“I Can’t Say I’m Sorry” Says Covington MAGA Hat Teen; “Vietnam Vet” Indian Outed As Fridge-Fixer

Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann refused to apologize for standing his ground as a native american “Vietnam veteran” approached him banging a drum. 

“I mean, in hindsight, I wish we could’ve walked away and avoided the whole thing. But I can’t say that I’m sorry for listening to him and standing there,” Sandmann told “NBC Today” co-host Savannah Guthrie in an interview which has received harsh criticism from both the left and the right. 

Wednesday’s interview evoked strong reactions – with liberals condemning NBC for interviewing Sandmann, and conservatives knocking the network for asking loaded questions. 

The Native American “Vietnam Vet” Nathan Phillips, meanwhile, has been outed for never serving in Vietnam despite repeatedly claiming to have done so, in a case of stolen valor. 

Skeptics of Phillips’ claim were vindicated following a correction in the Washington Post that reads: “Earlier versions of this story incorrectly said that Native American activist Nathan Phillips fought in the Vietnam War. Phillips said he served in the U.S. Marines but was never deployed to Vietnam.”

According to retired Navy Seal Don Shipley – whose YouTube channel is devoted to exposing stolen valor, Phillips’ records reveal that he was a refrigerator technician who went AWOL several times, and who was never deployed outside of the United States. 

Shipley adds that Phillips never served as a “recon ranger” as he has previously claimed. 

As the Gateway Pundit’s Cassandra Fairbanks notes, Phillips raised over $6,000 for a documentary about his life in which he claimed to be a Vietnam Veteran. 

Meanwhile, the memes are flowing:

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2ATvzVB Tyler Durden

Verizon Media Group Cuts 800 Jobs

After a brief lull when it looked like national media jobs might actually be growing thanks largely to the “Trump bump” in advertising revenue and the largesse of billionaire benefactors (see the Washington Post and LA Times), it looks like the American national media is back in job-shedding mode.

But the latest media organization to announce mass layoffs might not be what you would expect (*cough* BuzzFeed *cough*): On Wednesday afternoon, Verizon Media Group (which was briefly known as Oath) – which houses Yahoo’s former media division (including Yahoo Finance) – announced that it would slash 7% of its total headcount, equivalent to some 800 jobs, according to CNBC. 

Yahoo

The layoffs come after the division has consistently underperformed, and follow company-wide buyouts in December.

“Our goal is to create the best experiences for our consumers and the best platforms for our customers,” a Verizon spokesperson told CNBC. “Today marks a strategic step toward better execution of our plans for growth and innovation into the future.”

In an email to staff announcing the cuts, Verizon Media CEO Guru Gowrappan appeared to mimic the same tired “pivot to video” that has been tried unsuccessfully by many other media organizations.

* * *

To: allemployees@oath.com
Subject: Team Update
Team –
Last quarter, our leadership team worked to create the strategy that will propel Verizon Media. We honestly assessed where we are and outlined ambitious but achievable goals that poise us for growth. We shared it broadly with you, and together committed to deliver on our OKRs with meticulous planning, collaboration and rigorous execution.
As hard as it may have felt at times, we’ve made some great strides to serve our customers globally – from consolidating ad platforms, to expanding the Microsoft partnership, growing live programming and content offerings for our Supers, and prioritizing and launching 8 new or substantially updated products at Build It 2018.
In Q1, we’ll have 3 priority areas: first, grow our member-centric ecosystem with must-have mobile and video products and stem desktop declines; second, increase usage and spends flowing through B2B platforms; third, expand our video supply and overall distribution through partnerships. As we work to deliver on both short-term objectives to stabilize our business, we are also focused on long-term strategies that will accelerate distribution, growth and innovation as part of Verizon.
This week, we will make changes that will impact around 7% of our global workforce across the organization, as well as certain brands and products. These were difficult decisions, and we will ensure that our colleagues are treated with respect and fairness, and given the support they need. Resources and other career support will be provided to help our team members navigate the transition.
In addition, we’ve completed an exhaustive review to prioritize the programs that are currently in our portfolio – consumer products, ad products, platform features, partnerships and data centers.
While every business unit has to manage their P&L, these decisions are being made to streamline resources and invest in opportunities that will help us grow. You all know by now that I deeply believe in an owner mindset and focus as a key ingredient for success – going deep on fewer, key things that will have the greatest impact on our customers and business, and doing them exceptionally well.
I want to be clear that we will continue to scale, launch new products and innovate. We are an important part of Verizon and the $7+ billion in revenue we generate through our member-centric ecosystem puts us among the top tech/media companies in the world. Now is the time to go on the offensive, go deep on our big priorities and do everything we can to advance the business. We will talk more about this and answer questions Friday at Open House.
Our world continues to evolve at a faster pace, and we need to leap ahead of consumer trends. We are reimagining our future, and building new products that will become invaluable to consumers today and in the years to come. That’s the spirit of our company and the spirit we all embody as its Builders.
Best,
Guru

* * *

Notably, the mass layoffs at Verizon come shortly after Mic, the millennial-focused media website, abruptly laid off nearly its entire staff.

The cuts come after Hans Vestberg, Verizon’s CEO, said the carrier would focus on its network rather than buying media content, according to WSJ.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2FLmbam Tyler Durden

School Vouchers Aren’t Welfare for the Rich: New at Reason

|||Monkey Business Images/Dreamstime.com

“Do School Vouchers Only Benefit the Wealthy?” asks an article this month in Governing. Like too many headlines, the implication is that school choice is a scam that disproportionately benefits wealthy students who already live in high-performing districts. The Governing story suggests that Arizona’s education savings accounts (ESAs)––publicly-funded savings accounts that parents can use to pay for private school tuition or other education services for their children––rarely help out those who authentically need assistance, favoring already-privileged children instead.

The article cites a 2017 report from The Arizona Republic which found that 75 percent of the ESA money went to students leaving districts that had an “A” or “B” ranking, and only 4 percent of the money followed students opting out of districts rated “D” or lower.

But these numbers hardly even hint at the full story. Arizona’s ESA program can only be used by specific groups of disadvantaged students. In fact, Arizona Department of Education data from 2017 reveals that 82 percent of ESA recipients were students with special needs, from military families, or students from D/F rated schools. The discrepancy between the Republic data and the department data arises from the fact that ESA awards vary between $3,000 and $32,000, based primarily on the severity of a student’s special needs. It is likely that students leaving D/F schools were receiving smaller awards because they were leaving for reasons other than having special needs, writes Christian Barnard in his latest for Reason.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2Uaaays
via IFTTT

“I Won’t Back Down”: Trump Agreed With Erdogan That ISIS Bombing Was Intentional “Provocation”

New details have emerged related to a phone call between President Trump and his Turkish counterpart Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday over the US planned Syria troop pullout, which Turkish presidential office sources say Trump reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out. Unknown up to this point was a segment of the conversation reportedly focused on the devastating ISIS suicide attack on an American patrol deep inside Manbij in northern Syria last Wednesday, which killed four Americans and 15 others. 

Turkish sources say President Trump agreed with Erdogan’s assessment that the rare Jan. 16 attack was a “provocation” carried out in order to influence Trump’s Syria pullout decision.

Prior file photo of meeting between Trump and Erdogan, via Getty 

According to a senor Turkish official with knowledge of the call, Trump said, “I won’t back down. I’m decisive, we will pull out”  in spite of Congressional hawks and media pundits immediately seizing on the tragic terror attack to argue US forces must stay in Syria indefinitely. 

Though the US side has not confirmed the Turkish statements, an explosive report in Middle East Eye suggests Trump is fully aware that both the timing and location of the terror attack appear designed to ratchet up pressure on the White House to reverse its prior troop draw down order, leaving the door wide open for yet another endless American quagmire in the Middle East, and allow for remnant ISIS cells to mount an insurgency on the some 2,000+ US forces there. 

According to the Middle East Eye report:

US President Donald Trump told his Turkish counterpart on Sunday that the United States wasn’t going to reverse its decision to withdraw militarily from Syria, even after an attack in the city of Manbij last week claimed the lives of four US servicemen, five local fighters, and 10 civilians.

According to a senior Turkish official, who spoke to Middle East Eye on condition of anonymity due to government protocol, Trump said that he agreed with Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan’s assessment that the attack was a provocation that aimed to influence the pullout decision.

Though Turkey has been notorious in spinning and imposing its own wishful version of events related to US actions and intentions in Syria, US official sources have confirmed Erdogan attempted to convince Trump the “provocation” was essentially a trap into which he must not fall. 

Days after the ISIS bombing, we noted the incredible and almost too hard to believe “fortuitous” timing of the attack on a restaurant that was well-known as a place frequented by US personnel just as the Pentagon was readying for Trump’s ordered “full” pullout:

If ISIS is indeed responsible for the bombing, as war pundits are unquestioningly asserting is the case, then they’re either really, really stupid or they really want US troops to remain in Syria. Or perhaps the attack was engineered by someone else who has a vested interest in keeping a US military presence in Syria, either using ISIS as a patsy or completely separate from ISIS. Wouldn’t be the first time a suspicious attack took place in Syria while the Trump administration was working to withdraw troops.

As for Sunday’s phone call, the White House for its part has only confirmed two presidents “agreed to continue to pursue a negotiated solution for northeast Syria that achieves our respective security concerns.” During the call Erdogan reportedly conveyed to Trump that Turkish forces stand ready to immediately take over security in Manbij and that Turkey agrees to take action to clear ISIS remnants out of Syria and prevent their return.

Currently there’s a diplomatic stalemate of sorts enduring as American officials contemplate what’s next as the Pentagon on the one hand attempts to protect US-backed SDF forces from Turkish invasion, and on the other seeks to appease NATO ally Turkey and while preventing a Turkey-Russia-Damascus deal that could end any US leverage in Syria. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2RJAeE4 Tyler Durden

Most Americans Support Immigration, Regardless of Age

A recent Pew Research Center report on Generation Z (defined as people born after 1996) confirms that younger Americans tend to be more “liberal” or “progressive” on various social and political issues than earlier cohorts. But the definition of those terms is debatable and not necessarily coherent. Immigration policy, the excuse for the ongoing partial shutdown of the federal government, illustrates the complexities lurking beneath the labels.

New York Times reporter Dan Levin is surprised (or thinks readers will be surprised) to hear a 19-year-old college student who describes herself as a political conservative say “immigrants make our country richer.” Levin says “the Republican party has moved farther to the right on issues like immigration,” endangering its standing with young women like her.

Yet Pew’s surveys, which included a sample of 920 minors as well as a sample of about 11,000 Americans 18 and older, found that attitudes toward immigration are very similar across generations. The share of respondents saying legal immigrants have a “somewhat positive” or “very positive” impact on the country ranged from 72 percent among baby boomers (born from 1946 to 1964) to 79 percent among members of the Silent Generation (born from 1928 to 1945), the oldest cohort for which data were reported. In the two youngest generations, 78 percent saw immigration as positive. The share who said “very positive” was highest among millenials (35 percent) but higher among the oldest generation (30 percent) than the youngest (28 percent).

Pew did not ask about illegal immigration, and there may be significant generational differences there. A Quinnipiac survey conducted last month, for instance, found that 18-to-34-year-olds were substantially less likely than older Americans to support a border wall. But Ronald Reagan and likeminded Republicans of his and subsequent generations not only would have readily endorsed the proposition that “immigrants make our country richer”; they supported legalization of unauthorized residents and wanted to allow voluntary contracts between American employers and foreign workers, arguing that interfering with such arrangements was dangerously misguided. If Republicans are less inclined today to support such policies, does that mean they are more conservative than Ronald Reagan, or less? If conservatism implies support for economic freedom, the answer seems clear, and it is not the one the Times gives.

Another way of looking at the left/right divide focuses on the Pew question that asks respondents whether they think “government should do more to solve problems” or “government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.” Younger Americans are more inclined to pick the first option, which supposedly shows they are more “liberal” or “progressive.” Yet when a Donald Trump supporter demands a border wall and increased enforcement to stop illegal immigrants and illegal drugs from entering the country, he is surely saying “government should do more to solve problems.” He definitely does not think those issues are “better left to businesses and individuals.” Likewise with Republicans who favor restrictions on abortion, prostitution, or gambling.

This tension has always been apparent in the positions of self-identifed conservatives, who usually claim to favor free markets but make exceptions for transactions that offend them. The nature of those transactions may change, such that the Republican president elected in 2016 wants to block the cross-border employment that the Republican president elected in 1980 wanted to facilitate. But that counts as a move to the right only if we arbitrarily say it does. Is Bernie Sanders more right-wing than Ronald Reagan?

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2FUS3bW
via IFTTT

Cohen Postpones House Testimony, Citing Threats From Trump, Giuliani

Michael D. Cohen, Trump’s former personal lawyer and fixer who subsequently turned on his formerly employer, and who was scheduled to appear before the House Oversight Committee – which will also sport Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez among its ranks – has indefinitely postponed his congressional testimony, his lawyer said in a statement on Wednesday.

According tot he NYT, Cohen was set to appear before the House Oversight Committee on Feb. 7 at the invitation of Rep (D, MD) Elijah Cummings and the chairman of the committee, but according to the NYT, “backed out because of ongoing threats against his family, his lawyer Lanny Davis said in a statement.” Davis cited Trump’s verbal attacks on Mr. Cohen and some of his relatives.

“By advice of counsel, Mr. Cohen’s appearance will be postponed to a later date,” Mr. Davis said in the statement. “Mr. Cohen wishes to thank Chairman Cummings for allowing him to appear before the House Oversight Committee and looks forward to testifying at the appropriate time.” He added, “This is a time where Mr. Cohen had to put his family and their safety first.”

We now look forward to Trump’s tweet in response to Cohen getting cold paws right after the BuzzFeed article that was supposed to be the smoking gun in starting impeachment proceedings against Trump.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2WdU2Os Tyler Durden

Two Percent For The One Percent

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Gradual inflation has a numbing effect. It impoverishes the lower and middle class, but they don’t notice.”

– Andrew Bosomworth, PIMCO Germany, as quoted in Der Spiegel

Media reports and political candidates have been stressing the rising wealth and income inequality gaps in the United States. They do so to advance their agendas, but the problem is real and they are justified in raising it. At the same time, both groups are largely overlooking an important piece of the puzzle in the way they talk about it. To properly diagnose this important problem, we need to understand the role the Federal Reserve plays in managing economic growth and how it contributes to these rising imbalances. This article examines the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy objectives and their stated inflation goals to help you better appreciate the role they play in this troubling and growing problem.  

Populism on the Rise

The political success of Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders and more recently Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez leave scant doubt that populism is on the rise. Voters from both parties are demanding change and going to extremes to achieve it. Much of what is taking place is rooted in the emergence of the greatest wealth inequality gap since the roaring ’20s.

Over the last twenty years, the “1%” have been able to accumulate wealth at an ever-increasing rate. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the top 1% take home 21% of all income in the United States, the largest share since 1928. The graph below, while slightly dated, shows the drastic change in income trends that have occurred over the last 35 years.

Graph Courtesy: New York Times – One Broken Economy, in One Simple Chart

This grab for riches by the few is coming at the expense of the many. There are a variety of social, political and economic factors driving the growing discrepancy, but there is one critical factor that is being ignored.

Enter the Federal Reserve

The Federal Reserve Act, as amended in 1977, contains three mandates dictating the management of monetary policy. They are 1) maximize employment, 2) maintain stable prices, and 3) keep long-term interest rates moderate.

These broadly-worded objectives afford the Federal Reserve great latitude in interpreting the Act. Among these, the Fed’s mandate for stable prices is worth a closer look. The Fed interprets “stable prices” as a consistent rate of price increases or inflation. Per the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago“The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE), is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s statutory mandate.” 

Understanding why the wealth gap has exploded in recent years requires an appreciation for how this small but consistent rate of inflation harms the poor and middle class while simultaneously enriching the already wealthy.

Wealth is defined as that which is left after consumption and the accumulated results of those savings over time.

With that in mind consider inflation from the standpoint of those living paycheck to paycheck. These citizens are often paid on a bi-weekly basis and spend all of their income throughout the following two weeks. In an inflationary state, one’s purchasing power or the amount of goods and services that can be purchased per dollar declines as time progresses. Said differently, the value of work already completed declines over time.  While the erosion of purchasing power is imperceptible in a low inflation environment, it is real and reduces what little wealth this class of workers earned. Endured over years, it has adverse effects on household wealth.

Now let’s focus on the wealthy. A large portion of their earnings are saved and invested, not predominately used to pay rent or put food on the table. While the value of their wealth is also subject to inflation, they offset the negative effects of inflation and increase real wealth by investing in ways that take advantage of rising inflation. Further, the Fed’s historically low-interest-rate policy, which supports 2% inflation, allows the more efficient use of financial leverage to increase wealth.

Some may counter that daily laborers living week to week get pay raises that offset inflation. That may be true, but it also assumes inflation is measured correctly. The Fed relies upon the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) metrics as gauges of inflation. While widely accepted, we all have firsthand experience of the rapid rise in the cost of health care, higher education, rents, and many other essential goods and services that suggests far greater inflation than the Fed’s 2% objective. The truth is that inflation is not measurable with any real accuracy.

John Williams, of Shadow Stats, calculates inflation based on the methods used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 1980. Currently, his calculation has CPI running at 9.9% per year, much higher than the latest 2.2% CPI reported. The difference between Williams’ calculation and the BLS’ reported figure is caused by the numerous adjustments the BLS has made to the CPI calculation over the years which has reduced reported inflation. Economists argue that the BLS adjustments provide better accuracy. Maybe, but the record level of wealth inequality and public dissatisfaction offers hard evidence to the contrary. Disagreements notwithstanding, the loss of wealth due to inflation, whether at 2% or 10%, is punishing for those spending everything as it limits their ability to save and accumulate wealth.

Economic growth as measured by Gross Domestic Production (GDP) is the holy grail of all measures of economic advancement. Rising GDP in a debt-based economy depends on credit growth which explains why inflation is so important to policy-makers. The logical conclusion is that the Fed’s primary purpose for running a consistent rate of inflation is to foster credit growth. The growth of credit benefits those who have collateral to borrow against, employ leverage and invest. Again, it is the wealthy that benefit from this. For everyone else, it is a merciless master that makes it difficult if not impossible to maintain one’s standard of living.

The more of one’s wealth that is used for consumption, the more one is subject to the ills of inflation. Additionally, this circumstance also drives a negative feedback loop in that inflation also quietly incents people to consume since goods and services will be more expensive tomorrow than they are today.

While we illustrate the extremes in this article, one can envision how the middle class, which increasingly spend the majority of their wages on consumption and invest little or nothing, also fall into the inflation trap.

Summary

The central banking scheme of supporting economic growth through increasing levels of debt only makes sense if “growth at all cost” uniformly benefits all citizens, but it does not. There is a big difference between growth and prosperity. Furthermore, an inflationary policy that aims to minimize the burden of debt while at the same time aggravating the growth of those burdens is taking a serious toll on global economic and social stability.

As we are finding, the United States is not immune to these disruptions.  The source of these problems are accumulating and compounding as a result of the public’s failure to understand why it is happening. This will ultimately lead to further policy-making errors. Until the Fed’s policies are publicly discussed, re-examined and ultimately reconsidered, the problems will not resolve themselves.

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2B0bxc2 Tyler Durden

Trump Backs Venezuelan Opposition Leader As ‘Acting President’ In Chaotic Aftermath Of Attempted Coup

In the chaotic aftermath of the latest coup attempt against Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela’s US-backed opposition leader Juan Guaido, the head of the Venezuelan assembly has proclaimed himself ‘acting president’ with the explicit backing of the US in what’s looking more and more like a successful, US-backed coup.

Maduro

Clashes have continued following a failed coup attempt organized by a group of National Guard soldiers  who tried to unseat Maduro. In a retaliatory crackdown, Venezuelan police have blocked Internet access

Still the clashes have continued.

At least one military general has joined with the opposition.

And in an unprecedented move, the Trump administration announced that it would recognize Guaido as the legitimate president of Venezuela, Bloomberg reported.

It’s unclear where Maduro is, or what exactly is going on.

Does this mean:

i) a US-sponsored Venezuela coup and

ii) Venezuela oil production is about to soar

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2CAd748 Tyler Durden

Michael Bloomberg: Legalizing Weed ‘Is Perhaps the Stupidest Thing We’ve Ever Done’

As he considers a 2020 run for the Democratic presidential nomination, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is continuing to defend his controversial positions on several issues. Speaking yesterday at the United States Naval Academy’s 2019 Leadership Conference in Annapolis, Maryland, Bloomberg explained why he opposes marijuana legalization and still believes “stop and frisk” was a good idea.

Bloomberg’s stances aren’t anything new. But they’re a good reminder that, as Reason‘s Scott Shackford argued in October, the possible presidential candidate is no lover of liberty.

For one thing, Bloomberg remains vociferously opposed to weed, appearing to tie drug overdose deaths to marijuana legalization. “Last year, in 2017, 72,000 Americans OD’d on drugs,” he said, according to CNN’s Donald Judd. “In 2018, more people than that are ODing on drugs, have OD’d on drugs, and today incidentally, we are trying to legalize another addictive narcotic, which is perhaps the stupidest thing we’ve ever done,” he declared, presumably talking about marijuana. “We’ve got to fight that,” Bloomberg added.

Bloomberg was likely referencing Centers for Disease Control statistics showing that 72,000 people died of drug overdoses in 2017. But it’s hard to see how that relates to marijuana legalization. As I pointed out in December, the Drug Enforcement Agency did not report any deaths from marijuana in 2017. According to David Schmader, author of Weed: The User’s Guide, you’d need to consume 1,500 pounds of the stuff within 15 minutes to fatally overdose.

Moreover, numerous studies (six of which Reason‘s C.J. Ciaramella rounded up last February), show that opioid addiction does not start with marijuana. For more on the “gateway drug” myth, you can read Jacob Sullum’s comprehensive dive into the subject here.

But Bloomberg has long been ignorant when it comes to weed. In 2013, he called medical marijuana “one of the greatest hoaxes of all time,” despite endless evidence to the contrary. And in 2015, he said marijuana legalization is “one of the stupider things that’s happening across our country.”

To his credit, Bloomberg announced in February 2013 that people arrested for possessing small amounts of weed would be given an appearance ticket and released, rather than be locked up overnight. But this did not address the issue of arrests themselves. In 2012, more than 40,000 people were arrested for low-level marijuana arrests, according to the NYC Criminal Justice Agency.

Thousands of those arrests came courtesy of another controversial stance that Bloomberg defended yesterday: stop and frisk. Under that program, police would detain and search citizens based on a reasonable suspicion they were armed. Though as the New York Civil Liberties Union has noted, police recovered just 729 firearms in 2012 due to stop and frisk. By contrast, more than 26,000 people were stopped on suspicion of alleged marijuana possession, leading to roughly 5,000 arrests.

In Bloomberg’s mind, stop and frisk helped lower the city’s murder rate. He said:

We focused on keeping kids from going through the correctional system, where they just came out worse than they came in, kids who walked around looking like they might have a gun, remove the gun from their pockets and stop it, and the result of that was, over the years, the murder rate in New York City went from 650 a year to 300 a year when I left.

Bloomberg’s argument is flawed. As Sullum noted in September, crime in New York actually started declining in the ’90s. And while that decline continued while stop and frisk was in full effect, the homicide rate still went down by 43 percent between 2011 and 2017—as the program was being phased out!

Stop and frisk was also unconstitutional—police shouldn’t be able to stop people without probable cause. And as a federal judge ruled in 2013, the program affected mostly innocent people and minorities. “Nearly 90 percent of the people stopped are released without the officer finding any basis for a summons or arrest,” wrote then-Judge Shira Scheindlin of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to The New York Times. She also said the New York City Police Department engaged in a “policy of indirect racial profiling” by regularly stopping “blacks and Hispanics who would not have been stopped if they were white.”

Bloomberg, meanwhile, said yesterday that “we certainly did not pick somebody by race.” Rather, police “went to a place where there was somebody that had been murdered…and that’s where you looked for kids who might have a gun.” Of course, that’s hardly good enough justification to stop and pat down tens of thousands of innocent people.

Bloomberg’s comments yesterday came as he considers whether or not to run for president in 2020. “I said I’d take a look at it in January, February. We’re still in January,” he said.

If he does run, he has a “slim, none, and fat” chance of winning, as Reason‘s Matt Welch explained in November. That’s probably for the best. There’s are plenty of reasons, after all, why Reason highlighted him as one our “45 Enemies of Freedom” in the 45th anniversary issue in 2013.

from Hit & Run http://bit.ly/2sHtNSM
via IFTTT

Syria To “Strike Tel Aviv Airport” Unless UN Does Something About Israeli Aggression

Syria has threatened to strike Israel’s Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv unless the UN Security Council ends years of IDF incursions into Syrian airspace, according to Syria’s UN Ambassador Bashar al-Jaafari. 

“Isn’t time now for the UN Security Council to stop the Israeli repeated aggressions on the Syrian Arab Republic territories?” asked al-Jaafari. “Or is it required to draw the attention of the war-makers in this Council by exercising our legitimate right to defend ourself and respond to the Israeli aggression on Damascus International Civil Airport in the same way on Tel Aviv Airport?

Israeli forces conducted several strikes in recent days on alleged Iranian facilities within Syria, including a rare daylight raid on Syria’s international airport south of Damascus, which the Assad government responded ti with a surface-to-surface missile, according to the Times of Israel

Israel’s Sunday night attack involved dozens of strikes reportedly from F-16 jets flying over Lebanon targeting locations in and around southern Damascus. Syria’s Pantsir and Buk air defense missile systems reportedly shot down an unknown number of inbound Israeli rockets according to early unconfirmed video. 

In total, 21 people were killed in the exchange, including at least 12 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, according to i24 Newsciting watchdog reports. 

Israeli air raids in Syria have repeatedly endangered airline flights operating over the region – endangering two civilian aircraft on Christmas day while engaging Syrian targets, according to the Russian Defense Ministry, which added that the IDF F-16s approached as civilian jets were landing at Damascus and Beirut airports. 

Moscow chimed in on Wednesday as well, calling for Israel to halt what Moscow described as arbitrary air strikes on Syria. 

“The practice of arbitrary strikes on the territory of a sovereign state, in this case, we are talking about Syria, should be ruled out,” said Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, responding to a question from Russian news agency TASS about the recent Israeli strikes. 

“We should never allow Syria, which has suffered years of armed conflict, to be turned into an arena where geopolitical scores are settled,” she added. 

In September, 15 Russian servicemen were killed after Israeli jets used a Russian II-20 recon plane as cover to place it in the path of a Syrian air defense missile

Syria urged the UN Security Council to put an end to Israeli incursions, as al-Jaafari accused the United States, Britain and France – which hold permanent memberships on the UN body, of condoning Israeli aggression – ignoring their responsibility to “maintain international peace and security in accordance with international law.”

The restoration sovereignty of the occupied Syrian Golan is a permanent right of Syria that [is] not subject to negotiations,” added al-Jaafari. 

Israel began occupying the Golan Heights from Syria after the 1967 Six-Day War – refraining from extending sovereignty over the region for more than a decade until the Jewish state annexed the area in 1981. Syria has repeatedly argued that the Golan heights is their territory, and had demanded it back. 

Israel disagrees.

“Israel will remain forever on the Golan Heights, and the Golan Heights will forever remain in our hands,” said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in November. 

via ZeroHedge News http://bit.ly/2UbDbK2 Tyler Durden