Category Archives: HOT TOPIC

Leaks Reveal Elon Musk Is A Fraud Who Is Protected By Obama in Exchange For Funding Campaigns Through Google

Leaks Reveal Elon Musk Is A Fraud Who Is Protected By Obama in Exchange For Funding DNC Campaigns

The Federal Reserve Bank, The Federal Trade Commission, The Securities and Exchange Commission, The Internal Revenue Service, The Department of Transportation, The Department of Energy, and other top federal departments have White House orders to, not only, “stay away from Elon Musk” but to give him exclusive extra government perks!

It is a fact that all of the above agencies have received reams of complaints about Musk and his companies but, so far, they have slow-walked or “stood-down” on all investigations.

Will the FBI do better?


Demands have been filed for a Special Prosecutor to be assigned by the Department of Justice but, so far, those please have fallen on deaf ears.

Senate Republicans are discussing an insurrection unless they see “real” law enforcement action prior to the Election.

It is all part of a quid-pro-quo kick-back deal between Musk, Larry Page, John Doerr, Steve Westly and the White House. It has removed nearly a trillion dollars from the taxpayers pockets and put that taxpayer cash in the bank vaults of these Silicon Valley Insiders.

Elon Musk is believed to be the largest financier and promoter of anti-coal, anti-oil and anti-hydrogen fuel cell efforts in the world. His acrimonious stealth attacks have earned him the title of “The George Soros of Cleantech”. Coal companies have not only ratcheted up their attacks on Musk but have begun a massive “Doxxing” campaign to disclose Musk’s corruption links.

Musk and his Bromance buddy: Larry Page, work together to rig all Google news reports in order to hide any of the revelations about Musk and maintain a constant state of puff pieces and self-aggrandizing Musk glory stories on the web to run the smoke-screen.

The following item is thought to have come from Coal doxxers:

Urgent Public Notice About Tesla Motors

What the world thinks about Tesla Owners: For the, relatively, small number of cars produced, Tesla has had the largest number of crashes by drunk drivers, sexual harassment charges against those owners, and tax evasion investigations against those owners. Tesla owners have, by far, been involved in the most divorce filings, by volume, in which “abuse of spouse” is the key issue than any other car company. This means that in addition to the “douchebag” perception that driving a Tesla carries with it, scientific and demographic evidence now proves that Tesla owners have a lower moral character. Be certain that you want the world to see you inside of a Tesla. This chart shows the sociological facts behind the poor ethics that driving a Tesla reflects on it’s owners:
many people have been killed in order to profiteer on corrupt lithium mining wars. Tesla isn’t “Green”. Tesla uses toxic, self-igniting, explosive, cancer-causing, fetus-mutating lithium batteries that contain a massive soup of deadly chemicals inside them. The chemistry gets more explosive over time and poisons the Earth when the batteries are used up. 40% of the workers who make the batteries die from getting poisoned by making the batteries. Panasonic, who promotes the batteries, has had over 40 international corruption, bribery and dumping charges filed against them over these batteries. Lithium batteries just blow up whenever they want to.

You are promoting organized Crime by owning a Tesla: Elon Musk took Tesla away from its founders in a hostile takeover. He and his Silicon Valley Cartel did this to exploit their corrupt lithium mining scam. His Cartel placed their own people in the Department of Energy in order to get them to give Tesla exclusive taxpayer cash because, as Elon Musk said on 60 Minutes, he was just about to go bankrupt because nobody wanted to buy the cars. Tesla has used bribes, illegal campaign financing, illegal stock and asset exchanges with Senators and stock market manipulation enhanced by Tesla co-owner, the privacy abusing company: Google.

When law enforcement does cover-ups instead of law enforcement

Firings Lead to Closing Criminal Cases


Share:Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

By Bill Britt
Alabama Poliical Reporter

MONTGOMERY—Firings at the Alabama Law Enforcement Agency (ALEA) has led to the closing of several criminal investigations, including one involving State Sen. Phil Williams (R-Rainbow City), according to several sources with knowledge of the investigation.

Law enforcement officers have confirmed, that Special Agent Jack Wilson was ordered by State Bureau of Investigations (SBI) Director Gene Wiggin to close several high-profile cases after Governor Bentley placed ALEA Secretary Spencer Collier on medical leave.

Bentley told, that he was also punishing Collier for not following his order not to give an affidavit to the Attorney General related to Speaker Mike Hubbard’s criminal felony case. Collier was place on a three month medical leave.

In the days following, Bentley replaced Collier with Acting Secretary Stan Stabler. After Bentley tapped Stabler, ALEA’s internal affairs, known as Standards and Integrity, questioned Agent Wilson about the Williams case and others, according to sources.

According to sources familiar with the actions surrounding the cases sometime after the interrogation, Wilson was ordered by SBI Director Wiggins to close the cases. Law enforcement officers confirm that closing these criminal investigations would have been approved by Stabler.

Reportedly, Wilson was troubled by what had occurred and wanted to report the cases being closed to other law enforcement agents only to be warned-off his plan by his superior officers. According to a source, Wiggins threatened Wilson with insubordination if he talked to other law enforcement agencies about the file.

Sources close to Gov. Bentley report that Sen. Williams had contacted the Governor about his case, Williams’ contact with the Governor was also reported around ALEA. Williams, according to law enforcement, was being investigated for possible ethic violations related to consulting clients.

On Williams’ latest ethics Statement of Economic Interests, he lists 43 professional or consulting clients. When elected in 2010, he listed no such clients.

Williams claimed these were reoccurring litigation clients, however, a search of court records found he had only three reoccurring litigation clients, not 43, as he has claimed.

According to those in law enforcement, the investigators believed they had a solid case against Williams, and were close to presenting their findings to a Grand Jury. This was all stopped when Bentley replaced Collier.

Wilson was reassigned back to Mobile. John “Hal” Taylor was also reassigned.

JT Jenkins, ALEA’s second-in-command, Jay Howell, Camilla Gibson, and Collier’s personnel assistant, Merritt Hayes, were all relieved of their duties.

Stabler and Wiggins did not return phone calls. The Governor’s office has failed to answer request for information about the firings and the closed cases.

The Top Shocker News Stories By Reader Vote:

Click Each Link To Read The Item, below:






who-was-jonathan-silver google-rigs-attacks-on-the-web


An Investigation Of Solyndra And The Department Of Energy Disasters 1.5



DOC #1 PrivCo_ON_426_13Fisker


Feinstein Corruption 1.2

Report To Congress On Gawker Media C-DOC


The Silicon Valley Mafia 3.7


The SolyndraAppendixPt1LOW

The Unofficial History Of Tesla Motors 2.3

When The West Wing Attacks Taxpayers

100 Million Americans Can’t Find Work or Income!!

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that over 93,482,000 Americans were neither employed nor had made an effort to find employment in March. BLS generally skews numbers lower to help whoever is the seated President. This means the numbers are far higher.

March’s non-participation level continues a multi-month trend of decline after the number of people out of the workforce hit a record high of 94,610,000 in October — declining another 206,000 compared to February.

292,000 more people were out of the work force compared to March 2015.

The labor force participation rate over the month of March remained relatively unchanged at 63 percent (compared to 62.9 percent in February), higher than it was a year ago.

With Hillary Clinton’s Email Lies Unravelling, 147 FBI Agents Are On Her Heels

Scientists Slowly Reintroducing Small Group Of Normal, Well-Adjusted Humans Into Society

Scientists Slowly Reintroducing Small Group Of Normal, Well-Adjusted Humans Into Society (THE ONION)

A member of the endangered subtype of human, who possesses the unusual abilities to calmly reflect on situations and view the world from others’ perspectives, is reintroduced into the population.

ITHACA, NY—In an ambitious attempt to revive a population long considered to be on the brink of extinction, scientists announced Friday they have slowly begun to reintroduce normal, well-adjusted human beings back into society.

According to officials at Cornell University, where for the past 18 years conservation researchers have operated an enclosed sanctuary for humans who are levelheaded and make it a habit to think before they speak, the endangered group is being cautiously reintegrated into select locations nationwide in hopes that they can reestablish permanent communities and one day thrive again.

“We’ve worked for years to stabilize our society’s dwindling population of sane, generally reasonable people, and within the safe confines of our refuge we’ve finally seen their numbers start to bounce back a little,” said Josh Adelson, head of the Cornell research team, which moved the remaining members of the group into a protected habitat in 1998 to keep them from dying off completely. “Now, we can very gradually begin to release this rare breed of rational humans back into the general public. With luck, they can survive and prosper.”

“Even if this small group of humans able to deal with their negative emotions in a nondestructive manner manages to flourish, there’s still no telling whether the next generation will be able to survive.”


“Our hope is that within a century or so, the traits for making sound long-term decisions and being able to tolerate people different from oneself will propagate and begin to reemerge within the species at large,” he continued.

Prior to the conservation efforts, it is believed that even-tempered people with sound judgment and the ability to put the needs of others before themselves had dwindled to less than 150 within the country’s borders, and had gone completely extinct in the nation’s businesses and civic institutions. Experts widely agree that without isolation, protection, and captive-breeding programs, the remaining thoughtful, foresighted individuals would have been totally wiped out.

While admitting that the project’s reintroduction phase would be complex and its success far from assured, Adelson stressed that such measures were nevertheless absolutely necessary if responsible and emotionally mature humans able to see beyond the immediate gratification of their basest desires were ever to reestablish a foothold in society.

“Obviously, we have taken great precautions before releasing these individuals into an environment where demonstrations of good sense, open-mindedness, and basic human empathy are perceived as signs of weakness and quickly preyed upon,” said Adelson, who noted that to ease the transition during their first month acclimating to society, the endangered population would be kept away from television, the internet, advertisements, and all other forms of media. “For example, we’ve trained them for the inevitable encounters they will face with large groups of people incapable of separating emotions from arguments.”

“It hasn’t been easy,” Adelson continued. “Last month, members of our trial group were confronted by several aggressive and predatory individuals, and another was nearly torn apart by angry hordes on social media within just 48 hours of being reintroduced into a metropolitan area, forcing us to bring them back to our refuge immediately.”

Though researchers have expressed cautious optimism for the reintroduction program, many leading scientists have noted that the number of areas in the U.S. capable of sustaining well-adjusted humans has drastically decreased. According to experts, there is almost no chance the population will ever thrive again anywhere in the state of Florida.

“Even if this small group of humans able to deal with their negative emotions in a nondestructive manner manages to flourish, there’s still no telling whether the next generation will be able to survive,” Adelson said. “There are a lot of unknown variables, and we realize we’re taking a big risk here. But this program is our last, best hope of ensuring that people who are willing to go out of their way to help someone who can’t immediately offer them anything in return remain a part of our world.”

Top researchers confirmed that it was already far too late to halt the country’s dominant breed of humans—assholes—from spreading uncontrollably to every region on earth.

Will Hillary Clinton Purchase Playboy Magazine To Turn It Into Feminist Bible?

Playboy empire reportedly exploring sale of itself

Playboy Enterprises is exploring a possible of sale of the US adult entertainment group, reports say.

The Playboy empire could fetch more than $500m (£354m), say sources quoted by news outlets including the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times.

The reported move comes after Playboy magazine stopped publishing nude photos saying they had become outdated.

Circulation numbers have plummeted to about 800,000 last year from 5.6m copies in 1975.

Investment bank Moelis & Co has reportedly been hired to handle the sale process.

Mr Hefner founded Playboy in 1953 with actress Marilyn Monroe as its debut centrefold “Playmate of the Month.”

It quickly became an iconic brand and its logo of a bunny wearing a bow tie has been used for a variety of businesses, including clubs and restaurants.

Playboy Mansion

Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption The Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles is infamous for its wild celebrity parties

The company’s financial details are not easily available after Mr Hefner and investment firm Rizvi Traverse Management took the company private in 2011.


But under that deal, Playboy was valued at around $207m.

According to the reports, Playboy was approached about the sale of the entire company after Mr Hefner’s home was put up for sale in January.

The Playboy Mansion – famous for its decadent parties – has a $200m asking price and includes a lifelong lease for the velvet jacket-wearing Mr Hefner.

If sold at that price, the Los Angeles property will become one of the most expensive private residences in the US.

Free porn

The flagship magazine is struggling to attract subscribers and advertisers after dropping its famous nude spreads.

Playboy chief executive Scott Flanders has said the shift in the company’s strategy is due to its inability to compete with the availability of free internet pornography.

It has since toned down its content and images to be “PG-13” in order to attract more traffic to its website and social media .

Overall, the publishing industry is expected to lose $4bn in advertising sales over the next four years.


Elon Musk’s Tesla Powerwall large battery is now officially dead due to total lack of interest

Explosive Tesla Powerwall dies the death it is due.

Did toxic fumes and self-igniting lithium ion batteries in Tesla Powerwall finally kill the hype?


Tesla quietly kills its largest Powerwall home battery

Tesla’s larger home battery is no more, and probably won’t be missed thanks to better alternatives.


Tesla has stopped selling the larger of its two Powerwall home batteries, citing a lack of interest from consumers.

All mentions of the 10 kWh Powerwall have disappeared from Telsa’s website and press kit. While Tesla didn’t initially explain the move, a representative confirmed to Greentech Media that it has discontinued the product, as customers preferred the smaller 7 kWh version.

The difference in the two products was not merely capacity. Tesla only designed the 10 kWh Powerwall to serve as a backup energy source for solar panel users, and the lithium ion only lasted for a mere 500 cycles. Greentech Media notes that some lead acid batteries are cheaper and last for more cycles, and even some state-of-the-art generators are more economical than Tesla’s backup solution, which cost $3500 for installers.

By comparison, Tesla’s 7 kWh Powerwall can be used for daily cycling, allowing solar panel owners to avoid using energy from the utility grid during peak hours, or to go off the grid completely. The Tesla representative said the Daily Powerwall can also be used for backup “simply by modifying the way it is installed in a home.” At $3000, it’s cheaper than the larger Powerwall as well.

Why this matters: Although Tesla CEO Elon Musk has claimed that Powerwall has been a huge success, apparently that popularity only extends to the smaller, more versatile version. It now seems the company will focus on daily use as it prepares to launch a second-generation Powerwall sometime this summer.


Shop ▾

What is this?

Jared Newman

Follow me on Google+

Jared writes for PCWorld and TechHive from his remote outpost in Cincinnati.
More by

Tesla: Believe The Hype, Conditionally !!!

The “condition” to believe Tesla’s hype is if you are too dumb to read the news.

Elon Musk and Tesla appear to be organized-crime level crooks who are operating entirely off of crony kick-back payola from the White House.





Numerous parties would like this answered, in public, in front of a Grand Jury, A DOJ Special Prosecutor and a public federal court trial, but Elon Musk has spent vast amounts of money in order to delay the justice system from bring him to such a hearing.


The Following inquiries, though, should serve to resolve the issue.


All of the following questions have now been FAXED, EMAILED, U.S. POSTAL SERVICED MAILED to Elon Musk at his homes and offices and to the corporate offices of the companies and U.S. Senators that he owns. He is now fully aware that answers for each of the following questions is required from him. It is no longer possible for him to not have immediate answers to these questions should you encounter him in-person, at a conference or in a broadcast news interview.


If you see him, ask him: “Elon…


  1. Why was Tesla located on the same geological land, next door to, FBI-raided Solyndra?
  2. Did Senator Dianne Feinstein ever have a personal meeting with you?
  3. Did you or your staff ever promise, or deliver, any favors or items of value to Senator Dianne Feinstein
  4. Did you or your staff ever promise, or deliver, any favors or items of value to Senator Harry Reid?
  5. Have you, or any family members or friends ever placed money in a family trust fund that originally came from the U.S. Treasury?
  6. Had you ever met Steven Chu, Steve Spinner, Alison Spinner, Matt Rogers or Jonathan Silver before they were appointed to run the U.S. Department of Energy?
  7. Did you ever say, in a recorded conversation, that the NUMMI factory made no sense for Tesla to occupy?
  8. What is your relationship with Richard Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein and his real estate company CBRE?
  9. When your Tesla and Powerwall batteries explode, do they release any toxic fumes? How many different kinds of toxic fumes do they release? In what year were you aware of these toxic fumes. Did your employee: Bernard Tse, ever warn you about these toxic fumes?
  10. Did you, or your associates ever benefit from lithium mining in the Afghanistan War?
  11. Did three of your employees suddenly die in a plane crash? What engineering information did they have about Tesla Motors?
  12. Did your patent filings include any language which specifically and intimately disclosed the deadly danger of your batteries? Please quote those paragraphs from your very own patent filings that you were forced to give away for free because they were rendered value-less by those disclosures?
  13. The news stories said that, even though you were a billionaire, you got over thirty billion dollars in taxpayer-funded handouts from California and Federal government officials in hard cash, tax waivers, free NASA buildings, government jet fuel, credits, stock market pumps and other things; Did you get all of this free cash in exchange for conduit-ing campaign funding for Obama, Reid and Feinstein?
  14. Were you involved in the death of your competitor: Gary D. Conley?
  15. Does Google rig search engine results about you because they covertly co-own some of your assets? Do Twitter and Google hype up PR aggrandizement about you and hide negative news stories about you?
  16. Have you hidden money from state and federal tax collection in off-shore tax evasion schemes?
  17. Do you hire troll-farms, click-farms and meat-puppet fake bloggers to write self-glory statements about you on reddit, twitter, facebook and other social media?
  18. Have Tesla’s killed anybody? How many people have died in, or near a Tesla, ever? Do you run cover-ups about the deaths?




….(More questions to be added, as submitted, and hot-linked to back-ground details, as they come in…)





Google planned to help Syria rebels to bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim

Google planned to help Syria rebels to bring down Assad regime, leaked Hillary Clinton emails claim


One of Google’s interactive tools was reportedly meant to encourage defections from the Assad government, emails leaked by WikiLeaks have alleged






An interactive tool created by Google was designed to encourage Syrian rebels and help bring down the Assad regime, Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails have reportedly revealed.


By tracking and mapping defections within the Syrian leadership, it was reportedly designed to encourage more people to defect and ‘give confidence’ to the rebel opposition.


It was allegedly described as a “pretty cool idea” by senior Clinton adviser Jake Sullivan, and Google said it had enlisted the help of Al Jazeera to broadcast the tool in Syria.


“We believe this can have an important impact.”

Google executive Jared Cohen on the defection-tracking tool


Thousands of Clinton’s personal emails have been published and indexed by WikiLeaks, and some reveal interesting details about the relationship between the State Department and major corporations.


The email detailing Google’s defection tracker purportedly came from Jared Cohen, a Clinton advisor until 2010 and now-President of Jigsaw, formerly known as Google Ideas, the company’s New York-based policy think tank.


In a July 2012 email to members of Clinton’s team, which the WikiLeaks release alleges was later forwarded to the Secretary of State herself, Cohen reportedly said: “My team is planning to launch a tool on Sunday that will publicly track and map the defections in Syria and which parts of the government they are coming from.”



“Our logic behind this is that while many people are tracking the atrocities, nobody is visually representing and mapping the defections, which we believe are important in encouraging more to defect and giving confidence to the opposition.”


The email said Google would be “partnering with Al Jazeera” who would take “primary ownership” of the tool, maintaining it and publicising it in Syria.


Cohen asked the Clinton team to tell him if there was anything the company needed to think about before launching the tool, before adding: “We believe this can have an important impact.”


The visualisation was eventually published by Al Jazeera in English and Arabic, and Jigsaw’s website claims it became one of the site’s most-viewed visualisations. 


A post about the tool on the site claims it successfully showed “patterns and trends” in support for the regime, but makes no mention of encouraging defectors or helping the opposition.



WikiLeaks has previously been responsible for publicising links between Google and high-ranking State Department officials, and founder Julian Assange’s 2014 book When Google Met WikiLeaks accused the company of helping to further the US government’s foreign policy agenda.


As the Daily Mail points out, the news comes as Google reveals its plans to expand internet access in Cuba, in an announcement timed to coincide with Barack Obama’s historic visit to the island.


Clinton’s thoughts on Google’s plan were not revealed in the WikiLeaks release, but she reportedly instructed an aide to print out Cohen’s email for later reference.


Google did not provide a comment.



Google’s Eric Schmidt and New America Foundation/IN-Q-Tel provide tricks for Middle Easterners

U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors, The New York Times




By JAMES GLANZ  and JOHN MARKOFF, The New York Times, June 12, 2011


The Obama administration is leading a global effort to deploy “shadow” Internet and mobile phone systems that dissidents can  use to undermine repressive governments that seek to silence them by censoring  or shutting down telecommunications networks.  


The effort includes secretive projects to create  independent cellphone networks inside foreign countries, as well as one operation  out of a spy novel in a fifth-floor shop on L Street in Washington, where a  group of young entrepreneurs who look as if they could be in a garage band are  fitting deceptively innocent-looking hardware into a prototype “Internet in a  suitcase.”  


Financed with a $2 million State Department  grant, the suitcase could be secreted across a border and quickly set up to  allow wireless communication over a wide area with a link to the global  


The American effort, revealed in dozens of  interviews, planning documents and classified diplomatic cables obtained by The  New York Times, ranges in scale, cost and sophistication.  


Some projects involve technology that the United  States is developing; others pull together tools that have already been created  by hackers in a so-called liberation-technology movement sweeping the globe.  


The State Department, for example, is financing  the creation of stealth back-door’d wireless networks that would enable activists to  communicate outside the reach of governments in countries like Iran, Syria and Libya, according to participants in the projects.  


In one of the most ambitious efforts, United  States officials say, the State Department and Pentagon have spent at least $50  million to create an independent cellphone network in Afghanistan using towers  on protected military bases inside the country. It is intended to offset the  Taliban’s ability to shut down the official Afghan services, seemingly at will.


The effort has picked up momentum since the  government of President Hosni Mubarak shut down the Egyptian Internet in the  last days of his rule. In recent days, the Syrian government also temporarily  disabled much of that country’s Internet, which had helped protesters mobilize.  


The Obama administration’s initiative is in one  sense a new front in a longstanding diplomatic push to defend free speech and  nurture democracy. For decades, the United States has sent radio broadcasts  into autocratic countries through Voice of America and other means. More  recently, Washington has supported the development of software that preserves  the anonymity of users in places like China, and training for citizens who want  to pass information along the government-owned Internet without getting caught.  But the latest initiative depends on creating  entirely separate pathways for communication. It has brought together an  improbable alliance of diplomats and military engineers, young programmers and  dissidents from at least a dozen countries, many of whom variously describe the  new approach as more audacious and clever and, yes, cooler.  


Sometimes the State Department is simply taking  advantage of enterprising dissidents who have found ways to get around  government censorship. American diplomats are meeting with operatives who have  been burying Chinese cellphones in the hills near the border with North Korea,  where they can be dug up and used to make furtive calls, according to  interviews and the diplomatic cables.  


The new initiatives have found a champion in  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose department is spearheading the  American effort. “We see more and more people around the globe using the  Internet, mobile phones and other technologies to make their voices heard as  they protest against injustice and seek to realize their aspirations,” Mrs. Clinton  said in an e-mail response to a query on the topic. “There is a historic  opportunity to effect positive change, change America supports,” she said. “So  we’re focused on helping them do that, on helping them talk to each other, to  
  their communities, to their governments and to the world.”


Developers caution that independent networks  come with downsides: repressive governments could use surveillance to pinpoint  and arrest activists who use the technology or simply catch them bringing  hardware across the border. But others believe that the risks are outweighed by  the potential impact. “We’re going to build a separate infrastructure where the  technology is nearly impossible to shut down, to control, to surveil,” said  Sascha Meinrath, who is leading the “Internet in a suitcase” project as  director of the Open Technology Initiative at the New America Foundation, a  nonpartisan research group.  


“The implication is that this disempowers  central authorities from infringing on people’s fundamental human right to communicate,”  Mr. Meinrath added.  


The Invisible Web


In an anonymous office building on L Street in  Washington, four unlikely State Department contractors sat around a table. Josh  King, sporting multiple ear piercings and a studded leather wristband, taught  himself programming while working as a barista. Thomas Gideon was an  accomplished hacker. Dan Meredith, a bicycle polo enthusiast, helped companies  protect their digital secrets.  


Then there was Mr. Meinrath, wearing a tie as  the dean of the group at age 37. He has a master’s degree in psychology and  helped set up wireless networks in underserved communities in Detroit and  Philadelphia.  


The group’s suitcase project will rely on a  version of “mesh network” technology, which can transform devices like cellphones  or personal computers to create an invisible wireless web without a centralized  hub. In other words, a voice, picture or e-mail message could hop directly  between the modified wireless devices — each one acting as a mini cell “tower”  and phone — and bypass the official network.  


Mr. Meinrath said that the suitcase would  include small wireless antennas, which could increase the area of coverage; a  laptop to administer the system; thumb drives and CDs to spread the software to  more devices and encrypt the communications; and other components like Ethernet  cables.  


The project will also rely on the innovations of  independent Internet and telecommunications developers.  


“The cool thing in this political context is  that you cannot easily control it,” said Aaron Kaplan, an Austrian  cybersecurity expert whose work will be used in the suitcase project. Mr.  Kaplan has set up a functioning mesh network in Vienna and says related systems  have operated in Venezuela, Indonesia and elsewhere.  


Mr. Meinrath said his team was focused on  fitting the system into the bland-looking suitcase and making it simple to  implement — by, say, using “pictograms” in the how-to manual.  


In addition to the Obama administration’s  initiatives, there are almost a dozen independent ventures that also aim to  make it possible for unskilled users to employ existing devices like laptops or  smartphones to build a wireless network. One mesh network was created around  Jalalabad, Afghanistan, as early as five years ago, using technology developed at  the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.  


Creating simple lines of communication outside  official ones is crucial, said Collin Anderson, a 26-year-old  liberation-technology researcher from North Dakota who specializes in Iran,  where the government all but shut down the Internet during protests in 2009.  The slowdown made most “circumvention” technologies — the software legerdemain  that helps dissidents sneak data along the state-controlled networks — nearly  useless, he said.  


“No matter how much circumvention the protesters  use, if the government slows the network down to a crawl, you can’t upload  YouTube videos or Facebook postings,” Mr. Anderson said. “They need alternative  ways of sharing information or alternative ways of getting it out of the country.”     


That need is so urgent, citizens are finding  their own ways to set up rudimentary networks. Mehdi Yahyanejad, an Iranian  expatriate and technology developer who co-founded a popular Persian-language  Web site, estimates that nearly half the people who visit the site from inside  Iran share files using Bluetooth — which is best known in the West for running  wireless headsets and the like. In more closed societies, however, Bluetooth is  used to discreetly beam information — a video, an electronic business card —  directly from one cellphone to another.  


Mr. Yahyanejad said he and his research  colleagues were also slated to receive State Department financing for a project  that would modify Bluetooth so that a file containing, say, a video of a  protester being beaten, could automatically jump from phone to phone within a  “trusted network” of citizens. The system would be more limited than the  suitcase but would only require the software modification on ordinary phones.  


By the end of 2011, the State Department will  have spent some $70 million on circumvention efforts and related technologies,  according to department figures.  


Mrs. Clinton has made Internet freedom into a  signature cause. But the State Department has carefully framed its support as  promoting free speech and human rights for their own sake, not as a policy  aimed at destabilizing autocratic governments.  


That distinction is difficult to maintain, said  Clay Shirky, an assistant professor at New York University who studies the  Internet and social media. “You can’t say, ‘All we want is for people to speak  their minds, not bring down autocratic regimes’ — they’re the same thing,” Mr.  Shirky said.  


He added that the United States could expose  itself to charges of hypocrisy if the State Department maintained its support,  tacit or otherwise, for autocratic governments running countries like Saudi Arabia or Bahrain while deploying technology that was likely to undermine them. 


Shadow Cellphone System


In February 2009, Richard C. Holbrooke and Lt.  Gen. John R. Allen were taking a helicopter tour over southern Afghanistan and  getting a panoramic view of the cellphone towers dotting the remote  countryside, according to two officials on the flight. By then, millions of  Afghans were using cellphones, compared with a few thousand after the 2001  invasion. Towers built by private companies had sprung up across the country.  The United States had promoted the network as a way to cultivate good will and  encourage local businesses in a country that in other ways looked as if it had  not changed much in centuries.  


There was just one problem, General Allen told  Mr. Holbrooke, who only weeks before had been appointed special envoy to the  region. With a combination of threats to phone company officials and attacks on  the towers, the Taliban was able to shut down the main network in the  countryside virtually at will. Local residents report that the networks are  often out from 6 p.m. until 6 a.m., presumably to enable the Taliban to carry  out operations without being reported to security forces.  


The Pentagon and State Department were soon  collaborating on the project to build a “shadow” cellphone system in a country  where repressive forces exert control over the official network.  Details of the network, which the military named  the Palisades project, are scarce, but current and former military and civilian  officials said it relied in part on cell towers placed on protected American  bases. A large tower on the Kandahar air base serves as a base station or data  collection point for the network, officials said.  


A senior United States official said the towers  were close to being up and running in the south and described the effort as a  kind of 911 system that would be available to anyone with a cellphone.    


By shutting down cellphone service, the Taliban  had found a potent strategic tool in its asymmetric battle with American and  Afghan security forces.  


The United States is widely understood to use  cellphone networks in Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries for intelligence  gathering. And the ability to silence the network was also a powerful reminder  to the local populace that the Taliban retained control over some of the most  vital organs of the nation.  


When asked about the system, Lt. Col. John  Dorrian, a spokesman for the American-led International Security Assistance  Force, or ISAF, would only confirm the existence of a project to create what he  called an “expeditionary cellular communication service” in Afghanistan. He  said the project was being carried out in collaboration with the Afghan  government in order to “restore 24/7 cellular access.”  


“As of yet the program is not fully operational,  so it would be premature to go into details,” Colonel Dorrian said.  Colonel Dorrian declined to release cost  figures. Estimates by United States military and civilian officials ranged  widely, from $50 million to $250 million. A senior official said that Afghan  officials, who anticipate taking over American bases when troops pull out, have  insisted on an elaborate system. “The Afghans wanted the Cadillac plan, which  is pretty expensive,” the official said.  


Broad Subversive Effort


In May 2009, a North Korean defector named Kim  met with officials at the American Consulate in Shenyang, a Chinese city about  120 miles from North Korea, according to a diplomatic cable. Officials wanted  to know how Mr. Kim, who was active in smuggling others out of the country,  communicated across the border. “Kim would not go into much detail,” the cable  says, but did mention the burying of Chinese cellphones “on hillsides for  people to dig up at night.” Mr. Kim said Dandong, China, and the surrounding  Jilin Province “were natural gathering points for cross-border cellphone  communication and for meeting sources.” The cellphones are able to pick up  signals from towers in China, said Libby Liu, head of Radio Free Asia, the  United States-financed broadcaster, who confirmed their existence and said her  organization uses the calls to collect information for broadcasts as well.  


The effort, in what is perhaps the world’s most  closed nation, suggests just how many independent actors are involved in the  subversive efforts. From the activist geeks on L Street in Washington to the  military engineers in Afghanistan, the global appeal of the technology hints at  the craving for open communication.  


In a chat with a Times reporter via Facebook,  Malik Ibrahim Sahad, the son of Libyan dissidents who largely grew up in  suburban Virginia, said he was tapping into the Internet using a commercial  satellite connection in Benghazi. “Internet is in dire need here. The people  are cut off in that respect,” wrote Mr. Sahad, who had never been to Libya  before the uprising and is now working in support of rebel authorities. Even  so, he said, “I don’t think this revolution could have taken place without the  existence of the World Wide Web.”  


Reporting was contributed by Richard A. Oppel  
Jr. and Andrew W. Lehren from New York, and Alissa J. Rubin and Sangar Rahimi
from Kabul, Afghanistan.







By Anthony Mirhaydari MoneyWatch


The return of earnings shenanigans



While Federal Reserve monetary policy has been the latest obsession for regular investors, last decade was all about the accounting malfeasance from the likes of Enron, the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis, and the regulatory responses — like the Dodd-Frank Act — that tightened standards with the intent of protecting working Americans.

And for a while, at least some of that crackdown — on shifty accounting — worked.

But driven by recent pressure on corporate profitability from a stronger dollar, weaker overseas growth and a collapse in energy prices, new evidence shows corporate executives are once again playing fast and loose with their earnings results. Warren Buffett even highlighted the problem in his recent shareholder letter.

They have a few reasons to play with the numbers. For one, the overall stock market has been unable to set new highs since last May, and management compensation is often tied to a rising share price. So, the pressure is on to do something, anything, to get stock prices higher.

Moreover, S&P 500 earnings have dropped for three consecutive quarters for the first time since the recession ended. According to FactSet, the first-quarter 2016 reporting season — which will unofficially kick off on April 11 when Alcoa (AA) releases results after the bell — is also expected to feature a drop in earnings. The chance to pad bad news, as any kid caught in the cookie jar will attest, is a powerful motivator.

You can see this in the growing divergence between regular reported earnings per share on what’s known as a “GAAP” basis (that is, generally accepted accounting principles) and a pro-forma, or non-GAAP, basis that removes the impact of things management dubs “nonrecurring” or “one-time” events. There’s some discretion in what qualifies as a nonrecurring charge, which raises suspicion CEOs are trying to fool around.

Alcoa has been a poster child of this behavior: In January it reported “adjusted” earnings of 4 cents per share on $65 million in “adjusted” net income, easily beating the consensus estimate of 2 cents per share. The problem: Driven by an 18 percent year-over-year decline in revenue, the company should have reported a $500 million loss on a GAAP basis.

But thanks to $534 million in “one-time” charges, like magic, Alcoa was profitable. As the chart above shows, it has been a frequent user of this trick.

FactSet has noted a growing difference between non-GAAP and GAAP earnings per share for the companies in the Dow Jones industrials index as more and more one-time charges are used to pad the bottom line. The largest offenders? Merck (MRK), General Electric(GE), and Microsoft (MSFT).

They note that supporters of this practice argue that non-GAAP measures provide investors with a more accurate picture of profitability from day-to-day operations. Critics highlight the fact no industry standard prescribes what non-GAAP earnings should be. And that undermines the entire purpose of corporate accounting in the first place: To provide an honest and comparable testament of financial health to help investors make decisions.

Ed Yardeni of Yardeni Research has also noticed the trend, and as shown in the chart above, he highlights that reported earnings (GAAP) and operating earnings (non-GAAP) tend to diverge during times of market weakness and stress. It happened in 2000-2001. It happened in 2007-2009. And it’s happening again now.


© 2016 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.


  • Comment

  • Share

  • Tweet

  • Stumble

  • Email


  • Anthony Mirhaydari

    Anthony Mirhaydari is founder of the Edge , an investment advisory newsletter, and Edge Pro, options newsletter. Previously, he was a markets columnist for MSN Money; a senior research analyst with Markman Capital Insight, a money management firm; and an analyst with Moss Adams focusing on the financial services industry





Numerous parties would like this answered, in public, in front of a Grand Jury, A DOJ Special Prosecutor and a public federal court trial, but Elon Musk has spent vast amounts of money in order to delay the justice system from bring him to such a hearing.

The Following inquiries, though, should serve to resolve the issue.

All of the following questions have now been FAXED, EMAILED, U.S. POSTAL SERVICED MAILED to Elon Musk at his homes and offices and to the corporate offices of the companies and U.S. Senators that he owns. He is now fully aware that answers for each of the following questions is required from him. It is no longer possible for him to not have immediate answers to these questions should you encounter him in-person, at a conference or in a broadcast news interview.

If you see him, ask him: “Elon…
            1. Why was Tesla located on the same geological land, next door to, FBI-raided Solyndra?
            2. Did Senator Dianne Feinstein ever have a personal meeting with you?
            3. Did you or your staff ever promise, or deliver, any favors or items of value to Senator Dianne Feinstein
            4. Did you or your staff ever promise, or deliver, any favors or items of value to Senator Harry Reid?
            5. Have you, or any family members or friends ever placed money in a family trust fund that originally came from the U.S. Treasury?
            6. Had you ever met Steven Chu, Steve Spinner, Alison Spinner, Matt Rogers or Jonathan Silver before they were appointed to run the U.S. Department of Energy?
            7. Did you ever say, in a recorded conversation, that the NUMMI factory made no sense for Tesla to occupy?
            8. What is your relationship with Richard Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein and his real estate company CBRE?
            9. When your Tesla and Powerwall batteries explode, do they release any toxic fumes? How many different kinds of toxic fumes do they release? In what year were you aware of these toxic fumes. Did your employee: Bernard Tse, ever warn you about these toxic fumes?
            10. Did you, or your associates ever benefit from lithium mining in the Afghanistan War?
            11. Did three of your employees suddenly die in a plane crash? What engineering information did they have about Tesla Motors?
            12. Did your patent filings include any language which specifically and intimately disclosed the deadly danger of your batteries? Please quote those paragraphs from your very own patent filings that you were forced to give away for free because they were rendered value-less by those disclosures?
            13. The news stories said that, even though you were a billionaire, you got over thirty billion dollars in taxpayer-funded handouts from California and Federal government officials in hard cash, tax waivers, free NASA buildings, government jet fuel, credits, stock market pumps and other things; Did you get all of this free cash in exchange for conduit-ing campaign funding for Obama, Reid and Feinstein?
            14. Were you involved in the death of your competitor: Gary D. Conley?
            15. Does Google rig search engine results about you because they covertly co-own some of your assets? Do Twitter and Google hype up PR aggrandizement about you and hide negative news stories about you?
            16. Have you hidden money from state and federal tax collection in off-shore tax evasion schemes?
            17. Do you hire troll-farms, click-farms and meat-puppet fake bloggers to write self-glory statements about you on reddit, twitter, facebook and other social media?
            18. Have Tesla’s killed anybody? How many people have died in, or near a Tesla, ever? Do you run cover-ups about the deaths?




            CEO Jack Dorsey says “Twitter absolutely does not censor users”…but he lied!

            CEO Jack Dorsey says “Twitter absolutely does not censor users”…but he lied!



            By Douglas Avery, CNN Commentator


            10 years ago, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey sent the first-ever tweet, writing “Just setting up my Twitter.” A decade later, the social network has exploded in popularity, with millions of users tweeting and numerous historic moments documented. TODAY’s Matt Lauer speaks to Dorsey about the history of Twitter, it’s role in our future, and whether he’s ever blocked a Twitter user.



            The reality is that Dorsey’s comment is exactly like Bill Clinton’s famous “I did not have sex with that woman”. Everyone on Earth knew he was lying but he still said it anyway. Clinton shoved cigar holders up Monica’s Twootch, Dorsey shoved subliminal messages up the public’s Tweets.



            Did they both lie?






            Were they rationalizing in their own twisted minds?






            Jack Dorsey uses hundreds of other internet tricks, just like his partners at Facebook and Google, to manipulate users and their perceptions. Dorsey, Schmidt and Zuckerberg will do anything to make sure Hillary Clinton becomes President. So will Bill Clinton. They all have that in common.



            There are ways, they few can understand, that Dorsey uses his computers to trick you into doing things that you do not realize you were tricked into doing. You may have heard of subliminal messaging, right? Dorsey goes light years beyond that in trying to make you want Hillary Clinton.


            How Mass Media Manipulates Public Opinion

            Newspapers-20080928Exposing the bias inherent in all media is always a priority for disinformation editors, so we really enjoyed this roundup of examples of media manipulation by Fred Burks at :

            “Media manipulation currently shapes everything you read, hear and watch online. Everything.”
            — Forbes magazine article on mass media influence, 7/16/2012

            The influence of the mass media on public perception is widely acknowledged, yet few know the incredible degree to which this occurs. Key excerpts from the rare, revealing mass media news articles below show how blatantly the media sometimes distort critical facts, omit vital stories, and work hand in hand with the military-industrial complex to keep their secrets safe and promote greedy and manipulative corporate agendas.

            Once acclaimed as the watchdog of democracy and the political process, these riveting articles clearly show that the major media can no longer be trusted to side with the people over business and military interests. For ideas on how you can further educate yourself and what you can do to change all this, see the “What you can do” section below the article summaries. Together, we can make a difference.


            U.S. Suppressed Footage of Hiroshima for Decades

            2005-08-03, New York Times/Reuters

            In the weeks following the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, U.S. authorities seized and suppressed film shot in the bombed cities by U.S. military crews and Japanese newsreel teams to prevent Americans from seeing the full extent of devastation wrought by the new weapons. It remained hidden until the early 1980s and has never been fully aired. “Although there are clearly huge differences with Iraq, there are also some similarities,” said Mitchell, co-author of “Hiroshima in America” and editor of Editor & Publisher. “The chief similarity is that Americans are still being kept at a distance from images of death, whether of their own soldiers or Iraqi civilians.” The Los Angeles Times released a survey of six months of media coverage of the Iraq war in six prominent U.S. newspapers and two news magazines — a period during which 559 coalition forces, the vast majority American, were killed. It found they had run almost no photographs of Americans killed in action. “So much of the media is owned by big corporations and they would much rather focus on making money than setting themselves up for criticism from the White House and Congress,” said Ralph Begleiter, a former CNN correspondent. In 1945, U.S. policymakers wanted to be able to continue to develop and test atomic and eventually nuclear weapons without an outcry of public opinion. “They succeeded but the subject is still a raw nerve.”

            Note: As this highly revealing Reuters article was removed from both the New York Times and the Reuters websites, click here to view it in its entirely on one of the few alternative news websites to report it. And to go much deeper into how the devastating effects of the bomb were covered up by various entities within government, click here

            [there are plenty more examples at]



            Majestic is gadfly emeritus.


            The Cartels of Silicon Valley

            The Cartels of Silicon Valley




            Mark Ames published an article that should forever destroy any connection between the Silicon Valley tech billionaires and libertarian worldviews. The article reports on a court case that alleges that Apple, Google, and other Silicon Valley powerhouses actively conspired to keep their workers’ wages down. According to documents filed in the case, these companies agreed not to compete for each others’ workers dating at least as far back as 2005. Workers in the industry have filed a class action suit that could lead to the payment of billions of dollars in lost wages.


            This case is striking at many levels, the most obvious being the effective theft of large amounts of money by some of the richest people on the planet from their employees. This is pernicious, but not altogether surprising. After all, the boss stealing from the workers is as dog bites man as it gets. Few would be surprised that rich people were willing to break the law to get even richer.


            The real news here is how the Silicon Valley barons allegedly broke the law. The charge is that they actively colluded to stifle market forces. They collectively acted to prevent their workers from receiving the market-clearing wage. This means not only that they broke the law, and that they acted to undermine the market, but that they really don’t think about the market the way libertarians claim to think about the market.


            The classic libertarian view of the market is that we have a huge number of people in the market actively competing to buy and sell goods and services. They acknowledge the obvious — some actors are much bigger than others — but there is so much competition that no individual or company can really hope to have much impact on market outcomes.


            This point is central to their argument that the government should not interfere with corporate practices. For example, if we think our local cable company is charging too much for cable access, our libertarian friends will insist that the phone company, satellite television or other competitors will step in to keep prices in line. They would tell the same story if the issue were regulating the airlines, banks, health insurance, or any other sector where there is reason to believe that competition might be limited.


            They would tell the same story on the labor side. If we are concerned that workers are getting low wages then the answer is to improve their skills through education and training rather than raise the minimum wage. If workers were worth more than the minimum wage, then the market would already be paying them more than the minimum wage.


            They have the same story when it comes to requiring family leave, sick days, or other benefits. Libertarians would say that if workers value these benefits they would negotiate for them and be willing to trade off wages. There is no reason for the government to get involved.


            This story about the wonders of the free market is simple in its appeal and it has the great implication that nothing should be done to keep the rich from getting ever richer. However the Silicon Valley non-compete agreements show that this is not how the tech billionaires believe the market really works. This is just a story they peddle to children and gullible reporters.


            If they really believed the market had a deep sea of competitors in which no individual actor could count for much, then their non-compete agreements would serve no purpose. If Google, Apple, Intel and the other biggies agreed not to hire each others’ workers, it really wouldn’t affect their pay since there would always be new upstarts ready to jump in and hire away underpaid engineers.


            The fact the Silicon Valley honchos took the time to negotiate and presumably enforce these non-compete agreements was because they did not think that there were enough competitors to hire away their workers. They believed that they had enough weight on the buy-side of the market for software engineers that if they agreed to not to compete for workers, they could keep their wages down.


            It shouldn’t be surprising that the Silicon Valley billionaires really are not libertarians. After all, much of their fortunes rest on patents and copyrights, both of which are government granted monopolies: the opposite of a free market.


            But for some reason, seeing the tech whiz-kids forming a cartel to keep down their workers’ wages seems an even more direct violation of any belief in libertarian principles. This is the same sort of cartel behavior that we associate with the cigar-chomping robber barons of the late 19th century. It turns out that the biggest difference between the tech billionaires of the Internet Age and the high rollers of the railroad age is the cigars.


            Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy and False Profits: Recoverying From the Bubble Economy.


            This article originally appeared in The Guardian.

            Inside the Secret Life of Google’s Tech VC and His $10 Million Anal Sex Infidelity


            Michael Goguen has departed Sequoia Capital after facing sex abuse allegations.


            Lizette Chapman @lizette_chapman





            Michael Goguen in 2012.


            Photographer: Lido Vizzutti/Flathead Beacon




            Michael Goguen liked his privacy.


            In the world of startups, full of bombast and self-promotion, the soft-spoken venture partner at Sequoia Capital specialized in quieter, more technical areas: He vetted networking, infrastructure, and security technologies for the firm before he departed abruptly last week. He spent millions of dollars to build a secluded, 32,000-square-foot getaway in Whitefish, Mont., complete with a racquetball court, underground shooting range, karate room, and 12-sided swimming pool. He kept a low social media profile, too: a bare bones LinkedIn profile, no blog, no Twitter account, and no Snapchat profile.


            He also had a secret. But it turns out privacy had a price, and Goguen was not willing to pay the full amount. On March 8, Amber Laurel Baptiste sued Goguen for breach of contract, saying he owes her $30 million in addition to the $10 million he gave her in 2014. She also alleges that over the past 13 years, he sexually abused her and made her his sex slave after promising to rescue her from the human traffickers that brought her to the U.S.


            Goguen, 52, says the relationship was consensual. In a graphic countersuit filed March 14, he provides what he says is e-mail and text message evidence showing she was a willing participant who became increasingly vengeful when he wouldn’t make a greater commitment to her. The $40 million contract, both agree, was to stop Baptiste, 36, from going forward with a personal injury lawsuit that would have alleged he caused her bodily harm during sex. Goguen calls it extortion.


            Sequoia Capital, where he had been a partner for 20 years, quickly severed all ties with Goguen and scrubbed him from their firm’s site. (Goguen’s lawyer, Diane Doolittle, says that it was a mutual decision to part ways.) It’s now seeking replacements for him on the boards of 11 companies, including Cumulus Networks and R2 Semiconductor. In a statement, the firm said, “We didn’t learn about these claims until March 10th, after they were filed in court. We understand that these allegations of serious improprieties are unproven and unrelated to Sequoia. Nevertheless, we decided that Mike’s departure was the appropriate course of action.”


            Goguen did not respond to a request to comment for this article, but in a post on LinkedIn on Saturday, he wrote: “My departure allows me to focus with full force on clearing my name and vigorously pursuing justice.”




            Growing up in Bedford, Mass., Goguen loved going on hunting tripswith his dad in the mountains of Maine despite temperatures that sometimes dropped to minus 10 degrees, according to an interview he gave to the Whitefish Pilot in 2012. The lanky teenager with a winning smile was attracted to highly technical engineering challenges and opted to pursue a degree in electrical engineering from Cornell University in 1986 before going on to earn his master’s in the same field from Stanford University. He didn’t go to business school or specialize in the high-octane networking that many other venture capitalist have perfected to build careers.


            After Stanford, Goguen worked for a string of companies, including minicomputer maker Digital Equipment Corporation, which was acquired by Compaq and later merged with Hewlett-Packard. He also held positions at networking equipment company SynOptics Networking and Bay Networks—both also now defunct.


            In 1996, when Goguen was 32, he joined Sequoia. One of the most respected venture firms in the world, Sequoia made a name for itself by backing Cisco, Apple, Google, and PayPal. The firm, which employs no female investing partners in the U.S., faced outrage on Twitter when, in December, Chairman Mike Moritz told Bloomberg TV that the firm wouldn’t lower its standards to hire a woman partner (he later amended his statement).


            The partners are tight. They meet every Monday for sometimes as long as 12 hours, and they decide all matters as a group, unlike many firms where more senior partners have the final say. Although each partner has a focus, they are slow to take credit for delivering the outsize returns that make venture capital famous.


            “Fame relates to a different personal need which I don’t think is very dominant around here,” Goguen told the Daily Deal in 2000. “Sequoia operates as a tightly integrated team as opposed to a loose collection of stars.” In his time at Sequoia, Goguen was a part of several major deals, including FireEye’s initial public offering and the acquisition of Virident Systems for $685 million.


            The firm parted ways swiftly and completely, says a person familiar with the matter, because Goguen showed “poor judgment” in signing the contract and then keeping it a secret from the others. Secrecy from other partners is a decidedly un-Sequoia value.




            In 1999, Goguen divorced his first wife Lynne Izicki, with whom he had two children. Goguen met Baptiste at Baby Dolls Saloon, a Dallas strip club where she was working, in 2002. They began spending time together, according to both Baptiste’s suit and Goguen’s countersuit.


            Goguen married again. That marriage, to Melinda Rose, lasted a few years, and after it was over, Goguen remarried again. His third wife, Jordana Crisel Woodland, is an actress and entrepreneur who is the chief executive officer of lingerie company Naked Princess Worldwide. The pair, who have since divorced, have three children together.  


            While juggling three wives, five kids, and at least a dozen board seats over 13 years, Goguen maintained a relationship with Baptiste. In his countersuit, Goguen says they got together only a few times a year, mostly at the behest of Baptiste; she says he begged to see her.


            Goguen struggled to remain private. In her lawsuit, Baptiste alleges that during their relationship, Goguen used the name “Mark Smith” to conceal his identity. She also claims that in 2010 he requested Baptiste form two companies—Je Ne Se Que Enterprises LLC and charitable organization Every Girl Counts—so he could wire money directly to her without his wife knowing.


            According to Baptiste’s civil suit and his countersuit, Goguen agreed to pay Baptiste to keep quiet and go away. Both agree that after a $10 million installment, Goguen didn’t want to hand over any more money. “Enough is enough,” Goguen said in his countersuit.




            About a decade ago, Goguen built a private retreat on a hill in rural Montana overlooking Whitefish Lake and the Flathead Valley some 20 minutes from Glacier National Park. He named the place Two Bear Ranch and constructed a New England-style covered bridge over the railroad running along the lake to link his house with the beach. “It’s like a castle,” one worker on the house, Paul Krause, told the Missoula Independent in 2004, as locals traded rumors about who the mystery owner was.


            Whitefish is a small mountain town, and it didn’t take residents long to get to know Goguen. Even among such celebrities as NFL quarterback Drew Bledsoe, actor Jim Nabors (aka Gomer Pyle), and singer Justin Bieber, who are frequent visitors, Goguen stood out. Over the years, he gave tens of millions to local charities, supporting public trails, a fitness center, a music school, skateboard park, food bank, and a saloon in the heart of downtown.  


            “He’s a great asset for the Whitefish community,” then-governor Brian Schweitzer told the Flathead Beacon, a Montana newspaper, in 2012, after Goguen donated more than $10 million to a state land trust and spent about the same amount to create a high-end helicopter search-and-rescue program for the community. “I’m proud that I know him as a friend, and I’m proud that I know him as a neighbor.” Schweitzer did not respond to a request to comment for this article.


            Jordan White, a longtime backcountry coroner who now runs Two Bear Air, said on Tuesday that the helicopter donation was unprecedented. “It changed the course of our community and our state,” he said.


            Goguen has also been a big political donor, giving more than $250,000 into the super-PAC backing John Kasich’s presidential bid and another $90,000 to other Republican campaigns. On Tuesday, the super-PAC, New Day for America, told Yahoo News the money would be donated to charity.


            Goguen, White said, is just a “normal guy” who “dresses the same and drives the same car” as anyone else in town. In Whitefish, Goguen said in 2012, “It’s easy to forget the external stresses or problems you’re wrestling with in day-to-day life.”


            (A previous version of this story was corrected in the ninth paragraph to show that Sequoia Capital has no female investment partners in the U.S.)





            How DROPBOX Pulled Out of Amazon Cloud Services When It Realized Amazon was the CIA

            How DROPBOX Pulled Out of Amazon Cloud Services When It Realized Amazon was the CIA



            As exposed on 60 Minutes, Amazon hosts the CIA servers and has bugs put in the products it ships to people, Dropbox thought that was “uncool”.


            Dropbox Creates Own Cloud System, Pulls Out from Amazon AWS


            Charissa Echavez


            Photo is from Flickr by Ian Lamont at


            Dropbox pulled out nearly all of its data (up to 90 percent) from Amazon AWS and created its own private cloud system, according to its blogpost. Aditya Agarwal, Dropbox VP of engineering, unveiled on Tuesday that the file hosting service provider is finally bidding farewell to Amazon as they move forward on utilizing its very own super servers.


            It’s a big day for us at Dropbox because we finally get to tell the world about Magic Pocket,” Agarwal (@adityaag) tweeted.


            Dropbox, which reportedly is going through a challenging phase, has at some point been managing well to actually give up cloud computing giants such as Amazon and Microsoft and  create its own cloud empire.


            The California-based company revealed it has established a storage solution of more than 500 petabytes. To give you a vivid image how big that is, 1 petabyte alone is already equal to 1,000 TB or 1,000,000 GB. And cloud storage and sync will be all made possible through its new system called Magic Pocket, Aditya told Wired.


            James Cowling, Dropbox Storage Team Lead, claims that the entire written works of mankind only needs 50 petabytes to be stored. “For us, that’s just a couple of racks,” he said.


            Furthermore, Dropbox reveals that it is utilizing the best technology there is and is working conscientiously to offer its customers the best experience possible.


            The firm announced that the current changes will not have any effect on its customers. The data they stored will remain as is.


            Although transferring from Amazon to its newly built platform can be quite time consuming as well as expensive, the firm highly believes that this is worth its investment.


            We knew we’d be building one of only a handful of exabyte-scale storage systems in the world,” the company said. “It was clear to us from the beginning that we’d have to build everything from scratch, since there’s nothing in the open source community that’s proven to work reliably at our scale.”




            The Corruption Industry That Broke Washington, DC

            Why Washington is corrupt


            By Lawrence Lessig, Special to CNN

            How America lost its republic


            Story highlights


            • Lawrence Lessig: America’s democracy is hobbled by the power of money in politics

            • A tiny slice of Americans provide funds that largely determine who wins primaries, he says

            • The funders of elections generally don’t share most American’s priorities, he says

            • Lessig: Congress should vote to fund campaigns through small contributions


            We Americans are disgusted with our government. We ranked fixing “corruption in Washington” number 2 on Gallup’s poll of top presidential priorities in 2012. Yet Washington doesn’t seem to care. Neither President Barack Obama or Mitt Romney even mentioned “corruption” as an issue that their administration would address. And it will take a lot more work by us to get them to pay attention.


            The first step, however, is to figure out how best to talk about the problem. People say the problem is “money in politics.” That we need to “get money out.” That “money is not speech.” That “corporations are not people.”


            These are slogans, and they’re quite effective at rallying at least some of us to the cause. But as slogans, they’re likely to turn off most to the right of America’s center. And in any case, they don’t quite capture what’s gone wrong with our political system today. They therefore don’t point us to a plausible solution to the problem of our political system today.


            So in my TED talk, I created Lesterland: Imagine a country like the United States, with just as many “Lesters” as the United States (about 150,000 out of a population of more than 300 million, or about 0.05%). And imagine those Lesters have a very special power: Each election cycle has two elections. In one, the general election, all citizens get to vote. In the other, the “Lester election,” only “Lesters” get to vote.


            Lawrence Lessig


            Lawrence Lessig


            But here’s the catch: To be allowed to run in the general election, you must do extremely well in the Lester election. You don’t necessarily need to win, but you must do extremely well.


            We all get what Lesterland would be like. Sure, as the Supreme Court said in Citizens United, “the People” of Lesterland would have the “ultimate influence” over elected officials. Ultimate, because in the final election, the people get to vote. But “the People” only get to vote for the candidates who have made “the Lesters” happy. And no doubt, that fact will produce a subtle, understated, somewhat camouflaged bending to keep those Lesters happy.


            Once you see Lesterland, and the corruption it creates you understand USA-land, and the corruption we suffer. For the United States is Lesterland.


            Like Lesterland, the United States also has two elections. One a voting election, where citizens get to select the candidates who will ultimately govern. But the other is a money election, where the candidates who wish to run in the voting election raise the money they need to compete. As in Lesterland, the candidates don’t necessarily need to win the money election. But they must do extremely well.


            And here’s the stunning fact that links the United States to Lesterland: there are just as few “relevant funders” in USA-land as there are Lesters in Lesterland.


            Less than 0.05% of us — about 150,000 Americans — give enough money to be even noticed by the candidates desperate to fund their campaigns. Even that number is likely an exaggeration. The better number is probably closer to 50,000 Americans (just about the number of “Sheldons” in America) (Really)


            Now that fact alone — that we fund campaigns from a tiny slice of us — doesn’t necessarily create the corruption that is our Congress. What does that is how the money is raised from that tiny slice of us.


            For members of Congress and candidates for Congress spend anywhere between 30% and 70% of their time raising money from this tiny, tiny slice of us. Think of a rat in a Skinner box, learning which buttons to push to get pellets of food, and you have a pretty good sense of the life of a congressman: a constant attention to what must be done to raise money, and to raise money not from all of us, but from the tiniest slice of the 1% of us.


            And so what issues might that tiny, tiny slice of the 1% care about? Unemployment? Out-of-control health care costs? Actually reforming Wall Street? Obviously not. The issues that matter to this tiny fraction of the 1% are not the issues that matter to America.


            This is the corruption of USA-land. And it will only ever change if we change the way we fund elections.


            Members of Congress will always be dependent upon their funders. But if we adopted a system to fund campaigns like the one proposed by Rep. John Sarbanes, D-Maryland, The Grassroots Democracy Act, then “the funders” would be “the People.” If members raised the funds they needed from small contributions only, then many more of us would be the “relevant funders.” And thus when members were responsive to their “funders,” they would thus be responsive to that many more of us.


            That, after all, was the Framers’ original design. James Madison promised us a Congress “dependent upon the people alone.” “Alone.” We’ve got instead a Congress dependent upon the people and dependent upon the Lesters.


            We need to find a way back to Madison’s original design, so that we can find a way to restore again a government that works. Leaving Lesterland is the critical first step. Congress could do that tomorrow.






            Idiotic Silicon Valley Brogrammers Still Waste Cash Like There Is No Tomorrow

            In Austin, startups and other companies still spend lavishly, hoping to get noticed by the conference’s influential attendees.

            The problem with giving milions to immature millenial children

            Inside The South By Southwest (SXSW) Interactive Festival
            Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

            Even Tumblr—which saw its faltering owner, Yahoo!, write down the social media property’s value by $230 million just last month—is partying in Austin, Texas, like it’s, well, 2015. Tumblr’s Saturday night soiree had all the trappings of a big South by Southwest blowout: a legendary multi-story music venue (the Mohawk), a teen-favorite headliner (Grouplove), and bearded bartenders. But one usual perk was missing: free drinks.

            The cash bar felt like a good reminder that it’s 2016, which for Silicon Valley has meant retrenchment, cost-cutting, falling valuations and plummeting expectations. For the most part, though, Silicon Valley didn’t let the bad news dampen its bacchanalia.

            “I was expecting a more subdued South By, but some parties are even bigger than last year,” said Bryan Goldberg, the chief executive of women’s media site Bustle and a third-time attendee. He also argued that despite the talk of a bubble bursting or losing air, the venture economy is still fairly robust. “The Kool-Aid and the punch are just a little less spiked than before,” he said.

            The downturn didn’t deter fledgling startups from spending big on splashy stunts. Dating app Flutter had its marketers wear huge red heart masks as they walked through downtown. Service, a startup that offers to sort out customer service snafus for you, paid 40 Austin locals $15 an hour to be its “wizards,” who relieve conference-goers of unappealing tasks like waiting four hours in line for the luscious brisket at Franklin Barbecue. “We got four people into Obama’s speech and seven people into Franklin,” said founder Michael Schneider. The company spent close to $40,000 for the whole marketing effort, he said. That tab includes the bright blue pointed hats each wizard donned, which Schneider was hoping would get him noticed. (It worked!) “There’s so much noise,” he said. 

            Pia Poppenreiter, a 28-year-old German founder of Ohlala, was hoping to get South By attendees buzzing about her app that just expanded from Europe to New York City. Ohlala’s event wasn’t the biggest or the best attended, but the art on the wall—21 illustrations of vaginas—was the first indication that this wouldn’t be some antiseptic American brand-building exercise. Ohlala connects users for, as Poppenreiter delicately puts it, “paid dating.” At Ohlala’s party, several dozen attendees sat in velvet-lined booths and munched on raw oysters and turkey meatballs as Poppenreiter explained how people shouldn’t rush to judgment on what might or might not happen on a date that begins with a man offering a woman $300.

            The rest of the conference was peppered with the usual odd couples of art and business: Questlove spun records at a greeting-card company’s party. Sia sang for Samsung. Chromeo DJed an 8:30 a.m. SoulCycle class at the Spotify House. On Saturday, shared-office startup WeWork—sucking in the heady air of a crisp, new $16 billion valuation—hosted a party in its office where Lord of the Rings star Elijah Wood manned the turntables.

            The venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz held its annual guest-list-only party Saturday night at Bob’s Steak and Chop House with generous pours of wine; a pair of haiku writers hired to bang out on-demand poems on Royal typewriters; and Go Cubes, the chewable coffee created by startup Nootrobox.

            At a party hosted by Founders Fund, a venture capital firm started by billionaire PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel, two rubber unicorn masks were passed around. The night before, as the crowds thinned, a woman dressed as a fairy rode a white horse with a unicorn horn past the Hilton hotel. Even as a slowdown in venture funding has put a damper on the unicorn startup frenzy, the crowd laughed along with the joke.

            Susan MacTavish Best, a professional party-thrower, hosted an event on Saturday night for Hampton Creek, the eggless mayonnaise maker backed by prominent technology investors. “To the outsider, throwing a party at SXSW might appear to be utter madness. We fly halfway across the country to sip cocktails with our friends from back home,” she said. “But once in Austin, we are free from our daily grind.”

            South by Southwest- Silicon Valley Officially Begins To Die at 2016 SXSW

            Silicon Valley’s cooling off is felt at SXSW


            Harriet Taylor | @Harri8t






            Usually a big party for Silicon Valley investors and start-ups, this year the SXSW Interactive festival has diminished somewhat in importance. Although plenty still attend the annual Austin, Texas, event, there were signs of waning interest from some former SXSW Interactive mainstays.

            Silicon Valley venture capital powerhouse Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers decided not to host its annual mixer, Yahoo did not take over Brazos Hall as it has over the past several years and many tech start-up entrepreneurs sat this year out. Executives from Yahoo and Tumblr did participate in half a dozen panels.

            Some investors and entrepreneurs CNBC talked with blamed the relatively sedate mood on an overall cooling in the Silicon Valley ecosystem — from start-up seedlings to public tech giants. Also important, the event has become a harder place for start-ups to launch and break out, given all the noise.

            Harriet Taylor | CNBC

            Partygoers with unicorn masks at the Hometown Hangover Cure party in Austin, Texas.

            “When I got here I just immediately just felt the difference,” said C.J. MacDonald, co-founder of digital gift card company Gyft. “It’s just a different vibe.”

            MacDonald said he was shocked to discover far fewer people from his Silicon Valley network in attendance. He said it likely reflected that many start-ups are tightening their belts. “I think it’s the reality of where we are at.”

            “I have definitely noticed the same thing,” said Tim Fong, a partner at Next Play Capital. “Everybody is conscious of burn rates.”

            All this reflects the diminished funding environment in tech. Capital invested in seed stage start-ups has so far dropped to $99 million in the first quarter of 2016, down from $155 million the prior quarter, according to Pitchbook.

            “When it’s really good in the market, it’s frothier here too,” said Eric Matzner, founder and CEO of supplement start-up Nootroo. “Literally, the drinks are frothier. They are shaken by a more bespoke bartender.”

            Not every gathering was muted — drinks flowed freely at a party hosted by Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund.

            Harriet Taylor | CNBC

            Favor CEO Jag Bath, center, at the Hometown Hangover Cure party co-sponsored by Favor, Austin, Texas.

            And companies are still attending, of course, but many are spending less, said Jag Bath, CEO and president of Austin-based Favor, an official SXSW partner and co-sponsor of the annual Hometown Hangover Cure party.

            The infux of big brands has also made the event more marketing focused, though small companies are still coming, said Bath. Some tech teams noted that as the conference has grown, it has become harder to find developer communities and attend hackathons.

            Still, the opportunity to network with people from other creative communities in town for the film or music parts of the conference remains a unique draw, said some attendees.

            And the event is still attracting big names. Alphabet‘s sessions on Google’s autonomous vehicles and innovation were standing room only, but this year’s highlight was undoubtedly the opening keynote from President Barack Obama on Friday afternoon. SXSW will not release attendance numbers until after the event, but expects to see similar numbers to last year: 33,825 people and 200 tradeshow booths.

            “We’ve had several hotels pop up within the last year, so are able to utilize more space, still central to downtown, plus the nice weather allows for folks to spread out,” said Hugh Forrest, director of SXSW Interactive. “We still have a strong presence of investors and entrepreneurs especially within SXSW Startup Village and SXSW Accelerator.”




            FBI and White House Heading For A Storm: Who will come out on top?

            Comey’s FBI makes waves

            Cameron Lancaster

            The aggressive posture of the FBI under Director James Comey is becoming a political problem for the White House.

            The FBI’s demand that Apple help unlock an iPhone used by one of the San Bernardino killers has outraged Silicon Valley, a significant source of political support for President Obama and Democrats.

            Comey, meanwhile, has stirred tensions by linking rising violent crime rates to the Black Lives Matter movement’s focus on police violence and by warning about “gaps” in the screening process for Syrian refugees.

            Then there’s the biggest issue of all: the FBI’s investigation into the private email server used by Hillary Clinton, Obama’s former secretary of State and the leading contender to win the Democratic presidential nomination.

            A decision by the FBI to charge Clinton or her top aides for mishandling classified information would be a shock to the political system.

            In these cases and more, Comey — a Republican who donated in 2012 to Mitt Romney — has proved he is “not attached to the strings of the White House,” said Ron Hosko, the former head of the FBI’s criminal investigative division and a critic of Obama’s law enforcement strategies.

            Publicly, administration officials have not betrayed any worry about the Clinton probe. They have also downplayed any differences of opinion on Apple.

            But former officials say the FBI’s moves are clearly ruffling feathers within the administration.

            With regards to the Apple standoff, “It’s just not clear [Comey] is speaking for the administration,” said Richard Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism and cybersecurity chief. “We know there have been administration meetings on this for months. The proposal that Comey had made on encryption was rejected by the administration.”

            Comey has a reputation for speaking truth to power, dating back to a dramatic confrontation in 2004 when he rushed to a hospital to stop the Bush White House from renewing a warrantless wiretapping program while Attorney General John Ashcroft was gravely ill. Comey was Ashcroft’s deputy at the time.

            That showdown won Comey plaudits from both sides of the aisle and made him an attractive pick to lead the FBI. But now that he’s in charge of the agency, the president might be getting more than he bargained for.

            “Part of his role is to not necessarily be in lock step with the White House,” said Mitch Silber, a former intelligence official with the New York City Police Department and current senior managing director at FTI Consulting.

            “He takes very seriously the fact that he works for the executive branch,” added Leo Taddeo, a former agent in the FBI’s cyber division. “But he also understands the importance of maintaining his independence as a law enforcement agency that needs to give not just the appearance of independence but the reality of it.”

            The split over Clinton’s email server is the most politically charged issue facing the FBI, with nothing less than the race for the White House potentially at stake.

            Obama has publicly defended Clinton, saying that while she “made a mistake” with her email setup, it was “not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”

            But the FBI director has bristled at that statement, saying the president would not have any knowledge of the investigation. Comey, meanwhile, told lawmakers last week that he is “very close, personally,” to the probe.

            Obama’s comments reflected a pattern, several former agents said, of the president making improper comments about FBI investigations. In 2012, he made similarly dismissive comments about a pending inquiry into then-CIA Director David Petraeus, who later pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge for giving classified information to his mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell.

            “It serves no one in the United States for the president to comment on ongoing investigations,” Taddeo said. “I just don’t see a purpose.”

            Hosko suggested that a showdown over potential criminal charges for Clinton could lead to a reprise of the famous 2004 hospital scene, when Comey threatened to resign. 

            “He has that mantle,” Hosko said. “I think now there’s this expectation — I hope it’s a fair one — that he’ll do it again if he has to.”

            Comey’s independent streak has also been on display in the Apple fight, when his bureau decided to seek a court order demanding that the tech giant create new software to bypass security tools on an iPhone used by Syed Rizwan Farook, one of the two terrorist attackers in San Bernardino, Calif.

            Many observers questioned whether the FBI was making an end-run around the White House, which had previously dismissed a series of proposals that would force companies to decrypt data upon government request.

            “I think there’s actually some people that don’t think with one mindset on this issue within the administration,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the Senate Homeland Security Committee’s top Democrat, at a Tuesday hearing. “It’s a tough issue.”

            While the White House has repeatedly backed the FBI’s decision, it has not fully endorsed the potential policy ramifications, leaving some to think a gap might develop as similar cases pop up. The White House is poised to soon issue its own policy paper on the subject of data encryption.

            “The position taken by the FBI is at odds with the concerns expressed by individuals [in the White House] who were looking into the encryption issue,” said Neema Singh Guliani, a legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 

            This week, White House homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco tried to downplay the differences between the two sides. The White House and FBI are both grappling with the same problems, she said in a discussion at the Council on Foreign Relations.

            “There is a recognition across the administration that the virtues of strong encryption are without a doubt,” Monaco said on Monday. “There is also uniformity about the recognition that strong encryption poses real challenges.”

            Sponsored Content

            Why reverse mortgage makes sense for 62 & older


            Learn how to leverage your home equity to fund your retirement and compare lender quotes in minutes Read More

            But former officials see Comey as wanting to blaze his own trail on the topic.

            “I have been very surprised at how public and inflammatory, frankly, the FBI and the Justice Department’s approach has been on this,” said Chris Finan, a former National Security Council cybersecurity adviser.

            “That doesn’t tend to be the administration’s preferred approach to handling things.”

            HOUSE OF CARDS TV Show busts Google as insidious operator

            In TV Show “House of Cards”, fictional “PollyHop” does what Google actually did do to rig election results and steer government funds

            By Carl Vinsoni and Deborah Alize




            Kevin Spacey, the star of Netflix epic TV success: House of Cards, is quoted as saying that “everything on the show has actually happened in Washington politics”



            In the 2016 series we see allusions to the rigging of Middle East bad guy groups and Silicon Valley tech companies as political weapons to manipulate voters. The very disturbing reference to a fictional search engine company named “Pollyhop” should bring a shiver to most viewers. Pollyhop is a thinly veiled expose’ about the real-life political manipulations Google has been engaging in. As much as Google and the White House Press Secretary want to hush up this scandal, 45 million people have now binge-watched all of the 2016 season of House Of Cards and now know some very big, very dirty secrets. There is no possible way to delete all of that show from Netflix or erase the memories of most of the TV audience on Earth. The secret is out of the toothpaste tube and it is never, ever, going back in.




            The FBI can unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, says Edward Snowden

            Snowden: FBI’s claim it can’t unlock the San Bernardino iPhone is ‘bullshit’


            NSA whistleblower rubbishes claims that only Apple can unlock killer’s iPhone 5C, indicating FBI has the means itself



            The FBI can unlock the San Bernardino iPhone, says Edward Snowden


            Edward Snowden, the whistleblower whose NSA revelations sparked a debate on mass surveillance, has waded into the arguments over the FBI’s attempt to force Apple to help it unlock the iPhone 5C of one of the San Bernardino shooters.

            The FBI says that only Apple can deactivate certain passcode protections on the iPhone, which will allow law enforcement to guess the passcode by using brute-force.

            Talking via video link from Moscow to the Common Cause Blueprint for a Great Democracy conference, Snowden said: “The FBI says Apple has the ‘exclusive technical means’ to unlock the phone. Respectfully, that’s bullshit.”

            Snowden then went on to tweet his support for an American Civil Liberties Union report saying that the FBI’s claims in the case are fraudulent.

            Meanwhile, Microsoft founder Bill Gates said in a discussion on Reddit: “I think there needs to be a discussion about when the government should be able to gather information. What if we had never had wiretapping? Also the government needs to talk openly about safeguards.”

            Gates refused to be drawn on one side or the other of the debate, despite seemingly supporting the FBI and then backtracking. Microsoft later filed an amicus brief backing Apple against the FBI.

            Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak also spoke out against the FBI on the Conan O’Brien show on Monday, saying: “I side with Apple on this one. [The FBI] picked the lamest case you ever could.”

            Wozniak added: “Verizon turned over all the phone records and SMS messages. So they want to take this other phone that the two didn’t destroy, which was a work phone. It’s so lame and worthless to expect there’s something on it and to get Apple to expose it.”

            Apple’s clash with the FBI comes to a head in California this month when the two will meet in federal court to debate whether the smartphone manufacturer should be required to weaken security settings on the iPhone of the shooter.

            The government’s case was dealt a potential setback when Magistrate Judge James Orenstein ruled against the government on 29 February in a different phone-unlocking case, which the government is currently appealing.

            More news


            In TV Show “House of Cards”, fictional “PollyHop” does what Google actually did do to rig election results

            In TV Show “House of Cards”, fictional “PollyHop” does what Google actually did do to rig election results




            Kevin Spacey, the star of Netflix epic success: House of Cards, is quoted as saying that “everything on the show has actually happened in Washington politics”



            In the 2016 series we see allusions to the rigging of Middle East bad guy groups and Silicon Valley tech companies as political weapons to manipulate voters. The very disturbing reference to a fictional search engine company named “Pollyhop” should bring a shiver to most viewers. Pollyhop is a thinly veiled expose’ about the real-life political manipulations Google has been engaging in.



            Let’s be clear: Larry Page, Eric Schmidt and the venture capitalists that own Google rig the search engine and user experience to manipulate voters and steer election results. They did it in 2007 and 2008 to put Obama in office. Ex-Google staff have confirmed it. The EU has confirmed it. Independent testing and research groups have confirmed it and now Google must face the music.



            In addition to rigging election results, harvesting voter’s personal lives and deleting opposition candidates from the web, Google broke election laws by putting billions of dollars of services, as campaign contributions, into candidates war chests. Not only did Google never report this but, it exceeded the limits of campaign funding by hundreds of magnitudes. All of Google’s top staff now work in, for and with the White House. Therefor, it should come as no surprise that Google has yet to be prosecuted for this.



            Episodes six and seven of the 2016 edition of Netflix’ House of Cards go into details of how it was done based on the writers research into the illicit actions of the actual Google. At one point you see the campaign director get an intro into the nefarious capabilities of the Pollyhop/Google public mind control system. Later the Campaign head gives Claire, the First Lady, a rapid overview of the frightening capabilities that Pollyhop/Google offers to a dirty candidate. Forensic Psychologist Robert Epstein has now revealed how Google’s Search AlgorithmsAre Used To Steal the Presidency:




            Getty Images


            Imagine an election—a close one. You’re undecided. So you type the name of one of the candidates into your search engine of choice. (Actually, let’s not be coy here. In most of the world, one search engine dominates; in Europe and North America, it’s Google.) And Google coughs up, in fractions of a second, articles and facts about that candidate. Great! Now you are an informed voter, right? But a study published this week says that the order of those results, the ranking of positive or negative stories on the screen, can have an enormous influence on the way you vote. And if the election is close enough, the effect could be profound enough to change the outcome.


            In other words: Google’s ranking algorithm for search results could accidentally steal the presidency. “We estimate, based on win margins in national elections around the world,” says Robert Epstein, a psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and one of the study’s authors, “that Google could determine the outcome of upwards of 25 percent of all national elections.”


            Epstein’s paper combines a few years’ worth of experiments in which Epstein and his colleague Ronald Robertson gave people access to information about the race for prime minister in Australia in 2010, two years prior, and then let the mock-voters learn about the candidates via a simulated search engine that displayed real articles.


            One group saw positive articles about one candidate first; the other saw positive articles about the other candidate. (A control group saw a random assortment.) The result: Whichever side people saw the positive results for, they were more likely to vote for—by more than 48 percent. The team calls that number the “vote manipulation power,” or VMP. The effect held—strengthened, even—when the researchers swapped in a single negative story into the number-four and number-three spots. Apparently it made the results seem even more neutral and therefore more trustworthy.


            But of course that was all artificial—in the lab. So the researchers packed up and went to India in advance of the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, a national campaign with 800 million eligible voters. (Eventually 430 million people voted over the weeks of the actual election.) “I thought this time we’d be lucky if we got 2 or 3 percent, and my gut said we’re gonna get nothing,” Epstein says, “because this is an intense, intense election environment.” Voters get exposed, heavily, to lots of other information besides a mock search engine result.


            The team 2,150 found undecided voters and performed a version of the same experiment. And again, VMP was off the charts. Even taking into account some sloppiness in the data-gathering and a tougher time assessing articles for their positive or negative valence, they got an overall VMP of 24 percent. “In some demographic groups in India we had as high as about 72 percent.”


            The effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect.


            The fact that media, including whatever search and social deliver, can affect decision-making isn’t exactly news. The “Fox News Effect” says that towns that got the conservative-leaning cable channel tended to become more conservative in their voting in the 2000 election. A well-known effect called recency means that people make decisions based on the last thing they heard. Placement on a list also has a known effect. And all that stuff might be too transient to make it all the way to a voting booth, or get swamped by exposure to other media. So in real life VMP is probably much less pronounced.


            But the effect doesn’t have to be enormous to have an enormous effect. The Australian election that Epstein and Robertson used in their experiments came down to a margin of less than 1 percent. Half the presidential elections in US history came down to a margin of less than 8 percent. And presidential elections are really 50 separate state-by-state knife fights, with the focus of campaigns not on poll-tested winners or losers but purple “swing states” with razor-thin margins.


            So even at an order of magnitude smaller than the experimental effect, VMP could have serious consequences. “Four to 8 percent would get any campaign manager excited,” says Brian Keegan, a computational social scientist at Harvard Business School. “At the end of the day, the fact is that in a lot of races it only takes a swing of 3 or 4 percent. If the search engine is one or two percent, that’s still really persuasive.”


            The Rise of the Machines


            It’d be easy to go all 1970s-political-thriller on this research, to assume that presidential campaigns, with their ever-increasing level of technological sophistication, might be able to search-engine-optimize their way to victory. But that’s probably not true. “It would cost a lot of money,” says David Shor, a data scientist at Civis Analytics, a Chicago-based consultancy that grew out of the first Obama campaign’s technology group. “Trying to get the media to present something that is favorable to you is a more favorable strategy.”


            That’s called, in the parlance of political hackery, “free media,” and, yes, voters like it. “I think that generally people don’t trust campaigns because they tend to have a low opinion of politicians,” Shor says. “They are more receptive to information from institutions for which they have more respect.” Plus, in the presidential campaign high season, whoever the Republican and Democratic nominees are will already have high page ranks because they’ll have a huge number of inbound links, one of Google’s key metrics.


            Search and social media companies can certainly have a new kind of influence, though. During the 2010 US congressional elections, researchers at Facebook exposed 61 million users to a message exhorting them to vote—it didn’t matter for whom—and found they were able to generate 340,000 extra votes across the board.


            But what if—as Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has proposed—Facebook didn’t push the “vote” message to a random 61 million users? Instead, using the extensive information the social network maintains on all its subscribers, it could hypothetically push specific messaging to supporters or foes of specific legislation or candidates. Facebook could flip an election; Zittrain calls this “digital gerrymandering.” And if you think that companies like the social media giants would never do such a thing, consider the way that Google mobilized its users against the Secure Online Privacy Act and PROTECT IP Act, or “SOPA-PIPA.”


            In their paper, Epstein and Robertson equate digital gerrymandering to what a political operative might call GOTV—Get Out the Vote, the mobilization of activated supporters. It’s a standard campaign move when your base agrees with your positions but isn’t highly motivated—because they feel disenfranchised, let’s say, or have problems getting to polling places. What they call the “search engine manipulation effect,” though, works on undecided voters, swing voters. It’s a method of persuasion.


            If executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea. Robert Epstein


            Again, though, it doesn’t require a conspiracy. It’s possible that, as Epstein says, “if executives at Google had decided to study the things we’re studying, they could easily have been flipping elections to their liking with no one having any idea.” But simultaneously more likely and more science-fiction-y is the possibility that this—oh, let’s call it “googlemandering,” why don’t we?—is happening without any human intervention at all. “These numbers are so large that Google executives are irrelevant to the issue,” Epstein says. “If Google’s search algorithm, just through what they call ‘organic processes,’ ends up favoring one candidate over another, that’s enough. In a country like India, that could send millions of votes to one candidate.”


            As you’d expect, Google doesn’t think it’s likely their algorithm is stealing elections. “Providing relevant answers has been the cornerstone of Google’s approach to search from the very beginning. It would undermine people’s trust in our results and company if we were to change course,” says a Google spokesperson, who would only comment on condition of anonymity. In short, the algorithms Google uses to rank search results are complicated, ever-changing, and bigger than any one person. A regulatory action that, let’s say, forced Google to change the first search result in a list on a given candidate would break the very thing that makes Google great: giving right answers very quickly all the time. (Plus, it might violate the First Amendment.)


            The thing is, though, even though it’s tempting to think of algorithms as the very definition of objective, they’re not. “It’s not really possible to have a completely neutral algorithm,” says Jonathan Bright, a research fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute who studies elections. “I don’t think there’s anyone in Google or Facebook or anywhere else who’s trying to tweak an election. But it’s something these organizations have always struggled with.” Algorithms reflect the values and worldview of the programmers. That’s what an algorithm is, fundamentally. “Do they want to make a good effort to make sure they influence evenly across Democrats and Republicans? Or do they just let the algorithm take its course?” Bright asks.


            That course might be scary, if Epstein is right. Add the possibility of search rank influence to the individualization Google can already do based on your gmail, google docs, and every other way you’ve let the company hook into you…combine that with the feedback loop of popular things getting more inbound links and so getting higher search ranking…and the impact stretches way beyond politics. “You can push knowledge, beliefs, attitudes, and behavior among people who are vulnerable any way you want using search rankings,” Epstein says. “Now that we’ve discovered this big effect, how do you kill it?”


            Topics: election, Facebook, google, politics, science, Social Media, google, house of cards. Kevin spacey, election rigging, election 2016, 2016 election, FBI investigtion of Google, SEC investigation of Google, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, John Doerr, Kleiner Perkins, EU investigation of Google


            How to Rig an Election: Confessions 


            How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative…




            How Google results could rig an election – The Week


            Rick Santorum has a Santorum problem, in that the top Google results when you search his name are not about the man himself, but rather about a dirty sexual neologism.




            More results




            How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine


            Election rigging, Long might have … Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rigelections“.




            More results


            APC planning to rig election in North – Musiliu Obanikoro ..


            APC planning to rigelection in North … Have you forgotten so soon that electionscan only be rigged for a … Your Nigerian Online News Source: …




            More results


            FOCUS | How to Rig an Election – Reader Supported News


            How to Rig an Election. By Victoria Collier, Harper’s Magazine. 26 October 12 t was a hot summer in 1932 when Louisiana senator Huey “Kingfish” Long arranged to rig




            More results


            Electoral fraud – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


            Electoral fraud can occur at any stage in the democratic process, but most commonly it occurs during election campaigns, voter registration or during vote-counting.




            More results


            How I Hacked An Electronic Voting Machine | Popular Science


            What do you need to rig an election? A basic knowledge of electronics and $30 worth of RadioShack gear, professional hacker Roger Johnston reveals.




            More results


            Rodger A. Payne’s Blog: Could Google Rig an Election?


            I’m interested in international relations, American foreign policy, climate change, US presidential elections, public debate, Kansas Jayhawks basketball …




            More results


            How Republicans Plan to Rig Elections in 2016


            How Republicans Plan to RigElections in 2016. By Ian Millhiser, Josh Israel, ThinkProgress. 12 November 12 . ast year, Pennsylvania’s Republican Gov. Tom Corbett …




            More results


            How to Rig an Election | Harper’s Magazine – Part 4


            Secret skullduggery is not even necessary these days such is the boldness of the attempts by the GOP to “rigelections“.




            More results


            Proven voting fraud! Gov’t programmer testifies voting ..


            Rep. Tom Feeney (Fmr. Speaker of The House in Florida) employed this man from Oviedo, FL to rigelections and flip them 51% to 49%. Exit polling data was …




            More results


            Rigged USA Elections Exposed – YouTube


            Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, currently US Representative representing MY district ) tried to …




            More results


            How To Rig An Election In The United States


            How To Rig An Election In The United … But the second table can be hacked and altered to produce fake election totals without affecting spot check reports derived …




            More results


            An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game


            An Inside Look at How Democrats Rig the Election Game … An interesting email received this week offers a window into how Democrats used to rig the voter …




            More results


            Google’s Escorts and Sex Perversions! Why is Google so Twisted?



            The news about Alex Tichelman, the sex jobber who was one of many Google escort’s used by Google executives is all over the news. She was on married, senior Google executive, Forrest Hayes “Sex Yacht” where Mr. Hayes had booked her for another sex romp. He took too much heroin and died in the coital fling. She skipped out and got caught. Did Mr. Hayes know too much about Google’s election rigging?



            Then we have the news about Eric Schmidt, who runs Google, having a “Sex Penthouse”. Then we have the news of Sergey Brin, one of Google’s founders, having a 3-way bizarre sex triangle inside Google. Then we have this creepy implication that Eric Schmidt has some strange interaction with children, concurrent with the revelation that some Google VC’s and executives were involved with Jeffrey Epsteins famous “Sex island” scandals. What type of twisted minds live at Google?


            Hulk Hogan Testifies In His $100 Million Lawsuit Against Gawker

            Lawsuit seeks to answer the question: “Does a “hit-job tabloid” get to destroy people’s lives because Nick Denton doesn’t like their politics?”

            Has the permanent state of digital information made the U.S. First Amendment invalid? Has Google-izing of cyber-stalking changed the rules?

            Hulk Hogan Testifies In His $100 Million Lawsuit Against Gawker



            Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, testifies in court on Tuesday during his trial against Gawker Media, in St Petersburg, Fla.

            Hulk Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, testifies in court on Tuesday during his trial against Gawker Media, in St Petersburg, Fla.

            John Pendygraft/AP

            Former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan testified in his invasion of privacy suit in St. Petersburg, Fla., against the media organization Gawker, which published a portion of a sex tape.

            The case raises major questions about freedom of expression, privacy and celebrity. That being said — “it really couldn’t be seedier in terms of the topic that provoked this suit,” as NPR’s David Folkenflik told Here and Now.

            The news and gossip site published a portion of a tape showing Hulk Hogan (whose legal name is Terry Bollea) having sex with the wife of a former friend. That’s accompanied by a 1,400-word graphic description of the extended encounter. Bollea maintains he was unaware that they were being taped, and Gawker says an anonymous source mailed it to the organization.

            Bollea is seeking $100 million in damages from Gawker.

            The issue of whether this video is “newsworthy” was in focus in court today. Gawker argues that Bollea’s “frequent public discussion of his sex life made the clip newsworthy and thus protected by the First Amendment.”

            That’s a point Bollea rejected under cross-examination from Gawker’s lawyer Michael Sullivan, The New York Times reports:

            “[Bollea] gently rebuffed attempts by Mr. Sullivan to paint him as someone who carelessly and routinely flaunted his sexuality and his conquests, and for whom even the most intimate personal details were fodder for publicity. Mr. Bollea insisted that any such disclosures in public were purely an act, a crucial component of his ‘character’ as Hulk Hogan.”

            Making the distinction between the character of Hogan and the person of Terry Bollea, he says he was playing Hogan in interviews where he discussed personal and intimate details of his sex life, his anatomy and his family.

            “I’m kind of concerned about Hulk Hogan’s privacy, but you kind of give it away,” Bollea testified, according to the Times. “But in the privacy of your own home, no one invades my privacy.”

            Additionally, Bollea says he didn’t have a problem with “news outlets discussing or even writing about the sex tape,” The Associated Press reports. “It was only when Gawker broadcast an edited clip of the actual video that he said he began to suffer.”

            Gawker also rests its First Amendment argument on the claim that the video represents events truthfully:

            “I am not going to make a case that the future of the Republic rises or falls on the ability of the general public to watch a video of Hulk Hogan f****** his friend’s ex-wife. But the Constitution does unambiguously accord us the right to publish true things about public figures.”

            Conversely, Bollea’s lawyers “cautioned that the privacy of many Americans could be compromised” as a result of the case, the Times reports.

            Other recent cases have grappled with the issue of newsworthiness versus privacy.

            David breaks down why a case about a sex tape could have significant implications for other kinds of news:

            “If you’re thinking about this from a legal perspective, the idea that a public figure can say what about his or her life you can publish or post and what you cannot is troubling. Because even if one concedes — as most reasonable human beings would — that this isn’t something that should be out there, this isn’t something he seems to have encouraged the filming of, this is not a video he wanted out there at all. He’s not a pornographic actor — he should have the right for his sex … he has the right for that, in a sense, one would think, not to get out.

            “But if you cede that right to individuals to do it, then suddenly news organizations and citizens are suddenly having taken away from them the right to publish what we want. There are consequences to what we publish in this country — if you libel somebody that is something that you face consequences for. But the idea that pre-emptively you can prevent somebody from doing that is really deeply problematic.”






            How Nick Denton and Gawker Media Got Hired By The White House to try to “kill” me and many other citizens

            How Nick Denton and Gawker Media Got Hired By The White House to try to “kill” me and many other citizens



            No, I am not Hulk Hogan, Sarah Palin, Sean Parker, Mitt Romney, Charlie Sheen, Cheryl Atkisson or one of the thousands of celebrities whose lives Gawker has also destroyed for profit. I am just a low level blue collar worker. I am a taxpaying voter in America that was on a “take-down “ list, produced, I am told (told by CBS News, the FBI, The GAO, Washington Post, numerous Senate senior staff, etc…) by the White House press office.



            I had worked on a federal program and was asked by one of the above agencies to testify in the investigation of some corrupt politicians. I answered the questions for the investigators and then went on about my business. I was not in trouble. I was just asked to help out. A Senator, or two, had done some crimes with White House campaign financiers and the three-letter agencies were trying to catch them.



            The White House knew this would come back on them after the FBI raid of Solyndra. They did not want anybody to be able to discuss anything about this with the Press so they ordered up some character assassination attacks, known as “hit-jobs”, on about 50 people whose credibility they wanted to evaporate. The Obama White House really, especially, hates the media but it super hates pundits. It wanted all 50 of these regular folks wiped out before they had a chance to hold any “credibility points” in a news interview.



            The White House press office always sends out polite little press releases about lighting the National Christmas Tree, saving the Thanksgiving turkey and other low-controversy bits. When Jay Carney, Josh Ernest or Robert Gibbs, in the White House, want to put some nasty news in the papers, they send it over to a guy named Nick Denton. He owns a tabloid defamation empire called: Gawker Media



            To begin to understand the vile lack of morality on display by Mr. Denton, simply type “Gawker Sucks” into,, or



            TAKI MAGAZINE published a right-on-the-nose profile of Denton:


            Gawker Media: Hypocrites vs. Douchecanoes, by Matt Forney, For TAKI



            …In 2002, a failed British journalist named Nick Denton started Gawker, a bitchy gossip blog run out of his Manhattan apartment. Over 10 years later, Gawker and its sister sites have become the biggest names in clickbait “journalism,” pulling down millions of visitors a month and making its owner a millionaire several times over. The secret to Denton’s success? He took the aggressive, lynch mob mentality of British tabloids, which specialize in ruining people’s lives, and injected it into America’s comparatively placid, Oprahfied media market.

            In particular, Gawker, Jezebel, Valleywag, and their sister sites specialize in witch hunts: digital vigilantism against those who fail to keep up with leftist orthodoxy. Geoffrey Miller, Pax Dickinson, Justine Tunney, Violentacrez: the list of people whom Gawker has garroted for “racism” or “misogyny” could fill a phone book. With an army of Twitter twits behind it, Gawker Media truly is the moral majority of the left, instigating mob action against those who sin against the religion of tolerance. Gawker’s provocations are even encouraging real-world violence now, as Valleywag’s overfed man-baby of an editor Sam Biddle eggs on attacks against San Francisco tech workers from the safety of the East Coast.



            Which makes the revelation that Denton has been allowing trolls to terrorize his female employees all the more delicious.” For the past few months, 4chan has been engaged in a trolling operation against Jezebel, posting pictures of rape and gore porn in the comments section. Despite the fact that these shocking and disgusting images are stressing out staffers to the point where they’re developing PTSD, Denton has steadfastly refused to do anything about the problem. Jezebel’s staffrecently snapped and posted an open letter on the site demanding that Gawker Media do something, calling 4chan’s trolling “a very real and immediate threat to the mental health of Jezebel’s staff and readers.”


            “Fat chance of this happening, however. As others have pointed out, Gawker Media’s business model depends on getting clicks; indeed, their writers are paid according to how many page views their articles get. Since comments help drive traffic to websites, fighting 4chan’s rape porn trolling will reduce Gawker’s profitability. Not only that, Google itself ranks web pages according to how many comments they have, as comments are extremely difficult to fake. Fewer comments means a lower page rank, which translates into less search traffic and less money for Denton to blow on exotic vacations with his boy-toy hubby. If Gawker Media was willing to testify in federal court as to why they should be allowed to rip off their interns, you can bet your bottom peso that they aren’t going to do jack about this.”



            …And there’s the punch line. Gawker Media, the company that gets people fired from their jobs for making “sexist” jokes, has been creating a hostile work environment for its women staffers for months. They’re the leftist equivalent of a priest who rails against homosexuality only to be caught molesting altar boys in the confessional booths. In staying silent on this for so long, Dodai Stewart, Lindy West, and Jezebel’s other star employees have shown themselves to be frauds. They don’t care about feminism,“fat shaming,” or whatever cause they’re screeching about today; all they care about is money and power. And now we have the proof.





            So investigators now know that the White House had it’s campaign financiers at Google, Kleiner Perkins, Tesla, Solyndra, and other corporate fronts, wire money to Gawker and Nick Denton bank accounts, and bypass tax evasion over-sight, in exchange for producing, authoring and publishing hit jobs on people that the White House did not like. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs didn’t like to get his hands dirty but he loved to dirty up the reputations of others with his push-button defamation system.



            In the Article: Everybody Sucks- Gawker and the rage of the creative underclass” in New York Magazine, investigator Vanessa Grigoriadis ( ) uncovers the warped and twisted world that powers Gawker Media. She describes the rooms full of sexually confused, abused-looking, tattooed 22 year olds, full of rage and hate, that Denton cruises for in Manhattan. Denton seems to hire the most socially disturbed individuals he can find. He then routes their social angst and ennui into the attack articles that he asks them to undertake. Denton’s trick is to convince these confused teenagers that his client’s enemies are these kids enemies. He uses anger re-direction to create his own little army of Denton-ian Hitler Youth.



            So Denton/Gawker generate the hatchet job article, carefully reviewed by millions of dollars of lawyers to make sure that they can use the SLAPP laws and the First Amendment to shock, destroy and “kill” their target.Who can you report this too?



            That is only the beginning of the attack. The White House likes it’s meat fried.



            On pre-coordinated synchronization with Gawker, White House financier and business partner: Google, locks the attacks into the top lines of the front page of every Google search on Earth, FOREVER. If it is a Gawker attack, Google will refuse to remove the links even if you use every legal resource in the book. Google and Gawker are the same bunch of people. They even send tens of millions of dollars to each other.



            Then Google embeds the attack into every background search, HR database and recruiter search system on Earth. You will never get a job again. Google coordinates this with Gawker’s servers. For extra fun, Google hides code in the attack links that says that the links are “facts” and not “just opinions”.



            In my case, and many others, Gawker, Google and the White House fax and email the attack links to you employer with a message to the effect of: “look, this guy works for you, You better get rid of him now or else you will get a hit job article on your company.” You then get frog-marched out of your job, in the middle of the day, with no notice, and no explanation. You, much later, find out it was because your employer was contacted by the hit-jobbers.



            Who can you report this too?


            The FBI? Not so much, they work for the White House.


            The GAO? They have no powers of arrest and are only allowed to write reports.


            The OSC? They have no powers of arrest and are only allowed to write reports.


            The IRS? Uhm.. Lois Lerner


            The U.S. Congress? They only are allowed to have committees to discuss things and have no powers of arrest.


            The Attorney General? He is a business partner with the White House.


            The Auditor General? He is afraid to lose his pension so he stonewalls everything.


            The court system? Good luck finding the 4+ years and five million dollars of costs you will need to keep that case going.



            Our team talked to over 100 law enforcement agencies and offices. They either reported to the very people we were reporting, or they didn’t want to put their pensions at risk.



            So, since, no American citizen has any public policy or law enforcement resource to stand up for them, who is our new Great White Hope?



            HULK HOGAN for gods sakes!



            He is the only guy in America with the nuts to stand up to these guys.



            Don’t we live in a wonderful country?








            In Hulk Hogan trial Gawker Lawyer invokes Holocaust to say Nick Denton is the Hitler of Media

            Gawker lawyer invokes Holocaust at Hulk Hogan trial

            ​Pro wrestling ​legend Hulk Hogan suffered a sneak attack worse than any he faced in the ring when Gawker posted secretly recorded video of him having sex​ with a friend’s wife​, his lawyer told a Florida jury Monday morning.

            Lawyer Shane Vogt said ​the news and gossip site “wanted to inflict harm, and they wanted to make money” by exploiting the moment of weakness when Hogan “gave in to temptation” and bedded the wife of radio host “Bubba the Love Sponge,” ​who was, at the time, ​a pal​ of the wrestler and reality TV personality​.

            Vogt noted that Gawker marketed the Hogan video as “the heavyweight champ of sex tapes” and alleged that the gossip site’s staffers had joked about whether “his penis was wearing a doo-rag.”

            ​Hogan is famous for wearing a bandanna over his head, and he wore one to court on Monday.​

            “He was engaged in one of the most intimate acts in that bedroom, and they make a conscious decision to expose him to the entire world,” Vogt said during opening statements in Hogan’s $100 million invasion-of-privacy case​, which could bankrupt Gawker if it loses.​

            “It wasn’t a story about political corruption. It wasn’t a story about a mayor smoking crack. It was a porn video that was secretly recorded without someone’s consent.”

            Modal Trigger
            Gawker lawyer Michael Berry attacked Hogan’s suit as a naked grab for “lots and lots of money.”Photo: Charles Wenzelberg

            During the defense opening, Gawker lawyer Michael Berry attacked Hogan’s suit as a naked grab for “lots and lots of money,” and contended that company founder Nick Denton had acted with the purest of motives.

            Berry noted that Denton’s mom was a Hungarian Jew “who survived the Nazis” before escaping the Soviet occupation and fleeing to England at age 18.

            “Mr. Denton grew up with parents who’ve seen first-hand what happens when speech is suppressed,” Berry said.

            “He wants the public to have the simple, unvarnished truth … the unvarnished truth about public figures.”

            During introductory remarks to the four-woman, two-man jury, Judge Pamela Campbell said the case would involve deciding whether the sex tape was a matter of “legitimate public concern” or if posting it represented a “morbid and sensational prying” into Hogan’s private life “for its own sake.”

            Hogan, wearing an all-black outfit that included one of his signature bandannas and a large silver cross hanging from his neck, rocked slightly back and forth in his seat and took notes on a yellow legal pad during the proceedings.

            The former wrestler is expected to be the first witness at the trial, where he’s identified by his real name, Terry Bollea.

            Americans Want A Four-Way In Their Election: Trump Vs. Sanders Vs. Clinton Vs. Some Republican

            Americans Want A Four-Way In Their Election: Trump Vs. Sanders Vs. Clinton Vs. Some Republican





            American satisfaction with their two political parties: The Democrats and the Republicans, is at the lowest level in American history.



            A phenomenal number of Americans are now actively pushing for an election with non-party independent candidates than many analysts have seen in over a 100 years.



            The crony kick-backs that the two old-school parties are mired in, seems irreversibly broken to most U.S. voters.



            Call them Whigs and Tories, Federalists and Anti-Federalists, or most recently, Republicans and Democrats; however they’re divided, two parties have generally dominated the electoral system of the United States. That’s not to say that there cannot be more than two, as there most certainly have been and are. But parties existing outside of the prevailing monolithic dichotomy tend to be so hopelessly overmatched, their efforts ultimately so ineffective, that they are typically herded together under a single label. We call them, all of them, “third parties”.

            The alternative, of course, is to be without affiliation, to accept no label other than the liberating moniker “Independent”. While traditionally unsuccessful, arguably even spectacularly so, those identifying as Independents have without question at least one great winning champion to whom they can appeal to lend themselves relevance and credibility: The nation’s first President, George Washington.

            Not only did Washington refuse to align himself with any political party, he was an enemy of the very notion, believing that it would give rise to partisanship and division in the federal government that would hurt its ability to effectively manage the nation’s affairs. He held to this view throughout his administration, and delivered a scathing indictment of parties in politics during his farewell address.

            As a rule, the United States of America has chosen not to follow its father’s advice. Today, only Republicans and Democrats are taken seriously as contenders for the presidency; third party nominees are at best parasitic ticks drawing off useful votes and at worst utter comedy, while Independent candidates barely register at all. Washington would roll over in his grave: The two-party system runs the show.

            Nevertheless, Independents can have a major impact on American politics. Many minor candidates who run for President, be they third party or no party, do so with the full knowledge and understanding that their chances of actual victory and ascension to the White House are virtually nonexistent. Instead of hoping to win, they are there to champion their causes, and most crucially, to provide the people with an opportunity to cast “message votes” that warn their usual party – Republican or Democrat – that they’ve strayed from their principles and had best clean up their act in the future. And of course, Independent candidates can, and do, win election to congress on at least some occasions.

            All of which is aside from the fundamental fact that the United States, in theory at least, is a republic of open debate and exchange of ideas. The electoral system turns on two parties, but no political contender has to identify with either one. All are free to choose their own party – or, if they wish, to choose none at all. See more at:


            Mexican, Indian and Asian Diplomats Shout Aloud Over Trump Plan to Return Jobs to America

            As Silicon Valley tries to send American Jobs to India, Indian Diplomats cry that Trump will curtail the pig trough

            Foreign diplomats voicing alarm to U.S. officials about Trump

            Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump responds to a speech attacking his candidacy by former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as Trump appears at a campaign rally in Portland, Maine, March 3, 2016.
            Reuters/Joel Page

            Foreign diplomats are expressing alarm to U.S. government officials about what they say are inflammatory and insulting public statements by Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump, according to senior U.S. officials.

            Officials from Europe, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia have complained in recent private conversations, mostly about the xenophobic nature of Trump’s statements, said three U.S. officials, who all declined to be identified.

            RECOMMENDED: U.S. Supreme Court sides with lesbian over parental rights

            “As the (Trump) rhetoric has continued, and in some cases amped up, so, too, have concerns by certain leaders around the world,” said one of the officials.

            The three officials declined to disclose a full list of countries whose diplomats have complained, but two said they included at least India, South Korea, Japan and Mexico.

            U.S. officials said it was highly unusual for foreign diplomats to express concern, even privately, about candidates in the midst of a presidential campaign. U.S. allies in particular usually don’t want to be seen as meddling in domestic politics, mindful that they will have to work with whoever wins.

            Senior leaders in several countries — including Britain, Mexico, France, and Canada — have already made public comments criticizing Trump’s positions. German Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel branded him a threat to peace and prosperity in an interview published on Sunday.

            Trump’s campaign did not respond to requests for comment on the private diplomatic complaints.

            READ MORE: Hulk Hogan takes on Gawker in Florida sex tape trial

            Japan’s embassy declined to comment. The Indian and South Korean embassies did not respond to requests for comment.

            A spokesperson for the Mexican government would not confirm any private complaints but noted that its top diplomat, Claudia Ruiz Massieu, said last week that Trump’s policies and comments were “ignorant and racist” and that his plan to build a border wall to stop illegal immigration was “absurd.”

            The foreign officials have been particularly disturbed by the anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim themes that the billionaire real estate mogul has pushed, according to the U.S. officials.

            European and Middle Eastern government representatives have expressed dismay to U.S. officials about anti-Muslim declarations by Trump that they say are being used in recruiting pitches by the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups.

            On Dec. 7, Trump’s campaign issued a written statement saying that he was “calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

            Trump subsequently said in television interviews that American Muslims traveling abroad would be allowed to return to the country, as would Muslim members of the U.S. military or Muslim athletes coming to compete in the United States.

            There are also concerns abroad that the United States would become more insular under Trump, who has pledged to tear up international trade agreements and push allies to take a bigger role in tackling Middle East conflicts.

            “European diplomats are constantly asking about Trump’s rise with disbelief and, now, growing panic,” said a senior NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

            “With the EU facing an existential crisis, there’s more than the usual anxiety about the U.S. turning inward when Europe needs U.S. support more than ever.”

            Another of the senior U.S. officials said the complaints are coming mostly from mid-to-low ranking diplomats – described as “working level” – rather than from the most senior officials.

            “The responses have ranged from amusement to befuddlement to curiosity,” the official said. “In some cases, we’ve heard expressions of alarm, but those have been more in response to the anti-immigrant and anti-refugee sentiment as well as the general sense of xenophobia.”

            More than a hundred Republican foreign policy veterans pledged this week to oppose Trump, saying in an open letter that his proposals would undermine U.S. security.


            “A LOT OF QUESTIONS”

            On Tuesday, General Philip Breedlove, the United States’ top military commander in Europe, said that the U.S. elections were stirring concerns among America’s allies.

            “I get a lot of questions from our European counterparts on our election process this time in general,” said Breedlove, who did not mention Trump by name. “And I think they see a very different sort of public discussion than they have in the past.”

            While not confirming the content of private diplomatic contacts, some foreign officials acknowledged their governments’ concerns about Trump.

            A British official noted that in January, Prime Minister David Cameron said: “What Donald Trump says is, in my view, not only wrong, but actually it makes the work we need to do to confront and defeat the extremists more difficult.”

            RECOMMENDED: Apple users targeted in first known Mac ransomware campaign

            A Chinese official referred to a statement last week from China’s foreign ministry spokeswoman. Asked whether China was concerned about Trump’s proposal to place high tariffs on Chinese goods, Hua Chunyin declined to comment on specific candidates. But she said “I want to stress” that China and the United States have “major responsibilities” in maintaining international political and economic stability.

            Representatives of other countries publicly attacked by Trump, including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam either had no comment or did not respond to requests for comments.

            Several American foreign policy experts said foreign diplomats have complained to them as well.

            “All foreign diplomats I’ve talked to are amazed at the Trump phenomenon and worried about it, especially in the Middle East and Europe,” said Elliott Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank who handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009 under then-President George W. Bush.


            (Reporting by Mark Hosenball; additional reporting by Jonathan Landay, Phil Stewart, David Brunnstrom, and Emily Flitter; editing by Stuart Grudgings.)

            This article was funded in part by SAP. It was independently created by the Reuters editorial staff. SAP had no editorial involvement in its creation or production.

            Revealed: the 30-year economic betrayal dragging down Generation Y’s income

            Revealed: the 30-year economic betrayal dragging down Generation Y’s income

            Exclusive new data shows how debt, unemployment and property prices have combined to stop millennials taking their share of western wealth

            Who’s winning? Find out how your income compares with every other generation

            Millennials Photograph: The Guardian

            The full scale of the financial rout facing millennials is revealed today in exclusive new data that points to a perfect storm of factors besetting an entire generation of young adults around the world.

            A combination of debt, joblessness, globalisation, demographics and rising house prices is depressing the incomes and prospects of millions of young people across the developed world, resulting in unprecedented inequality between generations.

            A Guardian investigation into the prospects of millennials – those born between 1980 and the mid-90s, and often otherwise known as Generation Y – has found they are increasingly being cut out of the wealth generated in western societies.

            Where 30 years ago young adults used to earn more than national averages, now in many countries they have slumped to earning as much as 20% below their average compatriot. Pensioners by comparison have seen income soar.

            In seven major economies in North America and Europe, the growth in income of the average young couple and families in their 20s has lagged dramatically behind national averages over the past 30 years.

            In two of these countries – the US and Italy – disposable incomes for millennials are scarcely higher in real terms than they were 30 years ago, while the rest of the population has experienced handsome gains.

            It is likely to be the first time in industrialised history, save for periods of war or natural disaster, that the incomes of young adults have fallen so far when compared with the rest of society.

            Experts are warning that this unfair settlement will have grave implications for everything from social cohesion to family formation.

            A two-week Guardian project, supported by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, aims to explore this predicament in depth and ask what can be done.

            Using exclusive data from the largest database of international incomes in the world, at LIS (Luxembourg Income Study): Cross-National Data Center, the investigation into the situation in Australia, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the US has also established that:

            • Prosperity has plummeted for young adults in the rich world.
            • In the US, under-30s are now poorer than retired people.
            • In the UK, pensioner disposable income has grown prodigiously – three times as fast as the income of young people.
            • Millennials have suffered real terms losses in wages in the US, Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Canada and in some countries this was underway even before the 2008 financial crisis.
            Millennials in Washington DC
            Millennials in Washington DC. Across the US, under-30s are poorer than pensioners. Photograph: Washington Post/Getty Images

            “The situation is tough for young people,” said Angel Gurría, secretary general of the west’s leading thinktank, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). “They were hit hard by the Great Recession, and their labour market situation has improved only little since.

            “This is a problem we must address now urgently. Kicking it down the road will hurt our children and society as a whole.”

            Gurría said there had been a shift since the mid-80s in poverty rates, which started to rise among younger cohorts while falling among pensioners. However, the world of barren opportunities facing today’s young people should be of concern to all age groups, he added.

            “Current working-age, middle-class groups are increasingly concerned with their and their children’s job prospects. An increasing number of people think children in their country will be worse off financially than their parents,” he said.

            Using LIS’s household survey data, the Guardian examined the disposable incomes and wages of young families in eight of the 15 largest developed economies in the world. Together these countries made up 43% of the world’s GDP in 2014.

            These surveys, carried out over decades, are intended to pick up what is happening on the ground in people’s homes, and are the best way of distilling domestic realities from governmental level data.

            The data accessed by the Guardian found that in the US, France, Germany, Italy and Canada, the average disposable income of people in their early 20s is more than 20% below national averages.

            For the first time in France, recent pensioners generated more disposable income than families headed by a person under 50. In Italy the average under-35 became poorer than average pensioners under 80. Using the most recent US data, in the midst of the downturn in 2013, average under-30s had less income than those aged 65-79. This is the first time that has happened as far back as the data goes.

            Millennials interviewed by the Guardian said they felt their generation was facing far greater hurdles to establish themselves as independent adults than previous generations did.

            Fiona Pattison
            Fiona Pattison: ‘My lifestyle has remained exactly the same [for six years].’ Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian

            Fiona Pattison, a 30-year-old accounts director at a fundraising agency, said that despite pay rises and promotions her lifestyle hadn’t changed in six years. “Everything I’ve made in terms of a pay rise has gone into living and saving. My lifestyle has remained exactly the same. Any dent in employment or income would mean I’d have to go back to sharing again.”

            Londoner Tanaka Mhishi, who works in a bookshop, adds: “I definitely think in a lot of ways my parents’ generation was luckier. They had a lot more freedom to do things younger: they were able to go straight from university and move to London and afford their own flat.

            “We definitely have to make more compromises. Compromises like if I want to have kids by the time I’m 30, or even 40, can I still have the career I want to do?”

            Tanaka Mhishi.
            Tanaka Mhishi: ‘My parent’s generation had more freedom … to go straight from university, move to London and afford their own flat.’ Photograph: Tom Silverstone/Guardian

            Several economists told the Guardian that policymakers should do more to even up the balance between young and old to avoid economic stagnation.

            Paul Johnson, director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, said he feared intergenerational inequality would fuel wider inequality in society because youngsters with rich parents would retain such an unfair advantage in the important years of early adulthood.

            Johnson said: “I think the real unfairness issue comes in the sense that it’s become more and more important whether your parents happen to have a house.”

            For the next fortnight the Guardian will delve into the fortunes, feelings and finances of the developed world’s young adults, as well as looking at fallacies surrounding them.

            In our series, we will reveal that today’s young people are not delaying adulthood because they are – as the New Yorker once put it – “the most indulged young people in the history of the world”. Instead, it appears they are not hitting the basic stages of adulthood at the same time as previous generations because such milestones are so much more costly and in some cases they are even being paid less than their parents were at the same age.

            In Australia, millennials are being inched out of the housing market. In the UK, new figures will show the notion of a property-owning democracy has already been terminated. In the US, debt is the millennial millstone – young people are sitting on $1.3tn of student debt.

            Across Europe, the issue centres more around jobs – and the lack of them. The numbers of thirtysomethings still living with their parents is stubbornly high in countries such as Italy and Spain, with grave implications for birthrates and family formation in places whose demographics are already badly skewed towards elderly people.

            “We’ve never had, since the dawn of capitalism really, this situation of a population that is ageing so much and in some countries also shrinking, and we just don’t know whether we can continue growing the economy in the same way we once have,” said Prof Diane Coyle, an economist and former UK Treasury adviser.

            You know Area 51, but just what in the world is Area 6? The Alien Test Center?

            You know Area 51, but just what in the world is Area 6?


            The asphalt runway stretches for a mile on Yucca Flat, deep in the Nevada National Security Site about 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

            Built in 2005, the runway covers a dirt landing strip from the 1950s, when the wide, flat valley was used for atomic bomb test shots. A small complex of buildings dominated by a large hangar with unusual clamshell doors dominates the southern end of the asphalt strip.

            The complex has no official name. Not many people even know it’s there.

            As secret airbases go, the single runway in the test site’s Area 6 is easily overshadowed by the world’s most famous secret military base, Area 51, a dozen miles northeast. Area 51’s existence was only recently acknowledged, even after decades of speculation by UFO enthusiasts that the aircraft development and test facility also houses space aliens and extraterrestrial technology.

            Unlike Area 51, which is protected by shoot-to-kill security and shielded from outside view by mountain ranges, Area 6 has only fences and visitor checkpoints. It can be seen at a distance from tour buses on the highway to historic bomb craters at the northern end of Yucca Flat.

            But exactly what goes on at the much smaller and much newer Area 6 is still top-secret defense research-and-development work. It’s so hush-hush that the security site’s spokesman can say little about it.

            Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, said the low-key Area 6 facilities have been used by the Defense and Homeland Security departments.

            “They come here to test their own sensors,” he recently said after spending months fending off questions about the Area 6 runway from the Review-Journal.



            Other than a few “Above Top Secret” forum posts from 2009, and a Wikipedia blurb that cites a 2011 Flightglobal story saying the runway is part of an unmanned aerial vehicle test facility, little has been written about the Area 6 runway.

            Flightglobal, an aviation industry website, noted a five-sentence description of the Area 6 “aerial operations facility” found in a 7,500-page safety report on the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project.

            “The purpose of this facility is to construct, operate, and test a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles. Tests include, but are not limited to, airframe modifications, sensor operation, and onboard computer development. A small, manned chase plane is used to track the unmanned aerial vehicles,” reads the report Energy Department contractor Bechtel SAIC prepared in 2008 for the Yucca Mountain repository license application.

            The National Nuclear Security Administration is a semi-autonomous branch of the Energy Department. Its Nevada field office, based in North Las Vegas, runs the security site.

            What it costs to operate Area 6 is difficult to determine. Funding is buried in the Nevada field office’s Strategic Partnership Program, which was part of the $84 million budgeted for the entire security site in fiscal year 2015. Program funding was about 13.5 percent of the field office’s $622 million total budget that year.

            The program’s activities include research and development of sensors for detecting explosive materials, deadly gases and chemicals, and radioactive sources that could be used in “dirty bombs.”

            Biological weapon sources aren’t allowed at the security site, according to its environmental impact statement.

            Portable radiation monitors and some sensors used in airports and at ports of entry have evolved from the program.

            Morgan said agencies in the Strategic Partnership Program take advantage of the security site’s restricted airspace to test sensor-equipped aircraft work without public interference or spying from space.

            “We have controlled airspace and that gives them opportunities to test various types of platforms,” he said.

            Most of the strategic partnership money comes from Defense Department branches: the Air Force, Army, Navy, Marines, Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

            “We do a wide variety of work for others … supporting people with sensor development activities,” Morgan said. “It evolved from the nuclear testing program. We had to have very good sensors to collect data in a split second before they were obliterated.”

            Morgan said the Area 6 runway and its apron were built by Bechtel Nevada, the site’s management and operations contractor at the time, at a cost of $9.6 million. The buildings were constructed over several years, and cost figures aren’t immediately available.

            As seen from above on Google Earth, the complex is dominated by the clamshell-door hangar and four smaller outbuildings connected by what appear to be covered walkways. Two smaller modern hangars and an older one used during atomic test days round out the facility. Morgan said antennas were installed to allow ground operators to control the flight of unmanned aerial system aircraft.


            The National Nuclear Security Administration has kept Area 6 so low profile that even defense industry experts were unaware of it.

            “I had not heard about it,” said John Pike, director of, an Alexandria, Va.-based defense information website.

            But Pike’s associate, imagery analyst Tim Brown, has estimated the hangar complex could hold about 15 MQ-9 Reaper remotely piloted spy planes.

            Pike said the length of the runway suggests Area 6 is used for small planes or remotely piloted aircraft such as Predator and Reaper reconnaissance drones.

            Bigger spy planes, such as the jet-powered RQ-170 Sentinel unmanned aircraft system, are flown from the Tonopah Test Range by the 30th Reconnaissance Squadron assigned to a Creech Air Force Base wing. It’s unclear if the Sentinel or smaller versions would be flown from Area 6, but Pike said the runway is too small for large jets and bombers. Takeoffs and landings would be tight for an F-16, for example, and an F-15 would need an even longer strip for safe maneuvers.

            Pike said aircraft likely in use at Area 6 are best suited for surveillance of hidden targets, weapons or personnel on the ground, particularly in sparsely populated areas. The security site’s high-desert terrain is similar to what might be found in the “boondocks” of Libya, he noted.

            “There is a well-founded fear that evildoers are stalking around out there — ISIS and al-Qaida,” he said of Libya. “You have to imagine that trying to develop targeting signatures in this type of mountainous desert terrain. That’s got to be a really high priority … not constrained by funding.”

            “I can’t think about a better place to do it where you wouldn’t have civilians stumbling on what you’re doing,” he said in reference to the security site.

            So what would stray civilians see if they could stumble in?

            Pike offers an educated guess: Sensor arrays made up of more than 350 smartphone cameras mounted on an MQ-9 Reaper that can record and archive movements of people and vehicles over an area of about 40 square miles.

            It is known in the unmanned aerial vehicle community as the “Gorgon Stare,” derived from Gorgon monsters of Greek mythology whose gaze was so dreadful it was said to turn a person into stone. While the sensors can’t do that, they can keep terrorist targets from evading the sights of U.S. weapons.

            According to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency website, sensor development has soared to new heights under ARGUS, or the Autonomous Real-time Ground Ubiquitous Surveillance program.

            The goal is to “provide at least 130 independently steerable video streams to enable real-time tracking of individual targets throughout the field of view. The ARGUS-IR system will also provide continuous updates of the entire field of view for enhanced situational awareness,” the defense tech agency website says.

            Pike said improving ARGUS and similar sensor capabilities might be among the activities taking place at Area 6.

            “The thing you get with ARGUS is time-lapse photography. If there’s a rock out there that’s moving, maybe that’s a rock you ought to be paying attention to. Maybe it has to do with evildoers,” he said.

            “I would assume they have airplanes and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) they’re flying around out there to see what they can see,” Pike said.

            “If they would let me run the thing, I’d tell (special operation troops) to go out and do the best in terms of infiltration,” he said. “Then turn loose the sensors and see if we could find them, play hide-and-seek.”

            Contact Keith Rogers at or 702-383-0308. Find him on Twitter: @KeithRogers2

            Media Cross Ownership Frightens Many

            1. Media cross-ownership in the United States

              Media cross-ownership is the ownership of multiple media businesses by a person or corporation. These businesses can include broadcast and cable television, film, radio, newspaper, magazine, book publishing, music, video games, and various online entities. Much of the debate over concentration of media ownership in the United States has for many years focused specifically on the ownership of broadcast stations, cable stations, newspapers and websites.


              Owners of American media

              Recent media mergers in the United States

              Over time the amount of media merging has increased and the amount of media outlets have increased. That translates to fewer companies owning more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership.[1] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is controlled by just six companies.[2]

              The “Big Six”

              The Big Six[3] Media Outlets Revenues (2014)[4]
              Comcast NBCUniversal (a joint venture with General Electric from 2011 to 2013), NBC and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, 26 television stations in the United States and cable networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy, NBCSN, Golf Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Cloo, Chiller, Universal HD and the Comcast SportsNet regional system. Comcast also owns the Philadelphia Flyers through a separate subsidiary. $69 billion
              The Walt Disney Company Holdings include: ABC Television Network, cable networks ESPN, the Disney Channel, A&E and Lifetime, approximately 30 radio stations, music, video game, and book publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Marvel Entertainment, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media, and theme parks in several countries. Also has a longstanding partnership with Hearst Corporation, which owns additional TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and stakes in several Disney television ventures. $48.8 billion
              News Corporation* Holdings include: the Fox Broadcasting Company; cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Business Network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic, Nat Geo Wild, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and the regional Fox Sports Networks; print publications including the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post; the magazines Barron’s and SmartMoney; book publisher HarperCollins; film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures and Blue Sky Studios. As of July 2013, News Corporation was split into two separate companies, with publishing assets and Australian media assets going to News Corp, and broadcasting and media assets going to 21st Century Fox.[5] $40.5 billion ($8.6 billion News Corp and $31.9 billion 21st Century Fox)
              Time Warner Formerly the largest media conglomerate in the world, with holdings including: CNN, the CW (a joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, HLN, NBA TV, TBS, TNT, truTV, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros. Pictures, Castle Rock, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and New Line Cinema. $22.8 billion
              Viacom Holdings include: MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at Nite, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, and Paramount Home Entertainment. $13.7 billion
              CBS Corporation Holdings include: CBS Television Network and the CW (a joint venture with Time Warner), cable networks CBS Sports Network, Showtime, TVGN; 30 television stations; CBS Radio, Inc., which has 130 stations; CBS Television Studios; book publisher Simon & Schuster. $13.8 billion

              Although Viacom and CBS Corporation have been separate companies since 2006, they are both partially owned subsidiaries of the private National Amusements company, headed by Sumner Redstone. As such, Paramount Home Entertainment handles DVD/Blu-ray distribution for most of the CBS Corporation library.

              Others of note

              Discovery Communications
              Owns Discovery Channel, American Heroes Channel, Animal Planet, Destination America, Discovery Family, Science, Investigation Discovery, Velocity, and 3net.
              E. W. Scripps Company
              Owns a number of local television stations in medium-to-large markets. Formerly owned Food Network, HGTV, Travel Channel, and Great American Country, which now constitute the separate Scripps Networks Interactive.
              Owns Audience Network, Root Sports, and GSN.
              Companies tied to Cablevision and the Dolan family
              Own AMC, IFC, MSG, SundanceTV, WeTV, the Cleveland Indians, the New York Knicks and the New York Rangers, as well as 49.98% of BBC America.
              Oaktree Capital Management
              Owners of Townsquare Media (which owns Regent Communications, Gap Broadcasting, Millennium Broadcasting, and Double O Radio) and joint owner of Tribune Media and Tribune Publishing (with Angelo, Gordon & Co. and JPMorgan Chase), which combined owns WGN America and a number of large-market newspapers and local television stations. Previously owned a number of radio networks, which are now held by Cumulus Media.
              iHeartMedia (f/k/a Clear Channel Communications)
              Owns a large number of radio stations across the country, Premiere Networks (which in turn owns The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, The Glenn Beck Program, Coast to Coast AM, American Top 40, Delilah, and Fox Sports Radio, all being among the top national radio programs in their category), and previously held a stake in Live Nation and Sirius XM Radio as well as several television stations (later under the management of Newport Television, and now owned by separate companies). Also owns the largest U.S. outdoor advertising company Clear Channel Outdoor. Parent company Bain Capital also owns a share in The Weather Channel.
              Sinclair Broadcast Group
              It owns or operates a large number of television stations across the country.
              Cumulus Media
              Owns the former assets of Westwood One (which includes Transtar Radio Networks, NBC Radio, and the Mutual Broadcasting System), Jones Radio Networks, Waitt Radio Networks, Satellite Music Network (all of the major satellite music radio services intended for relay through terrestrial stations), Watermark Inc., a significant number of radio stations ranging from small to large markets, and distribution rights to CBS Radio News and National Football League radio broadcasts.

              History of FCC regulations

              The First Amendment to the United States Constitution included a provision that protected “freedom of the press” from Congressional action. For newspapers and other print items, in which the medium itself was practically infinite and publishers could produce as many publications as they wanted without interfering with any other publisher’s ability to do the same, this was not a problem.

              The debut of radio broadcasting in the first part of the 20th century complicated matters; the radio spectrum is finite, and only a limited number of broadcasters could use the medium at the same time. The United States government opted to declare the entire broadcast spectrum to be government property and license the rights to use the spectrum to broadcasters. After several years of experimental broadcast licensing, the United States licensed its first commercial radio station, KDKA, in 1920.

              Prior to 1927, public airwaves in the United States were regulated by the United States Department of Commerce and largely litigated in the courts as the growing number of stations fought for space in the burgeoning industry. In the earliest days, radio stations were typically required to share the same standard frequency (833 kHz) and were not allowed to broadcast an entire day, instead having to sign on and off at designated times to allow competing stations to use the frequency.

              The Federal Radio Act of 1927 (signed into law February 23, 1927) nationalized the airwaves and formed the Federal Radio Commission, the forerunner of the modern Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assume control of the airwaves. One of the first moves of the FRC was General Order 40, the first U.S. bandplan, which allocated permanent frequencies for most U.S. stations and eliminated most of the part-time broadcasters.

              Communications Act of 1934

              The Communications Act of 1934 was the stepping stone for all of the communications rules that are in place today. When first enacted, it created the FCC (Federal Communications Commission).[6] It was created to regulate the telephone monopolies, but also regulate the licensing for the spectrum used for broadcasting. The FCC was given authority by Congress to give out licenses to companies to use the broadcasting spectrum. However, they had to determine whether the license would serve “the public interest, convenience, and necessity”.[7] The primary goal for the FCC, from the start, has been to serve the “public interest”. A debated concept, the term “public interest” was provided with a general definition by the Federal Radio Commission. The Commission determined, in its 1928 annual report, that “the emphasis must be first and foremost on the interest, the convenience, and the necessity of the listening public, and not on the interest, convenience, or necessity of the individual broadcaster or the advertiser.”[8] Following this reasoning, early FCC regulations reflected the presumption that “it would not be in the public’s interest for a single entity to hold more than one broadcast license in the same community. The view was that the public would benefit from a diverse array of owners because it would lead to a diverse array of program and ser- vice viewpoints.”[9]

              The Communications Act of 1934 refined and expanded on the authority of the FCC to regulate public airwaves in the United States, combining and reorganizing provisions from the Federal Radio Act of 1927 and the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910. It empowered the FCC, among other things, to administer broadcasting licenses, impose penalties and regulate standards and equipment used on the airwaves. The Act also mandated that the FCC would act in the interest of the “public convenience, interest, or necessity.”[10] The Act established a system whereby the FCC grants licenses to the spectrum to broadcasters for commercial use, so long as the broadcasters act in the public interest by providing news programming.

              Lobbyists from the largest radio broadcasters, ABC and NBC, wanted to establish high fees for broadcasting licenses, but Congress saw this as a limitation upon free speech. Consequently, “the franchise to operate a broadcasting station, often worth millions, is awarded free of charge to enterprises selected under the standard of ‘public interest, convenience, or necessity.’”[11]

              Nevertheless, radio and television was dominated by the Big Three television networks until the mid-1990s.

              Cross ownership rules of 1975

              In 1975, the FCC passed the newspaper and broadcast cross-ownership rule.[12] This ban prohibited the ownership of a daily newspaper and any “full-power broadcast station that serviced the same community”.[9] This rule emphasized the need to ensure that a broad number of voices were given the opportunity to communicate via different outlets in each market.

              The FCC designed rules to make sure that there is a diversity of voices and opinions on the airwaves. “Beginning in 1975, FCC rules banned cross-ownership by a single entity of a daily newspaper and television or radio broadcast station operating in the same local market.”[13] The ruling was put in place to limit media concentration in TV and radio markets, because they use public airwaves, which is a valuable, and now, limited resource.

              Telecommunications Act 1996

              The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was an influential act for media cross-ownership. One of the requirements of the act was that the FCC must conduct a biennial review of its media ownership rules “and shall determine whether any of such rules are necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” The Commission was ordered to “repeal or modify any regulation it determines to be no longer in the public interest.”[14]

              The legislation, touted as a step that would foster competition, actually resulted in the subsequent mergers of several large companies, a trend which still continues.[15] Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership of TV stations dropped to its lowest point since the federal government began tracking such data in 1990.[16]

              Since the Telecommunications Act of 1996, restrictions on media merging have decreased. Although merging media companies seems to provide many positive outcomes for the companies involved in the merge, it might lead to some negative outcomes for other companies, viewers and future businesses. The FCC even found that they were indeed negative effects of recent merges in a study that they issued.[17]

              Since 2000

              In September 2002, the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stating that the Commission would re-evaluate its media ownership rules pursuant to the obligation specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[9][18] In June 2003, after its deliberations which included a single public hearing and the review of nearly two-million pieces of correspondence from the public opposing further relaxation of the ownership rules[19] the FCC voted 3-2 to repeal the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban and to make changes to or repeal a number of its other ownership rules as well.[9][20] In the order, the FCC noted that the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule was no longer necessary in the public interest to maintain competition, diversity or localism. However, in 2007 the FCC revised its rules and ruled that they would take it “case-by-case and determine if the cross-ownership would affect the public interest.[9] The rule changes permitted a company to own a newspaper and broadcast station in any of the nation’s top 20 media markets as long as there are at least eight media outlets in the market. If the combination included a television station, that station couldn’t be in the market’s top four. As it has since 2003, Prometheus Radio Project argued that the relaxed rule would pave the way for more media consolidation. Broadcasters, pointing to the increasing competition from new platforms, argued that the FCC’s rules—including other ownership regulations that govern TV duopolies and radio ownership—should be relaxed even further. The FCC, meanwhile, defended its right to change the rules either way.“[13] That public interest is what the FCC bases its judgments on, whether a media cross-ownership would be a positive and contributive force, locally and nationally.

              The FCC held one official forum, February 27, 2003, in Richmond, Virginia in response to public pressures to allow for more input on the issue of elimination of media ownership limits. Some complain that more than one forum was needed.[21]

              In 2003 the FCC set out to re-evaluate its media ownership rules specified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On June 2, 2003, FCC, in a 3-2 vote under Chairman Michael Powell, approved new media ownership laws that removed many of the restrictions previously imposed to limit ownership of media within a local area. The changes were not, as is customarily done, made available to the public for a comment period.

              • Single-company ownership of media in a given market is now permitted up to 45% (formerly 35%, up from 25% in 1985) of that market.
              • Restrictions on newspaper and TV station ownership in the same market were removed.
              • All TV channels, magazines, newspapers, cable, and Internet services are now counted, weighted based on people’s average tendency to find news on that medium. At the same time, whether a channel actually contains news is no longer considered in counting the percentage of a medium owned by one owner.
              • Previous requirements for periodic review of license have been changed. Licenses are no longer reviewed for “public-interest” considerations.

              The decision by the FCC was overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC in June, 2004. The Majority ruled 2-1 against the FCC and ordered the Commission to reconfigure how it justified raising ownership limits. The Supreme Court later turned down an appeal, so the ruling stands.[22]

              In June 2006, the FCC adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPR)[23] to address the issues raised by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and also to perform the recurring evaluation of the media ownership rules required by the Telecommunications Act.[24] The deliberations would draw upon three formal sources of input:(1) the submission of comments, (2) ten Commissioned studies, and (3) six public hearings.[9]

              The FCC in 2007 voted to modestly relax its existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership.[25] The FCC voted December 18, 2007 to eliminate some media ownership rules, including a statute that forbids a single company to own both a newspaper and a television or radio station in the same city. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin circulated the plan in October 2007.[22] Martin’s justification for the rule change is to ensure the viability of America’s newspapers and to address issues raised in the 2003 FCC decision that was later struck down by the courts.[26] The FCC held six hearings around the country to receive public input from individuals, broadcasters and corporations. Because of the lack of discussion during the 2003 proceedings, increased attention has been paid to ensuring that the FCC engages in proper dialogue with the public regarding its current rules change.

              FCC Commissioners Deborah Taylor-Tate and Robert McDowell joined Chairman Martin in voting in favor of the rule change. Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, both Democrats, opposed the change.[27]

              In 2013 the FCC proposed that a pre-digital rule that counted each UHF station as worth half a VHF station for the ownership rules be removed.[28]

              During mid-2014 and up to early 2015, the FCC, along with US Congress and the United States’ Department of Justice, repeatedly voiced its opposition to a merger that was officially proposed by Comcast in January 2014 and would have led to a fusion of Time Warner and Comcast in order to form an enormously high-profile conglomerate with widespread influence across the US market. Comcast finally cancelled the merger proposition in May 2015.[29]

              Local content

              A recent study found that news stations operated by a small media company produced more local news and more locally produced video than large chain-based broadcasting groups.[9][30] It was then argued that the FCC claimed, in 2003, that larger media groups produced better quality local content. Research by Philip Napoli and Michael Yan showed that larger media groups actually produced less local content.[9][31] In a different study, they also showed that “ownership by one of the big four broadcast networks has been linked to a considerable decrease in the amount of televised local public affairs programming”[9]

              The major reasoning the FCC made for deregulation was that with more capital broadcasting organizations could produce more and better local content. However, the research studies by Napoli and Yan showed that once teamed-up, they produced less content. Cross ownership between broadcasting and newspapers is a complicated issue. The FCC believes that more deregulation is necessary. However, with research studies showing that they produced less local content – less voices being heard that are from within the communities. While less local voices are heard, more national-based voices do appear. Chain-based companies are using convergence, the same content being produced across multiple mediums, to produce this mass-produced content. It’s cheaper and more efficient than having to run different local and national news. However, with convergence and chain-based ownership you can choose which stories to run and how the stories are heard – being able to be played in local communities and national stage.

              Media consolidation debate

              Robert W. McChesney

              Robert McChesney, Ph. D.

              Robert McChesney is an advocate for media reform, and the co-founder of Free Press, which was established in 2003.[32] His work is based on theoretical, normative, and empirical evidence suggesting that media regulation efforts should be more strongly oriented towards maintaining a healthy balance of diverse viewpoints in the media environment. However, his viewpoints on current regulation are; “there is every bit as much regulation by government as before, only now it is more explicitly directed to serve large corporate interests.”[33]

              McChesney believes that the Free Press’ objective is a more diverse and competitive commercial system with a significant nonprofit and noncommercial sector. It would be a system built for the citizens, but most importantly – it would be accessible to anyone who wants to broadcast. Not only specifically the big corporations that can afford to broadcast nationally, but more importantly locally. McChesney suggests that to better our current system we need to “establish a bona fide noncommercial public radio and television system, with local and national stations and networks. The expense should come out of the general budget”[34]

              Benjamin Compaine

              Benjamin Compaine believes that the current media system is “one of the most competitive major industries in U.S. commerce.”[35] He believes that much of the media in the United States is operating in the same market. He also believes that all the content is being interchanged between different media.[36]

              Compaine believes that due to convergence, two or more things coming together, the media has been saved. Because of the ease of access to send the same message across multiple and different mediums, the message is more likely to be heard. He also believes that due to the higher amount of capital and funding, the media outlets are able to stay competitive because they are trying to reach more listeners or readers by using newer media.[37]

              Benjamin Compaine’s main argument is that the consolidation of media outlets, across multiple ownerships, has allowed for a better quality of content. He also stated that the news is interchangeable, and as such, making the media market less concentrated than previously thought, the idea being that since the same story is being pushed across multiple different platforms, then it can only be counted as one news story from multiple sources. Compaine also believed the news is more readily available, making it far easier for individuals to access than traditional methods.[38]

              American public distrust in the media

              A 2012 Gallup poll found that Americans’ distrust in the mass media had hit a new high, with 60% saying they had little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Distrust had increased since the previous few years, when Americans were already more negative about the media than they had been in the years before 2004.[39]

              See also


            2. Shah, Anup. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” Global Issues, Updated: 02 Jan. 2009. Accessed: 21 Mar. 2011.
            3. Entertainment More: Infographic Media Corporation Mergers And Acquisitions These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America – Business Insider, June 14 2012
            4. Ownership Chart: The Big Six. (2009) Free Press. Retrieved from
            5. “NASDAQ Revenue and EPS Summary”. Retrieved 31 August 2015.
            6. “News Corp officially splits in two”. BBC News. Retrieved June 29, 2013.
            7. The Telecommunications Act of 1934, 4 & 47 U.S.C. 154 Retrieved from (2011)
            8. “Communications Act of 1934” (PDF). Retrieved 2011.
            9. Robb, Margo. “Community Radio, Public Interest” (PDF).
            10. Obar, Jonathan (2009). “Beyond cynicism: A review of the FCC’s reasoning for modifying the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership rule”. Communication Law & Policy 14 (4).
            11. The Communications Act of 1934 .” United States Public Law.
            12. “[Thomas I. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression (New York: Vintage Books, 1970), p. 654-655 ].” Thomas I. Emerson
            13. Amendment of §§73.34, 73.240 and 73.636 of the Commission’s Rules Relating to Multiple Ownership of Standard, FM and Television Broadcast Stations, 50 F.C.C. 2d 1046 (1975).
            14. FCC’s review of the Broadcast Ownership Rules. (2011) FCC. Retrieved from
            15. “The Telecommunications Act of 1996” (PDF). Retrieved 7 May 2011. |first1= missing |last1= in Authors list (help)
            16. “Adbusters : The Magazine – #72 The Fake Issue / Fighting For Air: An interview with Eric Klinenberg”. Retrieved 2007-06-29.
            17. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (3/9/2003). “Speak Out for Media Democracy: Why isn’t the FCC doing its job?”. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting. Retrieved 10 October 2009. Check date values in: |date= (help)
            18. Shah, Anup. “Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership.” Global Issues, Updated: 02 Jan. 2009. Accessed: 21 Mar. 2011. <>
            19. Press Release, Federal Communications Commission, FCC Initiates Third Biennial Review Of Broadcast Ownership Rules: Cites Goal Of Updating Rules To Reflect Modern Marketplace (Sept. 12, 2002), available at public/attachmatch/DOC-226188A1.pdf
            20. See Prometheus Radio Project, 373 F.3d 372, 386 (3d Cir. 2004).
            21. For example, the local television multiple ownership rule and the national television ownership cap (among others). See R&O/NOPR 2003,supra note 21, at 3-4.
            22. Casuga, Jay-Anne. Not Enough: FCC public hearing allows only one hour for citizen input (
            23. Labaton, Stephen. “Plan Would Ease Limits on Media Owners.” The New York Times, 18 Oct 2007. Retrieved on 10 Dec 2007.
            24. Federal Communications Commission, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking(2006), available at public/attachmatch/FCC-06-93A1.pdf [hereinafter FNPR]
            25. Pub. L. No. 104-104, §202(h), 110 Stat. 56, 111-112 (1996)
            26. FCC’s Review Of Broadcast Ownership Rules. 2007. Retrieved from
            27. Chairman Kevin J. Martin Proposes Revision to the Newspaper/Broadcast Cross-Ownership Rule.” FCC. Press Release, 13 Nov 2007.
            28. FCC Votes to Relax Cross-Media Ownership RuleAssociated Press, 18 Dec 2007. Retrieved on 18 Dec 2007.
            29. Flint, Joe (September 26, 2013). “FCC proposes eliminating UHF discount from TV ownership rules”. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 19 January 2014.
            30. Steiner, Tobias (August 4, 2015). “Under the Macroscope: Convergence in the US Television Market between 2000 and 2014”. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
            31. David K. Scott, Robert H. Gobetz & Mike Chanslor, Chain Versus Independent Television Station Ownership: Toward An Investment Model Of Commitment To Local News Quality, 59 COMM. STUDIES 84 (2008).
            32. Philip M. Napoli & Michael Z. Yan, Media Ownership Regulations and Local News Programming on Broadcast Television: An Empirical Analysis, 51 J. OF BROAD. & ELEC. MEDIA 39 (2007).
            33. An Interview with Free Press Founder Bob McChesney (2010) Retrieved from
            34. McChesney, Robert (2009). “Understanding the Media Reform Movement”. International Journal of Communication 3.
            35. McChesney, Robert. “The U.S. Left and Media Politics”. para.33
            36. Baker, Edwin (2002). “Media Concentration: Giving Up On Democracy”. Florida Law Review. 839 54.
            37. Compaine, Benjamin. “Domination Fantasies”. Retrieved 3 May 2011.
            38. Compaine, Benjamin. “Domination Fantasies”. Retrieved 3. Check date values in: |access-date= (help) May 2011. p. 2, para. 9
            39. Compaine, Benjamin. “Domination Fantasies”. Retrieved 3. Check date values in: |access-date= (help) May 2011. p. 3, para. 16
            40. “U.S. Distrust in Media Hits New High”. Gallup. September 21, 2012.




            MATCH.COM dating site now the number one service charged with rape attempts

            MATCH.COM dating site now the number one service charged with rape attempts



            Tinder and now also account for the new epidemic of STD’s too


   rapist Jason Lawrance jailed for life for attacking women he met on dating website


            Jason Lawrance, 50, was described as a ‘sexual predator’ by police











            A “sexual predator” who raped and assaulted women he met on a dating website has been sentenced to life in prison.

            Jason Lawrance, 50, used to select his victims using the profile names KeepItStraightToday and StraightMan-Looking.

            The father-of-three was sentenced today at Derby Crown Court after being convicted of raping five women and will serve a minimum sentence of 12-and-a-half years before being considered for release.

            Judge Greg Dickinson QC told Lawrance he had shown “no remorse” for his actions and described him as “devious, manipulative and dangerous to women”, telling the court he would rape again if given the chance.

   said it was committed to online safety initiatives“I am compelled to the dreadful conclusion that you enjoyed raping women.

            “After these terrible crimes you acted as if nothing had happened,” the judge added. “You have shown no remorse – zero appreciation of the seriousness of these offences – for the pain you have inflicted on these ladies, their families and their friends.

            “Your aim was to get (the victims) into a compromising situation and then to do whatever you liked to them – anticipating that they would be too frightened or embarrassed to make a complaint, or that they would not be believed if they did come forward.”

            Read more

            Explaining his decision to impose a life term, Judge Dickinson said: “There is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by you of further offences.

            “That phrase is taken from an Act of Parliament. In plain English – you are a danger to women.

            “Given the chance, you will rape again. I do not know when it may be safe to release you into the community.

            “A sentence of life imprisonment means that you will not be released unless and until the Parole Board considers that it is safe to do so.”

            Jason Lawrance, 50, was found guilty at Derby Crown Court of raping five women after meeting them on internet dating site

            Lawrance, from Liphook in Hampshire, carried out the attacks between June 2011 and November 2014, including three assaults just months after he married a woman he met through the same website.

            He was also found guilty of sexually assaulting and attempting to rape two other women after chatting to them online.

            Derby Crown Court heard that four of the victims complained about Lawrance to, and one of the women was told administrators could not do anything because he had not sent abusive messages that would violate its terms of service.

            Lawrance, a former company director turned self-employed builder, texted one of his victims after attacking her apologising for “hurting her” and saying: “When you were crying out for me to stop I couldn’t, I’m so mad at myself xxx.”

            The jury heard that he raped another woman in the back of a van which he had parked in a field in Northamptonshire, while a third was attacked at her home while her son was asleep in a nearby bedroom.

            He was arrested after a friend of a woman who was raped in Derbyshire in November 2014 went to police.

            Shaun Smith, a barrister for the prosecution, told the jury that Lawrance was a Jekyll and Hyde character and that he targeted “vulnerable, naive, lonely women”.

            Detective Chief Inspector Allison Rigby, from Derbyshire Police, said the trial had been “devastating” for the victims.

            UK news in pictures

            “I certainly think he is a sexual predator who has preyed on women through that he has met who have got (some) vulnerability,” she said.

            “He seems to have targeted females who are divorced and widowed.

            “Only Jason Lawrance will know how many people he has sexually assaulted – it is possible that there are other people out there.

            “I would say (the victims) have been very brave in the fact they have come forward to give evidence and confront him in court.

            “I just hope once this case is finished, they can move forward and start to rebuild their lives.”

            A spokesperson for said the website welcomed the sentence after working with police for more than a year on the case.

            “We are very sorry for those affected and appalled by these terrible acts. Sadly, there is a tiny minority of people who set out to harm others,” she added.

            “While this is not confined to dating sites or even the internet, those who do so should be convicted and sentenced, as has happened in this case.  Our member’s safety is our highest priority.”

            The company is working on a dating industry initiative with the Suzy Lamplugh Trust to spot suspicious behaviour and protect users.

            Additional reporting by PA




            Did Obama Create More Hookers Than Any Other President? Millions of Students Forced Into Prostitution to Pay Off Student Loans

            Sugar Babies on Campus: How some local college students are selling themselves to pay tuition


            Norfolk, Va. – Most college students receive financial aid or get a job during their college years in order to pay for school, but according to a new study, millions of students nationwide are paying for their tuition by selling themselves as sugar babies to older men and women.

            More than 100 students at a local university are currently paying for school by spending their free time as sugar babies.

            As a sugar baby, students  get paid thousands of dollars to provide company to older men and women, sometimes even more than twice their age.

            Sugar babies themselves admit the payoff is grand.

            “I have done made about $1,500 in a month that’s more than me working two jobs like I did in senior year of high school.” This student didn’t want to be identified but says she has been a sugar baby since October.

            But is the payoff worth it? Or is becoming a sugar baby putting students into a dangerous situation?

            “Aside from potential sexual assault I think psychologically going in and into that I think it could have a lot of long lasting detrimental effects,” explained Haley Raimondi, Lead Victim Advocate at Samaritan House, a domestic violence resource group.

            Tonight on NewsChannel 3 at 11,  Allison Mechanic looks into the alarming trend gaining in popularity.

            ’60 Minutes’ TV crew attacked and eaten in Sweden


            ’60 Minutes’ TV crew attacked and beaten in Sweden


            '60 Minutes' TV crew attacked and beaten in Sweden
            This afternoon a TV crew from the Australian 60 Minutes TV program, had found the way to the immigrant-dense suburb of Rinkeby in Stockholm.

            After the visit the journalists said that they have been to Somalia, Syria and Iraq, but they have never experienced conditions similar to those in Sweden.

            The TV crew got an insight into the Swedish multicultural society that they are never going to forget.

            The TV crew was in the Stockholm suburb of Rinkeby to depict the mass immigration to Sweden, and do interviews with local residents. The team barely got into Rinkeby before it was attacked for the first time, writes Avpixlat.

            When a cameraman from 60 Minutes went out of the car, suddenly a car came up close beside him. The African driver of the car began to argue about why they were filming in Rinkeby. After a few minutes he ran across the foot of the cameraman, who tumbled to the ground and lay in agony. Another cameraman filmed the whole incident.

            The camera man was not seriously injured, however, and was able to continue the job, but with significant pain. The police arrived at the site 10 minutes later and six policemen guarded the TV team, which consisted of three camera men and broadcaster Liz Hayes, in addition to Jan Sjunnesson from Avpixlat, who guided them in Rinkeby.

            After a while the Australians wanted to go to Rinkeby Square, but the police had to stay behind on the outside not to provoke the residents.

            – We provoke them if we continue, but we’ll see you from Rinkeby Plan, said one of the policemen to the TV team.

            Inside the Rinkeby Square, the TV crew talked with residents who did not seem aggressive, but who told about how good life was in Rinkeby with so many different cultures. All said they enjoyed it there. But when the police suddenly disappeared, without telling the TV crew, a group of masked men suddenly circled the camera men.

            One of the camera men was attacked and hit with a clenched fist over his mouth. A bottle was then thrown at the camera.

            Meanwhile, another camera man was attacked and punched in the mouth so that a tooth came loose.

            The TV team quickly decided to leave Rinkeby, with pictures and film of everything that had happened. They told the journalist from Avpixlat that they have been to Somalia, Syria and Iraq, but they have never experienced anything like this anywhere.

            The 60 Minutes report from Sweden will be broadcasted on national Australian TV shortly.

            In addition to interviews with Tino Sanandaji and Avpixlat’s Jan Sjunnesson on the immigration policy, also Islamists on the Internet in Sweden are portrayed in the program.

            Thanks to and Tinder: The Biggest Syphilis and Chlamydia Sexually Transmitted Disease Epidemic Ever!

            Thanks to and Tinder: The Biggest Syphilis and Chlamydia Sexually Transmitted Disease Epidemic Ever!

            Hookup Apps and the Rise of STDs | Details


            Who worries about STDs when getting lucky is only a right swipe away? Not the people secretly spreading an epidemic of gonorrhea, syphilis, and chlamydia across the …

            bing google



            Billboards linking Tinder to STDs … – The Washington Post


            Just blocks away from the Tinder headquarters in Los Angeles, a large pink and purple billboard encapsulates much of what critics don’t like about the dating app.

            bing google





            Dating App Tinder Adds STD Testing Locator After Pressure From …


            28 Jan 2016 … ( — Tinder, a popular mobile phone app used for dating and casual sexual encounters, added information on where users can …




            Dating Apps Like Tinder And Grindr Come Under Fire …


            Sep 27, 2015 · Dating Apps Like Tinder And Grindr Come Under Fire On New Billboard Suggesting They Promote STDs September 27, 2015 11:00 PM




            Tinder and hookup apps blamed for rise in STDs – May. 26, 2015


            26 May 2015 … Rhode Island‘s Department of Health says that sexually transmitted diseases are way up in the state, in part because of the increase of hookup …




            Tinder (app) – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


            Tinder is a location-based dating and social discovery application (using Facebook) that facilitates communication between mutually interested users, allowing matched …




            Tinder Adds STD Testing Center Locator to Dating App | TIME


            22 Jan 2016 … Tinder is now referring users to the health safety page on their website, which includes information on preventing and testing for STDs.


            Tinder Adds STD Testing Center Locator to Dating App


            Tinder Adds STD Testing Locator – AskMen


            Long Story Short. Dating app Tinder now includes an HIV and STD testing locator link on its website, but finding it takes longer than arranging a hook up.




            The Crazy Backstory Behind Tinder‘s New STD Testing Locator


            22 Jan 2016 … In addition to love and happiness, you can now find your way to STD testing centers on Tinder. Sounds like a weird feature, right? You don’t …




            Tinder to Blame for STD Increase, Says RI Department of …


            Tinder, the illustrious scapegoat of Internet dating, is now allegedly to blame for the uptick in STD cases in the states of Rhode Island and Utah, where apparently …




            How Las Vegas Became Infested With Syphilis. Sin City Lives Up To Its Name.
            Las Vegas is known as the place to go to cheat on your partner. Now karma has caught up with reality.
            Syphilis sparks concern in popular vacation city
            Las Vegas Strip at night. The city is experiencing an outbreak of syphilis, say health officials.
            By Brian Jones 
            Nevada is experiencing the highest rate of syphilis in the West following an outbreak in Las Vegas.
            Health officials say it's part of a national spike in cases tied to increased testing, a rise in anonymous sex tied to social media, and a less consistent use of condoms.
            Social media's link to syphilis in the gay community has prompted health officials to take their educational outreach directly to the websites and apps, in some cases creating profiles or buying advertisements.
            Here's a closer look at what's going on:
            What is syphilis? How does it still exist?
            Syphilis is a sexually transmitted disease that's been around at least since the Roman times, said Dr. Tony Fredrick, the Southern Nevada Health District's medical epidemiologist. It's never really gone away - it just comes in waves. It's detected by blood testing, which means it's not a part of the "bundle" of STDs found through urine screening.
            Caused by the bacterium Treponema pallidum, syphilis spreads through skin-to-skin sexual contact when there's a sore or lesion, typically in the genital or anal areas or mouth. Symptoms aren't always apparent and can progress for years, even decades, without treatment. In early stages, it's highly treatable with penicillin.
            If left untreated, it can lead to serious health complications. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, symptoms of late stage syphilis include difficulty coordinating muscle movements, numbness, paralysis, blindness and dementia. In the late stage, it damages internal organs and can be deadly.
            What's going on in Nevada?
            Clark County health officials declared an outbreak in Las Vegas last week after noting a 128 percent increase in reported syphilis cases since 2012, with 615 of the 694 cases involving men diagnosed in 2015. This makes Nevada's rate of syphilis the highest in the West.
            There's been an uptick in other parts of Nevada, too, but that could be tied to a population increase, the state health department said. Nevadan youth, meanwhile, are having sex at younger ages and are using condoms inconsistently or improperly.
            Is the rest of the U.S. at risk?
            Syphilis outbreaks have appeared in pockets of the U.S. in recent years, including in Kansas, Pennsylvania and Hawaii. The latest available data, from 2014, showed a 15 percent increase in cases overall, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said.
            There's been an increase in other STDs as well. The most common, chlamydia, has risen to record levels.
            Why are doctors blaming social media?
            Health providers and officials have warned publicly about the prevalence of anonymous sex through social media, particularly with an increase in the use of Smartphone apps. Elizabeth Adelman, a senior disease investigator for the health department in Las Vegas, said young people dependent on their iPhones can find quick, easy access to hook-ups. Not meeting in person first can make it harder to negotiate condom use, she said.
            What's being done to address it?
            Las Vegas officials have been working to connect with various websites and apps. Adelman said they've sought permission for a passive presence on platforms such as the gay website Adam4Adam, so users can reach out for information. Other popular apps officials are looking into include Tinder and Grindr.
            Adam4Adam said through Twitter it offers live health counselors and tips on its website, and it counts some health agencies among its advertisers. Tinder and Grindr couldn't be reached for comment.


            How The U.S. Department of Energy Became A Criminal “Slush Fund” for an Election Campaign

            How The U.S. Department of Energy Became A Criminal “Slush Fund” for an Election Campaign



            Hundreds of American technology companies are saying they were lied to, harassed, attacked and defrauded by the U.S. Department of Energy.


            Read More At:


            In an Internet of Things world, every home appliance could be turned into a listening post. That’s why the Apple case matters.


            California Methane Leak Largest In History And Will Affect Atmosphere of Entire Planet

            READ MORE:

            Annotating The Letter Disney’s CEO Sent To Disney Employees Asking Them To Fund Disney’s Sketchy Lobbying Activities | Techdirt

            READ MORE:

            (VIDEO) The return of “Sex Island”. Billionaire hijinx lead to illicit actions.

            (VIDEO) The return of “Sex Island”. Billionaire hijinx lead to illicit actions.

            Read More and see video: