Wednesday, September 23, 2015


'Germ clouds' containing millions of bugs surround EVERY human - and they show where you have been
Cloudy day: The millions of bugs surround us at all times

Every human on earth has a cloud of germs surrounding them at all times - and it is almost as distinct to that person as a fingerprint.

The "microbial cloud" contains millions of bugs that are put out from various pores and points in our bodies.

According to experts, the cloud hangs around a person's body at all times and each individual cloud has a signature that could be read by carrying out genetic analysis of the bacteria.
Read more: Your FEET could be trying to tell you if you've got serious health problems

Scientists were able to identify individuals from a group of volunteers just by sampling germs from the air around them.

The noxious nimbus consists of combinations of microbes emitted from our bodies that vary from person to person.

Scientists who tested 11 volunteers identified thousands of different types of bacteria in 312 samples of air and dust taken from a chamber in which each participant was asked to sit alone.

Most of the chamber occupants could be identified within four hours by matching them to their bugs.

Lead researcher Dr James Meadow, from the University of Oregon in the US, said: "We expected that we would be able to detect the human microbiome in the air around a person, but we were surprised to find that we could identify most of the occupants just by sampling their microbial cloud."

The study, published in the online journal PeerJ, sheds light on the way bacteria are shed by humans into their surrounding environment.

It may improve understanding of the way infectious diseases are spread in buildings, say the scientists.

Identifying microbial clouds may also, like fingerprints, be useful to forensic investigations. One possibility is using bacterial traces to track people's movements, although it is unclear whether individuals could be spotted in a crowd.

Humans typically shed around a million microscopic particles from their breath, skin, clothes and hair per hour, many of which contain bacteria, said the researchers.

The scientists wrote: "Our data make clear that an occupied space is microbially distinct from an unoccupied one, and reveal for the first time that individuals occupying a space can emit their own distinct personal microbial cloud."

Wednesday, September 16, 2015


GOP hopefuls to take on Trump .. I DO IT MY WAY!

WASHINGTON (AP) — In the first Republican presidential debate, most candidates took a hands-off approach to Donald Trump and hoped the brash billionaire would hurt himself.

Instead, he only got stronger.

Trump's unexpected durability has led some of his rivals to shift their strategy for Wednesday's second showdown. Now their goal is to engage Trump, without inflicting any damage on their own campaigns.

The change reflects an evolution in the way Trump is viewed within the Republican Party. No longer dismissed as a summer fling for frustrated voters, Republicans increasingly see Trump as a candidate who could remain atop the field for months and win some early states.

"He's in complete, total control of the political battle space," said Steve Schmidt, a top strategist for Sen. John McCain's 2008 presidential campaign.

Trump will be standing at center stage when the 11 candidates face off at the CNN-sponsored debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. The lineup is the same as last month's opening debate, with one notable addition: former Hewlett-Packard chief executive Carly Fiorina, the only woman in the GOP field.

It's believed to be the largest debate field in modern political history, underscoring just how jumbled the fight for the Republican nomination remains with five months to go before the Iowa caucuses.


Trump heads into the second debate facing a fresh challenge from Ben Carson, a soft-spoken retired neurosurgeon who is climbing in recent polls. With his candidacy on the rise, Carson is likely to face heightened scrutiny from debate moderators.

But the biggest contrast in the GOP field — and the one that typifies the broader battle within the party — continues between Trump and Jeb Bush, the wonky former Florida governor. Bush has become one of Trump's favorite targets and has been visibly irritated by his jabs, particularly the reality star's depiction of him as a "low energy" candidate.

After all but ignoring Trump in the first debate, Bush has gone after the GOP front-runner more aggressively while campaigning recently. People familiar with Bush's debate plans say he'll actively look for spots to target Trump, particularly for Trump's uneven record as a conservative, but still wants to preserve space to pitch himself as an optimistic alternative.

"Real leaders are optimists — they show us a better way," said Sally Bradshaw, Bush's longtime adviser. "That's what Jeb has always done, that's what he'll always do. Other candidates won't change that, regardless of how noisy they are."

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has also forecast a more aggressive stance at Wednesday's event. Once a favorite to win the Iowa caucus, Walker's standing has plummeted after an unremarkable first debate and a series of other summer stumbles.

"I think if people are looking for someone who is truly going to shake things up and wreak havoc on Washington, they want someone who's got real solutions and someone who is truly tested," Walker said last week. "I'm the only one on that stage that fits the bill."
Even if candidates follow through on their pledges to be more aggressive, there are warning signs about that approach. Trump has so far been immune to criticism of his lack of specific policy proposals, personal attacks on women and immigrants, and his commitment to conservatism. And with voters increasingly drawn to anti-establishment candidates, it's unclear whether attacks from those with long political resumes will be effective.

That makes Fiorina's participation in the debate all the more intriguing.

Fiorina is also a political outsider, having spent most of her career in business. She's also showed no fear in taking on Trump, including after he was recently quoted insulting her appearance. She's also thrilled GOP audiences with her sharp criticism of Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Fiorina didn't have enough support in the national polls used to select debate participants to get on the main stage in August, but she was a standout in the earlier undercard. After an aggressive lobbying effort by her campaign, CNN broadened its participation requirements to allow her on the main stage.

Carson, too, appears to be benefiting from the public's anti-Washington mood. As his standing has risen, he's waffled in his approach toward Trump, first questioning the businessman's faith, then apologizing for doing so.

Campaign manager Barry Bennett said Carson has no plans to take on Trump in the debate. "Trump will be Trump, Ben will be Ben and the contrast couldn't be clearer," Bennett said.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a talented politician who has largely avoided criticizing his fellow candidates, also doesn't plan to take on Trump. Rubio's campaign said the senator didn't see a need to mix things up like other candidates who are "falling" in the race.

Also on stage will be Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who is well-liked among more moderate, business-minded Republicans, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a favorite of social conservatives.

They'll be joined by Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, the only candidate to directly challenge Trump in the first debate; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who had a memorable exchange with Paul over national security in the opening contest; and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, the sole contender to align himself with Trump and try to draft off his support.

Four candidates lagging behind in national polls did not qualify for the main event and will be relegated to an earlier debate: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum and former New York Gov. George Pataki.


Saudi Arabia has 100,000 air-conditioned tents sitting empty, still won’t take Syrian refugees

This aerial image made from a helicopter shows thousands of tents housing Muslim pilgrims crowded together in Mina, during the annual Hajj in the Saudi holy city of Mecca, Saudi Arabia. 

As Saudi Arabia faces mounting criticism for refusing to take in any of the millions of Syrians fleeing conflict in their homeland, it was revealed this weekend that the country has over 100,000 empty, air-conditioned tents that could house up to 3 million refugees.

The tents, located roughly 2,150 miles from Syria in the city of Mina, are only used a few days a year to house pilgrims on their way to Mecca for the hajj, the news station TeleSUR reported.


The huge tents are also fireproof and equipped with kitchen and bathroom facilities.
But while Europe struggles to find space to take in the millions of asylum seekers making the perilous journey there, Saudi Arabiahas been largely unresponsive to the crisis.

According to the to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), there are about 500,000 Syrians living in Saudi Arabia, but they are not classified as asylum seekers and it is not known when they arrived in the country.

Other reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has not taken in any new refugees, along with Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

No Gulf country has signed the U.N. Convention on Refugees, an accord standardizing the level of treatment of people fleeing to new countries.
Saudi authorities insist they had done all they can to support refugees by allowing them residency in the country, but say they do not brag about their support to the media.

“[The kingdom] was keep to not deal with them as refugees or to put them in refugee camps,” said one Saudi spokesman Friday, Reuters reported, adding they did so to “preserve their dignity and safety and gave them complete freedom of movement.”

The representative added that Saudi Arabia has given $700 million in humanitarian aid to Syrians.

Last week Saudi officials offered to build 200 new mosques in Germany to accommodate Muslim refugees.

Tuesday, September 15, 2015


NEW YORK — Wall Street is growing increasingly terrified that Donald Trump — once viewed as an amusing summertime distraction — could actually win the Republican nomination for president.

The real estate billionaire, who took another populist shot on Sunday by ripping into lavish executive pay, continues to rise in the polls. Would-be Wall Street saviors like Jeb Bush are languishing in single digits. The belief that Trump's candidacy would quickly fade is now evaporating in a wave of fear.

“I held four lunches for investors in August and at the first one everyone assumed Trump would implode,” said Byron Wien, vice chairman of Blackstone Advisory Partners and a senior figure on Wall Street. “By the fourth one everyone was taking him very seriously. He taps into frustrations that are very real and he is a master manipulator of the media.”

The CEO of one large Wall Street firm, who declined to be identified by name criticizing the GOP front-runner, said the assumption in the financial industry remains that something will eventually knock Trump off and send voters toward a more establishment candidate. But that assumption is no longer held with strong conviction. And a dozen Wall Street executives interviewed for this article could not say what might dent Trump's appeal or when it might happen.

"I don't know anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. They are like this huge mystery group,” the CEO said. "So it's a combination of shock and bewilderment. No one really knows why this is happening. But my own belief is that the laws of gravity will apply and those who are prepared to run the marathon will benefit when Trump drops out at mile 22. Right now people think Trump is pretty hilarious but the longer it goes on the more frightening it gets."

The latest frightening broadside for the Wall Street class came on Sunday when Trump said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that executive pay in America is “a complete joke” and promised to raise taxes on “the hedge fund guys.” In a statement sent to POLITICO on Monday from his campaign, Trump relished in the attacks from Wall Street, singling out both Bush and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, another favorite on Wall Street.


America’s Legal Order Begins to Fray

After two decades of the most remarkable crime drop in U.S. history, law enforcement has come to this: “I’m deliberately not getting involved in things I would have in the 1990s and 2000s,” an emergency-services officer in New York City tells me. “I won’t get out of my car for a reasonable-suspicion stop; I will if there’s a violent felony committed in my presence.”

A virulent antipolice campaign over the past year—initially fueled by a since-discredited narrative about a police shooting in Ferguson, Mo.—has made police officers reluctant to do their jobs. The Black Lives Matter movement proclaims that the police are a lethal threat to blacks and that the criminal-justice system is pervaded by racial bias. The media amplify that message on an almost daily basis. Officers now worry about becoming the latest racist cop of the week, losing their job or being indicted if a good-faith encounter with a suspect goes awry or is merely distorted by an incomplete cellphone video.

With police so discouraged, violent crime has surged in at least 35 American cities this year. The alarming murder increase prompted an emergency meeting of the Major Cities Chiefs Association last month. Homicides were up 76% in Milwaukee, 60% in St. Louis, and 56% in Baltimore through mid-August, compared with the same period in 2014; murder was up 47% in Minneapolis and 36% in Houston through mid-July.

But something more fundamental than even public safety may be at stake. There are signs that the legal order itself is breaking down in urban areas. “There’s a total lack of respect out there for the police,” says a female sergeant in New York. “The perps feel more empowered to carry guns because they know that we are running scared.”

The lawful use of police power is being met by hostility and violence, often ignored by the press. In Cincinnati, a small riot broke out in late July when the police arrived at a drive-by shooting scene, where a 4-year-old girl had been shot in the head and critically injured. Bystanders loudly cursed at officers who had started arresting suspects at the scene on outstanding warrants, according to a witness I spoke with.

During anticop demonstrations in Ferguson, Mo., last month, 18-year-old Tyrone Harrisopened fire at police officers, according to law-enforcement officials, and was shot and wounded by police in response. A crowd pelted the cops with frozen water bottles and rocks, wounding three officers, while destroying three police cars and damaging businesses, Ferguson police said. “We’re ready for what? We’re ready for war,” some protesters reportedly chanted.

In Birmingham, Ala., an officer was beaten unconscious with his own gun last month by a suspect in a car stop. There was gloating on social media. “Pistol whipped his ass to sleep,” read one Twitter post. The officer later said that he had refrained from using force to defend himself for fear of a media backlash.

Officers are being challenged in their most basic efforts to render aid. A New York cop in the Bronx tells me that he was trying to extricate a woman pinned under an overturned car in July when a bystander stuck his cellphone camera into the officer’s face, trying to bait him into an argument. “You can’t tell me what to do,” the bystander replied when asked to move to the sidewalk, the cop reports. “A few years ago, I would have taken police action,” he says. “Now I know it won’t end well for me or the police department.”

Supervisors may roll up to an incident where trash and other projectiles are being thrown at officers and tell the cops to get into their cars and leave. “What does that do to the general public?” wonders a New York detective. “Every time we pass up on an arrest because we don’t want a situation to blow up, we’ve made the next cop’s job all the harder.”

Jim McDonnell, head of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the nation’s largest, tells me that the current anticop animus puts the nation in a place where it hasn’t been since the 1960s. “The last 10 years have witnessed dramatic decreases in crime,” Sheriff McDonnell says. “Now, in a short period of time, we are seeing those gains undone.”

Even the assassination of police officers doesn’t appear to cool the antipolice rhetoric. A day after a Houston police deputy, Darren Goforth, was murdered while filling his gas tank last month, Black Lives Matter protesters—as online video chillingly attests—marched in St. Paul chanting: “Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon.”

An organizer with the Organization for Black Struggle in St. Louis refused to apologize for the tenor of the movement, while denying that it condoned violence. “Until the police aren’t the dangerous force that black people fear, the rhetoric won’t change,” she told the New York Times, after Houston Sheriff Ron Hickman, in the wake of Deputy Goforth’s murder, pleaded for antipolice protesters to temper their language. A Texas legislator, state Sen. Garnet Coleman, assailed Sheriff Hickman for showing “a lack of understanding of what is occurring in this country when it comes to the singling out of African-Americans.”

The irony is that the historic reduction of U.S. crime since the 1990s was predicated on police singling out African-Americans—for protection. Using victims’ crime reports, cops focused on violent hot spots; since black Americans are disproportionately the victims of crime, just as blacks are disproportionately its perpetrators, effective policing was heaviest in minority neighborhoods. The cops were there because they believe that black lives matter.

Thousands of African-Americans are alive today because of a law-enforcement achievement that now is in danger of being squandered. In the current eruption of violent crime, the overwhelming majority of victims have been black. The Baltimore Sun reported that July was the bloodiest month in the city since 1972, with 45 people killed in 30 days. All but two were black.

Police officials I have spoken with in recent months say that they long to hear America’s leaders change the tone of the national conversation before respect for the rule of law itself deteriorates further. They’re still waiting.

Ms. Mac Donald is the Thomas W. Smith fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

Monday, September 14, 2015



As polls show Donald Trump performing better than ever with black voters, progressive rapper Azealia Banks is expressing support for Trump’s popular immigration policy because of the positive impact it could have on black Americans.

“Do you think it’s bad that I sort of agree with [Trump’s] stance on immigration?” the rapper wrote on her Instagram account on September 7th.

Banks, a black rapper from Harlem, made headlines in March of this year by declaring her hatred for “this country” and “white Americans.”

Banks explained that her support for Trump’s immigration plan is based on the detrimental impact mass immigration has had on the black community. “Black Americans still have not been paid reparations for slavery,” she wrote. “It’s selfish, but America has been really good at convincing me that everyone else’s problems are more important than my own.”

Following an immediate onslaught of progressive backlash, Banks tried to vaguely signal to progressives that her pro-America immigration statement was just a “social experiment.” However, all of her social media posts thereafter demonstrate a strong support for the ideas underpinning Trump’s rise.

“If the United States of America is an aircraft on its way down, (which it seems to be) I must put my own air mask on before I assist others,” Banks later wrote.

Indeed, black Americans have been disproportionately impacted by mass immigration. “Competition from immigration accounts for approximately 40 percent of the 18-percentage point decline in black employment in recent years,” U.S. Civil Rights Commissioner Peter Kirsanow has documented. “That’s nearly a million jobs lost by blacks to immigrants.”

Black Americans are currently unemployed at twice the rate of white Americans, and real average wages are lower today than they were in 1973, shortly after the green card gusher began.

Yet the consequences of mass immigration for “the black community in general are not limited to wages,” three members of the Civil Rights commission wrote in 2013.

In addition to lower wages, decades of mass immigration has led to an increase in the incarceration rate amongst black Americans. As Harvard Professor George Borjas has analyzed, “a 10% immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group is associated with a reduction in the black wage of 2.5%, a reduction in the black employment rate of 5.9 percentage points, and an increase in the black institutionalization rate of 1.3%.”

Banks’ immigration post, however, caught the ire of Buzzfeed’s Conz Preti, who according to Buzzfeed’s website, is “la directora regional para las Américas”– or the regional director of Americas for Buzzfeed.

“Dear ‪@AZEALIABANKS, I’m not sucking up state aid nor your gov money. I’m busting my [a**] working and not bothering you,” Preti tweeted on September 8th.

Yes,” Banks tweeted in response, “but eventually you and the other 10 million undocumented immigrants will have children who need schooling and need food stamps etc”

But Preti isn’t an illegal immigrant, so she lashed back: “[W]ho said I’m undocumented?”

Banks’ statistics overall are correct. “Immigrant households use welfare at significantly higher rates than native households,” with more than half of U.S. immigrants on welfare, a new Census data study reveals. The disproportionate reliance on welfare continues amongst the second and third generations (i.e. the American-born children) of immigrants: 76.4 percent of native Hispanics report that they use welfare as opposed to 40.8 percent of native whites.

Banks pressed the point. “Who’s going to pay for [mass immigration]?” Banks tweeted. “I’d much rather have my tax dollars go to making schools better then spreading schools thin.”

Indeed, large-scale immigration has sapped educational resources for minority communities. Today, as a result of four decades of record high green card dispensations, a majority of public school enrollees are minorities. A majority of students now also qualify for programs like subsidized school lunches. As the United States has continued to distribute visas to many of the poorest and least-educated countries around the world, U.S. test scores have plummeted. As the liberal-website Vox recently observed:

“The results for last year’s SAT test-takers are in, and they’re not good: the lowest on record in the last decade… The pool of test takers is more likely to include poor and nonwhite students than before… SAT-takers have become more racially diverse, largely because a greater share of test-takers are Hispanic now than in the past. The share of students from poor families and those who learned English as a second language have increased… as the pool of test-takers has gotten more diverse and poorer than in the past, the average score has fallen slightly from year to year. To some extent, that’s to be expected.”

The fact that Banks— who has previously articulated her hatred for “white Americans”— supports for the America-first philosophy of Trump’s campaign is interesting as it reveals the irony of claims from the publications like National Review, which try to assert that Trump’s rise is fueled by white nationalism. The other fact that invalidates the National Review’s analysis is that the progressive Buzzfeed staffer attacking Banks— and implicitly criticizing Trump— is making thinly veiled appeals to racial solidarity as a higher organizing principle than national solidarity.

As the Buzzfeed staffer later wrote, “Today will be remembered as the day Azealia Banks attacked me when I disagreed with her diss towards latino immigrants… [A]ttacking another minority is not ok. I call this the Donald Trump effect. Brace yourselves because we will be seeing more and more of this.”

As Trump has promoted a pro-America immigration policy that prioritizes getting Americans back to work rather than importing low-wage foreign laborers to replace them, he has seen his poll numbers soar with key voting groups, including women and black Americans, who have been most negatively impacted by the federal government’s record high visa dispensations.

Polls suggest that if Trump continues to promote his populist stance on immigration, he will continue to make inroads with these voters who are most repelled by establishment and big business Republicans’ platform of entitlement cuts for the poor and corporate tax cuts for the wealthy.

The vast appeal Trump’s policies is reflected in Banks’ subsequent tweets on the matter. When one negative tweeter told her that we are a nation of immigrants, she replied, “[N]o honey, my people were NOT immigrants. We were bought here by force. And America has to deal with me before they deal [with] [yo]u.”

“When the American public learns that ‘Immigrant’ does not mean ‘Hispanic’ then maybe the discussion will begin to be somewhat productive,” Banks later tweeted.

It is widely agreed upon by scholars on both sides of the aisle that mass immigration displaces and disadvantages the descendants of those who came to this nation enslaved. This is the result not just of immigration from Hispanic countries, but many predominantly poor nations– such as nations in the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

As The Washington Post reported earlier this year: “Black immigration is remaking [the] U.S. black population.”

The Post cites a study from Pew Research Center which states, “Black immigrants make up a small but growing segment of the U.S. black population. Although the United States has long had a sizable black population as a legacy of slavery, voluntary black immigration to the U.S. is a relatively new development and is projected to grow in the coming decades… Between 2000 and 2013, the black African immigrant population grew from 570,000 to 1.4 million, an increase of 137 percent,” the report says.

Today, one in eleven—or 8.7 percent— of U.S. residents who identify as black were born in another country. According to the Census Bureau that number is projected to nearly double– to 16.5 percent– by 2060– meaning one in six will black residents will be foreign born.

Harvard’s Henry Louis Gates Jr. has pointed out that many of new black immigrants have been made beneficiaries of affirmative action programs originally intended for the descendants of slaves and state-sanctioned discrimination in the United States.

In 2004, Gates noted that while 8 percent of Harvard’s undergraduates were black, the vast majority of them were immigrants. Only around a third of the black students “were from families in which all four grandparents were born in this country, descendants of slaves,” The New York Times wrote at the time. The very students “disadvantaged by the legacy of Jim Crow laws, segregation and decades of racism, poverty and inferior schools, who were intended as principal beneficiaries of affirmative action in university admissions” were losing out to new immigrants who had not been subject to any sort of state sanctioned discrimination by this nation. Gates worried that “African-American students whose families have been in America for generations were being left behind.”

Trump has tapped into that sentiment and is now the only top-polling GOP presidential committed to protecting the interests of the American worker above those of corporatist elites who want more cheap labor. “We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change,” Trump wrote in his August immigration policy paper.

Banks also expressed concern about how large-scale immigration has impacted assimilation: “America IS a melting pot[,] but we should let the pot melt.” Banks tweeted.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

has relentlessly pushed for the GOP to woo blue-collar workers. He makes this very argument. “If your goal is to create more stable social conditions, greater access to the middle class, higher employment and wage rates, then it is clear you should stop adding millions more low-skilled workers to the labor market – particularly at time when automation is steadily reducing demand for workers,” Sessions says. “It is not only an economic question, but a social one: is there not an inherent public interest in asking our companies to hire from the unemployment office before seeking workers from the immigration office?”

The inability to assimilate the vast amount of immigrants admitted each year is a concern of many Americans. Each year, as a consequence of the 1965 immigration law lobbied for by Ted Kennedy, the United States issues more than one million green cards to many of the poorest and least-developed nations in the world. In addition to these green cards are nearly one million handpicked foreign workers imported on work visas, their dependents, and refugees, as well as half a million foreign youths sought by college administrators.

The number of immigrants in the U.S. is currently at a record high of 42.1 million. In 1970, fewer than 1 in 21 Americans were foreign-born. Today, as a result of the federal government’s four-decade-long green card gusher, nearly 1 in 7 U.S. residents was born in a foreign country. And in eight years time, according to Census Bureau reports, the foreign born share of the U.S. population will reach an all-time high.

The Trump philosophy— also laid out by Sessions— argues that the best way to help blacks and Latinos who are already living in the United States is to stem the importation of new lower-wage workers from outside of the United States who would take jobs in their place.

This was a principle articulated a century ago by then-President Calvin Coolidge, who argued that the best way to help immigrants and their children already living in the country is to stop importing new immigrants to compete against them. “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here,” Coolidge said. “As a Nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

Research and economic analysis shows that the while the agenda for increasing the importation of foreign workers— supported by the Buzzfeed staffer— would enrich corporate billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, it would impoverish Latino and black workers who struggling to find decent paying jobs in an already flooded labor market.

Trump addressed this at length in his six-page immigration policy paper. “Decades of disastrous trade deals and immigration policies have destroyed our middle class.” Trump wrote. “Today, nearly 40% of black teenagers are unemployed. Nearly 30% of Hispanic teenagers are unemployed… The influx of foreign workers holds down salaries, keeps unemployment high, and makes it difficult for poor and working class Americans – including immigrants themselves and their children – to earn a middle class wage.”

In an effort to help black and Hispanic workers, Trump called for an end to the J-1 visa— a visa, which
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

has said, “allows corporations to replace young American workers with cheaper labor from abroad”. Trump urged that this visa be “replaced with a resume bank for inner city youth provided to all corporate subscribers to the J-1 visa program.”

Moreover, as the cries of inner cities families in gang-beseiged neighborhoods like Chicago and Baltimore go unheard by politicians in Washington, Trump has pledged to crack down on asylum fraud and “use the monies saved on expensive refugee programs to help place American children without parents in safer homes and communities, and to improve community safety in high crime neighborhoods in the United States.”

Trump’s philosophy suggests that citizens of all ethnic and economic backgrounds should have an equal right to an American job, and that this right should inherently supersede that of the millions of foreign nationals who would like to take those American jobs for a lower wage.

Just as Trump’s stance on immigration has won him the support of voters from a wide-range of demographics, his populist position on trade deals may similarly help gain him votes amongst portions of the electorate not typically won by big business Republicans.

Trump’s platform on trade resonates amongst labor advocates, blue-collar workers and minorities.

As the Huffington Post reported in June of this year, many labor advocates have argued that the push for globalist trade pacts, like the Transpacific-Partnership “will hurt urban black communities.”

The AFL-CIO and United Steelworkers released an ad entitled “American Refugee” which features an African American steel plant worker in Baltimore who was “among 2,100 workers laid off when the plant closed in August 2012.” In the ad, the worker “blames U.S. trade policies for the erosion of Baltimore’s manufacturing base, echoing the longstanding complaints of labor unions and other advocacy groups.”

Trump is the only top-polling Republican candidate to oppose the globalist trade pacts that have devastated blue-collar American families.

As Greg Sargent of The Washington Post recently observed:

“Virtually all of the major GOP presidential candidates, including Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, and , all support the TPP, as do Republican Congressional leaders… The coming debate over the TPP gives Trump the perfect opportunity to do what he’s already been doing to great effect: test the true nature of opinion among rank-and-file Republican voters, by forcing real debates out into the open on issues that had previously remained deliberately vague or walled off from real discussion by GOP orthodoxy… Trump would probably love it if the career politicians he’s facing off against lecture him about the impact that global free trade has on the fortunes of American workers.”

Indeed, economic analysis shows that combination of mass immigration and surrenderist trade policies have destroy the American middle class.

As Georgetown University’s Eric Gould has analyzed:

“The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

In effect, Banks’ declarations of support for American-workers first policies suggest that if trade resurfaces as a major issue this fall, the “Summer of Trump” may easily give way to the Winter of Trump.

Thursday, September 10, 2015


50 Spies Say ISIS Intelligence Was Cooked …

It’s being called a ‘revolt’ by intelligence pros who are paid to give their honest assessment of the ISIS war—but are instead seeing their reports turned into happy talk.

More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military's Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.

The complaints spurred the Pentagon’s inspector general to open an investigation into the alleged manipulation of intelligence. The fact that so many people complained suggests there are deep-rooted, systemic problems in how the U.S. military command charged with the war against the self-proclaimed Islamic State assesses intelligence.

“The cancer was within the senior level of the intelligence command,” one defense official said.

Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration’s public line that the U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda’s branch in Syria, the analysts claim.

That complaint was supported by 50 other analysts, some of whom have complained about politicizing of intelligence reports for months. That’s according to 11 individuals who are knowledgeable about the details of the report.

The accusations suggest that a large number of people tracking the inner workings of the terror groups think that their reports are being manipulated to fit a public narrative. The allegations echoed charges that political appointees and senior officials cherry-picked intelligence about Iraq’s supposed weapons program in 2002 and 2003.

The two signatories to the complaint were described as the ones formally lodging it, and the additional analysts are willing and able to back up the substance of the allegations with concrete examples.

One person who knows the contents of the complaint said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing the military’s analysis.

Some of those CENTCOM analysts described the sizeable cadre of protesting analysts as a “revolt” by intelligence professionals who are paid to give their honest assessment, based on facts, and not to be influenced by national-level policy. The analysts have accused senior-level leaders, including the director of intelligence and his deputy in CENTCOM, of changing their analyses to be more in line with the Obama administration’s public contention that the fight against ISIS and al Qaeda is making progress. The analysts take a more pessimistic view about how military efforts to destroy the groups are going.

The large number of analysts who complained to the Pentagon inspector general hasn’t been previously reported. Some of them are assigned to work at CENTCOM, the U.S. military’s command for the Middle East and Central Asia, but are officially employed by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

The complaints allege that in some cases key elements of intelligence reports were removed, resulting in a document that didn’t accurately capture the analysts’ conclusions, sources familiar with the protest said. But the complaint also goes beyond alleged altering of reports and accuses some senior leaders at CENTCOM of creating an unprofessional work environment. One person who knows the contents of the written complaint sent to the inspector general said it used the word “Stalinist” to describe the tone set by officials overseeing CENTCOM’s analysis.

Many described a climate in which analysts felt they could not give a candid assessment of the situation in Iraq and Syria. Some felt it was a product of commanders protecting their career advancement by putting the best spin on the war.
Some reports crafted by the analysts that were too negative in their assessment of the war were sent back the chain of the command or not shared up the chain, several analysts said. Still others, feeling the climate around them, self-censored so their reports affirmed already-held beliefs.
“While we cannot comment on the specific investigation cited in the article, we can speak to the process. The Intelligence Community routinely provides a wide range of subjective assessments related to the current security environment. These products and the analysis that they present are absolutely vital to our efforts, particularly given the incredibly complex nature of the multi-front fights that are ongoing now in Iraq and Syria,” said Air Force Col. Patrick Ryder, U.S. CENTCOM spokesman. “Senior civilian and military leadership consider these assessments during planning and decision-making, along with information gained from various other sources, to include the insights provided by commanders on the ground and other key advisors, intelligence collection assets, and previous experience.”

In recent months, members of the Obama administration have sought to paint the fight against ISIS in rosy hues—despite the terror army’s seizure of major cities like Mosul and Fallujah.

“ISIS is losing,” John Allen, the retired Marine general charged with coordinating the ISIS campaign, said in July.

“I am confident that over time, we will beat, we will, indeed, degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL,” Secretary of State John Kerry said in March, using the government’s preferred acronym for the group.
“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” President Obama said in May.

Yet a growing group of intelligence analysts persisted with their complaints. For some, who have served at CENTCOM for more than a decade, scars remained from the run-up to the 2003 war in Iraq, when poorly written intelligence reports suggesting Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, when it did not, formed the basis of the George W. Bush administration’s case for war.

“They were frustrated because they didn’t do the right thing then” and speak up about their doubts on Iraq’s weapons program, the defense official told The Daily Beast.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015




Hillary Clinton on Private Email: ‘That Was a Mistake. I’m Sorry’


Hillary Clinton on Tuesday told ABC News’ David Muir that using a personal email account while Secretary of State was a “mistake” and that she is “sorry” for it.

“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” the democratic presidential candidate told Muir in an exclusive interview in New York City. "What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

This is the farthest Clinton has gone yet in offering an apology for her use of a private email server while Secretary of State.

When asked by Muir to clarify if she did feel she made a mistake by using her private account, Clinton conceded she did.

“I did, I did,” Clinton said. “As I said, it was allowed and there was no hiding it. It was totally above board. Everybody in the government I communicated, and that was a lot of people, knew I was using a personal email. But I’m sorry that it has, you know, raised all of these questions. I do take responsibility for having made what is clearly not the best decision.”

While Secretary of State, Clinton used a private email server based out of her home in Chappaqua, New York to send and receive work-related emails. Her decision to do so has raised questions over classified material.

Clinton has since turned over more than 55,000 pages of emails from her email server to the State Department, which are being released in batches. (Clinton’s team deemed roughly 31,000 emails to be "personal and private.” Those were not turned over and have since been deleted.)

Last month, Clinton also turned over her private server and thumb drive to the Justice Department amid a federal investigation into the security of the server and whether there was classified information in the emails from the private account she was using.

On Tuesday, Clinton maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on the account and reiterated she is “trying to be as transparent as possible” in her handling of the email controversy.

Clinton’s interview, her first national television interview with an evening news anchor since launching her campaign five months ago, comes after a rocky summer where she faced growing scrutiny over her use of a private email account and dropping poll numbers.

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 53 percent of Americans now see Clinton unfavorably, up 8 points since midsummer.

Even so, Clinton remains optimistic about the future of her campaign.

When asked by Muir if she will be able to “survive” the email controversy dogging her campaign, Clinton said she has no doubt that “I can survive it.”

“Of course I can,” she said. “I, as you might guess, have been around a while and there have been lots of, you know, attacks and counter-attacks and questions raised. And I can survive it because I think I’m running to be president to do what the country needs done. And I believe the American people will respond to that.”

Muir asked Clinton if there is ever an instance where she asks herself, "Why am I doing this again?"

"Of course. Because it's really hard," Clinton explained. "It's something that just demands everything. Physically, emotionally, spiritually. It is just 24/7."

Despite the challenging days on the campaign trail, however, Clinton told Muir she’s still having a good time.

“It’s hard, but it’s fun,” Clinton said. “Most of the things that are hard in life are fun.”


Khamenei: Israel won’t survive next 25 years

Israel will not survive the next 25 years, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Wednesday, making a series of threatening remarks published online.
In a quote posted to Twitter by Khamenei’s official account, Khamenei addresses Israel, saying, “You will not see next 25 years,” and adds that the Jewish state will be hounded until it is destroyed.
The quote comes against a backdrop of a photograph showing the Iranian leader walking on an Israeli flag painted on a sidewalk. Who took the "white tip" off his cane?

“After negotiations, in Zionist regime they said they had no more concern about Iran for next 25 years; I’d say: Firstly, you will not see next 25 years; God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years. Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists,” the quote from Iran’s top leader reads in broken English.

The quote was apparently taken from a speech given earlier in the day.

The remarks came as US lawmakers began to debate supporting a recent nuclear agreement between Tehran and six world powers. Critics of the deal have pointed to fiery anti-US and anti-Zionist rhetoric as proof that the regime should not be trusted.


The White House and other deal boosters argue that the pact, meant to keep Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, is based on verification, not trust.

Khamenei’s statements also reaffirmed his view that the US is a “Great Satan” and that there would be no detente with Washington beyond the nuclear talks.
“We approved talks with the United States about [the] nuclear issue specifically. We have not allowed talks with the US in other fields and we [do] not negotiate with them,” Khamenei said in statements published on his website.
Khamenei is quoted as saying any other talks would be “a tool for penetration and imposing their demands.”

On Twitter, Khamenei said talks with the US were a “means of infiltration and imposition of their wills.”

Quoting the founder of the Islamic Republic and his predecessor as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Khamenei tweeted: “@IRKhomeini stated “US is the Great Satan,” some insist on depicting this Great Satan as an angel.”

The Twitter handle @IRKhomeini is an Iranian government account dedicated to Khomeini’s statements.

Some have pointed to the nuclear deal as an opening for Iran to repair long-frayed ties with the West.

Several senior European officials have traveled to Iran since the nuclear deal was reached to boost economic and diplomatic ties, including Austrian President Heinz Fischer, who on Monday became the first European leader to visit Tehran in over a decade.
On Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani signaled that Iran is ready to hold talks with world powers on ways to resolve Syria’s civil war — provided such negotiations could secure peace and democracy in the conflict-torn country, he said.
Iran, together with Russia, backs the embattled regime of Bashar Assad, who is opposed by much of the West.

AP brain dead reporters contributed to this report?  WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE REPORT? THERE IS NO NEWS HERE!

Tuesday, September 8, 2015


Donald Trump: Amateur hour with the Iran nuclear deal

Politics as usual has failed, that's why I need to step in.

It is hard to believe a president of the United States would actually put his name on an agreement with the terrorist state Iran that is so bad, so poorly constructed and so terribly negotiated that it increases uncertainty and reduces security for America and our allies, including Israel.

It was amateur hour for those charged with striking this deal with Iran, demonstrating to the world, yet again, the total incompetence of our president and politicians. It appears we wanted a deal at any cost rather than following the advice of Ronald Reagan and walking away because “no deal is better than a bad deal.”

After the agreement goes into effect: All nuclear-relatedsanctions will be lifted. Iran receives a windfall of $150 billion, which will no doubt fund terrorism around the world. Iran will receive noticebefore any inspections take place. Iran can block inspectionof certain facilities. Iran will soon be able to continueexpanding its conventional arms and guided missile programs without facing snapback sanctions. Iran can keep American prisoners, including one former U.S. Marine and, very sadly, a Christian minister. Iran can continue to operate about 6,000centrifuges. Other countries will be free to invest in Iran.
Iran can continue to solidify bonds with Russia, China and North Korea. All these other countries will benefit, and the United States loses on all fronts.

In the end, Iran will be a nuclear state. This will lead to an all-out arms race in the region. All the Middle East, southern Europe and American interests will be within the footprint of Iran’s missiles.

Interestingly, Saudi Arabia and others, who were vehemently opposed to the deal on all fronts, are now in favor — Washington has naively provided new weapons deals and security assurances.

The problem is that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, our Middle Eastern allies and the United States. If we have to wait until the next president is sworn in to revisit this nuclear weapons agreement, then the next president better be someone who knows how to negotiate and who will do what is best for the United States.

When I am elected president, I will renegotiate with Iran — right after I enable the immediate release of our American prisoners and ask Congress to impose new sanctions that stop Iran from having the ability to sponsor terrorism around the world.

In fact, if I am elected, I am sure the prisoners will be released before my taking office.

We will approach other nations and make it clear that we will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

We will use all the tools of power available, hopefully avoiding direct action. But make no mistake, a Trump presidency will demonstrate the will to do whatever is necessary to protect the interests of the United States, Israel and its allies.

My opposition to the war in Iraq is well documented. I was against the war from the very beginning, all the way back in 2004. I had the vision and foresight to understand that Iraq and Iran were equal powers, and that our takeover of Iraq, when there was no real evidence of weapons of mass destruction, would be catastrophic for the entire region, enabling Iran and other forces to become a more dangerous threat than Saddam Hussein ever thought of being.

We now have the Islamic State and the threat of nuclear weapons from Iran, both a direct result of the shortsighted incompetence of those in Washington during the war in Iraq and long before.

Negotiating from a position of strength is important. Having the will to follow through is fundamental. A Trump presidency will force the Iranians back to the bargaining table to make a much better deal. A Trump presidency will make America great again.

Monday, September 7, 2015


What's the name of a published book on how to outwit US and destroy Israel and who authored it?

ALEX: Who is Iran and what is Palestine.

While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate 


Harry Reid confirms Senate Democrats will filibuster Iran nuclear deal

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., talks about his future and the agenda of the Democrats who are now in the minority, during an interview in Washington, in this March 4, 2015, Reid said in a news release ... 

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

‘Reclaiming Muslim lands’

An Iranian man holds up a banner above Israeli flags before setting them on fire during a demonstration in Tehran July, 2014. Iranians rallied to mark the Quds (Jerusalem) Day in a show of support for Palestinians, and to protest against Israel

Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.
He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to swallow back tears Sunday as she described her "gut-wrenching" decision to back the Iran nuclear agreement. (Associated Press)

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.

However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.

The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”

The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”

Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”

He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.
‘Israel fatigue’

Iranians hold a demonstration in November, 2013 in Tehran in mark the 34th anniversary of the 1979 US embassy takeover, when Iranian students held 52 American diplomats hostage for 444 days.Photo: Getty Images

Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that they leave the country.

His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of Israelis have double-nationality and would prefer emigration to the United States and Europe to daily threats of death.

Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action against the Islamic Republic.

In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of doing so is higher than possible benefits.

Thanks to President Obama, the US has already distanced itself from Israel to a degree unimaginable a decade ago.

Khamenei counts on what he sees as “Israel fatigue.” The international community would start looking for what he calls “a practical and logical mechanism” to end the old conflict.

Khamenei’s “practical and logical mechanism” excludes the two-state formula in any form.

“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region to stay as “protected minorities.”

Under Khamenei’s scheme, Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza, would revert to a United Nations mandate for a brief period during which a referendum is held to create the new state of Palestine.

All Palestinians and their descendants, wherever they are, would be able to vote, while Jews “who have come from other places” would be excluded.

Khamenei does not mention any figures for possible voters in his dream referendum. But studies by the Islamic Foreign Ministry in Tehran suggest that at least eight million Palestinians across the globe would be able to vote against 2.2 million Jews “acceptable” as future second-class citizens of new Palestine. Thus, the “Supreme Guide” is certain of the results of his proposed referendum.

He does not make clear whether the Kingdom of Jordan, which is located in 80% of historic Palestine, would be included in his one-state scheme. However, a majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian extraction and would be able to vote in the referendum and, logically, become citizens of the new Palestine.
Holocaust ‘propaganda’

A military truck carries a Qadr medium-range missile during Iran’s annual military parade, marking their war with Iraq (1980-1988) in Tehran September, 2014.

Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip,” he boasts.

Khamenei describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. In its place, he boasts, “the hegemony of Iran will be promoted.”

Khamenei’s book also deals with the Holocaust which he regards either as “a propaganda ploy” or a disputed claim. “If there was such a thing,” he writes, “we don’t know why it happened and how.”

This is what Iran’s leaders are preaching to their people and their allies in the Middle East. Do we really want to give succor?