MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Erie Times E-Edition Article Democrats stumble out of the gate in presidential voting

Posted by M. C. on February 6, 2020

…and a carnival of unintended consequences.

This could be any government project.

George Will may be a warparty Buckley acolyte but he does understand government.

http://erietimes.pa.newsmemory.com/?publink=1a2a73160

George Will

The progressive party’s Iowa caucuses were a hilarious parody of progressive governance – ambitious, complex, subtle and a carnival of unintended consequences. The party that promises to fine-tune , from the production of wealth to the allocation of health care to the administration of education, produced a fittingly absurd climax to what surely was Iowa’s final strut as a national distraction.

Like a toddler trailing a security blanket across Iowa, Elizabeth Warren clung to identity politics with a fervor that suggested desperation and defied caricature.

Eventual autopsies of her campaign, and perhaps of the Democrats’ presidential hopes, should ponder this promise to Iowans: For the purpose of “restoring integrity and competence to government,” she will have “at least 50 percent of Cabinet positions filled by women and nonbinary people,” and a “young trans person” will vet her secretary of education candidates. In the Democrats’ ideological auction, Warren bested Pete Buttigieg who, in what counts in today’s Democratic Party as Solomonic centrism, promised only that half the members of his Cabinet will have two X chromosomes.

Four days before Iowa Democrats stumbled into futility, Bernie Sanders revealed to The New York Times the genesis of his socialism. Never mind the gulags, famines, Venezuelas and other wreckages, socialism is justified because the Dodgers decamped from Brooklyn to Los Angeles after the 1957 season when Sanders was 16. The Times says “perhaps no single event has proved more enduring in Mr. Sanders’ consciousness – more viscerally felt in his signature fury toward the 1 percent.” Well.

In 1955, the Dodgers, with six future Hall of Famers, won the World Series but had an average attendance of just 13,423, barely better than Major League Baseball‘s worst-drawing 2019 team (Miami, 10,016). In 1950, St. Louis, the western-most major-league city, had teams and Los Angeles had none. In Sanders’ cartoonish understanding of reality, his explanation of everything he finds objectionable – other people’s “greed” – explains the loss of what he still considers his eternal entitlement to the Dodgers being in Brooklyn.

Never mind that many of the Dodgers’ fans left Brooklyn, as did today’s senator from Vermont who, by the way, when playing a like-minded rabbi for a film said that he despises “free agency crap” – the unionized players’ hard-won right to negotiate terms of employment with teams of their choice.

Substituting indignation for information, Sanders’ baseball nostalgia is akin to his claim that the average worker “is not making a nickel more” than 45 years ago. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that from 1990 to 2016 the average household’s inflation- adjusted income after taxes and government transfers increased 46 percent, and 66 percent for households in the bottom quintile.

Fortunately, there is something comparatively serious in America’s political future. Super Tuesday, aka March 3, will allocate 1,357 delegates, 68 percent of the total needed to nominate. They will come mostly from (never mind American Samoa and Democrats abroad) 14 states that include five that the nominee will lose in November (Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Utah), three that he or she will win (California, Massachusetts, Vermont), five competitive ones (Maine, Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado) and one (Texas) that might be competitive if the nominee is neither Warren nor Sanders.

If a few early states must initiate the nomination process, they should be unlike Iowa, which has a population just 14 percent larger than in 1960, compared with North Carolina (130 percent larger), Georgia (169 percent), Texas (203 percent), Colorado (228 percent) and Florida (334 percent).

Michael Bloomberg, however, is giving a glimpse of another alternative – a national primary, or several regional primaries. His spending – $250 million on television and internet ads in two months; approximately what Anheuser-Busch has spent advertising beer in the same period – will demonstrate either the steeply declining utility of political dollars or the manageable challenge for ordinary candidates to raise large sums from small donors in a nation that spends $8 billion a year on potato chips.

Meanwhile, like startled pheasants flushed from an Iowa cornfield, the surviving Democratic aspirants have fluttered away. The silliest candidates have disappeared (remember Beto O’Rourke?

didn’t think so) and Iowa has at least clarified the Democrats’ clashing theories: Americans are angry and hankering for more turmoil (Warren, Sanders), or Americans are embarrassed and exhausted by today’s politics of obnoxious noise (everyone but Warren and Sanders).

Sanders and Warren find billionaires distasteful, and neither they nor their woker-than-thou supporters will graciously accept a rising Bloomberg, so Iowa was just a sample of the Democrats’ coming self-inflicted wounds.

President Donald Trump’s smiles usually look strained, like grimaces out of context, but perhaps not today.

Be seeing you

 

 

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

Trudeau Minister Proposes Forcing News Websites to Have Govt Licence

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Canadian Government Channeling Hillary-we need an internet gatekeeper-Clinton

Will Canadians need a license to repost a news article on a blog or Facebbook account?

Will reposting “news” make one a “news site”?

Don’t worry, the Canadian government is on the case!

Freedom of expression in Canada is not absolute; Section 1 of the Charter allows the government to pass laws that limit free expression so long as the limits are “reasonable and can be justified in a free and democratic society”.[1][2] This can often be the subject of controversy as some feel the conditions for reasonable justification are vague, granting the government an unreasonable amount of control over freedom of expression.

https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/02/03/trudeau-minister-proposes-forcing-news-websites-government-license/

by Chris Tomlinson

Canadian Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has stated that news websites, along with social media companies, could be forced to obtain government licences to operate in Canada.

The minister, who has been tasked with updating Canada’s broadcasting laws using the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), stated that internet news sites will be “asked” to obtain a government-approved licence, broadcaster CTV reports.

The report, entitled “Canada’s communications future: Time to act”, was released on January 29th and included 97 recommendations. It details how the CRTC would be vastly expanded to not only regulate radio and television broadcasters but news websites as well.

“If you’re a distributor of content in Canada and obviously if you’re a very small media organisation the requirement probably wouldn’t be the same if you’re Facebook, or Google. There would have to be some proportionality embedded into this,” he said during a CTV interview.

When asked directly how the legislation would affect foreign websites, with Breitbart News specifically named, Guilbeault said that he did not think foreign sites would be blocked in Canada if they did not comply with the CRTC.

“Frankly I’m not sure I see what the big deal is,” Guilbeault said. He added that other foreign companies in other industries actively comply with Canadian regulations.

“We recommend that the existing licensing regime in the Broadcasting Act be accompanied by a registration regime. This would require a person carrying on a media content undertaking by means of the Internet to register unless otherwise exempt,” recommendation 56 of the report states.

Current CRTC regulations include forcing commercial radio-broadcasters who primarily play music to have at least 35 per cent of their content per week come from Canadian artists.

Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chairman in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa labelled the report “candidly extreme” and added it has no “physical boundaries”.

Conservative MP Michelle Rempel Garner has also expressed concern over the proposals in the report saying: “It’s very paternalising and also very frightening to think that the government would try to impose or say that’s the role of the government to control. That puts us in league with countries that control the media.”

Similar moves toward limiting free speech online have been made in Europe in recent months as well, with an October ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union allowing governments to force social media giant Facebook to remove content.

Be seeing you

First Ladies & the Occult: Ghosts in the White House, Part 2

 

 

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

Afghanistan Averages an Insider Attack Every Four Days – News From Antiwar.com

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Another warparty success story.

https://news.antiwar.com/2020/02/03/afghanistan-averages-an-insider-attack-every-four-days/

Insider attacks have been a growing problem in Afghanistan, and are happening at a rate of once every four days as of the latest data on the last quarter of 2019. 33 insider attacks were reported then, with 90 casualties.

SIGAR’s latest report to Congress showed that was an increase over the year’s average. In 2019, 82 insider attackers were reported, with 172 deaths and 85 others wounded. Attacks were overwhelmingly the result of Taliban infiltrators.

Insider attacks have been a problem for years, but appeared to surge in the last quarter, following the collapse of US-Taliban peace talks and the Afghan government’s attempted presidential election.

Getting even one infiltrator on a base or at a checkpoint is enough. In mid-December, a single infiltrator in Ghazni Province was able to kill 23 sleeping soldiers on the base, successfully taking all the weapons and ammunition, as well as a Humvee and defecting back to the Taliban. This was a major example, but not unheard of.

Be seeing you

Just in time for Remembrance Day... the most beautiful ...

 

 

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

Low-yield nuclear weapon deployed on US Navy submarine in Atlantic

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Low yield holocaust is OK

https://thedefensepost.com/2020/02/04/us-navy-submarine-tennessee-w76-2-nuclear-warhead/

Staff Writer Staff Writer

The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday confirmed earlier reports that the Navy has deployed a submarine armed with a newly developed and controversial low-yield nuclear weapon, the W76-2.

The Federation of American Scientists first reported last week that the five-kiloton W76-2 deployed aboard the USS Tennessee ballistic missile submarine, which left Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia in late December.

The low-yield W76-2 is a modified version of the 90-kiloton W76-1, a warhead that can be carried by the Trident submarine-launched ballistic missile.

The Department of Defense requested modified, low-yield sub-launched nuclear ballistic warheads in a 2018 review that concluded Russia’s development of similar “tactical nukes” required a deterring counterpart.

Proponents of the move argue that if Russia detonated a low-yield tactical nuclear weapon in a conflict situation, the U.S. may hesitate or refuse to respond because most of Washington’s own nuclear weapons are orders of magnitude larger.

The rapid development of low-yield nuclear warheads may deter Russia’s willingness to use their own, supporters say, and allow the U.S. to respond proportionally.

“This supplemental capability strengthens deterrence and provides the United States a prompt, more survivable low-yield strategic weapon,” Undersecretary of Defense John Rood said in a statement.

Rood also said the deployment “demonstrates to potential adversaries that there is no advantage to limited nuclear employment because the United States can credibly and decisively respond to any threat scenario.”

The Federation for American Scientists critiqued the strategic reasoning behind the W76-2.

“While Russian low-yield nuclear weapons lower the threshold making nuclear use more likely, U.S. low-yield weapons instead ‘raise the nuclear threshold’ and make nuclear use less likely,” Hans Kristensen, the director of the FAS’s nuclear information project, and William Arkin, a journalist and consultant to organization, wrote last week.

“All of this sounds like good old-fashioned Cold War warfighting.”

The FAS estimates that the U.S. now possesses about 50 W76-2 warheads in addition to about 1,000 other low-yield nuclear weapons, which can be delivered by aircraft. Submarine-launched ballistic missiles are considered more likely to penetrate sophisticated air defenses.

Be seeing you

?u=http2.bp.blogspot.com-JizzfvCdWg8TtfDS0e837IAAAAAAAAEIU_sqB9rq0yiAs1600war_powers_act.gif&f=1&nofb=1

 

 

 

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

The Assassins are Back!, by Israel Shamir – The Unz Review

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Even before the state of Israel had been properly established, the Mossad predecessors tried to kill President Harry S. Truman. At the same time they succeeded to assassinate Lord Moyne of Britain, so the US Presidents had and still have very strong reasons to pay heed to Jewish requests.

“Friends”

https://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-assassins-are-back/

Ron Unz, the fearless disturber of established dogma, has published a long essay connecting together some of his earlier texts under the title Mossad Assassinations. I like his natural style, his lack of pathos and drama. He does not lecture you, but shares his progress with you; what did he discover today, and how did he discover that. Reading him is like talking to a pleasant knowledgeable neighbour. In a biopic he could be played by a Henry Fonda. For me, the length of his essays (this one has 27,000 words) is not a fault but an advantage, but here is a brief summary. It is basically a reading-together-with-Unz of the huge (750 pages) volume of Rise and Kill First by Ronen Bergman, the recent well-researched book on Mossad killings. Unz sifted that mountain and found it wanting for one excellent reason: Bergman willingly submitted his study of Mossad assassinations to … Mossad censorship. While this prudence saved Bergman’s neck from the fury of the Kidon, as the Mossad assassination unit is called, it certainly had made his mammoth book much less useful. A book on assassins censored by an assassin committee is an exercise in hagiography, not a critical appreciation of history. Unz goes for the lacunae in Bergman’s book, for the Dog that Didn’t Bark cases, like a medieval glossarist adding his valuable understanding to the otherwise obscure (or intentionally obscured) text.

Why should we be interested in the subject, at all? Unz gives a short sharp answer. Mossad assassinated more people than all the special services of other states – more than dreadful KGB, unbridled CIA and MI6 of James Bond together. “The body-count [of Mossad] exceeded the combined total for that of all other major countries in the world. I think all the lurid revelations of lethal CIA or KGB Cold War assassination plots that I have seen discussed in newspaper stories might fit comfortably into just a chapter or two of Bergman’s extremely long book”.

Such a state did exist in the past, the Assassins of Alamut that once controlled the Middle East. The Assassins drew their power from their ability and preparedness to assassinate the dynamic leaders of Crusaders and Saracens, while leaving alive only weak and passive rulers who would obey their commands. By threatening (and occasionally killing) European and American leaders, the Jews, these new Assassins, ushered us into the world of weak and corrupt politicians, who fawn to them instead of caring for voters.

What is equally important, if the WASP-ruled USA avoided assassination of opponents altogether; with the Jewish ascendancy, the tactics of the small Jewish state of Israel had been adopted by the bigger Jewish state, the US of A. “The Bush Administration had conducted 47 of these assassinations-by-another-name, while his successor Barack Obama, a constitutional scholar and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, had raised his own total to 542”, while Donald Trump upped the ante by assassinating the Iranian general. That’s why this study of Mossad assassinations has urgency, and we should follow Unz critically reading Bergman.

There are practically no new revelations in Bergman’s book – this is the first revelation of Unz. So many cases, so much detail, and not even one big case previously unknown. The suspected hits remain hidden and unmentioned. He could but he didn’t discuss the (suspected) murder of Yasser Arafat, done by the same rare radioactive isotope that killed a Russian KGB defector Litvinenko (this murder had been assigned to the Russians, though they insistently rejected the accusation), and a Brazilian Air Force officer who was assassinated in the same way by Mossad to prevent Brazil from becoming a nuclear nation. (Radioactive poisoning seems to be a Mossad’s trademark). “Bergman simply reports the categorical Israeli denials … then emphasizes that even if he knew the truth, he couldn’t publish it since his entire book was written under strict Israeli censorship”.

Bergman does his best to obscure By Way of Deception, the scary book by Victor Ostrovsky, a Mossad defector who miraculously avoided the Kidon to tell us of its memorable hits. The book is hardly mentioned (once in a footnote), while his second book, even more scary and revealing, The Other Side of Deception, is not mentioned at all, and his revelations are given a wide berth by prudent Mr Bergman. While Ostrovsky explains some Mossad’s successes by its prolific use of sayanim, that is local Jews eager to extend all the help needed, be it a safe house, a car, a loan, a transfer – the word sayan does not even appear in the index of Bergman’s book. Read the rest of this entry »

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

The Most Egregious Series of ‘Corrupt Acts’ Ever – American Thinker

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Johnny Chung described the state of affairs a bit more colorfully. “The White House is like a subway,” he told the Thompson committee. “You have to put in coins to open the gates.” Chung admitted to funneling $100,000 from the Chinese Military to the Democratic National Committee.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/02/the_most_egregious_series_of_corrupt_acts_ever.html

By Jack Cashill

“The evidence points in the direction of the president inviting Ukraine to engage in the corrupt acts of investigating a US political opponent,” House manager Adam Schiff told the U.S. Senate about a thousand times last week.

A master dissembler, Schiff said whatever he had to in his effort to remove President Trump from office. However shameful, that was his job. The media had no excuse for enabling him. Those old enough to remember the Clinton years know what “corrupt acts” by a sitting president really smell like.

In 1997, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs chaired by Sen. Fred Thompson laid out in broad terms the scope of corruption that President Bill Clinton orchestrated:

The president and his aides demeaned the offices of the president and vice president, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign sources.

Johnny Chung described the state of affairs a bit more colorfully. “The White House is like a subway,” he told the Thompson committee. “You have to put in coins to open the gates.” Chung admitted to funneling $100,000 from the Chinese Military to the Democratic National Committee.

In the runup to the 1996 election, the Clintons needed every dollar they could extort to rebound from their own scandalous missteps and the Democratic Party’s drubbing in the 1994 midterms.

I could cite a score of specific outrages during that campaign, but I will concentrate on one that, as Schiff was fond of saying, “endangered U.S. national security.” By comparison, anything the U.S. or the Ukraine suffered as a result of the celebrated funding “pause” was a trifling inconvenience.

Here are a few of the other, lesser outrages during that election cycle:

  • In February 1996, Clinton met with with Chinese arms dealer Wang Jun, a meeting greased by a $50,000 donation, a meeting even Clinton would admit was “clearly inappropriate” but only after Wang Jun’s company was caught flooding California’s inner cities with illegal semi-automatic weapons.
  • In April 1996 Clinton sent embattled Commerce Secretary Ron Brown to Croatia to broker a sweetheart deal between the neo-Fascists who ran that country and the Enron Corporation.
  • In April 1996, the Clinton White House sabotaged the investigation into the inexplicable USAF plane crash that killed Brown and 34 others.
  • In July 1996, the White House orchestrated a cover-up of the accidental missile strike on TWA Flight 800 that killed 230.
  • In September 1996 Clinton “unilaterally” declared a new 1.7 million-acre national monument in southern Utah, in the process handing his patrons, the Riady family of Indonesia, a monopoly on the world’s supply of low-sulfur coal.

Now for the bad stuff. In February 1996, a Chinese Long March 3B rocket carrying a Loral-built Intelsat 708 satellite crashed just after liftoff and killed or injured at least sixty people in a nearby village.

The Pentagon welcomed the news. Just a few months earlier, a Chinese military officer had warned American ambassador Chas Freeman, “If you hit us now, we can hit back. So you will not make those threats [about Taiwan].”

American technical advice was making Chinese missile rattling more than an empty threat. And yet in their relentless drive to raise money, the Clintons were fully prepared to broker that advice.

A month after the Long March’s failure, Clinton signed off on a “decision memorandum” that countered the State Department recommendations, voided Pentagon veto power, and awarded authority over satellite-export licensing to the deeply compromised Ron Brown at Commerce. Said an attached memo, ‘‘Industry should like the fact that they will deal with the more ‘user friendly’ Commerce system.’’

Soon after the Long March failure Loral CEO Bernard Schwartz dispatched a review team to China to assess the damage and suggest refinements. Schwartz paid for the privilege. In the 1996 cycle he gave $632,000 to the president’s reelection effort and emerged as the single largest donor to the Democratic Party.

A House Select Committee on National Security would later describe Schwartz’s actions as “an unlicensed defense service for the PRC that resulted in the improvement of the reliability of the PRC’s military rockets and ballistic missiles.”

So serious was the offense that in 1998 the Criminal Division of the Justice Department launched an investigation. Incredibly, while the investigation was in process, Sandy Berger, Clinton fixer and national security advisor, sent a memo to the president urging him to “waive the legislative restriction on the export to China of the communications satellites and related equipment for the Space Systems/Loral (SS/L) Chinasat 8 project.”

This waiver would present a huge problem for the prosecution. Berger admitted as much: “Justice believes that a jury would not convict once it learned that the president had found SS/L’s Chinasat 8 project to be in the national interest.”

But Berger was not about to let that stop him: “We will take the firm position that this waiver does not exonerate or in any way prejudge SS/L with respect to its prior unauthorized transfers to China.” Berger was blowing smoke, and he knew it. A waiver would make prosecution all but impossible.

The president could only issue a waiver, however, if it served America’s “national interest.” Berger made a comically specious case that it did, arguing satellite technology would give remote Chinese villagers access “to people and ideas in democratic societies.”

For its part, Loral had no greater cause than its own bottom line. “If a decision is not forthcoming in the next day or so, we stand to lose the contract,” Loral lobbyist Thomas Ross wrote Berger. “In fact, even if the decision is favorable, we will lose substantial amounts of money with each passing day.”

So much for the national interest. Ross then added the kicker, sure to win the president’s heart. “Bernard Schwartz had intended to raise this issue with you at the Blair dinner, but missed you in the crowd.” Schwartz knew he had a friend in the White House. The president approved the waiver, and the prosecution came to naught.

Democrats like Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi were in Congress for all of this. Schiff was there for the tail end. If they were really concerned about acts that “endangered U.S. national security” they would have moved to impeach the traitor themselves.

Be seeing you
bubba

 

 

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

Obama administration used classification for censorship before Bolton

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/04/obama-administration-has-weaponized-classification-and-censorship-before-bolton-column/4622713002/

James Bovard
Opinion columnist

Ever since the 9/11 attacks, Republicans and Democrats have conspired to keep Americans increasingly ignorant of what the federal government does. The number of secret federal documents skyrocketed, and any information classified was treated like a political holy relic that could not be exposed without dooming the nation. Ironically, the fate of the Trump presidency may hinge on perpetuating the unjustifiable secrecy now pervading Washington.

John Bolton wrote a book about his experiences as President Donald Trump’s national security adviser that could provide key information regarding Trump’s dealing with the Ukrainian government, and Democratic members of Congress are calling for the manuscript to be made public. Former government officials are obliged to submit their publications for review to ensure that no classified information is revealed. Bolton’s lawyer denies that the book contains classified information, but previous manuscript reviews of other would-be authors have dragged out for months or years.

 

Obama weaponized classification

Since the 1990s, the number of classified documents annually by federal agencies has increased more than 15 times.

In 2004, then-Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., derided the federal classification system as “incomprehensibly complex” and “so bloated it often does not distinguish between the critically important and the comically irrelevant.”

The New York Times reported in 2005 that federal agencies were “classifying documents at the rate of 125 a minute as they create new categories of semi-secrets bearing vague labels like ‘sensitive security information.’ “

Each classified document is tacitly backed by a federal iron fist ready to squash anyone who discloses it without permission. Regardless of whether the Trump White House is conniving to stifle Bolton’s disclosures, it was the Obama White House that weaponized classification. J. William Leonard, former chief of the federal Information Security Oversight Office, complained in 2011 that the Obama administration had “criminally prosecuted more leakers of purportedly classified information than all previous administrations combined.”

For the Obama administration, leaking classified information to the news media was worse than spying for a hostile government. Its Justice Department declared in 2011 that government officials who “elected to disclose the classified information publicly through the mass media” were “posing an even greater threat to society” than do foreign spies.

The Obama administration believed that its classification decrees were so sacrosanct, no federal judge could overturn them. “We don’t think there is a First Amendment right to classified documents,” Justice Department lawyer Catherine Dorsey told a federal judge in 2015.

Dorsey agreed that the government’s position was tantamount to claiming that the court “has absolutely no authority” to unseal evidence even if it’s clear the government’s bid to keep it secret is based on “irrationality” or that it’s “hiding something,” as The Intercept reported.

National security adviser John Bolton.

Classification is also a literary scourge. Hundreds of thousands of former officials and military personnel with security clearances must allow pre-publication reviews of their books and other writings. Former Justice Department lawyer Jesselyn Radack observed that pre-publication review “has always been a filter to promote fawning memoirs by senior government officials while censoring whistleblowers and critics.”

A 2019 lawsuit claimed that the pre-publication censorship vested excessive power in government officials who, according to The New York Times, “can delay or discriminate against lower-ranking people who criticize government actions, while speedily clearing favorable memoirs and other writings by retired senior officials.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, declared, “This far-reaching censorship system simply can’t be squared with the Constitution.”

Classification: A convenience for politicians to dominate media

Torturers have benefited mightily from censorship. Mark Fallon, a veteran counterintelligence officer and counterterrorism expert, wrote a book entitled  “Unjustifiable Means: The Inside Story of How the CIA, Pentagon and U.S. Government Conspired to Torture.” But his account of the torture regime was badly delayed and heavily censored. Fallon charges that books by the architects and apologists for CIA torture — including former CIA Director George Tenet, former acting general counsel John Rizzo and former Counterterrorism Center chief Jose Rodriguez — were treated better in the pre-publication process.

Similarly, when former FBI counterterrorism agent Ali Soufan wrote a book on CIA torture abuses, the CIA demanded that Soufan — who was on-site for brutal interrogations — remove the pronouns “I” and “me” from his narrative. The CIA also deleted quotes in his book that had appeared in congressional hearing transcripts.

Trump will be back:If impeachment-tainted Trump loses in 2020, he’ll be back

Classification is often a political flag of convenience that politicians exploit to dominate the media. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd observed in 2006, “The entire Iraq War was paved by (Bush administration) leaks. Cheney & Co. were so busy trying to prove a mushroom cloud was emanating from (Saddam Hussein’s) direction, they could not leak their cherry-picked stories fast enough.”

Bush administration disclosures of sensitive information were often handed on a silver platter to pliant journalists. Newsweek’s Richard Wolffe explained the Bush White House method: “They declassify when they feel like it. I’ve been with senior administration officials who have just decided to declassify something in front of me because it’s bolstering their argument.”

When federal Judge Amy Berman Jackson sentenced former Trump aide Rick Gates last month, she declared, “If people don’t have the facts, democracy doesn’t work.”

But Republicans and Democrats in Washington have long since approved denying Americans the facts millions of times a year. Unfortunately, secrecy and lying are often two sides of the same political coin.

Be seeing you

Opinion | The Broken System of Classifying Government ...

 

 

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

Is the Super Bowl Event a Reflection of Today’s American Values? – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on February 5, 2020

Professional football used to be a Sunday event for families, as they cheered on their teams. These were simple times for family fun, and politics was mostly left out of sports. These events were rarely used for agenda driven propaganda, and if that had been attempted then, support would have diminished quickly.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/02/gary-d-barnett/is-the-super-bowl-event-a-reflection-of-todays-american-values/

By

“Son, this is the United States of America. Some would say it’s unconstitutional to try to prevent psychopaths from fulfilling their potential.”  ~ Dean Koontz, Odd Thomas

One has to wonder; does the spectacle of the most watched television event in America, the Super Bowl, represent the actual thinking of the people? Is it more reality than fiction, or is it simply a show? Do the interviews, the media comments, the commercials, the display and worship of military murderers, and the half-time show express the true needs, feelings, and concerns of the general population? Over 100 million people continue to watch it, so how closely are the personalities of Americans reflected in this content?

I will preface my comments by saying that in no way am I attempting to claim moral superiority, nor do I wish to tell others how they should live their own lives. I am simply questioning once forbidden behavior and beliefs that are now openly accepted in this society. The stark differences are very troubling to be sure, especially considering the total disregard for what might be seen as past common courtesy and respect.

Studies and polls are done on a regular basis where a small percentage of people are used in order to discern the attitudes of the greater population at large. If one considers the Super Bowl viewers as a poll or study group of the average citizen, would it not be legitimate considering that 1/3 of all Americans continue to tune in every year? This is a far greater sampling than most any other scientific study by an extreme margin, so does the Super Bowl extravaganza reflect common American thought? Its obvious biases, its targeted commercials, its support of war and military, its politically motivated features, its diversity promotion, its elements of post-modernist and multiculturalist attitudes, its support of feminism, and of course the blatant sexual overtones are all evident, so might one rightfully assume that these things are supported by the viewers?

It is my guess that this does not suit all the viewers, but it is my fear that it does suit a majority of them, or at least they accept it without question, which if true would indicate a massive change in the values once held in this country. Those values were a love of family, of tradition, of beauty and art, of freedom, of peace and harmony, of independent thought, of personal responsibility, and respect for the individual. These attitudes seem to be mostly lost in this current society, and seem to have been replaced with envy, hatred, contempt for the individual, confusion, rudeness, violence, and a belief in forced egalitarian outcomes. If true, this does not bode well for the future of this country.

Professional football used to be a Sunday event for families, as they cheered on their teams. These were simple times for family fun, and politics was mostly left out of sports. These events were rarely used for agenda driven propaganda, and if that had been attempted then, support would have diminished quickly.

Fast forward to today’s Super Bowl, where families are watching, and there are transgender ads, feminist ads, ads of hate, military worship, interviews concerning so-called racism and sexism, and obnoxious political ads that are nothing less than blatant propaganda. All is agenda driven. This goes on for hours before and during the game, and finally it is halftime, that period of player rest when in earlier days bands used to play their school or team songs. But now the halftime is a sex show, where scantily clad entertainers with little real talent participate in a show that could easily be classified as adult entertainment. This year’s halftime show seemed to be a contest of who could win the award for the best example of public debauchery. I am no prude mind you, but this is a family event, and the audience includes those from small children to elderly grandparents. Is there no respect left?

One might say that this is just a football game, but is it really? It is now a politically motivated show targeted to a large audience, an audience that continues to watch every year. So is this what is desired by most Americans? Nothing is private, nothing is sacred, and everything is promoted and exposed. Every sporting event, especially this one, is used to promote multiple agendas, regardless of the setting or the nature of the content. The reality of the Super Bowl in my opinion is that it is a reflection of modern American society. This was just one championship game on a Sunday, but it exposes the attitudes and behaviors of an entire nation. This is a sad commentary on the deterioration of American society. Is this the best we can do?

“We all have the little grey cells. And so few of us know how to use them.” ~ Agatha Christie, The Adventure of the Italian Nobleman: A Short Story

Be seeing you

America's sport

Government’s favorite sport-War

 

 

 

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

White Helmets are ‘preparing chemical attack false-flag’ in Syria’s Idlib, Russian military tipped off — RT World News

Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2020

True or not…we shall see.

About 15 ‘White Helmets’ were spotted in the town, alongside militants from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – an Al-Qaeda affiliate previously known as Al-Nusra – said two local residents, adding that two vehicles have delivered about 400 liters (100 gallons) of chemicals to the town.

https://www.rt.com/news/480004-syria-chemical-attack-warning/

Militants affiliated with al-Qaeda and ‘White Helmets’ are preparing to stage a chemical attack in Idlib province as Syrian army continues to advance, the Russian Reconciliation Center said citing a tip from local residents.

Members of the self-styled civil defense group, which operates solely in territories controlled by anti-government militants, were noticed arriving at the town of Ma’arat al-Artik, about 11 kilometers (7 miles) northwest of Aleppo. According to the call that came in on the reconciliation center’s hotline on Monday evening, they were preparing a “provocation with the use of poisonous agents.”

About 15 ‘White Helmets’ were spotted in the town, alongside militants from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) – an Al-Qaeda affiliate previously known as Al-Nusra – said two local residents, adding that two vehicles have delivered about 400 liters (100 gallons) of chemicals to the town.

Some 200 people, including children – mostly family members of HTS militants, which had been evacuated to Idlib from elsewhere in Syria – could be involved in staging the false-flag chemical attacks, the tipsters said.

The Reconciliation Center named the militant commander involved in the plan as Mahi al-Din al-Am, saying it was the same man who helped stage and film the graphic aftermath of the alleged chemical attack at Khan Shaykhun in April 2017.

The center called on the militants to abandon their “criminal plan” and called on Turkey – which recently sent troops into militant-controlled Idlib – to exert “all possible pressure” to prevent a false flag.

 

A number of “chemical attacks” in Syria have been blamed on the government in Damascus over the course of the war, which began in 2011. They happen to take place every time the Syrian army is advancing against the militants, who have tried time and again to attract Western military intervention on their behalf.

Following the 2017 Khan Shaykhun incident, the US launched missiles against Syria; another air and missile attack was launched in April 2018, after an “attack” at Douma near Damascus. Though the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) eventually said the Douma attack may have happened, whistleblowers have recently made public that evidence in the case was doctored to reach that conclusion, while skeptical assessments of OPCW’s in-house experts were ignored.

Be seeing you

Were the Nice Attacks A False Flag Or A Lone Nut?

 

 

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

‘To Meghan Markle’ is now a verb, and for some reason it doesn’t mean ‘to play victim despite sitting pretty’ — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on February 4, 2020

Today’s fun with words

It turns out the Urban Dictionary has had ‘to Meghan Markle’ as a verb there since 2018 – and the top definition is “Verb for ghosting or disposing people once you have no use or benefit from them anymore without any regard to genuine human relationships,” with examples like: “She did a Meghan Markle on her friends as soon as she became famous.” The new one has been entered there as well, but is struggling with only a couple dozen upvotes so far.

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/479576-meghan-markle-princess-verb/

Barbara McCarthy
In the trend of modern-day idolatrous word-building, attempts have been made to turn the name of not-quite-princess Meghan Markle, of recent fame for quitting the Royal Family and taking her husband with her, into a verb.

So, has anyone ‘Meghan Markled’today?

Does that mean: ‘to be a victim, despite prince charming, a baby and endless wealth’? Or perhaps it’s short for: ‘martyring someone who acts like a Hollywood princess who voluntarily entered into a life of duty and tradition, only to withdraw 20 months later because things didn’t go her way’?

No, the verb ‘to Meghan Markle,’ which was created on Twitter, then was picked up and shared by British Radio One DJ Jameela Jamil, means: “To value yourself and your mental health enough to up and leave a room/ situation/ environment in which your authentic self is not welcomed or wanted.”

When such groundbreaking urban speak is being thrust upon us, where else to turn if not the Guardian for further enlightenment.

The author of a piece entitled ‘To Meghan Markle’ is now a verb – here’s how to use it’, Poppy Noor, says Meghan Markle could be referred to in some circles as “the patron saint of good mental health,” due to her “putting up with racism and vilification by certain ‘right-wing’ media.”

 

She asks, “Why shouldn’t a word be made for a person who not only realises when love is not returned, but when to get the hell out?” and then suggests using phrases like: “Man, when I go out tonight, I am so going to Meghan Markle it,” at a party, before “going home early, getting eight hours of sleep and not texting your ex.”

There are a few takeaways from this – firstly, reading the Guardian is bad for your mental health. Secondly, do men ever write or read this kind of stuff? No. It’s undoing stellar work from previous generations of women, and it’s making fools of us.

Thirdly, a “patron saint of good mental health”? What happened to the holy grail of sanity – the combination of not being affected by other people’s insecurities or peccadillos and not letting your emotions trick you? Has anyone noticed how the Dalai Lama doesn’t fall out with people? Some of his musings have included: “Do not let the behavior of others destroy your inner peace,” and: “I defeat my enemies when I make them my friends.”

Most of us can only aspire to achieve this level of inner calm, and clearly so can Meghan – just look at how none of her inconvenient-for-public-image family members appeared at her wedding in Windsor in May 2018 – except her mother, Doria Loyce Ragland, grandmother of Archie, who is seventh in line for the throne.

Ms. Markle has had her fair share of tumult from her side of the family, but after a relatively brief run of giving the gilded life a go, she ‘freed’ her prince from his family, because the thousand-year-old institution refused to change for her at the drop of a hat. Not to worry though, she got an enormous boost to her publicity for her trouble.

Despite being lauded by some, not everyone seems to admire the “the modern princess for our time,” often referred to as a true ‘breath of fresh air’ for the double standards she lives by. Lecturing us plebs on climate change, while taking four private jet flights in a handful of days, telling us to give her privacy, while globally trademarking her ‘Sussex Royal’ brand didn’t go down too well with everyone. Broadcaster Eamonn Holmes, once reprimanded for calling her “uppity,” in a recent interview expanded the description to include “awful, woke, weak, manipulative, spoilt and irritating.”

RT

It’s certainly a far cry from the ‘to Meghan Markle’ peddled by the faux dictionary of Twitter and the Guardian.

But wait, we already have an online dictionary for neologisms like that: the collectively-edited Urban Dictionary. Let’s see if its thousands-strong community shares in the adoration.

It turns out the Urban Dictionary has had ‘to Meghan Markle’ as a verb there since 2018 – and the top definition is “Verb for ghosting or disposing people once you have no use or benefit from them anymore without any regard to genuine human relationships,” with examples like: “She did a Meghan Markle on her friends as soon as she became famous.” The new one has been entered there as well, but is struggling with only a couple dozen upvotes so far.

Meanwhile, also on Twitter, ‘to Meghansplain’ has appeared. It means, “to come up with a rationale and/or justification for Meghan Markle to convince the Royals to allow her to destroy the Royal Family while at the same time disrespect the throne.”

Oh dear.

Perhaps, before you start ‘Meghan Markling’, why not move away from idolising people you don’t know at all, and who don’t know or care about you? Who needs ‘to Meghan Markle?’ What’s with putting celebrities on a pedestal? Why not just have the confidence to do your own thing? Is that not what empowered feminism is all about?

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

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