MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Let’s invade Mexico!, by Fred Reed – The Unz Review

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2019

http://www.unz.com/freed/lets-invade-mexico/#comments

I suppose that by now everyone has heard of Trump’s offer to send the American military to “wage WAR on the drug cartels and wipe them off the face of the earth,” which he asserts can be done “quickly and effectively. “

Trump phrased this as an offer to help, not a threat to invade, which is reassuring. AMLO, Mexico’s president, wisely declined the offer.

While the President seems to have made the offer in good faith, he has little idea of Mexico, the military, or the cartels. The American military could not come close to wiping them off the face of the earth, much less effectively and quickly. Such an incursion would be a political and military disaster. The President needs to do some reading.

If AMLO were to invite the Americans into Mexico, he would be lynched. Few Americans are aware of how much the United States is hated in Latin America, and for that matter in most of the world. They don’t know of the long series of military interventions, brutal dictators imposed and supported, and economic rapine. Somoza, Pinochet, the Mexican-American War, detachment of Panama from Colombia, bombardment of Veracruz, Patton’s incursion–the list could go on for pages. The Mexican public would look upon American troops not as saviors but as invaders. Which they would be.

The incursion would not defeat the cartels, for several reasons that trump would do well to ponder. To begin with, America starts its wars by overestimating its own powers, underestimating the enemy, and misunderstanding the kind of war on which it is embarking. The is exactly what Trump seems to be doing.

He probably thinks of Mexicans as just gardeners and rapists and we have all these beautiful advanced weapons and beautiful drones and things with blinking lights. A pack of rapists armed with garden trowels couldn’t possibly be difficult to defeat by the US. I mean, get serious: Dope dealers against the Marines? A cakewalk.

You know, like Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. That sort of cakewalk. Let’s think what an expedition against the narcos would entail, what it would face.

To begin with, Mexico is a huge country of 127 million souls with the narcos spread unevenly across it. You can’t police a nation that size with a small force, or even with a large force. A (preposterous) million soldiers would be well under one percent of the population. Success would be impossible even if that population helped you. Which it wouldn’t.

Other problems exist. Many, many of them.

Let’s consider terrain. Terrain is what militaries fight in. Start with the Sierra Madre, which I suspect Trump doesn’t know from Madre Teresa. This is the brutally inhospitable mountain range in the northwest of Mexico, from which a great many of the narcos come.(Sinaloa is next door.)…

The Tarahumara Indians live in the Sierra Madre. They frequent the trails, sometimes in groups, and carry things not identifiable from the air. In frustration American forces would do what they always do: start bombing, or launching Hellfires from drones, at what they think are, or think may be, or hope might be, narcos...

The Duarte Bridge between Sinaloa and Durango. A company commander, looking at it, would would have PTSD in advance, just to get a start on things...

In cities and towns, narcos are indistinguishable from the general population. How–precisely how, I want to know–would American troops, kitted out in body armor and goggles and looking like idiots, fight the narcos in villages with which they were unfamiliar?…

Don’t expect help from the locals. Most would much rather see you killed than the narcos. And if they collaborated they and their families would be killed. This would discourage them. Bright ideas?

Now a point that Schwarzehairdye in the White House has likely not grasped. The narcos are Mexicans. So is the population. You know, brown, speak Spanish, that kind of thing. The invaders would not be Mexicans. This matters…

Further, much of Mexico doesn’t much like its government...

Another point: Roughly a million American expats live happily in Mexico. These would be hostages, and they–we–are soft targets…

Finally, consider what happens when you bomb a country, make life dangerous, kill its children, destroy the economy and impoverish its people? Answer: They go somewhere else. With Mexico being made unlivable, Mexicans would have two choices of somewhere else, Guatemala and….See whether you can fill in the blank. Maybe four or five million of them.

Nuff said. May God protect Mexico from Yanquis who would do it good, from advisers, and then adviser creep, and then occupation, and then from badly led militaries who have no idea where they are.

Be seeing you

?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-qrBofyYyI84VGuGQWcvWsIAAAAAAAAV1Y9nOh7i099SEs1600endless_war.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why I Am a Veteran for Peace – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 11, 2019

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/no_author/why-i-am-a-veteran-for-peace/

By Eric Morris

I should have known better, or at least more.  My grandfather was a supporter of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, and passed that down to me.  However, in 2002, in my first fall of law school in Wyoming, I realized I probably wasn’t going to be the next great lawyer.  I saw a sign that said “Join the Wyoming National Guard and we’ll pay for the rest of your schooling”.  I thought about it, but that was during the run-up to a war of which I was highly skeptical.   After the “easy” win for the US in March 2003, I figured the debt avoidance scheme of joining the National Guard probably wasn’t that bad of an idea, even if my more natural instincts said don’t trust US foreign policy.  But hey, in the Wyoming Guard, I would be protecting the Cowboy State from the heathens in Colorado, right?

Money won over morals, and I joined three weeks after Bush announced “Mission Accomplished”.  The next summer I was in Officer Candidate School, where we learned a little about Sun Tzu and the idea that you must know your enemies.  Eventually in June 2009 I was deployed (military vernacular) to Kuwait in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The Orwellian irony is too great here.  I felt lucky that the paying off of the Sunni tribes (the “surge”) had worked (temporarily) in Iraq, and I was going to the place the US “liberated” in 1991.  Plus, my personal balance sheet was much better off by joining the Guard–like the Sunni tribes of Anbar.  I assumed I’d be able to mix with the people of Kuwait and enjoy the local culture; after all, at least there we were the great liberators and not the ‘Great Satan’.  However, after the long flight, we received our country in-brief by military intelligence (insert joke here) about Kuwait.   We were told we were not to leave post in Kuwait, unless for a military mission.  Specifically, the lieutenant said:  “After so many years here in Kuwait, the local populace is tired of our presence. Therefore, we do not want to further antagonize our ‘hosts’.”   Like the scales falling from the eyes of St. Paul, everything I had ever read by Buchanan or Ron Paul suddenly actually made sense.   Why did it take me that long to really figure out?  They don’t hate “us” for our freedoms, but for our mere presence.  I became a daily reader of LewRockwell.com while deployed; interestingly, it wasn’t banned.  I read a book at the post library that actually said many of the grievances of Saddam Hussein against Kuwait in 1990 were not that far-fetched.

Finally, I did learn from Sun Tzu, and actually read about Osama bin Laden.  Despite many years of officer training, I had never read what specifically motivated him to desire people to attack the US.  It’s almost like the military doesn’t want officers to know the truth, until you have already landed in-country.   As readers of this site know, bin Laden had declared war TWICE against the US in the late 1990s because the US stayed in Saudi Arabia after “liberating” my “host” country, continued bombing Iraq, and supported Israel over the Palestinians.  The more I learned, I learned who the enemy is, and the enemy was me in a place that no longer wanted me, Kuwait, much less Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan, South Korea, Germany, England …

When my eight years were up, I resigned and became a Veteran for Peace.  Now I do my small part trying to celebrate the actual purpose of Armistice Day, “a day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace”.  If people are actually willing to listen to me, I let them know the easiest analogy of why US foreign policy reduces your freedom and safety is if the French stayed in America after the war of secession, the Marquis de Lafayette wouldn’t have enjoyed such a Grand Tour in America in 1824.  Peace through strength is state propaganda.  Peace through trade is real.  “Don’t tread on me” is a favorite saying; the shoes I am wearing say Made in Vietnam.  I think treading on rubber shoes made there is much better than unloading rubber body bags over here.  We’re trading with them there, so we don’t have to fight them anywhere.

Be seeing you

?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-vsL9x6b60BcTcjveUcibvIAAAAAAAAB7o1H7iFzRkTx0s1600000pulp_fiction_judy_miller_the_heretik.jpg&f=1

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EconomicPolicyJournal.com: California Governor Names ‘Genius’ Feminist Studies Graduate to Transform California’s Power Sector

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2019

As Kalifornia goes, so goes the nation.

https://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2019/11/california-governor-names-genius.html#more

Well, you knew this was going to happen.

Thanks to all kinds of regulations, the California power company with a state-granted monopoly, PG&E,  and other monopoly power companies in other regions, are resorting to shutting off power to millions when there is a threat that high winds may knockdown wires and cause fires.

The state has reacted, not by opening up the regions to more competition, which would most certainly include power suppliers who would provide the correct type of power lines to the high wind regions that would not be susceptible to the winds.

Instead, California Governor Gavin Newsom is going more statist.

He has named a new energy czar, Ana Matosantos. No doubt, new regulations are on their way that will distort and suffocate energy production even more with the heavy arm of the state at the helm.

But who is  Ana Matosantos?
Is she perhaps familiar with free markets and how they work so that her totalitarian rule over the energy sector will be lite?

Unfortunately, it does not appear that way.

 Ana Matosantos

K. Lloyd Billingsley at the Independent Institute provides a bit of background on the lady who will be in charge of the power switches.

Key snippets:

“PG&E as we know it cannot persist and continue,” proclaimed California governor Gavin Newsom last Friday. “It has to be completely transformed, culturally transformed, operationally transformed, with a safety culture first and foremost.”

Embattled and enflamed Californians might wonder how this complete transformation is to be achieved. On Friday, Gov. Newsom provided the answer when he named his cabinet secretary Ana Matosantos the new “Energy Czar.” Gov. Newsom is on record that his cabinet secretary is a “genius” and Capitol Weekly explains that Matosantos “makes the trains run on time.”

—

A Puerto Rico native from a wealthy family, Matosantos earned a BA in political science and feminist studies from Stanford. Those were rather meager qualifications for state finance director, but Republican governor Arnold Schwarzenegger picked Matosantos for that post in 2009. In 2011, she was busted for drunk driving in Sacramento, but Gov. Jerry Brown refused to accept her resignation. Matosantos served nearly four years as Brown’s chief budget advisor, and her tenure was marked by “multibillion-dollar shortfalls.”

Covered California, the state’s wholly owned subsidiary of Obamacare, the so-called “Affordable Care Act,” then took on Matosantos at $120,000 for a six-month stint. Her performance did nothing to prevent Covered California from becoming what health journalist Emily Bazar described as “widespread consumer misery.”

In 2016, Congress passed the PROMESA legislation to deal with Puerto Rico’s $72 billion debt, and the legislation created the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management and Economic Stability Board. San Francisco Democrat Nancy Pelosi favored Matosantos for a board post, and President Obama duly appointed her. It was not disclosed that Matosantos was also on the board of the Matosantos Commercial Corporation, owned by her wealthy family, with deep interests in the energy business on the island.

According to Christopher D. Coursen, former counsel of the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, the Oversight Board “has been a complete failure and has not achieved anything of significance.” President Trump and Congress need to replace members “clearly unfit to serve” with those dedicated to restoring fiscal responsibility in Puerto Rico. “Given the recent evidence of blatant conflicts of interest of Ana Matosantos,” Coursen said, “her removal seems like the best place to start. And that review and her subsequent removal needs to happen now.”

Hint to my friends in the California hills. Your only option, other than moving, is this.

–RW

Be seeing you

News from California, the nation and world - Los Angeles Times

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Pentagon: We’ll Shoot Any Syrian Official Who Tries to Access Syrian Oil | Zero Hedge

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2019

But, as one reporter pointed out, ISIS fighters “have no armor. They have no aircraft.”

“Do they have the capability to actually seize the oil fields?” the reporter asked. “And isn’t this really about Russia and Syria seizing those oil fields?”

Yes, oil is why your sons and daughters are died.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/pentagon-shoot-any-syrian-official-who-tries-access-syrian-oil

Authored by Andrea Germanos via CommonDreams.org,

Pentagon officials asserted Thursday U.S. military authority over Syrian oil fields because U.S. forces are acting under the goal of “protecting Americans from terrorist activity” and would be within their rights to shoot a representative of the Syrian government who attempted to retake control over that country’s national resource.

The comments came from Pentagon spokesperson Jonathan Hoffman and Navy Rear Admiral William D. Byrne Jr. during a press briefing in which the two men were asked repeatedly about the legal basis the U.S. is claiming to control Syrian oil fields.

The briefing came less than two weeks after Defense Secretary Mark Esper said, “That’s our mission, to secure the oil fields” in the Deir ez-Zor area of eastern Syria. President Donald Trump’s comments before and after that remark —”We’re going to be protecting [the oil], and we’ll be deciding what we’re going to do with it in the future,” and “The oil… can help us, because we should be able to take some”— were seized on by critics who claimed Trump was suggesting violating international law by plundering another country’s resources and openly saying the U.S. was pursuing war for oil.

Hoffman, in his comments Thursday, gave a different message—that “the revenue from this is not going to the U.S. This is going to the SDF,” referring to the Kurdish-led and U.S.-allied Syrian Democratic Forces, who are battling ISIS. Byrne claimed that the U.S. has been waging the oil field control mission alongside SDF and that the goal was to prevent ISIS from obtaining the oil revenue.

But, as one reporter pointed out, ISIS fighters “have no armor. They have no aircraft.”

“Do they have the capability to actually seize the oil fields?” the reporter asked. “And isn’t this really about Russia and Syria seizing those oil fields?”

* * *

Hoffman replied that the goal was “to prevent a resurgence” of ISIS which would be facilitated if the terrorist group had access to the oil revenue.

When the Pentagon officials were pressed on whether “U.S. troops have the… authorization to shoot if a representative of the Syrian government comes to the.. oil fields and says, ‘I am here to take property of these oil fields,’” Byrne said, “our commanders always retain the right and the obligation of self-defense when faced with a hostile act or demonstrated hostile intent.”

The officials were reminded by a reporter that “the government of Syria is still, based on international law… [the] recognized legitimate government.” Hoffman said, “Everyone in the region knows where American forces are. We’re very clear with anyone in the region in working to deconflict where our forces are. If anyone — we work to ensure that… no one approaches or has — shows hostile intent to our forces, and if they do, our commanders maintain the right of self-defense.”

Hoffman later said that the oil field mission couldn’t be separated from the fight to defeat ISIS. Operations in “Syria are done under the commander-in-chief’s authorities to — with regards to protecting Americans from terrorist activity.”

Pressed again by a reporter about the “legal basis for… the United States military to take and control the natural resources inside the boundaries of another country,” Hoffman responded, “the legal basis for this comes under the commander-in-chief’s authority for us to be conducting counter-terrorism efforts against ISIS. And I — I get your point when you’re trying to decouple the ISIS issue from the Syria issue, but it is not a decoupled issue.”

Later Hoffman was asked by a reporter if “President Trump [has] legal authority to take over these oil fields or is the United States stealing the oil?”…

Yes – Be seeing you

The Messy Reality Inside the Pentagon, Captured in Fiction ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Erie Times E-Edition Article-If Congress had even a faint pulse and an ounce of pride

Posted by M. C. on November 10, 2019

If Congress had even a faint pulse and an ounce of pride it would take care to enact laws that set immigration policy rather than churning out faux laws that give to presidents discretion tantamount to lawmaking.

an ounce of pride…the only pride my water carrying “representatives” have is in passing larger budgets, increasing debt and war powers.
http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=00e5d50d9

George Will

When an obviously humane and demonstrably popular policy is implemented by a seriously flawed process, the Supreme Court must do its counter-majoritarian duty. It must insist that not even an admirable social end, supported by a national majority, justifies constitutionally dubious means.

This describes the drama that will unfold Tuesday when the court hears oral arguments concerning Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

This pertains to the almost 800,000 so-called Dreamers in our midst, people who were under age 16 when brought to America by parents who were not lawfully residents. Congress has long been unable to address the Dreamers’ status by protecting them from the manifestly unjust threat of deportation from the only country they have known.

Barack Obama’s exasperation with the separation of powers, and with the existence of Congress, was even more pronounced than is normal among presidents, especially progressive ones. So he did what he had repeatedly said he lacked the power to do: He made available to these children temporary but renewable legal status and work authorization.

He called this an exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion.’ This was somewhat novel in the size of the class of individuals affected, and in affirming a right to work and other federal benefits...

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is often in error but never in doubt, acknowledged that presidents have considerable power to undo policies put in place by executive actions of prior administrations.

But the court held that the administration’s reasons for rescinding DACA were arbitrary and capricious and hence violated the Administrative Procedure Act.

A brief from Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman (who favor DACA as policy) for the Cato Institute argues that Obama’s action went beyond ‘constitutionallyauthorized executive power.’ Such power is not enlarged ‘when Congress refuses to act, no matter how unjustified the congressional inaction is.’

There is no constitutional implication from Congress’ passivity in the face of this ‘foundational transformation of immigration policy,’ a transformation ‘inconsistent with the president’s duty of faithful execution.’

Furthermore, if the Immigration and Nationality Act actually grants to presidents such discretion to rewrite immigration law, then the INA violates the nondelegation doctrine.

This forbids Congress to delegate to executive agencies essentially legislative powers regarding ‘major questions,’ which surely encompasses immigration policy...

Be seeing you

proxy.duckduckgo.com

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

As Times Change, the FBI’s Snoopy and Heavy-Handed Ways Continue – Reason.com

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

“If the FBI is willing to target activist groups that do nothing more than feed our houseless communities, there is no limit to what political activities they will deem worthy of excessive investigation,” says the website of Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty.

“The FBI … has placed more emphasis on domestic dissent than on organized crime and, according to some, let its efforts against foreign spies suffer because of the amount of time spent checking up on American protest groups,” the Senate’s Church Committee complained in 1976.

Stand up for your rights and get branded.

https://reason.com/2019/11/07/as-times-change-the-fbi-continues-its-snoopy-and-heavy-handed-ways/

The FBI is in the news a lot these days over its role in the investigation of alleged ties between Donald Trump’s successful 2016 presidential campaign and the Russian government. But long before Americans debated whether the federal law enforcement agency was a righteous tribune of the people or a meddling agent of the Deep State, the FBI was something else: a nosy and unaccountable domestic enforcement agency that, by rights, should send chills down the spines of people of all political persuasions—especially since the bureau’s heavy-handedness continues to this day.

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) pulled out of a local Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) with the FBI in 2017. At the time, the move was widely portrayed as an effort to shield immigrants and the Muslim community from the Trump administration, and that certainly played a role. But internal FBI documents obtained by The Intercept show that there was more at stake.

City officers who participated in the JTTF were simultaneously subject to city ordinances and the feds’ Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), both of which are enforceable against violators. That caused serious problems when local rules protective of civil liberties ran up against federal regulations that sought to keep a tight cap on everything in sight.

“There are requirements set forth in SFPD General Order 8.10 which govern investigations into First Amendment Activities,” the FBI documents reveal. “Compliance with SFPD General Order 8.10 subjects SFPD FBI [task force officers] to possible criminal exposure for disseminating/disclosing FBI documents to include classified documents.”

Police officers failing to comply with San Francisco police rules could be disciplined or fired, the document continues. But compliance with those rules could get them criminally prosecuted by the feds.

Given the number of cases the JTTF took on that invoked First Amendment concerns, participating cops were stuck in a Catch 22, having to decide which jurisdiction’s rules to violate, and hoping for higher-ups to have mercy.

So, San Francisco pulled out of the JTTF, followed by Portland, Oregon, a year later, in moves largely portrayed as confrontations between sanctuary cities and a nativist administration. But, while Portland nodded toward current political conflicts over immigration in its announcement severing ties with its JTTF, it also added that “Freedom of Information Act requests filed by ACLU affiliates in 2004, 2005, and 2006 revealed that the JTTF collected information on peaceful political activity.”

“If the FBI is willing to target activist groups that do nothing more than feed our houseless communities, there is no limit to what political activities they will deem worthy of excessive investigation,” says the website of Portland Commissioner Jo Ann Hardesty.

With regard to San Francisco’s decision, “the issues raised by the white paper also precede the current president, reflecting the FBI’s post-9/11 transformation into a secretive domestic intelligence agency and the challenges that creates for municipal police departments eager to cooperate with the feds but less capable of shielding themselves from local accountability by invoking ‘national security’ claims,” according to The Intercept‘s Ryan Devereaux.

The conflicts extend beyond Portland and San Francisco.

“Clashes are erupting between local and federal officials over the hundreds of joint task forces that operate around the country,” notes The Marshall Project, which reports on the criminal justice system:

The problem, police officials say, is that local cops assigned to joint task forces are not bound by department rules, such as wearing body cameras, which the feds have prohibited. The FBI and U.S. Marshals allow the use of deadly force if a person poses an ‘imminent danger,’ using a definition that is less strict than many police departments’… Task-force members are also immune to civilian lawsuits in a way that regular officers are not.

Concerns about over-the-top FBI conduct and minimal accountability sound awfully familiar to anybody with some knowledge of history.

“The FBI … has placed more emphasis on domestic dissent than on organized crime and, according to some, let its efforts against foreign spies suffer because of the amount of time spent checking up on American protest groups,” the Senate’s Church Committee complained in 1976. “As intelligence operations developed … rationalizations were fashioned to immunize them from the restraints of the Bill of Rights and the specific prohibitions of the criminal code.”

The post-9/11 environment, as The Intercept‘s Devereaux suggests, seems to have breathed new life into the FBI’s old ways when it comes to monitoring peaceful conduct and shielding itself from scrutiny and consequences. That’s true of the task forces, but also of modern electronic surveillance.

“A federal judge secretly ruled last year that [FBI] procedures for searching for Americans’ emails within a repository of intercepted messages that were gathered without a warrant violated Fourth Amendment privacy rights,” The New York Times reported last month.

The judge’s ruling—upheld by a three-judge appeals panel—required the FBI to distinguish between searches that sought information on Americans, and those that pertained to foreigners. He also told the FBI to document, in writing, how its search terms met the standard of being likely to return foreign intelligence information or criminal evidence—as opposed to a fishing expedition, presumably.

That would be a judge in the same Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court that approved FBI surveillance of one-time Trump aide Carter Page, infuriating the president’s supporters in the process and fueling current political controversy over the bureau. Page’s surveillance case might or might not have been justified, but it was just one among many.

“The idea of requiring agents to document their rationales for searching for an American’s information emerged from several recent episodes in which the Justice Department reported to the court that the F.B.I. had conducted improperly sweeping searches of the repository,” the Times added.

“Improperly sweeping searches” sounds an awful lot like the “excessively broad, ill-defined and open-ended investigations” the Church Committee hoped to curtail back in 1976. Despite the fond hopes of reformers of the past, the FBI continues to be intrusive and heavy-handed in its actions, and resistant to scrutiny and correction.

The political controversies of the moment will eventually pass, but they’re unlikely to sweep away concerns about the FBI. If history is any guide, the bureau will still be running amok years from now.

Be seeing you

Branded - INSP TV | Family-Friendly Entertainment | TV ...

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Assange lawyers’ links to US govt & Bill Browder raises questions – OffGuardian

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

https://off-guardian.org/2019/11/08/assange-lawyers-links-to-us-govt-bill-browder-raises-questions/

Lucy Komisar

A US government lawyer in the Assange extradition case just wrote a London Times oped promoting the Browder Magnitsky hoax. Ben Brandon is one of five lawyers in a London network whose spokes link to convicted tax fraudster William Browder, the U.S. government, and to both sides of the extradition case against whistleblower publisher Julian Assange.

Here is how the British legal system works. Lawyers are either solicitors who work with clients or barristers who go to court in cases assigned by the solicitors. To share costs, barristers operate in chambers, which provide office space, including conference rooms and dining halls, clerks who receive and assign cases from solicitors, and other support staff. London has 210 chambers. There are not “partners” sharing profits, but members operate fraternally with each other.

Browder is key in the U.S. demonization of Russia. Assange has exposed U.S. war crimes. For lawyers associated in the British legal system to take both sides on that conflict would appear to be an egregious conflict of interest. But it fits with the U.S.-UK support of the Browder-Magnitsky hoax and their cooperation in the attack on Assange.

The law firm and chambers involved in the Browder-Assange stories are Mishcon de Reya, Matrix Chambers and Doughty Street Chambers.

Ben Brandon of Mishcon de Reya and Alex Bailin of Matrix Chambers co-authored an opinion article in The Times of London October 24, 2019 in which they repeated William Browder’s fabrications about the death of his accountant Sergei Magnitsky.

The article aimed to promote the Magnitsky Act which builds a political wall against Russia. It is based on the fake claim that Magnitsky, the accountant who handled Browder’s tax evasion in Russia, was really a lawyer who exposed a government scam.

Except that is not true, there is no evidence for it, and the lies are documented here. But the Act has prevented the Russians from collecting about $100 million Browder owes in back taxes and illicit stock buys.

Brandon’s and Bailin’s connections are notable. Law firms, at least in the U.S., tend to stake out their commitments. Lawyers who represent unions do not represent companies fighting unions. It appears to be different in Britain, where legal chambers have members on either side of some cases.

Bailin is a member of Matrix Chambers, which was founded by the wife of Tony Blair, the former neocon Labor British Prime Minister.

He is solidly in the Browder camp. He represented Leonid Nevzlin, a major partner of Browder collaborator Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who according to filings with FARA (the Foreign Agents Registration Act), paid $385,000 for Congress to adopt the Magnitsky Act which has been used by the U.S. as a weapon against the Russian government.

Nevzlin’s suit was for $50 billion against Russia for money allegedly lost by the nationalization of Yukos Oil. Yukos was obtained by Khodorkovsky in the mid-90s in one of then Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s rigged auctions. Khodorkovsky’s bank Menatep ran the auction.

He paid $309 million for a controlling 78 percent of the state company. Months later, Yukos traded on the Russian stock exchange at a market capitalization of $6 billion. Not surprising, after Yeltsin departed, the state wanted the stolen assets back.

To add insult to injury, Khodorkovsky laundered profits from Yukos through transfer-pricing and other scams.

Transfer pricing is when you sell products to a shell company at a fake low price, and the shell sells them on the world market at the real price, giving you the rake-off. It cheats tax authorities and minority shareholders. See how Khodorkovsky and Browder did this with Russian company Avisma, which Khodorkovsky also got through a rigged auction.

The Times oped co-author, Brandon of Mishcon de Reya, has a startling connection. The day after an extradition request targeting Julian Assange was signed by the UK home secretary, Brandon representing the U.S. government, formally opened the extradition case.

Now look at another Assange link. Mark Summers, who is representing Julian Assange is, along with Bailin, a member of Matrix Chambers.

But while he is Assange’s lawyer, Summers is acting for Assange’s persecutor, the U.S. government, in a major extradition case involving executives of Credit Suisse in 2013 making fake loans and getting kickbacks from Mozambique government officials.

Does Assange, or those who care about his interests, know he is part of chambers working for the U.S. government?

And where do you put this factoid? Alex Bailin is representing Andrew Pearse, one of the Credit Suisse bankers that the U.S. government, represented by Summers, is seeking to extradite!

But there’s chambers where two members are each supporting both Browder and Assange.

Geoffrey Robertson is founder of Doughty Street Chambers. He is also a longtime Browder / Magnitsky story promoter. He has pitched implementation of a Magnitsky Act in Australia and has served Browder in UK court.

In 2017 British legal actions surrounding an inquest into the death of Alexander Perepilichnyy, he represented Browder, who claimed that the Russian, who died of a heart attack, was somehow a victim of Russian President Putin. Perepilichnyy had lost money in investments he was handling for clients and had to get out of town.

Needing support, he decamped to London and gave Browder documents relating to his client’s questionable bank transfers. He died after a jog, Browder claimed he was poisoned by a rare botanical substance, obviously ordered by Putin, but forensic tests found that untrue. Robertson accused local police of a cover-up.

He is a legal advisor to Assange and is regularly interviewed by international media about the case.

Jennifer Robinson of Doughty Street Chambers also has a Browder connection. She is acting for Paul Radu a journalist and official of the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) which is being sued by an Azerbaijan MP. OCCRP is a Browder collaborator.

Browder admits in a deposition that OCCRP prepared documents he would give to the U.S. Justice Department to accuse the son of a Russian railway official of getting $1.9 million of $230 million defrauded from the Russian Treasury. The case was settled when the U.S. couldn’t prove the charge, and the target declined to spend more millions of dollars in his defense. OCCRP got the first Magnitsky Human Rights award, set up for Browder’s partners and acolytes.

Robinson is also the longest-serving member of Assange’s legal team. She acted for Assange in the Swedish extradition proceedings and in relation to Ecuador’s request to the Inter-American Court of Human Rights Advisory Opinion proceedings on the right to asylum.

Why did Assange or his advisors choose lawyers associated with the interests of the U.S. government and Browder? Or how could those lawyers be so ignorant about the facts of Browder’s massive tax evasion and his Magnitsky story fabrications?

It raises questions about how they are handling the Assange defense.

The individuals cited were asked to respond to points made about them, but none did.

Here is my audio interview on this issue on Fault Lines, “The Avisma Scandal + The Link Between Browder & Assange.” The Browder-Assange part starts 13:20 minutes in.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Shocking Proof How Google Censors Health News – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

Who are the Google-trusted health websites that now dominate health searches? WebMD and Healthline.

WebMD, as you may recall, was in 2010 caught providing users with a fake depression screening test. The test — in which 100% of quiz-takers ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression” and were directed to talk to their doctor about treatment7,8 — was sponsored by drug giant Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta.

The quiz was in fact direct-to-consumer advertising masquerading as a valid health screen, and this is perhaps the most hazardous kind of drug advertising there is.

Boycott Google by avoiding any and all Google products:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/joseph-mercola/shocking-proof-how-google-censors-health-news/

By

Mercola.com

June 3, 2019, Google implemented a broad “core update”1 that in one fell swoop eliminated most Mercola.com pages from its search results. Virtually overnight, Google traffic to my site dropped by approximately 99.9%.

Considering Mercola.com has been the most visited natural health site for the last 16 years, it’s no great surprise that we were listed as one of the biggest losers in Google’s June algorithm update.2

I wrote about the ramifications of Google’s core update in two articles at the end of June 2019. In Part 1, I discussed the effects that the new search algorithm and updated quality rater guidelines is having on traffic to this site.

As mentioned in that article, Google’s “quality raters” are manually lowering the ranking of what they arbitrarily decide is undesirable content and burying even expert views if they think they’re “harmful” to the public.

In Part 2, I revealed how Wikipedia censors information and crafts narratives to benefit certain groups, and how Google raters use Wikipedia’s skewed and biased articles to ascertain the expertise and trustworthiness of any given author or website.

Today’s videos and article will show you just how clearly and deliberately Google has eliminated my articles from its search results.

After more than 15 years of being considered a highly relevant source of content, Google has removed all those high-ranked results, and replaced them with health information from advertising companies that promote junk food and drugs instead. Below, I’ll provide clear examples of how this works.

For many years now, I’ve been warning about how Google’s monopoly presents a clear danger to the free-flow of information, and health information in particular, seeing how holistic health is a direct threat to the drug industry. The fact that Google would eventually grow big enough to dictate what people see and don’t see was predictable, and we’ve now entered the era of blatant internet censorship.

How Google Censors High-Ranked Health Content

A major reason for my success as a physician running my own practice was the ability to resolve extremely challenging cases of arthritis. One of my articles describing my arthritis treatment protocol generated over 1 million views, and was consistently a top search result when doing a Google search for arthritis.

Today, even if you use my name in a search for arthritis, you will not find that highest-ranked article. What you find instead is an article copied from my website — without permission — by a Croatian website operated by Zdravko Mauko, followed by a few articles about arthritis from my pet site, followed by a short piece about arthritis that I contributed to Creations Magazine.

The top search result for “Mercola arthritis” is a tiny, insignificant site that in no way, shape or form could possibly compete with Mercola.com. When you compare the ranking of our sites on Alexa, you find my site (as of October 8, 2019) ranks 9,002 in global internet engagement over the past 90 days.3…

Censorship Strategy No. 2 — Content Mix-Up

Giving precedence to a site with a relevance ranking that is 1,000 times lower than my own would be bad enough, but it doesn’t end there. Even if you try to use a restricted search, which allows you to search for results within a specific website, Google has you barking up the wrong tree.

When doing a restricted search for “Mercola.com arthritis,” or “site: Mercola.com arthritis,” which theoretically should provide you with links to the most popular articles about arthritis within my site only, Google provides the top search results for arthritis on our veterinary website!

The entire first page of search results; 10 of 12 of the search results on Page 2; and 6 of 10 results on Page 3 direct you to our Healthy Pets website. How is that for relevance? Google has really outdone itself in “helping” users find relevant information, hasn’t it?

Google-Owned YouTube Uses Similar Obfuscation Tactics…

Who Now Dominates Online Health Searches?

Who are the Google-trusted health websites that now dominate health searches? WebMD and Healthline. But are they really the most trustworthy sources on the web? Their track records certainly suggest otherwise.

WebMD is owned by the global investment firm KKR & Co.,5 which also owned RJR Nabisco at a time when it sold junk food and tobacco products. As described in my 2018 article, “Google and WebMD Partner To Be Your Virtual Doctor,” KKR also owns Medscape and MedincineNet.com and, according to Fast Company,6 “is trying to corner the market on internet-based health information dissemination …”

WebMD, as you may recall, was in 2010 caught providing users with a fake depression screening test. The test — in which 100% of quiz-takers ended up having a “high likelihood of major depression” and were directed to talk to their doctor about treatment7,8 — was sponsored by drug giant Eli Lilly, the maker of Cymbalta.

The quiz was in fact direct-to-consumer advertising masquerading as a valid health screen, and this is perhaps the most hazardous kind of drug advertising there is.

Then, in 2017, Google partnered with the National Alliance on Mental Illness, launching a depression self-assessment quiz which, like WebMD before it, funneled querents toward antidepressant drugs.9,10 There simply is no doubt that Google is a proponent for and promoter of pharmaceuticals.

Likewise, WebMD — which pockets millions to promote drugs — is far from an independent source of health information. A quick search of WebMD articles on antidepressants and depression, for example, reveals a clear pattern: They contain ads for antidepressant drugs furnished by Google ad services and doubleclick — both of which are owned by Google….

Google — The Antithesis to a Free Internet

Use the internal Mercola.com search engine when searching for articles on my site.

Boycott Google by avoiding any and all Google products:

•Stop using Google search engines. Alternatives include DuckDuckGo15 and Startpage16

•Uninstall Google Chrome and use Brave or Opera browser instead, available for all computers and mobile devices.17 From a security perspective, Opera is far superior to Chrome and offers a free VPN service (virtual private network) to further preserve your privacy

•If you have a Gmail account, try a non-Google email service such as ProtonMail,18 an encrypted email service based in Switzerland

•Stop using Google docs. Digital Trends has published an article suggesting a number of alternatives19

•If you’re a high school student, do not convert the Google accounts you created as a student into personal accounts

Sign the “Don’t be evil” petition created by Citizens Against Monopoly

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Why Oppose War? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

“Peace is the only battle worth waging.” ~ Albert Camus

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/11/gary-d-barnett/why-oppose-war/

By

War is the greatest plague that can afflict humanity, it destroys religion, it destroys states, it destroys families. Any scourge is preferable to it. ~ Martin Luther

How could any decent human being not oppose war? War is the scourge of mankind, it is the destroyer of entire civilizations, and if taken to the ultimate test, will be the destroyer of all living things on earth. The logic of this statement is not accepted by those who foment and prosecute war, and it is not understood by the masses of common people that support the aggressor state due to false patriotism and statolatry. The worship of the state in this country has reached levels that are beyond the bounds of sanity, and this could lead to a perilous end.

I have struggled all my life to understand the human desire to support war and country. I have always wondered how anyone could support the maiming, torture, displacement, and total destruction of war, where millions of innocent men, women, and children are slaughtered, and their homelands laid to waste. Why do I abhor war when so many others do not? Why does it sicken me, but drive the masses to a religious fervor of national pride? How can the lives of so many be disregarded, and mass killing be ignored or seen as glorious? This is a human flaw that is not only unconscionable, but impossible for me to understand.

This United States has been the most deadly warmongering nation in the history of mankind, and even in its short existence of 243 years, America has been at war over 93% of the time.  That is 226 years of war out of 243. This statistic is staggering, especially considering that virtually all U.S. wars, domestic and foreign, have been wars of aggression, and never for actual defense. This alone is reason for condemnation of the state, and reason for the American populace to finally awaken to the truth that this country is the world’s greatest terrorist threat to mankind.

The U.S. has 800 military bases in over 70 countries outside U.S. borders. An empire of this magnitude dwarfs all other countries. America’s so-called greatest enemies, Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, have bases in just 12 countries combined. Other than former Soviet provinces, Russia has bases in just 3 other countries, China in 5, Iran in 4, and North Korea has none. Most all of these country’s foreign bases are located in neighboring regions. The U.S has encircled Iran with 45 bases, and along with NATO is also positioned around Russia’s border. And of course, the U.S. has a major military presence on North Korea’s border as well, and has since it invaded North Korea 69 years ago. Obviously, the only country today that is a deadly world threat is the United States, and other than a few allies, almost no country is safe from possible or probable U.S. aggression.

The reality of the costs of war are not limited to life and limb, but also adversely affect every aspect of economics, commerce, basic moral and psychological foundations, and liberty. War allows for the powerful to gain more control, and for the government to expand its reach. War supporters and media perpetuate lies, propaganda, and nationalism that are used as excuses by the general population to falsely demonize all other cultures that are in the crosshairs of the U.S. hegemonic state.

The costs of war are deep-seated and long-lasting, and the scars of conflict remain permanently embedded in the minds and souls of the innocent victims. Even as the pain subsides, the anger continues to fester long after the aggression has quieted. The result is a continued risk of blowback that can escalate into even more war. This vicious cycle leads to never-ending war, and that is what is sought by the warmongers and war profiteers, and those ruling elites seeking to eliminate individual sovereignty in order to gain global societal control…

War is madness, but it is madness that is purposely planned and designed. It is not random, it is not legitimate; it is simply an elaborate plot meant to achieve a desired end for those holding the strings. Those are the very rich ruling elites, the banking magnates and powerful corporate heads that control the money and the politicians…

So why oppose war? War is maiming and killing. War brings starvation and poverty. War destroys economies. War breeds hate and division. War destroys families, and orphans children. War is terror and fear. War is immoral. War is evil.

“Peace is the only battle worth waging.” ~ Albert Camus

Be seeing you

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PG&E’s Failures Show the Dangers of Government-Imposed Utility Monopolies | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on November 9, 2019

When a company screws up so horribly, letting down literally millions of its customers and moreover promising to continue doing so for another decade (!), the obvious question is: Why don’t they go out of business? Why doesn’t a competitor grab their market share?

The answer, of course, is that the California government forbids PG&E’s customers from switching to a competitor.

If we see the benefits of competition in trivial goods like soda and cereal, we should all the more so insist on competition for essentials like electricity and drinking water.

https://mises.org/wire/pges-failures-show-dangers-government-imposed-utility-monopolies?utm_source=Mises+Institute+Subscriptions&utm_campaign=91ad2769b8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_9_21_2018_9_59_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_8b52b2e1c0-91ad2769b8-228343965

Although the roughly two million affected residents of Northern California are recovering from the rolling blackouts imposed by utility PG&E, the company has warned that these “fire safety outages” may be periodically required for another decade. Naturally, California Governor Gavin Newsom decried the debacle as yet another example of “greed and neglect.” Yet as IER analyst Jordan McGillis explained in a previous article, the episode actually showcases the dangers of a government-imposed monopoly in electricity provision. In this article, I’ll elaborate on McGillis’ insights and show why the conventional economic rationale for government regulation of electric utilities is fundamentally flawed.

PG&E’s Rolling Blackouts Not a Free-Market Outcome

When a company screws up so horribly, letting down literally millions of its customers and moreover promising to continue doing so for another decade (!), the obvious question is: Why don’t they go out of business? Why doesn’t a competitor grab their market share?

The answer, of course, is that the California government forbids PG&E’s customers from switching to a competitor. Let me quote directly from McGillis who gets to the heart of the matter:

PG&E does not function as would a company in a competitive marketplace. As a regulated monopoly, it has been granted status as the sole provider of electricity to a swath of the state stretching more than 500 miles from Eureka, north of the Bay Area, to Bakersfield, in the San Joaquin Valley. The company operates in tandem with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), a panel of regulators appointed by the governor. Unlike in a competitive marketplace, PG&E does not need to compete for customers by offering more value dollar-for-dollar than other companies. Instead PG&E is guaranteed a rate of return on its investments and establishes with the CPUC the corresponding rates that customers will pay.

So we’ve solved the most immediate puzzle: The reason PG&E can get away with such outrageous mismanagement and shoddy customer service, is that the California government literally guarantees them their business. It is illegal for another company to try to entice PG&E’s disgruntled customers to switch their patronage.

Companies in an Open Market Love Periods of “High Demand”

Although the outrageous episode of PG&E is fresh in our minds, this is nothing unusual. Every summer, it is commonplace for utilities to urge their customers to “conserve power” by keeping their air conditioners at an uncomfortable setting, and they often impose rolling blackouts or “brownouts” in order to maintain the integrity of the grid.

Notice that you never see this type of behavior from genuinely private sector companies? Even though people greatly increase their consumption of beer and hot dogs during July, you never see Budweiser or Oscar Mayer imposing temporary outages on their customers.

On the contrary, companies in an open market love it when the public suddenly wants to buy more of their product or service. It’s only in the realm of government-regulated utilities (or services directly provided by a government agency) where the customers are viewed as annoying nuisances, who need to be scolded to stop consuming so much.

Different Incentives, Different Results

Any adult American reading my article surely can agree—regardless of your politics—that I am speaking the truth. To repeat, you simply do not see private companies in (relatively) open markets operating the way PG&E and other “public utilities” do. So the mismanagement and shoddy service of PG&E can’t possibly be the fault merely of corporate greed and neglect. Rather, the difference is due to the institutional structure and incentives that the government sets up…

Conclusion

The PG&E debacle showcases the flaws of government-regulated monopolies. This is not an isolated incident, but is typical of the entire model. Yes, there are practical reasons that free and open competition might not work as smoothly with services requiring large infrastructure spending, but these complications pale in comparison to the dangers of having government outlaw competition. If we see the benefits of competition in trivial goods like soda and cereal, we should all the more so insist on competition for essentials like electricity and drinking water.

Be seeing you

Monopolies In A Stateless Society - The Art of Not Being ...

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »