Friday, July 1, 2022

FREE SPEECH DEMONSTRATION SHUT DOWN DUE TO LACK OF PERMISSION FOR FREE SPEECH DEMONSTRATION

0

by Joe Joseph, Daily Sheeple:

Yes, you read the title right… a FREE SPEECH demonstration was shut down because they didn’t get permission for something they had a right to do… Yep America… the land of the free… and the home of cognitive dissonance…

Read More @ TheDailySheeple.com

Police Tell Student Activists Their “Free Speech” is Scaring Other Students

by Jack Burns, Activist Post:

In yet another test of the U.S. Constitution’s protected freedom of speech, the Constitution Club at Southern Illinois University (SIU) inflated a giant beach ball and asked students to come by, grab a sharpie, and write whatever they felt like writing on the ball.

The students’ free speech rights exercise was quickly interrupted by campus police who informed the club members they had received complaints about the ball and the group would need to stop their activities.

According to Campus Reform, the reason SIU chose to attempt to stop the demonstration was that campus police said the students did not go through the proper channels to be able to hold the demonstration:

Executive Director of University Marketing and Communications Doug McIlhagga telling Campus Reform that the activists were in violation of the university’s policy “governing freedom of expression and demonstration activities.”

“The demonstrators didn’t follow the proper University procedure for a public forum by going through the Vice Chancellor of Administration’s Office for approval,” he elaborated. “We normally get the ‘Request For Use Of The Designated Public Forum’ form. However in this particular instance, we did not.”

Ultimately, the group was allowed to continue with their free speech demonstration but not before having to make contact with campus police to explain their actions. The SIU police did not appear to want to interrupt what the group was doing but were under marching orders from their superiors.

“This is not considered like a public place,” one campus police officer told the students. “Right now, we’re going to have to put the ball away … it’s freaking a lot of people out … people are reporting that they’re scared of the beach ball, and what’s going on here.”

At issue is whether or not a university campus, a public facility, is, in fact, private property or public property. If it is public property, then the group should not be compelled to go through any channels of approval. Instead, the group is subjected to what some consider an arbitrary process, which attempts to secure the outside approval of a third party (in this case, the Director of University Marketing and Communications) to get the blessing for what the Constitution already allows.

It is not the first time a group on campus has been accosted by police for attempting to assert their free speech rights. As TFTP reported last January, several college students were arrested for passing out pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and signing students up for membership in their conservative student organization. The incident occurred at Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan, and involved members of Young Americans for Liberty who were arrested on Sept. 20, 2015, and charged with trespassing.

Brandon Withers and Michelle Gregoire were arrested and spent nearly 7 hours in jail for their unapproved distribution of the U.S. Constitution and for allegedly attempting to recruit others to their club. The “offenses” resulted in demands the students remove themselves from campus property. The students refused to leave and were arrested by campus police and charged with trespassing.

According to The Washington Times, Scottsdale, Arizona-based “Alliance Defending Freedom,” a nonprofit legal organization that “advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith,” filed a lawsuit on their behalf Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Senior ADF counsel Casey Mattox issued a statement wherein ADF claims their clients’ constitutional rights supersede any unlawful school rules denying them such freedoms.

Read More @ ActivistPost.com

Free Speech Under Fire, Liberty Strikes Back – Nathan McDonald (11/01/2018)

by Nathan McDonald, Sprott Money:

Today, Project Veritas—known for multiple bombshell reports via undercover investigations into government agencies and the mainstream media—have once again delivered in spades.

After recently exposing mainstream media outlets such as CNN and the Washington Post for their left-leaning bias and anti-Trump rhetoric (something well known to all, but still shocking to hear from the horse’s mouth), they have released another massive video. This time the victim is game-changing: Twitter.

For the past year, those who have taken part in the “conversation” on this social media platform are well aware of exactly what James O’Keefe discusses in the video below, which clearly shows Twitter employees explaining a process known as “shadow banning”.

Shadow banning can be summed up very simply:

Imagine yourself in a room with hundreds of other people, possibly even thousands to tens of thousands. In this room, you have the ability to move around and talk to people, to listen to others’ voices and opinions. Perhaps you agree with them, perhaps not. As in the case with Twitter, you are predominately discussing news events inside this room. Whether they are political, or not, is your choice, but in this scenario, let’s say the topic of conversation is just that: politics.

Undoubtedly, in this room, as anywhere in life, arguments will erupt. They will get heated and not everyone will agree with everyone else. This is OK. This is the way we have made progress throughout much of human history, eventually finding middle ground with one another. This is the adult thing to do, and it’s normal—perhaps even necessary—in a functioning society.

Now imagine within this room, there are puppet masters that reside above all others. In Twitter’s case, these puppet masters have an incredibly left-leaning bias, which is not wrong in and of itself. What is wrong, however, is that these puppet masters have the ability to control the flow of information by placing a box over those with whom they don’t agree. In this case: anyone who is gaining traction, or speaking out too loudly, on the right.

If you happen to be placed in one of these boxes—which I have been many times before in the past, as I regularly do gain traction now with over 15,000 Twitter followers—you can still see everyone in the room. You can still hear, you can still speak, but no one can hear you. Worst of all, you don’t know that you are placed within this box, as you receive no warning and no indication other than the fact that your tweets suddenly lose total traction, whereas minutes before they were moving at rapid-fire speed, being re-tweeted and liked at a feverish pace.

Eventually, this box is removed and you can move about your business as normal … until once again you dare step out of line and engage in “wrong think.”

Many of us within the precious metals space can relate to this report by Project Veritas. I, for one, am well aware of this ongoing attack on free speech. The MSM has also attempted to silence and control opinions they do not agree with by reporting on key facts and omitting others, an action known as “lying through omission.”

Read More @ SprottMoney.com

Twitter Exec: “No Longer Possible to Stand Up For All Speech”

0

by Joe Jankowski, Newswars:

Social media site doesn’t believe in free speech

One day after Twitter implemented its vamped up crackdown on hateful conduct and abusive behavior, an executive for the social network said it is “no longer possible to stand up for all speech.”

Walking back the attitude the social network once had for free expression, Sinead McSweeney, Twitter’s vice president for public policy and communications in Europe, explained the new shift that the company is taking.

“I look back over last 5 1/2 years, and the answers I would have given to some of these questions five years ago were very different,” Sweeny told British politicians and other social media executives on Tuesday. “Twitter was in a place where it believed the most effective antidote to bad speech was good speech. It was very much a John Stuart Mill-style philosophy.”

After claiming that the world has changed, the Twitter executive went on to say: “We’ve had to go on a journey with it, and we’ve realized it’s no longer possible to stand up for all speech in the hopes society will become a better place because racism will be challenged, or homophobia challenged, or extremism will be challenged.”

The change of attitude is a complete about-face to what the company was wearing on its sleeve in 2012 when Twitter’s first executive in the UK, Tony Wang, described the company as the “free speech wing of the free speech party.”

In November, Twitter announced that Monday would mark the day the company begins suspending accounts which engage in “hateful conduct” or affiliate with organizations which “use or promote violence against civilians to further their causes” both on and off the platform.

“You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease,” reads an update to Twitter’s Help Center.

The strict crackdown will also target whatever the company deems as hateful imagery and display names.

“You may not use hateful images or symbols in your profile image or profile header,” the update reads. “You also may not use your username, display name, or profile bio to engage in abusive behavior, such as targeted harassment or expressing hate towards a person, group, or protected category.”

Read More @ Newswars.com

Attack on RT Is Another Step Towards Sovietization of American Media

0

by James George Jatras, Strategic Culture:

This week the US Department of Justice Criminal Division forced the Russian-funded television network RT (formerly Russia Today) to register as a “foreign agent” under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Failure to comply would have risked arrest of RT’s management and seizure of its assets. The move comes on the heels of Senators’ recent demands that terrified tech giants Twitter, Facebook, and Google act as ideological filters.

With no discernable defenders among America’s media establishment, RT rightly denounced the selective FARA mandate as an attack on media freedom – which it is. But more ominous is what the move against RT says about America’s rulers’ further intention to limit the sources of information available to its subjects.

As Daniel McAdams of the Ron Paul Institute writes:

“RT America is a news organization operating in the United States that is funded at least partly by a foreign government. So is the BBC. So is Deutsche Welle, France24, Al-Jazeera, and numerous other foreign media organizations. It is assumed that they all to a degree reflect the editorial interests of those who pay the bills.

“The same is true with other, non-state funded media outlets, of course. It’s up to us to factor these things in when we consume media. That’s what it means to be a free people.

“A core value in a free society is that our own government has zero power over what we read, what we watch, how we think, how we come to interpret current events, the conclusions we draw based on these inputs, and so on. These are private matters over which any government that is not tyrannical should have no sway.

“The real insidiousness of tyrannical systems is that the government most lasciviously seeks control over most private spaces — including the most private space called our brain, our intellect, our conscience. We must be free to follow our interests down whatever path they may lead us so that we may reach our own conclusions and then perhaps test them ourselves in the marketplace of ideas.”

The attack on RT (and another Russian network, Sputnik, which evidently has not yet been given a deadline for registration) is a milestone in the degeneration of the American official (call them what you want – corporate, legacy, mainstream) media into PR agencies for the governing establishment and its ideological imperatives. We’ve been moving along this path for a while now, and it’s going to get worse.

Long gone are those halcyon days of yore when Americans could just sit back and watch CBS’s Walter Cronkite with total confidence they were getting the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. (For youngsters who have no idea who the hell Cronkite was, just Google “most trusted man in America.”) Back in the naïve infancy of the TV age, from about the 1950s until the beginning of the 1990s, there was a common national media culture that reflected the established, generally liberal, mainly Democratic tilt of the American inteligentsiya that was almost uniform among the (then only) three networks and a handful of major newspapers and magazines. To be sure, that was also a ruling class media of a sort, but it reflected a broad and deep social consensus.

Those days are no more. Perhaps the unraveling of media trust and social consensus alike started in earnest with Vietnam. But still, for decades afterwards there still seemed to be plenty of empty cranial receptacles for government and corporate propaganda of the first Gulf War under Bush 41, Bill Clinton’s phony humanitarian wars in the Balkans, Bush 43’s Iraq War, and Obama’s Libyan and Syrian imbroglios. Sadly, there are many such cranial receptacles even today.

By its attack on RT, the US government is officially telling us that only the mainstream media (MSM) can be regarded as are purveyors of Truth (with a capital T) and that anybody not on the approved list is fake. How do we know? Why, the MSM themselves tell us! The Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness.” CNN’s “Facts First.” The New York Times’ “The Truth is Hard.” (The fact that certifiably authoritative and truthful media are militantly hostile to Russia, not to mention to Donald Trump, is purely coincidental.)

A lot of Americans don’t buy it anymore, though. Some of the skepticism falls along purely partisan lines reflecting increasing moral and political polarization: our media (which I exclusively consult) tells the truth, but your media (which I don’t consult) are liars. About one-third of Americans get their talking points from, say, Michael Moore, and from Rachel Maddow on MSNBC, with their related internet echoes, while another third gets theirs from Rush Limbaugh, and from Sean Hannity on Fox News, and their internet echo chambers. Increasingly, there is nothing like a national dialogue on anything, but rather two entirely separate, diametrically opposed ideological cultures – and alternate realities – each demonizing “them.” This is why when after Barack Obama’s election the Tea Party appeared, the GOP fell over itself trying to co-opt them, while the Democrats denounced them as a mob of racists and subversives. When later the “Occupy” and Black Lives Matter movements broke out on the Left, the Democrats tried to figure out how to channel it while top Republicans denounced it as gang of commie anarchists and losers.

With the election of Donald Trump the divide intensified further to one of latent civil war.

Read More @ Strategic-Culture.org

Twitter Admits Censorship In Lead Up To 2016 Presidential Election

by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:

Earlier today, social media giant Twitter was reported to have engaged in severe censorship during the 2016 US Presidential election, specifically hiding hashtags which would be harmful to the interests of the Clinton campaign. The news fuels serious questions about the influence of powerful social media companies and their potential role as gatekeepers in favor of the establishment.

The Daily Caller reports that Twitter’s systems hid 48 percent of tweets using the #DNCLeak hashtag and 25 percent of tweets using #PodestaEmails, Twitter general counsel Sean Edgett said in his written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

The report adds that “Approximately one quarter (25{5f621241b214ad2ec6cd4f506191303eb2f57539ef282de243c880c2b328a528}) of [#PodestaEmails tweets] received internal tags from our automation detection systems that hid them from searches,” Edgett said.

This is incredibly significant not only because it validates widespread claims that Twitter had engaged in censorship that specifically benefitted the Clinton campaign during the run-up to the 2016 US Presidential election.

The Podesta emails and the DNC emails were published by Wikileaks last year, with their contents exposing serious corruption in the Democratic Party establishment. Though legacy press has continually blamed the source of the leaks on ‘Russian hacking,’ this narrative has been largely debunked.

The latest news regarding Twitter’s active censorship adds to questions raised by its inexplicable refusal to verify the account of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange and others, despite the plethora of imposter Assange accounts.

Read More @ DisobedientMedia.com

STUDY: 43 PERCENT OF AMERICANS SAY SUPPORTING FIRST AMENDMENT IS RACIST

0

from Infowars:

US citizens increasingly support limiting speech they find offensive

A study released Tuesday states 43 percent of Americans believe supporting someone’s right to make offensive statements is equivalent to holding those same views.

Released by the Cato Institute, the survey found a stark political and racial divide among Americans in regards to the First Amendment and free speech.

Unsurprisingly, Democrats and self-described liberals were most supportive of not only limiting speech but of using the government to enforce their views. Republicans also favored retaliating against free speech practices they felt were disrespectful.

The survey also found that conservatives are much more likely to censor their viewpoints due to the current political climate.

While 76 percent of “strong conservatives” felt the need to self-censor, only 30 percent of “strong liberals” felt the same.

Read More @ Infowars.com

The First Amendment is Under Serious Assault in Order to Stifle Anti-Israel Boycotts

0

by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:

Assaults on freedom speech can be found in many aspects of American life these days, but one specific area that isn’t getting the attention it deserves relates to boycotts against Israel. Increasingly, we’re seeing various regional governments requiring citizens to agree to what essentially amounts to a loyalty pledge to a foreign government in order to participate in or receive government services.

I’m going to highlight two troubling examples of this, both covered by Israeli paper Haaretz. The first relates to Kansas.

From the article, In America, the Right to Boycott Israel Is Under Threat:

The First Amendment squarely protects the right to boycott. Lately, though, a legislative assault on that right has been spreading through the United States –  designed to stamp out constitutionally protected boycotts of Israel…

 

Over the past several years, state and federal legislatures have considered dozens of bills, and in some cases passed laws, in direct violation of this important ruling. These bills and laws vary in numerous respects, but they share a common goal of scaring people away people from participating in boycotts meant to protest Israeli government policies, including what are known as Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaigns.

Today, the ACLU filed a lawsuit challenging one of those laws — a Kansas statute requiring state contractors to sign a statement certifying that they do not boycott Israel, including boycotts of companies profiting off settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

We are representing a veteran math teacher and trainer from Kansas who was told she would need to sign the certification statement in order to participate in a state program training other math teachers. Our client is a member of the Mennonite Church USA. In response to calls for boycott by the church and members of her congregation, she has decided not to buy consumer goods and services offered by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. Our client is boycotting to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians and to pressure the government to change its policies.

Earlier this year, our client was selected to participate as a contractor in a statewide training program run by the Kansas Department of Education. She was excited to use her skills to help train math teachers throughout the state, but when she was presented with a form requiring her to certify that she “is not currently engaged in a boycott of Israel,” she told the state that she could not sign the form in good conscience. As a result, the state refuses to let her participate in the program.

Kansas’s law, and others like it, violates the Constitution. The First Amendment prohibits the government from suppressing one side of a public debate. That means it cannot impose ideological litmus tests or loyalty oaths as a condition on hiring or contracting.

If this was the only example of such behavior, I suppose we could dismiss it as a one-off, misguided directive. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is far more common than any of us would like to admit.

Here’s another recent example, from the article, Houston Suburb Won’t Give Hurricane Relief to Anyone Who Boycotts Israel:

A Houston suburb will not approve grants to repair homes or businesses damaged in Hurricane Harvey if the applicant supports boycotting Israel.

The city of Dickinson’s application form for storm damage repair funding includes a clause stating that “By executing this Agreement below, the Applicant verifies that the Applicant: (1) does not boycott Israel; and (2) will not boycott Israel during the term of this Agreement.”

No other clauses about political affiliations or beliefs are included in the form.

The state of Texas passed a law in May banning state entities from contracting with businesses that boycott Israel. The law, one of 21 passed in states around the country in the past few years, has been criticized by the American Civil Liberties Union as unconstitutional.

Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com

The Best Ways To Remove Rust From Your Firearms

0

by Joshua Krause, Ready Nutrition:

Few things in life are more infuriating than realizing that a firearm you spent a fortune on is beginning to rust. What makes it so painful, is that you know it’s probably your fault. You can spend many hours over the course of many years keeping your firearms in immaculate condition. You can thoroughly clean them after every use. But if you slip up once after a hunting trip or a long day at the range, there’s a good chance that you’ll see some rust emerge the next time you use your firearm.

But fortunately, not all is lost. Don’t start pulling your hair out if you see a little surface rust on your firearm because as this video shows, it’s pretty easy to clean up.

And if you’re really worried about scratching up your gun while cleaning out rust, it turns out that an old copper penny can work wonders on an aging firearm.

But obviously, it’s best to keep rust from showing up in the first place. If you’re a new firearm owner, here are the basics that you need to know.

Read More @ ReadyNutrition.com

TRUTH PURGE: YouTube changes search algorithms after “misinformation” during Las Vegas shooting

from The Verge:

YouTube has changed its search algorithms to display more reliable and trustworthy sources after the violent attack in Las Vegas saw a spike in misinformation and hateful content appear on the site, reports The Wall Street Journal.

The paper reports that on Tuesday the fifth result shown when a user searches “Las Vegas shooting” showed a video that claimed there were multiple shooters involved (authorities had confirmed there was only one). The video, called “Proof Las Vegas Shooting Was a FALSE FLAG attack—Shooter on 4th Floor,” had received 1.1 million views in 27 hours. YouTube removed the video on Wednesday.

A source familiar with YouTube told the WSJ the video streaming site is accelerating the rollout of planned changes to its search engine in response to criticism. YouTube began showing more reliable sources in search results on Wednesday, but hasn’t revealed how it determines which sources are authoritative and which aren’t.

“When it comes to news, we have thousands of news publishers that present a variety of viewpoints,” the company said in an email to the WSJ.

YouTube uses algorithms when ranking videos in search results and in choosing videos to feature on Up Next in the video player. The company had been working on tweaks to its search results for months but implemented the changes earlier than planned, the source said. The source also noted the changes still need work.

YouTube’s parent company Google also faced backlash and was forced to apologize after it featured a 4chan thread that misidentified the shooter in its Top News section. Following the Las Vegas shooting, Facebook’s Safety Check page was also filled with scammers and hoaxes.

Read More @ TheVerge.com

Has The Israel Lobby Destroyed Americans’ First Amendment Rights?

by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:

The Israel Lobby has shown its power over Americans’ perceptions and ability to exercise free speech via its influence in media, entertainment and ability to block university tenure appointments, such as those of Norman Finkelstein and Steven Salaita. Indeed, the power of the Israel Lobby is today so widely recognized and feared that editors, producers, and tenure committees anticipate the lobby’s objections in advance and avoid writers, subjects, and professors judged unacceptable to the lobby.

The latest example is The American Conservative’s firing of former CIA officer Philip Giraldi.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47942.htm Giraldi wrote an article for the Unz Review about Israel’s influence over American foreign policy in the Middle East.http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/americas-jews-are-driving-americas-wars/ The article didn’t say anything that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz hadn’t said already. The editor of The American Conservative, where Giraldi had been a contributor for a decade and a half, was terrified that the magazine was associated with a critic of Israel and quickly terminated the relationship. Such abject cowardice as the editor of The American Conservative showed is a true measure of the power of the Israel Lobby.

Meny seasoned experts believe that without the influence of the Israel Lobby, particularly as exerted by the Jewish Neoconservatives, the United States would not have been at war in the Middle East and North Africa for the last 16 years. These wars have done nothing for the US but harm, and they have cost taxpayers trillions of dollars and caused extensive death and destruction in seven countries and a massive refugee flow into Europe.

For a superpower such as the United States not to be in control of its own foreign policy is a serious matter. Giraldi is correct and patriotic to raise this concern. Giraldi makes sensible recommendations for correcting Washington’s lack of control over its own policy. But instead of analysis and debate of Giraldi’s proposals, the result is Giraldi’s punishment by an editor of a conservative publication anticipating the Israel Lobby’s wishes.

Americans should think about the fact that Israel is the only country on earth that it is impermissible to criticize. Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy, especially toward the Palestinians, or remarks on Israel’s influence, is branded an “anti-semite.” Even mild critics who are trying to steer Israel away from making mistakes, such as former President Jimmy Carter, are branded “anti-semites.”

The Israel Lobby’s purpose in labeling a critic an “anti-semite” is to discredit the criticism as an expression of dislike or hatred of Jews. In other words, the criticism is presented as merely an expression of the person’s aversion to Jewishness. A persistent critic is likely to be charged with trying to incite a new holocaust.

It is possible to criticize the policy of Germany, France, Spain, UK, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, China, Iran, the US, indeed, every other country without being called anti-German, Anti-French, Anti-British, Anti-American, etc., although US policy in the Middle East is so closely aligned with Israel’s that the Israel Lobby regards critics of US Middle East policy as hostile to Israel. Despite the failures of US policy, it is getting more and more difficult to criticize it without the risk of being branded “unpatriotic,” and possibly even a “Muslim sympathizer” and “anti-semite.”

The power of the Israel Lobby is seen in many places. For example, the US Congress demands that RT, a news service, register as a Russian agent, but AIPAC, before whom every year the US Congress pays its homage and submission, does not have to register as an Israeli agent.

The many anomalies in the Israel Lobby’s power pass unremarked. For example, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) defines criticism of Israeli policies as defamation and brands critics “anti-semites.” In other words, the ADL itself is set up in the business of defamation or name-calling. The incongruity of an organization created to oppose defamation engaging in defamation as its sole purpose passes unremarked.

Israel is very proud of its power over the United States. Israeli political leaders have a history of bragging about their power over America. But if an American complains about it, he is a Jew-hater. The only safe way for an American to call attention to the power Israel has over the US is to brag about it. It is OK to acknowledge Israel’s power if you put it in a good light, but not if you complain about it.

So, let me put it this way: Israel’s unique ability to discredit all criticism of its policies as a mere expression of anti-Jewish sentiment is the greatest public relations success in the history of PR. The stupidity of the goy is easily overcome by the more capable Jew. Hats off to Israel for outwitting the dumbshit Americans and taking over their foreign policy. Perhaps Israel should take over US domestic policy as well. Or have they already? It has been 30 years since the Federal Reserve has had a non-Jewish Chairman, and for the past three years Stanley Fischer, the former chairman of the Central Bank of Israel, has been Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Since the Clinton regime, the Treasury Secretaries have been predominately Jewish. We can say that their financial talent makes them natural candidates for these positions, but it is disingenuous to deny the influence of this small minority in American life. This influence becomes a problem when it is used to silence free speech.

Here is Giraldi:

How I Got Fired

October 03, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –  Two weeks ago, I wrote for Unz.com an article entitled “America’s Jews Are Driving America’s Wars.” It sought to make several points concerning the consequences of Jewish political power vis-à-vis some aspects of U.S. foreign policy. It noted that some individual American Jews and organizations with close ties to Israel, whom I named and identified, are greatly disproportionately represented in the government, media, foundations, think tanks and lobbying that is part and parcel of the deliberations that lead to formulation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Inevitably, those policies are skewed to represent Israeli interests and do serious damage to genuine American equities in the region. This tilt should not necessarily surprise anyone who has been paying attention and was noted by Nathan Glazer, among others, as long ago as 1976.

Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org

New Senate Bill Targets WikiLeaks, Russia, Independent Press and First Amendment

0

by Whitney Webb, The Anti Media:

With the Russian meddling narrative serving as pretext, the U.S. Senate, embracing the “Pompeo Doctrine,” is moving to stifle and criminalize WikiLeaks and, by extension, any such “dangerous,” transparency-providing entities that threaten to cast doubt upon Washington’s “official stories.”

(MPN) — The Senate Intelligence Committee is pushing Congress to label WikiLeaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” having adopted that very position in the Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA) it approved last month. The terminology used in the bill originates from a speech given in April by CIA director Mike Pompeo, who called the pro-transparency media organization a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted” by “hostile” nations.

WikiLeaks’ editor-in-chief, Julian Assange, has slammed the Senate bill as an attempt to legislate what he termed the “Pompeo doctrine.”

WikiLeaks has been under U.S. investigation since 2010 but the U.S. has failed to formally charge anyone in the organization for its role in leaking State and Defense Department documents.

However, WikiLeaks’ source in this case, Chelsea Manning, was convicted in 2013 and was only recently released from prison after receiving a pardon from President Barack Obama in January of this year. WikiLeaks came under scrutiny once again last year during the presidential election after publishing emails considered damaging to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

The IAA’s 12,000-word text, however, makes only brief mention of WikiLeaks — in the last line of its 41 pages. The bill itself is mainly focused on Russia and strikes an aggressive tone regarding so-called Russian “interference” in the 2016 presidential election as well as Russian “influence operations.” If passed, for instance, the bill will call upon Dan Coats, the Director of National Intelligence, to develop strategies to counter these “threats,” and will essentially prevent cooperation between Russia and the U.S. on issues such as “cybersecurity” and “cyber threats.”

Mieke Eoyang, a former House intelligence committee senior staffer, told the Daily Beastthat such measures will prevent “the White House from blocking the intelligence community from telling the committee and the American public what the true Russia threat is.”

Read More @ TheAntiMedia.com

After Charlottesville, United Nations Demands U.S. Quash First Amendment

from Govt Slaves:

While some of its leading member regimes behead Christians and chop body organs out of political prisoners, the United Nations issued an “early warning” to the United States and demanded illegal restrictions on free speech. As part of its decision, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), a body that includes communists and Islamists, lambasted the United States and President Donald Trump without actually mentioning his name. But critics were quick to ridicule the UN outfit amid growing calls for the U.S. government to withdraw from the widely criticized “dictators club.”

In a press release blasting the United States for its alleged “failure to unequivocally reject racist violent events,” the UN CERD provided concrete evidence that it has either been watching too much “fake news,” or that it is willing to lie in order to advance its fanatical anti-American, anti-freedom agenda. Not that it should matter to the UN, which has a charter specifically prohibiting involvement in nations’ domestic affairs, but President Trump repeatedly condemned the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, racists, and others, along with the violent and terroristic communist forces that reportedly clashed with them in Virginia this month.

“Racism is evil,” Trump declared after the violence in Charlottesville. “And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” Trump also denounced the violent “Antifa” extremists on the other side of the confrontation who, ironically, share much in common with their totalitarian-minded National Socialist nemeses.

Perhaps the UN never got the memo about Trump, though. “We are alarmed by the racist demonstrations, with overtly racist slogans, chants and salutes by white nationalists, neo-Nazis, and the Ku Klux Klan, promoting white supremacy and inciting racial discrimination and hatred,” complained radical left-wing activist Anastasia Crickley, the chairperson of UN CERD, in a widely publicized statement. “We call on the U.S. Government to investigate thoroughly the phenomenon of racial discrimination targeting, in particular, people of African descent, ethnic or ethno-religious minorities, and migrants.”

Beyond simply condemning speech, the UN also believes the U.S. government must wage a propaganda campaign to promote “tolerance” and “diversity,” two terms that globalists and leftists have weaponized to undermine liberty and promote open borders, globalism, perversion, and hate. According to the UN document, U.S. authorities must not only“unequivocally and unconditionally reject and condemn racist hate speech and racist crimes in Charlottesville and throughout the country,” they must also “actively contribute to the promotion of understanding, tolerance, and diversity between ethnic groups, and acknowledge their contribution to the history and diversity of the United States of America.”

Perhaps even more alarming than the dictators club’s brazen meddling in U.S. affairs, though, was the UN’s hostile assault on the constitutionally protected, God-given rights of free speech, free expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of assembly. In multiple statements plastered across the UN’s websites, the global outfit — dominated by unfree regimes and even mass-murdering tyrants — attacked the First Amendment head on. The statements demanded that the U.S. government restrict free speech and association, saying it called on authorities “to provide the necessary guarantees so that such rights are not misused to promote racist hate speech.”

Read More @ GovtSlaves.com