some leading Republican benefactors who have advocated a tougher line with Mr. Trump, the party should have distanced itself from his candidacy well before the publication of a recording last week in which he boasted profanely about committing sexual assault.

“The R.N.C. long ago should have cut ties with Donald Trump,” said William E. Oberndorf, a California investor who has given more than $3 million to Republicans since 2012. “Reince should be fired and replaced with someone who has the competence and leadership skills to rebuild the R.N.C.”

Even some of Mr. Priebus’s longtime associates in his native Wisconsin appear to have reached their breaking point.

“Reince Priebus has to ask, how much of his soul does he want to sell for Donald Trump at this point?” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative talk show host in Milwaukee, calling on Mr. Priebus to “man up.”

Mr. Sykes also alluded to Mr. Trump’s repeated denunciations this week of Speaker Paul D. Ryan — another Wisconsinite and a close friend of Mr. Priebus’s — who said Monday that he would no longer defend or campaign for Mr. Trump. At a fund-raising event in Florida on Wednesday night, Mr. Trump told donors that he did not respect Mr. Ryan.

Referring to Mr. Priebus, Mr. Sykes asked, “Is he going to allow Donald Trump to throw Paul Ryan under the bus?”

For all Mr. Priebus’s public expressions of loyalty, he has been deeply shaken by revelations about Mr. Trump and the rifts within the party, seeing years of Republican organizational work potentially being undone, according to multiple people who described private conversations with Mr. Priebus on the condition of anonymity. He has said he feels adrift, fearing that Mr. Trump is headed for disaster, and told one longtime associate that he was having sleepless nights. Mr. Priebus did not respond to requests for comment.

The Republican financial apparatus under Mr. Priebus, sputtering since Mr. Trump claimed the presidential nomination, is wheezing painfully in the final weeks of the race. The committee’s fund-raising officials now quietly acknowledge that Mr. Trump is a thoroughly compromised candidate, party donors said, but implore potential contributors to give anyway, stressing graver concerns like control of the Supreme Court.

Many donors have stopped giving, though, and some have deserted the party, including two major donors who confirmed on Thursday that they were supporting Gary Johnson, the former New Mexico governor who is the Libertarian candidate for president.

Julian H. Robertson Jr., a billionaire hedge fund investor who has directed more than $5 million to Republicans since the 2012 election, is now backing Mr. Johnson, said Fraser P. Seitel, a spokesman for Mr. Robertson. And Jeffrey Yass, a Pennsylvania investor who has given more than $3 million to conservative candidates and committees, said in an email that he was “rooting for Johnson.”

Even some of Mr. Priebus’s allies believe that Mr. Trump is certain to be defeated and that it is time for the party to protect its image by disavowing him.

“We’re headed for destruction,” said Al Hoffman, a former Republican National Committee finance chairman and a longtime Florida donor, who plans to host Senator John McCain of Arizona at his house for a fund-raiser this week. “I just hope we can find a group of conservatives and moderates who are rational thinkers to re-establish the party.”

But other leading Republicans believe the party has little choice but to prop up Mr. Trump, fearing that excommunicating him would be catastrophic for other Republican candidates and all but hand over control of Congress to Democrats. And in some parts of the country, Mr. Trump has been a boon to the party.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
“He will bring over a minimum of two state House guys and two state senators for us,” said the Pennsylvania state Republican chairman, Rob Gleason, who predicted a record presidential turnout for his party west of the Susquehanna River.

While some Republican donors and elected officials have had it with Mr. Trump, another constituency dear to Mr. Priebus remains committed to the nominee: the 168 members of the national committee. In a series of emails shared this week with The New York Times, some Republican state chairmen and chairwomen and national committee members affirmed their support for Mr. Trump and saluted Mr. Priebus for standing by him.

“He is our candidate,” Rosie Tripp, the Republican committeewoman from New Mexico, wrote to other members of the committee. “I am dismayed by our own Republicans who are bailing like rats off a ship. He who is without sin can cast the first stone. I am sure they are not as pure as the driven snow, either.”

Juliana Bergeron, the Republican committeewoman from New Hampshire, agreed. “There are worse things in this world,” Ms. Bergeron wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s conduct, “and Hillary Clinton is near the top of that list.”

The views of the committee members, most of whom are party activists, not political professionals, are important because Mr. Priebus is considering running in January for another term as chairman. And when the party does not control the White House, the chairman is selected by a vote of the members.

Should he seek another term, Mr. Priebus is expected to face competition from Mr. Trump’s critics as well as his loyalists. Matt Borges, the Ohio Republican Party chairman and an outspoken Trump detractor, is said to be considering the chairman’s post, as are several state-level officials supportive of Mr. Trump.

Asked about his interest in the job, Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s former campaign manager, declined to rule out a run, saying only that he was happy in his current work as a CNN commentator.

Jonathan Martin reported from Washington, and Alexander Burns and Maggie Haberman from New York.


Tuesday, October 11, 2016

To the pro-Israel Trump voter: I get it

I understand why you resent President Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. True, Obama has given Israel billions in military aid, protected Israel in the United Nations, and validated the country’s founding narrative. But he has been prickly in his approach to its leaders, fanatic in his opposition to settlements and unable to understand that Israelis respond better to love-love than tough love. I disagree when you call either of them “anti-Israel”: I reserve that term for people like Max “It’s a Mitzva” Blumenthal and Palestinian delegitimizers.

Still, Obama – and Clinton – often seem far angrier about housing starts by civilians in Israel than lives ended violently by terrorists in Israel, Syria and elsewhere.

And yes, I fear that president Hillary Clinton will come in with the same blame-Israel-first, settlement obsessed, tired peace processors who have failed for 20 years. I worry about the lurking influence of George Soros and Sidney Blumenthal. Moreover, I am distressed that the Democratic Party, while still overwhelmingly pro-Israel, has become the home to the radical anti-Israel forces in America – and that no Democrat of stature has had the nerve to confront them, saying: “Get out! Your anti-Zionism which masks antisemitism does not belong in my party.”

Still, I start with some assumptions before voting.

First, a patriot shouldn’t vote based on a single issue but on an overall assessment of the candidate’s policy and ideology. Second, character counts. The president combines the role of king (or queen) and prime minister; we need a good role model in the office. And third, regarding Israel, the old saying is correct: if America has the sniffles Israel catches a cold, or, more positively, what’s good for America is good for Israel.

Beyond Obama’s Israel churlishness, he has been disastrous for Israel because his farcical foreign policy has weakened America, the West and Israel. The weakness he broadcasts, his cowardice and incompetence regarding China, Syria, Islamic State, Iran and Russia have undermined Israel’s strategic strength as America’s loyal friend, more than any anti-housing or anti-Netanyahu temper tantrums.

Given those understandings, here are three groups of questions you should ask yourself before voting for Donald Trump. First, what policies actually will define this man with no governing experience, who contradicts himself mid-sentence, who treats facts and principles like silly putty to twist to satisfy the needs of the moment? He’s a twice-divorced darling of the Evangelicals, someone who was pro-choice until it was convenient to be pro-life, an unpredictable, showboating real estate gambler who has won big and lost big.

Every campaign appearance of his has been drive-by performance art suited to the age of bluster and Twitter, lacking thoughtful analysis or anchoring principles.

And how do you even know this self-absorbed deal-maker won’t decide he knows how to impose the right solution on the Israelis and the Palestinians? Second, and related, do you think this impulsive, egotistical narcissist has the temperament to be the most powerful person in the world and the character to represent an America that is now 78 percent white and 50% female? My issue is not with the offensive private banter he – and Bill Clinton and many other boors – indulge in. No, I fear his public statements. How could a president Trump earn respect from Mexican-Americans, from Muslim-Americans, from immigrants, from the disabled, when he has denigrated them so? Trump has lowered the rhetorical bar in American politics, pitted groups against others, stirring a nastiness that appalls and terrifies.

Obama’s election in 2008 offered a healing moment, allowing all Americans, black and white, Republican and Democrat, to appreciate that the country that once enslaved blacks could elect one president; a Trump election victory would be a traumatic moment demonstrating that ugliness, not character, counts – and inviting boorish imitators in future campaigns.

Finally, Hillary Clinton, for all her flaws, is a part of the system, for all its flaws. I understand the desire to shake things up but aren’t the stakes too high to fire so blindly? How can Trump translate his bluff and bluster into effective strategies against America’s enemies? In the debates, when pressed, he only repeats himself and uses words like “tremendous” – that’s posturing, not a strategy.

Last week, I moderated a debate between a Trump representative and a Clinton representative at the Israel Arts and Science Academy in Jerusalem. During the Q&A, these smart, idealistic Israeli high school students asked hard-hitting questions about both candidates which left me feeling depressed about both choices. But two questions, about Trump’s “racism” and ugly rhetoric, were truly devastating. I tried to be a fair moderator, asking the kinds of normal questions one asks about presidential candidates’ biographies and stands. I realized that, especially since Trump’s nomination, we have normalized his monstrosities, we have mainstreamed his deviance.

An Israeli newspaper or column shouldn’t endorse one candidate or another, but those of us who love America and Israel, who champion democratic and Jewish values, must point out just how outrageous Trump’s behavior has been – and how dangerous it could be in the Oval Office. Good luck to us all in choosing.

The author, professor of history at McGill University, is the author of The Age of Clinton: America in the 1990s, published by St. Martin’s Press. His next book will update Arthur Hertzberg’s The Zionist Idea. Follow on Twitter @GilTroy.
Popular In the Community

The right reason to rebuke Trump and his supporters isn’t that they’re stupid. It’s that they’re foolish.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Israel Is Different By Amir Sigal

A young Israeli contemplates the behavior of Arab Muslims living next door to the world's best neighbors, the Jewish People.

1). In yesterday's attack of a Muslim murderer, in Jerusalem, he managed to kill 2 Israelis, 36 years old policeman and a 60-year-old woman. Another 5 were wounded in various conditions. This is the qualifications/strong side of the Arabs. I want to see them making the opposite: helping/ supporting/assisting people. No, never. This kind of Humanism is missing in the Quran. This is I don't understand how educated people, like Authors, Poets, Doctors Professors and more can obey this cruel religion. a riddle for me. What about you? How do you feel about it? You Arabs too?
2). But, Israel is behaving differently: Bader Aladdin Tachruri is a 19 years old Muslim Arab from Kalansawa, an Arab village in Israel. He was working in the market lifting boxes. A year ago he felt back pains. He went for CT. The lower joint was damaged. He was operated and a new link was implanted in his back. The unique fact is that he was the 1st operated human in the world that was fitted with a link that was produced in the 3 dimension printer. Less than a week after he was operated he walk like it was natural. Bader: "The docs told me that I am going to have fitted with new technology. I didn't hesitate. I trusted them. I knew that they will make the best they could. You see, I was right". This is the treatment that Arab citizen is getting in the apartheid country of Israel and this is his opinion on the country he lives in. What about you, Arab Muslims, Israel haters? What you think about this story?
3). The UN world bank is supporting the Muslims because they are more. In the yearly bank report they wrote that Israel's economy decreased, in the period of 2007-2012, by 20%. This is mudslinging. In this years the Israeli economy increased by 10%. This is substantial difference. Due to this disinformation, the bank destroyed the printed/published edition of his flag book "Taking on inequality". In the new edition they took off Israel and put instead Iceland. Why? Because the World Bank didn't want Israeli economy to be seen in its glamorous. If Israel was described there its results would have been ranked the 2nd or the 3rd in the world in this period of time. This does not suite the bank's policy. This is another way to fight Israel, but all of them fail. The BDAss have substantial power in the UN but there is no way that they can bend/beat statistics.
4). Ms. Michaela Englemayer is an instant Israeli supporter. She is also a German Parliament member. She fight, very hardly, the BDAss, The BDAss is not happy. So they threaten her oftenly. She is visiting Israel, in a private tour. In a meeting with the press she declared the following: "These attacks give me more motivation to fight the BDAss". Thank you Lady englemayer, for supporting Israel and for your holy fight for Israel. We will fight as long as necessary and we will win.
5). The "benefit" of having refugees: The German police is detecting a Syrian refugee that was planning attacks in the airport. A lot of explosives were found in his apartment in East Germany.
6). What is the most famous name in NY state? It is the Jewish name "Cohen". The Cohens were serving the God in the holy temple. Now they serve in NY State. The2nd most famous is Rivera and3rd most famous name is again Jewish name: Swartz. These figures were published by "Mental Floss". This does not mean that Jews are conquering US. This means that many Jews live in the big apple.
7). From time to time I get requests from people that want to serve in the Mossad. I have nothing to do with this successful Israeli secret service organization. But, I noticed that they published, lately, a request for special manpower. They are looking for an "artist in the design of leather dresses". Now, if you are qualified in such and want to work in the best of the best secret service and want to serve Israel in its war against the evils, you are invited to enter their web and submit your application. Maybe they are looking for bear or alligator's skin? I am not sure.
8). One of my Muslim readers sent me post reminding me that this year no Israeli was granted with Noble prize. I felt in his application some kind of happiness/victory. Yes, Mustafa, you are right, no Israeli was granted with it, but, so far, how many Jews, like me, compare to how many Muslims, like you, were granted with the said prize? You, Mustafa are 25% of the world's population, while we are 0.25 of the population and compare what you contribute and what we contribute to the world. In brackets, as nobody read this, I want to tell you that if I were you, I would never raise this question in the situation that your world, the Arabs/Muslims, is in. You don't have achievements to show so you are looking for others failure. You think negatively instead of positively. I hope that your God/Prophet will help you to change it.
9). Growing trees in Israel, Italy and California has become easier thanks to an Israeli innovative solution that takes care of all aspects of pest management for high-value crops, using less pesticide. “We provide an end-to-end solution to special crop growers that follow our clients in all the process, allowing our customers to use pesticide in a smarter and more efficient way, reducing waste and spray mistakes. They also save money with us,” said Eyal Amit, VP business development at FieldIn.
10). Payoneer raises $180 million for its global payments technology. TechCrunch: Already profitable, and with a good amount of cash, the new money will double product development at the company and its technical staff, according to the company’s chief executive officer Scott Galit

By Amir Sigal

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Compared to Hillary, Trump is a World Class Liar

Tony Schwartz, the writer of Trump's "Autobiography" The Art of the Deal, told Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, “Lying is second nature to him.”

If deception were a sport, Trump would be the Olympic gold medalist; Clinton would be an honorable mention at her local Y.

Let’s investigate.

One metric comes from independent fact-checking websites. As of Friday, PolitiFact had found 27 percent of Clinton’s statements that it had looked into were mostly false or worse, compared with 70 percent of Trump’s. It said 2 percent of Clinton’s statements it had reviewed were egregious “pants on fire” lies, compared with 19 percent of Trump’s. So Trump has nine times the share of flat-out lies as Clinton.

Likewise, The Washington Post Fact-Checker has awarded its worst ranking, Four Pinocchios, to 16 percent of Clinton’s statements that it checked and to 64 percent of Trump’s.

“Essentially, Clinton is in the norm for a typical politician,” says Glenn Kessler, who runs Fact-Checker, while Trump “is just off the charts. There’s never been anyone like him, at least in the six years I have been doing this.”

When I speak with Trump voters, they often argue that Clinton is an inveterate liar and crook, yet when pressed they draw from the same handful of examples.

One is Clinton’s 2008 claim that she landed in Bosnia in 1996 “under sniper fire” and “ran with our heads down” from the plane. The Washington Post dismantled that claim; video shows that Clinton was greeted not by gunshots but by a crowd of dignitaries that included an 8-year-old Bosnian girl.

But it’s also true that as the plane prepared to descend, security officials gave a spine-chilling briefing of the risks of sniper fire, and Clinton wore body armor in case of shooting.

Critics also claim that Clinton lied to the families of the four Americans killed in Benghazi, but fact-checkers have said the evidence is unclear. Harder to defend is her disingenuous explanation of flip-flopping on the Asian trade agreement.

All this is junior varsity mendacity. In contrast, Trump is the champ of prevarication.

You don’t need to go back eight years to find a Trump embellishment; eight minutes is more than sufficient. In March, Politico chronicled a week of Trump remarks and found on average one misstatement every five minutes. The Huffington Post once chronicled 71 inaccuracies in an hourlong town halsession — more than one a minute.

If Clinton declares that she didn’t chop down a cherry tree, that might mean that she actually used a chain saw to cut it down. Or that she ordered an aide to chop it down. As for Trump, he will insist, “I absolutely did not chop down that cherry tree,” even as he clutches the ax with which he chopped it down moments earlier on Facebook Live.

Trump used to boast that he and Vladimir Putin were buddies — “I spoke directly and indirectly with President Putin” — only to acknowledge later that they had never met or spoken. He retweeted an incendiary graphic indicating that 81 percent of murdered whites are killed by blacks (the actual figure is 15 percent). He denied telling The New York Times’s editorial board that he would impose a 45 percent tariff on China; The Times then released the audio of him saying just that.

Then there was Trump’s claim that he had seen thousands of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey after 9/11. That was preposterous, but he then claimed that an article from the time backed him up (it didn’t), mocked the disabled reporter who wrote it, and denied he had done so. Lately he stitched yet another quilt of lies about all this.

Equally brazen were Trump’s claims about his fund-raiser for veterans in Iowa: He said on video that he had raised $6 million for them, then when the money didn’t show up he denied ever saying that. He claims to have been “among the earliest” to oppose the Iraq war, even though interviews from 2002 and 2003 show he then supported the war.

“The man lies all the time,” says Thomas M. Wells, his former lawyer. Wells recalls being curious that newspaper accounts varied as to the number of rooms in Trump’s apartment in Trump Tower — eight, 16, 20 or 30. So Wells asked him how many rooms were actually in the apartment. “However many they will print,” Trump responded.

Tony Schwartz, the writer of his book “The Art of the Deal,” told Jane Mayer of The New Yorker, “Lying is second nature to him.”

In short, Clinton is about average for a politician in dissembling, while Trump is a world champion who is pathological in his dishonesty. Honestly, there is no comparison.

By Nicholas Kristof

First Published In The NY Times

Sunday, October 2, 2016

A Neuroscientist Explains Why Some People Support Trump

Senator John McCain has a simple explanation for Trump's unwavering supporters “What he did was he fired up the crazies.”
Mayor Giuliani: "Donald don't pay No taxes Because he's smart, lot's of rich people don't pay taxes"

Mayor Giuliani: "Donald don't pay No taxes Because he's smart, lots of rich people don't pay taxes"
There’s no doubt that Donald Trump has said many things that would have been political suicide for any other Republican candidate. And almost every time he made one of these shocking statements, political analysts on both the left and the right predicted that he’d lose supporters because of it. But as we have clearly seen over the past year, they were dead wrong every time. Trump appears to be almost totally bulletproof.

The only thing that might be more perplexing than the psychology of Donald Trump is the psychology of his supporters. In their eyes, The Donald can do no wrong. Even Trump himself seems to be astonished by this phenomenon. “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK? It’s, like, incredible.”

Senator John McCain, who has been a regular target for Trump during his campaign, has a simple explanation for his unwavering support. “What he did was he fired up the crazies.”

While the former Republican presidential nominee may be on to something, he doesn’t exactly provide a very satisfying scientific explanation.  So how exactly are Trump loyalists psychologically or neurologically different from everyone else? What is going on in their brains that makes them so blindly devoted?

The Dunning-Kruger Effect:
Some believe that many of those who support Donald Trump do so because of ignorance — basically they are under-informed or misinformed about the issues at hand. When Trump tells them that crime is skyrocketing in the United States, or that the economy is the worst it’s ever been, they simply take his word for it.

The seemingly obvious solution would be to try to reach those people through political ads, expert opinions, and logical arguments that educate with facts. Except none of those things seem to be swaying any Trump supporters from his side, despite great efforts to deliver this information to them directly.

The Dunning-Kruger effect explains that the problem isn’t just that they are misinformed; it’s that they are completely unaware that they are misinformed. This creates a double burden.

Studies have shown that people who lack expertise in some area of knowledge often have a cognitive bias that prevents them from realizing that they lack expertise. As psychologist David Dunning puts it in an op-ed for Politico, “The knowledge and intelligence that are required to be good at a task are often the same qualities needed to recognize that one is not good at that task — and if one lacks such knowledge and intelligence, one remains ignorant that one is not good at the task. This includes political judgment.” Essentially, they’re not smart enough to realize they’re dumb.

And if one is under the illusion that they have sufficient or even superior knowledge, then they have no reason to defer to anyone else’s judgment. This helps explain why even nonpartisan experts — like military generals and Independent former Mayor of New York/billionaire CEO Michael Bloomberg — as well as some respected Republican politicians, don’t seem to be able to say anything that can change the minds of loyal Trump followers.

Out of immense frustration, some of us may feel the urge to shake a Trump supporter and say, “Hey! Don’t you realize that he’s an idiot?!” No. They don’t. That may be hard to fathom, but that’s the nature of the Dunning-Kruger effect — one’s ignorance is completely invisible to them.

Hypersensitivity to Threat
Science has unequivocally shown that the conservative brain has an exaggerated fear response when faced with stimuli that may be perceived as threatening. A classic study in the journal Science found that conservatives have a stronger physiological reaction to startling noises and graphic images compared to liberals. A brain-imaging study published in Current Biology revealed that those who lean right politically tend to have a larger amygdala — a structure that is electrically active during states of fear and anxiety. And a 2014 fMRI study found that it is possible to predict whether someone is a liberal or conservative simply by looking at their brain activity while they view threatening or disgusting images, such as mutilated bodies. Specifically, the brains of self-identified conservatives generated more activity overall in response to the disturbing images.

So how does this help explain the unbridled loyalty of Trump supporters? These brain responses are automatic, and not influenced by logic or reason. As long as Trump continues his fear mongering by constantly portraying Muslims and Mexican immigrants as imminent dangers, many conservative brains will involuntarily light up like light bulbs being controlled by a switch. Fear keeps his followers energized and focused on safety. And when you think you’ve found your protector, you become less concerned with remarks that would normally be seen as highly offensive.

Terror Management Theory
A well-supported theory from social psychology, called Terror Management Theory, explains why Trump’s fear mongering is doubly effective.

The theory is based on the fact that humans have a unique awareness of their own mortality. The inevitably of one’s death creates existential terror and anxiety that is always residing below the surface. In order to manage this terror, humans adopt cultural worldviews — like religions, political ideologies, and national identities — that act as a buffer by instilling life with meaning and value.

Terror Management Theory predicts that when people are reminded of their own mortality, which happens with fear mongering, they will more strongly defend those who share their worldviews and national or ethnic identity, and act out more aggressively towards those who do not. Hundreds of studies have confirmed this hypothesis, and some have specifically shown that triggering thoughts of death tends to shift people towards the right.

Not only do death reminders increase nationalism, they influence actual voting habits in favor of more conservative presidential candidates. And more disturbingly, in a study with American students, scientists found that making mortality salient increased support for extreme military interventions by American forces that could kill thousands of civilians overseas. Interestingly, the effect was present only in conservatives, which can likely be attributed to their heightened fear response.

By constantly emphasizing existential threat, Trump creates a psychological condition that makes the brain respond positively rather than negatively to bigoted statements and divisive rhetoric. Liberals and Independents who have been puzzled over why Trump hasn’t lost supporters after such highly offensive comments need look no further than Terror Management Theory.

High Attentional Engagement
According to a recent study that monitored brain activity while participants watched 40 minutes of political ads and debate clips from the presidential candidates, Donald Trump is unique in his ability to keep the brain engaged. While Hillary Clinton could only hold attention for so long, Trump kept both attention and emotional arousal high throughout the viewing session. This pattern of activity was seen even when Trump made remarks that individuals didn’t necessarily agree with. His showmanship and simple messages clearly resonate at a visceral level.

Essentially, the loyalty of Trump supporters may in part be explained by America’s addiction with entertainment and reality TV. To some, it doesn’t matter what Trump actually says because he’s so amusing to watch. With Donald, you are always left wondering what outrageous thing he is going to say or do next. He keeps us on the edge of our seat, and for that reason, some Trump supporters will forgive anything he says. They are happy as long as they are kept entertained.

Of course these explanations do not apply to all Trump supporters. In fact, some are likely intelligent people who know better, but are supporting Trump to be rebellious or to introduce chaos into the system. They may have such distaste for the establishment and Hillary Clinton that their vote for Trump is a symbolic middle finger directed at Washington.

So what can we do to potentially change the minds of Trump loyalists before voting day in November? As a cognitive neuroscientist, it grieves me to say that there may be nothing we can do. The overwhelming majority of these people may be beyond reach, at least in the short term. The best we can do is to motivate everyone else to get out to the booths and check the box that doesn’t belong to a narcissistic nationalist who has the potential to damage the nation beyond repair.
By Bobby Azarian

Bobby Azarian is a neuroscientist affiliated with George Mason University and a science writer. His research has been published in journals such as Cognition & Emotion and Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, and he has written for The New York Times, Scientific American, Psychology Today, Slate, The Daily Beast, and The Huffington Post. He also runs the website Science Is Sexy. Follow him @BobbyAzarian.

Monday, September 26, 2016

Man charged in shooting death of Rioter during protests over Ex-Cons Shot By Officers

Charlotte police announced the arrest of a suspect in Wednesday’s fatal shooting of a protester, a killing witnesses initially insisted was carried out by police.

Rayquan Borum, 21, was charged Friday morning in shooting death of Justin Carr, who died a day after being shot during protests in Trade Street, Charlotte-Mecklenberg Police Chief Kerr Putney said.

Putney said surveillance footage supplied by buildings in the area helped identify the suspect. The shooting occurred Wednesday night, and Charlotte police initially said the man had died, although he survived on life support until Thursday. Witnesses gave conflicting accounts about who shot him, with some insisting they saw police gun him down with rubber bullets, while others said he was killed by a fellow protester.

“I am very pleased to see someone in custody”, North Carolina Gov. Pat McCrory said Friday. I’m convinced… that no one in law enforcement was involved at all”

The incident came as police clashed with rioters on the second night of demonstrations in the wake of a police officer’s shooting of a black man. The night began with a prayer vigil but then erupted with violence and police firing tear gas at angry protesters. McCrory declared a state of emergency in the city.

“There are groups that are coming into our state that are here to cause anarchy” McCrory said. “We will not accept it. We will not tolerate it.”

Seven police officers required medical treatment after Wednesday night's rioting. Video posted online showed rioters kicking and beating a white man in a parking garage, and shouting racial epithets.

Carr, 26, was shot as police in riot gear massed to bar protesters from storming an upscale downtown hotel. The protesters had gathered after Tuesday’s shooting of 43-year-old Keith Lamont Scott. Scott was shot by Police officer Brently Vinson after he disregarded repeated demands to drop his gun,
Related Image

rayquan-brown-mugshotExpand / Contract
Sept. 23, 2016: A mugshot of Rayquan Borum, arrested in the murder of 26-year-old Justin Carr. (Mecklenburg County Sheriff's Office)
The shooting has exposed racial tensions, although Vinson is African-American.

Two police videos, one from dashboard camera and the other from an officer's body camera, show Scott's death. Police allowed Scott's family to view the videos Wednesday but have not released them publicly.

Charlotte Mayor Jennifer Roberts said during a news conference Friday she believes the video of the shooting should be released publicly, but added that it's a matter of when.

Putney echoed her remarks, saying the video's release is "a matter of when, it's a matter of sequence."

Putney added that he cannot release more information about the shooting because his department is not leading the investigation, which is being conducted by the State Bureau of Investigation.

Protests Thursday night were mostly peaceful.

“Last night was what a lawful demonstration looks like,” Mayor Jennifer Roberts said Friday. "We are working to return to normalcy.”

Two major employers in downtown Charlotte -- Duke Energy and Wells Fargo -- had their employees back at work Friday, but Bank of America told its workers to stay home again.

Charlotte police also released details Friday on charges against five people in the protests earlier in the week.

Police spokeswoman Cindy Wallace said in a statement that 19-year-old Ian Bowzer is charged with kicking in doors of the Hyatt Hotel downtown Thursday. Bowzer was arrested and charged with injury to real property.

Forty-nine-year-old Daniel Baker is accused of breaking into a downtown restaurant. Baker was arrested and charged with breaking and entering and larceny after breaking and entering.

It wasn't known if the men have attorneys.

Officers have warrants for two other people in that restaurant break-in. They are also charged with breaking and entering, larceny after breaking and entering and conspiracy. Another man faces similar charges for a break-in at another downtown restaurant Tuesday.

Meanwhile, organizers are planning weekend protests in Atlanta as a response to the police shooting deaths of Terence Crutch in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Scott in Charlotte.

On Friday, the Georgia NAACP is holding a rally and sit-in. According to the Georgia NAACP Facebook page, the group will meet downtown and march at 7 p.m. to the Martin Luther King Jr. Historical site, before marching to an undisclosed location to rally and sit-in.

The "ATL Silent Protest" is planned for Saturday. Organizer Steven Chatman tells WXIA-TV that instead of chanting and yelling as they did at July protests, protesters will remain silent.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Ex-Cons Shot in N.Carolina and Tulsa Had Violent Arrest Records

Terence Crutcher was shot and killed on Sept. 16 in an officer-involved shooting in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Since then, the media have tried to push a false narrative that Crutcher had his hands up when he was shot — but video evidence, as it often does in these cases, disproved the media’s theory.

There’s also more information that the mainstream media conveniently left out.

Crutcher had a hefty criminal record before he was shot. In fact, he had just been released in May after nine years in prison for drug trafficking, He also had a history of resisting arrest. Behold the rap sheet:

1996 Shooting with intent to kill — Dismissed
2001 Petit larceny — Conviction
2004 Driving while suspended — Conviction
2005 Driving while suspended, resisting officer — Conviction
2006 Driving while suspended — Conviction
Driving with open container — Dismissed
2006 Trafficking in illegal drugs — Conviction. (He was also charged in that incident with assault on a police officer and resisting, but that was dismissed.)
2011 Public intoxication (while in prison for drug trafficking) — Conviction
2012 Public intoxication — Conviction
Obstructing an officer — Conviction
2013 DUI — Conviction
Resisting officer — Conviction
Open Container — Conviction
Failure to wear seatbelt — Conviction
Speeding — Conviction

But even all of that was not all.

Take a look at the numerous open warrants for Crutcher. There were 30 warrants active at the time of his death.

They included things like DUI, resisting, drug trafficking and public intoxication.

The media are actively pushing the narrative that Crutcher had his hands up and that the police shot him anyway.

We’ve heard this lie peddled by the media before, in the Michael Brown case, and clearly the obtuse media didn’t learn a thing.
Now, you watch that video and listen to the commentary. Did it look to you like Crutcher was following commands? You can hear an officer say that Crutcher was “still walking” and that he wasn’t “following commands.” Another officer said that he “could be on something.”

As you can see, Crutcher was not shot with his hands up. He was clearly flouting officer orders, and at the time of his shooting he lowered his right hand toward his waistband.

Oh, and by the way, the media have run with the story that Crutcher was unarmed, but didn’t seem too interested in the PCP that was found in his car and that the Tulsa Police Department officer who shot Crutcher, Betty Shelby, was trained to spot PCP abuse, according to Bearing Arms.

In any of these cases, the legal system should be given time to do its job, but the media have decided to run false narratives that fit their agenda without all the facts and, in some cases, despite the facts.

As you can see above, there’s clearly more to the story.

Keith Scott is was also an Ex-Con with a violent criminal past.

Report: Charlotte’s Keith Scott Had History of Violence Including Arrest for Shooting At Police…

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.
nc-riot-19-keith-scott(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.  
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. 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..


The Chomsky Hoax

The Chomsky Hoax
Exposing the Dishonesty of Noam Chomsky