It expands the security bureaucracy. The list has grown from 120,000 to two million, seventeen times larger than its original figure. Is this in response to terrorists events? You name the events.
The list enables the FBI to pressure people into becoming informants and false witnesses in frame ups by threatening to add them to the terror list,
The list allows authorities to punish and to silence truth-tellers who expose the official narratives for the lies that they are.
Did you know that there are 2,000,000 names on the Federal government’s terror watchlist? The National Security Council claims most are not Americans, but the Department of Homeland Security admits that there have been tens of thousands of Americans who have been treated like terrorists. It does not occur to the National Security council that there are no terrorist events corresponding to two million terrorists. If there truly were two million terrorists, the US would be in chaos.
So what is the list for?
It expands the security bureaucracy. The list has grown from 120,000 to two million, seventeen times larger than its original figure. Is this in response to terrorists events? You name the events.
The list enables the FBI to pressure people into becoming informants and false witnesses in frame ups by threatening to add them to the terror list,
The list allows authorities to punish and to silence truth-tellers who expose the official narratives for the lies that they are.
That’s precisely why the US government stopped the publication of this information. They threatened the MIT researchers with federal prison if they proceeded under the pretext that the US government considered cryptography a military munition. Those who distributed it would be treated no differently than arms traffickers.
That’s what Mark Miller, a young student at Yale, told his closest friends.
He knew what he was sitting on had revolutionary potential and that powerful people had disappeared others for much less.
Miller was steadfast. He wanted to get this information out, even if it was over his dead body.
In 1977, a group of brilliant researchers at MIT made an astonishing discovery—public-key cryptography.
It was a mathematical system for encrypting information so that only the intended recipient could read it. It would otherwise take millions of years for the world’s most powerful supercomputers to crack.
Cryptography, or the practice of encoding information, is as old as civilization.
One of the oldest known cryptography uses dates back to around 600 BC when the ancient Spartans would pass encrypted messages on thin papyrus sheets. To decrypt the message, the recipient could wrap the papyrus around a scytale (a cylinder of varying dimensions).
The words written on the papyrus itself were gibberish. But you could decrypt the message if you had the right scytale. This is how the Spartans sent and received secret military plans.
Today, computers allow for radically more sophisticated cryptography.
That’s why the discovery of public-key cryptography was a development of historical significance.
Never before had unbreakable cryptography been available to the average person. It had always been a government monopoly, and they didn’t want to give it up.
The MIT researchers broke that monopoly in 1977.
The average person could now use public-key cryptography to preserve the privacy of their communications from anyone, including the world’s most powerful governments.
Public-key cryptography altered the status quo between the rulers and the ruled. It was similar to the invention of gunpowder or the printing press.
TAMPA, FL — Fresh off the case of George Bailey, Clarence the Angel embarked on a new mission over the weekend to show California Governor Gavin Newsom what California could be like if he’d never been born.
“I just picked him up and flew him over to Florida,” Clarence explained. “Easiest job I’ve ever had.”
Earlier in the day, residents had observed Newsom wandering the streets of San Francisco, muttering to himself about the futility of life. “I was supposed to be President! I was supposed to be the guy!” cried out Newsom. “Instead, I’ve spent my days toiling away in California — and now, looking around at this crummy little state, what do I have to show for it? What has it all been for??”
It was then that Clarence the Angel descended to Gavin Newsom’s side, arriving to visibly show Newsom the fruits of his life’s work. “You’re going to be given a great gift, Gavin – to see what California would look like if you had never been born!” exclaimed Clarence as they arrived in Florida. “Look at the unvarnished beauty of nature, walk the streets free of feces, see the livelihoods unruined, hear the laughter of children allowed to live! You see Gavin, each man’s life touches so many other lives. See all the wonderful things that don’t exist because of you? It really is a wonderful life here in Florida, isn’t it?”
At publishing time, Newsom had reportedly taken the vision to heart, renewing his vow to become President so he could make Florida look just like California.
Not that al-Kassar is squeaky clean as this so-called Prince of Marbella played a pivotal role in the Pentagon’s arms for hostages scandal, where the American and not the Soviet government was shown to be up to its eyeballs in cocaine deals with Latin American terrorists and where the CIA hounded Gary Webb, a good, great and heroic American journalist, to his death for exposing to the world their collusion with criminal cocaine cartels.
A recent Sunday World global exclusive claimed that NATO’s leading drug cartels have aligned “with Putin and Iran” because they have run out of other options. NATO’s cocaine cartel chiefs, the exclusive claims, “have become bed-fellows with the Russian and Iranian regimes – offering up their transport routes and South American cocaine suppliers in exchange for sanctuary.”
Because the cartel leaders are gradually losing their safe haven in the United Arab Emirates, the exclusive claims that there is now “a black-hearted triangle of terror between cocaine cartels and forces in Russia and Iran intent on destroying the West”.
Russia, “Putin’s homeland”, the Sunday World claims, might offer these ruthless, two timing gangsters “a final sanctuary from Europe and the U.S., who have joined forces to eliminate them.”
As things currently stand, these gangsters “are actively moving tonnes of cocaine across the globe on behalf of the mafia states [of Russia, Iran et al], who have been exploiting their transport routes and contacts as they raise funds to fight their wars”.
These gangsters “are so deeply embedded with both regimes [Russia and Iran] that they are now enemies of the Western World”, not least because they work closely with “agents within the Soviet Military Intelligence wing, the GRU” in co-ordinating their nefarious activities.
The Syrian and Venezuelan Connections
The exclusive goes on to tell us that “for years, the GRU had used a Syrian drug lord based in Marbella, Monzer Al Kassar, as an arms and cocaine dealer to supply both them and Iran” and that “the Kinahan organisation has been participating in drug deliveries with the GRU since at least 2019” and that many of the cocaine shipments set sail from sanctioned Venezuela. As the Kinahans had also occasionally tweeted against “U.S. President Joe Biden and his son Hunter”, it seems to be case closed, all the more so as, according to the exclusive, Hezbollah are also in on the act.
Although Italy’s National anti-Mafia prosecutor Gianni Melillo is correct to state that “the connections between drug trafficking, money laundering and terrorism financing processes are visible at various latitudes; from Latin America to the Middle East, from Pakistan to Afghanistan to the Balkans, from Libya to Western and Sub Saharan Africa,” that is no proof or indication that Russia, Iran, Venezuela, Hezbollah or Syria have any hand, act or part in this gigantic business, which would expose them to considerable reputational and other risks without the sort of NATO protection Italy’s Giulio Andreotti long enjoyed.
To begin with Syria, not only have I already covered NATO’s drug smears against them in my earlier article but, because Monzer al-Kassar has been incarcerated from 2009 in Marion Medium Security Prison in Illinois, with a 2033 release date, he is innocent of the collusion charges this garbage article concerns itself with.
Americans are being conditioned to accept substandard and even criminal behavior as the new norm, Robert Bridge writes.
On the tranquil campus of Yale University, almost 80 percent of all grades given to undergraduates last academic year were A’s or A minuses, a trend that is also happening at Harvard. Let’s face it, these kids are smart, but they’re not that smart.
From teenagers engaged in violence without punishment, to university students receiving undeserved marks, Americans are being conditioned to accept substandard and even criminal behavior as the new norm.
This week, discount carrier Southwest Airlines was heralded by “customers of size” (i.e. obese passengers) after it was reported they could receive additional seats to accommodate their extra-wide bodies.
At first glance, the new conditions seem perfectly reasonable as they provide the ‘special need’ fliers the ability to “purchase the necessary number of seats prior to travel to ensure the additional seat(s) is available.” In other words, if a plus-size traveler feels the need to buy an extra seat – or even an entire aisle – to feel comfortable, then who cares, right? However, Southwest’s new policy goes further than that. It awards the overweight passenger with a gratuitous seat(s) to accommodate their bursting waistlines.
“You may contact us for a refund of the cost of additional seating after travel,” according to Southwest, citing its Customer of Size and Extra Seat Policy. “If it’s determined that a second (or third) seat is needed, you’ll be accommodated with a complimentary additional seat.”
For those who may be tempted to defend the rights of these extra-large fliers, you may wish to read the fine print first. As Fox Business reported, the Southwest flight team could be forced to shift other passengers around for the “unplanned accommodation.”
Imagine that you are comfortably seated in the coveted aisle seat, your luggage is stowed away overhead, when you are suddenly informed by the stewardess that you must relinquish your paid place to a person who has made a lifestyle choice to be overweight (only a tiny fraction of individuals suffer from obesity due to an untreatable medical condition). How will such a demand fly with the majority of paying customers? The question is not an idle one. According to the CDC, 42.4% of U.S. adults are currently obese. That’s a substantial increase from the 30.5% measured in 2000.
Meanwhile, it could be argued that a great many travelers also have ‘special needs’ that require accommodation, like small screaming toddlers and extra luggage. No airline gives away free seats to families with young offspring, nor do they provide allowances for passengers who exceed the weight limit on their bags. Therefore, it seems fair and logical that overweight passengers should also be required to pay a penalty – or at the very least, not be rewarded – for bringing excess weight into the aircraft. That’s because ‘free’ seats for the obese entail hidden costs (higher fuel costs, for example, which is why airlines charge customers for excess weight on their luggage) that will ultimately be paid in the form of higher tickets prices. Whatever the case may be, it will be interesting to see how many more in-flight brawls are instigated by this new in-flight ‘service.’
Alarmed by the number of military-age men coming into the country from all over the world, amid conflicts between Israel and Hamas, as well as Ukraine and Russia, the United States needs to tighten border security and step up its vetting process, said the border agent.
Mr. Schultz said about 30 percent of the illegal immigrants in the latest wave to the Jacumba camps are from China.
Two older SUVs appear to come out of nowhere, slowly at first, then kicking up clouds of dust as they pick up speed along the southern side of the U.S.–Mexico border. Two white vans tail them to a gap in the border wall.
With covered faces, smugglers suspected of working for drug cartels exit the vehicles, which bear a mix of Californian and Mexican license plates. The coyotes, as they are known, glare through the slats in the 30-foot-tall border wall, while keeping an eye on their human cargo.
Within seconds, the doors on each vehicle are flung open and around 25 eager illegal immigrants jump out of each SUV and 50 from each van.
“Move it! Move it! Move it!” barks one of the coyotes as he turns his back to the wall and waves his arms toward a narrow footpath strewn with shreds of clothing and stray strands of razor wire where the wall ends at the base of a steep hill.
The illegal immigrants, a few with children, pick up their pace, dashing a few yards up an incline, around the wall, and into the United States.
The coyotes disappear into the desert as fast and efficiently as they arrive.
The chatter—mostly Spanish and some Mandarin—tapers off as U.S. Border Patrol agents, waiting on site, approach the illegal aliens along the wall to distribute plastic bracelets to them. The 150 new arrivals, mostly solemn but relieved to be out of the clutches of the cartels, march along the wall toward tents and makeshift shelters.
A Border Patrol Mobile Response Unit team stands watch over the camp near Jacumba on the southeastern fringe of San Diego County. One of three illegal immigrant encampments within about a 20-mile span along the border, Willow camp is flanked on the west by 177 camp, south of Boulevard, California, and Moon camp in Imperial County on the east.
Suspected Mexican cartel members drive SUV’s containing dozens of illegal immigrants to an open gap in the U.S. border wall near Jacomba, Calif., on Dec 6, 2023. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)
Illegal Immigrant Surge
A small sampling of illegal immigrants at the camps say they came from China, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, Mauritania, Colombia, and Brazil.
Sam Schultz, whose family volunteers for a group called Border Kindness and are affiliated with the legal services organization Al Otro Lado, which means “to the other side” in Spanish, delivers food and water to the camps daily.
He told The Epoch Times on Dec. 5 he was worried about running out of supplies with so many illegal immigrants crossing that day.
Why are they on the way out? This is because government is rendering this sort of commercial activity more and more difficult with more and more onerous rules and regulation, even including outright prohibition. And why, in turn, might that be the case?
One path toward an explanation of this phenomenon is to ask quo bono? Who gains from interfering with this type of marketplace behavior?
Airbnbs and VRBOs are out. What’s that you say? What are they? They are short term rentals. Residential occupants rent out their domiciles for anything from a day or two or three up to several weeks and maybe as long as a month or so. Perhaps the vendors go out of town for that stretch of time, and want to add a bit of spending money to their budgets. Maybe they are in the business of renting out residential real estate for such short time periods.
Why are they on the way out? This is because government is rendering this sort of commercial activity more and more difficult with more and more onerous rules and regulation, even including outright prohibition. And why, in turn, might that be the case?
One path toward an explanation of this phenomenon is to ask quo bono? Who gains from interfering with this type of marketplace behavior?
One answer is obvious: hotels and motels. They are in direct competition with those who rent out homes on a temporary basis. For a large family, a residence of 3,000 square feet for $1000 per night is a much better deal than five hotel rooms of $300 each. So, yes, it is a reasonable hypothesis to look at this sector of the economy for an explanation of these new stifling rules.
Another source of dissatisfaction with Airbnbs and VRBOs stems from homeowners and renters who do not engage in such activities. They oppose all this moving in and moving out in their neighborhoods. They want a nice quiet residential experience. They want to know exactly who are their neighbors- whether for safety reasons, or for friendships or block parties or whatever.
What is the optimal allocation of resources between temporary and more permanent accommodation? Desirable from whose point of view? From the perspective of all concerned.
Yes, we can acquiesce that permanent residents want more permanence in their geographical areas. But how, then, do we factor in the desires of temporary residents, many of whom are tourists, who relish just that sort of permanent residences for their short visits, and wish for cheaper room rates?
The free enterprise system provides the only way out of this physical and philosophical morass. The best solution, the only one, is for the government to withdraw its gargantuan powers and exit the scene entirely.
Saturday’s resignation of University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill came after months of controversy—and a viral-video grilling of Magill in a congressional hearing—over allegations the school has become a hotbed of antisemitism.
While those allegations have been given widespread credence, a Stark Realities analysis of dozens of claimed antisemitic incidents at Penn finds that, apart from a small handful of cases, the great majority are merely instances in which Penn students, professors and guest speakers engage in political expression that proponents of the State of Israel strongly disagree with.
Conveniently, a catalogue of supposed examples of anti-Jew bigotry at Penn is laid out in a federal lawsuit filed last week against the school by two Jewish students who allege it “has transformed itself into an incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment, and discrimination.” In the suit, dual American-Israeli citizen Eyal Yakoby and American Jordan Davis seek “substantial damages in an amount to be determined at trial.”
For those wanting to look beyond what’s been said about Penn by grandstanding politicians, click-seeking news outlets and sensationalist social media posters, the 84-page complaint is a valuable resource. Unlike the sloppy court of public opinion, real courts demand a detailed presentation of specific allegations.
However, scrutiny of the Penn complaint—prepared by Philadelphia lawyer and Penn law grad Eric Shore and New York City law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres—confirms the campaign against the Philadelphia school is just the latest component a broader, long-running drive to censor political expression that’s critical of the State of Israel and sympathetic to Palestinians.
In support of that drive, conservatives who’d previously and rightfully bashed campus viewpoint censorship and crackdowns on flexibly-defined “hate speech” are among the most vocal advocates of installing a new censorship regime to keep students “safe” from anti-Israel rhetoric.
Political Views Wrongly Labelled as Antisemitic
Objective readers of the complaint will quickly note a number of red flags, starting with strident, vitriolic language referring to “rabidly antisemitic professors” and “Jew-hating” speakers who “spew antisemitic venom” by “bellowing into bullhorns to express their hatred for Israel.”
However, the complaint’s foremost flaw is its repeated assumption that various political concepts, views and slogans promoted by critics of Israel are inherently antisemitic or genocidal. This kind of attack isn’t unique to the Penn complaint; it’s constantly used by Israel’s advocates to silence the opposition. Among the forbidden ideas:
Anti-Zionism. A philosophy embraced by many Jews, anti-Zionism opposes the idea of a Jewish nation-state. Opposing the concept of a such a Jewish state doesn’t automatically make someone a bigot any more than opposing a white state or a Christian state does. The Chavurah, a progressive Jewish group at Penn, recently rejected this charge, saying that “continual conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-semitism undermines any chance for productive dialogue at Penn concerning Israel.”
Questioning Israel’s “right to exist.” No country has a right to exist. Countries are mere political arrangements. There’s nothing inherently bigoted about campaigning for a different political order between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The State of Israel has no more “right to exist” than did the Soviet Union or Czechoslovakia, or does North Korea or the United States.
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” As I wrote last month, “while any slogan will mean different things to different people, this one has been used for decades by Palestinians seeking the same liberties as Israeli Jews throughout the entire territory ruled by the State of Israel.” For most, it’s a call for the State of Israel to be replaced by a new governing arrangement. While some may be reasonably concerned about how that would play out, the idea isn’t inherently genocidal or antisemitic.
The Palestinian “right of return.” This concept argues that Palestinians displaced by the 1948 creation of Israel should be allowed to return to their homes. It isn’t inherently embedded with bigotry, as the complaint suggests. Indeed, its advocates would argue the concept is a counter to Israeli ethnocentrism.
“Singling out” Israel for criticism. This preposterous standard, routinely advanced by Zionists, suggests that it’s antisemitic to criticize policies of the Israeli government if you don’t simultaneously criticize other governments guilty of the same sins.
Accusing Israel of genocide. While the suit is filled with accusations of genocidal intent on the part of pro-Palestinian activists, the plaintiffs would have us assume it’s antisemitic to argue that Israel’s bombardment of civilian areas in Gaza and displacement of Palestinians amounts to genocide.
Urging boycotts, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel. In another display of double-standards, Israel’s backers cheer on economic warfare against Iran, but the BDS movement—which aims to achieve better treatment of Palestinians by using similar economic tactics—is supposedly a bigoted enterprise.
The most controversial term, “intifada,” has been chanted by pro-Palestinian protesters at Penn and around the world. Roughly translating to English as “shaking off,” intifada refers to an uprising against Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. Palestinians have engaged in two previous intifadas. While the tactics included suicide bombings targeting civilians, Palestinians also engaged in peaceful protests, rioting, and attacks on Israeli government targets ranging from mere stone-throwing to deadly rocket attacks.
“It is not a term against Jews, it is a term against the Israeli government,” said Glenn Greenwald last week on his show, System Update. “Just like you’re allowed to say ‘I think we should bomb Iran’ or go to war in Iraq or ‘flatten Gaza,’ people are allowed to say, allowed to opine…in the United States of America, that the repression by the Israeli government has become sufficiently severe that an uprising or even violence against the State of Israel is warranted.”
“Intifida” played a key role in last week’s Capitol Hill grilling of then-Penn president Magill, Harvard president Claudine Gay and MIT president Sally Kornbluth by New York Rep. Elise Stefanik. Video of the interrogation went viral, and precipitated the resignation of not only Penn’s Magill but also the school’s chairman of the board of trustees.
This interaction, which mirrors Stefanik’s questioning of all three presidents, shows how she used an assumption of genocidal intent by anyone chanting “intifada” to reinforce the mythology that calls for Jewish genocide are commonplace at Penn, Harvard and MIT:
Congresswoman Stefanik: “Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?”
President Kornbluth: “If targeted at individuals not making public statements.”
Congresswoman Stefanik: “Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?”
President Kornbluth: “I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.”
Congresswoman Stefanik: “But you’ve heard chants for Intifada.”
From intifada to anti-Zionism and BDS, all are political concepts that should be debated on their merits, not banned by those who are discomforted by them—and where better for such debates than college campuses?
It’s only by first wrongly defining this assortment of Israel-critical views as inherently antisemitic that one can declare antisemitism is rampant at the University of Pennsylvania or anywhere else in American academia.
Ironically, the lawsuit’s assumption that all Jews at Penn should be assumed to embrace Zionist political ideology or cherish the State of Israel and therefore be victimized by contrary views is itself a display of prejudice.
Quoting directly from the complaint, here are just several of countless supposed examples of antisemitic activity at Penn that are merely expressions of debatable political opinions:
Although sign language, like any other language, will continue to evolve along with technology, that evolution must take place free from the impediments and myopic prejudices of the Kiev Nazis and their ideological Doppelgängers elsewhere.
WARNING: Don’t try to repost on FB as it violates community standards!!!
Although the traditional signs relating to women, such as ‘wife’ and ‘mother,’ which involved touching the lower half of the face, based on bonnets that girls once wore, and traditional signs relating to men, like ‘husband’ or ‘father,’ involved tipping the upper half of the face, emblematic of tipping one’s hat, are also under attack by these nutters, sign language, like any other language, must evolve naturally and without the inputs of Clown Prince Zelensky and his circus of sad and embittered losers, who also have words like ‘privilege’ in their sights because it traditionally referred only to ‘benefit,’ ‘gain,’ ’credit’ or ‘profit’ and so looked like putting a dollar into a shirt pocket, rather than referring to so-called white privilege or any of the other inventions of the Gender Studies crew, who obfuscate more important trends.
Imagine my horror discovering that American sign language equates Ireland to the potato. You don’t have to imagine at all as I find it hilarious, even though I understand the historical context as to how the Irish, rather than the Peruvians with their divine array of potatoes, or the Russians with their mastery of vodka, or indeed the good folk of Maine or Indiana who grow most of America’s potatoes, are synonymous with potatoes.
At least in American sign language. In Irish sign language, an Irishman is represented by a flat cap, which was very popular here until recently. In Japanese sign language, you showcase it in a different way.
Japan and the Japanese are important in this case as those who use sign language have their own wee networks the length and breadth of the world. If an Irish potato head hits the big smoke in Tokyo or New York, they will gravitate towards where their Japanese and American equivalents hang out and, of course, vice versa. Hit an Irish pub where the local deaf folk hang out and you will most likely find a Yank or a Japanese citizen in the thick of it, gabbering away with the rest of them at a mile to the minute.
All good stuff and all a credit to the many good people from France and elsewhere, who first developed this array of loosely connected languages. Whilst Irish sign language is a derivation of the original French version, the British and the Yanks, good folk like Sam and Ted Supalla, went largely on their own trajectories developing, as it were, their own idioms. And good on each and every one of them.
But before getting on to the main gripe of this article, let’s just say that sign language has to be taught unlike our own native tongues which we first learn literally at our mothers’ breasts, which is why mother, in its simplified forms, is the first word babies ever learn; it is the easiest for their nascent mouth muscles to pronounce.
Not so sign language, which the permanently offended have now targeted. Whereas some Irish with too much time on their hands might get offended by being linked to the potato (or to the flat cap), the former was very understandable in the context of America in the mid nineteenth century and I am happy to see them preserve the connection.
In contrast, some of our Jewish friends are outraged that Jews are represented in Flemish sign language by stroking the nose to identify Jews by virtue of their supposedly big noses. New Zealand, meanwhile, is in uproar because their variant represents Chinese people by tugging at the corner of the eye, Samoans by pressing down on the nose and male homosexuals by a hand-flop.
Social Links for Phillip W. Magness , James R. Harrigan and Ryan M. Yonk
But what is the likely outcome when the US government funds this corporation through something called the Global Engagement Center?
A lawsuit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed in federal court Wednesday along with The Daily Wire and The Federalist declares the outcome was the State Department funding technology that could “render disfavored press outlets unprofitable.”
According to a lawsuit filed in federal court, the Biden administration’s State Department has been funding censorship firms that favor left-wing media organizations.
The First Amendment has long been understood as settling matters where government manipulation of the press is concerned.
“Congress shall make no law,” the text plainly states, “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
The amendment is so clear that only a politician could manage to miss the point.
And when politicians miss the point of a straightforward, necessary protection, they manage to find all kinds of people willing to help them place ideology above constitutionality, common sense and simple decency.
NewsGuard bills itself “The Internet Trust Tool” and purports to offer “transparent tools to counter misinformation for readers, brands, and democracies,” which admittedly sounds impressive.
But what is the likely outcome when the US government funds this corporation through something called the Global Engagement Center?
A lawsuit Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed in federal court Wednesday along with The Daily Wire and The Federalist declares the outcome was the State Department funding technology that could “render disfavored press outlets unprofitable.”
MCViewPoint 
