Friday, June 30, 2017



Thursday, June 29, 2017



NYT Reporters Stage Walkout, Chant ‘No Editors, No Peace’ Over Staff Cuts

Reporters and editors at The New York Times staged a walkout Thursday afternoon, chanting “no editors, no peace” in protest of the NYT’s plan to cut loose dozens of copy editors as the paper adapts to the digital age.

“We have begun the humiliating process of justifying our continued presence at The New York Times,” the NYT’s copy editors said in a letter Wednesday to executive editor Dean Baquet. “We worry that the errors and serious breaches of Times standards that copy editors catch each day will go unnoticed,” they added.

“Editors — and yes, that especially means copy editors — save reporters and The Times every day from countless errors, large and small,” the paper’s reporters said in a letter supporting the copy editors. “We believe that the plan to eliminate dozens of editing jobs and do away with the copy desks is ill-conceived and unwise, and will damage the quality of our product.”

Fox News reporter Adam Shaw captured video of NYT editors and reporters chanting and carrying signs as they took part in the walkout Thursday afternoon. “No editors, no peace!” the protesters chanted, appropriating the chant “No justice, no peace” commonly used by Black Lives Matter and other anti-police protesters.

The NYT protesters also carried misspelled signs that read, “This wsa not edited,” suggesting that the NYT will be more frequently plagued by simple typos if the copy editors are let go.

The protest came two days after former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin sued the NYT for defamation after the editorial board falsely claimed she incited the 2011 shooting of then-Democratic Rep. Gabby Giffords. (RELATED: Sarah Palin Suing New York Times For Defamation)

Palin claimed the paper “exceeded the bounds of legality, decency and civility by publishing the false and defamatory column.”




Monday, June 26, 2017


Hillary Emails Reveal NATO Killed Gaddafi to Stop Libyan Creation of Gold-Backed Currency
Hillary’s emails truly are the gifts that keep on giving. While France led the proponents of the UN Security Council Resolution that would create a no-fly zone in Libya, it claimed that its primary concern was the protection of Libyan civilians (considering the current state of affairs alone, one must rethink the authenticity of this concern). As many “conspiracy theorists” will claim, one of the real reasons to go to Libya was Gaddafi’s planned gold dinar.

One of the 3,000 Hillary Clinton emails released by the State Department on New Year’s Eve (where real news is sent to die quietly) has revealed evidence that NATO’s plot to overthrow Gaddafi was fueled by first their desire to quash the gold-backed African currency, and second the Libyan oil reserves.

The email in question was sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by her unofficial adviser Sydney Blumenthal titled “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold”.

From Foreign Policy Journal:

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency.

And here is the section of the email proving that NATO had ulterior motives for destroying Libya (UPDATE: The link has since been killed, but here is the web cache):

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya. According to these individuals Sarkozy’s plans are driven by the following issues:

a. A desire to gain a greater share of Libya oil production,

b. Increase French influence in North Africa,

c. Improve his internal political situation in France,

d. Provide the French military with an opportunity to reassert its position in the world,

e. Address the concern of his advisors over Qaddafi’s long term plans to supplant France as the dominant power in Francophone Africa)

Ergo as soon as French intel discovered Gaddafi’s dinar plans, they decided to spearhead the campaign against him- having accumulated enough good reasons to take over.

Sadly, Gaddafi had earlier warned Europe (in a “prophetic” phone conversations with Blair) that his fall would prompt the rise of Islamic extremism in the West. A warning that would go unheeded; what’s a few lives in France and Libya, if the larger goal lines the pockets of politicians and the elite so much better after all?

Featured image: Sheep Media

The original source of this article is Sheep Media

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Page 2 of 2

Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It’s about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It’s about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It’s about Qaddafi’s plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.

Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect.”

Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab “regime change,” using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.

According to a New York Times report at the time, citing Obama Administration senior sources, it was Hillary Clinton, backed by Samantha Power, then a senior aide at the National Security Council and today Obama’s UN Ambassador; and Susan Rice, then Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations, and now National Security Adviser. That triad pushed Obama into military action against Libya’s Qaddafi. Clinton, flanked by Powers and Rice, was so powerful that Clinton managed to overrule Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Tom Donilon, Obama’s national security adviser, and John Brennan, Obama’s counterterrorism chief, today CIA head.

Secretary of State Clinton was also knee-deep in the conspiracy to unleash what came to be dubbed the “Arab Spring,” the wave of US-financed regime changes across the Arab Middle East, part of the Greater Middle East project unveiled in 2003 by the Bush Administration after occupation of Iraq. The first three target countries of that 2011 US “Arab Spring”–an action in which Washington used its “human rights” NGOs such as Freedom House and National Endowment for Democracy, in cahoots as usual, with the Open Society Foundations of billionaire speculator, George Soros, along with US State Department and CIA operatives–were Ben Ali’s Tunisia, Mubarak’s Egypt and Qaddafi’s Libya.

Now the timing and targeting of Washington’s 2011 “Arab Spring” destabilizations of select Middle East states assume a new light in relation to just-released declassified Clinton emails to her private Libya “adviser” and friend, Sid Blumenthal. Blumenthal is the slick lawyer who defended then-President Bill Clinton in the Monika Lewinsky and other sex scandal affairs when Bill was President and facing impeachment.

Qaddafi’s gold dinar

For many it remains a mystery just why Washington decided that Qaddafi personally must be destroyed, murdered, not just sent into exile like Mubarak. Clinton, when informed of Qaddafi’s brutal murder by US-financed Al Qaeda “democratic opposition” terrorists, told CBS news, in a sick, joking paraphrase of Julius Caesar, “We came, we saw, he died,” words spoken by her with a hearty, macabre laugh.

Little is known in the West about what Muammar Qaddafi did in Libya or, for that matter, in Africa and in the Arab world. Now, release of a new portion of Hillary Clinton’s emails as Secretary of State, at the time she was running Obama Administration war on Qaddafi, sheds dramatic new light on the background.

It was not a personal decision of Hillary Clinton to eliminate Qaddafi and destroy his entire state infrastructure. The decision, it’s now clear, came from circles very high in the US money oligarchy. She was merely another Washington political tool implementing the mandate of those oligarchs. The intervention was about killing Qaddafi’s well-laid plans to create a gold-based African and Arabic currency to replace the dollar in oil trades. Since the US dollar abandoned gold exchange for dollars in 1971 the dollar in terms of gold has dramatically lost value. Arab and African OPEC oil states have long objected to the vanishing purchasing power of their oil sales, mandated since the 1970’s by Washington to be solely in US dollars, as dollar inflation soared more than 2000% to 2001.

In a newly declassified Clinton email from Sid Blumenthal to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dated April 2, 2011, Blumenthal reveals the reason that Qaddafi must be eliminated. Using the pretext of citing an unidentified “high source” Blumenthal writes to Clinton, “According to sensitive information available to this source, Qaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).” That French aspect was only the tip of the Qaddafi gold dinar iceberg.

Golden Dinar and more

During the first decade of this century, Gulf Arab OPEC countries, including Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others, began seriously diverting a significant portion of the revenues from their vast oil and gas sales into state sovereign wealth funds, many based on the success of Norway’s Oil Fund.

Growing discontent with the US War on Terror, with the wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and with overall US Middle East policies after September 2001, led most OPEC Arab states to divert a growing share of oil revenues into state-controlled funds rather than trusting it to the sticky fingers of New York and London bankers as had been the custom since the 1970’s when oil prices went through the roof, creating what Henry Kissinger fondly called the “petro-dollar” to replace the gold-backed dollar Washington walked away from on August 15, 1971. The present Sunni-Shi’ite war or clash of civilizations is in fact a result of the US manipulations after 2003 in the region— “divide and rule.”

By 2008 the prospect of sovereign control by a growing number of African and Arab oil states of their state oil and gas revenues was causing serious concern in Wall Street as well as the City of London. It was huge liquidity, in the trillions, they potentially no longer controlled.

The timing of the Arab Spring, in retrospect, increasingly looks tied to Washington and Wall Street efforts to control not only the huge Arab Middle East oil flows. It is now clear it was equally aimed at controlling their money, their trillions of dollars accumulating in their new sovereign wealth funds.

However, as is now confirmed in the latest Clinton-Blumenthal April 2, 2011 email exchange, there was a qualitatively new threat emerging for Wall Street and the City of London “gods of money,” from the African and Arab oil world. Libya’s Qaddafi, Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Mubarak’s Egypt were about to launch a gold-backed Islamic currency independent of the US dollar. I was first told of this plan in early 2012, at a Swiss financial and geopolitical conference, by an Algerian with extensive knowledge of the project. Documentation was scarce at the time and the story remained in my mental back-burner. Now a far more interesting picture emerges that puts the ferocity of Washington’s Arab Spring and its urgency in the case of Libya into perspective.

‘United States of Africa’

In 2009, Qaddafi, who was at the time the President of the African Union, had proposed that the economically depressed continent adopt the “Gold Dinar.”

In the months prior to the US decision, with British and French backing, to get a UN Security Council resolution that would give them the legal fig-leaf for a NATO destruction of the Qaddafi regime, Muammar Qaddafi had been organizing the creation of a gold-backed dinar that would be used by African oil states as well as Arab OPEC countries in their sales of oil on the world market.

Had that happened at the time Wall Street and the City of London were deep into the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the challenge to the reserve currency role of the dollar would have been more than serious. It would be a death knell to American financial hegemony, and to the Dollar System. Africa is one of the world’s richest continents, with vast unexplored gold and mineral wealth, had been intentionally kept for centuries underdeveloped or in wars to prevent their development. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank for the recent decades have been the Washington instruments to suppress African real development.

Gaddafi had called upon African oil producers in the African Union and in Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make the gold dinar their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars. As President of the African Union in 2009, Qaddafi introduced for discussion to African Union member states Qaddafi’s proposal to use the Libyan dinar and the silver dirham as the only possible money for the rest of the world to buy African oil.

Along with the Arab OPEC sovereign wealth funds for their oil, other African oil nations, specifically Angola and Nigeria, were moving to create their own national oil wealth funds at the time of the 2011 NATO bombing of Libya. Those sovereign national wealth funds, tied to Qaddafi’s concept of the gold dinar, would make Africa’s long-held dream of independence from colonial monetary control, whether of the British Pound, the French Franc, the euro or the US dollar, a reality.

Qaddafi was moving forward, as head of the African Union, at the time of his assassination, with a plan to unify the sovereign States of Africa with one gold currency, a United States of Africa. In 2004, a Pan-African Parliament of 53 nations had laid plans for an African Economic Community – with a single gold currency by 2023.

African oil-producing nations were planning to abandon the petro-dollar, and demand gold payment for their oil and gas. The list included Egypt, Sudan, South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, Tunisia, Gabon, South Africa, Uganda, Chad, Suriname, Cameroon, Mauritania, Morocco, Zambia, Somalia, Ghana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Cote d’Ivoire, plus Yemen which had just made significant new oil discoveries. The four African member-states of OPEC–Algeria, Angola, Nigeria, a giant oil producer and the largest natural gas producer in Africa with huge natural gas reserves, and Libya with the largest reserves–would be in the new gold dinar system.

Little wonder that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who was given the up-front role in the war on Qaddafi by Washington, went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.

Hillary’s ‘rebels’ create a central bank

One of the most bizarre features of Hillary Clinton’s war to destroy Qaddafi was the fact that the US-backed “rebels” in Benghazi, in the oil-rich eastern part of Libya, in the midst of battle, well before it was at all clear if they would topple the Qaddafi regime, declared they had created a Western-style central bank, “in exile.”

In the very first weeks of the rebellion, the rebel leaders declared that they had created a central bank to replace Gadhafi’s state-owned monetary authority. The rebel council, in addition to creating their own oil company to sell the oil they captured announced: “Designation of the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and appointment of a Governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi.”

Commenting on the odd decision, before the outcome of battle was even decided, to create a western-style central bank to replace Qaddafi’s sovereign national bank that was issuing gold-backed dinars, Robert Wenzel in the Economic Policy Journal, remarked, “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising. This suggests we have a bit more than a rag tag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticatedinfluences.”

It becomes clear now in light of the Clinton-Blumenthal emails that those “pretty sophisticated influences” were tied to Wall Street and the City of London. The person brought in by Washington to lead the rebels in March 2011, Khalifa Hifter, had spent the previous twenty years of his life in suburban Virginia, not far from CIA headquarters, after a break with Libya as a leading military commander of Qaddafi.

The risk to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency, if Qaddafi had been allowed to proceed–together with Egypt, Tunisia and other Arab OPEC and African Union members– to introduce oil sales for gold not dollars, would clearly have been the financial equivalent of a Tsunami.

New Gold Silk Road

The Qaddafi dream of an Arabic and African gold system independent of the dollar, unfortunately, died with him. Libya, after Hillary Clinton’s cynical “responsibility to protect” destruction of the country, today is a shambles, torn by tribal warfare, economic chaos, al-Qaeda and DAESH or ISIS terrorists. The monetary sovereignty held by Qaddafi’s 100% state-owned national monetary agency and its issuance of gold dinars is gone, replaced by an “independent” central bank tied to the dollar.

Despite that setback, it’s more than notable that now an entirely new grouping of nations is coming together to build a similar gold-backed monetary system. This is the group led by Russia and China, the world’s number three and number one gold producing countries, respectively.

This group is tied to the construction of China’s One Belt, One Road New Silk Road Eurasian infrastructure great project. It involves China’s $16 billion Gold Development Fund, and very firm steps by China to replace the City of London and New York as the center of world gold trade. The Eurasian gold system emerging now poses an entirely new quality of challenge to American financial hegemony. This Eurasian challenge, its success or failure, could well determine whether we allow our civilization to survive and prosper under entirely different conditions, or whether we decide to sink along with the bankrupt dollar system.

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

The original source of this article is New Eastern Outlook

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research


Bernie Sanders and his wife have lawyered up amid a federal investigation into a loan that Jane Sanders took out while in charge of a now defunct Vermont college, according to reports.

Investigators are looking into allegations that Jane Sanders falsified information on loan documents in order to expand the campus of Burlington College while she served as president of the liberal arts school.

The college began to face financial difficulties under Sanders’ tenure from 2004 to 2011, falling $10 million in debt.

Politico Magazine first reported the Sanderses hired lawyers to defend them in the probe. Sanders’ top adviser Jeff Weaver told CBS News the couple has sought legal protection.

Saturday, June 24, 2017


Trump makes NO DISTINCTION between "war" and "business" ... it is the way of deception to achieve the goal. 
  • Never interrupt your enemy when "they" are doing a fine job of illusion and deluding themselves. 

The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected
Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Thursday, June 22, 2017


CHICAGO (AP) -- The Illinois official responsible for paying the state's bills is warning that new court orders mean her office must pay out more each month than Illinois receives in revenue.


Comptroller Susana Mendoza must prioritize what gets paid as Illinois nears its third year without a state budget.

A mix of state law, court orders and pressure from credit rating agencies requires some items be paid first. Those include debt and pension payments, state worker paychecks and some school funding.Mendoza says a recent court order regarding money owed for Medicaid bills means mandated payments will eat up 100 percent of Illinois' monthly revenue.
There would be no money left for so-called "discretionary" spending - a category that in Illinois includes school buses, domestic violence shelters, and some ambulance services.

Puerto Rico declares bankruptcy. Here's how it's going to unfold ...
Puerto Rico governor wants Title III bankruptcy for public debt.

Diamondbacks manager Torey Lovullo talks about his team's comeback over the Phillies, including Gregor Blanco's key two-run home run.

Facing mountainous debt and population loss, the board overseeing Puerto Rico filed Wednesday for the equivalent of bankruptcy protection in a historic move that's sure to trigger a fierce legal battle with the fate of the island's citizens, creditors, and workers at stake.

The oversight board appointed to lead the U.S. territory back to fiscal sustainability declared in a court filing that it is "unable to provide its citizens effective services," crushed by $74 billion in debts and $49 billion in pension liabilities.

The filing casts a shadow of uncertainty over the future of Puerto Rico pensioners, American retirees who own the island's debt, institutional investors who backed the island in good times and businesses with lucrative contracts.

But it could also provide hope to residents seeking to preserve access to basic services such as public safety and health care, while also offering a potential route to economic stability for an island that has been suffering for years. Puerto Rico officials have complained that their debt crisis has cut off funds needed to pay doctors and run schools.

Puerto Rico has lost 20% of its jobs since 2007 and 10% of its population, sparking an economic crisis that worsens by the day.

The island's response has worsened matters. Politicians raised taxes, allowed governmental bureaucracy to balloon, borrowed to pay the bills and promised pensions that the island could not afford.

"The result is that Puerto Rico can no longer fully pay its debt and pay for government services," the oversight board said in the court filing. "Nor can Puerto Rico refinance its debt — it no longer has access to the capital markets. In short, Puerto Rico’s crisis has reached a breaking point."

The island's slumping economy was, perhaps, the final straw. Some six in 10 Puerto Ricans are unemployed or not interested in working, and nearly half are enrolled in Medicaid.

Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens and can move to the mainland at any time, draining the island's tax base. Tens of thousands have streamed into Florida.

The legal case is not technically considered a bankruptcy filing under the federal code that governs municipal cases, but it's similar. Instead, it was filed through a bankruptcy-like mechanism dubbed Title III of legislation authorized by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in 2016.

Here are key questions:

What happens next?

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will appoint a life-tenured judge, likely a U.S. District Court judge, to oversee the case, said Melissa Jacoby, a University of North Carolina law professor and expert on municipal bankruptcy.

That's different than Chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy cases, where a bankruptcy judge controls the process.

The person appointed to oversee the case will have significant power over how it unfolds.

This particular debt-cutting process has never occurred so the lack of legal precedent could leave the judge with much sway over the future of Puerto Rico.

What does the oversight board do?

The oversight board will aim to negotiate debt cuts with creditors, after which it will propose a plan of adjustment. The judge will decide whether to authorize the plan, which could lead to massive debt cuts.

How will investors be treated?

They're in trouble.

To be sure, it depends on the status of their debt. If they hold secured bonds, they might get paid in full. But unsecured bondholders could suffer significant cuts, depending on which types of debt the judge determines to be vulnerable.

Financial creditors, including major investors that had bet on Puerto Rico bonds that were exempt from federal, state and local taxes, argue that their investments were made when the island was not eligible for bankruptcy.

But Congress passed the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) specifically to create a process that allows the island's numerous debt-saddled governmental entities to achieve debt relief.

Complicating matters is the various governmental entities included in the bankruptcy filing, each of which has its own investors and creditors wanting to be paid.

"It really isn’t clear how creditors stack up against each other," Jacoby said.

Moody's Investor Service Vice President Ted Hampton concluded Wednesday that the bankruptcy filing is actually "a positive step for bondholders overall" because it will bring about "orderly process that should be better for creditors in the aggregate than a chaotic and uncertain period involving proliferating lawsuits."

What happens to Puerto Rico pensioners?

They might face cuts because Puerto Rico has run out of pension funds.

In the Chapter 9 bankruptcy of Detroit, retirees agreed to accept cuts after a federal judge ruled that their pensions could be cut in municipal bankruptcy. That could pave the way for a similar ruling in Puerto Rico.

The PROMESA law states that the oversight board must identify a fiscal plan that will "provide adequate funding for public pension systems."

Puerto Rico pensioners also have certain legal protections, but inside of bankruptcy those protections can collapse. That's exactly what happened in Detroit.

That's why pension cuts and reductions to health care insurance could be in the cards.

But pensioners may still fare better than investors, Municipal Market Analytics analyst Matt Fabian suggested Tuesday in a research note. That's because pensioners are more politically empathetic than Wall Street creditors and bond insurers.

Could Puerto Rico sell off assets to pay some debts?

That's possible. In Detroit, which had $18 billion in debt, the city faced pressure from creditors and pensioners to consider selling off the city-owned Detroit Institute of Arts. The city instead negotiated a deal to avoid liquidating art and collected an infusion of cash from private donors and the state of Michigan.

The city could not be forced to sell assets because Chapter 9 bankruptcy prevents federal judges from ordering municipalities to take such actions.

Similarly, PROMESA dictates that the court may not "interfere with" the island's "property or revenues," without the oversight board's consent.

So a judge may not be able to order the island to sell off beachfront property.

But that doesn't mean creditors won't try to pressure the island into it.

"I wouldn’t be surprised because we’ve seen it in other contexts," Jacoby said.



Daily Presidential Tracking Poll
Rasmussen Reports

Friday, June 16, 2017

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 50% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

This is the first time the president’s overall approval rating has hit the 50% mark since late April. His approval rating has ranged from a high of 59% in late January shortly after he took office to a low of 42% in early April.

The latest figures include 31% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 42% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of -11. 

Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Most Americans think politics is to blame for this week’s shooting attack on Republican members of Congress and aren’t writing it off as just random violence.

By comparison, just 28% said the shooting of Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the killing of six others in Arizona in January 2011 was the result of political anger.

A sizable number of voters, including most Republicans, believe former FBI Director James Comey should be punished for leaking to the media.

Most voters think Congress needs to investigate whether former Attorney General Loretta Lynch interfered in last year's FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton.

As the unemployment rate drops to its lowest level in 10 years, optimism among voters that the U.S. economy is fair has soared to new highs.

The president commended the opening of a new coal mine in Pennsylvania last week, but nearly half (49%) of voters think the United States should begin to systematically phase out the use of coal-fired power plants over the next 50 years.

Greenhouse gas emissions from those plants are blamed for global warming. But while voters continue to say global warming is a serious problem, they refuse to pay more in higher taxes and utility costs to combat it.

An international study released this week claims the United States has the greatest percentage of obese children and young adults, but most Americans don’t think that applies to them.

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.


Border Patrol raids (an illegal) Arizona desert camp that helps illegal immigrants
Published June 16, 2017
(Customs and Border Protection Arizona)
U.S. Border Patrol agents served a search warrant at a non-profit aid camp in the southern Arizona desert Thursday and arrested four Mexican men suspected of being in the country illegally.

The camp, about 11 miles (inside the border of the United States within the state of Arizona) north of the Mexican border, provides medical care for immigrants (illegally) crossing into the U.S. across the miles-long Sonoran Desert. It has been in operation since 2004, run by the organization No Mas Muertes (No More Deaths).

BP are sworn agents of the United States and have allegiance to the U.S. Constitution.

"The raid on the medical aid camp is unacceptable and a break in our good faith agreements w/BP to respect the critical work of #NoMoreDeaths," the organization said in a tweet.

The NGO said in a statement that 30 armed agents entered the camp with 15 trucks and a helicopter searching for the migrants.

Border Patrol said agents reached out to camp representatives before the raid but the talks were unsuccessful.

In a statement posted on Twitter, the agency said it felt “compelled to seek a search warrant” to question the men and said a similar raid last month resulted in the arrest of eight undocumented men, two of whom had a criminal record.

Camp officials said that in the past few weeks, the heavy presence of law enforcement has deterred people from accessing critical humanitarian assistance.

BOR Staff Column - When Media Narratives Collide

When Nabra Hassanen was brutally murdered in Virginia this past Sunday, the media's collective ears perked up. She was a studious, friendly, innocent 17-year-old, a devout Muslim who was killed while approaching her mosque.

Almost immediately, The Atlantic ran with this headline: "Muslims Feel Under Seige." The magazine instinctively linked Nabra's killing with the London incident in which a man plowed his car into a group of Muslims leaving their mosque.

"Muslim Americans are mourning and terrified," The Atlantic breathlessly reported, "after two violent incidents left worshippers dead over the weekend during the holy month of Ramadan."

USA Today and the Huffington Post both headlined Nabra's religion and her proximity to the mosque, clearly implying that this was a "hate crime" perpetrated against Muslims.

The Council on American-Islamic Affairs, naturally, suggested bias and claimed there is "rising Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate attacks nationwide."

We are not accusing media types of celebrating the killing, but they were enthused because this seemed to fit their narrative that America is a hate-filled country and Muslims are frequently targets of violence.

But that familiar and comfortable story line fell apart almost immediately. Police reported that the young girl's killer was 22-year-old Darwin Martinez Torres, who apparently pursued a group of teens who were blocking his car. This was a case of road rage, not anti-Muslim animus.
Even more inconvenient for the left-wing media, Torres is in this country illegally. Whether you prefer the term "undocumented immigrant" or an "illegal alien," this loathsome killer came here from El Salvador and never should have been able to cross the border. 
On the night of the murder, Torres grew enraged when the teens were impeding his path. He got out of his car, chased them with a baseball bat, and smashed Nabra Hassanen in the head when she tripped and fell. He then abducted the young woman, beat her a second time, killed her, and dumped her in a pond adjacent to his apartment complex. There are new reports suggesting that Nabra was also sexually violated.

So you can see the dilemma facing mainstream media outlets. A crime against one of their prized victim groups was committed by a member of another victim group. What to do?

The Washington Post figured out how to handle the story without upsetting their liberal reader base. The paper, whose much-ridiculed motto is "Democracy Dies in Darkness," described Torres as a "22-year-old construction worker."

The Post managed to avoid the word "illegal," but did mention that immigration officials had requested that a detainer be placed on Torres. So, by assiduously reading between the lines, you could discern that Martinez Torres is in this country illegally.

The New York Times, in its initial story on the killing, used the term "Muslim teenager" in the very first sentence of its 900-word story and bemoaned the reported rise in attacks against American Muslims. The Times also mentioned the London incident, but never once saw fit to use the words "illegal" or "immigration."

And the networks? According to the invaluable Media Research Center, CBS and NBC totally ignored the story on their Monday evening newscasts. ABC mentioned the victim's religion and the mosque, but failed to note that Torres is an illegal alien.
We should be very clear: Darwin Martinez Torres should not be in this country, and Nabra Hassanen should be enjoying her summer vacation.

This sickening murder may not fit the legal definition of "hate crime," but what is more hateful and despicable than a young girl being beaten to death and tossed into a pond?

The media were saturated last week, rightly so, with the news of a horrendous political shooting in Virginia. But we heard little about this awful crime in Virginia in which a young girl was savagely killed.

Would it have been covered differently if the victim had been targeted because she was Muslim? Or if the killer was a white guy and not an illegal alien? Of course!

This is one more indictment of our totally corrupt, agenda-driven, and dishonest media.


Pence parlor game: who would he pick for Veep?

One of the parlor games Republicans are playing in the shadows of the Russia investigation is this: Who would President Pence pick as his vice president?

Quick refresher: If a president leaves offices for any reason, the sitting Vice President takes over and picks his number two, subject to majority vote in the House and Senate.

Quick stipulation: Yes, this is premature and highly speculative and premised solely on Trump leaving office for whatever reason.


The various theories being tossed around:

Return to normal: Pick a conventional, mainstream Republican to usher back in pre-Trump conservativism.

Think Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney. (Romney more likely, because you wouldn't want to disrupt a second branch of government.) Or Nikki Haley, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., and former South Carolina governor.

Reassurance: Pick someone who helps ease the nerves of an anxious nation. Think Bob Gates. Or Mitch Daniels, for Hoosier supremacy? John Boehner?

Calm the country: Pick someone who sends a clear signal that anything approximating the status quo of Trump or even pre-Trump won't cut it. Think Joe Biden or Michael Bloomberg. The chattering class would go ga-ga!

Double Down: Pick someone who can keep the spirit of America First Trumpism alive. The problem is it's thin pickings: Jeff Sessions? Rudy Giuliani? Newt Gingrich?


Jon Ostroff Wasted $50 million in Georgia, Complains about Money collusion in local politics ... and couldn't even vote for himself!

Democratic hopeful and liberal darling Jon Ossoff openly complained about “money in politics” just days before Georgia’s special election; conveniently ignoring the fact his campaign raised and ultimately wasted more than $50 million for his failed congressional race against Republican candidate Karen Handel. 

  • The 30-year old liberal outspent Handel nearly amassing a giant war chest from collusion of left-wing donors outside the 6th. Congressional District, mainly in New York and California
  • The donation collusion clearly shows the constituency in the 6th district has no opinion or representation when it comes to whom they wish to have representing their unique interests, when over 95% of donations come from outside the district, only 3.5% of donations came from within the 6th. District.
  • “The most important political office is that of the private citizen (... in the district).” Justice Louis D. Brandeis 
Ironically, Ossoff spoke with NPR a day before the special election, saying “the role of money in politics is a major problem.” 

“The role of money in politics is a major problem and particularly the role of unchecked anonymous money. There have been super PACs in Washington who have been putting up tens of millions of dollars of attack ads in air for months now,” said the failed democratic nominee. “I'm proud of the fact that my campaign has raised that money in small-dollar contributions, on average less than $50.” (THE DEMS NATIONALIZED THIS ELECTION AND LOSS!)
“There's no question that money in politics is a major problem, which is one of the reasons that we need campaign finance reform so that candidates and campaigns will spend more time talking to voters and discussing the issues and less time raising money,” he added.

The special election to replace Health and Human Services Director Tom Price was the most expensive House race in the history of the United States.



6th Congressional District, Georgia Demographics


POPULATION OF THE 6TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT: 716,576 -- adjusting for those within the population that are too young to vote (25%) leaving a "potential" voting group of 537,432.  

  • Only 48% (259,488) of those eligibale to voted during this special election voted.
  • Only 124,893 democrats voted in this special election.
  • In the run off April 18, 2017 election to pare down the candidates the democrats cast 92,673 votes (48.1%) of the total votes cast.
  • Sooo, in the special election an additional 32,220 democrats voted.
  • $50,000,000 made this the most expensive congressional election EVER.
  • How much money was donated within the 6th. Congressional District for their representation in Congress?
    • Well using Ossoff numbers at small contributions of $50 or less simply means that voters in the 6th. Congressional District DID NOT HAVE ANY INPUT INTO THE SELECTION OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVE!!!
  • Democratic Math shows:
    • Using Ossoff numbers shows his voters contributed $6,244,650 assuming each donated $50.
    • Which means there was an 8 to 1 collusion from donations from outside players in the 6th. Congressional District
    • Each cast vote cost $400.00; or another way of evaluating the pick up votes from the April 18, 2017 run-off election showed 32,220 additional votes at a cost of $1,551 per vote. 
  • In the 2016 6th district voting which elected Tom Price the democrat candidate Rodney Stooksbury received 124,917 votes (perhaps Nancy Pelosi anointed the wrong candidate)!
Home ownership within the district is the comparable as the country (66.5% vs 66.1%), which  in the broader context means issues effecting home ownership  are important; such as having a job, affordable healthcare, children and their education, taxes, rural vs. urban issues. 
Female demographics within the district vs the nation is 51.1% and 50.8% respectively.

Nationwide Claims to Fame
  • 6th Congressional District is 5th out of 436 other congressional districts in Residents with college degree (older than 25)
  • 6th Congressional District is 26th out of 436 other congressional districts in Income per capita
  • 6th Congressional District is 31st out of 436 other congressional districts in Residents with high school diploma (older than 25)
  • 6th Congressional District is 34th out of 436 other congressional districts in Income per household

Statewide Claims to Fame

  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Home median value
  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Income per capita
  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Income per household
  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Race - Two or More
  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Residents with college degree (older than 25)
  •  6th Congressional District is 1st in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Residents with high school diploma (older than 25)
  • 6th Congressional District is 2nd in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Current population (2012)
  • 6th Congressional District is 2nd in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Foreign born residents
  • 6th Congressional District is 2nd in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Households
  • 6th Congressional District is 2nd in Georgia out of 14 other congressional districts in Race - Asian

Thursday, June 15, 2017


Education is crucial to integration and social cohesion in a diverse multicultural and multi-faith society. There are several reasons for this. First, the school system is the earliest mainstream social institution with which young people come into sustained contact, and the extent to which schools respect and accommodate diversity sends out strong signals about the value which society as a whole places on diversity. Second, educational attainment levels are a key determinant of opportunities for finding employment and improving future life chances. Third, schools provide an opportunity to develop bonds and friendships across different ethnic and faith groups, and the education curriculum is itself a mechanism by which pupils are able to develop an understanding of the different groups within their community.

One third of Muslims are under age 16 as compared with one fifth of the population as a whole. There are approximately half a million Muslim children and young people currently receiving education in British schools and colleges. Increasing numbers of Muslims are entering further and higher education. As a result of this younger age profile, Government education policies aimed at children and young people will have a disproportionate impact on Muslim communities. It is vital, therefore, that Government departments and agencies implementing and delivering these policies lead the way in ensuring that policy is sensitive to the needs of Muslims.

There is significant diversity in what Muslim parents want. While some would like to send their children to schools with an Islamic ethos, others merely want single-sex schooling; others again would be happy to send their children to community or church schools so long as these are respectful of their faith and supportive of their distinctive identity. The majority of Muslims in the UK attend community school. However, at present many Muslim parents feel that community schools are not meeting the needs of their children.

The key educational issues concerning Muslim parents are: 

  • the continuing poor academic results of Muslim children;
  • the need to eradicate institutional racism and racist and Islamophobic bullying; 
  • the lack of recognition or support for their children’s faith identity; and 
  • the inadequacy of spirituals and moral education that schools provide.

The levels of academic achievement of Muslim students are low, but improving. Explanations for these low levels are usually given in terms of poverty, social deprivation and language difficulties, but there are further obstacles to their full achievement of potential that relate more specifically to their experiences as Muslims. These include the prevalence of religious prejudice and Islamophobia; the lack of Muslim role models in schools; the low expectations that some teachers have of Muslim students; and the lack of recognition of students’ Muslim identity. 


There are about 500,000 Muslim children currently receiving education in British schools – between five and six per cent of the total school population.4 The vast majority of these live in England, the combined total of Muslim students for the rest of the UK being about 22,000 children.5 Because of the differences in the way statistics are gathered, some of the information below refers to the whole of the UK, some to England only and some to England and Wales.


Eighty per cent of the UK’s Muslims live in the five major conurbations of Greater London, West Midlands, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, and East Midlands, while the same areas contain 50 per cent of the general population.6 Approximately 40 per cent of Muslims live in Greater London.7 Outside London, the largest numbers of Muslims are found in Birmingham, Bradford, Blackburn with Darwen, Luton, Oldham, Leicester, Kirklees, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds.8
  1. 4  The Muslim population of the United Kingdom is variously estimated as being between 1.6 and 1.8 million people, or about 350,000 households. The lower figure comes from the Office for National Statistics (ONS). (See: Office for National Statistics, UK National Census 2001: Focus on Religion, available on the ONS website at, (accessed 1 November 2004), (hereafter ONS, Focus on Religion)). The higher figure comes from M. Anwar, an expert on Muslim ethnography, quoted in The Financial Times, 23 January 2002. These figures represent approximately three per cent of the total population – more than the combined total of Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Buddhists in the UK. (See: ONS, Ethnicity and Religion). Moreover, the age profile of Muslims is much younger than any other religious group: In all, 33.8 per cent of Muslims fall into the 0-15 age bracket, and a further 18.2 per cent are between 16 and 24 years old. (See: Scott et al, Ethnic Popuations). Assuming that 75 per cent of children in the 0-15 age bracket attend school, and 80 per cent of young people in the 16-18 age bracket are in school, the number of Muslims attending school in the UK is between 482,477 (if the total Muslim population is 1.6 million) and 542,786 (if the total population is 1.8 million). The ONS gives the figure of 371,000 Muslim children in England of compulsory schooling age, i.e. 5-16 year-olds. (See: ONS, Focus on Religion, Education, 11 October 2004, available on the ONS website at (accessed 1 November 2004)). The higher figure in the present report includes all the children who attend school outside the compulsory period of schooling, especially 4-5 year-olds and 16-18 year-olds, as well as Muslim children in the rest of the UK, and an estimate of the increase between 2001 and 2004.
  2. 5  This figure is calculated on the basis of about 14,000 children in Scotland, about 7,000 in Wales and less than 1,000 in Northern Ireland. See: website of the General Register Office, Scotland at; and website of the Office for National Statistics at (accessed 5 November 2004).
    6  See Chapter 3 of this report (British Muslims and the Labour Market).
    7  In Greater London, the biggest concentrations of Muslims are in the boroughs of Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Hackney, Brent, Redbridge, Westminster, Camden, Haringey, Ealing, Enfield and Hounslow. 
    8  Office for National Statistics, “Census 2001: Ranking: Ethnicity and Religion: Muslim”, available on the ONS website at (accessed 1 November 2004).