(When you listen to this, the young activist Glen speaks to talks about how after apartheid fell, the state under the ANC couldn’t live up to the promises of the new constitution because the leaders made the mistake of allowing the IMF and World Bank in with loans and they forced neoliberal economic austerity on them in exchange. It was a horrific mistake. He talks about how the push was for “smaller government” and privatizations across the board. So even when the people rise up and take down institutional corruption and near fascism (as was the case under apartheid South Africa) the economic hitmen can still come in and achieve the same goals. For those of you who still support the idea of “small government” libertarianism, I just wanted to point this out. “Small government” was a policy agenda of every president from Reagan and Clinton (yes, Clinton was an advocate of “smaller government” long before you and Ron Paul were) to Bush and Obama. It’s called the Washington Consensus for a reason.)
When you watch this “news” segment from CBS This Morning, your IQ will drop by at least 40 points. That’s not hyperbole, that’s not an exaggeration for effect… that’s a Goddamned fact. You will be dumber for the rest of your life because it’s so completely absurd it will destroy braincells, they will become so depressed that they live in you they will kill themselves inside your skull for having been exposed to it.
It’s … just…. that… stupid.
It’s just so stupid.. it’s just so fucking stupid.
The segment starts with Charlie Rose making his “this is serious news” face which is supposed to set the tone. He claims this “new evidence” is “only” going to be reported by CBS This Morning (meaning it’s their product and theirs alone) and personally I wonder if that is reason enough to arrest everyone involved in the making of that idiotic show on charges of being accessories after the fact. They should arrest the robotic cameras while they’re at it. They should arrest the people that made the TVs you watch it on and the guys on the docks who unloaded them off the freighters. It’s just that stupid.
Victoria Nuland clearly states she didn’t want to “arm” congress and the people WITH THE TRUTH… so they LIED. And somehow that is supposed to exonerate the State Department and the Obama administration?
In either an effort to curb the growing scandal or an attempt to keep it going, the White House released 100 more documents related to the Benghazi scandal late Wednesday ( part one (PDF) and part two (PDF))
Apologists rushed to press with the talking point that these emails and communications from back around the time of the Benghazi attack prove that the Obama administration was not lying in order to score political points right before the election.
On their front page, the Huffington Post actually went with the tag-line link “Benghazi Conspiracy Theories Fall Apart “. Their suggestion is that the new documents prove that the White House didn’t lie to keep them from losing the election but rather they lied “for other reasons” and thus, the “conspiracy theorists” are all wrong.
What they really show is the fact that they did lie in order to cover-up the very things I and others have been writing about for a week. They lied to protect themselves and their psyop. They lied about 4 dead Americans. They lied about what they knew and when they knew it. Period. And somehow this is supposed to clear Obama and silence the “conspiracy theorists”?
Bill Maher wrote what he seems to think is a scathing critique of us “conspiracy theorists” for his HBO blog in which he ends by seeming to put forth the idea that an open and free internet is actually “bad for democracy”. That’s an interesting statement from a “progressive” liberal guy (backed Nader in 2000, Kerry in 2004 and Obama ever since) who recently claimed on his HBO show that U.S. backed dictatorships in the Middle East were preferable to democracy. A more stable way of controlling those “backward and overly religious” Middle Eastern nations.
If that sounds a bit “neoconish” to you, I’m sure you aren’t alone in that interpretation.
“The number of violent crimes fell last year in Philadelphia, as did assaults on police officers.
But the number of people shot by police is up.
Way up.
The number of shootings by police in 2012 resulting in death or injury climbed to the highest level it’s been in 10 years. Philadelphia police shot 52 suspects last year while responding to calls for reported crimes. Of those shot, 15 people died.”
— Unrelated —-
5/10/2013? – Cops in Cotati, Cal. respond to a noise complaint call. Both the husband and wife report as being OK to officers and refuse them entry into the home. They recorded the events as they happened. Husband says he was filming and he and his wife were arguing over how to spent their tax return (fix disabled car or purchase another one). He is unemployed, disabled and a veteran of Afghanistan (according to an accompanying comment on the Youtube page). The three people in the home were arrested for refusing to open their door to police who had neither a warrant nor probable cause (I don’t think a noise complaint allows cops to violate your constitutional rights against unwarranted search and seizure). They were taken in for obstruction of justice.
The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.
The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled“Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:
Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.
Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”
(and what did I say way back then? Oh yeah, he would plead not guilty due to insanity and there would be no trial to expose the lack of evidence in the case… )
A US judge ruled Monday that accused movie theater shooter James Holmes could plead not guilty by insanity, but said he would not yet formally accept the change of plea.
Judge Carlos Samour set a new hearing for May 31 for Holmes, accused of killing 12 people in a Colorado cinema last year, after which he will decide to accept or reject the insanity plea.
The trial judge had entered a straight “not guilty” plea on Holmes’ behalf in March. At that time, his lawyers said they were not yet ready to enter a plea for Holmes, also accused of injuring another 70 people in the July 20 incident.
