REPORT: Elderly NYC Woman Killed by Yellow Cab

May 18, 2019

As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service on the internet, DML News App offers the following information published by NBCNEWYORK.COM:

A woman was struck and killed by a taxi in downtown Manhattan on Saturday afternoon, police said.

The elderly woman was hit by a yellow cab at Centre and Broome streets shortly after 4 p.m., the NYPD said.

The article goes on to state the following:

She was walking in the crosswalk when she was struck by the cab, which was trying to make a left turn, police said.

Officers found her lying in the road with severe head trauma, police say. She was pronounced dead at New York Downtown Hospital.

JUST IN: Woman struck, killed by cab in lower Manhattan, NYPD says https://t.co/oFg5ZVY9C5

— NBC New York (@NBCNewYork) May 18, 2019

To get more information about this article, please visit NBCNEWYORK.COM. To weigh in, leave a comment below.

The post REPORT: Elderly NYC Woman Killed by Yellow Cab appeared first on DML News.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Africom Confirms Russian Air Defense System Shot Down US Drone Over Libyan Capital

9 December 2019

Africom Confirms Russian Air Defense System Shot Down US Drone Over Libyan Capital

U.S. Africa Command (Africom) has confirmed that an unarmed American drone over the Libyan capital last month was shot down by Russian air defenses, reported Reuters.

Africom dropped three headlines via Reuters in the overnight, revealing how the surveillance drone was shot down over Tripoli.

EXCLUSIVE-U.S. MILITARY BELIEVES UNARMED US DRONE REPORTED LOST NEAR LIBYA'S CAPITAL LAST MONTH WAS SHOT DOWN BY RUSSIAN AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS

EXCLUSIVE-U.S. MILITARY'S AFRICA COMMAND SAYS IT IS DEMANDING RETURN OF US DRONE WRECKAGE

EXCLUSIVE-U.S. MILITARY SAYS AIR DEFENSES WERE OPERATED EITHER BY RUSSIAN CONTRACTORS IN LIBYA OR HAFTAR'S "LIBYAN NATIONAL ARMY"

The headlines specify Russian military contractors have operated alongside east Libya-based commander Khalifa Haftar in Libya's bloody civil war. The contractors used Russian missile defense systems last month to shoot down a US drone.

Africom's Gen. Stephen Townsend told Reuters in a statement that he believes the Russian air defense operators "didn't know it was a US remotely piloted aircraft when they fired on it."

"But they certainly know who it belongs to now and they are refusing to return it. They say they don't know where it is, but I am not buying it," Townsend said.

Africom's spokesman Air Force Col. Christopher Karns told Reuters that either Russian military contractors or Haftar's Libyan National Army were operating Russian missile launchers at the time the incident was reported around Nov. 21.

Karns said Africom believes air defense operators accidentally shot down the US drone after "mistaking it for an opposition" aircraft.

Townsend also said Russia's increasing presence in Oil-rich Libya had alarmed Africom.

"This highlights the malign influence of Russian mercenaries acting to influence the outcome of the civil war in Libya, and who are directly responsible for the recent and sharp increase in fighting, casualties and destruction around Tripoli," Townsend said.

Libya was thrown into civil war nearly a decade ago when NATO forces overthrew Moammar Gadhafi. It's been another great blunder for Western military forces who've spent the last several decades crusading around the Middle East.

The latest outbreak of fighting has been based in Tripoli. Since about 2015, Libya has seen its government splintered into two, one based in Tripoli and the other in the country's east. The eastern government forces have been attempting to recapture Tripoli since April, and fierce fighting in the capital continues into the late year.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 04:15 Tags War Conflict Politics

Ilargi: Assange And Auschwitz

9 December 2019

Ilargi: Assange And Auschwitz

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

When I read that Angela Merkel visited Auschwitz this week (for the first time ever, curiously, after 14 years as Chancellor, and now it’s important?), my first thought was: she should have visited Julian Assange instead. I don’t even know why, it just popped into my head. And then reflecting on it afterwards, of course first I wondered if it’s acceptable to compare nazi victims to Assange in any way, shape or form.

There are many paths to argue it is not. He is not persecuted solely for being part of a group of people (we can’t really use “race” here). There are not millions like him who are being tortured and persecuted for the same reasons he is. There is no grand scheme to take out all like him. There is no major police or army force to execute any such scheme. These things are all obvious.

But I grew up in Holland, where unlike in Merkel’s Germany, the aftermath of WWII and the Holocaust was very much present. I looked it up, and it’s already almost 10 years ago that I wrote Miep Gies Died Today, in which I explained this. Miep Gies was a woman who worked for Anne Frank’s father Otto, helped hide the family in the annex, and after the war secured Anne’s diary (or we would never have known about it) and handed it to Otto Frank.

So accusing me of anti-semitism for comparing the Holocaust to what is being done to Assange is not going to work. Why then did Merkel never visit Auschwitz before this week, and when she did, said how important it is to German history? And why did she not visit Assange instead?

Unlike the people who died in Auschwitz and other concentration camps (Anne Frank died in Bergen Belsen from typhoid), Julian Assange today, as we speak, IS being persecuted, he IS being tortured, and he IS likely to die in a prison. What does Angela Merkel think that Anne Frank would have thought about that? Would she have written in her diary that it was okay?

Would all those millions of Jewish and Roma and gay victims have thought that? There are 75+ years that have gone by. We can not get these victims back, we can not magically revive them. But we CAN make sure that what happened to them, torture and murder, doesn’t happen to people today. “Never Again”, right? Well, it IS happening again.

Are we all supposed to go say “I didn’t know” -“Ich hab es nicht gewüsst”- like the Germans did, and all those who collaborated with them across Europe?

There are victims who are dead, and there are victims who are -barely- alive. And if you claim you wish to honor the dead victims, you must ask what they would have felt about the ones like them who are still alive. Otherwise, you’re not honoring them, you’re just posing and acting and, in the end, grossly insulting them.

Julian Assange is not in a German prison, true, but Angela Merkel is still the uncrowned queen of Europe, and if she would visit Julian in his Belmarsh torture chamber it would make a huge difference. That she elects to visit Auschwitz instead, does not only make her appear hollow and empty, it is a grave insult to the likes of Anne Frank and all the other nazi victims.

Which brings me to another Assange-related issue. The Guardian’s editor, Katharine Viner, launched an appeal yesterday for people to donate money to her paper’s “climate emergency” fund. That in itself is fine. If people think they need to help save the planet with their savings, sure.

Though I will always have suspicions about all these things. From where I stand, I see too many people claiming to save the planet, oil CEOs and billionaires first, and too much money being invited to join their funds. If you want to donate something for the cause, why do it via a newspaper? But even with that in mind, yeah, whatever, it’s Christmas time. Who cares how effective the money will be?

My problem with Katharine Viner and the Guardian is that they have played a very active role in the smearing and persecution of Julian Assange. They’ve published articles that were proven to be 100% false, and never retracted them, or apologized, or attempted to make things right. The Guardian is a major reason why Julian is where he is. It has accommodated, make that encouraged, the British people’s “Ich hab es nicht gewüsst”.

You can donate to the Guardian’s climate emergency fund, if you believe they don’t run it to make you think they really care about the planet more than about their bottom line, but be careful: you will also be supporting the further smearing and persecution of Julian Assange. Are you sure you want to do that?

See, the headline for Katharine Viner’s article is: The Climate Crisis Is The Most Urgent Threat Of Our Time. And it’s not. The most urgent threat is that to Julian Assange’s health. That is today, not in 5 or 10 or 100 years. After all, what is the use of saving the planet if we allow the smartest and bravest among us to be tortured to death? What do we think Anne Frank would have said about that?

* * *

Include the Automatic Earth in your Christmas charity list. Support us on Paypal and Patreon. We need you.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 03:30

NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov

9 December 2019

NATO Seeking To "Dominate The World" & Eliminate Competitors: Russia's Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has charged NATO with wanting to “dominate the world” a day after 70th anniversary events of the alliance concluded in London.

“We absolutely understand that NATO wants to dominate the world and wants to eliminate any competitors, including resorting to an information war, trying to unbalance us and China,” Lavrov said from Bratislava, the capital of Slovakia, while attending the 26th Ministerial Council of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

He seized upon NATO leaders' comments this week, specifically Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, naming China as a new enemy alongside Russia. Stoltenberg declared at the summit that NATO has to “tackle the issue” of China’s growing capabilities.

Image via AFP

Lavrov told reporters Thursday: “I think that it is difficult to unbalance us and China. We are well aware of what is happening. We have an answer to all the threats that the Alliance is multiplying in this world.” He also said the West is seeking to dominate the Middle East under the guise of NATO as well.

The new accusation of 'world domination' comes at a crisis moment of growing and deep divisions over the future of the Cold War era military alliance, including back-and-forth comments on Macron's "brain death" remarks, and looming questions over Turkey's fitness to remain in NATO, and the ongoing debate over cost sharing burdens and the scope of the mission.

"Naturally, we cannot but feel worried over what has been happening within NATO," Lavrov stated. "The problem is NATO positions itself as a source of legitimacy and is adamant to persuade one and all it has no alternatives in this capacity, that only NATO is in the position to assign blame for everything that may be happening around us and what the West dislikes for some reason."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, via AFP.

A consistent theme of Lavrov's has been to call for a "post-West world order" but that NATO has "remained a Cold War institution" hindering balance in global relations where countries can pursue their own national interests.

NATO still exists, according to Lavrov, in order to "eliminate competitors" and ensure a West-dominated global system in search of new official enemies.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 02:45 Tags War Conflict Politics

Christmas Election: A Step Nearer To Brexit?

9 December 2019

Christmas Election: A Step Nearer To Brexit?

Authored by Steven Guinness,

Having closely followed Brexit since Article 50 was first triggered in March 2017, what has become apparent to me is how each subsequent extension to the withdrawal process has been met with increased political instability.

Back in May I published an article on Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party just after they had won the UK leg of the EU elections. I wrote about how the rise of the party had coincided – by coincidence or otherwise – with Article 50 having been extended on two occasions.

Briefly, the birth of the party originated prior to the first Article 50 deadline of March 29th. The day after the withdrawal process was extended, Farage was pronounced leader of the Brexit Party. When the second extension of just two weeks was ratified, this time on April 11th for a further six months, twenty four hours later Farage officially launched the party – on the same day Britain had been due to leave the EU.

What has happened since, all within six months, has been threefold.

Firstly, Theresa May confirmed that she would step down as Prime Minister on June 7th. The announcement came just a couple of days before the Brexit Party were shown to have won the EU elections with over 30% of the vote.

Secondly, with May having resigned, it paved the way for Boris Johnson – the so called ‘populist‘ candidate – to become the next Prime Minister. When Parliament reconvened following the summer recess, MP’s voted to compel Johnson to request an extension to Article 50 until at least January 31st 2020 should the Commons fail to pass a withdrawal agreement by October 19th. After weeks of theatrics with the EU, Johnson brought back to Parliament a modified version of the deal that Theresa May had first negotiated. MP’s supported giving it a second reading, but it was ultimately pulled after the government’s timetable for getting it through Parliament inside just a few days to avoid another extension was rejected by MP’s. This made a further extension to the process inevitable.

Finally, the EU granted a three month extension with the option of leaving sooner should the Commons ratify a deal before January 31st. On the day they did this – October 29th – MP’s voted in favour of supporting a snap general election to be held on December 12th. This will, of course, take place inside the new extension window.

The trend of increased political disorder in conjunction with extensions to Article 50 is irrefutable. What is not yet clear is the scale of upheaval that may be about to occur over the next eight weeks.

We know that on the same day the election takes place on the 12th, the European Council will begin their final two day conference of the year. During the immediate aftermath of the election on the 13th, the council will be discussing Brexit and ‘preparations for the negotiations on future EU-UK relations after the withdrawal.’ There remains an air of finality in regards to the EU’s position on Brexit, insomuch that they expect the UK to shortly leave the union. The tone of central bankers within the EU is similar. Governor of the Bank of France, François Villeroy de Galhau, is now openly speaking about ‘beyond Brexit‘ and towards a ‘new European financial architecture‘ (which includes the vision of central bank digital currencies).

The Bank for International Settlements are also in conference on the 12th for the fourth workshop on ‘Research on global financial stability: the use of BIS international banking and financial statistics.’ The conference is in collaboration with the Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS), who’s members include central bank deputy governors and other senior officials. According to the BIS, the CGFS ‘monitors developments in global financial markets for central bank Governors.’ Whilst the timing of this meeting may be a coincidence, I mention it because when the original EU referendum took place in 2016 the BIS were gathering in Basel for their annual meeting. They were also in session on the same day the U.S. election was held several months later.

As for how the election might pan out, I believe there are two leading scenarios, both of which could pave the way towards an eventual disorderly exit from the EU.

The first is a Conservative majority which gives Boris Johnson the numbers to ratify the withdrawal agreement prior to January 31st, meaning no further extension to Article 50. Instead, the Brexit process would advance to the transition period that is set to run until the end of December 2020. Between now and then the UK and the EU would attempt to negotiate a trade deal as part of the ‘future relationship‘. The transition could be extended beyond the end of 2020, but only if both sides agree to do so by July 1st. Unlike with Article 50, Parliament would not have the authority to intervene to force the government into extending the transition. Therefore a Tory majority would potentially set up a no deal scenario a year from now.

If by the time we arrived at December 31st 2020 there was no agreed extension and no trade agreement in place, the transition period would end and the UK would be completely out of the EU and all its institutions on ‘no deal‘ terms (no deal in the sense of no trade deal). December 31st is significant for another reason, as it marks the end of the EU’s seven year budget cycle that began in 2014. So far a further seven year budget has not been agreed.

A potentially ominous sign that the transition period could be used to manipulate a no deal eventuality is how Boris Johnson recently declared that the possibility of no trade deal with the EU ‘simply will not happen.’ This is the man who pledged ‘do or die‘ to the UK leaving the EU on October 31st. The EU themselves have raised misgivings about the limited time available in signing off on a trade deal before 2021. The preparatory narrative for a no deal event in twelve months has gradually been developed.

Should globalists want the UK to leave the EU as I suspect, prolonging the process through a transition period would bring it directly into line with the 2020 U.S. election, where Donald Trump may secure a second term just as Brexit is about to happen. Both Brexit and Trump have been couched within the terms of right wing ‘populism‘ and ‘resurgent nationalism‘ ever since 2016. In their communications central bankers continue to single out the rise in ‘protectionism‘ as one of the main risks to global financial stability. And rather tellingly, they are talking up the prospect of introducing central bank issued digital currency as a future necessity in order to combat a global downturn and fulfil their goals for an economic ‘new world order.’

The second scenario for the election is a hung parliament with the Conservatives as the largest party. Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage has quietly been campaigning in Labour constituencies that voted to leave the EU over three years ago. Every opinion poll throughout the campaign has indicated that the party will win no seats in the election. But polls have proved a notoriously unreliable indicator since the EU referendum. Farage’s own prediction is for a low turnout, a small Tory majority and a ‘Brexit Party voice to try and keep Boris honest.’

Assuming Farage is wrong about the Tory majority, we would then have a scenario where Boris Johnson would again fall short of gaining sufficient support in parliament for ratifying the government’s withdrawal agreement. Of interest to me will be the parliamentary dynamic after the election. When Article 50 was extended back in September, the bill requiring the Prime Minister to seek delay had a majority of 28 MP’s. But if the Brexit Party did manage to defeat Labour candidates in the north, the dynamic could quickly shift the other way.

Right now the House of Commons is regarded as a ‘remain parliament‘. If Johnson does not secure a majority, the overriding expectation is for Article 50 to be extended again prior to January 31st. This is possible but not assured. I would expect a minority Conservative government to try and fail to push their deal through parliament following the election. A Brexit Party presence in Westminster could in the end prevent the deal from passing. Whilst on first glance this would set the Tories and the Brexit Party into conflict, where they would likely be united is in preventing any further extension to Article 50.

If the group of remain MP’s that return to parliament no longer had the numbers over leave MP’s, then a no deal outcome would become a genuine possibility next month.

In the end it comes down to whether the UK’s exit from the EU is a short or longer term objective for globalists. Whichever might prove the case, I would fully expect the process to persist under a Conservative government and by extension a right wing identity. As I have spoken about before, the moment Britain leaves the EU will be seen as a political decision, led by the supposed ‘populist‘ Boris Johnson. That decision could be taken either through rejection of extending Article 50 or through no trade agreement by the end of a transition period.

Whatever the outcome, the UK economy remains feeble and has on several occasions since the EU referendum been skirting with recession. I have no doubt that a volatile exit from the EU would be used to identify the next major economic downturn as the ‘Brexit Recession‘, and serve to protect the central banking community from any culpability.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 02:00 Tags Politics

The Next Pearl Harbour? China's Gold-Backed Crypto Currency Will Blindside US Dollar

9 December 2019

The Next Pearl Harbour? China's Gold-Backed Crypto Currency Will Blindside US Dollar

“A date which will live in infamy.”

Indeed, this weekend marks the 78th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, which opened the door for the United States to enter World War II. Turn on your TV and you will see military mavens rambling on, pontificating about ‘the defense of the realm’, all the while completely aloof and unaware of the American empire’s real Achilles heel.

Recent, financial pundit and TV host Max Keiser outlined such a scenario, and warned that the US will be blind-sided the day that China introduces its gold-backed crypto currency – an absolute game changer which would create a “catastrophic trapdoor opening underneath the US economy,” said Keiser.

Not surprisingly, very few mainstream financial pundits in the West are willing to admit that China possesses gold reserves in excess of 20,000 tons, and by introducing a gold-backed cryptocurrency, it has the ability to “kill the US dollar deader than a door nail …. a new Pearl Harbor-type event and it’s coming in the next six to nine months.”

Watch:

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_YBtIeX2iE]

Source: 21stCenturyWire.com

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/09/2019 - 01:00

Russia is BANNED from global sporting events including 2020 Tokyo Olympics over doping

9 December 2019

The World Anti-Doping Agency today banned Russia from global sporting events after accusing Moscow of falsifying data from an anti-doping laboratory.

The route the Easy Rider characters rode still offers a unique insight into America's soul

9 December 2019

Easy Rider turned actors Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper into the coolest superstars on the planet in 1969. Jeremy Taylor hops on a Harley and rides the road their characters took - the epic Route 66.

Hilarious pictures prove how cats can squeeze into the most awkward spaces

9 December 2019

Cats are known to have a mind of their own, and these pictures prove just how determined our feline friends are to get their own way.

I'm A Celebrity's Jacqueline Jossa passionately kisses husband Dan Osborne

9 December 2019

l'm A Celeb's Jacqueline Jossa has become the first winner to EVER cancel live TV interviews after Chloe Ayling's claims she had a threesome with her husband in 2018.

Labour vows to start £200billion mass nationalisation within WEEKS

9 December 2019

John McDonnell is pledging that kicking off huge plans for the state to take ownership of water, energy, rail and even broadband will be a key priority in the party's first 100 days.