Jews use “Crowds On Demand” company to create illusion of support for their global takeover agenda

Jews use “Crowds On Demand” company to create illusion of support for their global takeover agenda

Antisemitism rally. The Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis talks to a large crowd of Jewish people about the rise of anti Jewish violence in the UK and Europe, as they hold an antisemitism rally outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London. Picture date: Sunday August 31, 2014. Photo credit should read: John Stillwell/PA Wire URN:20784363

Jews’ recent “zero tolerance for anti-Semitism” rent-a-crowd scam in the UK

Crowds on Demand is an American publicity firm. It claims to be the only “rent a crowd” service, providing its clients with the ability to hire actors to pose as fans, paparazzi and security guards. The company operates in Los Angeles; San Francisco; Las Vegas; New York City; and Washington, D.C.  The firm was founded in October 2012 by Adam Swart.

Is it misleading? “Yes. That’s the idea”—Adam Swart

The firm sells services that allow clients to simulate a celebrity lifestyle. Its “Celebrity Shopping Experience” is a trip through town in a luxury car, with cheering fans and paparazzi at every stop. The service was the subject of a “Good Morning America” piece in which a correspondent pretended to be a king while he went through a shopping mall with a paid entourage.

The company also carries out publicity stunts for companies and public relations firms using actors.

Just before the November 2012 election, company founder Swart said that the company was considering a request by a candidate for a staged political protest.

Another Jew scam to get the gullible goyim confused about the Jews' real agenda for them, which is total control for the Jews in an ideal Jewish sovietised world, under Israel's biblical end-time 'Davidic' antichrist

The ongoing “Free Palestine and Stop the Massacres in Gaza” demonstrations by Jews are obviously just more Jew “herd instinct/ rent-a-crowd” scams to try to get the gullible goyim further confused about the reprobate Jews’ real agenda for them, which is total control for the Jews in an ideal Jewish sovietised world, under Israel’s biblical end-time ‘Davidic’ antichrist

Crowds on Demand has come under criticism for selling the pretense of fame and popularity. Elizabeth Currid-Halkett, an associate professor at the University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy, criticized the company for deceiving the public.

A Washington Post columnist mentioned an e-mail he received advertising the company’s “Celebrity Arrival Service” offered to politicians:

I received an e-mail the other day from Crowds on Demand, an L.A.-based company that, for a fee, will send a bunch of “team members” to your event, stuffing the crowd with confederates to make you look important.

Crowds on Demand recently stepped into the political arena, conducting rallies and gathering signatures for clients in California, Arizona and Washington. This increasing involvement in political affairs has drawn criticism from some who believe the practice of providing paid demonstrators is unethical.

Related article …

Have you ever wondered how a politician disliked by most could fill a room with screaming supporters giving the perception they have your local communities support?

Look no further than a company called “Crowds on Demand“, a company who hires multi-talented actors who are experts of improvisational theatre to provide the illusion of support for a candidate. Nothing draws a crowd, like a crowd.

The company who has provided its services for athletes, artists and fashion people has recently admitted to providing services for both Republican and Democrat candidates.

Ceo and founder Adam Swart was emailed a few questions about his services by activist Ian Cioffi. The company owner was asked if his system is proven to work in U.S. politics?

Swart claimed, he has done work for “dozens of candidates in the US primarily but not exclusively Republican. Mostly they are candidates who suffer from lack of enthusiasm/turnout at rallies and in need of a ‘game change’ (sorry, that’s a loaded term now!). The candidates have been primarily congressional/senate candidates. We’ve only worked with one (serious) presidential candidate thus far.”

Jews have one agenda for the gullible White Christian European "goyim" in America and quite another in the evil, antichristian, Talmudic state of Israel

Reprobate Jews have one agenda for the gullible White Christian European “goyim” in America today and another quite different for the evil, antichristian Talmudic state of Israel

So what other benefits could a company of this magnitude offer?

Adam went on to express that they could even go miles further with their expertise and can give a sense of legitimacy for the candidate.

“I have found our approach has led to increased poll numbers and, in many case made the margin of victory for a few reasons: A) Photo-ops at rallies. Having a diverse group of people (race/gender/age) around the candidate is critical especially for those who are constantly followed by reporters, but even for those who only get a couple of pieces per day. B) Enthusiastic crowds bring more media attention and shift the narrative onto grassroots supporters. Press always want to understand why people support candidate x or candidate y.

Giving them great footage of enthusiastic supporters speaking about their love for the candidate provides great quotations C) Gives a sense of legitimacy for the candidate among their existing supporters. When they see lots of enthusiastic folks at rallies, they feel like they’re backing the right horse. D) Bolsters the candidates’ self-confidence. Some candidates knew about the paid crowds and other times we have been hired by outside organizations. In both cases, seeing more supporters gave them the confidence to up their game on stage.”

When the founder of Crowds on Demand was asked “what reassurances do you offer that the crowd does not leak the fact that they were paid to arrive?”

Swart responded in an email that “We have all crowd members sign binding non-disclosure agreements. Our crowd members work for us on a regular basis and understand we value discretion given the sensitive nature of the business. The ‘leak’ issue has only happened on one occasion over the past three years. ”

Jews don't always rent a crowd. They sometimes just simply provide a scam crowd themselves, to get the lie of their global takeover further down the road at any particular time. Did you know that same sex marriage, like black African immigration (aka "nigger infiltration"), is not allowed in the disingenuous, antichristian Talmudic state of stolen Israel?

Jews don’t always rent a crowd. They sometimes just simply provide a scam crowd themselves, to get the lie of their global takeover further down the road at any particular time. Did you know Jews are the leading advocates of same sex marriages in America and that they use crowds of Jews with banners opposing it to distract attention from that fact?

Adam Swart believes he is just making fame into a business. He touts that 10 of my guys are more effective than a 100 bodies in a recent interview.

When asked if his business is disingenuous or fake on the speaking on wealth podcast, he responded that “what we do is get people to pay attention to your event, to your product, no ones gonna say they are going to love it, but ordinarily there are many potentially talented artists who we work with, talented fashion people, talented athletes…”.

So next time you go to a political rally and see fans so undeniably in love with a candidate with no rational reason, ask yourself is this person being paid to be here? Are you supporting a fake politician?

Source …

Related …

US Jews among biggest backers of same-sex marriage, data shows …

Source Article from

ISIL, Brotherhood suspected in car bomb attack that killed Egypt’s top prosecutor

Special to

Egypt’s chief prosecutor, who had handed down death sentences to hundreds of supporters of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, was killed in a car bomb attack in Cairo on June 29.

Officials said Hisham Barakat, 64, died of injuries sustained when a parked car was remotely detonated as the prosecutor’s motorcade left his home.

Hisham Barakat (seated left), at the high court in Cairo with a group of newly appointed female judges earlier this month.  /Khaled Elfiqi/EPA

Hisham Barakat (seated left), at the high court in Cairo with a group of newly appointed female judges earlier this month. /Khaled Elfiqi/EPA

The bombing followed a post by the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant’s affiliate in Egypt urging strikes against the judiciary following the hanging of six alleged militants.

Operating in the Sinai peninsula, suspected jihadist gunmen had killed two judges and a prosecutor in May.

A group called Giza Popular Resistance claimed responsibility for the attack on its Facebook page, but officials also see Muslim Brotherhood fingerprints on the bombing as Barakat was widely hated in Egypt’s opposition movement. The prosecutor had enabled the detention of tens of thousands of critics of President Abdul Fatah Sisi’s government and pursued the prosecutions of scores of supporters of the outlawed Brotherhood which led to death sentences.

Egyptian state news agency MENA reported the June 29 attack wounded at least nine others, including police and civilians.

Sisi has declared June 30 an official holiday to mourn Barakat’s death and canceled celebrations to mark the anniversary of the unrest that led to Morsi’s overthrow.

“These kinds of vicious attacks will not deter the state from continuing its path of development, the adoption of rights, and realizing the hopes and aspirations of the Egyptian people,” Sisi’s office said in a statement.

In May, Islamic State of Iraq and Levant’s (ISIL’s) affiliate in Egypt called on followers to attack judges.

“Terrorism killed the top man of our prosecution but despite this we will not be scared and we will continue our work,” said Judge Ashraf Abdelhady.



Source Article from

Rival factions expected to sign UN agreement on Libyan unity government

Special to

Libya’s two rival governments are expected to endorse a UN-brokered unity government following a meeting Sunday on neutral territory in Morocco.

The North African nation, beset by chaos, instability and violence since Col. Moammar Gadhafi was overthrown in 2011, had been split into two governments, one based in Tripoli and one in the eastern port city of Tobruk. The government in Tobruk is recognized by the international community.

Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Libya, Bernardino Leon holds a press conference on Libya Peace Talks in Skhirat, Morocco on June 29.

UN envoy Bernardino Leon holds a press conference on Libyan peace talks in Skhirat, Morocco on June 29.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) has exploited the fractured government to establish a presence in several Libyan towns.

The Tobruk-based parliament and Tripoli-based parliament, as well as independent factions, met on June 28 in Skhirat, Morocco. UN envoy Bernardino Leon said all factions are expected to sign on to an agreement by July 2.

“After all these nine months of work we just have two, three issues and this is what the parties are going to discuss tomorrow and after tomorrow,” Leon said on June 29.

“The idea is to be back on Wednesday and to have our next meeting on Thursday. And on Thursday we will try to initialize the agreement.”

An agreement at this time is seen as crucial as international pressure for a deal increased after rising jihadist attacks in the region, including the June 26 massacre in Tunisia in which 38 people, mostly British tourists, were killed.

According to Tripoli parliament representative Saleh Al-Makhzoum: “Today’s meeting was hopeful and it included much rapprochement. The UN exerted much effort to bring us together.”

Abu-Baker Baira, representative of the Tobruk-based parliament, said: “In general, there is an agreement on most of the issues. This meeting will be summed up by a UN statement… The UN is to issue a written document to be signed by all sides ready for discussion.”



Source Article from

Even liberals are beginning to panic over Obama’s nuclear sell-out to Iran

Special to

By Fred Fleitz

This morning I read a Washington Post op-ed that provided an especially prescient analysis of the nuclear agreement the Obama administration is seeking with Iran. The author said in the final two paragraphs of this piece:

The much-discussed terms of the impending agreement with Iran thus offer the theocracy all that it wants. The accord would concede a vast enrichment capacity, as well as accepting both a heavy water plant and a well-fortified underground enrichment facility that the United States once vowed to shutter. It would permit an elaborate research and development program and would likely rely on an inspection regime that falls short of indispensable “anytime, anywhere� access. In the meantime, the sanctions architecture will be diminished, and the notion of ever “snapping back� sanctions into place once they are lifted is delusional. And because the agreement itself would be term-limited, there would be no practical limits on Iran’s nuclear ambitions upon its expiration.

However, as disturbing as all this may be, the most important legacy of the prospective agreement many not even lie in the nuclear realm. The massive financial gains from the deal would enable the Islamic Republic’s imperial surge while allowing a repressive regime that was on the brink of collapse in 2009 to consolidate power. This would be no small achievement for Iran’s emboldened rulers.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and former Amb. to the UN John Bolton were not the authors of the Op-Ed questioning the Iran nuclear deal.

Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, and former U.S. Amb. to the UN John Bolton were not the authors of the Op-Ed questioning the Iran nuclear deal.

Who wrote this devastating assessment? Joe Lieberman? John Bolton? Frank Gaffney? No, it was written by Ray Takeyh who covered Iran on President Obama’s National Security Council and authored the president’s letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader. He is now a senior fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Takeyh was cautiously supportive of the nuclear talks at the outset and has been part of a bipartisan effort to get good deal with Iran by pressing the Obama administration to take a harder line and stop making concessions to Tehran. My view is that the nuclear talks were lost before they began since the Obama administration conceded uranium enrichment to get Iran to the negotiating table. But I agree with Takeyh that this will be a bad deal that will not only fail to halt or slow Iran’s nuclear program, it will also bolster the Iranian regime at a time when it is increasing its meddling in regional states and sponsorship of terrorism.

Takeyh’s op-ed followed last week’s critical (but somewhat milquetoast) bipartisan letter organized by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy that included as signatories five former members of President Obama’s inner circle: Dennis Ross, David Petraeus, Robert Einhorn, Gary Samore and General James Cartright. The letter said the nuclear deal “may fall short of meeting the administration’s own standard of a ‘good’ agreement,� “will not prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapons capability� and “will not require the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear enrichment infrastructure.�

Conservative experts have long warned that the Obama administration is seeking a dangerous nuclear agreement with Iran. This agreement is now so bad that liberal foreign policy experts and former Obama officials have turned against it.

Congress must listen to growing bipartisan concern about President Obama’s nuclear diplomacy with Iran and take decisive action. This means rejecting any agreement that the nuclear talks produce and passing new sanctions against Iran until it complies with all UN Security Council resolutions on its nuclear program.

Fred Fleitz, a former CIA analyst, is on the Editorial Board at and Senior Vice President for Policy and Programs for the Center for Security Policy.



Source Article from

Same-sex winners to Christian losers: Change your beliefs, ‘celebrate’ our happiness

By Joe Schaeffer

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of homosexual marriage as a Constitutional right, Christian opponents are left to wonder how the changed legal landscape will affect them.

Statements made by same-sex marriage advocates leading up to and following the ruling indicate that they are expecting full acceptance, not just tolerance, of the new status quo.

The White House on the evening of June 26, 2015.

The White House on the evening of June 26, 2015.

“Grumblings or not, gay marriage is now the law of the land. And all of us — right and left, gay and straight, religious and agnostic — need to take a moment to regroup and refocus,” wrote a jubilant Brandon Ambrosino in a column for Time Magazine posted after Friday’s ruling.

“From this day on, we need to behave differently toward one another.

“Since Christians are under an extreme obligation from their founder to take the lead on reconciliation, I think they should be the ones to set the example here,” Ambrosino continued. “That means, whatever their private theological convictions on the matter, they need to respect the law and find ways to honor and even celebrate their gay neighbors’ happiness.”

After pushing his own theological argument for discarding religious prohibitions against homosexuality, Ambrosino wrote that, “[i]f Christians can’t find the humility to re-evaluate their most cherished beliefs about sexuality, then at the very least they should err on the side of charity and quietly resign themselves to the fact that marriage equality is here to stay.”

In a Friday Daily Beast article detailing the joyous response at New York’s Stonewall Inn, considered the birthplace of the modern “gay rights” movement, reporters Tim Teeman and Kevin Fallon castigated Christian opponents and expressed little tolerance for future dissent against the court ruling.

“On a day like today, when the highest court in the land has affirmed the importance and principle of equality, to see [opponents] foam at the mouth condemning this and mewling like babies over how unfair it all is, makes one realize just how disgusting they are — and how farcically detached they are from any semblance of the Christianity they claim to espouse,” the pair wrote.

“There are already squalls, and who knows what else to come. On Friday, a clerk in Texas refused to do her job and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and in other states are dark grumblings of resistance—law-defying, mean-minded losers, all of them. One hopes they are made to observe the law of the land and, if unable to do so, prosecuted.”

Liberal activists had already rejected “religious freedom rights” as justification for opposing the homosexual agenda in the workplace in the months leading up to the court’s ruling.

Writing in February about Ford Motor Company’s firing of a worker after he “responded negatively to a shared online article outlining Ford’s LGBT-inclusiveness,” Carlos Maza at the liberal organization Media Matters for America declared:

“It remains to be seen whether [Thomas] Banks’ story will become another rallying cry for ‘religious liberty’ apologists in conservative media, but his [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] complaint highlights the ugly consequences of the right’s obsession with excusing homophobia.

“‘Homosexual behavior leads to death’ is not a statement of religious belief — it’s an inflammatory and hateful attack on gay people, and it’s a sentiment that even religious conservatives would be wise not [sic] to distance themselves from.”

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, writing in April on the Indiana bakery that refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, gave his take on religious liberty for Christians, asserting that “our debate about religious freedom should include a conversation about freeing religions and religious people from prejudices that they needn’t cling to and can indeed jettison, much as they’ve jettisoned other aspects of their faith’s history, rightly bowing to the enlightenments of modernity.”

Bruni states just why this conversation is so necessary.

“[I]t’s a vital message because of something that Indiana demonstrated anew: Religion is going to be the final holdout and most stubborn refuge for homophobia,” he writes.

“It will give license to discrimination. It will cause gay and lesbian teenagers in fundamentalist households to agonize needlessly: Am I broken? Am I damned?

“’Conservative Christian religion is the last bulwark against full acceptance of L.G.B.T. people,’ [Mercer University’s David] Gushee said.”

Bruni states that these Christians must be made to change their beliefs.

“[Former United Methodist pastor Jimmy] Creech and Mitchell Gold, a prominent furniture maker and gay philanthropist, founded an advocacy group, Faith in America, which aims to mitigate the damage done to L.G.B.T. people by what it calls ‘religion-based bigotry,’” Bruni writes.

“Gold told me that church leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.’

“His commandment is worthy — and warranted. All of us, no matter our religious traditions, should know better than to tell gay people that they’re an offense. And that’s precisely what the florists and bakers who want to turn them away are saying to them.”

Also writing on the Indiana controversy in April for Slate, Nathaniel Frank, “director of the What We Know Project at Columbia Law School,” assumed a posture of sympathy for befuddled Christians as he shared Bruni’s desire to get them to turn away from their opposition to homosexuality.

“I almost felt sorry for [the bakers] and the millions of other anti-gay Christians who seem genuinely not to understand how their views could be problematic in 2015. Indeed, as fun as it can be to watch and contribute to the pillorying of anti-gay Christians, reductive name-calling may actually be hindering progress for people on both sides of this issue.”

Frank writes that many Christians don’t understand that they are “anti-gay” and are “delusional” about their acts of discrimination.

“Prejudice is universal, but particular prejudices are learned in particular contexts,” he writes. “This is what too many anti-gay Christians seem not to realize — there is no religious reason why the Bible’s anti-gay passages should have come to dominate the hearts and minds of Christian conservatives more than its passages condemning divorce or environmental degradation.”

Frank’s solution, written in anticipation of a coming Supreme Court ruling, was to help Christians overcome their “ignorance” through “self-examination”:

“There is no doubt that many Christians truly think that by refusing to cater to same-sex marriages, they are simply being faithful to their religious tradition.

“They’re wrong. But they’re wrong because they lack self-knowledge, not because they are expressing socially unpopular views. And as fun as it may be to publicly sneer at their ignorance and to attribute it to malice, it may be more effective to nudge them toward self-examination, to offer a kind of amnesty for their sins of omission.”

Joe Schaeffer is a freelance writer and editor.



Source Article from

Squabbling, Hesitation and Luck in Manhunt for Prison Escapees

New York State troopers blocked off roads surrounding the field where the escaped convict David Sweat was caught on Sunday in Constable, N.Y.

© Ian Thomas Jansen-Lonnquist for The New York Times

After tunneling out of maximum-security cells, Richard W. Matt and David Sweat waited for the Jeep, driven by a cooperating prison employee, that would take them to Mexico.

It never arrived. Eighteen days of cabin stays and bushwhacking later, the partnership that spawned one of the most improbable prison escapes in New York history crumbled, as Mr. Sweat left his older accomplice behind for fear that he was slowing them down.

Until this weekend, investigators were a step slow, too, bogged down by dense vegetation, slow responses and miscommunication.

But on Monday, a day after Mr. Sweat was shot and taken into custody by a state trooper in a freshly cut hayfield and three days after Mr. Matt was killed by a federal agent, new details surfaced about the three-week manhunt for the two convicted murderers that gripped remote stretches of upstate New York.

It was a history of hesitation and interagency conflict, and also of lucky breaks for law enforcement officers who scoured the woods as the inmates’ labyrinthine escape plot devolved into haphazard flight.

In the end, neither convict made it more than 40 miles from Clinton Correctional Facility, and in their last days the men — separated for the first time in years — showed signs of growing desperation as they left a trail of chocolate wrappers and opened bottles of grape gin and rum. Investigators capitalized, ending the inmates’ flight without allowing any known injuries to the public or law enforcement officials.

A week distinguished by DNA discoveries and well-organized sweeps was the final stage of a 23-day slog that was hampered, at times, by missed signals.

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo ordered a large cadre of non-state law enforcement personnel out of the command center as the manhunt got underway.

And, in the swamps and forests where the inmates hid, investigators sometimes spurned the assistance of local officials and hunters.

In the dawn hours of June 6, after Mr. Matt and Mr. Sweat’s cell beds were found to be holding dummies fashioned out of sweatshirts, investigators initially believed the inmates were stuck in the prison’s system of tunnels.

Only after they discovered an open manhole about 400 feet outside the prison did the police understand the killers had emerged from it, David Favro, the sheriff of Clinton County, said. Mr. Favro was informed of the open manhole at 8:30 a.m., three hours after the men were found missing, he said.

By then, a sighting by a resident who lives near the manhole had gone stale. The resident, Leslie Lewis, 29, said he saw two men run through his backyard and hurry down the street shortly after midnight. It was not until 9 a.m. that a state trooper knocked on his door for an interview. Mr. Lewis’s mother, Dawn Mattoon, said it was around 3 p.m., after Mr. Cuomo had come to look at the manhole, that she saw state troopers arriving with dogs to sniff for a scent in the backyard.

Without clear orders, Sheriff Favro acted on his own hunches. He drove to Lyon Mountain, about 10 miles from the prison, after he learned of the escape, thinking it might offer the kind of rural, out-of-the-way route the men might take.

He said he imagined himself bringing them in. “Local hero comes in with two guys in the back of his truck would have been nice,” he said. “Never saw anything.”

Sheriff Favro’s frustration was compounded when Mr. Cuomo arrived at the command center and told him and all the other non-state employees to leave, said a close friend of the sheriff’s, David Andrews, the director of the local radio station WIRY. Mr. Andrews said Mr. Favro was angered at being notified of the escape so late, and was astonished that Mr. Cuomo had asked him to leave.

“At first they were asked to leave, and he said, ‘But I’m the sheriff,’ ” Mr. Andrews recalled. “Then they were told they had to leave. He was furious and went home.”

Sheriff Favro declined to discuss the governor’s arrival in detail, but he said after that, he and his team of deputies got little guidance from the State Police officials who were directing the investigation. The deputies “just kind of roved around hoping to get lucky,” he said.

In a statement, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo, John P. L. Kelly, did not dispute that Mr. Cuomo had asked non-state officials to leave. “It is customary for state officials to do confidential briefings to relay sensitive information to other state officials during the initial stages of any investigation,” the statement read. “However, the State Police and other state agencies have coordinated extensively with local and federal law enforcement authorities.”

The search soon began pinballing across quiet pockets on the eastern edge of the state and to towns along its southern border. Several local officials and county sheriffs said they learned of the developments only by chance.

In Willsboro, N.Y., 35 miles southeast of the prison, Shaun Gillilland, the town supervisor, said he drove to the local command center after a friend told him, “My yard is full of cops.” There had been a sighting of two men on foot near a rural road. He found several state and federal officials gathered around the back of a pick-up truck, scrutinizing a map whose scale he said was too small to show the uneven geography.

“The command and control did not seem in my opinion to be real firm,” Mr. Gillilland said. “They were always referring to some command post in Dannemora for direction.”

Residents kept in the dark about search plans were sometimes startled by officers climbing into their garages or homes. Beth Schiller, of Willsboro, came home to her 100-acre property, where she rarely locked the doors, to find her .22-caliber rifle missing from the corner of her sunroom. There was no note saying officers had entered the home, and a group of troopers who went inside with her said they had no idea why it was missing. They told her to call her husband, a physician, to see if he had it with him at work.

“The anxiety,” Ms. Schiller said. “Imagine going into your own home and seeing a gun is missing when there are two people supposedly out in your area.”

Only later was she able to determine that officers had found it during a search and taken it for safety. That night, after several rounds of paperwork, the State Police gave it back to her and her husband.

The State Police kept a tight lid on information about the search during its first two weeks, but that appeared to change on June 19 when, at nearly midnight, they sent a release saying there had been a sighting in the Elmira area. News conferences and daily news releases soon delivered substantial information on the locations of search efforts, and what credible witnesses had reported.

Around five days before he was caught, Mr. Sweat split from Mr. Matt, he told investigators on Monday, concerned that Mr. Matt was holding him back. Mr. Matt, 14 years older than his partner, also may have been struggling with blisters on his foot, officials have said, citing bloody socks left at a hunting cabin they discovered on June 20.

The search effort seemed to gain momentum when, on June 24, officials discovered evidence of a break-in by Mr. Matt at a hunting cabin in Malone, N.Y.

It was a vast area of rolling hills and soggy swamps made more difficult to navigate by heavy rains, suddenly flooded by up to 1,500 officers, the Franklin County sheriff, Kevin Mulverhill, said. “Nobody questioned assignments,” he said. “Everyone who was there was all about how can I help.,”

Few state or local officials had experience with such an elaborate search over such difficult terrain, Mr. Mulverhill said. “I don’t think anybody really prepares for a manhunt that’s going to use 1,200 people,” he said. “I don’t think that’s something you train for.”

State troopers and sheriff’s deputies stood guard along roadways, listening for rustles in these woods. Tactical teams from specialized units of the Department of Corrections or federal Customs and Border Protection swept the woods, hoping to push the escapees toward a road.

Trail cameras posted on trees took photos of any movement they detected.

On June 26, the owner of a hunting camp, Bobby Willett, found bottles of grape gin and rum out of place in a cabin, a neighbor and cousin said. The neighbor, Jonathan Chodat, said investigators also removed evidence from a nearby abandoned trailer where they believed Mr. Matt had been staying that was 50 feet into the woods from Route 30 in Malone.

When Mr. Matt fired a shot at a moving camper trailer, in what some officials described as an effort to steal it, investigators blanketed the woods and heard him cough. He was shot three times and killed by a federal agent.

That same day, investigators found a chocolate wrapper in an area off Webster Street in Malone, north of where Mr. Matt was killed, that they later determined had traces of Mr. Sweat’s DNA, Mr. Mulverhill said. Officers left a 22-square-mile search area that had been set up farther south.

Early on Sunday morning, a group of teenagers in Constable, N.Y., even farther north, reported encountering a man walking in a ditch who hid his face from them when they asked if he needed help, one of the teenagers said.

Officers rushed to the area, and late Sunday afternoon, Sgt. Jay Cook of the New York State Police noticed him jogging north along a roadway, only a few miles from Canada.

The son of dairy farmers, Sergeant Cook is a dedicated outdoorsman who hunts and fishes and runs a small maple sugaring operation on his property.

After joining the Air Force and working as a corrections officer, Sergeant Cook fulfilled his dream of joining the State Police, said his mother, Judith Cook. “He is an excellent shot; his career revolved around that,” said Billy Jones, the chairman of the Franklin County Legislature and a friend.

He got his chance to end the manhunt when he chased Mr. Sweat across a hayfield. A tree line drew closer and closer.

He shot Mr. Sweat twice in the torso, and the search was over.

Source Article from

‘Mind blowing’ flames destroy homes in Washington state

WENATCHEE, Wash. — From just across the Wenatchee River, Dominick Bonny watched a whole neighborhood in his central Washington town burn as a wildfire destroyed two dozen homes and forced hundreds to flee.

“With the wind blowing away from us, it was like we were watching a natural disaster within arm’s reach,” he said.

The wildfires hit parts of central and eastern Washington over the weekend as the state is struggling with a severe drought. Mountain snowpack is at extremely low levels, and about one-fifth of the state’s rivers and streams are at record low levels.

Eastern Washington has been experiencing temperatures into the 100s, and last week Washington Gov. Jay Inslee issued an emergency proclamation that allows state resources to quickly be brought in to respond to wildfires.

Washington’s struggles with wildfires come as Alaska, its fellow Pacific Northwest state, is facing more and harsher wildfires this year.

In Wenatchee, the wildfire fueled by high temperatures and strong winds roared into town Sunday afternoon. The blaze ignited in brush just outside Wenatchee, quickly burning out of control about 120 miles east of Seattle.

Rainfall on Monday provided relief, but hot, dry conditions and wind could challenge crews trying to get a handle on the flames that burned more than an estimated 4 square miles, officials said. Three firefighters suffered minor injuries, but no injuries to residents were reported.

Fire crews were concentrating on preventing any more homes from being burned Monday, State Patrol Trooper Brian Moore said. Crews were working to put out hot spots in already burned areas, while keeping an eye on winds that were expected to reach 15 to 20 mph Monday evening and could fan flames again.

Tom Bryant surveyed the smoldering ruins of his home in the hills above Wenatchee and said he and his wife had to race out of the house at the last minute as the fire advanced Sunday night.

On Monday, he pointed to a Mustang sports car that was a burned wreck and to his BMW motorcycle that was destroyed in the garage.

“It’s going to be tough to replace,” Bryant said. “It hurts, but it’s just stuff. It’s painful.”

He was unable to save photographs and important documents, Bryant said. “That’s where all our stuff is,” he said, pointing to a burned file cabinet.

Evacuations were mainly in the north end of town and included a Wal-Mart store, the Chelan County Emergency Management office said. The store did not burn, but several commercial buildings were near the blaze, Washington State Patrol Trooper Darren Wright said.

Emergency management officials late Monday morning also briefly issued a shelter-in-place order after ammonia started leaking from a fruit warehouse. They later said it had dissipated and was no longer a threat.

The Blue Bird warehouse, which uses ammonia for cold-storage, was among a few commercial buildings to burn.

Bonny, who lives just outside Wenatchee, called the speed of the blaze “just mind-blowing.”

Phil Bentz, who lives on the same side of the river as the fire, said his home hadn’t been evacuated. “We were waiting for someone to knock on the door, but they didn’t come. So far, so good,” Bentz said.

About noon Monday, fire trucks poured water on a burning warehouse in downtown Wenatchee, sending big black clouds into the air over the city. Farther north of town, scorched hillsides showed where the flames were stopped just short of irrigated apple orchards and residential subdivisions.

Officials know the fire started in brush on the edge of town, but they are still trying to determine what sparked it. Sweltering heat above 100 degrees, tinder-dry brush and strong winds helped fuel it.

Last month, Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency.

State Lands Commissioner Peter Goldmark has banned all outdoor fires on state land protected by the Natural Resources department, and campfires have been banned at state parks and on state-controlled ocean beaches.

Railroad traffic in the area has been shut down, including freight lines and Amtrak’s daily Chicago-to-Seattle route, BNSF Railway spokesman Gus Melonas said.

The railroad helped battle the blaze by spraying water from tank cars and transferring water to firefighting trucks, he said.

Hilda Emerson, 37, was among the people who fled the flames Sunday.

“I went and grabbed what I could — my computers, irreplaceable stuff, toys for my daughter — and I left,” she said. “I never had to do this before.”

She and her 4-year-old daughter, Nissa, spent the night on cots set up by the Red Cross in the gymnasium of Eastmont High School in East Wenatchee. She planned to check on her home later in the day.


Associated Press writers Bob Seavey and Courtney Bonnell in Phoenix and Chris Grygiel and Gene Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.

Source Article from

Global Threats Crowd Obama’s Diplomacy

President Barack Obama gathered his foreign policy team in the White House Situation Room several weeks after his 2012 re-election for a meeting to set his second-term agenda.

Now that he was free from the politics of another presidential campaign, Mr. Obama told the group, he wanted a “blue skies” assessment of all policies worth considering, according to participants. Nothing was off the table.

What emerged was a sweeping and fundamental re-orientation of U.S. foreign policy, highlighted by four initiatives: conclude a nuclear deal with Iran; renew diplomatic relations with Cuba; elevate climate change to a national-security issue; and complete a free-trade deal with Asia.

Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy offensive, described by a dozen current and former U.S. officials involved in its execution, was a blueprint to fulfill the president’s 2008 campaign pledge of breaking from decades of post-Cold War U.S. foreign-policy doctrine.

Together, the initiatives reflect Mr. Obama’s belief that diplomatic and economic engagement trump military power in winning lasting American influence. David Axelrod, one of Mr. Obama’s closest advisers since the 2008 campaign, said the seeds of the president’s second-term foreign-policy agenda “were planted from the very first days of the first term.”

The effort has at times been rocky. All four initiatives have been controversial; in three of them—Iran, Cuba and climate change—Mr. Obama challenged Republicans and the foreign-policy establishment. And the trade deal set off a jarring collision with his own party.

Other problems have crowded the agenda and, in the eyes of critics, caught the president unprepared. China was a priority at the outset of the administration, but Beijing has repeatedly defied the White House, striking an aggressive posture in Asia, militarily and economically, that has alarmed U.S. allies.

Russian President Vladimir Putin launched a campaign of intimidation against Ukraine, after the administration sought a “reset” in relations in Mr. Obama’s first term. Mr. Putin’s moves threaten the cooperation with Moscow that the administration needs to achieve some of its other goals, including nuclear arms reduction. And the Iran initiative has kindled a firestorm in relations with Israel, which Mr. Obama has had to invest personal time and capital to contain.

“Russia, Iran and China are each in their own way trying to change the international status quo…All three are seeing the American-backed world order looking vulnerable,” said Walter Russell Mead, a professor at Bard College and scholar at the Hudson Institute, a conservative Washington think tank. “So far, it doesn’t seem like the Obama administration has succeeded in changing the thinking in any of these countries’ capitals.”

In addition, the administration seemed surprised by the rapid rise of Islamic State across Syria and Iraq. Presidential aides were alarmed last summer when Mr. Obama said publicly he had no strategy against the militants. The remark indicated he feared that Iraq, a problem he had hoped to put behind him, was returning to knock his agenda off its course.

The comment drew a torrent of criticism, which for the president was like “a splash of cold water on his face,” one senior administration official said. Mr. Obama agreed to make a concerted effort to get back on course with his foreign-policy plan while elevating the fight against Islamic State on his priority list.

“He is looking at these issues and saying, ‘Yes we have to deal with terrorism, we have to deal with security challenges in the Middle East, but we can’t be consumed by that,’ in part because that is not the issue or the region that’s going to define the next 50 or 100 years,” said Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security adviser.

Mr. Rhodes was dispatched by the president at the December 2012 foreign-policy meeting to begin clandestine talks with Cuba, an initiative that has since opened the door to restoring diplomatic relations with Havana.

Soon after the meeting, U.S. diplomats also expanded secret contacts with Iran that have brought Washington within days of a possible deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

Top White House officials say Mr. Obama’s first term was largely defined by the global economic crisis, twin wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as political battles in Washington. But the president in his second term became more willing to butt heads with foreign allies and Democratic leaders.

Israel and the Arab states have publicly broken from the White House over the Iran talks, and many Democratic lawmakers have fought Mr. Obama over a trade deal with Asia that opponents say could hurt U.S. workers.

A second-term administration push to secure an Arab-Israeli peace, driven by Secretary of State John Kerry, failed.

“Every president has to live within the parameters of politics, and there’s no doubt that there were limitations because of the last campaign,” Mr. Axelrod said. “But I think he’s actually been remarkably consistent, given that. He’s feeling the pressures of time.”

Some Republicans accuse the White House of pursuing an agenda that is weakening the U.S. and its allies, while splintering the Middle East. The emerging deal with Iran, they say, leaves that country still capable of making a nuclear weapon, while prompting such rivals as Saudi Arabia to seek their own bomb.

Mr. Obama also faces GOP criticism that he has failed to arrest moves to redraw international borders by Russia, as well as China. U.S. officials recently said China had positioned weapons on the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea, the latest in a continuing dispute over territorial claims to the archipelago, located in one of the world’s busiest shipping routes.

Relations were further strained this month after U.S. officials said they suspected Chinese hackers stole the personnel records of more than four million U.S. government workers.

Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy initiatives have spilled into the 2016 presidential campaign. GOP contenders say they will tie former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner, to Mr. Obama’s record.

“It is up to our next president to right the wrongs done by the current one,” Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), a Republican presidential candidate, told the Council on Foreign Relations last month. “It is up to our next president to properly fund and modernize our military. It is up to our next president to restore our people’s faith in the promise and the power of the American ideal.”

“We’ve made some dangerous mistakes in recent years,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) said this month when announcing his 2016 presidential bid. “The Obama administration, and some of my colleagues in Congress, substituted wishful thinking for sound national security strategy.”


White House officials say that Mr. Obama has bolstered U.S. standing overseas, in part by reducing the exercise of military power in favor of diplomacy.

Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy ambitions date to the earliest days of his presidency, current and former advisers say. Two weeks before the 2008 election, Mr. Obama called foreign-policy experts, including his top Middle East adviser at the time, Dennis Ross, and the late State Department envoy, Richard Holbrooke, to a Chicago hotel to map out a first-term agenda.

Among Mr. Obama’s priorities were winding down the war in Iraq and containing Afghanistan’s Taliban, meeting participants said. Mr. Obama also wanted to engage Iran and its closest regional ally, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, reversing the tack of his predecessor, President George W. Bush.

Weeks after taking office, Mr. Obama sent the first of at least four letters to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for better ties, U.S. officials said. He sent senior envoys to meet Mr. Assad’s aides in Damascus. Neither Iran nor Syria embraced the overtures.

Other White House global objectives set in the first term, such as improving ties with Cuba, North Korea and Russia, lagged behind because of political resistance and changes in power in Pyongyang and Moscow.

The president’s successes in his first term included the killing of Osama bin Laden and completion of New START, an updated nuclear arms-control treaty with Moscow that was signed before Mr. Putin reclaimed the Russian presidency.

Mr. Obama also withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2011 and oversaw a significant drawdown of American forces in Afghanistan. Critics say the Iraq withdrawal allowed Islamic State to flourish. White House officials said Iraq rejected a continued U.S. military presence, leaving Mr. Obama no choice.

After Mr. Obama’s 2012 re-election, he was determined to complete his campaign pledges, White House officials said, and felt he could take more political risks. Some of the sharpest criticism of Mr. Obama’s outreach, including Iran, has come from Democrats.

Changes abroad also emboldened Mr. Obama, administration officials said. International sanctions on Iran, for example, cut Tehran’s oil exports in half by late 2012, making Mr. Khamenei more likely, in the view of the White House, to negotiate on Iran’s nuclear program. Also, the global economy stabilized, strengthening Mr. Obama’s hand on trade. And Cuba’s ruling Castro brothers became isolated following the death in early 2013 of Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan strongman who was their closest Latin American ally.

After Mr. Obama asked Mr. Rhodes to hold secret meetings with Cuban diplomats, officials from both governments met at hotels in Toronto and Ottawa for months before announcement of the talks in December.

The Iran nuclear negotiations required even more secret maneuvering. For nearly a year, beginning in March 2013, a team of U.S. negotiators met clandestinely with their Iranian counterparts in New York, Geneva and the Persian Gulf sultanate of Oman.

The Americans flew in unmarked government planes. At times, they narrowly missed running into State Department colleagues traveling in the same cities on separate business, according to participants in the Iran talks.

With Mr. Obama’s climate-change policy goals hampered by a Republican-led Congress, the president moved to advance his proposals internationally. During a meeting at a California resort in June 2013, Mr. Obama pitched China’s new president, Xi Jinping, on forging a climate deal between Washington and Beijing. That was followed by private meetings among aides and a secret presidential letter that yielded new commitments to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

When Mr. Obama’s secret initiatives regarding Iran and Cuba finally surfaced, they were criticized for having been executed without the knowledge of such close U.S. allies as Israel, Saudi Arabia and Colombia.

“You have an administration that has become, in its thinking and decision-making process, very centralized, and perhaps the most centralized since Nixon and Kissinger,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank.

The president relies on advisers largely bereft of the establishment personalities of his first term, who included Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Ross and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Mr. Obama has since amassed a staff with views often at odds with mainstream Washington, and more in line with his own thinking. They include Mr. Rhodes, National Security Adviser Susan Rice, United Nations Ambassador Samantha Power and White House Mideast expert Robert Malley—people who trace their connections back to Mr. Obama’s first presidential campaign.

Mr. Malley, the National Security Council’s top Middle East adviser, has argued for years that Washington needed to engage Iran and its proxies to stabilize the Mideast. His work before joining the White House team involved engaging members of Hamas and Hezbollah, both U.S.-designated terrorist organizations. That drew the ire of pro-Israel lobbying groups during the 2008 campaign and forced his resignation. Now, he is on the team negotiating with Iran.

Colin Kahl, Vice President Joe Biden’s national security adviser, also backed engaging Iran before he joined the White House last year. “A deal might empower pragmatists by giving them a big win, potentially allowing them to claw back more influence on Iran’s foreign policy and push domestic reform,” he said last month.

The next few months could define Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy legacy and shape U.S. national security for years, according to both the White House and its critics.

Mr. Obama is pushing for an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions during talks this December in Paris, after netting China’s commitment.

On Monday Mr. Obama signed legislation, passed by Congress last week, giving him authority to wrap up negotiations on the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership, the free-trade deal on the president’s second-term foreign-policy agenda.

The president hopes to complete an agreement with Iran in coming days; negotiations will continue past Tuesday’s deadline.

Last month, Mr. Obama hosted the leaders of six Arab countries at his presidential retreat at Camp David, Md., to tout the benefits of a nuclear deal with Iran.

Some warned Mr. Obama that lifting economic sanctions on Tehran, and releasing as much as $150 billion of its frozen oil money in the deal, would fuel instability. They argued Tehran would use the money to fund Hamas, Hezbollah and its allies in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

Mr. Obama wasn’t persuaded.

“The president seemed utterly convinced in his views,” said one Arab official who was there.

Write to Jay Solomon at

Source Article from

Sugary drinks linked to 25,000 deaths in the U.S. each year

A glass of cola.© Daniel Acker/Bloomberg News
A glass of cola.

By contributing to obesity and, through that, to diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, the consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks appears to claim the lives of about 25,000 American adults yearly and is linked worldwide to the deaths of 180,000 each year, new research says.

Low- and middle-income countries are bearing the brunt of the death toll attributed to overconsumption of sugar-sweetened sodas, sports drinks and fruit drinks, according to an assessment published Monday in the American Heart Assn.’s journal, Circulation. Each year, more than 3 in 4 of the world’s deaths attributed to overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverages occur in those poor and developing countries.

In Mexico – a country with one of the world’s highest per-capita consumption of sweetened drinks – about 24,000 adults’ deaths in 2010 were attributed to overconsumption of sugar-sweetened drinks. That translated into the highest death rate of the world’s 20 most populous nations: 405 deaths per million adults in one year.

The United States ranked second. In 2010, there were 125 deaths per million adults, or about 25,000 deaths total.

To generate those estimates of sugary beverages’ health toll, researchers combed through national dietary surveys that captured patterns of beverage consumption in 51 countries from 1980 to 2010. The researchers then mined resource databases to discern the availability and consumption of sugar in 187 countries.

They tallied consumption of drinks, homemade and mass-produced, that deliver 50 calories or more per 8-ounce serving, and did not count 100% fruit juices.

They drew from a growing mountain of studies to estimate the contribution of sugar-sweetened beverage consumption to obesity, and of obesity to such diseases as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancers of the breast, colon, esophagus, gall bladder, kidney, pancreas and ovaries. And finally, they calculated how many deaths from those diseases might have gotten a push from consumption of those sugary drinks.

The result is the first-ever global report on the effect of sugar-sweetened beverages on death rates.

As incomes grow in many developing nations, some are experiencing spurts in obesity that mirror, in compressed form, Americans’ four-decade run-up in weight. Many researchers attribute those patterns, at least in part, to increases in their populations’ consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, which add calories without improving nutrition.

“This is not complicated,” said Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, dean of Tuft University’s Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy and a senior author of the new research. “There are no health benefits from sugar-sweetened beverages, and the potential impact of reducing consumption is saving tens of thousands of deaths each year.”

The comprehensive report on sugary beverages and death does not reflect the effect of such consumption on the health of children. It does find chronic disease attributed to sugar-sweetened beverages more common in younger adults than in their elders. That fact is likely to have a major effect on future economies because it imperils the long-term productivity of a key group of workers.

If these young people continue to guzzle sugar-sweetened beverages at their current rate, said study coauthor Gitanjali Singh, the consequences could be dire. Compounded by the effects of aging, this generation’s high rates of sugary drink consumption may push its rates of death and disability from heart disease and diabetes even higher than those seen in the current study, said Singh, also of Friedman School.

Source Article from

Enough support exists to remove Confederate flag from S.C. Statehouse: survey

Supporters of keeping the Confederate battle flag flying at a Confederate monument at the South Carolina Statehouse wave flags during a rally in front of the statehouse in Columbia, S.C., on Saturday, June 27, 2015. Gov. Nikki Haley and a number of other state leaders have called for the removal of the flag following the shooting deaths of nine black parishioners in a church in Charleston.

© AP Photo/Bruce Smith
Supporters of keeping the Confederate battle flag flying at a Confederate monument at the South Carolina Statehouse wave flags during a rally in front of the statehouse in Columbia, S.C., on Saturday, June 27, 2015. Gov. Nikki Haley and a number of other state leaders have called for the removal of the flag following the shooting deaths of nine black parishioners in a church in Charleston.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — A survey of South Carolina legislators shows there’s enough support to remove the Confederate flag from Statehouse grounds if all supporters cast a vote.

The Post and Courier newspaper, the South Carolina Press Association and The Associated Press asked all lawmakers how they intend to vote. At least 33 senators and 82 House members say they the flag should go.

That appears to meet the two-thirds majority needed from both chambers to move the battle flag. That rule is part of the 2000 compromise that took the flag off the Statehouse dome and put a square version beside a monument to Confederate soldiers.

The flag push follows the shooting deaths of nine people at a black church in Charleston. The pastor, state Sen. Clementa Pinckney, was among the dead.

Source Article from