Rep. Trent Franks says he’s leaving the house

Another member of congress has chosen to leave the house of
representatives. Arizona rep. Trent Franks told the media that he is leaving because the house ethics committee is investigating him for sexual misconduct. He says the investigation is “regarding my discussion of surrogacy with two previous female subordinates” that made “each feel uncomfortable. His statement continues: “I deeply regret that my discussion of this option and process in the workplace caused distress. Franks is the third lawmaker and first Republican to resign this week, following Rep. John Conyers and Sen


Charles Manson, leader of a famous murderous cult, dead at 83

Normally I would sayR.I.P but it’s Manson!
The man who brain washed people to go on a murderess rampage has died. I have no love for him. I smiled when the news came down. The Times calls him a Wild-Eyed leader.
If you don’t know what he did – he ordered the killing of people because he was nuts!
Per the NYT: “Convicted of nine murders in all, Mr. Manson was known in particular for the seven brutal killings collectively called the Tate-LaBianca murders, committed by his followers on two consecutive August nights in 1969.

The most famous of the victims was Sharon Tate, an actress who was married to the film director Roman Polanski. Eight and a half months pregnant, she was killed with four other people at her Beverly Hills home . .

The Tate-LaBianca killings and the seven-month trial that followed were the subjects of fevered news coverage. To a frightened, mesmerized public, the murders, with their undercurrents of sex, drugs, rock ‘n’ roll and Satanism, seemed the depraved logical extension of the anti-establishment, do-your-own-thing ethos that helped define the ’60s.

Since then, the Manson family has oc’cup’ied a dark, persistent place in American culture and American commerce. It has inspired, among other things, pop songs, an opera, films, a host of internet fan sites, T-shirts, children’s wear and half the stage name of the rock musician Marilyn Manson.

the 1% own 50% of the worlds wealth

A new report came out on Tuesday showing that the worlds wealthiest 1% own more than 50% of the worlds wealth according to the bank Credit Suisse.
While many are still feeling the effects of the 2008 financial crisis the worlds 1% got 8% richer.
Per the UPI: The share of the top 1 percent has been on an upward path ever since [the crisis], passing the 2000 level in 2013 and achieving new peaks every year thereafter, the bank’s annual report said, adding: global wealth inequality has certainly been high and rising in the post-crisis period. The quickest wealth spurt happened over the past 12 months, with the top 1 percent boosting their value by 6 percent to a total of $280 trillion. That brings the top 1 percent’s wealth to 50.1 percent of the entire world. So far, the Trump presidency has seen businesses flourish and employment grow, though the ongoing supportive role played by the Federal Reserve has undoubtedly played a part here as well, and wealth inequality remains a prominent issue, said Michael O’Sullivan, chief investment officer for International Wealth Management at Credit Suisse, according to CNBC. What do you think let me know on Twitter
What do you think? If you want to follow me on Twitter and get my blog posts in your timeline: just click this link.

let us higher a company that has Russian spy links to garde our Embassy in Russia

Marines will continue to guard American diplomatic missions in Russia, but other tasks, like screening visitors, will be taken over by a private Russian security firm. Anyone else see an issue with this?
The State Department has made a no bid contract to gard our Embassy in Russia to a Russian company. It gets werse. The New York Times broke the story and will be quoted throughout this post.
To make up for the loss of security guards axed in the Russian-mandated staff cuts, Washington has hired a private Russian company that grew out of a security business co-founded by Mr. Putin’s former K.G.B. boss, an 82-year-old veteran spy who spent 25 years planting agents in Western security services and hunting down their operatives.”
Yes because why waste time bidding? I thought the president was “America First.” We don’t have any good security companies? Apparently An official note about the no-bid contract posted on a United States government website says that American companies had been contacted about taking on the security job in Russia but that “no us firm has been located with the requisite licensing or desire to operate in-country. It added that, among Russian companies that could do such work, only Elite Security had established operations and licenses to operate in the four cities where American missions needed guards reports the times.
From the paper: “Under a $2.8 million no-bid contract awarded by the Office of Acquisitions in Washington, security guards at the American Embassy in Moscow and at consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok will be provided by Elite Security Holdings , a company closely linked to the former top K.G.B. figure, Viktor G. Budanov, a retired general who rose through the ranks to become head of Soviet counterintelligence. Don’t worry friends they have been vetted.
From the paper:
“A State Department official in Washington, speaking on condition of anonymity in accordance with the department’s rules, said that Elite Security and individuals associated with it had been “vetted” with “relevant national and local agencies” and would not increase the threat risk.

“U.S. missions around the world work constantly under intelligence and physical security threats,” the official said. “This contract does not change that fact.”
According to some russian newspapers and the times Mr. Budanov doesn’t run the company anymore however, his son, Dimitri, does.
What do you think? If you want to follow me on Twitter and get my blog posts in your timeline: just click this link.

Roy Moore is truly a loser if he had pedophilia with a 14-year-old girl in 1979

I feel like I need to vomit. Through the Washington Post we learned of four women who blaimed Roy Moore for pedophilia in 1979 at the age of 14.
It should be noted that the age of consent in Alabama is 16 according to an NBC reporter.
Per the New York Post: “Leigh Corfman said Moore introduced himself to her and her mother in 1979 when he saw them sitting on a bench outside a courtroom in Etowah County, Alabama.
She said Moore, then a 32-year-old assistant district attorney, got her phone number and called her several days later and they agreed to meet.
Corfman, then 14, told the newspaper that Moore picked her up around the corner from her home and took her to his place where he told her she was pretty and began kissing her.”
He touched her through her bra and led her hands to touch him through his underwear, she said to the paper.
Three other women who spoke to the Post said Moore had “asked them on dates when they were between 16 and 18 and he was in his early 30s.
When mr. More touched Ms. Corfman he was breaking the law. According to the Daily Beast, According to Alabama state law at the time of the alleged offense, anyone over the age of 19 who subjects another person under the age of 16 to sexual contact is guilty of second-degree sexual abuse.

Susan B. Anthony made history in 1872, the nyt went meh – a decade later the paper went hell no!

People call the New York Times the paper of history. If it is ment to be noted in history, then it is covered by the Times. That is the theory anyway.
It is a theory because when Susan B. Anthony and her fellow suffragettes voted on November 5, 1872, it didn’t get the blazing headlines we thought it would have.
Perhaps in other papers it did but not in the Times. I am amazed because the story is something that would have rankled someone. “Anthony and a small group of women cast their ballots for president in Rochester, N.Y., days after she had persuaded election inspectors to register them.
The move, which resulted in arrests and a trial in which Anthony was found guilty was an act of defiance and audacity that helped propel the long, slow march to women’s suffrage reports the Times 145 years after the event took place. This was 5 decades before women were given the vote. The November 5, 2017 issue of the paper shows you how much they cared: “One paragraph ran inside the paper the next morning, Nov. 6. The news was deemed insignificant in no uncertain terms it was published under the heading “Minor Topics.
The item recognized that the event could lead to a momentous shift, acknowledging that Anthony was “leading to the polls the advance guard of the coming squadrons of female voters. At the same time, it captured the dismissive misogyny of the era, referring to the women as “a little band of nine ladies. In 1872 the paper treated the eventnothing more than ??
The same cannot be said for 1882 a decade later. If a woman wants the vote it would reck this nation was the theory that was bantered about across this land.
At that time the diction was written in terms that would be deemed unquestionably sexist today. These quotes are from that time period.
“Literal people may ask, Why, then, does not woman have the right of suffrage? it stated. “The answer is easy. She does not want it. Of course, it must be admitted that women, or some women, think they want the ballot. But they do not really want it.
It continued: “Philosophers have observed that the female desire is invariably kindled by that which is, or seems to be, unattainable.
The article which examined a debate between Anthony and Edward Rosewater, a Republican politician and newspaper editor from Omaha shot down Anthony’s assertion that disenfranchisement was akin to degradation. To be “disfranchised,” it stated, one would have to be robbed of a right “he (or she) already holds.
It then reinforced a central argument made by those who opposed women’s suffrage: that it would lead to the destruction of the traditional home. “To give woman the ballot, provided woman wanted it, would be to bring desolation and distraction into multitudes of happy homes. Well, it didn’t.

Former F.B.I. Agent tries to answer the question Who Betrayed Anne Frank?

Who Betrayed Anne Frank? This question has been on the lips of millions of people from across the world. Perhaps it even crossed ms. Frank’s mind after she was taken from a warehouse owned by her father where she was hiding from the Gestapo.
It happened on Aug. 4, 1944, the police discovered the hide-out during a raid and arrested her and seven others living behind a movable bookcase. All but Otto Frank, the diarist’s father, and later the editor of “The Diary of a Young Girl,” perished in Nazi death camps. Someone betrayed her locatien and now they have a formerF.B.I. investigator, and 21st century tricks on their trail.
“We will put special emphasis on new leads,” said the retired special agent, Vince Pankoke, 59, who is leading the effort. “We need to verify stories as they come in, and we know that is going to lead to further investigation.” .
Quite a mind exploding volume of information: In the search for new leads, he and his team are digitally combing through millions of pages of scanned material from the National Archives in Washington as well as archives in the Netherlands, Germany and Israel. It sounds like a lot but something may turn up.
The team will also use forensic accounting, crowd sourcing, behavioral science and testimonial reconstruction to find answers. This will open many threds of dialog. This quote from the Times is telling:
“She used to be the girl that we protected and now she has become the girl that we betrayed,” said Bart van der Boom, an expert on the Nazi oc’cup’ation and a lecturer at Leiden University. “It’s a function of how the Dutch perceive themselves during the oc’cup’ation.

That perception changed in the 1960s, said Dr. van der Boom, when the Dutch started to question the traditional narrative that all Dutch people were victims of the Nazis. The Dutch Resistance Museum in Amsterdam, for example, now features a narrative thread describing the life of a collaborator, as well ones about people who stayed neutral, those who resisted and those who were victimized.