American efforts to demonize Russia are of course an integral part of refurbishing NATO relevance to fit today's world. Relatively enlightened Germans know. The NATO alliance is certainly militarily obsolete although its associated revenue streams remain fashionable with those who benefit most from the military-industrial complex's "unwarranted influence" which Ike so futilely warned against back in 1961.
Eventually America's demonizing is likely to backfire since her "statesmen" characteristically swim against the tide of planetary progress. Surely there is no reason whatsoever for the U.S. and Russia to be at odds these days except for ill-considered Yankee choreography from Kiev to Damascus to Istanbul and back. The U.S. is altruistically handicapped but effectively unchallenged militarily so her perceived solutions to international controversy typically boil-down to brute force.
This site constantly asks "How can a nation devoid of humanitarian goals, dismissive of human rights, and primarily exporting war be considered the 'leader of the free world'?" If ever a time in history has demanded diplomacy, detente, and dialogues of mutual respect, it's the year 2016. Unfortunately the leader of the free world appears ready to elect one of two war-mongering fools who can be counted on to eventually exacerbate international tensions perhaps to the point of outright nuclear war.
America's desire to control the resources and burgeoning markets of the Middle East are grounded in unmitigated avarice and Nietzche's will to power—the hallmarks of Clinton/Trump existence. Best of luck going forward.
For those who don't know, back around 2003 Ladar Levison founded a company called Lavabit which provided secure email services for its
customers. In August of 2013 he issued a cryptic statement which said in part: "I have been forced to make a
difficult decision: to become complicit in crimes against the American people or walk away from nearly ten years of hard work by shutting down Lavabit ... I
wish that I could legally share with you the events that led to my decision. I cannot ...".
The FBI had demanded that Mr. Levison provide encryption keys for a customer's account in order to permit monitoring of that individual's emails. In order to comply, all customer accounts necessarily would be compromised. Levison understood the value of protecting constitutional guarantees and Magna Charta principle in the face of law enforcement overreach and zealotry, and, before providing those keys, prudently choose to pull the plug on his entire operation for the sake of freedom and democracy, but at great personal costs.
The U.S. "Justice" Department also required him, via gag-order, to never discuss the details of their controversial and arguably in-part-illegal intrusion into his life. Yesterday The Washington Times reported the gag-order finally has been vacated by a federal judge and that Ladar Levison now for the first time is able to reveal the fact that Edward Snowden was the target of those germane FBI efforts beginning several months after Mr. Snowden first visited with Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald in Hong Kong.
Below are several quotes from The Washington Time's article:
"'One of the rights guaranteed to Americans, and a cornerstone for a functional democracy, is the freedom to speak the truth,' Mr. Levison said in a statement. 'The First Amendment protects opinions, including those unfavorable to government, from injunctions against speech. The gag orders in this case were a violation of that inalienable right. No American should have to live for three years, gagged, with every word carefully weighed, when such opinions are concerned with such a public and controversial issue as state surveillance.'"
"'While I'm pleased that I can finally speak freely about the target of the investigation, I also know the fight to protect our collective freedom is far from over,' Mr. Levison said in a statement. He said he plans to discuss the case further during the DefCon security conference in Las Vegas this summer."
According to AP and the Boston Herald, The Donald has finally said something I can agree with: "The presumptive Republican nominee called Clinton the 'most corrupt' person to ever run for president and accused of her of spreading 'death, destruction and terrorism' while serving as the nation's top diplomat". Few could argue with any of that.
Nonetheless there is nothing that either of those two could say or do to win my vote. Already they have said and done quite enough. Likely if either enters the White House the aftermath will not be commendable. Neither would fix THIS. It will be interesting to see who the Greens choose as their candidate this year. I'm a registered independent and I vote what I perceive to be the most reasonable lineup—surely that won't be either the Republican or Democratic fields this September.
Yesterday marked the beginning of the fifth year that Julian Assange has been holed-up in Ecuador's London embassy. You probably didn't hear anything about that in western MSM but the day was commemorated in a few cities worldwide by intellectuals, scholars, and human rights activists. These groups are rightfully incensed that the UK refuses to honor the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention's (UNWGAD) ruling that Mr. Assange has endured deprivation of liberty without due process and is entitled to freedom of movement and compensation for the time he has been so persecuted.
Assange supporters tend to believe that the U.K. and Sweden are in this instance choreographed by the U.S. in order to railroad Assange to the U.S. at first opportunity. Even the charges seem orchestrated to various degrees proportional to the amount of research time one expends in trying to learn what actually transpired back in 2010. In any case the Swedish prosecutor repeatedly has appeared less than enthusiastic about moving Assange's case forward and that lends substantial credibility to the collusion theory about getting Assange under the purview of the "special" extradition terms between the U.S. and Sweden.
Regardless of how one perceives the man as an individual, Mr. Assange provides enormously beneficial journalistic services for reasonable planetary inhabitants and deserves favorable recognition, accolades, and enthusiastic support from any governmental entities worldwide which might continue to cherish freedom, practice equality, and seek justice. The only influential taker so far appears to be UNWGAD and its influence is very selectively admitted into western thought.
Back in 2010 it appeared that one of the more embarrassing revelations was the popular Collateral Murder video which so incensed U.S. "intelligence" circles. Of course it was the embarrassment—hidden behind national security concerns—that so rankled the eagle's feathers. The video poignantly shows how the rules of war and the rules of engagement inherently and literally destroy both sides of belligerency. If you haven't seen the video, check it out using the above link, and consider that this is generally where over half America's discretionary revenue has been spent since the end of WWII. No wonder more than a few earthlings wish harm to America in espoused redress for calloused polices dating back to that era and before.
For a more credible and respected government demonstrating desire for a better world, free Assange, indict Keith Alexander, fire and indict James Clapper,
and pardon and hire Edward Snowden—all that just for starters.
Don't elect either the jackass or the crook this time around—and don't ask which is which. If you haven't already, begin researching the
Green Party and the reasons for its worldwide growth.
Were that party in power in America arguably there would be vast improvements over what the country currently endures.
Now here's a story. According to BBC 51 U.S. Department of State "diplomats" have signed a memo "calling for targeted military strikes against President Bashar al-Assad's [legitimate] government" for the sole purpose of regime change since "the status quo is not sustainable". So the official U.S. "diplomatic" answer continues to be elimination of all regimes worldwide which refuse submissiveness to U.S. desires. We're still enjoying the results of that policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya (Hillary's personal baby) so why not expand the pleasure to Syria? Eventually Iran? So much for the U.S. Department of State and its diplomacy.
The BBC article notes that "President Obama is wary of being drawn into another Mid-East conflict ... However ... Hillary Clinton, has argued for a more assertive policy in Syria ... Perhaps the letter is aimed as much at her as it is at Mr Kerry." And there you see some reasons for recent focused demonization of Russia and for recent deployments of NATO forces ever closer to Russian borders. If we're gonna encourage war and chaos, why not do it on a really expanded scale? With the current presumptive presidential nominee field we're certain to have a president in favor of that.
In the decades preceding WWII, Germany arguably was the planet's most advanced society. That nation's downfall can be directly attributed to obviously demented and psychopathic leaders who were able to implement aggressive, inhumane, and generally unacceptable policies both foreign and domestic. For at least 16 years America seems to be following suit and now the process is gaining in momentum. If the current presumptive presidential nominees are the only eventual 2016 ballot choices, the voting public evidently will be choosing which sociopath is discerned less psychopathic.
Divine intervention aside, the nation's only immediate hope appears to be revelations from a "Hillary truth bomb" so offensive that even the current administration cannot ignore prosecution of its Democratic crony. ["Assange doesn't believe that Clinton will be indicted, but argues that the government has more than enough evidence, in both her emails and in the dealings of the Clinton Foundation, if it were truly committed to doing so."] Of course The Donald possibly will shoot himself in the foot often enough that he can no longer stand. Were these things fructified, the establishment would necessarily offer surrogates—conceivably unelectable in view of circumstances and especially facing palatable candidates from "minor" parties, neither Republican nor Democrat. Sure it's unlikely, but don't give up hope just yet—despite the odds:
"No one gives their [sic] dreams away too lightly. They hold them tightly, warm
against cold"—"Jonah" lyrics, Paul Simon.
Today's Democracy Now interview with Jill Stein is certainly a breath of fresh air in this political season, and well worth reading. Dr. Stein's views are on target and filled with essential wisdom lacking in the American voter.
I have been seriously considering writing-in Jefferson Davis' name this year. A.J. Nock did that many years ago and claimed even then that others like Mark Twain [Samuel Clemens] and Artemus Ward [Charles Farrar Browne] had beaten him to the punch. All of course knew that Mr. Davis was deceased but the reasoning went something like this: "If we can't have a live statesman, let us by all means have a first-class corpse".
After reading what Dr. Stein had to say in Amy Goodman's presence, I'm inclined to go for a real stateswoman and cast my vote for Dr. Jill Stein—whether or not she is the Green Party's choice this time around. Under no circumstances can I cast a vote for either Hillary or The Donald for any public office in the land.
Editor's note: "Thomas Jefferson's name" was corrected to "Jefferson Davis' name" on 07/12/2016 for consistency with works of the cited writers. The original entry was made from aging memory and not doubled-checked.
Surely all thinking people agree that calling the democratic nomination on the eve of a California primary is "highly inappropriate" and "not something that a legitimate news agency should be involved with". Nevertheless that is exactly what the Associated Press and NBC News did yesterday—historically such broadcasting indiscretions have significant effects on election outcomes.
Now if one couples that action with Google's contol of Internet search results—known by many and and in this case appropriately noted by Julian Assange as being supportive of a Clinton presidency—and the obviously skewed support MSM has provided for Hillary, one can only surmise that it is not only the banksters but also the military-industrial-surveillance-legislative complex that has enormous interest in getting their subservient representative to the White House. Banking regulations, constitutional guarantees for citizens, and oversight of clandestine military and intelligence activities have all been seriously incrementally enervated ever since Dubbya declared war on everyone and everything not employed by Uncle Sam. A Clinton presidency ensures more of the same with gusto and presumably unparalleled corruption..
The one percent wins no matter what this election's outcome. The 99% desiring change are in for 4 to 8 more years of precarious existence without meaningful representation anywhere in Washington,DC—unless the Bern can somehow upset the electoral apple cart, which now he seems to have a long-shot at doing despite virtually TOTAL year-to-date opposition from the establishment. All things considered he has done astoundingly well irrespective of today's outcome.
06/01/2016 Memorial Day:
Inadequate Memorial Day celebrations and the values taught children.
This entry once again promotes that uplifting story about the clandestine face-to-face meeting in Moscow between Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden—thanks in large part to the efforts of actor John Cusack. Arguably both Ellsberg and Snowden are far more deserving of America's adulation and gratitude than any contemporary members of America's so-called "intelligence" and "defense" organizations.
On November 9, 2015,
revealed that film star John Cusack last winter arranged a meeting in Moscow between Daniel Ellsberg and Edward Snowden and included Indian writer/activist
Arundhati Roy in the entourage. When divulging relationships the article noted that "Ellsberg is the co-founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, and Cusack
and Snowden are two of its board members".
Subsequently with a November 16, 2015, publication date Outlook India released a worthwhile series of very interesting articles written by Ms. Roy and Mr. Cusack. The works informally touch a variety of subjects while gracefully describing the secret Moscow meeting's lifecycle from inception to fruition. For the intellectually aware who are interested in preserving Western civilization's Magna Charta principles these works might be considered essential reading. If for any reason you get bogged-down part way through, don't miss the series' final post located HERE.
John Cusack admirably was an early supporter of Edward Snowden. His essay entitled The Snowden Principle was published June 14, 2013, by Huffington Post. Coincidentally this site enthusiastically had provided essay support for Mr. Snowden two days earlier with a Heroes essay and again the following day with a Snowden essay. Edward Snowden was still in Hong Kong at that time.