September 13, 2017


News and Views


NO INVOLVEMENT .... NO COMMENT .... IT ISN’T BOILING YET, BUT THE STEAM IS RISING.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mike-flynn-s-son-subject-federal-russia-probe-n800741
EXCLUSIVE NEWS SEP 13 2017, 1:05 PM ET
Mike Flynn’s Son Is Subject of Federal Russia Probe
by CAROL E. LEE, JULIA AINSLEY and KEN DILANIAN

WASHINGTON — Michael G. Flynn, the son of President Donald Trump's former national security adviser, is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election and possible collusion between Moscow and the Trump campaign, according to four current and former government officials.

The inquiry into Flynn is focused at least in part on his work with his father's lobbying firm, Flynn Intel Group, three of the officials said. It's unclear when the focus on Flynn began.

Special Counsel Expands Russia Probe to Investigate Flynn's Son Play Facebook Twitter Embed
Special Counsel Expands Russia Probe to Investigate Flynn's Son 2:15

Barry Coburn, who said he is serving as the younger Flynn's legal counsel, said he couldn't comment on the matter.

Flynn's status as a subject of the Russia investigation widens the publicly known scope of the probe. NBC News has reported that those under investigation have included the elder Flynn and former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort. Others under scrutiny by special counsel Robert Mueller include Carter Page, a Trump campaign ally; Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law and senior White House adviser; and the president's son, Donald Trump Jr.

Trump Jr. may be called to appear before the Senate Judiciary committee sometime this fall. He, Kushner, Manafort and Page have all denied any collusion with Russia during the campaign.

The elder Flynn's lawyer, Robert Kelner, declined to comment Tuesday when asked how his client responds to allegations of collusion with Russia. The president also has come under scrutiny for possible obstruction of justice and has denied colluding with Russia.

The younger Flynn worked closely with his father, whose connections to foreign governments, including Russia and Turkey, have been a subject of federal and congressional investigations.

Michael G. Flynn accompanied his father, for instance, on a trip to Moscow in December 2015 for the elder Flynn to deliver a paid speech at a gala for the state-sponsored Russian television network RT. He can be seen in video from an associated event.

Image: Michael G. Flynn during at an RT event with his father Ret. Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn in Moscow in 2015
Michael G. Flynn during at an RT event with his father Ret. Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn in Moscow in 2015. RT

The elder Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general and a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, was seated at the same table as Russian President Vladimir Putin during the dinner. Records released by the House Oversight Committee show he was paid nearly $34,000 for his speech; RT also paid for Flynn and his son's airfare to Moscow and lodging at a luxury hotel from Dec. 9 to Dec. 12.

Flynn Intel Group also was paid $530,000 in 2016 for work the Justice Department has said benefited the government of Turkey. The elder Flynn did not register as a foreign lobbyist at the time, but did so retroactively this year. According to his filing with the Justice Department, he was hired by a Turkish businessman to gather information about Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish cleric residing in Pennsylvania whom the Turkish government accuses of orchestrating an attempted coup there in July 2016.

Related: Obama Warned Trump Against Hiring Mike Flynn

The elder Flynn was fired as Trump's national security adviser in February after it became public that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence about his conversations with the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

A former business associate of Michael Flynn's said the younger Flynn had a heavy hand in the day-to-day operations of Flynn Intel Group and served as his father's chief of staff. Those responsibilities included attending meetings with his father and communicating with prospective clients, the former business associate said.

Several legal experts with knowledge of the investigation have told NBC News they believe Mueller, following a classic prosecutorial playbook, is seeking to compel key players, including Flynn and Manafort, to tell what they know about any possible Trump campaign collusion with Russia. Mueller has brought onto his team a federal prosecutor known for convincing subjects to turn on associates. Any potential criminal liability for Michael G. Flynn could put added pressure on his father, these legal experts said.

Michael Flynn
Retired Lt. Gen Michael Flynn talks to the media as he arrives with is son Michael G. Flynn, left, at Trump Tower in New York on Nov. 17, 2016. Carolyn Kaster / AP file

"Any time a family member is identified as a subject that does increase pressure," said Peter Smith, a former federal prosecutor. "In the typical parent-child relationship the last thing any parent would want is for their child to get in trouble for something they initiated."

That pressure appeared to mount Wednesday, when House Democrats released information they said confirmed that the elder Flynn omitted from his security clearance renewal application in 2016 that he had traveled to the Middle East in 2015 to meet with foreign leaders about a proposal to partner with Russia in a plan to build nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia.

In a letter to Flynn's former business partners who had turned over documents to Congress, Democratic Reps. Elijah Cummings of Maryland and Eliot Engel of New York also accuse Flynn of concealing the trip from background check investigators who interviewed him during that 2016 process. The congressmen, ranking members on the House Oversight and House Foreign Affairs committees respectively, told the former business partners that because "it appears that General Flynn violated federal law" they are turning over their documents to Mueller.

Related: Flynn, Manafort Are Key Figures in Russia Probe

Peter Carr, the spokesman for Mueller, did not respond to a request for comment. Kelner, the elder Flynn's lawyer, did not respond to a request for comment on the Cummings-Engel letter.

The younger Flynn, 34, has a bachelor's degree from the University of North Carolina-Charlotte and an associate degree in golf course management. He is married, has one son and lives in Northern Virginia. He worked for a golf company and then a healthcare management firm between 2008 and 2015, and since 2014 has worked for the Flynn Intel Group, according to LinkedIn. He was a registered Republican in Charlotte, N.C., from 2004 to 2008, according to public records.

He was a controversial figure during the presidential campaign and during the Trump transition, known for writing inflammatory comments on Twitter and circulating conspiracy theories.

He perpetuated a so-called "pizzagate" conspiracy theory that surfaced in the days before the November election alleging Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton had used the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington to run a child sex-trafficking operation. About a month later, in December 2016, a North Carolina man fired gunshots in the pizzeria allegedly in response to the false "pizzagate" story. At the time, Flynn wrote on Twitter: "Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story."

During the Trump transition there were questions about whether Flynn had an official role. He had a government transition email address and was said to be helping his father, who had been named national security adviser. But after the shooting at the "pizzagate" restaurant, Pence, who was in charge of the transition, said Flynn "has no involvement in the transition whatsoever."

The younger Flynn continues to express political opinions on social media, tweeting in support of former Trump adviser Steve Bannon and tweeting criticism of Black Lives Matter.

CAROL E. LEE TWITTEREMAIL
Julia Ainsley JULIA AINSLEY EMAIL
Ken Dilanian KEN DILANIAN



THIS IS ANOTHER OF THOSE DEEPLY DISCOURAGING STORIES – NOT CRIMINAL, BUT EMBARRASSING. WE AS A COUNTRY NEED TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS SITUATION. I DON’T DO TWITTER, BUT IF I DID, I WOULD START ONE CALLED “TRUMPOUT.”

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/white-house-social-media-director-promotes-bogus-irma-news?cid=eml_mra_20170911
White House social media director promotes bogus Irma news
09/11/17 10:42 AM—UPDATED 09/11/17 04:37 PM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- The sun rises near the White House on Nov. 8, 2016 in Washington, DC. Photo by Zach Gibson/Getty

Dan Scavino Jr., the White House director of social media, has an unfortunate habit of making headlines for the wrong reasons. A few months ago, for example, after Donald Trump lashed out at the mayor of London following a terrorist attack, Scavino argued the president’s criticism was payback for something the mayor said about Trump 13 months ago.

In August, Scavino used his social-media presence to target Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), piling on to the intra-party feud.

Slate noted over the weekend that Scavino made a different kind of misstep related to Hurricane Irma.

Fake images and videos of Hurricane Irma that are making the rounds on social media can fool anyone, including, apparently people who are actually working at tracking the storm. The White House’s own director of social media, Dan Scavino Jr., sent out a tweet that he thought showed massive flooding at the Miami International Airport as a way to demonstrate how President Donald Trump’s administration was keeping track of Irma’s devastation. The problem? The video was not actually of the Miami airport.

Miami International Airport quickly replied to Scavino’s tweet to inform him that the video did not depict the situation at the airport.

Scavino eventually deleted the tweet – roughly a half-hour after publishing it – though the original message said he was sharing social-media footage of the storm with the president and vice president.

Not surprisingly, the mistake made Scavino the butt of online mockery, but I think there’s a serious point just below the surface.

In fairness, Scavino almost certainly wasn’t responsible for the original mistake. Someone sent him the wrong information, and he promoted it, assuming the news was true, without any due diligence. It’s a well-intentioned mistake that many of us have made.

The trouble is, Scavino is no longer a guy who runs a golf resort; he’s the White House director of social media. When a White House official provides information to the public about an ongoing natural disaster, highlighting video footage he claims to be sharing with the president and vice president, we need to be able to count on its accuracy.

“Too good to check” doesn’t work in these circumstances.

Look, I realize it was just a misguided tweet, which Scavino deleted after being fact-checked by the airport itself. This isn’t the sort of thing that’s likely to cost him his job. But when White House officials cannot be trusted as reliable sources of information – when we have to treat practically everything from the West Wing like a silent movie – there are consequences for the administration’s lack of credibility.



CLEARLY SOME ARE LESS SUBJECT TO INTIMIDATION THAN OTHERS. UNFORTUNATELY, MOST OF THOSE WHO HAVE DONE THE MORAL AND COURAGEOUS THING BEFORE WERE CANNED. I THINK IN THIS CASE, THOUGH, THAT IF TRUMP DOES FIRE HIM, HE’LL WRITE A TELL-ALL, MAKE A MILLION DOLLARS FROM IT, AND GET A BETTER JOB IMMEDIATELY. STANDING UP FOR WHAT IS GOOD AND TRUE MAKES MORE FRIENDS THAN ENEMIES.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-refuses-make-eye-contact-his-top-economic-adviser
Trump refuses ‘to make eye contact’ with his top economic adviser
09/11/17 10:03 AM—UPDATED 09/11/17 10:17 AM
By Steve Benen

Photograph -- National Economic Director Gary Cohn speaks at a news conference in which he discussed the tax reform plan of US President Donald J. Trump, in... MICHAEL REYNOLDS


The New York Times had an interesting item over the weekend on White House Chief of Staff John Kelly’s operation, which included an anecdote I hadn’t seen elsewhere.

The new chief of staff has tried to shield Gary D. Cohn, the chairman of the National Economic Council, from Mr. Trump’s continuing wrath since the former Goldman Sachs executive went public with his disgust at the president’s response to the deadly violence last month in Charlottesville, Va.

Mr. Kelly made a point, one staff member said, of throwing his arm around Mr. Cohn in solidarity, in full view of the news media, as they exited Marine One last week on the South Lawn.

But he has not always been successful. Several aides said Mr. Trump is freezing out Mr. Cohn by employing a familiar tactic: refusing to make eye contact with Mr. Cohn when his adviser greets him.

In related news, the president is reportedly prepared to stop passing notes to Cohn in homeroom and may refuse to write “BFF” in his yearbook.

C’mon. Eight months into Trump’s presidency, he doesn’t want to look his chief economic advisor in the eye? And in the White House this is considered “a familiar tactic” that the president has used with others?

While this obviously raises unsettling questions about Trump’s maturity, let’s not forget exactly what Cohn did to earn a spot in the president’s dog house.

After Trump praised the “fine people” among the racist activists in Charlottesville last month, Cohn expressed his dissatisfaction with the president’s reaction during an interview with the Financial Times. “Citizens standing up for equality and freedom can never be equated with white supremacists, neo-Nazis and the KKK,” Cohn argued, careful not to criticize his boss, but nevertheless leaving little doubt to whom he was referring. “I believe this administration can and must do better in consistently and unequivocally condemning these groups and do everything we can to heal the deep divisions that exist in our communities.”

And that was that. All of a sudden, Cohn was out as a top contender to be the next Federal Reserve chair, and in private meetings, the president reportedly won’t even make eye contact with him.

It’s not that Cohn was wrong, of course, about his denunciation of right-wing racists. It’s that he publicly disagreed with Trump – and in this White House, that constitutes a betrayal that carries consequences.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Cohn_(investment_banker)

Gary Cohn (investment banker)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the business executive. For others, see Gary Cohn (disambiguation).

Gary Cohn
Gary Cohn at Regional Media Day (cropped).png
11th Director of the National Economic Council
Incumbent
Assumed office
January 20, 2017
President Donald Trump
Preceded by Jeffrey Zients
Personal details
Born August 27, 1960 (age 57)
Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.

Political party Democratic

Spouse(s) Lisa Pevaroff
Children 3
Education American University (BA)

Gary David Cohn (born August 27, 1960) is an American investment banker who is currently serving as the Director of the National Economic Council and chief economic advisor to President Donald Trump.[1][2] He was formerly the president and chief operating officer of Goldman Sachs from 2006 to 2017. Cohn is a registered Democrat, but has donated extensively to Republican politicians as well.[3][4][5]

Cohn is considered one of the most influential voices in the Trump administration.[6]



HILLARY’S NEW BOOK CALLED “WHAT HAPPENED,” IS PANNED BY BILL SCHER IN THE ARTICLE BELOW AS BEING VINDICTIVE AND FAILING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR HER PART IN THE 2016 ELECTION LOSS. I DO AGREE WITH THE VIEWPOINTS THAT ARE EXPRESSED. THIS QUOTATION IS PARTICULARLY EVOCATIVE OF THAT GOOD OLD PATRIOTISM WITHIN ME:
“SANDERS IS PUSHING DEMOCRATS ONLY WHERE THEY NEED TO GO, SUBSTANTIVELY AND POLITICALLY.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/07/hillary-clinton-book-bernie-sanders-democrats-215584
Hillary’s Message To Dems: Don’t Give Bernie The Keys
Her new book relaunches the Democratic civil war of 2016.
By BILL SCHER September 07, 2017

Photograph – Hillary speaking (Getty)

Democrats are living their own version of Groundhog Day. Every day, they wake up and realize they are still in the 2016 presidential primary.

The leaked excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir, “What Happened,” have stirred up another round of relitigation over, well, what happened. Clinton reserves some blame for Vladimir Putin, James Comey and herself. But it’s her fingering of Bernie Sanders that has cheered her loyalists, enraged his, and made every other Democrat consider emulating Bill Murray by taking a bath with a plugged-in toaster.

Sanders’ attacks on her character and progressive credentials “caused lasting damage,” she charges in the book, “making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Donald Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign. I don’t know if that bothered Bernie or not.”

Ouch. “This is the grudge that won’t go away,” said Slate’s Ben Mathis-Lilley of Clinton’s feelings toward Sanders. But Clinton’s jabs are more than personal pique. She is effectively warning her colleagues in the Democratic establishment: Don’t give Bernie the keys to the party.

That message is not one often said out loud. Even if many Democrats harbor reservations about the Vermont independent’s rising influence in their party, “unity” has been the buzzword since the Election Day debacle. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer invited Sanders to join the party leadership, along with the Democrat from the reddest state in the union, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. The new Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, asked his rival, Sanders supporter Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, to be vice chair, and then filled out a “Unity Reform Commission”—part of the compromise 2016 party platform—with members picked by Clinton, Sanders and Perez.

Democrats have been bending in Sanders’ direction on policy in hopes of keeping Berniecrats in the fold. Schumer’s “Better Deal” policy package is aimed at breaking up corporate monopolies (though Sanders’ political arm Our Revolution was unimpressed and staged a protest at the DNC the day after Schumer’s unveiling). After Sanders supporters tagged potential presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris as soft on Wall Street, she fortified her left flank by endorsing his forthcoming single-payer health care bill. (In a Thursday statement responding to Clinton’s criticisms, Sanders slipped in that his bill would be introduced next week, perfectly timed to step on her book rollout.)

Sanders holds the whip hand. He pushes the party. Then the party, terrified of losing his voters, gets pushed.

This lurch to the left has caused no immediate problems; congressional Democrats have been remarkably unified against Trump all year. And from the progressive populist perspective, Sanders is pushing Democrats only where they need to go, substantively and politically.

But Clinton’s book waves a big red flag: “… he isn’t a Democrat—that’s not a smear, that’s what he says. He didn’t get into the race to make sure a Democrat won the White House, he got in to disrupt the Democratic Party.”

Sanders might say: Guilty as charged. In a June address to the “People’s Summit,” an annual gathering of about 4,000 leftists with little fealty to the Democratic Party, he made plain his agenda of remaking the party in his image: “[T]he current model and the current strategy of the Democratic Party is an absolute failure … The Democratic Party needs fundamental change … The Democratic Party must, finally, understand which side it is on. And that cannot be the side of Wall Street or the fossil fuel industry or the drug companies.”

While Sanders argues that the Democratic Party must choose sides between people and corporations, Clinton counters that Sanders must choose whether or not to be a Democrat. For Clintonites, his refusal to embrace the party label is not a mere matter of nomenclature. It suggests he does not have the Democratic Party’s best interests at heart; he is unwilling to partner with Democrats who have different views about the scope of government and its relationship with business; and, in turn, he can’t make the trade-offs essential to governing.

In another leaked passage, Clinton equates Sanders’ grandiose plans with the get-rich-quick scheme shared by the drifter in There’s Something About Mary who plans to outsell “Eight-Minute Abs” with “Seven-Minute Abs.” “On issue after issue,” she mockingly complains, “it was like he kept promising four-minute abs, or even no-minutes abs. Magic abs!”

She doesn’t say this outright, but the implication is that she believes Sanders is a snake oil salesman (the leaked excerpt appears to say there was no way “Bernie could keep his promises or deliver real results”) who shouldn’t be allowed to become the face of the party and define its agenda.

Will any Democrat care about what she has to say? Clinton is already being pilloried anew for “reopening this wound” at “the worst possible time” when Democrats could be seizing the offensive against divided and reeling Republicans. Her book comes out as a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll puts the percentage of those viewing her positively at an abysmal 30 percent, 6 points worse than President Trump—hardly making her a perfect messenger.

But perhaps it’s that unpopularity—the combined loathing from Trump and Sanders supporters—along with the extreme unlikelihood that she ever would run for another office, that liberates her to do what elected Democrats cannot: front-stab Bernie. After all, she has literally nothing to lose.

Sanders, however, has a lot to lose. Thanks to his audacious bet on disruption, he now wields the most influence he’s ever had since he redeveloped the Lake Champlain waterfront. He finished the primary as a national figure with some of the strongest poll ratings of any active politician in America, often cracking 50 percent favorability when no others can. He is almost certain to be a major factor in 2020, be it as a candidate or the leader of the left and a powerhouse endorser.

The new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found Sanders with a 44 percent positive rating. That’s pretty good in this age of polarization, especially considering his negative rating stood at only 30 percent. But dropping below the 50 percent threshold suggests he’s paying some price for his intraparty scuffles, such as when he resisted an endorsement of moderate Democratic House candidate Jon Ossoff, and touted a mayoral candidate in Omaha, Nebraska, with a record of restricting abortion rights. If Clinton can narrow his appeal, she may not buoy her personal popularity, but she may complicate Sanders’ attempt at a party makeover.

The prospect of Clinton seeking to outmaneuver Sanders makes the reception to her book and promotional tour worth watching. Strong sales and enthusiastic crowds could send a signal to other Democrats running in 2018 and 2020 that Bernie-style populism hasn’t cornered the market on grass-roots passion. On the other hand, if Democrats are buzzing more about “Medicare for All” than “What Happened,” then Bernie’s hold on the party will be solidified.

Clinton’s four-month road trip won’t end like Groundhog Day, with our rumpled male and buttoned-down female protagonists breaking the curse and settling down together in Western Pennsylvania. Democrats instead are doomed to relive the bitter Clinton-Sanders battle day after day for a simple reason: There is no consensus on “what happened,” and there never will be.


THE BOOK: “WHAT HAPPENED,” BY HILLARY CLINTON, 2017

http://fortune.com/2017/09/12/hillary-clinton-book-amazon-review/
MOST POWERFUL WOMEN
The Anti-Hillary Clinton Camp Has Already Hijacked Amazon Reviews of Her New Book
Claire Zillman
Updated: 8:55 AM ET | Originally published: 7:31 AM ET

Hillary Clinton's new book about the 2016 presidential race titled What Happened went on sale Tuesday.

In the long lead-up to its release, Clinton and her publisher Simon & Schuster promised that the book would be a candid account of the former secretary of state's dramatic election loss to Donald Trump and an honest reflection on what the experience has meant to her.

Some book critics say Clinton's latest title delivers the kind of authenticity that she's lacked in the past. The New York Times' Jennifer Senior calls the book a "feminist manifesto," "a score-settling jubilee," and "worth reading." Others, meanwhile, fault Clinton for using the 464-page text to blame players like Bernie Sanders, James Comey, and Vladimir Putin for the election defeat, rather than taking responsibility herself.

And then there are the decidedly less analytical reviews that are already populating the book's Amazon listing.

Given the current political climate and the venomous nature of the 2016 race, it's probably no surprise that critics of Clinton have used one-star reviews to further communicate their dislike of the former first lady, or in some cases, peddle conspiracy theories about Clinton and husband Bill.

Some of the one-star reviews were posted prior to Sept. 12, the book's release date.

Of the 42 reviews of What Happened on Amazon.com as of early Tuesday morning, none were marked as a "verified purchase"—the site's designation for feedback from customers who actually bought a product.

Clinton is far from the first author to receive this kind of treatment. Megyn Kelly's book Settle For More received a string of one-star reviews after a pro-Trump thread on Reddit orchestrated an effort to discredit the title and its author, the former Fox News anchor who'd publicly criticized Trump. One single-star review simply wrote "MAGA," short for Trump's Make America Great Again slogan, over and over. Products related to Trump have received their own review attacks. In November, a Trump-inspired "Make America Great Again" Christmas ornament in the shape of his trademark red hat was inundated with negative, anti-Trump feedback. "It tried to put my nativity figures into an internment camp. Would not buy again," read a one-star review for the item.

The problem is a unique one for Amazon, where customer reviews are open to all and are intended to inform purchasing decisions. When asked about the reviews for Clinton's new book, an Amazon spokesperson said that feedback must be related to the product.

"In the case of a memoir, the subject of the book is the author and their views," the spokesperson said. "It’s not our role to decide what a customer would view as helpful or unhelpful in making their decision. We do however have mechanisms in place to ensure that the voices of many do not drown out the voices of a few and we remove customer reviews that violate our community guidelines."

(In the case of Kelly's book, Amazon appeared to delete some of the politically-motivated one-star reviews, which ignited another wave of reviews complaining that the removal of posts infringed on users' freedom.)

Despite the flurry of one-star ratings, Clinton's latest title ranks high on Amazon's most-sold list. For the week of Sept. 3, it was No. 6 among non-fiction titles. This story has been updated to clarify the nature of reviews posted before the book's release date.



HILLARY CLINTON HAS A NEW BOOK: “WHAT HAPPENED,” ABOUT THE EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE 2016 ELECTION. I WILL BUY IT IF THE PRICE COMES DOWN TO $10.00.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/amazon-walmart-slash-hillary-clintons-what-happened-40-before-tuesday-release/article/2634030
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
WASHINGTON SECRETS
Amazon, Walmart slash Hillary Clinton's 'What Happened' 40% -- before Tuesday release
by Paul Bedard | Sep 11, 2017, 2:30 PM

Two huge booksellers, Amazon and Walmart, have already cut the price of Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2016 tell-all by 40 percent -- and it isn't even available yet.

Set to be released Tuesday, both have priced "What Happened?" at $17.99.

Publisher Simon and Schuster set a price of $30.

Much of what's in her book has already been reported on, thanks to leaked copies of the Democratic presidential candidate's latest work.

The price cut, however, has likely helped to boost sales. It is No. 1 on Amazon.

Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com



THIS STORY IS HALF SAD AND HALF INFURIATING. I AM AGAINST CHURCHES AND CHARITY ORGANIZATIONS GETTING TAX FREE STATUS. GIVE THEM A TEN PERCENT CUT, AND A BONUS FOR EVERY LEGITIMATELY CHARITABLE ACTION THAT THEY DO, MAYBE. MANY TIMES, THEY DON’T GIVE AWAY THAT MONEY OR FEED THOSE PEOPLE, AND WHEN I SEE THAT IN THE NEWS IT MAKES ME FEEL, TO QUOTE JAMES COMEY, “SLIGHTLY NAUSEOUS.” I APPROVE HEARTILY OF SALVATION ARMY, RED CROSS, ST. JUDE’S CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL AND GOODWILL INDUSTRIES.

I DON’T KNOW THEM ALL, SO I’M NOT SAYING THAT THEY’RE ALL BOGUS, BUT THAT OF THE TOP FEW, I’VE EITHER HEARD STORIES AGAINST THEM, OR DON’T HEAR THE REALLY GREAT REVIEWS OF THEIR WORK. HARD HEARTED? NO. JUST PRACTICAL. A REAL CHURCH DOESN’T NEED A GOLD DOME ON TOP, OR A MINISTER WHO GETS MILLIONS IN RECOMPENSE. IN MY POINT OF VIEW, WHAT WE HAVE THESE DAYS ISN’T RELIGION AT ALL, BUT A FLOOR SHOW. FINALLY, THEY ARE TOO OFTEN INTO THE DOMINIONISM THAT IS TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY VIA THE TEA PARTY AND ITS’ ADHERENTS, MANY OF WHOM NOW WORK IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WE ARE ON THE PATH TO PERDITION, I FEAR !

http://www.providr.com/joel-osteen-asks-for-money-from-harvey-victims/?f=one&utm_source=JohnEdmondsKozma&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=providr
Joel Osteen’s Church Asked For Collection Money From Harvey Victims During Service Written By Emily Pollock

Although the Bible may say that “God loveth a cheerful giver,” providing to Hurricane Harvey’s victims is proving difficult for millionaire pastor Joel Osteen. After initially refusing to open his church’s doors to flood victims, he then asked them to give him money, and people are furious.

In a September 3rd service at Osteen’s Lakewood church, his sister Lisa Osteen Comes called on victims of Hurricane Harvey to stand up. She acknowledged their needs in the face of natural disaster, and asked people to pray that “God is going to bless them with unprecedented favor in the next coming days.”As her touching speech concluded, people with collection baskets passed through the audience, asking for donations.

All of this can be seen in Lakewood Church’s official broadcast of the service, which was originally available on their website. But, after public outcry about the donations, the church took their video down, though it survives on Youtube.

Osteen came under fire last week for not opening the doors of his Texan megachurch as a shelter for the tens of thousands of displaced victims.

After a public outcry, Osteen opened the church up to survivors. Although some claimed that the church was flooded, later pictures taken of it revealed that the flooding was very minimal.

Image of church parking lot, from Indivisible USA

Joel Osteen’s Church Asked For Collection Money From Harvey Victims During Service Written By Emily Pollock

yeets
Today Show
Although the Bible may say that “God loveth a cheerful giver,” providing to Hurricane Harvey’s victims is proving difficult for millionaire pastor Joel Osteen. After initially refusing to open his church’s doors to flood victims, he then asked them to give him money, and people are furious.

In a September 3rd service at Osteen’s Lakewood church, his sister Lisa Osteen Comes called on victims of Hurricane Harvey to stand up. She acknowledged their needs in the face of natural disaster, and asked people to pray that “God is going to bless them with unprecedented favor in the next coming days.” As her touching speech concluded, people with collection baskets passed through the audience, asking for donations.

All of this can be seen in Lakewood Church’s official broadcast of the service, which was originally available on their website. But, after public outcry about the donations, the church took their video down, though it survives on Youtube.

Osteen came under fire last week for not opening the doors of his Texan megachurch as a shelter for the tens of thousands of displaced victims.

Lakewood_interior
Wikimedia

After a public outcry, Osteen opened the church up to survivors. Although some claimed that the church was flooded, later pictures taken of it revealed that the flooding was very minimal.

Lakewood-street-photos1
Indivisible USA

In an interview with “The Today Show,” Osteen defended his decision by discussing safety concerns, and said that it wasn’t opened initially because “the city didn’t ask us to become a shelter.”

hmmm bad
Today Show

However, Houston was dotted with impromptu shelters, including a mattress store and a mosque.

The church’s actions left many furious, and some took to social media to publically shame Osteen for them.

When mocking Osteen, some poked fun at Lakewood for the size of the donation plates that they were passing around.

Others claimed that Osteen’s mission was completely hollow and that his megachurch empire exists only to serve his own needs.

Some of Osteen’s harshest critics have been his fellow Christians. After all, the Bible asks, “If anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him?” The court of public opinion is asking Osteen the same question.

ON THE SUBJECT OF CHURCHES AND FINANCIAL SCAMS, SEE THIS OLD AND EXCELLENT MOVIE:
ELMER GANTRY, 1970 with Burt Lancaster, Jean Simmons and Arthur Kennedy, at www.imdb.com/title/tt0053793.



SEE THE INTERESTING ARTICLE ABOUT FOX NEWS HERE. I WOULD PROPOSE AS A THEORY THAT FOX MOVES VOTERS WHO ARE LIBERAL TO THE RIGHT IN SEVERAL WAYS. 1) THEY PRESENT MUCH MORE STREET CRIME ON THEIR BROADCASTS, AND 2) SPEAK IN A MORE COMMON TONE THAN SOME WELL-OFF LIBERALS DO. THEY 3) MARGINALIZE THOSE WHO ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE AVERAGE POPULATION, ESPECIALLY IN WAYS LIKE MENTAL HEALTH, RACE OR CLASS ISSUES, WHICH APPEALS TO ANGRY WHITE MEN. 4) THEY TREAT WOMEN WITH MORE DISRESPECT THAN LIBERAL SOURCES DO. IN SHORT, THEY TALK THE TALK OF THE WHITE MAINLY MALE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES WHO RESENT ANYONE’S “TALKING DOWN TO THEM.” THOSE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR TRUMP.

OUR PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT THE EDUCATIONALLY BASED CLASS SYSTEM PLACE-HOLDER IS A BETTER -- AND PARTICULARLY A PROFESSIONAL -- EDUCATION. THOSE MEN AND WOMEN MAY FEEL THAT THEY CAN’T UNDERSTAND COLLEGE LEVEL MATERIAL, OR SIMPLY, THAT THEY CAN’T AFFORD IT. BERNIE SANDERS WITH HIS FREE FIRST FOUR YEARS OF COLLEGE WOULD SOLVE THEIR REAL PROBLEM. IF THEIR LIVES WERE BETTER, THEY WOULD FEEL LESS NEED TO ACT OUT IN ANGER.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/08/your-worst-fears-about-fox-news-are-confirmed-new-study
Published on
Friday, September 08, 2017
by Common Dreams
Your Worst Fears About Fox News Are Confirmed By New Study
Everyone knows the news outlet serves as a virtual propaganda tool, but new research shows just how effective they are at it
by Julia Conley, staff writer

Photograph -- A new report found that watching Fox News for only three minute per week made an average Democratic voter more likely to vote Republican in the 2008 election. (Photo: @merovingian88/Twitter)

Fox News Channel has been recognized since its inception in 1996, when it was established by Republican operative Roger Ailes, as a right-leaning news source. But a new study published in the American Economic Review shows just how influential the channel is when it comes to changing viewers' minds, causing them to shift to the right on political issues—and even influencing election outcomes in ways that the outlet's more liberal counterparts don't.

Researchers at Emory and Stanford universities found that watching only three minutes of Fox News coverage per week would make Democratic and centrist voters one percent more likely to vote Republican in the 2008 election.

According to the study, this means that if Fox News hadn't existed in 2004, George W. Bush would have captured nearly four fewer percentage points, making John Kerry the popular vote winner. In 2008, Barack Obama would have won in a landslide if it weren't for Fox, capturing 60 percent of the vote, with John McCain winning 6.34 percent fewer votes.

Notably, the research shows that Fox appears driven by its ability to shift its viewership to the right even more than it's guided by its bottom line. According to Vox, the study finds "that Fox isn't setting its ideology where it ought to, to maximize its viewership. It's much more conservative than is optimal from that perspective. But it's pretty close to the slant that would maximize its persuasive power—that would result in the largest rightward movement among viewers. CNN, by contrast, matched its political stances pretty closely to the viewer-maximizing point, showing less interest in operating as a political agent."

CNN and MSNBC are also not as effective at shaping viewers' opinions. "Fox is substantially better at influencing Democrats than MSNBC is at influencing Republicans," said the authors of the study. While Fox was able to convince 58 percent of Democratic viewers to vote for Bush in 2000, and persuaded sizable minorities of Democrats to vote Republican in the following two elections, MSNBC did not have the same effect on conservative viewers in the same elections.

Fox News Channel "is consistently more effective at converting viewers than is MSNBC which has corresponding estimated persuasion rates of just 16 percent, 0 percent, and 8 percent," said the study.

The study confirms earlier research done after Fox was introduced in 1996, including a 2007 report from Berkeley which found "a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000...Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican."

The newest research confirms what many critics already suspected about Fox News: that it's pushed conservative ideals and Republican agendas since its beginning, serving as a tool used by the GOP establishment to shift viewers to the right—and even swing elections.

The study did not analyze Fox's impact on the 2016 election, but according to a Pew Research poll taken in January, Fox News was the most-watched news source among Trump voters during the campaign, with 40 percent of his supporters relying on the channel for their news.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License



AN ARTICLE A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO STATED THAT POLLUTERS SHOULD BE FORCED TO PAY THE TRUE COST OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP, STATING THAT IF THEY DID THAT THEY WOULD BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT AVOIDING SUCH DAMAGE. CLIMATE CRIMINALS IS A CONCEPT THAT WE SHOULD TAKE SERIOUSLY AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/09/07/study-details-why-climate-criminals-exxon-should-pay-hurricane-destruction
Published on
Thursday, September 07, 2017
byCommon Dreams
Study Details Why Climate 'Criminals' Like Exxon Should Pay for Hurricane Destruction
"We should be naming these hurricanes after Exxon and Chevron, not Harvey and Irma."
byJake Johnson, staff writer

"It may take tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to support disaster relief and recovery among Gulf Coast communities affected by Hurricane Harvey. ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP have collectively pledged only $2.75 million," note Peter Frumhoff and Myles Allen. (Photo: AFL-CIO America's Unions/Flickr/cc)

As Texas and Louisiana cope with the destruction wrought by Hurricane Harvey and as Hurricane Irma continues to ravage Caribbean islands on its way to the United States, many are asking a pertinent question: Who should pay for the damage?

"We should be naming these hurricanes after Exxon and Chevron, not Harvey and Irma."

—May Boeve, 350.org
According to a "landmark" study published in the journal Climatic Change on Thursday, the answer is clear: Big Oil.

"We know that the costs of both hurricanes will be enormous and that climate change will have made them far larger than they would have been otherwise," write Peter Frumhoff and Myles Allen, two of the study's co-authors, in a piece for the Guardian.

The research also shows, they note, that massive oil companies have disproportionately contributed to rising sea levels and soaring levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide while deceiving the public about the costs of their business practices.

"Strikingly, nearly 30 percent of the rise in global sea level between 1880 and 2010 resulted from emissions traced to the 90 largest carbon producers," their study found. "More than six percent of the rise in global sea level resulted from emissions traced to ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP, the three largest contributors."

The study also found that "the 90 largest carbon producers contributed approximately 57 percent of the observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, nearly 50 percent of the rise in global average temperature."

May Boeve, executive director of 350.org, argued in a statement on Thursday that the study's findings demonstrate that due to their contributions to climate change, major polluters are partly responsible for the extreme weather events currently wreaking havoc across the globe.

"We should be naming these hurricanes after Exxon and Chevron, not Harvey and Irma," Boeve wrote.

"The time has come for the major carbon producers to face the reality of the unsafe products they persist in marketing."

—Henry Shue, University of OxfordYet, despite their outsized role in creating the conditions that produced storms as severe and intense as Harvey and Irma, major oil companies have committed relatively little to recovery efforts.

"It may take tens to hundreds of billions of dollars to support disaster relief and recovery among Gulf Coast communities affected by Hurricane Harvey. ExxonMobil, Chevron and BP have collectively pledged only $2.75 million," Frumhoff and Allen note.

Because these companies are never held to account, however, the public—low-income and minority communities in particular—is forced to pick up the costs. Henry Shue, a senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, argued in commentary accompanying the new study that this is unacceptable.

"By continuing major contributions to harm, the major carbon producers have for decades knowingly and flagrantly persisted in violating the bedrock principle: do no harm," Shue wrote. "The time has come for the major carbon producers to face the reality of the unsafe products they persist in marketing and the safer world they could help to create. Otherwise, they risk turning themselves into enemies of humanity."

Boeve of 350.org agreed, writing: "Climate change isn't just a crisis, it's a crime. It's high time to hold the criminals accountable."

"Taxpayers, especially those living in vulnerable coastal communities, should not have to bear the high costs of these companies' irresponsible decisions by themselves," Frumhoff concluded.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License


THIS IS A GREAT HEARTFELT STORY ABOUT THE STORM REFUGEES. THIS AUTHOR SURVIVED KATRINA, WHICH IS THE FIRST NEWS FOOTAGE OF SOMETHING THAT TERRIBLE THAT I HAD EVER SEEN. YOU HEAR PEOPLE SAY, “MY HEART SANK.” THAT WAS LITERALLY TRUE FOR ME. I DON’T BELIEVE IN A VENGEFUL GOD, BUT THE POWERS OF NATURE NEED RESPECT. THAT SHOULD START WITH AVOIDING STUPIDITY THAT CREATES SUCH DISASTERS. THAT’S WHY I’M SO FAR OVER ON THE LEFT ON ISSUES LIKE GLOBAL WARMING AND OTHER NOXIOUS POLLUTION PROBLEMS. WHEN I WAS YOUNG IT WAS “SMOG.” WHATEVER WE CALL IT, IT IS A KILLER. BY THE WAY, I REALLY LIKE MY NEW EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION TO COMMONDREAMS.ORG. IF YOU ARE OF THE PROGRESSIVE TURN OF MIND, YOU MIGHT GIVE IT A TRY.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2017/09/13/warning-letter-harvey-and-irma-survivors-katrina-survivor
Published on
Wednesday, September 13, 2017
by Common Dreams
Warning Letter to Harvey and Irma Survivors from Katrina Survivor
Above all, watch out for one another and care for one another
by Bill Quigley

Photograph -- Based on the experiences of those who lived through Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath, Quigley offers victims of the latest mega-storms some warnings as they start to rebuild. (Photo: Flickr/Texas Military Department/CC)

Dear Fellow Hurricane Survivors:

Our hearts go out to you as you try to return to and fix your homes and lives. Based on our experiences, here are a few things you should watch out for as you rebuild your communities.

One. Rents are going to skyrocket and waves of evictions are likely. With so many houses damaged and so many highly paid contractors coming into your region whose companies will pay anything to house them, landlords are going to start evicting people to make way for higher paying occupants. Work with local organizations to enact a moratorium on evictions and a freeze on rents to allow working and low income people to come home and have a place to stay.

Two. Rip off contractors and vulture businesses are probably already on the scene. Don’t give money to anyone unless you know and trust them and do not pay for everything in advance!

Three. Take pictures of everything that was damaged and hold onto all receipts for all your disaster expenses. Get a special binder and keep all your papers in it. Sadly, the process of getting assistance is going to last for years for many people and you will need to prove what damage you.

Four. Right after a disaster there is an outpouring of compassion, support and solidarity. Take what you need for your community. But realize the window of compassion and support shuts much quicker than it should. Then people will start blaming the victims.

Five. Insist on transparency, accountability and participation in all public and private funding sources for disaster relief. The government is yours and ours. We need them in times of disaster but they can also be the biggest obstacle to a just recovery. Demand they tell the public what is going on and consult with all parts of our communities, not just the rich and well connected usual suspects. Same problems arise when dealing with the private relief organizations from the biggest private disaster relief organization to many other smaller groups.

Six. Insist on telling your own story. Your truth is a jewel that shines brightest in your own hands. If you are going to work with journalists or others make sure the real truth is told, not just the sensational or heart rending stories of poor, powerless victims. You may have been victimized by the hurricane but you are a powerful survivor!

Seven. Unless you are rich enough to try to go this alone, you have to join together with others to make your voice heard. Many voices together are loud enough to force those in power to listen. Groups of people are far more effective than individual voices. Neighborhood organizations, church organizations, community organizations, join and work with others!

Eight. Work in statewide coalitions. Statewide coalitions are very important because many disaster relief decisions are made on the state level. You have to be able to influence those decisions.

Nine. Identify members of Congress who you can work with. Many decisions are being made on the federal level. You have to make sure your voice is heard. After Katrina, the best voice for poor people in New Orleans was Congresswoman Maxine Waters from California! Now well known nationally as Superwoman, she was terrific advocate for and with us.

Ten. Prioritize the voices of women. Men push to the front when the cameras are on and when the resources are being handed out. But in the long run, it is usually the women who are the most reliable family anchors.

Eleven. Don’t allow those in power to forget about the people whose voices are never heard. People in nursing homes, people in hospitals, the elderly, the disabled, children, the working poor, renters, people of color, immigrants and prisoners. There is no need to be a voice for the voiceless, because all these people have voices, they are just not listened to. Help lift their voices and their stories up because the voices of business and industry and people with money and connections will do just fine. It is our other sisters and brothers who are always pushed to the back of the line. Stand with them as they struggle to reclaim their rightful place.

Twelve. Realize that you have human rights to return to your community and to be made whole. Protect your human rights and the human rights of others.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License

Bill Quigley

Bill Quigley is Associate Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. He is a Katrina survivor and has been active in human rights in Haiti for years. He volunteers with the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and the Bureau de Avocats Internationaux (BAI) in Port au Prince. Contact Bill at quigley77@gmail.com