Jill Stein’s Ideology Says One Thing—Her Investment Portfolio Says Another



The holier-than-thou Green Party candidate rails against Big Carbon, big banks, Big Pharma—while she holds substantial investments in them.

Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein has largely based her campaignon her uncompromising positions on the environment, opposition to big banks and Wall Street, defense contractors, and the pharmaceutical industry. But an analysis of her financial disclosures, which she was required to file as a presidential candidate, show she is heavily invested in the very industries that she maligns the most and as a result of her investments, she has built significant wealth.

According to the financial-disclosure form she filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics on March 30, 2016, Stein and her husband, Richard Rohrer, have investments (with the exception of real estate) valued at anywhere from $3,832,050 to $8,505,000. (Stein told The Daily Beast she inherited “over a half-million dollars” from her parents.) We don’t know their exact net worth because filers are only required to provide a range of the value of their investments as opposed to exact values.

Stein has also voluntarily released the first two pages of her 2015 federal tax return. That return, filed jointly with her husband, shows a total income of $349,088 in 2015 and an effective tax rate of 21 percent. In a video interview, Stein told a reporter for Forbes in 2012 that she does not rely on accountants or lawyers to prepare her tax returns. In the interview, she said she uses the popular do-it-yourself software Turbo Tax. An examination by The Daily Beast of her 2015 tax return confirms that no outside party was involved in preparing her returns.

Stein, a Harvard-educated physician, has run for office seven times, including two unsuccessful races for Massachusetts governor and a run for the White House in 2012. In the 2012 presidential race, Stein received 469,501 votes.

She has made purity a central pillar of her presidential candidacy, and she has held that the Green Party reigns above all others with respect to moral and ethical supremacy. In an interview with CNN last April, she said, “I have long since thrown in the towel on the Democratic and Republican parties because they are really a front group for the 1 percent, for predatory banks, fossil-fuel giants, and war profiteers.”

Most of Stein’s investments are in mutual funds or index funds. Experts suggest these funds, which are usually highly diversified, provide more consistent returns than picking individual stocks.

It’s important to note that politicians from all parties have been held accountable for their mutual- and index-fund investments. Elected officials and candidates like Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and many members of Congress have had their fund investments called into question and have been pushed to divest for various reasons.

To learn more about the funds Stein has invested in, The Daily Beast did not have to engage in significant research by any definition. A simple Google search of the name of each of the funds she has invested in returned publicly available marketing documents produced by the investment managers that showed where these funds were investing their capital.

Mutual funds often share the top 10 or top 25 largest holdings in their portfolio and we relied only on this data to determine the composition of these funds.

Stein’s controversial investments include:

Big Carbon. On Oct. 26, 2015, Stein’s campaign sent out a statement calling for Exxon to get the death penalty for its “climate-change fraud.” (it should be noted that Stein has called for the abolition of the death penalty for human beings). She has also repeatedly called for public pension funds to divest from companies in the fossil-fuel industry.

Yet Stein has invested $995,011 to $2.2 million in funds such as the Vanguard 500 fund that maintain significant stakes in Exxon and other energy companies like Chevron, Duke Energy, Conoco Phillips, and Toho Gas, a Japanese company that engages in the sale of natural gas, tar, and coke, a fuel made from coal.

Financial Industry. Like Sen. Bernie Sanders, Stein has consistently denounced the banking industry and Wall Street. She has said that big banks should be nationalized or broken up. And she has refused to agree that there is a stark difference between how the Democrats have regulated the financial-services industry and how Republicans have approached the same task.

Yet Stein has invested roughly $1.2 to $2.65 million in funds like the TIAA-CREF Equity Index that have big stakes in the financial-services industry. Holdings in these funds include big banks like JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, and Deutsche Bank as major parts of their investment portfolios. Five of the funds that Stein invests in maintain large positions in Wells Fargo, which has come under fire recently amid charges that its employees were pressured to open up fraudulent new accounts for clients.

One of the funds Stein has invested in maintains a significant position in Goldman Sachs bonds. Stein once referred to Goldman Sachs as Hillary Clinton’s best friend. She has also invested in a fund that contains significant investments in mortgage-backed securities, including subprime mortgage-backed securities, and mortgage-backed derivatives. These financial instruments played a significant role in the financial crisis of 2008.

Big Pharma. Stein has been a stalwart opponent of what she sees as the corrupt influence of the pharmaceutical industry. She posted a tweet that said:

“I believe that healthcare should serve people not the interests of pharmaceutical and insurance companies, unlike the DNC or Hillary.”

In one of the handful of direct stock investments Stein holds, she listed between $50,001 and $100,000 in the pharmaceutical giant Merck, which paid a record fine for overbilling Medicaid. She has also invested $1,130,010 to $2,400,000 in funds that maintain significant stakes in Pfizer, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, and Allergan.

Big Tobacco. Investing in the tobacco industry or accepting contributions from the tobacco industry is often seen as a third rail in progressive politics. But Stein has between $500,004 to $1,100,000 invested in funds that maintain significant stakes in Phillip Morris International, the tobacco giant that manufactures Marlboro cigarettes and 17 other tobacco brands.

Defense contractors/drones. Stein has made her opposition to the use of drones by the U.S. military a key message in her campaign. She said, “Increased use of drone warfare under Obama is killing many innocent civilians, over 90 percent of deaths were unintended targets in Afghanistan,” and she has referred to the drone program as a “fabulous recruitment tool for terrorists.”

Yet she has between $50,001-$100,000 invested in a fund that has Raytheon Corp. as its fourth largest holding, a $38 million investment. Raytheon, which is the fourth largest defense contractor in the world and derives 90 percent of its revenue from military contracts, manufactures drone systems, which Stein has committed to ending, and significant missile systems.

In response to detailed questions from The Daily Beast, Stein’s campaign issued a four-point statement of nearly 500 words. “Like many Americans who hold retirement accounts, pension funds, or who invest in the American economy,” the statement begins, “my finances are largely held in index funds or mutual funds over which I have no control in management or decision-making. Sadly, most of these broad investments are as compromised as the American economy—degraded as it is by the fossil-fuel, defense and finance industries.”

While it’s true that Stein would not have control over the investments of the funds she invested in, she did have a choice of whether to invest in these funds to begin with. In the past, political candidates, in an effort to avoid a conflict of interest or have their judgment called into question, have invested their entire portfolios in U.S. Treasuries, cash/cash equivalents, in socially responsible index funds, or clean-energy funds. In her statement, Stein said that she has “explored” more socially responsible funds but “found their investments in fracking and large-scale biofuels not much better than the non-green funds. I have not yet found the mutual funds that represent my goals of advancing the cause of people, planet, and peace.”

While Stein claims that she had difficulty finding funds that aligned with her values, she didn’t explain why she chose to remain in funds that are completely disjointed from her values. Many critics say clean-energy and socially responsible investment funds offer a poor rate of return and should generally be avoided. And with the Fed keeping interest rates below 1 percent, U.S. Treasuries and cash/cash equivalents don’t offer a high rate of return by anyone’s standard.

Which likely explains why Stein chose to invest her wealth in funds that have often offered double-digit returns. Stein, like Ralph Nader, who was the Green Party presidential nominee in 2000, has been steadfast in refusing to be framed as a potential spoiler of the 2016 presidential race. When asked during a CNN Green Party town-hall forum if she was concerned that her candidacy would help usher in a Trump presidency, Stein said, “I will have trouble sleeping at night if Donald Trump is elected. I will also have trouble sleeping at night if Hillary Clinton is elected.”

In 2006, Ms. Stein retired from teaching and medicine to focus full-time on her political activism. There’s little doubt that her decision to retire was made easier by the substantial returns her investments were producing, even if they went against her life’s work.

( Article by: Yashar Ali; From:The Daily Beast)


White Supremacists Threaten War Against Black Americans If Donald Trump Loses 2016 U.S. Presidential Election


Over the course of the Obama Presidency, and during this U.S. Presidential election cycle, we have seen the rise of a population of white racist fanatics that includes a league of American white supremacist’s who call themselves the “Alt-Right.”


With the rise of Donald Trump, as a racial demagogue, and champion of their backward cause, this league of ideologically-driven racial hate groups, and their mindless minions, have become more bold, more bitter, and more violent, with each passing week. This former fringe movement, which has now taken center stage in the Republican Party, has also sparked a massive rejuvenation of the Ku Klux Klan, and the formal unification of white supremacist organizations, throwing their support, along with the Fraternal Order of Police, behind Donald Trump’s Presidential candidacy. Their public, and too often violent, support of Donald Trump’s falsehood-ridden campaign suggests that the people in the Alt-Right movement have lost their perspective on reality…if they ever actually had one. This is unfortunate. Also unfortunate is their cult loyalty to Donald Trump.


American White supremacists, also known as white nationalists, are now openly threatening to attack Black Americans if Donald Trump loses this Presidential election. This sentiment is exemplified by a Donald Trump supporter and suspected white supremacist from Greenville, South Carolina named Jim Moseley, who recently posted threats against Black citizens on his Facebook page.


Liberals will have targets on their backs, as their behaviors are pretty much evident. Race wars will begin as well, as your skin color will be your uniform!”

This is apparently an attempt to frighten Black People, especially Black Women, into voting for Trump or into staying home and not voting at all. If Donald Trump loses this election (and indications in the polls suggest that he will), the white supremacists who are threatening to attack Black Americans would be well-advised to think twice about attacking us; for GOD IS WITH US. Attacking us would not be a very wise move because the spirit of Nat Turner has been awakened in this Generation of Black Americans.


Black Americans are the Survivors of American Chattel Slavery. Chattel Slavery was a system of forced labor, and bondage, in which People of African Descent in America were classified as Animal Property by European Americans in order to facilitate the accumulation of White Wealth from unpaid Black Labor. The white slave owner exercised absolute authority over the poor Chattel Slave’s life, liberty, labor, and offspring. America’s captive laborers were callously subjected to physical–and mental–trauma, and gross sexual abuse, as an everyday norm. It was not always this way in America. Beginning in 1619, Africans were brought to the British Colony of Jamestown, Virginia. The first Africans were Indentured Servants, much like the poor laborers from Europe. But through treachery, greed, violence, and unjust legal manipulation, the Africans in America were reduced to Chattel Slaves by the end of the 17th century.


The Europeans in the American Colonies over-committed their economy, culture, and society, to Chattel Slavery, and invented “whiteness” and racism to facilitate the process. It is now admitted by some Historians that the American Colonies actually declared their independence from Britain in 1776 in order to protect the institution of Chattel Slavery.


By 1808, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade was virtually shut down; and, the American economy could no longer depend on enslaving captives who were brought to America from Africa on slave ships. So, white plantation owners began to breed Black People like animals, even going as far as to keep pedigrees for animal husbandry purposes. In order to facilitate this abomination with a clear conscience, some whites denied their Black captives the rite, and the right, of Christian Baptism. This was spiritually traumatic to the captives, especially to the females. For, as far as they knew, being denied Christian Baptism meant that the sexual sins that they were compelled to commit were not forgiven by God. Contrary to traditional stereotypes about the sexuality of “slave women” in America, our captive female Ancestors valued their chastity. This is borne out in the Slave Narratives. Southampton, Virginia was one such area where slave-breeding was prevalent. There, a brilliant slave preacher, and family Ancestor of mine, named Nat Turner, was forbidden by the white slave owners, the local government, and their Church, to Baptize the captives.


On August 21, 1831, in Southampton, Virginia, Nat Turner, a plantation preacher, and mystic, who was known to the captive Africans as, The Prophet, led the most devastating slave revolt in American History. Turner, inspired by a vision from God, led this revolt in response to the impact of slave-breeding on the captives, especially on the Women and girls. The revolt lasted for three days, in which Nat Turner’s Men killed fifty-five whites–men, women, and children–before the insurrection was put down by the U.S. Military and local armed white vigilantes.


Turner himself was not captured until October 30, 1831. He was tried, and hanged on November 11, 1831. Before his execution, Nat Turner gave his confession to a lawyer named Thomas R. Gray on November 5, 1831. In his confession, Nat Turner intimated that the Holy Spirit taught him about the movements of the heavenly bodies. He also prophesied of a battle between Blacks and Whites at the time of a Total Solar Eclipse. Read The Nat Turner Prophecy below:


“And about this time I had a vision–and I saw white spirits and black spirits engaged in battle, and the sun was darkened–the thunder rolled in the heaven, and blood flowed in the streams–and I heard a voice saying, ‘Such is your luck, such you are called to see, and let it come rough or smooth, you must surely bare it.'”

Dictated to William Gray on November 5, 1831.

The Confessions of Nat Turner. Gray, Thomas R. Lucas & Deaver, Print Baltimore: 1831, p. 10.

Ponder the meaning of Nat Turner’s Prophecy given in the document below titled,The Cosmic & Qur’anic Mystery of The Nat Turner Revolt. You will understand why The Holy Spirit specifically directed Prophet Nat to rise up and revolt on the date of August 21, 1831, and write a prophecy in the oppressor’s blood.

(Article by: HERU BAR-CHANAN; From: LinkedIn)




Marijuana advocates are heading into the final weeks of the 2016 campaign with the wind at their backs as the latest polling shows legalization measures currently favored by voters in all five states where they’re on the ballot.

This is something of a reversal from just a month ago, when the most recent polling had shown voters wary of legalization measures in Massachusetts and Arizona. But the margins of support aren’t huge in any state, meaning that the contests could still swing either way.

Polling ballot issues is a tricky business, all the more so with marijuana-related issues, where responses can be heavily influenced by particular question wording. So in the same state, different polls with different question wording can yield radically different results even if fielded at similar times. Those caveats aside, here’s what the latest numbers show.

In Arizona, a late-August Arizona Republic/Morrison/Cronkite News poll of 784 registered voters found that 50 percent supported marijuana legalization, 40 percent opposed it, and 10 percent remain undecided. That result is sharply at odds with a July poll of likely voters showing that only 39 percent said they favored the measure.

In California, a post-debate SurveyUSA poll of 751 likely voters found that Proposition 64, which would legalize, tax and regulate the sale of recreational marijuana, is supported by 52 percent of the electorate and opposed by 41 percent, with 6 percent undecided. This is a lower margin than some other recent polls there, which have pegged support at 60 percent or more.

Across the country in Massachusetts, the marijuana legalization measure there enjoys 53 percent support among likely voters, according to a recent WBZ-UMASS Amherst poll of 700 likely voters. Forty percent oppose it, while another 7 percent are unsure. That’s also a turnaround from an earlier poll of 900 registered voters, which found only 41 percent supported the measure.

From: Health Cure 4U

All Signs Point To A Corporate Takeover Of The Marijuana Industry By Bayer, Monsanto


Germany-based pharmaceutical giant Bayer has finally sealed the deal with Monsanto, purchasing the seed giant for $66 billion following months of negotiations and various offers.


The merger is reported to be one of the biggest of all-cash deal on record.
There are many effects of this huge merger but as usual, the consumer loses out. Firstly, it strengthens the monopolization of the world’s food supply. It also means more GMOs and chemicals to be sprayed on them.



Some are now predicting the merge could also mean the takeover of the marijuana industry.
According to Big Buds Mag:

Monsanto has an intimate business relationship with Scotts Miracle-Gro, a convicted corporate criminal– and Scott’s Miracle-Gro is trying to take over the marijuana industry,

Is Monsanto Going After the Pot Industry?

In states where the plant has been legalized or decriminalized, Scott’s Miracle-Gro has looked to capitalize on the ever expanding cannabis industry.
CEO of SMG, Jim Hagadorn, stated his intentions – spend up to $500 million to completely buy out the marijuana industry.
A Scott’s Miracle-Gro front group has already purchased General Hydroponics, Botanicare and Gavita:

Major hydroponics nutrients, lighting, soil, and other grow equipment manufacturers report they’ve also been offered takeover bids by Scotts Miracle-Gro or its ‘Hawthorne’ front company. Maximum Yield Magazine, which bans marijuana hydroponics nutrients company Advanced Nutrients from its indoor gardening expo events, welcomed a Monsanto affiliate into its Boston gardening expo several years ago.

Of course, Bayer play a leading role in this pre-planned monopolization.
The German chemical lords do business with GW Pharmaceuticals, a company based in the United Kingdom that grows cannabis and produces medicines from its compounds.

Monsanto and Bayer Share Information on How to Genetically Engineer Cannabis

Bayer sells some of GW Pharmaceuticals’ products, including Sativex, a costly medical cannabis spray that’s reported to work less effectively than naturally grown pot.
Both Monsanto and Bayer have a history of producing chemical weapons used in war and toxic products, including PCBs, DDT, Agent Orange, Roundup and GMOs.
Members of the cannabis industry have seen the writing on the wall in terms of the world’s seed monopolies’ interest in marijuana.
“Michael Straumietis, founder and owner of hydroponics nutrients company Advanced Nutrients, has constantly warned the marijuana community about Monsanto, Scotts Miracle-Gro, GMO marijuana, and corporate takeover of the marijuana industry.”
The two corporations, which have now merged into one, have agreed to share trade secrets about plans to produce genetically modified marijuana.

Monsanto investor George Soros attempts to legalize pot in Uruguay

“Bayer is partnered with GW Pharmaceuticals, which grows its own proprietary marijuana genetics. You can bet Monsanto and Bayer are interested in creating GMO marijuana,” said Straumietis.
Billionaire investor, George Soros, previously waged a campaign to legalize pot in Uruguay so that he could invest in the plant. Soros owns 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock.
“Straumietis says South American governmental insiders report that Monsanto is working there on genetically-modified cannabis, along with pharmaceuticalizing THC, other cannabinoids, and terpenoids.”



The hydroponics nutrients owner warns that if biotech giants get involved in the cannabis industry, they’ll monopolize it the same way they have the seed, medicine and agricultural chemical industries.
Straumietis said:

These corporations have reduced the variety and availability of native seeds. They genetically modify crops so farmers have to buy new seeds every year, and use corporate chemicals like RoundUp to grow them. They’d do the same thing with GMO marijuana

From : Organic And Healthy

Legal Weed Is Now More Popular Than Hillary Clinton Or Donald Trump


We live in a time of political acrimony, a moment when both candidates for president are loathed by large chunks of the public and our elections have come to feel like quadrennial skirmishes in a cultural civil war.

But you know what voters are starting to agree on? Weed. Gallup reports today that 60 percent of Americans now say they favor legalizing marijuana, a new high since the pollster started asking about the topic 47 years ago. To put that in perspective, Hillary Clinton has an average favorability rating of just 43.8 percent, according to HuffPost Pollster. Donald Trump clocks in at a mere 34.7 percent. Even President Obama, who has enjoyed a late-term spike in popularity as America has pondered his potential replacements, only enjoys about 54 percent favorability—meaning pot is more popular than POTUS and his would-be successors.


Gallup isn’t alone in its findings, either; earlier this month, Pew reported that 57 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be made legal, up from 32 percent 10 years ago.

So, on the one hand, these are the kinds of poll numbers that make federal legalization feel like an inevitability, especially since they’ll likely get more lopsided as millennials become a larger share of the electorate. A full 77 percent of Americans under 35 think we should end the ban on pot, according to Gallup, compared to just 45 percent of those over 55. Hillary Clinton has already saidshe would take the baby step of moving marijuana to schedule II classification,which would make FDA-approved marijuana-based pharmaceuticals legal while leaving the current network of medical dispensaries and recreational pot shops in much the same legal limbo they currently operate in. But a solid majority of the public says it’s ready for more dramatic action.

Trophy Hunter Trampled to Death By Elephant He Was Trying to Hunt



A trophy hunter who was leading a guided group to hunt an elephant for its tusks was trampled to death by a young bull elephant in Zimbabwe. For a story like this, one would probably assume that we would take some sort of almost celebratory stance in the face of a hunter finding himself the hunted, but we’re kinda not gonna go there. A man is dead, elephants are being hunted for trinkets and the entire thing pretty much blows.

The facts are these. Ian Gibson took a group of American hunters out in Zimbabwe’s Zambezi Valley in the hopes of shooting a young bull elephant he’d been tracking. According to a statement written on AfricaHunting.com, the group came close to the elephant in the hopes of assessing his ivory when the elephant went into full charge and knelt on Gibson, crushing the hunter.

This isn’t the first incident involving a trophy hunter for the company, Safari Classics, Gibson worked for either. In 2012, they lost another hunter named Owain Lewis to a Buffalo.

Once social media got wind of the story, there wasn’t a whole lot of sympathy flowing in for a guy who viewed endangered animals as dollar signs. “I wonder if the elephant took the guy’s teeth for their value,” one user queried, while another said, “I have zero sympathy for this hunter. I react to this the very same way I do when I see a bullfighter get mangled. BRAVO.” Still another commenter said, “The number of elephants is half what it was a decade or so ago and are dwindling fast. I don’t respect “hunters” who pay extraordinary fees and hire professional trackers killing shrinking numbers of elephants, rhinos, lions etc. just to feed their egos.”

In the camp of those who side with Gibson and other big game hunters, the argument was immediately made that the man was actually a conservationist. One person commented, “In modern times, the PH [professional hunter] is almost always an avid conservationist who works within the laws of the country to harvest wildlife that is mature and insure that the conservation of the species is well funded and that the species as a whole is healthy and at sustainable population levels.”

This is an argument for trophy hunting that has been thrown around time and time again, most recently when Ricky Gervais went after hunters who posted pictures of themselves beside felled giraffes on Twitter. It’s as ridiculous this time as always has been. Does the Louvre fund the preservation of priceless art by letting people pay to enter so they can judo kick the Mona Lisa in her smug forehead? If you’re trying to protect something, you don’t kill it. End of story.

While we can definitely understand the sentiments of those who regard Gibson and those like him with fury, we don’t celebrate anyone’s death (human or animal) and see the entire situation as utterly senseless. African elephants are being hunted to extinction, along with rhinos, for their tusks and horns. While bans on ivory are popping up in more and more countries every day, the fact remains that poaching and big game hunting are contributing to the problem and if things continue how they are, we could lose the African elephant entirely by 2030. That’s less than two decades away.

And as for Gibson? He should never have been there in the first place. Animals in the wild are…wild! We know this is a complete shocker, but it’s completely true. They are living, thinking beings with instincts for survival and they’re not really gonna be into hanging out with you, especially if they feel threatened.

Here’s a novel concept that can keep this situation from happening in the future. Let’s leave the wildlife the hell alone, m’kay? That way, we don’t have to make up a laundry list of justifications for our actions and attempt to hide under the banner of conservation as we blast them to smithereens, and they don’t have to fight for their lives and watch their numbers dwindle to nothing. There, both sides win.

(Article by: Kaula Magee; from: Captain Chuckle)

Plane Passenger Who Pulled Off Muslim Woman’s Hijab And Shouted ‘This Is America’ Is Fined £815



An apologetic Gill Parker Payne said he was drunk on the flight and has since visited a mosque

A man has been sentenced for pulling off a Muslim woman’s hijab and shouting “this is America” on a flight.

Gill Parker Payne, from Chicago, was fined £815 and ordered to a year’s probation including two months of home detention.

The 37-year-old admitted saying something to the effect of “take it off! This is America” while flying between Chicago to Albuquerque in New Mexico.

According to the Albuquerque Journal, US attorney Damon P. Martinez said: “The case sends a clear message to anyone who contemplates the use of threats or intimidation to interfere with the right of individuals, including members of our Muslim community, to express their faith without fear.”

Payne was sitting a few rows behind victim Khawla Abdel-Haq on the Southwest Airlines flight in December 2015.

Payne admitted in a statement: “I stopped next to her seat, looked down at K.A., and told her to take off her hijab, stating something to the effect of ‘take if off! This is America’.”

The court heard Ms Abdel-Haq was scared to leave her home for weeks after the in-flight tirade.

She said at the sentencing on Tuesday: “You hurt me, you disrespected me, you violated me.”

An apologetic Payne said he was drunk on the flight, and has since visited a mosque, adding: “I’m embarrassed. I’m 100 per cent embarrassed.”

( Article by: Peter Walker; from: Independent)


Emmett Till Memorial Sign Is Riddled With Bullet Holes And Has Been Repeatedly Vandalized


A memorial sign marking the place where Emmett Till’s mutilated body was discovered in a Mississippi river in 1955 is riddled with bullet holes — and has been routinely vandalized since it went up in 2007.

Till, a black Chicago teen whose racially charged murder was a catalyst for the civil rights movement, was killed on August 28, 1955 by two white men while visiting his uncle in Money, Miss. His murderers, J.W. Milam and Roy Bryant, were acquitted by an all-white jury but later confessed to kidnapping, torturing and killing the 14-year-old because he had whistled at Bryant’s wife.

In 2007, the Emmett Till Memorial Commission erected eight site-markers, including a sign at the location where Till’s badly disfigured remains were recovered from the Tallahatchie River three days after he was murdered.


The teen had a cotton gin fan tied around his neck with barbed wire, his left eye and many of his teeth were missing, and he had a bullet hole in his right temple.

Filmmaker Kevin Wilson, Jr. posted a photo this week to Facebook — originally flagged by Trace — of the river site sign with roughly 50 bullet holes pierced through, rendering the plaque’s text nearly illegible.

By contrast, a similar site-marker at the Milam’s home was intact, “preserved and adorned with flowers,” according to a second photo posted by Wilson.

“We’ve still got a long way to go,” he wrote.

Some of the bullet holes in the river site-marker aren’t new. According to a photo posted by writer Christopher Hooks in 2013, the sign had already been shot at least 20 times from different angles.

Vandalism to signs memorializing Till’s death has been routine,  a troubling trend first reported by Slate. An “Emmett Till Memorial” roadside marker in Greenwood, Miss. was stolen in 2007 and the sign at the Tallahatchie River site was ripped down by vandals in 2008, just after it went up.

“It shows that there’s still people who do not want to remember or talk about Emmett Till,” Patrick Weems, a project coordinator for the Emmett Till Memorial Commission, told the Daily News.

Weems said that the financially struggling organization can’t afford to routinely replace the vandalized signs and has instead launched a virtual tour of sites commemorating Till’s death, called the Emmett Till Memory Project.The site and smartphone app was created by a group of scholars and guides users to 51 sites in and around the Mississippi Delta that played a significant role in the teen’s murder and trial.

The Emmett Till Interpretive Center is raising money to fund the project and replace the bullet-riddled sign. So far they’ve raised over $500 of its $15,000 goal.

(Article by: Laura Bult; from: NY Daily News)


Breaking: Judge Rejects “Riot” Charges Against Amy Goodman In North Dakota



A North Dakota judge today refused to authorize riot charges against award-winning journalist Amy Goodman for her reporting on an attack against Native American-led anti-pipeline protesters.

“This is a complete vindication of my right as a journalist to cover the attack on the protesters, and of the public’s right to know what is happening with the Dakota Access pipeline,” said Goodman. “We will continue to report on this epic struggle of Native Americans and their non-Native allies taking on the fossil fuel industry and an increasingly militarized police in this time when climate change threatens the planet.”

District Judge John Grinsteiner did not find probable cause to justify the charges filed on Friday October 14 by State’s Attorney Ladd R. Erickson. Those charges were presented after Erickson had withdrawn an earlier charge against Goodman of criminal trespass. Goodman had returned to North Dakota to turn herself in to the trespassing charge.

The charges in State of North Dakota v. Amy Goodman stemmed from Democracy Now!’s coverage of protests against the Dakota Access pipeline. On Saturday, September 3, Democracy Now! filmed security guards working for the pipeline company attacking protesters. The report showed guards unleashing dogs and using pepper spray and featured people with bite injuries and a dog with blood dripping from its mouth and nose.

Democracy Now!’s report went viral online, was viewed more than 14 million times on Facebook and was rebroadcast on many outlets, including CBS, NBC, NPR, CNN, MSNBCand the Huffington Post.

On September 8, a criminal complaint and warrant was issued for Goodman’s arrest on the trespassing charge.

“These shifting charges were a transparent attempt by the prosecutor to intimidate Amy Goodman and to silence coverage of the resistance to the pipeline,” said Reed Brody, an attorney for Goodman. “Fortunately, these bully tactics didn’t work and freedom of the press has prevailed.”

The pipeline project has faced months of resistance from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and members of over 100 other tribes from across the U.S., Canada and Latin America.

Goodman is the host and executive producer of Democracy Now!, a national, daily, independent, award-winning public television/radio news program that airs on over 1,400 stations worldwide. Goodman has co-authored six New York Times bestsellers and won many of journalism’s highest awards in more than three decades working as a reporter.

(Article from: Democracy Now)

WikiLeaks: Email Suggests Sanders Was Manipulated to Support Hillary



It has been pointed out that the original headline of this article read as if literal money-exhanging was involved – this is not at all what the author intended, and as such the article has been updated and rephrased to better reflect the actual content and intent.


A new email uncovered by WikiLeaks heavily suggests that Brent Budowsky, an ex-legislative director to Congressman Bill Alexander and oddly short-lived political blogger, was involved in an initiative to pay off the Sanders campaign to support Hillary Clinton.

In the email, written to Clinton 2016 campaign chair John Podesta, Budowsky states the following strategy for defeating Sanders:


In other words, Budowsky suggested the HRC campaign and the DNC ingratiate Bernie and his supporters by speaking and writing positively about him until the right time… Then get him to back Clinton officially so the game can go according to plan. Or at least, that is what is being alleged by those who have read the email.

Libertarian Party chair Nicholas Sarwark called it a “double-cross” on his official Twitter upon reading it:

And mainstream news sources have picked up the leak of Podesta’s gmail account and pulled other gems from it, as well.

The most interesting thing about this email is that it corresponds directly with Budowski’s evidenced behavior regarding the Sanders campaign – he did precsicely what he promised he would do in the email. He wrote and spoke publicly about Sanders until it was the right time to stop doing so. His blog posts on LAprogressive.com show as much, where we can see Budowski posting pro-Bernie content until May, and then suddenly ceasing his output never to write again during the election cycle.

If the emails are in fact pointing to a “double-cross” or ingratiation like it appears, this is by far some of the most compelling evidence yet of the Clinton campaign’s string-pulling and underhanded campaign tactics.

(Article by: Micah J. Fleck; from: The Libertarian Republic)