It is significant that Trump has declared his campaign against the opioid issue a worldwide problem.

It is a reflection of dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to a move toward ethnonational coordination.

A preliminary matter of suspicion has to do with resources being devoted to criminal enforcement rather than public health.

In particular, resources as such are not necessarily being devoted even for the public health management of the poor White communities impacted. But rather toward a covert means to deal with blacks and browns though criminalization; while resources will be devoted to foreign browns and yellows to a lesser extent through criminalization, but to a greater extent through politicization - their being seen as engaging in a covert war of drug trafficking - a depiction which could then mutate into broader, more explicit wars, markedly in Asia.

This comes back to dishonesty and supremacism as opposed to White Nationalism, which is supposed to represent ethnonationalism for European peoples.

As ethnonationals, we should be working on rule structures which lead to our separatism and sovereignty for ourselves, blacks, browns and yellows. We do not want to be a part of the same governance; and in fact, we need to be of a separate governance.

It is supremacist to detain migrants, drug users and petty dealers for any significant length of time in prisons - private jails in particular have been cited as being used for the literal supramacist purpose of slave labor.

Ethno-nationals would either repatriate them or work on the means of separatism, physically and legally; i.e., they would honestly admit that in seeing themselves as significantly different from these people, that they want to be separate; and need to separate, as opposed to generating an atmosphere of exploitation and revenge; or the liberal supremacism of integrationist genocide. That only separatism, not heirarchical control within the same governance will allow us to manage our peoples in good faith coordination with others.

As for the trafficking of opioids, cocaine and other drugs - again, rather than a government engaging in a dishonest, covert means of warfare against a people that Jews and right wingers see as a threat (Hispanics and Asians), White governance needs to acknowledge that drugs have long been, though clandestinely, a huge part of Western economies; and what needs to happen instead is an open and honest acknowledgement of the part these drugs play in the medical and recreational economy and as a public health issue - in the need for mental adventure and a certain amount of pleasure on the one hand; and in the need for escape into being, the need to deal with pain, anxiety, depression, boredom and despair on the other hand - particularly regarding the addictive aspects and the anti-social ramifications of abuse that can ensue. Thus, not only dealing with the punishable aspects of drug abuse, but in the social compassion of looking into and dealing with what might be lacking in these peoples lives that has them not seeing better recourse to drug abuse or illegal trafficking.

This would allow for a better management of our own peoples. In addition, this would allow for a fair, non-Jewish, non-right wing negotiation with Asian and South American peoples, as opposed to more brutal exploitation and catastrophic wars in the dishonest interests of Jews and right wingers.

It was always apparent that Cuba played a part in a scenario in which several parties wanted JFK dead.

Among the conspiracy theories proposing the shooters of JFK and angles from which they shot, “badge man” Lucien Sarti is most compelling.

Mirror, “JFK assassination files released: Live updates as declassified documents reveal CIA plots to kill Castro,” 27 Oct 2017:

President Trump has given the green light to the release of 2,800 documents relating to Kennedy’s assassination - but some will be held back.

President Trump has approved the declassification of 2,800 secret files on the assassination of JFK - ending more than 50 years of mystery.

John F Kennedy was shot dead in Dallas in 1963 and Lee Harvey Oswald was named the killer in the official version of events.

But the murder has been shrouded in conspiracy theories for decades that have cast doubt on what really happened on that fateful day in Texas.

However, a shot from sewer drain remains most fascinating.

Some 2,800 of the documents have been released tonight by the US National Archive under a 25-year secrecy law from 1992. But some files will be held back after intelligence and security agencies raised concerns.

Key events:

- Oswald intercepted speaking ‘broken Russian’ to KGB agent 02:39

-  The documents have been released - here’s how to download them 00:32

- Why aren’t the documents online yet? 21:46

- When the files are eventually released, how can I read them? 20:07

- JFK researcher Matthew Smith: “I don’t trust Mr Trump an inch”

Black Op Radio, 21 Sept 2017:

- SS Agent Hill said the (2nd) shot sounded as if it came from a bunker (”an echo”)

- Garrison asked Steve to find such an opening in Dealey Plaza

- They found on the north side of Elm a sewer opening

- Steve lifted the manhole cover and got down into it

- He had friends drive by in a convertible, and he could see their heads

- He got city plans and found a pipe giving access to an exit behind the fence

- Steve got no help from the Dallas police, or city authorities

READ MORE...

Environment

NPR, “Climate Change Journalist Warns: ‘Mother Nature Is Playing By Different Rules Now”, 24 Oct 2017:

Fresh Air

Author Jeff Goodell says that American cities are under threat from extreme weather, rising sea levels and lax enforcement of environmental regulations. His new book is The Water Will Come.

TERRY GROSS, HOST:

This is FRESH AIR. I’m Terry Gross. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria have shown how extreme weather can destroy towns, cities and islands. My guest Jeff Goodell is the author of a new book about what cities around the world face in a future of rising seas and increasingly intense storms. It’s called “The Water Will Come.” Goodell is a contributing editor at Rolling Stone and has covered climate change for 15 years. He’s also written about fossil fuels, including the coal industry and their impact on the environment.

Jeff Goodell, welcome back to FRESH AIR. So Hurricanes Irma, Harvey, Maria - all the climate people say no one event can be attributed with certainty to climate change. But what about the confluence of these three consequential hurricanes?

JEFF GOODELL: Well, I mean, I think that we’re seeing what’s happening as we’re warming up the earth’s climate here. I mean, it’s a very well-established fact that as the ocean temperatures heat up, that is going to increase the intensity of these storms. One of the complicated things about what’s happening in our - as CO2 levels rise in our climate is that no one can predict exactly how these sort of new impacts are going to play out and what kind of consequences we’re going to see.

So you know, these hurricanes, these storms that we’ve seen this season are an indicator that, you know, we’re moving into this sort of new age when the sort of old rules of how our climate works are off the table. And Mother Nature is playing by different rules now.

GROSS: So just to sum up, do you think that these three hurricanes are the result of climate change?

GOODELL: The hurricanes themselves are not the result of climate change. But certainly the additional intensity, the fact that we’ve had a number of Category 5 hurricanes is likely the result of warmer ocean temperatures and higher CO2 levels.

GROSS: So your book opens with a very upsetting description of what Miami might look like by the end of the 21st century. So give it a go for us. Describe what, like - your dystopian fantasy of what Miami will look like as a result of climate change.

GOODELL: Well, I mean, one of the problems with Miami is that it’s very - you know, it’s a very low-lying place. There’s no high ground to run to. And so you know, with only, you know, 5 or 6 feet of sea level rise, which we could certainly see by the end of the century, you know, you’re going to see major parts of the city inundated.

You’re going to see more and more flooding in residential areas. You’re going to see more and more kind of pollution coming out of those flooded areas like we’re seeing in Houston with Harvey - major infrastructure like the airport underwater or not functional, massive losses in real estate investment along the coast, fleeing from low-lying areas inland, which are also going to be flooded out, places like Hialeah and Sweetwater. I think the real thing that you’re going to see that people don’t really think about is just this sort of economic collapse and economic problems that are going to be caused by a plummet in real estate values, which are really important to the Florida economy.

GROSS: What actually is happening in Miami now? You spent some time in Miami Beach, and you saw flooding just caused by high tides. Describe what you saw.

GOODELL: Well, I started this book, you know, shortly after Hurricane Sandy hit New York. And you know, there was nine feet of storm surge that came into New York. And I was talking to some scientists after that, and they said, you know, think about this as a sort of, you know, experiment of what sea level rise will look like. Imagine if you had nine feet that came in and didn’t go away the way it did with Sandy. So then I started thinking about that, and other scientists said, well, if you’re going to really think seriously about this, you need to go to Miami.

So I did. And I happened to be there on king tides, which is the time of - in the fall when the high tides are particularly high. And I started wandering around through Miami Beach on the western side of it in this sort of very wealthy neighborhood, and there was water up to my knees. I mean, there were people kayaking through the streets of Miami Beach on king tide. And it didn’t take a whole lot of thinking to figure out that if you had 2 or 3 feet of sea level rise, much less 6 or 8 feet of sea level rise, this place was in big trouble. And thinking about that and thinking about what the kind of trouble it would be in and the kind of trouble that other coastal cities would be in was really the genesis of the book.

GROSS: What do the people who live there do about those waters that you can kayak in?

GOODELL: Well, since then - this was four years ago, and since then, they’ve, you know, invested $500 million in building - improving the storm drainage, improving - putting in a bunch of pumps. And so some of these areas are - you know, in short term, you know, the flooding has been better. But that’s just a sort of short-term fix. And so what people are doing now is they are, you know, kind of living in a kind of denial.

They are hoping that - you know, a lot of people who live in Miami Beach aren’t there for - they’re not thinking about being there for the next 50 years. They’re thinking about being there for the next five years and how much fun they can have and, you know, how they can enjoy their retirement or their parties on the beach. And there’s not a lot of long-term thinking going on in a place like Miami Beach. And so basically people’s time horizon is the next five years. And will I be OK for the next five years - you know, probably. And so that’s where it’s at. People who think more broadly about it - and there are a number that I know - are selling and moving.

GROSS: What makes Miami Beach so vulnerable?

GOODELL: Well, it’s interesting. Miami Beach is a barrier island not unlike the Outer Banks or Galveston, Texas, or - you know, there’s many barrier islands around on the East Coast and on the Gulf Coast. So that’s one thing. It’s low-lying. Its elevation is 4, 5, 6 feet at max. But the real problem with Miami that makes it different than a lot of other places is that it’s built on this sort of porous limestone. The particular kind of limestone it’s on is full of holes. And so what that means is that you can’t build sea walls in the traditional sense around Miami Beach. In New York and in Boston and of course in the Netherlands, there’s lots of sea walls, and they can be an effective, if problematic, way of keeping water back for a while.

But in Miami, that’s not really possible because of this porous limestone, which means the seawater can just go right underneath a wall and just pop up on the other side. And this has complications not just for kind of protection of the place but also because as that seawater rises and begins to seep underneath, it gets into the freshwater drinking aquifer, which is very shallow in Miami. And so there’s going to be impact. There’s already problems with the salinization of drinking water. So there’s going to be a problem with drinking water in the very near term also.

GROSS: What’s Governor Rick Scott’s position - the Florida governor - on climate change?

GOODELL: Rick Scott is, you know, a pioneering climate denier. Rick Scott has, you know, unofficially kind of prohibited government employees from using the phrase climate change in any kind of government communication. I mean, he’s this sort of prototype for what we’re seeing in the Trump administration with EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and others who are basically just trying to deny that this is a problem.

And it’s a particular disservice in Florida because Florida is, you know, so obviously at risk. It’s not like he’s the governor of Oklahoma or something where, you know, sea level rise is not going to be a problem. In Florida, it’s a direct risk not only to people’s lives with flooding but also just to the economic future of the state.

GROSS:  So let’s talk about the ice sheets. Many of them are melting, and that’s affecting sea levels, causing them to rise. And that’s affecting climate change and ocean levels. So let’s start with the ice sheets. You say that there’s much more melting in the Arctic than in Antarctica. Why is that?

Shearing glacier, Bradford Littlejohn

GOODELL: Well, a lot of the heat from the warming of the Earth is sort of concentrating itself up in the north in the Arctic right now, and that’s the, you know, fastest melting place on the planet right now. And when we think about sea level rise, you know, there’s a number of factors - the thermal expansion of the ocean, the melting of glaciers on land, you know, land-based glaciers around the world - but it’s really - when it comes down to it, it’s really all about Greenland and Antarctica. Those are the only two sort of big ice cubes on the planet that if they - when they go, that’s big trouble. So what we’ve seen mostly right now is a lot of surface melting up in Greenland, and that’s been a big cause for concern.

We’ve seen - in 2012 there was a record ice melt up there. And, you know, we’re seeing acceleration of the glaciers in Greenland. But ice physics is very complex and, you know, scientists up until recently sort of had this idea that they could calculate how fast a big ice sheet like Greenland can melt and have a good idea of what sea level rise rates might be like in the future. But recently, a lot of attention is being focused in West Antarctica, especially this couple of glaciers there called Thwaites and Pine Island Glacier where the real problem is that you have a warming ocean - the ocean absorbs a lot of the heat of - as the atmosphere warms. And that warming ocean is getting underneath the ice sheets there, and that can cause big problems because you have melting from below.

And one of the things that scientists are figuring out is that you can calculate to a pretty good degree how fast an ice sheet will melt, but calculating how fast it can collapse is a whole a different thing. And some of the ice sheets in West Antarctica are a mile or two high. And if the water gets underneath them and they start to collapse, that could mean very rapid sea level rise.

GROSS: Yeah, why is a collapse so catastrophic?

GOODELL: Well, because you have an ice sheet that’s, you know, a mile or two high. Imagine, you know, everyone - a lot of people have seen pictures of El Capitan. Imagine something like that or twice as high as that of sheer ice melting from below. And the physics of ice structure tells us that a cliff like that of ice can’t stand on its own. So it will collapse, and as it collapses, it falls into the sea, and as it falls into the sea, sea levels rise. And so the risks of this are a really new idea that are only in the last three or four or five years are scientists really beginning to understand. And that’s why when you talk to the best ice scientists in the world you hear a rising alarm in their voice about what we might potentially be facing.

GROSS: You’ve been to Greenland, and you say you actually stood on land that you might have been among the first people to stand on because it wasn’t - it was ice before.

Photo, Earthworld

GOODELL: Yeah, it was a very surreal experience. I was there with a scientist named Jason Box, and we were flying a helicopter over the Jakobshavn Glacier, which is the fastest-moving glacier in the world. And he spotted this bare spot of ice, and he said, we have to land there, we have to land there. So we brought the helicopter down, and we jumped out and, you know, he shouted out new climate land. You know, this is - this patch of Earth has never been - you know, no human has stood here before and it hasn’t been seen - you know, it hasn’t been uncovered in tens of thousands of years. It was very profound because standing there and being on that bare patch of ground and seeing these enormous glaciers all around me, I had just been in Miami Beach, I mean, a few weeks before.

And you really connected, you know, I really connected in a visceral way, you know, what was happening in this faraway, distant place on this bare piece of ground that was being uncovered where I could actually see the ice going away fast with the rising waters in Miami Beach that I had seen and been wading through, you know, a few weeks earlier. And so this sort of connectedness of these places, which is so hard for most of us, including myself, to really grasp, I really felt in a very powerful way at that moment.

GROSS: I’ve seen film images of some of the ice and snow - I guess it’s mostly ice - in the Arctic darkened by soot. Like, why is there soot there?

GOODELL: That’s an interesting question. That’s one of the things that I was up there to look at with the scientist who I traveled up there with, Jason Box, is, you know, we talked about wildfires earlier. As the wildfires in California and other - in Russia and in China and other places burn, that soot gets picked up and carried up into the circulatory patterns in the atmosphere and gets dropped places. And one of the places a lot of it gets dropped is in Greenland and in the Arctic. And it’s really remarkable that even a small amount of darkening of snow has a big impact on how fast it will melt. It’s the same reason why you wear a light-colored shirt on a hot day and you feel a lot hotter if you’re wearing a black shirt. It absorbs the heat.

And in Greenland, where you have these vast ice sheets, if you get even a modest amount of soot on those ice sheets, both from wildfires or from industrial pollution like coal plants, it can really speed up the melting. And one of the things that’s happening as scientists think harder and harder about what’s happening on the ice sheets is they’re understanding that there’s a lot of new factors that they didn’t consider before. Like, you know, 10 years ago, not very many scientists were really thinking about the impact that darker soot would have on the melt rate of the ice sheets in Greenland. But now they know that it’s a significant factor.

And there’s a lot of other factors that they think they have not considered very well that - including the friction on the bottom of the glaciers and the friction on the sides of the canyons as the glaciers move through them, the warming of the ocean on the bottom of the glaciers. There’s just - it’s a - you would think it’s a very sort of simple idea of trying to calculate melt rate of ice, but it’s in fact incredibly complex.

GROSS: Let’s look at Alaska. Alaska’s in a kind of interesting situation in that it’s very dependent on fossil fuel. It raises a lot of money from fossil fuel. And at the same time, temperatures are rising in Alaska because of the whole phenomenon that we’ve been talking about - about how, you know, the Arctic is warming and ice is melting. So what are political leaders in Alaska saying about climate change and the impact it’s having on the state and the connection of that to fossil fuels?

GOODELL: Well, they’re not saying much. I’m actually just back from Alaska. I was just there for a few days. I just got back yesterday. So I’ve - and I talked to a number of politicians there, and, you know, the basic problem in Alaska is that, you know, their economy is dependent upon fossil fuels. Eighty percent or so of the revenues of the state come from oil and gas.

And so there’s no real way that the state can continue to function by, you know, reducing the drilling and pumping of oil and gas. It’s - they’re just completely dependent upon it. So there is no conversation, basically, about, you know, reducing that. And in fact, they’re talking about expanding it, looking into offshore drilling.

Right now, Congress is, you know, moving towards opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and nobody there that I talked to in the sort of political establishment is anything but, you know, sort of embracing that. What is beginning to happen, though, is they are beginning to realize that, you know, no matter what they do, they’re going to be feeling impacts. They are feeling impacts.

When I was there with President Obama in 2015, we visited the villages on the - in the Arctic Circle that are already in trouble because of erosion from sea level rise. They’re just going to have to relocate many coastal villages because of - they’re just at risk now because the seas are higher and the storm surges are bigger.

So they’re facing hundreds of millions of dollars in helping people adapt there. So they’re beginning to have this, like, OK-so-how-are-we-going-to-adapt conversation. What are we going to do about this? And they’re beginning to think more about the future in diversifying their economy and trying to encourage kind of what they call this, you know, sort of transition from an oil economy to a salmon economy. That’s a big issue. But basically, it - they’re in a really tough spot because they are really, you know, dependent upon the very fossil fuels that’re doing them in. And it’s a very vicious circle to be caught in.

GROSS: Do you think political leaders are acknowledging, OK, we’re dependent on fossil fuels, but we acknowledge, at the same time, that fossil fuels are helping to lead to climate change, which is having an altering effect on the geography, the landscape, the life of Alaska?

GOODELL: Yeah. I mean, I don’t think that they’re - the political leaders that I’ve talked to up there - it’s very hard to be a denier there in the sort of classic way of say, you know, Florida Governor Rick Scott or EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt because it’s just all around. And the permafrost is melting. It’s just, you know, obvious there.

But the question is, what can you do about it? And it’s a really - for - if you’re, you know, the governor or a senator from Alaska - and I’m not giving them a get-out-of-jail-free card, but, you know, for any politician, you know, keeping the economy going is the No. 1 job. And in Alaska, keeping the economy going for the moment means, you know, oil and gas drilling. And that’s just the fact, and that’s the way it’s going to be in the near term.

The question is, how quickly can they diversify away from that? How quickly can they begin to build another, a new kind of economy based on clean energy? I mean, there’s a lot of engineering ability in Alaska. I mean, look at the pipelines they’ve built. I mean, this is the headquarters of sort of big, you know, brilliant engineering.

And the idea of beginning to, you know, apply some of that to adaptation, to diversifying, to building new kinds of clean energy, you know, is really appealing. And I was, you know, trying to make the pitch to them up there that they can be a real leader in showing how to adapt to these massive changes that’re coming and how to change from a fossil-fuel-dependent economy to something else. I mean, West Virginia’s a classic example of a state that never did make that turn and has been sort of beholden to coal for, you know, 150 years, and it’s just been, you know, devastating for the economy of that state.

READ MORE...

McClatchyDC.com, “Steve Bannon’s already murky Middle East ties deepen”, 23 Oct 2017:

Former presidential aide Steve Bannon appears to be fostering ties to the UAE and Saudi Arabia, countries that have cut off ties with Qatar and have been encouraging the United States to act against the nation as well - though it is home to largest American base in the Middle East. Brynn Anderson AP

White House

WASHINGTON

Shortly after Donald Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon left the White House, a company with close ties to him was hired by the United Arab Emirates to launch a social media campaign against its Arab neighbor, Qatar.

It was part of a multimillion-dollar effort by several Middle Eastern nations to isolate Qatar that received a boost when Trump criticized the country that for years had been a critical regional ally.

The UAE is paying $330,000 to a firm with the same parent company as Cambridge Analytica, the business Trump employed to reach voters with hyper-targeted online messaging during the campaign, to blast Qatar on Facebook and Twitter, among other sites, according to federal records.

Bannon, who remains one of Trump’s closest advisers, has long had an interest in the region. He has huddled with UAE officials behind closed doors, visited the country as recently as last month and pushed for a group of Middle Eastern nations, including the UAE, in their bitter dispute with Qatar.

On Monday, Bannon is scheduled to speak at a day-long conference in Washington organized by the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank and paid for by multiple donors, entitled “Countering Violent Extremism: Qatar, Iran, and the Muslim Brotherhood.”

The speech follows Bannon’s September meeting in the UAE with its crown prince, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan. The two weren’t strangers: Bannon, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and ousted National Security Adviser Michael Flynn met with the crown prince at Trump Tower during the presidential transition in December. That meeting triggered controversy, as the UAE hadn’t notified the outgoing Obama administration about the visit as is customary.

The UAE also helped broker a meeting in January between a Bannon friend, Blackwater founder Erik Prince, and a Russian close to President Vladimir Putin to try to establish a back-channel line of communication to Moscow for Trump just days before Trump’s inauguration, according to the Washington Post; Prince met with the Russian in the Seychelle islands off East Africa.

Prince lives in the UAE and had a multimillion dollar contract with that government to assemble a mercenary security force there. His firm also does security work in Africa, much of it for Chinese interests. But Bannon has encouraged Prince to move back to the U.S. and run for office, and in recent weeks, Prince has begun to publicly consider a primary challenge to Wyoming GOP Sen. John Barrasso.

The UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt cut off all ties with Qatar in June, supposedly in response to its alleged support of terrorism and ties to Iran, and mounted a blockade against the nation. Trump abruptly began accusing Qatar of funding terrorism despite its importance as host to al Udeid, the largest American military base in the Middle East, home to nearly 10,000 troops.

The nation of Qatar, unfortunately, has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level, and in the wake of that conference, nations came together and spoke to me about confronting Qatar over its behavior.
            - President Donald Trump

READ MORE...

Voice of Europe, “Seven bombings in twelve days in Sweden, what is happening? We ask it Swedish journalist “PeterSweden”, 23 Oct 2017:

PeterSweden, real name Peter Imanuelsen, is a Swedish journalist, a YouTuber and a political commentator reporting on news from Sweden. Follow him on Twitter here and subscribe to his YouTube here

Peter, seven bombings in twelve days, what is going on in Sweden?

That is the question I’ve been asking myself. This is probably the worst I have seen in Sweden so far. Previously we “only” had perhaps 3 bombings a month in Sweden, but now it has really been ramped up. According to Swedish police they think some of these bombings have to do with work they have been doing in “certain” areas. As we all know these “certain” areas are the many no-go zones that now exist in Sweden.

Who do you think are behind these bombings?

Most of these bombings seem to be related to migrant criminal gangs that operate and run the no-go zones in Sweden. But there is evidence to suggest the latest attack against a bar where one person was injured could be terrorist related. The reason for this is that the attacker had religious texts in his backpack and according to a witness he had what appeared to be a suicide belt on him (which police later said was not dangerous).

Any ideas about how the Swedish authorities can stop this epidemic?

In my opinion the obvious solution to stop this epidemic is for the Swedish government to deploy the military into the no go-zones and clear them from these migrant criminal gangs. I very much doubt we will see that happen, at least not now. But the Moderate party, which is one of the opposition parties in Sweden, has actually suggested they want to deploy the military in the suburbs as they call them. At least this is a positive step forward, and a glimmer of hope for Sweden.

How does it feel for you to see your home country in this state?

It makes me incredibly sad. I remember Sweden as it was just 10 years ago. Peaceful. Quiet. Low crime rate. The worst things you had to deal with back then were young kids driving around loudly on mopeds. Today there are bombings on a regular basis. Not to mention the soaring rape statistics and gun crime.

Would you consider going back?

Sweden seems to be turning more and more into a war zone every day, and if you think about it, that’s is probably how these gangs feel about it too. They see this as a war in which they are trying to conquer Sweden. I wouldn’t advise women to go to Sweden, but you have to remember to never loose hope. The globalist elite want you to lose hope. That’s how they win. Never loose hope.

Peter’s YouTube video commentary on Sweden’s bombing epidemic.

Reuters, “Abe to push reform of Japan’s pacifist constitution after election win”, 22 October 2017:

TOKYO (Reuters) - Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s ruling bloc was headed for a big win in Sunday’s election, bolstering his chance of becoming the nation’s longest-serving premier and re-energizing his push to revise the pacifist constitution.

Having exceeded 310, Abe can now push ahead with historic transformation

Abe’s Liberal Democratic Party-led (LDP) coalition has won a combined 310 seats, reaching a two-thirds “super majority” in the 465-member lower house, with 11 seats still up for grabs, broadcaster TV Asahi said.

A hefty win raises the likelihood that Abe, who took office in December 2012, will have a third three-year term as LDP leader next September and go on to become Japan’s longest-serving premier. It also means his “Abenomics” growth strategy centered on the hyper-easy monetary policy will likely continue.

Final official results from the election, which coincided with an approaching typhoon, are expected early on Monday.

The U.S.-drafted constitution’s Article 9, if taken literally, bans the maintenance of armed forces. But Japanese governments have interpreted it to allow a military exclusively for self-defense.

Backers of Abe’s proposal to clarify the military’s ambiguous status say it would codify the status quo. Critics fear it would allow an expanded role overseas for the military.

Abe said he would not stick to a target he had floated of making the changes by 2020. “First, I want to deepen debate and have as many people as possible agree,” he told a TV broadcaster. “We should put priority on that.”

The LDP’s junior partner, the Komeito, is cautious about changing the constitution, drawn up after Japan’s defeat in World War Two. Several opposition parties favor changes, but don’t necessarily agree on details.

REFERENDUMS RISKY

Amendments must be approved by two-thirds of each chamber of parliament and then by a majority in a public referendum.

“Now that pro-constitutional change parties occupy more than two-thirds of the parliament, the constitution will be the most important political issue next year,” said Hidenori Suezawa, a financial market and fiscal analyst at SMBC Nikko Securities.

Japan is now constitutionally free to realize its potential for nuclear weaponry within five months

“And as we saw in the U.K. ... a referendum could be tricky. So while Abe is likely to be prime minister for the time being, it is too early to say whether he can stay in power until 2021.” Abe declined to say if he’d run for a third term.

Abe had said he needed a new mandate to tackle a “national crisis” from North Korea’s missile and nuclear threats and a fast-aging population, and to approve his idea of diverting revenue from a planned sales tax hike to education and child care from public debt repayment [reut.rs/2yC0pma].

He called the poll amid confusion in the opposition camp and an uptick in his ratings, dented earlier in the year by scandals over suspected cronyism and a perception he had grown arrogant after nearly five years in office.

Abe has backed U.S. President Donald Trump’s tough stance towards North Korea, which has test-fired missiles over Japan, that all options, including military action, are on the table. Trump is to visit Japan Nov. 5-7 to reaffirm the leaders’ tight ties.

ABE‘S GAMBLE PAYS OFF

Abe’s snap poll gamble had seemed risky - some early forecasts saw the LDP losing a significant chunk of seats - after Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike, often floated as a possible first Japanese female premier, launched her conservative Party of Hope.

That party absorbed a big chunk of the failed main opposition Democratic Party, which abruptly decided to run no candidates of its own. But voter enthusiasm soon waned despite its calls for popular policies such as an exit from nuclear power and a freeze on the planned sales tax rise.

Koike did not run for a lower house seat herself - she was in Paris for a climate change event on Sunday - and failed to say whom her party would back for prime minister.

“We had sought to put policies first. But we ended up with a very tough outcome, so I deeply apologize for that,” Koike told NHK.

A new Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDPJ), formed by liberal former DP members, was vying with Koike’s party for the top opposition spot, although both are now set to have just a fraction of the LDP’s presence.

“Day by day, we felt we were getting more voter support for our call to revive more decent politics, and not fret about whether it’s right or left wing,” said CDPJ lawmaker Tetsuro Fukuyama.

Several experts noted the ruling bloc’s win was less a victory for the conservative, long-ruling LDP than a defeat for a divided opposition.

SBDL, “Pittsburgh Is 64.8 Percent White And 26 Percent Black… Between 2010 - 2016, 87 Percent Of Known Homicide Suspects Were Nonwhite”, 17 Oct 2017:

This data was compiled by the Allegheny County Department of Human Services.

Between 2010 - 2016, 87% of known homicide suspects were nonwhite (84% black, 3 percent Hispanic or Asian).

In a 65% white city, 87% of homicides between 2010 - 2016 had a nonwhite perpetrator (84% were black).

Not much more to say. Pittsburgh Is 64.8 percent white and 26 percent black.

And not much more you’d better say according to the powers that be. A media gag order on blacks as a source of crime has been in effect for decades. Long time Pittsburgh TV News reporter Wendy Bell tried to buck the convention and report the facts on her Facebook page. She was imparting information that the public needs to know for their safety, but she got fired for not being obedient to black bio power and the YKW who wield it against us.

WTAE fired Wendy Bell because of her Facebook post. (Photo: WTAE)

Yahoo News, “Pittsburgh station fires newswoman over black-on-black crime Facebook post”, 1 Aug 2016:

A Pittsburgh TV station cut ties with one of its longtime anchorwomen on Wednesday over a controversial Facebook post that many consider racist.

Wendy Bell, who had been with WTAE for 18 years, had speculated about the likely profiles of the gunmen who killed five adults and an unborn baby at a barbeque in Wilkinsburg, Pa., on March 9.

“You needn’t be a criminal profiler to draw a mental sketch of the killers who broke so many hearts two weeks ago Wednesday. I will tell you they live within 5 miles of Franklin Avenue and Ardmore Boulevard and have been hiding out since in a home likely much closer to that backyard patio than anyone thinks,” she wrote on Facebook. “They are young black men, likely teens or in their early 20s. They have multiple siblings from multiple fathers and their mothers work multiple jobs. These boys have been in the system before. They’ve grown up there. They know the police. They’ve been arrested.”

The Facebook post from March 21 has since been taken down, but is preserved in its entirety on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review’s website and elsewhere.

A spokesman for WTAE’s parent company, Hearst Television, emailed the following statement to Yahoo News but declined to comment further:

“WTAE has ended its relationship with anchor Wendy Bell. Wendy’s recent comments on a WTAE Facebook page were inconsistent with the company’s ethics and journalistic standards.”

Many people were offended by the Emmy-winning newswoman’s post, and characterized the views she expressed as racist and condescending. Her employer agreed.

On March 24, WTAE officially apologized for her words and sympathized with the viewers who took offense to them.

“Wendy has since apologized for what she wrote and acknowledged it was insensitive. Wendy is sorry for the words she chose, and so are we. It was an egregious lack of judgment,” WTAE President and General Manager Charles W. Welfertz III said on behalf of the editorial board. “WTAE regrets it happened and is committed to making sure something like this doesn’t happen again.”

He said WTAE would take appropriate action after a comprehensive examination of the incident.

Wendy Bell @WendyBellPgh

I have removed a post that I initially placed here on Monday. I sincerely apologize for that post about the… http://fb.me/7M9ztMXiQ
11:54 PM - Mar 23, 2016

On the day of her dismissal, Bell told the Associated Press that she did not get a “fair shake” and that the story was about “African-Americans being killed by other African-Americans” — it was not about her.

“What matters is what’s going on in America, and it is the death of black people in this country,” she said to the wire service. “I live next to three war-torn communities in the city of Pittsburgh, that I love dearly. My stories, they struck a nerve. They touched people, but it’s not enough. More needs to be done. The problem needs to be addressed.”

Authorities have not made any arrests or publicly identified any suspects in the shooting.

Bell’s WTAE Facebook page has been deleted, and her bio has been removed from the station’s website.

According to her now-deleted bio, Bell is originally from Calabasas, Calif., has a master’s degree from the University of Missouri-Columbia and had worked for WTAE since September 1998.