What They're Saying On the Internet About This President and Our Coming Election

Literally, I saw this on Facebook two days ago.  What they're saying about this President Trump and the coming election. They may well have a point. Points. (Edited slightly and 2 comments added in parentheses). Author unknown.

Trump is getting increasingly desperate about his ever-dwindling chance of being reelected in November.

Why? Because he knows what awaits him if he loses his so-called "presidential immunity" which, by the way, in my humble opinion, should be abolished. When he becomes a "civilian," Trump knows that he faces endless litigation to attempt to defend himself in both the Districe of New York and the State of New Jersey for many very serious offenses. Some of these are:

1. The 2016 Russian election attack
2. His own election campaign's possible--likely? apparent?--collusion with Russia to get elected
3. Wikileaks 
4. Middle Eastern influence (on the Trump administration I feel sure they mean)
5. Paul Manafort’s activities 
6. The Trump Tower Moscow project 
7. Russia-Trump Campaign contacts 
8. Presidential obstruction of justice 
9. Campaign finance violations and Trump Organization finances 
10. Inauguration funding 
11. SuperPAC funding 
12. Foreign lobbying violations 
13. Russian spy Maria Butina 
14. Russian Internet Research Agency accountant Elena Alekseevna Khusyaynova 
15. Turkish influence (not certain what they mean here)
16. Trump Organization tax fraud
17. Trump Foundation fraud 
18. Violations of the emoluments clause 
19. Lawsuits from a VERY LONG list of unpaid creditors

I'm sure there will be an additional tsunami of litigation by grieving and very angry surviving family members of the tens of thousands of people who needlessly died as a result of the COVID-19 virus,  caused from Trump's endless excuses, disastrous mismanagement, his complete lack of leadership and his overwhelming criminal negligence in this disaster, which is obviously still ongoing and will be ongoing for long into the future.

Trump's insistence on "opening up the country," by HIS own twisted reasoning "to improve the economy," is an EXCUSE and a LIE. It's only for the purpose of promoting himself for one more four-year term of horror in the Oval Office, thereby allowing Trump to escape what awaits him if he loses reelection.

WE CANNOT ALLOW ONE MORE TRUMP TERM OF HORROR!

WE MUST VOTE HIM OUT IN NOVEMBER! 

VOTE BLUE!

Bradley Manning up for Nobel Peace Prize?

This is big news. Army Private Bradley Manning, originally "arrested in Iraq on suspicion of having passed restricted material to the website Wikileaks"...and then "charged with a dozen crimes from transferring classified data into his personal computer to aiding the enemy" has been nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. THAT'S going to upset a lot of people. At the same time, it will make a lot of others happy, too, the ones fighting for his release. Last note: one thing I find additionally very interesting about this is that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is for freeing Mr. Manning. Links: http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/hero-or-traitor/; http://www.BradleyManning.org

In case you don't know or can't tell--because really, it's not that great a picture on the left--that's Julian Assange of "Wikileaks" on the left.

Andy Rooney? And Wikileaks?

Andy Rooney, of CBS News' famous "60 Minutes" news program retired, of sorts, Sunday evening as I think so many people know so he gave a bit of a goodbye talk. In it, he said "I believe that if all the truth in the world, it would be a better place to live." Now I ask you, does that not sound like something Wikileaks founder Julian Assange would say or has already said? As an example: “The aim of Wikileaks is to achieve just reform around the world and do it through the mechanism of transparency.” I would never have thought someone like Andy Rooney would sound even remotely like that. Links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange; http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/julian_assange.html; http://anitasnotebook.com/misc/julian-assange-from-wikileaks-quotes

Rally for Bradley Manning at Leavenworth

Rally to protest the indefinite detention of accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning, Saturday, June 4th at Leavenworth, Kansas.


Sponsored by the Bradley Manning Support Network, Courage to Resist, and Veterans for Peace

11:30 am – Gather at Bob Dougherty Memorial Park, N 2nd St. and Kickapoo St. (map). Unrestricted street parking is available around the park. Toilets will be available as well.

Noon – Rally

1:00 pm – March to the intersection of Metropolitan Ave. and N 7th St. (map), six blocks north-west of the rally.

2:00 pm – Vigil (until 3:00 pm) along Metropolitan Ave, primarily at N 4th St. and N 7th St. (N 7th St. is the main entrance to Fort Leavenworth. The military stockade, where Bradley is held, is deep inside the base. The federal prison, which is visible from Metropolitan Ave., is a few blocks west at N 13th St.)

3:30 pm – Organizers meeting back at Bob Dougherty Memorial Park (subject to change). Hosted by Bradley Manning Support Network, Courage to Resist, and Veterans for Peace organizers, a discussion regarding future regional and national efforts in support of Bradley Manning.

Please do not bring any weapons, alcohol, or illegal drugs, to our gathering.

For more information, see below, check this page, or call Courage to Resist at 510-488-3559
Facebook event page and contact information of local activists:

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=204793382876169, contact(at)mokanfreebradley.info

Information

Local activists have secured a meeting room at the Super 8 motel (303 Montana Court, Leavenworth) for folks to check in as they arrive Friday afternoon and Saturday from 8am to 10 am.

The Super 8 motel (303 Montana Court, Leavenworth) is one housing option. The special event rate for June 3rd and June 4th is $59.99 per room, for up four persons per room. However, most rooms are currently booked with a few smoking rooms remaining.

Commander’s Inn (1118 N 6th Street, Leavenworth, phone: 913-651-5800) on Metropolitan is also recommended for lodging.

Camping is available at the city park on the riverfront. For additional camping information, please contact local activists at: contact(at)mokanfreebradley.info




Link:  http://couragetoresist.org/bradley-manning/914-rally-for-bradley-at-leavenworth-june-4th.html

On Bradley Manning and justice in the US

You know who Bradley Manning is, right?

He's the Army Pfc who leaked the government documents to Wikileaks about what all our government has been doing abroad that created such an uproar some months ago?  Remember?

Well, he's been arrested and thrown in jail (prison?) and he's being charged--with 22 counts as I understand it and it's said he may face the death penalty.

Sure, corporate banksters can steal billions of dollars from the country and not even get charged but this young guy leaks some easily-accessed government files and all of a sudden we get all self-righteous and want to kill somebody.

Anyway, news is out now that we are--no kidding--being told that his military jailers forced him to "sleep naked for several days last week."

Excuse me?

Why?

Is this the United States of freaking America where we treat people humanely or not?

First it was Abu Graib and the inhuman treatment we put those people through and now this?

Who are we as a country, anyway?

Who are we as a people?

Do we really believe and stand for what we used to think we stand for anymore?

I'd love to know.

And I'd love to know that we still stand for all that good stuff, too.

Remember?

All the "innocent until proven guilty" and the right of Habeus Corpus and human rights and "equal justice under the law" for everyone and everything like that?

Could we get back to that now?

Please?

Because we'd like our country back.

Links:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR2011031106542.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/03/bradley-manning-may-face-death-penalty
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&site=&source=hp&q=bradley+manning+news&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=98286c98e5a0f890

On oil: In Saudi Arabia and here in the States

There seems to be a lot going on in the world of oil, news-wise, today.

First there's this:

WikiLeaks: Saudis running out of oil


By Brett Michael Dykes
 
The latest startling revelation to come via documents leaked to Julian Assange's muckraking website and published by The Guardian is should give pause to every suburban SUV-driver: U.S. officials think Saudi Arabia is overpromising on its capacity to supply oil to a fuel-thirsty world. That sets up a scenario, the documents show, whereby the Saudis could dramatically underdeliver on output by as soon as next year, sending fuel prices soaring.
 
The cables detail a meeting between a U.S. diplomat and Sadad al-Husseini, a geologist and former head of exploration for Saudi oil monopoly Aramco, in November 2007. Husseini told the American official that the Saudis are unlikely to keep to their target oil output of 12.5 million barrels per day output in order to keep prices stable. Husseini also indicated that Saudi producers are likely to hit "peak oil"--the point at which global output hit its high mark--as early as 2012. That means, in essence, that it will be all downhill from there for the enormous Saudi oil industry.

"According to al-Husseini, the crux of the issue is twofold. First, it is possible that Saudi reserves are not as bountiful as sometimes described, and the timeline for their production not as unrestrained as Aramco and energy optimists would like to portray," one of the cables reads. "While al-Husseini fundamentally contradicts the Aramco company line, he is no doomsday theorist. His pedigree, experience and outlook demand that his predictions be thoughtfully considered."

And while not that many people here in the States are concerned about or for the Saudis and their oil (except the oil companies, of course), what needs to be said is that for the US and the world, any decrease in what they can give in oil supply needs to be offset nearly perfectly by other energy sources so the world economies can hum safely, calmly and quietly while we transition to those other sources.

Next up and lastly today is this little nugget:

New drilling method opens vast oil fields in US


By Jonathan Fahey, AP Energy Writer


A new drilling technique is opening up vast fields of previously out-of-reach oil in the western United States, helping reverse a two-decade decline in domestic production of crude.

Companies are investing billions of dollars to get at oil deposits scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California. By 2015, oil executives and analysts say, the new fields could yield as much as 2 million barrels of oil a day — more than the entire Gulf of Mexico produces now.

This new drilling is expected to raise U.S. production by at least 20 percent over the next five years. And within 10 years, it could help reduce oil imports by more than half, advancing a goal that has long eluded policymakers.

"That's a significant contribution to energy security," says Ed Morse, head of commodities research at Credit Suisse.

The thing is, we're going to have to bring the big, unwieldy US energy-gobbling machine in for a safe landing, transferring from Saudi oil and other fossil fuels, into a) possibly our own oil sources for a time and then, finally into b) renewable, clean energy sources like solar with solar panels and photovoltaic cells, as I've written here before.  Hopefully this drilling out West can be done with minimal damage to the environment.

It's going to take a lot of work, resources and intelligence to do it, that's for sure.
Links:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110209/ts_yblog_thelookout/wikileaks-saudis-running-out-of-oil
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110209/ap_on_re_us/us_shale_oil

The UN regulating the internet?

I first heard about this yesterday on NPR (naturally).

And my first thought was:

Uh.....  right.   Why?

Why would the UN, of all groups--other than their international reach--be chosen to "regulate" the internet?

Talk about "one-world government".  (And I'm actually all for one-world government, to be completely honest.  It's not a problem for me, thanks very much.)

Check it out:

"At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet - specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks," wrote IT News.

The UN has announced that a "Working Group on Internet Governance," made up solely of member states (governments), will consider changes to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF), a "forum for multi-stakeholder dialogue on public policy related to Internet governance issues, such as the Internet's sustainability, robustness, security, stability and development."

Talk about "Big Brother" watching over us.

Who thought or thinks this is a good idea?  I mean, besides China and all other totalitarian governments that don't want good, open communication between all their citizens.

And since when is the internet "broken"?  What about it isn't working, exactly?  Well, except for that rather obvious Wikileaks thing, of course.

I mean, other than the fact that governments can't control what you and I are putting on it right now and the fact that business on it, in most places, isn't taxed which are, in my view, both good things, right?

I think this may be a hugely overlooked story, too.

With the "shape of things to come" being, undoubtedly, online and on the internet, what's the one body looking at shaping and regulating and ruling, if you will, the internet?

Yeah, the UN.  The United Nations.  Wow.  What a change.

Usually the average schmoe on the street doesn't pay the UN much attention.

And he/she still might not.

But with this?  With the UN looking at making international rules for the internet and the World Wide Web?

I think, suddenly, they may get the attention of the average person---all around the world.

I don't think this can go anywhere good.  At least, it will go nowhere good for the citizens of the world.  It will or would only benefit governments in the world and their goals and attempts at stifling free speech.

I don't know much about imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo, but I'd be willing to bet he'd be one who sees this for what it is.


And he'd be against it.

Links:http://www.npr.org/2010/12/17/132144972/U-N-Delegates-Debate-Control-Of-Internet
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/un-internet-regulation_n_798457.html

Go here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710
Please sign the petition. Help keep the UN from regulating the internet. It will only lead to an infringement of free speech rights--around the world.

Julian Assange: Sinner or saint?

You know, really, this whole Julian Assange/Wikileaks case is pretty fascinating.

Most Americans likely don't know much of Wikileaks other than that they first released 90,000 files on the Afghanistan War earlier this year and then more recently, just released approximately 250,000 more files, of somewhat random material, all from our own government.

The fact is, if you go to the Wikipedia site for Wikileaks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks), you can find they've really had a pretty good go, internationally, of exposing corruption and pollution and other topics, all over the globe.  They've, so far, had a pretty good run.

But this last release I spoke of above, with the 250,000 files, seems to be a bit of a low point for both Wikileaks and their founder, this Julian Assange.

The material they released didn't really seem to pin down any real or specific "sins" of the US--or any other country.  It all seemed just a hodge-podge of information, released because they could.  A big release for release sake.  So what if someone said Germany's Angela Merkel isn't "creative"?  Who cares?  It's all about blown over, even now.

What starts to get fascinating, though, is the charges out of Sweden just now for Mr. Assange.  This is the second time for it but he's finally being formally charged, this time with two charges of sexual misconduct.


Interpol issued a high alert for Assange on Wednesday at the request of Sweden.  Assange has maintained his innocence and called the charges in Sweden a smear campaign.

You have to wonder if Sweden is correct and he really did these wrong things or if he just pissed off way too many people, in way too high positions and now it's all going to come down on him.

It's getting curioser and curioser.

It should be even more fascinating to see this all unfold.

Link:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/12/01/assange.profile/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rss/cnn_topstories+(RSS:+Top+Stories)

On Wikileaks now

Some thoughts on the latest Wikileaks release of documents.

First, you can pretty much count on this being in the top 5 news items the rest of this week, I think, given what so far has been learned in the documents and the fact that there were so many released this time.

Second, it seems difficult to see either what was gained by this release or, in the bigger picture, just what Wikileaks is/was trying to accomplish.

In the recent past, since their inception, Wikileaks has done some good, it seems:

WikiLeaks has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award.[5] In June 2009, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International's UK Media Award (in the category "New Media") for the 2008 publication of "Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances",[6] a report by the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[7] In May 2010, the New York Daily News listed WikiLeaks first in a ranking of "websites that could totally change the news".[8]
In April 2010, WikiLeaks posted video from a 2007 incident in which Iraqi civilians were killed by U.S. forces, on a website called Collateral Murder. In July of the same year, WikiLeaks released Afghan War Diary, a compilation of more than 76,900 documents about the War in Afghanistan not previously available for public review.[9] In October the group released a package of almost 400,000 documents called the Iraq War Logs in coordination with major commercial media organisations.

In the previous release of documents, I applauded them because I thought it could--possibly, hopefully--contribute to the ending of our war in Afghanistan.  I likened them and their work to Daniel Ellsberg and his "Pentagon Papers."  I think Senator John Kerry (D-MA) may be correct when he said "This is not an academic exercise about freedom of information and it is not akin to the release of the Pentagon Papers, which involved an analysis aimed at saving American lives and exposing government deception."

Also, if you go to the Wikipedia link below, you can see they've exposed a good deal of corruption and polluting, etc., that wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, it seems.
 
But this latest release seems to be a "release for release sake" or just because they can and because they are Wikileaks.  It's difficult, so far, to see or hear anything good for the country or world that was achieved by releasing these documents.  Some of the information released deals with seemingly trivial but negative descriptions of world leaders.  
 
You know what?  While trivial and even negative, they may be accurate and important in efforts to understand a "bigger picture" and where another, foreign country and its leaders are headed.
 
These latest documents show that the US urged spying on the UN and that, supposedly, our diplomats in foreign countries have, in fact, been directed to spy on their host country.   They tell, reputedly of Saudi Arabia urging us--the US--to attack Iran.  And that's just a small bit of the information that has come out so far.  A great deal more will be learned and released in days to come.
 
It just seems, so far, at this early stage, that Julian Assange and his Wikileaks group may have gone either a big step too far or a big step in a wrong direction.  It's difficult to see how this release can or will help the US or the world to negotiate and work with one another to overcome our many and large problems.
 
Stay tuned. 
 
While fascinating, I think this release is already unfortunate, at least, and maybe very damaging, at worst. 
 
Let's hope not.  Let's hope some great good can come out of this because, the truth is, they're already out and there's no going back now.
 
Links:  http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/28/wikileaks.documents.published/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/11/28-3
http://www.alternet.org/world/149000/wikileaks_docs_released:_us_urged_spying_on_un,_arab_leaders_secretly_called_for_strike_against_iran?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-28/wikileaks-documents-chinas-google-hack-un-spying-more-secrets/

The "Pentagon Papers" vs. the "Afghanistan Papers" at Wikileaks

Propublica does a terrific job of showing both the similarities and differences between the "Pentagon Papers" release by Daniel Ellsberg some 40 years ago and the Wikileaks release of 92,000 classified documents this week (see my earlier entry on this, from this weekend): http://www.propublica.org/blog/item/sheehan-interview. According to Wikeleaks' founder, Julian Assange, there are more documents to come out on this, too. Stay tuned, campers.

Daniel Ellsberg's "Pentagon Papers"?

Not only is the US, in my opinion--and a lot of other people's, too--in a quagmire ala' Vietnam, but we're in two, I think--Iraq and Afghanistan, obviously. But now, with the release on Wikileaks of the approximate 92,000 papers of classified documents on this Afghanistan debacle--I mean war--we get another, new comparison of this conflict with the loss for us that was Vietnam. This leak, I believe, will be compared at least loosely, if not directly, to Daniel Ellsberg's "Pentagon Papers" because they tell us more of what the actual situation is over in Afghanistan, instead of the glossed-over version we've gotten for the last decade from first one presidential administration and now this one. To wit: A six-year archive of classified military documents made public on Sunday offers an unvarnished, ground-level picture of the war in Afghanistan that is in many respects more grim than the official portrayal. The secret documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year. The New York Times, the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel were given access to the voluminous records several weeks ago on the condition that they not report on the material before Sunday. The documents — some 92,000 reports spanning parts of two administrations from January 2004 through December 2009 — illustrate in mosaic detail why, after the United States has spent almost $300 billion on the war in Afghanistan, the Taliban are stronger than at any time since 2001. This will, at minimum, make it much more difficult for this administration to do as it pleases in that country and likely make it more likely attacks on our progress and lack of it to come from both the Republicans and the President's own party, let alone the Libertarians and "Tea Party" members. In warning to President Obama, I think I'd quote Margo Channing from "All About Eve" to say "Fasten your seatbelts—it's gonna be a bumpy night!" Link to original story: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?no_interstitial