Blog Betty (Thomas Friedman is a Great Man was an online novel): 3/13/22

Thursday, March 17, 2022

We destroy everything

As the crazed idiot Joe Biden pushes us ever closer to world destruction, turns out the world is moving that way as well. We refused to love our planet. We refused to value the wonderful gift we were given. And now, even as we see it falling apart, we refuse to take steps to save it.

LIVE SCIENCE reports:

Giant "sinkholes" — one of which could devour an entire city block holding six-story buildings — are appearing along the Arctic seafloor, as submerged permafrost thaws and disturbs the area, scientists have discovered.

But even though human-caused climate change is increasing the average temperatures in the Arctic, the thawing permafrost that's creating these sinkholes seems to have a different culprit — heated, slowly moving groundwater systems.

The Arctic permafrost at the bottom of the Canadian Beaufort Sea has been submerged for about 12,000 years, since the end of the last ice age, when meltwater from glaciers blanketed the region. Until now, the frozen seafloor had been hidden from scientists' peering eyes. This remote part of the Arctic has only recently become accessible to researchers on ships as climate change causes the sea ice to retreat, the researchers said.

Depressing. We don't appear to value our planet or its people at all. We won't work towards saving the planet. Joe Biden can try to start a full out nuclear war between the US and Russia but he won't work to save the planet.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Thursday, March 17, 2022.. The rabid hate-fest that passes for public affairs programming in the US is something to ponder.

Starting with Sabby Sabs.

Whoopi can't get next to the table. Note that. It's not the double chins, it's the extreme girth that should alarm everyone. She's so fat she has to scoot her chair way, way back because her belly is too big for her to be close to the table.

She's ugly, yes. But she can be as ugly as she wants. She's been ugly for years. But she can't be that fat. Not when she's diabetic. She wants to talk about examples being set by others? Fatty is out of control with her diabetes. She's way too fat. If anyone really loved her in her life (no one does), they'd sit her down and say "Whoopi, you're going to lose a foot. You've got to get your weight under control."

Sabby is shocked that Joy said that Tucker wouldn't "be welcoed here for much longer" and she can't believe that she used to watch the show. Apparently not for that long. When Bully Boy Bush occupied the White House, when Joy was on the panel, THE VIEW did what it's doing now -- for the right wing. It's really easy for those losers to pretend otherwise but they condmened people left and right and that includes Joy. In fact, Joy was part of the 'hot topic' that went way off the rails one day. Barbara Walters was not on that show but had to come on the next day to straighten things up.

Joy and the other ladies (exepting Lisa Ling) trashed Jane Fonda who wasn't even part of the news cycle. They just started trashing her. They just started trashing her, ssaying she belonged behind bars, saying this and saying that. A FOX NEWS talk show could not have been as hateful to Jane as THE VIEW was. And Joy laughed with the hideous Meredith, at the end of the segment, about how Jane would never ask to come ont he show again.

Jane ask?

No, bitches, Jane doesn't ask to be on a show. A show asks her to be on.

Barbara Walters had to come on the next day and note that the conversation had gone too far and that what was said was wrong.

Barbara is not part of the show now (due to health) and there's n one who can come on and tell these out of control lunatics to STFU.

They're not qualified for anything but they speak on everything. And they are never wrong in their mind.

I decline to comment on everything because I can't know everything. But the less educated women of THE VIEW think they know everything -- which is why you'll notice the idiot Sunny is always reading off remarks. Love that unscripted but really scripted quality Sunny has because it's lets us know she's an idiot. She can't even formulate the froth she's spewing on her own.

It's really time for THE VIEW to end. And thta's going to depend upon the viewers saying enough. There are toher programs you can watch which don't have lunatics in front of the cameras screaming for this person to be arrested, this tried on treason, this kicked out of the country, this . . .

In other words, the women on other morning shows aren't as rabid 00 or, let's be honest, as ugly. More and more to be a member of THE VIEW, you really do have to be ugly.

So just say no to ugly, rabid people.

That's the only way that you're going to end this garbage. And it is garbage.

This is not it did have rules and follow them. That's not the case anymore. It's time for the show to go. The women who have inheretied it will just continue ta daytime talk show. Not one to be on a genearl entertainment network. The hosts are ignorant of events and even of basic necessities.

To note another incident, the ladies walked off during an interview because they didn't like what was being said. That was Whoopi, that was Joy. They walked out. They were sent back on stage because whore's don't want to lose money but, again, the next day Barbara had to show up to fix everyting. She had to explain the idea was that THE VIEW would engage, not that it would do that nonsense.

More to the point, hosts -- paid hosts -- do not have the right to walk out in the middle of an interview.

They know nothing about anything. They don't know the basics of hosting a talk show. They don't know the basics of what they're discussing.

This is not a show worth embracing and to keep watching these War Harpies is to embrace war. It's to embrace hate. Last month, Whoopi was distorting the Holocaust. She lied and she faux apologized and some of the left defended her. She lies all the time. She shouldn't be on air

She should be at a fat farm working every day to reduce her girth to a point where it is not endangering her health. She's not ten or thirty pounds overweight. She is grossly overweight. And she is diabetic.

When the health problems come along, no one should feel sorry for her. She's in con-compliance.

And maybe that's where the hate she's spewing comes from. And maybe she's poisoning her body intentionally. But I'm not going to feel sorry for her when she's the one destroying herself.

I also don't think we need to hear from anyone whose life is out of that control. She's like an addict who is active in her addiction. She's not someone to be a moderator as a result of that.

And before she worries next about what message Tucker or Tulsi is sending, she might want to grasp that she -- tugboat Whoopi -- is sending a message as well and it's that daibetics can be diagnosed and then get grossly overweight and it's nothing to worry about or be concerned about.

She wants to sti in judgment on everyone else in the world on every thing they do. But she doesn't want to apply the same eyes on and commentary about her own health.

Caitlin Johnstone (ICH) observes:

The only real anti-war position on the Ukraine conflict is support for de-escalation, diplomacy, and detente. Yelling “PUTIN BAD” and calling for escalations that could lead to a very fast, very radioactive WWIII are not anti-war, and indeed such sentiments are being exploited to prolong this war.

No efforts are being made toward diplomacy and peace, only toward escalations like building an insurgency and unprecedented economic warfare which fit perfectly into pre-existing US agendas against Russia. This is in the exact opposite direction of peace.

De-escalation is a skill we’re meant to start learning in kindergarten. These people act like they learned their de-escalation skills in the Minneapolis Police Department.

If you want to keep screaming that Putin is Adolf Hitler and even insignificant concessions like promising not to add Ukraine to NATO would be Chamberlainesque “appeasement” then go ahead, but don’t pretend you’re anti-war or pro-peace, because you’re not.

Wars end in one of two ways: with diplomacy and negotiation, or with mountains of corpses. If you’re opposed to any kind of negotiation with Moscow to bring about peace, then you want the latter. And if you do, you should get your bitch ass on a plane and join the front lines.

So let's tart a GoFundMe for the ladies of THE VIEW so they can put their tough girl asses on the line and use something more than their useless mouths as the crow and bray for more war.

Quick sidenote, THE VIEW is not the only embarrassment appearing on so called public affairs programs. A CNN friend called and played me a clip of US House Rep Maria Salazar revealing herself to be an idiot and an insulting one on Tucker Carlson's program. Tucker said "our boys" and I don't expect anything more from him. I don't consider him to be high at the top of the food chain or even the least bit aware of the world he lives in. But the elected US official began repeating it and running with it "our boys." SHe doesn't want to send "our boys" to Ukraine. Over and over.

The place of a woman like that is not in the House or the Senate. If she's not aware that women are part of the US military, that women are in combat, that women serve, she's too dumb to serve in Congress, hell, she's too dumb to greet you at the door of Sam's. Maybe she should meet with some US senators? She could speak with Tammi Duckworth, for example, who could speak about serving in Iraq, she could speak with Joni Ernst. She could speak with any number of women. By 2012 alone, 283,000 American women had deployed to either Iraq or Afghanistan (or, in some cases, to both).

That an elected member of Congress could be so stupid is appalling. That the member is also a woman just adds further insult when she's erasing the service of other women.,

Turning to the ongoing persecution of Julian Assange, Marjorie Cohn (TRUTH OUT) notes:

The British judicial system has erected still another barrier to Julian Assange’s freedom. On March 14, the U.K. Supreme Court refused to hear Assange’s appeal of the U.K. High Court’s ruling ordering his extradition to the United States. If extradited to the U.S. for trial, Assange will face 17 charges under the Espionage Act and up to 175 years in prison for revealing evidence of U.S. war crimes.

With no explanation of its reasoning, the Supreme Court denied Assange “permission to appeal” the High Court’s decision, saying that Assange’s appeal did not “raise an arguable point of law.” The court remanded the case back to the Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which is the same court that denied the U.S. extradition request on January 4, 2021.

In all likelihood, the magistrates’ court will refer the case to the British Home Office where Home Secretary Priti Patel will review it. Assange’s lawyers then have four weeks to submit materials for Patel’s consideration. If she orders Assange’s extradition — which is highly likely — his lawyers will file a cross-appeal in the High Court asking it to review the issues Assange lost in the magistrates’ court.

If the High Court refuses to review those additional issues, Assange can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That could take years. Meanwhile, he languishes in London’s high-security Belmarsh Prison, in fragile mental and physical health. He suffered a mini-stroke as his extradition hearing began. United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer wrote in a Twitter post that the “U.K. is literally torturing him to death.”

US President Joe Biden could end this nonsense at any time. He could drop the pursuit of Julian. He might if pressure were brought to bear. Julian's crime was journalism. Joe loathes him because Julian exposed US War Crimes. And if Joe gets away with it, the US government will begin punishing other foreign journalists operating outside of the US. It will demand that they be turned over to the US because their truthful reporting embarrassed the US government. Oscar Grenfell (WSWS) points out, "The British and US authorities are seeking to make an example of Assange, to intimidate widespread anti-war sentiment, and to create a precedent for further political persecutions targeting opposition to war and militarism. At the same time, the incessant media propaganda over Ukraine is being seized upon, to drown out other crucial issues, including Assange’s plight."

Craig Murray (ICH) notes:

With Julian still, for no rational reason, held in maximum security, the legal process around his extradition continues to meander its way through the overgrown bridlepaths of the UK’s legal system. Today the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal, which was based on the grounds of his health and the effect upon it of incarceration in the conditions of the United States prison service. It stated his appeal had “no arguable legal grounds.”

This is a setback which is, most likely, going to keep Julian in jail for at least another year.

The legal grounds which the High Court had previously ruled to be arguable, were that the USA government should not have been permitted to give at appeal new (and highly conditional) diplomatic assurances about Assange’s treatment, which had not been offered at the court of first instance to be considered in the initial decision. One important argument that this should not be allowed, is that if given to the original court, the defence could argue about the value and conditionality of such assurances; evidence could be called and the matter weighed by the court.

By introducing the assurances only at the appeal stage – which is only on points of law and had no fact-finding remit – the USA had avoided any scrutiny of their validity. The Home Office have always argued that diplomatic assurances must simply be accepted without question. The Home Office is keen on this stance because it makes extradition to countries with appalling human rights records much easier.

In saying there is no arguable point of law, the Supreme Court is accepting that diplomatic assurances are not tested and are to be taken at face value – which has been a major point of controversy in recent jurisprudence. It is now settled that we will send someone back to Saudi Arabia if the Saudis give us a piece of paper promising not to chop their head off.

It interested me in particular that the Supreme Court refused to hear Julian’s appeal on the basis there was “no arguable point of law”. When the Supreme Court refused to hear my own appeal against imprisonment, they rather stated their alternative formulation, there was “no arguable point of law of general public interest”. Meaning there was an arguable point of law, but it was merely an individual injustice, that did not matter to anybody except Craig Murray.

My own view is that, with the Tory government very open about their desire to clip the wings of judges and reduce the reach of the Supreme Court in particular, the Court is simply avoiding hot potatoes at present.

So the extradition now goes to Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, to decide whether to extradite. The defence has four weeks to make representations to Patel, which she must hear. There are those on the libertarian right of the Tory party who oppose the extradition on freedom of speech grounds, but Patel has not a libertarian thought in her head and appears to revel in deportation, so personally I hold out no particular hope for this stage.

We'll wind down with this from Black Allaince for Peace:

For Immediate Release

Media Contact

press@blackallianceforpeace.com

202 643 1136

MARCH 15, 2022—The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) declares its support for garment workers in Haiti and stands with the Haitian people who, migrating from the country for economic or political reasons, have faced racism, hostility, and terror abroad. We also condemn the neo-colonial political economic policies of the U.S. government, its international allies, and the multinational corporations who have created Haiti’s imperial crisis by continuing to undermine the sovereignty and independence of the Haitian people.

Early in the year, garment workers launched protests at the Caracol Industrial Park in Haiti’s northeast region. These protests have since spread to Port-au-Prince. The workers—mostly women—have demanded wage increases and decried the dehumanizing and demeaning sweatshops in which they are employed. Their demands have been blocked by the U.S. government and by those foreign corporations, including Hanes, New Balance, Champion, Gilden Activewear, Gap, and Walmart, which have profited from a decades-long history of Haitian labor exploitation and wage suppression. With wages at a criminally-low figure of under $5 per day, the workers are demanding an increase to $15 per day.

At the same time, thousands of Haitian people continue to abandon their homes and flee their country for economic and political reasons. Their journeys abroad are uncertain and perilous and their encounters with foreign governments have been punitive and hostile. Only last week, a boat carrying more than 300 Haitians capsized off the coast of Florida. In Mexico, Haitian migrants confront daily the racism of immigration agents and the National Guard and thousands of Haitians have been illegally incarcerated in Tapachula in what some have described as concentration camps. The Dominican Republic, with help from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, is militarizing its border with Haiti, beginning construction on a planned 164-kilometer long wall with 70 watchtowers and 41 access points. Dominican President Luis Abinader has called it an “intelligent fence”: It will use radars, drones, movement sensors, cameras and, of course, well-armed border patrol agents to prevent Haitian migration.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration deports Haitian asylum seekers at a record pace. Biden has continued the use of Trump-era policies including “Remain in Mexico” and “Title 42” to deny asylum seekers the right to due process and safety. More than 20,000 Haitians have been deported within Biden’s first year in office, a number greater than the record of the previous three presidents combined.

It goes without saying that the treatment of Haitian people provides a stark, racial contrast with that of Ukrainian refugees. While Biden has told Haitians, “Don't come over,” he has welcomed Ukrainians “with open arms.”

For the Black Alliance for Peace, imperialism is the root cause of both the protests of Haiti’s garment workers and the experiences of Haitian migrants. While multinational corporations have undermined Haiti’s workers, the U.S. government, alongside U.S.-led bodies like the Organization of American States (OAS) and the CORE Group, have decapitated the Haitian state. As Haitain wages have been suppressed, Haitian democracy has been throttled. And as Haitian immigrants are abused in and deported from foreign countries, it is foreign meddling that has created the conditions forcing Haitians to migrate.

Thus, as Jemima Pierre, BAP’s Haiti/Americas Committee Coordinator, reminds us, “Haiti’s domestic crises are crises of imperialism, generated by the policies of the United States and its allies.”

The Black Alliance for Peace reaffirms its solidarity with the Haitian people in their unremitting struggles for peace, independence, and self-determination against U.S./UN imperialism. We salute our sisters and brothers fighting for higher wages and better working conditions at home, and in their quest for a better life abroad.

The Black Alliance for Peace (BAP) calls on all organized labor to organize boycotts of Hanes, Levis, Fruit of the Loom and H&M in solidarity with Haitian workers.
BAP demands that the Biden regime stop its racist hypocrisy and end deportations of Haitian asylum seekers.
BAP demands that Haitian refugees and asylum seekers in the United States, the Dominican Republic, Mexico and elsewhere be treated with dignity and be afforded their legal rights under international law.
BAP calls on all organizations in the Caribbean and Latin America to issue denunciations of the OAS and United States and organize regular pickets outside of their headquarters and embassies.
BAP calls on all human rights organizations and members of the Black liberation movements to organize long term strategic solidarity campaigns to support self-determination for the Haitian people.

No Compromise, No Retreat!

###

The following sites updated:

Wednesday, March 16, 2022

Cynthia says check this video out

Cynthia McKinney, my former rep in Congress, highlighted this video from Russell Brand.

Be sure to check it out.

"Iraq snapshot" (THE COMMON ILLS):

Wednesday, March 16, 2022. So many dangers in the world -- who knew the hideous hosts of THE VIEW would be part of that?

US President Joe Biden continues to persecute journalist Julian ASsange. For the 'crime' of reporting the truth, Joe wants Julian brought to the US and wants him to stand trial and, understand, the US can be trusted to be fair and to protect him while he is in their custody. Those laughable claims come as Kevin Reed (WSWS) reports:

A newly declassified 2008 document from the CIA’s inspector general reveals that one of the detainees currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility was used as a living prop at a black site in Afghanistan to teach trainees the infamous enhanced interrogation techniques adopted by the administration of George W. Bush.

Ammar al-Baluchi, a Kuwaiti citizen, was rendered into US detention in 2003 from Pakistani custody and taken to a CIA torture facility known as the Salt Pit north of Kabul. According to the declassified document, the CIA was aware that rendering al-Baluchi was illegal because he was no longer a terrorist threat.

Proving that the Bush-Cheney administration’s pseudo-legal justifications for torture were themselves a sham, Baluchi was initially subjected to two torture techniques that were not on the approved list. The first was the use of a stick behind the knees in a stress position, and the other involved leaning back while kneeling and dousing with ice water.

One of the approved torture techniques being taught by the CIA and used repeatedly on Baluchi was “walling.” The CIA inspector general’s report says the torture trainees lined up to take turns smashing Baluchi head against a plywood wall.

According to the results of an MRI of Baluchi’s head carried out in 2018, a neuropsychologist found “abnormalities indicating moderate to severe brain damage” in areas affecting memory formation and retrieval, as well as behavioral regulation. The analysis found that the “abnormalities observed were consistent with traumatic brain injury.”

The walling of Baluchi involved placing his heels against a specially designed plywood wall “which had flexibility to it” and putting a rolled up towel around his neck. The heavily redacted report states, “The interrogators would then grab the ends of the towel in front of and below the detainees face and shove [Baluchi] backwards into the wall, never letting go of the towel.” While Baluchi was “naked for the proceedings,” the goal of the interrogators was to “bounce” him off the wall.

While the report states that there was no time limit for the walling sessions, “typically a session did not last for more than two hours at a time,” they went for as long as necessary for training purposes.

The declassified report also says that the treatment of Baluchi was not to extract information from him because the trainees were only interested in completing an interrogation course and becoming certified. As a former trainee told the CIA investigators, “all the interrogation students lined up to ‘wall’ Ammar so that [the instructor] could certify them on their ability to use the technique.”

The US government tortured prisoners. Appalling enough. But these butchers don't even try to hide behind the nonsense of 'we ignored the law because we needed information' -- no, they did it because they wanted to be 'checked off' on having learned the torture and how to carry it out.

THis is the sort of thing that lands people in prisons in functioning governments. And should land people in prison in this dysfunctional government.

Why doesn't that happen here? Because despite Kevin's laughable invocation of Bully Boy Bush and Dick CHeney, the torture was bipartisan. By January 2007, the Congress -- both houses -- were controlled by the Democrats. By January 2009, Barack Obama was president. He came in promising he would close down the gulag at Guantanamo Bay and he never did. He had two terms to do it and he never did. Was one of the reasons he refused to shut it down because he was worried what the world would think when they learned how the government had tortured and traumatized?

This same government is now supposed to be entrusted with protecting Julian Assange if they get him in their clutches?

Thomas Scripps (WSWS) notes:

Julian Assange was shunted a step closer to his would-be executioners on Monday. The UK Supreme Court issued a one-line decision refusing to hear the WikiLeaks founder’s appeal against an earlier decision ordering his extradition to the United States.

The case will now be returned to the original court as a formality before being passed to the home secretary, Priti Patel, to give the final order. Once Patel receives the case, Assange could be on a plane to the US in just four weeks’ time, except for inevitable further appeals.

The Biden administration intends to prosecute Assange for charges under the Espionage Act with a potential sentence of 175 years in prison. This would be served in barbaric conditions that previous judgements acknowledged could drive him to suicide. His health has already been destroyed by years of incarceration in Britain’s maximum security Belmarsh prison.

Despite the immense danger faced by the most significant journalist of the 21st century, many major newspapers did not cover the Supreme Court decision. Those that did ran entirely perfunctory stories, largely without comment.

Britain’s leading liberal newspaper, the Guardian, did not write a single critical line in its cursory 350-word article, quoting just two sentences from his legal team. The US New York Times managed, “If Mr. Assange were extradited to the United States and faced a trial, the case could raise profound First Amendment issues. His prosecution has alarmed advocates of press freedom.”

These are publications which have spent the last weeks screaming about Russian President Vladimir Putin’s censorship and attacks on free speech and journalistic freedoms. When speaking out about democratic rights lines up with imperialist war aims, they are fervent advocates. In the case of Assange, who exposed the systematic crimes of US and British imperialism, the “democratic principles” they so fiercely defend in Russia whither on the vine.

The NATO-Russia war over Ukraine has not only accelerated Assange’s persecution, but intensified his long and deliberate isolation by the corporate media.

At a briefing with the Foreign Press Association last month, to introduce his new book The Trial of Julian Assange: A Story of Persecution, UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer accused the mainstream media of failing in their duty as the “fourth estate” to hold governments to account. Melzer’s book is based on his three years of efforts to end the illegal mistreatment of the WikiLeaks founder.

In it, he criticises the “too little, too late”, “tame and lame” reporting of the British, American and American press, exposing their cynical pseudo-support for Assange:

“A handful of half-hearted opinion pieces in the Guardian and the New York Times rejecting Assange’s extradition are not bold enough, and so fail to convince. While both papers have timidly declared that convicting Assange of espionage would endanger press freedom, not a single mainstream media outlet protests the blatant violations of due process, human dignity and the rule of law that pervade the entire trial. None holds the involved governments to account for their crimes and corruption; none has the courage to confront political leaders with uncomfortable questions; none feels dutybound to inform and empower the people—a mere shadow of what was once the ‘fourth estate’.”

Joe Bidens going to protect Julian? Joe had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and yet he didn't do that as Guantanamo Bay makes very clear. He was a US senator and he knew what was going on and elected to look the other way. He didn't even muster faux tears the way a certain Illinois senator loves to do. Joe didn't protect anyone then and he won't protect them now. The UK turning Julian over to the US is turning him over to torture and that's very clear to everyone paying attention at this point.

Andrea Germanos writes:

The case has sparked global concern from press freedom and human rights groups who warn that prosecution of Assange would have far-reaching impacts on journalists and publishers who dare to challenge powerful governments by exposing their most closely-guarded secrets.

In a statement, Assange’s solicitors lamented that the request for appeal was denied, saying that “the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.”

The legal team also said that they would be able to submit documents to Patel’s office for the next four weeks ahead of her decision and that Assange could still appeal on other grounds.

The high court ruled in December that Assange can be extradited, overturning an earlier ruling by the Westminster Magistrates’ Court that found extradition would endanger Assange’s life.

In a January statement, Committee to Protect Journalists deputy executive director Robert Mahoney warned that “the prosecution of the WikiLeaks founder in the United States would set a deeply harmful legal precedent that would allow the prosecution of reporters for news gathering activities and must be stopped.”

Mahoney, like other defenders of free speech and journalism, additionally called on the U.S. Justice Department to stop the extradition proceedings and drop its charges against Assange.

He exposed the War Crimes of the United States -- War Crimes carried out in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what world is it plausible to then turn him over to the government that carried out the War Crimes?

Richard Medhurst addressed the latest developments on his YOUTUBE program.

Richard Medhurst attempts to accomplish something. I have no idea what THE VIW attemtps to do thse days but broadcast an hour of hate speech with a bunch of overweight and under educated women braying incessently.

Ana Navarro came to this country as a young child but apparently never bothered to learn the Constitution -- she was apparently using her entire school day to go through the lunch line repeatedly which would explain the gifth. The right-wing zealot loves US empire because her disgusting father wouldn't have had wealth without the US empire and she loathed those who argued for equality. That's how she ended up in the US. How she ended up on TV is another issue. She's unattractive and her voice annoys. She shouldn't be on TV or radi o for those reasons alone. But there she is as Whoopi Goldberg's wingman. You now Whoopi, the failed actress. Won an Academy Award and couldn't doa d amn thing with it because she never had the taste or sense to tell what qualified as drama resulting in one bad film after another.

She's undereducated, obviously. You can tell that when she speaks, you can tell that when she 'writes' (that laughable ghost0written bio). She's not informed and she's not a thinker despite all the gas baggery she puts over the airwaves.

She's an ugly person with an even uglier soul and in the '00s we called her out at THIRD for her embrace of torture -- no one else seemed too concerned about that. Maybe they're still not concerned about what she's doing?

Here's RISING.

i really wish that RISING was a left show. It's not.

A left show might be calling out Whoopi for her comments -- especially when she starts with, "They used to arrest people for doing stuff like this. . . .'' She's speaking of journalist Tucker Carlson and former Congress member Tulsi Gabbard. But she's speaking of two other people as well.

Julius Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg.

They were executed.

Why is she speaking of them? She didn't get enough of a backlash for antisemitism last month?

Because she's a blood thristy whore who uses the public airwaves to celebrate witch hutns and executions?

Her remarks are appalling. You'd expect that sort of crap fro m the ghost of William F. Buckley but not from a so-called fun show broadcast by DISNEY. It's outrageous. It's offensive.

She's lamenting the end of the Red Scare and she's calling for a new one while explaining that nothing cheers her on like the execution of Ethel and Julius?

Unifnormed and uneducated minds do not belong on the ariwaves as hosts for political discussions. Anything beyond food and bitchy is clearly beyond the hosts.

Barbara Walters had a vision. She deserves credit for that. But what THE VIEW is today is not what she envisioned and it's appalling to watch this garbage. (I don't. I've included RISIN because that's where I saw Whoopi and Ana frothing at the mouth.)

It's outrageous and its shameful and it's so far beyond celebrating humanity that we really ned to rethink Whoopi Goldberg. She's no longer just an idiot who manages to pull off a comedy line somebody else wrote, she's not a rabid person addicted to hate who wants to invoke the executions of the Rosenbergs as a good thing and something that our country is missing.

In Iraq, the political stalemate continues. THE NEW ARAB notes:

The Iraqi parliament on Tuesday scheduled a March 26 session for deputies to hold a delayed vote on the country's president.

Parliament also released a final list of 40 candidates for the post, a largely ceremonial role reserved for the Kurds.

Among the frontrunners are Barham Saleh, the incumbent and member of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and Rebar Ahmed of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, the PUK's rival.

New content at THIRD:

The following sites updated:

Tuesday, March 15, 2022

Dick jokes? Psaki's got dick jokes?

BULLY BOY PRESS & CEDRIC'S BIG MIX & THOMAS FRIEDMAN IS A GREAT MAN & ANN'S BIG MIX-- THE KOOL AID TABLE

WHY DOES SHE HAVE TO WORK BLUE?

WHITE HOUSE CLOWN JEN PSKAKI, DESPERATE FOR THE YUCKS, EXCLAIMED TO THE PRESS TODAY OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT, "BIDEN IS A JUNIOR!'' WE DIDN'T NEED THAT, JEN.

WE DON'T NEED IT.

SIZE IS A PERSONAL MATTER.

WHAT'S NEXT, JEN? PRESS BRIEFINGS WHERE YOU TOSS AROUND WANG, PECKER, SCHLONG, DONG, HEAT-SEEKING MOISTURE MISSILE, BALONEY PONY?

WHY DOES JEN ALWAYS HAVE TO WORK BLUE?

AMERICA DESERVES A LITTLE MORE CLASS FROM THE COUNTRY'S WACKY REDHEAD.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

Starting with the Ausrlaian journalist that US President Joe Biden continues to persecute. Juilian Assange committed the 'crime' of exposing US War Crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Joe Biden wants him to stand trial in the US for practicing journalism. Blustering, bigoted Biden wants Julian to pay for telling the world the truth. Joe most recently -- his State of the Union address -- was caught lying again about how many times he himself had visited Iraq and Afghanistan (doubling the total) so, you understand, Joe will always be on the side of liars and always want to punish those who tell the truth.

He is demanding that the United Kingdom turn over Julian who remains in a British prison because, well, they have no reason to hold him in the UK but like good little serfs, they do what the US government tells them.

Victoria Lindrea (BBC NEWS) reports:

The Supreme Court has refused to allow Julian Assange his latest appeal against extradition to the US.

A court spokesman said Mr Assange's application did not raise "an arguable point of law". The decision is a major blow to his hopes to avoid extradition.

The Wikileaks founder, 50, is wanted in the US over the publication of thousands of classified documents in 2010 and 2011.

His lawyers said he had not ruled out launching a final appeal.

The case will now go back down to District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, the original judge who assessed the US's extradition request.

Haroon Siddique and Ben Quinn (GUARDIAN) add:

Assange’s lawyers will have four weeks to make submissions to the home secretary before her decision. There also remain other routes to fight his extradition, for instance by mounting a challenge on other issues of law raised at first instance that he lost on and have not yet been subject to appeal.

The attempted appeal to the supreme court was specifically on the issue of the US assurances.

In January last year, district judge Vanessa Baraitser blocked extradition on the basis that procedures in prisons in the US would not prevent Assange from potentially taking his own life.

But that decision was overturned by two senior judges, Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, and Lord Justice Holroyde, at the high court. Burnett said the risk of Assange being held in highly restrictive US prison conditions was “excluded by the assurances which are offered. It follows that we are satisfied that, if the assurances had been before the judge, she would have answered the relevant question differently.”

Responding to the supreme court’s decision, a spokesperson for Assange’s solicitors, Birnberg Peirce, said: “We regret that the opportunity has not been taken to consider the troubling circumstances in which requesting states can provide caveated guarantees after the conclusion of a full evidential hearing. In Mr Assange’s case, the court had found that there was a real risk of prohibited treatment in the event of his onward extradition.”

Thomas Scripps (WSWS) observes:

Assange’s life is in grave danger. Neither appeal is likely to be granted and not even such formal legal rights and processes to proceed should be considered a certainty.Assange’s prosecution has always been the “legal” continuation of a lawless assassination-cum-rendition operation organised by the CIA, seeking to silence Assange for good, one way or another.

The timeline has now been dramatically accelerated. The Supreme Court’s decision came suddenly, without any prior announcement. That it refused even to hear Assange’s case is highly unusual. The lower High Court certified on January 24 that a “point of law of public importance” had been raised by Assange, normally prompting the Supreme Court to consider the appeal.

The point of law in question was, “In what circumstances can an appellate court receive assurances from a requesting state which were not before the court of first instance.” Even on these limited grounds, the case was considered worth examining by the High Court and legal experts in the field.

Last month, WikiLeaks cited a report of the case by the highly regarded London law firm Bindmans which noted, “Extradition practitioners largely welcome Supreme Court guidance on this point as late assurances designed to alleviate the court’s concerns about human rights violations following extradition have become a highly contentious issue, especially when provided by States with a poor record in human rights themselves.”

However, having been given the option to go through the motions and apply the Supreme Court’s legal imprimatur to Assange’s effective rendition, the justices instead delivered a one-line rejection: “The court ordered that permission to appeal be refused because the application does not raise an arguable point of law.”

The meaning is clear: the time for charades is over, Assange must be dealt with quickly.

This was a decision reached at the highest levels of the British state, delivered by the President of the Supreme Court Lord Reed and the Deputy President Lord Hodge, alongside Lord Briggs. The NATO-Russia war being waged through the proxy conflict in Ukraine, moving ever closer to a direct military confrontation between nuclear armed powers, has doubtless come as a powerful spur to action, underscoring for the ruling class why Assange must be silenced.

Binoy Kampmark (DISSIDENT VOICE) observes:

Dismay at the decision was expressed by Amnesty International’s Deputy Research Director for Europe, Julia Hall. “The Supreme Court has missed an opportunity to clarify the UK’s acceptance of deeply flawed diplomatic assurances against torture. Such assurances are inherently unreliable and leave people at risk of severe abuse upon extradition or other transfer.”

The next stage in this diabolical torment of the WikiLeaks founder involves remitting the case to Westminster Magistrates’ Court, which will only serve a ceremonial role in referring the decision to the Home Secretary, Priti Patel. Only the most starry-eyed optimists will expect extradition to be barred. (Patel is fixated with proposed changes to the UK Official Secrets Act that will expansively criminalise journalists and whistleblowers who publish classified information.) The defence will do their best in submissions to Patel ahead of the decision, but it is likely that they will have to seek judicial review.

In the likely event of Patel’s approval, the defence may make a freedom of press argument, though this is by no means a clear run thing. It will still be up to the higher courts as to whether they would be willing to grant leave to hear further arguments. Whichever way the cards fall, this momentous, torturous journey of paperwork, briefs, lawyers, and prison will continue to sap life and cause grief.

The persecution of Julian is a threat to the press and not just members of the US press. Julian is not an American citien. He cannot be guilty of treason. No foreigner can be. His actions did not take place on US soil. He published the truth and that, according to Joe Biden, is not a defense. A foreign journalist published the truth and now the US government attempts to destroy the journalist. It sends a dark and disturbing message to journalists around the world. And the US makes clear that for all its pretense about caring for a free press and being appalled by the way other governments attempt to supress journalists is just a pretense. I wonder what 'high tonal' remarks Harvey Weinstein's whore Meryl STreep will have to make about the press now? While she had that bad film to promote she pretended to care about journalism and support a free press. But note that the whore hasn't said a word about Julian. Not surprising when we know her response to the truth about Harvey coming out was to insist to Ronana Farrow that he msut not expose Harvey because Harvey donates to Democratic Party causes.

RECOMMENDED: "