"No. This party should not, in any way, do anything to work around Ms. Harris. We should do everything we can to bolster her whether she's in second place or at the top of the ticket."
CTH | James Clyburn and Barack Obama are the two democrats who could
unilaterally remove Joe Biden by withdrawing their support. It must
frustrate Jill Biden to know The Lightbringer and the Ballot Master have
that kind of leverage over her appointments at Tiffanys.
As a result of this dynamic, we remind everyone to pay close attention to how Clyburn and Obama are indicating their position.
Additionally, it is worth remembering how Obama and Clyburn agreed on
Kamala Harris as the VP selection in 2020, and informed Joe Biden who
would be on his ticket. The Jussie Smollet operation was still active
when Kamala was installed with Biden.
During an MSNBC interview today, James Clyburn expressed support for
Kamala Harris to ascend the top of the ticket if Biden makes the
decision to remove himself.
Keep in mind, Biden will not quit. The decision to exit will be made
for Biden, and within the departure process all deference will be given
to the Biden group to shape their exit.
The Obama/Clyburn professionally Democratic power brokers within the
DNC collective will make the decision; Biden will just be given the
opportunity to make it look like it’s his choice. That’s the way
Democrats roll.
WOW 🚨 On The Record Testimony & Evidence That Barack Obama Created An Illegal Psyop Against The American People To Interfere In Future Elections
“2 days ago, my colleagues and I published the 1st batch of internal files from the Cyber Threat Intelligence League, which show US… pic.twitter.com/1d2WpWcNe8
twitter |Oh wait until the truth gets out on ALL the things started by Obama.
That is of course if they don’t double down using new resources to mass censor and play psyops games on American citizens again.
Obama was pissed when Trump won because Obama had almost completed everything going on right now. Trump stopped it. Well delayed it that is. Trump cut funding to the WHO and stopped the Obama DOD Biodefense Council from fully being formed. It is now formed under Biden using your tax dollars.
Did the Obama and Biden Administration lay down an impressive enforcement foundation for the W.H.O., Climate agendas, global health agendas and World Economic Forum ideologies using the NDAA and DOD?
Lets break it down into a few parts:
FY23 NDAA:
Fiscal Year 2023 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) W.H.O. & Pandemic Preparedness
Did our representatives use the NDAA to establish foundations for a massive power grab under the W.H.O. U.N. Under the guise of pandemic preparedness, climate crisis & global health?
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew1315/p/fiscal-year-2023-national-defense?r=2z8r4w&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
DOD CONTRACTS WITH BIG TECH AND PRIVATE CORPORATIONS FOR THINGS LIKE “DISINFORMATION” AI SOFTWARE
BIDEN EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOR THINGS LIKE FCC, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REGULATIONS, DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT FOR GREEN AGENDAS DOD contracts with Big Tech and private corporations for “disinformation” control Alethia, LCK strategies, Accrete - Biden Administration Executive orders and FCC changes
Have they established a massive tool for the Censorship Industrial Complex?
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew1315/p/biolabs-in-wuhan-china-odessa-ukraine?r=2z8r4w&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
OBAMA, BIDEN, FAUCI CONNECTIONS WITH BIOLABS IN WUHAN, CHINA, ODESSA, UKRAINE, AND NIH LAB IN HAMILTON MONTANA IN REGARDS TO CORONAVIRUS AND OTHER ZOONOTIC THREATS
https://open.substack.com/pub/matthew131
WaPo | President Biden
will appoint a former commerce secretary, Penny Pritzker, to be special
representative for Ukraine’s economic recovery, a new position that
signals the Biden administration’s concern about the country’s long-term
economic survival even as its war with Russia grinds on.
In
a statement, Mr. Biden said that Ms. Pritzker “will drive the United
States’ efforts to help rebuild the Ukrainian economy” by working with
Ukraine’s government along with U.S. allies, international financial
institutions and the private sector.
Ms.
Pritzker, 64, will encourage pro-investment strategies in Ukraine while
also drumming up public and private investment from other nations,
according to a senior administration official, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity because the appointment was not yet official. She
plans to travel to the country in the coming weeks to begin assessing
the state of its economy and to meet with political and business
leaders.
The White House will announce
the appointment on Thursday. Ms. Pritzker will work from the State
Department, reporting to Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken.
The appointment comes as attention in the United States and Europe
increasingly turns toward Ukraine’s survival in economic as well as
military terms. A report in March by the World Bank
found that rebuilding the country’s badly damaged infrastructure and
gutted urban areas could cost more than $400 billion over a decade.
Group of 7 member nations have just begun sketching out how that undertaking might work, especially with Russian forces occupying large portions of Ukraine.
Mr. Blinken added in a statement that Ms.
Pritzker would be central to the effort to ensure “that Ukraine not
only survives but thrives, standing on its own.” He said the goal was to
turn the country into “a prosperous, secure, European democracy.”
Ms.
Pritzker hails from a prominent Chicago family known for its business
empire and longtime influence within the Democratic Party. Her brother,
J.B. Pritzker, is the Democratic governor of Illinois. Their father,
Donald, was a co-founder of the Hyatt hotel company.
Ms. Pritzker started several business
ventures of her own, and as President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary
from 2013-17, she was known for her close relationships with business
leaders across the United States. She is also on the board of Microsoft
and a former chairwoman of the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace.
She played an important role in
Mr. Obama’s rise through Illinois and national politics, using her
contacts to help raise hundreds of millions of dollars for his
campaigns. In a January 2020 endorsement of Mr. Biden’s presidential
candidacy, she noted that she had known Mr. Biden for more than 20
years.
Superior opened in 1988 under conditions created by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board,
which made generous arrangements for the takeover of several failed
thrifts. The bank was a 50-50 partnership between the Pritzkers (the
elder Jay, Penny and Thomas) and real estate investor Alvin Dworman,
who ran Superior from his New York office after Jay Pritzker's death in
1997. The Pritzkers and Dworman bought the failed Lyons Federal for the
relatively modest price of $42.5 million, with each using a shell
corporation to control half of Coast-to-Coast Financial Corporation
(CCFC), a holding company created to own Superior.
In July 2001, Superior was seized by federal banking regulators
after the Pritzkers reneged on a recapitalization program. The Pritzker
family entered into a $460 million, 15 year, interest-free settlement in
December 2001 to protect the family's business reputation and avoid
civil forfeiture and litigation. At the time, Superior Bank was the
largest bank failure in more than a decade. As of March 2012, former
Superior Bank depositors are still owed over $10 million.
Superior Bank suffered as a result
of its former high-risk business strategy, which was focused on the
generation of significant volumes of subprime mortgage and automobile
loans for securitization and sale in the secondary market. OTS found
that the bank also suffered from poor lending practices, improper record
keeping and accounting, and ineffective board and management
supervision.[1]
George Kaufman, a finance professor at Loyola University Chicago
called Superior's failure "a tale of gross mismanagement," adding that
"[Superior] was engaged in relatively unethical practices,
fancy-footwork accounting, playing it very close to the edge."[3]
Kaufman says many share in the blame for the mess-the bank's
managers, directors, and auditors, as well as banking regulators-but he
also wonders how the Pritzkers, as co-owners, could have allowed it to
happen. "One of the great mysteries to me is what the Pritzkers were up
to, why they took these chances," he said. "It makes no sense given
their wealth and visibility."[3]
Settlement by the Pritzkers
In
December 2001, the Pritzkers agreed to pay a record $460 million to the
federal government to avoid being punished for the failure of Superior
Bank FSB.[4]
It was a 15-year, interest-free settlement that granted the Pritzkers a
share of the government's settlement with the bank's former
accountants. In June 2012, news reports revealed that the Pritzker
family received a discount in 2011 on the 2001 settlement.
According to The Washington Times,
"But after paying $316 million of the interest-free debt, the family
quietly struck a deal with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) in
June 2011 to discount the balance in return for paying off the debt
early. Ms. Sweet and Mr. Courtney are among 1,400 depositors still owed
$10.3 million at the end of March, records show. The FDIC Insurance Fund
is still out $296 million after paying off Superior’s insured
depositors. It is highly unlikely the remaining depositors or the FDIC
will receive much more money since nearly all of the settlement funds
have been paid out, according to records and interviews."[5]
“'The depositors got nicked coming, going and after the fact,'”
said Clinton Krislov, a lawyer who represents depositors whose accounts
exceeded the $100,000 covered by FDIC insurance. “'The depositors have
gotten all they will from the Pritzkers.'”
RICO lawsuit
In 2002 uninsured depositors filed federal class-action charges under the RICO Act against one-time board chairwoman Penny Pritzker, her cousin Thomas Pritzker, Dworman, other bank principals and Ernst & Young. Plaintiffs’ attorney Clint Krislov
claimed that those who controlled Superior induced depositors to put
money in the bank, “corruptly” funneling money out of the bank to
“fraudulently” profit the owners.
[6] The lawsuit, Courtney v. Hallerin was initially filed under a district court which dismissed the claims;[7] the appeal was argued before the 7th Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals on September 25, 2006. In her May 7, 2007 opinion, Judge Wood affirmed the lower court's decision.
reason | Although the debate over Barack Obama's national identity ended with
the release of his long-form birth certificate, questions about his
political identity continue. Is he a socialist, a New Deal liberal, a
neoliberal, a neoconservative, a fascist, an Uncle Tom, a black
nationalist, or just an unprincipled coward? Does he identify with
whites, with blacks, or, as Cornel West recently claimed, with Jews?
Does he want an accountable or monarchical executive branch? Does he
side with investment bankers or with foreclosed mortgagers? Does he
really believe in God? If so, which one?
Obama's apparent
inconsistency on several issues has helped fuel the public debate over
his beliefs. But if anything in Obama's rhetoric and policies has been
constant, it is his devotion to the American empire. Throughout the
presidential campaign, he promised to fulfill the mission of his heroes,
Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy: strengthening
American influence across the world. Obama declared that, like the
globalist American leaders of the past, "we must embrace America's
singular role in the course of human events."
Many of the candidate's most loyal supporters were veterans of the
movements against U.S. interventions in Southeast Asia and Central
America, but Obama himself flatly asserted that the United States "has
been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever
known" and therefore "must lead the world, by deed and example." Before
audiences who somehow saw him as a peace candidate, he lauded Franklin
Roosevelt for building "the most formidable military the world has ever
seen" and promised to continue the tradition. As lifelong peaceniks
plastered his face on their cars and homes and made their children march
in parades for him, the candidate made it clear, in speeches, articles,
and the 2008 Democratic National Platform, that if elected he would
seek to enlarge the Army and Marine Corps, increase military spending,
and escalate the war in Afghanistan.
Similarly, 10 months after
taking office, Obama used the Nobel Peace Prize to declare war on
potentially most of the world. In his October 2009 acceptance speech,
the president pledged to go "beyond self-defense"—with armed
intervention when necessary—anywhere "the inherent rights and dignity of
every individual" are denied. Moreover, he ominously asserted that
economic development "rarely takes root without security" and that
"military leaders in my own country" believe that "our common security
hangs in the balance" so long as climate change is not swiftly and
forcefully addressed. Seldom has a political leader delivered such a
strident and comprehensive call for American hegemony.
As we now
know, Obama's imperial rhetoric was not empty. With the cooperation of
both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, he did in fact increase
Pentagon spending and expand the Army and Marine Corps to create the
largest and most powerful military in the history of the world, tripled
down in Afghanistan and Pakistan, launched new military operations in
Libya, Yemen, and Somalia, and maintained 50,000 troops in Iraq.
Clearly, anyone who saw Obama as a peacemaker simply did not listen to
what he was saying. But his commitment to preserving and expanding the
American empire should also be no surprise to anyone familiar with the
facts of his childhood. Obama is, after all, the empire's son. Neither New York Times
reporter Janny Scott nor conservative public intellectual Dinesh
D'Souza—the authors of books on Obama's mother and father,
respectively—understand this. But for anyone with knowledge of the
involvement of the United States in Indonesia and Kenya during Obama's
childhood, the information Scott and D'Souza provide makes it clear that
Obama is fundamentally a product of American imperialism.
salon | It’s one of the enduring mysteries of Barack Obama’s presidency, as
it sinks toward the sunset: How did this suave and intelligent guy, with
the cosmopolitan demeanor, the sardonic sense of humor and the instinct
for an irresistible photo-op, end up running the most hidden, most
clandestine and most secrecy-obsessed administration in American
history? And what does the fact that nobody in the 2016 campaign — not
Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, not anybody — ever talks about this
mean for the future? The answer to the second question is easy: Nothing
good. The answer to the first one might be that those things are
unrelated: Personality doesn’t tell us anything about policy, and our
superficial judgments about political leaders are often meaningless.
Bill Moyers warned me about this some years ago, when I asked him how
he evaluated George W. Bush as a person. He wasn’t much interested in
character or personality in politics, he said. Lyndon Johnson had been
one of the most difficult people he’d ever known, and Moyers had never
liked him, but Johnson was an extraordinarily effective politician. I
wasn’t sharp enough to ask the obvious follow-up question, which was
whether Johnson’s personal flaws had fed into his disastrous policy
errors in Vietnam.
Bill Moyers has forgotten more about politics than I will ever know, but the thing is, I do
perceive a relationship between surface and substance, and I believe we
learn something important about people almost right away. George W.
Bush was profoundly incurious about the world, and insulated by layers
of smarter people and money. Richard Nixon was always a creep. Bill
Clinton wanted to make you cry and get your panties off. Ronald Reagan
never had any idea what day it was. Barack Obama seems like a smart,
funny, cool guy, and maybe he’s too much of all those things for his own
good. Maybe we will look back decades from now and perceive the Obama
paradox — the baffling relationship between his appealing persona and
his abysmal record on surveillance, government secrecy and national
security — in a different light. For one thing, whatever they told him
between November of 2008 and January of 2009 must have been really
scary.
I called up John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who spent 23 months in
federal prison thinking this stuff over, to see if he could help.
Kiriakou is one of the nine government leakers or whistleblowers that
the Obama White House and/or the Justice Department has sought to
prosecute under the Espionage Act, a law passed under Woodrow Wilson
during World War I that was meant to target double agents working for
foreign governments. (Among the other eight actual or prospective
defendants are Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden.) Under all previous
presidents, incurious George included, the Espionage Act was used for
that purpose exactly three times. If you’re keeping score, that’s nine
attempted prosecutions in seven years, versus three in 91 years.
Kiriakou had a whole lot to say, especially about former Attorney
General Eric Holder and current CIA director John Brennan, whom he sees
as the prime movers behind the administration’s secrets-and-lies agenda —
and also as the guys who railroaded him over what he describes as a
minor indiscretion. Kiriakou spent 15 years in the CIA, first as an
analyst and then as a covert operative. He was involved in the capture
of Abu Zubaydah, and apparently knew that the alleged senior al-Qaida
operative was waterboarded by CIA interrogators, although he was not
directly involved.
BAR | I think that President Obama’s attempt to destabilize Russia will be
seen by history as disastrous as George Bush’s invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Like the Iraq war, the de facto declaration of “war by other
means” against Russia will accelerate the very dynamic that it intends
to halt: the steady weakening of U.S. imperialism’s grip on the world.
It will increase the resolve of a host of nations to disengage
themselves from American madness and to strengthen collaboration and
cooperation among many countries, and not just Russia and China.
The result will be the exact opposite of Washington’s intention. The
attempt to isolate and destabilize Russia, the other nuclear superpower,
may appear to some to be an act of brashness, a flexing of American
muscle, an act of imperial overconfidence and recklessness. People
thought the same thing when Bush went into Iraq. They were shocked and
more than a little bit awed. [1] In
fact, sometimes I think that Americans are more shocked and awed by the
American military than anybody else. But the Iraq invasion, and the
brazen offensive against Russia, as well as the so-called “Pivot Against
China” and the octopus-like U.S. military entrenchment in Africa —
these are really symptoms of weakness and desperation.
U.S. Imperialism is losing its grip on the world and responds to its
weakening condition with massive campaigns of destabilization.
Destabilization characterizes U.S. foreign policy today more than any
other word. The purpose is to reverse the general dynamic of global
affairs today in which U.S. influence and power shrinks in relative
terms as the rest of the world develops. U.S. and European hegemony —
and that is the ability to dictate the terms of economic and political
life on the planet — has daily diminished in myriad objective ways, ways
that we can measure by the numbers. China’s soon-to-be status as the
world’s biggest economy is just one aspect of that decline.
The process is inexorable and it’s gaining momentum. The trajectory
of imperial decline has been firmly set ever since the Western
capitalists decided to move the production of things — that, is the
industrial base — to the South and the rest of the planet. Inevitably
power and influence follow and imperial hegemony diminishes. This is of
course unacceptable to the rulers of the United States who now find
themselves in objective opposition to all manifestations of
collaboration and mutual development under terms that are not dictated
by Washington. They are in objective opposition to all manifestations of
independence by countries in the world. This applies not just to China,
not just to China and Russia, but to the rest of the BRICS and to other
developing nations. And it even applies to America’s closest allies.
That is because hegemons don’t really have allies. All they have are
subordinates, and so the U.S. is quite prepared to do serious harm to
European economic interests by pressuring them to break long established
economic ties to Russia. They will ultimately do the same thing in the
pacific region with China and cause great destabilization there. They do
so not because of strength but because of growing relative weakness.
Their desperation compels them to risk war because their only clear
superiority is in weapons.
However, the net end result, if we survive these flirtations with
all-out war, can only be further isolation of the United States and the
further weakening of imperialism. I think there is on what passes for
the left in the United States a tendency to describe U.S. aggressions
like the Iraq war, like the current offensive against Russia, as
mistakes and miscalculations: “They didn’t mean to do that.”
In reality the U.S. goes to the brink and beyond the brink of war
because it perceives itself as having no other choice. Its soft power is
fading. It has few other means beyond the military to strategically
influence events. It recruits or buys allies where it can get them, be
it jihadists or Nazis. As imperialism’s sway in the world shrinks, so do
its options.
commondreams | "Warren
Buffett, the owner of BNSF Railway's parent company, worth $100
billion, must intervene," said the Vermont senator. "During the
pandemic, Mr. Buffett became $36 billion richer."
With rail workers on
the verge of launching a national strike over atrocious conditions and a
lack of sick days, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday called on billionaire
Warren Buffett to intervene and ensure that BNSF Railway—a company
owned by Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway—offers its employees adequate pay
and quality-of-life policies as negotiations remain stalled.
"In
the midst of a potential rail strike, Warren Buffett, the owner of BNSF
Railway's parent company, worth $100 billion, must intervene," Sanders
(I-Vt.) wrote on social media. "During the pandemic, Mr. Buffett became
$36 billion richer. He must ensure that rail workers receive decent
wages and safe working conditions."
"The railroad industry, which made $20 billion in profits last year, cannot continue to deny workers paid sick leave."
Buffett—who
famously said "there's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the
rich class, that's making war, and we're winning"—has previously dismissed Sanders' requests to step in on the side of workers in contract disputes involving the billionaire investor's companies.
Members
of several national U.S. rail unions could go on strike Friday as
freight rail carriers refuse to budge on workers' push for changes to
attendance policies that the unions say are "destroying the lives of our
members." BNSF and Union Pacific Railroad both have points-based attendance policies that penalize employees even if they're forced to take a day off due to a family emergency or doctor's visit.
"Penalizing
engineers and conductors for getting sick or going to a doctor's visit
with termination must be stopped as part of this contract settlement,"
the heads of SMART Transportation Division and the Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen said
in a statement Sunday. "Let us repeat that, our members are being
terminated for getting sick or for attending routine medical visits as
we crawl our way out of a worldwide pandemic."
Sanders, the chair of the Senate Budget Committee and a longtime ally of the labor movement, spotlighted
the rail workers' fight for better conditions on Tuesday, declaring
that "the railroad industry, which made $20 billion in profits last
year, cannot continue to deny workers paid sick leave."
"It is
unacceptable and dangerous for conductors and engineers to be on call
for 14 consecutive days, 12 hours a day, and then get fired for going to
a doctor," the senator added.
jonathanturley | In the cult classic, “The Incredible Shrinking Man,” the
character Scott Stuart is caught in a thick fog that causes him to
gradually shrink to the point that he lives in a doll house and fights
off the house cat. At one point, Stuart delivers a strikingly profound line: “The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet — like the closing of a gigantic circle.”
If one image sums up the incredibly shrinking stature of Attorney General Merrick Garland, it is that line in the aftermath of the Mar-a-Lago search.
Two years ago, I was one of many who supported Garland when
he was nominated for attorney general. While his personality seemed a
better fit for the courts than the Cabinet, he is a person with
unimpeachable integrity and ethics.
If there are now doubts, it is not about his character but his
personality in dealing with political controversies. Those concerns have
grown in the past week.
In the aftermath of the FBI’s search of former President Donald Trump’s home in Florida, much remains unclear. The inventory list confirms that there were documents marked TS (Top Secret) and SCI (Sensitive Compartmented Information)
—two of the highest classification levels for materials. The former
president’s retention of such documents would appear to be a very
serious violation.
However, the status of the documents is uncertain after Trump
insisted that he declassified the material and was handling the
records in accordance with prior discussions with the FBI. While the
declassified status of these documents would not bar charges under the
cited criminal provisions, it could have a significant impact on the viability of any prosecution.
I have not assumed that the search of Mar-a-Lago was unwarranted
given that we have not seen the underlying affidavit. Yet in
another controversy, Garland seemed largely reactive and rote in dealing
with questions over bias or abuse in his department.
In his confirmation hearing, Garland repeatedly pledged that
political considerations would hold no sway with him as attorney
general. Yet, in just two years, the Justice Department has careened
from one political controversy to another without any sign that Garland
is firmly in control of the department. Last year, for example, Garland
was heavily criticized for his rapid deployment of a task force to investigate parents and others challenging school boards.
By refusing a special counsel, Garland has removed the president’s
greatest threat. Unlike the U.S. Attorney investigating Hunter Biden, a
special counsel would be expected to publish a report that would detail
the scope of the Biden family’s alleged influence peddling and foreign
contacts.
Likewise, the Justice Department is conducting a grand jury
investigation that is aggressively pursuing Trump associates and
Republican figures, including seizing the telephones of members of Congress. That investigation has bearing on the integrity and the status of Biden’s potential opponent in 2024.
The investigation also has triggered concerns over the party in
power investigating the opposing political party. It is breathtaking
that Garland would see no need for an independent or special counsel
given this country’s continued deep divisions and mistrust.
Then came the raid. While Garland said he personally approved the
operation, he did little to help mitigate the inevitable political
explosion. This country is a powder keg and the FBI has a documented history of false statements to courts and falsified evidence in support of a previous Trump investigation.
moderndiplomacy | The Ukrainian war started when the democratically elected
President of Ukraine (an infamously corrupt country), who was committed
to keeping his country internationally neutral (not allied with either
Russia or the United States), met privately with both the U.S. President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
in 2010, shortly after that Ukrainian President’s election earlier in
2010; and, on both occasions, he rejected their urgings for Ukraine to
become allied with the United States against his adjoining country
Russia. This was being urged upon him so that America could position its
nuclear missiles at the Russian border with Ukraine, less than a
five-minute striking-distance away from hitting the Kremlin in Moscow.
On 1 March 2013 inside
America’s Embassy to Ukraine in Kiev, a series of “Tech Camps” started
to be held, in order to train those Ukrainian nazis for their leadership
of Ukraine’s ‘anti-corruption’ organizing. Simultaneously, under Polish
Government authorization, the CIA was training in Poland the military
Right Sector leaders how to lead the coming U.S. coup in neighboring
Ukraine. As the independent Polish investigative journalist Marek
Miszczuk headlined for the Polish magazine NIE (“meaning “NO”) (the original article being in Polish): “Maidan secret state secret: Polish training camp for Ukrainians”. The article was published 14 April 2014. Excerpts:
An informant who introduced himself as Wowa called the “NIE”
editorial office with the information that the Maidan rebels in Wrocław
are neo-fascists … [with] tattooed swastikas, swords, eagles and crosses
with unambiguous meaning. … Wowa pleadingly announced that photos of
members of the Right Sector must not appear in the press. … 86 fighters
from the then prepared Euromaidan flew over the Vistula River in
September 2013 at the invitation of the Polish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. The pretext was to start cooperation between the Warsaw
University of Technology and the National University of Technology in
Kiev. But they were in Poland to receive special training to overthrow
Ukraine’s government. … Day 3 and 4 – theoretical classes: crowd
management, target selection, tactics and leadership. Day 5 – training
in behavior in stressful situations. Day 6 – free without leaving the
center. Day 7 – pre-medical help. Day 8 – protection against irritating
gases. Day 9 – building barricades. And so on and on for almost 25 days.
The program includes … classes at the shooting range (including three
times with sniper rifles!), tactical and practical training in the
assault on buildings. …
Excited by the importance of the information that was presented to me, I started to verify it.
The Office of the Press Spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs refused to answer the questions about the student exchange
without giving any reason. It did not want to disclose whether it had
actually invited dozens of neo-fascists to Poland to teach them how to
overthrow the legal Ukrainian authorities. …
Let us summarize: in September 2013, according to the information
presented to me, several dozen Ukrainian students of the Polytechnic
University will come to Poland, at the invitation of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs. In fact, they are members of the Right Sector, an
extreme right-wing and nationalist Ukrainian group led by Dmytro Jarosz –
he declined to comment on his visit to Legionowo.
Poland’s ‘fact-checking’ organization is (appropriately) titled demagog dot org (Demagog Association), and it is funded by the Stefan Batory Foundation. Demagog’s article about that NIE
news-report rated it “NIEWERYFIKOWALNE” or “ NOT VERIFIABLE”. The sole
reason given was: “The Ministry [of Foreign Affairs] strongly opposes
such news, emphasizing that the weekly (magazine) has violated not only
the principles of good taste, but also raison d’etat (reasons of
state).” No facts that were alleged in Miszczuk’s article were even
mentioned, much less disproven. How can his article be “unverifiable” if
the evidence that it refers to isn’t so much as even being checked?
WaPo | Almost all conversations about roadblocks Trump faces or opposition to
his initiatives centered on what was perceived as the media’s biased
portrayal of him and his administration, rather than on anything the
Democrats were doing.
Republicans and conservatives have grumbled about unfair coverage
from the “mainstream media” for decades. But the Trump era has brought
us to a new plateau, one where the media has moved from adversarial to
oppositional. Many observers, on both right and left, have come to see
the media as the leader of the resistance.
If you care about
journalism, it’s a disturbing trend. Many in the media would undoubtedly
lay much of the blame on Trump’s “fake news” attacks. But peruse the
pages or websites of most of our nation’s leading news providers, and
it’s easy to understand why such a perception has taken hold, apart from
Trump’s claims.
Former Democratic president Jimmy Carter’s widely reported comments in Maureen Dowd’s recent New York Times column about the media’s coverage of Trump were a welcome acknowledgment of the obvious from someone other than a Trump loyalist.
“I
think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president
certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter said. “I think they feel free
to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without
hesitation.”
That’s what you would expect from the opposition party. The problem is, headlines accusing Trump of “sabotage,” “lies”
and more are not uncommon from our major media outlets. That’s why I
was curious whether the DNC was still bothering to employ a press staff
when it has been made so redundant.
Kahneman | Another scholar and friend whom I greatly admire, Cass Sunstein,
disagrees sharply with Slovic’s stance on the different views of
experts and citizens, and defends the role of experts as a bulwark
against “populist” excesses. Sunstein is one of the foremost legal
scholars in the United States, and shares with other leaders of his
profession the attribute of intellectual fearlessness. He knows he can
master any body of knowledge quickly and thoroughly, and he has
mastered many, including both the psychology of judgment and choice and
issues of regulation and risk policy. His view is that the existing
system of regulation in the United States displays a very poor setting
of priorities, which reflects reaction to public pressures more than
careful objective analysis. He starts from the position that risk
regulation and government intervention to reduce risks should be guided
by rational weighting of costs and benefits, and that the natural units
for this analysis are the number of lives saved (or perhaps the number
of life-years saved, which gives more weight to saving the young) and
the dollar cost to the economy. Poor regulation is wasteful of lives
and money, both of which can be measured objectively. Sunstein has not
been persuaded by Slovic’s argument that risk and its measurement is
subjective. Many aspects of risk assessment are debatable, but he has
faith in the objectivity that may be achieved by science, expertise,
and careful deliberation.
Sunstein came to believe that biased reactions to risks are an
important source of erratic and misplaced priorities in public policy.
Lawmakers and regulators may be overly responsive to the irrational
concerns of citizens, both because of political sensitivity and because
they are prone to the same cognitive biases as other citizens.
Sunstein and a collaborator, the jurist Timur Kuran, invented a name
for the mechanism through which biases flow into policy: the
availability cascade. They comment that in the social context, “all
heuristics are equal, but availability is more equal than the others.”
They have in mind an expanded notion of the heuristic, in which
availability provides a heuristic for judgments other than frequency.
In particular, the importance of an idea is often judged by the fluency
(and emotional charge) with which that idea comes to mind.
An availability cascade is a self-sustaining chain of events, which may
start from media reports of a relatively minor event and lead up to
public panic and large-scale government action. On some occasions, a
media story about a risk catches the attention of a segment of the
public, which becomes aroused and worried. This emotional reaction
becomes a story in itself, prompting additional coverage in the media,
which in turn produces greater concern and involvement. The cycle is
sometimes sped along deliberately by “availability entrepreneurs,”
individuals or organizations who work to ensure a continuous flow of
worrying news. The danger is increasingly exaggerated as the media
compete for attention-grabbing headlines. Scientists and others who try
to dampen the increasing fear and revulsion attract little attention,
most of it hostile: anyone who claims that the danger is overstated is
suspected of association with a “heinous cover-up.” The issue becomes
politically important because it is on everyone’s mind, and the
response of the political system is guided by the intensity of public
sentiment. The availability cascade has now reset priorities. Other
risks, and other ways that resources could be applied for the public
good, all have faded into the background.
stanford | In his keynote, Obama reflected on how technology has transformed the
way people create and consume media. Digital and social media companies
have upended traditional media – from local newspapers to broadcast
television, as well as the role these outlets played in society at
large.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the American public tuned in to one of
three major networks, and while media from those earlier eras had their
own set of problems – such as excluding women and people of color – they
did provide people with a shared culture, Obama said.
Moreover, these media institutions, with established journalistic
best practices for accuracy and accountability, also provided people
with similar information: “When it came to the news, at least, citizens
across the political spectrum tended to operate using a shared set of
facts – what they saw or what they heard from Walter Cronkite or David
Brinkley.”
Fast forward to today, where everyone has access to individualized
news feeds that are fed by algorithms that reward the loudest and
angriest voices (and which technology companies profit from). “You have
the sheer proliferation of content, and the splintering of information
and audiences,” Obama observed. “That’s made democracy more
complicated.”
Facts are competing with opinions, conspiracy theories, and fiction.
“For more and more of us, search and social media platforms aren’t just
our window into the internet. They serve as our primary source of news
and information,” Obama said. “No one tells us that the window is
blurred, subject to unseen distortions, and subtle manipulations.”
The splintering of news sources has also made all of us more prone to
what psychologists call “confirmation bias,” Obama said. “Inside our
personal information bubbles, our assumptions, our blind spots, our
prejudices aren’t challenged, they are reinforced and naturally, we’re
more likely to react negatively to those consuming different facts and
opinions – all of which deepens existing racial and religious and
cultural divides.”
But the problem is not just that our brains can’t keep up with the
growing amount of information online, Obama argued. “They’re also the
result of very specific choices made by the companies that have come to
dominate the internet generally, and social media platforms in
particular.”
The former president also made clear that he did not think technology
was to blame for many of our social ills. Racism, sexism, and misogyny,
all predate the internet, but technology has helped amplify them.
“Solving the disinformation problem won’t cure all that ails our
democracies or tears at the fabric of our world, but it can help tamp
down divisions and let us rebuild the trust and solidarity needed to
make our democracy stronger,” Obama said.
He gave examples of how social media has fueled violence and
extremism around the world. For example, leaders from countries such as
Russia to China, Hungary, the Philippines, and Brazil have harnessed
social media platforms to manipulate their populations. “Autocrats like
Putin have used these platforms as a strategic weapon against democratic
countries that they consider a threat,” Obama said.
He also called out emerging technologies such as AI for their
potential to sow further discord online. “I’ve already seen
demonstrations of deep fake technology that show what looks like me on a
screen, saying stuff I did not say. It’s a strange experience people,”
Obama said. “Without some standards, implications of this technology –
for our elections, for our legal system, for our democracy, for rules of
evidence, for our entire social order – are frightening and profound.”
technet |Open Letter from Former Defense, Intelligence, Homeland
Security, and Cyber Officials Calling for National Security Review of
Congressional Tech Legislation
April 18, 2022
This is a pivotal moment in modern history. There is a battle brewing
between authoritarianism and democracy, and the former is using all the
tools at its disposal, including a broad disinformation campaign and
the threat of cyber-attacks, to bring about a change in the global
order. We must confront these global challenges.
U.S. technology platforms have given the world the chance to see the
real story of the Russian military’s horrific human rights abuses in
Ukraine, including the atrocities committed in Bucha, and the incredible
bravery of the Ukrainian people who continue to stand their ground.
Social media platforms are filled with messages of support for Ukraine
and fundraising campaigns to help Ukrainian refugees.
At the same time, President Putin and his regime have sought to twist
facts in order to show Russia as a liberator instead of an
aggressor. When reporting and images of the atrocities in Bucha began to
circulate, along with evidence and testimony pointing to Russian forces
as the perpetrators, the Kremlin was quick to label the claims
as “fake news.” The Russian government is seeking to alter the
information landscape by blocking Russian citizens from receiving
content that would show the true facts on the ground – and it has
already received buy-in from other like-minded states, such as China,
whose social media platform TikTok continues to abide by Moscow’s rules
of “digital authoritarianism.” Indeed, it is telling that among the
Kremlin’s first actions of the war was blocking U.S. platforms in
Russia. Putin knows that U.S. digital platforms can provide Russian
citizens valuable views and facts about the war that he tries to distort
through lies and disinformation.
U.S. technology platforms have already taken concrete steps to shine a
light on Russia’s actions to brutalize Ukraine. Through their efforts,
the world knows what is truly happening in cities from Mariupol to Kiev,
undistorted by manipulation from Moscow. Providing timely and accurate
on-the-ground information – and disrupting the scourge of disinformation
from Russian state media – is essential for allowing the world
(including the Russian people) to see the human toll of Russia’s
aggression and is increasingly integral to U.S. diplomatic and national
security efforts. It is our belief that these efforts will play a part
in helping to end this war.
Meanwhile, cybersecurity threats from authoritarian regimes are also on the rise. As President Biden recently announced,
the United States is facing an extraordinary threat from Russian
cyber-attacks, and the private sector “must accelerate efforts to lock
their digital doors.” In response to this heightened threat environment,
U.S. technology companies have accelerated their partnership with the
U.S. government and its allies to improve our collective defense. Both
in public and behind the scenes, these companies have rolled out
integrated cyber defenses, rapidly fused threat intelligence across
products and services, and moved quickly to block malicious actors on
their platforms. This partnership has resulted in the detection and
disruption of a series of significant security threats from Russia and
Belarus.
In the face of these growing threats, U.S. policymakers must not
inadvertently hamper the ability of U.S. technology platforms to counter
increasing disinformation and cybersecurity risks, particularly as the
West continues to rely on the scale and reach of these firms to push
back on the Kremlin. But recently proposed congressional legislation
would unintentionally curtail the ability of these platforms to target
disinformation efforts and safeguard the security of their users in the
U.S. and globally. Legislation from both the House and Senate requiring
non-discriminatory access for all “business users” (broadly defined to
include foreign rivals) on U.S. digital platforms would provide an open
door for foreign adversaries to gain access to the software and
hardware of American technology companies. Unfettered access to software
and hardware could result in major cyber threats, misinformation,
access to data of U.S. persons, and intellectual property theft. Other
provisions in this legislation would damage the capability of U.S.
technology companies to roll out integrated security tools to adequately
screen for nefarious apps and malicious actors, weakening security
measures currently embedded in device and platform operating systems.
Our national security greatly benefits from the capacity of these
platforms to detect and act against these types of risks and, therefore,
must not be unintentionally impeded.
We call on the congressional committees with national security
jurisdiction – including the Armed Services Committees, Intelligence
Committees, and Homeland Security Committees in both the House and
Senate – to conduct a review of any legislation that could hinder
America’s key technology companies in the fight against cyber and
national security risks emanating from Russia’s and China’s growing
digital authoritarianism. Such a review would ensure that legislative
proposals do not enhance our adversaries’ capabilities. It is imperative
that the United States avoid the pitfalls of its key allies and
partners, such as the European Union (EU), whose Digital Markets Act
(DMA) passed without any consideration of national security
repercussions – despite repeated concerns from the Biden administration, including over potential cybersecurity risks. There were also bipartisan congressional fears
that the DMA would benefit “powerful state-owned and subsidized Chinese
and Russian companies,” which could have “negative impacts on internet
users’ privacy, security, and free speech.” Even in light of these
security concerns, the EU’s refusal to undertake a national security
assessment led to none of them being addressed. The U.S. government must
not make this same mistake.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks the start of a new chapter in
global history, one in which the ideals of democracy will be put to the
test. The United States will need to rely on the power of its technology
sector to ensure that the safety of its citizens and the narrative of
events continues to be shaped by facts, not by foreign adversaries.
Sincerely,
James R. Clapper Former Director of National Intelligence
Jane Harman Former U.S. Representative from California Former Ranking Member, House Intelligence Committee
Jeh C. Johnson Former Secretary of Homeland Security†
Michael J. Morell Former Acting Director and Deputy Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Leon E. Panetta Former Secretary of Defense Former Director, Central Intelligence Agency
Admiral Michael S. Rogers Former Commander, U.S. Cyber Command Former Director, National Security Agency
Frances F. Townsend Former Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security
BAR |Having a new Black SCOTUS justice or bringing Barack Obama out of
retirement for a photo opportunity won't raise Joe Biden's poll numbers
or stave off defeat in the mid-term elections. Only fulfilling campaign
promises and giving the people what they need will help Biden and the
democrats.
The Black political class and the democratic party are once again
infantilizing Black voters instead of giving them what they need and
want. They pass useless legislation and stage political performances
because they have lost the trust of the people. Biden’s poll numbers
continue to drop. He now has a lackluster 40 percent approval rating for
the simple reason that he hasn’t done what he promised during his 2020
presidential campaign.
Biden said he would provide student loan debt relief, raise the
minimum wage, and improve the government response to the covid crisis.
His friends in corporate media covered for him by claiming that stimulus
and child tax credit payments would “cut child poverty in half.” That
claim was never true and now that tax credit is gone along with the much
touted Build Back Better legislation. Not only does covid continue to
kill, with 1 million dead in the past two years, but the millions of
Americans who are uninsured no longer have free treatment, testing, or
vaccinations.
The Black political class have so little to show for their efforts
that they now resort to passing legislation so meaningless that it
insults the collective intelligence of Black people. One example is the
passage of the Emmett Till Anti Lynching bill. Congress failed to pass
anti-lynching legislation when the public murder of Black people was a
common occurrence. But now the lynchers are not local white citizens
councils and Ku Klux Klan members. It is the police who kill an average
of three people every day, and one of those persons will be Black.
Despite this continuing bloodshed committed against their
constituents, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) has never even
attempted to pass legislation which would protect the public from
summary police execution. There is plenty of kente cloth and posturing
but the CBC go along with Biden’s plan to add $30 billion in funding to states and localities to hire more police, the people who actually commit lynch law in this country.
When they aren’t virtue signaling about lynching, Black politicians
are passing legislation about hairstyles. The legislation, Create a
Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair (CROWN Act) would prohibit
discrimination against people with natural hair. The House of
Representatives passed the CROWN Act but it faces what is called an
uncertain future in the Senate. That means it probably won’t be taken up
at all.
No Black person is in favor of hair based discrimination, but there
are far more important issues that need to be addressed. The democrats
are rightfully worried about the November 2022 mid-term elections and
are in danger of losing control of the House. Their response is what one
would expect from a faux leftish party.
They bring out their faux leftish former president, Barack Obama.
Obama appeared at the white house to celebrate the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), popularly known as Obamacare. Obamacare enshrined corporate
control over health care and gave people the right to purchase insurance
which is too expensive. Medicaid expansion was the most important
aspect of Obamacare but it was never accepted by most of the southern
states, the region with the largest Black population.
Pulling out the Barack Obama card didn’t help Hillary Clinton secure
votes where she needed them in 2016. Similarly, his presence is unlikely
to help Biden in 2022. Biden and the democrats are hamstrung by their
reliance on the oligarchic class, the people he promised, “Nothing will
fundamentally change.” They won’t allow Build Back Better or student
loan debt relief or universal health care and so the people go without
what they need the most. Thus the CROWN Act is born.
The problem for Biden and the democrats is that the entire political
system is in disrepute. They post on Twitter about expensive health care
and give the impression they will actually do something about this
crisis. But they can’t fool all the people all the time. Inflation is
eating away at the well being of millions of people. The party in power
takes a hit when times are hard. Ridiculous propaganda about “Putin’s
price hike” won’t get the votes they need.
CNN |Bernie Sanders is facing a backlash from some Democrats after his campaign trumpeted an endorsement
from comedian Joe Rogan, a popular podcast and YouTube talk show host
with a history of making racist, homophobic and transphobic comments.
The Sanders campaign touted the endorsement in a tweet on Thursday afternoon, featuring a clip of Rogan's supportive remarks.
"I
think I'll probably vote for Bernie. Him as a human being, when I was
hanging out with him, I believe in him, I like him, I like him a lot,"
Rogan said on an earlier episode of his show.
"What
Bernie stands for is a guy -- look, you could dig up dirt on every
single human being that's ever existed if you catch them in their worst
moment and you magnify those moments and you cut out everything else and
you only display those worst moments. That said, you can't find very
many with Bernie. He's been insanely consistent his entire life. He's
basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole
life. And that in and of itself is a very powerful structure to operate
from."
Rogan,
a libertarian-leaning broadcaster with a public persona in the mold of
Howard Stern, is a divisive figure who has said the N-word on his show
and in 2013 questioned -- using offensive language -- whether a
transgender MMA fighter should be able to compete against other women.
"If
you want to be a woman in the bedroom and, you know, you want to play
house and all of that other sh-t and you feel like you have, your body
is really a woman's body trapped inside a man's frame and so you got a
operation, that's all good in the hood," Rogan said. "But you can't
fight chicks.".
The
decision to highlight Rogan's support has divided opinion among
Democrats and activists, particularly online, where it has sparked a
heated debate over whether Sanders should have aligned himself with
Rogan in any form or context.
Sanders'
strategic targeting of young, unaffiliated and working class voters
often takes him to places, and onto platforms -- like Twitch
-- that most Democratic candidates rarely venture. But that practice,
when it brings a figure like Rogan into the political spotlight, also
carries the risk of alienating parts of a liberal base that, especially
in the Trump era, has become increasingly cautious about the company it
keeps -- and what that signals to marginalized communities.
On Saturday, the progressive group MoveOn called on Sanders "to apologize and stop elevating this endorsement."
"It's one thing for Joe Rogan to endorse a candidate," MoveOn said in a tweet
from its official account. "It's another for @BernieSanders' campaign
to produce a video bolstering the endorsement of someone known for
promoting transphobia, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism and misogyny."
Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.
Less than an hour later, former Vice President Joe Biden appeared to enter the fray.
"Let's be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time," Biden tweeted. "There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights."
businessinsider | Vanity Fair, which first reported on the Obamas' dissatisfaction with Spotify, noted that they are most interested in producing shows featuring fresh voices.
Spotify
has spent well over $1 billion to diversify beyond music content and
into the broader audio market, scooping up podcast studios like Gimlet Media and The Ringer and signing exclusive deals with talent including Rogan and Dax Shepard.
A
big piece of its strategy has been to ink development deals with
bold-faced names like the Obamas and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who
have yet to produce a show for Spotify outside of a 2020 holiday
special.
So far, the strategy appears to have worked. Spotify
said in October, citing third-party data from Edison Research, that it
now ranks ahead of Apple Podcasts as the most popular podcast app in the
US.
But there have also been challenges, including a cultural
reckoning within Gimlet Media linked to its popluar"Reply All" podcast
as well as the shuttering of Spotify's in-house podcast studio, known
internally as Studio 4. More recently, the Rogan controversy has led
some Spotify podcasters to call out the company.
The Obamas' podcasting
deal with Spotify followed their initial move into entertainment one
year earlier, when they announced the formation of Higher Ground and its
multi-year film and TV deal with
Netflix. They are behind the streamer's Oscar-winning documentary
"American Factory" and Kevin Hart drama "Fatherhood," among other
projects.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...
Warren Buffett’s Exploitative Mobile Home Investment – Forbes
Warren Buffett’s mobile home empire preys on the poor
Special Investigation: The Dirty Secret Behind Warren Buffett’s Billions
Buffet is the self-same POS who bankrolled and ran the scam shyster Black Lives Matter chicanery and who was just now on the verge of triggering a rail workers strike that would have absolutely crippled supply chains all across the United States.