October 15, 2015


News Clips For The Day


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/plea-deal-possible-for-former-house-speaker-dennis-hastert-in-hush-money-case/

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert to plead guilty in hush money case
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS
October 15, 2015

Photograph -- Former Republican Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert fights his way through the press as he arrives for his arraignment at the Dirksen Federal Courthouse on June 9, 2015 in Chicago, Illinois. SCOTT OLSON, GETTY IMAGES


Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is expected to plead guilty to charges related to his alleged efforts to conceal sexual misconduct, CBS News' Charlie Brooks reports from Chicago.

A judge in Chicago Federal Court convened a hearing Thursday in the case against Hastert, where Hastert's attorneys said the former speaker requests to plead guilty on October 28. The attorneys will present details of the plea to the judge on Monday, and he must approve the terms of the plea deal before it can be finalized.

If it is finalized, Hastert's potentially dark secrets from his past could remain secret.

Since the details of the plea deal were not announced in court on Thursday, it's unclear specifically what he will plead to. Hastert, the longest serving Republican House speaker in history, was indicted this past May and charged with violating federal banking laws and lying to FBI investigators.

According to the indictment, Hastert agreed to pay $3.5 million in 2010 to a person identified only as "Individual A," in an effort to "compensate and conceal" Hastert's "prior misconduct." Hastert pleaded not guilty in June.

Law enforcement sources have told CBS News that the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct allegations involving a young man that date back more than 30 years. From 1965-1981, Hastert was a popular teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois.

To conceal the allegations of misconduct, prosecutors allege that Hastert made relatively small bank withdrawals to pay off the unnamed individual. From June 2010 through April 2012, he made 15 $50,000 bank withdrawals. That caught the attention of the banks, and after he was questioned by bank representatives, he began withdrawing cash in increments of less than $10,000, allegedly to avoid further scrutiny. Overall, he withdrew a total of $1.7 million from a number of his personal bank accounts.

In 2014, the FBI questioned Hastert about his withdrawals, and he allegedly lied, telling agents he was storing cash "because he did not feel safe with the banking system."




“Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert is expected to plead guilty to charges related to his alleged efforts to conceal sexual misconduct, CBS News' Charlie Brooks reports from Chicago. A judge in Chicago Federal Court convened a hearing Thursday in the case against Hastert, where Hastert's attorneys said the former speaker requests to plead guilty on October 28. The attorneys will present details of the plea to the judge on Monday, and he must approve the terms of the plea deal before it can be finalized. If it is finalized, Hastert's potentially dark secrets from his past could remain secret. …. Law enforcement sources have told CBS News that the misconduct mentioned in court documents refers to sexual misconduct allegations involving a young man that date back more than 30 years. From 1965-1981, Hastert was a popular teacher and wrestling coach in Yorkville, Illinois. …. In 2014, the FBI questioned Hastert about his withdrawals, and he allegedly lied, telling agents he was storing cash "because he did not feel safe with the banking system."

Adults who molest children and teens tend to enforce their silence by threats, but every now and then the child matures and decides to take control of the situation. This is one crime that even highly placed and wealthy politicians cannot erase entirely. Rape of any kind is considered to be truly despicable among most citizens, but child rape is especially bad. Interestingly his lawyer did request a deal with the court that the details will not be made public if he pleads guilty. If the judge agrees, I want to see some sort of punishment that includes more than a fine and probation. If Hastert were a black man with less than $1.7 million to distribute to his blackmailer and to the courts, he would certainly serve prison time. Right?





http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article39003903.html

Man tries to put out garbage fire by driving over it in a van loaded with ammunition
By Ian Cummings -- icummings@kcstar.com
October 13, 2015


A Clay County sheriff’s deputy retreated to a safe distance from a van burning in a field Tuesday afternoon after he heard the sound of live ammunition going off inside it.

The deputy found the van burning near Old State Highway 210 and Bluff Road, south of Liberty, about 2:30 p.m., said Jon Bazzano, a spokesman for the Clay County Sheriff’s Office. The deputy had been in the middle of a traffic stop when he saw black smoke on the horizon and headed that way to investigate.

Eventually, the deputy found the owner of the vehicle watching the fire from a distance.

The deputy learned that the owner had been burning garbage in the field and accidentally let the fire get out of control. In an attempt to put the fire out, he drove his van back and forth over the flames.

This made matters worse, as the tires of the van caught fire. Realizing that the van was loaded with firearms ammunition and a full tank of gas, the driver evacuated the area for safety.

A crew from the Liberty Fire Department responded to make sure the fire did not spread. It was unclear what type of ammunition the owner had in the vehicle.

The deputy did not immediately cite the owner, who declined to make a report for a possible insurance claim.

“It seems like he’s just going to have to take a loss on that vehicle because I don’t think they’re going to cover it,” Bazzano said.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article39003903.html#storylink=cpy




“The deputy had been in the middle of a traffic stop when he saw black smoke on the horizon and headed that way to investigate. Eventually, the deputy found the owner of the vehicle watching the fire from a distance. …. A crew from the Liberty Fire Department responded to make sure the fire did not spread. It was unclear what type of ammunition the owner had in the vehicle. The deputy did not immediately cite the owner, who declined to make a report for a possible insurance claim. “It seems like he’s just going to have to take a loss on that vehicle because I don’t think they’re going to cover it,” Bazzano said.”

Aside from the issue of whether the van owner (unnamed) gave any thought to the danger of allowing a van full of ammunition to catch on fire, there is also the question of how much ammo he actually had, what kind it was, and who was going to use it. Was it intended for personal target practice? This is the kind of story that only raises more and graver questions the more I read it.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-more-u-s-troops-to-stay-in-afghanistan/

White House: More U.S. troops to stay in Afghanistan
By MARGARET BRENNAN CBS NEWS
October 15, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Fewer troops to leave Afghanistan than expected


WASHINGTON -- After an "extensive, months-long review," President Obama has decided to slow the pace of the planned 2016 U.S. troop drawdown from Afghanistan, senior administration officials told CBS News.

The officials said Mr. Obama has decided to leave 5,500 U.S. troops stationed there at the end of next year. That is a more robust military commitment than the 1,000 U.S. Embassy-based troops the president had planned to keep in Kabul after he leaves office.

The American war in Afghanistan is over, the senior administration officials said, but the U.S. commitment to the Afghan government remains. For most of 2016, the current level of 9,800 U.S. troops will remain in place. It will be up to U.S. military commanders to determine when to reduce that number to the 5,500 level.

The cost of the U.S. commitment will be $14.6 billion, which is about $4.5 billion more than the previous plan.

Senior administration officials said the U.S. forces will be stationed at four bases, in Kabul, Bagram, Jalalabad and Kandahar.‎ Their mission will be focused on counter-terrorism threats, including those from al Qaeda and ISIS, as well as the train, advise and assist program for Afghan security forces who continue to fight the Taliban.

The U.S. is also having discussions with NATO allies interested in stationing more international forces in Afghanistan beyond 2017.‎ That leaves both Mr. Obama's successor and U.S. military commanders with more flexibility to combat any terror threats emerging from Afghanistan.




“The officials said Mr. Obama has decided to leave 5,500 U.S. troops stationed there at the end of next year. That is a more robust military commitment than the 1,000 U.S. Embassy-based troops the president had planned to keep in Kabul after he leaves office. The American war in Afghanistan is over, the senior administration officials said, but the U.S. commitment to the Afghan government remains. For most of 2016, the current level of 9,800 U.S. troops will remain in place. It will be up to U.S. military commanders to determine when to reduce that number to the 5,500 level. …. Senior administration officials said the U.S. forces will be stationed at four bases, in Kabul, Bagram, Jalalabad and Kandahar.‎ Their mission will be focused on counter-terrorism threats. …. The U.S. is also having discussions with NATO allies interested in stationing more international forces in Afghanistan beyond 2017.‎”

The threat of a takeover by jihadist forces in addition to the Taliban remains high. I will be more comfortable about Middle Eastern affairs if NATO does lend a hand and we leave enough troops there to prevent a power vacuum from occurring. ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc. are world threats and they are especially drawn to such a lack of central power. While I don’t want to get behind the hysteria about Islamic refugees swarming in here in large numbers, which is going on at the moment in the US (I received a very inflammatory email about the matter this week), it is unfortunately hard to differentiate between refugees and jihadists when they come to Europe and the US too fast to check them out personally. I think that it is unavoidable that some will be radicals bent on wreaking havoc in the West. Fanaticism is fanaticism and it is always dangerous. On the other hand, I don't want a bunch of wild-eyed "conservatives" causing violence either. Those people are just another type of fanatic.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mobile-app-groupme-used-to-counter-shoplifting-in-georgetown-accused-of-racial-profiling/

Stores using app to detect shoplifters accused of racial profiling
CBS NEWS
October 15, 2015

Image -- groupme-app-visual.jpg readout states “AA female…just stole from Lacoste”--GOLDFARB, MATT


Some businesses in an upscale Washington, D.C. neighborhood are accused of racial profiling through a mobile app that allows shopkeepers to alert each other -- and police -- through private messaging about people acting suspiciously in their stores, reports CBS News correspondent Jeff Pegues.

In trendy Georgetown, store owners will tell you shoplifting is part of the cost of doing business.

"The type of people that is more like a shoplifter, they come here all the time, they go to that same item, they get the feel of the store," said Keisha Green, an employee at the Sports Zone Elite.

In the last 60 days alone, police recorded more than 120 thefts in the heart of Georgetown.

To counter crime, businesses are using an app called GroupMe. It works like a private chat room, in which 380 members -- including merchants, employees, community leaders and on-duty police officers -- send each other descriptions and pictures of customers acting suspiciously.

But in Georgetown, where nearly 80 percent of residents are white and have a median household income of almost $120,000, the vast majority of the reports are about black customers.

"AA female late 20...just stole from Lacoste," reads one post.

"Need someone ASAP...person walking out...BLK male," reads another.

Peter Murray, reporter for the Georgetowner newspaper, was unsettled by what he saw, and said you could "see the racial bias immediately."

Murray found that from March 1st to July 5th of this year, 330 people were identified in messages warning of suspicious or criminal activity. Of those, 72 percent were described as African Americans.

"Not only was there this jump to a conclusion that somebody has committed a crime because they're suspicious or because they're wearing a certain thing or they have a certain hair style, but also the people who are texting each other are sort of reveling in this game of following people around and saying who's suspicious," Murray said.

But Joe Sternlieb, who runs the Georgetown Business Improvement District, which started the neighborhood's GroupMe, says "a very small percentage, maybe less than five percent" of those identified as African American are arrested. He also pushes back at the notion that it's profiling.

"If somebody posts something that's inappropriate, the group, actually our staff, goes out and meets with the person, retrains them, makes sure they are comfortable with the rules and can abide by them, and if they don't, we kick them off," Sternlieb said.

A representative for GroupMe, which is owned by Microsoft, told "CBS This Morning" the company had "no comment" regarding this story.




"The type of people that is more like a shoplifter, they come here all the time, they go to that same item, they get the feel of the store," said Keisha Green, an employee at the Sports Zone Elite. In the last 60 days alone, police recorded more than 120 thefts in the heart of Georgetown. To counter crime, businesses are using an app called GroupMe. It works like a private chat room, in which 380 members -- including merchants, employees, community leaders and on-duty police officers -- send each other descriptions and pictures of customers acting suspiciously. …. Peter Murray, reporter for the Georgetowner newspaper, was unsettled by what he saw, and said you could "see the racial bias immediately." Murray found that from March 1st to July 5th of this year, 330 people were identified in messages warning of suspicious or criminal activity. Of those, 72 percent were described as African Americans. …. also the people who are texting each other are sort of reveling in this game of following people around and saying who's suspicious," Murray said. But Joe Sternlieb, who runs the Georgetown Business Improvement District, which started the neighborhood's GroupMe, says "a very small percentage, maybe less than five percent" of those identified as African American are arrested. He also pushes back at the notion that it's profiling. "If somebody posts something that's inappropriate, the group, actually our staff, goes out and meets with the person, retrains them, makes sure they are comfortable with the rules and can abide by them, and if they don't, we kick them off," Sternlieb said. …. A representative for GroupMe, which is owned by Microsoft, told "CBS This Morning" the company had "no comment" regarding this story.”

Microsoft is big, big business, and its primary goal is to get richer by the day. Selling an app like this one is clearly a means to that end, as long as paranoia rules human society. There have been other stories in the last couple of years in which businesses use racial profiling on the pretext of protecting their businesses from shoplifting and/or armed robbery. It’s not surprising that black skin, hoodies, etc. are grounds for suspicion. It’s like when police officers pull over a black person driving an expensive car under suspicion of auto theft.

The smarter criminals don’t go into a store dressed in a hoodie, with their pants hanging down on their hips to show their colorful underwear and wearing an Afrocentric hair style. They dress in a business suit and tie. Dressing to succeed applies in theft as well as in business settings. Nobody who is dressed like that will get a good office job, and they are more likely to be profiled by shop owners. I understand watching them. I don’t understand physically assaulting them as has happened a few times in the news. They have also been falsely arrested by officers who are too quick to assume the worst.

I don’t see anything wrong with the app, per se, but if the GroupMe management doesn’t remove businesses who break the rules as Sternlieb says they do, then GroupMe should be sued for damages, at least, or financially sanctioned for allowing the violation of Internet rules (assuming falsely persecuting anyone for any reason is against some kind of law.) It is very similar to the online bullying and other harassment cases that have appeared in the last few years and at least one or two laws have been made against that. The Internet is a great boon for society, and I am behind Net Neutrality, etc. because a free Internet gives us much more benefit than harm, but it is also the tool of child molesters and kiddie porn sites, the misuse of Craigslist for targeting crime victims, shadow groups from the White Power movement to ISIS, etc. Misused, it is very dangerous.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/guess-who-owns-half-the-worlds-assets/

Guess who owns half the world's assets
By AIMEE PICCHI MONEYWATCH
October 15, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Forbes 400: America’s richest billionaires revealed
Play VIDEO -- Where is the middle class heading?
Play VIDEO -- London tops billionaires list


The likes of Cornelius Vanderbilt and Jay Gould -- the robber barons of the late 19th century -- might feel right at home in today's economy.

The coffers of the uber-rich have exploded since the Great Recession, reaching a level "possibly not seen for almost a century," according to a new report from Credit Suisse Research. The top 1 percent has more than made up for the losses it suffered during the slump, when its control of world wealth slipped about 4 percentage points to just under 45 percent in 2007, the report noted.

The world's richest citizens, the study found, now own about one-half of global wealth.

That means that the ultrawealthy have already reached a tipping point predicted by Oxfam earlier this year, when the charity forecast that the world's wealthiest 1 percent would control half the world's assets by 2016. It's no wonder American workers and policymakers are concerned about the trend: The wealthiest are thriving at a time when everyone else -- from the middle class on downward -- are making do with less each year.

The report's findings weren't reassuring on how the rise in inequality is hurting America's middle class. The study noted that "the middle class in North America has less than average wealth, the only region for which this is true."

"The middle class in the United States is also unusual in having a particularly low share of the country's wealth, which at 19.6 percent is considerably less than its share of the adult population," the report found. "This is because the middle-class wealth share is squeezed by the exceptionally high wealth of the 12 percent of adults who are beyond the middle class."

What's happened to the once-fabled American middle class, the economic backbone of a country that now appears to have osteoporosis?

Even though America isn't alone in having a middle class feeling the squeeze, that's small comfort. Globally, the ranks of the middle class shrank during the recession, and they still haven't recovered to their 2007 level, the report found.

The downside to the world's growing inequality could be severe, ranging from lower economic growth to instability in regions where the poor and middle class can't find jobs or feel their standard of living is at risk. The ratings agency Standard & Poor's last year warned that America's income gap was reaching an "extreme" threshold that could dampen the country's long-term economic growth.

Given that the Credit Suisse report focuses on tracking the fortunes of the world's wealthiest as well as global median wealth, it doesn't examine too deeply how widening inequality might play out politically or economically. Still, the investment bank noted that one reason for the expanding fortunes of the top 1 percent is due to the recent rise in asset valuations, such as equities and real estate.

That jibes with the research of economist Thomas Piketty, the author of "Capital in the Twenty-First Century," which found that the rate of return on capital has outpaced the rate of economic growth. When that happens over an extended period of time, the wealthy can see their riches accumulate, while inequality grows worse.

With the richest 1 percent now owning half the world's assets, the rest of the income distribution isn't coming out ahead. The bottom 71 percent of the world's population controls just 3 percent of the globe's wealth, giving each person in that lowest level less than $10,000 per person in assets. The middle 21 percent own 12.5 percent of the world's wealth, or less than $100,000 per person.

The second-richest group represents 7.4 percent of the global population, but it controls 39.4 percent of assets, or as much as $1 million per person.

With the surging fortunes of the world's richest people, a new category has emerged: the "ultra-high net worth individual." About 120,000 people, with assets of more than $50 million, qualify for this group. About half of the world's ultra high net worth population lives in the U.S.

According to Credit Suisse, it's not citizenship so much as lifestyle that unites this group.

High net worth and ultra-high net worth "tend to share more similar lifestyles, for instance, participating in the same global markets for luxury goods, even when they reside in different continents," the report noted. "The wealth portfolios of these individuals are also likely to be more similar, with a focus on financial assets and, in particular, equities, bonds and other securities traded in international markets."




“The coffers of the uber-rich have exploded since the Great Recession, reaching a level "possibly not seen for almost a century," according to a new report from Credit Suisse Research. The top 1 percent has more than made up for the losses it suffered during the slump, when its control of world wealth slipped about 4 percentage points to just under 45 percent in 2007, the report noted. .… With the surging fortunes of the world's richest people, a new category has emerged: the "ultra-high net worth individual." About 120,000 people, with assets of more than $50 million, qualify for this group. About half of the world's ultra high net worth population lives in the U.S. According to Credit Suisse, it's not citizenship so much as lifestyle that unites this group.High net worth and ultra-high net worth "tend to share more similar lifestyles, for instance, participating in the same global markets for luxury goods, even when they reside in different continents," the report noted. "The wealth portfolios of these individuals are also likely to be more similar, with a focus on financial assets and, in particular, equities, bonds and other securities traded in international markets."

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rich-Super-Rich-Study-Power/dp/0818400692, Hardcover – June, 1968, by Ferdinand Lundberg – Excerpts: “Thirty years ago, a bombshell of a book appeared which told the story of the lords of wealth and their glittering clans. It was called America's Sixty Families. It rocked the nation and became a classic. Lundberg showed how America was ruled by a plutocracy of inherited wealth, even under the New Deal. At the time he could only provide a sampling of the economic and political patterns of those families, which, for one reason or another, had come under public scrutiny. In addition to the Sixty Families he dealt with in depth he was able to outline the probable holdings of a few hundred other families. Where are they today - those Sixty Families? What ravages of time, death and taxes worked on the mighty fortunes of yesteryear? Is the "Welfare State" robbing them of the opulence they knew in the good old days?... Lundberg shows that there are 200,000 very wealthy individuals in the United states. Most of them are of some 500 super-millionaire families. Examples are 250 Du Ponts, 73 Rockefellers. Some 61% of the 200,000 inherited their wealth. These families are far wealthier than ever before.... These families have all the old levers of power and pelf plus a whole host of new ones created for them during the intervening decades by the politicians, lawyers and judges who serve them. --- excerpts from book's dustjacket.”

This book is available from Amazon at the price of about $50.00 for new copies and in the $2 to $5 range for used. Welcome to the REAL “New World Order,” which is supported heartily by the “conservatives” in this country. A friend of mine said that he doesn’t understand why American citizens vote against their own best interests. I do. They are hanging on to their irrational belief in their own ability to get rich, and to the religion-sponsored views that we now call “conservatism.” As those people continue to increase the present unhealthy economic and social trend by voting for the right wing candidates, largely over matters such as hatred of the black, Hispanic and Islamic segments of our society, they are causing our society to decay around us.

PS, though I had seen this word before, I hadn’t looked it up in a dictionary. See the following: “pelf” means “1.money, especially when gained in a dishonest or dishonorable way,” according to Oxford Dictionaries. The word origin is given as “late Middle English (in the sense ‘booty, pilfered property’): from a variant of Old French pelfre ‘spoils,’ of unknown origin. Compare with pilfer.”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cecil-the-lion-hunt-theo-bronkhorst-fall-guy-zimbabwe-charges/

Man behind Cecil the lion hunt: "It's destroyed us"
CBS NEWS
October 15, 2015

Play VIDEO -- Inside Zimbabwe's business of big-game hunting
Play VIDEO -- Opponents seek alternative punishment for dentist lion killer
Photograph -- In this undated photo provided by the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, Cecil the lion rests in Hwange National Park, in Hwange, Zimbabwe. ANDY LOVERIDGE/WILDLIFE CONSERVATION RESEARCH UNIT VIA AP


A courtroom drama played out Wednesday as the man behind the hunt of Cecil the lion appeared before a judge in Zimbabwe. While Walter Palmer, the Minnesota dentist who shot Cecil, has been freed of all charges, the man who led the hunt is still being prosecuted, CBS News' Debora Patta reports.

Hiding behind dark glasses and a cap, Theo Bronkhorst drove into the Hwange magistrates court and sat in his car, anxiously waiting for court to start. Turning his head away from the camera, he told CBS News that he had done nothing wrong because he had a legal permit and would be vindicated in court.

"Well, I guess I shot a famous lion," Bronkhorst said.

The famous lion was of course the iconic star attraction of the Hwange National Park - the rare black-maned Cecil.

Bronkhorst said he believes he is the fall guy.

"There are many collared lions shot every year, and as far as I'm aware there's five that were shot this year alone," Bronkhorst said.

Bronkhorst broke down as he told CBS News his life had been ruined by the charges.

"Well, it's destroyed us, it's destroyed the family, my business," said an emotional Bronkhorst. "You know, we employ a lot of people, and they are on half-time now. I guess each family is supporting six or more dependents."


Zimbabwean authorities insist the shooting of Cecil was against the law. Illegal hunting is seldom prosecuted in Zimbabwe, but Brent Staplekamp -- who collared Cecil as part of an Oxford University study -- was convinced that because of the international outrage over the shooting of Cecil, this time would be different. But like many Zimbabweans, he is surprised charges were dropped against Palmer.

"I really thought this was going to be an example to other people who have done this before or who would do it in the future, so very disappointed that we are not going to see justice," Staplekamp said.

Bronkhorst said he believes that the fact that charges were dropped against Palmer prove that all the papers were in order. But he is going to have to wait a little longer to have his day in court as his case has been postponed once again until early next week.




“A courtroom drama played out Wednesday as the man behind the hunt of Cecil the lion appeared before a judge in Zimbabwe. While Walter Palmer, the Minnesota dentist who shot Cecil, has been freed of all charges, the man who led the hunt is still being prosecuted, CBS News' Debora Patta reports. …. Bronkhorst said he believes he is the fall guy. "There are many collared lions shot every year, and as far as I'm aware there's five that were shot this year alone," Bronkhorst said. Bronkhorst broke down as he told CBS News his life had been ruined by the charges. "Well, it's destroyed us, it's destroyed the family, my business," said an emotional Bronkhorst. "You know, we employ a lot of people, and they are on half-time now. I guess each family is supporting six or more dependents." …. . Illegal hunting is seldom prosecuted in Zimbabwe, but Brent Staplekamp -- who collared Cecil as part of an Oxford University study -- was convinced that because of the international outrage over the shooting of Cecil, this time would be different. …. Bronkhorst said he believes that the fact that charges were dropped against Palmer prove that all the papers were in order. But he is going to have to wait a little longer to have his day in court as his case has been postponed once again until early next week.”

“All the papers were in order,” so the Zimbabwean government dropped the charges. Thank goodness the hunt organizer is still being charged. The main problem here is that Zimbabwe gets mega money annually from wealthy people around the world eager to participate in a completely safe and easy supervised “hunt” of one of the world’s few remaining lions – and rhinos, elephants, etc. Virtue has not triumphed here. Many such hunts take place in the US on glorified farms called safari clubs, which cater to wild animals like antelopes and the cowardly “hunters” who pay to shoot them. But it isn’t new. The old story about Theodore Roosevelt, who DID hunt dangerous wild animals in the wild, famously refused to kill a poor black bear tied to a stake for the same purpose, hence the news media furor at the time and the new toy named “teddybear.” This is one of the ways that very rich people spend their extra cash, while poor people live in misery.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rupert-murdoch-apologizes-for-real-black-president-remark/

Rupert Murdoch apologizes for "real black President" remark
CBS NEWS/AP
October 8, 2015

Photograph -- Rupert Murdoch, CEO of News Corp. JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES


NEW YORK - The founder of the global News Corp. media empire, Rupert Murdoch, issued an apology Thursday after he faced social media backlash following his suggestion that President Obama isn't a "real black President."

Murdoch was praising Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson and his wife on Twitter on Wednesday when he wrote: "Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide?"

Twitter – “Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else.
8:59 PM - 7 Oct 2015”

He also recommended a New York magazine article suggesting Mr. Obama has been a "disappointment" to the black community.

Murdoch, who founded Fox News Channel, apologized Thursday and tweeted that he "personally find(s) both men charming."

Twitter -- Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch
Apologies! No offence meant. Personally find both men charming.
8:14 AM - 8 Oct 2015
286 286 Retweets 204 204 favorites

The 84-year-old Murdoch has praised Carson on Twitter before, calling him "irreproachable on background, achievements, character, vision."




“Murdoch was praising Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson and his wife on Twitter on Wednesday when he wrote: "Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide?" …. He also recommended a New York magazine article suggesting Mr. Obama has been a "disappointment" to the black community. Murdoch, who founded Fox News Channel, apologized Thursday and tweeted that he "personally find(s) both men charming." The 84-year-old Murdoch has praised Carson on Twitter before, calling him "irreproachable on background, achievements, character, vision."

Murdoch has been on the far right since I first encountered his work in the 1970s. He’s also been known for a number of cases of misrepresenting the facts in a story and worse (such as bugging important people’s telephones). His photograph shows a fairly nice-looking old man, but apparently looks can be deceiving. So can words. His concession that President Obama is "charming," doesn't impress me much. See the Wikipedia article about Murdoch's life and career below. The following is an excerpt from a longer article.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

Rupert Murdoch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Keith Rupert Murdoch /ˈmɜrdɒk/,[8] AC, KCSG (born 11 March 1931) is an Australian American business magnate. Murdoch became managing director of Australia's News Limited, inherited from his father Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch in 1952.[6][9] He is the founder, chairman and CEO of global media holding company News Corporation, the world's second-largest media conglomerate, and its successors News Corp and 21st Century Fox after the conglomerate split on 28 June 2013.[10][11][12][13]

In the 1950s and '60s, he acquired various newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, before expanding into the United Kingdom in 1969, taking over the News of the World followed closely by The Sun. He moved to New York City in 1974 to expand into the U.S. market, but retained interests in Australia and Britain. In 1981, he bought The Times, his first British broadsheet, and became a naturalised U.S. citizen in 1985 to satisfy the legal requirement for U.S. television ownership.[9]

In 1986, keen to adopt newer electronic publishing technologies, he consolidated his UK printing operations in Wapping, causing bitter industrial disputes. His News Corporation acquired Twentieth Century Fox (1985), HarperCollins (1989)[14] and The Wall Street Journal (2007). He formed the British broadcaster BSkyB in 1990, and during the 1990s expanded into Asian networks and South American television. By 2000, Murdoch's News Corporation owned over 800 companies in more than 50 countries with a net worth of over $5 billion.

In July 2011, Murdoch faced allegations that his companies, including the News of the World, owned by News Corporation, had been regularly hacking the phones of celebrities, royalty and public citizens. He faces police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the U.S.[15][16] On 21 July 2012, Murdoch resigned as a director of News International.[17][18] On 1 July 2015, Murdoch left his post as CEO of 21st Century Fox.[19]”





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/marco-rubio-house-gop-not-having-a-meltdown/

Marco Rubio: House GOP not having a "meltdown"
By REBECCA KAPLAN CBS NEWS
October 15, 2015

Play VIDEO -- GOP increases pressure on Paul Ryan to run for House speaker


Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, said that the House GOP's difficulty in finding a speaker to replace John Boehner is not a "meltdown," but rather an "open and public debate" about the future of the party.

"I don't think it is a meltdown at all," Rubio told CBS News Chief White House Correspondent during an interview in Derry, New Hampshire Wednesday. "If, in fact, they had gone into some secret room and anointed someone and came out, everybody would say, 'You see the game is rigged there is no real competition there is no real choices. There is no transparency.'"

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, dropped out of the race for speaker last week, leaving no clear choice for Boehner's successor. Many Republicans have rallied around House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, but he has said he doesn't want the job.

Rubio, who is one of the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, said there's a broader debate within the Republican Party.

"What is this party going to be in the 21st century? Has not the time come for us to turn the page and elevate new leaders with new ideas relevant to the times in which we live? How are we going to take the principles of limited government and free enterprise that undergird the conservative movement and apply them to the challenges of a unique moment, the 21st century?" he said, citing that debate as one of the reasons he is running for president.

He said he doesn't side with Boehner, who has warned of "false prophets" in the party who promise voters things they cannot deliver. Nor, he said, does he side with Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Florida, the speaker candidate backed by the conservative House Freedom Caucus, because he's not involved in the current fight.

But he defended members of the GOP who take up fights they are not certain they can win.

"I would say that we can have a debate in our party about the appropriate tactics. I personally do not believe that it is a wise tactic to declare defeat before you even try to win," he said, citing people who say the GOP cannot win a fight over increasing the debt limit or defunding Planned Parenthood.

"I think that's misjudging the American electorate, and quite frankly, it really undermines and depresses and demoralizes the base of this party that gave the Republican Party the majority in the Senate," he said. "They didn't give us the majority in the senate so we can concede defeat on every issue."




"What is this party going to be in the 21st century? Has not the time come for us to turn the page and elevate new leaders with new ideas relevant to the times in which we live? How are we going to take the principles of limited government and free enterprise that undergird the conservative movement and apply them to the challenges of a unique moment, the 21st century?" he said, citing that debate as one of the reasons he is running for president. …. "I would say that we can have a debate in our party about the appropriate tactics. I personally do not believe that it is a wise tactic to declare defeat before you even try to win," he said, citing people who say the GOP cannot win a fight over increasing the debt limit or defunding Planned Parenthood. "I think that's misjudging the American electorate, and quite frankly, it really undermines and depresses and demoralizes the base of this party that gave the Republican Party the majority in the Senate," he said. "They didn't give us the majority in the senate so we can concede defeat on every issue."

So, more gridlock ahead, and more attempts at socially restrictive legislation. I hate to say it, but Ben Carson and Jeb Bush, my two favorites on the Republican side as personalities, are still positioned against my beliefs and interests. I admit I have followed on my father’s heels in distrusting all Republicans, but it really isn’t unreasonable in most cases.

The only Republicans currently running whom I like even a little bit are Trump (who says what he means and fairly clearly when he tries to speak sensibly, even if I hate his views, the way he looks and his conceit), Bush (who is a well-educated and smart guy, even if has been bought and paid for long ago), Chris Christie (who has a heart beneath his Republican exoskeleton, even though he made the vicious bridge-closing sneak attack against a candidate who refused to support him), and Ted Cruz (who read aloud to the Senate one of my favorite books “Green Eggs And Ham.”) I may be wrong, but I think Ben Carson isn’t as far right as most Tea Party Republicans. Surprisingly, in the article preceding this one on today’s blog, Murdoch speaks highly of him, even though he is black. He strikes me as having a lot of “good common sense,” and intellectual prowess, but not much if any more moderation in his views than Independents like Rand Paul, who doesn’t follow the “party line” the way most of them do. He seems to me to think for himself, and be courageous enough to say so, and I admire courage. I still don’t want him for President, though.

My favorite of those political nonconformists is Bill Maher, not surprisingly, because he’s much more like a progressive Democrat than most of those who call themselves "Independent." See the interesting article below from http://hollowverse.com/bill-maher/. I agree with him on nearly everything, and particularly with his statement that “doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings.” Let’s face it, doubt is not atheistic or immoral. It is logical, given that there is no rational, physical proof of any religious group’s theology. On the other hand, I could really agree with philosophies such as Buddhism which recommend quiet contemplation on the human condition, the correct relationship of people to each other and the “truth” about the way the world works.

From Hollowverse.com come the following statements --

“Religion
Maher was raised a Catholic (but has a Jewish mother). However, he calls himself an apatheist (meaning that he's an atheist who doesn't care about the topic).

Political Views
Maher is a liberal who has endorsed at least the last two Democratic presidential candidates.

“Most of the research for this article was done by watching Bill Maher’s film, Religulous. The film very clearly outlines Maher’s religious beliefs interspersed with him making fools of religious people (which he very effectively does), be they fundamentalist Muslims or barely-educated truckers at a truck stop Christian church.

Maher would be considered, in traditional terms, an agnostic, saying:
“I’m saying that doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings.”2

However, Maher takes it a step further, calling himself an “apatheist”3 because he thinks religion is so ridiculous that it’s not even worth thinking or caring about–even though his films, numerous comments and critiques, and his show “Real Time with Bill Maher” would indicate that he does, in fact, care quite a bit. This is certainly not the only case of hypocrisy in Maher’s mentality–as we will see later. Don’t label me. Ok, label me a liberal. Wait, I don’t want no labels

Politically, Maher doesn’t want to be put in any categories. He’s said that he is politically “practical.”4 However, he seems to be quite offended by the use of the word “liberal” as derogatory.5

Let’s just own up to it, O.K. Bill? You’re a liberal. Seriously dude, you’re a liberal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

He sits on the board of directors of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA),6 he endorsed Kerry over Bush and President Obama7 (even donating $1 million to Obama’s 2012 campaign),8 and opposed the Iraq War.9

There is one interesting case of Bill Maher breaking with liberal tradition–the tradition of blind tolerance. Maher is an outspoken advocate of “Western Values,” which he defended after making a comment about being alarmed that the most popular baby name in England is Mohammed. He said:

And when I say Westerner, I mean someone who believes in the values that Western people believe in that a lot of the Muslim world does not. Like separation of church and state. Like equality of the sexes. Like respect for minorities, free elections, free speech, freedom to gather. These things are not just different from cultures that don’t have them. … It’s better. … I would like to keep those values here.10

Can’t really say there’s much to disagree about there.”





http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/10/15/448956315/republicans-hand-hillary-clinton-another-gift-on-benghazi

Republicans Hand Hillary Clinton Another Gift On Benghazi
Jessica Taylor, Political Reporter
OCTOBER 15, 2015

Photograph -- House Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. speaks at a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, March 3, 2015, about former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton using her personal email account for official business.
Susan Walsh/AP


Republicans handed more ammo to Hillary Clinton Wednesday, with another congressman suggesting the purpose of the House Benghazi committee was to harm the Democrat's presidential bid.

New York Rep. Richard Hanna was the latest to fuel the fire, telling local radio station WIBX:

"This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people — an individual: Hillary Clinton."
His comments follow GOP Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy's own faux pas, when he touted the committee's work by saying:

"Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee, [and] what are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened."

Even though he later tried to clarify, those comments were part of the reason McCarthy was forced to withdraw from the race for House speaker. The damage had already been done — Team Clinton quickly seized on the GOP leader's comments, making them into a web ad and touting what it called the politicized nature of the investigation during Tuesday night's debate.

The latest slip-ups couldn't come at a worse time for Republicans. While Clinton has been damaged by both lingering questions over the 2012 Benghazi attacks that killed four Americans on top of controversy over her private email server at the State Department, she handled questions on those deftly on Tuesday night. She got an assist from her chief rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who seemed to shut down the issue in the debate, asserting that people had heard enough about her "damn emails."

Clinton will face questions from the Benghazi panel next week, but she goes into it in a much better position than she could have. In addition to the McCarthy and Hanna remarks, a fired Benghazi committee staffer alleged it was a "partisan investigation."

Explaining Hanna's remarks

McCarthy suffered for his foot-in-mouth moment, but could Hanna be harmed politically, too?

Possibly. But they might actually help. The three-term congressman represents a potentially competitive district — Mitt Romney carried it in 2012 by 1,328 votes and, in 2008, John McCain won it by only 149 votes.

Hanna initially won his seat in the 2010 GOP wave by knocking off a freshman Democrat. Since then, Democrats have been unable to successfully challenge for the seat.

In 2014, Hanna won re-election unopposed. He doesn't have a challenger for 2016 yet either, and Republicans haven't included him on their Patriot Program for vulnerable Republicans so far.

But Hanna is one of the few remaining moderates in the House — he supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights and has been critical of hard-line conservative tactics. Last month, he was one of just three Republicans to oppose defunding Planned Parenthood.

Hanna has no opponent yet, but 2016, a presidential year, could be a tight race for him. What's more, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she is the state's former senator. By pointing fingers at Republicans for the Benghazi grilling, Hanna could also be trying to inoculate himself from potential attacks next fall.

Later on in the interview, Hanna even acknowledged the political harm that McCarthy did to himself.

"Kevin McCarthy basically blew himself up with that comment over the Benghazi committee," Hanna said. "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth."

And he underscored that the committee was trying to find answers, adding, "I also think there is a lot of it that is important, and we needed to get to the bottom of this."

Ultimately, these comments probably don't mean much for Hanna. It's over a year until the election, and Democrats have to come up with a candidate to even contest the seat and they have higher targets in the Empire State.

They're far from the 30 seats they need to flip control, and with highly gerrymandered maps for the rest of the decade, most people believe it's out of reach, even in a presidential year. But the larger message for Democrats — the partisan targeting of Clinton, with taxpayer money — is a big gift.



http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/14/3712578/richard-hanna-benghazi-clinton/

POLITICS -- Second Republican Congressman Admits Benghazi Committee Was ‘Designed To Go After’ Clinton
BY SCOTT KEYES
OCT 14, 2015

Photograph -- Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY)


A second House Republican has now conceded that the overarching purpose of the House Select Committee on Benghazi has been to attack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In September, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) argued that one of House Republicans’ successes has been using the Benghazi Committee to drive down Clinton’s poll numbers. Though McCarthy tried to walk back his controversial comments, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) argued on Wednesday that the Majority Leader had it right to begin with.

“Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth,” Hanna said in an interview on Keeler in the Morning, a radio show in upstate New York. The third-term congressman paused for a moment, perhaps recognizing the importance of what he was about to say, before going on to agree with McCarthy’s original statement.

“This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said.

He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.”

Listen to it (relevant section starts at 9:45):

For years, House Republicans had claimed the Benghazi probe was about investigating the events surrounding the 2012 attack in Libya that left four Americans dead, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens, rather than undermining Clinton’s potential presidential bid.

But after McCarthy’s Kinsley gaffe, which was among the factors that doomed his seemingly-inevitable rise to the House Speakership, and now Hanna’s admission, there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose.

McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.

Clinton is set to testify before the Committee, which has now continued longer than the Watergate probe, on October 22nd.




NPR – Even though he later tried to clarify, those comments were part of the reason McCarthy was forced to withdraw from the race for House speaker. The damage had already been done — Team Clinton quickly seized on the GOP leader's comments, making them into a web ad and touting what it called the politicized nature of the investigation during Tuesday night's debate. …. , she handled questions on those deftly on Tuesday night. She got an assist from her chief rival, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who seemed to shut down the issue in the debate, asserting that people had heard enough about her "damn emails." Clinton will face questions from the Benghazi panel next week, but she goes into it in a much better position than she could have. In addition to the McCarthy and Hanna remarks, a fired Benghazi committee staffer alleged it was a "partisan investigation." …. But Hanna is one of the few remaining moderates in the House — he supports same-sex marriage and abortion rights and has been critical of hard-line conservative tactics. Last month, he was one of just three Republicans to oppose defunding Planned Parenthood. …. By pointing fingers at Republicans for the Benghazi grilling, Hanna could also be trying to inoculate himself from potential attacks next fall. Later on in the interview, Hanna even acknowledged the political harm that McCarthy did to himself. "Kevin McCarthy basically blew himself up with that comment over the Benghazi committee," Hanna said. "Sometimes the biggest sin you can commit in D.C. is to tell the truth."

THINKPROGRESS -- “This may not be politically correct, but I think that there was a big part of this investigation that was designed to go after people and an individual, Hillary Clinton,” Hanna said. He explained further why he believes the Benghazi Committee’s purpose has been in part to attack Clinton. “After what Kevin McCarthy said, it’s difficult to accept at least a part of it was not,” Hanna said. “I think that’s the way Washington works. But you’d like to expect more from a committee that’s spent millions of dollars and tons of time.” …. there is growing doubt even among GOPers about the Benghazi Committee’s true purpose. McCarthy and Hanna aren’t the only Republicans to publicly declare that the Benghazi Committee has been on a partisan quest. Over the weekend, Maj. Bradley Podliska, a Republican investigator formerly working on the Committee, revealed that he had lost his job for refusing to solely focus his investigation on Clinton. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), who heads the Committee, denies the charge.”

I think I smell the fragrance of a rose among the stinkhorns (see the fungus family Phallaceae). I want to personally thank GOP Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, Congressman Hanna and Maj. Bradley Podliska for their fair play, courage, and honesty against the tide of “hardball” (i.e. “dirty tricks”) coming from the RNC. If either of them should become President in the future I would be much less unhappy than if most other Republicans were to win. The same is true for Gen. Colin Powell. They are good people, and that is a little more than half of what I want out of a President. Having fair, well-informed and reasonable ideas is the other part. Theodore Roosevelt, after all, was a Republican, as was Lincoln. I am proud of them all.