Today’s News 19th September 2018

• Norway Officials Admit They Knew Nothing About Libya But Joined Regime Change Efforts Anyway

  A new official report produced by the Norwegian government illustrates the continuing absurdity of NATO expansion and foreign adventurism in places very far away from the “North Atlantic” explicit in the name North Atlantic Treaty Organization — places like Afghanistan, Libya, Ukraine or Syria. 

  Top Norwegian officials have now admitted they “had very limited knowledge” of events unfolding in Libya during 2010 and 2011, prior to NATO’s military intervention on behalf of anti-Gaddafi rebels — a war that resulted in regime change and a failed state ruled by competing governments and extremist militias to this day. Norway enthusiastically joined the US, UK, and French led bombing of the country initiated in March 2011 even knowing full well its military knew next to nothing of what was unfolding on the ground. 

  But what did decision-makers have to go on? Consider this absurd admission from the official report: “In such situations, decision-makers often rely on information from media and other countries,” the report reads.

  

  The commission that produced the report was chaired by former Foreign Minister Jan Petersen, and ultimately concluded that politicians in Oslo dragged the nation into the US-led bombing campaign with no regard for what could come next. 

  The commission report states that there were “no written sources” that so much as attempted to assess the nature of the conflict Norway was about to join. The officials failed to “assess the type of conflict Norway was taking part in” it finds. 

  NATO’s name for the operation was the US code name ‘Operation Odyssey Dawn,’ and Norway flew 596 strike missions during the first five months of the NATO intervention, dropping 588 bombs on Libyan targets, according to the report. Norway had provided six F-16 fighter jets and its pilots were reported to have conducted 10 percent of all coalition strikes against pro-Gaddafi forces.

  

  Norway’s former Center Party leader Liv Signe Navarsete said of the final report: “When you look at what happened next, with Libya becoming a hotspot of terrorism, this is not a decision to be proud of.”

  The war had been sold to the European public on “humanitarian” grounds and included sensational atrocity stories, many which were later proven false, painting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi as an irrational homicidal maniac.

  One notable story explicitly promoted by the State Department as well as US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice was the Viagra-fueled mass rape story, which claimed that Gaddafi had supposedly supplied his troops with Viagra in order to unleash sexual terrorism on the civilian population. Amnesty International and other human rights investigators later the proved the story completely false. 

  

  Some Norwegian politicians now claim the country was hoodwinked into another US-led regime change operation similar to the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. However, considering European leaders had the glaringly obvious example of Iraq and the lies it was built on so recent in history, this appears yet more excuse making designed to evade public responsibility. 

  Libya has long been forgotten in Western mainstream media, but has come back into headlines as a small civil war has lately erupted within areas under control of the UN-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA) in Tripoli. Since Gaddafi’s overthrow the country has been fought over by three (and at times up to four) competing governments while the streets are ruled by Islamist militias, including in some areas ISIS terrorists.

  According to a CNN report last year, open air slave markets have since come into existence as Libya remains largely lawless and as a once stable national infrastructure and economy has crumbled. 

  

• Sweden: Anti-Immigration Party Becomes Kingmaker

  Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

  • Swedish police received more than 2,300 reports of potential crimes linked to this year’s election, including voter intimidation and threats of violence against property or persons. An international team of observers found irregularities in 46% of the polling stations visited. The team expressed particular concern over the lack of secrecy in voting. Swedish authorities allow more than one voter (normally from the same family) to enter the polling booth together, ostensibly to ensure that the more literate family member can assist the less literate ones to correctly fill in the ballot paper.

  • “We are concerned about the significant level of family voting where women, older voters and the infirm can be guided or even instructed how to vote by another family member… We feel this may be a way of suppressing some voters from freely choosing their own choice.” – Statement on the Swedish election from Democracy Volunteers,election observers.

  • With tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of migrants receiving welfare payments without having made any contributions, Sweden’s current welfare system seems destined to collapse, according to Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson.

  

  In Swedish elections, each party has separate ballot papers with the party name prominently displayed. The picking of ballots takes place in public, so anyone present can observe which party’s ballot paper the voter will choose. As a result, some voters may have felt intimidated and reluctant to publicly reveal that they wanted to vote for the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats. (Image source: Jens O. Z. Ehrs/Wikimedia Commons)

  A strong showing by the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats in the Swedish elections on September 9 drained away so many votes from the establishment parties that the two main parliamentary blocs were left virtually tied and far short of a governing majority.

  The Sweden Democrats won 17.5% of the vote and emerged as the third-largest party in the country, according to the official election results released on September 16. The result, a 4.6% improvement on the 12.9% it won in 2014, placed the Sweden Democrats into a situation of holding the balance of power in the next parliament.

  Incumbent Prime Minister Stefan Löfven’s center-left Social Democrats came in first, with 28.3% of the vote — the party’s worst result in more than 100 years. The center-right Moderate party came in second, with 19.8% of the vote, a 3.5% drop from 2014.

  With eight political parties in the Swedish Parliament, the establishment parties traditionally have organized themselves into two rival parliamentary blocs: On the left, the Social Democrats and their allies garnered 40.7% of the vote. On the right, the Moderates and their allies won 40.3% of the vote.

  Although the Sweden Democrats are now in a position to play kingmaker in Parliament, the mainstream blocs have vowed not to cooperate with them because of their “nationalist” positions on immigration and the European Union.

  Sweden, with a largely homogenous population of around 10 million people, received nearly 500,000 asylum seekers from Africa, Asia and the Middle East since 2010. The arrival of so many overwhelmingly male migrants from different cultural and religious backgrounds has created massive social upheaval, including a surge in sexual assaults and gang violence in cities and towns across Sweden.

  The Sweden Democrats campaigned on a promise to curb immigration, restrict family reunifications, speed up deportations and crack down on migrant crime. Party leader Jimmie Åkesson also warned that mass migration poses an existential threat to Sweden’s social welfare system. With tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of migrants receiving welfare payments without having made any contributions, the current welfare system seems destined to collapse, he said.

  Pre-election polls showed that the anti-immigration message was resonating with Swedish voters.

  A YouGov poll published on September 5 — just four days before the election — showed that support for the Sweden Democrats was at 24.8%, compared to 23.8% for the Social Democrats and 16.5% for the Moderates. In other words, the poll suggested that the Sweden Democrats had become the largest party in Sweden.

  

  Observers have proffered several theories to explain the disconnect between the polls and the final election results. Some commentators have pointed to efforts by the mainstream parties to portray the Sweden Democrats as “far right,” “racist,” and “neo-Nazi” due to the party’s supposedly “nationalist” and “populist” stance on immigration. The stigma of voting for the Sweden Democrats may have given some voters pause.

  During a televised debate in October 2016, for example, Prime Minister Löfven called the Sweden Democrats “a Nazi party, a racist party.” He also claimed that “swastikas are still in use at their meetings.” The Sweden Democrats accused Löfven of slander and threatened to report him to the Parliament’s Constitutional Committee. Jonas Millard, the party’s representative on that committee, said:

  “When Sweden’s prime minister claims that the Sweden Democrats are a Nazi party, it is not just a lie, but also completely lacking in understanding of history and lacking in respect for all those millions of people who have been exposed to real Nazism.”

  Löfven later relented and said that his words had been taken out of context. Since then, however, Löfven has repeatedly accused the Sweden Democrats of having links to Nazism, even though Åkesson, who became party leader in 2005, has applied a zero-tolerance policy toward racism and has expelled members suspected of extremism.

  A day before the September 9, 2018 election, Löfven again branded the Sweden Democrats as racist:

  “We are not going to retreat one millimeter in the face of hatred and extremism wherever it shows itself.

  “Again, and again, and again, they show their Nazi and racist roots, and they are trying to destroy the European Union at a time when we need that co-operation the most.”

  Meanwhile, the Social Democrats invested eight million Swedish krona ($850,000; €770,000) of taxpayer money to encourage voter participation among migrants. That strategy appears to have paid off: in Stockholm’s Rinkeby district, where nine out of ten residents are immigrants, the Social Democrats received 77% of the vote while the Sweden Democrats won only 3%.

  A similar pattern took place in Sweden’s five dozen other no-go zones (Swedish police euphemistically refer to them as “vulnerable areas”), although a detailed analysis of the election results by the Swedish-Czech author Katerina Janouch and her colleague Peter Lindmark show that the Sweden Democrats are making gains among migrants, especially among women who are concerned about rampant crime and the imposition of Islamic sharia law.

  Others believe that election fraud may have benefited the mainstream parties at the expense of the Sweden Democrats. It remains unclear how widespread voter irregularities were, and what if any impact they may have had on the final election results. The Swedish police, however, received more than 2,300 reports of potential crimes linked to this year’s election. The complaints include voter intimidation, including threats of violence against property or persons.

  Separately, the Swedish Election Authority (Valmyndigheten), the central authority responsible for conducting elections, received more than 400 complaints of alleged voter fraud, and prosecutors are now investigating possible crimes in connection with the election, according to the newspaper Aftonbladet.

  An international team of 25 election observers, “Democracy Volunteers,” deployed throughout polling stations in Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg, Uppsala and Västerås — in total, the team observed over 250 polling stations across these locations — found irregularities in 46% of the stations visited.

  The team expressed particular concern over the lack of secrecy in voting. In Sweden, each party has separate ballot papers with the party name prominently displayed, and voters pick the party-specific ballot of their choice from a stand inside the polling station.

  The picking of ballot papers takes place in public, so anyone present can observe which party’s ballot paper the voter will choose. As a result, some voters may have felt intimidated and reluctant to publicly reveal that they wanted to vote for the Sweden Democrats.

  The election observers also criticized family voting, a practice in which Swedish electoral authorities allow more than one voter (normally from the same family) to enter the polling booth together, ostensibly to ensure that the more literate family member can assist the less literate ones to correctly fill in the ballot paper.

  The election observers concluded:

  “We are concerned about the significant level of family voting where women, older voters and the infirm can be guided or even instructed how to vote by another family member….

  “A key aspect of voting is that a voter should have their individual right to cast their own vote independently and without the interference, or even knowledge of another voter.

  “We feel this may be a way of suppressing some voters from freely choosing their own choice without the knowledge of others and we would recommend that the Swedish election authorities look at this as part of their own review in due course.”

  In a study entitled, “Is Voting in Sweden Secret,” Jørgen Elklit of the Department of Political Science at Aarhus University wrote that family voting is a long-standing problem in Sweden and appears to be especially prevalent in immigrant communities:

  “This type of help to disadvantaged voters obviously also puts repressed family members in a complicated situation, if they want to vote differently from their repressors. Family voting was rather common in the former Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe….

  “It was very surprising (almost unbelievable) to read in the … election observation report from the 2014 Swedish elections … that the observers noted a considerable amount of family voting in Stockholm. There are … indications that this phenomenon is primarily seen in polling districts with relatively many voters of non-Swedish background.”

  Other election irregularities include:

  • In Botkyrka, the Moderates party was offered 3,000 votes by local Muslim leaders in exchange for a construction permit to build a mosque. The party waited until two days before the election to reject the offer. Public prosecutors are now probing whether the offer was a criminal offense.

  • In Degerfors, a Social Democrat politician allegedly offered to pay voters 500 Swedish krona ($55; €50) in exchange for their votes. In the same town, a Social Democrat politician allegedly followed voters into a polling station, and then accompanied them to the ballot box. The politician, who has not been named, is being investigated for improperly influencing voters.

  • In Eda, a Social Democrat politician allegedly helped voters fill in their ballots.

  • In Falu, hundreds of ballots were invalidated because they were delivered late by the postal service.

  • In Filipstad, the Moderates party filed a complaint with election authorities after men were observed entering the polling station with women, picking the ballot papers for them and then following them to the ballot box to ensure that they voted for the Social Democrats. The Election Committee Chairperson in Filipstad, Helene Larsson Saikoff, herself a Social Democrat, said that she did not see any problem with the practice of family voting: “It is up to the voter if she wants to be accompanied by her husband or some good friend.”

  • In Gothenburg, the second-largest city in Sweden, some polling stations excluded ballot papers for the Sweden Democrats.

  • In Heby, a recount of votes resulted in significant differences between the results on election night. When asked how this could be, the chairman of the electoral committee in Heby, Rickert Olsson blamed the “human factor” which was due to “fatigue.”

  • In Märsta, poll workers advised voters not to seal their ballot envelopes. Sweden Democrats said that the envelopes could have been tampered with.

  Elsewhere, the newspaper Metro reported that ballot papers for the Sweden Democrats were stolen from the Swedish embassies in Berlin, London and Madrid, thereby making it impossible for Swedish “expats” in those areas to vote for the Sweden Democrats.

  “In all the election observations I have been on, I have never seen a choice as undemocratic as the one in Sweden,” said Danish MP Michael Aastrup Jensen, a veteran election observer who monitored the Swedish election in a private capacity. “It is far from the European standard.”

  Similar allegations of voter fraud surfaced in 2014 election. At the time, The Sweden Report wrote:

  “For starters, a number of mailmen have officially protested delivering voting cards from the Sweden Democrats (SD), the third-largest party in the country, because they do not agree with the politics of the party….

  “There are several reports from Stockholm, Gothenburg, Laholm and Halmstad where the envelopes from SD have clearly been opened and resealed. The content has been removed or in some cases replaced with voting cards from other parties….

  “Other irregularities against SD includes stolen voting cards at the pre-voting locations, and in one case a more advanced scheme: Someone had switched SD municipality voting cards with those of a neighboring municipality, making it very easy to cast an invalid vote.

  “As if that wasn’t enough, there’s the risk of tampering by the election administrators themselves. In the May election for the EU-parliament, a noted case involved a vote counter openly debating whether to simply throw away the stack of SD votes on Facebook.”

  Meanwhile, information about an official EU report, which concluded that Sweden has the worst border controls in the European Union, was allegedly kept from voters until after the elections were over, according to the newspaper Expressen.

  The report warned that Swedish border guards are poorly trained and lack basic knowledge about how to detect counterfeit passports and other travel documents used by fake asylum seekers and returning jihadis. The report said that the problem is especially acute at Stockholm’s Arlanda Airport, the main airport in Sweden, and recommended that Frontex, the EU border control authority, be deployed to help Sweden to secure its external border.

  Several border control officers interviewed by Expressen said that officials at the Ministry of Justice deemed the report to be “politically explosive” and that it “should therefore be kept secret until the election was completed.” Justice Minister Morgan Johansson denied the accusations.

  Some observers argued that the Social Democrats managed to eke out a success in the 2018 election only by adopting some of the immigration proposals advocated by the Sweden Democrats. In May 2018, for example, Prime Minister Löfven, in an effort to stanch the bleeding of votes, announced a plan to tighten asylum rules, improve border controls and cut welfare benefits for migrants whose asylum applications have been rejected.

  Others noted that by making the election primarily about immigration, and by forcing the established parties to harden their policies on asylum, the Sweden Democrats emerged as the actual winners.

  The leader of the Sweden Democrats, Jimmie Åkesson, addressing the Danish People’s Party’s annual meeting in Herning, Denmark on September 15, said it would be impossible for the other parties in Sweden to shut his party out of influence in the negotiations to form the next government:

  “They make every effort to form a new government without giving us influence. But it will be impossible to keep us out. The sooner they realize it, the faster we will avoid chaos.”

  The scale of the challenge facing Sweden is daunting. A recent study by the Pew Research Center estimated that even if all immigration were immediately to stop, the proportion of Muslims in Sweden would still rise to more than 11% of the overall population by 2050. A medium migration scenario places Sweden’s Muslim population at 20.5% in 30 years; a high migration scenario places the Muslim population at 30.6%.

  

• US-Indian Relations: Trump Gets A Unique Partner For America First

  Authored by Melkulangara Bhadrakumar via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

  The inaugural meeting of the foreign and defence ministers of India and the United States in a new “2+2” format on September 6 in New Delhi assumed added significance as an attempt by the Trump administration to translate its Indo-Pacific vision outlined in the National Security Strategy (NSS) of last December.

  

  The NSS had explicitly singled out Russia and China as “revisionist” powers that “challenge American power, influence and interests.” Equally, it ascribed a pivotal role to India in the Indo-Pacific. The “2+2” deliberations fleshed out these two templates.

  For the first time in the post-Cold War era, the US has inserted itself into the “time-tested” relationship between India and Russia. Demolition of Indian-Russian partnership has been a hidden agenda of the US’ regional policy since the 1990s but it surged in an overt and abrasive form last week.

  This shift from an aspirational approach to intrusive approach can be seen in the backdrop of the deterioration of US-Russia relations and the probability that tensions are unlikely to dissipate in a foreseeable future. The US sanctions against Russian defence sectors have been enacted in the full knowledge that India would be an acutely affected party. The US sanctions laws against Russia are acting like the Damocles’ sword to wear down India’s resistance to rollback in ties with Russia.

  A similar US assault on India-Russia energy cooperation can be expected soon, which is another promising area for US exports to India. Besides, the US is also threatening to sanction Russia’s financial sector. Clearly, what the US is seeking goes far beyond a reset or atrophy in the Indian-Russian relationship. It aims at nothing less than draining the contents of the “Special Privileged Strategic Partnership” between India and Russia and make it an empty shell. Yet, partnership with Russia has been historically an anchor sheet of India’s strategic autonomy.

  Indeed, it becomes a sad reflection of the huge inroads the US has made through the recent decade since the signing of the 2008 US-Indian nuclear deal to breach India’s strategic autonomy. Put differently, weakening of the India-Russia relations is an imperative need for Washington to hustle India on the path of becoming its key ally in the Indo-Pacific. Such a profound shift in the US approach can only be understood in terms of the strategic importance and the sense of urgency that the NSS attaches to the Indo-Pacific region.

  The NSS ranks the Indo-Pacific as a strategically more vital area than the Middle East (which has been the principal domain so far of the US’ strategic attention.) The NSS prioritizes the “Quad” (quadrilateral alliance of the US, Japan, Australia and India) more emphatically than even Washington’s transatlantic leadership as a platform of the US’ global strategies. Washington intends to checkmate China, which the NSS has portrayed as the US’ competitor who poses challenge to its world leadership and the international order.

  Washington’s Indo-Pacific strategy appeals to the Indian audience alongside the NSS’ grand designation of India as a “leading global power”. Delhi exulted over the NSS document: “We appreciate the importance given to India-United States relationship… the two responsible democracies…share the same objectives.” To be sure, the Trump administration has rekindled a decade-old Indian dream of being a “counterweight” to China.

  An influential section of India’s foreign-policy elite remains wedded to the notion that fundamentally, the US helped China’s rise in the Cold War era and that India is similarly well positioned to garner American benevolence in the emergent New Cold War conditions. The “2+2” highlighted that the US has astutely tapped into the Indian elite’s “unipolar predicament”.

  In the recent period since the NSS was announced, the Trump administration has declared India as a “Major Defence Partner”, opening the door for the sale of more advanced and sensitive military technologies by American vendors at par with the US’ closest allies and partners, and fostering convergence of interests with India on a range of issues like maritime security, domain awareness and so on.  

  Without doubt, this has been a “win-win” strategy for Washington. The signing of a Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement (COMCASA) at the “2+2” testifies to it. The COMCASA is modeled on agreements Washington has with its most important NATO and treaty allies. It is a big leap forward in developing “inter-operability” between the militaries of the US, its allies, and India, which in turn transforms India into a front-line state in the US’ military-strategic offensive against China in the Indo-Pacific. Another such “foundational agreement”, Logistics Exchange Memorandum Agreement (signed in 2016 and operationalized last year), has already opened India’s air bases and naval ports to routine use by US warplanes and battleships for refueling and resupply.

  The “2+2” joint statement announced that India and US will stage their first-ever joint exercise involving all three branches of India’s military next year, and that they are setting up “hotlines” between their respective foreign and defence ministries “to help maintain regular high-level communication on emerging developments.” It commits the two countries to increased bilateral, trilateral and quadrilateral military-security cooperation. On the other hand, COMCASA is expected to pave the way for a major boost in Indian purchases of US weaponry, which is likely to begin with India’s procurement of armed naval drones for anti-submarine warfare.

  All this works splendidly for the US. In sum, by playing on India’s geopolitical apprehensions regarding China’s rise as a global power and playing astutely on India’s own great-power ambitions, US is promoting on the one hand its business interests in the Indian market while on the other hand also locking India into its Indo-Pacific alliance system against China as well as progressively undermining the India-Russia “time-tested” relationship.

  It’s a “win-win” strategy all the way. The Trump White House has drawn encouragement from the “2+2” to push the idea of concluding a free-trade agreement with India. Informal conversations have already begun. 

  Trump appears bullish that when push comes to shove, the present Indian government will bend to Washington’s diktats. Indeed, the Trump administration can count on influential back channels, too. It is no secret that the upper caste Indian Diaspora in the US has close links with the Hindu nationalist groups that mentor Modi government.

  Thus, it comes as no surprise that Trump sees Prime Minister Modi as a unique partner for his “America First” project. Trump will skip the East Asia Summit in Singapore in November but is signaling interest in Modi’s invitation to him to be the guest of honor at India’s National Day celebrations in January. 

  

• Trump: Expect Decision On US Role In Syria Soon; Calls Russian Plane Downing "Very Sad Thing"

  President Trump indicated that a decision on the future of US policy in Syria is coming soon in remarks made at a press conference with his Polish counterpart.

  Speaking alongside President Andrzej Duda, Trump said the Monday night downing of a Russian maritime surveillance plane by accidental Syrian friendly fire was “a very sad thing”. Trump’s remarks did not include criticism of Putin, and seemed to signal regret over Monday night’s dramatic escalation over Syria after a massive Israeli attack. 

  Earlier in the day Tuesday, Russia had pointed the finger at Israel for purposefully provoking the mishap, something Israel has since denied in a military statement that ultimately put blame on Assad, Iran, and Hezbollah.

  

  Trump also said that the US fight against ISIS in Syria could end soon: “We’re very close to being finished with that job,” he said of the Pentagon mission against ISIS.

  He followed with: “And then we’re going to make a determination as to what we’re going to do.”

  This follows a major Washington Post story two weeks ago, quoting administration insiders, that described a significant policy shift away from Trump’s previously voiced desire to “bring to the troops home” from Syria. 

  Trump calls downed Russian plane by Bashar al-Assad’s forces a “very sad thing.”

  Adds U.S. is “very close to being finished with” fight against ISIS, “and then we’re going to make a determination as to what we’re going to do.” https://t.co/TAt6qG22H5

  — Roll Call (@rollcall) September 18, 2018

  https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

  Only months ago the president expressed a desire “to get out” and pull the over 2,000 publicly acknowledged American military personnel from the country; but the new report said that Trump has approved “an indefinite military and diplomatic effort in Syria”.

  The report revealed that “the administration has redefined its goals to include the exit of all Iranian military and proxy forces from Syria, and establishment of a stable, nonthreatening government acceptable to all Syrians and the international community.”

  But is it possible that Monday’s attack involving missiles flying over the Mediterranean and an “accidental” downing of a Russian plane and 15 dead Russian crew members might have jolted Trump back to his prior position of wanting to withdraw from the Syrian quagmire? 

  Monday’s events also came just after Russian President Putin and his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced that a demilitarized zone in Idlib will be formed by October 15. As part of the deal Russia and Syria have reportedly called off the major offensive on Idlib, as Turkey has vowed to facilitate the withdrawal of the al-Qaeda groups in control of Idlib to Jisr al-Shughour near the Turkish border. 

  The Russia-Turkey deal over Idlib has at least temporarily deflated US threats that it could intervene should Syria launch a brutal assault on the province —something the US promised to do especially if chemical weapons are used. 

  Is it possible that Trump will take the window of opportunity to get out of Syria, and walk back from prior US threats?

  

• Suspending The Constitution: In America Today, The Government Does Whatever It Wants

  Authored by John Whitehead via The Rutherford Institute,

  “That was when they suspended the Constitution. They said it would be temporary. There wasn’t even any rioting in the streets. People stayed home at night, watching television, looking for some direction. There wasn’t even an enemy you could put your finger on.”—Margaret Atwood, The Handmaid’s Tale

  We can pretend that the Constitution, which was written to hold the government accountable, is still our governing document.

  The reality we must come to terms with, however, is that in the America we live in today, the government does whatever it wants, freedom be damned.

  

  “We the people” have been terrorized, traumatized, and tricked into a semi-permanent state of compliance by a government that cares nothing for our lives or our liberties.

  The bogeyman’s names and faces may change over time (terrorism, the war on drugs, illegal immigration, etc.), but the end result remains the same: our unquestioning acquiescence to anything the government wants to do in exchange for the phantom promise of safety and security.

  Thus, in the so-called named of national security, the Constitution has been steadily chipped away at, undermined, eroded, whittled down, and generally discarded to such an extent that what we are left with today is but a shadow of the robust document adopted more than two centuries ago.

  Most of the damage, however, has been inflicted upon the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the Constitution—which historically served as the bulwark from government abuse. 

  A recitation of the Bill of Rights—set against a backdrop of government surveillance, militarized police, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, eminent domain, overcriminalization, armed surveillance drones, whole body scanners, stop and frisk searches (all sanctioned by Congress, the White House, the courts and the like)—would understandably sound more like a eulogy to freedoms lost than an affirmation of rights we truly possess.

  

  Here is what it means to live under the Constitution today.

  The First Amendment is supposed to protect the freedom to speak your mind, assemble and protest nonviolently without being bridled by the government. It also protects the freedom of the media, as well as the right to worship and pray without interference. In other words, Americans should not be silenced by the government. To the founders, all of America was a free speech zone.

  Despite the clear protections found in the First Amendment, the freedoms described therein are under constant assault. Increasingly, Americans are being arrested and charged with bogus “contempt of cop” charges such as “disrupting the peace” or “resisting arrest” for daring to film police officers engaged in harassment or abusive practices. Journalists are being prosecuted for reporting on whistleblowers. States are passing legislation to muzzle reporting on cruel and abusive corporate practices. Religious ministries are being fined for attempting to feed and house the homeless. Protesters are being tear-gassed, beaten, arrested and forced into “free speech zones.” And under the guise of “government speech,” the courts have reasoned that the government can discriminate freely against any First Amendment activity that takes place within a government forum.

  The Second Amendment was intended to guarantee “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” Essentially, this amendment was intended to give the citizenry the means to resist tyrannical government. Yet while gun ownership has been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court as an individual citizen right, Americans remain powerless to defend themselves against SWAT team raids and government agents armed to the teeth with military weapons better suited for the battlefield. As such, this amendment has been rendered null and void.

  The Third Amendment reinforces the principle that civilian-elected officials are superior to the military by prohibiting the military from entering any citizen’s home without “the consent of the owner.” With the police increasingly training like the military, acting like the military, and posing as military forces—complete with heavily armed SWAT teams, military weapons, assault vehicles, etc.—it is clear that we now have what the founders feared most—a standing army on American soil. 

  The Fourth Amendment prohibits government agents from conducting surveillance on you or touching you or invading you, unless they have some evidence that you’re up to something criminal. In other words, the Fourth Amendment ensures privacy and bodily integrity. Unfortunately, the Fourth Amendment has suffered the greatest damage in recent years and has been all but eviscerated by an unwarranted expansion of police powers that include strip searches and even anal and vaginal searches of citizens, surveillance (corporate and otherwise) and intrusions justified in the name of fighting terrorism, as well as the outsourcing of otherwise illegal activities to private contractors.

  The Fifth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment work in tandem. These amendments supposedly ensure that you are innocent until proven guilty, and government authorities cannot deprive you of your life, your liberty or your property without the right to an attorney and a fair trial before a civilian judge. However, in the new suspect society in which we live, where surveillance is the norm, these fundamental principles have been upended. Certainly, if the government can arbitrarily freeze, seize or lay claim to your property (money, land or possessions) under government asset forfeiture schemes, you have no true rights.

  The Seventh Amendment guarantees citizens the right to a jury trial. Yet when the populace has no idea of what’s in the Constitution—civic education has virtually disappeared from most school curriculums—that inevitably translates to an ignorant jury incapable of distinguishing justice and the law from their own preconceived notions and fears. However, as a growing number of citizens are coming to realize, the power of the jury to nullify the government’s actions—and thereby help balance the scales of justice—is not to be underestimated. Jury nullification reminds the government that “we the people” retain the power to ultimately determine what laws are just.

  The Eighth Amendment is similar to the Sixth in that it is supposed to protect the rights of the accused and forbid the use of cruel and unusual punishment. However, the Supreme Court’s determination that what constitutes “cruel and unusual” should be dependent on the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” leaves us with little protection in the face of a society lacking in morals altogether.

  The Ninth Amendment provides that other rights not enumerated in the Constitution are nonetheless retained by the people. Popular sovereignty—the belief that the power to govern flows upward from the people rather than downward from the rulers—is clearly evident in this amendment. However, it has since been turned on its head by a centralized federal government that sees itself as supreme and which continues to pass more and more laws that restrict our freedoms under the pretext that it has an “important government interest” in doing so.

  As for the Tenth Amendment’s reminder that the people and the states retain every authority that is not otherwise mentioned in the Constitution, that assurance of a system of government in which power is divided among local, state and national entities has long since been rendered moot by the centralized Washington, DC, power elite—the president, Congress and the courts. Indeed, the federal governmental bureaucracy has grown so large that it has made local and state legislatures relatively irrelevant. Through its many agencies and regulations, the federal government has stripped states of the right to regulate countless issues that were originally governed at the local level.

  If there is any sense to be made from this recitation of freedoms lost, it is simply this: our individual freedoms have been eviscerated so that the government’s powers could be expanded.

  Yet those who gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed that the government exists at the behest of its citizens. It is there to protect, defend and even enhance our freedoms, not violate them.

  It was no idle happenstance that the Constitution opens with these three powerful words: “We the people.” As the Preamble proclaims:

  We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this CONSTITUTION for the United States of America.

  In other words, we have the power to make and break the government. We are the masters and they are the servants. We the American people—the citizenry—are the arbiters and ultimate guardians of America’s welfare, defense, liberty, laws and prosperity.

  Still, it’s hard to be a good citizen if you don’t know anything about your rights or how the government is supposed to operate.

  As the National Review rightly asks, “How can Americans possibly make intelligent and informed political choices if they don’t understand the fundamental structure of their government? American citizens have the right to self-government, but it seems that we increasingly lack the capacity for it.”

  Americans are constitutionally illiterate.

  Most citizens have little, if any, knowledge about their basic rights. And our educational system does a poor job of teaching the basic freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. For instance, when Newsweek asked 1,000 adult U.S. citizens to take America’s official citizenship test, 44% were unable to define the Bill of Rights.

  A survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that a little more than one-third of respondents (36 percent) could name all three branches of the U.S. government, while another one-third (35 percent) could not name a single one. Only a quarter of Americans (27 percent) know it takes a two-thirds vote of the House and Senate to override a presidential veto. One in five Americans (21 percent) incorrectly thinks that a 5-4 Supreme Court decision is sent back to Congress for reconsideration. And more than half of Americans do not know which party controls the House and Senate.

  A 2006 survey by the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum found that only one out of a thousand adults could identify the five rights protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, more than half (52%) of the respondents could name at least two of the characters in the animated Simpsonstelevision family, and 20% could name all five. And although half could name none of the freedoms in the First Amendment, a majority (54%) could name at least one of the three judges on the TV program American Idol, 41% could name two and one-fourth could name all three.

  It gets worse. 

  Many who responded to the survey had a strange conception of what was in the First Amendment. For example, 21% said the “right to own a pet” was listed someplace between “Congress shall make no law” and “redress of grievances.” Some 17% said that the First Amendment contained the “right to drive a car,” and 38% believed that “taking the Fifth” was part of the First Amendment.

  Teachers and school administrators do not fare much better. A study conducted by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis found that one educator in five was unable to name any of the freedoms in the First Amendment.

  In fact, while some educators want students to learn about freedom, they do not necessarily want them to exercise their freedoms in school. As the researchers conclude, “Most educators think that students already have enough freedom, and that restrictions on freedom in the school are necessary. Many support filtering the Internet, censoring T-shirts, disallowing student distribution of political or religious material, and conducting prior review of school newspapers.”

  Government leaders and politicians are also ill-informed. Although they take an oath to uphold, support and defend the Constitution against “enemies foreign and domestic,” their lack of education about our fundamental rights often causes them to be enemies of the Bill of Rights.

  So what’s the solution?

  Thomas Jefferson recognized that a citizenry educated on “their rights, interests, and duties”  is the only real assurance that freedom will survive.

  As Jefferson wrote in 1820: “I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of our society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”

  From the President on down, anyone taking public office should have a working knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and should be held accountable for upholding their precepts. One way to ensure this would be to require government leaders to take a course on the Constitution and pass a thorough examination thereof before being allowed to take office.

  Some critics are advocating that students pass the United States citizenship exam in order to graduate from high school. Others recommend that it must be a prerequisite for attending college. I’d go so far as to argue that students should have to pass the citizenship exam before graduating from grade school.

  Here’s an idea to get educated and take a stand for freedom: anyone who signs up to become a member of The Rutherford Institute gets a wallet-sized Bill of Rights card and a Know Your Rights card. Use this card to teach your children the freedoms found in the Bill of Rights.

  If this constitutional illiteracy is not remedied and soon, freedom in America will be doomed.

  As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we have managed to keep the wolf at bay so far. Barely.

  Our national priorities need to be re-prioritized. For instance, some argue that we need to make America great again. I, for one, would prefer to make America free again.

  As actor-turned-activist Richard Dreyfuss warned:

  “Unless we teach the ideas that make America a miracle of government, it will go away in your kids’ lifetimes, and we will be a fable.You have to find the time and creativity to teach it in schools, and if you don’t, you will lose it. You will lose it to the darkness, and what this country represents is a tiny twinkle of light in a history of oppression and darkness and cruelty. If it lasts for more than our lifetime, for more than our kids’ lifetime, it is only because we put some effort into teaching what it is, the ideas of America: the idea of opportunity, mobility, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly.”

  

• Air Force Calls For 24% Increase In Squadrons To Prepare For War Against Major Power

  Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson on Monday called for a significant increase in the service’s size, as it prepares for the possibility of war against a major nation such as China or Russia, in the next decade.

  

  Under the expansion plan outlined by Wilson, the Air Force needs to grow by 74 additional squadrons, a 25% increase, by 2030. She said the number was based on internal reports, using intelligence estimates of what the service would need as far as manpower to be victorious in the next conflict.

  “To face the world as it is, with a rapidly innovating adversary, the Air Force we need should have about 25 percent more operational squadrons in the 2025 to 2030 time frame than the Air Force we have,” Wilson told attendees at an Air Force Association conference in National Harbor, Maryland.

  Wilson, the Air Force’s top civilian official, said the increase is essential to the service’s current mission of upholding the new national defense strategy, as well as combating the evolving threats from China and Russia.

  “The defense strategy tells us that we need to be able to defend the homeland, provide a credible nuclear deterrent and win against a major power while encountering a rogue nation, all while managing violent extremists with lower levels of effort,” she said.

  Wilson said the service has approximately 312 operational squadrons but needs 386.

  “Three hundred and twelve operational squadrons is not enough. It takes all of us to get that combat power ready and able to fight. A fist is nothing without the weight of the body behind it.“

  Wilson explained that the 74 additional squadrons, 14 would be dedicated to aerial refueling. Seven of them would be assigned to space squadrons, and five would be bomber squadrons. She said seven new operations squadrons, nine combat search and rescue squadrons, 22 command and control squadrons, seven more fighter squadrons, two drone squadrons, and one airlift squadron.

  

  She added that the Air Force does not anticipate more nuclear or cyber squadrons, and while she conceded that it would take years to build these new squadrons, she did not give an estimate of how much the program would cost.

  “We aren’t naive about how long it will take us to build the support and budget required for the force we need. It is a choice,” Wilson said.

  Todd Harrison, a defense budget analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, pointed out that a 24 percent growth in Air Force squadrons would require an additional $13 billion per year. 

  “The cost of pay and benefits for 40,000 airmen is about $5.2B per year (give or take),” he wrote in a Tweet on Friday. “Right now the Air Force spends about $53B per year on aircraft operations, training, and recruiting. Increasing the number of squadrons by ~24% would probably add another $13B per year in these operating costs.”

  War is big business. Decades-long wars have enriched the shareholders of Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman. As for the foreseeable future, America’s military-industrial-complex will continue to expand. For those asking why, the chart below shows the answer:

  

   

  

• How The Trade War Helps Hide Central Bank Sabotage Of The Economy

  Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,

  This article was written by Brandon Smith and originally published at Birch Gold Group

  Almost every aspect of the global economic downturn, which started ostensibly in 2007-2008 and is still ongoing to this day, can be traced back to the actions and policies of central banks. The Federal Reserve, for example, used artificially low interest rates and easy money to create a supposedly no-risk loan environment. This translated into a vast amount of toxic mortgage debt along with a web of derivatives (Mortgage Backed Securities) attached to that debt.

  

  The Fed ignored all the signs and all the alternative analyst warnings. Agencies like S&P backed the Fed narrative that all was well as they gave AAA ratings to endless toxic market products. The mainstream media backed the Fed by attacking anyone that argued the notion that the U.S. economy was unstable and ready to falter. In that era of economics, the truth was effectively hidden from the public by the system through relatively standard means. Today, things have changed slightly.

  Since the 2008 crash, numerous economists and former Fed officials have come out publicly to admit to the culpability of central bankers (sort of). Alan Greenspan first claimed in 2008 that the Fed had “made a mistake” in its analysis and overlooked the potential of a market bubble. Then, in 2013 he came out and admitted all the central bankers KNEW that a bubble was present, but that they believed the markets would self-correct without much damage to GDP or the rest of the economy.

  The mainstream financial media went on to blame the Fed for the conditions that caused the crisis, but made excuses for them at the same time. The narrative was that the Fed was blinded by peripheral factors and that it had been ignoring fundamentals. The central bankers had “painted themselves into a corner” with low interest rates, and had done this unknowingly.

  This is the same narrative that Alan Greenspan used to dismiss any responsibility on the Fed’s part during the collapse of the market bubble in the 1990’s. Greenspan argued against the idea of raising interest rates in response to the bubble because it would “put the entire economy in peril”. Interestingly, raising interest rates into a debt heavy stock market and economy (a leveraged economy) is exactly what the Fed is doing today under current Fed Chair Jerome Powell.

  This pattern of creating bubbles and then crashing them, resulting in financial chaos, goes back quite a long time. In the 1920’s, the Fed’s low interest rate policies and easy money led to the bubble conditions of October 1929, a month that will live in infamy as the start of the Great Depression. The Fed then raised rates sharply in the early 1930’s, which then caused a renewed crisis and prolonged the Depression well into the next decade. It took over 70 years for a Fed official to finally take blame for the disaster, but it happened in 2002 during a speech given by Ben Bernanke at “A Conference To Honor Milton Friedman…On Occasion Of His 90th Birthday”:

  “In short, according to Friedman and Schwartz, because of institutional changes and misguided doctrines, the banking panics of the Great Contraction were much more severe and widespread than would have normally occurred during a downturn.

  Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You’re right, we did it. We’re very sorry. But thanks to you, we won’t do it again.”

  This might come as a surprise to some, but Bernanke lied. The Fed has continued the process of bubble-and-burst economics using interest rates and its balance sheet as weapons well into the new century, and yet very few analysts are willing to suggest that the central banks creates these crises on purpose.

  Throughout history, economic calamity has often led to consolidation of wealth and assets into the hands of the top 1%. This happened during the Great Depression as larger globalist banks, like JP Morgan, snapped up or destroyed thousands of smaller local banks until only the majors were left. In the wake of the 2008 crash, one need only examine the historic widening of the wealth gap, as the top 1% are set to take control of two-thirds of the world’s wealth by 2030. Or, we might take into account the absorption of the housing market by conglomerates like Blackstone as private home ownership declined after the crash.

  I believe that the next economic disaster will be more substantial than all the bubbles of the past 100 years combined, and the intent on the part of the banking elites is to obtain complete global centralization of all assets and resources.

  This time, though, the general public has finally learned to be more suspicious of the central banks and their motives during such events. Because of greater exposure after the 2008 crash, central banks and their related institutions cannot rely merely on the mainstream media or government entities like the Bureau of Labor Statistics to cover for them. They need a smokescreen.

  The trade war is so perfect in this regard, I believe that it could not be anything other than planned. Here are five reasons why:

  1) The trade war provides cover for de-dollarization: With emerging markets previously addicted to easy money from the Fed, dollars were used to provide artificial support for their ailing economies. Now, with the Fed raising interest rates and cutting the balance sheet, that flow of dollars is drying up. Emerging markets are starting to look for alternatives as they have no other choice, and this means more bilateral trade agreements that circumvent the dollar.

  Lucky for the Fed, the trade war can be used as a scapegoat for countries dumping the dollar in the name of striking an economic blow against the U.S. Nations like Turkey and Russia have already begun to threaten this outcome.

  2) The trade war provides a rationale for dumping US Treasuries: Russia is already well ahead of this process, dumping at least half their US treasuries in a single month.  It is only a matter of time before China uses the same method as retaliation for US tariffs.  The mainstream media will argue that this is not a meaningful threat to the US economy, but consider the possibility that China’a trading partners will follow their lead causing a “contagion” of treasuries dumped onto the markets.  If the US cannot maintain foreign investment in its considerable debts, it will implode economically.  The Federal Reserve has ensured that there are no policy tools left to come to the rescue if this happens.  Foreign holders of US debt have been openly discussing this option ever since the 2008 crash.  Now, the trade war makes the US culpable (at least in terms of historical narrative) for whatever occurs next.

  3) The trade war provides cover for inflation: With ever-increasing tariffs on goods and materials from around the world, retail prices are only going to spike higher, but the real inflation danger will come from the Fed. True inflation is already well above Fed targets. The money creation that the central bank used to stall the debt crisis created an even bigger bubble in the dollar itself. With new tightening policies will come a rush of dollars back into the U.S. as emerging markets de-dollarize.  Without the Fed providing constant stimulus, using dollars as the world reserve will eventually become trade prohibitive.  All of this will still be blamed on tariffs and trade disputes, and not the Fed.

  4) The trade war provides cover for a renewed market crash: As the Fed launched its bailout measures and Quantitative Easing, it was emerging market stocks that first began to climb exponentially out of the deep pit caused by the debt crisis. U.S. and European stocks followed to the insane bull market highs witnessed recently. Now, as the Fed restricts stimulus and cuts its balance sheet, it is emerging markets that are crashing first. The question is, will western markets follow them down? I believe they absolutely will.

  Fed Chair Powell admitted to this outcome in statements he made in the October 2012 Fed minutes. He is well aware of the consequences of removing the pillars of low interest rates and Fed asset purchases, yet, he continues with the plan anyway. Why? Because a new market crash can be blamed on Trump and the trade war. Trump has all but taken full credit for current market highs, and now he owns whatever happens in the next two years.

  5) The trade war provides cover for the demonization of conservative ideals: The concept of tariffs on foreign goods in order to encourage localized production and self-sufficiency is a tactic as old as America itself. It is conservative in nature and can be an effective measure in the right hands. That said, it requires an existing manufacturing base and relatively stable economic conditions. A debt addled economy desperately clinging to the reserve status of its currency and fiat inflation for life is the WORST environment to launch tariffs. The bottom line is that America has little to no leverage against its competitors because we are more dependent on them than they are on us.

  The evidence of this is clear in the fact that the U.S. trade deficit only continues to climb as the trade war progresses. Some people have argued that this is due to U.S. retailers increasing purchases from overseas before tariffs take effect, but the minor increases in retail inventories of goods do not support this theory. The continued decline of inventories to sales suggests a declining consumer market in the U.S. as well.

  When it becomes obvious that the trade war is failing, the globalist dream of demonizing conservative economic models and values will be easier to achieve. As all fiscal crises are wrapped around the neck of Trump, and thus conservatives by extension, the public will be told that the only solution is to swing to the other side of the political and economic spectrum in an extreme way. In other words, high speed socialism and globalism.

  The success of this kind of propaganda will depend on whether or not people have been adequately educated as to the REAL source of our financial ills.

  • If the word on the lips of the masses is “Trump did it”, then we are in trouble.

  • If the word is “The central bankers did it and Trump was merely their proxy…” then we might have a chance to stop the ship from sinking completely.

  *  *  *

  If you would like to support the publishing of articles like the one you have just read, visit our donations page here.  We greatly appreciate your patronage.

  

• Most Blue-Collar Workers Report Feeling 'Optimistic' And 'Happy', Study Shows

  The unprecedented optimism being felt by small business owners and consumers is also lifting the spirits of blue collar workers, according to a new survey which found that American laborers are enjoying rising wages and improved job prospects, while their white-collar peers struggle with stagnant wages and growing rates of work-related dissatisfaction.

  

  Of course, anybody who has spent long hours behind a desk probably wouldn’t be surprised to hear that one of the biggest factors behind the high rates of work-related dissatisfaction among white collar workers is the fact that most of them spend nearly two-thirds of their day in a sedentary position. In contrast, blue-collar workers enjoy high levels of mobility.

  Our findings do suggest, however, that white-collar work remains associated with sedentary office culture. Those who deemed themselves white-collar professionals said they spent more than two-thirds of their workdays at a desk on average. Conversely, the most common industries for self-identified blue-collar workers were the wholesale and retail, manufacturing and hospitality fields—work typically performed on one’s feet.

  With that said, blue-collar workers struggle with anxieties related to their long-term career trajectory at significantly higher rates than white collar workers. Blue-collar workers also report higher rates of feeling disrespected while at work.

  How does the job satisfaction of blue- and white-collar professionals compare? Whereas more than two-thirds of each cohort reported feeling happy at work, white-collar workers were slightly more likely to report as much. Likewise, blue-collar workers were more likely to express unhappiness about their professional lives. These findings resonate with global data gauging worker happiness, suggesting that individuals in labor-intensive positions experience positive emotions less frequently across the world.

  There may be many viable explanations for this happiness gap, but it seems unlikely to result from co-worker conflict. White-collar workers were only slightly more likely to express that they “liked” their colleagues. Our data do suggest, however, that poor treatment at work could contribute to the relative unhappiness of blue-collar workers. Indeed, blue-collar workers were substantially more likely to report being mistreated or disrespected at their jobs. Several studies have concluded that workers who feel respected in their roles experience better health and well-being. Could blue-collar workers’ happiness depend more on others’ civility than the actual nature of their work?

  In a sign that President Trump’s economic policies are helping lift all Americans – not just the wealthy – both white- and blue-collar workers are largely “optimistic about the future,” with 72% of blue collar workers and 76% of white collar workers answering in the affirmative.

  

  Half of respondents feel they could easily find another job (which is hardly surprising given that the number of job openings is at its highest level in years). However, blue-collar workers may have seen their prospects rise thanks to a surge in blue-collar jobs.

  But despite these material gains in wages and wealth, most blue-collar workers still feel that they’re underpaid (to be sure, this is hardly a new phenomenon).

  But moving on from purely economic concerns, the study raised a few interesting (albeit unsurprising) points during a section that examined blue- and white-collar workers emotional well-being and perceptions of one another. For starters, most blue- and white-collar workers feel “happy”…

  

  But when it comes to perception, there are some notable gaps. Blue-collar workers perceive their white-collar peers to be educated, but they also perceive them to be arrogant jerks.

  

  This may come as a surprise to members of the professional class who often unconsciously patronize blue-collar workers. But to anyone who has ever been screamed at by an agitated middle-aged housewife while, say, working as a cashier at a fast-food restaurant, the factors behind this bias should be crystal clear.

  Why do blue-collar individuals typically perceive white-collar individuals more harshly? One possible explanation lies in our data about the mistreatment and disrespect that blue-collar workers experience at work. White-collar professionals may have great admiration for blue-collar workers, but that matters little if they treat them poorly in reality. As managers and customers, are white-collar individuals doing enough to demonstrate respect?

  In summary, this survey shows that after decades of declines, the fortunes for the American worker are finally starting to improve. But we’re sure Democrats would argue that Obama deserves the credit for this, instead of Trump and his explicitly pro-business and pro-worker policies.

  

• Recusal Of Mystery Judge Stalls DNC Fraud Lawsuit Appeal

  Authored by Elizabath Lea Vos via Disobedient Media

  UPDATE: 9/18/18 In another mind boggling twist, it was revealed after the publication of the following article that the recused Judge is in fact the Hon. Robin S. Rosenbaum, who has served on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals since 2014, and is apparently a member of the “Quill and Dagger” collegiate secret society.

  The DNC Fraud Lawsuit has been no stranger to unusual and atypical occurrences. The latest unprecedented development continues this trend, potentially raising troubling questions as to the integrity of the Federal appellate process.

  

  Disobedient Media has consistently covered the DNC Fraud lawsuit and its ongoing appeal as it has been dogged by outlandish events including voice-modulated phone calls, threats, and inexplicable deaths. Many such events have gone unnoticed and unreported by the legacy media.

  Though the suit was initially dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, the dismissal is in the process of an appeal in the Federal 11th Circuit appellate court. A hearing in the matter had been set for September 25th. However, attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case recently announced that the hearing had been canceled, with no date for a new hearing at the time of writing.

  The cancellation of the September hearing became more alarming in the wake of news that it stemmed from the recusal of one of three Judges. A periscope statement made by Elizabeth Lee Beck, one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case, discussed the bizarre events earlier today, stating in part:

  “Oral argument was set for September 25 in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit appeal, and it was assigned to that date for months. Less than two weeks before that hearing was supposed to happen, one of our three Judges recused herself. What that means is, for reasons that are unknown to us, decided that she is not fit to hear this appeal, it could be for any reason. Generally, it is for conflict of interest, but we don’t know what the reason is.

  In every recusal that has happened in my Federal cases, the identity of the Judges recusing him or herself was disclosed to the public. In the DNC Fraud Lawsuit appeal, when the recusal came down, the identity of this third Judge was hidden. Now the other two Judges are Judges Hall and Carnes. All the circuit Judges in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals are listed on their website.

  … So I called the clerk’s office to just find out the identity of the third judge… the clerk told me that she is not allowed to tell me this information… she concluded the call by saying she [the clerk] is actually waiting on the third Judge to give her permission to call me back, and let me know what her [the judge’s] identity is.

  So it is up to this Judge who recused herself, to decide whether or not she is going to disclose her identity.”

  As Beck explained, all 11th Circuit Judges are listed on their website,making the refusal to reveal the third Judge’s identity patently bizarre.

  The recusal of the mystery judge, in addition to the inexplicable lack of a new court date to replace the canceled September 25th hearing raises concerns as to what kind of conflict of interest or other matter motivated the recusal, and what then led to this bizarre cover-up of the recusing Judge’s identity.

  To most readers, it would seem unlikely and unnecessary that a Judge who had some legitimate, above-board conflict of interest with the defendants in the case – the DNC and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz – would feel the need to hide their identity for properly recusing themselves in the matter. Many Judges might have legitimately dealt with the DNC or Schultz, making a recusal necessary. In that case, why hide their identity?

  The events lead one to query whether the Judge in question did not recuse herself due to conflict of interest regarding the defendants in the case. This opens an unanswerable slew of further questions as to whether there could have been any plausible conflict of interest with the plaintiffs, which seems very unlikely.

  If there was no such conflict, one wonders what other motivating factors may have led to this late decision. These issues raise the overall potential for public speculation regarding the possibility of back-room threats or below-board deals of some kind, which then necessitated the cover-up of the Judge in question’s identity.

  The public can only speculate as to how this latest turn in the ongoing DNC Fraud Lawsuit saga will unfold, and when – if ever- a new court date will be set in the appeal process.

  Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important matter as it develops.

  

Digest powered by RSS Digest