Wednesday, April 24, 2013
BOSTON GLOBE TWEET
NEEDS AN EXPLANATION
The Boston blasts erupted at 2:49 p.m., according to initial reports. The first Tweet about a "controlled bombing" is given at 12:54 p.m. (which evidently means 2:54). Did the bomb squad find another, third device? Was the early report mistaken about the time of the second blast, which by the Tweet would have occurred more than five minutes after the first blast?
I looked for an explanation of this Tweet by the Globe, but so far, nothing.
Here is the original Tweet, with the Boston Globe link:
Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.
https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/323886879453892609
Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.
NEEDS AN EXPLANATION
The Boston blasts erupted at 2:49 p.m., according to initial reports. The first Tweet about a "controlled bombing" is given at 12:54 p.m. (which evidently means 2:54). Did the bomb squad find another, third device? Was the early report mistaken about the time of the second blast, which by the Tweet would have occurred more than five minutes after the first blast?
I looked for an explanation of this Tweet by the Globe, but so far, nothing.
Here is the original Tweet, with the Boston Globe link:
Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.
https://twitter.com/BostonGlobe/status/323886879453892609
Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.
The Boston GlobeVerified account 
12:53 PM - 15 Apr 13
Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.
- RT
@BostonGlobe: Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities. - “
@BostonGlobe: Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.” @BostonGlobe@aegies wait really?@MaxDubinsky@BostonGlobe // Is this a joke? People are dead!@turboskerv@BostonGlobe this already happened.- RT
@BostonGlobe: Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities. @BritainyBeck@BostonGlobe I don't believe so. I can only assume they found another bomb and it's being set off?@aegies@bostonglobe yeah didn't seem too controlled@MaxDubinsky@BostonGlobe // Oh! I read that as in the explosions were planned & controlled. I was gonna call BS lol. That makes more sense.- Que?“
@BostonGlobe: Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.” @TheBoyIllinois if they can't disarm a bomb they blow it up@TayeNicole I'm lost.@TheBoyIllinois@bostonglobe this reminds me of the London train bombings back in 05'. Similar scenario@TheBoyIllinois there's a "black box" per se that they can transport the potential bomb/explosive to and blow it up safely without harm@TayeNicole http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Were-at-Start-Finish/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx …@Sequence001 http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Were-at-Start-Finish/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx …@TheBoyIllinois:@Sequence001 http://www.local15tv.com/mostpopular/story/UM-Coach-Bomb-Sniffing-Dogs-Were-at-Start-Finish/BrirjAzFPUKKN8z6eSDJEA.cspx … >>> That's crazy but I'm not surprised though. We live In an insane world@TheBoyIllinois I'm most surprised at all. Remember 9/11? Threats were received days before and they hid that from the public...@BostonGlobe I don't understand the morons who think this tweet points to conspiracy. It was a police action AFTER the bomb incident.
financial acrobat 
Hayat Alvi 
Wes Skerven 
Britainy Beck 
Arthur Gies 
Dan Wells 
Max Andrew Dubinsky 
Gilbert Gastón 
❤4.28❤ 
☁⚡SΞQUΞΠCΞ™⚡☁ 
Jim Amos Don’t miss any updates from The Boston Globe Join Twitter today and follow what interests you!
Text follow BostonGlobe to 40404 in the United States
Monday, April 22, 2013
MARTIAL LAW IN BOSTON CALLED
UNPRECEDENTED OVERREACTION
Congressional sources told Beck
Saudi 'terrorist' faced deportation
I am not promoting any theory about what happened. But others have noted a number of peculiarities in relation to the Boston atrocity.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Boston-Marathon-Bombing-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-130420-765.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/22/pers-a22.html
From Beck's web site:
"Monday on radio, Glenn Beck revealed further details about the Saudi national who was the first suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. Despite denials from Janet Napolitano and officials from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs (ICE) that a Saudi national was taken into custody in connection to the Boston marathon bombing, several sources have told TheBlaze that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was set to be deported for proven terrorist activity."
Here's a take (edited) from the Trotskyists, who, despite their political agenda, are generally accurate:
"While much remains murky about these and other issues, one thing is clear: the Boston bombing, like virtually every other major terrorist incident, real or invented, since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, was carried out by someone who was known to and under surveillance by US intelligence agencies.
"There have been increasing questions raised concerning the FBI’s handling of a request from a foreign government, presumed to be Russia, that it investigate Tamerlan Tsarnaev on suspicion of involvement in Islamist terrorism.
"The request came in advance of a six-month visit that Tamerlan made to Russia beginning in January of last year, during which he stayed with his father in Dagestan and visited Chechnya, where several members of the family live.
"In a statement released in the wake of the Boston bombings, the FBI acknowledged that Russian authorities had determined that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a “follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
"The FBI said that in response to this request it “checked US government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history.”
"The statement concluded that the FBI “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011.”
"The Russian media has reported that Russian security services again contacted the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev in November of last year.
"Both of the parents of the two suspects have provided accounts of the FBI’s role that contradict the agency’s public statement.
"The mother of the two brothers, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, a naturalized US citizen, told Russia Today that the FBI agents had told her that “Tamerlan was an extremist leader and they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremists’ web sites.”
"The father said that he had been present at one FBI interrogation in which agents had told his son, “We know what sites you are on, we know where you are calling, we know everything about you. Everything.”
"Russian sources reported that both parents had subsequently been questioned by Russia’s Federal Security Service, after which they cut off further contact with the Western media.
"Reports of FBI involvement with Tamerlan Tsarnaev have led to criticism by US lawmakers, including South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has called for the younger brother to be treated as an “enemy combatant” and turned over to the US military. He said in a Sunday television interview that “the ball was dropped” by the FBI.
"There have been no explanations forthcoming about how 'the ball was dropped.' And without either of the two suspects or anyone else providing a motive for the bombings, much is unclear.
"Among the explanations that have been suggested is one from the Israeli web site Debka, citing 'counterterrorism and intelligence sources,' who it said had concluded that the two brothers were 'recruited by US intelligence as penetration agents' to gain access to jihadist networks in the Russian Caucasus, but then 'turned coat and bit their recruiters'."
UNPRECEDENTED OVERREACTION
Congressional sources told Beck
Saudi 'terrorist' faced deportation
I am not promoting any theory about what happened. But others have noted a number of peculiarities in relation to the Boston atrocity.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Boston-Marathon-Bombing-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-130420-765.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/04/22/pers-a22.html
From Beck's web site:
"Monday on radio, Glenn Beck revealed further details about the Saudi national who was the first suspect in the Boston marathon bombing. Despite denials from Janet Napolitano and officials from the U.S. Immigrations and Customs (ICE) that a Saudi national was taken into custody in connection to the Boston marathon bombing, several sources have told TheBlaze that Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi was set to be deported for proven terrorist activity."
Here's a take (edited) from the Trotskyists, who, despite their political agenda, are generally accurate:
"While much remains murky about these and other issues, one thing is clear: the Boston bombing, like virtually every other major terrorist incident, real or invented, since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, was carried out by someone who was known to and under surveillance by US intelligence agencies.
"There have been increasing questions raised concerning the FBI’s handling of a request from a foreign government, presumed to be Russia, that it investigate Tamerlan Tsarnaev on suspicion of involvement in Islamist terrorism.
"The request came in advance of a six-month visit that Tamerlan made to Russia beginning in January of last year, during which he stayed with his father in Dagestan and visited Chechnya, where several members of the family live.
"In a statement released in the wake of the Boston bombings, the FBI acknowledged that Russian authorities had determined that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a “follower of radical Islam and a strong believer, and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the United States for travel to the country’s region to join unspecified underground groups.”
"The FBI said that in response to this request it “checked US government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history.”
"The statement concluded that the FBI “did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011.”
"The Russian media has reported that Russian security services again contacted the FBI about Tamerlan Tsarnaev in November of last year.
"Both of the parents of the two suspects have provided accounts of the FBI’s role that contradict the agency’s public statement.
"The mother of the two brothers, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, a naturalized US citizen, told Russia Today that the FBI agents had told her that “Tamerlan was an extremist leader and they were afraid of him. They told me whatever information he is getting, he gets from these extremists’ web sites.”
"The father said that he had been present at one FBI interrogation in which agents had told his son, “We know what sites you are on, we know where you are calling, we know everything about you. Everything.”
"Russian sources reported that both parents had subsequently been questioned by Russia’s Federal Security Service, after which they cut off further contact with the Western media.
"Reports of FBI involvement with Tamerlan Tsarnaev have led to criticism by US lawmakers, including South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who has called for the younger brother to be treated as an “enemy combatant” and turned over to the US military. He said in a Sunday television interview that “the ball was dropped” by the FBI.
"There have been no explanations forthcoming about how 'the ball was dropped.' And without either of the two suspects or anyone else providing a motive for the bombings, much is unclear.
"Among the explanations that have been suggested is one from the Israeli web site Debka, citing 'counterterrorism and intelligence sources,' who it said had concluded that the two brothers were 'recruited by US intelligence as penetration agents' to gain access to jihadist networks in the Russian Caucasus, but then 'turned coat and bit their recruiters'."
Sunday, April 21, 2013
JUDGE: FEDS CAN'T CLASSIFY
BARRED FLYER'S LETTERS
It's incredible that they would try it.
Politico reports that a federal judge said the government was improperly deeming as secret correspondence between the government and a person barred from flying.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/04/state-secrets-showdown-looms-162193.html?hp=r8
BARRED FLYER'S LETTERS
It's incredible that they would try it.
Politico reports that a federal judge said the government was improperly deeming as secret correspondence between the government and a person barred from flying.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/04/state-secrets-showdown-looms-162193.html?hp=r8
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
LET US NOW PRAISE FAMOUS MEN
Which U.S. president and ex-CIA chief made a frantic bid to save the Soviet Union?
1. Jimmy Carter
2. Bill Clinton
3. George Bush
The elder George Bush in 1991 brought the full force of his presidency to bear in a bid to stem the impending crash of Soviet communism. In the words of writer Richard Rhodes:
"A key test of the impending breakup [of the Soviet Union] was a popular referendum endorsing Ukrainian independence scheduled for 1 December. In a controversial speech to the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet, before the coup, Bush had warned the legislators about breaking away from Moscow."
"We will maintain the strongest possible relationship with the Soviet Government of President Gorbachev," Bush said, adding that "freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local depotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
William Safire dubbed Bush's address "the Chicken Kiev speech."
Safire was an astute journalist who isolated the politically important sentences from the remainder of the speech.
Full text of President George H.W. Bush's speech to a session of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, 1 August 1991.
Well, first, thank all of you for that warm welcome. And may I take this opportunity to thank all people of Ukraine that gave us such a warm welcome, such a heartfelt greeting. Every American in that long motorcade -- and believe me, it was long -- was moved and touched by the warmth of the welcome of Ukraine. We'll never forget it.
Chairman Kravchuk, thank you, sir. And to the Deputies of the Soviet, Supreme Soviet, may I salute you. Members of the clergy that are here, members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of American pharmaceutical and health care corporations who I understand are with us today, and distinguished guests all. Barbara and I are delighted to be here -- very, very happy. We have only one regret, and that is that I've got to get home on Thursday night -- I can still make it. And the reason is, our Congress goes out tomorrow, finishes their session they're in now, and I felt it was important to be there on that last day of the final session.
This beautiful city brings to mind the words of the poet Alexander Dovzhenko: "The city of Kiev is an orchard. Kiev is a poet. Kiev is an epic. Kiev is history. Kiev is art."
Centuries ago, your forebears named this country Ukraine, or "frontier," because your steppes link Europe and Asia. But Ukrainians have become frontiersmen of another sort. Today you explore the frontiers and contours of liberty.
Though my stay here is, as I said, far too short, I have come here to talk with you and to learn. For those who love freedom, every experiment in building an open society offers new lessons and insights. You face an especially daunting task. For years, people in this nation felt powerless, overshadowed by a vast government apparatus, cramped by forces that attempted to control every aspect of their lives.
Today, your people probe the promises of freedom. In cities and Republics, on farms, in business, around university campuses, you debate the fundamental questions of liberty, self-rule, and free enterprise. Americans, you see, have a deep commitment to these values. We follow your progress with a sense of fascination, excitement, and hope. This alone is historic. In the past, our nations engaged in duels of eloquent bluff and bravado. Now, the fireworks of superpower confrontation are giving way to the quieter and far more hopeful art of cooperation.
I come here to tell you: We support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. And I would like to talk to you today about how the United States views this complex and exciting period in your history, how we intend to relate to the Soviet central Government and the Republican governments.
In Moscow, I outlined our approach: We will support those in the center and the Republics who pursue freedom, democracy, and economic liberty. We will determine our support not on the basis of personalities but on the basis of principles. We cannot tell you how to reform your society. We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between Republics or between Republics and the center. That is your business; that's not the business of the United States of America.
Do not doubt our real commitment, however, to reform. But do not think we can presume to solve your problems for you. Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great Presidents, once wrote: To be patronized is as offensive as to be insulted. No one of us cares permanently to have someone else conscientiously striving to do him good; what we want is to work with that someone else for the good of both of us. That's what our former President said. We will work for the good of both of us, which means that we will not meddle in your internal affairs.
Some people have urged the United States to choose between supporting President Gorbachev and supporting independence-minded leaders throughout the U.S.S.R. I consider this a false choice. In fairness, President Gorbachev has achieved astonishing things, and his policies of glasnost, perestroika, and democratization point toward the goals of freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.
We will maintain the strongest possible relationship with the Soviet Government of President Gorbachev. But we also appreciate the new realities of life in the U.S.S.R. And therefore, as a federation ourselves, we want good relations -- improved relations -- with the Republics. So, let me build upon my comments in Moscow by describing in more detail what Americans mean when we talk about freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.
No terms have been abused more regularly, nor more cynically than these. Throughout this century despots have masqueraded as democrats, jailers have posed as liberators. We can restore faith to government only by restoring meaning to these concepts.
I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing, but let's begin with the broad term "freedom." When Americans talk of freedom, we refer to people's abilities to live without fear of government intrusion, without fear of harassment by their fellow citizens, without restricting other's freedoms. We do not consider freedom a privilege, to be doled out only to those who hold proper political views or belong to certain groups. We consider it an inalienable individual right, bestowed upon all men and women. Lord Acton once observed: The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
Freedom requires tolerance, a concept embedded in openness, in glasnost, and in our first amendment protections for the freedoms of speech, association, and religion -- all religions.
Tolerance nourishes hope. A priest wrote of glasnost: Today, more than ever the words of Paul the Apostle, spoken, 2,000 years ago, ring out: They counted as among the dead, but look, we are alive. In Ukraine, in Russia, in Armenia, and the Baltics, the spirit of liberty thrives.
But freedom cannot survive if we let despots flourish or permit seemingly minor restrictions to multiply until they form chains, until they form shackles. Later today, I'll visit the monument at Babi Yar -- a somber reminder, a solemn reminder, of what happens when people fail to hold back the horrible tide of intolerance and tyranny.
Yet freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local depotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.
We will support those who want to build democracy. By democracy, we mean a system of government in which people may vie openly for the hearts -- and yes, the votes -- of the public. We mean a system of government that derives its just power from the consent of the governed, that retains its legitimacy by controlling its appetite for power. For years, you had elections with ballots, but you did not enjoy democracy. And now, democracy has begun to set firm roots in Soviet soil.
The key to its success lies in understanding government's proper role and its limits. Democracy is not a technical process driven by dry statistics. It is the very human enterprise of preserving freedom, so that we can do the important things, the really important things: raise families, explore our own creativity, build good and fruitful lives.
In modern societies, freedom and democracy rely on economic liberty. A free economy is nothing more than a system of communication. It simply cannot function without individual rights or a profit motive, which give people an incentive to go to work, an incentive to produce.
And it certainly cannot function without the rule of law, without fair and enforceable contracts, without laws that protect property rights and punish fraud.
Free economies depend upon the freedom of expression, the ability of people to exchange ideas and test out new theories. The Soviet Union weakened itself for years by restricting the flow of information, by outlawing devices crucial to modern communications, such as computers and copying machines. And when you restricted free movement -- even tourist travel -- you prevented your own people from making the most of their talent. You cannot innovate if you cannot communicate.
And finally, a free economy demands engagement in the economic mainstream. Adam Smith noted two centuries ago, trade enriches all who engage in it. Isolation and protectionism doom its practitioners to degradation and want.
I note this today because some Soviet cities, regions, and even Republics have engaged in ruinous trade wars. The Republics of this nation have extensive bonds of trade, which no one can repeal with the stroke of a pen or the passage of a law. The vast majority of trade conducted by Soviet companies -- imports and exports -- involves, as you know better than I, trade between Republics. The nine-plus-one agreement holds forth the hope that Republics will combine greater autonomy with greater voluntary interaction -- political, social, cultural, economic -- rather than pursuing the hopeless course of isolation.
And so, American investors and businessmen look forward to doing business in the Soviet Union, including the Ukraine. We've signed agreements this week that will encourage further interaction between the U.S. and all levels of the Soviet Union. But ultimately, our trade relations will depend upon our ability to develop a common language, a common language of commerce -- currencies that communicate with one another, laws that protect innovators and entrepreneurs, bonds of understanding and trust.
It should be obvious that the ties between our nations grow stronger every single day. I set forth a Presidential initiative that is providing badly needed medical aid to the Soviet Union. And this aid expresses Americans' solidarity with the Soviet peoples during a time of hardship and suffering. And it has supplied facilities in Kiev that are treating victims of Chernobyl. You should know that America's heart -- the hearts of all -- went out to the people here at the time of Chernobyl.
We have sent teams to help you improve upon the safety of Ukrainian nuclear plants and coal mines. We've also increased the number of cultural exchanges with the Republics, including more extensive legal, academic, and cultural exchanges between America and Ukraine.
We understand that you cannot reform your system overnight. America's first system of government -- the Continental Congress -- failed because the States were too suspicious of one another and the central government too weak to protect commerce and individual rights. In 200 years, we have learned that freedom, democracy, and economic liberty are more than terms of inspiration. They're more than words. They are challenges.
Your great poet Shevchenko noted: Only in your own house can you have your truth, your strength, and freedom. No society ever achieves perfect democracy, liberty, or enterprise; it if makes full use of its people's virtues and abilities, it can use these goals as guides to a better life.
And now, as Soviet citizens try to forge a new social compact, you have the obligation to restore power to citizens demoralized by decades of totalitarian rule. You have to give them hope, inspiration, determination -- by showing your faith in their abilities. Societies that don't trust themselves or their people cannot provide freedom. They can guarantee only the bleak tyranny of suspicion, avarice, and poverty.
An old Ukrainian proverb says: When you enter a great enterprise, free your soul from weakness. The peoples of the U.S.S.R. have entered a great enterprise, full of courage and vigor. I have come here today to say: We support those who explore the frontiers of freedom. We will join these reformers on the path to what we call -- appropriately call a new world order.
You're the leaders. You are the participants in the political process. And I go home to an active political process. So, if you saw me waving like mad from my limousine, it was in the thought that maybe some of those people along the line were people from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Detroit where so many Ukrainian-Americans live, where so many Ukrainian-Americans are with me in the remarks I've made here today.
This has been a great experience for Barbara and me to be here. We salute you. We salute the changes that we see. I remember the French expression, vive la difference, and I see different churnings around this Chamber, and that is exactly the way it ought to be. One guy wants this and another one that. That's the way the process works when you're open and free -- competing with ideas to see who is going to emerge correct and who can do the most for the people in Ukraine.
And so, for us this has been a wonderful trip, albeit far too short. And may I simply say, may God bless the people of Ukraine. Thank you very, very much.
Which U.S. president and ex-CIA chief made a frantic bid to save the Soviet Union?
1. Jimmy Carter
2. Bill Clinton
3. George Bush
The elder George Bush in 1991 brought the full force of his presidency to bear in a bid to stem the impending crash of Soviet communism. In the words of writer Richard Rhodes:
"A key test of the impending breakup [of the Soviet Union] was a popular referendum endorsing Ukrainian independence scheduled for 1 December. In a controversial speech to the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet, before the coup, Bush had warned the legislators about breaking away from Moscow."
"We will maintain the strongest possible relationship with the Soviet Government of President Gorbachev," Bush said, adding that "freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local depotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred."
William Safire dubbed Bush's address "the Chicken Kiev speech."
Safire was an astute journalist who isolated the politically important sentences from the remainder of the speech.
Full text of President George H.W. Bush's speech to a session of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, 1 August 1991.
Well, first, thank all of you for that warm welcome. And may I take this opportunity to thank all people of Ukraine that gave us such a warm welcome, such a heartfelt greeting. Every American in that long motorcade -- and believe me, it was long -- was moved and touched by the warmth of the welcome of Ukraine. We'll never forget it.
Chairman Kravchuk, thank you, sir. And to the Deputies of the Soviet, Supreme Soviet, may I salute you. Members of the clergy that are here, members of the diplomatic corps, representatives of American pharmaceutical and health care corporations who I understand are with us today, and distinguished guests all. Barbara and I are delighted to be here -- very, very happy. We have only one regret, and that is that I've got to get home on Thursday night -- I can still make it. And the reason is, our Congress goes out tomorrow, finishes their session they're in now, and I felt it was important to be there on that last day of the final session.
This beautiful city brings to mind the words of the poet Alexander Dovzhenko: "The city of Kiev is an orchard. Kiev is a poet. Kiev is an epic. Kiev is history. Kiev is art."
Centuries ago, your forebears named this country Ukraine, or "frontier," because your steppes link Europe and Asia. But Ukrainians have become frontiersmen of another sort. Today you explore the frontiers and contours of liberty.
Though my stay here is, as I said, far too short, I have come here to talk with you and to learn. For those who love freedom, every experiment in building an open society offers new lessons and insights. You face an especially daunting task. For years, people in this nation felt powerless, overshadowed by a vast government apparatus, cramped by forces that attempted to control every aspect of their lives.
Today, your people probe the promises of freedom. In cities and Republics, on farms, in business, around university campuses, you debate the fundamental questions of liberty, self-rule, and free enterprise. Americans, you see, have a deep commitment to these values. We follow your progress with a sense of fascination, excitement, and hope. This alone is historic. In the past, our nations engaged in duels of eloquent bluff and bravado. Now, the fireworks of superpower confrontation are giving way to the quieter and far more hopeful art of cooperation.
I come here to tell you: We support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. And I would like to talk to you today about how the United States views this complex and exciting period in your history, how we intend to relate to the Soviet central Government and the Republican governments.
In Moscow, I outlined our approach: We will support those in the center and the Republics who pursue freedom, democracy, and economic liberty. We will determine our support not on the basis of personalities but on the basis of principles. We cannot tell you how to reform your society. We will not try to pick winners and losers in political competitions between Republics or between Republics and the center. That is your business; that's not the business of the United States of America.
Do not doubt our real commitment, however, to reform. But do not think we can presume to solve your problems for you. Theodore Roosevelt, one of our great Presidents, once wrote: To be patronized is as offensive as to be insulted. No one of us cares permanently to have someone else conscientiously striving to do him good; what we want is to work with that someone else for the good of both of us. That's what our former President said. We will work for the good of both of us, which means that we will not meddle in your internal affairs.
Some people have urged the United States to choose between supporting President Gorbachev and supporting independence-minded leaders throughout the U.S.S.R. I consider this a false choice. In fairness, President Gorbachev has achieved astonishing things, and his policies of glasnost, perestroika, and democratization point toward the goals of freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.
We will maintain the strongest possible relationship with the Soviet Government of President Gorbachev. But we also appreciate the new realities of life in the U.S.S.R. And therefore, as a federation ourselves, we want good relations -- improved relations -- with the Republics. So, let me build upon my comments in Moscow by describing in more detail what Americans mean when we talk about freedom, democracy, and economic liberty.
No terms have been abused more regularly, nor more cynically than these. Throughout this century despots have masqueraded as democrats, jailers have posed as liberators. We can restore faith to government only by restoring meaning to these concepts.
I don't want to sound like I'm lecturing, but let's begin with the broad term "freedom." When Americans talk of freedom, we refer to people's abilities to live without fear of government intrusion, without fear of harassment by their fellow citizens, without restricting other's freedoms. We do not consider freedom a privilege, to be doled out only to those who hold proper political views or belong to certain groups. We consider it an inalienable individual right, bestowed upon all men and women. Lord Acton once observed: The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities.
Freedom requires tolerance, a concept embedded in openness, in glasnost, and in our first amendment protections for the freedoms of speech, association, and religion -- all religions.
Tolerance nourishes hope. A priest wrote of glasnost: Today, more than ever the words of Paul the Apostle, spoken, 2,000 years ago, ring out: They counted as among the dead, but look, we are alive. In Ukraine, in Russia, in Armenia, and the Baltics, the spirit of liberty thrives.
But freedom cannot survive if we let despots flourish or permit seemingly minor restrictions to multiply until they form chains, until they form shackles. Later today, I'll visit the monument at Babi Yar -- a somber reminder, a solemn reminder, of what happens when people fail to hold back the horrible tide of intolerance and tyranny.
Yet freedom is not the same as independence. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local depotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.
We will support those who want to build democracy. By democracy, we mean a system of government in which people may vie openly for the hearts -- and yes, the votes -- of the public. We mean a system of government that derives its just power from the consent of the governed, that retains its legitimacy by controlling its appetite for power. For years, you had elections with ballots, but you did not enjoy democracy. And now, democracy has begun to set firm roots in Soviet soil.
The key to its success lies in understanding government's proper role and its limits. Democracy is not a technical process driven by dry statistics. It is the very human enterprise of preserving freedom, so that we can do the important things, the really important things: raise families, explore our own creativity, build good and fruitful lives.
In modern societies, freedom and democracy rely on economic liberty. A free economy is nothing more than a system of communication. It simply cannot function without individual rights or a profit motive, which give people an incentive to go to work, an incentive to produce.
And it certainly cannot function without the rule of law, without fair and enforceable contracts, without laws that protect property rights and punish fraud.
Free economies depend upon the freedom of expression, the ability of people to exchange ideas and test out new theories. The Soviet Union weakened itself for years by restricting the flow of information, by outlawing devices crucial to modern communications, such as computers and copying machines. And when you restricted free movement -- even tourist travel -- you prevented your own people from making the most of their talent. You cannot innovate if you cannot communicate.
And finally, a free economy demands engagement in the economic mainstream. Adam Smith noted two centuries ago, trade enriches all who engage in it. Isolation and protectionism doom its practitioners to degradation and want.
I note this today because some Soviet cities, regions, and even Republics have engaged in ruinous trade wars. The Republics of this nation have extensive bonds of trade, which no one can repeal with the stroke of a pen or the passage of a law. The vast majority of trade conducted by Soviet companies -- imports and exports -- involves, as you know better than I, trade between Republics. The nine-plus-one agreement holds forth the hope that Republics will combine greater autonomy with greater voluntary interaction -- political, social, cultural, economic -- rather than pursuing the hopeless course of isolation.
And so, American investors and businessmen look forward to doing business in the Soviet Union, including the Ukraine. We've signed agreements this week that will encourage further interaction between the U.S. and all levels of the Soviet Union. But ultimately, our trade relations will depend upon our ability to develop a common language, a common language of commerce -- currencies that communicate with one another, laws that protect innovators and entrepreneurs, bonds of understanding and trust.
It should be obvious that the ties between our nations grow stronger every single day. I set forth a Presidential initiative that is providing badly needed medical aid to the Soviet Union. And this aid expresses Americans' solidarity with the Soviet peoples during a time of hardship and suffering. And it has supplied facilities in Kiev that are treating victims of Chernobyl. You should know that America's heart -- the hearts of all -- went out to the people here at the time of Chernobyl.
We have sent teams to help you improve upon the safety of Ukrainian nuclear plants and coal mines. We've also increased the number of cultural exchanges with the Republics, including more extensive legal, academic, and cultural exchanges between America and Ukraine.
We understand that you cannot reform your system overnight. America's first system of government -- the Continental Congress -- failed because the States were too suspicious of one another and the central government too weak to protect commerce and individual rights. In 200 years, we have learned that freedom, democracy, and economic liberty are more than terms of inspiration. They're more than words. They are challenges.
Your great poet Shevchenko noted: Only in your own house can you have your truth, your strength, and freedom. No society ever achieves perfect democracy, liberty, or enterprise; it if makes full use of its people's virtues and abilities, it can use these goals as guides to a better life.
And now, as Soviet citizens try to forge a new social compact, you have the obligation to restore power to citizens demoralized by decades of totalitarian rule. You have to give them hope, inspiration, determination -- by showing your faith in their abilities. Societies that don't trust themselves or their people cannot provide freedom. They can guarantee only the bleak tyranny of suspicion, avarice, and poverty.
An old Ukrainian proverb says: When you enter a great enterprise, free your soul from weakness. The peoples of the U.S.S.R. have entered a great enterprise, full of courage and vigor. I have come here today to say: We support those who explore the frontiers of freedom. We will join these reformers on the path to what we call -- appropriately call a new world order.
You're the leaders. You are the participants in the political process. And I go home to an active political process. So, if you saw me waving like mad from my limousine, it was in the thought that maybe some of those people along the line were people from Philadelphia or Pittsburgh or Detroit where so many Ukrainian-Americans live, where so many Ukrainian-Americans are with me in the remarks I've made here today.
This has been a great experience for Barbara and me to be here. We salute you. We salute the changes that we see. I remember the French expression, vive la difference, and I see different churnings around this Chamber, and that is exactly the way it ought to be. One guy wants this and another one that. That's the way the process works when you're open and free -- competing with ideas to see who is going to emerge correct and who can do the most for the people in Ukraine.
And so, for us this has been a wonderful trip, albeit far too short. And may I simply say, may God bless the people of Ukraine. Thank you very, very much.
Friday, April 12, 2013
CORN, WHO JEERED 9/11 SKEPTICS,
ACCEPTS 'SOVIET AGENT' AWARD
The influential commentator David Corn tried hard to steer the left away from questioning the official accounts concerning the events of 9/11. Now he is accepting the I.F. Stone Award, apparently unworried by the powerful evidence that Stone had served as a Soviet agent of influence.
In an ironic twist, Stone upheld the official, no-conspiracy narrative of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In 2002, Corn wrote that "the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try."
He reiterated these views in 2005 and appears not to have repudiated them, despite emergence of much evidence undermining the official 9/11 story.
Accuracy in Media, reporting on Corn's award, commented, "The identification of Stone as a Soviet agent is not in serious dispute, except among his most loyal and sycophantic followers."
Two reputable historians and a Russian journalist exposed Stone's Soviet intrigues in their book, Spies.
The authors are Harvey Elliott Klehr, professor of politics and history at Emory University, who he is known for his books on the subject of the American Communist movement and Soviet espionage in America; John Earl Haynes, a historian who is a specialist in 20th-century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress; and Alexander Vassiliev, a Russian journalist, writer, and espionage historian living in London. He is a former officer in the Soviet Committee for State Security.
Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. Until 2007, he was
Washington editor of The Nation.
Corn evidently raised no objections to Christopher Hayes' "hit piece" against 9/11 skepticism.
http://www.thenation.com/article/911-roots-paranoia
Hayes, an editor at large for The Nation, is, like Corn, an MSNBC commentator.
The Nation, Mother Jones and MSNBC all are on the militant left side of the political spectrum.
ACCEPTS 'SOVIET AGENT' AWARD
The influential commentator David Corn tried hard to steer the left away from questioning the official accounts concerning the events of 9/11. Now he is accepting the I.F. Stone Award, apparently unworried by the powerful evidence that Stone had served as a Soviet agent of influence.
In an ironic twist, Stone upheld the official, no-conspiracy narrative of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
In 2002, Corn wrote that "the notion that the U.S. government either detected the attacks but allowed them to occur, or, worse, conspired to kill thousands of Americans to launch a war-for-oil in Afghanistan is absurd. Still, each week emails passing on such tripe arrive. This crap is probably not worth a rational rebuttal, but I'm irritated enough to try."
He reiterated these views in 2005 and appears not to have repudiated them, despite emergence of much evidence undermining the official 9/11 story.
Accuracy in Media, reporting on Corn's award, commented, "The identification of Stone as a Soviet agent is not in serious dispute, except among his most loyal and sycophantic followers."
Two reputable historians and a Russian journalist exposed Stone's Soviet intrigues in their book, Spies.
The authors are Harvey Elliott Klehr, professor of politics and history at Emory University, who he is known for his books on the subject of the American Communist movement and Soviet espionage in America; John Earl Haynes, a historian who is a specialist in 20th-century political history in the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress; and Alexander Vassiliev, a Russian journalist, writer, and espionage historian living in London. He is a former officer in the Soviet Committee for State Security.
Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. Until 2007, he was
Washington editor of The Nation.
Corn evidently raised no objections to Christopher Hayes' "hit piece" against 9/11 skepticism.
http://www.thenation.com/article/911-roots-paranoia
Hayes, an editor at large for The Nation, is, like Corn, an MSNBC commentator.
The Nation, Mother Jones and MSNBC all are on the militant left side of the political spectrum.
Monday, April 8, 2013
Oops! Power elite aids
conspiracy theorists
The truth about the TWA 800 tragedy was covered up by the feds, according to a film featured prominently at a conference on media that got support through the New America Foundation, which is bankrolled by George Soros' Open Society Institute, the Ford Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Eric and Wendy Schmidt (the Google chairman and his wife).That's according to Accuracy In Media, which attacks the conference as a Marxist tool, but notes that "the film had its good parts, such as a segment on the official cover-up in the TWA 800 tragedy."
Details are found in AIM's commentary:
AIM says that "a major new player at this year’s Free Press conference is the New America Foundation, another Soros-funded group."
Thursday, April 4, 2013
2d Amendment bars ALL federal gun regulation
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." -- 2d amendment
The first ten amendments to the Constitution -- known as the Bill of Rights -- were intended to protect citizens of the various states from any domineering tendencies of the central, federal government. The writers were concerned about rights of "the people" and of "the states." Rights of "the people" included rights traditionally enjoyed, though perhaps not always spelled out.
For a state to maintain order in an emergency, a governor would deploy militiamen. A very few might be permanent, but most were drawn from volunteers. Maintaining a base of men who were relatively proficient with firearms was seen as a major necessity. The amendment was also intended as a warning that an out-of-control federal government might face armed resistance. The federal government was prohibited from infringing -- that is, chipping away around the borders -- of the right to bear arms.
The Bill of Rights, when written, was directed against the feds. It did not prohibit any state from abridging or infringing those rights. However, after the Civil War, the 13th and 14th amendments were passed in order to ensure that southern states did not deny standard rights to former slaves. Though it took quite a while, the basic individual freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights were seen as controlling state law, as well as federal law.
The Constitution says the federal government can't regulate the carrying of guns; prior to Reconstruction, the a state could have regulated the carrying of guns, but now the Constitution would appear to deny states that ability.
So any federal law whatsoever regulating the carrying of firearms is not valid; that goes for background checks. But, one could argue that states might still reserve some power to regulate the bearing of guns, and, if so, states, if they wish, can enter into interstate compacts on gun control. But, consider a former slave in the 1870s. Would it have been just to permit a southern state to deny him the right of self-defense? True, this is 2013, but other situations can arise in which it may be imperative to carry a firearm. How many times has a witness, who was unable to get continual police protection or a gun-carry permit, been murdered? It happens with sickening frequency.This all may seem a bitter pill to some. However, the proper remedy is an amendment to the Constitution that either repeals or modifies the second amendment.
Recent top court reasoning is found here:
http://supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment