Well, I go to one of my favorite Eisenhower quotes, President
Eisenhower quotes. What I said earlier, Amy, both President Eisenhower
and also President Kennedy recognized, as well as Dr. Martin Luther
King, recognize this intersection that the wars abroad are intersected
with the wars at home, that we can’t have peace at home while having war
abroad. As long as we have $700 billion defense budgets, we will never
have universal health care. As long as both political parties vote for
killing in war and prisons, we will never prioritize taking care of our
own people. But, what President Eisenhower said, was, looking at a chair
in the oval office, he said, "I pity this country if a man ever sits in
this chair who has never served in the military." And what he meant by
that was that, not that the military gives you some level of expertise
or some level of knowledge, or some level of experience, but that a
civilian would be run roughshod over, that he wouldn’t be able to raise
the BS flag, that he would not know that the generals are just going to
lie to him over and over and over again. And because that is ultimately
what war is, just one continual lie. And that is what we have seen in
Afghanistan, that’s what we’ve seen in Iraq, that’s what we’ve seen in
Vietnam, etc., etc. And I think that’s what’s happening here. And of
course President Trump is probably, may be our most malleable and easily
influenced president of all time.
Why top White House officials won't quit Trump.... There's lots of punditry about why people like Gary Cohn, Rex Tillerson, Dina Powell, Steve Mnuchin and many others don't quit the Trump White House in protest over Charlottesville.
New Yorker Editor David Remnick writes "The Divider," the lead item of the forthcoming "Talk of the Town" section: "This latest outrage has disheartened Trump's circle somewhat; business executives, generals and security officials, advisers, and even family members have semaphored their private despair."....
We talked to a half dozen senior administration officials, who range from dismayed but certain to stay, to disgusted and likely soon to leave. They all work closely with Trump and his senior team so, of course, wouldn't talk on the record. Instead, they agreed to let us distill their thinking/rationale:
"You have no idea how much crazy stuff we kill": The most common response centers on the urgent importance of having smart, sane people around Trump to fight his worst impulses. If they weren't there, they say, we would have a trade war with China, massive deportations, and a government shutdown to force construction of a Southern wall.
The man in the White House is reckless and unmanageable, a danger to the Constitution, a threat to our democratic institutions.
Last week some of his worst qualities were on display: his moral
vacuity and his disregard for the truth, as well as his stubborn
resistance to sensible advice. As ever, he lashed out at imaginary
enemies and scapegoated others for his own failings. Most important, his
reluctance to offer a simple and decisive condemnation of racism and
Nazism astounded and appalled observers around the world.
With such a glaring failure of moral leadership at the top, it is
desperately important that others stand up and speak out to defend
American principles and values. This is no time for neutrality,
equivocation or silence. Leaders across America — and especially those
in the president’s own party — must summon their reserves of political
courage to challenge President Trump publicly, loudly and unambiguously.
Enough is enough.
Some people clearly understand this. On Monday, after Trump
suggested that “alt-left” counter-protesters were as much to blame as
Nazis and white supremacists for the fiasco in Charlottesville, a
courageous CEO — Kenneth Frazier, the chief executive of Merck & Co.
— resigned from the president’s American Manufacturing Council in
protest. His departure, which the ever-gracious president greeted with
derision, led to an exodus of other commission members.
This is no time for neutrality, equivocation or silence.
And tonight, Trump calls for yet more troops in Afghanistan. Sigh.
Interesting discussion here. Initially I though this guy was full of it, but as this went on, he raised some interesting points.
I don't think his theory explains ALL UFO activity, and I think the "ET hypothesis" still makes most sense, but his theory about UFOs as some sort of strange manifestation of consciousness has some explanatory power. That is, there is something WEIRD out there, that we don't understand, that is behind UFOs, but the key to his hypothesis is that humans put their own ideas onto the sightings and may even make it real to a certain extent. I think this could explain other similar "paranormal" events like ghosts and bigfoot, etc.
What's neat, and it ties into what I posted in the last post about trans-ETs is the idea that there is some sort of universal energy or "consciousness" that people can tap into under certain circumstances, that we cannot fully comprehend and so therefore visualize it as things we can relate to in our time of life.
What MJ Banias didn't really expound upon is that this energy , that we actually superimpose onto from our own experiences, could be a type of advanced ET lifeform that we can't visualize any other way. Some sort of life-form that has integrated itself into the cosmos or maybe is transmitted through energy waves.
I want to just make a quick observation that if ETs are visiting the earth, as I suspect they are, they are not simple flesh and blood "meat" creatures like us, but rather are almost certainly one of the following:
Antifa: Radical Violent Leftists or Freedom Fighters?
Antifa has been in the news a lot lately, getting a lot of negative coverage for starting riots, and of course Trump recently blamed them (in his typical incoherent way) for the recent troubles in Charlottesville.
Right. So, antifa is a pan-left politics of social revolution applied
to fighting the far right. It believes in using direct action rather
than turning to the state or the police to stop the fascist advance. And
it includes anarchists, communists, socialists, across the political
spectrum, and really dates back decades. They’re people who are really
not going to allow fascists and Nazis any room to organize. One of their
main kind of slogans is "No platform for fascism."
AMYGOODMAN: I want to read from The New York Times.
They wrote, "[O]verall, far-right extremist plots have been far more
deadly than far-left plots ... in the past 25 years, according to a
breakdown of two terrorism databases by ... an analyst at the
libertarian Cato Institute.
"White nationalists; militia movements; anti-Muslim attackers; I.R.S.
building and abortion clinic bombers; and other right-wing groups were
responsible for 12 times as many fatalities and 36 times as many
injuries as communists; socialists; animal rights and environmental
activists; anti-white- and Black Lives Matter-inspired attackers; and
other left-wing groups," the Times wrote. Mark Bray?
Yes. Well, it’s certainly true that, in terms of body counts, in terms
of raw violence, the far right, now and in the past, has much more blood
on their hands. But I also want to encourage viewers to think not only
in terms of numbers of comparing body counts, not only in terms of
violence in the abstract, but the values and context of violence. So,
you know, when anti-racists defend themselves violently, it’s different
from when racists attack people of color, queer and trans people, with
violence. So, it’s certainly true that the far right are much more
violent, but I don’t think that we can exclusively think of it in terms
The other thing that I want to encourage viewers to think about is
that the term "terrorism" usually is used in a way that essentially
legitimizes state violence and police violence. Historically, the
greatest sources of violence have come from states and have come from
their armies and police, but is not labeled terrorism. So, I think,
instead of thinking in terms of the sort of seemingly neutral concepts
of terrorism or violence or body counts, let’s also think in terms of
politics and context.
AMYGOODMAN: Let me read from a new piece in The Atlantic
by Peter Beinart. He writes, quote, "But for all of antifa’s supposed
anti-authoritarianism, there’s something fundamentally authoritarian
about its claim that its activists—who no one elected—can decide whose
views are too odious to be publicly expressed. That kind of
undemocratic, illegitimate power corrupts. It leads to what happened
this April in Portland, Oregon, where antifa activists threatened to
disrupt the city’s Rose Festival parade if people wearing 'red maga
hats''—you know, the "Make America Great Again" hats—"marched alongside
the local Republican Party. Because of antifa, Republican officials in
Portland claim they can't even conduct voter registration in the city
without being physically threatened or harassed. So, yes, antifa is not a
figment of the conservative imagination. It’s a moral problem that
liberals need to confront." That’s Peter Beinart, writing for The Atlantic. Mark Bray?
Right. So, part of the accusation that’s frequently leveled against
antifa is the "slippery slope" argument, understood abstractly. So, the
argument goes, antifa get to sort of randomly decide who they don’t
like, and shut them down, therefore, authoritarianism. But the
historical record shows that antifa groups focus on the far right, focus
on neo-Nazis and white supremacists. And when those groups are
successfully disrupted, there is a long track record of antifa groups
essentially disassembling and focusing on other issues. The notion that
it’s authoritarian to shut down authoritarianism would not feel very
comfortable if we’re thinking about, for example, opposition to Nazis
before they got into power in Germany in the late ’20s. Were the
communists and anarchists who were defending themselves against Nazis in
1929 authoritarian because they wanted to stop Nazism? That sounds
So, once again, as we discussed in the first part of the interview,
it’s an example of a kind of all-or-nothing fascism where, in the
absence of an immediate threat of a fascist regime, shutting down
someone’s opinions—and, of course, that’s how far-right politics are
often understood, as opinions, that could just as easily be interchanged
with any others, when anti-fascists start the "no platform," which
misses, of course, the politics behind it—that these opinions are the
lens that it’s examined at, out of context, out of political focus. So,
you know, it really is missing the point historically and analytically,
and really missing the ways that a lot—a lot of alt-right people are
infiltrating the Republican Party.
The Republican Party is now, to some extent, starting to stand up to
the far right but needs to do a lot more. And we need to recognize that
the far right will try to hide behind the legitimacy that Trump has
given their politics, but that anti-fascists aren’t willing to—to stop
it. And, now, if Beinart saw, for example, you know, Nazis in the 1920s
or 1930s marching along a mainstream parade with swastikas, would it
have been inappropriate, considering that the Nazi Party back then was a
mainstream party, to have tried to disrupt that? You know, those are
the kinds of comparisons that need to be made in discussing this
Right. So, the question is: What is the relationship between neo-Nazis
and their victims? What is the relationship between fascists and the
rest of society? Is the goal to create a set of abstract rights that
allow them to coexist, or is the goal to struggle against them and
prevent them from being able to organize? That’s a fundamental question.
It’s a political question that divides civil libertarians from many
leftists and anti-fascists.
The anti-fascist argument is, if you allow neo-Nazis the ability to
organize, the ability to mobilize, they become normalized. They attempt
to become family-friendly. We can see back a number of months ago—I
believe it was in May or April—in Pikeville, Kentucky, the fascist
Traditionalist Workers Party attempted to hold a white pride family
picnic, because of opposition that wasn’t able to happen. Let’s imagine
if, on a regular basis, we don’t confront them, we don’t shut them down.
They start to organize family-friendly picnics. White nationalism seems
to—becomes another opinion worthy of granting certain legal
protections. Where can that lead us? It can lead us, as we’ve seen
through historical examples, to somewhere that’s very dark. So, the
question is, from the anti-fascist perspective, a political struggle,
not a sort of economy of rights. And that’s where the two political
To me, after the horrors of slavery, after the horrors of the
Holocaust, we need to prioritize defending the vulnerable. And we need
to essentially say that fascism and Nazism are not simply ideas to
respect. They are enemies to confront and to rid from history.
Transhumanism and artificial intelligence (AI) is really mind-blowing stuff that hardly gets
any attention and will seriously rock our world in the coming decades. A really interesting interview here with Zoltan Istvan.
To be sure, the Dept of
Defense is doing serious R&D on both of these right now, particularly bionics to make better soldiers, but also AI to out-think the enemy and their computers. There's an intense
race for the US to be first in these transformative technologies.
Trump went on: “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power [over] North Korea . . . But it’s not what you would think.” Again: The President of the United States assumed that because he didn’t know about something, no one else would know about it either, including the editor-in-chief of one of the country’s premiere news publications.
Worse, that “something” he didn’t know about was this: turns out, North Korea is complicated.
Turns out, healthcare is complicated. Turns out, the import-export bank is complicated.
Which brings us very quickly to my point: Trump cannot be President anymore.
I know you had fun while it lasted, MAGAs (you won the election!), but if it hasn’t sunk in yet, Donald Trump is a bona fide existential threat.
He’s not fit to command the U.S. military in a war. He has no relevant experience, no ideology beyond narcissism, no guiding light, no steady hand. He believes whatever the last person he spoke with said. He gets information not from his security team, but from bots and memes and Fox News. He’s a walking, talking turnstile. And he’s threatening nuclear war.
The biggest threat here isn’t that Trump just drops the big one on the NorKors, a scenario that, at least at this time, is thankfully still far-fetched. But there is a danger that Trump gets into an ever-escalating conflict, then makes blunders that beget reactions he’s not prepared for and that spiral out of control.
He’s selfish, volatile, and vindictive, and in a time of crisis he’d be unpredictable, slave to the hot thrums of his angry little lizard brain. In other words, Trump is exactly the wrong person to lead a war. Trump, friends, is a less rational leader than Kim Jong-Un.
Beyond this, Trump, who took five deferments from Vietnam because of a bone spur in his feet, would be leading the most powerful human force in history into a ground war in Asia, and he doesn’t have a high-school understanding of world history. Worse, he can’t even recognize that he doesn’t have a high-school understanding of world history. And Trump doesn’t have a North Korea policy yet (he’s focus-grouped several different ideas on Twitter). Even if he did, he’s gutted the State Department, so we’d have few resources to negotiate and enforce whatever diplomatic solution he wanted to pursue.
So here’s a breakdown of what might happen next in the Korean peninsula, where war sadly seems more and more inevitable. It’s not a hopeful outlook, but it’s not hopeless, either: For one, there’s a chance Congress will remove Trump before we go to war, if war comes. (This isn’t a political wish. Give me Pence. Really.) And there are matters of Constitutionality that might (but probably won’t) hold Trump back.
Here’s the bottom line:
After yesterday, Congress has a moral imperative: We cannot let Donald Trump, a reality TV game show host, have the chance to start a nuclear war. Now that we as a culture have been so directly confronted with this horrifying possibility that we’ve created, we can no longer abide it.
Personally, I think the #1 thing someone needs to do (or Congress) is remove the POTUS as sole authority over launching nuclear missiles. It really needs more oversight, it's way way way too important for one person to have the power to do, even for a sane person, and Trump is not sane.
The memorial consists of two 11,000-pound beams from the Twin Towers.
Behind the beams stand granite monuments with inscriptions and timelines
of the events of 9/11/01. Perched atop one of the beams is a bronze,
life-size sculpture of an American Bald Eagle, with wings outstretched
and gazing east toward New York City.
Official photos of the memorial from the website:
My photos are below.
I don't know what floors these are from but they aren't columns from the very base, for sure. This column has a good 4 inches of solid steel on the two sides.
Interesting to see this second column filled with cement along with 2-3 inches solid steel sides:
John Oliver does a brilliant job of exposing Alex Jones not so much as a crazy conspiracy theorist, but a crackpot peddler of all kinds of over-priced personal care and nutrition items. But by inference, it casts doubt on everything else Jones says, much like a televangelist spouting nonsense to make money.
The official 9/11 story is a lie. The 9/11 plane hijackings and crashes were clever hoaxes. The WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 towers were brought down by demolition, and there is evidence for the use of small nuclear bombs in the demolition of WTC1 and 2. All in all, 9/11 was a massive and cruel hoax foisted upon the world, done in order to spark the obscene "war on terror", to cover up financial fraud and to further the ends of the global elite. 9/11 was only the most egregious of several other recent false-flag terror operations.
9/11 was a conspiracy, as it involved several people conspiring to commit a crime. The official 9/11 narrative, as codified by the 9/11 Commission Report, is NOT proven as the most likely explanation for the events of 9/11/01. The official 9/11 story is therefore a theory. This means that the OFFICIAL 9/11 Story is really a "CONSPIRACY THEORY"!
Statement of Principles
I have no fondness for any religion, as I think it makes people do extreme and violent things. Islamic terrorists do exist and I detest them as much as I detest the true perpetrators of 9/11. Most likely Islamic terrorists were used as patsies in 9/11, as part of a highly organized covert operation by a group affiliated with the US goverment and US military.