Of psychopaths and presidential candidates: To what degree do modern candidates resemble psychopaths?

ORIGINAL LINK

In this Aug. 10, 2016, photo, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a coal mining roundtable at Fitzgerald Peterbilt in Glade Spring, Va. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci) (Credit: AP)

This article was originally published by Scientific American.

Election 2016 has turned out to be a veritable field day for armchair psychologists — and some professionals, too. This is largely thanks to the unorthodox candidacy of Donald J. Trump. Almost from the moment his campaign rolled out, Trump was tagged in the media as a narcissist or even a textbook case of “narcissistic personality disorder.” Others, including Tony Schwartz, co-author/ghostwriter of Trump’s bestselling “The Art of the Deal,” have described Trump’s fleeting attention span and restless fidgeting (“like a kindergartner who can’t sit still”) in ways that suggest Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). And last week, David Brooks, a conservative columnist for The New York Times, declared that Trump was “psychologically off the chain” with disordered speech patterns that exhibit the “flight of ideas” seen in mania.

Hillary Clinton is not prone to blatant braggadocio or outrageous outbursts, but critics have persistently questioned her utter disregard for State Department rules on email security. Her biggest critics paint her as a “pathological liar.”

Is there anything to such labels? If psychiatrists could directly examine the mental health of the candidates, would any of these diagnoses stick?

And what about another label, one that, if anything, sounds even scarier? To what degree do the modern candidates for president resemble psychopaths?

That is the question Oxford University psychologist Kevin Dutton examined for the September/October issue of Scientific American Mind. Dutton, author of “The Wisdom of Psychopaths” among other books, shows that the eight qualities that define psychopathy in the psychological literature are commonly found in top politicians. And some of them are quite useful.

In his article for Mind, Dutton compared Trump, Clinton and runners-up Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders to 16 historical leaders in terms of their scores on the short revised form of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI-R) — a standardized assessment of psychopathic traits. The form was completed on behalf of the candidates by a seasoned political reporter and, for the historical figures, by biographers or other scholars.

The table below reveals each subject’s scores for psychopathy’s eight component traits. The first three traits — social influence (SI), fearlessness (F) and stress immunity (STI), known collectively as the Fearless Dominance traits — tend to be strong in successful leaders. The next four qualities, collectively called Self-Centered Impulsivity, can be more problematic: Machiavellian Egocentricity (ME), Rebellious Nonconformity (RN), Blame Externalization (BE) and Carefree Nonplanfulness (CN). The eighth trait is Coldheartedness (C), which can be helpful in making tough decisions such as sending a nation’s youth to war but is dangerous in excess.

While there is no set score that officially renders someone a psychopath, it’s revealing to see who scores in the top 20 percent of all people who have been evaluated with the PPI-R. The table highlights those with scores in this upper quintile, which are somewhat lower for women than for men.

The verdict on the candidates: Trump, Clinton and Cruz all scored in the upper quintile in Self-Centered Impulsivity and Coldheartedness. Trump landed in the top 20 percent across the board on psychopathy traits, with a total score that placed him between Idi Amin and Adolf Hitler.

To read more of Kevin Dutton’s analysis and to see how all 42 presidents preceding Barack Obama scored in psychopathy, see the Sept/Oct issue of Scientific American Mind.

Here is a chart that shows how some of this year’s candidates match up with leaders throughout history.

Credit: Kevin Dutton, Scientific American Kevin Dutton, Scientific American

via IFTTT

It’s not Bernie backers: If the U.S. elects Trump, this is who is responsible

ORIGINAL LINK

Donald Trump (Credit: AP/Evan Vucci)

Hillary Clinton came out of the Democratic convention with what seemed like a comfortable lead in the polls.  But it didn’t take long for that brief moment to pass. This week brought even more news about her shady dealings.  In a new batch of released emails we learned that Clinton helped a bank while Secretary of State to then reap direct benefits from the same bank.  Julian Assange isn’t finished with Clinton yet either. So it is safe to assume that this is not the last round of Clinton scandals we will face before the election.

Up to now it has largely been argued that if Clinton doesn’t win in November, it will be the fault of those rogue #DemExit Sanders supporters who lack the ability to be practical.  Even Bernie himself has gotten on board, the argument goes, so what is the problem with those folks who are aren’t toeing the party line?  Shrieks of “remember Nader” fill the social media of the left and there is an ongoing attempt to “vote shame” those who still aren’t “with her.”

While the polling suggests that, thus far, third party voting won’t radically affect the outcome in November, it really is too soon to tell.  A lot can still happen and polls can get it wrong.  So until we have the final numbers we won’t know if the in fighting from the left may turn out to have been all for naught.  Lots of folks like to blame Ralph Nader voters for Al Gore’s loss, but that is debatable and the same will likely be true this time.

But even if Clinton does lose in November, here’s the deal: Sanders supporters who refused to back Clinton will be the last ones who bear the blame for this mess.  Berners have been the favorite punching bag in these debates, but it is time to end that delusion right now.

It is hard to decide who should bear the most blame if Trump wins, but I’m willing to suggest that we put Clinton herself at the top of the list.  Let’s face it; after we weed out the hateful misogynistic rants about her annoying voice and castration complex, Clinton has made some really bad decisions. The long history of conflict of interest issues is real. When Bernie asked her to release her transcripts from her Wall Street speeches, he had a point.

But there’s more. Clinton also really can’t give us a reasonable explanation for her personal email server.  That means there are legitimate reasons to question her judgment. She has repeatedly conducted herself in ways that appear to lack integrity and good judgment.

It gets even worse. Her collusion with Debbie Wasserman Schultz has incensed many in the public who thought that she should distance herself from Wasserman Schultz in the wake of emails that suggest that the DNC was biased towards Clinton from the start.  Rather than issue a statement condemning Wasserman Schultz, she gave her a position in her campaign and has been stumping for her. For many Sanders supporters all of this amounts to a clear and undeniable pattern of elitist cronyism.

As I’ve said before, the problem with Clinton is that she has refused to take seriously the valid critiques of her leadership. She has lumped it all into mean-spirited, ad hominem attacks that come from rabid right-wingers and Bernie bros.  But the reality is that there are a lot of reasonable people out there who think she does not represent the core values of the left in this nation.  And they also think she has acted like she is above the law, having created a vast network of oligarchic associations that have given her both money and power.

So, if Clinton loses, she has herself first to blame. After that I say we throw in the DNC.  More evidence will come out of how they were biased towards Clinton in a direct violation of their mandate to remain neutral.  The leaked emails show a network of people who were all mocking Sanders and trying to help Clinton.  So that’s a huge problem for those Sanders supporters who are now being told to support Clinton.

But there’s more. The primary cycle has revealed not just bias, but also complete myopia in the party.  From the public debates over the party platform, where senior members of the DNC are on record supporting the Trans Pacific Partnership, to the organizing of debates at times when fewer viewers would tune in, the party has revealed itself to be in conflict with their very own constituency.

And then there is the super delegate fiasco that shows that the party wanted to make sure that voters would not have the final word on who was selected as the nominee. The DNC ran the primary protecting the oligarchy, not advocating for the interests of left leaning voters.  If they alienated those people, then they only have themselves to blame.

Lest we think that all of the blame for a Trump win falls on the Democrats, let’s also point out that, if the reality show icon wins, we can blame the Republicans themselves.  There have been multiple stories about how the Trump campaign has exposed deep fractures among the right.  But it has to be pointed out that Trump’s clinching of the nomination proves that the RNC let the party be overrun by rabid anger over and against traditional conservative values.   Jeb Bush is still wondering how this all went down.  Well, when he snaps out of his stupor, he can blame himself and his friends.

Next on the list is the two-party system, the Electoral College, and the winner take all voting structure that has locked us into a two party duopoly.  The only reason why the third party candidates are being accused of potentially “messing up” the election is because we have an undemocratic system that does not allow voters to have real choices on Election Day.  It is too late for any major shift to happen before we vote in November, but one can hope that the fact that the majority of the US public does not like either of the top two candidates is enough to lead to some serious election reform.

Folks that vote third party and show that the public is ready to break out of the two-party mold can go a long way to helping institute changes in the system.  Meanwhile it is worth noting that unless you are in a swing state, your third-party vote isn’t likely to make a difference in the outcome anyway.  So if Trump wins, you can’t be blamed for it.

Last on the list will be the actual people who vote for Trump.  You’d think they’d be first, but it turns out that they are largely the pawns in the story.

There is little question that the folks that support the racism, xenophobia, and outright lunacy of a Trump presidency bear some serious responsibility if he wins.   But, as Michael Moore points out, the bulk of these folks are backing Trump out of sheer anger at a system they feel doesn’t serve them.  Should we worry that their frustration has turned to hatred, aggression, and irrationality? Absolutely. But until this nation addresses the deep problems of economic inequality, poor public education, and the lack of public support for struggling communities that are fueling the Trump train, he will only get more supporters.

Trump is channeling legitimate anger at a real reduction in the quality of life.  The fact that the way he is channeling it smacks of fascism should scare us all, but it is still debatable whether those fears have to translate into a vote for Clinton.

Meanwhile the folks that bear none of the blame are Sanders supporters who may be choosing not to vote or who may cast their vote for Jill Stein.  If those voters refuse to submit to a system that they feel is rigged, then it is the system that is to blame, not the voters.

Sanders was the one candidate who clearly stated his opposition to big money in politics, to political corruption, cronyism, and to policies that benefit the one percent. So it should come as little surprise that with each new Clinton scandal, Sanders supporters feel less enthusiastic about following their candidate’s footsteps and endorsing Clinton.  Sanders taught them to fight for a “future to believe in.”  They simply don’t want to endorse a candidate they think won’t do that.

Any sane person would agree that a Trump presidency would be a disaster for this nation.  But it is time for those same people to realize that if he wins, the last people we should blame are the ones who backed a candidate they believed would actually make our country great again.

If you want Trump to lose and you think you need #DemExit voters to beat him, then it is time to give them something to vote for, not just something to vote against.  And if that seems impractical or impossible, then it may just be time to blame yourself for your own role in upholding a system that sucks.

via IFTTT

Zika: Brazil Admits It's Not the Virus

ORIGINAL LINK

By Dr. Mercola

Amidst growing fear-based propaganda warning of the threat of Zika virus comes a quiet admission from health officials in Brazil: Zika alone may not be responsible for the rise in birth defects that plagued parts of the country.

While there is some evidence suggesting Zika virus may be linked to the birth defect microcephaly, and the virus has been spreading throughout Brazil, rates of the condition have only risen to very high rates in the northeast section of Brazil.

Since the virus has spread throughout Brazil, but extremely high rates of microcephaly have not, officials are now being forced to admit that something else is likely at play.

Dr. Fatima Marinho, director of information and health analysis at Brazil's ministry of health, told the journal Nature, "We suspect that something more than Zika virus is causing the high intensity and severity of cases."¹

Nearly 90 Percent of Brazil Microcephaly Cases Occurred in the Northeast

Since last November, more than 1,700 confirmed cases of congenital microcephaly or other birth defects of the central nervous system have been reported in Brazil.

When the cases first began and were reportedly linked to Zika virus, health officials believed they'd see "an explosion of birth defects" across Brazil, according to Marinho.² But that hasn't happened.

Data compiled by Marinho and colleagues, which has been submitted for publication, suggest socio-economic factors may be involved. Most of the women who gave birth to babies with microcephaly were poor and lived in small cities or on the outskirts of big cities.

In addition, the outbreak occurred in a largely poverty-stricken agricultural area of Brazil that uses large amounts of banned pesticides.

Between these factors and the lack of sanitation and widespread vitamin A and zinc deficiency, you have the basic framework for an increase in poor health outcomes among newborn infants in that area.

Environmental pollution and toxic pesticide exposure have been positively linked to a wide array of adverse health effects, including birth defects. For instance:

• Vitamin A deficiency has been linked to an increased risk of microcephaly³

• The CDC lists malnutrition and exposure to toxic chemicals as known risk factors⁴

• The CDC also notes certain infections during pregnancy, including rubella, cytomegalovirus, toxoplasmosis and others, are risk factors

Data Is Lacking to Confirm Zika-Microcephaly Link

It's also been suggested that microcephaly may be the result of Zika virus occurring alongside other infections, such as dengue and chikungunya.

The Brazilian doctor who first reportedly established the link between Zika virus and microcephaly is even considering whether another disease, Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV), may be involved, as BVDV proteins were also detected in the brains of three fetuses with microcephaly.

BVDV causes birth defects in cattle but is not known to infect people. Researchers suggested that infection with Zika virus may make it easier for BVDV to infect humans.⁵

Adding to the complexities, much of the microcephaly data from Brazil comes from incomplete hospital reports. In most cases, tests to confirm Zika infection were not carried out.

In June 2016, the Zika in Infants and Pregnancy Study was launched in Puerto Rico. It aims to monitor up to 10,000 pregnant women to examine Zika virus along with nutritional, socio-economic and environmental factors and their potential link to birth defects. However, the results of a similar study have only raised further doubts.

12,000 Zika Cases Confirmed in Pregnant Colombian Women — Zero Microcephaly Cases

According to a report by the New England Complex Systems Institute (NECSI), there are serious questions about whether Zika virus is the cause of microcephaly. They cite the preliminary results of a New England Journal of Medicine study, which followed nearly 12,000 pregnant Colombian women infected with Zika virus.⁶

No cases of microcephaly were reported in their babies as of May 2016, yet four cases of microcephaly were reported among women who had Zika infection with no symptoms and were therefore not included in the study.

The researchers then speculated that this means there could be four times as many cases of Zika infection that are unreported, for a total of at least 60,000 Zika-infected pregnancies in Colombia.

Using this data, an analysis revealed the rate of microcephaly to be what would be expected in any area, whether Zika is in the picture or not, which is 2 cases in 10,000 births.⁷ According to NECSI:⁸

"This gives a consistent interpretation that there is no direct link between Zika and microcephaly except for random co-occurrence.

We note that the base rate of microcephaly in the absence of Zika is 140 per year in Colombia, which is consistent with the approximately 50 microcephaly cases in the first [four] months of 2016, only [four] of which have been connected to Zika. When interpreting Zika as the cause, background cases must be subtracted."

By June 2016, 11 total microcephaly cases had been reported in women with Zika infections in Colombia. If Zika and microcephaly are linked, NECSI pointed out that the total number of microcephaly cases should rise dramatically in the next few months, reaching more than 10 microcephaly-Zika births each week.⁹

NECSI also suggested, "An alternative cause of microcephaly in Brazil could be the pesticide pyriproxyfen, which is cross-reactive with retinoic acid, which causes microcephaly, and is being used in drinking water."¹⁰

WHO Expert: Zika Response 'Completely Hysterical'

Florence Fouque, a World Health Organization (WHO) expert on animals that carry viruses, called the public response to the Zika virus "completely hysterical."¹¹ She blamed the hysteria on the findings that the virus affects pregnant women and can be sexually transmitted.

"It's like AIDS," she told PRI. "People make this link and that's why they are really afraid."¹² At one restaurant in downtown Miami, Florida, where a handful of Zika cases were detected in August 2016, insect repellent was placed on all the tables.¹³

Even Oliver Brady, an epidemiologist with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who was asked by Brazilian officials to assess the Zika-microcephaly situation, said there's no conclusive evidence that Zika causes birth defects in humans.

He told PRI that while animal studies have shown the virus attacks brain cells, this isn't "final proof:"¹⁴

"You see that with a lot of arboviruses [viruses spread by mosquitoes and other insects] … They have pathogenic qualities and if you put them in the right tissue then they will cause some sort of damage. And they tend to be quite transmissible across a variety of barriers anyway.

So it doesn't necessarily mean that that's the mechanism that's happening out there in the field, even if it does work in the lab."

National Institutes of Health Launches Trial for Experimental Zika Vaccine

The U.S. is among those ignoring data and rushing to launch a vaccine against Zika virus before it's even known whether it's causing birth defects. What is known, however, is that experimental vaccines have real risks, which are often downplayed in the wake of perceived global "emergencies" such as Zika.

In August 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced it launched a clinical trial of an experimental Zika vaccine — again, before there is conclusive proof that Zika causes microcephaly.

Eighty healthy volunteers between the ages of 18 and 35 will be vaccinated with varying doses of the experimental vaccine. No placebos will be given. The vaccine is said to be similar to a West Nile Virus vaccine that was previously developed by the NIH, but has not yet been approved. This alone should be a red flag, as should the disastrous outcome of the CYD-TDV vaccine, the first dengue vaccine approved by WHO in April 2016.

Dengue Vaccine Hints at Potential Problems With Zika Vaccines

Dr. Scott B. Halstead, former senior adviser of the Dengue Vaccine Initiative and the founder of Children's Vaccine Initiative, told the University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy:¹⁵

"It's happened. We have a vaccine that enhances dengue … It's clear as the nose on my face: Vaccine recipients less than 5 years old had five to seven times more rates of hospitalizations for severe dengue virus than placebo controls."

He's referring to the results of a three-year study published in the New England Journal of Medicine,¹⁶ which suggest the vaccine causes antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). Halstead explained:¹⁷ "Over time, you make and keep protective levels of antibody from the initial infection, but you lose the cross-reactive antibodies … That allows a second dengue infection to cause severe illness … "

At this point, it's unknown how this relates to Zika virus, but it's possible that pre-existing immunity to dengue may lead to more severe infection with Zika virus. The University of Minnesota Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy quoted concerns voiced by Dr. Philip K. Russell, the former director of the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research and commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command, as well as founding president and chairman of the Sabin Vaccine Institute:

"Russell said that the fact that Zika is occurring in areas where dengue has been endemic hints at a serious potential problem with ADE and Zika vaccine development. 'The current epidemic of Zika, which is usually mild disease, is made a lot worse in these populations,' Russell said. 'I think there's a major effect, but the studies haven't been done yet to sort that out.'

More Toxic Exposures Are Not the Answer

Many areas are ramping up pesticide spraying to combat Zika virus. A Clean Water Act permit is generally required to spray pesticides in areas where they might end up in water. The permit is intended to keep the toxic chemicals from contaminating water, but now the Zika virus has been used as an excuse to do away with this common-sense precaution.

The language was inserted into the Zika Vector Control Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives. It would exempt pesticide applicators from needing a Clean Water Act permit, even when spraying near water. Critics argued the bill would do little to help fight Zika virus, since mosquito-control agencies already have authority to apply pesticides in emergency situations to prevent the spread of infectious disease without applying for permits.

Opponents say the bill has nothing to do with combating Zika and, instead, has been on the table for years, with the majority pushing for its passage "under whatever name" was convenient at the time.¹⁸ A White House spokesman also said it hasn't ruled out relaxing restrictions on some pesticides to fight Zika.¹⁹

By removing requirements for permits when spraying pesticides near water, it's likely the use of these chemicals will skyrocket, including via aerial spraying, which was recently started in Miami, Florida.

Aerial Mosquito Spraying May Increase Autism Risk

Unfortunately, many may suffer as a result. In research presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies 2016 Meeting, aerial pesticide exposure was linked to an increased risk of developmental delays and autism spectrum disorder among children.²⁰ The study compared children living in zip codes where aerial pesticide spraying was used each summer to combat mosquitoes that carry the eastern equine encephalitis virus with children living in non-aerial-spraying zip codes.

Children exposed to the aerial pesticide spraying were about 25 percent more likely to be diagnosed with autism or have a documented developmental delay than those living in areas that used other methods of pesticide application (such as manual spreading of granules).

If authorities use the supposed threat of Zika to increase aerial spraying, it could increase children's risk of brain disorders, which is the opposite of what anti-Zika campaigns are supposed to achieve.

Mosquito Experts Admit Zika Threat Risk 'Near Zero'

Even mosquito experts are questioning the extent of emergency that actually exists. Chris Barker, Ph.D., a mosquito-borne virus researcher at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, told WebMD:²¹ "I think the risk for Zika actually setting up transmission cycles that become established in the continental U.S. is near zero."

Barker expects Zika to go the way of other tropical diseases spread by mosquitoes, such as dengue fever and chikungunya, in the U.S. with small clusters of outbreaks in southern states and little activity elsewhere. You needn't go dousing your backyard in chemicals in an attempt to stay safe from Zika virus (whose connection to birth defects is still being explored).

If, however, mosquitoes are bothersome for you, draining standing water, including pet bowls, gutters, garbage and recycling bins, spare tires, bird baths, children's toys and so on, is important.

This is where mosquitoes breed, so if you eliminate standing water you'll eliminate many mosquitoes. A simple house fan could also help keep mosquitoes at bay if you're having a get-together in your backyard or, for a longer-term solution, try installing a bat house (bats are voracious consumers of insects, especially mosquitoes). Regularly consuming garlic may also help protect against mosquito bites, as may the following natural insect repellants:

• Cinnamon leaf oil (one study found it was more effective at killing mosquitoes than DEET²²)

• Clear liquid vanilla extract mixed with olive oil

• Wash with citronella soap, and then put some 100 percent pure citronella essential oil on your skin. Java Citronella is considered the highest quality citronella on the market

• Catnip oil (according to one study, this oil is 10 times more effective than DEET²³)

Sources:

• Nature July 25, 2016

• PRI August 2, 2016

• Science Daily June 24, 2016

• USA Today August 3, 2016

• Reuters August 3, 2016

Related Articles:

  Propaganda Machine Takes Aim at Zika Virus

  Experts Admit Zika Threat Fraud

  Gates Foundation Supports Research to Fight Zika Virus

 Comments (4)


via IFTTT

30,000 Muslims Just Slammed Terrorism — Media Silent

ORIGINAL LINK

(ANTIMEDIA) Hampshire, United Kingdom — Like clockwork, when a Muslim commits an act of violence, right-wing politicians, pundits and millions of Westerners insist all Muslims must condemn the attacks. While this standard hardly ever applies to Christian, Jewish or Buddhist terrorists, there is another inconsistency in right-wing reasoning: they claim Muslims refuse to condemn terrorism.

But Muslims do oppose radical Islam. In fact, every time an Islamic extremist commits an unthinkable act of violence, protests and renunciations ring out around the world. Muslims issue these condemnations even though they believe anyone who commits violence in the name of Islam is not Islamic at all.

Most recently, 30,000 Muslims from around the world gathered in the United Kingdom to voice their opposition to the Islamic State and other radical groups.

“The only thing the terrorists are achieving is to completely violate the teachings of the Holy Koran and of the Holy Prophet Muhammad,” Hazrat Mirza Masroor Ahmad, the group’s caliphate, said before the three-day convention in Hampshire, as reported by the Daily Mail.

“Let it be clear that they are not practising Islam, rather it seems as though they have invented their own hate-filled and poisonous religion.”

Attendees came from over 90 countries to make that statement, “reaffirming peace and rejecting extremism while forming a human chain with their arms,” the Daily Mail noted.

For fifty years, the Ahmadiyya Islamic movement has held annual events to renounce violence and extremism in the name of Islam.

The movement was launched in 1989 in Qadanian, a town in Punjab, India, by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed the “Muslim religion and society had deteriorated to the point where divinely inspired reforms were needed.”

Ahmad challenged the notion that Mohammed was the final prophet sent to guide mankind and, conveniently, also claimed to be a messiah. But while his claims may provoke skepticism in non-Muslims and hatred from some orthodox adherents to Islam, the message of peace for all is also a cornerstone of the movement.

As Ahmad said:

“We continue to witness grave injustices being committed against innocent people, be they Muslims, Christians, Jews or people any faith or of no faith. This is most reprehensible and there is no justification for such atrocities. All people who wish to promote peace must stand united against such bloodshed.”

The leader also appeared to reference ongoing injustices that often help radicalize vulnerable Muslims.

“Furthermore the world powers must use their influence to engender justice for all,”  he said.

“Without justice there can never be peace and unless serious thought and selfless action is taken by governments then the world is slipping rapidly towards an increasing state of conflict. We must turn to God and make every effort to work for unity and to help all those who are suffering. That is the true path to peace.”

The movement has over 129 centers, including the Baitul Futuh Mosque in London, the largest mosque in the Western hemisphere. But they are not the only group — or the largest — to condemn radical Islam.

Nahdlatul Ulama, or NU, was founded in 1926 and boasts 50 million members.

As Huffington Post has explained, it is “part Sunni religious body, part political party and part charity.” NU says its goal is “to spread messages about a tolerant Islam in their respective countries to curb radicalism, extremism and terrorism,” which the organization argues “often spring from a misinterpretation of Islamic teachings.” To do so, the group launched a global anti-extremism campaign last year.

NU was originally founded as a counter-movement to radicalism from Saudi Arabia. In fact, the extremist ideology of Wahhabism has been linked to the growth of ISIS.

As for the United States’ record of disavowing dangerous behavior? Not good. Saudi Arabia, an American ally, has been implicated in the 9/11 terror attacks. The Saudi regime is a gross human rights violator but continues to enjoy the support of the United States government. One would think the United States government would condemn them and sever ties. One might expect millions of Americans who despise violence and tyranny to demand their government renounce Saudi Arabia.

Instead, the United States has backed the Saudis’ pummeling of hospitals, schools, and civilians in Yemen, highlighting the double standard the West harbors when it comes to extreme violence. Apparently, organized violence at the hands of some governments is permissible. Individual acts of violence by adherents to a scapegoated religion are intolerable.

Many Americans and other Westerners insist Muslims do not do enough to combat Islamic extremism, which likely leaves many wondering when Jews will condemn every attack on innocent Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. When will Americans condemn their government’s decades of preemptive war, which have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

While Westerners preach morality and peace to Muslims they claim hate the West, the Muslims who gathered in the U.K. this weekend took a different approach: They expressed gratitude for their refuge and pledged loyalty to Britain. The president of the UK Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, Rafiq Hayat, said:

“The 30,000-plus people from over 90 countries gathering at the convention come in the spirit of fraternity – and to give thanks for the security and freedom they have found in Britain.

“Many have fled persecution in other countries and together, they will re-affirm their pledge to follow the true teachings of Islam – that are teachings of peace – and to counter all forms of extremism and intolerance.”

The group’s official motto is “Love for all, hatred for none.”

---

This article (30,000 Muslims Just Slammed Terrorism — Media Silent) is free and open source. You have permission to republish this article under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Carey Wedler and theAntiMedia.org. Anti-Media Radio airs weeknights at 11 pm Eastern/8 pm Pacific. Image credit: Jordi Bernabeu. If you spot a typo, please email the error and name of the article to edits@theantimedia.org.

via IFTTT

$6.5 Trillion Dollars Is Missing From Budget Says Pentagon

ORIGINAL LINK

We Are Change

The Pentagon cannot account for $6.5 trillion dollars according to a new Department of Defense Inspector General’s report – raising alarm bells not just because of the obvious lack of accountability and oversight, but because the last time the Pentagon ‘lost’ an enormous sum of money, 9/11 happened.

Donald Rumsfeld was due to testify about a missing $2.3 trillion before Congress on September 13 2001, however the case was put on hold after the events of September 11.

The paper trail was destroyed when one side of the Pentagon was blown up, and the $2.3 trillion dollar case was brushed under the rubble.

The new case of the missing trillions, and the combustible political climate in the U.S. in 2016, has left many commentators fearing that “something big is about to happen again.”

The Daily Sheeple reports:

Everyone knows by now that the US military has the largest budget on the planet. It’s so large in fact, that it could pay for China’s military budget 3 times over. Which has to make you wonder, where does all of that money go? You may think that question has an obvious answer, since we are aware of most of the military’s weapon systems, personnel numbers, and equipment.

In reality, we don’t know. And when I say we, I mean even our own government doesn’t really know. In response to Congressional demands that the Pentagon provide a comprehensive audit of their finances for the first time, a Department of Defense Inspector General’s report was published last week. It revealed that the Pentagon could not provide documentation pertaining to $6.5 trillion in transactions.

On top of that, the report showed that the Pentagon “did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System . . . removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during Q3 FY 2015. As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and year-end financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail.” Sounds like the Pentagon is deliberately hiding some of their expenses, doesn’t it?

Which wouldn’t come as a surprise, since the Pentagon has been ignoring a federal law passed 20 years ago, which mandates regular audits for all government agencies. In that time, they’ve never once provided a good explanation for where their our money is spent. Is this money being burned up in fraud and waste, or are they spending it on clandestine activities that would outrage the American people? Since they never get in trouble for ignoring our auditing laws, we’ll probably never know.

Follow WE ARE CHANGE on SOCIAL MEDIA

---

SnapChat: LukeWeAreChange
fbook: https://facebook.com/LukeWeAreChange
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange

Instagram: http://instagram.com/lukewearechange

---

Sign up become a patron and Show your support for alternative news

for Just 1$ a month you can help Grow We are change

We use Bitcoin Too !  

12HdLgeeuA87t2JU8m4tbRo247Yj5u2TVP

Join and Up Vote Our STEEMIT 

The post $6.5 Trillion Dollars Is Missing From Budget Says Pentagon appeared first on We Are Change.

via IFTTT

Wealth Tax Looms As Greeks Forced To Declare All 'Assets' To Tax Authority

ORIGINAL LINK

In Greece's ongoing collapse into utter farce, The Greek finance ministry confirmed some more details of the long-planned registration of all kinds of private wealth that will go into effect in February 2017. As KeepTalkingGreece reports, more than 8,500,000 tax payers registered in Greece will be called to declare all moveable and immovable assets, their total “wealth”, and even cash they possess even if it is below 100 euro. Furthermore, the taxpayers will have to register changes in their assets when they occur and not annually.

Tax authorities will upload on their website pre-filled data like real estate, declared income, income from rents, loans, vehicles etc – practically the pre-filled data will refer to data given by taxpayers in their income declaration.

 

And under the new scheme, Greeks are mandated to have registered everything they own, with taxpayers having to add moveable and immovable possessions such as paintings, antiques, jewelry, even historical weapon, etc but also the cash they have in their wallets or under the mattress.

 

“Taxpayers must declare all the cash they have in their hands, even one euro!” an official from the Finance Ministry told newspaper To Vima on conditions of anonymity.

 

The Greek finance ministry apparently does not know yet what value the taxpayers will have to declare if they possess a necklace and a ring, a painting made by the cousin and a sculpture made by the sister in the ceramics course. The Ministry has also no idea, who will estimate the value and how.

 

Within a month, the taxpayer will have to submit a modification statement, if there are any changes in his possessions status.

 

"This will affect any case of property transfer or acquisition, but not of income, which is being declared each year, and are directly updated by the tax authorities. To Vima stresses.

KeppTalkingGreece sarcastically concludes... that she  understands, she will not have to submit cash possessions modifications every time she goes to the kiosk to buy chewing gums or cigarettes and pays cash from the money in her wallet.

PS No comment for the time being as my current moveable possessions are two bikinis, 2 pairs of flip flops and a beach towel. Swimming is the best medicine against state madness and officials with Robespierre’s attitudes.

*  *  *

The simple question every Greek (and European and American and Japanese) citizen should be asking - why does the government want to know this? ...and besides what gives them the right to invade the citizenry's provacy to such a degree?

The answer is sadly simple. The road the dystopian "wealth tax" endgame has been long-written. As we pointed out in 2011, the "muddle through" is dead... and there are only painful ways out...

And now it is time to face the facts. What facts?

 

The facts which state that between household, corporate and government debt, the developed world has more than $20 trillion in debt over and above the sustainable threshold by the definition of "stable" debt to GDP of 180%.

 

The facts according to which all attempts to eliminate the excess debt have failed, and for now even the Fed's relentless pursuit of inflating our way out this insurmountable debt load have been for nothing.

 

The facts which state that the only way to resolve the massive debt load is through a global coordinated debt restructuring (which would, among other things, push all global banks into bankruptcy) which, when all is said and done, will have to be funded by the world's financial asset holders: the middle-and upper-class, which, if BCS is right, have a ~30% one-time tax on all their assets to look forward to as the great mean reversion finally arrives and the world is set back on a viable path. 

 

But not before the biggest episode of "transitory" pain, misery and suffering in the history of mankind. Good luck, politicians and holders of financial assets, you will need it because after Denial comes Anger, and only long after does Acceptance finally arrive.

The truth is far, far uglier than anything anyone in a position of power will tell you because acknowledgment would imply the need to come up with solutions that involve more than merely extending the event horizon for a little longer. Alas, even politicians now realize there is only so far that the can can be kicked.

There is one thing we would like to bring to our readers' attention because we are confident, that one way or another, sooner or later, it will be implemented.

Namely a one-time wealth tax: in other words, instead of stealth inflation, the government will be forced to proceed with over transfer of wealth. According to BCG, the amount of developed world debt between household, corporate and government that needs to be eliminated is just over $21 trillion. Which unfortunately means that there is an equity shortfall that will have to be funded with incremental cash which will have to come from somewhere. That somewhere is tax of the middle and upper classes, which are in possession of $74 trillion in financial assets, which in turn will have to be taxed at a blended rate of 28.7%.

And perhaps Greece is the Western world's guinea pig for the first effort?

via IFTTT

CNN Reporter Didn't Know She Was Still on the Air, Admits Obama Paid Them to Lie

ORIGINAL LINK

Source Viral Liberty

If you happen to watch CNN, you’ll know that the network has become a front for the Clinton Campaign and a bastion for spreading liberal nonsense. Now, a report by one of its own journalists has found that CNN has also taken bribes from foreign countries.

The CNN reporter who blew the lid on this issue was none other than Amber Lyon, formerly employed by CNN and an “award winning reporter.” Yesterday, Lyon “blew the cover” on the network’s suspicious business practices.

Lyon claims that CNN “is paid by the U.S. government for reporting on some events, and not reporting on others.” Lyon also told us that the network is a tool for the Obama Administration to manipulate the information the American Public gets to see.

Lyon claims that Obama has been controlling what we know through CNN, her former employer.

Lyon’s findings suggesting that the network acted as an information filter for the Obama Whitehouse has confirmed the suspicions of many that government corruption reaches far into supposedly non government sectors of America.

A few years ago, Lyon was interviewed by Joe Rogan, and revealed some very shocking testimony concerning her reporting of the 2011 Arab Spring Protests in Bahrain.

Lyons being interviewed by Joe Rogan about her experience reporting the 2011 Arab Spring in Bahrain

During Lyon’s interview with Joe Rogan, she explained that she and another female colleague were part of a 4 person team sent by CNN to Bahrain in 2011. Arriving in Bahrain, Lyon noticed something very odd- the United States government had been supplying over $1 billion worth in weaponry- including tear gas- to the oppressive Bahraini regime looking to suppress popular protests in the country.

Lyon was threatened by United States government personnel while staying on a U.S. Navy base in Bahrain. She was told not to report the incident, or face grave consequences.

Instead, CNN told her to be quiet and not report the Bahraini government’s suppression of peaceful protests, but was forced to report complete lies.

Bahraini police forces violently suppress protestors in 2011

The Guardian confirms much of Lyon’s testimony, and tells us that the CNN journalists themselves were victims of oppression from the Bahraini authorities:

“The CNN crew itself was violently detained by regime agents . As they described it after returning to the US, “20 heavily-armed men”, whose faces were “covered with black ski masks”, “jumped from military vehicles”, and then “pointed machine guns at” the journalists, forcing them to the ground. The regime’s security forces seized their cameras and deleted their photos and video footage, and then detained and interrogated them for the next six hours.”

Right now, Amber Lyon is trying to get the word out that the Obama Administration and CNN have worked together to support a brutal, repressive regime and silence journalists who are only doing their jobs to report the truth.

Please share this article so that we can raise awareness for the injustices suffered by Amber Lyon, and for the outright corruption in the mainstream media.

via IFTTT

Clinton lead over Trump shrinks to margin-of-error: Bloomberg poll

ORIGINAL LINK

The following is a media news analysis

Is Hillary Clinton squashing Donald Trump into oblivion in the polls? Or is her lead over him perilously shrinking? One thing we know is: there are countless ways to spin a poll. Consider the case of selective reporting on the most recent Bloomberg national poll.

On Aug. 10, Bloomberg reported “Clinton up 6 on Trump in Two Way Race.” But looking at the actual poll, Trump has moved so close to Clinton, the results are within the margin of error.

Notably, in five months, Clinton’s lead over Trump in the Bloomberg poll has shrunk from 18-points to within the margin of error.

In March of 2016, when likely voters were asked to choose between Clinton and Trump “if the election were held today,” Clinton bested Trump 54%-36% (18 percentage points).

In June, with Libertarian Gary Johnson thrown into the mix, Clinton’s lead over Trump was 5 percentage points smaller: 48% to 35% (13 percentage points).

In the most recent poll, the spread between Clinton and Trump in a two-person race was down to just 3 percentage points, Clinton at 45% and Trump at 42%. That’s within the margin of error. When Libertarian and Green Party candidates are put in the mix, it’s Clinton 42% and Trump 40% –again within the margin of error.

Clinton lead over Trump in Bloomberg poll

March 2016: 18 points

June 2016: 13 points*

August 2016: 3 points**

*including Libertarian in race
**within the margin of error

But this notable trend isn’t reflected in the Bloomberg write-up here. Instead, the reporter chose to use the poll numbers that look better for Clinton: ones that added in “leaners.” What are leaners? Respondents who were first asked who they’d vote for, then answered they didn’t plan to vote or didn’t know who they’d vote for, and then were pressed to pick a candidate they were leaning toward, anyway. This is how Bloomberg got to the 6-point spread cited in its headline…double the actual spread of 3%.

Presidential nominee, Democrat Hillary Clinton

The graphic Bloomberg used in its news story appears somewhat misleading in this context. It depicts the 6-point spread as the result of the question “…for whom would you vote?” It doesn’t disclose that the graphic adds in “leaners” who were asked a followup question.

The article then selects one negative factoid to highlight about Trump and use in the subheadline: “The findings suggest damage has been done to one of Trump’s main calling cards, his business expertise, with 61 percent of likely voters saying they’re less impressed with the Republican nominee’s business acumen than when the campaign started.” The 61% answer was in response to a freestanding question Bloomberg chose to ask about Trump, with no equivalent question presented about Clinton. One could envision, for example, the poll could have asked, “Since the start of the campaign, are you more or less impressed with Hillary Clinton’s ability to handle the nation’s secrets and sensitive information?” Odds are, such a question could have produced a number at least as negative as Trump’s on business expertise. But the Clinton question wasn’t asked.

In fact, the Bloomberg poll shows Trump improved in eight categories when it comes to being associated with positive phrases, while Clinton is down in eight categories. Trump improved his ratings in “Would fight hard for the middle class,” “Would rein in the power of Wall Street,” “Has the right temperament to be president,” “Is ready to lead our country on day one in office,” “Could get things done in Washington,” “Would be a good role model for children,” “Is trustworthy,” and “Possesses the skills needed to conduct foreign policy.”

Read the Bloomberg poll questions and methodology

This isn’t to suggest reporting on this poll should have favored Trump; ideally, it should reflect general positives and negatives for each candidate, if they exist, and include relevant trends for context and perspective.

It’s simply another reminder that what you read in the news often comes through a filter.

via IFTTT

Observer: Apple, Twitter, Google, and Instagram Collude to Defeat Trump

Assange: Hillary Made Secret Deals With Alleged ISIS Sponsor Le Farge

ORIGINAL LINK

We Are Change

Assange has continually promised to release emails that will be damaging to the campaign of Hillary Clinton that will essentially put Hillary in Prison proving she committed a crime. Assange brought up the Clinton’s worst nightmare the “Clinton Foundation” on Sunday. When interviewed by RT British Journalist Afshin Rattansi, Assange was asked if he had “the email which will put Hillary Clinton behind bars,” Assange then claimed to have 350 emails on secret deals made with a French transnational concrete company named Le Farge that allegedly paid ISIS to do business in regions controlled by the terror group.

In RT’s Going underground with Afshin Rattansi, Rattasni asked Assange if there was proof that Hillary Clinton armed ISIS deash in Libya and Syria using the countries as a conduit?
Assange responded that “the U.S. government did use Libya as a conduit to get arms to jihadist in Syria.”

Another report, by British political blog The Canary, shows that the Clinton Foundation accepted upwards of “$100,000 from the ISIS sponsoring company Le Farge.”

“From 1990 to 1992, Clinton served on Lafarge’s Board of Directors. Under her tenure, Lafarge’s Ohio subsidiary was caught burning hazardous waste to fuel cement plants. Clinton defended the decision at the time.Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.In the late 1980s, according to an archived investigative report in the American Spectator, Hillary Clinton was connected to Lafarge when the firm was involved in facilitating CIA support for Saddam Hussein’s secret weapons program.”

Assange additionally spoke about Hillary Clinton’s close ties to Saudi Arabia and her sale of weapons to the Saudis and other Clinton foundation donors.

“Saudi Arabia is probably the largest single donor to the Clinton Foundation, and you can see Clinton’s arms export policies when she was a secretary of state favoring extensively Saudi Arabia” ~Assange said.

He also added on Clinton’s reason for attempting to smear rival Donald Trump “over his alleged ties to Russia She has her own links” Assange said. she’s trying to conceal her own connections to Russia like when she was Secretary of State and was apart of a lucrative uranium deal with the Russians.

“There is a much deeper connection on record with Hillary Clinton and Russia than we are presently aware of then with Donald Trump,” Assange said.

In another interview live-streamed at the Green Party Convention on Saturday, Assange responded to criticism of Wikileaks that Wikileaks started to resemble an opposition research firm working against Hillary Clinton, more than an organization for whistle-blowers to hold government accountable.

“When we published the DNC leaks, the New York Times, which picked it’s favorite candidate … said that I intended to harm Hillary Clinton.” Assange said.
“This is what we’ve been doing for 10 years It’s a completely fabricated story.
We are very interested in power and publishing the truth about power so people can work out however they choose so they can reform power.”

For more on Hillary’s deals as Secretary of state see Alice Donovan’s story on ISIS. BUSTED: Hillary Clinton and Obama Administration Supply U.S. Weapons To ISIS. There is way more to come as Ex Clinton administration worker Dick Morris says in Hillary the Movie “you don’t have to wait for Hillary Clinton’s scandals they are a gift that keeps on giving.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQKAaPgwj_Ue

The post Assange: Hillary Made Secret Deals With Alleged ISIS Sponsor Le Farge appeared first on We Are Change.

via IFTTT