BREAKING: WikiLeaks Releases New Emails Exposing Clinton’s & Podesta’s Knowledge Of Extraterrestrial Intelligence

ORIGINAL LINK

As you might have already heard, last Tuesday Wikileaks’ Founder Julian Assange promised thousands of more leaks regarding corruption and secrecy inside of US politics. He’s already published a number of startling revelations, including the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails that exposed a rigged Hillary Clinton campaign, her ties to ISIS, the real reason for the invasion of Libya, and much more.

The latest set of leaks deal with John Podesta, who is the chairman of the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign. He’s also former councillor to Barack Obama’s presidency, as well as Bill Clinton’s former White House Chief of Staff.

Assange released 2000 more emails, and some of them include talks of extraterrestrial intelligence.

New Leaks

New leaks are now showing that John Podesta was in contact with Apollo 14 astronaut, Dr. Edgar Mitchell (1940-2016), who was the 6th man to walk on the moon.

Unfortunately, he passed away earlier this year in February. You can read more about him later in the article. Although we did not have the pleasure of meting him, we definitely consider him a legend for several different reasons.

The email, from Dr. Mitchell, reads as follows:

“Dear John, Because the War in Space race is heating up, I felt you should be aware of several factors as you and I schedule our Skype talk. Remember, our nonviolent ETI from the contiguous universe are helping us bring zero point energy to Earth. They will not tolerate any forms of military violence on Earth or in space. The following information in italics was shared with me by my colleague Carol Rosin, who worked closely for several years with Wernher von Braun before his death. Carol and I have worked on the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space, attached for your convenience.”

You can read the rest of the email straight from Wikileaks here, and also download the documents attached on the website. 

A week before the email above, Mitchell sent this:

“Dear John, As 2015 unfolds, I understand you are leaving the Administration in February. It is urgent that we agree on a date and time to meet to discuss Disclosure and Zero Point Energy, at your earliest available after your departure. My Catholic colleague Terri Mansfield will be there too, to bring us up to date on the Vatican’s awareness of ETI. Another colleague is working on a new Space Treaty, citing involvement with Russia and China. However with Russia’s extreme interference in Ukraine, I believe we must pursue another route for peace in space and ZPE on Earth. I met with President Obama’s Honolulu childhood friend, US Ambassador Pamela Hamamoto on July 4 at the US Mission in Geneva, when I was able to tell her briefly about zero point energy. I believe we can enlist her as a confidante and resource in our presentation for President Obama. I appreciate Eryn’s assistance in working with Terri to set up our meeting.”

As you can see, Mitchell and Podesta were clearly in contact with each-other and had also planned a Skype session.

It seems Mitchell had big plans and meetings in the works.

As far as ‘Carol Rosin,’ (first email) and her story with Wernher von Braun, this is a very telling interview below, by Dr. Steven Greer, founder of The Disclosure Project, a movement that has brought forward hundreds of whistleblowers, like Dr. Rosin, with verified credentials.

As far as the “zero-point” comments, you can read some of our articles on that here.

John Podesta, Extraterrestrials & Why You Shouldn’t Be Shocked

In 2014, Podesta tweeted that his biggest regret was not being able to secure the disclosure of (still) classified UFO documents. (source)

He’s also gone on record stating that:

“I’m skeptical about many things, including the notion that government always knows best, and that the people can’t be trusted with the truth. The time to pull the curtain back on this subject is long overdue. We have statements from the most credible sources – those in a position to know – about a fascinating phenomenon, the nature of which is yet to be determined.” – John Podesta (taken from Leslie Kean’s 2010 New York Times bestseller, “UFOs: Generals, Pilots, And Government Officials Go On The Record,” where Podesta wrote the forward)

Here’s a video of him making more remarks at a press conference held at the national press club years ago.

Clearly, prior to this Wikileak , we already knew something was up.

Hillary Clinton, UFO’s & The Rockefellers

To the left is a picture of Hillary Clinton and Laurence Rockefeller

The book you see Hillary Clinton holding is titled Are We Alone? It was written by Paul Davies, a well respected American physicist who has held professorships at various universities. Most of his research has been in the area of quantum field theory.

The book ponders the ramifications of contact with intelligent extraterrestrials. The picture was also published by the New York Times not long ago.

You can view all of the documents to and from Laurence Rockefeller to various people regarding this initiative HERE. They were obtained through the Freedom of Informaiton Act by various researchers, including the Paradigm Research group, who was responsible for the recent Citizen Hearing on Disclosure about UFOs. You can read more about that HERE. 

It’s also noteworthy to mention here that Harvard University psychologist and Pulitzer prize winner Dr. John Mack had a great interest in the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon. He is most noted in ufology for his book titled Abduction: Human Encounters with Aliens. 

His work was heavily support by Lawrence Rockefeller, as a report published in the US National Library of Medicine states:

His disparate personas—from esteemed professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School to social activist and believer in alien abductions—were as incongruent as the extraordinary assemblage of his supporters, who included venture capitalist Laurence Rockefeller and attorney Daniel Sheehan, best known for his defence of left-leaning causes. (source)

I just want to make it clear that Laurence Rockefeller maintains an obvious interest in this subject, and that the “Rockefeller initiative” was indeed a real one, as illustrated by the documents linked above.

Daymond Steer, a journalist at the The Conway Daily Sun, brought up the topic of Unidentified Flying Objects with Hillary, “I think we may have been visited already, we don’t know for sure.” She also told Steer that her campaign chairman, John Podesta (also former councillor to Barack Obama and White House Chief of Staff for the Clinton Administration), has encouraged her to pursue the subject.

More On The Astronaut In The Wikileak Email, Dr. Edgar Mitchell 

“Yes there have been crashed craft, and bodies recovered… We are not alone in the universe, they have been coming here for a long time.” – Dr. Mitchell (source) (source)

Dr. Edgar Mitchell was a man of many experiences. For one, he was the 6th man to walk on the moon. He was a former Navy Captain, author and lecturer. His academic background includes a Bachelor of Science from Carnegie Mellon University, a Postgraduate Science degree from the U.S. Naval School and  Doctor of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT. He received honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, and and ScD from Embry-Riddle University as well as many other honours and awards.

“Read the books, read the lore, and start to understand what has really been going on here, because there is no doubt that we are being visited.”   (source)

He was the founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences, and the co-founder of the Association of Space Explorers.  Clearly, a man who has been around, and had contact with a number of people at NASA, the military, and within academic field.

Dr. Mitchell is seen below  giving an interview for the  Sirius Documentary. A documentary created by Dr Steven Greer  from the Disclosure Project (also mentioned above) and filmmaker Amardeep Kaleka that highlights the reality of the UFO/extraterrestrial phenomenon and the technological implications of it. Keep in mind, change doesn’t come from technology alone, it comes from us as well.

In this this interview, Dr. Mitchell testifies to the reality of of UFOs and an extraterrestrial presence behind the phenomenon.

“I happen to be privileged enough to be in on the fact that we have been visited on this planet, and the UFO phenomenon is real.” (source)

Below is a great clip from his (also deceased) colleague, former NASA astronaut and Princeton physics professor, Dr. Brian O’leary , taken from the THRIVE documentary.

 Can We Trust UFO Disclosure From The Government? 

It’s a sad state of affairs when we believe nothing until it has been confirmed by the government, the president, or the media. Mainstream media tells us what to think and what to feel, what is real and what is not. As a result, a lot of important information does not reach the general public, which is not only a shame but downright dangerous, clearly demonstrating our inability to think for ourselves.

A growing number of people are starting to see through the facade, however, and losing faith in information that Western governments and mainstream media put forth. A great example is the so-called ‘war on terror,’ the validity of which many people have begun to question. It is now becoming clear that this war is based on false premises meant to justify the invasion of other countries and a heightened national security state. (You can read more about this topic and ‘false flag’ terrorism here).

There are countless examples, and reputable journalists have also come forth emphasizing this fact.  You can see some examples here.  The CIA’s operation ‘mockingbird‘ has never really stopped.

It’s clear that the majority of people distrust their government, so why should we be any different when it comes to UFOs? If we can count on anything, it is that these elite groups will manipulate the truth of events around the world for their own purposes. Don’t get me wrong — the UFO phenomenon is undoubtedly real, but we should be wary of any ‘official disclosure’ when it arrives. We can’t rely on official sources to offer up the whole truth, or a truth unpolluted by corporate and other agendas.

For more information on UFO’s & Extraterrestrials, you can check out the exopolitics section of our website. There you will find many articles that touch and source various documents and information about the phenomenon, because the above isn’t even a tidbit.

What Could This Mean? 

The biggest possible implication is to look inward at ourselves, and as one human race start taking the necessary steps to ‘repair’ the planet. Perhaps some type of realization like this could bring humanity closer together in some sort of way? Perhaps our species is at a critical point in its development, and ET contact plays some sort of role in that realization?

That doesn’t mean “ET is here to save us,” it simply means that it’s time to look at the bigger picture. I personally do not think all of this is happening during a time when our planet and the way we live on in clearly needs to change, bit time.  To me, it’s not a coincidence.

If you’re a student of “UFOlogy” you probably know that many UFO sightings started to occur when we started to detonate nuclear weapons..

Another necessary action we must take is  need to rid ourselves of the dogma that’s plagued this topic for years. The religious interpretation of extraterrestrials must be discussed, given the fact that there are so many religious people on our planet, and so does the depiction given to us by pop culture.

Those are only two of many other topics, as I am sure you can imagine.

It’s clear to me that many of these “UFOs” are indeed extraterrestrial space craft, given the speeds they travel and the maneuvers they perform. I’m no the only one, there are now thousands of “experts” in various fields around the world sharing the same belief.

It is my thesis that flying saucers are real and that they are space ships from another solar system. I think that they possibly are manned by intelligent observers who are members of a race that may have been investigating our Earth for centuries. –Herman Oberth, one of the founding fathers of rocketry and astronautics(source)

Theodor C. Loder III, Phd, Professor Emeritus of Earth Sciences, University of New Hampshire, writes in a paper he made public in 2011: (source)

“Intelligent beings from other star systems have been and are visiting our planet Earth. They are variously referred to as Visitors, Others, Star People, Et’s, etc…They are visiting Earth now; this is not a matter of conjecture or wistful thinking”

Sightings of strange objects in the sky have been recorded for a very long time, and military encounters with these objects is common and usually result in the disappearance or evasive action of the UFO.

The point is, I do not think there will be an “alien” invasion, if that were to happen it would have already taken place.

It’s nothing to be afraid of, but something that’s inevitable, a necessary step for the growth of the human species to continue moving forward in our never-ending quest for knowledge and truth. There is probably so much more to discover, and approaching this thing from a state of fear is completely useless.

It’s time to educate ourselves.

The more this comes into the mainstream, the more we are going to have to talk about it, which is why we are trying to create CE news. 

One thing is for certain, we really need to get our “stuff” together here on planet Earth, and from all my research into those who have experienced this type of thing, it’s not just obvious to us, but to some of “them” as well.

Our species has so much potential, we can really create a world where every living thing can thrive, because that’s what we were meant to do.

 

via IFTTT

"The Island Where People Forget to Die" and Social Ecosystems

ORIGINAL LINK

A vibrant social ecosystem is as essential as the Mediterranean Diet to health and longevity.

You might have seen this article The Island Where People Forget to Die a few years ago. I recently re-read this exploration of "blue zones" where people habitually live long, productive lives, and read a companion piece on the "blue zone" author's discoveries about food and diet: My Dinner With Longevity Expert Dan Buettner.

What really struck me in this re-reading was the centrality of purposeful work and a robust social ecosystem in the lives of the productive/active elderly.

This is in stark contrast to the conventional narrative of our healthcare system, which focuses on diet and exercise as the sole inputs that affect longevity.

This mechanical mindset leads us to conclude that doing time on a treadmill and being hyper-vigilant about sticking to a strict dietary regime are the keys not just to health but to longevity.

But if we look a bit more deeply at life on Okinawa and the Greek island of Ikaria, we find that spending time with friends over a glass of wine and purposeful work in gardens and vineyards are more central to daily life than time spent alone on exercise machines or obsessively following diets.

The idea that the social ecosystem is as important (or even more important) than the easy-to-quantify-and-measure mechanics of exercise and diet. The idea that our social ecosystem is more important than the inputs of exercise and diet simply doesn't compute in our system's worldview for a basic reason:

our system only recognizes what can be measured and quantified. Since social reciprocity, bonds, obligations, etc. cannot be easily quantified, they simply don't exist in our medical worldview.

These factors are at best incidentals, mentioned as asides. Yet if the "blue zone" studies have any merit at all, it's clear that the social ecosystem is as essential as the Mediterranean Diet to health and longevity.

I also see purposeful work as being absolutely central to the active elderly lifestyle, and this is work is integral to the social ecosystem: people share the produce they grow, the wine made from their vineyards, etc.

In contrast, our system views work as something to be avoided if you're wealthy enough, and something to be jettisoned without regrets upon official retirement.

Anecdotally, men who retire to lives of socially isolated aimlessness tend to die in their first year of retirement. This collapse of health makes perfect sense if we understand the core framework of health is not time spent on an exercise machine and a restricted diet, but purposeful, gentle work that is recognized and valued by a social ecosystem of friends with whom the benefits of work can be shared and enjoyed.

This essay was drawn from Musings Report 49. The Musings Reports are emailed weekly to subscribers and patrons ($5/month or $50/annually).

Join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

My new book is #8 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website.

---

NOTE: Contributions/subscriptions are acknowledged in the order received. Your name and email remain confidential and will not be given to any other individual, company or agency.

Thank you, Michael H. ($5/month), for your outrageously generous re-subscription to this site-- I am greatly honored by your steadfast support and readership.

Go to my main site at www.oftwominds.com/blog.html for the full posts and archives.

via IFTTT

Washington’s Systematic & Perpetual Propaganda Wars

ORIGINAL LINK
Propaganda Techniques of Empire: The Most Common Recent Techniques Used to Support Ongoing Imperial Wars

Washington’s quest for perpetual world power is underwritten by systematic and perpetual propaganda wars. Every major and minor war has been preceded, accompanied and followed by unremitting government propaganda designed to secure public approval, exploit victims, slander critics, dehumanize targeted adversaries and justify its allies’ collaboration. In this paper we will discuss the most common recent techniques used to support ongoing imperial wars.

Role Reversal

A common technique, practiced by the imperial publicists, is to accuse the victims of the same crimes, which had been committed against them. The well documented, deliberate and sustained US-EU aerial bombardment of Syrian government soldiers, engaged in operations against ISIS-terrorist, resulted in the deaths and maiming of almost 200 Syrian troops and allowed ISIS-mercenaries to overrun their camp. In an attempt to deflect the Pentagon’s role in providing air cover for the very terrorists it claims to oppose, the propaganda organs cranked out lurid, but unsubstantiated, stories of an aerial attack on a UN humanitarian aid convoy, first blamed on the Syrian government and then on the Russians. The evidence that the attack was most likely a ground-based rocket attack by ISIS terrorists did not deter the propaganda mills. This technique would turn US and European attention away from the documented criminal attack by the imperial bombers and present the victimized Syrian troops and pilots as international human rights criminals.

Hysterical Rants

Faced with world opprobrium for its wanton violation of an international ceasefire agreement in Syria, the imperial public spokespeople frequently resort to irrational outbursts at international meetings in order to intimidate wavering allies into silence and shut down any chance for reasonable debate resolving concrete issues among adversaries.

The current ‘US Ranter-in-Chief’ in the United Nations, is Ambassador Samantha Power, who launched a vitriolic diatribe against the Russians in order to sabotage a proposed General Assembly debate on the US deliberate violation (its criminal attack on Syrian troops) of the recent Syrian ceasefire. Instead of a reasonable debate among serious diplomats, the rant served to derail the proceedings.

Identity Politics to Neutralize Anti-Imperialist Movements

Empire is commonly identified with the race, gender, religion and ethnicity of its practioners. Imperial propagandists have frequently resorted to disarming and weakening anti-imperialist movements by co-opting and corrupting black, ethnic minority and women leaders and spokespeople. The use of such ’symbolic’ tokens is based on the assumption that these are ‘representatives’ reflecting the true interests of so-called ‘marginalized minorities’ and can therefore presume to ’speak for the oppressed peoples of the world’. The promotion of such compliant and respectable ‘minority members’ to the elite is then propagandized as a ‘revolutionary’, world liberating historical event - witness the ‘election’ of US President Barack Obama.

The rise of Obama to the presidency in 2008 illustrates how the imperial propagandists have used identity politics to undermine class and anti-imperialist struggles.

Under Obama’s historical black presidency, the US pursued seven wars against ‘people of color’ in South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa. Over a million men and women of sub-Saharan black origin, whether Libyan citizens or contract workers for neighboring countries, were killed, dispossessed and driven into exile by US allies after the US-EU destroyed the Libyan state - in the name of humanitarian intervention. Hundreds of thousands of Arabs have been bombed in Yemen, Syria and Iraq under President Obama, the so-called ‘historic black’ president. Obama’s ‘predator drones’ have killed hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani villagers. Such is the power of ‘identity politics’ that ignominious Obama was awarded the ‘Nobel Peace Prize’.

Meanwhile, in the United States under Obama, racial inequalities between black and white workers (wages, unemployment, access to housing, health and educational services) have widened. Police violence against blacks intensified with total impunity for ‘killer cops’. Over two million immigrant Latino workers have been expelled - breaking up hundreds of thousands of families– and accompanied by a marked increase of repression compared to earlier administrations. Millions of black and white workers’ home mortgages were foreclosed while all of the corrupt banks were bailed out - at a greater rate than had occurred under white presidents.

This blatant, cynical manipulation of identity politics facilitated the continuation and deepening of imperial wars, class exploitation and racial exclusion. Symbolic representation undermined class struggles for genuine changes.

Past Suffering to Justify Contemporary Exploitation

Imperial propagandists repeatedly evoke the victims and abuses of the past in order to justify their own aggressive imperial interventions and support for the ‘land grabs’ and ethnic cleansing committed by their colonial allies - like Israel, among others. The victims and crimes of the past are presented as a perpetual presence to justify ongoing brutalities against contemporary subject people.

The case of US-Israeli colonization of Palestine clearly illustrates how rabid criminality, pillage, ethnic cleansing and self-enrichment can be justified and glorified through the language of past victimization. Propagandists in the US and Israel have created ‘the cult of the Holocaust’, worshiping a near century-old Nazi crime against Jews (as well as captive Slavs, Gypsies and other minorities) in Europe, to justify the bloody conquest and theft of Arab lands and sovereignty and engage in systematic military assaults against Lebanon and Syria. Millions of Muslim and Christian Palestinians have been driven into perpetual exile. Elite, wealthy, well-organized and influential zionist Jews, with primary fealty to Israel, have successfully sabotaged every contemporary struggle for peace in the Middle East and have created real barriers for social democracy in the US through their promotion of militarism and empire building. Those claiming to represent victims of the past have become among the most oppressive of contemporary elites. Using the language of ‘defense’, they promote aggressive forms of expansion and pillage. They claim their monopoly on historic ’suffering’ has given them a ’special dispensation’ from the rules of civilized conduct: their cult of the Holocaust allows them to inflict immense pain on others while silencing any criticism with the accusation of ‘anti-Semitism’ and relentlessly punishing critics. Their key role in imperial propaganda warfare is based on their claims of an exclusive franchise on suffering and immunity from the norms of justice.

Entertainment Spectacles on Military Platforms

Entertainment spectacles glorify militarism. Imperial propagandists link the public to unpopular wars promoted by otherwise discredited leaders. Sports events present soldiers dressed up as war heroes with deafening, emotional displays of ‘flag worship’ to celebrate the ongoing overseas wars of aggression. These mind-numbing extravaganzas with crude elements of religiosity demand choreographed expressions of national allegiance from the spectators as a cover for continued war crimes abroad and the destruction of citizens’ economic rights at home.

Much admired, multi-millionaire musicians and entertainers of all races and orientations, present war to the masses with a humanitarian facade. The entertainers smiling faces serve genocide just as powerfully as the President’s benign and friendly face accompanies his embrace of militarism. The propagandist message for the spectator is that ‘your favorite team or singer is there just for you… because our noble wars and valiant warriors have made you free and now they want you to be entertained.’

The old style of blatant bellicose appeals to the public is obsolete: the new propaganda conflates entertainment with militarism, allowing the ruling elite to secure tacit support for its wars without disturbing the spectators’ experience.

Conclusion

Do the Imperial Techniques of Propaganda Work?

How effective are the modern imperial propaganda techniques? The results seem to be mixed. In recent months, elite black athletes have begun protesting white racism by challenging the requirement for choreographed displays of flag worship. . . opening public controversy into the larger issues of police brutality and sustained marginalization. Identity politics, which led to the election of Obama, may be giving way to issues of class struggle, racial justice, anti-militarism and the impact of continued imperial wars. Hysterical rants may still secure international attention, but repeated performances begin to lose their impact and subject the ‘ranter’ to ridicule.

The cult of victimology has become less a rationale for the multi-billion dollar US-tribute to Israel, than the overwhelming political and economic influence and thuggery of billionaire Zionist fundraisers who demand US politicians’ support for the state of Israel.

Brandishing identify politics may have worked the first few times, but inevitably black, Latino, immigrant and all exploited workers, all underpaid and overworked women and mothers reject the empty symbolic gestures and demand substantive socio-economic changes - and here they find common links with the majority of exploited white workers.

In other words, the existing propaganda techniques are losing their edge - the corporate media news is seen as a sham. Who follows the actor-soldiers and flag-worshipers once the game has begun?

The propagandists of empire are desperate for a new line to grab public attention and obedience. Could the recent domestic terror bombings in New York and New Jersey provoke mass hysteria and more militarization? Could they serve as cover for more wars abroad . . .?

A recent survey, published in Military Times, reported that the vast majority of active US soldiers oppose more imperial wars. They are calling for defense at home and social justice. Soldiers and veterans have even formed groups to support the protesting black athletes who have refused to participate in flag worship while unarmed black men are being killed by police in the streets. Despite the multi-billion dollar electoral propaganda, over sixty percent of the electorate reject both major party candidates. The reality principle has finally started to undermine State propaganda!

# # # #

Professor James Petras, Newsbud contributing analyst and author, is the author of more than 62 books published in 29 languages, and over 600 articles in professional journals, including the American Sociological Review, British Journal of Sociology, Social Research, and Journal of Peasant Studies. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. He writes a monthly column for the Mexican newspaper, La Jornada, and previously, for the Spanish daily, El Mundo. Dr. Petras received his B.A. from Boston University and Ph.D. from the University of California at Berkeley. You can visit his website here.

via IFTTT

Time Magazine’s Latest Cover Story Is Full on Propaganda

ORIGINAL LINK
Don't fall for it.

via IFTTT

Ross Ulbricht's Silk Road Appeal: One Judge Seems to Question His Life Sentence without Parole

ORIGINAL LINK

The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing oral arguments this week regarding an appeal of the conviction and sentencing of Ross Ulbricht, sentenced to life in prison with no parole in May 2015 for various charges connected with operating the Silk Road web site. Silk Road was a "dark web" site where people the world over could trade bitcoin for a variety of goods, not all of them legal.

My detailed reporting from August on the arguments that Ulbricht's defense is relying on in the appeal.

As Reuters reports from the courtroom where the appeal is being heard, the judges on the three-judge panel seem "skeptical" about overturning the conviction entirely, although Ulbricht's lawyer Josh Dratel insists that his inability to raise questions in the original trial about the criminal behavior of two of the agents who investigated Ulbricht prevented him from having a fair trial.

But Reuters reporter Nate Raymond detected more possible traction on the question of the unjustness of Ulbricht's life sentence without parole.

Particularly at issue was the fact that sentencing U.S. District Judge Katherine Forrest weighed in her sentencing statements "from the parents of two people who died from overdoses on drugs sold on Silk Road" (or so they claimed).

Raymond reports that:

U.S. Circuit Judge Gerald Lynch said that may have resulted in an "enormous emotional overload" at sentencing.

"Doesn't that put an extraordinary thumb on the scale that shouldn't be there?" he asked Assistant U.S. Attorney Eun Young Choi.

Andy Greenberg at Wired, who was the first reporter to get an interview with Silk Road's then-pseudonymous operator "Dread Pirate Roberts" who the government insists was Ulbricht, also reports from the hearings with more details on the sentencing question and Judge Lynch's doubts:

"Does this [testimony] create an enormous emotional overload for something that's effectively present in every heroin case?" Lynch asked at one point. "Why does this guy get a life sentence?"

The prosecution even defended the absurd water-muddying the feds pulled on Ulbricht by talking about, but never trying him for, allegedly launching murder-for-hire schemes, for murders that never occurred. Judge Forrest acted more or less as if those accusations were proven in her sentencing statement. Even so:

Dratel responded that murder-for-hire typically carries a ten-year sentence not life. "Murderers don't get life sentences," Dratel said. "People whoactually commit murder."

Greenberg says the judges did not seem too concerned with what effect the criminal behavior of investigators Carl Force and Shaun Bridges might have had on the case.

But when it comes to the sentence, Dratel may have scored points with the panel by:

pointing out that life without parole went beyond even the prosecution's request that the judge impose a sentence "substantially above the mandatory minimum." In fact, the Southern District of New York, where Ulbricht's trial occurred, has a reputation for relatively lenient sentencing, with around 75 percent of cases receiving less than federal sentencing guidelines.

All of that seems to suggest that if Ulbricht has any chance of a new trial, it may not come from attacking the judicial process or the evidence that convicted him. Instead, his last hope of escaping a lifetime in prison may come from the severity of the sentence itself.

via IFTTT

Uber, Lyft Will Continue Operating in Philadelphia, Defying Judge’s Order

ORIGINAL LINK

Appeals are coming after a Philadelphia judge on Thursday ordered ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft to cease operating in the city.

Both Uber and Lyft say they will continue operations despite the new ban, which is the latest development in a years-long political tug of war between Philadelphia's powerful taxi cartel and the disruptive ride-sharing apps.

The cease and desist order was issued by Court of Common Pleas Judge Linda Carpenter in response to a lawsuit filed by the Taxi Workers Alliance of Pennsylvania, a union representing taxi drivers. That lawsuit challenged the Philadelphia Parking Authority's decision in July to allow Uber and Lyft to operate in the city after previously trying to block them.

Uber and Lyft were not defendants to the lawsuit and were not given a chance to respond to the lawsuit before the order was issued.

"We are appealing the order and will continue operating in Philadelphia as the legal process moves forward," said Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Harrison in an email. "People in Pennsylvania want access to ridesharing, and we remain committed to finding a statewide solution that keeps this modern option available across the state."

Drivers caught using UberX or Lyft apps to pick-up passengers could have their cars impounded and will be held in contempt of court for violating the order.

Lyft has reached out to drivers in Philadelphia to let them know about the company's critical response contact information.

"If you ever receive a citation or have an escalated issue on the road, we'll be here for you," Lyft told drivers in a notification sent on Friday in response to the judge's order.

Uber spokesman Craig Ewer told Philly.com that the company also would continue to operate in defiance of the cease and desist order while an appeal was pending. Uber did not immiedately respond to an email asking if they would pay for drivers' legal fee or impoundment costs.

"This situation makes it clear that Harrisburg needs to act: Pennsylvania must have permanent, statewide ridesharing legislation as soon as possible," Ewer said.

Whether Harrisburg will do that before the end of the year is still an open question. Legislation that would legalize ride-sharing statewide passed the state Senate in November 2015 but has been tied up in the state House and hasn't moved since May. The legislature is scheduled to reconvene on October 17, but there are only a handful of days remaining on the legislative calendar for the year—if the bill isn't passed and signed into law before December 31, it would have to start all over again in the new session.

The bill would prevent Uber and Lyft drivers from picking up passengers at the city's airport and train station, but would otherwise allow ride-sharing to have free reign in the city.

The cease and desist order comes just days after the Philadelphia Parking Authority indicated it was going to rewrite regulations to once again make ride-sharing illegal in the city. Uber and Lyft had operated outside of the PPA's regulations prior to getting a temporarily autorization before the Democratic National Convention took place in July. That authorization expired at the end of September.

Previously, the PPA had run sting operations to catch Uber drivers in the act. Its not immediately clear if the authority plans to start going that again.

Uber and Lyft are operating in the rest of Pennsylvania under a temporary two year authorization granted by the state's Public Utility Commission. Under the state's confusing regulatory system, the PUC has authority over taxi services everywhere except Philadelphia, where the PPA has the final say.

Instead of resorting to using government force against potential competitors, taxi companies in Philadelphia could learn from their counterparts in St. Louis. Cab companies there have recently announced plans to launch a smart phone app to compete directly with Uber and Lyft.

via IFTTT

Wikileaks Releases Hillary's Paid Wall Street Speech Transcripts: Hundreds Of "Sensitive" Excerpts

ORIGINAL LINK

While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a private Donald Trump conversation from 2005 in which he was speaking "lewdly" about women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released part one of what it dubbed the "Podesta emails", which it describes as "a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank."

While the underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled "Uranium One", a story which has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that "as Russian interests gradually took control of Uranium One millions of dollars were donated to the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer. Although Mrs Clinton had an agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons", what caught our attention is an email from Tony Carr, a Research Director at Hillary for America, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton's infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.

But first, here are the greatest hits as conveniently flagged by the Clinton Campaign itself on page one of the 80 page addendum dubbed "awkward"

Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” “And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.  And I never had that feeling when I was growing up.  Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were.  My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing.  We had good public schools.  We had accessible health care.  We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages.  So I lived that.  And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.”  [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

 

When A Questioner At Goldman Sachs Said She Raised Money For Hillary Clinton In 2008, Hillary Clinton Joked “You Are The Smartest People.” “PARTICIPANT:  Secretary, Ann Chow from Houston, Texas.  I have had the honor to raise money for you when you were running for president in Texas. MS. CLINTON:  You are the smartest people. PARTICIPANT:  I think you actually called me on my cell phone, too.  I talked to you afterwards.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

 

Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He Should “Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere. “ “MR. BLANKFEIN:  I’m saying for myself.             MS. CLINTON:  If you were going to run here is what I would tell you to do --             MR. BLANKFEIN:  Very hypothetical. MS. CLINTON:  I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a soup kitchen somewhere.             MR. BLANKFEIN:  For one thing the stock would go up. MS. CLINTON:  Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were there and when you left.” [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]

 

Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked “He Increased Our Budget.” “SECRETARY CLINTON:  Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you’ve gathered.  Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same position.  And he came back and was just thrilled by— MR. BLANKFEIN:  He increased our budget.              SECRETARY CLINTON:  Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN:  Yes.  That’s why we --              SECRETARY CLINTON:  Good.  I think he—I think he encouraged you to grow it a little, too.  But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I’ve been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

* * *

Here is the full email by Carrk as of January 25, 2016 laying out all the potentially delicate issues that the Clinton campaign would wish to avoid from emerging. One thing to note: as Michael Tracey points out, the Hillary campaign had all the transcripts at her disposal all along, despite repeated deflection.  Perhaps as a result of this leak she will now release the full transcripts for the "proper context."

* * *

From:tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com
To: jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com, john.podesta@gmail.com, slatham@hillaryclinton.com, kschake@hillaryclinton.com, creynolds@hillaryclinton.com, bfallon@hillaryclinton.com 
Date: 2016-01-25 00:28 Subject:

HRC Paid Speeches

Team,

Attached are the flags from HRC’s paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy.

In terms of what was opened to the press and what was not, the Washington Examiner got a hold of one of the private speech contracts (her speeches to universities were typically open press), so this is worth a read http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clintons-speeches-are-cozy-for-wall-streeters-but-closed-to-journalists/article/2553294/section/author/dan-friedman

CLINTON ADMITS SHE IS OUT OF TOUCH

Hillary Clinton: “I'm Kind Of Far Removed” From The Struggles Of The Middle Class “Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy.” “And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged.  And I never had that feeling when I was growing up.  Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were.  My father loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing.  We had good public schools.  We had accessible health care.  We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages.  So I lived that.  And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it.”  [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]

CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY

Clinton: “But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position.” CLINTON: You just have to sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors, Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal, you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing Council, 4/24/13]

CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL REASONS

Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For The Crisis “Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really Politicizing What Happened.” “That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.  Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?  You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that came later.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

* * *

Clinton: “Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us.” “Now, it's important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and that so many of you are contributing to.  To function effectively those markets and the men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true, if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear.  And if there are issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market economy and a democracy.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL STREET

Clinton Said Financial Reform “Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself.” “Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did.  Yes, he took on what he saw as the excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics.  He didn't want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction.  He wanted to try to figure out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal.  And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job.” [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]

* * *

Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said “The People That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry.” “I mean, it's still happening, as you know.  People are looking back and trying to, you know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad.  How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what works?  And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so quickly, in nano seconds basically.  We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING

Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before Handing Over Campaign Contributions. “Secondly, running for office in our country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it.  New York is probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who were really playing chicken with our whole economy.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

* * *

Clinton: “It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your Opponent Will Have Their Supporters.” “So our system is, in many ways, more difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and I really admire the people who subject themselves to it.  Even when I, you know, think they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting from what we should be doing every day in our public business.  I would like it not to be so expensive.  I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for.  So we're kind of in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have their supporters.  So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder now.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

 

CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR

Clinton: As Senator, “I Represented And Worked With” So Many On Wall Street And “Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper” But Still Called For Closing Carried Interest Loophole. In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, “When I was a Senator from New York, I represented and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance.  But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of said, no, that makes sense.  But boy, have we had fights about it ever since.” [Hillary Clinton’s Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]

* * *

Clinton On Wall Street: “I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People Who Do It.” “Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON:  Well, I represented all of you for eight years.  I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it, but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.” [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]

 

CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE

Hillary Clinton Said There Was “A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives,” Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.   “SECRETARY CLINTON:  Yeah.  Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that.  He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune.  And when he left Washington, he had a small --              MR. BLANKFEIN:  That’s how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON:  You go to Washington.  Right.              But, you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.  You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks.  It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE

Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be “Moderate.” “URSULA BURNS:  Interesting.  Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON:  Oh, long, definitely. URSULA BURNS:  Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON:  Unfortunately, at the time, short. URSULA BURNS:  Okay.  We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON:  We need two parties. URSULA BURNS:  Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON:  Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox, 3/18/14]

* * *

Clinton: “Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth. It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move The Other Side.” SECRETARY CLINTON:  Well, this may be borne more out of hope than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula.  The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin.  And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able to move the other side.  And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the sine qua non of any kind of agreement.  You have Republicans saying no, no, no on revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened.  We are slowly returning to growth.  It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

* * *

Clinton: “The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right… You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have Growth.” CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right.  The specifics can be negotiated and argued over.  But you got to do all three.  You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues, and you have to have growth.  And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]

CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES

Clinton: “At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had.  And That Was True Across The U.S. Government.” CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had.  And that was true across the U.S. government.  And we knew it was going on when I would go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier.  And they're trying to find out not just about what we do in our government.  They're trying to find out about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world that is doing anything is the United States.  But, the United States compared to a number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of safeguards, any kind of checks and balances.  They may in many respects need to be strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections embodied in law.  But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken refuge in Russia under Putin's authority.  And then he calls into a Putin talk show and says, President Putin, do you spy on people?  And President Putin says, well, from one intelligence professional to another, of course not.  Oh, thank you so much.  I mean, really, I don't know.  I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn, 4/23/14]

* * *

Hillary Clinton: “When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A Blackberry.” “I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology.  When I got to the State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign Service Officers have access to a Blackberry.  You couldn't have desktop computers when Colin Powell was there.  Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

* * *

Hillary Clinton: “We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our Personal Devices” Off The Plane In China And Russia. “I mean, probably the most frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in the world trying to figure out what's going on.  I mean, every time I went to countries like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond.  So we would take the batteries out, we'd leave them on the plane.” [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]

* * *

Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees “Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices.” “You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their desks.  When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices.  I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces?  We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it.” [Clinton Speech For General Electric’s Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]

* * *

Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can’t Bring Your Phone And Computer When Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A Special Box. “And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can’t bring your phones and your computers.  And if you do, good luck.  I mean, we would not only take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in special boxes.  Now, we didn’t do that because we thought it would be fun to tell somebody about.  We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be totally vulnerable. So it’s not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how many people are involved in it.  It’s what’s the purpose of it, what is being collected, and how can it be used.  And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because you’re sophisticated enough to know that it’s not just, do it, don’t do it.  We have to have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have to have a way of sharing it.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

* * *

Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In Technology, Saying “People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of Security Issues.”  “Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people.  And just as I was saying about the credit market, our personnel policies haven’t kept up with the changes necessary in government.  We have a lot of difficulties in getting—when I got to the State Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing.  And, you know, people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20^th Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and ‘10.” [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]

 

CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE

Clinton: “So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…” “So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is not our relationship.  And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked more closely together.  And that's what I would like to see us do.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

* * *

Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”  [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]

* * *

Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade. “Secondly, I think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not  for governments to do but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X or president Y but a consistent one.” [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]

 

CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER

Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems “Can Get Costs Down,” And “Is As Good Or Better On Primary Care,” But “They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times.” “If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for example, they have mixed systems.  They don't have just a single-payer system, but they have very clear controls over budgeting and  accountability. If you look at the single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you know.  It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here.” [Hillary Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]

* * *

Clinton Cited President Johnson’s Success In Establishing Medicare And Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada. “You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past.  The way we got to develop any kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for employment.  So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to employment.  And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model continued.  And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the employers that their members worked for.  So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued as the primary means by which working people got health insurance.  People over 65 were eligible for Medicare.  Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go anywhere, but was quite far reaching.  Then with my husband's administration we worked very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try anything else.  And so we were trying to build a universal system around the employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done.  We still have primarily an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance.  So we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare, both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling.  We've made a lot of progress.  Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward.  (Applause.) And what we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call the health exchange system.  So we're really just at the beginning.  But we do have Medicare for people over 65.  And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.  And I'm hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada.  [Clinton Speech For tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]

 

* * *

Below is the full 80 page documents of "speech flags" in Hillary speeches:

 

via IFTTT

The War In Syria: Who Is Actually To Blame?

ORIGINAL LINK

Submitted by Darius Shahtahmasebi via TheAntiMedia.org,

Depending on which news outlets you follow, your understanding of what is going on in Syria is likely coming from one of two main camps — Western media or Eastern media. Western media, in tandem with the Arab Gulf states, has almost completely pinned the blame for the crisis in Syria on the current president, Bashar al-Assad. Any residual blame left for the taking is delivered to Russia and Iran.

Those of us who inform ourselves daily from an eclectic range of media sources tend to have a broader understanding of the conflict in Syria. The more critical one becomes of both ends of the media spectrum, the more one can evaluate the veracity of the respective outlets (for example, the peddling of statistics from a T-shirt shop in England versus the use of satellite imagery).

Analyzing all forms of media leads to only one conclusion regarding the current crisis in Syria: all of the parties involved have an overwhelming amount of blood on their hands and are playing a role in the ongoing war. However, the evidence suggests there is one group of nations, headed by the world’s superpower, that has once again created a humanitarian catastrophe rivaling that of history’s worst dictators.

Although corporate media has portrayed the situation in Syria as being one of a popular uprising against a brutal and murderous dictator, the truth is far more complex.

According to four-star General Wesley Clark, Syria was one of seven countries the Pentagon targeted for regime change following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The others were Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, and Iran. This intention to take out Syria’s leader prior to the start conflict in 2011 was confirmed by Wikileaks (you can access the relevant chapter in its entirety here). According to Julian Assange, Assad’s overthrow was planned as far back as 2006. As explained by MintPress News:

“WikiLeaks cables reveal these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and Hezbollah.”

 

MintPress News further explains that according to Assange, “…the U.S. government sought to make the Syrian government appear weak by causing Assad to overreact to the threat of Islamic extremists crossing into his country.”

Sound familiar?

Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas further confirmed these claims when he claimed top British officials approached him to ask if he wanted to participate in their plans to prepare for war against Syria two years prior to the eruption of the conflict.

Dumas stated:

“This operation goes way back. It was prepared, preconceived, and planned… in the region it is important to know that this Syrian regime has a very anti-Israeli stance.

 

“Consequently, everything that moves in the region… and I have this from a former Israeli Prime Minister who told me we will try to get on with our neighbors but those who don´t agree with us will be destroyed. It is a type of politics, a view of history, why not after all. But one should know about it.”

This should all be headline news, but apparently what happens to Kim Kardashian — notable laureate that she is — is far more important.

Having instigated the conflict in 2011, the U.S. establishment predicted Assad would fall in a similar manner to that of Muammar Gaddafi. However, nuclear giants Russia and China, having been completely duped by Western promises that Gaddafi would not be forcibly removed from power in 2011, used this knowledge to consistently veto any proposal to interfere in the Syrian conflict.

Despite the deceptiveness of NATO’s operations in Libya, Russia has tried to facilitate the end of the Syrian war for some time now. In fact, Russia put forward a proposal in 2012 that Assad would step down as a part of a potential peace deal. As stated by former Finnish president and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Martti Ahtisaari, “it was an opportunity lost in 2012.”

Why did the Americans reject this proposal? Because, as acknowledged by Ahtisaari:

“Nothing happened because I think all these, and many others, were convinced that Assad would be thrown out of office in a few weeks so there was no need to do anything.”

Four years later, the war is still raging. Western media has focused on the current situation in Eastern Aleppo, which has seen Russian and Syrian warplanes ravage the terrorist-held area. I say “terrorist-held area” because the areas being targeted by Russia and Syria are held by al-Nusra offshoot Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and its affiliated groups. Al-Sham is essentially al-Qaeda in Syria but was forced to change its name because Russia has repeatedly requested that the U.S. distinguish between moderate rebel groups and those that wish to be identified with al-Nusra. Citing Reuters, the Guardian referenced the social media outlet of another Aleppo-based rebel faction known as the Levant Front, also quoting one of its officials. The Levant Front is also heavily affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Remember when George W. Bush told us we were at war with al-Qaeda following the attacks on September 11, 2001? Apparently, they are our ally now. Essentially, what Western media and Western governments are saying is that the Assad and Putin regimes are wrong to be targeting al-Qaeda-affiliated groups, something the U.S. establishment has claimed to be doing for over a decade.

Western media has also conveniently ignored attacks from these so-called moderate rebels, who have been shelling government-held areas of Aleppo. Aleppo is home to 1.5 million civilians. Conversely, fewer than 300,000 civilians are trapped in rebel-held areas of Aleppo (do you really expect these al-Qaeda affiliated rebels to look after and provide shelter for civilians?).

And where did these rebels (insert: terrorists) receive their weaponry, funding, and training? This is a topic for a separate article, but one can be assured it was not from the Russian and Syrian regimes. The U.S. establishment has poured in an immense amount of money, only to see failed programs in which the weaponry (and often fighters) end up in the hands of al-Qaeda. This is not a new or unforeseen problem, either; the New York Times reported as far back as 2012 that the majority of weapons being sent to Syria had ended up in the hands of extremists.

Is Russia sending arms to jihadists? No.

Even now, as Russia and the United States coalition have stepped up their involvement in recent years, the U.S. refuses to coordinate and respond to Russia’s repeated requests to work together. If the stated goal was to truly eradicate ISIS and terrorism in the region, the U.S. would surely love to work in tandem with the Russian authorities. However, the U.S. has shown time and time again it will not tolerate any progress Russia is making in combating ISIS or groups such as al-Nusra.

No one would deny the governments of Syria, Russia, and Iran have an enormous amount of blood on their hands. Allegations and claims by the United Nations that the Syrian government has tortured and killed detainees on a massive scale – a crime against humanity – are proof alone that the Syrian regime needs to face accountability for its actions.

However, the hypocrisy of opposing one Middle Eastern dictator while supporting others responsible for truly heinous crimes raises questions regarding the United States motives in Syria. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had a cozy relationship with former U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair; the British government would send dissidents to Libya to be tortured (before the British government turned their back on Gaddafi in 2011).

So, who is responsible for the current crisis in Syria?

Syria was once a middle-income country before the conflict erupted into a humanitarian catastrophe. The evidence at hand, in particular from overlooked Western sources, overwhelmingly points to outside intervention, by which external powers have conspired, plotted, and poured billions upon billions of dollars into arming extremist opposition groups to take out an unfriendly regime. The powers-that-be could have allowed Assad’s removal via Russia’s proposed peace deal in 2012, but they decided not to accept it — and in turn have maximized the death toll of the conflict.

Do not underestimate the power of the CIA to manufacture opposition to regimes unfriendly to the West. Do not underestimate the West’s ability to concern itself more with geopolitical and strategic concerns rather than humanitarian ones – a point that is consistently ignored in Western coverage of the Syrian conflict. One only needs to turn to history to see this approach has been a dominant tool of American foreign policy for decades. The most strikingly obvious example of this – to which the CIA has admitted its involvement – is when the U.S. and U.K. instigated a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, over oil.

The Guardian explained:

“Britain, and in particular Sir Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, regarded Mosaddeq as a serious threat to its strategic and economic interests after the Iranian leader nationalised the British Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, latterly known as BP. But the UK needed US support. The Eisenhower administration in Washington was easily persuaded.”

If Russia had intervened to save the Iranian regime in 1953 from clamping down on a CIA-manufactured uprising, would we be blaming Russia and Iran for the crisis that unfolded?

Surely not.

via IFTTT