WW~Pay attention to Ian’s words on this video. Yes the lyrics are somewhat cryptic but I have it on very good authority that this senior rocker knows the truth.
On Monday, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs published the results of its annual survey, showing that 42 percent overall regarded America as less safe now than in 2001. This reflects the feelings of 53 percent of Republican and 34 percent of Democratic respondents, and is a dramatic increase from 27 percent overall in 2014.
Coming up on the 15th anniversary of 9/11, the survey showed something approaching a bipartisan consensus on the issue of combating international terrorism, with 70 percent of Democrats and 81 percent of Republicans in agreement.
However, while Republicans believe Islamic fundamentalism presents the most critical threat (75 percent, up from 66 percent last year), only half the Democrats (49 percent today, 48 percent last year) agree. It is notable that more Republicans perceive Islamic fundamentalism as a critical threat today than ever since the first survey in 1988. This includes 2002, the first survey after the 9/11 attacks, when only 70 percent of Republicans pointed to Islamic fundamentalism as the critical threat to the US.
The terrorist attack at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida occurred halfway through the survey’s course in late June. While this translated into a “minimal increase” of four points in concern about international terrorism, the survey registered a 12-point jump in belief about the threat of Islamic fundamentalism, from 52 percent before to 64 percent after. While the increase among Republican respondents was only from 74 to 76 percent, among the Democrats the jump was from 40 percent before, to 55 percent after Orlando.
Most Americans appear resigned that acts of terrorism will be a regular part of life going forward, with 48 percent making it “very likely” and 41 percent as “somewhat likely,” the survey says.
Partisan differences emerge when it comes to the methods of fighting terrorism, however. Democrats and Republicans are closely aligned in favor of blocking terrorist financing, drone strikes, and sending Special Forces operatives. Democrats are far less supportive of strikes by manned aircraft (71 percent to the Republicans 81 percent) and even less so of sending US combat troops abroad (57 percent to Republicans’ 72 percent).
While Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for the US to find common ground with Russia in fighting Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), only three in 10 respondents believe the two countries are working in the same direction in Syria and Iraq, while 64 percent believe their goals overlap.
The survey has been an annual tradition for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, which describes itself as a nonpartisan nonprofit, established in 1922 to oppose US isolationism. This year’s poll was conducted by GfK Custom Research between June 10 and June 27, on a sample of 2,061 adults living in all 50 US states and the District of Columbia. The margin of error is between 2.2 and 3.5 points, depending on the question, with higher margins for partisan subgroups.
WW~Postscript: This is absolute, preposterous horse shit in a bag. I cannot believe with all the writings, and the evidence that’s been delivered to the whole world vindicating Islam and the Muslims that stupid, uneducated imbeciles still believe that Islamic Fundamentalism is a threat to America or the world. Christians and Jews are more of a threat than any ordinary Muslim. But no one wants to look at the evidence they just want to believe what some lying shill on national news is saying and forget it, all while the Jews continue to usurp the U.S. government, the banking and financial system, the economy, education, entertainment, and every commodity that touches us inside and out eventually killing us all dying over fear of a boogeyman that was created and crafted but never existed by the chosen ones.
America and the world your ignorance is not amusing~!!!!! WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
U.S. Invades Syria, And Warns Russia
The Pentagon has announced that the USA is ready to down Syrian and Russian planes that they claim threaten American advisers who by international law are illegally operating in northern Syria.On Friday, Pentagon spokesman Captain Jeff Davis claimed that US jets attempted to intercept Syrian planes to protect the American advisers operating illegally with Kurdish forces in Syria after Syrian government jets bombed areas of Hasakah when Kurdish police began an aggression against the National Defense Force.On Monday, another Pentagon spokesman, Peter Cook, said, “We would continue to advise the Syrian regime to steer clear of those areas.”“We are going to defend our people on the ground, and do what we need to defend them,” Cook told reporters.
When pushed further about Russia, Cook made it clear that the US would make the same aggression against Russian jets who are operating legally with the Syrian government’s approval and coordination.“If they threaten US forces, we always have the right to defend our forces,” Cook said.
The boy in the ambulance: US State Dept-funded groups behind latest ‘iconic image’ designed to demonize Russia and encourage further bloodshed in Syria
Thu, 18 Aug 2016 17:40 UTC
Things have not been going well for the US government’s (and friends’) 5-year-long attempt to use proxy terror forces to overthrow the Assad government. The first death-knell came last September when the Russian air force entered the fray to great effect (and applause from all sensible people). The shoot-down of the Russia bomber in November by some NATO fifth-columnist was the Empire’s response to the Russian intervention and was designed to destroy Turkish-Russian relations, making Russia’s air war against Washington’s terrorists more difficult. But Erdogan and Co. were disinclined to ‘take one for the team’ in that way (especially since Turkey was never really allowed to be part of the team) and eventually conceded to Russian demands for a public apology over the shoot-down and restitution to the families.
Faced with such an insolent and uncooperative reality, the State Department pulled out what they thought was their trump card: an old-fashioned coup d’etat in Turkey in mid-July. But that back-fired in a spectacular way, and now looks set to achieve exactly the opposite of what the Empire wanted: hard-wired (or piped) ties between not just Russia and Turkey, but Iran and China too.
In response to these painful setbacks, the Empire seems to be out of ideas, and when they’re out of ideas, they usually fall back on what they do best: telling lies and manipulating public opinion against their chosen enemy. In the most recent example of an ‘iconic image’ being used to further demonize both the Assad government and Russian actions in Syria, a cameraman from the ‘Aleppo Media Center’ was on the scene after a bomb hit an apartment building in Aleppo. He filmed the now ‘iconic’ image of a boy – Omran Daqneesh – as he was rescued from the rubble and placed in an ambulance.
Recognizing a propaganda opportunity when they see one, within hours most Western media outlets had headlined the image along with emotionally-manipulative screeds penned by media hacks who couldn’t care less about Omran or Syria. When the US military killed 73 civilians in Syria last month, images of the carnage, like the one below, didn’t make the cut, for some strange reason.
But the Omran video was gold, because it could be exploited to falsely demonize Russia and Assad. This is how CNN capitalized on young Omran’s brush with death:
“The truth is that the image you see today is repeated every day in Aleppo,” said Mustafa al Sarouq, a cameraman with the Aleppo Media Center, who filmed the video. He spoke to CNN’s Nima Elbagir via Skype.” Every day we cover these massacres and these war crimes in Aleppo. When we go to the places that have been bombed, regime planes circle around and bomb it again to kill rescue workers that are helping civilians. They kill these people who are trying to rescue people.”
“Activists blame the Syrian regime and Russia for the bombings. [The] footage shared on Aug. 17 by the Aleppo Media Center, reportedly show[s] the immediate aftermath of an apparent Syrian government or Russian airstrike in a rebel-held.”
So there ya have it: Russia (or Assad) is responsible for doing that to Omran, and for making you feel so sad, helpless and angry. And according to the “activists” behind the Aleppo Media Center, Russia and Assad are also responsible for everything bad that happens in Syria (and most other places too). So now that you’ve got that message, with the face of Omran imprinted on your mind for good measure (Time magazine says “it cannot be unseen”), it’s time for you, Western reader, to support your government in sorting out the mess in Syria by funneling more of your tax dollars to your government’s foreign terrorist proxy army in Syria.
Alternatively, you could do just a little research, and a little critical thinking. You could, for example consider the source of this image and the claim that Russia or Assad is to blame: the Aleppo Media Center. The Aleppo Media Center is a project of the Syrian Expatriates Organization (SEO). The SEO is what it sounds like, a group of American citizens of Syrian extraction who have their offices on K Street in Washington, D.C., a street that is famous for being the center of the American political lobbying industry, with numerous think tanks, lobbyists, and advocacy groups based there. The SEO received generous funding over the past few years (to the tune of $4-500,000) from unknown donors, although government agencies like USAID and NED are likely sources. The SEO appears to have played a prominent role in fostering the carnage in Syria from the outset. On their website they list ‘Freedom Messages’ (sort of like ‘Freedom Cookies’) as one of their operations that debuted in 2011:
This was one of SEO’s very first projects. SEO created the “Freedom Message” campaign to inform the Syrian citizens who lived in the areas that were not yet involved in the civic movement at that time, mainly concentrated in the two largest cities of Damascus and Aleppo.
SMS campaigns send in tens of thousands were sent to the cellphone numbers talking about the revolution and its unifying purpose of freedom and prosperity to all Syrians. mainly concentrated in the two largest cities of Damascus and Aleppo. Text message and robo call campaigns reaches about 100,000 people each.
“Robo calls” was where residents of the inactive cities received a call from a local activist or a parent of one of the child victims asking for their support and encouraging them join the public movement against the tyrant regime. Abdulbaset Al Sarout, Dani Abduldayem, the mother of the young victim Hakam Drak, and the activist known for imitating the voice Bashar Al-Asad, Songa Yonga, were all featured on our robo call campaigns.
In June 2012 SEO succeeded in sending 400,000 messages supporting the uprising and a general strike organized in Damascus and Aleppo.
In short, from their cozy offices in Washington, D.C., this gang of quislings did everything they could to whip as many Syrians in Syria as possible into a revolutionary fervor against their elected government. And after 5 years of carnage, they still think this is a good idea. Syria has a population of about 20 million, or 16 times less than the USA. Imagine if a group in Syria were to do the same thing, sending 6.5 million text messages to Americans encouraging them to take to the streets in rebellion, and then encouraging the descent into war by flooding the country with armed groups from abroad. That’s exactly what this group, and many other like it in league with the US government, did. Of course, the US does not allow foreign organizations to exert influence on politics in the USA, but a bunch of what are effectively foreigners are allowed to live in the USA and exert political influence in other countries, as long as it’s in line with the US’ foreign policy objective of total world domination.
Back in 2012, representatives of the “main Syrian opposition organizations”, including the SEO, and members of the so-called Assembly of the Cuban Resistance (CRA) of Miami, signed an “agreement to coordinate their efforts” to undermine the democratically-elected governments of both Cuba and Syria in what was clearly a US State Department/CIA-funded seminar in Miami. “This offers an extraordinary opportunity: a united front bringing the peoples of Syria and Cuba together to fight for freedom and democracy,” said Silvia Iriondo, the “president” of Mothers and Women Against Repression, an organization funded by USAID. Iriondo’s real name is Silvia Goudie and she is the daughter of a mercenary who took part in the failed CIA-sponsored Bay of Pigs invasion (old habits often stay in the family).
But the SEO is just one of five similar Syrian ex-pat quisling warmonger groups in the USA collectively called The Coalition for a Democratic Syria.
The Coalition for a Democratic Syria is a group of five Syrian-American non-profit organizations working together in Washington, DC to bring about a swift end to the conflict in Syria and support the establishment of a free and democratic Syria. The Coalition for a Democratic Syria is a multi-ethnic, multi-confessional, and non-partisan organization that includes the Syrian American Council, the Syrian Emergency Task Force, United for Free Syria, Syrian American Alliance, and Syrian Expatriates Organization.
The Wikipedia page for the above-mentioned Syrian Emergency Task Force says:
The Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF) is a United States-based organization that advocates for the armed overthrow of the government of Syria.
SETF is indirectly funded by the U.S. State Department through contracting firms including Chemonics International and Creative Associates International
Chemonics International is a private “international development” company that works for bilateral and multilateral donors and the private sector to “manage projects in developing countries.” Of course, if there aren’t enough “developing countries”, the US government can always bomb them back to the “developing country” stage. The organization bids primarily on contracts from USAID and “manages projects” (read: gets a foothold in the target country for Western corporations) that cover a variety of technical sectors, including “health”. Perhaps now it makes sense why the board of the Syrian Expatriates Organization is made up of US medical doctors. Perhaps they plan on opening a few for-profit hospitals in Syria once the dust settles on the war they helped to start there. For sure there’ll be plenty of patients available. But let’s take a closer look at SEO’s sister organization, the Syrian Emergency Task Force.
SETF’s executive-director, Mouaz Moustafa, is a former field organizer for the U.S. Democratic National Committee and previously served as executive-director of the Libyan Council of North America. The Libyan Council of North America is one of several US lobby groups that were set up to do exactly what the SETF, SEO, etc., are doing in Syria. So Moustafa comes with some experience. In fact, he’s pretty well connected. I trust that most readers have stumbled across this image at some point:
That’s Moustafa on the right, with some jihadis behind John McCain on his May 2013 visit to Syria, which was organized by Moustafa and Elizabeth O’Bagy, who also works for the SETF.
“Elizabeth O’Bagy, political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a U.S.-based nonprofit providing support to the opposition, said in a phone interview from Turkey that McCain’s office approached the task force two weeks ago about visiting with rebel leaders.
While warmongering for SETF, O’Bagy was also a senior analyst a the Institute for the Study of War, which was founded by Kimberly Kagan, wife of Frederick Kagan, who is the brother of Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland. If you don’t know who these people are, you need to look them up (or just watch this documentary). Like many other similar ‘institutes’, the Institute for the Study of War is funded by grants and contributions from large defense war contractors, including Raytheon, General Dynamics, DynCorp and others. So it’s no surprise that the people who establish and work for such institutes are tasked with making the ideological case for war, or are directly involved in inciting wars; they’re being paid directly by weapons manufacturers.
Anyway, O’Bagy was eventually dumped from the Institute for the Creation Study of War because she claimed she had a PhD when she did not. While lying comes easily to such people and could be said to be a sought-after skill by such warmongering ‘think-tanks’, appearances still have to maintained, and there’s no hard feelings. Commenting on her dismissal, Kimberly Kagan stressed that the termination was not related to O’Bagy’s affiliation with SETF. “I had no problem with her affiliation, I approved it.” No doubt. Two weeks after her dismissal from the Institute for the Study of War, O’Bagy was hired as a legislative assistant by John McCain.
Just before her dismissal, O’Bagy’s testimony was used by John McCain and John Kerry as they testified before Congress in September 2013, in an attempt to gain approval to wage all-out war on Syria and Lebanon’s Hizb’allah, the latter at the specific request of the “Syrian rebels”, who must have been paid by the Israelis to include that stipulation. Readers may remember that this was the tense period just before Russia intervened and brokered the deal to destroy Syria’s “chemical weapons” that the US had falsely accused the Assad government of using against civilians (it turned out to be McCain’s rebels who were – and still are – using them).
I’ve just scratched the surface of this den of vipers masquerading as ‘freedom and democracy’ groups, but it gives you an idea of the complex nature of the ramified networks of psychopathic individuals that exist in the USA to promote war on foreign nations. The methods used are many and varied, but they clearly include the use of ‘iconic’ images of dead or injured children to lie to and manipulate Western public so that they will support the continued warmongering that gave rise to the ‘iconic images’ in the first place. It’s a self-perpetuating system, run by psychopaths, fueled by greed and greased by the blood of dead children in foreign nations.
For those interested in objective reports about what is really going on on the ground in Syria, you might like to keep up with Eva Bartlett’s regular dispatches for SOTT.net.
Joe Quinn is the co-author of 9/11: The Ultimate Truth (with Laura Knight-Jadczyk, 2006) and Manufactured Terror: The Boston Marathon Bombings, Sandy Hook, Aurora Shooting and Other False Flag Terror Attacks (with Niall Bradley, 2014), and the host of Sott.net’s The Sott Report Videos and co-host of the ‘Behind the Headlines’ radio show on the Sott Radio Network.
An established web-based essayist and print author, Quinn has been writing incisive editorials for Sott.net for over 10 years. His articles have appeared on many alternative news sites and he has been interviewed on several internet radio shows and has also appeared on Iranian Press TV. His articles can also be found on his personal blog JoeQuinn.net.
JEW George Soros wants all Gentiles nationally and culturally one, morally degraded and racially mongrelized under a super-government controlled by a racially pure Jewish race
Still Report #1091 – FBI Analyst
Skip to 6:01…
Related Los Angeles Times article…
Does the term “apartheid” fit Israel? Of course it does…
The storm of controversy after Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s warning that Israel risked becoming an “apartheid state” reminded us once again that facts, data and the apparently tedious details of international law often seem to have little bearing on conversations about Israel conducted at the highest levels of this country. As was the case when other major figures brandished the “A-word” in connection with Israel (Jimmy Carter comes to mind), the political reaction to Kerry’s warning was instantaneous and emotional. “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and any linkage between Israel and apartheid is nonsensical and ridiculous,” said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. That’s that, then, eh?
Not quite. Flat and ungrounded assertions may satisfy politicians, but anyone who wants to push the envelope of curiosity even a little bit further might want to spend a few minutes actually thinking over the term and its applicability to Israel.
“Apartheid” isn’t just a term of insult; it’s a word with a very specific legal meaning, as defined by the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1973 and ratified by most United Nations member states (Israel and the United States are exceptions, to their shame).
According to Article II of that convention, the term applies to acts “committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” Denying those others the right to life and liberty, subjecting them to arbitrary arrest, expropriating their property, depriving them of the right to leave and return to their country or the right to freedom of movement and of residence, creating separate reserves and ghettos for the members of different racial groups, preventing mixed marriages — these are all examples of the crime of apartheid specifically mentioned in the convention.
Seeing the reference to racial groups here, some people might think of race in a putatively biological sense or as a matter of skin color. That is a rather simplistic (and dated) way of thinking about racial identity. More to the point, however, the operative definition of “racial identity” is provided in the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (to which Israel is a signatory), on which the apartheid convention explicitly draws.
There, the term “racial discrimination” is defined as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
A few basic facts are now in order.
The Jewish state (for so it identifies itself, after all) maintains a system of formal and informal housing segregation both in Israel and in the occupied territories. It’s obvious, of course, that Jewish settlements in the West Bank aren’t exactly bursting with Palestinians. In Israel itself, however, hundreds of communities have been established for Jewish residents on land expropriated from Palestinians, in which segregation is maintained, for example, by admissions committees empowered to use ethnic criteria long since banned in the United States, or by the inability of Palestinian citizens to access land held exclusively for the Jewish people by the state-sanctioned Jewish National Fund.
Jewish residents of the occupied territories enjoy various rights and privileges denied to their Palestinian neighbors. While the former enjoy the protections of Israeli civil law, the latter are subject to the harsh provisions of military law. So, while their Jewish neighbors come and go freely, West Bank Palestinians are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention, and to the denial of freedom of movement; they are frequently barred from access to educational or healthcare facilities, Christian and Muslim sites for religious worship, and so on.
Source: First Light Forum
Donald Trump, the 69-year-old New York real estate mogul and unrepentant bigot, continues to dominate the Republican presidential primary polls. Trump’s sudden ascendance, accelerated by his willingness to insult virtually any ostensible ally within the conservative movement, has left GOP leaders dumbfounded. How did this caricature of a Republican politician, who has never held elected office, and whose personal ideology is remarkably fluid, usurp more experienced, more conservative, and better-funded candidates like Jeb Bush and Scott Walker? Within this vacuum of understanding, an almost-believable conspiracy theory has obtained currency: Donald Trump is in fact a false flag candidate whose actual mission is electing Hillary Clinton as President.
To understand the contours of this theory, it’s helpful to understand where it came from. A Google search suggests the first person to remark upon Trump’s indirect assistance to Clinton was the anti-war activist and “conservative-paleo-libertarian” Justin Raimondo. In a long blog post dated July 13—just a few days after Trump stole Jeb Bush’s lead—Raimondo argued that the timing of Trump’s entry into the presidential race, which the candidate had long hinted at but until this year never followed through on, could only be explained by a hidden “Democratic wrecking operation” designed to assist Clinton’s parallel campaign:
[Trump’s] ties to the Clintons, his past pronouncements which are in such blatant contradiction to his current fulminations, and the cries of joy from the Clintonian gallery and the media (or do I repeat myself) all point to a single conclusion: the Trump campaign is a Democratic wrecking operation aimed straight at the GOP’s base.
Donald Trump is a false-flag candidate. It’s all an act, one that benefits his good friend Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party that, until recently, counted the reality show star among its adherents. Indeed, Trump’s pronouncements—the open racism, the demagogic appeals, the faux-populist rhetoric—sound like something out of a Democratic political consultant’s imagination, a caricature of conservatism as performed by a master actor.
The idea that Trump is running an elaborate interference campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton may sound absurd. But there is enough truth to Raimondo’s theory—it makes just enough sense—that it’s already begun to infiltrate, and inform the mainstream voices of, the mainstream Republican Party. On July 23, for example, the popular conservative writer Allen Ginzburg distilled Raimondo’s argument into a vexing thought experiment:
Ginzburg’s tweet has since been retweeted over 400 times (including, earlier this week, by Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto, who serves on the paper’s influential editorial board).
It would, of course, be incredible—and virtually unprecedented in modern American politics—if a major party’s top candidate were to run a campaign for the purpose of electing that party’s most imposing political opponent. So what exactly supports the theory that Trump is such a candidate? Though he has recently rebranded himself as the only Republican brave enough to speak the truth about undocumented immigrants, his past associations and political positions suggest the theory is, if not entirely believable, not exactly implausible, either.
There are three main lines of argument supporting the assertion that Donald Trump is running a false flag campaign:
- Trump cannot possibly be considered either a Republican or a conservative, once you account for his apparent political beliefs (many of which are remarkably liberal) and concrete policy proposals (or lack thereof).
- Trump has close ties to both Hillary and Bill Clinton, and has in fact donated to her and other Democrats’ campaigns in the past.
- Trump’s apparent intent to run on an independent ticket—should he lose the Republican nomination—indicates he cares more about splitting the Republican vote (essentially ensuring the election of a Democratic president) than he does about actually electing Republicans. He also lacks the wherewithal and/or long-term funding to mount a legitimate presidential campaign were he to become the actual Republican nominee.
Let’s discuss each of these in detail:
Argument 1: Donald Trump is not actually a Republican (or conservative)
According to voting records, Trump is currently registered as a Republican, but in the past has been registered (and repeatedly voted) as a Democrat. In fact, he appears to have switched between the two parties at least three times in the past 14 years: In 2001, he switched from Democrat to Republican; in 2008, he re-registered as Democrat; in 2010, he re-registered as a Republican (and maintained that affiliation through 2013). So Trump is certainly a Republican, but only in the sense that any voter can register as a Republican; it’s not like party officials perform an ideological litmus tests on mere voters. (Complicating matters further is Trump’s New York City residency. Republican New Yorkers have been known to register as Democrats in order to participate in Democratic primary elections, which are frequently the only elections that matter in municipal politics.)
The question of whether Trump is conservative is trickier to answer. Within the modern conservative movement, for example, it’s more or less assumed that candidates representing conservative interests believe abortion rights should be restricted (in many cases, radically so). It’s also assumed that conservative candidates oppose the 2010 Affordable Care Act—not just the particulars of the legislation itself, but also the general idea of universal healthcare. But, as The Washington Post pointed out last month, Trump has publicly endorsed both abortion rights and universal healthcare in the past. He’s also endorsed increasing taxes on the wealthy and legalizing drugs. It’s true that Trump has since reversed his positions on abortion and the Affordable Care Act, but as many have noted, his change of heart is far from convincing.
One issue on which Trump is very right-wing, however, is immigration. Trump believes the United States is inadequately protected against invading Mexicans, and has accused undocumented immigrants from that country of raping Americans with impunity. The key to Trump’s appeal is his suggestion, which he utters repeatedly, that mainstream Republican leaders are deliberately sidelining both the issue of border security and the broader issue of immigration—a complex topic within both major parties—in order to shore up support among the country’s growing Latino population.
Trump’s implication of GOP cowardice is seductive to the segment of Republican voters who believe they’ve been sold out by the GOP to various elite interest groups who have relentlessly lobbied for immigration reform. At the same time, immigration reform happens to be an issue with which Democrats have bludgeoned Republicans among Latino voters, who are disproportionately affected by the inadequacies of the current immigration system.
In other words: Trump has focused his campaign on an issue that exposes the Republican Party to attacks from both its base (who want the party to move to the right) and Democrats (who have an obvious interest in portraying opponents of immigration reform—that is, most Republicans—as racist lunatics). If you were Hillary Clinton, it would be hard not to appreciate the strategic advantage of Trump’s campaign, which is doing the work of discrediting the Republican Party among its own voters, and the general public, for free.
Argument 2: Trump is friendly with the Clinton family
Based on his public statements, Trump seems to a) admire Bill Clinton, b) admire Chelsea Clinton even more, and c) regard Hillary Clinton with hostility. Here are some representative tweets: GO TO LINK TO READ THE TWEETS.
Until very recently, the nature of Trump’s relationship with the Clinton family seemed entirely transactional. After all, Trump is a wealthy resident of New York, and Hillary Clinton, as a former U.S. Senator of the state, was all but required to mingle with people like him. During last Thursday’s Fox News debate, Trump even bragged about getting the Clintons to attend one of his weddings, knowing they wouldn’t refuse an invitation from someone who has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various Clinton causes, including Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and the Clinton Foundation.
Trump’s relationship with Bill Clinton, however, seems to have deepened in the past few years. On August 5, The Washington Post reported that Clinton spoke with Trump in May of this year about Trump’s political ambitions. Here’s the how the paper characterized the exchange (bolding ours):
Former president Bill Clinton had a private telephone conversation in late spring with Donald Trump at the same time that the billionaire investor and reality-television star was nearing a decision to run for the White House … Four Trump allies and one Clinton associate familiar with the exchange said that Clinton encouraged Trump’s efforts to play a larger role in the Republican Party and offered his own views of the political landscape.
An aide to Bill Clinton characterized the exchange as merely “a casual chat” (those are the Post’s words), and Trump later denied the suggestion that the former President somehow persuaded him to run on the Republican ticket, but the fact that the exchange took place at all—that Clinton gives a shit about Trump’s rank within the Republican Party; that Clinton stated, whether obsequiously or sincerely, that Trump’s rank should rise—certainly suggests that Clinton could have pictured what Trump’s campaign would look like, and more importantly, what it would mean for his wife and her own presidential ambitions.
Argument 3: Trump clearly intends to run as an independent
Trump’s current threat to the Republican Party is potentially exceeded by the threat of him running against both the Republican and Democratic candidates on an independent ticket (assuming, of course, he does not secure the Republican nomination). Conservatives believe, with some justification, that an independent Trump campaign would carve away a significant chunk of otherwise Republican voters, thereby lending the Democratic nominee an easy victory. (There’s precedent: The conservative movement still blames Ross Perot’s independent run in 1992 for the election of Bill Clinton. Whether this is an accurate read has been, for years, a matter of considerable debate.)
It remains unclear whether Trump actually intends to run as an independent. But during the debate on Thursday, he pointedly refused to agree to a pledge to endorse whoever wins the Republican nomination—the strongest signal yet that he considers the Republican Party’s political and strategic objectives to be much less important than his own.
What Trump would do if another candidate won the Republican nomination is the key to the False Flag Candidate theory. The best case scenario for the GOP is that he loses and does not run as an independent, allowing the party to dismiss Trumpmania as a passing fancy. Democratic attempts to define the GOP as the party of Trump would be neutered; after all, a lot of Republican candidates look comparatively sane and electable when compared to Trump. In the absence of an independent ticket, Trump’s ridiculousness could help other Republican candidates. (The eventual candidate would still need to secure the support of the nativists Trump appeals to while attempting to win over the moderates he appalls, but that is a dance Republican presidential candidates have been practicing for years.)
But if Trump does run as an independent, then Allen Ginzburg’s suggestion above would prove correct: A Trump campaign based on the candidate’s sincere desire to become President, and a Trump campaign based on his hidden desire to see Hillary Clinton elected President, would be completely indistinguishable.
This scenario would, of course, be an unmitigated nightmare for the Republican Party. At the same time, Trump’s frontrunner status has placed party leaders, in particular the other viable candidates, in the seemingly impossible position of attempting to disavow Trump (in order to shield the party from accusations of vicious racism) without completely pissing him off (in order to lessen the possibility of an independent Trump ticket in 2016). How do you marginalize someone like Trump without marginalizing him too much?
Still, it’s unclear how an actual independent Trump campaign would unfold, given what we know (and don’t know) about both the candidate’s finances and the plans of the wealthy donors who fund Republican campaigns. Whether or not Trump is willing to spend his own money on a campaign that would almost certainly help Democrats, not Republicans — and even whether he believes that an independent Trump campaign would help Democrats — remains to be seen.
So is Trump really a Hillary Clinton plant?
There is, we’re sorry to say, no definitive evidence that Trump and Hillary Clinton are colluding to wreak havoc on the Republican Party’s 2016 primary campaign for the purpose of securing a Clinton presidency. This does not preclude the possibility that Trump has secretly decided that he wants Clinton to be president, and is now sabotaging the GOP in order to help the Democratic frontrunner; nor does it mean that Bill Clinton didn’t encourage Trump to run in order to wreak havoc on the GOP nomination process. Even in those scenarios, however, the likelihood of smoking gun is close to zero.
The lack of evidence is not the biggest problem with this conspiracy theory, though. The biggest problem is that the theory’s most important underlying assumption—that Trump is anomalous, a xenophobic buffoon posing as a Republican—is wildly ignorant of actual Republican policies.
Boiled down, Trump’s appeal to the Republican Party’s base consists of his willingness to say nakedly racist statements and his promises to enact equally racist legislation. But why is that appeal surprising? In its contemporary manifestation, the GOP has repeatedly sought the support of voters who wish to disempower and intimidate racial minorities. This isn’t just about the party’s bizarre obsession with upholding the sanctity of the Confederate flag. To this day, for example, the party continues to advocate for Voter ID laws, which are ostensibly designed to combat in-person voter fraud—a virtually non-existent phenomenon—but in practice help prevent a disproportionate number of eligible non-white voters from actually voting. Its intellectual leaders have dismissed the ubiquitous threat of police violence towards black people as illusory.
Donald Trump’s popularity indicates that this country’s most fervent conservatives are primarily concerned not with reducing abortion rights, or repealing Obamacare, but rather with preserving white hegemony in the United States. For years and years, the Republican Party has happily accommodated these kinds of conservatives under the unspoken assumption that they would never be powerful enough to publicize their own candidate. Trump speaks to the error of that assumption.
In this context, the theory that Donald Trump is secretly helping Hillary Clinton get elected is not really about the Republican Party’s hostility toward Donald Trump or its habit of inventing conspiracy theories about Hillary Clinton. (Although both factors have certainly helped with its formation.) It’s the result of a major political party coming to terms, however illogically, with who exactly its supporters are.
ISIS – The “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria”? Give me a break!
The “Israeli Subversion of Independent Sovereignty” is much more accurate! However, according to a 2002 document from ISRAEL NEWS, ISIS is the name of a subdivision of the MOSSAD called Israel Secret Intelligence Service. It figures. It’s amazing how they don’t even seem to cover their tracks anymore! See full story at: http://nodisinfo.com/isis-creation-israeli-mossad/
The MOSSAD/CIA acronym names for their creations are starting to lose originality. However, the deeper occult symbolism of ISIS should not be ignored.
In case you didn’t know, ISIS is another name for the primary false goddess of the Satanic Illuminati. She is the primary keeper of the Satanist’s BLACK MAGIC spells. She is the Moon Goddess of the witches. Her symbol is the waning moon (as depicted on the Mormon Nauvoo temple stones as shown below). ISIS is simply the QUEEN OF THE UNDERWORLD!
Isn’t it fascinating that Barry Soetoro (aka the Obama) waits until the 13th anniversary of the MOSSAD (aka ISIS) False Flag attack on the WTC to announce and begin bombing Syria in order to further demonize the ISIS Cult??? With Russia’s alliance with Syria, one has to wonder if the September 11 bombing of Syria will lead to WWIII.
Google, Inc., isn’t just the world’s biggest purveyor of information; it is also the world’s biggest censor.
The company maintains at least nine different blacklists that impact our lives, generally without input or authority from any outside advisory group, industry association or government agency. Google is not the only company suppressing content on the internet. Reddit has frequently been accused of banning postings on specific topics, and a recent report suggests that Facebook has been deleting conservative news stories from its newsfeed, a practice that might have a significant effect on public opinion – even on voting. Google, though, is currently the biggest bully on the block.
When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn. Because online censorship is entirely unregulated at the moment, victims have little or no recourse when they have been harmed. Eventually, authorities will almost certainly have to step in, just as they did when credit bureaus were regulated in 1970. The alternative would be to allow a large corporation to wield an especially destructive kind of power that should be exercised with great restraint and should belong only to the public: the power to shame or exclude.
If Google were just another mom-and-pop shop with a sign saying “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone,” that would be one thing. But as the golden gateway to all knowledge, Google has rapidly become an essential in people’s lives – nearly as essential as air or water. We don’t let public utilities make arbitrary and secretive decisions about denying people services; we shouldn’t let Google do so either.
Let’s start with the most trivial blacklist and work our way up. I’ll save the biggest and baddest – one the public knows virtually nothing about but that gives Google an almost obscene amount of power over our economic well-being – until last.
1. The autocomplete blacklist. This is a list of words and phrases that are excluded from the autocomplete feature in Google’s search bar. The search bar instantly suggests multiple search options when you type words such as “democracy” or “watermelon,” but it freezes when you type profanities, and, at times, it has frozen when people typed words like “torrent,” “bisexual” and “penis.” At this writing, it’s freezing when I type “clitoris.” The autocomplete blacklist can also be used to protect or discredit political candidates. As recently reported, at the moment autocomplete shows you “Ted” (for former GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz) when you type “lying,” but it will not show you “Hillary” when you type “crooked” – not even, on my computer, anyway, when you type “crooked hill.” (The nicknames for Clinton and Cruz coined by Donald Trump, of course.) If you add the “a,” so you’ve got “crooked hilla,” you get the very odd suggestion “crooked Hillary Bernie.” When you type “crooked” on Bing, “crooked Hillary” pops up instantly. Google’s list of forbidden terms varies by region and individual, so “clitoris” might work for you. (Can you resist checking?)
2. The Google Maps blacklist. This list is a little more creepy, and if you are concerned about your privacy, it might be a good list to be on. The cameras of Google Earth and Google Maps have photographed your home for all to see. If you don’t like that, “just move,” Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt said. Google also maintains a list of properties it either blacks out or blurs out in its images. Some are probably military installations, some the residences of wealthy people, and some – well, who knows? Martian pre-invasion enclaves? Google doesn’t say.
3. The YouTube blacklist. YouTube, which is owned by Google, allows users to flag inappropriate videos, at which point Google censors weigh in and sometimes remove them, but not, according to a recent report by Gizmodo, with any great consistency – except perhaps when it comes to politics. Consistent with the company’s strong and open support for liberal political candidates, Google employees seem far more apt to ban politically conservative videos than liberal ones. In December 2015, singer Joyce Bartholomew sued YouTube for removing her openly pro-life music video, but I can find no instances of pro-choice music being removed. YouTube also sometimes acquiesces to the censorship demands of foreign governments. Most recently, in return for overturning a three-year ban on YouTube in Pakistan, it agreed to allow Pakistan’s government to determine which videos it can and cannot post.
4. The Google account blacklist. A couple of years ago, Google consolidated a number of its products – Gmail, Google Docs, Google+, YouTube, Google Wallet and others – so you can access all of them through your one Google account. If you somehow violate Google’s vague and intimidating terms of service agreement, you will join the ever-growing list of people who are shut out of their accounts, which means you’ll lose access to all of these interconnected products. Because virtually no one has ever read this lengthy, legalistic agreement, however, people are shocked when they’re shut out, in part because Google reserves the right to “stop providing Services to you … at any time.” And because Google, one of the largest and richest companies in the world, has no customer service department, getting reinstated can be difficult. (Given, however, that all of these services gather personal information about you to sell to advertisers, losing one’s Google account has been judged by some to be a blessing in disguise.)
5. The Google News blacklist. If a librarian were caught trashing all the liberal newspapers before people could read them, he or she might get in a heap o’ trouble. What happens when most of the librarians in the world have been replaced by a single company? Google is now the largest news aggregator in the world, tracking tens of thousands of news sources in more than thirty languages and recently adding thousands of small, local news sources to its inventory. It also selectively bans news sources as it pleases. In 2006, Google was accused of excluding conservative news sources that generated stories critical of Islam, and the company has also been accused of banning individual columnists and competing companies from its news feed. In December 2014, facing a new law in Spain that would have charged Google for scraping content from Spanish news sources (which, after all, have to pay to prepare their news), Google suddenly withdrew its news service from Spain, which led to an immediate drop in traffic to Spanish new stories. That drop in traffic is the problem: When a large aggregator bans you from its service, fewer people find your news stories, which means opinions will shift away from those you support. Selective blacklisting of news sources is a powerful way of promoting a political, religious or moral agenda, with no one the wiser.
6. The Google AdWords blacklist. Now things get creepier. More than 70 percent of Google’s $80 billion in annual revenue comes from its AdWords advertising service, which it implemented in 2000 by infringing on a similar system already patented by Overture Services. The way it works is simple: Businesses worldwide bid on the right to use certain keywords in short text ads that link to their websites (those text ads are the AdWords); when people click on the links, those businesses pay Google. These ads appear on Google.com and other Google websites and are also interwoven into the content of more than a million non-Google websites – Google’s “Display Network.” The problem here is that if a Google executive decides your business or industry doesn’t meet its moral standards, it bans you from AdWords; these days, with Google’s reach so large, that can quickly put you out of business. In 2011, Google blacklisted an Irish political group that defended sex workers but which did not provide them; after a protest, the company eventually backed down.
In May 2016, Google blacklisted an entire industry – companies providing high-interest “payday” loans. As always, the company billed this dramatic move as an exercise in social responsibility, failing to note that it is a major investor in LendUp.com, which is in the same industry; if Google fails to blacklist LendUp (it’s too early to tell), the industry ban might turn out to have been more of an anticompetitive move than one of conscience. That kind of hypocrisy has turned up before in AdWords activities. Whereas Google takes a moral stand, for example, in banning ads from companies promising quick weight loss, in 2011, Google forfeited a whopping $500 million to the U.S. Justice Department for having knowingly allowed Canadian drug companies to sell drugs illegally in the U.S. for years through the AdWords system, and several state attorneys general believe that Google has continued to engage in similar practices since 2011; investigations are ongoing.
7. The Google AdSense blacklist. If your website has been approved by AdWords, you are eligible to sign up for Google AdSense, a system in which Google places ads for various products and services on your website. When people click on those ads, Google pays you. If you are good at driving traffic to your website, you can make millions of dollars a year running AdSense ads – all without having any products or services of your own. Meanwhile, Google makes a net profit by charging the companies behind the ads for bringing them customers; this accounts for about 18 percent of Google’s income. Here, too, there is scandal: In April 2014, in two posts on PasteBin.com, someone claiming to be a former Google employee working in their AdSense department alleged the department engaged in a regular practice of dumping AdSense customers just before Google was scheduled to pay them. To this day, no one knows whether the person behind the posts was legit, but one thing is clear: Since that time, real lawsuits filed by real companies have, according to WebProNews, been “piling up” against Google, alleging the companies were unaccountably dumped at the last minute by AdSense just before large payments were due, in some cases payments as high as $500,000.
8. The search engine blacklist. Google’s ubiquitous search engine has indeed become the gateway to virtually all information, handling 90 percent of search in most countries. It dominates search because its index is so large: Google indexes more than 45 billion web pages; its next-biggest competitor, Microsoft’s Bing, indexes a mere 14 billion, which helps to explain the poor quality of Bing’s search results.
Google’s dominance in search is why businesses large and small live in constant “fear of Google,” as Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer, the largest publishing conglomerate in Europe, put it in an open letter to Eric Schmidt in 2014. According to Dopfner, when Google made one of its frequent adjustments to its search algorithm, one of his company’s subsidiaries dropped dramatically in the search rankings and lost 70 percent of its traffic within a few days. Even worse than the vagaries of the adjustments, however, are the dire consequences that follow when Google employees somehow conclude you have violated their “guidelines”: You either get banished to the rarely visited Netherlands of search pages beyond the first page (90 percent of all clicks go to links on that first page) or completely removed from the index. In 2011, Google took a “manual action” of a “corrective” nature against retailer J.C. Penney – punishment for Penney’s alleged use of a legal SEO technique called “link building” that many companies employ to try to boost their rankings in Google’s search results. Penney was demoted 60 positions or more in the rankings.
Search ranking manipulations of this sort don’t just ruin businesses; they also affect people’s opinions, attitudes, beliefs and behavior, as my research on the Search Engine Manipulation Effect has demonstrated. Fortunately, definitive information about Google’s punishment programs is likely to turn up over the next year or two thanks to legal challenges the company is facing. In 2014, a Florida company called e-Ventures Worldwide filed a lawsuit against Google for “completely removing almost every website” associated with the company from its search rankings. When the company’s lawyers tried to get internal documents relevant to Google’s actions though typical litigation discovery procedures, Google refused to comply. In July 2015, a judge ruled that Google had to honor e-Ventures’ discovery requests, and that case is now moving forward. More significantly, in April 2016, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the attorney general of Mississippi – supported in his efforts by the attorneys general of 40 other states – has the right to proceed with broad discovery requests in his own investigations into Google’s secretive and often arbitrary practices.
This brings me, at last, to the biggest and potentially most dangerous of Google’s blacklists – which Google’s calls its “quarantine” list.
9. The quarantine list. To get a sense of the scale of this list, I find it helpful to think about an old movie – the classic 1951 film “The Day the Earth Stood Still,” which starred a huge metal robot named Gort. He had laser-weapon eyes, zapped terrified humans into oblivion and had the power to destroy the world. Klaatu, Gort’s alien master, was trying to deliver an important message to earthlings, but they kept shooting him before he could. Finally, to get the world’s attention, Klaatu demonstrated the enormous power of the alien races he represented by shutting down – at noon New York time – all of the electricity on earth for exactly 30 minutes. The earth stood still.
Substitute “ogle” for “rt,” and you get “Google,” which is every bit as powerful as Gort but with a much better public relations department – so good, in fact, that you are probably unaware that on Jan. 31, 2009, Google blocked access to virtually the entire internet. And, as if not to be outdone by a 1951 science fiction move, it did so for 40 minutes.
Impossible, you say. Why would do-no-evil Google do such an apocalyptic thing, and, for that matter, how, technically, could a single company block access to more than 100 million websites?
The answer has to do with the dark and murky world of website blacklists – ever-changing lists of websites that contain malicious software that might infect or damage people’s computers. There are many such lists – even tools, such as blacklistalert.org, that scan multiple blacklists to see if your IP address is on any of them. Some lists are kind of mickey-mouse – repositories where people submit the names or IP addresses of suspect sites. Others, usually maintained by security companies that help protect other companies, are more high-tech, relying on “crawlers” – computer programs that continuously comb the internet.
But the best and longest list of suspect websites is Google’s, launched in May 2007. Because Google is crawling the web more extensively than anyone else, it is also in the best position to find malicious websites. In 2012, Google acknowledged that each and every day it adds about 9,500 new websites to its quarantine list and displays malware warnings on the answers it gives to between 12 and 14 million search queries. It won’t reveal the exact number of websites on the list, but it is certainly in the millions on any given day.
In 2011, Google blocked an entire subdomain, co.cc, which alone contained 11 million websites, justifying its action by claiming that most of the websites in that domain appeared to be “spammy.” According to Matt Cutts, still the leader of Google’s web spam team, the company “reserves the right” to take such action when it deems it necessary. (The right? Who gave Google that right?)
And that’s nothing: According to The Guardian, on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2009, at 2:40 pm GMT, Google blocked the entire internet for those impressive 40 minutes, supposedly, said the company, because of “human error” by its employees. It would have been 6:40 am in Mountain View, California, where Google is headquartered. Was this time chosen because it is one of the few hours of the week when all of the world’s stock markets are closed? Could this have been another of the many pranks for which Google employees are so famous? In 2008, Google invited the public to submit applications to join the “first permanent human colony on Mars.” Sorry, Marsophiles; it was just a prank.
When Google’s search engine shows you a search result for a site it has quarantined, you see warnings such as, “The site ahead contains malware” or “This site may harm your computer” on the search result. That’s useful information if that website actually contains malware, either because the website was set up by bad guys or because a legitimate site was infected with malware by hackers. But Google’s crawlers often make mistakes, blacklisting websites that have merely been “hijacked,” which means the website itself isn’t dangerous but merely that accessing it through the search engine will forward you to a malicious site. My own website, http://drrobertepstein.com, was hijacked in this way in early 2012. Accessing the website directly wasn’t dangerous, but trying to access it through the Google search engine forwarded users to a malicious website in Nigeria. When this happens, Google not only warns you about the infected website on its search engine (which makes sense), it also blocks you from accessing the website directly through multiple browsers – even non-Google browsers. (Hmm. Now that’s odd. I’ll get back to that point shortly.)
The mistakes are just one problem. The bigger problem is that even though it takes only a fraction of a second for a crawler to list you, after your site has been cleaned up Google’s crawlers sometimes take days or even weeks to delist you – long enough to threaten the existence of some businesses. This is quite bizarre considering how rapidly automated online systems operate these days. Within seconds after you pay for a plane ticket online, your seat is booked, your credit card is charged, your receipt is displayed and a confirmation email shows up in your inbox – a complex series of events involving multiple computers controlled by at least three or four separate companies. But when you inform Google’s automated blacklist system that your website is now clean, you are simply advised to check back occasionally to see if any action has been taken. To get delisted after your website has been repaired, you either have to struggle with the company’s online Webmaster tools, which are far from friendly, or you have to hire a security expert to do so – typically for a fee ranging between $1,000 and $10,000. No expert, however, can speed up the mysterious delisting process; the best he or she can do is set it in motion.
So far, all I’ve told you is that Google’s crawlers scan the internet, sometimes find what appear to be suspect websites and put those websites on a quarantine list. That information is then conveyed to users through the search engine. So far so good, except of course for the mistakes and the delisting problem; one might even say that Google is performing a public service, which is how some people who are familiar with the quarantine list defend it. But I also mentioned that Google somehow blocks people from accessing websites directly through multiple browsers. How on earth could it do that? How could Google block you when you are trying to access a website using Safari, an Apple product, or Firefox, a browser maintained by Mozilla, the self-proclaimed “nonprofit defender of the free and open internet”?
The key here is browsers. No browser maker wants to send you to a malicious website, and because Google has the best blacklist, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox – and Chrome, of course, Google’s own browser, as well as browsers that load through Android, Google’s mobile operating system – check Google’s quarantine list before they send you to a website. (In November 2014, Mozilla announced it will no longer list Google as its default search engine, but it also disclosed that it will continue to rely on Google’s quarantine list to screen users’ search requests.)
If the site has been quarantined by Google, you see one of those big, scary images that say things like “Get me out of here!” or “Reported attack site!” At this point, given the default security settings on most browsers, most people will find it impossible to visit the site – but who would want to? If the site is not on Google’s quarantine list, you are sent on your way.
OK, that explains how Google blocks you even when you’re using a non-Google browser, but why do they block you? In other words, how does blocking you feed the ravenous advertising machine – the sine qua non of Google’s existence?
Have you figured it out yet? The scam is as simple as it is brilliant: When a browser queries Google’s quarantine list, it has just shared information with Google. With Chrome and Android, you are always giving up information to Google, but you are also doing so even if you are using non-Google browsers. That is where the money is – more information about search activity kindly provided by competing browser companies. How much information is shared will depend on the particular deal the browser company has with Google. In a maximum information deal, Google will learn the identity of the user; in a minimum information deal, Google will still learn which websites people want to visit – valuable data when one is in the business of ranking websites. Google can also charge fees for access to its quarantine list, of course, but that’s not where the real gold is.
Chrome, Android, Firefox and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the U.S. – 74 percent worldwide – and these numbers are increasing. As of this writing, that means Google is regularly collecting information through its quarantine list from more than 2.5 billion people. Given the recent pact between Microsoft and Google, in coming months we might learn that Microsoft – both to save money and to improve its services – has also started using Google’s quarantine list in place of its own much smaller list; this would further increase the volume of information Google is receiving.
To put this another way, Google has grown, and is still growing, on the backs of some of its competitors, with end users oblivious to Google’s antics – as usual. It is yet another example of what I have called “Google’s Dance” – the remarkable way in which Google puts a false and friendly public face on activities that serve only one purpose for the company: increasing profit. On the surface, Google’s quarantine list is yet another way Google helps us, free of charge, breeze through our day safe and well-informed. Beneath the surface, that list is yet another way Google accumulates more information about us to sell to advertisers.
You may disagree, but in my view Google’s blacklisting practices put the company into the role of thuggish internet cop – a role that was never authorized by any government, nonprofit organization or industry association. It is as if the biggest bully in town suddenly put on a badge and started patrolling, shuttering businesses as it pleased, while also secretly peeping into windows, taking photos and selling them to the highest bidder.
Consider: Heading into the holiday season in late 2013, an online handbag business suffered a 50 percent drop in business because of blacklisting. In 2009, it took an eco-friendly pest control company 60 days to leap the hurdles required to remove Google’s warnings, long enough to nearly go broke. And sometimes the blacklisting process appears to be personal: In May 2013, the highly opinionated PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak wondered “When Did Google Become the Internet Police?” after both his website and podcast site were blacklisted. He also ran into the delisting problem: “It’s funny,” he wrote, “how the site can be blacklisted in a millisecond by an analysis but I have to wait forever to get cleared by the same analysis doing the same scan. Why is that?”
Could Google really be arrogant enough to mess with a prominent journalist? According to CNN, in 2005 Google “blacklisted all CNET reporters for a year after the popular technology news website published personal information about one of Google’s founders” – Eric Schmidt – “in a story about growing privacy concerns.” The company declined to comment on CNN’s story.
Google’s mysterious and self-serving practice of blacklisting is one of many reasons Google should be regulated, just as phone companies and credit bureaus are. The E.U.’s recent antitrust actions against Google, the recently leaked FTC staff report about Google’s biased search rankings, President Obama’s call for regulating internet service providers – all have merit, but they overlook another danger. No one company, which is accountable to its shareholders but not to the general public, should have the power to instantly put another company out of business or block access to any website in the world. How frequently Google acts irresponsibly is beside the point; it has the ability to do so, which means that in a matter of seconds any of Google’s 37,000 employees with the right passwords or skills could laser a business or political candidate into oblivion or even freeze much of the world’s economy.
Some degree of censorship and blacklisting is probably necessary; I am not disputing that. But the suppression of information on the internet needs to be managed by, or at least subject to the regulations of, responsible public officials, with every aspect of their operations transparent to all.
Updated on June 23, 2016: Readers have called my attention to a 10th Google blacklist, which the company applies to its shopping service. In 2012, the shopping service banned the sale of weapons-related items, including some items that could still be sold through AdWords. Google’s shopping blacklisting policy, while reasonably banning the sale of counterfeit and copyrighted goods, also includes a catch-all category: Google can ban the sale of any product or service its employees deem to be “offensive or inappropriate.” No means of recourse is stated.
Corrected on June 23, 2016: An earlier version of this post misidentified singer Joyce Bartholomew.
Slams Israeli Government, compares top official to Trump
July 25, 2016 1:20 pm
PHILADELPHIA—A Democratic member of the House Armed Services Committee compared Jewish Israeli settlers to termites on Monday while speaking at an event sponsored by an anti-Israel organization that supports boycotts of the Jewish state.
Rep. Hank Johnson (D., Ga.) launched into a tirade against Israel and its policies toward the Palestinians, comparing Jewish people who live in disputed territories to “termites” that destroy homes. Johnson also compared Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman to Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, a remark that drew vocal agreement from those in the room.
“There has been a steady [stream], almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up and you fall in on yourself, there has been settlement activity that has marched forward with impunity and at an ever increasing rate to the point where it has become alarming,” Johnson said during an event sponsored by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, an anti-Israel organization that galvanizes supporters of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement, or BDS.
“It has come to the point that occupation, with highways that cut through Palestinian land, with walls that go up, with the inability or the restriction, with the illegality of Palestinians being able to travel on those roads and those roads cutting off Palestinian neighborhoods from each other,” Johnson continued. “And then with the building of walls and the building of check points that restrict movement of Palestinians. We’ve gotten to the point where the thought of a Palestinian homeland gets further and further removed from reality.”
Johnson, who in 2010 voiced his fears that Guam would tip over and capsize if too many people resided on the island, said that “Jewish people” routinely steal land and property from Palestinians.
“You see one home after another being appropriated by Jewish people who come in to claim that land just because somebody did not spend the night there,” he said, referring to claims that Israeli settlers plot to seize Palestinian land. ‘“The home their [Palestinian] ancestors lived in for generations becomes an Israeli home and a flag goes up,” he said, adding, “the Palestinians are barred from flying flags in their own neighborhoods.”
Johnson went on to compare Lieberman to Trump as he lashed out against the Israeli government.
“The fact is the Israeli government, which is the most right-wing government ever to exist in the state of Israel in its history, the most right wing government, you got a guy like Trump who is now the minister of defense in Israel calling the shots on defense,” he said, adding that he is not the only member of Congress who holds these views.
James Zogby, a member of the Democratic platform committee and president of the Arab American Institute, informed the crowd that efforts to make the Democratic platform more pro-Palestinian ran up against objections from those who are scared of casino magnate and Republican donor Sheldon Adelson.
“I had no idea the [platform] fight would be over ‘occupation’ and ‘settlements,’” Zogby said, referring to efforts by more mainstream elements of the Democratic Party to ensure the platform language remained staunchly pro-Israel.
“Something happens in this game where they [Democratic Party members] take their policy brain out and put it somewhere and they substitute their politics brain, which they think is a smart brain,” Zogby said, summarizing this thought process as: “We can’t do it because Sheldon Adelson will come out against us.”
“Jesus,” Zogby said, “he’s gonna come out against you no matter what!”
I returned home last Friday from a two week training course for my new career. It was grueling and tiring, but I feel very positive that this venture will support me for the remainder of my time on this earth hopefully in a peaceful, but frugal existence. And yes, as long as the government doesn’t decide to dip their greedy fingers in my pie.
Now, I have to build a customer base, make a gazillion phone calls and convince people that what I have to offer is beneficial and necessary in their lives. I’ll talk a bit more about what I’m actually doing another time.
I haven’t looked at alternative news sites in two weeks and will make an effort to catch up. Of course, visit Northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com for all the latest on just about everything.
Hopefully, I’ll have some articles up in the near future. But with nearly 2400 articles on my site you shouldn’t be bored, there is always something to read and learn.
And thanks for still dropping by in my absence.