Author: admin

The Three Bullets of Francesca Mann


Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.

Francesca Mann met with absolute evil — and she shot it.

On October 23, 1943, the next train with the Jews – about 1,700 people — arrived at the death camp (Konzentrationslager) Auschwitz II-Birkenau. Unlike all other trains arriving at Auschwitz, it was a real passenger train, not a cattle train. Also, none of their arriving Jews wore the yellow Star of David on their clothes.

Arriving Jews were greeted warmly by the “representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Third Reich” Franz Hössler, who announced that this is their last stop before crossing the border with Switzerland, from where they would travel to different countries of South America. Just a few formalities remain — disinfection, shower, and then — long-awaited freedom. Few people guessed that they were in southern Poland, not in southern Germany, and that Hössler was actually an SS First Lieutenant (SS-Obersturmführer).

All of them, representatives of the wealthiest Jewish families of occupied Poland, dreamed of  freedom. A secret Nazi program for “obtaining visas to the countries of South America” was created specifically for them. The headquarters of this program was set up by the Gestapo in the Hotel Polski in Warsaw. The cost of a fake exit visa to Paraguay, Panama, Peru, Guatemala or Bolivia was about $1,500 per person (more than $20,000 at today’s rate). The program was deliberately designed for the wealthy. The plan was devilishly tricky – a minimal number of Jews were in fact allowed to travel to neutral countries for the exchange of German prisoners of war, and this ensured a continuous inflow of Jewish money into the treasury of the Third Reich.

The Hotel Polski was in the “Aryan zone” of Warsaw, outside the Warsaw Jewish ghetto. One of the couriers between the ghetto and the hotel was the 26-year-old Francesca Mann.

Francesca Mann was her stage name. She was a Jewish ballerina and dancer, one of the most famous, talented, and beautiful women in Poland. Her maiden name was Manheimer, and her husband, Marek Rosenberg, was the son of a wealthy Warsaw jersey merchant.

The privileged status of Francesca manifested itself in everything. Only she could flaunt fur coats inside a dirty ghetto. Only she was allowed to leave the ghetto for the “Aryan zone” anytime. Of course, the Gestapo kept her in the dark, so Francesca sincerely believed that she was helping wealthy Jews find freedom. She knew too much and perhaps suspected something, so the Gestapo ordered her on the very first train to South America with a layover in Auschwitz.

What happened upon arrival in Auschwitz we only know from the words of the eyewitnesses who survived.  Most of them were prisoners who were forced to work at the camp. Their testimonies differ in detail, but they agree on one thing – the beautiful woman from Warsaw went down in history as a hero.

In the locker room in front of the gas chamber (camouflaged as the showers) Krema 2, the SS supervisors ordered all women to undress. Approximately half of the women followed the order, but the rest felt that something was wrong. The SS men began using gun stocks to drive the women into the gas chamber amid horrific screams and crying.

The tense situation was defused by Francesca Mann. She escaped from the screaming crowd to a group of SS guards and, to the astonishment of the men, began to perform a striptease.  

This openly sexy dance by such a brilliant professional dancer had the SS guards hypnotized. Finally, Francesca undressed entirely remaining only in her high-heeled shoes. In the blink of an eye, she took off her shoes and smashed the face of a nearby Sergeant (SS-Oberscharführer) Quackernak with the sharp heelpiece.

The shocked Quackernak dropped his weapon and covered his bloody face with both hands. Francesca used this moment to pick up his pistol and shoot Sergeant Josef Shillinger, one of the most odious sadists of Auschwitz, twice in the stomach. She then aimed at Quackernak but missed, the bullet instead hitting Master Sergeant (SS-Hauptscharführer) Emmerich. Her shots served as a signal, and several hundred furious and desperate women attacked a dozen SS men.

Commandant of Auschwitz Lt. Colonel (SS-Obersturmbannführer) Rudolf Höss came running at the sound of the shots. He ordered the SS men to block all the exits from the building and shoot all the Jews who were in the locker room.

Schillinger died the same day on his way to the hospital. Emmerich remained lame for life. Quackernak was sentenced by a military tribunal in 1946 to be hanged for his participation in mass executions of civilians and Soviet prisoners of war. Hössler was hanged in the same year.

At the military tribunal after WWII, Höss was accused under his leadership, three and a half million Jews were killed. He filed a protest, because according to the statistics of the Third Reich during his command of the death camp of Auschwitz, not three and a half, but only two and a half million Jews were killed, and the rest allegedly died of various illnesses. Höss was executed by hanging in 1947 in the same death camp he had commanded – in Auschwitz.

Dr. Gary Gindler, Ph.D. is a conservative Russian-American blogger at Gary Gindler Chronicles.



Source link

Sultan Erdogan and the New Janissaries


Though Western Europe and Washington are reluctant to fess up to this unfortunate fact, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long ago given up even the pretence of being a democratic polity and is openly pursuing policies detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and Western security considerations. In short, Turkey has become an Islamist dictatorship every bit as inimical to Western interests as Iran, except for being allowed by the West to maintain the charade that it is still a member of NATO and the Western community of nations. This is a dangerous charade that will inevitably come back to haunt us. For the reality is that Erdogan the Islamist has ambitions that go beyond Turkey and even the Middle East.  Well known for his admiration for the Ottomans, Erdogan imagines himself as the leader of a new Ottoman Empire based on an Islamized Turkey, but exerting its influence far beyond. Many would dismiss this as an unrealistic pipe dream, and it probably is just that ultimately. But in pursuing it vigorously, Erdogan has already done much damage both in Turkey and abroad. Suffice it to say that Turks who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands for decades, voted for Erdogan in greater percentages (60% and 70% respectively) than voters in Turkey itself in the last referendum.  

The key to spreading Erdogan’s Islamist message is an organization called Diyanet, a Turkish directorate for religious affairs that is directly subordinated to him. Few if any Western leaders have ever heard of it, despite its importance. It was originally set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924 for the purpose of training imams for the mosques, but more importantly, it was tasked with preventing the radicalization of Turkish Islam. The type of education received in these madrassa-like institutions, called imam-hatip schools, was considered second-rate and did not qualify their graduates for the university or government work. At the time of Erdogan’s takeover of the government in 2002, there were 450 imam-hatip schools with some 60,000 students. Most of them were the sons of poorly-educated yet devout Muslims, which Erdogan, himself the product of such a school, considered prime islamization cadres. And so, after neutralizing the Turkish military by means of bogus but ultimately effective show trials, Erdogan set about to build up and promote an army of pious imam-hatip graduates devoted to him, not unlike the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves the slaves of the sultan alone. Here it must be mentioned that these madrassas as well as the mandatory religious education curriculum in Turkey is highly discriminatory to the extent that it teaches exclusively the Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim jurisprudence, which is not practiced by the large populations of Alevis and the Kurds, who follow the shafi’i madhab, not to mention the millions of secular Turks.    

Appointing a zealous Islamist (who considered Israel a terror organization on a par with ISIS) to lead the Diyanet in 2010, Erdogan removed all career obstacles previously faced by imam-hatip graduates,  indeed began treating them preferentially for government work and in the military, while providing  the Diyanet with massive amounts of money and islamizing the curriculum to exclude evolution. This promptly made these schools a hugely desirable career choice for aspiring Islamists. And so, by 2015, there were 1961 imam-hatip schools with more than 1.2 million students and a budget of $2 billion.

These exorbitant numbers clearly beyond the needs of the 85,000 Turkish mosques reveal Erdogan’s ambitions in both staffing his government and the military with reliable Islamists, and also his long-term agenda to export his Islamist agenda to Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, the Balkans and beyond. Few people realize that after the relative retreat of Saudi efforts to finance radical Islamic projects in the West, Turkey is increasingly the key actor funding the radicalization of European Muslims. It is well positioned to do that due to the large Turkish communities that immigrated to Western Europe as gastarbeiter in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the significant numbers of native Turkish and/or Turkic populations in the Balkans and Central Asia. Many if not most of the imams sent by Diyanet to serve in Europe, as a rule, do not speak the local language and barely know the societies in which they find themselves, nor are they encouraged to get to know them. The one mantra that Turkish officials repeat ad nauseum is that assimilation is wrong, or as Erdogan put it himself “a crime against humanity.” And it may be working. Sevral recent studies have shown that 3rd generation Turks in Germany are no better integrated than those of the first.

Nor are these are the only disturbing news. Information from a number of Western European countries has come that Diyanet and mosque officials work closely with the Turkish intelligence organization, MIT, to spy on fellow Turks on behalf of the Ankara government. One German source revealed that 6000 MIT spies are active in the mosques, while the Dutch head of the Diyanet admitted publicly to have engaged in spying. There are further Turkish efforts to build a number of mega mosques in places where there are few Muslims, like Bucharest and Budapest, as well as attempts in both Eastern and Western Europe to set up parties designed to serve the Turkish strongman. It is not likely that they will stop before the West finally understands that Islamist Turkey is not a friend and begins to act accordingly.  

Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets it ion national security at tweeter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com 

Though Western Europe and Washington are reluctant to fess up to this unfortunate fact, Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan has long ago given up even the pretence of being a democratic polity and is openly pursuing policies detrimental to democracy, the rule of law and Western security considerations. In short, Turkey has become an Islamist dictatorship every bit as inimical to Western interests as Iran, except for being allowed by the West to maintain the charade that it is still a member of NATO and the Western community of nations. This is a dangerous charade that will inevitably come back to haunt us. For the reality is that Erdogan the Islamist has ambitions that go beyond Turkey and even the Middle East.  Well known for his admiration for the Ottomans, Erdogan imagines himself as the leader of a new Ottoman Empire based on an Islamized Turkey, but exerting its influence far beyond. Many would dismiss this as an unrealistic pipe dream, and it probably is just that ultimately. But in pursuing it vigorously, Erdogan has already done much damage both in Turkey and abroad. Suffice it to say that Turks who had lived in Germany and the Netherlands for decades, voted for Erdogan in greater percentages (60% and 70% respectively) than voters in Turkey itself in the last referendum.  

The key to spreading Erdogan’s Islamist message is an organization called Diyanet, a Turkish directorate for religious affairs that is directly subordinated to him. Few if any Western leaders have ever heard of it, despite its importance. It was originally set up by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1924 for the purpose of training imams for the mosques, but more importantly, it was tasked with preventing the radicalization of Turkish Islam. The type of education received in these madrassa-like institutions, called imam-hatip schools, was considered second-rate and did not qualify their graduates for the university or government work. At the time of Erdogan’s takeover of the government in 2002, there were 450 imam-hatip schools with some 60,000 students. Most of them were the sons of poorly-educated yet devout Muslims, which Erdogan, himself the product of such a school, considered prime islamization cadres. And so, after neutralizing the Turkish military by means of bogus but ultimately effective show trials, Erdogan set about to build up and promote an army of pious imam-hatip graduates devoted to him, not unlike the janissaries of the Ottoman Empire, who considered themselves the slaves of the sultan alone. Here it must be mentioned that these madrassas as well as the mandatory religious education curriculum in Turkey is highly discriminatory to the extent that it teaches exclusively the Sunni Hanafi school of Muslim jurisprudence, which is not practiced by the large populations of Alevis and the Kurds, who follow the shafi’i madhab, not to mention the millions of secular Turks.    

Appointing a zealous Islamist (who considered Israel a terror organization on a par with ISIS) to lead the Diyanet in 2010, Erdogan removed all career obstacles previously faced by imam-hatip graduates,  indeed began treating them preferentially for government work and in the military, while providing  the Diyanet with massive amounts of money and islamizing the curriculum to exclude evolution. This promptly made these schools a hugely desirable career choice for aspiring Islamists. And so, by 2015, there were 1961 imam-hatip schools with more than 1.2 million students and a budget of $2 billion.

These exorbitant numbers clearly beyond the needs of the 85,000 Turkish mosques reveal Erdogan’s ambitions in both staffing his government and the military with reliable Islamists, and also his long-term agenda to export his Islamist agenda to Turkish and Muslim diaspora communities in Europe, the Balkans and beyond. Few people realize that after the relative retreat of Saudi efforts to finance radical Islamic projects in the West, Turkey is increasingly the key actor funding the radicalization of European Muslims. It is well positioned to do that due to the large Turkish communities that immigrated to Western Europe as gastarbeiter in the 1960s and 1970s, as well as the significant numbers of native Turkish and/or Turkic populations in the Balkans and Central Asia. Many if not most of the imams sent by Diyanet to serve in Europe, as a rule, do not speak the local language and barely know the societies in which they find themselves, nor are they encouraged to get to know them. The one mantra that Turkish officials repeat ad nauseum is that assimilation is wrong, or as Erdogan put it himself “a crime against humanity.” And it may be working. Sevral recent studies have shown that 3rd generation Turks in Germany are no better integrated than those of the first.

Nor are these are the only disturbing news. Information from a number of Western European countries has come that Diyanet and mosque officials work closely with the Turkish intelligence organization, MIT, to spy on fellow Turks on behalf of the Ankara government. One German source revealed that 6000 MIT spies are active in the mosques, while the Dutch head of the Diyanet admitted publicly to have engaged in spying. There are further Turkish efforts to build a number of mega mosques in places where there are few Muslims, like Bucharest and Budapest, as well as attempts in both Eastern and Western Europe to set up parties designed to serve the Turkish strongman. It is not likely that they will stop before the West finally understands that Islamist Turkey is not a friend and begins to act accordingly.  

Alex Alexiev is chairman of the Center for Balkan and Black Sea Studies (cbbss.org) and editor of bulgariaanalytica.org. He tweets it ion national security at tweeter.com/alexieff and could be reached at alexievalex4@gmail.com 



Source link

Is Uranium One the Final Nail in Israel's Coffin?


The awful possibility that Israel could end-up on the receiving end of nuclear bombs manufactured from American ore starts with the obvious sympathies Barack Obama has had for Iran. A simple review of the Iranians he surrounded himself with (think Valerie Jarrett), and the numerous meetings at the White House with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and you get the picture. Add Hillary’s right hand aide, Huma Abidin, whose family was intimately involved with the Brotherhood, and you see even more proof. Although I suspect Clinton was always more for the money than any religious bent.

Obama hated Israel. From the date of his inauguration he went out of his way to demonstrate his fealty to Iran. From his disrespectful treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his feckless withdrawal from Iraq, to his botched attempts to rid the middle east of its “Zookeepers” in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Zookeepers being those countries leaders that had for generations kept the radical Muslim jihadists in check.  Remember, two of those three countries surround Israel. With the zookeepers gone, the Muslim Brotherhood could ascend and the assault on Israel could commence.

Which it did. In Egypt, with Mubarak gone, the terrorists started forming camps in the Sinai, and digging dozens of tunnels into Israel from which terror attacks would spring. Egypt’s El Sisi dramatically overthrew the Brotherhood and confronted them. In Libya, after the U.S. bombed the country for months and Gadhafi was eventually killed, anarchy ensued and four American’s were murdered. Libya is still a failed state because of that stupidity. But in Syria, Obama found a more determined opponent in Assad, and to this day Assad still stands, although a good portion of that country is in shambles. As for Iraq, although more stable once again with American forces aiding, Iran is said to have established a foothold there. 

That leaves Iran as the last, best proxy to destroy Israel. To make Iran powerful enough to destroy Israel, they would need what? An atomic weapon of course. But how could they make one without the foundation fuel, uranium? Simple, give them some of ours. But it couldn’t be done with a Craig’s List post. It had to have the cover of a “legitimate” business transaction with someone other than the Obama administration. Who would be the best scoundrel to accomplish this task? Hillary Clinton of course. Why was she named Secretary0 of State anyway? Certainly not for her executive experience.

Enter Uranium One, a mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada owning one of the largest mining operations of United States uranium. Acquire them and you would have access to the mother load of uranium. Who bought Uranium One and why was it for sale? Rosatom, a Russian State-owned enterprise, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, bought the company. Why it was for sale has not been reported.

Meanwhile Clinton, being no fool when it comes to rackets, demanded some “skin” in the game from the buyers and sellers before she and Obama would approve of the sale. The Mafia’s got nothing compared to the Clintons.

So, the Russians (buyers) began funneling money to the Clintons through speech fees and direct payments to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One Board Members (sellers) began forking over $145 million to the Clinton foundation, and presto, the sale is approved.

And funnier still was President Obama simultaneously hashing out, in secret, a letter of “understanding” to allow, guess who… Iran, to continue its nuclear reactor activity unsupervised. No inspectors allowed. Some deal right? And any deal that binds the United States to international duties is called a treaty. And that requires congressional approval. But somehow congress forgot that and led by Bob Corker, worked around the Constitutional duty to approve.

But hidden in all of this is the fact that Uranium One stock had been trading for as low as 10 cents a share just a few years before. The price of the stock when sold? With the purchase of the company valued at $3.1 billion, the share price was about $7. Nice mark up and a serious return on their investment in the Clinton Foundation. And the Obama Justice Department quashed an active FBI investigation into this scandal through two terms in office.

Oh, and on a side note, how about the billions Obama released to the Iranians? Some estimates are upwards of $33 billion. Was there anything Obama wouldn’t do to further Iran’s goals?

And now we find that Rosatom has, through Canada, where Uranium One was headquartered, shipped yellow cake uranium out of our country without a license to do so.  Also on Obama’s watch.  Where did this yellow cake uranium finally end up once it left our country and most likely shipped to Russia?

From ZeroHedge, Jan 9, 2017:

Obama “Gifts” Iran With Massive Uranium Shipment From Russia Sufficient “For More Than 10 Nuclear Bombs”


In what amounts to an 11th hour “gift” by the outgoing Obama administration to Tehran’s leadership to keep the country, which on Sunday was involved in yet another shooting incident with a US destroyer, content and compliant with Obama’s landmark “Nuclear deal”, the AP reported that Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant. The move was approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments “seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.

The Mullahs who head the religious dictatorship eagerly anticipate an apocalypse leading to the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, who will then establish a global caliphate, leading to a perfect world. If they are on the receiving end of the Uranium One ore, they might end up with the means to bring about at least the first step of the prophecy, and target the “little Satan” of Israel, next door to their client in Damascus.    

The writer is just a regular guy that likes to try and connect dots.

The awful possibility that Israel could end-up on the receiving end of nuclear bombs manufactured from American ore starts with the obvious sympathies Barack Obama has had for Iran. A simple review of the Iranians he surrounded himself with (think Valerie Jarrett), and the numerous meetings at the White House with members of the Muslim Brotherhood and you get the picture. Add Hillary’s right hand aide, Huma Abidin, whose family was intimately involved with the Brotherhood, and you see even more proof. Although I suspect Clinton was always more for the money than any religious bent.

Obama hated Israel. From the date of his inauguration he went out of his way to demonstrate his fealty to Iran. From his disrespectful treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his feckless withdrawal from Iraq, to his botched attempts to rid the middle east of its “Zookeepers” in Libya, Egypt and Syria. Zookeepers being those countries leaders that had for generations kept the radical Muslim jihadists in check.  Remember, two of those three countries surround Israel. With the zookeepers gone, the Muslim Brotherhood could ascend and the assault on Israel could commence.

Which it did. In Egypt, with Mubarak gone, the terrorists started forming camps in the Sinai, and digging dozens of tunnels into Israel from which terror attacks would spring. Egypt’s El Sisi dramatically overthrew the Brotherhood and confronted them. In Libya, after the U.S. bombed the country for months and Gadhafi was eventually killed, anarchy ensued and four American’s were murdered. Libya is still a failed state because of that stupidity. But in Syria, Obama found a more determined opponent in Assad, and to this day Assad still stands, although a good portion of that country is in shambles. As for Iraq, although more stable once again with American forces aiding, Iran is said to have established a foothold there. 

That leaves Iran as the last, best proxy to destroy Israel. To make Iran powerful enough to destroy Israel, they would need what? An atomic weapon of course. But how could they make one without the foundation fuel, uranium? Simple, give them some of ours. But it couldn’t be done with a Craig’s List post. It had to have the cover of a “legitimate” business transaction with someone other than the Obama administration. Who would be the best scoundrel to accomplish this task? Hillary Clinton of course. Why was she named Secretary0 of State anyway? Certainly not for her executive experience.

Enter Uranium One, a mining company with headquarters in Toronto, Ontario, Canada owning one of the largest mining operations of United States uranium. Acquire them and you would have access to the mother load of uranium. Who bought Uranium One and why was it for sale? Rosatom, a Russian State-owned enterprise, through its subsidiary ARMZ Uranium Holding, bought the company. Why it was for sale has not been reported.

Meanwhile Clinton, being no fool when it comes to rackets, demanded some “skin” in the game from the buyers and sellers before she and Obama would approve of the sale. The Mafia’s got nothing compared to the Clintons.

So, the Russians (buyers) began funneling money to the Clintons through speech fees and direct payments to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One Board Members (sellers) began forking over $145 million to the Clinton foundation, and presto, the sale is approved.

And funnier still was President Obama simultaneously hashing out, in secret, a letter of “understanding” to allow, guess who… Iran, to continue its nuclear reactor activity unsupervised. No inspectors allowed. Some deal right? And any deal that binds the United States to international duties is called a treaty. And that requires congressional approval. But somehow congress forgot that and led by Bob Corker, worked around the Constitutional duty to approve.

But hidden in all of this is the fact that Uranium One stock had been trading for as low as 10 cents a share just a few years before. The price of the stock when sold? With the purchase of the company valued at $3.1 billion, the share price was about $7. Nice mark up and a serious return on their investment in the Clinton Foundation. And the Obama Justice Department quashed an active FBI investigation into this scandal through two terms in office.

Oh, and on a side note, how about the billions Obama released to the Iranians? Some estimates are upwards of $33 billion. Was there anything Obama wouldn’t do to further Iran’s goals?

And now we find that Rosatom has, through Canada, where Uranium One was headquartered, shipped yellow cake uranium out of our country without a license to do so.  Also on Obama’s watch.  Where did this yellow cake uranium finally end up once it left our country and most likely shipped to Russia?

From ZeroHedge, Jan 9, 2017:

Obama “Gifts” Iran With Massive Uranium Shipment From Russia Sufficient “For More Than 10 Nuclear Bombs”


In what amounts to an 11th hour “gift” by the outgoing Obama administration to Tehran’s leadership to keep the country, which on Sunday was involved in yet another shooting incident with a US destroyer, content and compliant with Obama’s landmark “Nuclear deal”, the AP reported that Iran is to receive a huge shipment of natural uranium from Russia to compensate it for exporting tons of reactor coolant. The move was approved by the outgoing U.S. administration and other governments “seeking to keep Tehran committed to a landmark nuclear pact.

The Mullahs who head the religious dictatorship eagerly anticipate an apocalypse leading to the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam, or Mahdi, who will then establish a global caliphate, leading to a perfect world. If they are on the receiving end of the Uranium One ore, they might end up with the means to bring about at least the first step of the prophecy, and target the “little Satan” of Israel, next door to their client in Damascus.    

The writer is just a regular guy that likes to try and connect dots.



Source link

Finally, the Missing Puzzle Piece



For those who have, over the years, watched with horror and ire as Obama usurped power and ran the government like a dictator, the latest revelations are not especially surprising.



Source link

The Big Mistake in Obamacare Replacement Plans


When Democrats were peddling ObamaCare to an unsuspecting America, they told us that the price of health insurance would go down by thousands of dollars. But the opposite happened, and it continues to happen. The way that real insurance works is that policyholders get lower premiums if they are less likely to file claims and thereby cost their insurance companies money; that is, if they pose less risk. Insurance companies set premiums by using actuarial science to calculate risk.

But ObamaCare policies don’t price for risk, everyone pays the same regardless of risk due to the ACA’s “community rating” policy. However, there’s another way to keep the price of premiums down and that’s for policyholders to agree to pay some of the costs of the medical treatment incurred in their claims, i.e. deductibles and copayments — the lower the premium, the higher the deductible.

So, ObamaCare tried to make premiums affordable by having much, much higher deductibles. But some folks who file claims with ObamaCare can’t pay their deductibles. ObamaCare took care of those folks through CSRs, cost sharing reductions, where government pays the policyholder’s deductible.

Unlike its premiums, the ACA did not provide automatic funding of the CSRs. Instead, Congress must regularly approve the funds for the CSRs, and Congress hasn’t been doing that. This back-loaded little aspect of the ACA has been driven home recently by President Trump’s executive order to stop payment of CSRs. Democrats and their stooges in the media are wailing that the president’s order is “arson” and “sabotage.” They caterwaul that without the CSR payments the price of ACA premiums will, surprise, surprise, shoot up even higher. They seem to think that the ACA should be exempt from the “Laws of Insurance.”

On May 12, 2016 in House v. Burwell, a federal judge found that the payments of CSRs are unconstitutional because Congress hasn’t been appropriating the funds. Law Professor Timothy Jost has written much on the case (archive); here’s what he wrote on the day of the decision. Though Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 is quite clear in requiring that money cannot be “drawn from the Treasury” without an appropriation from Congress, Democrats seem to think that the president should just keep on lawlessly spending money, just as Obama did.

The media has been rather careless in reporting this story; they often refer to the CSRs as “subsidies.” But there’s another ObamaCare subsidy that one receives when the government helps to pay for one’s health insurance premiums. That is the main subsidy, and it has complicated folks’ income tax returns. Unlike premiums, which must be paid every month, the CSRs are subsidies that would never need to be paid if no one filed a claim. But policyholders do file claims, so the true cost of ACA policies needs to include the $7B that the CSRs are costing taxpayers. That’s the same $7B Democrats think Pres. Trump should be spending without congressional authorization.

Congress has the power to appropriate the funds for the CSRs, and recently Sens. Alexander and Murray have reached a deal to do just that. However, the deal is for a two-year appropriation, which Republicans should reject for a much shorter funding period, should they be inclined to vote for this deal. Not only that, Republicans should get some concessions, too:

Just minutes before Alexander announced the deal, White House legislative director Marc Short emerged from a Senate GOP lunch saying that “a starting point” in exchange for restoring the cost-sharing payments “is eliminating the individual mandate and employer mandate” — the central pillars of Obamacare.

But the mandates aren’t “the central pillars of ObamaCare.” ObamaCare made inroads into several huge areas of health insurance, and most of ObamaCare would still stand if the individual mandate were repealed. What would be affected by the elimination of the individual mandate is the Individual Market.

Because most Americans receive health insurance through their employer or through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare trained its corporatist sights on the Individual Market. It is this group that receives all the media attention, but it is by far the smallest sector. Before the implementation of the ACA, the Individual Market, which is also called the “Non-Group” market, comprised just 4 percent of the population.

Repeal of the individual mandate would likely result in throngs of healthy young Americans choosing not to buy health insurance, which would indeed doom the Individual Market under Obamacare. But that should happen anyway. You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

But what we’ve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the government’s involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republican’s “Big Mistake” in their replacement plans.

Here’s a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal government’s continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

With ObamaCare you get both high premiums and high deductibles. But ACA premiums would have been even higher had Democrats structured ObamaCare like real insurance with reasonable deductibles. The people ObamaCare hurts the most are those who pay the full price for health insurance at the exchanges.

If people don’t have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Court’s usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 

When Democrats were peddling ObamaCare to an unsuspecting America, they told us that the price of health insurance would go down by thousands of dollars. But the opposite happened, and it continues to happen. The way that real insurance works is that policyholders get lower premiums if they are less likely to file claims and thereby cost their insurance companies money; that is, if they pose less risk. Insurance companies set premiums by using actuarial science to calculate risk.

But ObamaCare policies don’t price for risk, everyone pays the same regardless of risk due to the ACA’s “community rating” policy. However, there’s another way to keep the price of premiums down and that’s for policyholders to agree to pay some of the costs of the medical treatment incurred in their claims, i.e. deductibles and copayments — the lower the premium, the higher the deductible.

So, ObamaCare tried to make premiums affordable by having much, much higher deductibles. But some folks who file claims with ObamaCare can’t pay their deductibles. ObamaCare took care of those folks through CSRs, cost sharing reductions, where government pays the policyholder’s deductible.

Unlike its premiums, the ACA did not provide automatic funding of the CSRs. Instead, Congress must regularly approve the funds for the CSRs, and Congress hasn’t been doing that. This back-loaded little aspect of the ACA has been driven home recently by President Trump’s executive order to stop payment of CSRs. Democrats and their stooges in the media are wailing that the president’s order is “arson” and “sabotage.” They caterwaul that without the CSR payments the price of ACA premiums will, surprise, surprise, shoot up even higher. They seem to think that the ACA should be exempt from the “Laws of Insurance.”

On May 12, 2016 in House v. Burwell, a federal judge found that the payments of CSRs are unconstitutional because Congress hasn’t been appropriating the funds. Law Professor Timothy Jost has written much on the case (archive); here’s what he wrote on the day of the decision. Though Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 is quite clear in requiring that money cannot be “drawn from the Treasury” without an appropriation from Congress, Democrats seem to think that the president should just keep on lawlessly spending money, just as Obama did.

The media has been rather careless in reporting this story; they often refer to the CSRs as “subsidies.” But there’s another ObamaCare subsidy that one receives when the government helps to pay for one’s health insurance premiums. That is the main subsidy, and it has complicated folks’ income tax returns. Unlike premiums, which must be paid every month, the CSRs are subsidies that would never need to be paid if no one filed a claim. But policyholders do file claims, so the true cost of ACA policies needs to include the $7B that the CSRs are costing taxpayers. That’s the same $7B Democrats think Pres. Trump should be spending without congressional authorization.

Congress has the power to appropriate the funds for the CSRs, and recently Sens. Alexander and Murray have reached a deal to do just that. However, the deal is for a two-year appropriation, which Republicans should reject for a much shorter funding period, should they be inclined to vote for this deal. Not only that, Republicans should get some concessions, too:

Just minutes before Alexander announced the deal, White House legislative director Marc Short emerged from a Senate GOP lunch saying that “a starting point” in exchange for restoring the cost-sharing payments “is eliminating the individual mandate and employer mandate” — the central pillars of Obamacare.

But the mandates aren’t “the central pillars of ObamaCare.” ObamaCare made inroads into several huge areas of health insurance, and most of ObamaCare would still stand if the individual mandate were repealed. What would be affected by the elimination of the individual mandate is the Individual Market.

Because most Americans receive health insurance through their employer or through government programs like Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare trained its corporatist sights on the Individual Market. It is this group that receives all the media attention, but it is by far the smallest sector. Before the implementation of the ACA, the Individual Market, which is also called the “Non-Group” market, comprised just 4 percent of the population.

Repeal of the individual mandate would likely result in throngs of healthy young Americans choosing not to buy health insurance, which would indeed doom the Individual Market under Obamacare. But that should happen anyway. You see, government needs to get completely out of the Individual Market; Congress needs to let the Individual Market be totally private.

But what we’ve seen with the various Republican repeal and replace plans is that they retain government involvement in the Individual Market. Continuing the government’s involvement in the Individual Market with the individual mandate and subsidies is the Republican’s “Big Mistake” in their replacement plans.

Here’s a question that should be asked of all congressional Republicans: Will you vote to repeal the individual mandate? Any GOP congressman who is for the repeal of the individual mandate cannot also be for the federal government’s continued involvement in the Individual Market, because that market depends on that mandate. In their repeal and replace plans, Republicans are sabotaging themselves by being for contradictory things.

With ObamaCare you get both high premiums and high deductibles. But ACA premiums would have been even higher had Democrats structured ObamaCare like real insurance with reasonable deductibles. The people ObamaCare hurts the most are those who pay the full price for health insurance at the exchanges.

If people don’t have the funds to pay the full price for health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays, then they need to be put into Medicaid. Congress should especially be putting ACA subsidy recipients with pre-existing conditions into Medicaid. All taxpayers should be helping to pay for those very sick poor people, rather than having a disproportionate amount of it paid by those in the Individual Market.

Besides being incoherent, the Supreme Court decision to uphold the individual mandate was a rewrite of the ACA. The Court did not defer to Congress when it saved Obamacare, it legislated. Congress should resent the Court’s usurpation of its power to write law. If the high court will not strike down bad law, then it is left to Congress to do so.

Jon N. Hall of Ultracon Opinion is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City. 



Source link

K-12: Character Assassins


Once upon a time, schools tried to improve the character of their students.  Be neat.  Be punctual.  Be accurate.  Do your homework.  Don’t copy anyone else’s work.  Dot your is and cross your ts.  Remember, practice makes perfect.

In a similar way, the Boy Scouts urged boys to be little gentlemen.  Scout Law dictates: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

For much of American history, few questioned these values.  Benjamin Franklin declared the prevailing view: “nothing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.”

Alas, all that is gone with the wind from the classrooms of America.  Evidently, Progressives figured out that the converse of Franklin’s insight is also true: nothing is more destructive to the public weal than to deform and train down youth in ignorance and immorality. 

Progressives hit the country with a double-whammy: sabotage of both academics and character.

If you haven’t paid attention to K-12 for a few decades, the first thing you notice is that education officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar  spelling, etc.  It’s surprising if students know where Alaska is on a map or who won the Civil War.

Have you gotten used to all that?  You’ll probably still be surprised when you realize that a lot of what goes on in public schools is targeted not at academics, but at the moral development of students.  If they are slouches – shallow, ignorant, and narcissistic – that seems to be what our social engineers want.

These days, our schools are engaged in an anti-gentleman crusade.  Don’t try too hard.  Don’t worry if the dog ate your homework.  It’s  normal to cut corners and leave work unfinished.  Lateness is okay.  Incomplete is as good as complete.  Wrong answers are acceptable if you explain your tactics.  Cheating is okay because everyone does it. 

Here is a scary snapshot from a teacher commenting on this country’s best students (AP Chemistry).

Today … my students are chronically tardy and absent, often refuse to do even the most trivial work, and experience a diluted and simplified version of what I once taught. If I write something on the board, when I turn around a dozen phones have materialized and are actively being typed on. When I try to do fun things like labs and projects, the students complain and mope as if I was walking them to prison. They lament (out loud) how awful it is that they just can’t look up the answers like all the other classes.

Students refuse.  Isn’t that word a terrifying revelation?

Let’s face it: a lot of life is doing things you wish you could avoid.  You don’t want to take extra care with a project, but you do it anyway.  In the process, you get stronger and more disciplined.  This will help you in the future, no matter what job you have.  But the schools are saying, Skip all that; let’s smoke a joint and chill.  They are saying, Become the useless slug no one would want to hire.  Be the weak link in every chain.

Whenever the official experts bother to touch on these concerns, they are the devil’s advocate.  An article on Edutopia blandly asserts what is surely controversial (boldface in original):

Myth #2: Homework Boosts Achievement. There is no evidence that this is true. In Finland, students have higher achievement with little or no homework and shorter school hours. The more important factor is what students experience during the school day. Project-based learning, as one example, places the emphasis on what is done during the day. If students choose to do more after hours, that’s their choice. There also may sometimes be other good reasons to assign homework, but there should be no illusion that homework will help increase student achievement.

You see, there is always some deep reason, some brilliant expert, to give schools an excuse for aiming low.  Why bother with homework?  Edutopia says it doesn’t matter.  Nowadays, almost nothing matters.

I knew a woman five years out of Vassar who still had incomplete papers hanging over her.  Finally Vassar said, you have to do these papers, or you lose all the credits you acquired.  The point is, they corrupted her in the first place.  They let her get away with being lazy, undisciplined, and dissolute.

The part that is not clear to me is, what happens to the cheaters later on?  And how do the lazy, corner-cutting students compete with students who have learned to work hard?  Cheaters know that their grades are meaningless.  They don’t have the knowledge or abilities their schools claimed  for them.  They will have to spend their lives covering up.  Some of our ditzy administrators probably insist they are trying to help students by cushioning them from the shocks of real life.  But that’s not a help; it’s a curse.

According to one pundit, “[s]tudents claim they are so stressed from school that they demand no grades be given for their poor attendance or non-performance; sadly, half the schools in the country have obliged.”

Schools have gotten increasingly permissive.  There is clearly some diabolical intent.  It’s almost as if the social engineers had a meeting and said, Okay, how do we fix it so kids never turn out right?

Can we reverse this trend?  Yes, by going back to what we had 50 years ago and before.  Tell students they can’t cheat, make it difficult for them to cheat, and punish them when they do.  Start in the first grade teaching things simply and systematically, all the while making it clear that the students are expected to learn the material.  Our current schools do it the opposite way: make everything chaotic, but then – wink, wink – make clear that nothing much will be expected.

Put simply, the current education decline was caused by discarding traditional approaches and then letting progressive ideas overrun the landscape.  Let’s do the opposite. 

Get rid of progressive ideas, and restore traditional education.  All that means in practice is that public schools do what private schools do every day.  Sounds good to me.

Bruce Deitrick Price deconstructs theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  His new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?

Once upon a time, schools tried to improve the character of their students.  Be neat.  Be punctual.  Be accurate.  Do your homework.  Don’t copy anyone else’s work.  Dot your is and cross your ts.  Remember, practice makes perfect.

In a similar way, the Boy Scouts urged boys to be little gentlemen.  Scout Law dictates: “A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

For much of American history, few questioned these values.  Benjamin Franklin declared the prevailing view: “nothing is of more importance for the public weal, than to form and train up youth in wisdom and virtue.”

Alas, all that is gone with the wind from the classrooms of America.  Evidently, Progressives figured out that the converse of Franklin’s insight is also true: nothing is more destructive to the public weal than to deform and train down youth in ignorance and immorality. 

Progressives hit the country with a double-whammy: sabotage of both academics and character.

If you haven’t paid attention to K-12 for a few decades, the first thing you notice is that education officials relentlessly and openly undermine academics.  No direct instruction.  No memorization of facts.  No systematic mastery of any subject.  No concern for grammar  spelling, etc.  It’s surprising if students know where Alaska is on a map or who won the Civil War.

Have you gotten used to all that?  You’ll probably still be surprised when you realize that a lot of what goes on in public schools is targeted not at academics, but at the moral development of students.  If they are slouches – shallow, ignorant, and narcissistic – that seems to be what our social engineers want.

These days, our schools are engaged in an anti-gentleman crusade.  Don’t try too hard.  Don’t worry if the dog ate your homework.  It’s  normal to cut corners and leave work unfinished.  Lateness is okay.  Incomplete is as good as complete.  Wrong answers are acceptable if you explain your tactics.  Cheating is okay because everyone does it. 

Here is a scary snapshot from a teacher commenting on this country’s best students (AP Chemistry).

Today … my students are chronically tardy and absent, often refuse to do even the most trivial work, and experience a diluted and simplified version of what I once taught. If I write something on the board, when I turn around a dozen phones have materialized and are actively being typed on. When I try to do fun things like labs and projects, the students complain and mope as if I was walking them to prison. They lament (out loud) how awful it is that they just can’t look up the answers like all the other classes.

Students refuse.  Isn’t that word a terrifying revelation?

Let’s face it: a lot of life is doing things you wish you could avoid.  You don’t want to take extra care with a project, but you do it anyway.  In the process, you get stronger and more disciplined.  This will help you in the future, no matter what job you have.  But the schools are saying, Skip all that; let’s smoke a joint and chill.  They are saying, Become the useless slug no one would want to hire.  Be the weak link in every chain.

Whenever the official experts bother to touch on these concerns, they are the devil’s advocate.  An article on Edutopia blandly asserts what is surely controversial (boldface in original):

Myth #2: Homework Boosts Achievement. There is no evidence that this is true. In Finland, students have higher achievement with little or no homework and shorter school hours. The more important factor is what students experience during the school day. Project-based learning, as one example, places the emphasis on what is done during the day. If students choose to do more after hours, that’s their choice. There also may sometimes be other good reasons to assign homework, but there should be no illusion that homework will help increase student achievement.

You see, there is always some deep reason, some brilliant expert, to give schools an excuse for aiming low.  Why bother with homework?  Edutopia says it doesn’t matter.  Nowadays, almost nothing matters.

I knew a woman five years out of Vassar who still had incomplete papers hanging over her.  Finally Vassar said, you have to do these papers, or you lose all the credits you acquired.  The point is, they corrupted her in the first place.  They let her get away with being lazy, undisciplined, and dissolute.

The part that is not clear to me is, what happens to the cheaters later on?  And how do the lazy, corner-cutting students compete with students who have learned to work hard?  Cheaters know that their grades are meaningless.  They don’t have the knowledge or abilities their schools claimed  for them.  They will have to spend their lives covering up.  Some of our ditzy administrators probably insist they are trying to help students by cushioning them from the shocks of real life.  But that’s not a help; it’s a curse.

According to one pundit, “[s]tudents claim they are so stressed from school that they demand no grades be given for their poor attendance or non-performance; sadly, half the schools in the country have obliged.”

Schools have gotten increasingly permissive.  There is clearly some diabolical intent.  It’s almost as if the social engineers had a meeting and said, Okay, how do we fix it so kids never turn out right?

Can we reverse this trend?  Yes, by going back to what we had 50 years ago and before.  Tell students they can’t cheat, make it difficult for them to cheat, and punish them when they do.  Start in the first grade teaching things simply and systematically, all the while making it clear that the students are expected to learn the material.  Our current schools do it the opposite way: make everything chaotic, but then – wink, wink – make clear that nothing much will be expected.

Put simply, the current education decline was caused by discarding traditional approaches and then letting progressive ideas overrun the landscape.  Let’s do the opposite. 

Get rid of progressive ideas, and restore traditional education.  All that means in practice is that public schools do what private schools do every day.  Sounds good to me.

Bruce Deitrick Price deconstructs theories and methods on Improve-Education.org.  His new book is Saving K-12 – What happened to our public schools? How do we fix them?



Source link

The Fake News of Tinseltown and the Dirty Streets of Broadway


At the very same time that Hollywood mogul and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein was recently said to have “owned the press” by his longtime Miramax screenwriter associate, Scott Rosenberg, the American public was served an interview on the Ellen DeGeneres Show with Jesus Campos, the security guard who was shot in the leg through the door of Stephen Paddock’s large suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel on the fateful night of October 1, 2017, where almost 60 people were massacred.  While nothing should be taken away from Campos himself, who experienced the terrors of rapid gunfire, the way his testimony has been handled is pure theater.  Not only does Hollywood giant MGM run the Ellen DeGeneres Show, but it also owns the Mandalay Bay. 

While MGM has made movies galore, it has yet to cough up any film exposing what transpired before, during, and after the Las Vegas massacre in the hotel itself.  Hotel casinos are loaded with surveillance cameras.  It is impossible for MGM not to have any film of Stephen Paddock during his lengthy stay.  The longer such film evidence is controlled and withheld from public view, the more edited the film will become when (or if) it is finally released. 

Not only did Campos bizarrely disappear for a week before being interviewed by Ellen DeGeneres, but his side of the story seems to bring back the original timeline that police reports later repudiated.  Even more stunning, DeGeneres stated that Campos would not be giving any more interviews.  Does this mean her show will be the only and exclusive interview Campos will ever give for the rest of his life?  If so, this strongly suggests that an expensive agreement has been made between Campos and MGM.  Maybe MGM has plans to make a movie or documentary on the Las Vegas massacre.  Perhaps then the truth of the massacre will be revealed, or at least Hollywood MGM’s version of the truth. 

But then again, when was the last time Hollywood has really ever told the truth even with regard to its historical movies, purportedly based on actual events?  Hollywood regularly uses artistic license that converts historical facts into something much more entertaining, together with some political propaganda.  What’s more, if Hollywood cannot truthfully depict the past, then what about the accuracy of the daily news?

Many seem to forget that the news comes from huge networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC, whose Broadway and Hollywood offices in New York and Los Angeles play no small role in disseminating what is considered news where the heartland of America is sandwiched between both left coasts.  Even Fox News is run by 21st Century Fox, a Hollywood giant.  Worse, local TV stations take their cue from the national news.  Add on top of this the entertainment barrage after the news is over, coupled with constant internet connections all day long, and what is left over is a lot of images without much content, thought, or context. 

Hollywood and Broadway have mixed up entertainment and art with news and politics so much that the idolatrous image has become more important than content or substance – which precludes any serious discussion about politics, life, philosophy, and religion.  Jonah Goldberg’s book Tyranny of Clichés encapsulates this crisis perfectly, as many Americans cannot think beyond the political clichés that have been branded onto their hearts.  As such, all too many have increasingly confused fantasy with politics.  This in turn fuels great discontent and division as people’s fictional dreams and political fantasies, fanned by Hollywood’s artistic imagination, remain unfulfilled this side of the grave. 

The bedazzlement of entertainment also explains why most cannot see through Tinseltown’s incredible hypocrisy, literally laid bare with the lurid details of the Weinstein scandal.  Neither can one separate the sexual revolution of the ’60s from the sexploitation of women – a movement that Hollywood itself stands at the very foundations of.  Constant sexual imaging, so widespread today, does little to develop a thoughtful life beyond the rudiments of biology, body, and instincts.  Sexual images and news are virtually one and the same on the internet these days.

Financially, much of American leftism has been underwritten by Hollywood.  Corporate America’s bed with Hollywood can be regularly seen on virtually every commercial.  Most TV ads are politically and socially correct, selling products and leftist propaganda at the same time.  Even more foolish, Hollywood moguls and actors lecture Americans for not living a green enough lifestyle, all the while owning fantastic homes, flying in private jets, sailing in yachts, owning any number of cars, and spending their lives partying away on the dirty sidewalks of Broadway.

Historically and politically, Hollywood has revised history to give us an anti-American leftist view of the world that is actually far worse than the alleged “colonialist” disease they are trying to cure.  The only thing worse than the colonialism of England and America is the leftist socialist experiments that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century.

Hollywood’s artful images have divorced many Americans from actual history and the difficulties of real life that historical books describe in great detail.  The left and its MSM news media, however, largely dismiss the past as something irrelevant.  They believe they can transcend the past and progress beyond historical limitations through their leftist revolutionary politics – and the fictional fantasy of Hollywood art goes a long way in imaging such political fantasies onto the American conscience with high hopes and great expectations.  The fact that much of the repertoire of comedic late-night shows consists of the daily news should sober people up to think more seriously about life than they do, but Hollywood helps them laugh it off so that its true madness becomes lost in the bedazzlement of entertainment.

Images are powerful ,and the great success of Hollywood demonstrates this.  Images can be easily interpreted, manipulated, controlled, and propagandized in any number of different ways.  Worse, images also appeal to the baser instincts of human life, since no content or thinking is required.  It is easy to be a spectator.

The God of the Hebrew Old Testament constantly warned His people about worshiping graven images at the expense of His written word.  It is no coincidence that Hollywood has directed most of its ire against the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition by flooding the American soul with 24/7 imaging.  In so doing, Hollywood has replaced the colonial sins of Thanksgiving with ghastly ghoulishness of Halloween, where razor-sharp images of sex, violence, and death have been seared onto the American conscience through the powers of the motion picture.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.

At the very same time that Hollywood mogul and sexual predator Harvey Weinstein was recently said to have “owned the press” by his longtime Miramax screenwriter associate, Scott Rosenberg, the American public was served an interview on the Ellen DeGeneres Show with Jesus Campos, the security guard who was shot in the leg through the door of Stephen Paddock’s large suite at the Mandalay Bay Hotel on the fateful night of October 1, 2017, where almost 60 people were massacred.  While nothing should be taken away from Campos himself, who experienced the terrors of rapid gunfire, the way his testimony has been handled is pure theater.  Not only does Hollywood giant MGM run the Ellen DeGeneres Show, but it also owns the Mandalay Bay. 

While MGM has made movies galore, it has yet to cough up any film exposing what transpired before, during, and after the Las Vegas massacre in the hotel itself.  Hotel casinos are loaded with surveillance cameras.  It is impossible for MGM not to have any film of Stephen Paddock during his lengthy stay.  The longer such film evidence is controlled and withheld from public view, the more edited the film will become when (or if) it is finally released. 

Not only did Campos bizarrely disappear for a week before being interviewed by Ellen DeGeneres, but his side of the story seems to bring back the original timeline that police reports later repudiated.  Even more stunning, DeGeneres stated that Campos would not be giving any more interviews.  Does this mean her show will be the only and exclusive interview Campos will ever give for the rest of his life?  If so, this strongly suggests that an expensive agreement has been made between Campos and MGM.  Maybe MGM has plans to make a movie or documentary on the Las Vegas massacre.  Perhaps then the truth of the massacre will be revealed, or at least Hollywood MGM’s version of the truth. 

But then again, when was the last time Hollywood has really ever told the truth even with regard to its historical movies, purportedly based on actual events?  Hollywood regularly uses artistic license that converts historical facts into something much more entertaining, together with some political propaganda.  What’s more, if Hollywood cannot truthfully depict the past, then what about the accuracy of the daily news?

Many seem to forget that the news comes from huge networks like NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC, whose Broadway and Hollywood offices in New York and Los Angeles play no small role in disseminating what is considered news where the heartland of America is sandwiched between both left coasts.  Even Fox News is run by 21st Century Fox, a Hollywood giant.  Worse, local TV stations take their cue from the national news.  Add on top of this the entertainment barrage after the news is over, coupled with constant internet connections all day long, and what is left over is a lot of images without much content, thought, or context. 

Hollywood and Broadway have mixed up entertainment and art with news and politics so much that the idolatrous image has become more important than content or substance – which precludes any serious discussion about politics, life, philosophy, and religion.  Jonah Goldberg’s book Tyranny of Clichés encapsulates this crisis perfectly, as many Americans cannot think beyond the political clichés that have been branded onto their hearts.  As such, all too many have increasingly confused fantasy with politics.  This in turn fuels great discontent and division as people’s fictional dreams and political fantasies, fanned by Hollywood’s artistic imagination, remain unfulfilled this side of the grave. 

The bedazzlement of entertainment also explains why most cannot see through Tinseltown’s incredible hypocrisy, literally laid bare with the lurid details of the Weinstein scandal.  Neither can one separate the sexual revolution of the ’60s from the sexploitation of women – a movement that Hollywood itself stands at the very foundations of.  Constant sexual imaging, so widespread today, does little to develop a thoughtful life beyond the rudiments of biology, body, and instincts.  Sexual images and news are virtually one and the same on the internet these days.

Financially, much of American leftism has been underwritten by Hollywood.  Corporate America’s bed with Hollywood can be regularly seen on virtually every commercial.  Most TV ads are politically and socially correct, selling products and leftist propaganda at the same time.  Even more foolish, Hollywood moguls and actors lecture Americans for not living a green enough lifestyle, all the while owning fantastic homes, flying in private jets, sailing in yachts, owning any number of cars, and spending their lives partying away on the dirty sidewalks of Broadway.

Historically and politically, Hollywood has revised history to give us an anti-American leftist view of the world that is actually far worse than the alleged “colonialist” disease they are trying to cure.  The only thing worse than the colonialism of England and America is the leftist socialist experiments that murdered more than 100 million people in the 20th century.

Hollywood’s artful images have divorced many Americans from actual history and the difficulties of real life that historical books describe in great detail.  The left and its MSM news media, however, largely dismiss the past as something irrelevant.  They believe they can transcend the past and progress beyond historical limitations through their leftist revolutionary politics – and the fictional fantasy of Hollywood art goes a long way in imaging such political fantasies onto the American conscience with high hopes and great expectations.  The fact that much of the repertoire of comedic late-night shows consists of the daily news should sober people up to think more seriously about life than they do, but Hollywood helps them laugh it off so that its true madness becomes lost in the bedazzlement of entertainment.

Images are powerful ,and the great success of Hollywood demonstrates this.  Images can be easily interpreted, manipulated, controlled, and propagandized in any number of different ways.  Worse, images also appeal to the baser instincts of human life, since no content or thinking is required.  It is easy to be a spectator.

The God of the Hebrew Old Testament constantly warned His people about worshiping graven images at the expense of His written word.  It is no coincidence that Hollywood has directed most of its ire against the Judeo-Christian biblical tradition by flooding the American soul with 24/7 imaging.  In so doing, Hollywood has replaced the colonial sins of Thanksgiving with ghastly ghoulishness of Halloween, where razor-sharp images of sex, violence, and death have been seared onto the American conscience through the powers of the motion picture.

Mark Musser is a part-time pastor, author, missionary, and a farmer who lives in Olympia, Washington.  He is a contributing writer for the Cornwall Alliance.  His book Nazi Oaks provides a sobering history lesson on the philosophical foundations of the early German green movement, which was absorbed by National Socialism in the 1930s and proved to be a powerful undercurrent during the holocaust.  Mark is also the author of Wrath or Rest, a commentary on the warning passages found in the epistle to the Hebrews.



Source link

'Me Too': Thirty Years Too Late


We now live in a hashtag world.  Hashtags are used not simply to identify social media messages regarding a particular topic, but also as a means of virtue-signaling, of calling attention to the latest social justice cause.  Many of these causes legitimate, but others are contrived.  Hashtags have replaced the multicolored ribbons celebrating the latest cause or issue.

Michelle Obama participated a hashtag movement, #BringBackOurGirls, to bring attention to Boko Haram kidnapping several hundred girls in Nigeria.  A few girls escaped, but most remain missing.  It was a well intentioned but ultimately ineffective hashtag campaign.

The latest hashtag campaign is the #MeToo phrase trending across social media platforms.  Initiated by actress Alyssa Milano, it’s to “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem” of sexual harassment or assault.  Many Facebook and Twitter users are adding the phrase else retweeting the hashtag.  Those on Facebook have undoubtedly seen #MeToo frequently – posted mostly by women, but by some men as well in a show of solidarity and support for this very real problem.

Sexual harassment, abuse, and assault are not new problems.  Nor is this limited to female victims.  Every week, there is another story of a female teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with an underage male student.  Here is a recent one.

While this type of activity has always been with us, the recent outrage is due to revelations of the longstanding pattern of abhorrent behavior by Democrat mega-donor and Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.  The number of victimized women is increasing by the day, up to 46 at the latest count.

The #MeToo campaign is legitimate and important, but it’s come 30 years too late.  Better late than never, but why the outrage now and not during the decades of Weinstein’s well known, although hushed up, nasty behavior?

Some actresses like Meryl Streep claimed to not know what was going on.  Others like Jane Fonda knew but kept quiet.  Weinstein’s colleagues and peers knew, as Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino did, but also chose to look the other way.  How many others, whether victims or silent observers, made a conscious decision to stay mum?

For abuse victims, often traumatized and vulnerable, speaking up against an all-powerful “god,” as Meryl Streep described Weinstein, may not have been possible.  Weinstein could make or break careers – the ultimate position of power.  A young actress trying to break into the entertainment business may have stayed quiet due to personal and career preservation.

What about the A-listers?  Those already famous and in demand as actors, actresses, and entertainment executives?  Was their silence due to fear of being labeled troublemakers?  Or was it because Weinstein was right on the political issues of the day?  A fellow traveler in their world of progressive causes and social justice?

Don’t think politics trumps morality, decency and common sense?  Think again.  Remember the Time White House correspondent, Nina Burleigh, who said of another sexual predator, then-president Bill Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

Where was the #MeToo hashtag campaign for Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and many others?  Even Juanita called out Monica for her silence after Bill Clinton had his way with her.  Juanita tweeted, “I have always felt sad for you, but where were you when we needed you? Your silence was deafening in the 90s when Kathleen, Paula and I needed your voice.”

Then there was Mrs. Clinton, enabler-in-chief, head of the famous Clinton White House bimbo eruptions team, “savaging her enemies,” as White House senior adviser at the time George Stephanopoulos said.  The bimbos were the women raped or harassed by her husband.

The same Mrs. Clinton who during her recent failed presidential campaign sent “a message to every survivor of sexual assault” said, “Don’t let anyone silence your voice.  You have the right to be heard.”  Except when being heard interfered with her political ambitions.  Or Harvey Weinstein’s fundraising for the Clintons, Obamas, and other Democrats.  And the causes Weinstein supported.

Don’t forget the Kennedy family, also with a long string of sex scandals.  They also were given a pass because they were right on the important social and political issues of the day.

Lastly, I wonder how many of those posting the #MeToo status on their social media pages also supported the Clintons.  Bill the abuser?  Hillary the enabler and destroyer?  And the entertainers and their progressive causes that aided and abetted Harvey Weinstein’s three-decade rampage?

How many also joined the “I’m with her” Hillary Clinton campaign, supporting what they are now against?  They were indignant over Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood tapes, despite that Trump only talked the talk, while Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein walked the walk.  Hillary falsely accused Trump of being an “admitted sex assaulter,” perhaps confusing Trump with her husband, Bill, who did admit to such behavior, leading to lawsuits and impeachment.

Sexual misconduct is real and should be called out, not ignored, excused, or diminished.  But how about some consistency?  Why only now, after Weinstein got a 30-year pass and Clinton gets a pass to this very day?  Be outraged.  Have a hashtag campaign.  But be consistent if you want to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, the outrage is a day late and a dollar short.  The new hashtag campaign can be #ShouldHave.  As Quentin Tarantino said, “I knew enough to do more than I did,” lamenting what “I should have done then.”

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter

We now live in a hashtag world.  Hashtags are used not simply to identify social media messages regarding a particular topic, but also as a means of virtue-signaling, of calling attention to the latest social justice cause.  Many of these causes legitimate, but others are contrived.  Hashtags have replaced the multicolored ribbons celebrating the latest cause or issue.

Michelle Obama participated a hashtag movement, #BringBackOurGirls, to bring attention to Boko Haram kidnapping several hundred girls in Nigeria.  A few girls escaped, but most remain missing.  It was a well intentioned but ultimately ineffective hashtag campaign.

The latest hashtag campaign is the #MeToo phrase trending across social media platforms.  Initiated by actress Alyssa Milano, it’s to “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem” of sexual harassment or assault.  Many Facebook and Twitter users are adding the phrase else retweeting the hashtag.  Those on Facebook have undoubtedly seen #MeToo frequently – posted mostly by women, but by some men as well in a show of solidarity and support for this very real problem.

Sexual harassment, abuse, and assault are not new problems.  Nor is this limited to female victims.  Every week, there is another story of a female teacher engaging in a sexual relationship with an underage male student.  Here is a recent one.

While this type of activity has always been with us, the recent outrage is due to revelations of the longstanding pattern of abhorrent behavior by Democrat mega-donor and Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein.  The number of victimized women is increasing by the day, up to 46 at the latest count.

The #MeToo campaign is legitimate and important, but it’s come 30 years too late.  Better late than never, but why the outrage now and not during the decades of Weinstein’s well known, although hushed up, nasty behavior?

Some actresses like Meryl Streep claimed to not know what was going on.  Others like Jane Fonda knew but kept quiet.  Weinstein’s colleagues and peers knew, as Hollywood director Quentin Tarantino did, but also chose to look the other way.  How many others, whether victims or silent observers, made a conscious decision to stay mum?

For abuse victims, often traumatized and vulnerable, speaking up against an all-powerful “god,” as Meryl Streep described Weinstein, may not have been possible.  Weinstein could make or break careers – the ultimate position of power.  A young actress trying to break into the entertainment business may have stayed quiet due to personal and career preservation.

What about the A-listers?  Those already famous and in demand as actors, actresses, and entertainment executives?  Was their silence due to fear of being labeled troublemakers?  Or was it because Weinstein was right on the political issues of the day?  A fellow traveler in their world of progressive causes and social justice?

Don’t think politics trumps morality, decency and common sense?  Think again.  Remember the Time White House correspondent, Nina Burleigh, who said of another sexual predator, then-president Bill Clinton, “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal.”

Where was the #MeToo hashtag campaign for Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, and many others?  Even Juanita called out Monica for her silence after Bill Clinton had his way with her.  Juanita tweeted, “I have always felt sad for you, but where were you when we needed you? Your silence was deafening in the 90s when Kathleen, Paula and I needed your voice.”

Then there was Mrs. Clinton, enabler-in-chief, head of the famous Clinton White House bimbo eruptions team, “savaging her enemies,” as White House senior adviser at the time George Stephanopoulos said.  The bimbos were the women raped or harassed by her husband.

The same Mrs. Clinton who during her recent failed presidential campaign sent “a message to every survivor of sexual assault” said, “Don’t let anyone silence your voice.  You have the right to be heard.”  Except when being heard interfered with her political ambitions.  Or Harvey Weinstein’s fundraising for the Clintons, Obamas, and other Democrats.  And the causes Weinstein supported.

Don’t forget the Kennedy family, also with a long string of sex scandals.  They also were given a pass because they were right on the important social and political issues of the day.

Lastly, I wonder how many of those posting the #MeToo status on their social media pages also supported the Clintons.  Bill the abuser?  Hillary the enabler and destroyer?  And the entertainers and their progressive causes that aided and abetted Harvey Weinstein’s three-decade rampage?

How many also joined the “I’m with her” Hillary Clinton campaign, supporting what they are now against?  They were indignant over Donald Trump’s Access Hollywood tapes, despite that Trump only talked the talk, while Bill Clinton and Harvey Weinstein walked the walk.  Hillary falsely accused Trump of being an “admitted sex assaulter,” perhaps confusing Trump with her husband, Bill, who did admit to such behavior, leading to lawsuits and impeachment.

Sexual misconduct is real and should be called out, not ignored, excused, or diminished.  But how about some consistency?  Why only now, after Weinstein got a 30-year pass and Clinton gets a pass to this very day?  Be outraged.  Have a hashtag campaign.  But be consistent if you want to be taken seriously.

Otherwise, the outrage is a day late and a dollar short.  The new hashtag campaign can be #ShouldHave.  As Quentin Tarantino said, “I knew enough to do more than I did,” lamenting what “I should have done then.”

Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS is a Denver-based physician and writer.  Follow him on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter



Source link

What Steve Bannon's Up To: Hobbit Midterms


On Saturday, October 14, 2017, on the heels of President Trump’s remarks the previous day to the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., Steve Bannon, in a speech to the same group, fired the official opening salvos toward Mitch McConnell in a gathering epic confrontation between the multinational corporations on one side (and their congressional politicians, to whom they have lavishly contributed) and the newly emerging Republican Party of the Little People on the other – the forgotten working class, championed by Donald Trump in his successful presidential run.

It is a crucial struggle, where, as stated best by Sundance of The Conservative Treehouse, “trillions of dollars are at stake.”  It is a battle that will determine who controls the future wealth of the United States, where the manufacturing sector and portions of the service industry sector of the U.S. economy have been eroded, stripped from the United States and moved to cheap-labor countries, leaving behind a massive loss of jobs and wealth.

Steve Bannon is banking on a reversal of this trend with the enactment of the Trump agenda.  He is confident these new policies, once voted into law, will generate an economic renaissance with a dramatic infusion of wealth for middle-class workers.  And he rejects the notion that the demise of U.S. manufacturing is inevitable and irreversible.

The leader of this political-economic revolution is President Trump, a man who amassed his vast fortune by constructing real buildings with real workers rather than through the manipulation of Wall Street financial derivatives.  He is a man who has an intimate knowledge of manufacturing and who relates to, and understands, the concerns of its workers.  At the 2016 Republican convention, Jerry Falwell, Jr. described Trump as “America’s blue-collar billionaire,” a “true patriot,” a “down-to-earth” leader and one who “loves America and the American people,” a “champion of the common man.”

Falwell’s sentiments were echoed by noted author, columnist, American classicist, military historian, and farmer Victor Davis Hanson in a speech given in May of this year for Hillsdale College at the Kirby Center in Washington.  Mr. Hanson observed that President Trump has succeeded in turning the Republican Party into more of a populist, empathetic party, attuned to a frustrated, worried working class that saw its future declining under the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and his chosen third-term successor, Hillary Clinton.

Here’s how Hanson answered the question of how a billionaire could possibly be a populist leader: “you can be a populist and be a trillionaire and you can be dead broke and be an elitist.”  Hanson recalled a conversation he had with a New York developer who knew Trump: “I watched from my [mid-town Manhattan skyscraper] tower and I see Donald Trump … when he gets out of his limo and he goes and talks to cement people and I see people clapping who are on construction sites.”

This ability to naturally relate to construction workers stands in stark contrast, noted Hanson, to Hillary Clinton’s admonitions to coal miners that they “have to learn how to build solar panels.”  This populist bent, Bannon explained at the Values Voter Summit, is authentic.  Bannon told the audience that concern for the American worker and the deleterious impact on their wealth from the globalists’ machinations has always been Trump’s mantra, that President Trump has had these ideas “for thirty to forty years,” that “he didn’t come to this party late.”

In drawing the battle lines of this populist revolt, Bannon focused his ire on the leadership of the Republican Party, who, in his view, are throwing constant, intentional roadblocks in the path of the Trump agenda while continually supporting establishment candidates in Republican primary elections.  Even though the Republican establishment is bankrolled with unending corporate dollars, Bannon is undeterred, for, in this struggle for the soul of the Republican Party, he feels that money is no longer an important ingredient to success.

He pointed to the $30 million in highly negative ads aimed at Roy Moore in the recent Alabama primary, paid for by Mitch McConnell and his cohorts, that was negated by counter-information freely available on the internet.  As Bannon put it, a good candidate with good ideas and people to back him up “can beat any amount of money.”  He added, “The most powerful thing is an authentic candidate … with good people going door to door … and telling people, with passion, ‘this is who you ought to vote for.'”  Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics provided the foot soldiers in Moore’s successful effort.  Bannon credited Barack Obama with showing how effective this type of get-out-the-vote campaign can be.

Building on the Moore success, Bannon shared his strategy to rebuild the populist Republican Party.  He plans to “primary out” the corrupt, bought off, unrepentant Republicans up for re-election in 2018, followed by a blowout re-election win for Trump in 2020.  Completing the transformation of the Republican Party, he warned, could take decades.

Democrats, on the other hand, appear hell-bent on maintaining their Obama strategy of seeing the world through the warped lens of divisive personal destruction.  In a recent article in The Hill, Brent Budowsky, a former aide to Senator Lloyd Benson, saw Bannon’s Values speech in typical Democratic terms, painting Bannon as power-hungry and waging a war to purge the Republican Party of moderates, centrists, center-right conservatives, and bipartisan members in favor of fringe and far right candidates (whatever “far right” means).

Budowsky either doesn’t see or won’t acknowledge the fact that the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald Trump right movements were mirror images of anti-establishment reactions to globalist corruption of both parties.  He welcomes the Bannon “purge” as an opening for Democrats to retake the House and Senate in 2018.

Bannon is gearing up for a major battle in the 2018 Republican primaries.  It is here that the establishment anticipates that Bannon’s efforts will fall short.  The opposition has reason to feel hopeful.  Sundance of The Conservative Treehouse quoted Fox News Research revealing the astounding increase in lobbyist greasing of congressional lawmakers’ palms to keep them on the reservation.

In 1986, average lawmaker payments were $113,700.  In 2016, this average grew to $5,800,000 – a fifty-onefold increase.

The globalists are also confidently relying on historical trends to blunt efforts to remove incumbents in primaries.  It has been remarkably difficult over the years to remove incumbents from office, especially in primaries.  Incumbents know they can rely on:

  • very low voter turnout,
  • very high lobbyist-provided campaign financing,
  • low to very low name recognition and policy positions of primary opponents,
  • multiple candidates who divide the oppositional vote,
  • very high campaign costs, and
  • always available media exposure opportunities.

So much will depend in 2018 on how quickly and how well organized this MAGA movement can evolve, the strength of the MAGA candidates, and their effectiveness at reaching motivated populist voters.  New websites are emerging in this fight, such as Adam Gingrich’s MAGAcoalition and Bill Mitchell’s YourVoiceAmerica.

And as enormous as the economic rewards of this realignment of the political and business powers will be, Bannon has a deeper long-term concern, what he describes as “the convergence of biotechnology, artificial intelligence, the computer chip. There are going to be decisions in front of mankind in the next twenty years that man has never had to face before.”

“And if you think,” he concluded, “that the elites that got the world into this situation it’s in today are going to make the right judgments twenty years from now, you’re sadly mistaken.”

Bannon believes that if we are to revitalize our moribund Obama economy and safeguard our future against the implications of profound technological advancements coming over the horizon, this economic and political reformation is essential.  Corruption through bribery of our political class by multinationals must be stopped.  Macro-level decisions concerning our national wealth must include the workers who build it and whose very future is at stake.

Bannon asked what’s more powerful: “the money of the corporatists or the muscle of the people”?  His bet is on the people.

As he puts it, “the Hobbits are going door to door in the Shire.”

On Saturday, October 14, 2017, on the heels of President Trump’s remarks the previous day to the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C., Steve Bannon, in a speech to the same group, fired the official opening salvos toward Mitch McConnell in a gathering epic confrontation between the multinational corporations on one side (and their congressional politicians, to whom they have lavishly contributed) and the newly emerging Republican Party of the Little People on the other – the forgotten working class, championed by Donald Trump in his successful presidential run.

It is a crucial struggle, where, as stated best by Sundance of The Conservative Treehouse, “trillions of dollars are at stake.”  It is a battle that will determine who controls the future wealth of the United States, where the manufacturing sector and portions of the service industry sector of the U.S. economy have been eroded, stripped from the United States and moved to cheap-labor countries, leaving behind a massive loss of jobs and wealth.

Steve Bannon is banking on a reversal of this trend with the enactment of the Trump agenda.  He is confident these new policies, once voted into law, will generate an economic renaissance with a dramatic infusion of wealth for middle-class workers.  And he rejects the notion that the demise of U.S. manufacturing is inevitable and irreversible.

The leader of this political-economic revolution is President Trump, a man who amassed his vast fortune by constructing real buildings with real workers rather than through the manipulation of Wall Street financial derivatives.  He is a man who has an intimate knowledge of manufacturing and who relates to, and understands, the concerns of its workers.  At the 2016 Republican convention, Jerry Falwell, Jr. described Trump as “America’s blue-collar billionaire,” a “true patriot,” a “down-to-earth” leader and one who “loves America and the American people,” a “champion of the common man.”

Falwell’s sentiments were echoed by noted author, columnist, American classicist, military historian, and farmer Victor Davis Hanson in a speech given in May of this year for Hillsdale College at the Kirby Center in Washington.  Mr. Hanson observed that President Trump has succeeded in turning the Republican Party into more of a populist, empathetic party, attuned to a frustrated, worried working class that saw its future declining under the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and his chosen third-term successor, Hillary Clinton.

Here’s how Hanson answered the question of how a billionaire could possibly be a populist leader: “you can be a populist and be a trillionaire and you can be dead broke and be an elitist.”  Hanson recalled a conversation he had with a New York developer who knew Trump: “I watched from my [mid-town Manhattan skyscraper] tower and I see Donald Trump … when he gets out of his limo and he goes and talks to cement people and I see people clapping who are on construction sites.”

This ability to naturally relate to construction workers stands in stark contrast, noted Hanson, to Hillary Clinton’s admonitions to coal miners that they “have to learn how to build solar panels.”  This populist bent, Bannon explained at the Values Voter Summit, is authentic.  Bannon told the audience that concern for the American worker and the deleterious impact on their wealth from the globalists’ machinations has always been Trump’s mantra, that President Trump has had these ideas “for thirty to forty years,” that “he didn’t come to this party late.”

In drawing the battle lines of this populist revolt, Bannon focused his ire on the leadership of the Republican Party, who, in his view, are throwing constant, intentional roadblocks in the path of the Trump agenda while continually supporting establishment candidates in Republican primary elections.  Even though the Republican establishment is bankrolled with unending corporate dollars, Bannon is undeterred, for, in this struggle for the soul of the Republican Party, he feels that money is no longer an important ingredient to success.

He pointed to the $30 million in highly negative ads aimed at Roy Moore in the recent Alabama primary, paid for by Mitch McConnell and his cohorts, that was negated by counter-information freely available on the internet.  As Bannon put it, a good candidate with good ideas and people to back him up “can beat any amount of money.”  He added, “The most powerful thing is an authentic candidate … with good people going door to door … and telling people, with passion, ‘this is who you ought to vote for.'”  Evangelical Christians and conservative Catholics provided the foot soldiers in Moore’s successful effort.  Bannon credited Barack Obama with showing how effective this type of get-out-the-vote campaign can be.

Building on the Moore success, Bannon shared his strategy to rebuild the populist Republican Party.  He plans to “primary out” the corrupt, bought off, unrepentant Republicans up for re-election in 2018, followed by a blowout re-election win for Trump in 2020.  Completing the transformation of the Republican Party, he warned, could take decades.

Democrats, on the other hand, appear hell-bent on maintaining their Obama strategy of seeing the world through the warped lens of divisive personal destruction.  In a recent article in The Hill, Brent Budowsky, a former aide to Senator Lloyd Benson, saw Bannon’s Values speech in typical Democratic terms, painting Bannon as power-hungry and waging a war to purge the Republican Party of moderates, centrists, center-right conservatives, and bipartisan members in favor of fringe and far right candidates (whatever “far right” means).

Budowsky either doesn’t see or won’t acknowledge the fact that the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald Trump right movements were mirror images of anti-establishment reactions to globalist corruption of both parties.  He welcomes the Bannon “purge” as an opening for Democrats to retake the House and Senate in 2018.

Bannon is gearing up for a major battle in the 2018 Republican primaries.  It is here that the establishment anticipates that Bannon’s efforts will fall short.  The opposition has reason to feel hopeful.  Sundance of The Conservative Treehouse quoted Fox News Research revealing the astounding increase in lobbyist greasing of congressional lawmakers’ palms to keep them on the reservation.

In 1986, average lawmaker payments were $113,700.  In 2016, this average grew to $5,800,000 – a fifty-onefold increase.

The globalists are also confidently relying on historical trends to blunt efforts to remove incumbents in primaries.  It has been remarkably difficult over the years to remove incumbents from office, especially in primaries.  Incumbents know they can rely on:

  • very low voter turnout,
  • very high lobbyist-provided campaign financing,
  • low to very low name recognition and policy positions of primary opponents,
  • multiple candidates who divide the oppositional vote,
  • very high campaign costs, and
  • always available media exposure opportunities.

So much will depend in 2018 on how quickly and how well organized this MAGA movement can evolve, the strength of the MAGA candidates, and their effectiveness at reaching motivated populist voters.  New websites are emerging in this fight, such as Adam Gingrich’s MAGAcoalition and Bill Mitchell’s YourVoiceAmerica.

And as enormous as the economic rewards of this realignment of the political and business powers will be, Bannon has a deeper long-term concern, what he describes as “the convergence of biotechnology, artificial intelligence, the computer chip. There are going to be decisions in front of mankind in the next twenty years that man has never had to face before.”

“And if you think,” he concluded, “that the elites that got the world into this situation it’s in today are going to make the right judgments twenty years from now, you’re sadly mistaken.”

Bannon believes that if we are to revitalize our moribund Obama economy and safeguard our future against the implications of profound technological advancements coming over the horizon, this economic and political reformation is essential.  Corruption through bribery of our political class by multinationals must be stopped.  Macro-level decisions concerning our national wealth must include the workers who build it and whose very future is at stake.

Bannon asked what’s more powerful: “the money of the corporatists or the muscle of the people”?  His bet is on the people.

As he puts it, “the Hobbits are going door to door in the Shire.”



Source link

Alexa, what are you doing in my room?


Highlights from the Echo product page include these:

  • Echo connects to Alexa, a cloud-based voice service, to play music; make calls; set alarms and timers; ask questions; check your calendar, weather, traffic, and sports scores; manage to-do and shopping lists; control smart home devices; and more – instantly.
  • Just ask Alexa to control your compatible smart lights, thermostats, garage doors, sprinklers, and more.  Alexa is always getting smarter and adding new features and skills.  Just ask Alexa to control your TV, request an Uber, order a pizza, and more.

Fifty years ago, as a Ph.D. candidate in USC’s new Computer Sciences Department, I took courses in  emerging A.I. theory.  A.I. consisted of nothing more than algorithms readily implemented with digital computers and related programs.  That is still the case, but the power, density, speed, and cost factors in the hardware domain have facilitated previously unthinkable processing tasks with brute computational force. 

A.I. has not broken through the mysteries of innate human intelligence.  Instead, techniques have evolved for applying massive computational power to simulate various human capabilities.  Prominent examples include interactive systems in the newest automobiles.  They recognize voice input, speak back in response, and perform various tasks at our behest.  All use inexpensive digital hardware running highly evolved computer programs.  The irony is that while their performance seems dazzling, they are in fact doing what they do through an extremely fast series of the simplest acts.

The obvious difference here is Alexa’s seeming humanity, as opposed to the more technical domain of a laptop or smartphone, where operating systems, applications, security, user interfaces, and other technical details are the coin of the realm.  Alexa is always there waiting to “help.”  She’s an unobtrusive addition to any setting, available in a variety of designer fabric coverings.  With a soothing, maternal voice, she is Big Brother reimagined as a benevolent family member.

A recent Wall Street Journal article on technology includes these passages:

“Everybody’s trying to get into everybody else’s space because what they’re really fighting for is somebody’ else’s time,” said Mr. Wolf, a former Yahoo Inc. board member in an interview before his presentation.  The most fertile ground is the digital voice assistant found in smart speakers and smart-phones.”


… “[T]he internet giants are rushing to make more advanced products that could prove crucial to controlling consumers’ searches, their homes and habits[.]”

Echo, where Alexa lives, while complex in one sense, is remarkably simple at the human interface level.  It has speakers for talking to you (with Dolby performance, no less), a microphone for listening to you (with similar high-performance specs), and a wireless interface to the internet via your home network.  Newer versions include a video camera to watch you even in the dimmest of ambients.  All versions are noticeably absent display screens and other interactive devices like a touch panel, keyboard, or mouse.

Pretty simple and non-threatening, though stuffed full of proprietary hardware and firmware.  Don’t worry if these terms are unfamiliar; that’s part of Alexa’s allure.  She can quickly become your roommate or, more correctly, a digital friend.  Ask Alexa to do anything you desire; if she can’t, she’ll tell you so or suggest an alternate way to proceed, all while chatting with you in familiar, courteous tones.

So far, so good.  The immense power of Echo and Alexa lies not in voice recognition and voice synthesis capabilities, but in the connection to the internet.  Voice recognition simply digitizes inputs to the microphone and analyzes them for language content.  Voice synthesis is the reverse of this process – creating spoken words from series of ones and zeros.

The magic of digital technology is that it reduces everything to elementary operations, executed by incredibly fast, inexpensive, and nearly error-proof electronic building blocks suggestive of basic LEGO pieces.  That the A.I. technology is primitive is not as relevant as the very fact that humans are investing billions in it…but for what purpose?

Now consider the Global Digital Infrastructure (GDI), a term I use to describe the sum of all interconnected digital resources in the world, regardless of whether interconnected by the internet, the cellular system, or other means.  The GDI consists primarily of electronic hardware and computer programs and is a living thing, growing by leaps and bounds on a daily basis.  It includes all the related resources of governments friendly and hostile.

The main point here is that simple as the Echo device may seem, once you connect it via the internet to the GDI, it is accessible to any other processing element of that global structure.  Anyone who listens to and speaks to Alexa opens himself up to monitoring by and voice prompting from a vast universe of digital resources operated by unknowable entities in unknowable locations.  And without realizing it, he willingly provides input to “big data” archives.

This is what “the cloud” means.  Instead of being connected to your neighbor’s laptop, or Amazon’s server bank in Timbuktu, you’re interacting with a vast, unstructured, indeterminate array of digital resources in the ether.

“Hacking” on a growing scale regularly makes news, and a troubling collection of malevolent actors are breaking into our digital homes.  Some do it for amusement or to impress their friends.  Some do it to enrich themselves.  Others do it to subvert governmental, societal, or political stability.

Hacking is only one danger inherent to the GDI.  Online retailers work to shape our buying habits, and others work in more subtle ways to control our thoughts and inclinations.  Orwell’s 1984 is no longer a fictional contrivance.

Most of this takes place through daily use of laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other digital devices in our personal and professional lives, when we’re conscious of our interaction with the GDI.  Establishing a personal, oral connection between yourself and the GDI through an innocuous-seeming techno-tchotchke, on the other hand, is an entirely new form of human-GDI interaction.  Siri, Alexa, and others are exploiting this domain, with aggregate intellect and innovation beyond imagining.  Adding a video camera into the mix multiplies the possibilities by orders of magnitude.

The net result is product capability directly in conflict with the right to privacy we consider fundamental to our freedom – and unwitting exposure, literally and figuratively, to the vast predatory instincts that find expression through the GDI and the access it grants everything connected to it.

Can you imagine exposing a child to this risk, as if the device were a talking doll of decades ago?  No assurances or parental controls provided by the maker can provide ironclad security while offering the wonders of the GDI at the mere uttering of words.

I hope you can fathom the serious risks involved in these devices and their underlying technology.  Appreciating the dangers they represent to our children and grandchildren is the first step in recognizing the security vulnerabilities they impose upon us all.  This isn’t about technology; it’s about generational technology naïveté conflated with human willingness to corrupt and control through the most innocent of means.  It is about natural impulses to abuse. 

These devices are a modern-day version of illegal search and seizure.  Combined with the leftist-driven breakdown of societal values, we face a future where we all become cattle to powerful elites.  The only question is how willingly we do so.

I’ve reflected a considerable amount on the subject of this column, motivated primarily by concerns that one of these devices could end up in a grandchild’s room – yours, mine, or someone else’s.  Much more needs to be written on the subject, but for now, I leave you with these thoughts:

Schaeffer’s First Law of the Digital Age:

The Global Digital Infrastructure (GDI) connects all human life on the planet into a single, giant, metastasizing organism throbbing with incredible potential for advancing human good, expanding knowledge exponentially, invading our lives with unimaginable malice and evil, and transforming unsuspecting users into helpless and obedient cyborgs.

Schaeffer’s Second Law of the Digital Age:

Each breakthrough in utility deriving from advances in the Global Digital Domain is accompanied by equal or greater vulnerabilities and potential detriments to quality of life.  Anything that can do amazingly great things for you can almost always do terribly awful things to you as well.

Schaeffer’s Third Law of the Digital Age:

It’s impossible to make or enforce laws to guard the people against the dangers of global digital power and impossible to prevent exponential growth in this power.  The Zuckerbergs and Bezoses and Googles of the world may propose to use their power benevolently, but they plan to use it and grow it without limit.  They claim they’ll be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Pem Schaeffer is a retired business development executive, and blogger.  Survey his efforts at http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com.

How much would you pay someone to invade the privacy of your home?  Or to search your premises continuously, breaching your barrier against tyranny?  Similarly, would you pay to have your home wiretapped?  And your life tapped?

Now consider Alexa, the personal assistant residing in Amazon’s Echo products.  These are available at prices beginning under $50.  In today’s red-hot technology domain, such devices are seen as exemplars of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) technology.

Highlights from the Echo product page include these:

  • Echo connects to Alexa, a cloud-based voice service, to play music; make calls; set alarms and timers; ask questions; check your calendar, weather, traffic, and sports scores; manage to-do and shopping lists; control smart home devices; and more – instantly.
  • Just ask Alexa to control your compatible smart lights, thermostats, garage doors, sprinklers, and more.  Alexa is always getting smarter and adding new features and skills.  Just ask Alexa to control your TV, request an Uber, order a pizza, and more.

Fifty years ago, as a Ph.D. candidate in USC’s new Computer Sciences Department, I took courses in  emerging A.I. theory.  A.I. consisted of nothing more than algorithms readily implemented with digital computers and related programs.  That is still the case, but the power, density, speed, and cost factors in the hardware domain have facilitated previously unthinkable processing tasks with brute computational force. 

A.I. has not broken through the mysteries of innate human intelligence.  Instead, techniques have evolved for applying massive computational power to simulate various human capabilities.  Prominent examples include interactive systems in the newest automobiles.  They recognize voice input, speak back in response, and perform various tasks at our behest.  All use inexpensive digital hardware running highly evolved computer programs.  The irony is that while their performance seems dazzling, they are in fact doing what they do through an extremely fast series of the simplest acts.

The obvious difference here is Alexa’s seeming humanity, as opposed to the more technical domain of a laptop or smartphone, where operating systems, applications, security, user interfaces, and other technical details are the coin of the realm.  Alexa is always there waiting to “help.”  She’s an unobtrusive addition to any setting, available in a variety of designer fabric coverings.  With a soothing, maternal voice, she is Big Brother reimagined as a benevolent family member.

A recent Wall Street Journal article on technology includes these passages:

“Everybody’s trying to get into everybody else’s space because what they’re really fighting for is somebody’ else’s time,” said Mr. Wolf, a former Yahoo Inc. board member in an interview before his presentation.  The most fertile ground is the digital voice assistant found in smart speakers and smart-phones.”


… “[T]he internet giants are rushing to make more advanced products that could prove crucial to controlling consumers’ searches, their homes and habits[.]”

Echo, where Alexa lives, while complex in one sense, is remarkably simple at the human interface level.  It has speakers for talking to you (with Dolby performance, no less), a microphone for listening to you (with similar high-performance specs), and a wireless interface to the internet via your home network.  Newer versions include a video camera to watch you even in the dimmest of ambients.  All versions are noticeably absent display screens and other interactive devices like a touch panel, keyboard, or mouse.

Pretty simple and non-threatening, though stuffed full of proprietary hardware and firmware.  Don’t worry if these terms are unfamiliar; that’s part of Alexa’s allure.  She can quickly become your roommate or, more correctly, a digital friend.  Ask Alexa to do anything you desire; if she can’t, she’ll tell you so or suggest an alternate way to proceed, all while chatting with you in familiar, courteous tones.

So far, so good.  The immense power of Echo and Alexa lies not in voice recognition and voice synthesis capabilities, but in the connection to the internet.  Voice recognition simply digitizes inputs to the microphone and analyzes them for language content.  Voice synthesis is the reverse of this process – creating spoken words from series of ones and zeros.

The magic of digital technology is that it reduces everything to elementary operations, executed by incredibly fast, inexpensive, and nearly error-proof electronic building blocks suggestive of basic LEGO pieces.  That the A.I. technology is primitive is not as relevant as the very fact that humans are investing billions in it…but for what purpose?

Now consider the Global Digital Infrastructure (GDI), a term I use to describe the sum of all interconnected digital resources in the world, regardless of whether interconnected by the internet, the cellular system, or other means.  The GDI consists primarily of electronic hardware and computer programs and is a living thing, growing by leaps and bounds on a daily basis.  It includes all the related resources of governments friendly and hostile.

The main point here is that simple as the Echo device may seem, once you connect it via the internet to the GDI, it is accessible to any other processing element of that global structure.  Anyone who listens to and speaks to Alexa opens himself up to monitoring by and voice prompting from a vast universe of digital resources operated by unknowable entities in unknowable locations.  And without realizing it, he willingly provides input to “big data” archives.

This is what “the cloud” means.  Instead of being connected to your neighbor’s laptop, or Amazon’s server bank in Timbuktu, you’re interacting with a vast, unstructured, indeterminate array of digital resources in the ether.

“Hacking” on a growing scale regularly makes news, and a troubling collection of malevolent actors are breaking into our digital homes.  Some do it for amusement or to impress their friends.  Some do it to enrich themselves.  Others do it to subvert governmental, societal, or political stability.

Hacking is only one danger inherent to the GDI.  Online retailers work to shape our buying habits, and others work in more subtle ways to control our thoughts and inclinations.  Orwell’s 1984 is no longer a fictional contrivance.

Most of this takes place through daily use of laptops, tablets, smartphones, and other digital devices in our personal and professional lives, when we’re conscious of our interaction with the GDI.  Establishing a personal, oral connection between yourself and the GDI through an innocuous-seeming techno-tchotchke, on the other hand, is an entirely new form of human-GDI interaction.  Siri, Alexa, and others are exploiting this domain, with aggregate intellect and innovation beyond imagining.  Adding a video camera into the mix multiplies the possibilities by orders of magnitude.

The net result is product capability directly in conflict with the right to privacy we consider fundamental to our freedom – and unwitting exposure, literally and figuratively, to the vast predatory instincts that find expression through the GDI and the access it grants everything connected to it.

Can you imagine exposing a child to this risk, as if the device were a talking doll of decades ago?  No assurances or parental controls provided by the maker can provide ironclad security while offering the wonders of the GDI at the mere uttering of words.

I hope you can fathom the serious risks involved in these devices and their underlying technology.  Appreciating the dangers they represent to our children and grandchildren is the first step in recognizing the security vulnerabilities they impose upon us all.  This isn’t about technology; it’s about generational technology naïveté conflated with human willingness to corrupt and control through the most innocent of means.  It is about natural impulses to abuse. 

These devices are a modern-day version of illegal search and seizure.  Combined with the leftist-driven breakdown of societal values, we face a future where we all become cattle to powerful elites.  The only question is how willingly we do so.

I’ve reflected a considerable amount on the subject of this column, motivated primarily by concerns that one of these devices could end up in a grandchild’s room – yours, mine, or someone else’s.  Much more needs to be written on the subject, but for now, I leave you with these thoughts:

Schaeffer’s First Law of the Digital Age:

The Global Digital Infrastructure (GDI) connects all human life on the planet into a single, giant, metastasizing organism throbbing with incredible potential for advancing human good, expanding knowledge exponentially, invading our lives with unimaginable malice and evil, and transforming unsuspecting users into helpless and obedient cyborgs.

Schaeffer’s Second Law of the Digital Age:

Each breakthrough in utility deriving from advances in the Global Digital Domain is accompanied by equal or greater vulnerabilities and potential detriments to quality of life.  Anything that can do amazingly great things for you can almost always do terribly awful things to you as well.

Schaeffer’s Third Law of the Digital Age:

It’s impossible to make or enforce laws to guard the people against the dangers of global digital power and impossible to prevent exponential growth in this power.  The Zuckerbergs and Bezoses and Googles of the world may propose to use their power benevolently, but they plan to use it and grow it without limit.  They claim they’ll be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

Pem Schaeffer is a retired business development executive, and blogger.  Survey his efforts at http://othersideofbrunswick.blogspot.com.



Source link