Monday, December 5, 2022

The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal the Totalitarians Among Us

undefined

I admit to being skeptical of Elon Musk as a free speech hero. He has moved from one US government-subsidized business to another on his path to becoming the world’s richest person. But there is no denying that his release of the “Twitter Papers” this past weekend, which blew the lid off government manipulation of social media, has been a huge victory for those of us who value the First Amendment.

The release, in coordination with truly independent journalist Matt Taibbi, demonstrated indisputably how politicians and representatives of “official Washington” pressed the teams that were then in charge of censorship at Twitter to remove Tweets and even ban accounts that were guilty of nothing beyond posting something the power-brokers did not want the general public to read. Let’s not forget that many of those demanding Twitter censorship were US government officials who had taken an oath to the US Constitution and its First Amendment.

It is important to understand that both US political parties were involved in pushing Twitter to censor information they didn’t like. There is plenty of corruption to go around. However, as the Twitter Papers demonstrated, vastly more Tweets were censored at the demand of Democratic Party politicians simply because Twitter employees on the censorship team were overwhelmingly Democratic Party supporters.

Perhaps the most damning piece of evidence released in this first installment of the Twitter Papers was a series of Tweets from the Biden 2020 campaign to its contact inside Twitter asking that the social media censor them. An internal Twitter document shows that the censor team “handled these,” meaning censored them.

Elon Musk himself openly stated before the release that, prior to his taking control of the company and engaging in mass firing, Twitter had been manipulating elections. So all those years we heard lies from the Washington elites that Russia was interfering in our elections when after all it was Twitter. Of course that raises the question about other large social media companies like Facebook. Will Mark Zuckerberg come clean about his own company’s election interference? Will anyone have the courage to demand that he do so?

How did they get away with all of this? As another truly independent journalist, Glenn Greenwald, pointed out on the Tucker Carlson show the night the “Twitter Papers” were released, while it was once controversial for the CIA to attempt to manipulate what Americans consume in the mainstream media, nowadays these outlets openly hire “former” US intelligence leaders and officers as news analysts. CNN, MSNBC, Fox, and the rest of them all bring on “former” members of the intelligence services to tell Americans what to think. “Big tech censorship is a critical tool of the national security state,” Greenwald told Tucker. “Whenever anyone tries to do anything about it these former people from the CIA and the Pentagon and the rest jump up and say ‘we cannot allow you to restore free speech.’”

This is a corruption scandal so massive that it is almost guaranteed to never be properly investigated. Government itself is among the most guilty and we know “government commissions” are really about covering up rather than uncovering the crimes committed. But the truth is powerful. Some 58 years after the Warren Report whitewashed the assassination of President Kennedy, polls show that few Americans believe the “official” narrative.

Truth is powerful and we must always seek it. No amount of lies can withstand the disinfectant of truth. Thanks to Elon Musk for his courage and we encourage him to continue.

from The ‘Twitter Papers’ Reveal the Totalitarians Among Us

Saturday, December 3, 2022

Hypocrites and Psychopaths: EU’s Russia War Crimes Tribunal

undefined

On November 30, the European Commission, the executive of the European Union, proposed “options to Member States to make sure that Russia is held accountable for the atrocities and crimes committed during the war in Ukraine.”

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, in selective condemnation, tweeted “Russia must pay for its horrific crimes.”
The hypocrisy displayed by von der Leyen and the EU is nothing short of remarkable. It would seem the EU collective of unelected bureaucrats suffers from amnesia. Twenty-four years ago, Bill Clinton and NATO mercilessly bombed Yugoslavia, targeting civilian infrastructure. Rick Rozoff enumerates the war crimes:
A passenger train, a religious procession, a refugee column, Radio Television of Serbia headquarters, a vacuum cleaner factory, bridges, marketplaces, apartment courtyards, the Swiss embassy in Belgrade and the Chinese embassy as well, with three journalists killed and 27 other Chinese injured. Cluster bombs, graphite bombs and depleted uranium ordnance were used widely. No one, not a single individual, has been held accountable for those war crimes. Nor for what should be a war crime and one of the most grave at that: intentionally fabricating and exaggerating atrocity stories to agitate for and escalate a war. Few Western politicians and journalists would have escaped that charge over their roles in 1999.
“There were aspects of the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia that were in breach of accepted norms of warfare, the greatest example being the bombing of the TV station. NATO deliberately targeted unarmed civilian non-combatants, that's the bottom line,” Duncan Bullivant, author of a report on Kosovo for London's Centre for European Reform, told the Irish Times in 2000.

No tribunal was organized for the psychopaths responsible for terrorizing and murdering Serbs. Bill Clinton, also responsible for attacking Iraq and killing civilians, in addition to making sure Iraqi children starved to death under a medieval sanctions regime, was not held responsible. In fact, he was described in “Churchillian tones” by aides and the corporate media. Clinton’s illegal and immoral bombing of the former Yugoslavia made George W. Bush’s criminal invasion of Iraq easier.
Because politicians and most of the media portrayed the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing the purported beneficiaries.
Ursula von der Leyen and the EU have blood on their hands. European countries inserted Eurofighters, Tornados, MK 80 series bombs, and other munitions and death machines into the Yemen conflict. “Are European arms companies therefore aiding and abetting alleged war crimes committed by the military coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in Yemen?” asks the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights.
Despite documented attacks on civilian homes, markets, hospitals and schools – conducted by the Saudi/UAE-led military coalition – transnational companies based in Europe continue to supply Saudi Arabia and the UAE with weapons, ammunition and logistical support. European government officials authorized the exports by granting licenses.
Despite ample evidence of war crimes, NATO and the USG received a free pass. “The United Nations' chief war crimes prosecutor said today that there was no basis for a formal investigation into whether NATO committed war crimes during the bombing of Yugoslavia,” the New York Times reported on June 3, 2000.

NATO is the preferred executioner. Amnesty International, in 2014, criticized the USG and NATO for ignoring its numerous war crimes against civilians in Afghanistan.

NATO was also accused of committing war crimes in Libya. A report issued in 2012 by the Arab Organization for Human Rights, together with the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the International Legal Assistance Consortium, detailed wanton violation of human rights by NATO.

“Among civilian sites visited by the mission that had been struck by NATO bombs and missiles were schools and colleges, a Zliten regional food warehouse, the Office of the Administrative Controller in Tripoli, and private homes,” the report notes.

In November of 2011, “the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno Ocampo, stated that ‘there are allegations of crimes committed by NATO forces (and) these allegations will be examined impartially and independently.’” The crimes include the “lynching” of Moammar Gaddafi, a brutal act that prompted a chortle from then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

No special commission was empaneled to look into these war crimes, although the ICC did order the arrest of Gaddafi’s son, Saif al-Islam, and other supporters. NATO refused to admit civilians were killed after 7,642 air-to-surface weapons were used.

“Although the prosecutor of the ICC said that he would investigate war crimes by both sides, the eagerness with which he seized on allegations of a policy by Gaddafi to encourage rape, with hundreds of victims, and the provision of ‘viagra-type medicaments’ to his forces, did nothing to enhance a perception of objectivity when they went unsubstantiated,” writes Ian Martin, the director of the UN’s support mission in Libya from 2011-12 and the former head of Amnesty International.

The war crimes of the EU and NATO cannot compare to those of the United States Government, an aggressive and repeat offender of international law. Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 states quite explicitly:
It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away or for any other motive.
Russia is indeed in violation of this specific protocol. However, here in the “West,” we are only given half of the story. In fact, we are given less than half and are expected to believe a passel of lies, daily cranked out by the corporate war propaganda media. No mention of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine dedicated to abducting, torturing, and killing ethnic Russians in Lugansk, Donetsk, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Ukraine. For an example of the brutal punishment these ultranationalists inflict on their enemies, look no further than the arson of the labor building in Odesa.

Corporate media mention of war crimes is highly selective and biased.

No mention of the USG-orchestrated illegal coup overthrowing the elected leader of Ukraine for his crime of seeking a better deal with Russia than the neoliberal-espousing EU.

No mention of Neo-Nazi thugs setting fire to a labor building in Odesa, killing around 50 or more anti-Maidan activists (this largely ignored news item is buried beneath stories depicting alleged Russian crimes).

No mention of the ignored Minsk I and II agreements hammered out in 2014 and 2015 to end the “civil war” between the Neo-Nazi brigades embedded in the Ukrainian military and “separatists” in Donbas.

The USG and its European “partners” (in crime) count on the amnesiac perception of a perpetually lied to and manipulated public to support or remain disconnected and apathetic to its bloody neoliberal wars and resource-grabbing predations.

Iraq serves as the primary example, although what the USG did there is largely forgotten and not considered relevant to the conflict in Ukraine.

“The intention and effort of the bombing of civilian life and facilities was to systematically destroy Iraq's infrastructure leaving it in a preindustrial condition,” the 1992 Report to the Commission of Inquiry for the International War Crimes Tribunal charged.
Iraq's civilian population was dependent on industrial capacities. The US assault left Iraq in a near apocalyptic condition as reported by the first United Nations observers after the war. Among the facilities targeted and destroyed were:

* electric power generation, relay and transmission;

* water treatment, pumping and distribution systems and reservoirs;

* telephone and radio exchanges, relay stations, towers and transmission facilities;

* food processing, storage and distribution facilities and markets, infant milk formula and beverage plants, animal vaccination facilities and irrigation sites;

* railroad transportation facilities, bus depots, bridges, highway overpasses, highways, highway repair stations, trains, buses and other public transportation vehicles, commercial and private vehicles;

* oil wells and pumps, pipelines, refineries, oil storage tanks, gasoline filling stations and fuel delivery tank cars and trucks, and kerosene storage tanks;

* sewage treatment and disposal systems; factories engaged in civilian production, e.g., textile and automobile assembly; and

* historical markers and ancient sites.
However, there is a difference between Putin’s SMO and Bush’s invasion of Iraq. Russia faces an antagonistic enemy on its border, installing missile systems and conducting military exercises while supporting rabid ultranationalist neo-Nazis busy bombing ethnic Russian civilians in Donbas.

Iraq, on the other hand, did not have troops and missiles on the border of the United States, and it did not pose a threat to USG “interests” in the Middle East. It was a neoliberal hit job to take down an Arab nation that was at the time the most advanced in the Middle East (Libya, the most advanced nation in Africa, with the possible exception of South Africa, was also taken out under false “humanitarian” pretense). The neocons lied about weapons of mass destruction, the same as they are now lying about Russia wanting to reclaim its lost Soviet territory.

Ursula von der Leyen presides over a criminal organization responsible for the death and destruction of manufactured “enemies” that do not threaten Europe. She is, in essence, calling for the freezing of Europeans dependent on natural gas from Russia at bargain basement prices and war without end or a perceivable exit.

Psychopaths lie and wage war without compunction. Biden and his coterie of neocons and “humanitarian interventionists” have flatly stated there will be no peace until Zelensky and his ultranationalist psychopaths decide to negotiate with Putin. They have absolutely no incentive to do so, considering the manifest and irrational hatred of all things Russian.

Andriy Biletsky, Leader of the National Corps party, threatened President Volodymyr Zelensky with violence in 2019 if he ordered Ukrainian military forces to pull back from the Donbas,” writes David Shavin.

Biletsky was the first commander of the Azov Battalion and a co-founder of the nationalist movement Socialist National party—in other words, he is a dedicated neo-Nazi guilty, among other crimes, of beating a journalist within an inch of his life. Biletsky’s philosophy can be encapsulated by the following quote: it is the job of the neo-Nazis to “lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen.”

This is the sort of individual millions of woefully ignorant people unknowingly support when they put a little yellow and blue Ukrainian flag on their social media accounts.

Reprinted with permission from Kurt Nimmo on Geopolitics.
Subscribe here.

from Hypocrites and Psychopaths: EU’s Russia War Crimes Tribunal

Friday, December 2, 2022

The Recurring Threat to Reimpose a Broad Mask Mandate in Los Angeles County

undefined

Barbara Ferrer, the director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, is once again threatening to reimpose a broad mask wearing mandate on people in the county, purportedly to counter coronavirus.

Of course, masks have never been shown to provide net protection against coronavirus and even most people who succumbed to the coronavirus fearmongering early on have happily turned their backs on masks, “social distancing,” isolation at home, and the rest of the pseudoscientific protocols that were thrust upon them before. Nonetheless, some bureaucrats can’t help but keep grasping to reclaim the power that has slipped through their fingers.

Back in July, Ferrer threatened that a broad mask mandate would likely soon automatically swing back in force in the county because of increases in coronavirus “community transmission” numbers in the county — numbers the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention had singled out as important. She is back now with a similar threat. As reported by ABC News out of Los Angeles, on Thursday “Ferrer said the mandate would be issued if two hospital metrics reach [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)] thresholds -- a daily average admission rate of more than 10 per 100,000 residents and a greater than 10% rate of staffed inpatient beds being occupied by COVID patients.”

Maybe people in Los Angeles County will luck out and not be subjected to the reimposition of the broad mask mandate because what ended up happening over the summer happens again: In July, the coronavirus numbers ultimately just missed tripping a CDC-inspired threshold, denying Ferrer her anticipated mandate. But, it is a sad situation that people must continue to live under the shadow of threats to reimpose the buffoonish and authoritarian mandate.

Some tyrants will not give up on the new power they grabbed up in coronavirus crackdowns until they are forced to do so.


from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2022/december/02/the-recurring-threat-to-reimpose-a-broad-mask-mandate-in-los-angeles-county/

Ye’s Suspension from Twitter Suggests Elon Musk’s Free Speech Commitment is a Sham

undefined

Twitter, with its CEO Elon Musk’s approval, suspended Ye (the rapper formerly known as Kanye West) on Thursday night from posting at Twitter after Ye tweeted what could be taken as either the symbol of the Raelian Movement or just a swastika inside a star of David, along with he message “YE24 LOVE EVERYONE #LOVESPEECH.” This action appears to fly in the face of Musk’s assurances that he is turning Twitter, long notorious for censorship, into a sanctuary for free speech.

The rationale for the suspension remains rather opaque, but it seems to be that Musk and Twitter viewed this post as inciting violence, which is prohibited under Twitter’s rules. If the basis is something else, hopefully Musk or Twitter management will soon provide an explanation.

“YE24” in the tweet, which is no longer viewable at Twitter, appears to be a reference to Ye running in the 2024 United States presidential contest. Suppose the image in the tweet is intended to represent, sans Raelianistic meaning, just the Hebrew Star of David and German National Socialist swastika mashed up. Then, the image, combined with the text accompanying it, seems likely to indicate that Ye extends love to people of all viewpoints — along the lines of “coexist” bumper stickers — and is flexing his love for speech by posting something that will jar people. (It is also possible that Ye jumbled his attempted communication.)

In contrast, the assertion that Ye was inciting violence through this tweet is preposterous. Yet, that is what Musk appears to have claimed Ye had done.

Musk defended Twitter’s suspension of Ye by posting at Twitter that Ye was suspended for “incitement to violence.” Really? While people have pointed to Ye lately accusing him of crazy talk, this comment by Musk really takes the cake. Musk, like his predecessors in charge of Twitter, would be flagrantly mischaracterizing what Ye did in the Twitter post by calling it incitement to violence. Why do that? Is the reason that Musk and the new Twitter management want to continue suspending and banning accounts based on their own biases, preferences, and whims while parading around as defenders of free speech?

It looks like the facade of the new Twitter as a defender of free speech is crumbling.


from Peace and Prosperity http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2022/december/02/ye-s-suspension-from-twitter-suggests-elon-musk-s-free-speech-commitment-is-a-sham/

Oh Canada: Trudeau Denounces China for its Failure to Allow Protests Over Covid Policies

undefined

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau left many of us gobsmacked this week when he denounced China for its crackdown on protesters. Many of us denounced Trudeau for his authoritarian crackdown on truckers protesting Canada’s Covid policies. Trudeau used terrorist laws to freeze bank accounts, treat truckers as terrorists, and treat trucks as effective weapons. This is a continuation of Trudeau’s utter lack of self-awareness (and the media continuing lack of objectivity). He previously was praised for his stance against Cuba’s crackdown on protesters.

Trudeau told the media Tuesday, “Obviously everyone in China should be allowed to express themselves, should be allowed to, you know, share their — their perspectives, and indeed protest. We’re going to continue to ensure that China knows we’ll stand up for human rights, we’ll stand with people who are expressing themselves.”

That is coming from the man who invoked the 1988 Emergencies Act for the first time to freeze accounts of truckers and contributions by other Canadian citizens. It was entirely unnecessary and, while the media is largely supportive of Trudeau, the powers have been condemned by civil liberties groups in Canada.

The 1988 law is meant to address the greatest national threats when existing laws are insufficient. However, there are ample laws allowing the clearing of roads and bridges. Trudeau is using the Act to intimidate not just the truckers but anyone who supports them. That includes sending lists of names to banks for accounts to be frozen and going to court to prevent donations from reaching the truckers.

Ironically, it was Trudeau’s father, who used the predecessor to the Act for the first time in peacetime to suspend civil liberties. Former prime minister Pierre Trudeau invoked the War Measures Act on Oct. 16, 1970, after separatist terrorists calling themselves the Front de libération du Québec kidnapped British Trade Commissioner James Cross and Quebec Labour Minister Pierre Laporte. The prior Act had never been used in peacetime and only twice before during prior wars.

Justin Trudeau, like his father, has never been a strong supporter of free speech. Indeed, he has more often championed its limitations. He previously declared that “freedom of expression is not without limits . . . we owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”

He has long been criticized for his anti-free speech policies, including his move to amend the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act to criminalize any “communication that expresses detestation or vilification of an individual or group of individuals on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” That regulation of speech was criticized for its vague terms to prevent “social media platforms, [from being] used to threaten, intimidate, bully and harass people, or used to promote racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, misogynistic and homophobic views that target communities, put people’s safety at risk and undermine Canada’s social cohesion or democracy.”

Having Justice Trudeau speak out on the protection of free speech is akin to Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud speaking out on the protection of the free press … it is simply not his strong suit.

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

from Oh Canada: Trudeau Denounces China for its Failure to Allow Protests Over Covid Policies

George Orwell, Call Your Venezuelan Office

undefined

It appears that the American people are being prepared for a change of mindsets. After many years of treating Venezuela as an enemy, opponent, adversary, competitor, and rival, it seems that US officials are now changing course and paving the way toward converting Venezuela to a friend, partner, and ally. 

George Orwell, please call your office in Venezuela. Now that the American people will be expected to abandon the deep hostility toward Venezuela that has long been inculcated in them, there is a strong likelihood that the US will also change its attitudes toward Eastasia and Eurasia.

Apparently the driving force behind this new change in policy is oil. The Biden administration is hoping to curry favor with the Maduro regime in the hopes that new supplies of oil can bring down the prices of that commodity. In that way, Biden can get people to see that he’s “fighting inflation,” without having to focus on the Federal Reserve’s longtime police of monetary debauchery.

Of course, this leaves Juan Guaidó out in no man’s land. He’s that Venezuelan guy that US officials have long claimed is the real president of Venezuela, even though he’s never won an election for president. Apparently their reasoning is that White House personnel, along with select members of the Pentagon and the CIA, held an election amongst themselves in which they overwhelmingly elected Guaidó president of Venezuela. But now it seems like they’re dropping him like a hot potato in exchange for oil.

Expect the Biden administration to ease up on some of the brutal US sanctions that target the Venezuelan people with death and suffering. Their aim was regime change, but they obviously have never succeeded in ousting Maduro or his predecessor Hugo Chavez from power. Along with Maduro’s socialist system, they did succeed, however, in inflicting death and suffering on the Venezuelan people, as reflected by the large number of Venezuelan immigrants who have come to the United States in the hopes of saving their lives. 

Meanwhile, Americans are expected to continue their long-time hatred of the regime in Cuba and to loyally and faithfully continue supporting the 60-year-old economic embargo against the Cuban people. Just because US officials are changing directions on one socialist regime doesn’t mean that they are changing directions on another one. Just because we’re now told to embrace Eastasia doesn’t mean that we should also embrace Eurasia. We need to monitor the media to see how we are supposed to be feeling toward foreign regimes.

This deadly and destructive inanity is all part of America’s foreign policy of interventionism. It should be brought to an immediate end. 

First of all, the federal government has no business whatsoever inflicting death and suffering on innocent people as a way to achieve a political goal. All sanctions and embargoes should be lifted and never imposed again against anyone. 

Second, the US government should butt out of the internal affairs of Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and everywhere else. 

Third, the US government should immediately cease its program of state-sponsored assassinations, torture, and indefinite detention. Let’s leave those things to communist and totalitarian regimes. 

Fourth, no more invasions, occupations, coups, wars of aggression, ginning up crises, NATO and other entangling alliances, and undeclared wars.

Fifth, abandon all foreign military bases and bring all troops home and discharge them. They are not necessary. 

Finally, the US government should terminate all restrictions on the freedom of the American people — i.e., the private sector — to interact with the people of the world.

If we were to take those steps, we would be well on our way toward restoring liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world. And we would no longer have to look to Washington to determine whether we are supposed to be friends with Venezuela, Eastasia, or anyone else. 

Reprinted with permission from Future of Freedom Foundation.

from George Orwell, Call Your Venezuelan Office

Thursday, December 1, 2022

WWIII? Ukraine Should Attack Inside Russia, Says Latvian Foreign Minister

Taking advantage of NATO's defense umbrella, the Latvian Foreign Minister stated yesterday that Ukraine should be free to bomb targets deep inside of Russia, stating that NATO members "should not fear" any escalation. That these weapons are primarily made in the USA apparently means little to little Latvia. Also today: is Poland salivating over western Ukraine? Finally: as Congress races to shovel more money into Ukraine, a new poll shows Americans could not care less. Watch today's Liberty Report:



from WWIII? Ukraine Should Attack Inside Russia, Says Latvian Foreign Minister