Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - FreddieTheFreshman

Pages: [1]
So if you post pictures in a thread of dead Palestinian babies from bombs in Gaza, these are the punks who start yelling "Pallywood!" - pretending they are Americans.

The Prime Minister's office has also purchased promoted tweets for selected posts to increase their visibility...“The whole point of such efforts is to look like they are unofficial, just everyday people chatting online,” Dena Shunra, a Hebrew-English translator, told The Electronic Intifada, an online news site.

There it is.  The US gives money to the Israeli government, and the Israeli government in turn uses some of it to propagandize Americans, by pretending they are just "everyday people" chatting online.  So right there they are lying to you from the git go.
Israeli propaganda war hits social media
By Matthew Hall18 July 2014 — 12:15am

A computer lab staffed by students in an Israeli university is playing a key role in the war of information in the Gaza conflict.

Inspired by the role of social media during the Arab Spring and boosted by the support of the Israeli government and Israel Defence Force, student volunteers at the Interdisciplinary Center (IDC) Herzliya, a private university north of Tel Aviv, are waging their own propaganda war countering online anti-Israeli sentiment.

Israel's Advocacy Room where volunteer students work social media channels

Israel's Advocacy Room where volunteer students work social media channels "to explain" Israel's side of the story.

Staffed by approximately 400 student volunteers the project which goes by the name “Israel Under Fire”, claims to have succeeded in closing anti-Israeli pages on Facebook and challenging propaganda from Hamas, the organisation that governs the Gaza Strip and whose military arm is firing rockets at Israel.

According to Igal Raich, a 23-year-old IDC student who volunteers in what is called "The Advocacy Room", the project aims to counter what is perceived as a false representation of Israel in international and social media through Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

“It is run by students who are all volunteers,” said Raich, who grew up in Canada before moving to Israel to study and also served in the Israeli military. “The school gave us a computer lab to work from and from nine in the morning until eight at night it is constantly full with student volunteers.”

Volunteer groups include a team that translates messages from Hebrew into 30 languages and a graphics team creating charts and images to be distributed via Facebook and Twitter.

There is also a video editing department and a talkback team that, according to Raich, trawls social media “looking for inconsistent facts like ‘Israel constantly kills women and children’”.

“They are skilled with what they do,” said Raich of the volunteers. “A lot of people buy what is posted online but before you make your judgment you need to know both sides of the story.”

Raich said students played a similar role during 2012’s Pillar of Defence operation – another Israeli military action against Hamas in Gaza. According to the university's figures, 1600 students volunteered to spread social media messages to an audience of 21 million people in 62 countries and in 31 languages. The Prime Minister’s office, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Defence Force considered the university’s efforts so successful they sought to collaborate during subsequent military actions.

“We started to work together,” said Raich, who is sitting exams during the current conflict. “We are constantly getting updates from the Prime Minister’s office and the Minister of Foreign Affairs because they know we are successful in what we do.”

The Prime Minister's office has also purchased promoted tweets for selected posts to increase their visibility

Like missiles targeting both Gaza and Israel, the online battle is two-way traffic. As well as the student campaign, Israel’s IDF also runs social media accounts promoting Israeli perspectives.

A Palestinian point of view is represented in social media accounts run by the al-Qassam Brigades, the military arm of Hamas. Tweets from the al-Qassam Brigades include graphic images of dead or injured children and videos showing rockets being prepared for launch, presumably at Israel.

At the other end of the spectrum, Twitter accounts from civilians in Gaza detail the lives of scared teenagers counting Israeli bombs falling in residential areas and the effects of sleepless nights due to the sound of overhead drones.

Critics of the Israeli social media campaign suggest that, like many things on the internet, it is difficult to discern truth and are sceptical of the authenticity of pro-Israeli posts that appear to be organic but are government propaganda.

“The whole point of such efforts is to look like they are unofficial, just everyday people chatting online,” Dena Shunra, a Hebrew-English translator, told The Electronic Intifada, an online news site.

it was only a matter of time.  Born-man "women" with tree-trunk thighs taking all the medals from women.

More on this:


The American bronze medalist who lost a world-championship cycling race to a transgender woman from Canada has criticized the results as unfair.
"First transgender woman world champion...ever," Rachel McKinnon, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, bragged Sunday in a tweet that set off a massive debate.

After Rachel McKinnon bragged about being the
After Rachel McKinnon bragged about being the "first transgender woman world champion," the third-place finisher in the cycling event claimed it wasn't fair. (Rachel McKinnon/Twitter)

McKinnon gave a talk at the College of Charleston earlier this year asking: “Is it fair for transwomen athletes to compete in women’s categories?”While McKinnon argues it is, given the rules and regulations adopted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), the bronze medalist felt another way at the finish of the world championships.“It’s definitely NOT fair,” Jennifer Wagner, the third-place finisher from Houston, said in response to a tweet from British conservative Katie Hopkins.Hopkins tweeted an image of the three cyclists on the podium with this caption: “For clarity – this was the WOMENS world championships. I repeat. Women’s. Congratulations to the brave faces of silver & bronze. The world is gripped by a febrile madness.”

Carolien van Herrikhuyzen, the silver medalist representing the Netherlands and a friend of McKinnon, disagreed.“No one is a transgender to steal anyone’s medal,” van Herrikhuyzen wrote. “We had an honest race under UCI rules. If you compete you accept the rules, otherwise, don’t compete. I can only imagine what she had to go through in her life to be where she is now, how hard it is to fit in.”Wagner snapped back: “Just because it’s a CURRENT UCI rule doesn’t mean it[‘s] fair or right. And rules can be changed.”Four days later, after a firestorm of controversy, Wagner apologized to McKinnon, adding that she will work to get the rules changed offline to avoid more controversy.“After having some time to reflect, I realize my twitter comments earlier this week unintentionally fanned the flames on a controversial situation, and that I regret,” Wagner wrote. “I made the comments out of a feeling of frustration, but they weren't productive or positive.”Wagner added: “While I may not agree with the rules when I pin on a number I agree to race by them.”And she ended: “I apologize, @rachelvmckinnon , for not properly congratulating you on race day.  I hope you accept it a few days late.  Congratulations and enjoy your off-season. Thanks, everyone, for reading.”But McKinnon refused to accept her apology: “She merely apologizes for being caught saying it publicly. She wants to ban trans women from competing. They will fail…”McKinnon labeled critics as “transphobic bigots” and pointed out that Wagner could face sanctions for allegedly violating the USA Cycling’s policy against harassment for “creating hostile environments or disparaging remarks against people on the basis of gender identity.”As of 2015, IOC guidelines require biologically born men who identify as transgender to block certain amounts of natural testosterone, but no longer require gender reassignment surgery. McKinnon argues testing is against human rights because there is no way to measure if testosterone provides an advantage, instead pointing to civil rights.“By catering to cisgender people’s views, that furthers transgender people’s oppression. When it comes to extending rights to a minority population, why would we ask the majority?” McKinnon told USA Today. “I bet a lot of white people were pissed off when we desegregated sports racially and allowed black people. But they had to deal with it.”

Texas already has a law

We Have a Right to Boycott Israel

bipartisan group of lawmakers, led by Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Rob Portman (R-OH), is quietly working to criminalize the boycotting of Israel.

The bill, appropriately titled the Israel Anti-Boycott Act, establishes criminal and civil penalties of up to $1 million for American persons and companies who engage in actions “which have the effect of furthering or supporting . . . restrictive trade practices or boycotts fostered or imposed by any international governmental organization against Israel.” While it’s unclear how strictly the act would be enforced, it is clearly a gross infringement on free speech — targeting Americans who choose to exercise their First Amendment rights and engage in an organized boycott.

The Senate measure was conceived after the United Nations Human Rights Council voted in 2016 to create a “blacklist” of companies that do business in Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Building on a 1979 law designed to counteract the Arab League’s boycott of Israel, the Cardin-Portman legislation would extend the existing prohibition to cover boycotts against Israel called for by international organizations like the United Nations and the European Union.

The legislation, which currently enjoys the support of fifty senators, both Democrats and Republicans, faces uncertain prospects in the new Congress, where Democrats will control the House and new members, like Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), have publicly endorsed the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement (BDS). Senators like Bernie Sanders and, more surprisingly, Dianne Feinstein have also pushed back against the Cardin-Portman bill, and a lawsuit filed by Bahia Amawi — a Palestinian-American who recently lost her job at a Texas elementary school for refusing to sign a “pro-Israel loyalty oath” — has provided additional ammunition.

But whether the bill passes or not, it is part of an ominous trend to curb Palestinian grassroots activism and silence political speech critical of Israel. “Since 2014,” the advocacy group Palestine Legal reports, “at least 102 anti-BDS measures have been introduced in state/local legislatures across the country. As of November 2018, 26 states have enacted anti-BDS laws.” The law that ensnared Amawi mandated that she promise that she wouldn’t boycott or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic harm” on Israel.

Boycotting goods is a longstanding American tradition. The American Colonists refused to buy imported British manufacturers to protest excessive taxes. Abolitionists and antislavery activists swore off slave labor–produced products in favor of “free goods.” The New York Manumission Society organized boycotts against New York merchants and newspaper owners involved in the slave trade.

The tradition carried over into the twentieth century. In March 1933, the Jewish War Veterans of America staged a mass rally in New York City, where congressman William W. Cohen told those gathered that “any Jew buying one penny’s worth of merchandise made in Germany is a traitor to his people.” Civil rights activists staged boycotts of segregated buses and streetcars in the South in the middle of the century. Antiwar activists boycotted US defense contractors during the Vietnam War and published detailed lists of military contracts held by GE and other companies. The anti-apartheid movement refused to purchase South African wines and oranges, declined to compete with all-white Olympics teams, and shamed US businesses that profited from the racist system.

The fundamental principle guiding these activists was that boycotting goods to protest injustice was not only a civil right, but also a civic duty.

Today, Americans acting in solidarity with Palestinians are doing the same thing: boycotting goods from Israeli settlements to pressure the country to end its decades-long occupation and expansionist policies. Rooting themselves in previous struggles, boycotters compare Israel’s oppressive policies to those of apartheid South Africa. Many cite Israel’s separation barrier, which runs deep into Palestinian lands, displacing Palestinian communities and cutting off their towns and villages from one another. Others point to Israel’s two-tiered system in the West Bank, which provides preferential treatment to Israeli settlers while imposing harsh restrictions on Palestinians.

American advocates for Palestinian rights also draw inspiration from the legacy of the Civil Rights Movement. Ahed Tamimi, the West Bank teenager who was jailed for defying occupation and shoving a heavily armed Israeli soldier, has been hailed as “the Palestinian Rosa Parks.” Bahia Amawi is now competing for a similar title.

Like their American counterparts, Palestinian activists see nonviolent resistance, including the use of boycotts, as the best path to justice and freedom. The idea is not to “single out Israel for punishment,” as Israel’s advocates insist, but to remind them that occupation and segregation and apartheid bear a price.

Americans have a civil right to boycott Israel, both as a matter of conscience and as means of pressuring it to change its unjust policies. It’s a right both enshrined in the constitution and rooted in the country’s dissident political tradition. To deny this right is to threaten to turn the clock back to the days of McCarthyite repression.

Confounding political know-it-alls again, Trump has been hailed as passing the most significant criminal justice reform in decades, resulting in the freeing of many young black men doomed to life in prison for relatively minor offenses.  Trump also pardoned a 63 year old grandmother caught

Trump Embraces a Path to Revise U.S. Sentencing and Prison Laws

By Nicholas Fandos and Maggie Haberman

WASHINGTON — President Trump threw his support behind a substantial revision of the nation’s prison and sentencing laws on Wednesday, opening a potential path to enacting the most significant changes to the criminal justice system in a generation.

The tentative legislative package, developed by a bipartisan group of senators and called the First Step Act, builds on a prison overhaul bill already passed overwhelmingly by the House by adding changes that would begin to unwind some of the tough-on-crime federal policies of the 1980s and 1990s that incarcerated African-American offenders at much higher rates than white offenders.

Combining new funding for anti-recidivism programs, the expansion of early-release credits for prisoners and the reduction of certain mandatory minimum sentences, the compromise bill would help shape the experiences of tens of thousands of current inmates and future offenders.

“In many respects, we’re getting very much tougher on the truly bad criminals — of which, unfortunately, there are many,” said Mr. Trump, flanked by Republican lawmakers and law enforcement officials. “But we’re treating people differently for different crimes. Some people got caught up in situations that were very bad.”

He urged Congress to promptly send him a final bill to sign. “It’s the right thing to do,” Mr. Trump added.

[The bill has brought together the two parties in a way that is unusual in these days of partisan strife. Here’s why.]

Mr. Trump’s support could give political cover to Republicans wary of reducing some hard-line sentencing rules for drug and other offenses, and enable the legislation’s sponsors to assemble a coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats in time to move a bill before the year’s end — and before the new, divided Congress is seated.

The changes have attracted a broad and unusual range of supporters, including the billionaire brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch on the right and the American Civil Liberties Union on the left. Conservatives see an opportunity to begin to cut into the high costs of the nation’s growing prison population. Liberals have long opposed the current sentencing laws for what they see as having unfairly incarcerated a generation of young men, particularly African-American men, for drug and other nonviolent offenses.

But even with Mr. Trump on board, proponents must now compete with a rapidly closing window to move a complicated bill with broad implications for the criminal justice system. As of Wednesday morning, many senators had not yet even seen a draft of the bill, and some conservatives were thought to be firmly against it. Liberals have their own reasons to be disappointed because most of the proposed sentencing changes have not been made retroactive, drastically limiting their effect.

“We don’t have a whole lot of time left,” Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, told reporters on Wednesday. Mr. McConnell had previously pledged to take up the bill if it had at least 60 senators supporting it. But he added that given the time pressures, he would also have to “see how it stacks up against our other priorities going into the end of our session.”

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and the leading advocate of the criminal justice package within the White House, presented the tentative deal to Mr. Trump on Tuesday. The president was initially noncommital but later offered a firmer yes, according to administration and congressional officials briefed on the meeting.

Mr. Trump’s support on Wednesday breathed unexpected life into a legislative effort that had more than once appeared to be dead. Democratic and Republican lawmakers first mounted a serious and more expansive criminal justice overhaul in 2015. They had the backing of President Barack Obama, Speaker Paul D. Ryan and a cross section of lawmakers in both parties and appeared destined for success.

A spotlight on the people reshaping our politics. A conversation with voters across the country. And a guiding hand through the endless news cycle, telling you what you really need to know.

A prison in Twin Falls, Idaho, where the inmate population is steadily increasing.CreditPat Sutphin/The Times-News, via Associated Press
They failed, and with the arrival of Mr. Trump, whose “law and order” presidential campaign seemingly ran counter to the spirit of the proposed changes, many believed the effort was unlikely to be revived anytime soon.

“Criminal justice has gone from being the ultimate wedge issue to the most meaningful area of bipartisan agreement,” said Michael Waldman, the president of the Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law and a frequent Trump critic on policy. “It’s a strange and ironic twist to have the president’s support push it over the finish line.”

Among the long-sought changes incorporated into the legislation is language shortening mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent drug offenses, including changing the “three strikes” penalty to 25 years from life in prison. Judges would also have greater freedom to use so-called safety valves to sidestep mandatory minimums in some cases. And the bill would clarify that the so-called stacking mechanism making it a federal crime to possess a firearm while committing another crime, like a drug offense, should apply only to individuals who have previously been convicted.

It would also extend retroactively a reduction in the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine signed into law in 2010, which could affect thousands of drug offenders serving lengthy sentences for crack-cocaine offenses, which were dealt with far more harshly than the same crimes involving powder cocaine. That disparity hit black Americans hard while letting many white drug dealers off with lighter punishments.

The other half of the proposed bill creates a package of incentives and new programs aimed at improving prison conditions and preparing prisoners for re-entry into their communities. It would require the Justice Department to create a risk and need assessment system to nudge prisoners toward better outcomes. And it would expand time credits that reward good behavior and create new ones for participating in job-training and other programs that allow offenders to reduce their time behind bars.

The legislation would also improve conditions for incarcerated women, prohibiting the shackling of female inmates while pregnant, and would require the Bureau of Prisons to locate prisoners in facilities close to their homes, if possible.

The Fraternal Order of Police, the country’s largest police organization, said last Friday that it would support the bill, and the National Sheriffs’ Association appeared to have dropped some previous objections after exceptions were made to block certain fentanyl offenders from eligibility for “good-time credits” included in the prison overhaul portion of the bill.

But powerful pockets of opposition remain among some law enforcement officials and conservative lawmakers — like Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas — who argue that sentencing changes like those proposed pose a risk to public safety. However, they lost a powerful ally within the administration when Mr. Trump fired his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, last week. Mr. Sessions’s temporary replacement, Matthew G. Whitaker, has signaled that he is more open to the changes.

Mr. Trump himself is leery of appearing weak on crime, and he has been susceptible to arguments from opponents of a sentencing overhaul that endorsing one could arm his critics. Still, Mr. Kushner has pressed the issue for months, and some of the president’s advisers say they think the effort could help improve his anemic standing with African-American voters, even if only marginally.

In his remarks on Wednesday, Mr. Trump tried to address both points, saying that the legislation would be tougher on hardened criminals. But in a reference to the tough-on-crime policies embraced by President Bill Clinton, Mr. Trump also said that the legislation would begin to roll back portions of the “Clinton crime bill” that had a “very disproportionate and very unfair” effect on black Americans.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is expected to quickly introduce the legislation and ramp up his lobbying efforts in the coming days. On Twitter, Mr. Grassley said the bill would make “streets safer” and punish opioid drug deals. He warned that Republicans opposed to the bill could peddle “false info” to try to undermine Mr. Trump and Mr. Kushner.

 I sincerely hope no GOP Sen is trying to undermine Pres Trump & son in law/adviser Kushner w false info on this TOUGH ON CRIME & SMART bill 2/2

Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, who has worked closely with Mr. Grassley on the issue, will now take the lead on assuring Democrats that the bill’s sentencing changes were a deal worth accepting, despite some concessions from an earlier Obama-era effort. Those concessions could cost some support from liberal lawmakers, who want to hold out for a more expansive sentencing rewrite.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, a vocal advocate of such changes, committed to putting the compromise on the House floor in a lame-duck session that began on Tuesday if Mr. Trump endorsed it and it can clear the Senate.

“Redemption is at the heart of the American idea, and that’s what this is about,” Mr. Ryan said in a statement. “The president’s announcement is an encouraging sign that we can achieve substantive reforms to our criminal justice system in this Congress.”


Rand Paul is right about aid to Israel

Nov. 23

Major establishment pro-Israel organizations have mobilized to target Sen. Paul for reportedly using his Senate privilege to block foreign aid funds to Israel.

Over at the Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo reports that the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Christians United for Israel (CUFI) are running ads attacking Sen. Paul for this decision to hold up aid funds.

The Kentucky senator later clarified his position on holding back aid to Israel. “I’m not for foreign aid in general, if we are going to send aid to Israel it should be limited in time and scope so we aren’t doing it forever, and it should be paid for by cutting the aid to people who hate Israel and America. This is a stance I’ve taken for many years,” Sen. Paul said in a statement that is going to be released shortly, according to Jewish Insider.

While foreign aid can acquire soft power influence for U.S. interests, that has not been the rationale, nor the purpose, for U.S. aid abroad in the 21st century. For example, Pakistan, Iraq, and Afghanistan receive around $11 billion dollars in combined U.S. aid every year, yet the aid dollars have largely failed to improve America’s standing — or increase goodwill — with those countries.

The United States sends just under $4 billion to Israel every year for defense aid. Unlike the foreign aid dollars doled out to other countries, virtually every cent has to be used on defense products from American companies, creating a major incentive for U.S. defense giants to support their guaranteed revenue stream.

Rand Paul’s Senate measure touches on a heated debate over whether U.S. aid to Israel is a force for good, is simply unnecessary, or is a negative force for the U.S.-Israel bond. One thing is for sure: The annual aid package is not at all the black-and-white issue that some are making it out to be.

In the pro-Israel world, most pro-Israel groups remain staunchly committed to defense aid to Israel. AIPAC, the pro-Israel behemoth (which has frustrated conservatives due to its soft handling of the Obama administration’s anti-Israel policies), has dedicated most of its resources to securing aid for Israel.

However, plenty of prominent scholars and organizations have argued that the aid package should be immediately or eventually reduced.

The Middle East Forum’s Daniel Pipes writes: “Just as individuals are best off when self-reliant, so too are countries.” He cites Israel’s increasing GDP and flourishing economy. “The U.S. government will have a better ally by intelligently closing down the aid relationship.”

Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick has likened the aid package to a “poison pill.” She notes that the aid package enabled the Obama administration and other liberal administrations to act with extreme hostility against Israel and then save face by dangling foreign aid for a state that is forced to become “psychologically dependent on the good will of strangers.”

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz, along with your humble correspondent, believes that the aid package creates an unhealthy dependency. It sets up Israel as if it operates in serfdom, instead of the U.S. and Israel together advancing our thriving, mutually beneficial alliance on equal terms.

Additionally, the aid package creates leverage for anti-Israel administrations such as the Obama administration to force Israel into making major, dangerous concessions to the Palestinian entities in the terrorist group Hamas and the terrorist-sponsoring Palestinian Liberation Organization.

Israel is continuing on a healthy trajectory towards becoming an economic, technological, and military powerhouse. With every day that passes, Israel’s need for U.S. aid — other than in the event that a major war breaks out between Israel and one of its terrorist neighbors, or Iran or Syria — continues to decrease. Israel’s full independence from American aid dollars will allow the Jewish state to flourish and further expand its independence in defense and other industries. It will also allow Israel the space it needs to make decisions that preserve its national interests, while sustaining and improving the mutually beneficial relationship with its closest ally.

The Trump Zone - Pro / Is Trump the Most Pro-Gay Republican?
« on: November 06, 2018, 05:57:59 PM »

So now he's a racist even though he has spoken at Black churches and been endorsed by Black ministers, is a white nationalist even he has denounced white nationalism, the problem now is not FAST enough, and now he's supposedly hardcore anti LGBT.   Who to believe?  The fake news media?  What else can they paint him to be, as a politician who has a mixed record like most?  Hillary Clinton didn't come around to same sex marriage until 2013, when she triangulated to the left in her quest for California and New York votes over Bible Belt votes.  The media's attempts to isolate Trump as against nearly everyone and everything are laughable.  Never, ever buck the Deep State on trade policies!

Of Course Donald Trump Is the Most Pro-Gay Republican Presidential Candidate

On Wednesday, Reuters’ Jonathan Jacob Allen wrote a column titled “The LGBT pick for the GOP nomination: Donald Trump?” Allen pondered whether Trump would “draw support from gay Republicans in the primary,” noting his “comparative sensitivity” to the gay community. Throughout the piece, Allen sounds slightly perplexed, as though the notion of Trump as the GOP’s gay-friendly candidate is somehow bizarre or incongruous. But it strikes me as overwhelmingly obvious that Donald Trump is far and away the most pro-gay Republican candidate in the 2016 race.

Trump has never hidden his support for gay civil rights laws. In 2000, he declared that he supported gay anti-discrimination laws and the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He also advocated for “a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protections and rights as married people.” His book, released that same year, wistfully described his dream of an America “unencumbered by … discrimination against people based on sexual orientation.”

The details of Trump’s gay rights views are even more impressive. Trump didn’t just want states to pass their own anti-discrimination laws: He supported amending the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 to ban sexual orientation discrimination. Like Trump’s other pro-gay positions, this stance was extremely liberal for its time. In fact, it’s strikingly progressive even today: For decades, Democrats have favored passing separate nondiscrimination laws for gays and lesbians, often riddled with exemptions, instead of granting gay Americans the full range of Title VII protections. Only this year has the party rallied around a bold Title VII fix. That Trump took this position in 2000 exemplifies his casual but consistent support for gay rights.

As a candidate, Trump does not seem to have changed his views—even though they fall far to the left of the GOP platform. Trump seemed to dismiss anti-gay Kentucky clerk Kim Davis, blithely advising that she should let her clerks handle marriage licenses. He has insisted that the Supreme Court’s marriage equality ruling is “the law of the land”—“you have to go with it,” he advised—and groused that “anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons.” Although he professes to oppose same-sex marriage today, he rarely discusses it on the campaign trail. (Notably, Trump did snidely misgender Caitlyn Jenner in one interview; his enlightened views on sexual minorities do not, alas, extend to gender minorities.) 

Unz Magazine, a respectable intellectual journal.  Glad the article didn't miss mention of the USS Liberty.

Fighting Israel's Wars - How the United States military has become Zionized

There has been a report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is looking into foreign lobbying in Washington while another story relates how his team is investigating the alleged contact of a Donald Trump associate with a Hungarian. Both are part of the ongoing investigation into Russiagate. Unless I am wrong, which happens occasionally, Hungary is a member of the European Union and also of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It has relatively free elections and its government changes as a result.

No one but the Mueller commission has considered contact with a Hungarian citizen to be a potential threat to American democracy. But then again, no one has really made the case in any kind of credible fashion that meeting with a Russian is either ipso facto criminal or treasonous, or that Moscow’s media does anything beyond what other state-owned broadcasters tend to do, but you wouldn’t know that from reading the mainstream press or from watching MSNBC and CNN.

An independent observer might well note that there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy in all of this. Case in point, the latest globalist-interventionist-neocon think tank the Alliance to Secure Democracy is currently being funded by a bundle of foreign governments, presumably doing so without any interference from Mueller or from those who run the Foreign Agents Registration desk at the Department of the Treasury.

And one other thing you can bet on is that Mueller will not be looking at the country that actually does interfere in American politics most, which is our best friend in the whole world and greatest ally Israel, the beneficiary of roughly one billion dollars-worth of lobbying carried out by hundreds of full time staff on its behalf.

Punish Israel for corrupting our politicians and media? On the contrary, now that we are officially into the holiday season, a whole bunch of goodies designed to make Benjamin Netanyahu’s eyes sparkle are pending. The highest priority item is the Trump Administration’s cooperation with the Israeli government in a frantic effort to bury a United Nations report that includes a database of all the companies that operate in Israel’s illegal settlements. Also regarding the U.N., Congress is considering a bill that would block U.S. aid to any country that opposes “the position of the United States.” Lest there be any confusion, Ambassador Nikki Haley has made it clear the American “position” would pretty much consist of never criticizing or voting against Israel.

Congress is meanwhile also making a list and checking it twice, looking into the vexing issue of how to make any and all criticism of Israel equate to anti-Semitism as a step forward to turning such activity into a hate crime with actual criminal penalties. The House Judiciary Committee has been holding meetings to try to decide how exactly one might do that without completely jettisoning the First Amendment, which once upon a time was intended to guarantee free speech. On November 8th, nine experts, seven of whom were Jewish, were summoned to address the issue of “codify[ing] a definition of anti-Semitism that incorporates a controversial component addressing attacks on Israel…[as] a necessary means of stemming anti-Semitism on campuses.”

The proposed amendment to the Civil Rights Act would use language being considered for the still pending Anti-Semitism Awareness Act to considerably expand the currently accepted government acceptance of anti-Semitism as “demonization” of Israel and/or its policies. A broader definition would have real world consequences as it would potentially block federal funding for colleges and universities where students are allowed to organize events critical of Israel. Fortunately, the hearing did not produce the result desired by Israel. To their credit, four of the witnesses, all Jewish, opposed expanding the definition of anti-Semitism and even some congressmen uncharacteristically indicated that to do so might be a bridge to far.

Indeed, one might argue that there is a tendency in Washington to see the world and even domestic policies through Israel’s eyes. One might even suggest that the United States government is being progressively Zionized because of the free hand that Israel and its supporters have, which gives them the ability to seek benefits for Israel that they would be unlikely to pursue for the United States. To cite only one example, an Israel Victory Caucus was launched in the House of Representatives in April advocating Israeli defeat of all its neighbors. The keynote speaker at the event, noted Islamophobe Daniel Pipes, explained “Victory means imposing your will on your enemy so he no longer wants to continue to fight,” before demanding “What I want the U.S. government to do is say, ‘Israel, do what you need to do to win your war.’”

Israel has been uniquely successful at imposing its will over Congress and the White House. Every freshman class in Congress, plus spouses, is automatically whisked off for a deluxe all expenses paid propaganda trip to Israel, which is funded by an affiliate of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). That is supplemented frequently throughout the year through taxpayer funded CODELS by established politicians to find out the “facts” on what is going on in the Middle East. During congressional recesses Congressmen are sometimes more likely to be found visiting Israel than dealing with problems in their own districts and they routinely return spouting whatever line is being promoted by the Israeli government.

There is also the training of American police in “Israeli methods,” which is funded both by government and foundations set up for that purpose. Less well known is the inroads Israel has made with the American military establishment. Shoshana Bryen, former executive director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) and currently affiliated with the Jewish Policy Center, who has been involved in hosting the indoctrination of U.S. national security personnel, recently described it this way: “I have taken more than 400 American security professionals – primarily retired American Admirals and Generals – to Israel in more than 30 trips. And at the other end of their careers, I have sent more than 500 cadets and midshipmen of our service academies to Israel before they received their commissions. And I can say that they all understood the fundamental and profound principles that guide both the United States and Israel. They don’t always agree with Israel’s politics – or Israel’s defense choices – or any other single aspect of Israeli political, military and social life, but I never found one that didn’t believe in the relationship between Jews and the land of Israel. The United States military, then, is a Zionist institution.”

Last Monday, Colonel Pat Lang, former special ops officer and head of the Defense Humint Service, considered Bryen’s assertion, writing “It’s an open question but I think the answer is probably yes. The U.S. military now seems to be totally focused on Israeli policy goals in Iran, Syria and Iraq… Israel wants Iran neutered and eliminated as a power rival in the Middle East. The putative Iranian nuclear weapons program is just one target of Israeli policy toward Iran. To reach the goal of Morgenthau-style comfort with regard to Iran, Israel wants to destroy Syria and Hizbullah as allies of Iran… The process of conditioning American officers to make them Zionists has been ongoing for a long time. when I came in the Army in 1962, there was little interest in Israel in the officer corps… [The] 1967 war was a watershed. Israel’s total victory had been unexpected by most. Americans are mentally driven by aggressive sports analogies and Israel was a winner. That made a big difference in spite of the repeated day long attacks by the Israeli air force and navy against U.S.S. Liberty, an American SIGINT collector positioned off the Egyptian coast. LBJ suppressed an armed reaction by a U.S. carrier battle group in the area and a subsequent naval investigation....  MORE

Stamps are cancelled for a single very good reason.  So people can't cut out pristine stamps, take a little glue, and use them over and over again.  Every time the USPS does not cancel a stamp, it gives up money.  This, at an agency which cries poverty and posts losses every year, in the billions, despite billions in subsidies.

Right after it was noticed in the pipe bomb scare that the stamps on the packages were not cancelled, the media immediately pounced on "conspiracy theorists" who noticed this and cited it as further evidence that the bombs were conveniently timed to make Trump supporters look like violent lunatics.  Now we learned that not all stamps are cancelled, and, according to Snopes, that could mean 80% of all stamps.   Snopes found a stamp collector who said:

There are estimates of up to 80 percent of packages delivered through the mail are delivered without cancellations.

Snopes then quoted unnamed sources in an NBC report to explain to the Little People why stamps would not be cancelled:

some packages were not postmarked because the soft packaging could not go through the postal machines.

Yet the postal experts admitted that when a package would not fit through an machine, which would be an awful lot of packages and the most profitable because they need the most postage, it was the job of the handler to scratch a line through the stamps by hand with a black magic marker.

Mainstream media started suggesting that maybe some of the packages were delivered by courier.  But if delivered by courier, why would they need stamps?

The media used words like "filth" and "despicable" toward Trump supporters speculating that all was not exactly as the government's story said, a lone nut with brand new Trump stickers all over his van did it.

So what gives, people who work or have worked at a Post Office?  Doesn't anyone spot check if workers are drawing a line through the stamps, and could this be why the Post Office is perpetually, forever broke and asking for a hand-out?  Or is this "debunk" bunk?  Selling stamps and postage is the whole way the PO makes money.  Now suddenly here are multiple packages in a row, same thing.


check this out, free speech is "despicable!"  "DESPICABLE!"  FROM FAKE NEWS ITSELF CNN!

"Debunking the despicable 'false flag' theory on the mail bombs"

Ha ha wonder how  long it takes them to swap the firmware with a regular screwdriver.

Ok we do need to control our borders.  But how about we stop stopping their revolutions, so they don't have to come up here in the first place? 

<a href="" target="_blank" class="new_win"></a>


"You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about," Clinton said in an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour. "That's why I believe, if we are fortunate enough to win back the House and or the Senate, that's when civility can start again. But until then, the only thing that the Republicans seem to recognize and respect is strength."

Pages: [1]