.
Don’t Submit to Iran’s Extortion
by Aaron KliegmanThe incident came one week after the Trump administration blamed Iran for attacking two oil tankers—one Japanese, the other Norwegian—with mines in the Gulf of Oman. On Wednesday, an unidentified militia fired a rocket at a compound in southern Iraq used by ExxonMobil and other international oil firms. The incident was the fourth time in less than a week that rockets have been fired at facilities where Americans are stationed in Iraq, and the eighth rocket attack on American-linked facilities this year. While it is unclear who launched the most recent assault, experts have suspected that an Iranian-backed militia is responsible. There is certainly good reason to suspect Iran. The strike came two days after rockets were fired at Camp Taji in Iraq, north of Baghdad, a facility where American soldiers are present and which Iranian proxies attacked on May 1. The United States also believes that Iran or its proxies were behind an unsuccessful rocket attack against the U.S. embassy in the Green Zone in Baghdad on May 19. Beyond Iraq, Iran's atomic agency announced Monday that Tehran will exceed the limit that the nuclear deal places on its stockpile of low-enriched uranium by next Thursday, and also threatened to blow past the level to which the deal allows Iran to enrich uranium. And these are just some of the recent incidents involving, or believed to involve, Iran! On the surface, these acts of aggression seem disparate. Attacks near the Strait of Hormuz, suspected rocket attacks in Iraq by proxy, illicit nuclear activity—how can all of this chaos be connected? But these incidents comprise a coherent Iranian effort to coerce the West into stopping, or opposing, the Trump administration's policy of exerting "maximum pressure" on the Islamic Republic. Sure, the intended victims are Western leaders and countries, not shop owners, and, yes, the objectives go beyond simply obtaining money, but this campaign is, fundamentally, a form of extortion similar to the mafia—give me what I want, or else I will make you. The seemingly disparate events of recent weeks should be understood as part of a single, broader effort. This way, one can maintain clarity and avoid getting too sucked into the day-to-day craziness of the news of the moment. In this game of international extortion, however, the extortionist is not the one with the power. Rather, it's the target that has all the money and the much bigger guns. Iran should keep this in mind and remember that, when America flexes its muscles, the earth shakes. Iran must be made to see that it cannot extort the United States and benefit from its current method of escalation, and that it can only help itself through negotiations. That means continuing to sanction the hell out of the Islamic Republic and weaken Iranian power, all the while strengthening America's bargaining position for future talks. Iran will view anything else as a form of submission and continue to terrorize, unafraid of the consequences.
https://freebeacon.com/blog/dont-submit-irans-extortion/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=58b7eed9da-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_21_06_07_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-58b7eed9da-45611665 .
Revoke Al Jazeera’s Congressional
Press Credentials
by Adam Kredo
{freebeacon.com} ~ A Republican lawmaker has formally petitioned the Congressional Press Office to revoke Al Jazeera's press credentials pending an investigation into the outlet's ownership... according to a letter obtained by the Free Beacon. Rep. Jack Bergman (R., Mich.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, petitioned the Capitol Hill press officers earlier this month to immediately suspend "press credentials for the Al Jazeera news network" in light of "recent reports that the sole owner and shareholder of Al Jazeera International is the Emir of the State of Qatar," according to the letter. Al Jazeera's press credentials should be revoked until Congress and the Department of Justice completes an investigation into possible violations of U.S. law by the network, the letter discloses. Bergman and other lawmakers have argued that the outlet operates at the will of Qatar's ruling body and should be subject to laws compelling disclosure of these ties with the Department of Justice. Other foreign-owned media outlets such as Russia's RT had their press credentials revoked in 2017 over similar concerns regarding the dissemination of state-approved propaganda in the U.S. Congress went even further in recent months to compel foreign government's to disclose their media ties when they passed a measure requiring outlets like RT and Al Jazeera to register with the Federal Communications Commission, which Al Jazeera has thus far declined to do. Bergman told the Free Beacon more must be done to ensure that primarily foreign-owned media outlets are not permitted to disseminate state-sanctioned propaganda in the United States...
.
.
Podesta’s CAP Fuels Dark Money Group
Hitting Trump with Lawsuits
by Joe Schoffstall
{ freebeacon.com } ~ A "nonpartisan" dark money group that regularly files litigation against President Donald Trump's administration is powered by money from the Center for American Progress (CAP)... the liberal think tank founded by former scumbag/liar-Clinton campaign manager John Podesta. The Democracy Forward Foundation, a D.C.-based 501(c)3 nonprofit, was founded in 2017 to "help expose the rampant corruption in the Executive Branch and fight in court on behalf of the people it hurts." The group also has a 501(c)4 "social welfare" arm that goes by Democracy Forward. The foundation has filed suit against numerous government agencies, such as the Department of Justice, Department of Treasury, and the Office of Management and Budget, and has aided other entities with similar litigation, including Baltimore's lawsuit against the Trump administration over immigration policy. The group, which has maintained a relatively low profile despite its litigation efforts against the administration, dubs itself "nonpartisan" and is referred to as "anti-corruption" by major media outlets. The group's leadership, however, is made up of Democratic operatives, including Podesta himself. Democracy Forward's initial tax returns, which cover a time span of just over a month from May 19 to June 30, 2017, does not disclose its donors but shows that the group received $705,000 in seed money. The group lists a P.O. Box in D.C. as its address on the forms, the same contact address that is listed on its website. However, a review of the group's legal documents shows its attorneys mark the same address as Podesta's Center for American Progress. And while the Democracy Forward Foundation did not disclose its source of funding on its initial tax forms, the Center for American Progress's own tax forms from 2017 show that Podesta's group passed $1 million to the foundation. Democracy Forward did not respond to requests for its complete 2017 tax forms. The Center for American Progress did not respond to inquiries into its funding of the foundation or to questions about its being located in the same building as their organization. Democracy Forward was incorporated on March 29, 2017, by Katherine LeBeau, an associate at the Perkins Coie law firm, records filed to D.C.'s Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs office show...
.
Medicare for All Plan Would ‘Absolutely’
Cover Illegal Immigrants
by David Rutz
{ freebeacon.com } ~ Sen. commie-Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) said Friday his vision of Medicare for All would "absolutely" cover the illegal immigrants living in the United States... Speaking at a presidential candidate forum in Miami, commie-Sanders touted his plan for a universal health care system he claims would provide coverage for every "man, woman, and child" while saving the "average American substantial sums of money." "The insurance companies and their drug companies are starting to spend tens and tens of millions of dollars to fight against Medicare for All," commie-Sanders said. "And we will organize the American people around the concept that all people in this country have the right to health care, and at the end of the day, we are going to win that struggle." "Senator, would you include the 11 million undocumented immigrants in that?" a moderator asked."Absolutely," commie-Sanders said. "Absolutely. When I talk about health care being a human right, last time I heard that undocumented people are human beings as well." commie-Sanders has admitted that his platform will require hiking taxes, but he claims that most people would see savings overall by not having to pay health insurance premiums. One study estimates his plan would cost the U.S. $32.6 trillion over the next 10 years. Several other leading 2020 Democrats have embraced versions of Medicare for All. Regarding illegal immigration, commie-Sanders has said the migrant crisis at the southern border is a "serious problem" but condemned the Trump administration's handling of the situation. "It is a serious problem, but it is not the kind of crisis that requires demonization of desperate people who in some cases have walked a thousand miles with their children," commie-Sanders said in a CNN interview on June 9. "It is an issue we have to deal with. But the issue of climate change, the issue of tens of millions of Americans not having health insurance, the fact that half of our people are living paycheck to paycheck, those are more serious crises."
commie-Sanders needs to rethink about this issue. Its going to cost more then the trillions mention and higher taxes for sure on Americans. https://freebeacon.com/politics/sanders-medicare-for-all-plan-would-absolutely-cover-illegal-immigrants/?utm_source=Freedom+Mail&utm_campaign=58b7eed9da-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_06_21_06_07_COPY_02&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5e6e0e9ea-58b7eed9da-45611665 .
.
Big Government Is Wrong Solution for Big Tech CensorshipPolitical Editors: Big Tech has a censorship problem over which free-speech advocates particularly on the Right have been increasingly ringing alarm bells. But the solution to tackling this growing leftist threat to Liberty is hardly clear, nor is it easily agreed upon.
Free-market absolutists argue against any government action, suggesting that doing so only adds to an already oversized bureaucratic state when, given time, the market will eventually self-correct. While the concern over increased bureaucracy is valid, this argument naively contends that the problem is really a rather minor one if it’s one at all, and that what is happening in Silicon Valley is merely the free market at work. This presumes the market to be truly free from corrupt actors and practices if only left to itself.
However, what many conservatives have observed is the very real infringement on free speech through Big Tech’s increasingly active hostility — wrapped in the virtue-signaling guise of combating “hate speech.” As these Silicon Valley giants steadily have increased their market share in social media to virtual monopolies, they have in turn ratcheted up their efforts to censor conservative political speech.
In essence, the question is whether Google, Facebook, Twitter, et. al are carriers or publishers. If they are carriers, they shouldn’t be censoring content. If they are publishers, they should be liable for what they carry. But they’re trying to have it both ways, claiming they’re not liable (carriers) while censoring content (publishers).
As the cries over Big Tech’s speech-squelching practices have grown louder, lawmakers are increasingly taking notice and, unfortunately, taking advantage. The latest example comes from Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), who recently introduced a measure to amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. His measure, as Reason’s Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports, “prevents individual users of internet platforms and the companies that run them from being treated as legally indistinguishable from one another.” That’s huge, she says, because, “Without it, digital companies and the users of their products (i.e., all of us) could be sued in civil court or subject to state criminal prosecution over content and messages created and published by others.”
“State attorneys general have been howling about Section 230 for more than a decade because it means that only the federal government can criminally prosecute internet intermediaries,” Brown observes. “Thus, state prosecutors don’t have the opportunity to seize assets and bring in big financial settlements themselves.”
Brown further contends that Hawley’s bill would give the government control over speech online, meaning the “solution” would be worse than the problem. Hawley’s bill essentially would resurrect the infamous “Fairness Doctrine,” which conservatives rightly condemn for its negative effect on free speech and its promotion of the establishment media over and against non-mainstream voices. The fact of the matter is that this is a government power grab — one that makes the free-market absolutists’ argument for them.
The big problem is censorship of free speech, whether it comes from Big Tech monopolies or Big Government bureaucracy. The solution needs to be one that guards everyone’s freedom of speech, while at the same time avoiding overregulation. As we have suggested, the enforcement of anti-trust laws to break up these massive tech giants may be the best solution. ~The Patriot Post
https://patriotpost.us/articles/63756?mailing_id=4346&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4346&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body
by sundance
Comments