Clinton likely to leave NH with same number of delegates as Sanders

thehill.com

Hillary Clinton is expected to leave New Hampshire with just as many delegates as Bernie Sanders, even after he crushed her in Tuesday’s primary.

Sanders had won 13 delegates with his 20-point victory on Monday, and is expected to raise that total to 15 by the time all of the votes are counted.

Two of the state’s 24 delegates are currently unpledged, but will likely be awarded to Sanders once the results are finalized. That will raise the Sanders total to 15 delegates.

Clinton won 9 delegates in the primary, but came into the contest with the support of six superdelegates — state party insiders who are given the freedom to support which ever candidate they choose.

Superdelegate support is fluid, so it is possible that one of those delegates now committed to Clinton could switch before the national convention.

But as it stands, the superdelegate support gives Clinton a total of 15 New Hampshire delegates — the same as Sanders.

The Clinton campaign has mounted an aggressive effort to secure about 360 superdelegates across the country, according to the Associated Press. Sanders has a total of eight superdelegates.

Two of New Hampshire’s eight superdelegates are uncommitted: state party chairman Ray Buckley and state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, according to the Associated Press.

Buckley was barred from picking a side until after the primary, while Fuller Clark told The Hill that she remains uncommitted.

“I wanted to ensure that we had a very open and fair process in New Hampshire and I don't t believe as an elected officer of the party that I should be choosing between two very fine Democrats who are running for office,” she said. 

“For the time being, I continue to hold that position and will wait until closer to the convention to decide.”

Clinton's superdelegate supporters includes Gov. Maggie Hassan, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and Rep. Annie Kuster.

She's also backed by Democratic National Committeemembers Joanne Dodwell, Billy Shaheen and Kathy Sullivan. 

COMMENTS

ALERT: Hillary Clinton Wear Blackface Costume??

Hillary Clinton

HOAX?

 by: Perry Sanders III  17 days ago

39

Lead Stories' Trendolizer has detected a photo that has been circulating social media recently which supposedly shows Hillary and Bill Clinton at a costume party, with Hillary as a Blackface and Bill as a country hillbilly.

The above image is the one supposedly of Hillary and Bill Clinton, but after Lead Stories' research into the matter we have debunked this story and proved it to be a hoax. The image featured above traces back to a Twitter account (@BrianTourville) from 2015, in response to a Huffington Post tweet.

Although a well attemtpted bit of humor and satire by @Brian_Tourville, Hillary is obviously not the BlackFace as shown in the alleged costume party photo, as can be seen by the difference in eye color. Hillary has blue eyes, not brown as shown in the costumed photo. In addition, it is highly unlikely for a photo of that is so politically detrimental to go unnoticed for all these years.

As can be seen in the comparison above, the height difference between Hillary and Bill are way off in the costumed picture.

Despite the attempt to show Hillary Clinton dressed with a blackface, we regret to inform you that this is absolutely a hoax. Nice try, internet!

Opec pleads for Russian alliance to smash oil speculators

www.telegraph.co.uk

The Opec oil cartel has issued its strongest plea to date for a pact with Russia and rival producers to cut crude output and halt the collapse in prices, warning that the deepening investment slump is storing up serious trouble for the future.

Abdullah al-Badri, Opec’s secretary-general, said the cartel is ready to embrace rivals and thrash out a compromise following the 72pc crash in prices since mid-2014.

"Tough times requires tough choices. It is crucial that all major producers sit down and come up with a solution," he told a Chatham House conference in London.

Mr al-Badri said the world needs an investment blitz of $10 trillion to replace depleting oil fields and to meet extra demand of 17m barrels per day (b/d) by 2040, yet projects are being shelved at an alarming rate. A study by IHS found that investment for the years from 2015 to 2020 has been slashed by $1.8 trillion, compared to what was planned in 2014.

Abdalla El-Badri, OPEC secretary-general, speaks at Chatham House in London

Mr al-Badri warned that the current glut is setting the stage for a future supply shock, with prices lurching from one extreme to another in a deranged market that is in the interests of nobody but speculators. "It is vital that the market addresses the stock overhang,” he said.

Leonid Fedun, vice-president of Russia’s oil group Lukoil, said Opec policy had set off a stampede, comparing it to a “herd of animals rushing to escape a fire”. He called on the Kremlin to craft a political deal with the cartel to overcome the glut. “It is better to sell a barrel of oil at $50 than two barrels at $30,” he told Tass.

This is a significant shift in thinking. It has long been argued that Russian companies cannot join forces with Opec since the Siberian weather makes it hard to switch output on and off, and because these listed firms are supposedly answerable to shareholders, not the Kremlin.

Mr Fedun said Opec will be forced to cut output anyway. “This could happen in May or in the summer. After that we will see a rapid recovery,” he said.

• Oil price crash: rout reaches $27 as Opec warns US shale will be forced to relent

He accused the cartel of incompetence. “When Opec launched the price war, they expected US companies to go under very quickly. They discovered that 50pc of the US production was hedged,” he said.

Mr Fedun said these contracts acted as a subsidy worth $150m a day for the industry though the course of 2015.

“With this support shale producers were able to avoid collapse,” he said.

The hedges are now expiring fast, and will cover just 11pc of output this year. Iraq’s premier, Haider al-Abadi, was overheard in Davos asking US oil experts exactly when the contracts would run out, a sign of how large this issue now looms in the mind of Opec leaders.

Mr Fedun said 500 US shale companies face a “meat-grinder” over coming months, leaving two or three dozen “professionals”.

Claudio Descalzi, head of Italy’s oil group Eni, said Opec has stopped playing the role of “regulator” for crude, leaving markets in the grip of financial forces trading “paper barrels” that outnumber actual barrels of oil by a ratio of 80:1.

The paradox of the current slump is that global spare capacity is at wafer-thin levels of 2pc as Saudi Arabia pumps at will, leaving the market acutely vulnerable to any future supply-shock. “In the 1980s it was around 30pc; 10 years ago it was 8pc,” said Mr Descalzi.

Barclays said the capitulation over recent weeks is much like the mood in early 1999, the last time leading analysts said the world was “drowning in oil”. It proved to be exact bottom of the cycle. Prices jumped 50pc over the next twenty days, the start of a 12-year bull market.

Mr Norrish said excess output peaked in the last quarter of 2015 at 2.1m b/d. The over-supply will narrow to 1.2m b/d in the first quarter as of this year as a string of Opec and non-Opec reach “pain points”, despite the return of Iranian crude after the lifting of sanctions.

By the end of this year there may be a “small deficit”. By then the world will need all of Opec’s 32m b/d supply to meet growing demand, although it will take a long time to whittle down record stocks.

Mr Norrish said the oil market faces powerful headwinds. US shale has emerged as a swing producer and will crank up output “quite quickly” once prices rebound.

Global climate accords have changed the rules of the game and electric vehicles are breaking onto the scene.

Unhedged short positions are huge so there is certainly the potential for a steep move up in prices at some point Barclays

COMMENTS

Ban Donald Trump? You’ll Have To Ban Ex-Muslims, European Leaders, And Me As Well

Getty

by RAHEEM KASSAM18 Jan 20161,390

It was perhaps inevitable, when you note the wilful and lazy underreporting by Britain’s mainstream media of issues pertaining to radical Islam, that when a vocal critic came along, people’s first instincts would be to call him a “racist” and seek to curtail their own rights of free speech in response. Turkeys voting for Christmas. Cutting off your nose to spite your face. Choose whatever idiom you want… if the shoe fits… ahem.

So when Suzanne Kelly – a long-standing anti-Trump campaigner in Scotland – started a parliamentary petition, the media seized on it, failing to report that a) it was NOT in response to his comments about a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the U.S. and b) it was actually started BEFORE he even said anything of the sort.

It was one socialist, who has been “investigating Trump’s activities and the objections of local residents to his golfing development for several years” who inadvertently triggered tonight’s parliamentary committee debate on effectively banning people from saying anything even remotely critical of Islam. It accidentally turned from a socialist crusade against property rights, to a socialist crusade in favour of an Islamic blasphemy law in Britain.

Don’t worry – today’s debate isn’t binding. Nor is it in the House of Commons chamber. But if you were to turn Sky News on this morning, you’d think there was a key government vote on the matter. Of course, it has been seized upon by Muslim Members of Parliament.

But if Mr. Trump has to be banned from Britain, then who else? Well, a significant number of Britons, really, who believe, as Saxony’s Prime Minister Stanislaw Tillichhas said this weekend, that the West has “too little experience with Islam” and that inward migration should be curbed.

And what about Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who has said that “Islam has never been a part of Europe” or Slovakia’s premier Robert Fico, who has said that Muslims are “impossible to integrate”? Do we ban these people too?

Do we ban ex-Muslims like Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Do we ban people like Sohail Ahmed, a self-professed former radical who has since left Islam? Or is the British reaction to Donald Trump’s comments – for that is what most thought they were signing the petition about – reserved for white American men?

Whatever the motivation – and whatever your answer to the questions posed above, it is surely obvious at this point that British democracy is in a very sorry state.

And we could talk about why until we’re blue in the face: self-censorship, post-colonial guilt, media indoctrination, the liberal monopoly on public life… the reasons are endless. Why waste the time?

Instead I suggest we become far more robust in our language. Far more robust in asserting our birthrights. And far more robust in rejecting the attempts at manipulation of our nation state.

Yes, a lot of our efforts this year should go to fighting a European referendum so that we may reassert ourselves on the world stage again. But don’t forget, once parliament is sovereign again, it will be a parliament that we have packed with soft-fascists. Those who want to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, and think. And those who will today be discussing what amount of free speech should get you banned from this country.

It is this, coupled with the long-standing liberal monopoly of the press and our television channels that we have to think about fighting next. Otherwise what is the point in being a sovereign nation?

Whether or not you agree with me about Donald Trump – you surely believe that it is time for radical change in this country. And that starts with refusing to vote for the same old parties, buying the same old newspapers, and watching the same old TV channels. Turn it off.

Follow Raheem Kassam on Twitter hereand on Facebook here for less of the same, and more of what’s really going on

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart London, Islam, Immigration,Donald Trump, Muslims, free speech,Parliament

Russia Rearms for a New Era

www.nytimes.com

Russia is reinvesting in its bases in the Arctic: building new ones, expanding old ones and deploying personnel to operate them. Analysts say Russia’s efforts in the Arctic are driven in part by climate change, as the country seeks to exploit and defend maritime trade routes and oil and natural gas resources in areas made more accessible by melting ice.

Russia has made big increases to its military budget, including a jump of nearly $11 billion from 2014 to 2015. According to Moscow, it is making up for years of disinvestment after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But sanctions from the Ukrainian conflict, dropping oil prices and other financial problems have weakened the Russian economy, and analysts expect military spending to slow.

Russia has scheduled mobilizations of more than 100,000 troops, as well as unannounced exercises that move thousands of troops with almost no notice. These efforts serve as combat training for the troops and as a show of military strength to the world. They often involve units that control Russia’s nuclear arsenal, calling attention to the country’s nuclear abilities. NATO has responded by expanding its own exercises.

“The image that Russian official sources convey is that they’re preparing for large-scale interstate war,” said Johan Norberg of the Swedish Defense Research Agency. “This is not about peacekeeping or counterinsurgency.”

Russia has repeatedly entered or skirted the airspace of other countries, including the United States. Since it annexed Crimea in March 2014, the incidents have grown in number and seriousness. In November, Turkey shot down a Russian plane it said entered its airspace. The pilot was killed, as was a marine on a subsequent rescue mission.

Other incursions have been dangerous, like a near collision in March 2014between a commercial plane carrying 132 passengers and a Russian reconnaissance plane that did not transmit its position.

“Putin is trying to provoke the United States and NATO into military action and create the appearance that they are posing a threat to Russia, in order to bolster his own popularity,” said Kimberly Marten, a professor at Barnard College and director of the United States-Russia Relations program at Columbia University’s Harriman Institute.

In several regions, Russia has exerted its military authority, rattled its rivals, and seeded instability to preserve its influence.

Russia’s role in the Syrian war escalated in September 2015 when it started airstrikes to support the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad. Most of Russia’s airstrikes have been in rebel-held territory, rather than areas controlled by the Islamic State. Amnesty International has accused Russia of using cluster munitions and unguided bombs that it says have killed hundreds of Syrian civilians.

In early 2014, Russia sent special forces troops into Crimea, when Ukraine’s pro-Moscow president was ousted. Crimea then joined Russia in a referendum that Ukraine and Western leaders consider illegal. Later that year, Ukrainian forces in eastern Ukraine fought Russia-backed separatists. A cease-fire agreement in February 2015 slowed the fighting, but clashes continue.

Russia won a war with Georgia in 2008, driving Georgian forces away from the separatist region of South Ossetia. The Kremlin asserts that it is protecting the interests of ethnic Russians in those areas.

The country is buying, updating and developing its military equipment, with the intent to modernize 70 percent of its military by 2020.

“This is Russia catching up on where the West has gotten itself technologically,” said Nick de Larrinaga at IHS Jane’s.

COMMENTS

Putin gives a lesson on minorities ? or Frustration with Political Correctiveness ?

Putin’s Speech on Feb. 04, 2013

This is one time our elected leaders should pay attention to the advice of Vladimir Putin....how scary is that?

 

On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:

Boston Bombing inspired Preacher 

"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, from anywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law, then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'. We better learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians."

 The politicians in the Duma gave Putin a standing ovation for five minutes.

If you keep this to yourself, you might be apart of the problem.

Forwarded from Unknown.