Milum

Potent Quotables
 ________________
 

Political-Comedian Jimmy Dore calls out former New York Times Reporter for lying to the American public about what constitutes "Treason" (March 12, 2018)
 
Vince Milum writes:
 
In my opinion, political-comedian Jimmy Dore has become the "conscience of America."
 
Dore — a self-described Bernie-supporting progressive — is despised by most progressives for daring to call out the sins of the progressive movement rather than focusing on the sins of others. (He is particularly scornful of Rachel Maddow and her MSNBC colleagues because of their perpetual anti-Russian race-baiting and their support for al Qaeda's* terrorism in Syria against Syrian civilians as well as Russian and Syrian troops.) (*Do not take my word for it nor reject my assertion out-of-hand, look it up!!! — This is widely reported outside of the shared vacuity of the neoliberal and neoconservative worlds.)
  
Here, Dore — with the help of America's best journalist (in my opinion) Glenn Greenwald — exposes former New York Times journalist, James Risen, as a dissembling, pathological liar who — with the help of most of his "mainstream" fellow-yellow journalists in America — has managed to convince American citizens that (a) "Treason" is NOT defined by the constitution and (b) the U.S. Constitution has less legal authority than the writings of so-called journalists at the NY Times and elsewhere.

 

________________

Propaganda Wars: You are an anti-Semitic Terrorist if you do not unreservedly support Israel (March 7, 2018)

Glenn Greenwald has rekindled a debate by tweeting (within the last 24 hours) about an essay he wrote two years ago, which was entitled:

Fighting Israeli Occupying Forces Is "Terrorism." Boycotting Is "Anti-Semitism." What’s Allowed? (Original publication date: April 3, 2016)

In the article, Greenwald makes a number of strong statements / arguments including:

There have been Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians of course (while far more Palestinian civilians have died at the hands of the Israeli army), but in these specific cases, these Palestinians are attacking purely military targets, not civilians. Those military targets are soldiers deployed to their soil as part of an illegal occupying army. In what conceivable sense can that be "terrorism"? If fighting an occupying army is now "terrorism" simply because the army belongs to Israel and the attackers are Palestinian, is it not incredibly obvious how this term is exploited?

The U.S. has frequently done the same: invade and occupy countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan and then label anyone who fights their occupying armies as "terrorists," even putting some in Guantánamo for that. Similarly, attacks against military bases of the U.S., U.K., and other Western countries are routinely labeled "terrorism."


Later in the article, Greenwald writes:

So if violent resistance is illegitimate "terrorism," what about other alternatives for resisting the decades-old, still-expanding illegal Israeli occupation? The nonviolent route embraced by Palestinian activists and their anti-occupation allies around the world is a campaign of boycott, sanctions, and divestment (BDS) aimed at Israel, modeled after the campaign that helped end South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980s (a regime that, just by the way, was a close ally of both the U.S. and Israel).

But there is a highly successful campaign by Israel and its U.S. allies not only to decree this nonviolent boycott campaign illegitimate, but literally to outlaw it. Official bodies are enacting rules to censor and officially suppress it by equating the campaign with "anti-Semitism" even though, as fervent Israel supporter Eric Alterman wrote in the New York Times this week, "it is filled with young Jews."

The Intercept and other outlets have repeatedly reported on official governmental and university actions to ban BDS activism by equating it with "anti-Semitism." In California, the regents of the nation's largest university system just enacted a resolution strongly implying that BDS activism is anti-Semitic and thus in violation of university rules. In New York last week, dozens of state legislators, from both parties, have demanded the de-funding of a pro-Palestinian group at CUNY, a move denounced by the campus free speech group FIRE. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when running for office, announced that BDS "has no place on Canadian campuses." In France, people are literally arrested as criminals under "hate speech" laws for wearing T-shirts advocating BDS. Measures in the U.K. have been enacted to legally bar support for such boycott movements. Laws and proposed bills in Israel ban advocacy of the movement and bar supporters from entering Israel.

So look at what has happened here. When Palestinians fight against occupying troops on their soil, they are denounced — and often killed — as "terrorists." Meanwhile, nonviolent campaigns to end the occupation through a South Africa-style boycott are demonized as "anti-Semitism" and officially barred — censored — in all sorts of ways, in numerous countries around the world.

________________

To read the entire article, go to:

https://theintercept.com/2016/04/03/fighting-israeli-occupying-forces-is-terrorism-boycotting-is-anti-semitism-whats-allowed/
________________
 

UPDATE: Politicians Campaign on Free Speech While Voting to Penalize Boycotts of Israel (March 14, 2018)

https://theintercept.com/2018/03/14/campus-free-speech-bds-israel-boycott/

________________

The Fatal Delusions of Western Man (March 2, 2018)
 
  By Pat Buchanan
  
Excerpts:

"Today we confront a Chinese Communist dictatorship and superpower that seeks to displace America as first power on earth, and to drive the U.S. military back across the Pacific. Who is responsible for this epochal blunder? The elites of both parties. Bush Republicans from the 1990s granted China most-favored-nation status and threw open America’s market. Result: China has run up $4 trillion in trade surpluses with the United States. Her $375 billion trade surplus with us in 2017 far exceeded the entire Chinese defense budget. We fed the tiger, and created a monster."

"Stalin was a murderous tyrant unrivaled in history whose victims in 1939 were 1,000 times those of Adolf Hitler, with whom he eagerly partnered in return for the freedom to rape the Baltic States and bite off half of Poland. When Hitler turned on Stalin, the Bolshevik butcher rushed to the West for aid. Churchill and FDR hailed him in encomiums that would have made Pericles blush. At Yalta, Churchill rose to toast the butcher: 'I walk through this world with greater courage and hope when I find myself in a relation of friendship and intimacy with this great man, whose fame has gone out not only over all Russia, but the world.... We regard Marshal Stalin's life as most precious to the hopes and hearts of all of us.' Returning home, Churchill assured a skeptical Parliament, 'I know of no Government which stands to its obligations, even in its own despite, more solidly than the Russian Soviet Government'."

"George W. Bush, with the U.S. establishment united behind him, invaded Iraq with the goal of creating a Vermont in the Middle East that would be a beacon of democracy to the Arab and Islamic world. Ex-Director of the NSA Gen. William Odom* correctly called the U.S. invasion the greatest strategic blunder in American history. But Bush, un-chastened, went on to preach a crusade for democracy with the goal of 'ending tyranny in our world.' What is the root of these astounding beliefs — that Stalin would be a partner for peace, that if we built up Mao's China she would become benign and benevolent, that we could reshape Islamic nations into replicas of Western democracies, that we could eradicate tyranny?"

"Today, we are replicating these historic follies. After our victory in the Cold War, we not only plunged into the Middle East to remake it in our image, we issued war guarantees to every ex-member state of the Warsaw Pact, and threatened Russia with war if she ever intervened again in the Baltic Republics. No Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing such an in-your-face challenge to a great nuclear power like Russia. If Putin's Russia does not become the pacifist nation it has never been, these guarantees will one day be called. And America will either back down — or face a nuclear confrontation. Why would we risk something like this?"
________________
 
*Disclosure Note: Vince Milum worked for General William Odom when he served in military intelligence.
________________
 

For the entire article, see: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/buchanan/the-fatal-delusions-of-western-man/

________________
 
The Bear Shows Its Claws (March 7, 2018)

An Associated Press article written by Vladimir Isachenov, and published AFTER the above Pat Buchanan article — reinforces the danger the United States faces (per Buchanan) of recklessly provoking Russia or, even worse, heedlessly initiating a war against Russia.  Per AP:

...[Vladimir] Putin, who presented a sweeping array of new Russian nuclear weapons last week, voiced hope that nuclear weapons will never be used — but warned that Russia will retaliate in kind if it comes under a nuclear attack. "The decision to use nuclear weapons can only be made if our early warning system not only detects a missile launch but clearly forecasts its flight path and the time when warheads reach the Russian territory," he said. "If someone makes a decision to destroy Russia, then we have a legitimate right to respond." He added starkly:

"Yes, it will mean a global catastrophe for mankind, for the entire world. But as a citizen of Russia and the head of Russian state I would ask: What is such a world for, if there were no Russia?"


For the entire article (entitled), Putin praises Trump, says US political system eating itself, see:

https://www.apnews.com/280c87f2e0d041c8a5bae94fb4f574fe

________________

 

Home

Copyright © 2018.  All rights reserved.