Datasets:

andyP

/

fake_news_en_opensources

like 1

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/financial-markets/2012/01/greek-bond-talks-edge-toward-68-haircut-deal-will-the-deal-be-accepted-1644176.html

Greek Bond Talks Edge Toward 68% Haircut Deal; Will the Deal Be Accepted?

(Before It's News) Courtesy of Mish Former ECB president Jean Claude Trichet said there would be no haircuts. There were. The first Greek haircut was 21% and it was insufficient. The second Greek haircut deal was 50% and that too was insufficient. On each failed attempt, the ECB and EMU poured more money into Greece. There is now about €200bn of Greek debt held by banks, hedge funds and other investors up from about €50bn a couple years ago. A third renegotiation is now underway, rumored to be a 68% haircut. Clearly there would have been far fewer ramification on banks if Greece would have defaulted long ago. Such is the stubborn arrogance of ECB, and EMU officials. Unless another haircut is approved Greece, and still more money is poured into Greece, it will default on March 20 when a €14.5 billion bond repayment is due. The Financial Times reports Greek bond talks edge closer to deal Talks broke down last week with holders of close to €200bn of Greek debt after some eurozone officials called for a sharply lower coupon, or interest payment, on new bonds. The latest proposal called for a step-up coupon starting at about 3 per cent and rising to 4.5 per cent as the bond approached maturity, one banker said. Another said the average interest paid during the life of the bond would be 4.25 per cent, a rate “that the banks would be happy with”. The deal would amount to a 68 per cent loss for bondholders in net present value terms, according to people familiar with the talks. Banks will be happy with a 68% loss? I rather doubt it. Will the Deal Be Accepted? Peter Tchir at TF Market Advisors had some interesting comments on the likelihood of the “success” of the PSI (private sector initiative) in his post Greek PSI – Headlines And Reality

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/financial-markets/2012/01/bloomberg-on-the-worst-start-in-years-for-earnings-1644177.html

Bloomberg on The Worst Start in Years for Earnings

Bloomberg on The Worst Start in Years for Earnings (Before It's News) Courtesy of ZeroHedge. View original post here. Submitted by Tyler Durden. Presented with little comment except to note that Bloomberg’s Chart-of-the-Day highlights specifically what we have been discussing for weeks as in this earnings season, only 47% of companies in the S&P 500 have so far exceeded analyst expectations – the lowest since before the credit crisis. S&P 1300 FTW. Chart: Bloomberg Read more at Phil’s Stock World Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-technology/2014/02/enhanced-mri-relaxivity-of-aquated-gd3-ions-by-carboxyphenylated-water-dispersed-graphene-nanoribbons-2-2672476.html

Enhanced MRI relaxivity of aquated Gd3+ ions by carboxyphenylated water-dispersed graphene nanoribbons

Ayrat Gizzatov, Vazrik Keshishian, Adem Guven, Ayrat M. Dimiev, Feifei Qu, Raja Muthupillai, Paolo Decuzzi, Robert G. Bryant, James M. Tour, Lon J. Wilson The present study demonstrates a new high-performance MRI contrast agent with r 1 = 70 and r 2 = 108 mM -1 s -1 for applications in T 1 – and T 2 -weighted imaging. To cite this article before page numbers are assigned, use the DOI form of citation above. The content of this RSS Feed (c) The Royal Society of Chemistry

conspiracy

activistpost.com

2017-11-27

https://www.activistpost.com/2011/05/insanity-rampant-in-district-of.html

Insanity Rampant in the District of Criminals: now they want to tax us per mile

Marti Oakley, Contributing Writer Activist Post While the regular folks in the US labor under a failing economy, massive job losses, and uncontrolled illegal immigration, it seems those fine jackasses in the District of Criminals never run out of ideas on how to make life more miserable for those of us not considered “worthy”. Food prices have risen almost 90% in the last year; 60% of that rise occurring immediately after the passage of the fake food safety bill which was actually a forced export bill with 80% of our agricultural production now pushed into the global market for commodity speculation and pricing. Home foreclosures are still at historic highs. Of course the jackasses would never think of clamping down on corrupt mortgage lenders and seizing their ill-gotten gains or putting any one of them in jail for their corruption. That would be just too much to ask. As gas prices at the pump continue to rise without explanation it appears that the Jackass in Chief has decided it might be a good idea to attach surveillance equipment to each and every vehicle in the US and to tax us per mile that we drive. This traveling surveillance tax would be applied every time you bought a gallon of gas. I have some questions: 1. How much is this surveillance equipment going to cost per unit? 2. Who is going to pay the unit and for having it installed? 3. What if it fails? 4. What other information are they going to gather? 5. What if I don’t want my car gps’d? 6. Whom has the government already contracted with to produce these invasions of privacy? (and you know they have!) (For questions 1 & 2, the answers are…you and me!) From the article at CNSNEWS: “What I see this administration doing is this — thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure inAmerica,” he said. Strange . . . what I see is this administration trying to find some other way of raising revenue without letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the wealthy. Or, maybe a way to avoid cutting those $$38 billion in subsidies to oil cartels. As an aside here: I want to know why inflated taxation is not considered a penalty when applied to the middle and working classes, but is a penalty if applied equally and fairly to the wealthy? Someone? Anyone? Furthermore, so much of our infrastructure is for sale or has been sold to foreign governments, corporations and investors while at the same time what has remained owned has been allowed to deteriorate. So where was all the money in the Transportation Department going? Apparently, considering the crumbling condition of our highways, roads and bridges, it wasn’t going there. “It did work to build the interstate system and it was very effective, there’s no question about that. But the big question now is, We’re into the 21st century and how are we going to take care of our infrastructure needs … with a highway trust fund that had to be plused up by $$8 billion by Congress last year?” Hey! Mr LaHood! If you cut those tax breaks and subsidies to the oil cartels, you would have an additional $$30 billion after you deducted the $$8 billion you’re crying about, to take care of our infrastructure needs. $$30 billion would go a long way in job creation by putting people to work rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure, rather than putting $$38 billion in the pockets of cartels who are investing everywhere but here and who are simultaneously showing historically high profits. And one more thing Mr. LaHood….we don’t need no stinkin’ Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s) to do anything. What you are actually talking about here is the divvying up of our infrastructure assets and handing them over to those same foreign governments and corporations and calling it a “business model” (Agenda 21). The government funds these arrangements for the most part, the investor does some funding, and the whole mess is sold off in the end to people we never even knew were there. Through government collusion with a foreign, or even domestic, interest we lose what we bought and paid for. And on this Agenda 21 thing: With TSA now interferring with our legal right to travel freely, unaccosted by criminals, thugs, and other government employees, this per mile tax is the next step in the UN Agenda 21 Sequestered Populations plan. Many people will be forced into highly populated sequestered areas as a result of the additional costs and the refusal to comply with surveillance. What is at work here is the sytematic creation of plans meant to make it so difficult, so invasive for you to travel…you won’t! You’ll stay right in your little center like you are supposed to. It doesn’t surprise me that when we are facing disastrous economic and financial difficulties as a nation, a plan surfaces which will eventually be foisted on the states, funded in part by the federal government in order for it to be enforceable in the states (this according to the “Unfunded Mandates Act”) that will come down hardest on those who can least afford it. But this is not really about a new tax is it? Nor is it really about our infrastructure, is it? This is really about tracking and surveillance of the population. This is as close to REAL ID as they can get right now. We are drowning in debt as The District of Criminals squanders the nation’s wealth and the best idea they come up with is a plan to put surveillance on our vehicles? At what cost? Who are they going to borrow THAT money from? Even if this plan was only to raise revenue, it would take years for it to be effective. But that isn’t what this is about. It is about surveillance of the US population. It is about limiting your right to travel freely. And, it is ultimately about the wholesale sell-off of our infrastructure. Part of this plan also includes converting many roads and bridges to toll roads all across the country. That ought to slow up your travel plans. And why should we have to pay a toll on a road or bridge that we helped finance through the implementation of a “per mile” tax and years of gasoline taxes? It appears a new propaganda office has been established to sell the public on the idea of paying this new tax. The new “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives” was set up to study the modalities of transportation and to decide how best to convince us that this was a great idea; Propaganda that we will be forced to finance. I can’t help but wonder what the cost of this new office position and all the bloated staffing that will accompany it will cost us in addition to what the cost to us will be at the pump. And heaven knows those “studies” will end up costing us kazillions for some bureaucrat to fabricate the “evidence” that will be needed to force this intrusion on our rights, our privacy and our right to travel freely. And those minor jackasses in the House and Senate will do all they can to shove another piece of the police state down our throats. Sources: _________________ Obama’s Transportation Secretary Eyes Mileage Tax on American Motorists UN AGENDA 21 Marti Oakley is a political activist and former op-ed columnist for the St Cloud Times in Minnesota. She was a member of the Times Writer’s Group until she resigned in September of 07. She is neither Democrat nor Republican, since neither party is representative of the American people. She says what she thinks, means what she says, and is known for being outspoken. She is hopeful that the American public will wake up to what is happening to our beloved country . . . little of it is left. Her website is The PPJ Gazette

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/scientists-in-hong-kong-map-initial-anti-ageing-formula-2519688.html

Ye Olde False Flag

Scientists in Hong Kong map initial anti-ageing formula

Scientists in Hong Kong map initial anti-ageing formula % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) HONG KONG (Reuters) – Scientists in Hong Kong appear to have mapped out a formula that can delay the ageing process in mice, a discovery they hope to replicate in people. Their finding, published in the December issue of Cell Metabolism, builds on their work in 2005 which shed light on premature ageing, or progeria, a rare genetic disease that affects one in four million babies. Progeria is obvious in the appearance of a child before it is a year old. Although their mental faculties are normal, they stop growing, lose body fat and suffer from wrinkled skin and hair loss. Like old people, they suffer stiff joints and a buildup of plaque in arteries which can lead to heart disease and stroke. Most die before they are 20 years old. In that research, the team at the University of Hong Kong found that a mutation in the Lamin A protein, which lines the nucleus in human cells, disrupted the repair process in cells, thus resulting in accelerated aging. Conversely, in their latest work using both mice and experiments in petri dishes, they found that normal and healthy Lamin A binds to and activates the gene SIRT1, which experts have long associated with longevity. “We can develop drugs that mimic Lamin A or increase the binding between Lamin A and SIRT1,” Liu Baohua, research assistant professor of biochemistry at the University of Hong Kong, told a news conference on Thursday. http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-hong-ko…17083.html Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/12/iran-firms-that-shipped-arms-to-syria-hit-with-u-n-sanctions-2519690.html

Ye Olde False Flag

Iran firms that shipped arms to Syria hit with U.N. sanctions

Iran firms that shipped arms to Syria hit with U.N. sanctions % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – A U.N. Security Council committee on Thursday imposed sanctions on two Iranian firms that violated a U.N. arms embargo on Tehran by shipping weapons to the Syrian government. The move was welcomed by the United States. U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice said in a statement that the two firms blacklisted by the Iran sanctions committee were “significantly involved in Iranian arms smuggling, including smuggling to Syria.” “These companies – Yas Air and SAD Import Export Company – were responsible for shipping ammunition, assault rifles, machine guns, mortar shells and other arms from Iran to Syria,” she said. “The committee’s decision underscores the growing international concern over Iran’s use of the transportation and shipping sectors as a means to export arms and conduct other illicit activities in violation of U.N. sanctions,” Rice said. A U.N. panel of experts that monitors compliance with the Iran sanctions regime had recommended earlier this year that the sanctions committee add cargo airline Yas Air, SAD Import Export Company, and one other firm to the U.N. blacklist. The Security Council has imposed four rounds of sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt its nuclear enrichment program, which the United States, European Union and their allies suspect is at the heart of a weapons program. Iran rejects the allegation and refuses to halt what it says is a peaceful energy program. Among the punitive measures Iran was hit with was a ban on arms exports. http://news.yahoo.com/iran-firms-shipped…34791.html Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/remember-remember-the-5th-of-november-2-2467400.html

Remember Remember the 5th of November

Remember Remember the 5th of November (Before It's News) by theeastwatch Monday November 5th is National Buy Ammo day. Purchasing ammo on Monday is a message that the American people still stand firmly behind the second amendment and perhaps more importantly, that the public REALIZES their power to effect change peaceably through their wallets, AND shows their willingness to come together on issues in support of exercising such power. Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/democracy-and-elections-2467402.html

Democracy and Elections

(Before It's News) In elections people talk incessantly about “The System”. “The System is bad”. “The System must be changed”. “Vote for me, because I am going to change The System”. What system, exactly? Democracy under capitalism is reduced to people voting for competing groups of professional politicians, to giving the thumbs-up or the thumbs-down to the governing or opposition party (or parties). Political analysts call this the “elite theory of democracy” since under it all that the people get to choose is which elite should exercise government power. This contrasts with the original theory of democracy which envisages popular participation in the running of affairs and which political analysts call “participatory democracy”. This is the sort of democracy socialists favour but we know it’s never going to exist under capitalism. The most we will get under capitalism is the right to vote, under more-or-less fair conditions, for who shall control political power—a minimalist form of democracy but not to be dismissed for that since it at least provides a mechanism whereby a socialist majority could vote in socialist delegates instead of capitalist politicians. The only form of politics that is an effective antidote to bureaucratism is the kind of socialist politics that contains a strong element of radical democracy, radical in the sense that it is not simply concentrating on the issue of democracy but upon the whole concept of leadership. Eugene Debs was one political party leader who recognised this. “I am not a labor leader. I don’t want you to follow me or anyone else. If you are looking for a Moses to lead you out of the capitalist wilderness you will stay right where you are. I would not lead you into this promised land if I could, because if I could lead you in, someone else could lead you out.” And elsewhere he says :- “I never had much faith in leaders. I am willing to be charged with almost anything, rather than to be charged with being a leader. I am suspicious of leaders, and especially of the intellectual variety. Give me the rank and file every day in the week… I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks.” Democracy must be the basic principle of both the movement to establish socialism and of socialist society itself. If a majority of workers really were as incapable of understanding socialism as many on the Left maintain, then socialism would be impossible since, by its very nature , as a society based on voluntary cooperation, it can only come into being and work with the conscious consent and participation of the majority. Socialism just cannot be imposed from above by an elite as envisaged by the Left. Political action must be taken by the conscious majority, without depending upon leadership. It is upon the working class that the working class must rely for their emancipation. Working class emancipation necessarily excludes the role of political leadership. Even if it could be conceived of a leader-ridden working class displacing the capitalist class from power such an immature class would be helpless to undertake the responsibilities of democratic socialist society. Valuable work may be done by individual teachers, writers and speakers, and this work may necessarily raise them to prominence, but it is not to individuals that the working class must look. The movement for freedom must be a working class movement. It must depend upon the working class vitality and intelligence and strength. Until the knowledge and experience of the working class are equal to the task of revolution there can be no emancipation for them. For the Trotskyist-Lenininist Left, all union activity (and community struggles etc) should be mediated by the Party , whereas , the Party should be seen as just one mode of activity available to the working class to use in their struggles i.e. a tail to be wagged by the dog. It is NOT the Party’s task to lead the workers in struggle or to instruct its members on what to do in trade unions, because class conscious workers and socialists are quite capable of making decisions for themselves. Indeed, the failure of the Russian Revolution can be described as premature – the material ground-work had been insufficiently developed, one of the pre-conditions required for Socialism . However let us not over look while this obstacle no longer applies in the modern world, the other pre-requisite remains, the need for majority understanding and the desire for Socialism. Elections “Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled.” – Karl Marx “I’d rather vote for something I want and not get it than vote for something I don’t want, and get it.” – Eugene V. Debs The Socialist Party of Great Britain campaigns on the maximum programme of socialism and nothing less than socialism. Socialists have no illusions about the democratic credentials of the politicians of the Left, the Right or the Centre. What the capitalist class, and the political parties that serve that class, call democracy is a contrived form of consensus in which the political parties conspire to ensure that the maximum number of people accept a system of law which guarantees a minority class in society the legal right to own and control the means of life of the great majority. To achieve and maintain that system of Law – and the Order that ensures the right of that minority to exploit and impoverish the majority – capitalism must have political control of the state machine. A vital part of the process that maintains the illusion of democratic choice is the power to confine political knowledge – and, thus, political options – to those parties whose policies are firmly rooted in an acceptance of capitalism. When it comes to elections, choice is governed by information and knowledge and, since the allegedly democratic parties have ensured that the public have information about, and knowledge of, the present system and the politicians offering themselves to run this system capitalism goes unchallenged. Like Henry Ford’s Model T, which was available in any colour providing it was black, current “democratic” practice is to allow us the widest possible choice as long as it is capitalism.Of course capitalist politicians and the people to whom capitalism entrusts the control of news and information will hotly dispute this. A party stating a case for an alternative way of running society would be disadvantaged, for capitalist politics, its parties and its media, are not based on rational examination of ideas but on the performance of media celebrities. But there is one heartening thought: unlike the parties of capitalism whose purpose is a permanent struggle, to gain power and, when power has been lost, struggle to regain it, our purpose is to make that initial breakthrough which will finally overcome the ability of capitalism’s political agents to lie, confuse and misinform and unlike politicians elected to service capitalism, socialist delegates will not be observing parliamentary meaningless rituals but real participative democracy in the administration of social affairs, at local, regional and world levels, will be the order of the day . The No Leader Party There is one political party that does take the issue of leadership seriously and since its formation over a hundred years ago, it has had no leader ! The SPGB is like no other political party in Britain. It is made up of people who have joined together because we want to get rid of the profit system and establish real socialism. The Socialist Party is a leader-less political party where its executive committee is solely for housekeeping admin duties and cannot determine policy or even submit resolutions to conference (and all the EC minutes available for public scrutiny access on the web as proof of our commitment to openness and democracy). All conference decisions have to be ratified by a referendum of the whole membership. Even our General Secretary has no position of poweror authority over any other member. Despite some very charismatic writers and speakers in the past, no personality has held undue influence over the the SPGB. It is a political party that is totally democratic, an organization of equals. The SPGB and its American companion party WSPUS has an absolute need of supporters with understanding and self-reliance. As far i am aware there is just one political party that every time it stands for election insists that no-one votes for it unless they understand and accept and want what they want, which is free access socialism. There has been a Marxist-based (a William Morris/Peter Kropotkin amalgam, may be a better description ) but non-Social Democrat 2nd Internationalist, non-Leninist 3rd Internationalist, non-Trotskyist 4th Internationalist, alternative political party, that has been presented (with not much success) a formally structured opposition to capitalism for over a 100 years. The longevity of the SPGB as a political organisation based on agreed goals, methods and organisational principles which has produced without interruption a monthly magazine for over a hundred years through two world wars is an achievement that most anarchist (and Left) organisations can only aspire towards . It is a political party that is an organization of equals. Working class emancipation necessarily excludes the role of political leadership. The SPGB and its American companion party WSPUS has an absolute need of supporters with understanding and self-reliance. Our aim is to persuade others to become socialist and act for themselves, organizing democratically and without leaders, to bring about the kind of society that we advocate. We reject the idea that people can be led into socialism. Socialism will not be established by good leaders but by thinking men, women and children. There can be no socialism without socialists. Democracy and majority decision-making must be the basic principle of both the movement to establish socialism and of socialist society itself. If a majority of workers really were as incapable of understanding socialism as many on the Left maintain, then socialism would be impossible since, by its very nature as a society based on voluntary cooperation, it can only come into being and work with the conscious consent and participation of the majority. Socialism just could not be imposed from above by an elite as envisaged by the Left. Democracy is not the mere counting of noses; it is the only principle of organisation compatible with a classless society. A real democracy is fundamentally incompatible with the idea of leadership. It is about all of us having a direct say in the decisions that affect us. Leadership means handing over the right to make those decisions to someone else. We don’t vote for leaders to implement this or that decision; we vote according to our ideological inclinations to give them a “free hand” to make decisions. The point is that the very mechanism of decision-making we have today is a product of the social system we live under. The market economy, with its built-in contradictions and conflicting interests, has massively complicated the process of decision-making itself. It has moved it further and further from the ambit of “ordinary people” as the system itself has become more and more globalised. It is this that has made the paper pledges of our elected leaders seem increasingly irrelevant and ineffectual. Uninformed voting has disastrous consequences. Voters say blame someone else. They say that they do not have time to research the issues. An uninformed voter is dangerous and should stay home on election day. It is better to not vote at all, than to cast an uninformed ballot. The originally Marxist Social Democratic parties had in addition to the “maximum” programme of socialism what they called a “minimum programme” of immediate reforms to capitalism. What happened is that they attracted votes on the basis of their miniumum, not their maximum, programme, i.e. reformist votes, and so became the prisoners of these voters. In parliament, and later in office, they found themselves with no freedom of action other than to compromise with capitalism. Had they been the mandated delegates of those who voted for them (rather than leaders) this could be expressed by saying that they had no mandate for socialism, only to try to reform capitalism. It was not a case of being corrupted by the mere fact of going into national parliaments but was due to the basis on which they went there and how this restricted what they could do. In short, it is not power as such that corrupts. It is power obtained on the basis of followers voting for leaders to implement reforms that, if you want to put it that way, “corrupts”. The Socialist Party advocates only socialism and nothing but (the so-called “maximum programme”). We do not advocate that the State be used to create socialism, but that the State is used to abolish capitalism and used to abolish itself. To prevent the use of the State in the suppression of socialism by capturing it and emasculating it The socialist revolution A socialist revolution first must take place in the heads of the workers, then will follow the conquest of political power, the overthrow of the capitalist system and the establishment of socialism. Certain characteristics distinguish the socialist revolution from all previous revolutions. For the first time has a social revolution become possible and necessary in the interests of the great bulk of the population, the working class. The lack of socialists is all that stands in the way of socialism. The revolution cannot be rammed down the throats of the workers against their understanding or desire. In the name of building up a socialist movement among the masses, some have emasculated and compromised socialist principles. The only factor in all the material conditions of today that I can see standing in the way of socialism is the political ignorance of the workers. Socialism is possible, necessary and practical today the moment the great majority become conscious of their interests. The notion that the workers are dumb is plain hogwash but often confused, especially by the “friends” of socialism, speaking in the name of socialism. In order to fit themselves for this task the workers must acquire the consciousness which alone can enable them to do so. This consciousness must comprise, first of all, a knowledge of their class position. They must realize that, while they produce all wealth, their share of it will not, under the present system, be more than sufficient to enable them to reproduce their efficiency as wealth producers. They must realize that also, under the system they will remain subject to all the misery of unemployment, the anxiety of the threat of unemployment, and the cares of poverty. They must understand next the implications of their position – that the only hope of any real betterment lies in abolishing the social system which reduces them to mere sellers of their labor power, exploited by the capitalists. They will see then, since this involves dispossessing the master class of the means through which alone the exploitation of labor power can be achieved, there must necessarily be a struggle between the two classes – the one to maintain the present system of private (or class) ownership of the means of living and the other to wrest such ownership from them and make these things the property of society as a whole. This is the struggle of a dominant class to maintain its position of exploitation, on the one hand, and of an enslaved and exploited class to obtain its emancipation, on the other. It is a class struggle. A class which understands all this is class-conscious. It has only to find the means and the method by which to proceed, in order to become the fit instrument of the revolution. The lure and fascinations of protest demonstrations and making demands is very attractive. It indicates how deep-rooted discontent with capitalism really is, and it demonstrates the latent strength of socialism once the masses wake up to the need for changing the system instead of adjusting to it. The bond that makes us as one and inspires us is the recognition that capitalism can no longer be reformed or administered in the interest of the working class or of society, and the understanding that conditions are now ripe for socialism, which is the solution for society’s problems. All that is lacking is a socialist majority. This says it all! This is the essence of our principles. The socialist movement is not only heart, but is a combination of heart and head. Socialism is not the result of blind faith, followers, or, by the same token, vanguards and leaders. Nothing is more repugnant to socialism than clever strategy and conspiratorial tactics. Socialism is not possible without socialists. What makes socialist work stirring and inspiring is not that there are short cuts , but that there is nothing else worth a tinker’s damn. The seeming failures, the disappointments and discouragements, the slow growth, only indicate that socialist work is not an easy task. There is no short cut to socialism, short of socialist determination. Our latent strength lies in the fact that science, truth, and above all, necessity, is on the side of the revolutionary socialist movement. But the alternative facing us is either socialism or chaos. Basically, there are only three ways of winning control of the State: (a) armed insurrection; (b) more or less peaceful mass demonstrations and strikes; (c) using the electoral system. The World Socialist Movement has adopted (c), but without ruling out (b) or even (a) should conditions change (or in other parts of the world where conditions were different). But this is not simply putting an “X” on a ballot paper and letting the Socialist Party and its MPs establish Socialism for workers. The assumption is that there will be a “conscious” and active Socialist majority outside Parliament, democratically organised both in a mass Socialist political party and, at work, in ex-trade union type organisations ready to keep production going during and immediately after the winning of political control. The most important precondition to taking political control out of the hands of the owning class is that the majority are no longer prepared to be ruled and exploited by a minority and they must withdraw their consent to capitalism and class rule and they must want and understand a socialist society of common ownership and democratic control.The vote is merely the legitimate stamp which will allow for the dismantling of the repressive apparatus of the States and the end of bourgeois democracy and the establishment of real democracy.It is the Achilles heel of capitalism and makes a non-violent bloodless revolution possible.What really matters is a conscious socialist majority outside parliament, ready and organised to take over and run industry and society; electing a socialist majority in parliament is essentially just a reflection of this. It is not parliament that establishes socialism, but the socialist working-class majority outside parliament and they do this, not by their votes, but by their active participating beyond this in the transformation of society. Having adopted (c), various other options also follow. Obviously, if there’s a Socialist candidate people who want Socialism are urged to vote for that candidate. But what if there’s no Socialist candidate? Voting for any other candidate is against the principles. So what to do? The basic choice is/was between abstention and spoiling the ballot paper.Not voting at all is a valid option , but casting blank ballots or some other form of actively announcing not voting is better .One or two spoilers/blank voters can be ignored, tens of thousands or even millions could not be – especially if backed by a vocal movement explaining the situation. A concerted campaign of spoiling the ballot paper by writing “socialism” across it would signify a write-in vote (of course, now with electronic voting, this choice is now denied us) . What we say is that democracy can and does change things, that it is not democracy that is the problem, but rather that it is the system underlying the democracy, that makes it imperfect. What we have to do is push for more democracy, not less . We want to protect the idea of democracy but not the idea that voting someone into power will solve your problems for you. Nor the idea that voting for something is in itself enough. We protect the idea of democracy by propagating the case for it and by practising it. And also by calling for an organised and collective campaign of spoilt ballot papers. The World Socialist Movement has never held that a merely formal majority at the polls will give the workers power to achieve Socialism. We have always emphasised that such a majority must be educated in the essentials of Socialist principles and have a party democratically organised. It is the quality of the voters behind the vote that, in the revolutionary struggle, will become decisive. Socialism where workers are liberated and empowered is not just identical with the existing level of class struggle. The ideas about the aim derive from, are shaped by, the class struggle, but they also transcend it. It is hard to see how the working class would develop the ability to figure out how to reorganize society if they don’t talk about and discuss and clarify their ideas of this, their vision of where they would like to go. It is highly unlikely that an entire new social order emerges suddenly, spontaneously in some crisis. More likely that people would “spontaneously” fall back into old habits inculcated by class society, such as giving power to leaders to make decisions for them. We need to know where we are going if we set out on a journey , otherwise we all risk ending up in different places . Agreeing a consensus on the route and the mode of transport would also be desirable. We all must learn from our own particular exploitation but it is also necessary to go further and recognise the commonality of how we are controlled and conditioned . Then we seek common cause and action . We cannot create an hierarchy of degree of individual exploitation . Reform, Struggle and Revolution The SPGB/World Socialist Movement does not deny that certain reforms won by the working class have helped to improve our general living and working conditions. Indeed, we see little wrong with people campaigning for reforms that bring essential improvements and enhance the quality of their lives, and some reforms do indeed make a difference to the lives of millions and can be viewed as ‘successful’. There are examples of this in such fields as education, housing, child employment, work conditions and social security. Indeed, how could a party composed of workers and committed to the working-class interest be opposed to any measure that improved, however marginally and temporarily, conditions for workers – but our opposition is to reformism, in the sense of a policy of actively seeking reforms. However, in this regard we also recognise that such ‘successes’ have in reality done little more than to keep workers and their families in efficient working order and, while it has ameliorated the problem, it has rarely managed to remove the problem completely. Reformism means POLITICAL action or pressure put on the state to modify the economic behaviour of capitalism. For example, voting for the Labour Party to introduce a minimum wage is reformist; joining your local Freecycle movement is not. There is no attempt to influence the state to introduce reforms therefore it is not reformist – anymore than joining a trade union is “reformist”. Another example could be advocating the abolition of the death penalty which would not be reformist . What we are opposed to is the whole culture of reformism, the idea that capitalism can be made palatable with the right reforms, By that, we mean that we oppose those organisations that promise to deliver a programme of reforms on behalf of the working class, often in order that the organisation dishing out the promises can gain a position of power. Such groups, especially those of the left-wing, often have real aims quite different to the reform programme they peddle. In this, they are being as dishonest as any other politician, from the left or right. The ultimate result of this is disillusionment with the possibility of radical change. On the other hand, a concession wrung from the capitalists without compensation, such as a reduction of the working day with no loss of daily pay, is a triumph. The Socialist Party has always drawn a distinction between reformism and trade-unionism (economic action,against employers, over the price and conditions of sale of labour power). We oppose the former (even if we don’t necessarily oppose all reform measures as such) and support the latter as long as it is one sound lines (democratically organised, recognising that employers are the class enemy, etc). As Socialists, we see in this something that is to the good in the class struggle. These efforts of the workers to combine, either to resist the onslaughts of the master class, or to gain whatever they can, must meet with the support of all workers who understand their class position.The struggle on the economic field must be looked to and encouraged. The particular form of economic organisation through which the struggle is conducted is one which the circumstances of the struggle must mainly determine. The chief thing is to maintain the struggle as long as capitalism lasts.(Things get complicated when trade-unions start getting involved in reformist political action, but then our members in the unions oppose such actions as unsound.) The Socialist Party of Great Britain also wholeheartedly supports the efforts of workers everywhere to secure democratic rights against the powers of suppression. Whilst we avoid any association with parties or political groups seeking to administer capitalism we emphasise that freedom of movement and expression, the freedom to organise in trade unions, to organise politically and to participate in elections, are of great importance to all workers and are vital to the success of the socialist movement. In other words, although individual reforms may be worthy of support, the political strategy of reformism—promising to win reforms on the behalf of others—is a roundabout that leads nowhere. Some improvements are made and some problems are alleviated. Yet new kinds of problems arise which require addressing in a society that is forever changing .Or of defending the status quo against some ‘anti-reform’ when gains are being undermined . For the reformer’s work is never done under capitalism. Another factor to be considered is that organisations that have a commitment to socialism but who also advocate a reform programme were in practice swamped by people who were attracted by their reforms rather than their supposed commitment to abolishing capitalism. In these circumstances,and those those who viewed reforms as a stepping-stone to socialism were themselves swamped by people for whom reforms were simply an end in themselves, palliating the worst excesses of the system. In 1890 William Morris wrote an essay ‘Where are we now?’, as he left the Socialist League and looked back over his time in that organisation and the Social Democratic Federation. He saw two ‘methods of impatience’, as he termed them. One was futile riot or revolt, which could be easily put down. – The armed struggle in modern terms . The other was, to use the then-popular label, ‘palliation’, what we would now call reformism. Morris (and the SPGB/WSM) resolutely opposed both, since they would be carried out by people who did not know what Socialism was and so would not know what to do next, even if their efforts were successful on their own terms. Instead he advocated propagating Socialist ideas: “Our business, I repeat, is the making of Socialists, i.e., convincing people that Socialism is good for them and is possible. When we have enough people of that way of thinking, they will find out what action is necessary for putting their principles in practice. Until we have that mass of opinion, action for a general change that will benefit the whole people is impossible.” As for reformism to fight for present existing life, to resist capital’s encroachment and to improve our economic condition does not delay the overthrow of the present social system. When the worker acquires revolutionary consciousness he is still compelled to make the non-revolutionary struggle of every-day life . It is the propagating of the idea that THROUGH a policy or programme of reforms that the workers’ situation can somehow be intrinsically improved or that it can progress towards the establishment of a socialist society that the SPGB adamantly refuses to recognise . The conditions of existence of the wage-workers depends upon their wages. It is not determined by the legal law, but by the economic law of supply and demand. The condition of existence of the wage-workers is determined by the progress of the development of machinery, the concentration of capital, the proportion of the unemployed industrial reserve army. Although the bettering of the conditions of existence by way of political reform is impossible, it is not the same as regards the conditions of fighting. To distinguish between the conditions of fighting and the conditions of existence is not to split hairs. The difference is real. Some reforms would render the attacks of the proletariat more powerful, those of capitalism weaker- the right to strike , the right to picket , for instance . The class struggle is, therefore, both industrial and political but the SPGB consider the latter as being its ultimate form and its revolutionary form . William Morris also wrote “The palliatives over which many worthy people are busying themselves now are useless because they are but unorganised partial revolts against a vast, wide-spreading, grasping organisation which will, with the unconscious instinct of a plant, meet every attempt at bettering the conditions of the people with an attack on a fresh side.” “I believe that the Socialists will certainly send members to Parliament when they are strong enough to do so; in itself I see no harm in that, so long as it is understood that they go there as rebels, and not as members of the governing body prepared to pass palliative measures to keep Society alive.” What is the role of a revolutionary organisation except to bring under its umbrella all the struggles of the working class into a mass movement. To unify towards one goal. The Abolition of Capitalism . With or without revolutionary organisations, workers and oppressed peoples will and do resist and they discover for themselves the best means of that struggle . Unlike Leninist/Trotskist parties , the SPGB along with many anarchists has no program of assuming leadership of such struggles and its only advice is simple – such movements has to be democratic , and adding the caveat, that such victories which are achieved will never fully satisfy aspirations and may indeed be only transitory and require constant defending . So , therefore , understanding that the working class ( and , of course , it accepted that we are a heterogenous class – with conflicting interests at times and in certain places ) do engage in the class struggle and require no declaration of class war from any political group ,what then is the role of a revolutionary party but to advocate and educate , until itself is in a position of being a mass movement that can go on to organise as the expression of the class . And what is it we advocate and educate for ? A new society that is an alternative to the existing one . And if you consider that as abstract propagandaism , so be it , we plead guilty . But we stand accused alongside many others “… It’s very seldom that a revolutionary organization can “convince” people that they should make fundamental changes in society . The need to make changes , not to speak of the conviction that they should make them , is overwhelmingly the work of historical forces , such as serious economic crises , social instability , ecological breakdown , and the like . But it is on eo thye tasks of a revolutionary organization to offer them hope , the sense that the world couldbe better if they acted as social beings . People must sensethat they need notforver beleaguered by th4 demands f modern apitiatlis , that insufferable conditions need not exist , that better world is possible if they act …A serious revolutionary movement can provide to discontented people who feel oppressed by bourgeois society but do not clearly know why by making the problems created by capitalism explicable to them and providing them with a clear direction that they understand and pursue …” Murray Bookchin A tiny irrelevant sect , perhaps , but at least we understand the limitations of a revolutionary organization in our present time and make no grandoise claims of our own organisation’s importance to the workers actual battles in the class struggle , that they can and do conduct without the intervention of a revolutionary political party . The crime is to forget what we struggle for . Revolutionary Voting – peacefully if possible, forcefully if need be The SPGB reject ALL forms of minority action to attempt to establish socialism, which can only be established by the working class when the immense majority have come to want and understand it. Without a socialist working class, there can be no socialism. The establishment of socialism can only be the conscious majority, and therefore democratic, act of a socialist-minded working class. Whereas you can make people do what they do not wish to do, you cannot make them adopt a set of social relations which require their voluntary co-operation if they do not voluntarily co-operate . In these circumstances the easiest and surest way for such a socialist majority to gain control of political power in order to establish socialism is to use the existing electoral machinery to send a majority of mandated socialist delegates to the various parliaments of the world. This is why we advocate using Parliament .Not to try to reform capitalism (the only way Parliaments have been used up till now ), but for the single revolutionary purpose of abolishing capitalism and establishing socialism by converting the means of production and distribution into the common property of the whole of society. No doubt, at the same time, the working class will also have organised itself, at the various places of work, in order to keep production going, but nothing can be done here until the machinery of coercion which is the state has been taken out of the hands of the capitalist class by political action. Naive reformism, some insurrectionists wish to claim , but can they offer alternative strategies that is not flawed . The vote is not a gift to the masses from the Government out of the beneficence of its heart . We don’t advocate de facto disenfranchisement of the worker by promoting political abstention . The right to vote can become a powerful instrument to end our servitude and to achieve genuine democracy and freedom. Working people with an understanding of socialism can utilise their vote to signify that the overwhelming majority demand change and to bring about social revolution. The first object of a socialist organisation is the development of the desire for Socialism among the working class and the preparation of the political party to give expression to that desire. What our capitalist opponents consequently do when the majority wish to prevail will determine our subsequent actions . If they accept defeat , well and good . If they choose not to accept the verdict of the majority which is given through the medium of their own institutions and contest that verdict by physical force, then the workers will respond in kind , with the legitimacy and the authority of a democratic mandate . The important thing is for the workers to gain control of the political machinery, because the political machine is the real centre of social control – not made so by capitalist rulers but developed and evolved over centuries and through struggles . The power over the means of life which the capitalist class has, is vested in its control of the political machinery. Ownership of the world’s economic resources is certainly an economic factor, but that ownership, if challenged, will find its means of enforcement by and through the State political machine, which, as everybody should know, includes the armed forces. Of course, an elaborate legal machinery exists whereby claims on private property are settled among the capitalists themselves, but behind the Judicature and the Legislature stands the means of enforcing the decrees. The political arm of capitalism rules the economic body of the system in the final analysis: which reveals the chief reason why the capitalist class concern themselves so much about political action; they realise that in this field their economic interest finds its ultimate, if not immediate, protection. Thus, the political organisation of the workers for Socialist purposes is thrust upon us as a primary and imperative necessity. The SPGB, in aiming for the control of the State, is a political party in the immediate sense. The workers’ political organisation must precede the economic, since, apart from the essential need of the conquest of the powers of government, it is on the political field that the widest and most comprehensive propaganda can be deliberately maintained. It is here that the workers can be deliberately and independently organised on the basis of Socialist thought and action. In other words, Socialist organisation can proceed untrammelled by ideas other than those connected with its revolutionary objective. The SPGB claims to be Marxist . “The irony of history turns everything topsy-turvy. We, the ‘revolutionists’, thrive better by the use of constitutional means than by unconstitutional and revolutionary methods. The parties of law and order, as they term themselves, are being destroyed by the constitutional implements which they themselves have fashioned.” – Engels . To paraphrase , our “reformist” [as you accuse] parliamentarianism transforms elections from a means of deceit into a means of emancipation “…the more the proletariat matures towards its self-emancipation, the more does it constitute itself as a separate class and elect its own representatives in place of the capitalists. Universal suffrage is the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It can and never will be that in the modern State. But that is sufficient. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage reaches its boiling point among the labourers, they as well as the capitalists will know what to do.” – Engels again . The SPGB position is consistent with Marx’s presuppositions to recognise parliament as an institution geared to the needs of capitalism, and therefore inappropriate as the vehicle for a fundamental transformation of society , but yet to regard its connected electoral practices as coinciding with the principles involved in that transformation that adds the possibility of a peaceful transition to a new society . Having agreed that the socialist revolution requires the endorsement of the majority, the most obvious reposte is that you present no way of how, without counting individuals’ preferences as in a ballot, a majority is determined . We would like to take issue with some historic examples that the general will of the majority are always thwarted by the capitalist class . There has been much analysis of the Nazi’s and the one thing that is clear is that Hitler rejected putschism after 1923 and concentrated on the constitutional methods of achieving political power and became the largest party within the Reichstag , albeit not a party with a overall majority , although he did achieve the necessary two-thirds majority vote required to suspend the German constitution and pass the “Enabling Act “ that supposedly was meant to delegate just temporary power to him . It was through the capture of political power by the vote that the Nazi’s could impose and exercise their dictatorship and regardless of any attempt to re-write history , “…The overwhelming majority of Germans did not seem to mind that their personal freedom had been taken away…The Nazi terror in the early years affected the lives of relatively few Germans…On the contrary , they supported it with genuine enthusiasm…” [The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William Shirer]. Many other citations can be offered to demonstrate that the Nazis held power because that did have the support (granted perhaps in cases passive support) of the majority . Spain and Franco is often offered up as a evidence of the might of the military in the pay of the capitalist class but the first blood spilled was the summary execution of 200 senior officers who would not go against the Republic. Also just how many of Franco’s Moorish troops would have obeyed Franco’s orders if the Spanish Republic had promised Moroccan its independence. Also contrary to what many now think that Spain was a hot bed of anarchists. “Not only did the CNT lack the support of a majority of the Spanish people, they argued, but it lacked the support of the majority of the Spanish working class. Anarchosyndicalists were a minority within a minority. Even within the CNT membership, a large number of workers and peasants shared only a nominal allegiance to libertarian ideals. They were members of the CNT because the union was strong in their localities and work places. If these people, and the Spaniards generally, were not educated in Anarchist principles, warned the moderates, the revolution would simply degenerate into an abhorrent dictatorship of ideologues”[The Spanish Anarchists. The Heroic years - Murray Bookchin] Not the big majority of support that is pre-requisite for socialism . According to Wiki “… Mussolini thus legally reached power, in accordance with the Statuto Albertino , the Italian Constitution. The March on Rome was not the conquest of power which Fascism celebrated but rather a transfer of power within the framework of the constitution…” But , of course , it is argued that it was a “ …a transfer made possible by the surrender of public authorities in the face of fascist intimidation and the complicity of the bourgeoisie, who thought it would be possible to manipulate Mussolini…” In Chile’s case and Allende, if you deny Hitler the right as the majority party with minority vote then Allende must be denied his right to power too since his was 36.2 percent of the vote to 34.9 percent for Alessandri and with 27.8 percent going to a Tomic . For every coup, we can easily counter tenfold where the military stood passive or even actually provided support to the popular will . As for alternate strategies general strikes and massed actions and “ARMING “ of the masses, we are minded of James Connolly who believed that street fighting was the best tactic because the capitalist class would not destroy its own buildings being private property, their own bricks and mortar, and was then confronted by the British State which subsequently subjected him to artillery and cannon fire. I am also minded of what Bookchin wrote along the lines that you can only stay on the barricades for so long, after all , even revolutionaries need to eat. [At a personal level , I re-evaluated my politics when a friend developed diabetes and his concern became the supply of insulin during any revolutionary situation, that the pharmaceutical industries still functioned, that the distribution of medicines still continued . Hence , I sought the most peaceable means, the least disruptive method of change there could be towards socialism, an approach which became reinforced when my mother went into an old peoples home, raising the question of who will care and feed for the vulnerable during an insurrection. If we can't convince the workers to lift up a pencil and exercise their vote for us, we can hardly expect them to rise up and place their lives on the line - that appears to me to be naivity at its best] There is an assumption that those in the military are more immune to socialist propaganda, that they are divorced from civilian society, that they do not possess family and friends outside the military and therefore will be suffering from some type of ideological uneven development and that the social ideas of the general population will not be adopted by those in the armed forces. Surely, that is all up for debate. Don’t they have family an friends outside the forces. Don’t they have access to the media. If the military are singled out for this uneven development of consciousness, what other occupations should be included? But to repeat once more the SPGB case, the institution of parliament is not at fault . It is just that people’s ideas have not yet developed beyond belief in leaders and dependence on a political elite. Control of parliament by representatives of a conscious revolutionary movement will enable the bureaucratic-military apparatus to be dismantled and the oppressive forces of the state to be neutralised , so that Socialism may be introduced with the least possible violence and disruption. Parliament and local councils, to the extent that their functions are administrative and not governmental, can and will be used to co-ordinate the emergency immediate measures to transform society when Socialism is established. If Bookchin can favour a political a party, operating at local level, organising itself on democratic, non-hierarchical lines to participate in local elections why can’t a party contesting national elections do so? Why can’t local “libertarian municipalist” parties form a federation based on the principles of delegated democracy to win control of central state power without becoming a statist party? And if they could, why not do it? Surely this would be a better strategy than working to win control of local councils in the hope that when a majority of them had been won “the nation-state’s power would be sufficiently diminished that people would withdraw their support from it, and it would collapse like a house of cards”? Far better, is it not, if only to minimise the risk of violence, to also organise to win a majority in parliament too, not to form a government , but to end capitalism and dismantle the state. Political democracy is not just, a trick whereby the capitalist class get the working class to endorse their rule; it is a potential instrument that the working class can turn into a weapon to use in ending capitalism and class rule. Bookchin’s mistake was in being inconsistent in not realising that the principles of democratic organisation he recommends for his local municipalist organisations could equally applied on the broader political field, to the workers self-organised politically for socialism, i.e. to a workers’ socialist party in the fullest sense. We have previously qualified our endorsement of parliamentarianism, criticising bourgeois democacy as the best we can hope for under capitalism but not the ideal model possible for the revolutionary. Capitalist democracy is not a participatory democracy, which a genuine democracy has to be. In practice the people generally elect to central legislative assemblies and local councils professional politicians who they merely vote for and then let them get on with the job. In other words, the electors abdicate their responsibility to keep any eye on their representatives, giving them a free hand to do what the operation of capitalism demands. But that’s as much the fault of the electors as of their representatives, or rather it is a reflection of their low level of democratic consciousness. It can’t be blamed on the principle of representation as such. There is no reason in principle why, with a heightened democratic consciousness (such as would accompany the spread of socialist ideas), even representatives sent to state bodies could not be subject – while the state lasts – to democratic control by those who sent them there. The argument that anarchists usually put against this is that “power corrupts”. But if power inevitability corrupts why does this not apply also in non-parliamentary elected bodies such as syndicalist union committees or workers councils? Alternate strategies such as the General Strike are ones we also could employ in certain specific particular scenarios and therefore do not necessarily exclude them as tactics. What we do not do , but what some do,desire them as strategies and raise them to a point of political principle. Having earlier criticised James Connolly, we would like to agree now with this what he had to say : “…I am inclined to ask all and sundry amongst our comrades if there is any necessity for this presumption of antagonism between the industrialist and the political advocate of socialism. I cannot see any. I believe that such supposed necessity only exists in the minds of the mere theorists or doctrinaires. The practical fighter in the work-a-day world makes no such distinction. He fights, and he votes; he votes and he fights. He may not always, he does not always, vote right; nor yet does he always fight when and as he should. But I do not see that his failure to vote right is to be construed into a reason for advising him not to vote at all; nor yet why a failure to strike properly should be used as a gibe at the strike weapon, and a reason for advising him to place his whole reliance upon votes…” http://www.marxists.org:80/archive/connolly/1914/05/changes.htm

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/nadeau-dubois-to-appeal-contempt-of-court-verdict-2467406.html

The Media Co-Op

Nadeau-Dubois to appeal contempt of court verdict

Nadeau-Dubois to appeal contempt of court verdict (Before It's News) Ex-student coalition spokesperson says ruling will limit political expression in Quebec Following Thurday’s ruling finding him guilty of contempt of court for encouraging picket lines at univeristies and colleges, Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois announced Friday that he will appeal the decision. In a press conference, the ex-spokesperson for CLASSE – the student coalition that as central to the student strike agains ttuition fee increases that swept Quebec from February to September – said that he could not allow the judgement to stand, “[I cannot] accept that because of this ruling that there are people in Quebec who, in the future, will be afraid to defend their political opinions, even if they are backed by tens of thousands or people,” he said. The possibility that this could set a precendent for limiting political speech means that this case goes beyond his personal situation, he explained. Following the release of the ruling, several hundred people participated in a march on Thursday night to show their support for Nadeau-Dubois, as well as that other 3,000 people who were either charged with or found guilty of crimes during the student strike. Others have spoken out in support of Nadeau-Dubois, including the Fédération autonome de l’enseignement. “The ruling of contempt of court against someone who was legitimately acting as a spoeksperson can only give rise to indignation – even more so because Mr. Nadeau-Dubois was defending the decisions made democratically by the members for whom he spoke,” said FAE president Pierre St-Germain in a press release. Even a former opponent of Nadeau-Dubois’ questioned the ruling. In Saturday’s La Presse, Martin D’Amour, a law student who actively fought for the right to seek injunctions against picket lines during the strike, wrote that the judge was setting a dangerous precendent by equating the words “I believe” (used by Nadeau-Dubois) with “we must” or “I am calling on you to.” “If we follow this path [of the ruling], who is to say that it will not be you or I that the courts censor for poltiical reasons the next time there is a debate on sovereignty, reasonable accommodations, or the exploitation of natural ressources,” he wrote. Nadeau-Dubois’ legal fees are being covered by ASSÉ, the founding organization of CLASSE, but after months of striking their coffers are thinning due to other oexpenses. This, combined with the larger nature of the ruling, has resulted in a funding campaign called Appel à tous (A Call to All) where individuals and organizations are asked to donate to the legal defense fund. This fund joins Je donne à nous (I give to us all), a fund established to help fund the legal defenses of thousands of others arrested during the strike. Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/um-pouco-de-imagem-invertida-de-jeffrey-sachs-2467410.html

Center For A Stateless Society

Um Pouco de Imagem Invertida de Jeffrey Sachs

Um Pouco de Imagem Invertida de Jeffrey Sachs % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) The following article is translated into Portuguese from the English original, written by Kevin Carson. Num artigo no Huffington Post o economista e no passado caxias da política neoliberal Jeffrey Sachs (“O Engodo Orçamentário e o Declínio dos Estados Unidos,” 23 de julho) reclama das vezes em que Obama deixou-se dobrar — e também reclama pelo mesmo motivo de outros Democratas do establishement — pelos Republicanos. “Nos Estados Unidos, estadunidenses super-ricos levaram a melhor sem esforço. Nosso país é gerido por milionários e bilionários e, para milionários e bilionários, o resto do país que se dane.” O país é de propriedade de “os ricos e as corporações multinacionais.” Ele acusa os Democratas (“o Partido Democrático de propriedade de Wall Street”) de conluio para criar esse estado de coisas. Ele vem sendo o partido dos bancos desde que “o moderno Partido Democrático foi recriado por Bill Clinton e Robert Rubin.” Sachs também menciona, utilmente, que “viajo pelo mundo como parte de meu trabalho…” De fato. Hoje em dia ele se engaja em viagens de ricaços pelo mundo com pessoas “progressistas” como Bono (que, aliás, já deixou claras suas credenciais “progressistas” ao destacar a censura chinesa à Internet como modelo a ser usado pelos nazistas do copyright da Associação da Indústria de Gravação dos Estados Unidos/Associação Cinematográfica dos Estados Unidos para suprimir o movimento de compartilhamento de arquivos). Sem embargo, algumas das viagens mais antigas do Sr. Sachs, lá nos anos noventa, envolveram facilitar a entrega da Rússia a exatamente o mesmo tipo de cleptocracia de quadrilhas bancárias do qual ele agora reclama em relação aos Estados Unidos. Na verdade, ele pressionava no sentido dos mesmos tipos de “reforma de livre mercado” neoliberal na Rússia que o supramencionado Bob Rubin ajudou Clinton a forçar dentro dos Estados Unidos. E tenhamos em mente que aquilo que Sachs fez cessar era, plausivelmente, muito mais crível como política de genuíno livre mercado do que aquilo que ele colocou em seu lugar. O programa de privatização de Gorbachev envolvia converter a indústria estatal em cooperativas de trabalhadores autogeridas, em algo como o modelo de socialismo de mercado iugoslavo. E, na Polônia, o Solidariedade estava fazendo pressão pela reorganização da indústria estatal ao longo de linhas similares de cooperativas, administradas pelos sindicatos na forma de um modelo sindicalista. Era o modelo de Rothbard para privatizar a indústria estatal em países anteriormente de socialismo de estado: tratar a propriedade do estado como sem dono e deixar os trabalhadores que efetivamente a usavam tomar posse dela. Esse era o modelo proposto por David Ellermann, à época no Banco Mundial. Sachs não acatou nenhuma dessas propostas daqueles que desqualificou como “imbecis da autogerência.” O que ele queria era “capitalismo normal” segundo o modelo corporativo estadunidense, com um mercado de ações e pencas de mestres em administração de empresas empregados para despojar haveres, reduzir capital humano e presentearem-se a si próprios com multimilhões de bônus em rublos. De acordo com Naomi Klein, em A Doutrina do Choque, a “privatização” levada a efeito por Yeltsin, sob a benévola supervisão do Sr. Sachs, teve lugar desta forma: Os ministros de estado russos transferiram enormes fundos públicos para bancos de propriedade dos oligarcas — eles próprios figuras de proa do estado e da antiga liderança do Partido Comunista. Os bancos dos oligarcas, por sua vez, conduziram os leilões de privatização da indústria estatal — e eles próprios ofereceram os lances, usando os fundos apropriados fraudulentamente recebidos do governo. Klein referiu-se a isso como “a mineração predatória a céu aberto de um estado industrializado.” Isso, aliás — e a suspensão pela força, por Yeltsin, do parlamento, e seu governo por decreto — deixou amplamente de ser mencionado pelos mesmos indivíduos que atualmente guincham a propósito do autoritarismo de Putin. A diferença é que Yeltsin era o capanga deles. Em suma, depois da queda da Cortina de Ferro, Jeffrey Sachs ajudou a fazer com o povo do antigo bloco soviético o que Pinochet havia feito ao Chile. As pessoas tiveram sua revolução roubada de sob elas por Sachs e os de sua laia. É engraçado como certos “Progressistas” conseguem ser bem progressistas principalmente antes de serem postos no poder (como o Sr. Esperança e Mudança em 2008), ou depois de saírem dali (Sr. Sachs) — e não quando efetivamente estão no poder. Geleia ontem e geleia amanhã(*) — mas nunca geleia hoje. Engraçado, o efeito que o poder parece ter sobre os ideais “progressistas” dos que o detêm. (* A expressão em inglês é jam tomorrow, ‘geleia amanhã’, significando promessa nunca cumprida. Vem de Lewis Carroll, ‘Através do Espelho e o que Alice Encontrou Ali’. A rainha diz a Alice que, por dois centavos, ela teria geleia um dia sim, um dia não. E isso seria feito da seguinte maneira: geleia ontem, e geleia amanhã. Com isso, ter geleia hoje quebraria a regra de a geleia só estar disponível um dia sim, um dia não, e portanto geleia hoje seria sempre impossível. Ver Wikipedia, ‘Jam tomorrow’.) A gente quase começa a desconfiar ser impossível conseguir qualquer coisa progressista por meio do exercício do poder estatal. Artigo original afixado por Kevin Carson em 28 de julho de 2011. Traduzido do inglês por Murilo Otávio Rodrigues Paes Leme. The Center for a Stateless Society (www.c4ss.org) is a media center working to build awareness of the market anarchist alternative Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/tar-sands-blockade-radical-environmentalism-is-radical-libertarianism-2467412.html

Center For A Stateless Society

Tar Sands Blockade: Radical Environmentalism is Radical Libertarianism

Tar Sands Blockade: Radical Environmentalism is Radical Libertarianism (Before It's News) As Charles Johnson notes in The Clean Water Act Vs. Clean Water, asking the government for help is generally counterproductive, especially when it comes to addressing ecological concerns. Unfortunately, Johnson is also right in saying that market anarchists don’t talk about environmental concerns as much as they should. Many libertarians are right to see through the greenwashing propaganda used to support government legislation and corporate marketing, but end up also ignoring the real issues at hand. Free Market Environmentalism is certainly accurate in its analysis that protecting property rights is a core issue, as the violation of property rights contributes to most environmental degradation around the world. My fear is that this analysis is, more often than not, only used as a way to promote free market claims instead of highlighting the major issue here: environmentalism and property rights go hand and hand. Therefore every libertarian who cares about property rights should also care about environmental destruction, our increasing dependency on oil/fossil fuels, etc. Land theft continues to be an issue, and environmentally careless corporations are seemingly above the law when it comes to property rights. The government is useless, completely catering to corporate interests—which is why libertarians should, once again, turn to radicalism as a means of getting things done. Addressing environmental concerns doesn’t mean advocacy for governmental policy—it means advocacy for action! Civil disobedience, grass roots organizing, and nonviolent direct action. That’s exactly what’s happening in response to the southern extension of the Keystone XL pipeline stretching from Oklahoma to the Texas gulf coast. People around the country are quitting their jobs and moving to east Texas, joining what many consider the most important environmental campaign happening right now. Tar Sands Blockade, “a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and organizers using nonviolent direct action to physically stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline,” has effectively delayed construction for over a month now, using a variety of tactics. Stopping a multinational corporation from building a pipeline obviously isn’t easy, but that’s not to say the campaign isn’t winnable. TransCanada has reacted to the blockade with a “whatever it takes” sentiment in continuing the construction, with typical carelessness towards personal safety and legality. This has included employing torture tactics on blockaders: Two blockaders who locked themselves to construction equipment in East Texas – Shannon Bebe and Benjamin Franklin – were subjected to pepper spray, arm-twisting, chokeholds and multiple uses of tasers to get them to unlock themselves. The tree village where the main action is taking place currently is the equivalent of a police state; the tree sitters are subjected to 24 hour police surveillance by at least 5 to 7 officers at all times, with bright flood lights facing them. This has made direct support extremely difficult, and they’ve been denied food and water on several occasions. Oh, and if you were wondering who’s paying the cops to be around day and night, it isn’t the local sheriff’s department— it’s TransCanada! The foreign company has actually hired off duty officers for $$30 an hour to police the tree village. Despite the emotional trauma the tree sitters endure, they remain confident. Two have stated they will stay blockading under these conditions “as long as it takes” and another jokingly, “until I die”. TransCanada acquired the land through threat of eminent domain, bullying landowners into signing contractual agreements. They have also claimed “common carrier” status, an interesting legal loophole: Common carrier status is granted by the Texas Railroad Commission, and allows corporations the power to seize private property by eminent domain. But in Texas, all TransCanada had to do to apply as a common carrier was simply fill out a government form for a permit, known as the T-4 form, and check a box labeled “common carrier.” This claim was disputed in court, which actually ruled against TransCanada, concluding that the permit was not sufficient grounds for eminent domain. They haven’t had to deal with this yet, however, since most of the residents signed contracts. Now blockaders are trespassing on “TransCanada’s property”, which they have used as grounds to file several lawsuits. A recent legal suit used the term “eco-terrorists” to describe the blockaders: Under the auspices of nonviolent direct action, the Defendants, all of whom are members of, affiliated with, or acting under the banner of the Tar Sands Blockade group, have engaged in acts of eco-terrorism through their coordinated, orchestrated and ongoing unlawful conduct and have trespassed on Keystone’s property, have interfered with construction of Keystone’s pipeline and/or threatened additional interference with construction of Keystone’s pipeline in an attempt to deny Keystone use of Keystone’s valid right of way. Just to be clear, there is nothing good about this pipeline. This is a foreign company building a for-profit export pipeline, exposing the environment to the risk of water contamination, likely to destroy more jobs than it creates, and is openly violating the rights of indigenous peoples and American land owners. Not to mention the likelihood of a spill is seemingly inevitable, “According to TransCanada the Keystone 1 pipeline was predicted to spill once every seven years. It spilled 12 times in its first year and it has spilled more than 30 times over its lifetime.” Tar Sands has also been doing most of their own media coverage because of the police state that surrounds the blockade, most journalists are denied entry or arrested: Allow us to paint the full picture of what’s happening here: we’ve got a multi-national corporation that has come into Texas, expropriated private land by eminent domain, and hired local law enforcement as a private security force to set up an occupied police state at the tree blockade. They’ve been employing torture tactics, charging peaceful protestors with trumped up felonies, and have orders to handcuff anyone, including New York Times journalists, who attempt to get close enough to even cover the story. The interesting thing about Tar Sands is it’s diverse group of activists— from tea party conservatives defending property rights, to ex-Obama supporters betrayed by the approval of the pipeline, and radical environmentalists who more or less do these sorts of actions for a living. As they approach nearly 40 days of resistance, the campaign continues to grow in awareness and membership. In writing this article I hope to at least make one thing clear to libertarians: we can and should engage ourselves in the environmental movement. Environmentalism is radicalizing in a libertarian way—more mainstream activists are realizing the ineffectiveness of government and turning to direct action. Both libertarians and environmentalists can agree on the alternative solutions, like Johnson suggests, “stop caring so much about what’s legal and what’s illegal, consider some countereconomic, direct action alternatives to governmental politics, and perform some Guerrilla Public Service.” My support for this campaign brings to mind an inspiring Camus quote, “If we are to fail, it is better, in any case, to have stood on the side of those who choose life than on the side of those who are destroying.” Win or lose, the Tar Sands campaign is part of something bigger. A tree sitter’s report from day 37 captures this sentiment perfectly: While I am confident that our new friends in the trees are well aware of the situation they have put themselves into, I can’t in good conscious let their sacrifice be taken for granted by those who haven’t experienced state repression firsthand. In the coming weeks as we see our friends in the trees facing extreme thirst, starvation, isolation, and lawsuits at the hands of these police, it is my hope that we can indeed unmask the state’s monopoly on violence against us and begin to finally understand the scope of the power structures we are resisting so that we may move forward towards a livable world. And perhaps then may we learn what it means to fight for our lives. Environmental action has never seemed as urgent or important to me until the Tar Sands campaign, happening roughly two hours east of the DFW metroplex where I live. Visiting once on a weekend between school and helping with the blockade has been a truly humbling experience that I wish everyone could be a part of. There are many ways to participate in the blockade. Blockaders need the love and support of anarchists and libertarians alike, they face horrible amounts of injustice at the hands of the state for simply doing what’s right. The Center for a Stateless Society (www.c4ss.org) is a media center working to build awareness of the market anarchist alternative Source:

fake

beforeitsnews.com

2017-11-27

http://beforeitsnews.com/politics/2012/11/sandys-other-aftermath-scammers-make-money-from-generosity-2467420.html

Set You Free News

Sandy’s other aftermath: Scammers make money from generosity

Sandy’s other aftermath: Scammers make money from generosity % of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents. (Before It's News) RT A victim of Hurricane Sandy is helped by a volunteer to load food in bags from a FEMA and American Red Cross aid and disaster relief station in the hard-hit Staten Island section of New York City November 2, 2012 (Reuters / Michael Loccisano) American police have managed to so far prevent mass looting [...] ……………………………………… Breaking the chains of enslavement Source:

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2014/03/01/old-glory-on-cinco-de-mayo/american-flags-12/

Robert Laity

American Flags -

Old Glory on Cinco de Mayo Who says that Americans can't display the flag on any day?

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/can-a-mass-movement-seize-this-anti-trump-moment.html/

Can a Mass Movement Seize This Anti-Trump Moment?

Change is in the air. Millions of people in the U.S. woke up to the living nightmare of a Trump presidency. The threat and shock posed by Trump jolted hundreds of thousands off their couch and into the street. People of all ages now want to “do something,” joining protests nationwide that the Washington Post called “a roiling movement across the country.” Massive protests immediately followed the election results in just about every major city in the country, including an enormous demonstration in Los Angeles on November 12th that galvanized social media users nationwide to leave their computers and join the protests. There have been nationwide coordinated protests of high school and college students leaving class for the streets; on the 17th 80 colleges participated in a walkout, using the anti-Trump hashtag #santuarycampus as their slogan. Mayors across the country have urged calm but more protests are planned. The difference between a social movement and a series of protests is size and duration: a movement attracts broader layers of “non-political” people, engaging them into action while striving to mobilize newer layers for the next action, growing the movement. If they continue, the anti-Trump protests will soon gain “movement” status. People from all walks of life have performed their first protest of any kind, confronting the repressive “riot” police and not backing down. New groups are springing into existence as people spontaneously self-organize. How powerful is the new movement? Time will tell. But it’s up to activists, organizers, and revolutionaries to prioritize throwing fresh logs on the movement flame, buying time to activate and educate new people while building and leveraging power. Politics is often referred to as “the art of the possible.” As Trump himself proved, what was impossible yesterday is possible today. The world is changing fast, and even though the rightwing owns the White House, the Left owns the streets, for now. We must make good use of them, and quick, before Trump can consolidate his power. The Left can achieve miracles in this moment if it strategically grows and broadens the infant social movement. What is possible depends on the strength of the movement. In math terms: if X grows larger (the social movement), then Y (anything) is possible, including preventing Trump from assuming power. The anti-Trump movement will either grow or shrink. But it’s up to activists to grow the movement by any means necessary. Historically speaking, the most obvious evidence of powerful social movements are massive, ongoing street demonstrations that grow in proportion to the momentum the movement produces. The anti-Vietnam war movement is just such an example. If a social movement grows large enough, it can become a revolutionary movement, where the establishment loses power as the people gain control over the streets, workplaces, and public institutions. This was the case in Egypt, where the revolution grew to oceans of people, who eventually drowned the Mubarak dictatorship — and later his successor. A similar thing is occurring right now in South Korea, where protests that were initially mocked have grown so large that commentators are predicting the protesters “impossible” demands will be achieved: the downfall of the president. If a revolutionary movement has the power to crush a ruthless dictatorship, as in Egypt, the American equivalent can surely prevent Trump from assuming power, or at least paralyze him politically. Yes, this is unlikely, time is very short. But the timeline was short in Egypt also: the first protest occurred on January 25th, and the dictator was toppled by February 11th. As Lenin said, “there are decades where nothing happens, and then there are weeks when decades happen.” The larger the demonstrations become the more people get pulled into them. It becomes everyone’s daily routine and what they talk about in their free time as well as at work, etc. People begin to feel their power in gigantic demonstrations and eventually the demand becomes “inevitable” when a revolutionary movement grows to Egyptian proportions. But to achieve this the anti-Trump movement needs cohesiveness and unity of action. Instead of each separate group organizing their own, smaller actions over their own particular issues, organizations must work together in democratically run coalitions to organize ongoing massive demonstrations around issues that include everyone under attack, so that they can be coordinated nationwide. There is already a call for a massive demonstration on Trump’s inauguration day, but there is time to organize several nationwide massive mobilizations before then. Each one would embolden new layers of people to take to the streets, and will, hopefully, get the labor movement engaged in a big way, while invigorating the Black Lives Matter movement, Latinos, women, students, LGBTQ, Muslims, and everyone who fears a Trump presidency. All should be demonstrating together, striking blows collectively. The movement can be easily squandered. Sectarian divisions that have plagued the left for years are re-asserting themselves. Some groups want to opportunistically use the moment to recruit to their own group while doing nothing to grow the movement. Groups and individual activists denounce the actions of others while doing nothing productive themselves. This ego-driven gossipy infighting has been a cancer on the left for years and needs to die now, lest it kill the movement. All Left groups should be calling for local coalitions that organize ongoing street demonstrations that also make demands on local city and state governments. By making local demands — and winning them — the local movement will strengthen itself, and be better able to defend against a possible Trump presidency. Local demands should be “united front” demands, meaning there are a few powerful demands that have broad support from the majority of the working class, mobilizing them into action. The existing energy must be funneled into something concrete locally to help grow the movement nationally. Another reason to make united front demands is that the non-fascist Trump supporters — who are the majority — can see that we’re on their side. If we demand rent control, free childcare, living wages, debt forgiveness, etc., the working class Trump supporter can be recruited to our movement, and these demands can help grow the movement into revolutionary proportions. Demands capable of mobilizing people in the streets can be both “reformist” and “revolutionary.” Past revolutions have been built on reformist pillars, such as the “reformist” demands of “Land and Freedom” that become revolutionary in the context of the 1936 Spanish revolution. The demands of the Russian revolution were simply land, bread and peace. If a truly revolutionary movement is built, it’s possible that Trump can be prevented from becoming president. The establishment will act to stop Trump before the masses achieve it themselves. Not only because most of the establishment doesn’t like Trump, but because they fear that a revolutionary movement will target the entire ruling class next, and capitalism after that. If the ruling class acts to prevent a Trump presidency — and Pence becomes president, or Hillary — society will not simply go back to sleep. A revolutionary movement deeply changes people who cannot so easily be pulled away from being actively engaged in politics. Along with a revolutionary movement arises new organizations, new political parties, new associations of workers, renters, farmers, neighborhoods, and new human beings that feel more empowered and think about politics more critically. This new organized, socially active, collectively conscious human being is not so easily controlled. A revolutionary movement will radicalize millions of people, on top of the millions who’ve already been radicalized by the announcement of Trump’s victory. These newly-radicalized people just need a coalition of organizations to help lead them into struggle, and once the masses have entered the revolutionary road, anything is possible. The moment can be seized or squandered. It’s up to us. Time is short.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/aleppo-update-an-inspiring-return-to-the-bombed-out-national-museum.html/

Aleppo Update: An Inspiring Return to the Bombed Out National Museum

National Museum, Aleppo Of Syria’s 28 museums, the one that holds the record to date for being the most targeted by rebel bombs, mortars, and snipers is probably the National Museum, not fare from the Old City near the frontline in ancient Aleppo. The Aleppo National Museum, which was opened in 1931 and expanded in 1966, is located just outside of the boundaries of the Ancient City of Aleppo, a World Heritage property. It houses and exhibits countless treasures of ruins and antiques spanning the history of Aleppo province and millennia of world history. It contents include thousands of objects reflecting all periods of Syrian history, including an important Islamic section. The National Museum complex includes five museums, the Prehistory Museum, the Old Oriental Museum, the Classical Museum, the Arab-Islamic Museum and the Modern Art Museum. Like Aleppo itself, the Museum has been on UNESCO’s List of World Heritage in Danger since 2013, with its endangered status being confirmed this year during the 40th session of UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee. Like the nearby Old City of Aleppo, the Museum has suffered extensive damage the past 4 years and was heavily bombed again just four months ago, on July 11. This time being hit this time by three mortar shells, causing extensive damage to the roof and structure of the building. Also destroyed was a multi-million dollar generator and electric unit on the roof of the Museum. Nearly all the long narrow windows that span the west side of the Museum were blown out over a year ago when mortars pierced the roof, one severely wounding a 4 year old girl who tragically lost her arm when a rebel mortar came through the ceiling of the Exhibition Hall she was sleeping in. At the time of the attack the child was sheltering in the Museum with her father who is a museum employee. The museum has also intermittently sustained serious damage to its adjacent administrative building. Also repeatedly damaged has been the main façade of the museum a few meters from the large sphinx in front of the main entrance, which is shown below. Also regularly and repeatedly damaged have been the Museums exterior walls and structure, ceiling, exterior doors, offices and the outer fence, approximately 60 meters from the Museums front entrance. Some good news is that vast majority of the Museum’s treasures have been in safe keeping since shortly after the beginning of the current crisis in March of 2011. Based on this observers survey of Syria’s museums spanning the past nearly four years, 95-plus percent of our endangered cultural heritage antiquities housed in Syria’s museums are, as of today, safe. This is because of the stellar and leadership of Syria’s Director-General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM), Dr. Maamoun Abdel-Karim, and his hard-working patriotic staff. Very soon after the outbreak of hostilities, and knowing well the tragedy that befell Iraq’s National Museum soon after the Bush administration invaded that country and largely destroyed it, including the shocking images of American troops standing outside Iraq’s National Museum in Bagdad and allowing its contents to be carted off by anyone who wanted to help themselves to our cultural heritage, Syria was determined that museum contents here would be protected at all costs. And so they have largely been. DGAM launched an immediate and massive rescue operation across the country soon after the conflict began here and within months emptied the museums of all portable artifacts. Today virtually all remain packed, protected, and hidden in secure guarded sites, most deeply underground. So today’s main concern for our endangered heritage at museums across Syria remains for our large archeological treasures that, given current war conditions, are too massive to transport to safety. A Syrian committee of archeologists, historians, engineers and Aleppo Museum staff meet weekly here in Aleppo to access their work and plan for post war reconstruction of the Museum buildings. The Aleppo Museum’s staff and experts are one month into a three month crash program to further secure massive antiques that are in place outside on Museum grounds and in the garden. This observer has observed that at Syrian Museum sites, such as in Damascus, their designers have created very appealing outside gardens which exhibit large antiquities in a very pleasant museum park, with benches, a setting which is ideal for meeting friends and for personal contemplation among art objects from ancient civilizations. As happened last week on three occasions, this observer, whenever possible, likes to schedule meetings among the Damascus Museums well-tended palms trees and gardens. During this week’s visit to Aleppo’s Museum after a year’s absence, what this observer witnessed being achieved was stunning and inspiring. According to Museum official, Ms. Miralda Mouchati, who gave generously of her time briefing this observer, sand bags which have been stacked around the largest objects in the Museum garden the past few years are now being largely replaced and our irreplaceable globally shared cultural heritage objects, many from deep into Syria’s ten millennia, are carefully being wrapped in protective material and then literally incased in cement as show is the photos below. Since the start of the crisis a top priority of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (DGAM) and the Ministry of Tourism under the able leadership of HE Eng. Bachir Yazigi, has been to encourage all Syrians, despite political differences, in defend their and our cultural heritage and to work together to transfer it to future generations. Ms. Mouchati explained as this observer has personally and repeatedly observed across much of Syria these past few years, that DGAM staffers and citizen “monument volunteers” continue to be engaged in literally hundreds of similar cultural heritage protective projects, largely unreported by international media. Each citizen risking their own safety preserving and protecting Syria’s and our endangered culture heritage are no less than global patriots whom we honor for their service to humanity as they work to preserve our past for those who will follow us.

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/modest-slowdown-in-las-vegas-seen-in-october-especially-from-vip-travelers/

True Pundit Staff

Modest slowdown in Las Vegas seen in October, especially from VIP travelers

Modest slowdown in Las Vegas seen in October, especially from VIP travelers FOLLOW US! A modest slowdown in high-end Asian travelers to Las Vegas following the Oct. 1 attack is showing up in early business trends for October. “What we’ve seen just in terms of demand is on the higher-end VIP gaming customers that confirmed kind of what Caesars has said,” John DeCree, an analyst at Union Gaming in Las Vegas, told CNBC. He added that the Las Vegas Strip’s leisure business was “off a little bit,” although he added that this time of year tends to be a seasonally slow period anyway for Las Vegas. On Tuesday, Caesars Entertainment’s CEO was asked about Las Vegas Strip trends during the casino company’s investor and analyst meeting in New York. Investors will get a chance to learn more details on Vegas trends as Las Vegas Sands reports after the bell Wednesday and Wynn Resorts on Thursday.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/resistance-to-social-injustice-disabled-people-in-britain-give-lead-in-fight-against-uk-austerity-measures.html/

Resistance to Social Injustice: Disabled People in Britain Give Lead in Fight against UK Austerity Measures

I recently had the enormous honour of representing the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) at a week of action and international conference, organized from September 4-10 by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) in the UK. This was another step in building a close working relationship between our two organizations. It was also fascinating and inspiring to see disabled people, not merely participating in the struggle against austerity but actually giving a powerful and decisive lead to the entire movement. Since 2010, governments in the UK have moved into a cutting edge role in the implementation of the agenda of austerity. Central to this has been a drive to degrade and undermine income support systems so as to generate a climate of desperation and to force people into low paid, precarious work. A notorious system of ‘benefit sanctions’ has ensured that those forced to seek assistance live in a state of ongoing uncertainty, under constant threat of suspension or outright cut off. However, a striking feature of the austerity attack in the UK has been an extraordinary and brazen readiness to attack disabled people living in poverty. When the whole edifice of English Poor Law provision was put in place, there was an assumption that those seeking assistance could be divided into the more and the less morally worthy, the ‘deserving’ and the ‘undeserving’ poor. ‘Able bodied’ and employable people were considered highly suspect and subject to outright abandonment, whereas those who could not be so readily assumed to be the architects of their own misfortune, particularly disabled people, might expect somewhat fewer conditions and scrutiny to be attached to the pittance they were provided. The austerity agenda of the 21st Century, however, has no patience with such sentimentality. It’s considered essential that disability, even of the severest kind, should exempt no one from the scramble for the lowest paid and most exploitative jobs. Challenge and Resist Massive Injustice First implemented, shamefully, by a Labour Government, the infamousWork Capability Assessment (WCA) was toughened by the Tory led Coalition in 2010 and its implementation handed over to private companies. First, at the hands of the hated Atos and, then, the U.S. based Maximus, sick and disabled people have been subjected to a regime of degrading scrutiny and lethal abandonment that has been shocking beyond description. DPAC has played a truly inspiring role in acting to challenge and resist this profound and massive injustice. This extreme concern to ensure that almost no one be considered unable to participate in the scramble to find employment, has huge implications in terms of the international implementation of austerity. Certainly, Ontario has been impacted by this approach to ‘public policy.’ Here, the institution that has gone the furthest in this regard is the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) as it oversees the persecution and impoverishment of injured workers. The WSIB displays willful disregard for medical evidence and an obsessive readiness to deem workers capable of performing work they have no realistic hope of obtaining or being able to perform. Those disabled people who must rely on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP), are facing a regime that is focused on blocking and restricting eligibility to the greatest degree possible. The same determined drive to insist that virtually everyone is ready for work in some theoretical form is a central consideration. While a major redesign of ODSP appears to delayed due to yet another round of social assistance review and consultation by the Ontario Government, the previous ‘Brighter Prospects’ report that the Liberals commissioned makes clear that the concept of somewhat secure disability benefits is incompatible with the prevailing political agenda. The DPAC week of action was of importance, not only because we in Ontario face the same kind of attacks, but because the model of resistance that has been created by an organization of disabled people in the UK holds lessons for all of us. The recent upsurge of support around the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party notwithstanding, it would be impossible to deny that a sweeping movement of resistance to austerity in that country is yet to emerge. As real wages have declined on a scale comparable to that of Greece, strike activity is at historic lows. Social movement struggles continue but the needed critical mass of social resistance is yet to be set in motion. The Tory architects of social regression probably thought that disabled people would be among the least combative of their victims but this proved to be a serious miscalculation. The week of action that I had the privilege to play a role in drove this home to me very powerfully. Throughout the week of September 4, a range of actions unfolded in a whole number of towns and cities. I was able to participate in several of the actions. Without doubt the most inspiring and important was held on September 7. DPAC members and supporters marched to the Houses of Parliament and blocked Westminster Bridge, bringing traffic to a halt. It took the police a couple of hours to clear scores of disabled people, many of them in wheelchairs, from the bridge. A few arrests occurred but the calm determination of people who were fighting back against lethal benefit cuts was unbeatable. It was easy to see why DPAC’s readiness to defy those responsible for these attacks has been so profoundly inspiring to the entire movement against austerity in the UK. On the Saturday, the week culminated in a one day conference, devoted to the theme of “Disabled Peoples’ Resistance: Building Beyond Borders.” Presentations were made by people from Ireland, Greece, Bulgaria, Germany and I was able to report on the struggles underway in Ontario. “Emancipation Movement of People with Disabilities: Zero Tolerance” presented a video on an occupation they had carried out at a centre for disabled children in Lechaina, Greece. They were challenging the rampant neglect and abuse of children in these centres face, some of them strapped to their beds for every hour of the day and night. They are demanding the Syriza led Government deal with this appalling mistreatment at such places and several international solidarity actions will be taken to assist their struggle, including here in Toronto. Coming out of the week of action and conference has been a renewed commitment to developing much more dynamic forms of international solidarity. We discussed ways to act together in support of our different struggles and to deepen our understanding of the attacks we face and the lessons that can be drawn from the forms of resistance we take up. Seeing the abuses faced by the disabled in austerity wracked Greece, this disgraceful removal of social provision in the UK or the failure to provide shelter from the elements for the homeless in Toronto, it’s clear that the agenda thrown against us is becoming ever more reckless and harmful. The lead that DPAC has given in this regard is a lesson to movements against austerity everywhere and opens up huge possibilities for the struggles that lie ahead. • John Clarke is an organizer with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP).

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/leadership/page/2/

Robert Laity

leadership Archives

Home » Posts tagged with » leadership (Page 2) Improvise, Adapt, and Overcome “THE HOUSE OF CARDS IS BEGINNING TO FALL” by Paul R. Hollrah, ©2013 (Jun. 1, 2013) — In almost every field of endeavor we find those who display an indomitable spirit laboring side by side with those who are only too anxious to throw in the towel when the going gets tough or when the […] America will March Through Flood Water, Sewage and hell to Throw Obama out on Election Day “A VICIOUS TYRANT” by Dr. Laurie Roth, ©2012 (Oct. 30, 2012) — Hurricane Sandy is a bullish Hurricane, which is slamming the East Coast the week before Election Day. It is painful, ugly and couldn’t be at a worst time. Sandy is a vicious tyrant causing flooding and damage in many states. It is not anything new […] Coming Down to the Wire WILL THE U.S. “LEAD FROM BEHIND” OR BE OUT IN FRONT? by Gunnery Sergeant John McClain, USMC, Retired, ©2012, blogging at Gulf1 (Oct. 19, 2012) — We’ve now had three debates, two by the presidential contenders, and one by the vice presidential contenders, and we should have a fairly good understanding of where each is […] America Won’t Survive More Nips and Tucks from Politicians – We Need Patriot Surgery ORDINARY CITIZENS MUST TAKE THE LEAD, NOT SELLOUT POLITICIANS by Dr. Laurie Roth, ©2012, Presidential Candidate (Mar. 27, 2012) — This week on my show it hit me hard just how easy it is to stop doing the right thing because it is too costly and hard. Rolling the freedom ball up the hill hurts my […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/brett-mcgurk/

Robert Laity

Brett McGurk Archives -

“IDLIB PROVINCE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM” by Sharon Rondeau (Aug. 4, 2017) — A transcript from a briefing by the U.S. State Department on Friday reveals that according to Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition To Counter ISIS Brett McGurk, nearly five million people who were terrorized by the brutal Islamic group ISIS are now […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/12/07/our-banner-yet-waves/

Robert Laity

Our Banner Yet Waves -

HOW MANY HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES TO DEFEND IT? by OPOVV, ©2013 (Dec. 7, 2013) — Our National Anthem is a victory cry, a song born upon a successful military engagement. It didn’t come cheap, our flag: pain, suffering, hardship, death. The American revolutionists had a choice, just as we do today: do you fight for the Constitution, and Freedom, or do you “play it safe,” sit back while others take the chance of getting arrested or, more likely, killed? After the battle, after the expenditure of thousands of bombs, rockets and bullets, after the troops were exhausted, our flag was still there, flying proudly. Though tattered and torn, shot with holes, dirty, Old Glory still stood for all to see: Freedom rings. The war continued. The National Anthem is a battle song, after all. Wars are not fought. Skirmishes, firefights and, when a majority of an army or navy is committed, battles are fought. War is the cumulative, or intended, result of collecting intelligence at first, and the planning of troop disbursement, second. War is the result of action, not the action. But no matter how large the battle may be, it all breaks down to the lowest denominator: the individual and how he or she reacts under extreme stress, because, face it: when you think your chances of surviving don’t look good, that’s when people’s true nature is exposed. Many a time when the chips were down did some (about whom we never gave a second thought) emerge from mediocrity to a vaulted status. Which is why our military hands out Campaign Ribbons, because without a reliable supply line, the front-line troops are just left out to dry, which has happened. So it is fitting that all who contributed to a campaign be recognized as having done so. I personally saw multiple Medal of Honor acts that went unrewarded, and I have seen Purple Hearts given out for a paper cut, so my take on medals is just the military handing out Hershey bars, until it comes to the medics risking life and limb to help the helpless. Every time our National Anthem is played, it’s a tribute to those who have fallen in past battles, for it’s the dead who allowed the others to go on living. When going into a combat situation, one has to expect a casualty or two, and of course you never wish it to happen to someone else; all you think about is doing your best and not letting anyone down. When we stand during the playing of our anthem, our Victory Song, our Rights to Brag, we do so with the understanding that, if our number is called to come to its defense, we will do so, just as those in the past have done before us. We pay tribute when we sing our song of praise. Yes, our soldiers and sailors went to the top of the mountain, and they stayed there. They were the King of the Hill, be it Fort McHenry or Mt. Suribachi. And we can be so again, but only if we remember the past and pay deserving tribute to those who have fallen for our Freedoms. We do see our flag still there, and we are a proud people who will not be hoodwinked by a bunch of lies. So the next time you stand up and pay tribute to our Victory Song, hush those who disrespect Our Banner that we proudly wave in the faces of our foes, and if they don’t like it, let them eat crow, or have a Veteran explain the Facts of Life to them. OPOVV

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2012/09/21/mainstream-media-finally-reports-atrocity-against-amb-christopher-stevens/ambassador_christopher_stevens-2/

Robert Laity

Ambassador_christopher_stevens -

Mainstream Media Finally Reports Atrocity Against Amb. Christopher Stevens U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens had spent many years in the Middle East in service to his country. He was 52 at the time of his death.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/lavrov-syria-peace-talks-delayed-by-obama-regime-optimistic-that-things-might-change-with-trump.html/

Lavrov: Syria peace talks delayed by Obama regime, optimistic that things might change with Trump

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Omar Sanadiki The situation with peace talks on Syria is currently “more favorable” for things to really get better in the war-torn country, Russia’s FM Sergey Lavrov has said. Obama’s team slowed down the process, but under Trump things might improve, according to the diplomat. “We are currently in the situation… that is much more favorable to start working on a real settlement of the crisis. We were close to it in September last year, but the Americans failed to implement an agreement which had been coordinated with us earlier, which once more confirmed the Obama’s administration inability to negotiate on many issues,” Russia’s foreign minister said in an interview with Russian television channel NTV. “They took an agreement, and then couldn’t do anything [within it],” Sergey Lavrov said, adding that “largely because of Obama’s reluctance to have an argument with some countries in the region,” a settlement through the UN’s participation “turned to [result in] zero progress.” Moscow could no longer rely on such dragging partnerships, Russia’s top diplomat said, adding that a decision has been made to taken action in other ways, such as through Russian-Turkish relations. “We know that Turkey has influenced and continues to influence a very considerable number of field commanders,” Lavrov said, noting that Moscow’s cooperation with Ankara resulted in a ceasefire agreement in Syria in late December last year. “I want to make it clear: we’ve already said on different levels that we are not trying to undermine UN’s efforts [in resolving the Syrian crisis]. Although our initiative was largely based on [others’] inaction, we understand that much more sides should be involved in peace talks than those currently working on Astana [negotiations],” Lavrov told NTV. There should be more participants both from Syria and “players from the outside,” he added. Parallel to the Astana peace process, Moscow is preparing for talks under the auspices of the United Nations, the minister said, adding that so far such a meeting has been confirmed for February 20. Talking of Moscow’s expectations of those talks, Lavrov said that the “whims” of some Syrian opposition groups’ leaders, “especially of those who have long been living outside Syria,” should not be taken into consideration. “If it once again becomes a hindrance to hold UN talks, then the organization’s reputation will be seriously damaged,” Lavrov said. Meanwhile, Russia has been actively involved in meetings on Syria in Astana, where talks with the participation of Ankara and Tehran have recently finished. The sides have generally agreed details on cease fire monitoring, the minister said, adding that the agreements reached “will soon be implemented.” Efforts to summon more fighting groups in Syria to join in talks with the Syrian government are also in the works, he added. Saying that US representatives were present at the first meeting in Astana as monitors, Lavrov confirmed that an invitation has been sent to Washington to take part in the talks once a new team on the Middle East and Syria is formed under the incoming Trump administration. Moscow is fully aware that relations between the US and Iran have deteriorated with Trump’s arrival in the White House, Lavrov said, but added that Russia “stands for common sense.” “If US President Trump’s main priority on the international arena is fighting terrorism, then it should be admitted that in Syria not only the Syrian army supported by Russian Air Force are fighting ISIL [Islamic State terrorist group, IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL], but also Hezbollah groups supported by Iran [are involved in the anti-terrorist fight],” Lavrov said. “There’s a choice of priorities here.” The minister added that while Americans are known for their “pragmatic” policies, it “wouldn’t be pragmatic to just precariously exclude Iran from the anti-terrorist coalition.” Russia, on its side, “always treats any country’s stance with respect,” he said, having expressed Moscow’s willingness to discuss any ways to solve the crisis, “even those that absolutely contradict” Russia’s views. “I am sure that Donald Trump is absolutely sincere when he every time confirms his determination to defeat IS. We are ready to cooperate with him,” Lavrov said, having expressed hopes that cooperation between Russian and American military in Syria “will soon start to form again.” from https://www.sott.net/article/342434-Lavrov-Syria-peace-talks-delayed-by-Obama-regime-optimistic-that-things-might-change-with-Trump

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/forbes-names-putin-most-influential-person-in-the-world-for-fourth-year-in-a-row.html/

Forbes names Putin most influential person in the world for fourth year in a row

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Sputnik/ Sergey Guneev US business magazine Forbes named Wednesday Russian President Vladimir Putin the most influential person in the world for the fourth time in a row. The magazine also included US President-elect Donald Trump and German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the list of The World’s Most Powerful People, granting them the second and the third places, respectively. “For the fourth consecutive year, Forbes ranked Russian President Vladimir Putin as the world’s most powerful person. From the motherland to Syria to the U.S. presidential elections, Russia’s leader continues to get what he wants,” the magazine said. The magazine ranks global state leaders, capitalists, philanthropists and entrepreneurs along four criteria. The magazine editors assess the extent and use of the person’s political power, influence and financial resources. from https://www.sott.net/article/336659-Forbes-names-Putin-most-influential-person-in-the-world-for-fourth-year-in-a-row

bias

thenewamerican.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/5991-rights-wrongs-and-the-law

Written, Steve Farrell

Rights, Wrongs, and the Law

One of the oddest, most harmful political beliefs to emerge in the past 50 years is the notion that one cannot legislate morality. What utter nonsense. Man has always legislated morality. Sir William Blackstone, the central legal mind the post-1787 U.S. courts looked to for guidance, wrote, “The primary and principle objects of the law are RIGHTS and WRONGS. ”That’s clear enough. And while rights and wrongs are the primary objects of study in the law – the very definition of civil law, according to Blackstone, “[is] a rule of conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state, commanding what is right, and forbidding what is wrong. ”How could it be otherwise? We make laws because we believe that some things are right and other things are wrong, that wrongs left unchecked hurt individuals, families, neighbors, communities, nations – or the environment, the economy, a particular industry, and so on. Isn’t this true? J.J. Bulamquie, another favorite study of the founding generation, thought so, and that is why he defined morality as follows: LAW being the rule of human actions, in a comparative view we observe that [human actions] are either conformable or opposite to the [law]; and this sort of qualification is called morality. Webster’s 1828 Dictionary said of morality, “We often apply the word to actions which accord with justice and human laws … ”Simply: Morality and the law, in the American Founding Era, were well understood as solidly linked. Three-quarters of a century later, President Theodore Roosevelt so perfectly understood the fixed nature of this link that he reminded judges that they have a duty to “unhesitatingly disregard even the wishes of the people if they conflict with the eternal principles of right as against wrong. [A judge] must serve the people; but he must serve his own conscience first. All honor to such a judge.” Of course, favoring right over wrong even when right is unpopular is the stuff of our Founders’ republic—a republic that sided with fixed laws, a written constitution, inalienable rights, and divisions of powers as checks upon the passions of pure democracy. A moral people could choose no less. A half-century later, in 1951, President Harry Truman reminded us about the source of freedom itself. He said: We talk a lot these days about freedom — freedom for the individual and freedom among nations. Freedom for the human soul is, indeed, the most important principle of our civilization. We must always remember, however, that the freedom we are talking about is freedom based upon moral principles. He then referred to “The Divine Law,” “The Golden Rule,” and the “evils” that occur when we ignore them, none of them pretty, nor insignificant. Fast-forward three decades, and President Ronald Reagan, of like mind, bluntly affirms: Right and wrong matters. … We must understand that basic moral principles lie at the heart of our criminal justice system, that our system of law acts as the collective moral voice of society. There’s nothing wrong with these values, nor should we be hesitant or feel guilty about [punishing] those who violate the elementary rules of civilized existence. Theft is not a form of political or cultural expression; it is theft, and it is wrong. Murder is not forbidden as a matter of subjective opinion; it is objectively evil, and we must prohibit it. President Reagan continues, But it has occurred to me that the root causes of our other major domestic problem, the growth of government and the decay of the economy, can be traced to many of the same sources of the crime problem, [that is,] “a tendency to downplay … permanent moral values.” I’m sure you get it. The study of the law is about rights and wrongs. Civil law commands what is right and forbids what is wrong. Nearly every other law, including the principles of freedom itself, is morality based. Obedience or disobedience to these laws reflects individual and collective morality. Individual and collective rejection of moral values does harm to individuals, the economy, and the state. Thus, legislating morality is what we do, what we have done, what we will yet do in America – and that’s okay. Former Utah Supreme Court Chief Justice, and prominent religious leader, Dallin H. Oaks, wrote: I suppose persons who mouth the slogan [‘Don’t legislate morality’] think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of all the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others. He was right, of course. The idea of not legislating morality is superficial nonsense. Which moral values to legislate and how to legislate them in a manner that reveres inalienable rights and exercises reasonable checks on centralized power is the only legitimate and sensible discussion on the matter. Steve Farrell is one of the original pundits at Silver Eddy Award Winner, NewsMax.com (1999–2008), associate professor of political economy at George Wythe University, the author of the highly praised inspirational novel Dark Rose, and editor in chief of The Moral Liberal.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/trump-to-tap-raytheon-military-contractor-lobbyist-to-lead-army.html/

Trump to tap Raytheon military contractor lobbyist to lead Army

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Stars and Stripes‏ / Twitter The Trump administration will nominate a former US Army officer and lobbyist for the missile manufacturer Raytheon to be the next Army secretary. It will be his third attempted nomination for the post. The latest nominee to be the Army’s top civilian is Mark Esper, a top lobbyist for Raytheon. He is a West Point graduate and a retired lieutenant colonel. His military career included a combat tour in Iraq during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. He was also a former aide to Senators Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska) and Bill Frist (R-Tennessee), according to the Washington Examiner. Pentagon officials privately expressed confidence that Esper ‒ with his military, Pentagon and Capitol Hill experience ‒ will win quick Senate confirmation. He currently serves as Raytheon’s vice president of government relations. In fiscal year 2014, the United States government paid $$444 billion in total federal contracts, almost 40 percent of the discretionary budget for 2014, according to the website National Priorities. Raytheon is one of the top three defense contractors, which makes up 90 percent of the company’s business. In 2014, it had contracts worth $$12.6 billion which included missile defense, electronic warfare, precision weapons, and Tomahawk and Patriot missiles. Esper will be the Trump administration’s third nominee for the Army’s top civilian post. In February, billionaire Vincent Viola withdrew his name from consideration, citing difficulties with divesting from his business interests. Two months later, Tennessee state Senator Mark Green pulled his nomination after drawing fire for making derogatory comments about Muslims and LGBT rights, according to Politico. Despite promises to “drain the swamp,” Trump has now nominated a number of people with defense industry ties for positions at the Pentagon. Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson took office in May and Navy Secretary nominee Richard Spencer is awaiting Senate approval following his confirmation hearing earlier this month. Trump’s original pick for Navy secretary, Philip Bilden, withdrew his name from consideration in February because of extensive overseas business ties. The announcement comes the same day that Wikileaks published another batch of ‘Vault7’ documents, focusing on Raytheon. from https://www.sott.net/article/356861-Trump-to-tap-Raytheon-military-contractor-lobbyist-to-lead-Army

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/republicans-stressing-out-over-trumpcare/

Republicans stressing out over ‘TrumpCare’

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] Republicans are in a tizzy over how best to repeal ObamaCare, with one lawmaker admitting at a closed-door meeting this week that once it becomes “TrumpCare,” the GOP will own the results. “We’d better be sure that we’re prepared to live with the market we’ve created,” Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said at the meeting, according to a recording of the session revealed by the Washington Post. – READ MORE

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/is-a-war-in-the-making-a-third-world-war-instigated-by-a-declining-imperial-power.html/

Is a War in the Making — A Third World War? Instigated by a Declining Imperial Power

This post was originally published on this site Is a war in the making — a third world war? If there is much talk about such a possibility, it is mainly because of the tensions between the United States and Russia. Tensions between the two most powerful nuclear states in the world have never been this high since the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991. There are at least two flash points, one more dangerous than the other. In Eastern Ukraine, Russian backed rebels will not surrender to the US supported regime in Kiev because they see US control over Ukraine as part of a much larger agenda to expand NATO power to the very borders of Russia. This has been happening for some years now. But it is the Washington-Moscow confrontation in Allepo, Syria which portends to a huge conflagration. The US is protective of major militant groups such as Al-Nusra which has besieged Eastern Allepo and is seeking to overthrow the Bashar al-Assad government. Washington has also set its sight on ‘regime change’ in Damascus ever since the latter’s determined resistance to Israeli occupation of the strategic Golan Heights in Syria from 1967 onwards. The drive for regime change intensified with the US-Israeli quest for a “new Middle East” following the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003. It became more pronounced in 2009 when Bashar al-Assad rejected a proposal to allow a gas pipe-line from Qatar to Europe to pass through his country, a pipe-line which would have reduced Europe’s dependence upon Russia for gas. Russia of course has been a long-standing ally of Syria. Together with Iran and the Lebanese Hezbollah, it is helping the Syrian government to break the siege of Eastern Allepo and to defeat militants in other parts of Syria. It is obvious that in both instances, in Ukraine and Syria, the US has not been able to achieve what it wants. The US has also been stymied in Southeast Asia where its attempt to re-assert its power through its 2010 ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy has suffered a serious setback as a result of the decision of the new president of the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte, to pursue an independent foreign policy that no longer adheres blindly to US interests. At the same time, China continues to expand and enhance its economic strength in Asia and the world through its One Belt One Road (OBOR) projects and the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and via its leadership of BRICS. China’s regional and global economic role is leading to its pronounced presence in security and military matters. As a result of all this, the US’s imperial power has clearly diminished. It is a hegemon in decline. Source of image: lhvnews.com It is because it is not prepared to accept its decline that some US generals are threatening to demonstrate US’s military might. If a hegemon is a danger to humankind when it is at its pinnacle, it becomes an even greater threat to peace when its power is diminishing. Like a wounded tiger, it becomes even more furious and ferocious. A new US president may be inclined to give vent to this frustration through an arrogant display of military power. How can we check such wanton arrogance? There will be elements in the elite stratum of US society itself who would be opposed to the US going to war. We saw a bit of this in 2013 when those who were itching to launch military strikes against Syria based upon dubious “evidence” of the government’s use of chemical weapons were thwarted by others with a saner view of the consequences of war. It is also important to observe that none of the US’s major allies in Europe wants a war. Burdened by severe challenges related to the economy and migration, the governments know that their citizens will reject any move towards war either on the borders of Russia or in Syria and West Asia. This also suggests that a self-absorbed European citizenry may not have the enthusiasm to mobilise against an imminent war. Let us not forget that it was in European cities from London to Berlin that the biggest demonstrations against the war in Iraq took place in 2003. Anti-war protests will have to be initiated elsewhere this time. Governments in Moscow and Beijing, in Tehran and Jakarta, in Pretoria and La Paz, should come out openly against war. They should encourage other governments in the Global South and the Global North to denounce any move towards a war that will engulf the whole of humanity. Citizens all over the world should condemn war through a variety of strategies ranging from signature campaigns and letters to the media to public rallies and street demonstrations. In this campaign against an imminent war, the media, both conventional and alternative, will have a huge role to play. It is unfortunate that well-known media outlets in the West have supported war in the past. It is time that they atone for their sins! Dr. Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST). from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-a-war-in-the-making-a-third-world-war-instigated-by-a-declining-imperial-power/5554027

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/washpost-concedes-liberal-bias-claim-has-documentary-backing/

WashPost Concedes: Liberal Bias Claim ‘Has Documentary Backing’

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] In an online column about the mainstream media, The Washington Post’s Erik Wemple on Friday conceded that claims of liberal media bias have “documentary backing.” Wemple reported on efforts by New York Times editors to make their paper more diverse, though not necessarily ideologically changed. In the Wemple story, the Media Research Center’s Tim Graham explained why it’s easier for Democrats to deal with like-minded journalists: “Conservatives and Republicans know this: It’s a lot easier for a Democrat to go out and face a room of 96 percent Democrats than it is for a Republican president to go out and face a room of 96 percent Democrats.” – READ MORE

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/trump-needs-to-clean-war-mongers-out-washingtons-power-ministries.html/

Trump needs to clean war mongers out Washington's 'power ministries'

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news If the recalcitrant Cold Warriors in America’s “power ministries” remain untouched, they will be in a position to create provocations at any time of their choosing to override Trump’s planned détente policies. Donald Trump’s speech to the joint session of Congress was a well-crafted and well-delivered exercise in communicating his case to the nation. He opened with a description of the flurry of Executive Orders in his first 30 days in office, enacting key promises made during the electoral campaign. He then went on to describe the contours of legislation his administration will be bringing to Congress, starting with the budget and its featured scrapping of sequester for the military, which is to enjoy a 10% rise in appropriations while other government agencies are slashed. Then there was an extensive discussion of plans to repeal and replace Obamacare, as well as an extensive discussion of what will be done by tax policy and deregulation to assist American businesses and increase the availability of well-paying jobs for the general population. Trump skillfully drew attention to the presence in the hall of the widow of one of the special services officers engaged in an anti-terror raid, of close relatives of persons who were murdered by illegal migrants, of a survivor of a rare disease. All of these vignettes demonstrated his compassion and generosity of spirit, a side of his personality that has been totally denied by his political detractors. He called upon Democrats and Republicans to put aside their differences and show similar generosity of spirit by passing his legislative program for the welfare of the nation. Donald Trump’s 60-minute-long address was interrupted 93 times for applause, often standing applause and sometimes applause which crossed the aisle to include Democrats. Televised images of this President basking in enthusiastic support was surely a mighty antidote to the picture so determinedly projected by his political foes and by the mainstream media this past month showing an administration in disarray and a Chief Executive seemingly caught out in a Watergate-like scandal over illicit, possibly treasonous contacts with the Russians before he took office. The line separating the two versions of his presidency was Trump’s retreat from his commitment to a new foreign policy, and in particular to new and constructive relations with Russia, that was marked by the forced resignation of General Michael Flynn, his National Security Advisor, on 13 February. Flynn was at the center of the controversy over the new administration’s plans for détente with Russia. In the days since his departure, we witnessed the demarches of Nikki Haley, the new American ambassador to the United Nations, first insisting that the United States does not recognize Russia’s takeover of Crimea and then, this week, standing as one of three sponsors of a resolution in the Security Council condemning the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons. Both positions were a direct continuation of what her predecessor in the Obama administration, Samantha Power, had been doing. In the same period, we saw Vice President Pence, Secretary of State Tillerson and Defense Secretary Mattis make statements in Munich, Bonn and Brussels reaffirming US commitment to defense of its NATO allies and holding Russia to account for fulfillment of the Minsk Accords on the crisis in Donbass, Ukraine. Here again, the statements made were fully in line with U.S. foreign and defense policies of the past 25 years, whereas Trump, the candidate, had called for upending these policies based on the ideology of Neoconservatism in favor of pursuit of national interests (Realism). Only the last 5 minutes in Trump’s address to Congress dealt with foreign relations. And there, his own words were consonant with what he had his cabinet officers say the preceding week. NATO’s obsolescence was no longer a topic for discussion. Russia was not mentioned by name once in the speech. America’s allies in NATO and in the Pacific were reassured that “America is ready to lead.” That one statement was a rare instance when the entire audience rose to its feet in applause. Those who feared that Trump’s populism and “America First” spelled isolationism were put on notice that “Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world.” In fact, in the entire speech there were only several lines in the last minutes that might give heart to those of us who had voted for Trump in the expectation of a New Foreign Policy: “America is willing to find new friends and to forge new partnerships where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict. America is friends today with former enemies. We want peace, wherever peace can be found. America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies decades ago fought on the opposite side of these terrible, terrible wars.” Depending on one’s powers of self-delusion, these last words may be construed as a hint: just wait, allow me to get my footing and establish my popularity in Congress and in the broad public through my legislative successes, and I will come back and deliver on my détente aspirations. However, there are real and substantial problems with giving Donald Trump room for an open-ended tactical retreat. And these must be called out if his presidency is to achieve anything at all. It is an inescapable reality that the firing of Flynn and Trump’s retreat from his foreign policy intentions were precipitated by an unholy collusion between the intelligence services, particularly the CIA, and the liberal press with intent to either neuter Trump by forcing a policy reversal or remove Trump through the impeachment procedure. The phoniness of the McCarthyite charges of Russian connections used to smear Trump and his entourage has been well presented in recent articles by Professor Stephen Cohen in The Nation and by Gareth Porter at Consortium News. Those with a conspiratorial turn of mind have long spoken of The Deep State, which ensures continuity of policy whatever the results of our elections. Let us be specific: the problem, such as it is, resides in the intelligence services, namely the CIA and FBI, in the Pentagon and in the State Department. The first two functional bureaucracies are very aptly called the “power ministries” in Russia. State is said to have been purged at its policy-making “seventh floor” during the week of Secretary Tillerson’s European travels. However, the text that was placed before the totally inexperienced Ambassador Haley for delivery in the Security Council shows that not all the “bad hombres” have been sent packing. The purge of the CIA and Pentagon has not even begun. The ability and willingness of the CIA and Pentagon to sabotage presidential policy was clearly proven last September when a promising collaboration between Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov over a cease-fire in Syria was torn to shreds by an “accidental” attack by US and Allied fighter jets on a government outpost at Deir ez-Zor that killed nearly 100 Syrian soldiers, very likely including embedded Russian military advisors. If these recalcitrant Cold Warriors in America’s “power ministries” remain untouched, they will be in a position to create provocations at any time of their choosing to override Trump’s planned détente policies. And that would be child’s play, given the close proximity of US and Russian forces in Ukraine, in Syria, in the Baltic States, on the Baltic Sea and on the Black Sea. Given the poor state of relations and the minimal trust between Russia and the US-led West, any accident in these areas could quickly escalate. And then we might see the side of Donald Trump’s personality that his Democratic opponents warned us about, his short temper and alpha male nature bring us into an armed clash the outcome of which is unforeseeable, but not likely to be good. There is another issue which cannot be postponed, but must be faced squarely very early on: Trump’s public remarks these past two days on his budget and how he envisions re-equipping the U.S. military. He spoke about financing a $$54 billion increase on men and materiel by cuts in other departments. There has not been a word to suggest he is considering restructuring the $$600 billion of military appropriations, for example by cutting the military bases abroad. These bases are configured to support precisely the global hegemony and American imperialism that he has denounced. What is at issue is not only realizing the tens of billions of dollars in savings that would come from repatriation, but also removing an American presence from countries where it only serves to foster anti-Americanism and to embroil us either in defending hated regimes or intervening in regional conflicts where we have no vital interests. In a word, without restructuring our military spending we are condemned to a never-ending succession of wars abroad and Trump’s entire plan of investment in America is doomed to failure. These are issues which will not allow of tactical retreats. Who will bring them to the attention of this headstrong President? G. Doctorow is a Brussels based political analyst. His most recent book, Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2015. from https://www.sott.net/article/344216-Trump-needs-to-clean-war-mongers-out-Washingtons-power-ministries

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/70-year-old-pledges-kappa-sig/

70-year-old pledges Kappa Sig

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] This super senior is probably the wisest and definitely the oldest new member of his college fraternity. “I have a big brother and he’s 49 years younger than me,” 70-year-old Arkansas Tech University freshman Gary Fryer joked to THV 11. A retired furniture salesman, Fryer enrolled at ATU last fall after graduating and transferring from the University of Arkansas Community College. – READ MORE

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-triumph-of-imperialist-feminism-hillary-vs-the-immense-revolution.html/

The Triumph of Imperialist Feminism: Hillary vs the Immense Revolution

This post was originally published on this site Herbert Marcuse said somewhere that, despite the appearance of great dynamism in capitalist society, nothing really happens. This could be Marcuse’s gloss on Shakespeare: sound and fury, etc. Written over about eight weeks, and showing the marks of particular days a bit more than I would like, the following is a long discussion of what, in the end, signifies something very close to nothing. The very simple takeaway might be that the Clintons have done a wonderful job of high-jacking certain Sixties and “progressive” motifs, and liberals, so-called progressives, and many so-called leftists are sucking it up. The result is the consolidation of what I am calling “imperialist feminism,” and the reason why so many who should know better are buying into it is that they are attached to the imperialist system in both body and mind. Is it not an insult to women and other humans everywhere that all we can really say about Hillary Clinton is that there have been plenty of horrible lawyer-politicians before her, horrible warmongers and scheming machinators who have been men, but Hillary is a woman? Another of Shakespeare’s famous lines comes to mind–with apologies to my numerous friends who work honorably or at least not in an overly-malefactorious way as attorneys. When I attempted to find out if I could use this word, I was led to a distributor for “male tubes,” which I at first assumed had something to do with the urethra, but instead is the name of a kind of pipe (as in ordinary and not anatomical plumbing). Further investigation led me to a punk band called “Urethra Franklin,” which I both wholly approve of and wholly reject. And that’s exactly how I feel about the recent offerings from what passes as politics in the United States. On the eve of the California primary, clearly with no compunction about how completely anti-democratic this sounds, it was essentially declared that it doesn’t matter how or if people in California vote, because Hillary has already won the whole deal, the nomination. Glenn Greenwald’s headline on this is, “Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media”(theintercept.com, June 7, 2016). As Greenwald writes, this, “on a day when nobody voted.” It’s a lawyer’s victory, fitting for someone who grew up in proximity to Chicago politics. The Republican Party establishment is attempting to come to terms with their presumptive nominee, Donald Trump. Over the course of the spring, and in the midst of various power-plays and machinations (the funniest of which was probably the “selection” of Carly Fiorina by Ted Cruz as his running mate, and the subsequent singing performance by “the other Carly”–so vain, indeed), somehow the GOP honchos must have come to the conclusion that really doing what it would take to stop Trump would leave the Party in even more of a shambles than it will be with Trump as candidate. The Republican decision-makers had to make a wager one way or another. Does it bear thinking about why they went this way? Perhaps they simply have an actual fear of Trump, much more than the Democrats, whether ordinary or power-player, have a right to. As I’ve said before, the rogue billionaire is giving us some helpful lessons in how the system works and how the ruling class rules. There was a shift toward having more of the “divisive” stuff among the Democrats, which was delicious. For her diehard supporters, nothing matters other than that Hillary is a woman and a Democrat. Clearly these supporters are worried that, gee, this may not be enough to get her back into the White House, and they have to blame Bernie and the Donald for this state of affairs. Though just recently they are very excited about “Hillary’s greatest speech ever” (as if she has given a veritable slew of great speeches), in which she proclaimed her superiority as a candidate because she’s more ready to lay waste to more countries and to make Russia and China feel even more besieged by U.S. encirclement. (Shades of JFK in the 1960 election, by the way.) The speech has been well analyzed by Gary Leupp (“Hillary’s Foreign Policy Speech: Queen Galadriel Before Her Magic Mirror,” Counterpunch.org, June 6, 2016); here’s a passage that captures the essence of the event: “Hillary Clinton’s fiery performance …, intended to assert her credentials as a former secretary of state (with all the positive “experience” that’s supposed to entail), framed by no fewer than seventeen U.S. flags, was a strident reassertion of U.S. ‘exceptionalism’ without apologies or even reflections on the recent past and her bloody role in it.” Hearing the speech on the radio, I was impressed immediately by something that Leupp also points out: “It was not in fact a foreign policy speech at all; Donald Trump is quite right to call it ‘a political speech’ directed at him.” Actually, most people, I’m sure, had no trouble picking this up, the real problem being that Hillary supporters think this is fine for “a major foreign policy address.” After all, isn’t Donald Trump truly the main danger when it comes to the imperial schemes of the imperialist spectrum, from liberals to neo-cons, who are lining up behind Hillary? The only thing Hillary’s “foreign policy experience” means to most of her supporters is something that supposedly makes her far superior to Trump; something about knowledge and the “strength” to make “hard decisions,” or whatever. Nothing about the content of this “experience” enters into the discussion. The reason for this? Hillary supporters and Democrats in general (including, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders) could not care less about what happens to people in the parts of the world that Ms. Clinton has decimated or hopes to decimate. So, there’s no point in also saying to these liberal-imperialist types that at least half the people in those places are girls and women. If you don’t want to support Hillary in these imperial campaigns, well, there’s a special place in hell for you–if you’re a woman! (By the way, I have been watching with distress and from afar–I was in Xiamen, China, until May 31, and now I am in Salina, Kansas, home of fellow Counterpunchers Stan Cox and Priti Gulati Cox, for the summer–as a controversy, perhaps a crisis, unfolds at my university, DePaul University in Chicago. One idea that keeps being knocked around is that “hate speech is not free speech.” I find it almost bizarre that proponents of this idea are citing ” Europe” as having a great deal to teach us on this point, because Europeans supposedly know how to make a distinction between hate speech and free speech. As Alexander Cockburn argued many times, “hate speech” laws tend to backfire. The present crisis at DePaul has to do with a speaker brought in by the College Republicans–a group Ms. Clinton led at her own college, Wellesley, in her first year–Milo Yiannopolous, someone with whom I was not previously familiar, who appears to be no more than a provocateur of the Ann Coulter-variety. There is much to discuss here, but the reason I bring this situation up in the present context is that, as far as I am concerned, what Madeline Albright said about a “special place in hell for women who don’t support” Hillary Clinton is certainly hate speech, in the sense of being hateful and threatening, at least, and it is from and about two people who are and have been far more dangerous than Milo Yiannopolous.) There is one point on which I disagree with Gary Leupp’s analysis. Making a reference to The Lord of the Rings, Leupp says that “Trump and Clinton are both servants of the enchanted ring called Capital.” This is complicated, but I’m really not sure that Donald Trump can entirely be brought to heel as a “servant” of capital. The trouble that the Republicans have with Trump’s high-decibel bloviating is real. Furthermore, given that every instance of “outrageous,” obnoxious discourse from Trump further solidifies and (perhaps to a point) expands his base, the rogue billionaire, as a capitalist with interests among other capitalists with interests, has a purely capitalist incentive to pursue his course. More analysis is needed, of course, but it appears that Trump represents something like a more “classically-capitalist” contradiction within the “capitalist-imperialist ruling class of the United States,” the latter being a class without equal or precedent. In saying that he respects Putin as a leader, that he would negotiate face to face with Kim Jong-un, that he would stop having the U.S. pay for the defense of countries such as South Korea, etc., Trump is in contradiction with the imperialist class. The contradiction is not that of outright anti-imperialism, of course; indeed, it is simply a contradiction having to do with the contradictory interests that make up and drive capitalism. And this is what drives Hillary Clinton to put herself forward as the best representative for imperialism, because the basic structure of the system is indeed imperialism. On this point, Hillary supporters, as Gary Leupp says, are “like the monkeys adorning the Nikko Shrine; they see no evil, hear no evil”–though, to interrupt this sequence, they do in fact speak evil, in praising Ms. Clinton for her “foreign policy experience.” The real opposition is of course internationalism, and it hardly needs to be said that Donald Trump is no internationalist. Perhaps he does represent something of libertarian isolationism, and let it be said that this is not the worst thing right now. No, in fact, Clinton has prided herself on representing, with “experience,” “wisdom,” and “responsibility,” the worst thing. Hillary’s advocacy for the worst has been well-documented, especially by Diana Johnstone; most recently Johnstone has exposed one of the scarier aspects of Clinton’s power, that she has been able to overrule top generals and others in the Pentagon, when it comes to her pet projects, for example the complete laying waste to Libya (“Hillary Comes Out as the War Party Candidate,” Counterpunch.org, June 3. 2016). Please, Hillary supporters, watch Secretary Clinton’s “We Came, We Saw, He Died” statement on Youtube, and take special note of the way that she cackles gleefully when it comes to Col. Gadafi being sodomized with a knife and otherwise tortured to death in the desert. Then tell me, please, am I wrong to ask if this kind of thing is somehow made better by Hillary’s being a woman? Or am I not entitled to ask this question, because I’m not a woman? What role does being excited at the prospect of a woman president play in this discussion? Is it just that we will have a chance to learn that a woman with executive authority can be as horrible and evil as any man? Okay, this formulation shows my bias, but please, Hillary supporters, explain to some of us, including the many women who are not Hillary supporters, how we are supposed to understand the relationship between such a grotesque attitude and the value of having a woman president. And, you know what?–there have been women presidents and prime ministers before, if not of the United States. This may not tell the whole story of what it might be like to have a woman president of the U.S., but it certainly tells us enough about the “woman question” when it comes to who presides over capitalist, imperialist, or even semi-feudal (e.g., India) societies. One thing it tells us is that “real women,” “everyday, ordinary women,” women who are not craven servants of a capitalist ruling class, are international, women and girls are everywhere, and the truly immense revolution that will be required to create a society of gender equality, dignity, respect, and material sustainability is not something that Hillary Clinton has anything other than an adversarial relationship toward. Sure, Hillary is pegging her hopes on what might be called “imperialist feminism” (which I hope is simply an oxymoron), but I feel sure that most women are smarter than to fall for this anti-woman project. In purely electoral terms, at least in terms of the two-party system, it is not hard to imagine the predictable response: “What are you saying? –that we should vote for Trump?” It ought to go without saying that my point here is not to support Donald Trump, but almost certainly this point will be lost on Hillary supporters. And again, Trump is obviously no internationalist or anti-imperialist. However, I will go so far as to say that, if the system is indeed imperialism (capitalism as a global mode of production, with the United States as the most powerful and hegemonic of capitalist countries), then, within the narrow horizons of U.S. electoral politics, we could talk about who is more likely to throw a wrench into the workings of imperialism. As Hillary herself says, proudly, the answer to this question is clearly Trump. It is funny that, when Hillary warns us about the dangers of having the Donald’s finger on the button, it just sounds like she’s really itching to have a go at being the one to start World War Three. I mean, wouldn’t it just be wonderful if history could record that humanity was obliterated by a woman? –oh, wait. As most readers know, Hillary has not only cackled at violence done to non-Americans. If Hillary really had some major achievements to tout in her time as First Lady, senator, or Secretary of State, I might not bring this up–and, yes, we can allow that the failure of her health plan was not her fault, except perhaps in its typical liberal realism, one that remains in the typical “political” deal-making mode that is careful to not get the masses involved. But, see, in that mode, why should we choose Hillary over the guy who wrote The Art of the Deal? In any case, let’s talk for a minute about one of Hillary’s own triumphs of negotiation, getting a guy off who raped a 12-year old girl. Now, nobody should approach this story with the sort of glee that right-wingers evince, the kind of disgusting, smug good cheer that Trump displayed after the Orlando mass murder, “Appreciate the congrats for being right on radical Islamic terrorism.” (He added a little more, but the overall effect is the same.) The case that Clinton defended, in which she got the defendant off on time served (two months), has some troubling aspects, and yet I think it would be unfair to make too much of it. It’s not especially problematic that Clinton defended the accused rapist with every legal means at her disposal, that’s what she was supposed to do, as an attorney. The victim in this case has said that Hillary Clinton “ruined her life” by defending the accused, but in fact it was the prosecutor who messed up. Certainly it’s too bad that people far more deserving of a pro-bono defense do not have access to a lawyer of Ms. Clinton’s talents and, in this case, thoroughness. I don’t find it disturbing that Ms. Clinton did a good job of defending a man who she felt pretty sure was guilty (what she says about the role of the polygraph in this case is worth noting), the prosecution has to make its own case. As for what is said about Ms. Clinton laughing when recalling various aspects of the case, that doesn’t seem especially troubling, either, when it seems clear that she was not laughing at the victim. I don’t want to be unfair to HRC; even more, though, I don’t want my larger point to be lost in some possibility that my characterization of her role in this case is not accurate, or that I have fallen prey to some falsehood concocted by a right-wing website. Still, there are real problems that are reflected in both Clinton’s approach to the legal and social setting of this case in Arkansas, as people she seemed to consider largely stupid, Southern hicks, and in her characterization of the victim in this case as someone from a certain background that made her liable to seek out and fantasize about “relationships” with older men. Clinton doesn’t use the term,”white trash,” but it doesn’t seem a great stretch to see this characterization as lying behind what Hillary did say in a July 28, 1975 court affidavit. Clinton used character assassination against a victim she had never met and knew nothing about, apparently on the basis of having consulted “an expert in child psychology” about “children in early adolescence” and “adolescents in disorganized families” (these are Clinton’s words, quoted in Alana Goodman, “The Hillary Tapes,” Washington Free Beacon, June 15, 2014). What is left out of this is of course that it doesn’t matter one bit what the twelve-year old victim fantasized or didn’t fantasize about, or what kind of family she came from, if the victim was raped by a 41-year old man–and it is clear from everything in the record that Hillary thought her client was guilty. And, alright, that doesn’t matter, either, in terms of the adversarial system of “justice” and the role that lawyers play in it. The Slate article that defends Hillary’s work in this case, however, doesn’t just credit her with providing a “zealous defense” of her client, but, further, refers to her as a “feminist lawyer” (Abbe Smith, “‘How Can You Defend Those People?’ Hillary Clinton and other feminist lawyers are right to defend alleged rapists,” Slate, April 23, 2015). What does “feminist” have to do with any of this? In the adversarial system, all who are accused are entitled to adequate legal representation–though of course most who are accused, and who are put behind bars in Hill and Bill’s wonderful world of mass incarceration, receive nothing of the sort. There’s no doubt that HRC gave her client more-than-adequate representation, the instrumental-reasoning powers of Clinton are not in doubt. (Then again, neither are those of crazy-as-a-fox Donald Trump.) Again, though, how does the modifier “feminist” become a part of this? It’s both fascinating and disturbing how low a bar Hillary’s supporters are willing to set for what counts as “feminist.” In the case under discussion, it seems that all that was required for Hillary to be a “feminist lawyer” is that she is a woman. That’s where we are with imperialist feminism, but that’s also why there’s nothing to be learned by having a “woman president” in the case of Hillary Clinton. A good friend of mine was just telling me that his wife and his wife’s sister are strong supporters of Hillary, and what they say is that they “just think a woman can do it better.” Again, this sets the bar low, when there isn’t even a moment’s consideration, not even a consideration of a consideration, as to what, exactly, the “it” is. Consideration of the “it” isn’t even a ghost of a question here. Hillary Clinton has plenty of experience with this sort of vacuousness. Remember what the Democrats said at their convention in 1992, after twelve years of the Reagan-Bush administration? “It’s our turn!” These three paragraphs in the Washington Free Beacon story are especially interesting: The Taylor case was a minor episode in the lengthy career of Clinton, who writes in Living History, before moving on to other topics, that the trial inspired her co-founding of the first rape crisis hotline in Fayetteville. Clinton and her supporters highlight her decades of advocacy on behalf of women and children, from her legal work at the Children’s Defense Fund to her women’s rights initiatives at the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. And yet there are parallels between the tactics Clinton employed to defend Taylor and the tactics she, her husband, and their allies have used to defend themselves against accusations of wrongdoing over the course of their three decades in public life. Alana Goodman does not elaborate on this last part, except to say that, in discussing this episode, HRC does not mention either the hotline, or “the plight of the 12-year old girl who had been attacked.” (This is from interviews conducted by Arkansas journalist Roy Reed, with both Clintons, in 1985, for an Esquire magazine profile that was never completed; these are the “Hillary Tapes” of Goodman’s title.) And, okay, sure, clearly this episode in the life of an attorney who had aspirations for political power was not the thing she was always interested in talking about. However, as with the Clinton Foundation, and as Goodman indicates, there often seems to be something smarmy going on whenever the Clintons engage in “good works.” This is no surprise to anyone who follows the Clintons’s story, and any Clinton supporters who are somehow convinced otherwise (or who think it’s all coming from the vast right-wing conspiracy–which does exist, of course, but it’s the right-wing of the vast imperialist machinery, of which the Clintons are a part) are the kind of liberals (and “progressives,” ugh) who are always ready to drink the kool-aid. No doubt the hardcore Clintonians will say that’s just the way things work in that world–all too true. The political system in the United States coughs up a lot of mediocre and sub-par men as administrative servants to the ruling class, so I suppose it isn’t a strike against Hillary Clinton that she is just another lawyer-cum-politician, who has some dodgy deals in her background. And, as I said, she’s not mediocre at all in the application of instrumental reason (of which legal reasoning in an adversarial system is a sub-species). How could any kind of “feminist,” however, not see through the dealings the Clinton Foundation and the State Department under the leadership of Hillary Clinton had with Saudi Arabia, one of the most anti-girl/woman regimes in the world? There is a meme going around, in the wake of HRC’s “achievement” of securing–or “pre-securing,” one might say, through means that are obviously bogus and corrupt, to say nothing of completely undemocratic–to the effect that, “Surely the girls who were sent back to Central America would be very excited about this great feminist achievement, if only they were alive to celebrate it.” Hillary’s language in justifying the State Department policy of deporting these girls was that it was necessary to “send a clear message” to the parents of these children–as if the parents are the real delinquents in these countries. But this is where imperialist feminism comes in handy. See, we are talking about girls and women whose lives are being destroyed, who never had the chance to live any kind of life, but, fortunately, these are girls and women who are not Americans, not Westerners even, or, if they are American citizens, they are not the sort of middle-class, career-minded feminists who feel “empowered” by Hillary’s candidacy. This latter bit might even be not so bad–that there is a section of the population that does feel empowered by Hillary’s candidacy–if it weren’t for the fact that the other side of the coin, the great harm done to millions of people in the name of the system that Hillary serves and represents, is indeed the other side, and even the larger side, and the side without which even what little “good” is done is not possible. For those Hillary supporters who might find themselves caring at least enough to do a little investigation, a good place to start is the article by Rania Khalek, “Hillary Clinton and the Feminism of Exclusion” (Jan. 1, 2015, Fair.org). The following paragraphs drive home the two main points I have been advancing here. Speaking to the “it” question and the way that the mainstream media just gobbles up and repeats Hillary’s supposedly strong and lifelong commitment to women, Khalek writes: None of these [media] outlets bothered to compare Clinton’s statements with her actual record, choosing instead to act as stenographers and at times cheerleaders for Clinton’s feminist branding campaign. This suggests a definition of feminism so shallow as to be virtually empty, attaching automatically to any woman who wields power of any kind, toward any end. And, speaking to who is not included in the compact of feminist imperialism, Khalek notes both the “foreign” and “domestic” scope of HRC’s exclusionist “feminism”: In her memoir, she brags about working tirelessly “to round up votes” in 1996 for her husband’s welfare reform bill (New York Times, 4/11/08 ), legislation that saw the number of households with children living in deep poverty skyrocket (National Poverty Center, 2/12 ). It was especially disastrous for single mothers (New York Times, 4/8/12 ). No wonder Wall Street is prepared to shower this pro-austerity feminist hawk with an endless stream of cash to get her elected in 2016 (Politico, 11/11/14 ). Clinton’s version of feminism is one of exclusion, serving state power and capital under the banner of gender equality. It is the kind of feminism that Wall Street, US empire and corporate media outlets can get behind precisely because of who it shuts out. My larger argument is that, only if we understand this “kind of feminism” for what it is, and call it such, can we get it out of the way of the immense revolution that is desperately needed. Imperialist feminism, even in the narrowest sense, is against the needs and aspirations of the immense majority of girls and women in this world, and therefore it is also set against humanity itself. There is no practicality of the “small, but significant step,” or of “at least going in the right direction,” to be defended here. Hillary also has a reputation as someone who cares about and has done a good deal to help children. It is hard not to comment on the fact that Chelsea Clinton grew up to marry even more into Wall Street than her mother has, and she has been a part of the dealings of the Clinton Foundation. But I’d better leave this alone. (Just leave it that Chelsea is clearly very intelligent too, but she’s no Amy Carter!) There’s nothing wrong, of course, and perhaps everything right, with the idea that “It takes a village,” something HRC supposedly picked up in Africa. But what are Hillary’s Wall Street patrons doing for villages, in Africa or anywhere? We need not diminish what Clinton accomplished in the earlier part of her career, and neither do we need to question her earlier motivations. Even if there was always something careerist about Hillary–and probably most people who become politicians, and perhaps especially those who prepare for this path via law school–there was probably some real idealism, too. True, her idealism was of that specifically liberal, limited type, with no thought of addressing systemic questions. It seems like both Bill and Hillary were always getting ready for the post-Sixties; Bill’s letter, from around 1969, where he says that he went ahead and registered for the draft because he wanted to remain “viable within the political system,” boggles the mind with its level of cynicism and political opportunism in a young person. Part of this preparation, though perhaps there was something instinctive about it, was to employ Sixties rhetoric, with any radical content removed. But, okay, whatever, this is an old story. Significantly, it’s not a story that has anything to do with Donald Trump. The Donald has expressed liberal positions at times, though he seems to have backed away from anything of that sort these days. Even these positions, though, were never “value-driven,” they are simply the product of a purely calculative mind. It isn’t even clear that one could call Trump’s crazy proposals and pronouncements “opportunism,” because it seems entirely safe to say that political idealism, of any sort whatsoever, is not now and never has been part of his lifeworld. Hillary Clinton said, sometime during Bill’s reign, that there are many so-called conservatives who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. That’s the Donald to a “t.” It’s what many more “mainstream” Republicans have wanted for a long time–too bad for them that they don’t like it now that it has arrived. But, see, Hillary’s approach to the corporation and finance-capital dominated world is to be the mouthpiece for imperialist capital who can produce a facade of human concern and values talk. Hillary is like Bill in this regard, but perhaps even better because she can add the whole “feminist” aspect. However, both Clintons are no longer convincing at all in terms of “human concern”; it’s transparently clear that they in fact don’t “feel our pain.” I’m sure this is a point of frustration for Hillary’s supporters. Eleanor Roosevelt she’s not. And here is where the Donald gains real traction with his “saying what he thinks” persona. With Trump, what you see is–sort-of–what you get; at least one could say at this point that there are no real surprises, there’s nothing too obnoxious or reactionary for him to say. Watching Trump bloviate is like watching an episode of Family Guy or South Park; it’s the new comedy form where characters–and Trump is a “true character”–say obnoxious and offensive things for no other reason than that they are obnoxious and offensive. And that’s supposed to be funny. The problem is that it is funny. It shouldn’t be, but it is. (This is a philosophical problem too–why are jokes–or whatever–funny? –my own answer, for what it’s worth, is that it is because reality is essentially funny) Of course having a powerful billionaire “say what he thinks,” when what he says (regardless of what he really thinks) is racist, misogynist, etc., is far beyond “unacceptable.” (I have to be careful here, but it might be helpful to remember what Marx said about the “weapons of criticism and … .”) Again, the Republican Party has done everything to pave the way for this sort of rhetoric, and I look forward to seeing how they will manage to lie in the bed they’ve made. Hillary is a big liar (just in the first two weeks of July, with the email issue, we have another example of this). Again, nothing unusual here, being a big liar doesn’t disqualify one from being POTUS; considering presidents and presidential candidates, I’m sure Hillary is in very good company. With the Donald, we are in a different category altogether. Sure, much of what he says is not true, but the ordinary standards of veracity are not Trump’s concern, any more than are typical standards (whatever they are) of good and evil. With Trump, we’re more in the Nietzschean territory of “truth and lie in an extra-moral sense.” We hear all the time about the “reality-show actor” aspect of Trump, but really I think with Trump his persona has more to do with his being a real-estate guy, a salesman, and a deal maker. And what many ordinary people understand that most liberals and so-called progressives seem especially thick-skulled about is that, within these definitions, Trump really is vastly more authentic than Clinton. It can be added all the same that, on factual matters, Trump probably doesn’t tell any more falsehoods than does Clinton, and some things he says are obviously much too painfully true for the ruling class and the head honchos of the Republican Party. It’s all-too-easy to simply lump all the Republican fat cats together as fascistic scumbags. Of course, many of them do fit this description. If the absolute limit of what is possible in the world is to choose among competing evils, with the hope of finding the electable politician who is least objectionable, then it would be hard to make the argument that any Republican candidate could be chosen over any Democratic candidate. Then again, as Alexander Cockburn argued back in 1992 (and as I sometimes repeated, to the consternation of my nice, liberal and “progressive” students), the choice between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole was not so cut-and-dried. The senator from agribusiness was not really any less “decent,” as politicians go, than the governor from Tyson Chicken and Wal-Mart. This, of course, did not stop the Democrats from invoking the idea that the Republican was some kind of monster, that a Dole administration would be some sort of disaster, etc. This seems especially laughable after the United States and the rest of the world essentially survived eight years of George W. Bush. There are a couple of lessons here that somehow most of us have still not learned. First, it’s certainly true that, since 9/11, the Republican Party has gone into overdrive with its syncretic synthesis of extreme right-wing elements, involving neo-conservatives, right-wing Christians, and people calling themselves “libertarian” (who may have a good idea or two regarding the state, but who often seem clueless when it comes to how the global economic order works in the contemporary world). There are figures within this milieu who certainly have a fascist approach, and fascism itself is an inconsistent “synthesis,” with the contradiction of particularist (often racial) “collectivity” at the heart of its cobbled-together ideology. Not everything that is right-wing and awful is fascism, however, and certainly not “classical fascism.” The question bears further discussion, and I will come back to it in the next installment of these annals of parliamentary cretinism. However, just as there is no “loss of idealism” with Trump, neither is there anything that can really be called an “ideology,” hence the vacuity of “Make America Great Again.” Second, even if Trump is in his way just as awful as some other figures who have represented the Republican Party in the last twenty or fifty years, in the post-9/11 world or the post-Eisenhower world, Trump is not awful in the same way that G.W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Mitt Romney are, and there is something here that needs to be understood–I will return to this something in a moment. For me, to be sure, it is difficult to not have a visceral hatred for those three; neither should we let up on the fact that it just takes a lot of gall to put such horrible and or idiotic people (the Republican “clown car,” as Matt Taibbi likes to put it) out there as people who should be anywhere near the levers of power. Certainly it says something about the Republican Party that they can’t seem to find anyone better, and that is a big part of why the Party was there for the taking by someone with the resources of Donald Trump. I’m not saying these things to excuse Trump’s awfulness or the awful things he proposes, but instead to say that we don’t really understand very well the kind of awfulness we’re talking about here. For one thing, it doesn’t seem right to characterize this awfulness as fascism, and, for another, when one quantifies the “awfuls” of Trump alongside those of Clinton, it is not at all apparent who is the lesser evil–except perhaps on the basis of a completely American-centric view. But this view itself is one of the most awful things, and it represents completely the death of idealism–this death is represented very well by Hillary Clinton. In other words, I’m reversing the judgment on fascism (or Nazism) made by John Goodman’s character in The Big Lebowski: I would credit Trump with only having an instrumental calculus, he is interested in the price, and what he has is not an ideology. This could be said of Romney, too, but again there is a difference, and here is the difference: Trump is super-rich, probably (I recall someone in the Village Voice, perhaps it was James Ridgeway or Andrew Kopkind, writing years ago, during the rise of the FIRE economy in New York, that it is never clear exactly what kind of money Trump has, if any), but he is not actually a part of the global financial elite, or part of their political servant apparatus. This cannot be said about the Clintons (including Chelsea). I really don’t want to get into a discussion of global compacts of the Illuminati-type, but we do know, and there is no mystery about this, that there are meetings of the global financial elite, in which they try as best they can to shape things according to their mutual interests, even while they cannot transcend the contradictions of capitalism. (My difference with the idea of a “secret world government” is not that there are not schemes and conspiracies of the most rich and powerful people in the world, aimed at maintaining their wealth and power, but that somehow they could form some unified association that would allow them to no longer have to compete against each other. The reality is that the units of finance capital, and other forms of capital under finance capital, suck the life out of the rest of the world for as long as they can, and then, after whatever period of this form of anti-life destructiveness, they turn on each other, but in ways that are terribly destructive for everyone–and yet, in that moment of crisis, other possibilities may break through.) For example, the annual meeting at Bilderberg is one such gathering of global fat-cats, but Trump isn’t a part of that scene. Trump makes deals, he is mainly involved in buying and putting up buildings, but he isn’t really involved in what finance capital does the world over, which structures and restructures whole national economies. And so, being outside of that circuit, but having a lot of money and the skills to appear as a “thought leader” (even without thought!) in the age of “reality television” and a “say anything” “political sphere,” Trump is a threat to these global machinators. He may or may not be a real threat to some other ordinary people who happen to be Mexican, Muslim, women, etc., but that isn’t what has the ruling class worried–other than perhaps in the sense that Trump’s racist, misogynist, etc., proposals/positions are a bit too crude for the “good taste” of an aristocracy that isn’t going to be taking tea with the vast majority of white men, either. It seems likely, and this is deeply unfortunate, that such considerations will mean little or nothing to Hillary supporters. Even less likely to be very effective with many segments of the liberal Democrat milieu is the following “theoretical” or “conceptual” point, that: The deeper problem is that there is an entrenched definition of “politics” in our society that is itself evil, that itself is set against a different understanding of politics, as oriented toward truth and not only toward the manipulations of power. This is where “the loss of idealism” and the embrace of cynicism is tragic and dangerous, where these things take humanity ever-deeper into a hole that it will be ever-more-difficult for people to climb out of. Just two short lines from the Rolling Stone/Jann S. Wenner (March 23, 2016) endorsement of Hillary Clinton say everything that needs to be vigorously opposed: “I have been to the revolution before. It ain’t happening.” Wenner is referring to the Sixties in order to dismiss Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution.” The latter is not the revolution that is really needed, of course, though just now the question appears to be moot in any case. Either way, this argument for political “realism”–that is, cynical realism–is a poison far worse than Trump’s lack of anything idealist to begin with. The addition of “feminism” to this noxious soup is indeed a very powerful move for this kind of cynicism. As with Bill Clinton’s appeal to feminists, the result for any real movement for the liberation of women will be negative. That such claims will fall on deaf ears among Hillary supporters and hardcore Democrats is practically certain. So, as for who I am trying to talk with here, with these arguments, I suppose it has to be people who I am begging to not fall for the usual crap–people who are not completely committed to the repetition compulsions of the Democratic Party. Always it is said that there is a special reason to, in the end, support the Democrat. This time the reason is supposedly even more special, and I will concede that, to all appearances, there are some special elements involved in this election. But, of course, we are dealing with the various wings of American postmodern capitalism that employ great skill in manipulating appearances. One essential element of the postmodern form of capitalism is indeed that the media and other ideological apparatuses of “manufactured consent,” to borrow that term, are fully integrated into the system, not mere “puppets of the bourgeoisie.” For the most part the work of these apparatuses is to perpetuate the contemporary, immense, culture of distraction. Even to the extent that it occurs to anyone in the midst of this culture to think/act/live as something like a “citizen,” the apparatuses are there to divert things either back to mindless distraction or, on occasion, to puff up some spectacle as politically “important” and to demand that people “participate” in the spectacle. In this light, the fact that about half of those eligible to be a part of this spectacle are not moved enough to pull a lever is even more significant, and those who can only think to call this “apathy” or “irresponsibility” are barking up the wrong tree, simply adding more credence, or volume at any rate, to the ongoing scene of virtual bread and cyber-circuses. The manufactured “consent” in electoral politics is barely more than mere acquiescence, but somehow the liberal feminists and hardcore Democrats (fans of liberal imperialism, that is) are just filled with pride and fervor. Speaking of the spectacle, some like to say that Trump’s association with reality TV somehow disqualifies him from being president–just as, decades ago, the same thing was said about Ronald Reagan’s having been a “B movie actor.” At least , though, the form of fiction called “reality TV,” presents itself for what it is, unlike the fiction of the Clinton Foundation’s existing to “help people” while making deals with one of the most anti-woman regimes on earth. Just as I read these words to my brilliant life-partner and fellow philosopher, Kathleen League, she responds that liberals seem to have a very special form of short-sightedness, and even selfishness. Certainly there has to be something special about them, that they can get all agitated every four years. I try to stay away from these things on Facebook, but, after the announcements from the FBI and the attorney general that Hillary would not be charged in the email debacle, I posted that it seemed I might get the Trump-Sanders election I hoped for after all. I foolishly thought that the performative contradictions represented by the blatant corruption and hypocrisy of Hillary might manifest themselves somewhat explosively in the Democratic Party. Of course such a thing has long been impossible in the Republican Party, where the idea of hypocrisy has no purchase. (Republicans in congress would argue to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a blowjob while themselves getting blowjobs. In this light, let us add Ken Starr to the list of truly horrible people; but let us also then recognize another virtue of the Donald, that it seems unlikely that the feigning of sexual prudery–which is a weird part of a good bit of identity politics, too–would be a part of his administration.) And, it is another essential feature of postmodern capitalism that it is “post-legitimation” and is therefore not susceptible to a crisis of legitimation. Apparently, after a lifetime of studying philosophy and politics, I am often foolishly (though I hope in some sense charmingly!) naive about these things; of course, no implosion of the Hillary camp is yet forthcoming. Still, even despite the fact that Bernie has now endorsed Hillary, I hope that he will keep on with the chessplayer’s gambit of continuing to play, because 1) it is not impossible that some problematic issue of Hillary’s will gain traction; and 2) relatedly, it is not even improbable that Trump still has a few tricks up his sleeve. On the point about the selfishness, narrowness, and cynicism of the Clinton/hardcore Democrat camp, my Facebook venture was instructive, because, predictably, a Hill-bot attacked me (and a couple of my women friends as well). One argument was particularly instructive. This woman said that she didn’t want Trump because he says he will deport Muslims, and the doctor for her special-needs child is a Pakistani man. As my friend and fellow Sartrean philosopher, Kimberly Engels, commented, this was a good example of the narrowness of the Hill-bots and the operative conception of “politics” for the Democrats, that they cannot speak to universalism and common humanity, but only to particular interests. (Leave aside that this is not exactly what Trump said he would do; what he did say is bad enough and completely wrong.) Everything else this Hill-bot said was in a similar vein. When I brought up the point about the Clinton Foundation-Saudi Arabia-State Department connection, our Hill-bot simply responded that, “if that’s all you’ve got on Hillary, then you haven’t got much.” Um, okay–how about addressing how much or how little I do have here? What is really behind such a response is the idea that there is this “choice” to be made, and that it is between Hillary and Donald, and anyone who does not support Hillary is against her. One would think that, if there really is a special place in hell for some people, it would be for people who make this kind of deal, and then say that Trump is attacking a “foundation that is trying to help people.” Significantly, this was the same sort of whining response that Jeb Bush gave to the Donald’s charge that George W. Bush lied about the WMD–that “really quite pathetic” (as Trump likes to say) “I’m tired of people attacking my family.” Somehow, at least with her followers, this “response” is working for now. Probably nothing can disrupt their Democratic Party repetition compulsion, but thankfully there are millions of people who are not under that spell. When it comes to “helping work” and the loss of even reformist idealism, perhaps nothing stands out so much as that the woman who Hillary Clinton claimed as her main inspiration and mentor in this regard, Marian Wright Edelman, found herself having to break with Hillary, so egregious were her (and her husband’s) failings in their previous stint in the White House. And yet the period of shaming is just now coming into higher gear, only to be further intensified between now and election day. It is very important that people who believe in and work toward a radically new and better world steel themselves a bit–but not too much. The main message is that this system of “electoral politics” is bogus, but, for sure, it could also be bogus to get overly-involved in a “don’t vote” movement. Khury Petersen-Smith wrote a good piece on the “shaming people into voting for Hillary”-movement at the Socialist Worker website (“I won’t be shamed into voting for Clinton,” June 30, 2016, SocialistWorker.org). Rather than cover again the points that Petersen-Smith treats plenty well, I only want to deal with a particular question, that of Hillary Clinton’s “tone.” Here it is said that, if one doesn’t like what one hears, and if one is a male, then the only possible reason for this is sexism. I will readily admit that I can barely stand to hear Hillary talk; I really am not looking forward to hearing her voice over the airwaves when the powers-that-be install her as president. I feel that I am not alone in finding HRC’s tone generally superior and patronizing. And, sure, so what?–and, sure, one could claim that my reaction to this is not entirely separate from the way that men often respond to powerful women, and I don’t think that’s a question simply to be ignored. Indeed, the question has to be dealt with, in part because it is the sort of thing that advocates of identity politics inflate into a major issue. This, in turn, allows reactionaries to say reactionary things in the name of “not being politically correct,” and, either way, much more important questions are ignored. Anyone in academia knows the phenomenon of being talked down to by a haughty administrator. And, for that matter, anyone in academia who is from the South (as I am) has had the experience of being treated like a hick and a moron by someone (administrator or faculty colleague, or sometimes even arrogant graduate students) else in academia. And let’s add here that women who are “powerful” because of their intellectual or artistic or athletic achievements are one thing, and women who are powerful because they have spent their whole lives seeking power from a position of privilege are another–and I don’t see putting them in a different category from men who have gone through life this way. I would prefer that all power-seekers of this sort leave the planet immediately. All of this “attitude” crap just pours gasoline on the fires of Trump supporters, by the way. The fact that Hillary-supporters are immune to understanding that the attitude will backfire owes everything to the imperialist-feminist/identity politics consensus that Hillary represents. Not everything said by a woman contributes to women’s liberation–this should go without saying, but clearly it has to be said. Obviously, both Trump and Clinton are characters, they have carefully-constructed personas, the difference being that the latter is carefully constructed to be a politician, while the former is more of a salesman/deal-maker, and much more convincing as such. There is no shortage of “attitude” with Trump, perhaps the kind of attitude that only a billionaire could project into the “political” arena, and seemingly more “authentic” and less-contrived for that. If there really is something beyond the appearances this time, it is something systemic, and not something that will be determined in the electoral arena. The irony is that, in terms of this arena, the only element that apparently cannot be strictly scripted is Donald Trump. The system wants and needs Hillary, and she has done everything, including with her “feminism,” to make herself the “best qualified” to serve this system–this horrible, hateful, globally-reaching system. I’m sorry to beat a dead horse (or any horse), but let’s look at the liberal repetition compulsion just a little bit more. Here’s the question that I have for Hillary supporters: At this stage of things, of politics and history, what can anyone expect to find out that we don’t know already, just by the mere fact of having a woman preside over this empire? Isn’t this just a kind of a joke at this point–“I want to see what it will be like to have a woman president”? It was understandable that, after George W. Bush, and after hundreds of years of slavocracy and racial oppression and every form of racism from the most outwardly brutal to the most subtle and hidden, that many Americans would be enthusiastic for having a president who was not only an African-American, but also clearly not an idiot, and also seemingly not some kind of fascist puppet who was manipulated by neo-fascist neo-cons of the sort who shoots one of his own friends in the face with a shotgun and then lies about it. And what did we learn? That essentially it doesn’t matter. It’s sad, it’s part of postmodern capitalism even, that the ruling class of the United States has actually gone to extraordinary lengths to teach us a thing or two, but most of us don’t learn squat–in a way for the very reason that keeps winding back upon itself, that what passes and is promoted as “politics” in this society is not real politics, it has nothing to do with creating a true polis. So, what exactly would be the value of having Hillary Clinton, “as a woman,” as president? “To show that it can be done”? –that’s a completely rigged game, and anyone can see that. We should have seen this easily enough in the wake of Dan Quayle and George W. Bush and Sarah Palin and the slate of Republican candidates in 2012: There are many intelligent and caring people in the United States, even some who call themselves “conservatives”–but these are the people in line to become president? Of course it means something that the riders in the Republican clown car are what the system comes up with. These people are either direct products of the ruling class, e.g., George W. Bush and Dan Quayle, or they have worked their way through the system and made themselves “fit to serve.” This, by the way, is the background against which the claim that the Donald is not “qualified” to be president should be measured. What is worth further thought here is that Trump is certainly qualified–in other words, like Clinton, he knows how to game the system. The difference, and this is very telling, is that Trump is not and has not made himself “fit to serve.” As the rogue billionaire, he doesn’t have to–at least this is how things appear. Have the great lengths Hillary has gone to made her more fit to serve? Sure, but to what end? If one absolutely must vote and participate in this charade of politics, and if one wants to vote for a woman in this context, why not vote for Jill Stein? The Democrats have a ready-made answer to this question, that Jill Stein is not electable, and that a vote for anyone other than Hillary is a vote for the Donald. So, it’s not just “a woman,” but only one particular woman, and let’s not get hung up on any questions about the substance of her political career. Certainly it is the case that third parties, in a completely rigged two-party system, mainly play the role of making it appear that there is a little room for dissenting views–except that they have to accept the rule of not opposing the system right down to its roots. The important thing from the standpoint of the system is that some people can let off a little steam and say, “okay, we tried,” and then go home. On the other hand, the typical Democratic criticism (or name-calling, at any rate) of third parties as “spoilers” is just another indication that the Democrats don’t think their candidate should actually have to earn or deserve votes–because the chieftains of this Party, as with the Republicans, know they have a rigged system. Especially in the present situation, this is why the Hillary supporters are so angry, making up crazy, silly stuff about “Bernie bros,” “Bernie bullies,” and other spoilers–the fix was supposed to be in, everything was supposed to be smooth sailing to the installment/coronation. Far from being a “bully,” Bernie worked his way very carefully around Hillary’s many shortcomings, bad initiatives, and corruptions. For this reason, argued Andrew Levine in Counterpunch for June 18, Bernie’s “political revolution was bound to falter.” In acquiescing to the Clinton campaign, either for the sake of personal political gain and/or, quite realistically, because it can be very dangerous to cross the Clintons, Sanders has done his followers a large disservice, and there is little redemption for him in the fact that he is now doing what he said he was going to do (namely support Hillary). I could imagine that Hillary is ambivalent about having Sanders campaign for her now, since this could get in the way of what all “New Democrats” seem to crave: right-wing opponents who allow them to proceed with neo-liberal market fundamentalism without interruption. (For a quick rundown of the Corrupt practices of the Clintons, see Eric Draitser, “Hillary Clinton’s Email Absolution: Two Parties, One Criminal Regine; Counterpunch.org, July 14, 2016. There are some hilarious articles out there claiming to have done a thorough job of investigating all of the charges that have been raised against Clinton, and saying that the records are lacking for showing that she ever intentionally did anything wrong. Please. From Whitewater to the State Department email issue, the Clintons are masters at making records disappear–and some people, too.) It is with this in mind, I think, that Levine argues that “the Trump menace is a red herring that diverts attention away from the plain fact that the struggle against Clintonism is the paramount struggle of our time.” I’m not sure I would quite put things that way, but certainly there is something to the idea that, all over the world, neo-liberalism holds sway, and often with the most success where it can press forward the marketization of everything under the veneer of psychobabble-inflected “progressivism”–and, now, “feminism.” Undoubtedly, Hillary will also appeal to her constituency among African-Americans by mouthing a few “Black Lives Matter”-sympathetic statements. It helps that somehow too many people are willing to ignore not only the Clintons’ central role in mass incarceration, but also the fact that a privatized prison system depends on putting people of all colors, though disproportionately people who are brown and black, to work in conditions that are very hard to distinguish from slavery. Indeed, these conditions for imprisoned men may be worse than slavery, with rape being a regular and even systematic part of the picture. Andrew Levine prefaces his line about the red herring with, “Trump is as awful as they say he is, maybe worse.” This may be true, though it’s not Donald Trump who supported mass incarceration from the White House or the destruction of Libya or the coup in Honduras from the State Department. Trump’s words are dangerous, for sure, and there are reasons to worry about what Trump has stirred up–just read some of the reports in which journalists are tweeting what they overhear at Trump rallies. However, the real point is that, what Hillary defends, and what she doesn’t say about her so-called “accomplishments,” and what Bernie Sanders hasn’t said about these things, as words and silences, are at least as dangerous–and these words and silences cannot be excused simply on the basis that Trump is awful, horrible, or even a “fascist.” (I hasten to add, of course, that this is not Levine’s aim, either–which is clear on the basis of the “red herring” line and much else that he says.) There is yet more to be said on this question of fascism (in particular, in future I hope to take up Adam Gopnik’s article, “Being Honest About Trump,” from the July 14, 2016 New Yorker online edition); again, it is as if, with this particular f-word as the trump card (pun unavoidable!), nothing about Hillary Clinton’s actual political career or program need be discussed. And they called Reagan the “teflon president”! But, gee, why should Hillary Clinton ever have to answer for anything? She’s a woman, and she isn’t Donald Trump, that’s all you need to know, and you’re a jerk, a spoiler, a bully, possibly a “bro,” and a chump for Trump, for asking any questions. Many watchers of U.S. “politics,” usually of the “political junkie”-type, like to point out that “Hitler was elected.” Sure, but guess what? –G.W. Bush wasn’t elected, unless you count the five votes he got from the Supreme Court. The point being that the ruling class can generally get what it wants, and, significantly, it doesn’t want Trump. Fascism in present-day America is a complicated question. The stunt pulled by Elizabeth Warren and House Democrats, the “sit-in for gun control” (with full amenities, including buffet, of course) predictably sent liberals into paroxysms of delight, but the result was just more rhetoric in favor of the national security state. In particular, as Sarah Lazar (Alternet.org, June 23, 2016) argues, the “no fly, no buy” proposal put forward by these Democrats would extend what is already a discriminatory “dragnet watchlist,” that especially targets Muslims. This is an excellent example of how, while Trump says he will “ban Muslims,” the Democrats are already well-along in anti-Muslim discrimination. And here is postmodern capitalism again: it’s okay to enact fascistic policies, just don’t talk like a fascist. By the way, the response of my aforementioned Hill-bot on this last question was “the Middle-East was always a sewer”–solid, critical analysis, and no need to look at Hillary, or the U.S., for any explanation. And, see, “ordinary” liberal imperialists are free to talk like any other right-wingers out there, just not usually the leaders. Then again, Hillary’s “We came, we saw, he died,” sounds as noxiously cruel as anything George W. Bush or Donald Trump has said, but with the special, added touch of Imperial Roman tonality. Is it not interesting that, with either Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, no one is saying, “I want to see what it would be like to have the first Jewish president”? No one is being gratuitously called “anti-Semitic” because they don’t support either Sanders or Stein. Instead, criticize Hillary’s typical lock-step support of the State of Israel, or even her willingness to make a complete shambles of Muslim countries or to risk war with Iran, then you’ll hear about anti-Semitism, on top of the charge of sexism–don’t worry, this double-whammy is undoubtedly on its way. At least with Trump there is a chance that he might say, “How much does this relationship with Israel cost every year, exactly?” He might ask why a trillion-dollar war needs to be fought, just because the State of Israel says to do it. He might ask why Israel needs to be subsidized when they have nuclear weapons, their own arms industry, and weapons manufacturer who are millionaires. Trump won’t ask these questions out of any high moral or political principles, but at least there is the possibility that he won’t use the rhetoric of those principles to not ask the questions, either. It would be fun to quote Levine’s paragraphs about how Hillary Clinton, “will make every other President and Commander-in-Chief in American history, even George W. Bush, look good in comparison; and there will be no way to put a happy face on that.” But what’s more important for my purposes is Levine’s assessment of Bernie Sanders, even given the probability that Bernie will fold himself entirely into the Hillary campaign–for my purposes here, one point in particular stands out: [Sanders] “demonstrated — inadvertently, but undeniably — that another Democratic Party is not possible; that the idea that Democrats could become good for anything more than keeping Republicans at bay is a pipedream at best.” One can imagine all who are committed to the Democratic Party saying to this last, “But that’s good enough, especially this time.” Yes, it’s plenty good enough for those who can think no further than remaining compliant, narcoleptic supporters of U.S. imperialism. Why is it the “good liberals” are so committed to “trying things” over and over again endlessly when it is fantastically, abundantly clear that nothing fundamental changes through the electoral system? I think the answer to this is easy enough to discern: the good liberals like being affluent members of an imperialist society, and feeling smug about how “good” they are. They support the system that is more or less working for them, except that, even when that system is no longer working for them, they are dramatically short on any kind of vision for a different kind of society. What is especially ugly in this picture is that, with Hillary Clinton, their cards are on the table, they want to vote for more imperialism. *** The following should go without saying, but it probably does have to be said, though again it will not mean anything to Hillary supporters. There are many millions of people in the United States who would be very happy to live in a good society, and part of our definition of a good society is that there would be women at every level of leadership, and of course in every other walk of life. There is and would be no shortage of great, brilliant women to lead such a society, and it would not be a surprise if there were in fact many more women capable in this way than men. But none of this has anything to do with having a woman as the titular head of the American empire, the very bad society that we have today. And, by the way, as for “God having a special place in hell,” it should be pointed out that the record of this same “God” on taking care of women is, to put it lightly, less than great. *** There are some who are calling the present political season, mainly because of Trump but also to some extent because of Sanders, a “crisis of democracy.” The word “democracy” has been rendered more or less useless (or worse) by the workings of the American system, but it’s laughable to think that “democracy” is in “crisis” because for a change electoral politics is expressing something of what some people want, or at least their frustrations are becoming more apparent. If only this “crisis of democracy” could open up a larger crisis of the oligarchy; at least there is a start here, with the disarray in which one of the main ruling-class institutions finds itself. This is not to say that good people should cheer or vote for Trump, with the hope of “precipitating a crisis.” That terrible strategy from the 1960s and ’70s should be studied, but not revisited. One way we know there is a real crack in the existing order is that liberals, too, are moaning about the troubles facing the Republican “political class”; Jonathan Rouch, writing in The Atlantic (July/August 2016), warns of chaos and a system that seems to have gone “insane.” So, the insanity that the United States has visited on the rest of the world for many decades is manifesting itself in the belly of the beast. Perhaps after only 240 years of the U.S. polity (I’m not going to say “republic,” another word almost completely desecrated, though perhaps Plato and Badiou can do something for it), we already have an inbred aristocracy, with Harvard and Yale “legacy” students at its core. That’s fast living in the modern and postmodern worlds–what can be called in the latter case “fast capitalism” (after the excellent book by sociologist Ben Agger). It’s hard to imagine that many in the wider world will feel so much sympathy for the U.S. on this point, though of course we all should steel ourselves and prepare politically for what can happen if this particular ship of state lists heavily to one side or the other. *** Please, let’s bear in mind that, when the malefactorious machinators are having problems doing their nefarious business, yes, things can get dangerous, but, on the whole, this is a good thing. Lack of ease and freedom in ruling class maneuvering can be transformed into freedom for the people, if there are three elements that are gathering in intensity, even if through twists and turns: a revolutionary movement, revolutionary leadership, and real ideas–or, to put it in the terms of Alain Badiou, an Idea. At present, all three are lacking. Perhaps you would expect a philosopher to say this, but it is no less true for that: the key element in our moment is a new idea. There will be movements, there are already some good movements. There are some leaders, not without skill, but they are working with ideas whose time has come and gone (or, in many cases, only pseudo-ideas). There are many people who have great potential to become good leaders, but they are also in need of an idea–and, for too many, this means getting beyond the anti-theoretical slant of many who would take up leadership. The various movements will not coalesce into “the Movement,” and the leadership we need will not appear until an Idea breaks the current impasse. To be clear, I am not saying that the world awaits “the philosopher” who will invent this idea. We need an idea in politics, in the construction of a true political sphere; philosophers may have a special role in pointing to that idea, or declaring the idea, but philosophers and intellectuals will have to get onboard with the idea like everyone else. As Alain Badiou puts it, “politics is, because people think.” We need to grapple not only with the “because” in this formulation (“because” is a word with slippery logic), but also “is,” “people,” and “think.” Let’s put our heads down, when we can, and together from time to time, too. If there are any Hillary supporters still reading this, don’t worry too much, your candidate has things pretty well rigged. And if she can’t win an election against Donald Trump, that’s her own bloody fault, and don’t go blaming those of us who don’t want to play your thoughtless game. From http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/20/the-triumph-of-imperialist-feminism-hillary-vs-the-immense-revolution/

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/sott-focus-the-easters-a-case-study-in-psychopathy-and-ponerization.html/

SOTT FOCUS: The Easters: A case study in psychopathy and ponerization

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news The constant anti-Russian hate propaganda that fills today’s airwaves gives us an unprecedented glimpse into the creation of history and the mindset of those in positions of power. One could be forgiven for tuning out all of the noise and blather, but it is still a fascinating look at how history is distorted even as it’s happening. And, thanks to an LA Times write-up, we have a perfect example that helps us understand the very nature of how the ‘game is played at the ‘common or garden’ level. In August of 2016 the LA Times began publishing an incredibly vivid case study of psychopathy named FRAMED: She was the PTA mom everyone knew. Who would want to harm her? It is certainly must-read material for people interested in the subject of psychopathy, and it is made even more valuable due to the fat that the journalist who wrote the story is apparently unaware of the subject. The Easter case study The story begins with the background of Kelli Peters, a popular PTA president who had worked into the position through volunteering countless hours in after-school care-giving activities. She was popular, loved by the community, and especially loved by the children. Having spent years living and working in the peaceful city of Irvine, California, Kelli was ill-prepared when an otherwise normal day was interrupted by a surprise visit from a police officer. Kelli was initially puzzled but grew more concerned as the officer asked to search her car. When the officer came back with a ‘Ziploc bag of marijuana, 17 grams worth, plus a ceramic pot pipe and two smaller EZY Dose Pill Pouch baggies, one with 11 Percocet pills, another with 29 Vicodin’, she was horrified, but she knew the drugs weren’t hers. In shock, she begged the officer to believe her. Luckily for her the cop smelled a rat. The drugs were badly hidden, the anonymous individual who called in the ‘tip’ had a suspiciously bad Indian accent. Kelli herself was an extremely sympathetic person and when the officer asked more penetrating questions, searched her house and found © People Magazine no evidence of drug use, he simply let her go. But not before after asking her what was really going on. She replied that she had an enemy – Jill Easter. This is where things get interesting. Kent and Jill Easter were both upper-class lawyers and the parents of a young boy in one of Kelli’s after-school classes. One afternoon their boy was left outside briefly following a short tennis class. Kelli was in charge of rounding the boys up and, when Jill found her son slightly upset, she demanded to know what had happened. Kelli replied that he had a tendency to be slow and take his time. Kelli apologized profusely for allowing him by himself for a matter of a few minutes. It was an unfortunate incident, and one that most normal people would easily let go. But for Jill it became an act of war. Kent and Jill immediately began a hate campaign targeting Kelli, demanding her resignation, demanding police conduct an investigation, filing lawsuits and a restraining order claiming ‘Peters was “harassing and stalking myself and my 6-year-old son,” and had threatened to kill her.’ When they were met with indignation and laughed off by the community, they plotted in the shadows and, sloppily, framed Kelli for illicit drug use. We have here an excellent case study into the mind of psychopathic deviants. There is the initial incident between two people – a misunderstanding, perhaps – that is nevertheless responded to with a programmed and vindictive campaign to destroy the ‘offender’. In this case, it was a type of pathological activism, with Kent and Jill showing no doubts whatsoever about their pathological ‘righteousness’. When laughed off by the community they took that as a sign not of the delusional nature of their belief about Kelli, but of their persecution, and plotted to ruin one Kelli’s life. Most importantly, thanks to the relatively healthy mindset of the community around them, Kent and Jill were found guilty and now face justice. But what if Kent and Jill weren’t caught? What if they had connections to local reporters who could run their version of events? What if they had access to professional criminals who weren’t so clumsy at framing their victim? And what if the community in which they lived was already on the verge of hysteria and therefore prone to believing their story (i.e. what if Kelli was a Muslim)? In such a scenario Kelli would likely have been found guilty for using drugs and a ‘trial by media’ firestorm would convince the community of that reality. Another innocent person would have fallen victim to lies and ignorance. In the 20th century we’ve seen history warped by spellbinders, who claim that overthrowing democratically elected governments in South America was to bring “freedom” to the people; that the bloody war in Vietnam was to end the spread of tyranny; that the assassination of strong African leaders like Lumumba was a great boon for democracy around the world. These same spellbinders and warmongering psychopaths denounced Kennedy for not starting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union over the Cuban Missile Crisis, for using negotiation instead of violence and bloodshed to settle ‘Cold War’ conflicts. Comparing the Easter case study to the global stage today we see the same elements. When we examine the belief that Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11, the idea that Vladimir Putin is trying to destroy American ‘democracy’, or that Assad is ‘barrel bombing’ his own people, we see a limitless psychopathic vindictiveness, one that gleefully demands the execution of people for the sake of the personal political and economic gain of a small group of ‘elite’. As former CIA Director Tom Morrell quipped on public television, the US is supposed to ‘kill Russians and Iranians to make them pay’. No doubt he feels convinced of his righteousness when he says it. Comparisons to another innocent victim: Libya In his book Destroying Libya and World Order: The Three-Decade U.S. Campaign to Reverse the Qaddafi Revolution, Francis A. Boyle recounts the numerous attempts made to invade Libya and murder Gaddafi since the Reagan administration. By provocatively placing US warships on Libyan territory, sanctioning Libyan officials, scare-mongering in the media and prohibiting travel to the country, the Reagan administration was bent on obliterating Gaddafi’s Green Revolution. On April 6th, 1986 a series of bombs were detonated in a Berlin dance hall. The result was the deaths of US marines and the opportunity Reagan had been waiting for to strike Gaddafi. About a week later and the US Air Force, having to bypass France due to pressure from French politicians, rained missiles down on Gaddafi’s house, murdering his adopted Palestinian child. There was no evidence that Libya was involved in the terrorist attack, let alone justification for murdering an innocent child in response. As was revealed decades later, the allegation against Libya over the Berlin bombing was false, another staged event to provide justification for murder in broad daylight. Gaddafi survived that attempt, but the US was always going to try again. In 1988 there were the Lockerbie bombings, and once again Gaddafi was fingered as the man responsible for the attacks, despite massive evidence to the contrary: Fortunately for Gaddafi Francis A. Boyle smelled a rat. A prominent international lawyer, Boyle effectively issued the international equivalent of a restraining order against the US. The night before US jets were poised to strike the country the motions were filed, and the US backed down. Clearly the international community had not yet lost its collective mind, and such a legal junction was capable of working. As the decades went by it was clear that individuals within the US were ready to make sure such restraint would not work again. By 2011, not only had Gaddafi survived repeated Western assaults, he had overseen a massive increase in the living standards and social rights of the Libyan population, including free health care, education, and women’s rights that included free childcare and payment for raising children. Gaddafi wanted to emancipate Africa from Western corporate and imperial interests. Libya, the most prosperous African democracy, was a beacon of freedom in an increasingly dark world. Something had to be done to crush him and the Libyan people. Thanks to Bush and Blair’s evisceration of international law through the illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq, and with the full backing of NATO and a UN who seemed eager to believe their lies, Gaddafi was unable to find assistance from the international community. With Afghanistan and Iraq in rubble, ISIS-like lunatics – flush with Western intelligence agency-supplied cash and weapons – were ready and willing to overrun Libya. ‘Rebels’ invaded the country and brutally murdered Gaddafi and destroyed much of Libya. NATO warplanes deliberately destroyed Libya’s water production facilities, putting many lives at risk. With their gruesome task completed, the West’s jihadis were moved to Syria to begin the same process there. To justify such barbarity, Western political psychopaths claimed that they had merely murdered another ‘evil dictator.’ Most of the world believed them. Thus, Africa’s most prosperous democracy was butchered before the eyes of a cheering Western public. Western corporations enriched themselves through the establishment of massive mercenary companies and no-bid contracts in other ‘war-torn regions’. $$billions were stolen from the Libyan people and then ‘disappeared’. The US continues bombing the nation to this day, claiming there is no end in sight to the conflict they deliberately started. About the public murder of Gadaffi, Hillary Clinton exulted: ‘We came, we saw, he died’. This is the woman that may well become the next POTUS. Conclusion: Psychopathy © Unbekannt Many people who read the story of Jill and Kent’s unimaginable vindictiveness wonder ‘how could they do it?’ Outraged, local people in Irvine have demanded to know why two wealthy and educated parents would try and destroy the life of a beloved member of their community. The answer is that there is a distinct subset of every class, every ethnic group, every country, that shares the mindset of people like Kent and Jill Easter. They are convinced of their own superiority, and will stop at no lengths to avenge any perceived ‘wrong-doing’ – however slight – committed against them. According to Carl Frankenstein, the psychopath has no clear distinction between what is ‘not him’ and what ‘is him’. There is no real thing as a fact – what exists outside of his mind is also part of him. It has no independent existence. The psychopath is thus allowed the absolute freedom to ‘create his own reality’ precisely because there is no such thing as reality. As Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff during the George W. Bush administration said, and as quoted by New York Times Magazine writer Ron Suskind: The aide said that guys like me were “in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who “believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” … “That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Thus, we are told that Russia is responsible for the migrant crisis because they’re bombing terrorists in Syria – even though the results have been a safe return for many refugees. Syrian civilians being rescued from Aleppo constitutes a criminal act because NATO says so. Russia is hacking Hillary Clinton’s emails, because Hillary’s people and the US media say so. The result is a world based on deviant fairy tales with no substance, all sound and fury designed to con and manipulate the minds of as many people as possible, and distract them from the truth and a growing list of truly catastrophic issues besetting Western society. As Lobaczewski wrote concerning the psychopath, “They learn to recognize each other in a crowd as early as childhood, and they develop an awareness of the existence of other individuals similar to them. They also become conscious of being different from the world of those other people surrounding them. They view us from a certain distance, like a para-specific variety.” It is their lack of conscience and their sense of being ‘alien’ in the world of human bonds, of mutually satisfying relationships and ‘the simple things’, that bids psychopaths to actively create a parallel society in which they can serve their own interests without humanity’s moral judgments, an to constantly attempt to warp society into their own deviant image: “In the psychopath, a dream emerges like some Utopia of a “happy” world and a social system which does not reject them or force them to submit to laws and customs whose meaning is incomprehensible to them. They dream of a world in which their simple and radical way of experiencing and perceiving reality would dominate; where they would, of course, be assured safety and prosperity. In this Utopian dream, they imagine that those “others”, different, but also more technically skillful than they are, should be put to work to achieve this goal for the psychopaths and others of their kin. “We”, they say, “after all, will create a new government, one of justice”. They are prepared to fight and to suffer for the sake of such a brave new world, and also, of course, to inflict suffering upon others. Such a vision justifies killing people, whose suffering does not move them to compassion because “they” are not quite conspecific.1 But it is the health of the general society which determines whether or not a psychopath will remain a garden variety criminal, or serial killer, or rise to positions of power over millions. What is at the kernel of a ‘healthy society’? For our purposes this question is best answered in terms of common sense: the health of a society is directly related to the way in which members of that society view and respond to pathological deviants. As the first criterion of ponerogenesis states: “One phenomenon all ponerogenic groups and associations have in common is the fact that their members lose (or have already lost) the capacity to perceive pathological individuals as such, interpreting their behavior in fascinated, heroic, or melodramatic ways“2. Psychopaths learn the ins and outs of the average person’s psychology as if studying a separate species, and in large part they are. It is critical for their survival to do so, because their knowledge of what makes a normal human being ‘tick’ is what allows them to continue to prey on and exploit normal people. It is, therefore, critical for our survival that we understand the existence of psychopaths, their nature and methods, and denounce their version of reality for what it is – egregious lies in service to their need to ‘feed’ on the manipulation, exploitation, control, suffering and, yes, death, of normal human beings and perhaps our entire global society. References 1. Andrew M. Lobaczewski and Laura Knight-Jadczyk’s Political Ponerology, a Study on the Nature of Evil for Political Purposes (Red Pill Press, 2009) p. 158 2. Ibid. p. 139 from https://www.sott.net/article/327923-The-Easters-A-case-study-in-psychopathy-and-ponerization

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/oscarssowhite-activist-still-unhappy-we-need-lgbtqia-movies-and-differently-abled-superheroes/

#OscarsSoWhite Activist Still Unhappy: We Need ‘LGBTQIA Movies,’ and ‘Differently-Abled Superheroes’

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] After making her hashtag #OscarsSoWhite go viral last year by claiming the Oscar nominations were racist and urging a boycott in protest, April Reign is still unhappy. This year, seven of the 20 nominations in acting categories went to minority actors and three films in the Best Documentary category are about black experiences in America. But Reign has now taken her hashtag tweeting advocacy campaign onto another social justice issue – stating that she’s still waiting for LGBT comedies and disabled superheroes. Daniel Nussbaum at Breitbart noted she told the Los Angeles Times: – READ MORE

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/10/18/defense-department-spokesman-resigns/

Robert Laity

Defense Department Spokesman Resigns -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! DESPITE PROMISE OF HONESTY, OBFUSCATION, SILENCE CONTINUE by Sharon Rondeau (Oct. 18, 2013) — Dr. George Little, press secretary for the Department of Defense who HAD advocated a new era of openness with the media, will leave his post on November 15. Prior to his current position as DOD spokesman, Little served the CIA as chief of media relations and Director of Public Affairs. Little told the press that he wants to return to the private sector and spend more time with his family. At the end of July, Little held a press conference in which he said that “a new approach to public affairs” was warranted to include “nontraditional journalists such as bloggers and tweeters.” Following that presentation, The Post & Email contacted the Army Public Affairs office on the matter of the forgery of Barack Hussein Obama’s long-form birth certificate as declared by a law enforcement investigation more than 18 months ago to ask about the ramifications to the military should Obama prove to be constitutionally ineligible or to have perpetrated fraud on the military and the nation. Our first contact passed the inquiry to Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale, who ridiculed and denigrated the messenger instead of addressing the dilemma posed by the findings of fraud and forgery. In 2010, a military “judge” said that discovery would not be allowed for Lt. Col. Terrence Lakin, who had challenged Obama’s eligibility by refusing to obey certain orders, because something on Obama’s birth certificate could potentially “embarrass” him. In April 2011, the White House published an image purported to be a certified copy of Obama’s long-form birth certificate from the Hawaii Department of Health which was quickly analyzed and determined to be fraudulent by numerous experts, with no expert vouching for its authenticity. Breasseale also failed to respond to our inquiry regarding the politically-motivated and criminally-driven court-martial which ended the career of CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III and damaged that of Capt. Michael Nordeen, Fitzpatrick’s superior, in 1990. This writer’s own congressman, Rep. Joseph Courtney, who is a member of the House Armed Services Committee, has also failed to respond to our inquiry. Unlike Obama’s fraudulent birth certificate image, Fitzpatrick knows who committed the forgery in his court-martial record. However, the investigation into the birth certificate has recently yielded “persons of interest.” Little had promised that “bad news stories” would not be hidden from the American people. However, since that time, no one in the Navy or in any other office within the Department of Defense has responded to our requests to review the Fitzpatrick court-martial record. The case against Fitzpatrick includes fraud, forgery, conspiracy to commit fraud, undue command influence, fabrication of “evidence,” and a cover-up which grows larger with each passing year in which dozens and perhaps hundreds of officers have participated over a period of 24 years. In the near future, The Post & Email will be publishing never-before-released evidence proving that the Fitzpatrick court-martial was a sham, while Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan Greenert, a former classmate of Fitzpatrick’s at the Naval Academy in Annapolis, continues to ignore our requests to open the record and see the forgery for himself. The military appears to retaliate against whistleblowers, in violation of federal law, labeling them mentally unsound, just as Fitzpatrick was and still is by the present and former members of the U.S. Navy. In his resignation letter, Little wrote, “The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure.”

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/turkey-smuggled-sarin-gas-to-terrorists-in-syria/

Stephen Lendman

Turkey Smuggled Sarin Gas To Terrorists In Syria

Turkey is complicit with Washington, other rogue NATO regimes, Israel, and despotic Arab states in waging war on Syria – including smuggled use of various type banned chemical weapons, Assad wrongfully blamed for their crimes. Turkish Republican People’s Party (CHP) opposition member Eren Erdem accused Ankara of covering up a major war crime, likely direct high-level involvement in smuggling materials used to make deadly sarin gas to ISIS and other terrorists – US proxy foot soldiers waging war on Syria. Various attacks occurred. The most notorious targeted the Damascus Ghouta suburb in August 2013, killing and injuring scores of civilians. At the time, then Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexandr Lubkashevich said “(w)e’re getting more new evidence that this criminal act was of a provocative nature.” “(T)here are reports circulating on the Internet, in particular that the materials of the incident and accusations against government troops had been posted for several hours before the so-called attack. Thus, it was a pre-planned action.” Syria’s government had nothing to do with it despite US-led false accusations otherwise. Under a UN-brokered deal, Syria eliminated its entire chemical weapons stockpile. No evidence indicates it used any toxic agents throughout nearly five years of conflict. Plenty reveals terrorists’ use on numerous occasions, sarin and other banned substances. On December 10, Erdem addressed Turkish parliamentarians, discussing criminal case number 2013/120, opened by Ankara’s General Prosecutor’s Office in Adana. Evidence shows various Turkish nationals were involved in direct dealings with ISIS and other terrorist groups, supplying them with sarin gas. Recorded wiretapped conversations exposed dealings with Al Qaeda terrorist Hayyam Kasap. RT International interviewed Erdem. He explained “(t)here is data in this indictment. Chemical weapon materials are being brought to Turkey and being put together in Syria in camps of ISIS which was known as Iraqi Al Qaeda during that time.” “These are all detected. There are phone recordings of this shipment like ‘don’t worry about the border. We’ll take care of it,’ and we also see the bureaucracy is being used.” None of this could go on without direct high-level regime involvement, perhaps Erdogan OKing the scheme complicit with Washington and other rogue states. According to Erden, once word got out, 13 arrests were made. Days later, suspects were released, charges dropped – after a new Adana public prosecutor replaced the original one. Individuals accused then moved cross-border unobstructed to Syria. “The phone recordings in the indictment showed all the details from how the shipment was going to be made to how it was prepared, from the content of the labs to the source of the materials,” Erden explained. “Which trucks were going to be used, all dates etc. From A to Z, everything was discussed and recorded. Despite all of this evidence, the suspects were released,” the case closed, showing high-level coverup, perhaps ordered by Erdogan. Materials to make sarin gas and perhaps other toxic chemicals moved freely cross-border from Turkey to Syria. Erden indicated a high-level regime coverup, evidence revealing Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag’s involvement. Toxic chemicals were purchased from Europe,” he said. US-led Western countries “should question themselves about these relations. Western sources know very well who carried out the sarin gas attack in Syria.” “They know these people. They know who (they) are working with. They know that these people are working for Al-Qaeda…Western (countries) are hypocrites about the situation.” It bears repeating. No evidence showed Syrian use of chemical or other toxic substances throughout years of conflict. Plenty shows CIA and US special forces train takfiri terrorists in chemical weapons use, perhaps directly supplying them with toxic agents. Earlier, Saudi Arabia was caught red-handed providing them with chemical agents in containers marked “made in KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).” In early November, Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) experts confirmed terrorists’ use of mustard gas and chlorine in Syria with “utmost confidence” – calling perpetrators “non-state actor(s).” Blaming Assad for incidents of chemical weapons’ use is part of the US-led propaganda campaign to wrongfully vilify him. Expect no letup ahead. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thesleuthjournal.com/robots-begin-learning-new-skills-youtube-videos/

Guest Post

Robots Begin Learning New Skills From YouTube Videos

By: Nicholas West | Techswarm Many of us who find ourselves challenged in one area or another have sought out YouTube as a tutorial to help us complete our task. Now researchers from the University of Maryland in collaboration with Australia’s NICTA have embarked on deeper machine learning that uses the popular video network as a database of information to enhance artificial intelligence. The abstract from their paper entitled: “Robot Learning Manipulation Action Plans by ‘Watching’ Unconstrained Videos from the World Wide Web” states: In order to advance action generation and creation in robots beyond simple learned schemas we need computational tools that allow us to automatically interpret and represent human actions. This paper presents a system that learns manipulation action plans by processing unconstrained videos from the World Wide Web. Its goal is to robustly generate the sequence of atomic actions of seen longer actions in video in order to acquire knowledge for robots. The lower level of the system consists of two convolutional neural network (CNN) based recognition modules, one for classifying the hand grasp type and the other for object recognition. The higher level is a probabilistic manipulation action grammar based parsing module that aims at generating visual sentences for robot manipulation. Experiments conducted on a publicly available unconstrained video dataset show that the system is able to learn manipulation actions by “watching” unconstrained videos with high accuracy. (Full paper available here) The goal of attaining accelerated machine learning is taking various forms. Earlier this year it was announced that University of Washington computer scientists were working on crowdsourcing as a comprehensive way to teach robots how to complete tasks. By learning from a larger online community, rather than just one set of instructions, puzzle-solving takes the more real-world form that each human typically experiences. “Because our robots use machine-learning techniques, they require a lot of data to build accurate models of the task. The more data they have, the better model they can build. Our solution is to get that data from crowdsourcing,” said Maya Cakmak, a UW assistant professor of computer science and engineering. LEVAN (Learning EVerything about ANything) is another University of Washington project that uses the Internet itself as a database – in this case, the vast array of books and images – in order to develop a more robust and comprehensive dataset for accelerated learning. …the program searches millions of books and images on the Web to learn all possible variations of a concept, then displays the results to users as a comprehensive, browsable list of images, helping them explore and understand topics quickly in great detail. “It is all about discovering associations between textual and visual data,” said Ali Farhadi, a UW assistant professor of computer science and engineering. “The program learns to tightly couple rich sets of phrases with pixels in images. This means that it can recognize instances of specific concepts when it sees them.” (Source) Then of course there is the even more ambitious project of establishing a language where computers can take what they learn and share that with other A.I. systems. Called the Wikipedia for Robots, it is essentially a cloud network where robots can do their own research, communicate with one another, and collectively increase their intelligence in a full simulation of human interaction. RoboEarth is another similar concept that involves machine cooperation: RoboEarth’s proof-of-concept demonstration is simple for humans, but hard for robots: serve fruit juice to a random patient in a hospital bed. In a fake hospital room at Eindhoven Technical University in the Netherlands, one robot mapped out the space, located the “patient’s” bed and a nearby carton of juice, then sent that data to RoboEarth’s cloud. A second robot, accessing the data supplied by robot number one, unerringly picked up the juice and carried it to the bed. (Source) RoboHow seeks to synthesize all of the above, taking into account the expanding Internet of Things: RoboHow has to make explicit many parts of complex procedures that humans can simply infer — like how to turn on an oven, or where to find needed ingredients. The plan is to eventually enable robots to search the internet for info or instructions they need to complete assigned tasks without external intervention. For now, people have to identify, demonstrate and feed RoboHow the right data, as bots left to their own devices would inevitably grab bad or incomplete information. So, it seems that our future robot overlords still need us meatbags around … for a little while longer, at least. (Source) Clearly a full-spectrum approach is being taken in the development of robotic intelligence. The only question that seems to remain is what is the timetable for when robots surpass humans and become a Superintelligence.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/questioning-crisis-actors-now-considered-harassment-professor-fired-for-asking-questions/

Bernie Suarez

Questioning Crisis Actors Now Considered “Harassment”- Professor Fired For Asking Questions!

When questioned by professor and Sandy Hook investigator James Tracy about their supposed son’s death at the Sandy Hook staged event of December 14, 2012, supected crisis actor parents Lenny and Veronica Pozner refused to answer simple questions. Instead, when challenged to prove the existence and or actual death of their supposed son Noah Pozner, the arrogant couple acted in a way that further brings suspicion and doubt over the Sandy Hook event. Instead of doing the right thing and respectfully providing their evidence of their son’s existence and death, especially given the unique situation where so many conspiracies are surrounding this highly suspicious and proven false flag, they chose (instead) to not bring closure to the issue. Instead of inviting the investigator to their home for dinner like a humble couple mourning their son’s death and peacefully and humbly showing Mr Tracy the journey they’ve been through the last few years so that Mr Tracy can get the word out to everyone about the reality of their son’s death, the Pozner couple choose (instead) to wage war against the search for truth. They instead called the police and charged the investigator with harassment! They didn’t stop there either. They then proceeded to write a letter to the University where professor Tracy teaches at Florida Atlantic University asking the University to fire him, and they did! Instead of providing truth the couple had this to say: “… to our horror, we have found that there are some in this society who lack empathy for the suffering of others. Among them are the conspiracy theorists that deny our tragedy was real. They seek us out and accuse us of being government agents who are faking our grief and lying about our loss.” “Tracy even sent us a certified letter demanding proof that Noah once lived, that we were his parents, and that we were the rightful owner of his photographic image,” they wrote. “We found this so outrageous and unsettling that we filed a police report for harassment. Once Tracy realized we would not respond, he subjected us to ridicule and contempt on his blog, boasting to his readers that the ‘unfulfilled request’ was ‘noteworthy’ because we had used copyright claims to ‘thwart continued research of the Sandy Hook massacre event.” Notice that in their statement, actually providing proof is not even a slim consideration. Notice that reporting back the facts about this resistance to truth is considered by the Pozners to be “ridicule and boasting to his readers” about how this happened. Notice how all the focus is on demonizing professor Tracy and painting him out to be the aggressor. Notice they immediately don the “victim” role as if the actual process of truth seeking and inquiry is itself the harassment! This is text book mainstream media-government political propaganda to hide the truth about this horrible staged event and demonize anyone who asks questions. Memo to the Pozner family: We (humanity) will haunt you forever until you provide that proof. You are not special. We ALL have family members who have died in one way or another. We have all suffered the death of loved ones. You are not the only ones. If someone asked me for proof of the death of my loved ones I would show that proof and carry on. Your choice of words and attack against the search for truth only deepens the mystery and will draw more fire your way. Warning to all future crisis actors. Professor Tracy has now officially lost his job for challenging crisis actors and let this be a warning to everyone that the war against truth has now reached a new level and given the speed at which the emerging new world order is attempting to rise, no one should be surprised by this attack on truth. I recently wrote about how the truth community will have to find new ways to hold crisis actors accountable for their treason and their crimes against humanity and I consider this incident the first shot fired in our war against crisis actors in 2016. Let this be a wake up call to all that these crisis actors must all be held accountable and it will be up to us to find ways to make this happen. Hopefully, this decision by Lenny and Veronica Pozner will be to their own doing. Hopefully this will set off a cascade of events to force this couple into court. And hopefully we will find a way to send these crisis actors to prison for treason if they can’t prove their claims. With every move the control system makes to block truth, they will only awaken more people. Anyone who cannot see through this artificial Orwellian attempt to block truth and to punish people for pursuing truth is blinded by their deception. This story represents a new level of censorship and I suspect they are doing this more so to protect future crisis actors. 2016 is looking to be another year packed with crisis actor shootings and events and I’m sure this is another way of the control system assuring future crisis actors that the awakened general public will be kept in check and punished if those considering crisis actor roles in the future are worried about being “harassed”. The control system is sending out a statement to the truth movement to back off their inquiries. But as we all know, this will only wake more people up to these staged events and make our pursuit more intense and determined. In this case more and more people will research Sandy Hook and know it was staged. Congratulation to professor James Tracy for having the courage to ask simple questions. Asking for proof of Noah Pozner’s existence and death is a very reasonable inquiry given all the lies surrounding Sandy Hook. “I consider this incident the first shot fired in our war against crisis actors in 2016” Shame on Lenny and Veronica Pozner for assaulting the pursuit of truth. This is equivalent to the New Jersey girls being charged with harassment for inquiring about 9/11 and the deaths of their loved ones. No one would have accepted that, yet today the general public is being told to accept this punishment of professor James Tracy. How is that justified? There is no difference here. Professor Tracy’s inquiry is of paramount importance in the same way 9/11 was. And the general public DOES have the right to question any event they wish whether the event was real or not. The very act of questioning something is fundamentally protected and is fundamentally a part of freedom and the American way. What we have seen with the Sandy Hook staged disaster is that secrecy is the norm. No one is allowed to question Sandy Hook event. We heard this nonsense from the start when traitor Lt Paul Vance tried to block any questioning of the Sandy Hook event the same day it was happening claiming that anyone questioning the event on social media would be arrested. All of this was a desperate failed attempt to control the Sandy Hook narrative and this attempt continues to this day. The event was such a failure that for the second year in a row on December 14, 2015 the anniversary of Sandy Hook was almost entirely ignored by mainstream media as they hoped no one would remember the Sandy Hook failed staged event. This is a reminder to all that America is now a fascist dictatorship and the people no longer even have the right to question any event that the mainstream media says is true. In many ways the search for truth endured a major blow with the recent firing of professor Tracy. It’s therefore time to sound the alarm. Let all take notice of this new level of censorship and treason. Let us all take down the names of those involved. Realize that the war for humanity has begun. Take a stand for what you believe in and stop preoccupying yourself with the opinions of those who are lost in the matrix of lies. Do yourself a favor, close your eyes and imagine that all the brainwashed zombies all vanished from this earth and only truth seekers dwell on earth. Imagine what kind of world this would be. Now open your eyes and make a conscious effort to mentally live in that world where the zombies don’t exist. This recent attack on truth is noted and will be met with equal and opposite force. Are you getting the picture and are you prepared for informational combat? Warriors needed now. Memo to crisis actors- we are coming for you. In the words of anonymous… expect us. Bernie Suarez is a revolutionary writer with a background in medicine, psychology, and information technology. He has written numerous articles over the years about freedom, government corruption and conspiracies, and solutions. A former host of the 9/11 Freefall radio show, Bernie is also the creator of the Truth and Art TV projectwhere he shares articles and videos about issues that raise our consciousness and offer solutions to our current problems. His efforts are designed to encourage others to joyfully stand for truth, to expose government tactics of propaganda, fear and deception, and to address the psychology of dealing with the rising new world order. He is also a former U.S. Marine who believes it is our duty to stand for and defend the U.S. Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. A peace activist, he believes information and awareness is the first step toward being free from enslavement from the globalist control system which now threatens humanity. He believes love conquers all fear and it is up to each and every one of us to manifest the solutions and the change that you want to see in this world, because doing this is the very thing that will ensure victory and restoration of the human race from the rising global enslavement system, and will offer hope to future generations.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/how-obama-overrode-kerrys-agreements-with-russia-2.html/

How Obama Overrode Kerry’s Agreements with Russia

This post was originally published on this site On more than one occasion, U.S. President Barack Obama overrode agreements that his Secretary of State John Kerry had reached with Russia. Unlike Obama’s consistent support of his prior Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s, initiatives (such as her backing of the coup that on 28 June 2009 had overthrown the progressive democratically elected President of Honduras and replaced him with a fascist regime), Secretary of State Kerry has repeatedly suffered humiliations from his boss’s (Obama’s) reversals of agreements that Kerry had reached with Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. The latest such incident was headlined at the «Moon of Alabama» blog on December 21st, “How The Military Excluded The White House From International Syria Negotiations», where the anonymous blogger arbitrarily blamed «the military» (instead of Kerry’s boss, Obama) for having sabotaged «the White House» (instead of sabotaged the Kerry-Lavrov agreement) — the agreement that Secretary of State Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had reached on 17 May 2016 for a «comprehensive ceasefire» between the U.S. and Russia regarding Syria (and which the White House then sabotaged). Obama never condemned nor fired any general, nor anyone else, for having perpetrated the U.S. bombing of Syrian government forces at Deir Zor, on 17 September 2016 — the sabotaging-event, which naturally caused Putin to instruct Lavrov to terminate all discussions with Kerry, because it displayed Obama’s unwavering determination to defeat Russia. (That sabotaging-event then motivated the meeting, on December 20th, when Russia, Turkey, and Iran, met together and agreed in their joint «Moscow Declaration», to complete, on their own, their war against the West’s jihadists who were trying to overthrow Assad; and so, the jihadists in Aleppo simply surrendered to Assad’s government — and the U.S. government and its propaganda ‘press’ howled that this was a victory for the ‘brutal’ Assad against ‘the civilians’, and against ‘the rebels’ — the latter being actually the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-backed jihadists.) Kerry had failed because Obama wanted a military settlement of the U.S.-backed jihadist invasion of Syria; he didn’t want a diplomatic end to it — at least not a diplomatic end that wasn’t a surrender by the Syrian government forces: the replacement of Assad by the jihadists (who were backed not only by Obama, but by King Saud who owns Saudi Arabia, and by Emir Thani who owns Qatar). And this sabotage, by Obama, actually repeated Obama’s earlier refusal to accept the deal that Kerry had negotiated with Lavrov to settle the conflict in Ukraine. As I had headlined on 7 June 2015, «Obama Sidelines Kerry on Ukraine Policy». Kerry had told the U.S.-installed regime in Ukraine to cease promising to conquer the two breakaway regions that had refused to accept rule by America’s puppets after Obama’s coup overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President, for whom both of those regions, Crimea and Donbass, had overwhelmingly voted. Crimea rejoined Russia, of which it had been a part for hundreds of years before the Soviet dictator had transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, but on 17 September 2014 Putin declined the urgings of Donbass to become a part of Russia, and so Donbass became instead an independent country, for the time being. Though Kerry told Obama’s puppet-President of Ukraine to adhere to the Minsk agreements, Kerry’s nominal subordinate, Hillary Clinton’s friend Victoria Nuland, told this puppet to ignore Kerry’s statement, and Obama backed Nuland against her nominal superior, Kerry. If Kerry had been working under a decent President, he would have been a great Secretary of State, and Kerry cannot reasonably be blamed for his misfortune — and the world’s — that his ‘superior’ (the U.S. President under whom he served) was Obama. from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-obama-overrode-kerrys-agreements-with-russia/5565755

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/abortion-survivor-gives-powerful-testimony-before-congress-video/

The Sleuth Journal

Abortion Survivor Gives Powerful Testimony Before Congress (VIDEO)

Planned Parenthood advised seven and a half months pregnant mother to have a late-term saline abortion. Most babies’ births are met with balloons and tiny embroidered socks, hugs and tears of joy. Not Gianna Jessen’s. During a congressional hearing Wednesday, Jessen, an abortion survivor, shared with members of Congress the heartbreaking story of her own birth — a story that began when her mother, a 19-year-old college student was advised by Planned Parenthood at seven and a half months pregnant to have a late-term saline abortion. Babies aborted through a saline abortion are slowly burned alive over several days by a toxic solution that is injected into the amniotic fluid surrounding them. The mother is then induced and the baby is usually delivered dead. But against the nearly insurmountable odds, Jessen was born alive. The abortion wasn’t without its lasting consequences, though, as Jessen was ultimately diagnosed with cerebral palsy caused by a lack of oxygen from the saline. Read more

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/obamas-constitutional-eligibility/page/2/

Robert Laity

Obama's constitutional eligibility Archives

Home » Posts tagged with » Obama’s constitutional eligibility (Page 2) Your Law isn’t Necessarily My Law POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DONATIONS: THE ROAD TO NOWHERE? by OPOVV, ©2013 (Aug. 27, 2013) — If you ever want to know what’s really bothering people, run for President, have yourself a political rally, make your speech and then, at the end, act like a preacher man and stand at the door thanking folks for attending. I had […] Putin’s Shower Song OH, HAPPY DAY! by OPOVV (Aug. 8, 2013) — Obama won’t meet with me When Barry Soetoro When the little weasel Will not meet with me Oh Happy Day! Oh Happy Day! When Harrison J Bounel When the Muslim Brother When the lying snake Won’t meet with me Oh Happy Day! Oh Happy Day! No […] Alabama Eligibility Case Under Review IS THE ALABAMA SUPREME COURT THE “APPROPRIATE FORUM” TO DETERMINE AUTHENTICITY? by Sharon Rondeau (Aug. 7, 2013) — According to a clerk at the Alabama Supreme Court, the case claiming that Alabama Secretary of State Beth Chapman did not properly vet the credentials of presidential candidates in 2012 is currently under review by the justices. […] Turning Off the Lights “THE ODDS ARE STACKING UP AGAINST YOU” by OPOVV, ©2013 (Jun. 26, 2013) — The basic plan is to die peacefully in your sleep surrounded by your loving family. Unfortunately, the best-laid plans are seldom executed according to our wishes. Things happen. We have earthquakes and tsunamis, fire and flood, not to mention the bizarre, such […] Nobel Peace Prize to Edward Snowden “STANDING UP FOR LIBERTY” by OPOVV, ©2013 (Jun. 10, 2013) — Rarely in one’s life does one come across a true hero, and it’s refreshing to this veteran that there are at least a few heroes left in our country. We live in an age of “Political Correctness” where what is perceived is the opposite of […] Is The Obama Regime Starting to Look Like Richard Nixon? NIXON: WATERGATE AND IRS; OBAMA: IRS, BENGHAZI, IDENTITY FRAUD, FORGERY, ELECTION FRAUD, JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, FAST & FURIOUS AND MEDIA SCANDALS by Sharon Rondeau (May 14, 2013) — Last week, a new Obama regime scandal broke in which the IRS “apologized” for targeting “patriot” groups and others focused on advocating limited government, “patriot” issues and constitutional […] Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, Beck, Levin & Other KOMRADES WHY DO YOU CONTINUE… by Tom Arnold, ©2013 (Mar. 27, 2013) — To lie and withhold facts about the birthplace of “Obama” (real legal name?) from your fellow Americans, especially when you are supposed to be a trustworthy, ethical “journalist” and member of the media GOVERNMENT-WATCHDOG Fourth Estate? To meekly succumb to un-American and un-Constitutional GAG […] Is Robert Gibbs Worried? IF NOT, SHOULD HE BE? by Sharon Rondeau (Feb. 26, 2013) — Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told an MSNBC host on Sunday that he was directed not to acknowledge the targeted-killing program presumably devised by Obama and his national security advisers which has killed at least two American citizens abroad. Gibbs was […] Will The Terry Lakin Story Become a Movie? FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from the Terry Lakin Action Fund (Feb. 13, 2013) — There is substantial interest in creating a film adaptation of the Terry Lakin Story, “OFFICER’S OATH.” Commander Taffy Productions formed to Pursue the Film (http://www.commandertaffy.com) This is a poignant, heroic story that must not be forgotten, or falsely relegated to the “conspiracy […] Electoral College Members Cast Votes as Criminal Complaint is Prepared IS THE CONSTITUTION NOW MEANINGLESS? by Sharon Rondeau (Dec. 17, 2012) — The 538 members of the Electoral College are casting their votes today in their respective capitols for president and vice president as a criminal complaint challenging the outcome of the 2012 election is being prepared for filing by the U.S. Patriots Union. The […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/15/obamacare-constitutionally-a-compromised-act/

Robert Laity

OBAMACARE : Constitutionally a Compromised ACT -

FOR MORE THAN ONE REASON by Cody Robert Judy, ©2013, blogging at Cody Judy (Nov. 15, 2013) — The law demands that any ACT of Congress be signed by a qualified person for the Office of the President. Obamacare, or the Affordable HealthCare ACT, is certainly not a valid law if it is not signed by a qualified President. In a desperate plea to stem the tide from more Americans hopping on the Birther wagon as a way to remove Obamacare Obama himself in a desperate move has pledged to what.. bully insurance executives or just change the law real quick? Obama wants to force all the insurance companies who have canceled policies based on the demands of Obamacare to re-issue the policies. That should come as no surprise, for bullying Americans into purchasing Obamacare with penalties and taxes is consistent with the bullying of the companies who are working in a free market or for profit margin. Obama always says, “Let me be clear” and that doesn’t mean ‘transparent,’ by the way. It is very clear, Obama doesn’t see himself as a dictator but his actions are speaking louder than words. The American pain has begun to hit home in the conflict between the free market business system and a state controlled communism in a field every American is affected by. It may have just come in the nick of time. Dashing hope of the illegality of Obamacare, the United States Supreme Court ruled Obamacare legal as a TAX which Congress could impose; they did not receive the challenge Obamacare was illegal based on Obama not being qualified for the Office of the President; although they do have a record of dismissing most all the cases on Obama’s eligibility for lack of standing: or direct hurt in a Presidential Campaign. Nothing has been changed about an ACT of Congress needing the signature of a qualified President to become law. The United States Supreme Court has refused to hold a hearing on Obama’s eligibility brought to them by a plaintiff with standing as a presidential candidate in the Democratic Party, hurt by Obama’s fraud as recent as January 2013, in Judy v. Obama 12-5276, but that doesn’t stop Congress from holding a hearing. In fact it encourages Congress to open the door on Obama’s eligibility! Lock-n-step with the popularity of shared pain and a chance for political manipulation, even Sen. John McCain has come out now and said his own mother doesn’t approve and essentially what Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee have been saying all along during the government shutdown; Obamacare is fundamentally flawed causing unemployment, reducing hours, and cancelling insurance policies by the millions. Millions of Americans didn’t care if the Senate didn’t produce a budget for four years, or that the debt ceiling has been raised through the roof several times because it didn’t immediately hurt them. In fact it’s no secret Obama himself picks and chooses the laws to enforce at his convenience borne out in the Obamacare exemptions for many in Government and Big Business who..” just can’t afford it,” I guess. The point is the Constitution has been breached many times by those in Government but it passes until there is a disaster, a war, or too many people are suffering. Obamacare is declaring itself to Americans just such a cause to rally behind the natural born citizen clause of the Constitution. Now by the millions people are searching for ways to eliminate what could easily be classified as the biggest tax increase in United States history. They didn’t care about the qualifications of the Office of the President to be a natural born citizen –Born in the U.S. to Citizen Parents – but they do now, because in theory, when lawfully applied, it has the power to put Obamacare on hiatus before it’s ever fully employed while at the same time sending Obama job-hunting. Standing up for principles that stand as pillars in our Constitution is what America’s defining character is all about. Those pillars of freedom and liberty became a great light in the darkness of the unknown by the uninsured. Security or the ‘sure thing’ was understood as diabolical and when the masses put their trust in it, it was understood that it was indeed bound to let them down. Indeed, risks defined American character with boldness and the chances we took under God with our pledge of allegiance to the Republic carved out of the rock, the United States of America. Politicians have for far too long won elections on “promises” of what they would do. Many of those promises came on the backs of not caring about the future generations paying for them or insuring their oaths were honest towards the Constitution. Why did they care? They would never be paying for it. It would be the future generation’s problem and their management of the Government would be over by then. They would ride the wave till there wasn’t any wave to ride, then they themselves would hold out their hands to the future leaders in America if they hadn’t lined their pockets deep enough. This has been the mentality of many politicians in Washington, DC and it’s gotten us where we’re at with the cancellation of the American Principles coming in the mail as insurance cancellations. Indeed, it’s where the rubber meets the road and the public see’s the light. ————————- Read the rest here.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-uss-george-h-w-bush-takes-its-cue-from-russias-admiral-kuznetsov.html/

The USS George H.W. Bush takes its cue from Russia’s Admiral Kuznetsov

This post was originally published on this site Warplanes from the USS George H.W. Bush in the eastern Mediterranean are pounding Islamic State targets, said a report on the U.S. Navy’s website. “By defeating violent extremists in Iraq and Syria, we are simultaneously supporting two separate geographic combatant commands,” said Vice Admiral Christopher W. Grady, commander of the U.S. 6th Fleet. “We remain committed to defeating Daesh, committed to our allies and partners, and committed to global security.” Named in honor of the 41st American president, the USS George H.W. Bush is the 10th and final Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. Its air wing consists of more than 60 aircraft, including fighter planes, electronic warfare and long-range radar spotting aircraft, and military transport planes and helicopters. The Carrier Strike Group 2 also includes the guided-missile cruisers USS Philippine Sea and USS Hue City, and the guided-missile destroyers USS Laboon and USS Truxtun. The USS George H.W. Bush carrier group is expected to soon head to the Persian Gulf, from where its aviation will continue to bomb ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria. Is the U.S. competing with Russia? The strikes by the USS George H.W. Bush’s warplanes against terrorist targets is a form of competition with the Russian Navy, said Admiral Viktor Kravchenko, former head of the Russian Navy’s Main Headquarters. “The Americans have quite a few land air bases in the region – in Kuwait, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia – but they decided to boost their operations against ISIS and other terrorist groups by using carrier-based aircraft,” said Kravchenko. The new U.S. president has promised to step up the fight against ISIS, so the U.S. Navy’s assault is not unexpected. “I think there is cooperation between Russian forces in Syria and the Americans,” said Kravchenko. “They must be agreeing on targets and flight routes taken by carrier-based aircraft, particularly through areas that are within striking distance of our long-range anti-aircraft systems.” From talk to action The U.S. Navy is taking a page out of Russia’s book, said Rear Admiral Arkady Syroyezhko, ex-desk officer at the General Staff’s main operational directorate. “These airstrikes by the U.S. Navy’s carrier group should be viewed as a transition from talking and waiting to real action,” said Admiral Syroyezhko. “The most important thing is that they should not mistakenly bomb troops and forces that are allied to us. Thus, matters that concern approving targets and actual targeting are paramount. Finally, the bigger the strikes against the terrorists, the sooner there will be a peaceful settlement in the region.” Return of the Admiral Kuznetsov The Admiral Kuznetsov returned to its base in Severomorsk in early February. The aircraft carrier’s commander, Sergei Artamonov, said that the carrier group was shadowed on its voyage from Severomorsk to the Mediterranean by up to 60 NATO ships. “In certain places, for instance from the Norwegian Sea to the eastern Mediterranean, our group was simultaneously escorted by 10 NATO ships,” said Artamonov. In November 2016 the Defense Ministry announced the first combat use of carrier-based aviation in Russian history. During the expedition, the Admiral Kuznetsov lost two fighter planes in the Mediterranean – a MiG-29 and a Su-33. The accidents happened on landing because of technical problems with arresting gear. First published in Russian by Gazeta.ru. from http://rbth.com/defence/2017/02/15/uss-bush-admiral-kuznetsov_702496

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/the-jig-is-up-on-lefts-denial-of-voter-fraud/

The “Jig is up” on Lefts Denial of Voter Fraud

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] “The most bizarre lie of Donald Trump’s presidency so far is his claim of widespread voter fraud in an election he won.” That’s the word from Esquire magazine in response to President Donald’s Trump’s very serious allegation about extensive voter fraud in the 2016 election. Like most Baby Boomers, I have long turned to Esquire for the final word in celebrity sleuthing, fiction writing, and fashion design. – READ MORE

clickbait

twitchy.com

2017-11-27

https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2016/06/12/orlando-terrorist-identified-as-omar-mateen-u-s-citizen-from-port-saint-lucie-fl/

Posted At Am On June, Greg P.

Orlando terrorist identified as Omar Mateen, ‘U.S. citizen from Port Saint Lucie, FL’; Update: BBC reports not on a watch list – twitchy.com

We’re seeing multiple reports that the terrorist behind this morning’s attack at the Pure nightclub in Orlando has been identified: Two law enforcement sources tell @cbsnews the Orlando gay club shooter is Omar Mateen – a U.S. citizen from Port Saint Lucie, FL. Born 1986 — David Begnaud (@DavidBegnaud) June 12, 2016 JUST IN: Orlando nightclub shooter ID'd as Omar S. Mateen, law enforcement sources tell @CBSNews https://t.co/zcv0mxzLiR — CBSN (@CBSNLive) June 12, 2016 Suspect in #Orlando, Omar Mateen is U.S. citizen from Port Saint Lucie, FL. His parents are from Afghanistan. He was born 1986. — Ahmed Shihab-Eldin (@ASE) June 12, 2016 Two law enforcement sources told @cbsnews #Orlando gay club shooter is Omar Mateen – a U.S. citizen from Port Saint Lucie, FL. Born 1986 — Ahmed Shihab-Eldin (@ASE) June 12, 2016 Update: Orlando suspect believed to be US citizen Omar Mateen, 29, who was not on terrorism watch list, BBC understands https://t.co/peTex4Iuef — BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 12, 2016 The Orlando Pulse Club gunman, 29 year old Omar Mateen reportedly was not on the Terrorism Watch List. @nbc6 — Sharon Lawson (@SharonNBC6) June 12, 2016 Editor’s note: This post has been updated. *** Related: REPORT: FBI investigating possible radical Islamic ‘leanings’ of Orlando terrorist; Update

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/21/will-there-be-consequences-for-judge-amy-reedy-pb/

Robert Laity

Will There Be Consequences for Judge Amy Reedy? pb -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! DEFENSE ATTORNEY ARGUES “NECESSITY” DEFENSE FOR FITZPATRICK by Sharon Rondeau (Nov. 21, 2013) — On Wednesday, a hearing for CDR Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (Ret.) was held at the Tennessee Appeals Court in Knoxville, TN during which Fitzpatrick’s attorney, Van Irion, informed the three-judge panel that Fitzpatrick had removed papers from the Monroe County courthouse on December 7, 2011 after witnessing Judge Amy Reedy hand-picking jury members for the coming year. Irion said that the state’s law on the “necessity defense” could thereby be invoked by Fitzpatrick, who had also witnessed Reedy presiding over a murder trial in 2011 in which a defendant was convicted without forensic evidence. The trial court had prevented Irion from arguing his client’s case last December, and Irion told the judges on Wednesday that the jury deliberated for “less than five minutes” before reaching a verdict. If juries are compromised in any way, it would appear to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Judge Walter C. Kurtz, who presided over last year’s hearing and deemed Fitzpatrick a “self-appointed vigilante,” denied Fitzpatrick a new trial. Kurtz was made aware that the charging documents used to arrest Fitzpatrick were signed by an unauthorized person who was later arrested himself. Fitzpatrick was jailed five times over an approximate two-year period by officials in Monroe County who Fitzpatrick has identified as “criminals.” In late 2009, he discovered corruption within the Monroe County grand jury, after which he spoke with local police, members of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI), the FBI, and attempted to present the evidence to a federal grand jury unsuccessfully. No law enforcement agency would take action on Fitzpatrick’s reports. In August 2012, The Chattanooga Times Free Press reported that allegations of undue influence on the grand jury, financial mismanagement and other misconduct had arisen against Tenth Judicial District District Attorney General R. Steven Bebb and Assistant District Attorney General Paul D. Rush. In July, Rush was cited for ethics violations by the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility (BOPR). The Post & Email filed an ethics complaint against Rush after he attempted to impugn its character in January 2012. During a probable cause hearing for Fitzpatrick, Rush called The Post & Email’s reportage of the type of personal information collected and manipulated by the Monroe County criminal court judges “reprehensible.” The BOPR dismissed the complaint by stating that “prosecutors were granted wide latitude” when presenting argument in court. Rush also called Fitzpatrick “criminally insane” for exposing the deep corruption within the Tenth Judicial District. No one from Tennessee’s Tenth Judicial District has ever contacted The Post & Email to say that our reports of corruption are not accurate. In early April, the Tennessee Attorney General’s office announced that its probe had found poor management in some areas of Bebb’s office which did not rise to the level of crimes. However, members of the Tennessee General Assembly were not satisfied with the AG’s findings and have since taken action to remove Bebb from his post. Tennessee is the only state in the nation where the attorney general is appointed by the state Supreme Court rather than by the governor or, most commonly, elected by the people. Cooper’s eight-year term ends next year. The Fifth Amendment to the Bill of Rights states that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…” The Legal Information Institute describes the grand jury as “a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain’s early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.” Prior to his arrest for taking the documents from the courthouse on December 7, 2011 after observing the tainted selection process conducted by Judge Amy Reedy, Fitzpatrick had gathered extensive documentary evidence published by The Post & Email of jury-rigging and grand jury foremen serving for years, and sometimes decades, in violation of state statute. Tennessee Code Annotated (TCA) 22-2-301 states, in relevant part: 22-2-301. Automated selection of names for jury list. (a) The jury coordinator in each county shall select names of prospective jurors to serve in the courts of that county by random automated means, without opportunity for the intervention of any human agency to select a particular name and in a manner that causes no prejudice to any person. The names, which shall constitute the jury list, shall be compiled from licensed driver records or lists, tax records or other available and reliable sources that are so tabulated and arranged that names can be selected by automated means. The jury coordinator may utilize a single source or any combination of sources. The jury coordinator is prohibited from using the permanent voter registration records as a source to compile the jury list. TCA 22-2-304 mandates the way in which grand jurors and trial jurors shall be ultimately chosen: 22-2-304. Automated selection of names for jury pool. (a) In any county in this state where the names of prospective jurors are obtained by automated means pursuant to § 22-2-301, the selection of names of prospective jurors to be summoned shall likewise be made by automated means in such a manner as to assure proportionate distribution of names selected without opportunity for the intervention of any human agency to select a particular name and in a manner that causes no prejudice to any person. It is the duty of the presiding judge of the judicial district to notify the jury coordinator of the number of names to be selected from the jury list, and these names shall constitute the jury pool. TCA 22-2-314 states that jurors may not serve consecutive terms anywhere in the state of Tennessee. Others have come forward to describe outcomes which could not have been arrived at had the jury not been unduly influenced by a prosecutor or other outside force given the evidence. Fitzpatrick has heard jurors say that they had served during a previous term, which also violates state law. Some states have abandoned the use of a grand jury, while grand juries in many other states are now under the full direction of a local prosecutor. Crimes have also been alleged on the part of the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department involving a coerced confession for which the charge against the defendant was thrown out after reaching an appeals court. Laws passed in 1984 ordered the county criminal courts to reorganize into districts but were ignored. Fitzpatrick has cited Judge Carroll Lee Ross and Reedy for failure to abide by those laws as well as having populated the grand and trial juries with individuals of their choosing. At the end of August, Ross announced his retirement for August 2014. A case he adjudicated against George Raudenbush in 2011 is reportedly under review by the attorney general. In a letter received by The Post & Email on Tuesday, Raudenbush wrote: My conviction is in the process of being reversed. Judge Carroll Ross who presided over my trial and sentencing has announced his resignation, the District Attorney Steven Bebb over my case, is currently under investigation by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and the Senate Judicial Committee for prosecutorial misconduct, malfeasance and civil rights violations [sic]. Raudenbush added that as a result, “my release could be any day.” He has spent two years in state prison after being convicted of eight traffic violations, while the grand jury indictments against him numbered only seven. Raudenbush was also denied defense counsel by Ross in violation of the Article I, Sections 8 and 9 of the Tennessee constitution. On May 24, 2012, Fitzpatrick went into Ross’s office and asked if he possessed any business cards, to which Ross responded by angrily telling his assistant, Denise Barnes, to “call 911.” Barnes is also the court reporter for the Monroe County criminal court, which by the 1984 laws should not exist. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, – See more at: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment5/amendment.html#sthash.4PW2XbPK.dpuf Fitzpatrick has described Monroe County judges as “domestic enemies,” “running their own government,” and “protecting a criminal enterprise.” During Wednesday’s hearing, Irion told the judges that Fitzpatrick had seen a crime and removed the evidence from the courthouse to provide it to the FBI, an agent from which had previously told Fitzpatrick that they needed auditory or documentary evidence that crimes were being committed by the judges to prove Fitzpatrick’s allegations. When one of the judges asked if Fitzpatrick had turned over the documents to the FBI, Irion explained that Fitzpatrick had intended to do so but “was arrested” before he could take that action. On the evening of December 7, 2011, a SWAT team, Monroe County Sheriff’s Department deputies, FBI and TBI agents descended upon Fitzpatrick’s home, seizing his computer equipment and taking him to jail. During a preliminary hearing months later, Rush reported that the TBI had been seeking “emails” between Fitzpatrick and this writer about the documents which did not exist. As Irion stated in court, Fitzpatrick had mailed the evidence to this writer, who after receiving them, promptly contacted her local FBI by phone and in writing. Two months later, two agents from the New Haven, CT FBI office came to collect the documents in a cordial exchange which included discussion of corruption in eastern Tennessee, the responsibility of all eligible Americans to vote, and concluded by one of the agents asking, “Do you know a good place to have lunch around here?” The Post & Email has been in touch with that agent since that time. Referring to his appeals hearing on Wednesday in an email sent to members of the Tennessee General Assembly and members of the media, Fitzpatrick wrote: Mrs. Sharon Rondeau, managing editor and owner of The Post & Email online newspaper, breaks this report as an exclusive. It was Mrs. Rondeau who is referred to in the audio recordings as the “reporter.” It was Mrs. Rondeau who turned over the hard copy physical evidence to the FBI in Connecticut. The attorney for Tennessee state, Counselor Kyle Alexander Hixson, did not refute, he did not rebut Counselor Van Irion’s affirmative report and notice to appellate Judge D. Kelly Thomas regarding Judge Amy F. Armstrong Reedy’s hand selecting members of the Monroe County grand jury. By extension, Counselor Irion’s unchallenged report is made to the entire Tennessee state judiciary and, again, publicly to the FBI, and again, publicly to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and again, publicly to all. Counselor Van Irion’s contact info: http://www.irionlaw.com Sharon Rondeau’s contact information: Website: http://www.thepostemail.com Business Phone: 203.987.7948 Email: [email protected]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/flydubai-flight-fz981-crash-2.html/

Flydubai flight FZ981 crash

Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Investigative Committee (IC), said experts and experienced investigators are at the crash site, collecting evidence. “Site inspection is actively underway. IC investigators are collecting the remains of the passengers for subsequent forensic, genetic examination,” Markin said in a statement published on the Russian Investigative Committee’s official website.

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/11/05/was-there-a-communist-plot-to-take-over-america/

Robert Laity

Was There a Communist Plot to Take Over America? -

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts . Thanks for visiting! “DESTROY THE REPUBLIC” by Sharon Rondeau (Nov. 5, 2013) — Former CIA agent Dr. Jim Garrow has reported that Barack Hussein Obama is a “Muslim Marxist” who was placed into the White House to effect a communist takeover of the United States government. In an October 6 interview with Geoffrey Grider, host of the “Now the End Begins” radio show, Garrow said that it is well-known overseas “who Obama is.” He said that “the international community” has no respect for Obama and that Obama is “seen as a fool.” Garrow said that when Obama “bowed to the Saudi king,” he was “bowing to the protector of Mecca and Medina” “as a subservient and observant Muslim,” referring to an incident in 2009 which surprised many Americans. Garrow said that the American people “have been hoodwinked by a Marxist press,” referring to left-leaning media which he believes are “protecting Mr. Obama.” “That’s why you never hear the truth about Mr. Obama from the press,” he stated. In 2010, The Post & Email presented an analysis of an essay written by a young attorney, Sarah P. Herlihy, employed by a law firm with connections to Obama which argued that the “natural born Citizen” clause of the U.S. Constitution was “stupid” and “outdated.” Herlihy’s essay, written in 2006, posited that the Article II, Section 1, clause 5 requirement that the president be a “natural born Citizen” should be altered so that “naturalized citizens” could become president. The Post & Email has questioned Obama’s legitimacy since the newspaper’s founding in 2009. Others have asked if Obama was placed in the White House by “Marxists, globalists, and big labor.” Speculation about Obama’s affinity with Islam has led many to describe him as “un-American.” Garrow asserted that Obama’s college records are “sealed” because he received a Fulbright scholarship intended for foreign students to study in the United States. His short-form and long-form birth certificates and Selective Service registration form have been deemed forgeries by criminal investigators. He believes that Obama is carrying out a totalitarian agenda. “It’s the same thing that the Nazis did in 1933,” Garrow told Grider. He said that Obama’s language to describe Obamacare was meant to persuade the public that the law would make health insurance “equitable.” He said that Obama’s intent is to destroy the Republic. Obama’s long-form birth certificate has been found to be a “computer-generated forgery” but remains posted on the White House website. An affidavit asserting the image’s fraudulence and a sealed affidavit containing the names of those accused of creating it have been filed with the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Washington requesting that a special federal grand jury be empaneled to examine the evidence. Garrow said that Obama has “flooded every single government agency with his own communist sympathizers.” “They’re flooding in like you wouldn’t believe,” Garrow told Grider. He recalled the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy warned of foreign, communist influence creeping in to the media, Hollywood, and academic institutions. The Post & Email observed that Garrow speaks with a Canadian accent. In the latter part of the interview, he stated that he is considered a Canadian citizen. He said that he “helped create the political party” of which Canadian Prime Minister Harper is a member in order to combat the “communist infiltration” of the Labour Party of Pierre Trudeau. “We created another party and took over,” Garrow laughed. He said that Canada had been “heading” toward communism, acknowledging that Cuba to the U.S.’s southeast has been communist since 1959. Grider then asked Garrow about his organization, Pink Pagoda Girls, which rescues baby girls intended for death because of China’s one-child policy. He said he has saved approximately 45,000 infant girls from have been killed. He said he has “worked very closely” with intelligence services in that country, acknowledging that he has placed himself at some risk by relating the information he has. Garrow said that Obama forced him to retire the “Wednesday night” before the interview, which was conducted Sunday, October 6. Grider was amazed that Garrow was calmly “dropping a bomb” on his show was “the hand of the Lord.” Grider said there was no “pre-show conversation” and that he therefore had no knowledge of what Garrow had planned to say. Garrow referred to his January revelation which stated that military commanders have allegedly been asked a “litmus-test” question as to whether or not they would fire on American citizens who “refuse to give up their arms.” He said that Snopes.com negates Garrow’s numerous reports on the matter. He said that commanders who answered “no” were “stripped of their authority.” Garrow said that senior adviser Valerie Jarrett actually runs the country and described her as an “Iranian Marxist Muslim.” Barack and Michelle Obama’s acquaintance with Jarrett spans at least two decades. “Why is no one rising up to the level where they can hack in” to Obama’s sealed records, Grider asked, to which Garrow said that it is a question of “survival” on the part of CIA agents and those who know Obama’s background. “They will stop at nothing…so that you become victim to the pressures put on them…your career will end,” Garrow said. “We have thugs running the government…they hate Christians…Their Bible was Saul Alinsky’s book. It’s dedicated to Lucifer,” he said. He asserted that Obama “hates” the Bible. The Obama regime has demonized Christians and other people of faith since 2009 while extolling Islam. Military training programs have identified Christians, Catholics and Orthodox Jews as “extremists.” Grider asked “when” the government would “admit” that FEMA camps exist and large amounts of ammunition have been stockpiled by government agencies, to which Garrow said that the implementation of Obamacare is a form of admission. Members of the establishment press have now begun to speak out about Obama’s dishonesty when he stated in 2010 that “if you like your [insurance] plan, you can keep it.” In her essay, Herlihy contended a “fear of foreigners” caused many Americans to oppose changing the “natural born” clause. “..the possibility that a foreigner will come in and somehow ‘take over’ America continues to exist…” Herlihy wrote.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/the-democratic-blame-game.html/

The Democratic Blame Game

It’s been almost 5 months since I wrote these words on Counterpunch: “This year, their (the Democrats) bete noir is Donald Trump, but they haven’t decided who to blame yet if they lose: Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein.” Within a day of Hillary’s loss, Democratic apologists and their acolytes in the media started blaming others. Both Rachel Madow and Paul Krugman blamed the loss on Jill Stein. Not to be outdone, Time and Newsweek ran stories a few days later that blamed the loss on Bernie Sanders. I don’t claim to be Nostradamus, but it looks like I hit the nail on the head with that prediction. This blaming of others for Democratic failures isn’t anything new. For the rest of your life you’ll be hearing the myth of how Ralph Nader prevented Al Gore from being elected president. As if Al Gore would have transformed this country into the land of milk and honey. This year the blame is spread out; Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, the F.B.I., Wikileaks and Russia. If Trump is so bad (and I think he is), why didn’t Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party easily defeat him? Nobody held a gun to Hillary’s head and told her not to go to Wisconsin during the fall campaign, even though Trump visited the state five times. Hillary lost the election in at least six states that Obama carried twice (FL, PA, OH, MI, WI, IA). She ran a lackluster campaign in the primaries in 2008, but decided that the inevitability factor was just to great to ignore and the Democratic Party bought into this thinking. Truth be told, this really wasn’t hard to do. I think the Democratic Party needs to change its name to: Delusions R Us. For many years, the Democratic Party has been pushing regressive neo-liberal policies. They don’t do it as often as Republicans, so they call it progress. Comparing themselves favorably to Republicans is somewhat of a cottage industry for Democrats. It’s not enough to have support from the majority of the few newspapers left, or to gain coverage from television stations (that the government regulates, in the public interest), but since the spread of the Internet, many blogs pushing Democratic propaganda have flourished. With the advent of social media, Democratic apparatchiks can spread this propaganda far and wide, with just the click of a mouse. Since the Trump victory, there have been many calls for unity. After the election, Bill and Hillary appeared in public saying they wanted to bring the country together. They were wearing purple and claiming that this was symbolic of blue and red coming together. The media and many people accepted this as fact, even though purple is the color of royalty and has been for thousands of years. This might have been the abdication of the royal family, but it isn’t the end of neo-liberal Democratic policies. Most of the calls for opposing Trump are little more than Democratic propaganda. This includes cries from Bernie Sanders and ‘Our Revolution’. Bernie endorsed Clinton in the recent election and is a Democrat in everything but name. He caucuses with Democrats, has voted for their policies and endorsed Democratic candidates in the past. It’s hard to see much disagreement in the policies Bernie wants and those favored by “Our Revolution”. They are not the only ones on the left opposing Trump’s policies, but most of them are Democratic in origin. You might consider yourself an Independent, maybe a Liberal or Progressive, but there is one thing I would like you to know: Democrats aren’t your friends and they’re not your allies. You are their vassal and, eventually, you will be treated like one and told to vote for their candidate. The Democrats are nothing more than part of a two-party duopoly that rules this country. Just because the Republican part of the duopoly is in power now, doesn’t mean the Democrats are going to change. They haven’t done it in the past, they’re not doing it now and they probably won’t anytime in the future. I feel the end the tyrannical two-party duopoly is the only thing that will help this country. Joining Democrats or Democratic front organizations isn’t going to help change the course of the country, but rejection of the duopoly will. I think the Green Party is the best alternative. Unlike the Democrats, the Green Party actually stands for something and has a vision for the future. The Democrats foist neo-liberal programs on the populace, but every four years whine that they are the only thing stopping a Republican takeover of government. Since that moment has arrived, it’s time to stop playing the Democrat’s game.

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/calexit-paves-way-for-republican-lock-could-finish-off-dems-as-national-party/

‘Calexit’ paves way for Republican lock could finish off Dems as national party

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] On Thursday, the California Secretary of State announced that proponents of a constitutional amendment seeking the state’s secession from the United States can begin collecting signatures to put the proposal on the 2018 ballot. Recent polling shows the move – spawned from residents disgruntled about Republican Donald Trump’s historic victory in the 2016 presidential election – is backed by roughly a third of Californians, the Sacramento Bee reports. – READ MORE

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/scripps-college/

Robert Laity

Scripps College Archives -

“ONE-PARTY RULE” by Jeff Crouere, ©2016, writing and broadcasting at Ringside Politics (Apr. 1, 2016) — Another week, another campus threatened by the dangerous slogan, “Trump 2016.” Last week, the students of Emory University in Atlanta needed counseling and mental health evaluations after noticing their campus was polluted by disgusting chalk markings. The offensive words […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/emory-university/

Robert Laity

Emory University Archives -

“INDOCTRINATED” by Jeff Crouere, ©2016, writing and blogging at Ringside Politics (May 27, 2016) — It happened again this week at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. Another conservative speaker was harassed by liberal activists. In this case, Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was not allowed to finish his presentation to a group of students. He was […]

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/us-intends-direct-action-on-the-ground-supporting-isis/

Stephen Lendman

US Intends “Direct Action On The Ground” Supporting ISIS

It bears repeating and stressing what other articles explained. Washington uses ISIS and other takfiri terrorists as US foot soldiers in Syria, Iraq and wherever else they’re deployed. In over a year of US bombing both countries, zero ISIS targets were struck – infrastructure and other government sites only. Claims otherwise are Big Lies about Obama’s wars in both countries. Last year, he promised no “American combat troops fighting on foreign soil. We will not get dragged into another ground war” – another of his many Big Lies. Last week, White House spokesman Eric Schultz said he has “no intention to authorize long-term, large-scale ground combat operations like our nation has conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Middle East analyst Phyllis Bennis told RT International: “I think the question of US boots on the ground has been true for over a year now. We’ve had at least 35,000 troops in Iraq that went back last year (2014).” US “troops (are actively) engaged in combat…So, the notion that there are ‘no boots’ is simply not the case. We also know that besides 35,000 US troops on the ground in Iraq there are an unknown numbers of other Special Forces and CIA forces on the ground.” “Maybe they wear sneakers rather than boots. But there is no question that US forces have been fighting directly in Iraq for more than a year now.” Their involvement makes things worse on the ground, not better – why they’re deployed in the first place, to keep the regional pot boiling, assure endless war, instability and chaos, support, not combat ISIS, and now an attempt to counter Russia’s successful air campaign. Make no mistake about what’s ongoing and intended. Washington supports its ISIS and other terrorist proxy foot soldiers, wanting them protected from Russia’s commitment to contain, neutralize and eliminate them. Most important for Moscow is keeping them from spreading elsewhere, especially to Russia and Central Asia, what Washington very much intends. An undeclared US/Russia war rages, each nation supporting opposite sides in Syria and Iraq – America backing pure evil to advance its imperium, Moscow the best hope to restore regional peace and stability. On October 27, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told Senate Armed Forces Committee members Washington intends “direct (regional) action on the ground” – code language for escalating what’s been ongoing for over a year. “We won’t hold back…whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground,” said Carter. “We expect to intensify our air campaign…with a higher and heavier rate of strikes…We’ve already begun to ramp up these deliberate strikes.” What’s coming remains to be seen. Carter provided no details. Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “(w)e need to figure out…what (he) meant.” Sergey Lavrov said Washington has no “understanding (about) who poses a terrorist threat in Syria” and Iraq. “One cannot say that there are (so-called) ‘good’ terrorists which are not to be touched.” Russia offers help to all Syrian opposition groups fighting terrorism. It’s hard “find(ing) representatives of such opposition groups,” Lavrov explained. All elements fighting Assad are terrorists. No “good” ones exist. The only way to restore regional peace and stability is eliminating them – Russia’s commitment opposed by Washington. Russian upper house Federation Council Committee on International Affairs chairman Konstantin Kosachev calls US operations in Syria (and by implication Iraq for doing the opposite of what’s claimed) illegal – in contrast to Russian forces operating “within the framework of international law.” “We have no intention of joining any other coalition for the simple reason that they are outside the framework of the international law,” Kosachev stressed. He blasted misinformation about Russian airstrikes targeting civilians – part of the ongoing information war, he explained. No evidence supports baseless accusations. Russia’s Defense Ministry demanded NATO provide proof, supporting US and other member countries’ allegations. Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov summoned “military attaches of the United States, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, NATO bloc and requested them to provide a formal justification of the essence of these statements or make a rebuttal, especially concerning the outrageous accusations in a number of English-language media about alleged airstrikes on hospitals.” Defense Ministry spokesman Major General Igor Konashenkov dismissed what he called baseless “stove-piping reports.” “We have been closely monitoring and analyzing such hoaxes,” he explained. “Only when we are 100% sure of the target, (are) aircraft…sent to deliver strikes on IS infrastructure using the corresponding precision-guided munitions.” No hospitals or other civilian targets are struck. Russia has photographic proof of all targets destroyed. None are civilian ones – unlike US wars killing mostly noncombatants, millions post-9/11 by violence, diseases, starvation and overall deprivation. Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected]. His new book is titled “How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War”. www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html Visit his blog site at www.sjlendman.blogspot.com.

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/denying-the-obvious-actions-speak-louder-than-words/

Bradlee Dean

Denying The Obvious – Actions Speak Louder Than Words! (VIDEOS)

‘It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.’ –Mark Twain While the presidential race is well under way and all of the candidates are promising what they will do when, and if, they become the President of the United States, not one of them has stated that they will right all of the wrongs concerning the past and present administrations. Yet, if you look and listen closely (Jeremiah 5:21-23) to what these candidates say and contrast what they do, you will see that things just do not line up. Instead, they simply stand in direct contradiction (Matthew 23:3). There is not one of the candidates, not one, who has drawn up Articles of Impeachment (Article 2, Sections 4 of The United States Constitution; Jeremiah 5:1). Nor have any of them stated they would seek to prosecute the current occupant of the White House for his treason and crimes. Not one! Yet, they would have you believe that they are going to right the wrongs when they become the president, but not in their current position? They have the opportunity even now to do so, but every single representative in this country up to this point has failed to do so! They are derelict of duty and that before God and man (1 John 5:2). It is absolutely astounding to me that if the average American were to stand in front of an apple tree and were then told by these politicians (diplomatic magicians) that it were an orange tree, they would be sure to fall in line and agree with them. This is exactly what is happening when we listen to their words, but their actions reflect the actual fruit seen hanging on their tree. “For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.”-Luke 6:43 The corrupt tree is directly in front of the American people’s faces (James 2:14-26). “They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.” -Jonah 2:8 This is coming from the country that should know better. The American people, as well as their representatives, refuse to call the obvious for what it is. Then they fail to understand why this country is in the condition that it is. The reason is that if they do not stand against it, it is because they are guilty of it. If you are looking for a politician to be the savior of America, you are looking in the wrong direction. How is it that America forsakes its own mercies? Instead of going to the Word of God (“No King but King Jesus”), which commands judgment in the act of lawlessness (Leviticus 26:15), Americans look to their favorite politician to stand up and fight for what they are unwilling to fight for, even when they know that the politician is corrupt. And over and over again Americans gain a slow digression into the next level of debased immorality. It has been rightly stated that “today’s conservatives are simply yesterday’s liberals” (Jeremiah 17:5). America, Think! (Exodus 20) I have heard in the past by a presidential hopeful that if Ronald Reagan were in a room and Jesus Christ in another room that they would all flock to Ronald Reagan (1 Kings 18:21). It is time for Americans to tear down the sacred cow of “Let them do it for us.” In case people have forgotten what it means to be a patriot, remember what the things we were reminded of by our past presidents. “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else.” -President Theodore Roosevelt The Bible is the ROCK upon which our Republic rests. -President Andrew Jackson “There is nothing stable but Heaven and the Constitution. –President James Buchanan When it comes to the things that have been going on in this country since the 1960s, it really is not that complicated. Americans have not been fooled, they have denied the obvious through their inaction (passing it on for someone else to do). They have wickedly departed from their God (2 Samuel 22:22) and have willfully neglected everything that has been right there in front of their faces, good or bad. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep His commandments: For this is the whole duty of man (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14). Bradlee Dean is a syndicated columnist for WorldNet Daily, nationally syndicated talk-show host of the Sons of Liberty Radio, ordained preacher, and musician. Combined with his constitutional forefather style of writing, what makes him unique from every other columnist is that he includes a video for every commentary he posts, blending the new age of video with the traditional written commentary. Bradlee Dean is also known for his bold stand of truth in the public square reflected in his recent lawsuit against Rachel Maddow and MSNBC. He speaks on college and high school campuses with his ministry, You Can Run But You Cannot Hide International. Who is Bradlee Dean? Twitter @BradleeDean1 – Facebook :http://www.facebook.com/bradlee.dean.7?ref=ts&fref=ts

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/2013/10/09/the-subtle-subliminal-insidious-attack/

Robert Laity

The Subtle Subliminal Insidious Attack -

BY THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA by OPOVV, ©2013 (Oct. 9, 2013) — A misspoken word here, a graphic not quite accurate there. A television commercial that is skewed towards a particular political philosophy through the use of race, gender, words, accent, camera angles, sound and color. The repeated use of “president Obama” when, in point of fact, Obama is nothing more than a de facto president. The inclusion of Islam when “other” religions are listed, implying that Islam is also a religion. We are constantly undulated with reminders that, basically, it’s a done deal (the Islamic takeover of America), and we might as well just shut up and accept it as an inevitable fact of life. Sorry, just can’t do that: lay down and take it. The forces that are aligned against our Constitution are legion, especially since our Judicial branch of government has turned its back on ITS Oath to preserve and protect. The only difference between Americans and the other peoples of the world has been our ability to put no one above the law, but since Obama, that notion has been quashed by two epic battles, and in both cases the Constitution has come out second best. The first of these epic battles occurred at a polling place in 2008 where a group of New Black Panthers intimidated voters, actually driving away those they perceived as opposition voters of their chosen candidate from the their designated polling place. Just to show how uneducated these thugs were, they supported a candidate (Obama) who supported the removal of all of their freedoms. This crime against the Constitutional rights of some of our citizens was filmed, in color with sound, yet the case was not pursued to its logical conclusion because the US Attorney General adheres to the same political philosophy as our de facto president. In another landmark case, arguably the most insidious attack on our Constitution since its inception, was the infamous Court Martial of LTC Terry Lakin. What makes Lakin’s kangaroo court-martial so memorable is the fact that Lakin was not allowed to present a defense against the charges leveled against him. In other words, the honorable Army doctor was not allowed to answer the charges. The verdict was a Dishonorable Discharge and six months in prison for asking to see our de facto’s legal Birth Certificate, thereby proving or disproving Obama’s Constitutional eligibility. We live on the teetering edge of whether the USA will persevere or will have its history rewritten by the victors, but these victors will destroy rather than add on or build. America will be destroyed, its Constitution trashed, the beacon for Freedom forever extinguished. Our land will survive, the geographic reality will remain, but the people will be murdered, relocated, or will die out for various reasons, with worked or starved to death at the top of the list. The signs are there for anyone to see, even for the densest Obot imaginable. The Nazi blueprint worked wonders in 1930’s Germany, and the same modus operandi are being used today, not the least of which is subliminal suggestions that catch the not-so-smart into believing that socialism is a good form of government and that communism makes everyone equal. The reality is that socialism has never worked and communism is the most unfair form of government possible. Be aware of what you see, read and hear; chances are that someone is trying to take you for a ride, promising you something for nothing. Use the brain that God gave you and become a part of the solution, rather than a victim of the problem. OPOVV

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/google-chrome-security-alert/

Robert Laity

Google Chrome Security Alert Archives -

FROM “IN DEFENSE OF RURAL AMERICA” by Ron Ewart, President, NARLO, ©2016 (Apr. 3, 2016) — The Internet has brought an explosion of information to the general public across the globe. Unfortunately, much of the information we get from the Internet, whether it be by websites, e-mail, or on social media, is un-vetted and much […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/putin-trump-agree-on-real-coordination-against-daesh-in-syria-2.html/

Putin, Trump agree on ‘real coordination' against Daesh in Syria

This post was originally published on this site RINF Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump have held their first phone call since Trump’s inauguration. “The Presidents have spoken in favor of establishing a real coordination between the US and Russian actions in order to defeat Daesh and other terrorist organizations in Syria,” read a statement released by the Kremlin on Saturday. In the past, Trump has on multiple occasions stressed that he would welcome Moscow’s further involvement in the battle against Daesh. The statement also noted that Putin and Trump had also agreed to “maintain regular personal contacts” and “work out possible dates and venue of their personal meeting.” “The two sides expressed a willingness to work actively together to stabilize and develop Russian-American cooperation on a constructive basis, as equals, and to mutual benefit,” added the statement. Last week, the Kremlin said that Putin is “ready” to meet Trump but the…

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/category/business/page/30/

True Pundit

Many have wondered why Colin Kaepernick would hire a high-profile attorney to launch a collusion grievance against the NFL, especially when his case has such a low probability of success? Well, we might have just got our answer: Colin Kaepernick, reportedly, wants a book deal. Sources close to Page 6 of the New York Post, say that Colin Kaepernick has been“taking meetings […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/syrian-al-qaeda-commander-us-forces-are-arming-us-in-syria-the-americans-are-on-our-side-us-state-dept-we-would-never-provide-nusra-with-assistance.html/

Syrian Al-Qaeda Commander: US Forces Are Arming Us in Syria, “The Americans Are on Our Side.” US State Dept: “We Would Never Provide Nusra with Assistance”

This post was originally published on this site The State Department admitted that the Nusra Front could be receiving U.S. arms via allied nations, and it’s not the first time the U.S. or its allies have been accused of aiding extremist groups in Syria. The State Department moved quickly to deny a Syrian rebel commander’s recent allegations that the United States is offering arms and military equipment to extremist groups in the Syrian civil war. On Monday, German newspaper Köelner Stadt-Anzeiger published an interview with Abu Al Ezz, a commander in the Nusra Front, in which he claimed that the United States offers indirect support to his group by sending equipment and aid via allied countries. “Yes, the US supports the opposition [in Syria], but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support,” Al Ezz said, according to a translation published by RT. The Nusra Front, or Jabhat-al-Nusra, recently attempted to rebrand itself as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and distance itself from its traditional allies, the terrorist group al-Qaida. However, the group’s leadership and extremist ideology remain unchanged, and both RT and Köelner Stadt-Anzeiger continue to refer to the group by its former name. According to Al Ezz, U.S. materiel has been key in turning the tide against Syrian army forces: Due to these rockets [American-made TOW anti-tank missiles], we reached a balance with the regime. Our tanks came from Libya via Turkey, joined by the [BM-21] multiple rocket launchers. “The [Assad] government forces have an advantage because of aircraft and missile launchers, but “we have the American-made TOW missiles, and the situation in some areas is under control,” Al Ezz added. When asked if the TOW missiles were initially intended for Jabhat Al-Nusra or if the group obtained them from the moderate Free Syrian Army, the jihadist clarified: “No, the missiles were given to us directly.” But Al Ezz went on to add that training on how to use these weapons came directly from the US and its allies. When Jabhat Al-Nusra was besieged, Al Ezz said they “had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America here… Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance and thermal security cameras.” The German journalist asked if US instructors were really present among the jihadists’ ranks. Al Ezz replied: “The Americans are on our side.” Al Ezz added that Jabhat Al-Nusra received funding from US allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel for achieving specific military goals during the Syrian conflict. “We got 500 million Syrian pounds (around $$2.3 million) from Saudi Arabia. To capture the Infantry School in Al Muslimiya years ago we received 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinars (around $$500,000) and Saudi Arabia’s $$5 million,” Al Ezz said. The funds came from the “governments” of those states, not from private individuals, he added. “Israel is now giving us support because Israel is at war with Syria and with Hezbollah,” Al Ezz said. As for the ceasefire, the Nusra Front and its allies are refusing to honor it, he said. “We will carry out the next overwhelming attack against the regime in a few days. We have regrouped our forces in all provinces, including Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.” The Nusra Front and its allies are refusing to honor the ceasefire, he said. “We will carry out the next overwhelming attack against the regime in a few days. We have regrouped our forces in all provinces, including Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama.” In a press briefing on Monday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner denied Al Ezz’s allegations, saying: We’ve absolutely not provided – I can’t say that as – vehemently enough, that we would never provide Nusrah with any kind of assistance whatsoever. We view them as a foreign terrorist organization, we view them as an affiliate of al-Qaida, and we’re going to seek their continued destruction. But later in the same briefing, Toner said that “there are those – and not the United States – but there are those who back various groups and opposition groups within Syria who also may seek to arm them,” effectively admitting that arms could have traveled from the United States to the rebels via another member of the Western-backed coalition in the region. Watch Syrian rebels fire an American anti-tank missile at a Russian T-90 tank: Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, also raised the issue of the United States’ arming of rebel groups during a special session of the U.N. Security Council on Sunday. Before a genuine peace process can occur, Churkin said Russia has “to see proof that there is a genuine desire to separate US-allied rebel groups from the Al-Nusra Front, then destroy the Al-Nusra Front and bring the opposition into a political process.” Al Ezz’s interview is hardly the first time the United States or its allies have been accused of supporting the Nusra Front and other extremist groups operating in Syria. Israel, the recipient of $$3.1 billion in annual military aid from the United States and a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, has reportedly aided the group with airstrikes and medical care. Earlier this month, an Israeli journalist recorded the commander of another rebel group pleading with the Israeli government for increased military assistance. And in a December 2015 episode of the BBC Radio series “The Report,” investigative journalist Peter Oborne showed that military aid from the United Kingdom and United States to so-called “moderate rebel” groups like the Free Syrian Army flows freely to more extreme groups like the Nusra Front. Alastair Crooke, a British diplomat and former intelligence analyst for MI6, the U.K.’s primary foreign intelligence agency, told Oborne: The West does not actually hand the weapons to al-Qaida — let alone to ISIS — but the system they’ve constructed leads precisely to that end. The weapons conduit that the West gave to the FSA is understood to be a sort of Wal-Mart that the radical groups can take weapons and use to fight Assad. The weapons migrate along the line to the more radical elements. Watch “American allies accused of arming jihadist group Al-Nusra Front” [embedded content] from: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-al-qaeda-commander-us-forces-are-arming-us-in-syria-the-americans-are-on-our-side-us-state-dept-we-would-never-provide-nusra-with-assistance/5548552

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/robert-litan/

Robert Laity

Robert Litan Archives -

PURSUING AN AGENDA OF INTOLERANCE AND RETRIBUTION AGAINST CRITICS OF THEIR ULTRA-LIBERAL POLICIES by Paul Driessen, ©2015 (Oct. 19, 2015) — As Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition for 15 years, Tomas de Torquemada presided over the interrogation, torture, imprisonment and execution of thousands, for the “crimes” of religious heresy and pretended conversion to Christianity. […]

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/sony-corporation/

Robert Laity

Sony Corporation Archives -

“THE DAMAGES MAY BE IRREPARABLE” by Cody Robert Judy, ©2014, blogging at CodyJudy (Dec. 15, 2014) —Don’t want to contact your U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators about the U.S. Constitution being violated in the qualifications of the Office of the President by Barack Obama’s self and voluntarily released long-form birth certificate to the White House […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/russian-foreign-ministry-threatens-to-ban-american-diplomats.html/

Russian Foreign Ministry threatens to ban American diplomats

This post was originally published on this site Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has said that Russia is keeping open the possibility of putting travel restrictions on American diplomats posted to the country. “We are ready to answer with a ‘symmetrical’ response to the travel restrictions imposed on Russian diplomats in the U.S.,” Zakharova said on Dec. 7, according to Russian news agency Interfax. “If the current U.S. administration is planning to restrict their representatives’ travel within Russia, they should keep in mind that the principle of reciprocity lies at the cornerstone of diplomacy,” Zakharova continued. “Simply speaking, American diplomats in Russia will be treated the exact same way.” Zakharova said that Russia would be forced to take these drastic measures by the United States. The position of the Foreign Ministry is that Russia is promoting cooperation and collaboration with the U.S., but is ready to go to such lengths to respond to “unfriendly” gestures by the American side. On Nov. 30, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill on the financing of American intelligence agencies. The bill includes a proposal for introducing travel restrictions on Russian diplomats in the U.S. According to the draft, Russian diplomats would be able to travel no further than 50 miles from the place where they are posted unless the director of the FBI sends a written notice to a number of Congressional committees (including the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on the Judiciary in both houses of Congress) for each diplomat stating that the individual in question is not a threat. The bill also proposes the creation of a special committee designed to counteract Russia’s attempts to “covertly influence nations and government.” The committee would be made up of a number of high-ranking officials, including the Director of National Intelligence, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, the FBI director and others. The committee would meet at least once a month. The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration. It is expected to be taken up before the holiday break. On Nov. 23, the European Parliament passed a law seeking to combat anti-EU propaganda from Russia and Islamist groups. The document explicitly states that Moscow is waging a “hostile propaganda war” with the help of the RT television channel, the Sputnik news agency and funds such as Russky Mir (Russian World) and Rossotrudnichestvo. from http://rbth.com/news/2016/12/08/russian-foreign-ministry-threatens-to-ban-american-diplomats_654601

clickbait

twitchy.com

2017-11-27

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2015/06/12/oh-puh-leeze-hillary-spox-pushes-ridiculous-re-re-re-reintroduction-to-voters/

Posted At Am On June, Doug P.

Oh, puh-leeze! Hillary spox pushes ridiculous 're-re-re-reintroduction' to voters

This weekend, Hillary Clinton is (re)launching her campaign on Roosevelt Island in Manhattan. Eleanor Roosevelt will accompany Hillary, as will pitiful spin like this: Yep, she actually said this: Hillary Clinton is “one of the most well-known unknown people.” Things that remain “unknown” about Hillary Clinton include the location of her email server and what happened to $$6 billion that is unaccounted for during her tenure at State, along with lots of other things for that matter. @FreeBeacon @finneyk @HillaryClinton They are good at serving their rubbish as new gourmet offering… — Redwood509 (@Redwood397) June 12, 2015 @BrianFaughnan really, how do spokespeople bring themselves to utter such nonsense? have some self-respect for goodness sake — Jennifer Rubin (@JRubinBlogger) June 12, 2015 @JRubinBlogger First rule of spin: it has to be plausible. — Brian Faughnan (@BrianFaughnan) June 12, 2015 They’ll keep “molding” until Hillary is whatever any voter wants her to be!

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/its-christmas-in-january-for-conservatives/

It’s “Christmas in January” for Conservatives

[ditty_news_ticker id=”25027″] I predicted Trump would be amazing as president. I predicted his energy and “CAN-DO” attitude would make things happen…fast! I predicted he’d turn around America’s decline…fast. I predicted he’d quickly erase Obama and everything he ever did as president…fast. But this is ridiculous. It’s like “Christmas in January” for conservatives. Every day is a new present under the tree…or two, or three, or a half dozen. Trump is Santa Claus…if Santa never slept and worked 365 days a year! – READ MORE

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/ben-shapiro/

Robert Laity

Ben Shapiro Archives -

Home » Posts tagged with » Ben Shapiro The Day Free Speech Died “INDOCTRINATED” by Jeff Crouere, ©2016, writing and blogging at Ringside Politics (May 27, 2016) — It happened again this week at DePaul University in Chicago, IL. Another conservative speaker was harassed by liberal activists. In this case, Breitbart contributor Milo Yiannopoulos was not allowed to finish his presentation to a group of students. He was […] Fields/Lewandowski Complete Police Report Released to the Press ACCUSER PLANS TO FILE DEFAMATION LAWSUIT by Sharon Rondeau (Apr. 15, 2016) — The Post & Email is in receipt of the police file regarding an allegation of battery made by former Breitbart writer Michelle Fields against Donald Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski last month. The file contains statements of witnesses, one of whom was […] Chalk and Markers Terrify College Students “ONE-PARTY RULE” by Jeff Crouere, ©2016, writing and broadcasting at Ringside Politics (Apr. 1, 2016) — Another week, another campus threatened by the dangerous slogan, “Trump 2016.” Last week, the students of Emory University in Atlanta needed counseling and mental health evaluations after noticing their campus was polluted by disgusting chalk markings. The offensive words […] Former Police Officer of Fields/Trump/Lewandowski Incident: Fields “Too Close to the Subject” AND WHY TWO DIFFERENT REPORTS? by Sharon Rondeau (Mar. 29, 2016) — The Post & Email has received an “Arrest/Notice to Appear” and a Probable Cause affidavit from the Jupiter, FL Police Department stating that presidential candidate Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, has been charged with “Battery-Simple (Touch or Strike)” against former Breitbart reporter […] Economic Literacy 101 DO MILLENNIALS REALLY WANT THE BIG GOVERNMENT SOCIALIST POLICIES BERNIE AND HILLARY ADVOCATE? by Paul Driessen, ©2016 (Feb. 27, 2016) — America’s 18- to 34-year-old “millennials” have been tutored in group-think schools that extol socialism. Now they lionize liberal politicians whose class-warfare prescriptions include taxing away all but maybe 1% of the nation’s 0.0001% billionaires’ wealth, […] Obama Issues Passover/Easter Message Disparaging Anti-Semitism BUT IS HE GUILTY OF THAT HIMSELF? by Sharon Rondeau (Apr. 5, 2015) — On Saturday, Obama released a video message to Americans in which he extended Passover and Easter greetings. On Friday, he and his family reportedly celebrated a Seder supper, which marks the Jewish holiday of Passover. “Michelle and I joined Jewish families […]

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/no-politics-please-unless-its-anti-russian-politics.html/

No politics please! Unless it's anti-Russian politics

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Iliya Pitalev / Sputnik If there were prizes going for hypocrisy, then the International Paralympic Committee would surely be strong contenders for the gold medal. The IPC has slammed Belarus after its team committed the crime of – wait for it – holding up a Russian flag at the Paralympics opening ceremony in Rio. The official who carried the flag, a Mr. Andrey Fomochkin, has had his accreditation rescinded. The IPC said that it would remind Belarus that “political protests are forbidden at the Paralympic Games.” What a load of humbug. For it was political games by the IPC that got Russia banned from the event in the first place. The Committee, lest we forget, imposed a harsh and unjustified blanket ban on all 267 Russian Paralympians from competing in Rio (even though no individual has been publicly named as being a drug cheat), and also forbade Russian Paralympians from competing under a neutral banner at the games. Politics it seems is not allowed at the Paralympics – unless it’s anti-Russian politics – in which case it’s not only fine but obligatory. This isn’t the only time in 2016 we’ve seen different standards applied to ‘political protests’. In May we had the utterly farcical Eurovision Song Contest. The Ukrainian entry ‘1944’, a song about Stalin’s forced deportations, clearly breached the competition’s own rules which state: “No lyrics, speeches, gestures of a political or similar nature shall be permitted during the Eurovision Song Contest.” Yet despite this, Jamala was allowed to perform her composition by the European Broadcasting Union. In February, I predicted: “If Jamala is allowed to sing the song she “just had to write,” in contravention of the Eurovision rules, then it’ll be championed by all Russia bashers on the continent. We’ll all be under pressure to give the song ‘Douze Points’ to show our ‘solidarity’ with Ukraine.” And that is of course, exactly what happened. Although the Russian entry won the popular vote, juries of ‘music industry professionals’ in ‘NATOland’ helped push Jamala over the finishing line. Jamala was enthusiastically promoted by the CIA-founded US propaganda network RFE/RL and when she won NATO tweeted a You Tube profile on her they had made in 2015. But of course Eurovision 2016 wasn’t at all political, folks! Compare what happened to Jamala (feted by RFE/RL and NATO), to what happened to another female singer, the Hungarian artist Boggie, who entered a song for Eurovision called ‘Wars for nothing’ in 2015. This song won the Hungarian national heat, but then got into trouble-not because of its lyrics – but because one of the captions in the song’s video contained the words: “2014 Gaza two-thirds of the victims were civilians, including more than 500 children.” As I noted earlier this year: “Israel wasn’t mentioned by name and the song clearly was about commemorating all the innocent victims of war. But that didn’t stop the Israeli Ambassador to Hungary lodging a complaint to Hungary’s broadcasting authority, with the result that the ‘offending’ words in the video were removed.” I’m sure if the ‘offending’ words involved Russia or Stalin, there wouldn’t have been such a big a problem. I’m also very sure that if Serbia submitted an entry next year called ‘1999’- about the illegal US-led bombing of Yugoslavia carried out that year (perhaps describing how 14 people were killed by a NATO air strike on a passenger train at Grdelica, the EBU’s [European Broadcasting Union] ‘No Politics’ rule would be applied rather more strictly than it was in the case of Jamala. Needless to say Boggie – the co-composer and performer of ‘Wars for Nothing’, was not profiled on YouTube by NATO; neither was she promoted by RFE/RL… Politics intruding into sport, and international music contests, is ok so long as it’s the ‘right’kind of politics. The sort of politics that the US State Department approves of. If it’s not, and you display the ‘wrong’ politics, then the rule book will be thrown at you, with force. Disciplinary proceedings have begun against Celtic football club after some of its supporters waved Palestine flags at a recent match against a side from Israel in a Champions League qualifier. The fans, it seems, were waving an ‘illicit banner’- even though Palestine is a member of UEFA. The double standards of UEFA when it comes to flag waving have been chronicled by Robin Bairner of goal.com. Flying some flags will get you into trouble, while flying others won’t. The most expensive flags to wave are Palestinian ones, and as we see from Rio the Russian flag. What makes the situation even worse, is that if you so much as dare to point out the double standards in all of this “Making political statements is against the rules” nonsense, you’ll be accused of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and being ‘paranoid.’ We’re not only expected to put up with blatant bias, we’re being bullied into keeping shtum about it, when we see it. Playing politics? That’s only what those ‘Russkies’ and ‘totalitarian’ countries friendly to Russia do- like Belarus. We, in the West, keep politics out of sport and international events. We’re objective and totally fair! If we want Ukraine to win Eurovision it’s because Ukraine has the best song! How dare you suggest otherwise! The ludicrous myth of Western ‘impartiality’ can also be seen in the way that blatantly biased sources like the aforementioned RFE/RL and other US government-funded, Washington-friendly organizations are cited as ‘reliable authorities’ by the same imperial truth enforcers who loftily dismiss RT as “Kremlin propaganda.” Again, it’s a case of: “we don’t do politics- they do.” Torrents of fact free anti-Russian vitriol, paid for by Uncle Sam and US defense contractors, is hailed as “great, fearless, objective journalism,” while those who dare to put forward non-NATO friendly views, and back these views up with hard evidence, are accused of “bias” or even worse. “What is the robbing of a bank compared to the founding of a bank,” wrote the great Bertolt Brecht. When it comes to dragging politics into sport, we need to ask: “What is waving a flag, compared to the banning of an entire country?” Neil Clark is a journalist, writer, broadcaster and blogger. He has written for many newspapers and magazines in the UK and other countries including The Guardian, Morning Star, Daily and Sunday Express, Mail on Sunday, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, New Statesman, The Spectator, The Week, and The American Conservative. He is a regular pundit on RT and has also appeared on BBC TV and radio, Sky News, Press TV and the Voice of Russia. He is the co-founder of the Campaign For Public Ownership @PublicOwnership. His award winning blog can be found at www.neilclark66.blogspot.com. He tweets on politics and world affairs @NeilClark66 from https://www.sott.net/article/327925-No-politics-please-Unless-its-anti-Russian-politics

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/head-of-russias-security-council-says-number-of-cyberattacks-on-russia-jumped-three-fold-in-2016.html/

Head of Russia's Security Council says number of cyberattacks on Russia jumped three-fold in 2016

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © Thomas Jentzsch / Global Look Press The head of Russia’s Security Council has said that the overall number of cyberattacks on Russian state bodies and companies was over 52 million in 2016, more than three times the number registered in the previous year. Speaking at a Urals regional conference of the heads of Russian security agencies in the city of Kurgan, Nikolay Patrushev emphasized that the main goals of all of these attacks was the disruption of the work of hardware, including the networks that service the Russian segment of the internet and obtaining classified information through clandestine deployment of various means of computer surveillance. He also listed a number of factors that undermined Russia’s defenses from cyberattacks, such as unsanctioned access to the internet, low qualification of ordinary users and the lack of division between data streams. He also noted that IT departments of state agencies lacked skilled professionals. In order to improve the situation in the IT-security sphere, Patrushev demanded that before the end of the year security officials in the Urals Region complete the connection of information networks of state agencies to the ‘state segment of the internet’ – the dedicated protected part of the web. Patrushev has already attracted public attention to the increase of anti-Russian activities in the cyber sphere. In mid-January this year he noted that a large part of these attempts were made from the servers based in the US, hinting that Barak Obama’s administration must be aware of this fact as it threw unfounded accusations of malicious hacking operations at Russia. Back then Patrushev said that Russia was pursuing a goal of forming an international system based on common rules of responsible behavior in cyberspace that would be equally applicable to all states. Over the past few years, the head of the Security Council has also been consistently pushing for the ban on foreign-made software and foreign commercial internet services, such as instant messengers, by Russian civil servants. He has many times stated that such practices allowed criminals and foreign intelligence specialists to access both Russian state secrets in economic and defense sector and the personal data of Russian citizens. from https://www.sott.net/article/344215-Head-of-Russias-Security-Council-says-number-of-cyberattacks-on-Russia-jumped-three-fold-in-2016

unknown

thepostemail.com

2017-11-27

https://www.thepostemail.com/tag/climate-skeptics/

Robert Laity

climate skeptics Archives -

INSIDECLIMATE NEWS EXCELS AT PROPAGATING ENVIRONMENTALIST AND OBAMA THINKING POLICIES by Paul Driessen, ©2016 (Apr. 30, 2016) — Have you ever wondered how the LA Times, Associated Press, Weather Channel and your local media always seem to present similar one-sided stories on climate change, fossil fuels, renewable energy and other environmental issues? How their assertions become […]

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/did-physicists-just-prove-time-travel-sent-particles-of-light-into-the-past/

Guest Post

Did Physicists Just Prove Time Travel? Sent Particles Of Light Into The Past

By: Amanda Froelich, True Activist | Researchers used single particles of light (photons) to simulate quantum particles traveling through time, showing that one photon can pass through a wormhole and then interact with its older self. Hoverboards, flying cars, free energy and more, every day the prospect of living in a futuristic world seems more reality and less fiction. This is especially so, now that scientists from the University of Queensland, Australia have reportedly sent particles of light into the past. Scientific American reports that the researchers used single particles of light (photons) to simulate quantum particles traveling through time. They have, in effect, shown that one photon can pass through a wormhole and then interact with its older self. Their findings were published in Nature Communications. “Closed timelike curves” (CTC) are the source of the time travel conundrum. CTCs are used to simulate extremely powerful gravitational fields, like the ones produced by a spinning black hole. Theoretically, they could (based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity), warp the fabric of existence so that spacetime bends back on itself – thus creating a CTC, almost like a path that could be used to travel back in time. Many physicists reportedly find CTCs “abhorrent, because any macroscopic object traveling through one would inevitably create paradoxes where cause and effect break down.” But others disagree with this assessment. In 1991, physicist David Deutsch showed that these paradoxes (created by CTCs) could be avoided at the quantum scale because of the weird behavior of these fundamental particles that make up “matter”. At the quantum scale, these particles do not follow the rules that govern classical mechanics but behave in strange and unexpected ways that really shouldn’t even be possible, reports Collective Evolution. For the experiment, physicist Tim Ralph and his PhD student Martin Ringbauer simulated a Deutsch’s model of CTCs, “testing and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory.” Scientific American that although the experiment is just a mathematical simulation, the researchers (and their team/colleagues) emphasize that their model is mathematically equivalent to a single photon traveling through a CTC. physicist Tim Ralph and his PhD student Martin Ringbauer simulated a Deutsch’s model of CTCs, “testing and confirming many aspects of the two-decades-old theory.” reports that although the experiment is just a mathematical simulation, the researchers (and their team/colleagues) emphasize that their model is By measuring the polarization states of the second photon after its interaction with the first, across multiple trials the team successfully demonstrated Deutsch’s self-consistency in action. “The state we got at our output, the second photon at the simulated exit of the CTC, was the same as that of our input, the first encoded photon at the CTC entrance,” Ralph says. “Of course, we’re not really sending anything back in time but [the simulation] allows us to study weird evolutions normally not allowed in quantum mechanics.” In order to send something back in time, scientists would have to find a real CTC, which has yet to happen as far as we know. Consider the ‘grandfather paradox’ to wrap your head around what’s being presented. In the hypothetical scenario, someone uses a CTC to travel back through time to cause harm to their grandfather, thus preventing their later birth. Now, imagine a particle going back in time to flip a switch on the particle-generating machine that created it – this is a possibility that these physicists say they have shown through their simulation. You can read the specifics of the experiment here. This particular experiment illustrates how what happens in the present can change what happened in the past. It also shows how time can go backward, how cause and effect can be reversed, and how the future caused the past. “If we attempt to attribute an objective meaning to the quantum state of a single system, curious paradoxes appear: quantum effects mimic not only instantaneous action-at-a-distance, but also, as seen here, influence of future actions on past events, even after these events have been irrevocably recorded.” – Asher Peres, pioneer in quantum information theory (source)(source)(source) Perhaps one day, a wormhole, or a CTC in space, will be discovered, allowing scientists to conduct actual experiments that go beyond this theory.

unknown

therussophile.org

2017-11-27

https://www.therussophile.org/trilateral-contact-group-on-ukraine-agrees-on-safe-zones-around-donbass-infrastructure.html/

Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine agrees on safe zones around Donbass infrastructure

This post was originally published on this site sott.net/news © AFP 2017/ Aleksey FILIPPOV Participants of the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine have agreed on creating safe zones around important infrastructure objects in Ukraine’s conflict torn Donbass region, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Chairperson-in-Office in Ukraine Martin Sajdik said Wednesday. The situation in east Ukraine worsened at the end of January when fighting between local militias and the Ukrainian military intensified in the towns of Avdiivka and Yasynuvata. “The participants of the group returned to the issues of securing critical infrastructure sites. The sides expressed readiness to establish safe zones around a pumping station in Vasilyevka and the Donetsk water filtration station [DFS],” Sajdik told reporters. The DFS is located about seven miles away from the city in a neutral strip of territory on the line of contact and it is regularly hit by shelling. It provides Donetsk, Avdiivka and some other major Donbas cities with water. The Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine is a group of representatives from Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) that has been formed as a means to facilitate a diplomatic resolution to the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine. from https://www.sott.net/article/356860-Trilateral-Contact-Group-on-Ukraine-agrees-on-safe-zones-around-Donbass-infrastructure

bias

truepundit.com

2017-11-27

https://truepundit.com/thousands-to-scream-helplessly-at-the-sky-to-mark-anniversary-of-trump-presidency/

True Pundit Staff, Patrick Werner, Tami Moneymaker, Ann Marie

Thousands to ‘scream helplessly at the sky’ to mark anniversary of Trump presidency

Thousands to ‘scream helplessly at the sky’ to mark anniversary of Trump presidency FOLLOW US! Thousands of Americans angered or disappointed by Donald Trump’s ascension to the White House plan to vent their frustration by screaming helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the 2016 presidential election. “Join us cucks and snowflakes, safe spacers and libtards, as we enjoy a collective cathartic yell into the heavens about our current political establishment,” organizers for the event to be held in New York City on Nov. 8 wrote on social media. More than 2,200 people have already indicated their interest in attending the New York City rally, according to the “Scream helplessly at the sky on the anniversary of the election”Facebook page. Coordinator Nathan Wahl said the group’s schedule would also include a moment of silence before “a mournful rendition of ‘Kumbaya’ on [an] autoharp because we’re all just a bunch of liberal stereotypes.”

unknown

thesleuthjournal.com

2017-11-27

http://www.thesleuthjournal.com/does-ingesting-gm-foods-create-disease-such-as-morgellons/

The Sleuth Journal

Does Ingesting GM Foods Create Disease, Such as Morgellons?

Perhaps you’ve heard about Morgellons Disease, and by now you know about GM (genetically modified) food, but the link between the two, is possibly connected according to Professor Joe Cummins, Professor Emeritus at the University of Western Ontario. Most people are aware that soybeans, canola, and corn are GM foods ubiquitous in our food chain. However, sadly 75% of US food contains unlabeled GM ingredients. Many processed foods contain things we cannot dream of as being edible, much less healthy. We are what we eat, lets face it. Professor Cummins noted that Morgellons sufferers tested for Agrobacterium tumefaciens (AT) infestation. Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a bacteria used to create intercellular plant transport in GM (genetically modified food), a technique used for genetic manipulation. The Morgellons disease is characterized by skin lesions where afflicted individuals claim they can feel something crawling, biting, and stinging under their skin… some people have pulled fibers out, with documented photographs. Right out of a horror movie, right? So many people were inflicted that the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) did study this at one time, with Kaiser Hospital in California. Unfortunately, the study was inconclusive and thought to be a delusional disease. Throughout the world, it is estimated that millions suffer from this disease. Why would there be so many delusional people? The bulk of the cases have been reported in California, Florida, and Texas…and the numbers keep rising. Some people believe that it is contagious. nanotechnology in foods, aerosol experimental spraying (persistent contrails), weird pesticides, and now, the link with Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, these appear to be possible causes of this strange disease. Prominent individuals claim to suffer from Morgellons, such as Joni Mitchell, and former baseball player Billy Koch. Morgellons is still a mysterious condition without a known cure. Theories on Morgellons range fromin foods,(persistent contrails), weird pesticides, and now, the link with Agrobacterium Tumefaciens, these appear to be possible causes of this strange disease. Prominent individuals claim to suffer from Morgellons, such as Joni Mitchell, and former baseball player Billy Koch. Morgellons is still a mysterious condition without a known cure. Whatever Morgellons disease is, people are experiencing something consistent as reported. Explanations for Morgellons do not exist. The long term studies on GM foods are difficult to find. There are emerging new diseases, besides Morgellons, Winter Vomiting, obesity, and new ‘flu’ strains, plaguing people globally…how we connect the dots, might determine how well we live. Resources Anne Gordon is an RN, an Author, Researcher, and a computer artist. Fascinated with societies, and the future, she is drawn to medical health trends of tomorrow. What will health look like? Will we be more mechanical than spiritual? These are some of the concepts she is looking at. Many of her articles like her art, are slightly outside the mainstream box, aimed towards thought stimulation. She is also extremely curious about how the ‘business’ of healthcare, and wellness intertwine today.

clickbait

twitchy.com

2017-11-27

https://twitchy.com/dougp-3137/2016/02/15/kanye-west-takes-to-twitter-and-asks-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-to-please-call-me-about-1-billion-request/

Posted At Am On February, Doug P.

Kanye West takes to Twitter and asks Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg to ‘please call me’ about $$1 billion request

Kanye West, who recently claimed to be $$53 million in debt and asked his fans to offer prayers, is seeking financial help. West is focusing in particular on Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who yesterday was informed exactly how much money is being requested: Mark Zuckerberg invest 1 billion dollars into Kanye West ideas — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 14, 2016 Obviously a check hasn’t yet been sent, because West is still trying to get in touch with Zuckerberg: Mark Zuckerberg I know it’s your bday but can you please call me by 2mrw… — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 You love hip hop, you love my art… I am your favorite artist but you watch me barely breathe and still play my album in your house … — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 World, please tweet, FaceTime, Facebook, instagram, whatever you gotta do to get Mark to support me… — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 I don’t have enough resources to create what I really can… — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 Mark, I am publicly asking you for help… — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 one of the coolest things you could ever do is to help me in my time of need — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 and I will always respect you for that and the world will love you… — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016 West was offered useful tips: I hear he's on Facebook https://t.co/17DTQQupNL — B.J. Novak (@bjnovak) February 15, 2016 But this is Twitter…he don't have a Twitter account. ? https://t.co/PTZ6QLlwOR — Obey Season (@alovelydai) February 15, 2016 I believe that the first step in getting Mark Zuckerberg's help is asking on Facebook, not Twitter, @kanyewest https://t.co/y0tNrxgzun — Danny Sullivan (@dannysullivan) February 15, 2016 1. The owner of Facebook isn't on Twitter. 2. His birthday is 14th May. 3. He's definitely not calling you.#numpty https://t.co/goNBP6ggqO — Marty Ewart (@MartynEwart) February 15, 2016 To tug at the heartstrings of his fans and convince them to help him, West seems to have decided that the best approach is humility: I am the Jordan and Steph Curry of music, meaning I'm the best of 2 generations. — KANYE WEST (@kanyewest) February 15, 2016

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/2/28/306697/-

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

John Solomon's spirit lives on: The AP smears John Edwards

The AP wastes no time, with the headline: Edwards again apologizes for 2002 war vote: Says voters crave a president willing to admit errors and change course Um, yeah. Dwelling upon the negative--the AP paints him at once defensive and error-prone. Democrat John Edwards said Tuesday that honesty and openness were essential qualities for a president, and that he was proud to acknowledge his 2002 vote authorizing the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. (Emphasis added) What kind of idiot would say he's 'proud' of admitting a mistake? Hey, wait a second--that's the AP's word, not his! Folks, tell me where John Edwards says he's 'proud' of anything in connection with that vote or his regrets over it. Hint: You won't. Moving on, the AP really gets in a stinker: Trolling for campaign cash on a three-day visit to New York - home of his chief Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton - Edwards spoke to reporters after attending a union-sponsored workshop on eradicating poverty. Sweet Jesus. Asked whether his repeated apologies for his vote would be a turnoff to voters over time, the 2004 vice presidential nominee said that after six years of President Bush, voters craved a president willing to acknowledge errors and change course if necessary. Boy howdy, that's a fair question. "Senator Edwards, why don't you just shut the fuck up before you start pissing us, er, voters off?" If you asked me what I think the most important personal characteristics of the next president are, I would say honesty, openness and decency," he said. "There's not a single voter in America who doesn't understand that their president is human, and their president will sometimes makes mistakes." Guess what we're talking about here? That's right--John Edwards' mistake! At a voter forum in Carson City, Nev., last week, Edwards said Clinton's decision not to disavow her vote was "between her and her conscience." He didn't mention her Wednesday, taking a swipe at President Bush instead. Voters, the former North Carolina senator said, "want you to be willing to change course when something's not working. We've had six-plus years now of a president who is completely unwilling to do that." His entire point is to attack Bush, but you wouldn't know it until this paragraph where his 'swipe' is mentioned. But, the article does discuss Senator Clinton. Is the rhetoric similar? For her part, Clinton's also had a busy fundraising week - thanks in part to an online effort by her husband, Bill Clinton. In an e-mail to his wife's supporters last Wednesday, the former president launched a fundraising drive aimed at raising $$1 million in a week. As of Tuesday afternoon, the campaign said it had brought in nearly $$890,000. You see, the Clinton's raise funds. John Edwards trolls for campaign cash. If anyone still is wondering why Clinton told people demanding that she admit a mistake or apologize to Cheney themselves, here's why she didn't. Our media feast on what they perceive as weakness. Admit flaws, and they'll eat you alive. UPDATE: Bumblebums reveals below that Beth Fouhy, who wrote this piece of offal, is a Stanford grad and bona fide hometown referee:

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/2/28/306576/-

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Stick a Fork in Him -- Mitt Romney is Done

No one recovers from flip-flops this large, this brazen and this over the top. It's like he's arguing that he is a black Jew. Dude, you just said you were a white Mormon and I can see with my own two eyes that you aren't black. But he still looks at you with a straight face and tells you, "No, I believe in my heart now that I am black and Jewish." Okay, whatever. Who's next? And now my suspicions have been confirmed. In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll he got a whopping 4% of the Republican voters. Where's that fork? No one, outside of the media and some rich donors, knew who this guy was anyway. And then their first impression was of a super-slick guy with better than good hair who was slipperier than a wet fish in a jello wrestling contest. Throw in the random Mormon bias this country has (as if your religion is any less absurd), and you had the icing on the he-never-had-a-chance cake. He could have recovered from the Mormon thing. He couldn't recover from being the slickest guy on the planet. Every time I saw him speak there was one thing that kept running through my head, "I don't believe a word you're saying. I don't believe a word you're saying. I don't believe ..." Anyway, he's got a couple of weeks, maybe a couple of months max left in him. But Mr. 4% ain't going anywhere but back home. It was nice knowing you Mitt. Well, not really, but you get the point. The Young Turks

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/2/28/306683/-

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

US military Launches Operation STFU at Walter Reed

Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media. "Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media," one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training. Unusual, is one word for it, "absolutely unprecedented" would be a better one; but "punitive" is probably the best word of all. In Basic Training, were soldiers are still learning to adapt to the rigors of military life, such inspections are part of the normal hazing process and teach the recruit how to think and act like a soldier. Precisely because it is a teaching too for raw recruits, to subject veteran soldiers, wounded ones at that, is not only outrageous and harassing, but a grave insult to the men involved as it suggests they again need to be taught how to act like "real" soldiers. However, harassing the convalescing soldiers is only the tip of the iceberg: Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters. In the military culture The First Holy Commandment is , "Thou Shalt Follow Thy Chain of Command". Every soldier knows that no matter how otherwise justified his actions may be, breaking that rule that will cause instant damnation to the transgressor. In the military, no matter how incompetent, wrong-headed or unfair your direct supervisor may be, if you try to go around or over him, YOU are the one that did something wrong, and can expect severe punishment for it. Thus the SGM's "reminder" was actually meant as a not-at-all subtle warning against cooperating with investigators or filing complaints with anyone "outside the family" like the IG or even the Sec Def's office. Moreover, the military further yanked the rug out from under these soldiers by completely replacing their direct chain of command with complete strangers. So now they have no idea whether they can trust those in their chain with problems or complaints: The soldiers said they were also told their first sergeant has been relieved of duty, and that all of their platoon sergeants have been moved to other positions at Walter Reed. And 120 permanent-duty soldiers are expected to arrive by mid-March to take control of the Medical Hold Unit, the soldiers said. In other words, anybody they had built up a relationship with, anybody they had learned to trust is GONE, and in their place, their lives will be run by 120 complete strangers. In other words the perfect thing for convalescing soldiers struggling with adjustment and PTSD disorders eh? And even what seems like good news, is being done with an ulterior motive: They were also told they would be moving out of Building 18 to Building 14 within the next couple of weeks. . Given that Building 18 hasn't been renovated since Bob Hope was funny, and 14 had a makeover in 2006 this is on the surface a good thing. But as I said there are string attached: Building 14 is a barracks that houses the administrative offices for the Medical Hold Unit and was renovated in 2006. It’s also located on the Walter Reed Campus, where reporters must be escorted by public affairs personnel. Building 18 is located just off campus and is easy to access. In other words they get nominally nicer digs at the cost of having all their access to the media go through Army-appointed "minders" (and who says North Korea has nothing to teach the rest of the world?). Worse yet, the Army's media team has basically been told not to talk to the press (and their job would be what now, exactly?) The Pentagon also clamped down on media coverage of any and all Defense Department medical facilities, to include suspending planned projects by CNN and the Discovery Channel, saying in an e-mail to spokespeople: "It will be in most cases not appropriate to engage the media while this review takes place," referring to an investigation of the problems at Walter Reed. (let me give mad props to the source of this diary Army Times reporter, Kelly Kennedy, who has actually been working the Walter Reed story since even before the Washington Post, and has the guts to keep on it now after the crackdown, even though she's likely risking her job worse given the current crackdown) Update [2007-2-28 16:30:57 by Magorn]: it appears that An earlier diary on this same article ran today so be sure to Check out Misty Fowler's excellent diary and discussion on this as well

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/06/12/1537851/-LaPierre-is-gonna-need-a-new-excuse

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

LaPierre is gonna need a new excuse.

Our Prayers are with the victims and families. Now, buy more guns! This will be short. I promise. How many times do we have to go through this? A lone sad, pathetic loser, or a couple of them get themselves all lathered up, buy high powered semi automatic weapons and create another mass atrocity. The nation and world reels, and it dominates the news cycle for a day or two. But what happens next? Every goddamn time? The next step is as carefully staged and scripted as the third act of “Hamilton”. Somewhere between 36 to 72 hours after the tragedy, the ultimate human Port-A-Potty, Wayne LaPierre slimes his way up to a podium and adds the inevitable NRA spin. Their sympathy, prayers and support are with the victims and their families. And then the part you can set your goddamn watch to. Come on guys and gals, sing along with Wayne! “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. Really Wayne? I mean, fucking REALLY?!? Gonna need some new material. This time around, when the scumbag entered the club with his armory, there was a fully armed, fully trained off duty Orlando cop, in full uniform moonlighting to provide security. He engaged the shooter but had to be cautious because of the civilians all over the pace. The shooter went back outside and was confronted by two more Orlando cops with guns drawn, and exchanged fire with them, but again they were constrained out of concern for civilian casualties. And so, he was able to slaughter 50 innocent people and injure 53 more. And you know why? Because, unlike the douche bag with the AR-15, the Orlando cops did give a shit about innocent life! As it is, it will take days of autopsies and ballistic checks to determine how many if any of the victims were wounded or killed by crossfire when the SWAT team finally managed to breach a lounge wall and move in en masse, with 11 different officers discharging their weapons. So please, enlighten me on this Wayne. How many innocent, carefree revelers needed to be packing heat to have brought down one pathetic diaper stain with an AR-15? And how many more innocent party goers would have been mowed down in the panic fueled crossfire from all the amateur Rambo’s trying to make their bones? This really is your only sane solution?!? Wayne LaPierre. Professional soulless asshole.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/7/31/1407696/-Bern-s-Immigration-Stance-Makes-Him-Unfit-to-Lead-the-Democratic-Party

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Bern's Immigration Stance Makes Him Unfit to Lead the Democratic Party

I tried hard for two weeks to avoid criticizing the Bern out of respect for so many of you but this is really pissing me off. I’m a black man and one of my greatest issues in any presidential campaign is to support the individual(s) who offer the greatest freedoms to all of man-kind. That always eliminates the entire republican field because they seek to limit the freedoms of women, blacks, democratic voters, Mexicans, Muslims and anyone else unlike themselves. Well on yesterday, Bernie had the chance to offer additional freedoms to our Mexican brothers but he insists on treating them as second-classed citizens!! Look at how his double-speak took hits from the media: Huffpo: Bernie Sanders Is Walking A Tightrope On Immigration http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... The senator said Thursday that he stood by his remarks opposing open borders, adding that "there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country." The comments reinforce a perception voiced by immigration leaders in Congress that Sanders has not sufficiently emphasized immigration reform in his campaign. Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), a top proponent of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress, called on the presidential candidate to emphasize the issue more in June. …"Here's the issue: when Senator Sanders falsely pits immigrants as an obstacle to tackling unemployment, he’s just plain wrong," said Todd Schulte in a Wednesday statement. Schulte is president of FWD.us, a political action group backed by tech companies that focuses on immigration reform. Thinkpro: Why Immigration Is The Hole In Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda http://thinkprogress.org/... Sanders’ position on immigration has been called “complicated” and he has been criticized by immigration activists for supporting the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect. Both of his leading Democratic challengers, Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley, have recognized that new immigrants coming to the country actually boost the economy. But Sanders continues to align himself more closely with Democratic positions of the past. Newsweek: Bernie Sanders on Immigrants: Silly, Tribal and Economically Illiterate http://www.newsweek.com/... If Sanders really cared about global poverty and taking a more “international view,” he ought to support allowing poor people to improve their lives by moving to where they have the best opportunities. I’m really trying to follow Bernie’s logic: 1. He was against IR in 2007 because he thought it hurt American jobs (same position as republicans) 2. He’s now for IR but he still believes it hurts American jobs. 3. Is he implying that Americans are superior people? 4. Or, is he saying he only cares about the financial well-being of Americans? 5. Does Bernie care about dirty water in Africa? 6. Does he care about the plight of Muslim women? 7. What is his definition of “socialism?” Thinkpro called his imigration stance ideas "a Hole in Bernie's Progressive Agenda," I believe his nuance position is tribal and insensitive. Bernie cares about raising the wages of average Americans and that’s it. Sure, he throws out “African American youth” and “inner-city Hispanics” but I truly believe his soul is showing. I don’t see any regard for the plight of the Global Community and that troubles me deeply. I really can’t support this one issue candidate. In my mind, Bern's immigration position makes him unfit to lead the Democratic Party

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/10/11/1580971/-Holy-crap,-North-Carolina-Republican-voting-is-down-by-HALF-compared-to-2012

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Holy crap, North Carolina Republican voting is down by HALF compared to 2012

Hillary Clinton rallies the faithful at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, North Carolina Imagine a world where Donald Trump absolutely obliterates Republican voter turnout this November. Then take a look at North Carolina. You can go read Bill Busa’s entire analysis of the North Carolina early vote, but that graph says everything you really need to know: only HALF as many Republican voters have voted early right now, compared to this point four years ago. Democrats and independents are slightly up, but as for Republicans, the bottom has fallen out. Maybe it’s Donald Trump’s assholeness, or Donald Trump’s lack of a field operation, or maybe hating on the LGBTQ community isn’t the big base-mobilizer the GOP thought it would be. Or maybe it’s all of the above. Yeah, it’s probably that, all of the above. Republicans are panicking as their numbers crater across the board. Hopefully, that chart above is a national harbinger, and not just a localized phenomenon. North Carolina is not only a swing state for the presidential race. With your help, we can win a key Senate race this year. Click here to volunteer on the ground in North Carolina for Deborah Ross.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/10/6/394891/-How-the-New-Media-Works

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

How the New Media Works

n the new media, news is broken down into three subsets. The Collectors Associated Press, New York Times, Washington Post, blogs that break stories, etc. These are our original sources. They are vital. Without these sources, there is nothing for anyone else to report. The Aggregators Websites like Google News, digg.com, reddit.com, Huffington Post, Yahoo, AOL News and even your local paper (they aggregate the national and international stories that they do almost no original reporting on). This is where we get a majority of our information. It's quick, it's easy, and often times, it's personalized. If you like news from a right-wing perspective, you go to Drudge. If you like news from a moderate or left-wing perspective, you go to Huffington Post. If you want it down the middle, you go to Yahoo. You want gossip, go to Perez Hilton. You want news and video from a progressive perspective, go to Crooks and Liars or Think Progress. Everyone has their niche. Everyone has an audience they serve well. The Interpreters Commentators that analyze the news from their (your) perspective. Fox News Channel, Keith Olbermann, Air America, Rush Limbaugh. Some blogs also fall in this category (unsurprisingly, blogs are often hybrids that cross many different boundaries). These are people that help bring the news to you in a way you agree with. They inform you, but they also excite, enrage and impassion you. Their purpose is analysis/entertainment. Some people call this category infotainment. I prefer (my former co-host) Ben Mankiewicz's name for it - entermation. So, where do traditional news anchors fit in here? Nowhere. How often do television reporters break stories these days? Almost never. Most of them are actors reading the news pretending to be real reporters. I'm amused at how other TV reporters feign outrage at Katie Couric becoming the CBS prime time news anchor. Why, do you fancy yourself a journalist? Really, when is the last time you broke a story? Most of the people on local news are former models and pretty boys with three brain cells between them. Are we supposed to be impressed? Look on TV, does it look like they are making their decisions based on looks or intelligence? Is it just a coincidence that all the pretty people wound up with the jobs on TV? I understand there are exceptions and I actually picked Brian Williams as my example because I think he is one of the exceptions. He is an awfully bright guy who gets the news. But so what? Even he doesn't bring anything to the table. There's no value added. Let me recount a recent conversation with my dad by way of example. He recently turned 70 and used to watch the evening news every single night. My mom would have to drag him away from it to get him to sit down for dinner. Me: Dad, do you still watch the evening news? Dad: No, never. Me: Well, where do you get your news? Dad: I already got it, online. Me: Don't you want to see how the anchors are reporting it? Dad: Are you kidding? I already got the news, why would I waste my time watching them retell the same stories for half an hour? Me: So, is there anyone whose opinion you trust to bring you the news? Dad: Yes, Keith Olbermann. My dad was a conservative Republican who got his news the old fashioned way until about five years ago. First, he lost faith with the people who were supposed to bring him the news. One day when we were both still Republicans, he turned to me and said, "I think this Bill O'Reilly guy is full of crap." I was really surprised by that, but my dad said he had been watching for awhile and noticed the guy kept lying and exaggerating and making a general ass out of himself. Then he soured on Fox News Channel all together. He was still on board for the other news channels, but things did not appear to be what they were before. Then I introduced him to the internet. He said to me recently, "But I don't understand, everything is right here, why would anyone go anywhere else for news?" That's it in nutshell. After the different websites you visit have already aggregated the news for you, why do you need the networks to re-aggregate it? You don't. It's a waste of time. They do too little and take way too long to do it. Half an hour is an eternity and all you get is the stories they have selected in their infinite wisdom as the important ones. Useless. And if you're looking for someone to analyze the news, you're certainly not going to turn to the evening news. They're too scared of their own shadow to dare to interpret a damn thing. God forbid someone should call them liberal (or these days, conservative) for giving even the most obvious analysis. Now that my dad has crossed over to the progressive side (or was pushed there by George W. Bush (you couldn't get my dad to say an unkind word about George H. W. Bush; yes, there are still those kinds of conservatives/moderates/new progressives)), he gets his analysis from the Dynamic Trio - Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. After The Daily Show gets done skewering the politicians, are you really going to turn over to the stodgy old news shows for their dry, insipid and out of touch "analysis." What's the point? I already have the news and I've already heard someone take it apart. Why would I want a boring, lifeless version of it reiterated to me? That's why Charlie Gibson is the leading anchor on television and Katie Couric is in last place. Look at the demographics. Of course, the much, much older audience for broadcast news is going to prefer someone like themselves (sorry Charlie) and not some whipper-snapper like Couric telling them about light and happy news. The old guys will do better in this antiquated format all the way until they run out of audience. No young anchor is going to magically bring in a younger audience when that audience finds the program itself irrelevant. Watch The Young Turks Here (We're in the Entermation Business) Editor's Note: Air America would like you to know that my dad also listens to my show, and finds it brilliant. Though I do get the occasional, "You should be more funny like that Colbert guy. He is very talented." Thanks, Dad. I appreciate that.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/8/1/1407819/-John-Kasich-defends-Medicaid-Expansion-Republicans-WALK-OUT-in-protest

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

John Kasich defends Medicaid Expansion: Republicans WALK OUT in protest.

Come on people: open your damn eyes: Republicans plan to kill off as many of us commoners as they can. Just realize it, accept it. They work to kill jobs. They work to kill unemployment benefits. They work to kill welfare and burn the safety net. They work to kill Food Stamps. And just how hard have they worked on killing access to healthcare? Hmmm? 50-how-many votes to defund Obamacare? The pattern is the reflection of their entire agenda, the one they have to lie about all the time. They aren't making accounting errors: they are calculating on how to vigorously thin the herd without being called Nazis. Republicans fucking hate you and you should probably adjust your perceptions of what they do lest you think these people are somehow your friends. They aren't. They would push you off a cliff if they had half a chance. They want as many of you as possible to die off and you can't tell me I'm wrong. Have a fine day.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/7/31/1407729/-NYT-TPP-Negotiations-On-the-Brink-of-Failure

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

NYT: TPP Negotiations On the Brink of Failure [Updated]

The New York Times is reporting that the final round of TPP negotiations, currently underway in Hawaii, may fail due to a lack of agreement between prospective signatories on a number of critical issues, including exclusivity rights on intellectual property in the pharmaceutical industry and access to livestock and agricultural markets. Negotiators will return to their home countries to obtain high-level signoffs for a small number of final sticking points on the agreement, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with bilateral talks reconvening soon. But the breakdown is a setback for the Obama administration, which had promoted the talks here as the final round ahead of an accord that would bind 40 percent of the world’s economy under a new set of rules for commerce. But the failure to complete the deal — eight years in the making — means the next round of negotiations will push the United States ratification fight into 2016, a presidential election year. Most Republican candidates are likely to back it, but a final agreement would force the Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton to declare her position, which she has avoided. If this inability to come to a final agreement stands, it would be outstanding news. Essentially, it would be dead in the water until next year--in the midst of the U.S. election season. The writer, Jonathan Weissman, notes:Again, while the article implies that the negotiations are on life-support now, we've seen this beast come back from the dead more than once, so let's (those of us who oppose it) keep our fingers crossed and keep vigilant in our opposition. Also, supporting presidential candidates who openly oppose the TPP () is really important, as well. Cheers! UPDATE: Looks like the negotiations have indeed stalled for now, as Reuters is also reporting that the Hawaii talks have ended without finalizing the agreement. Pacific Rim trade ministers failed to clinch a deal on Friday to free up trade between a dozen nations after a dispute flared up over auto trade between Japan and North America, New Zealand dug in over dairy trade and no agreement was reached on monopoly periods for next-generation drugs. Again, what this means for the near term is that it's now virtually certain that the next round of negotiations will certainly overlap with the media circus over the election next year, and certain politicians can expect increasing pressure to come clean over their positions on the agreement as the campaign heats up. The TPP is far from dead, but these setbacks can help us to turn up the pressure on ostensibly progressive Democratic candidates for national office during this election cycle, and to force them, if necessary, to be very clear--or to come clean--with their positions on the TPP, TTIP, and TiSA.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/8/1/1407691/-Abbreviated-Pundit-Round-up-Hillary-comes-out-swinging

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Hillary comes out swinging

It is true that at this point, Bernie is an unknown quantity for most Americans. It is possible that as he gains exposure, and his message becomes more widely disseminated, he will actually gain ground on Hillary. Locally, Bernie supporters remain convinced that this is what will occur. As Middlebury College student Lizzie Weiss put it in her story on Bernie that came out in the local Addison Independent yesterday, “Yet while Americans from Brooklyn, N.Y., to the Bay Area of California begin to rally behind Sanders and political pundits grapple with his campaign, there is a sense here, in his home state, that the rest of the country is just now beginning to learn what Vermonters have already long understood.” His strongest supporters, then, are convinced that in time Bernie’s message will begin resonating with a growing segment of the American public. As evidence of his grass-roots support, they point to the roughly 100,000 Bernie supporters who turned out in a series of “house parties” at some 3,000 locations on Wednesday night. (This article gives a sense of what went on at a typical house party.) In the meantime, they are not averse to criticizing anyone who might question the reality of #berniementum, as a sampling of these twitter and other online comments responding to yesterday’s post indicates:

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2007/3/11/310726/-

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Brothers and Sisters,

Guide Me, O My Great Redeemer Guide me, O my great Redeemer, pilgrim through this barren land; I am weak, but you are mighty; hold me with your powerful hand. Bread of heaven, bread of heaven, feed me till I want no more, feed me till I want no more. Open now the crystal fountain, where the healing waters flow, Let the fire and cloudy pillar lead me all my journey through. Strong deliverer, strong deliverer, ever be my strength and shield, ever be my strength and shield. When I reach the River Jordan, bid my anxious fears subside. Death of death, and hell's destruction, land me safe on heaven's side. Songs of praises, songs of praises, I will ever sing to you, I will ever sing to you.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/02/22/1067190/-Rick-is-on-a-Roll!-The-Stunning-Sincerity-of-Rick-Nehemiah-Santorum

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Rick is on a Roll! The Stunning Sincerity of Rick "Nehemiah" Santorum

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum is truly on a roll. Feeling his oats, he has been laying down a hardcore line. And if this one week is any sample, we are in for one heckuva ride. He started by impugning President Ombama's religious faith as "phony theology." This is red meat, so central to the party faithful that a surrogate let slip what it really means, into an open microphone -- the "radical muslim" fantasy that they share privately on the bus and plane. But more on that in another post. Is Santorum the new "teflon candidate" to whom nothing bad will stick? Let's start with the Phony Theology of environmentalism. = Elevating the Earth above People? = Now, completing 48 hours of grand assertions, Santorum proclaims that President Barack Obama is beholden to “radical environmentalists” and has a "world view that elevates the earth above man.” Again and again, we see broad-brush assertions that are immune to testing by facts or experiment of falsification, because by their very essence they are about rhetoric, polemic, the world of subjective rage. There IS an answer for this latest Santorum salvo. Alas, it must be in terms that are rhetorical, polemical and subjective. Yet, the pure truth. So is it even remotely true that - as Santorum claims - both Obama and the hated/satanic blue half of America elevate the Earth above people? Wrong. We elevate our great-grandchildren... and their great-grandchildren... above both short-term ripoff artists and dopes who pray for Armageddon. Tens and hundreds of billions of people... future people... our descendants. We want to save a viable planet -- and a viable, vibrantly creative economy and a vigorously scientific civilization -- for them. When you strip away all the dross and distractions -- like the insipid notion that any of this involves old-fashioned "left-vs-right -- and when you also strip away all the self-hypnosis incantations like "muslim" and "socialism" -- what is left? What's the essential. core matter before us? = The divide is not left/right... it is forward vs backward = Picture the big-money oligarchs who are stage managing this hysteria, hijacking the once-noble movement of Barry Goldwater...what do they have in common with the ground troops of the GOP, in their steepening spiral of frothing religious hysteria? Very little, except... ...the future. Neither of them think about it, want it, care about it or believe in it. The populists in America's latest Great Revival think the days of the Late Great Planet Earth are numbered, and they despise those who would tend it with careful attention to distant tomorrows. The oligarchs? If they had horizons extending beyond ten years, they would get rich the way Gates and Buffet do, with goods and services, and with some thought to the long range, as well. In both cases, the agenda is nostalgia. Oh, I will concede that Newt wants a moon base. But where else is the extended future - the Long Now - to be found, contemplated anywhere at all on the right? Barry Goldwater used to think long term. But in those days, 40% of scientists called themselves Republican, instead of 5% today. A migration and exile that says it all. Read more about how well Rick Santorum channels to the "future shocked" side of America -- our neighbors who want no part of it. Yes, there are also lefties, who "avatar" tomorrow with gloom. I have always avowed that there are nut-jobs in that direction, too. But those flakes are relatively rare and they do not own or operate an entire political party. They don't have the calamitous misrule of the 2000s decade to atone for. Those lefty flakes are not the same thing as Blue America. The America that still thinks about posterity -- and yes the posterity of our beloved fellow (red) citizens, as well. All of our descendants who will need a living Earth.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/10/1609414/-the-End-of-the-Republic-12-10-2016-Some-call-it-Treason-Russia-got-GOP-help-to-hijack-the-election

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

the End of the Republic 12/10/2016 Some call it Treason

A corollary of polarization is that, if there aren’t many people in the middle to be persuaded, it makes sense for candidates to focus on firing up their bases, and this is a key part of the story of the success of the Trump campaign. You can bet that activists of both parties will have learned this lesson when 2020 comes along. x Parties don’t decide; neither do sharks. 19 lessons for political scientists from 2016: https://t.co/43Yjjj5Kq5 pic.twitter.com/orlkTqvEqt — Slate (@Slate) December 10, 2016 10. The ground game was overrated. The Democrats were supposed to be able to win a close election using their ability to target individual voters and get them out to the polls. But it didn’t happen this way. The consensus after 2016, which should’ve been the consensus earlier: Some ground game is necessary, but it’s hard to get people to turn out and vote if they weren’t already planning to. 18. Goldman Sachs rules the world.This theory appears to still hold up. Goldman Sachs candidate Hillary Clinton managed to lose the electoral vote, but Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-Goldman Sachs) may now be the most powerful Democrat in Washington, while former Goldman Sachs executive Steve Bannon will be deciding strategy inside the White House. So it looks like the banksters are doing just fine. They had things wired, no matter which way the election went.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/15/1611626/-The-Simple-r-Way-to-Take-Back-the-Electoral-College-and-the-House-of-Representatives

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

The Simple(r) Way to Take Back the Electoral College and the House of Representatives

We are all keenly aware of the undemocratic nature of the Electoral College, as well as the brutal Republican gerrymanders which keep the US House of Representatives in Republican hands despite losing the total vote count by considerable margins in every electoral cycle. There are grand schemes to effectively abolish the Electoral College, but they aren’t likely to bear fruit any time soon since they require an interstate compact or a constitutional amendment. Attempts to fight Republican gerrymanders of Congressional Districts must be fought on a state-by-state level using both the courts and state governments. That means that Democrats have to get creative in breaking the Republican stranglehold on power by looking for the weak link in the power structure. That link is the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929. Prior to this act of Congress, the number of US House members was based on population, which meant that their numbers increased as the US population grew. After the act was passed, the number of representatives was capped at 435, leading to a relative imbalance in the number of House members from rural and urban states. In turn, the cap on House members affected the Electoral College, since the number of Electoral Votes each state gets is equal to its total number of US Representatives plus its total number of Senators. Over time, this imbalance in power has gotten far worse than was even in 1929. Prior to the Apportionment Act, no state lost representatives unless it actually lost population, but that meant that the US House had to pass a new act every decade to increase the number of seats. (Good diary which explains the process here.) Since the law capping the number of US House seats isn't a constitutional amendment, but a federal law, it can be attacked on two levels. First, should a miracle occur and the Democrats retake the House, the Senate, and the Presidency in 2020, Democrats could repeal the law directly. If an even bigger miracle occurs and the Democrats regain veto-proof majorities in the House and Senate in 2018, they could overturn the law then. Second, it’s just possible that the law could be attacked in federal court on the principle that it violates “one man-one vote” and anti-discrimination rulings the SCOTUS has made since 1929. The good feature of the act is that it made the provision for Representatives to be elected from “At Large" districts. Currently, this provision is only applied to members from states which just get one Representative, but the law could easily be updated to require fairer methods of drawing Congressional Districts and allocation of Electoral College votes. A revised law could possibly also be used to implement any number of voting schemes which prevent gerrymandering and uphold the principle of “one man-one vote” while still complying with the Voting Rights Act. Additional arguments for scrapping the Reapportionment Act here. The table below shows what the composition of the US House of Representatives would look like using two methods of reapportionment. The first method is the Hamiltonian method, based directly on the US Constitution, which provides for one Representative per 30,000 people [Edit: actually a minimum of 1 per 50,000]. The second is the Webster method which allocates house seats using the state with the smallest population as the lowest common denominator. Both of these methods come very close to allowing “one man- one vote.” The Hamiltonian method results in 10,273 U.S. Representatives according to the 2015 census estimates. The Webster method results in 545 members. If Puerto Rico was given statehood, it would get 124 members under the Hamiltonian method, 7 under the Webster method. If D.C. were given statehood, it would get 20 members or 1 member, respectively. Sadly, due to the “winner take all” nature of the Electoral College vote, assuming the same results for the 2016 election, Trump would win a Hamiltonian-based Electoral College by 5,853 to 4,520 (1:1.29 ratio of loser votes vs. winner votes), or a Webster-based Electoral College by 367 to 278 (1:1.32 ratio). For comparison sake, the actual vote ratio in the 2016 election was 1:1.32 with 306 to 232 electoral votes. In a more normal election year where the Democrats win the swing states that Obama carried in 2012 (FL, MI, OH, PA, WI) presidential results would be 6,486 to 3,887 using the Hamiltonian method (1:1.67 ratio) or 394 to 251 using the Webster method (1:1.56 ratio) versus the 1:1.52 ratio of the actual 325 to 213 electoral votes. So, while changing the size of the Electoral College doesn’t guarantee that the winner of the popular vote will win the presidency, when the map is more favorable for Democrats the relative power of small states wouldn’t be as disproportionate as it is now and would result in even larger Democratic margins of victory. In big and medium-sized states, the vastly increased number of congressional districts would make gerrymandering harder, would reduce the negative effects of geographic concentration on Democratic votes, and would make it easier for states to comply with the VRA. Combined with electoral reforms which scrap first past the post voting, the increased number of representatives would allow Congressional delegations which more closely match the voting patterns for a given state. State Est. 2015 pop. House Seats (435) Est. Pop. @ House Seat (435) House Seats @ 30k pop. House Seats by (State pop./WY pop.) California 37,254,503 53 702,915 1,242 66 Texas 25,146,105 36 698,503 838 45 Florida 18,804,623 27 696,468 627 33 New York 19,378,087 27 717,707 646 34 Illinois 12,831,549 18 712,864 428 23 Pennsylvania 12,702,887 18 705,716 423 23 Ohio 11,536,725 16 721,045 385 20 Georgia 9,688,681 14 692,049 323 17 North Carolina 9,535,692 13 733,515 318 17 Michigan 9,884,129 14 706,009 329 18 New Jersey 8,791,936 12 732,661 293 16 Virginia 8,001,045 11 727,368 267 14 Washington 6,724,543 10 672,454 224 12 Arizona 6,392,307 9 710,256 213 11 Massachusetts 6,547,817 9 727,535 218 12 Indiana 6,484,229 9 720,470 216 12 Tennessee 6,346,275 9 705,142 212 11 Missouri 5,988,927 8 748,616 200 11 Maryland 5,773,785 8 721,723 192 10 Wisconsin 5,687,289 8 710,911 190 10 Minnesota 5,303,925 8 662,991 177 9 Colorado 5,029,324 7 718,475 168 9 South Carolina 4,625,401 7 660,772 154 8 Alabama 4,780,127 7 682,875 159 8 Louisiana 4,533,479 6 755,580 151 8 Kentucky 4,339,349 6 723,225 145 8 Oregon 3,831,073 5 766,215 128 7 Oklahoma 3,751,616 5 750,323 125 7 Connecticut 3,574,118 5 714,824 119 6 Iowa 3,046,869 4 761,717 102 5 Utah 2,763,888 4 690,972 92 5 Mississippi 2,968,103 4 742,026 99 5 Arkansas 2,915,958 4 728,990 97 5 Kansas 2,853,132 4 713,283 95 5 Nevada 2,700,691 4 675,173 90 5 New Mexico 2,059,192 3 686,397 69 4 Nebraska 1,826,341 3 608,780 61 3 West Virginia 1,853,011 3 617,670 62 3 Idaho 1,567,652 2 783,826 52 3 Hawaii 1,360,301 2 680,151 45 2 New Hampshire 1,316,466 2 658,233 44 2 Maine 1,328,361 2 664,181 44 2 Rhode Island 1,052,931 2 526,466 35 2 Montana 989,417 1 989,417 33 2 Delaware 897,936 1 897,936 30 2 South Dakota 814,191 1 814,191 27 1 North Dakota 672,591 1 672,591 22 1 Alaska 710,249 1 710,249 24 1 Vermont 625,745 1 625,745 21 1 Wyoming 563,767 1 563,767 19 1 Total 308,156,338 435 n/a 10,273 545 Edit: Just after publishing this diary I realized that the minimum number of people per CD specified in the constitution was 50,000. So, if you want the number of CD based on 50,000 people per district rather than 30,000, just divide the numbers by 3/5, which would yield a total of 6,164 Representatives.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/04/29/1295649/-Genuine-Solar-Breakthrough

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Genuine Solar Breakthrough

It's the custom here at DKos to announce "breakthroughs" in renewable energy. These typically range from violations of thermodynamics to nice ideas that are unlikely to be practical in the foreseeable future. This one, however, is for real. John Rogers' group here at the University of Illinois has figured out a practical new way to stack cells with different wavelength sensitivities to use the full solar spectrum rather than the narrow slice possible with a single junction. (news story,article)The idea of multiple junctions is old but the technique of making them is altogether new. It's combined with another idea already in use- inexpensive focussing using molded lenses. That allows the relatively expensive multi-junction material to cover only a fraction of the surface area. The actual module efficiency efficiency exceeds 35%. At more than twice the efficiency of currently installed solar panels, and with anticipated reasonable fabrication costs, this should really open up the path to solar use. The authors emphasize the usefulness of ultra-high-efficiency panels for utility-scale projects, but they should also be very good for distributed small set-ups, in which available light can be patchy and the cost of installing each panel can be larger than the cost of the panel. update: Thanks to Visceral for the reminder that I should have pointed out that these focussed systems only work with direct sunlight, not the diffuse light on a cloudy day. They do require a tracking set-up. That still leaves many applications in the broad regions where most days are clear. If the costs gradually come down on the multi-junction material, following typical electronics cost-vs-time curves, it should be possible at some point to skip the focussing and use them in diffuse light too.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/08/11/1411005/-Book-review:-Aurora-by-Kim-Stanley-Robinson

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Book review: "Aurora" by Kim Stanley Robinson

I've had my problems with Robinson in the past. I know I'm not the only one who can recognize that "2312" is brilliant and unreadable. Robinson has always been willing to take readers through mind-numbing, plot-free detail for a questionable payoff in the end. In many ways, he reminds me of Neal Stephenson---smart, complex, and sometimes not worth the effort. I loved the "Baroque Cycle" and yet could not finish it. Aurora, though, was a much easier read. There was work, and there was payoff, and the book is about much more than many reviewers have noted. The book follows a "generation ship" fuk of putative planetary colonists. Generation ships have been a feature of scifi for decades. As a plot device they allow authors to accept that the speed of light is an inviolable thing. There is no mysterious FTL drive, no worm holes, no warp speed. Generation ships help place a story firmly in one of our possible futures. The story opens with broken prose introducing us to a journey about a century and a half gone. The ship's chief engineer, Devi, is a brilliant, depressed ball of anxiety, cursed with the knowledge that the original mission is likely to fail in one of a thousand different ways. She shares these anxieties to a certain extent with her husband Badim, but really befriends the ship itself. She spends much of her free time teaching the ship's computer to think. "ship", the name the interstellar generation ship's AI chooses for itself, is a brilliantly rendered character. It begins as a horrible narrator, and, like Robinson himself, tends to overwhelm the reader with detail, not wanting to sacrifice accuracy for the thread of story that runs through events. The AI, with help from Devi, learns to work through the "halting problem", escaping from endless loops of cause and effect in order to make an actual decision. This maturation is wonderfully rendered in the prose as ship's writing becomes more clear, more linear, and more human. Robinson likes to play with the reader. We are frequently led to question the point of view of the narrator: is it ship? Is it Devi's daughter Freya? Is it an omniscient narrator? This is made more complicated when in the story, ship cannot possibly be the narrator (I'll avoid spoilers here). So, on one level, this book is really a coming-of-age story. "ship" is the central character in this, but so are it's passengers, who once dreamed of colonizing new worlds, only to conclude that not only is it difficult, but likely impossible. "What were they thinking" is a common refrain of the ancestors descendants of the original colonists. This is contrasted with the residents of the Solar System, who still reach for the greener grass across light-years, unwilling or unable to learn from their ancestors' failures. Robinson's complex characters are drawn in short strokes, leaving the reader to fill in the details, but the mood is clearly set, and the personalities are immediately familiar. In many ways this is an existentialist work, with characters' fulfillment coming through decisions and actions. In fact, "ship" only becomes truly sentient when it makes a decision and acts. Unlike some of his works, Robinson's Aurora is brief enough to give a good account for hard SciFi and to serve as a compelling narrative. Of all his works, this is the one most likely to be read in the classrooms of the future.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/06/10/1097885/-This-week-in-the-War-on-Workers:-A-tough-week,-but-workers-still-got-somewins

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

This week in the War on Workers: A tough week, but workers still got some wins

While the loss in Wisconsin is a big one for unions and workers more generally, the week wasn't without some small victories in fights across the country. American Airlines has been trying to block a union representation election for 10,000 passenger agents by arguing to the National Mediation Board, which governs airline unions, that the Communications Workers of America did not have enough worker petitions for a union vote under the heightened requirements Republicans inserted into the FAA reauthorization. But the NMB has set a date for the election. It's still an extremely uphill climb for American's passenger agents, who face a tough intimidation campaign from the airline in the upcoming weeks leading up to and during the vote. But at least they got their vote despite strong management opposition. In a more final win, the Hilton Hotel near LAX settled a class-action lawsuit by agreeing to pay workers $$2.5 million. According to the lawsuit, about 1,200 workers didn't get overtime or meal or rest breaks they were due and had wages withheld. Getting businesses to obey wage and hour laws is a really minimal step, but given that so many businesses do not pay their workers for all the hours they work, or allow them to take breaks they're legally entitled to, a settlement in a lawsuit like this is actually a real win. It's also worth talking about the ongoing small victories for workers in an Occupational Safety and Health Administration that, under President Obama, is making the most of its limited resources to protect workers from dangerous conditions on the job. Or, as Republicans would call it, over-regulation. OSHA cited roofing contractor Woodridge Enterprises for multiple violations, including two repeat violations for lack of fall protection. DD Stucco and Renovation LLC was also cited for fall hazards, including two willful violations. Willful violations are ones "committed with intentional knowing or voluntary disregard for the law's requirements, or with plain indifference to worker safety and health." Contractors at Kimball Union Academy in New Hampshire were also cited for a mindbending array of hazards, including fall, crushing and cave-in hazards. When three different contractors on one worksite have such serious issues, you have to look askance at the entity that hired them and ultimately controls the worksite. So it's of note that in this case it's a school. A further glance through OSHA's releases for the week finds multiple repeat violations at a Walmart, including an electrical hazard, and an order for reinstatement of a whistleblower who was fired from an Alaska residential youth facility after expressing concerns about the safety of drinking water at the facility. Isn't it just terrible how all that over-regulation is crushing job creators? (Continued below the fold.)

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/06/08/1098407/-A-small-favor-for-a-big-cause-[@PlanetEarth]

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

A small favor for a big cause [@PlanetEarth]

Ecocity Builders and the United Nations NGO Major Group's proposal 'Global Standards of Sustainability for Cities' has advanced to the final round of the Rio+20 Dialogues. Please support us so that the proposal can be delivered directly to Heads of State at Rio+20. Everyone can vote directly from the link. 1. Go to http://vote.riodialogues.org 2. Click on 'Your Vote' 3. Scroll to : Sustainable Cities and Innovation 4. Vote for: Promote global standards of sustainability for cities. 5. Share! As the Earth's ecosystem and climate is rapidly reaching a "tipping point" it's becoming increasingly clear that we humans all have to pull together to turn the mothership around. Luckily, the upcoming United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio ( Rio+20 ) from June 20-22 (and the weeks leading up to it starting right now) is offering many great opportunities for people from all over the world to come together, build bridges, and draft a common path upon which all residents of this breathtakingly beautiful planet we call home can journey towards a sustainable and equitable future. Over the last few months I've been peripherally involved in the sometimes hopeful, sometimes frustrating, but always interesting process of midwifing the elusive and almost mythical outcome document that is supposed to become the collectively agreed upon blueprint for a prosperous, secure and sustainable future for people and planet. For the first time ever, rather than just leaving it to high level diplomats and heads of state to duke it out over how to solve the world's many interconnected problems, the UN decided to ask representatives from all areas of civil society, aka major groups, to participate in the process. As such, Ecocity Builders, the organization I've been dreaming up cities that function like natural ecosystems with for many years, was invited to participate and chime in as part of the NGO Major Group cluster. As some of you already know, I got to go to New York and look dapper in my Jerry Garcia tie, but since that is such a rare sight and as a little treat for voting for the 'Global Standards of Sustainability for Cities' at http://vote.riodialogues.org, a big thank you smile: But really, for Ecocity Builders this process started three years ago when the groundwork was laid for a standards system that would measure and quantify the progress cities were making towards becoming more holistic in their approach to planning, The International Ecocity Framework and Standards initiative. A sort of a LEED ratings system for cities, this was something that everyone who knew how big of a role cities will have to play (70% of the world's population, poverty, huge CO2 emissions) in accomplishing anything resembling global sustainable development was clamoring for. In a nutshell, without some sort of a comprehensive methodology by which cities' progress toward becoming ecocities could be objectively assessed we would all just call ourselves "green" cities and the last sprawling seas of suburbia with a few solar roofs and a marketing budget turn the lights off on the planet. When it became clear that the UN was finally going to get serious about cities and human settlements, including this paragraph in the zero draft... We commit to promote an integrated and holistic approach to planning and building sustainable cities through support to local authorities, efficient transportation and communication networks, greener buildings and an efficient human settlements and service delivery system, improved air and water quality, reduced waste, improved disaster preparedness and response and increased climate resilience. ...we knew that we had just what they needed to actually follow through on establishing a set of concrete guidelines to building whole systems cities, should the nations of the world commit to that in the final outcome document. So we weren't just at these "informal informal" meetings in New York to talk about the change we wish to see, we had the goods to make those changes happen and we wanted the big fish to use them. But it wasn't as easy as just walking up to Ban Ki-moon and saying "yo bro, let's get this ecocity standards thing going." Instead, the UN is more like a labyrinth with all the exits blocked, you're just wandering and feeling your way around, bumping into the same people over and over, yet slowly but surely you begin to understand the flow, and then random lifelines seem to pop out of nowhere, and you just grab whatever you can get your hands on. Kirstin and I in New York. The real heroine here is Ecocity Builders' ED Kirstin Miller, whose godlike patience and dogged determination led her to become the master of the labyrinth (the Zen UN Maze Master?) and in the process unearthed some of the right clues and accidentally hit some of the right buttons to the secret vaults of UNirvana. So, somehow our global standards of sustainability for cities made it onto the Rio+20 Dialogues online platform, survived the first rounds of voting, and now is in the Final 10 of the Sustainable Cities & Innovation category. If we're selected, our proposal can be delivered directly to Heads of State at Rio+20. You know what to do. If you vote now, I promise there'll be more cool Rio+20 ecocity nuggets below the fallen Dutch snowman. 1. Go to http://vote.riodialogues.org 2. Click on 'Your Vote' 3. Scroll to : Sustainable Cities and Innovation 4. Vote for: Promote global standards of sustainability for cities. 5. Share!

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/01/03/1175929/-Shell-Drilling-Rig

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Shell Drilling Rig

I intended to put this link into a comment of an earlier Shell Drilling Rig diary, but the diary has fallen from the recommended list. Here's the link to a recent article from the Alaska Dispatch website updating salvage operations for those interested in the current progress. http://www.alaskadispatch.com/... Sorry the diary is so short, but I thought people would want to hear the latest from "on site" so to speak.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2013/01/04/1176162/-Towing-for-a-tax-dodge-SHell-No!

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Towing for a tax dodge? SHell No!

An unpowered drill rig, the Kulluk, owned Shell Oil has run aground on Kodiak Island. It was being towed to Seattle, ostensibly for maintenance, during a predicted storm of 40 foot high waves and 50 knots when tow lines snapped. Which raises an interesting question: why tow anything in the middle of a massive hurricane-strength storm in the dead of winter? After all, Shell concluded its drilling season on October 31. House Democrats want to know why Shell was so desperate to move the Kulluk during the same storm that grounded the boats of the reality show America's Deadliest Catch. The answer appears to be a tax dodge. Yes, the company that spends millions defending its tax breaks hoped to save on taxes it would owe to the state of Alaska. The Alaska Dispatch reports on Shell's hope to save millions: A Shell spokesman last week confirmed an Unalaska elected official’s claim that the Dec. 21 departure of the Kulluk from Unalaska/Dutch Harbor involved taxation. City councilor David Gregory said Shell would pay between $$6 million and $$7 million in state taxes if the Kulluk was still in Alaska on Jan. 1. Shannyn Moore, "just a girl from Homer," reports (on her podcast beginning at 14:44) that Dutch Harbor charges $$13.35 per $$1,000 of assessed value on both real and personal property So far, the "very large and complex" Kulluk joint command consists of the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Shell, Noble Drilling Contractor, and Kodiak Island Borough. They've involved 500 personnel. Two boats have sunk, 18 people at risk have been evacuated in very rough weather, and flyovers/salvage operations to check for leaks seem to be just beginning. All of these resources are being brought in to protect the right of Shell Oil to skimp on state taxes. All of these resources will enable Shell to, next summer, drill where its leak containment dome was crushed like a beer can in simple tests. In short, the Kulluk socializes the risks while Shell privatizes the profits and the Obama administration stands by offshore oil plans. One of the wild-eyed radical environmentalists at Forbes suggests the obvious: Shell should cut its losses and leave the Arctic alone. But not until after it repays the United States and the State of Alaska for all the taxpayer money being spent in its latest fiasco.

political

dailykos.com

2017-11-27

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2005/1/23/87279/-Disheartening-article-about-religion-and-politics-w-poll

Backgroundurl Avatar_Large, Nickname, Joined, Created_At, Story Count, N_Stories, Comment Count, N_Comments, Popular Tags, Showtags Popular_Tags

Disheartening article about religion and politics (w

My conflict comes when I ponder how to think of and act towards fundamentalists. I make what seems to be a constant struggle not to think less of fundamentalist believers, to look past their professions to the goodness of the person underneath it all (or to the hypocritical weakness of lesser people who would use their religion as a shield). Usually I'm successful in refraining from being judgemental...but then I'll read an article like this one... Many polled are leery of political compromises on core beliefs Survey finds church-goers growing bolderMany polled are leery of political compromises on core beliefs CHICAGO - Church-going Americans have grown increasingly intolerant in the past four years of politicians making compromises on such hot issues as abortion and gay rights, according to a survey released Saturday. At the same time, those polled said they were growing bolder about pushing their beliefs on others -- even at the risk of offending someone. The trends could indicate that religion has become "more prominent in American discourse...more salient," according to Ruth Wooden, president of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research organization which released the survey. It could also indicate "more polarized political thinking. There do not seem to be very many voices arguing for compromise today," she said in an interview. "It could be that more religious voices feel under siege, pinned against the wall by cultural developments. They may feel more emboldened as a result." You can read the rest of the article at this link. I find it very difficult to respect the opinions of fundamentalists when I hear of them being so hell-bent on forcing themselves into the country's political discourse. Even though I know that fundamentalists do not speak for a majority of believers...still I can't help but wonder which side the moderates would choose if it came right down to it. Would a moderate Christian/Muslim/etc really support non-believers in a fight against those who profess to be the strongest believers in their given religions? I ponder that question, and I get a sinking feeling at the answer I come to (that being "I doubt it"). I'm of the opinion (abortion is just one example of this) that there are some issues where a compromise simply cannot be made, and that when it is not possible to find a compromise, you should do everything in your power to fight for what you believe in. The other side no doubt feels the same way. Things are going to get messy before it's all over with...and I can't shake the feeling that my kind are vastly outnumbered.

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/election/2016/03/10/ted-cruz-last-best-hope-for-the-establishment/2/

Republican Leaders Starting to Accept Cruz as Best Alternative to Trump

Graham, for his part, has reluctantly embraced the idea of a Cruz nomination. "It's an outsider year, and the most logical person to take on Trump based on past performance is Ted Cruz," the South Carolina senator declared. Graham suspended his own presidential campaign right before Christmas last year, right before the filing deadline to appear on the ballot in his home state, where he had extremely low poll numbers. "He's not my preference, but here we are," Graham said about the Texas senator. "If Trump wins Florida and Ohio, I don't know if we can stop him." Earlier this year, Graham said the choice between Trump and Cruz "is like being shot or poisoned." The Republican establishment may be deciding on a slower path of death -- but this may be great news for true conservatives, of whom Cruz is a foremost leader. We can only hope the stain of the "establishment" does not drag Cruz down as it did Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/19291/print

The 100 Year War

The Patriot Post ® · The 100 Year War The success of this 100 year war against the Liberty of the United States of America has been enabled by our belief that freedom could not be lost in this country. Of all the wars the United States of America has been involved in to preserve our Liberty, the one we are in now represents the greatest threat this nation has ever seen and is a war that has been hidden from those who have not paid attention. We elect our government and we have protections that limit government power so our Freedom and Rights are secure. We the People believed those in Washington, D.C. and our State Capitols are people just like us who give an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America so help me GOD. What could possibly go wrong? We the people have left the operation of our government to our trusted elected and our watch dog news organizations to keep us informed and to act as a check on any attempts by our government to exceed their power. We have been so involved in perusing the American dream and trusting our government that the subversive powers that infiltrated our political and educational system went unnoticed. We were distracted by a war in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East after all that is where the communist expansion was fought and the Islamic Jihadist threat was. Our fighting men came home knowing we were safe. Were we ever wrong! Those that are intent on the destruction of our Constitutional Republic have learned they cannot take us by force so we have been infiltrated by individuals and groups with the agenda to defeat this experiment in individual rights and liberty; to seize the riches of this nation and subjugate the population by subverting our Liberty through the free system we have enjoyed for 237 years. The enemies of freedom have switched tactics and have assaulted our freedom through the back door infiltrating our education system and our political system by becoming teachers and obtaining elected office. The news media was infiltrated to be developed into an effective propaganda arm in the war on America that we see today. Our media are collaborators in the destruction of our Constitutional Republic from within assisted by those same oppressive powers that failed through attacks and threats from without. We felt secure in our elections as they were conducted by honest and ethical people, right? The ballot box is now only a tool to the despots that have power and results are predetermined through a carefully orchestrated result that produces winners that won by a hair so those who do not embrace the transformation of our nation will be appeased and encouraged to work harder to win the next election that cannot be won, giving the subversives the time that is needed to accomplish their agenda of the defeat of Liberty. To defeat our Liberty and rights those subversive individual / collaborators who embrace the communist manifesto had to take positions of influence to become teachers and politicians to spread their poison. This war against individual rights and freedom has been going on for generations within our political system, educational system and news media. The enemies of our way of life had to influence and direct our youth over the course of generations, they had to gain positions of authority to incrementally transform our nation away from the principles of Liberty. Knowledge of our history had to be reduced and eventually eliminated. Our youth had to be conditioned to accept alternative beliefs that would allow the defeat of Liberty. The principle of winning and losing had to be changed to; everyone is a winner so the elation of victory and the agony of defeat could be erased. The motivation to succeed had to be tempered with everyone deserves equal pay and equal benefits without regard of effort expended or value of hard work to develop personal worth. The system of earning success had to be replace by we have a civil right to succeed if you just show up. The citizens of the United States of America were blind to the assault and never believed that our Constitutional freedom and limited government could subjugate our nation. Even though the communist party was allowed in our country, few believed that they could accomplish what they have. Today we are witnessing the final assault on the liberty and moral fabric of what enabled a free people in a free country. Our government and educational system has been seized and our children have become wards of the State and are only housed by their parents through the benevolence of our government. Government has become one who creates laws to enable the demise of freedom and only enforces the laws that suit their subversive agenda. We don’t know where to begin to restore our liberty; the transformation of our freedom to slavery is almost complete. If we attempt to organize to oppose the demise of our Liberty and Rights tyrannical government will sweep us up like the garbage we are viewed as. At this point we have two choices.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/19545/print

Dependents of Society

The Patriot Post ® · Dependents of Society I provide for my own daily bread and safety and will protect my freedom through if necessary the force of arms. Then there are those who look for, what they say are the same things, but are unwilling to provide it for themselves. Those who will not provide for themselves, use all excuses under the sun, to rationalize their dependence on government redistribution of another’s efforts to their sad daily existence. Government that enables that redistribution has nothing to do with liberty and the rights of a free people or the reality of the real world. There is the problem; those that won’t provide for themselves want those that will to extend that safety net over them through the force of government seizure of assets and sweat from the independent to provide for those who don’t believe they are responsible to provide for their own existence. Federal and State governments and the tyranny they serve to the American people are presented as for our own good, for the disadvantaged, the poor, for the children, for our safety; those who oppose government seizure of their assets for redistribution are demonized as bigots, hate mongers and selfish racists, evil capitalists. There are two sides on the subjects argued; one side promotes the freedom this country was created to protect; the other side is for the so called collective good, anti-freedom, pro-government, nanny regulation and control of every aspect of their lives; they give up freedom for the perceived security of slavery, where the slave master provides all that is needed to exist through the theft from those who produce. A crime at any level of society unless protected under the guise of government philanthropy. Today there is a clear dividing line between those that need freedom to take a breath, to live without direction except by the moral compass of God. And then there are those who have never grown beyond parental control; these are the ones who need a nanny state to provide and direct their lives, that accept government knows best as their new father and mother and is the all-knowing and wise and protecting government, a government that makes the animating daily decisions that give life excitement and meaning unnecessary. Those dependents live in the grey twilight of life that does not know victory or defeat and sees government as their deity and guidance. Let me modify the last statement those government dependents do know defeat but recognize it not as that is the extent of their lives, defeated in acceptance of totalitarian rule and are conditioned to it as the sheep are conditioned to the slaughter. In my early adulthood I was looking forward to my independence from parental control. I wanted the responsibility of my life; to make my own decisions determine my own direction, accept the risks of my own decisions, I never once felt intimidated by the unknown. In my early adulthood I suffered failure and lived on pinto beans and rice for a couple months as all I could afford was rent, utilities beans and rice, I did not look for a handout I looked for a job, that experience strengthened me and sent me off into the direction of a self-reliance that has given me a life time of freedom and independence free of any control on my life other than my own. Those that love freedom and love the animating contest of independence are the same ones that will defend their safety, security and freedom from all that would come to take it. The freedom loving provides arms for themselves to defend against the wolves and do not cower in fear. Those that love freedom and independence know the protections of the second amendment do no assure us of government allowed hunting firearm ownership to shoot Game Birds, Rabbits, Deer and target practice for sport. The second amendment was created for those who love the freedom of self-reliance to defend against the wolves of society and the tyranny of government. Then there is the alternative, those who fear the independence of self-reliance, fear the possibility of failure, fear the wolves that may appear at your door; they are the ones that fear making life altering decisions, those who want the security of someone who is viewed as smarter than they to direct their lives to avoid the agony of defeat. BUT, without the agony of defeat and the humbling experience of failure, you can never experience the elation of victory the satisfaction of success in your endeavors. Success for the dependent class is the security of the government guarantee of daily bread and promised security. The only way government can provide for their subject slaves is for despots to steal it from those who have worked for it. Take from the responsible group and give to the irresponsible group which has created government institutionalized poverty; a poverty that could never exist on a large scale in a free society with a limited restrained government. The nanny state dependents have no need for armed self-defense as they do not accept the responsibility to defend or provide for their existence, the government they need to direct their lives is the opposite type of government the free need to live their lives of Independence and Liberty. So there it is, the developing storm, the one we find ourselves in now. The storm clouds are upon us and the violence of the winds is threatening our survival. The wolves are at the door, scratching for a way in, to devour all we hold dear. Those who fear the responsibility to face that evil will throw out a sacrificial lamb to temporarily appease the appetite of the ravenous wolves for a short respite. Those of us who face the world as free men will step out the door armed to confront the assaulting wolves and engage them at the risk of their own lives to permanently provide for the safety of their family and the safety of their children’s future. We live in dangerous times where those of us who would live as a free people are facing the destruction of our Liberty, the confiscation of our wealth and the enslavement of our posterity by a government that has left the limits “We the People” imposed upon them and the reasons why they were put in power, to defend and protect our Liberty and Rights. Our elected have transformed themselves into totalitarian tyrants who have assumed the mantle of righteous lawmakers and regulators, rationalizing to their subjects the need for their action are but to protect the people when in reality we are viewed by those self-promoted elites to be, the mud sill to their elite status. We that love our independence are being corralled into the same arena of those poor souls that never grew beyond parental control that are oblivious to the animating contest of life. Those who love Liberty are being backed into a corner with the brute force of tyrannical government staring down at us, daring us to attempt to make any feeble attempt at resistance so the despots can rationalize the destruction of all the opposition that oppose their totalitarian agenda.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/19373/print

Manipulations of the Left

The Patriot Post ® · Manipulations of the Left Are we free to think and act on our own? If you ask 100 people I would venture to say 99% of the respondents would answer in the affirmative, “No one controls me, I make my own decisions”; it is true we choose the food we eat, the cloths we wear, the homes we live in and the cars we drive, our friends, partners, education level and careers, our religious beliefs or lack of. With that thought in mind all the decisions we make are influenced by opinions of parents, friends, books we read or don’t, multimedia advertising and other less open attempts to manipulate and steer people’s behavior. We are daily bombarded with advertisements for every product produced to entice us to choose their product. Honest advertisement causes no real harm. Here is where the harm resides. It has been revealed that our government is running programs to nudge us into directions they want us to go, to unknowingly accept more intrusive government, to accept that government knows better than we do because they are so much smarted than we and can run our lives so much better than we using underhanded political behavioral psychology. Obama and company have taken the art of manipulation to an Orwellian level that many do not recognize but those who have been paying attention have seen the developing tyranny coming for years. Behavior manipulation by government assumes a small group of people know better about our choices than we do is nothing short of totalitarian tyranny. The perceived, “what is good for us” by a small group that will make decisions based upon their personal and political view of the world is an unacceptable, subversive to Liberty, practice. Obama and his minions have been shown that they target opposing views and groups aggressively through very powerful government departments like the IRS, EPA, DEA, ATF, FBI, NSA and the alphabet list goes on to eliminate or hamper any affective opposition. Obama’s press secretary Jay Carny Lies through omission, misrepresentation, through acting like they never knew about violations of the Law by government agencies, and they avoid answering questions by the declaration that there is an ongoing investigation and cannot comment and then they never bring up the subject again to let it die a quiet death, all under the orders of the Criminal in chief Obama. When things like Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS , AP reporter spying was discovered the manipulation went into overdrive to divert attention away from the, in a free society, crimes of government. Let’s first start with the members of our elected government that were elected to Defend and protect the Freedom and Rights we have as free individuals. We did not elect those representatives to micromanage us and to manipulate us using underhanded political behavioral psychology, that is coercive, underhanded manipulation. Those tactics are the norm in countries ruled by dictators not in a country that is run by a limited government created by, “We the People”. Despotic manipulators exploit vulnerabilities that exist in the intended victims mind by using tactics such as false praise, superficial charm and sympathy, guilt trips, playing the victim, emotional black mail, lying and lying by omission, rationalization, diverting attention, attempts at shaming people into compliance because they don’t care enough about those less fortunate and out right brute force of government. The threatened use of governmental brute force to enforce behavior that cannot stand in a free society is a clear sign that freedom no longer exists and the safety of each individual is through the benevolence of despotic bureaucrats. Obama and his Liberal Progressive Marxist minions have been using these tactics for years to defeat our so called conservative representatives and the agenda of a free people. Our Republican elected have shown they are easily manipulated to endorse the socialist agenda under the threat that polls show the people want the transformation (a lie) and if you do not play ball you will be voted out of office, another lie and misrepresentation of reality. The socialist infiltrators into our education, political and news organizations have become so emboldened by their success that they feel empowered to expand their subversive programs with a feeling of being untouchable and unchallengeable, after all they have the ability to divert people’s attention and to steer them in any direction they desire. We have arrived at a point of vast governmental tyranny that in past years only existed in sci-fi novels; what is happening now, in our once free society, is more like a scary movie where anything goes and our safety as a free citizenry is at daily risk.

bias

patriotpost.us

2017-11-27

https://patriotpost.us/commentary/18989/print

The Fire Looking for a Spark

The Patriot Post ® · The Fire Looking for a Spark The divisiveness in this country is so great that the only way, I am beginning to believe, the two sides will come together will be in conflict, in our towns, cities, on our streets. The issues that divide are no less passionate than they were prior to the War Between the States. One side is of the belief that government is the answer to all of our problems and should grow to meet the needs of the people, collectivism. Government must tear down the successful to rise up the poor. The other side is of the belief that government is the problem and should be small and limited in power with very well defined roles. The issues of society, the economy and charity should be not be the role of government but instead the role of private charity and the people. Prior to LB Johnson’s Great Society legislation of circa 1964, citizens looked to each other, private charity and religious organizations for a hand up, not a hand out. If you look at what is happening in America with government intrusion in our lives. Excessive taxation, and control of all we do or say as well as the government equipping governmental agencies with arms, ammunition, land and air assets designed for armed conflict with the citizens equipping themselves with arms and ammo, the fuel for conflict is well in place and the fire is just looking for a spark. I hope I am wrong and full of crap on this subject. But I like many Americans are equipped for self-defense and for the defense of liberty and if necessary are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice if that is what is demanded. But let me be clear, if my life is to be sacrificed because of tyrannical government it may get real expensive for those who come to take it if I am not caught with my pants down. I don’t want conflict as I hate war but there are things that will eat at a man more that defending Liberty by force and maybe dying; that crow of despotism is being forced down our throats daily and for me life is sweet but not so sweet to live under the yoke of tyrannical totalitarianism. One of the problems we all may face is, they know where we are and we are easy targets; the tyrants are well insulated by their minion lemmings secure in their nests of inequity.

political

pjmedia.com

2017-11-27

https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-infantilizing-of-the-academy/3/

The Infantilizing of the Academy

Thus, students were empowered, staff and administration were intimidated, cognitive regression was guaranteed, and the educational establishment at all levels, from primary to post-graduate, was critically breached. The K-12 level was populated chiefly by teacher-trained incompetents and fellow-traveling principals who served as the hoplites of the cultural left. The university was now home to a liberal professoriate comprising individuals who specialized in a single discipline, adopted the approved dogmatic convictions of the progressivist elect, acquired the appropriate exclusionary jargon, and proceeded to turn their classes into nurseries of ideological pap. With very few current exceptions, like Hillsdale College and the University of Chicago, universities have been unable to resist the annihilationist invasion of political correctness, typified by speech codes, rape hysteria, affirmative action mediocrity (evasively labeled “mismatching”), anti-Western sentiment, and the tendency to totalitarian forms of repression. The general decline in mental acuity, scholarly discipline and historical knowledge was a foregone conclusion, and we are reaping the blighted harvest of that Jacobin declension today. Indeed, the adolescent fervor for “revolution” damn the consequences duly convected into the domain of adulthood, as the feral children of the left, whose minds were polluted by the sentimental and reductive theories of the Dewey-inspired and revisionist brigades, graduated into the various positions of cultural authority—media, education, entertainment and government. Our grown-up Magikarps—timid university presidents and academic leaders, the general run of invertebrate politicians and corrupted journalists, the great majority of Hollywood and sports know-nothings—are essentially children, and children cannot hope to survive in a world without real adults, or too few adults to manage the vast playpen that has become almost coterminous with society as a whole. The commonplace adage that the inmates have taken over the asylum is fundamentally mistaken. Rather, the children have taken over the crèche. Such is the damage the educational institution has wrought in a culture spoiled by affluence and forgetfulness—a culture that has shucked the past and de-realized the future. The falling off from academic integrity and rigor explains why almost everything from political culture to cultural politics smacks increasingly of retardation. And it accounts in large measure for the descent we are observing. For children, who have no knowledge of the history of their civilization and no sense of an empirical future, cannot think rationally, they can only feel and act upon their feelings. They live in a realm defined by the present and the imaginary. They are the low-information voters, partisan pedants, liberal socialists, leftist ideologues, suborned journalists and entitlement parasites of the current day, living in a make-believe world that is running out of time. As conservative thinker Richard Weaver wrote in Visions of Order, published in 1964, “without memory and the extrapolation which it makes possible, man becomes a kind of waif” mired in mere presentism. “Under the impossible idea of unrestricted freedom,” he continues, “the cry is to bury the past and let the senses take care of the present.” As the same time, the future takes on the form of a mythical construct, the dream of a golden age that exists only in the cradles of desire. The upshot is truly alarming: a juvenile public cocooned in the utopian silk of destructive illusions. The waifs appear to have won the day. A culture or a nation run by children must inevitably falter and decline—unless it can recover its mind and purpose, an eventuality that seems less likely with every passing day. Children always leave a mess behind them that needs to be cleaned up by others, assuming there are enough others around to tackle the job. Children have by their very nature no sense of productive order and plainly no conception of the social, political and economic future. That is why we may not have one. (Artwork created using multiple Shutterstock.com elements.)

unknown

powerlineblog.com

2017-11-27

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/this-is-how-all-bureaucrats-should-be-answered.php

Posted On

This Is How All Bureaucrats Should Be Answered

Making the rounds right now is an exchange that I certainly hope is authentic, between the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife and ranchers Larry and Amanda Anderson. It seems the Oregon bureaucrats want permission to survey the Andersons’ ranch land for purposes of tracking species decline. Here’s the letter from the state, which I think you can make out: And here is the Andersons’ splendid reply (full text below if you can’t read this or it won’t enlarge with a click on your screen): The text: Dear Mr. Niemela: Thank you for your inquiry regarding accessing our property to survey for the yellow-legged frog. We may be able to help you out with this matter. We have divided our 2.26 acres into 75 equal survey units with a draw tag for each unit. Application fees are only $$8.00 per unit after you purchase the “Frog Survey License” ($$120.00 resident / $$180.00 Non-Resident). You will also need to obtain a “Frog Habitat” parking permit ($$10.00 per vehicle). You will also need an “Invasive Species” stamp ($$15.00 for the first vehicle and $$5.00 for each add’l vehicle) You will also want to register at the Check Station to have your vehicle inspected for non-native plant life prior to entering our property. There is also a Day Use fee, $$5.00 per vehicle. If you are successful in the Draw you will be notified two weeks in advance so you can make necessary plans and purchase your “Creek Habitat” stamp. ($$18.00 Resident / $$140.00 Non-Resident). Survey units open between 8am and 3pm but you cannot commence survey until 9am and must cease all survey activity by 1pm. Survey Gear can only include a net with a 2″ diameter made of 100% organic cotton netting with no longer than an 18″ handle, non-weighted and no deeper than 6′ from net frame to bottom of net. Handles can only be made of BPA-free plastics or wooden handles. After 1pm you can use a net with a 3″ diameter if you purchase the “Frog Net Endorsement” ($$75.00 Resident / $$250 Non-Resident). Any frogs captured that are released will need to be released with an approved release device back into the environment unharmed. As of June 1, we are offering draw tags for our “Premium Survey” units and application is again only $$8.00 per application. However, all fees can be waived if you can verify Native Indian Tribal rights and status. You will also need to provide evidence of successful completion of “Frog Surveys and You” comprehensive course on frog identification, safe handling practices, and self-defense strategies for frog attacks. This course is offered online through an accredited program for a nominal fee of $$750.00. Please let us know if we can be of assistance to you. Otherwise, we decline your access to our property but appreciate your inquiry. Sincerely, Larry & Amanda Anderson. Now that’s how we all ought to respond to the government.