Andrew Gillum Plans to Turn Florida Blue by Registering 1M Voters Who Are Likely to Vote Democrat

Democrat Andrew Gillum, the Tallahassee mayor who lost the governor’s race by less than half a percentage point, seeks to turn Florida blue by registering new voters, and is targeting 1.4 million former felons in line to have their voting rights restored under a constitutional amendment approved by voters last year.

While the Nation Fragments Socially, the Financial Aristocracy Rules Unimpeded

If there is one central irony in American history, it is this: the citizenry that broke free of the chains of British Monarchy, the citizenry that reckoned everyone was equal before the law, the citizenry that vowed never to be ruled by an aristocracy that controlled the government and finance as a means of self-enrichment, is now so distracted by social fragmentation that the citizenry is blind to their servitude to a new and formidably informal financial aristocracy.

From this juncture, ironies abound: the so-called Socialist demands for Medicare for All, “free” college for all and Universal Basic Income (UBI) are encouraged (or perhaps orchestrated) by the financial aristocracy, which rakes in tens of billions of dollars in profits from its banking, healthcare, national defense and higher education cartels: throwing more trillions down the ratholes of Medicare and higher education will only further enrich and empower the financial elites.

As for Universal Basic Income (UBI), the financial aristocracy is cheering loudly for UBI, which would enable debt-serfs to keep servicing their debts. (Is anyone so naive to think that UBI won’t have a clause which enables the deduction of debt payments from the monthly “free money”? Does anyone think the financial aristocracy is going to give $1,000 a month to debt-serfs and then let them default on their debt? Get real!)

The demands for social justice, i.e. that everyone be allowed to be treated the same before the law and enjoy the same rights as other citizens, is a core tenet of American culture. Long before the Constitution was even ratified, the calls to end slavery were becoming louder. Long before women won the the right to vote, the calls to treat women equally before the law were gaining ground.

In the long sweep of U.S. history, the rights of gays to marry and other contemporary social justice issues are of a piece with all previous drives to eliminate disparities between the way individuals are treated before the law. This is of course as it should be: this was a core value of the revolutionaries, as limited as it was in that era, and this drive is largely what makes America America.

Equally important was the cultural drive to never be ruled by a neofeudal aristocracy or let an aristocracy form in America. Yet this is precisely what has come to pass: we are ruled by an informal but oh-so neofeudal aristocracy.

As social justice controversies fragment the increasingly economically precarious populace, a financial aristocracy has arisen that rules the nation behind the screens of “meritocracy” and “equal rights.” No one is more in favor of equal rights and the abolition of social privilege that the members of the financial aristocracy, who have no need for social privilege since they control the real source of power in America: proximity to credit and newly issued money.

(Look at the liberal leanings of the Silicon Valley, L.A., Boston and NYC elites. They all love whatever distracts everyone from scrutinizing their power, and love recruiting fresh talent to slave away for their private empires.)

With this wealth, the financial aristocracy buys political influence for piddling sums and scoops up most of the low-risk productive assets of the private sector.

The core structure of the financial aristocracy is the state-cartel, the cartels that are funded and enforced by the central state: higher education, healthcare, national defense, banking, mortgages, student loans, etc.

For the financial aristocracy, the federal government is their personal enrichment machine, collecting trillions in taxes and borrowing additional trillions which are funneled through the state-cartels.

The number of seats in the American aristocracy is extremely limited, and so the top 5% are willing to go to extreme lengths to get in the first class lifeboat as the Titanic takes on water. This manifests in all sorts of ways, including the elite college admissions scandal.

While social justice proponents focus on divisive distractions, the financial aristocracy is tightening its control of the nation’s economy and political order.As everyday life, civil liberties and economic security all become increasingly precarious for the bottom 90%, the divisive focus on social privilege becomes a useful distraction for the financial aristocracy, which also controls the mainstream media.

America’s aristocracy is chuckling with great amusement as society is torn to pieces by media-circus sideshows. America’s aristocracy doesn’t need any titles or overt class distinctions as the aristocracy of old had; this would only call attention to their dominance. The ideal arrangement is a society shredded by social-media-driven fabricated divisions and a profound apathy to the actual structures of power, wealth and control.

America’s aristocracy is not formalized, and that’s the secret of its success.The power and control are exercised behind the formal machinery of governance and finance, and this structure protects the aristocracy from scrutiny.

So by all means demand Medicare for All and UBI: the aristocracy is heavily promoting these expansions of its wealth and power. Just as the Roman elites favored distributing free bread to the disenfranchised masses and the staging of Netflix binge TV watching–oops, I mean circuses– so too does America’s aristocracy favor UBI, Medicare for All and a fragmented society in thrall to disunity.

 

Pathfinding our Destiny: Preventing the Final Fall of Our Democratic Republic ($6.95 ebook, $12 print, $13.08 audiobook): Read the first section for free in PDF format.

My new mystery The Adventures of the Consulting Philosopher: The Disappearance of Drake is a ridiculously affordable $1.29 (Kindle) or $8.95 (print); read the first chapters for free (PDF)

My book Money and Work Unchained is now $6.95 for the Kindle ebook and $15 for the print edition. Read the first section for free in PDF format. 

If you found value in this content, please join me in seeking solutions by becoming a $1/month patron of my work via patreon.com.

Christchurch, New Zealand: Mass Shooting in Two Mosques, 49 Killed

A mass shooting in New Zealand is linked to American politics in a strange manifesto that is a mixture of motives and ideologies. As usual. the event is being used as an excuse to crack down on peaceful citizens’ rights to have guns to protect themselves from such shootings.

David Holmgren: A Baby Boomers’ Apology

Via Raul Ilargi Meijer’s Automatic Earth blog,

There are days, though all too scarce, when very nice surprises come my way. Case in point: yesterday I received a mail from David Holmgren after a long period of radio silence. Australia’s David is one of the fathers of permaculture, along with Bill Mollison, for those few who don’t know him. They first started writing about the concept in the 1970s and never stopped.

Dave calls himself “permaculture co-originator” these days. Hmm. Someone says: “one of the pioneers of modern ecological thinking”. That’s better. No doubt there. These guys taught many many thousands of people how to be self-sufficient. Permaculture is a simple but intricate approach to making sure that the life in your garden or backyard, and thereby your own life, moves towards balance.

My face to face history with David is limited, we spent some time together on two occasions only, I think, in 2012 a day at his home (farm) in Australia and in 2015 -a week- in Penguin, Tasmania at a permaculture conference where the Automatic Earth’s Nicole Foss was one of the key speakers along with Dave. Still, despite the limited time together I see him as a good and dear friend, simply because he’s such a kind and gracious and wise man.

In his mail, David asked if I would publish this article, which he originally posted on his own site just yesterday under the name “The Apology: From Baby Boomers To The Handicapped Generations”. I went for a shorter title (it’s just our format), but of course I will.

Dave has been an avid reader of the Automatic Earth for the past 11 years, we sort of keep his feet on the ground when they’re not planted and soaking in that same ground: “Reading TAE has helped me keep up to date..”

In light of the children’s climate protests today, which I have yet to voice my qualms about (and I have a few), it only makes sense to put into words a baby boomer’s apology. To have that phrased by someone with the intellect and integrity of David should have everyone sit up and pay attention, if you ask me. And perhaps it would be good if more people would try and do the same: apologize to those kids.

Here’s my formidable friend David Holmgren:

David Holmgren: It is time for us baby boomers to honestly acknowledge what we did and didn’t do with the gifts given to us by our forebears and be clear about our legacy with which we have saddled the next and succeeding generations.

By ‘baby boomers’ I mean those of us born in the affluent nations of the western world between 1945 and 1965. In these countries, the majority of the population became middle class beneficiaries of mass affluence. I think of the high birth rate of those times as a product of collective optimism about the future, and the abundant and cheap resources to support growing families.

By many measures, the benefits of global industrial civilisation peaked in our youth, but for most middle class baby boomers of the affluent countries, the continuing experience of those benefits has tended to blind us to the constriction of opportunities faced by the next generations: unaffordable housing and land access, ecological overshoot and climate chaos amongst a host of other challenges.

I am a white middle class man born in 1955 in Australia, one of the richest nations of the ‘western world’ in the middle of the baby boom, so I consider myself well placed to articulate an apology on behalf of my generation.

In the life of a baby boomer born in 1950 and dying in 2025 (a premature death according to the expectations of our generation), the best half the world’s endowment of oil – the potent resource that made industrial civilisation possible – will have been burnt. This is tens of millions of years of stored sunlight from a special geological epoch of extraordinary biological productivity. Beyond our basic needs, we have been the recipients of manufactured wants and desires. To varying degrees, we have also suffered the innumerable downsides, addictions and alienations that have come with fossil-fuelled consumer capitalism.

It is also true that our generation has used the genie of fossil fuels to create wonders of technology, organisation and art, and a diversity of lifestyles and ideas. Some of the unintended consequences of our way of life, ranging from antibiotic resistance to bubble economics, should have been obvious, while others, such as the depression epidemic in rich countries, were harder to foresee. Our travel around the world has broadened our minds, but global tourism has contaminated the amazing diversity of nature and traditional cultures at an accelerating pace. We have the excuse that innovations always have pluses and minuses, but it seems we have got a larger share of the pluses and handballed more of the minuses to the world’s poorest countries and to our children and grandchildren.

We were the first generation to have the clear scientific evidence that emergent global civilisation was on an unsustainable path that would precipitate an unravelling of both nature and society through the 21st century. Although climate chaos was a less obvious outcome than the no-brainer of resource depletion, international recognition of the reality of climate change came way back in 1988, just as we were beginning to get our hands on the levers of power, and we have presided over decades of policies that have accelerated the problem.

Over the years since, the adverse outcomes have shifted from distant risks to lived realities. These impact hardest on the most vulnerable peoples of the world who have yet to taste the benefits of the carbon bonanza that has driven the accelerating climate catastrophe. For the failure to share those benefits globally and curb our own consumption we must be truly sorry.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

David Holmgren

In the 1960s and 70s, during our coming of age, a significant proportion of us were critical of what was being passed down to us by our parent’s generation who were also the beneficiaries of the western world system, which some of us baby boomers recognised as a global empire. But our grandparents and parents had been shaped by the rigours and grief of the first global depression of the 1890s, the First World War, The Great Depression of the 1930s and, of course, the Second World War. Aside from those who served in Vietnam, we have cruised through life avoiding the worst threats of nuclear annihilation and economic depression, even as people in other countries suffered the consequences of superpower proxy wars, coups, and economic and environmental catastrophes.

While some of us were burnt by personal and global events, we have mostly led a charmed existence and had the privilege to question our upbringing and culture. We were the first generation in history to experience an extended adolescence of experimentation and privilege with little concern or responsibility for our future, our kin or our country.

Most baby boomers were raised in families where commuting was the norm for our fathers but a home-based lifestyle was still a role model we got from our mothers. In our enthusiasm for women to have equal access to productive work in the monetary economy, few of us noticed that without work to keep the household economy humming we lost much of our household autonomy to market forces. By our daily commutes, mostly alone in our cars, we entrenched this massively wasteful and destructive action as normal and inevitable.

As we came into our power in middle age, the new technology of the internet, workshop tool miniaturisation and other innovations provided more options to participate in the monetary economy without the need to commute, but our generation continued with this insane collective addiction. In Australia, we faithfully followed the American model of not investing in public transport, which moderated the adverse impacts of commuting in European and other countries not so structurally addicted to road transport. By failing to build decent public transport and the opportunities for home-based work, and wasting wealth in a frenzy of freeway building that has choked our cities, our generation has consumed our grandchildren’s inheritance of high quality transport fuels and accelerated the onset of climate chaos. For this we are truly sorry.

In pioneering the double income family, some of us set the pattern for the next generation’s habit of outsourcing the care of children at a young age, making commuting five days a week an early childhood experience. This has left the next generation unable to imagine a life that doesn’t involve leaving home each day.

These patterns are part of a larger crisis created by the double income, debt-laden households with close to 100% dependence on the monetary economy. Without robust and productive household economies, our children and grandchildren’s generations will become the victims of savage disruptions and downturns in the monetary economy. For failing to maintain and strengthen the threads of self-provision, frugality and self-reliance most of us inherited from our parents, we should be truly sorry.

Some of us felt in our hearts that we needed to create a different and better world. Some of us saw the writing on the walls of the world calling for global justice. Some of us read the evidence (mostly clearly in the 1972 Limits To Growth) that attempting to run continuous material growth on finite planet would end in more than tears.

Some of us even rejected the legacy of previous generations of radicals’ direct action against the problems of the world, and instead decided we would boldly create the world we wanted by living it each day. In doing so, we experienced hard-won lessons and even created some hopeful models for succeeding generations to improve on in more difficult conditions. That our efforts at novel solutions often created more sound than substance, or that we flitted from one issue to another rather than doing the hard yards necessary to pass on truly robust design solutions for a world of less, leaves some of us with regrets for which we might also feel the need to apologise.

These experiences are shared to some degree by a minority in all generations but there is significant evidence that the 1960s and 70s was a time when awareness of the need for change was stronger. Unfortunately, a sequence of titanic geopolitical struggles that few of us understand even today, a debt-fuelled version of consumer capitalism, and propaganda against both the Limits to Growth and the values of the counterculture, saw most of us following the neoliberal agenda like sheep into the 1980s and beyond.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

After having played with the privilege of free tertiary education, most of us fell for the propaganda and sent our children off to accumulate debts and doubtful benefits in the corporatised businesses that universities became. We convinced our children they needed more specialised knowledge poured down their throats rather than using their best years to build the skills and resilience for the challenges our generation was bequeathing to them. For this we must be truly sorry.

Many of us have been the beneficiaries of buying real estate before the credit-fuelled final stages of casino capitalism made that option a recipe for debt slavery for our children. Without understanding its mechanics we have contributed to – and fuelled with our faith – a bubble economy on a vast scale that can only end in pain and suffering for the majority. While some of us are members of the bank of Mum and Dad, when the property bubble bursts we could find ourselves following the bank chiefs apologising for the debt burden we encouraged our children to take on. Some of us will also have to apologise for losing the family home when we went guarantor on their mortgages. For not heeding the warnings we got with the GFC, we will be truly sorry.

Some of us have used our windfall wealth from real estate and the stock market to do good works, including creating small models of more creative and lower footprint futures that have inspired the minority of the next generations who can also see the writing on the wall. But most of us used our houses as ATMs for new forms of consumption that were unimaginable to our parents, from holidays around the world to endless renovations and a constant flow of updated digital gadgets and virtual diversions. For this frivolous squandering of our windfall wealth we must be truly sorry.

While our parents’ generation experienced the risks of youth through adversity and war we used our privilege to tackle challenges of our own choosing. Although some of us had to struggle to free ourselves from the cloying cocoon of middle class upbringing, we were the generation that flew like the birds and hitchhiked around the country and the world. How strange that on becoming parents (many of us in middle age) we believed the propaganda that the world was too dangerous for our children to do the same around the local neighbourhood. Instead we coddled them, got into the chauffeuring business, and in doing so encouraged their disconnection from both nature and community. As we see our grandchildren’s generation raised in a way that makes them an even more handicapped generation, we must be truly sorry for the path we took and the dis-ease we created.

After so many of us experimented with mind-expanding plants and chemicals, some of us were taken down in chemical addictions, but it was dysfunctional and corrupt legal prohibitions more than the substances themselves that were to blame for the worst of the damage. So how strange that when in middle age we got our hands on the levers of power, most of our generation decided to continue to support the madness of prohibition. For this we must be truly sorry: to have seen the light but then continued to inflict this burden on our children and grandchildren. For having acquiesced in the global ‘war on drugs’ that spread pain and suffering to some of the poorest peoples of the world we should be ashamed.

When the ‘war on drugs’ (a war against substances!) became the model for the ‘war on terror’ (war against a concept!) some of us reawakened the anti-war activism of the Vietnam years but in the end we mostly acquiesced to an agenda of trashing international law, regime change, shock and awe, chaos, and the death of millions; all justified by the 9/11 demolition fireworks that killed a small fraction of the number of citizens that die each year as a result of our ongoing addiction to personal motorised mobility.

While the shadow cast by climate change darkens our grandchilden’s future, the shadow of potential nuclear winter that hung over our childhood as not gone away. Many of us were at the forefront of the international movement to rid the world of nuclear weapons and thought the collapse of the Soviet Union had saved us from that threat. Coming into our power after the end of the cold war, our greatest crime on this geopolitical front has perhaps been the tacit support of our generation for first, the economic rape of Russia in the 1990s, and then its progressive encirclement by the relentless expansion of NATO. In Australia we have meekly added our resources and youth to more or less endless wars in the Middle East and central Asia justified by the fake ‘war on terror’. For this weakness as accessories to global crimes wasting wealth and lives to consolidate the western powers’ control of the first truly global empire, we should hang our collective heads in shame.

While some of our generation’s intellectuals continued to critique the ‘war on terror’ as fake, the vast majority of the public intellectuals of our generation, including those on the left, have supported the rapid rise of Cold War 2.0 to contain Russia, China and any other country that doesn’t accept what we now call ‘the rules based international order’ (code for ‘our empire’). This is truly astonishing when looked at in the context of our lived history. Let us hope that sanity can prevail as our empire fades and future generations don’t brand us as the most insane, war-mongering generation of all time. For our complicity in this grand failure of resistance we should be truly sorry.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

 

On another equally titanic front, the mistake of giving legal personhood to corporations was not one that our generation made. However most of us have contributed our work, consumption and capital to assist these self-organising, profit-maximising, cost-minimising machines of capitalism morphing into emergent new life forms that threaten to consume both nature and humanity in an algorithmic drive for growth. At a time of our seniority and numbers, we failed to use the Global Financial Crisis as an opportunity to bring these emergent monsters to heel. Do our children have the capacity to tame the monsters that we nurtured from fragile infants to commanding masters?

And if they do find the will to withdraw their work, consumption and capital enough to contain the corporations, will the economy that currently provides for both needs and wants unravel completely? This is a burden so great most of us continue to believe we have no responsibility or agency in such a dark reality. We trust that history will not place the burden of responsibility on our generation alone. But for our part in this failure of agency over human affairs we apologise. Further, we should accept with grace the consequences for our own wellbeing.

Most of us feel impotent when thinking of these failures to control the excesses of our era, but on a more modest scale we have mindlessly participated in taking the goods and passing on the debt to future generations. No more so than in our habitual acceptance of antibiotics from doctors to fix the most mundane of illnesses. For our parents’ generation, antibiotics represented the peak of medical science’s ability to control what killed so many of their parents and earlier generations.

For us, they became routine tools to keep us on the job and our children not missing precious days at school. Through this banal practice we have unwittingly conspired with our doctors to rapidly breed resistance to the most effective and low-cost antibiotics. We took for granted that future generations would always be able to work out ways to keep ahead of diseases with an endless string of new antibiotics. For having squandered this gift we are truly sorry.

Further, despite the fact that some of us have became vegetarian or even vegan, our generation’s demand for cheap chicken and bacon has driven the industrial dosing of animals with antibiotics on a scale that has accelerated the development of antibiotic resistance far faster than would have been the case from us dosing ourselves and our children. For supporting this and other such obscene systems of animal husbandry we apologise to our grandchildren and succeeding generations and hope that somehow an accommodation between humanity, animals and microbes is still possible.

We experienced and benefited from the emergent culture of rights and recognition for women, minorities and the people of varied abilities, and many of us who fought to extend and deepen those rights have pride in what we did. However some of us are beginning to fear that in doing so we contributed to creating new demands, disabilities, and fractious subcultures of fear and angst unimagined in previous generations. While we might not be in the driving seat of identity politics and culture wars, we raised our children to demand their rights in a world that is unravelling due to its multiple contradictions.

In this emerging context, strident demands for rights are likely to be a waste of valuable energy that younger people might better focus on becoming useful to themselves and others. For overemphasising the demand for rights and underplaying the need for responsible self- and collective-reliance, perhaps we should also be sorry.

And is this escalating demand for rights by younger people itself connected, even peripherally, to the increasing callous disregard for the rights of others? Especially in the case of refugees, this careless disregard has allowed political elites to use tough treatment of the less fortunate to distract from the gradual loss of shared privilege that once characterised the ‘lucky country’. To the shame of those in power over the last two decades (mostly baby boomers) those policies are now being adopted on a larger scale in Europe and the US.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

In our lifetimes religious faith has declined. For many of our generation, this change represents a measure of humanity’s progress from a benighted past to a promising future. But the collective belief in science and evidence-based decision making has now become a new faith, “Scientism”, which seeks to drive out all other ways of thinking and being from the public space. At the same time, religious fundamentalism is now resurgent. Is this too something that our generation unleashed by preaching tolerance while enforcing an ideology we didn’t even recognise as such?

A significant sign of the good intentions of our generation has been our recognition that the ancient war against nature, which has plagued human life since the beginnings of agriculture, and indeed civilisation, must end. One powerful expression of our efforts has been the valuing of the biodiversity of life, especially local indigenous biodiversity. In the ‘New Europes’ of North America and the Antipodes, seeking to save indigenous biodiversity has grown into an institutionalised form of atonement for the sins of the forefathers.

While this seems like one of our achievements, even this we have bastardised with a new war against naturalised biodiversity. Perhaps the worst aspect of this renewed war against novel ecologies is that we have accepted the helping hand of Monsanto in using Roundup as the main weapon in our urban and rural habitats. The mounting evidence that Roundup may be worse than DDT will be part of our legacy. While history may excuse our parent’s generation for naïve optimism in relation to DDT, our generation’s version of the war on nature will not save us from harsh judgement. For this we should be truly sorry.

Of course any public apology in this country invites comparisons to the apology by governments to the stolen generation of Australian indigenous peoples for the wrongs of the past. This unfinished sorry business is beyond the scope of this apology, but it is an opportunity to reflect critically on our common self-perception of supporting indigenous peoples’ rights in contrast to the normalised racism of previous generations.

Our generation’s invitation to, and enabling of, Australians of indigenous descent to more fully participate in mainstream Australian society may have been a necessary step towards reconciliation; or could it have been a poison chalice drawing them even deeper into the dysfunctions of industrial modernity that I have already outlined. We can only hope that people with such a history of resilience and understanding in the face dispossession will take these additional burdens in their stride.

In any case, this apology is not one that comes from a position of invulnerable privilege, giving succour to those who are no threat to that privilege. For many baby boomers, now caring for parents and dealing with their deaths, we are more inwardly focused. For some of us, especially those estranged from parents, through this both painful and tender processes we are finally growing up. But a comic tragedy could play out in our declining years if a combination of novel disabilities, the culture of rights and amplified fears lead to our children and grandchildren’s generations mostly experiencing harder times as far worse than they might really be, and deciding we are the cause of their troubles.

We baby boomers will increasingly find that in our growing dependence on young people we will be subject to their perspectives, whims and prejudices. Hopefully we can take what we are given on the chin and along with our children and our grandchildren’s generations we can all grow up and work together to face the future with whatever capacities we have.

We might hope this apology is itself a wake-up call to the younger generations that are still mostly sleepwalking into the oncoming maelstroms. In raising the alarm we might hope our humble apology will galvanise the potential in young people who are grasping the nettle of opportunities to turn problems into solutions.

We hope that this apology might lead to understanding rather than resentment of our frailty in the face of the self-organising forces of powerful change that have driven the climaxing of global industrial civilisation. Finally, the task ahead for our generation is to learn how to downsize and disown before we prepare to die, with grace, at a time of our choosing, and in a way that inspires and frees the next generations to chart a prosperous way down.

Japan Says Transgender People Must Be Sterilized For Official Recognition

A transgender woman who identifies as a man has sued Japan’s Supreme Court over a ruling earlier this year that requires sterilization before the state will officially recognize someone as the opposite gender, reports The Economist.

Takakito Usui has sued the court over the requirement that in order to be recognized as a man, she has to have her ovaries and uterus removed, as well as have surgery to turn her vagina into a penis. Applicants must also be over 20-years-old, single, have no minor children, and have been diagnosed as suffering from “gender-identity disorder.” 

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

Takakito Usui

Usui has argued that this violates a person’s right to self-determination and is therefore unconstitutional. 

Human-rights groups say demanding irreversible surgery is outrageous. Although several Asian countries, including South Korea, have similar laws, Western countries that once also used to require sterilisation, such as Norway, France and Sweden, no longer do. In 2017 the European Court of Human Rights called for the change in all 47 countries under its jurisdiction. Sweden has started to compensate transgender people who underwent mandatory sterilisation. –The Economist

Critics have argued that transgender people are not suffering from a psychological disorder. “The movement here has not been viewed as about rights but more about helping sick people overcome their illness,” says activist and professor Junko Mitsuhashi, a biological man living as a woman who studies the history of transgender issues, yet has not gained legal recognition as a woman due to an unwillingness to undergo gender reassignment surgery. 

Of note, transgenderism – also known as Gender Dysphoria, is classified as a mental disorder by the Fifth Edition Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V), published by the American Psychiatric Association. 

As the Economist notes, Japanese courts seem to be more concerned with maintaining social harmony than defending an individual’s rights. 

In its ruling, the court said that the law was intended to avoid “confusion” and “abrupt change” to society. Yukari Ishii, a researcher at Toyo University in Tokyo, says that whereas in America and Europe long campaigns for gay rights paved the way for transgender people to call for more equitable treatment, Japan is further behind. Japanese society is patriarchal and retains strong gender stereotypes, she says. –The Economist

That said, the court did note in Usuri’s case that the law may need to “evolve” along with society. Recent polls have suggested that Japan is gradually becoming more socially liberal, with over 70% of respondents in a January survey saying they are in favor of stronger legal protections for gay and transgender people. Most Japanese do not ground their objections to such rights in religion, as is the case in many other countries, according to the report. 

Evidence of Japan’s shift towards liberalism is a handful of Japanese towns and cities which have introduced same-sex partnership certificates, while a handful of Japanese businesses have become more friendly to people with alternative lifestyles. 

North America’s Indigenous Peoples: “Ongoing Genocide…” and Its Shadow World…

Electromagnetic Press has produced a new book by Bruce Clark, scholarly expert and ‘hands-on’ activist in the matter of North American indigenous peoples’ history, philosophy, and – especially – the reality of their present legal being, their rights, and their

The post North America’s Indigenous Peoples: “Ongoing Genocide…” and Its Shadow World… appeared first on Global Research.

How Middle America Is to Be Dispossessed

“California, here we come,” says Pat Buchanan, as he explains the coming death of the republic. 

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In all but one of the last seven presidential elections, Republicans lost the popular vote. George W. Bush and Donald Trump won only by capturing narrow majorities in the Electoral College.

Hence the grand strategy of the left: to enlarge and alter the U.S. electorate so as to put victory as far out of reach for national Republicans as it is today for California Republicans, and to convert the GOP into America’s permanent minority party.

In the Golden State, Democrats control the governors’ chair, every elective state office, both U.S. Senate seats, 46 of 53 U.S. House seats and three-fourths of each house of the state legislature in Sacramento.

How does the left expect to permanently dispossess Middle America?

Let us count the ways.

In 2018, over 60% of Floridians voted to expand the electorate by restoring voting rights to 1.5 million ex-cons, all of Florida’s felons except those convicted of sex crimes and murder.

Florida gave Bush his razor-thin victory over Al Gore. Should Trump lose Florida in 2020, he is a one-term president. If the GOP loses Florida indefinitely, the presidency is probably out of reach indefinitely.

Florida’s Amendment 4 is thus a great leap forward in the direction in which the republic is being taken. Gov. Terry McAuliffe of the swing state of Virginia restored voting rights to 156,000 felons by executive order in 2016, calling it his “proudest achievement.”

In California and Oregon, moves are afoot to reduce the voting age to 17 or 16. Understandable, as high schoolers are more enthusiastic about socialism.

Last week, a bold attempt was made by House Democrats to lower the U.S. voting age to 16. It failed—this time.

Some House Democrats apparently feel that with “Medicare-for-all” and the Green New Deal of Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez on the table, they have enough progressive legislation to satisfy the socialist base.

Thanks to Gov. Jerry Brown, every adult citizen in California who gets or renews a driver’s license, gets a state ID card, or fills out a change of address form with the Department of Motor Vehicles is automatically registered to vote. Purpose: expand voter rolls to include those who have shown no interest in politics, so they can be located on Election Day and bused to the polls.

Ari Berman of Mother Jones writes that Nancy Pelosi’s 700-page For the People Act that did pass the House contains “a slew of measures designed to expand voting rights, which … include nationwide automatic voter registration, Election Day registration, two weeks of early voting in every state … restoration of voting rights for ex-felons, and declaring Election Day a federal holiday.”

House Republicans offered an amendment to the bill with language that said, “allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the voting power of United States citizens.”

All but six Democrats voted against the GOP proposal.

The Democratic Party does not want to close the door to voting on migrants who broke our laws to get here and do not belong here, as these illegals would likely vote for pro-amnesty Democrats.

If the new U.S. electorate of, say, 2024, includes tens of millions of new voters—16- and 17-year-olds, illegal migrants, ex-cons, new legal immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America who vote 70 to 90% Democratic, the political future of America has already been determined.

California, here we come.

As a Democratic insurance policy, Memphis Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

Some Republicans support statehood for Puerto Rico, which would add six electoral votes that would go Democratic in presidential elections about as often as Washington, D.C.’s three have, which is always.

Ben Franklin told the lady in Philadelphia, “We have a republic, if you can keep it.” Our elites today, however, ceaselessly celebrate “our democracy.”

Ship of Fools, Carlson
Brand new and available now from AFP, Tucker Carlson’s “Ship of Fools”

Yet John Adams was not optimistic about such a political system: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy yet, that did not commit suicide.”

Thomas Jefferson, a lifelong believer in a “natural aristocracy” among men, was contemptuous: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Madison wrote in Federalist 10, “democracies … have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

If one day not far off, as seems probable, tax consumers achieve a permanent hegemony over the nation’s taxpayers and begin to impose an equality of result that freedom rarely delivers, the question of who should choose the nation’s rulers will be tabled anew.

We do not select NFL coaches or corporate executives or college professors or generals or admirals by plebiscite. What is the empirical evidence that this is the best way to choose a president or commander in chief?

Peoples are wondering that the world over, as our democracy does not appear to be an especially attractive stock.

Pat Buchanan is a writer, political commentator and presidential candidate. He is the author of Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever and previous titles including The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority, Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025? and Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, all available from the AFP Online Store.

COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM

Democrats Pass House Bill to Change the Electorate by Allowing Illegal Aliens, Criminals and 16-Year Old Minors the Vote

The bill includes regulations that would encourage voter fraud such as automatic voter registration through the DMV, and it prevents the purge of voter rolls that contain the names of dead and inactive voters. The bill aims to restore voting rights to criminals and to lower the voting age to 16.

The Problem With “Reparations”

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

As the issue of reparations for victims of slavery rages within the Democratic party, and on cable news stations, we encounter a common problem: virtually no one is addressing the specifics of how such a reparations effort would be administered.

Who would receive these reparations payments? Who would pay them? How would guilt and victimhood be determined? As is usually the case with American policy debates, this “debate” offers little more than an opportunity for pundits and activists to grandstand on related issues such as poverty and race – while avoiding the central topic at hand. Support or opposition then becomes nothing more than a matter of affirming one’s political loyalties. The actual issue of reparations – and how they’ll be paid out – is mostly ignored.

<!–[if IE 9]><![endif]–>

It is important to remember, however, that there is nothing necessarily problematic about the idea of paying reparations to the victims of a crime. In fact, the idea is essentially pro-private-property because it attempts to repay a victim for property stolen from him or her by another party.

After all, any decent legal system would provide for a victim of kidnapping and forced labor to obtain repayment for the time and labor stolen from him by the kidnapper. As Walter Block writes:

Justified reparations are nothing more and nothing less than the forced return of stolen property — even after a significant amount of time has passed. For example, if my grandfather stole a ring from your grandfather, and then bequeathed it to me through the intermediation of my father, then I am, presently, the illegitimate owner of that piece of jewelry. To take the position that reparations are always and forever unjustified is to give an imprimatur to theft, provided a sufficient time period has elapsed. In the just society, your father would have inherited the ring from his own parent, and then given it to you. It is thus not a violation of property rights, but a logical implication of them, to force me to give over this ill-gotten gain to you.

But here’s the rub: in order to do this with an eye toward justice, one must identify specific victims and specific perpetrators. Potentially, as Block suggests, one could envision a legal case in which the heirs of victims would be paid reparations by the heirs of the perpetrators. But again, we still encounter the problem of identifying specific persons (and heirs) involved. Reparations cannot be paid in the abstract, since, as Chris Calton has noted:

[L]ibertarian ethics are not based on abstract moral claims; they’re based on concretely identifiable property rights. When a violation of a person’s property rights takes place, restitution is the logical means of compensating the victim …

But in the real world [on matters of slavery] such a claim is incredibly difficult to prove. And failure to prove a legitimate property claim means that the currently recognized property title holds. Anything else would be committing a new injustice to give the illusion of correcting an old one.

In light of this, we can see that many of the currently proposed methods of paying out “reparations” are imprecise, vague, and consequently unjust. A program, for example, that forces all taxpayers (whether guilty or not of any relevant crimes) to pay reparations to a specific group of people raises several key problems that must be addressed:

1. What if a taxpayer is descended from people who didn’t even arrive in the country until after emancipation? That is, should a Japanese-American, whose immigrant ancestors arrived in the United States in 1910, be forced to pay reparations? How about descendants of Mexicans who arrived in the US in 1925?

2. What if the taxpayer has some ancestors who lived in the US before emancipation and some who arrived here afterward? Would that person’s “reparation tax bill” be pro-rated to match the fraction of his ancestry that shared antebellum guilt?

3. What if a taxpayer’s ancestors were abolitionists who opposed slavery?

4. What if a taxpayer has no ancestors who owned slaves?

The (Bad) Economics of Collective Guilt

In all of these cases, it’s hard to see how the person paying reparations is in any way actually responsible for the kidnapping, theft, assault, and other crimes perpetrated against actual slaves. Yes, many activists may claim that “everyone” is  — in the vague abstract — “guilty” of slavery because one’s ancestor once bought cheap cotton dungarees in 1858, or once (even unwittingly) worked for a company that sold timbers to ship builders who built slaving ships. These arguments rely on the same twisted logic which would have us believe that people who buy gasoline are somehow morally responsible for the brutality of the Saudi Arabian dictators, or that a teenager who smokes a joint is responsible for terrorism like that perpetrated on 9-11. (Yes, the US government created an ad campaign saying exactly this.)

This everyone-is-guilty claim, in fact, is one invented by the slavedrivers themselves in an attempt to claim that all white Americans — including Northerners — somehow directly benefited from slavery, and thus all abolitionists were hypocrites. It was always a desperate and unconvincing argument, but by putting these claims forward, the slavedrivers of old helped pave the way for the modern-day reparations advocates.

In real life, the people responsible for slavery are only the people who directly owned, sold, or traded in slaves; and the politicians who pushed to preserve, spread, or defend slavery through legislation and the state’s police powers.

Slavery Suppressed Wages for Many Workers

Moreover, many non-slaves can be shown to have been negatively impacted by slavery because it acted to suppress wages. As historian Kerry Leigh Merritt describes in detail in her book Masterless Men: Poor Whites and Slavery in the Antebellum South, wage-earning, non-slaveholding whites in the South — who constituted the overwhelming majority of the population — received far lower wages than they would have had they not been forced to compete with slave labor by a legal system designed to favor the tiny minority of slaveowners. Nor were these effects limited to Southern whites only. The increased profitability of agriculture in the South — thanks to slavery — acted to divert resources from Northern agriculture and industry as well, thus lowering wages for at least some Northern workers. Moreover, capital that poured into the slave plantation could have been used to improve worker productivity through innovation in machinery and other capital. Instead, that investment was diverted away from improving free labor, and devoted to expansion and maintenance of the slave economy. Overall, the presence of slaves suppressed wages nationwide.

The fact that slaveowners and plantation owners indisputably benefited from slavery hardly means that white day laborers benefited as well. Yes, chattel slaves fared far worse than any other group. But that doesn’t mean those day laborers were — to use the modern parlance — “privileged” by the existence of the slave economy. In practice, it significantly lowered their income.

So, once again we are left with the problem of determining who is legally and morally responsible for paying out these reparations in any way connected to identifying truly guilty parties. In practice, it’s nearly impossible, although government being what it is, advocates for reparations are likely to simply demand that all the taxpayers foot the bill to pay one identifiable interest group, whether or not the taxpayers involved can be shown to have any direct involvement in the perpetuation or spread of slavery.

Ultimately, the issue shouldn’t even be regarded as a complicated one. If “reparations” are truly that, then they can only be based on handing over stolen property from the thief to the victim (or their heirs). So long as these specific individuals are not identified, then the policy being discussed has nothing to do with reparations. It’s just a wealth redistribution scheme.

The New Politics of Disablement: The Contribution of Mike Oliver

Michael Oliver (3 February 1945 to 2 March 2019) was a British academic, author, and disability rights activist. He was Emeritus Professor of Disability Studies at the University of Greenwich. His research focused on the social model of disability, and

The post The New Politics of Disablement: The Contribution of Mike Oliver appeared first on Global Research.

The New Politics of Disablement: The Contribution of Mike Oliver

Michael Oliver (3 February 1945 to 2 March 2019) was a British academic, author, and disability rights activist. He was Emeritus Professor of Disability Studies at the University of Greenwich. His research focused on the social model of disability, and

The post The New Politics of Disablement: The Contribution of Mike Oliver appeared first on Global Research.

The Arrest of Chelsea Manning. Unconstitutional US Grand Jury System

Remanding Chelsea Manning into federal custody for contempt on Friday, jailing her for invoking her constitutional rights, refusing to answer prosecutorial and grand juror questions, is one of countless examples of grand jury abuses of power – symptomatic of police

The post The Arrest of Chelsea Manning. Unconstitutional US Grand Jury System appeared first on Global Research.

The Arrest of Chelsea Manning. Unconstitutional US Grand Jury System

Remanding Chelsea Manning into federal custody for contempt on Friday, jailing her for invoking her constitutional rights, refusing to answer prosecutorial and grand juror questions, is one of countless examples of grand jury abuses of power – symptomatic of police

The post The Arrest of Chelsea Manning. Unconstitutional US Grand Jury System appeared first on Global Research.

Women’s Day unites activists, Turkish police break up crowd with tear gas

March 8, 2019

By Marie-Louise Gumuchian

LONDON (Reuters) – Campaigners for gender equality took to European city streets on Friday to mark International Women’s Day with celebrations and protests, while in Turkey police fired tear gas to break up a crowd of several thousand women in Istanbul in the evening.

In Spain, hundreds of thousands of women, wearing purple and raising their fists, took to the streets of cities around the country calling for greater gender equality.

The issue has become deeply divisive in Spain ahead of a national election on April 28. A new far-right party, Vox, has called for a 2004 law on domestic violence against women to be scrapped, and stands to win dozens of seats, opinion polls show.

In Berlin, city authorities declared Women’s Day a formal holiday and thousands joined a colorful demonstration under sunny skies at the German capital’s Alexanderplatz.

In Paris, demonstrators from Amnesty International waved placards outside the Saudi Arabian embassy that read “Honk for women’s rights”, and called for the release of jailed women activists, including some campaigners for the right to drive in the deeply conservative kingdom.

In Athens and Kiev, women protesters demanded equality and an end to violence against women.

In Istanbul, Turkey’s largest city, hundreds called for the release of Syrian women in jail. But in the evening, Turkish police fired tear gas to break up a crowd gathered for a march, Reuters witnesses said.

Hundreds of riot police blocked the marchers’ path to prevent them advancing along the district’s main pedestrian avenue. Police then fired pepper spray and pellets containing tear gas to disperse the crowd, and scuffles broke out as they pursued the women into side streets off the avenue.

It was not clear if anyone was hurt or if people were detained.

Turkish police regularly block the staging of protests in central Istanbul and elsewhere. Ankara tightened restrictions after the imposition of emergency rule following an attempted coup in 2016. The state of emergency was lifted last July.

EQUALITY AND RESPECT

In Russia, where Women’s Day has been an important festival since Communist times, flowers and congratulatory messages decorated public spaces.

In Spain, one of the country’s largest unions, UGT, said an estimated 6 million people went on strike across the country for at least two hours to demand equal pay and rights for women.

Spain’s government said it would not provide estimates on the rate of participation.

“Many people are trying to demonize feminism while it has always been a fight for equality,” said Ana Sanz, 36, dressed in a red overcoat and white bonnet echoing the uniforms worn in the dystopian novel and TV series “The Handmaid’s Tale”.

Tens of thousands of women, mostly students, crammed streets and squares in the Spanish capital Madrid, chanting and carrying placards saying: “Liberty, Equality, Friendship” and “The way I dress does not change the respect I deserve!”

In Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, protester Anna Lob told Reuters she had been sexually assaulted during an internship.

“A male colleague grabbed my ass while I was standing in a circle with some men,” she said. “Physical assaults in any form or (sexist) comments, jokes or something you have to listen to over and over again – that is a form of discrimination.”

Also in Alexanderplatz, Paula Schramm said she had seen some moves toward greater equality but many women remained disadvantaged in their daily lives. “And that is why I am here. I want to change this so that it becomes equal at some point.”

In Paris, Cameroonian rights activist Aissa Doumara was honored for her campaign against forced marriages by President Emmanuel Macron. At a ceremony at the Elysee Palace, he handed Doumara the first women’s rights prize dedicated to the late French minister and abortion campaigner Simone Veil.

Portuguese Prime Minister Antonio Costa joined a women’s rights protest in downtown Lisbon. “When there is a difference of 18 percent on average between the salary of men and women, disparity in political positions, and when there is barbarity such as gender violence, it’s a sign that there is still much to do in the fight for women’s rights,” he told the crowd.

Twelve women have died so far this year in domestic violence in Portugal.

“EMBRYONIC KICKING OF FEMINISM”

In London, Meghan, Britain’s Duchess of Sussex, said she hoped the baby she is expecting this spring with Britain’s Prince Harry would follow in her feminist footsteps.

The ex-“Suits” actress made the comment during a Women’s Day panel discussion at King’s College London.

Asked how the “bump” – her first baby – was treating her, the 37-year-old told the audience: “Very well.”

“I’d seen this documentary on Netflix about feminism and one of the things they said during pregnancy was, ‘I feel the embryonic kicking of feminism’,” she said.

“I love that. So boy or girl or whatever it is, we hope that that’s the case, with our little bump.”

(Reporting by Sabela Ojea and Raul Cadenas in Madrid, Marie-Louise Gumuchian in London, Johnny Cotton in Paris, Catarina Demony in Lisbon, Andrea Shalal in Berlin and Reuters Television in Moscow; Editing by Mark Heinrich)

Alabama Court Allows Father of Aborted Baby to Sue Women’s Center that Performed the Abortion

An Alabama court became the first in the nation to recognize an aborted baby as a person with rights. The court ruled that the father of the baby that was aborted at six weeks by his girlfriend has the right to sue the women’s center that performed the abortion as well as the employees of the center.

UK promises safeguards on workers’ rights after Brexit

March 5, 2019

LONDON (Reuters) – British Prime Minister Theresa May will on Wednesday offer parliament a greater say over changes to workers’ rights laws after Brexit, seeking to win the support of wavering lawmakers as she prepares to put her EU exit deal to the test next week.

Less than three weeks until Britain leaves the European Union, the world’s fifth-largest economy has yet to reach a deal on how to untangle more than four decades of legal, economic and political integration.

May will announce plans to write her promise of improved consultation over post-Brexit workers’ rights into legislation and offer lawmakers, businesses and trade unions a say on whether Britain should match any future EU law on the issue.

“After Brexit, it should be for parliament to decide what rules are most appropriate, rather than automatically accepting EU changes,” May said in a statement issued by her office.

“When it comes to workers’ rights, this parliament has set world-leading standards and will continue to do so in the future, taking its own decisions, working closely with trade unions and businesses.”

The move is seen as an appeal to lawmakers of the opposition Labour Party, seeking their backing at a vote next week when May will ask parliament to approve a revised exit deal. Her first deal was roundly rejected on Jan. 15.

To win the March 12 vote, May’s minority government will likely need to rely on the support of rebel Labour lawmakers, some of whom are prepared to ignore their own party’s instructions to block the prime minister’s deal.

Many Labour lawmakers represent areas that voted heavily in favor of Brexit in Britain’s 2016 referendum and fear their party’s position to support a second referendum could alienate their constituents.

Labour – which has gone further than May by saying it would automatically keep pace with new EU laws on workers’ rights – described the government’s offer as a “pathetic bribe”.

“The government is admitting that British workers could see their rights fall behind those of colleagues in Europe. This is utterly unacceptable and workers and trade unions will not be fooled,” said Rebecca Long-Bailey, Labour’s business policy chief.

(Reporting by William James; editing by Stephen Addison)

Parental rights being stamped out in Canada as LGBT mafia given free reign to seize, sterilize children under evil “trans” agenda

(Natural News) In a shocking affront to parental rights in Canada, the Supreme Court of British Columbia has ruled that an underage, mentally-ill girl who decided that she wants to turn into a “boy” can legally receive testosterone injections as part of her “trans” conversion – even though her parents are vehemently opposed to this…

Any ‘News’ Medium That Doesn’t Republish This Is Fake:

John Pilger on Sunday Reports Meeting With Assange

And Exposes Australian Government’s Criminal Acts

http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-prisoner-says-no-to-big-brother

https://www.greanvillepost.com/2019/03/03/john-pilger-the-prisoner-says-no-to-big-brother/

John Pilger: The prisoner says no to Big Brother

4 March 2019

Whenever I visit Julian Assange, we meet in a room he knows too well. There is a bare table and pictures of Ecuador on the walls. There is a bookcase where the books never change. The curtains are always drawn and there is no natural light. The air is still and fetid.

This is Room 101.

Before I enter Room 101, I must surrender my passport and  phone. My pockets and possessions are examined. The food I bring is inspected.  The man who guards Room 101 sits in what looks like an old-fashioned telephone box. He watches a screen, watching Julian. There are others unseen, agents of the state, watching and listening.

Cameras are everywhere in Room 101. To avoid them, Julian manoeuvres us both into a corner, side by side, flat up against the wall. This is how we catch up: whispering and writing to each other on a notepad, which he shields from the cameras. Sometimes we laugh.

I have my designated time slot. When that expires, the door in Room 101 bursts open and the guard says, “Time is up!”  On New Year’s Eve, I was allowed an extra 30 minutes and the man in the phone box wished me a happy new year, but not Julian.

Of course, Room 101 is the room in George Orwell’s prophetic novel, 1984, where the thought police watched and tormented their prisoners, and worse, until people surrendered their humanity and principles and obeyed Big Brother.

Julian Assange will never obey Big Brother. His resilience and courage are astonishing, even though his physical health struggles to keep up.

Julian is a distinguished Australian, who has changed the way many people think about duplicitous governments. For this, he is a political refugee subjected to what the United Nations calls “arbitrary detention”.

The UN says he has the right of free passage to freedom, but this is denied. He has the right to medical treatment without fear of arrest, but this is denied. He has the right to compensation, but this is denied.

As founder and editor of WikiLeaks, his crime has been to make sense of dark times. WikiLeaks has an impeccable record of accuracy and authenticity which no newspaper, no TV channel, no radio station, no BBC, no New York Times, no Washington Post, no Guardian can equal. Indeed, it shames them.

That explains why he is being punished.

For example:

Last week, the International Court of Justice ruled that the British Government had no legal powers over the Chagos Islanders, who in the 1960s and 70s, were expelled in secret from their homeland on Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean and sent into exile and poverty. Countless children died, many of them, from sadness. It was an epic crime few knew about.

For almost 50 years, the British have denied the islanders’ the right to return to their homeland, which they had given to the Americans for a major military base.

“The elevation to celebrity feminism of one so politically primitive as Bishop tells us how much so-called identity politics have subverted an essential, objective truth: that what matters, above all, is not your gender but the class you serve. Before she entered politics, Julie Bishop was a lawyer who served the notorious asbestos miner James Hardie which fought claims by men and their families dying horribly with asbestosis…”

In 2009, the British Foreign Office concocted a “marine reserve” around the Chagos archipelago.

This touching concern for the environment was exposed as a fraud when WikiLeaks published a secret cable from the British Government reassuring the Americans that “the former inhabitants would find it difficult, if not possible, to pursue their claim for resettlement on the islands if the entire Chagos Archipelago were a marine reserve.”

The truth of the conspiracy clearly influenced the momentous decision of the International Court of Justice.

WikiLeaks has also revealed how the United States spies on its allies; how the CIA can watch you through your I-phone; how Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton took vast sums of money from Wall Street for secret speeches that reassured the bankers that if she was elected, she would be their friend.

In 2016, WikiLeaks revealed a direct connection between Clinton and organised jihadism in the Middle East: terrorists, in other words. One email disclosed that when Clinton was US Secretary of State, she knew that Saudi Arabia and Qatar were funding Islamic State, yet she accepted huge donations for her foundation from both governments.

She then approved the world’s biggest ever arms sale to her Saudi benefactors: arms that are currently being used against the stricken people of Yemen.

That explains why he is being punished.

WikiLeaks has also published more than 800,000 secret files from Russia, including the Kremlin, telling us more about the machinations of power in that country than the specious hysterics of the Russiagate pantomime in Washington.

This is real journalism — journalism of a kind now considered exotic: the antithesis of Vichy journalism, which speaks for the enemy of the people and takes its sobriquet from the Vichy government that occupied France on behalf of the Nazis.

Vichy journalism is censorship by omission, such as the untold scandal of the collusion between Australian governments and the United States to deny Julian Assange his rights as an Australian citizen and to silence him.

In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard went as far as ordering the Australian Federal Police to investigate and hopefully prosecute Assange and WikiLeaks — until she was informed by the AFP that no crime had been committed.

Last weekend, the Sydney Morning Herald published a lavish supplement promoting a celebration of “Me Too” at the Sydney Opera House on 10 March.  Among the leading participants is the recently retired Minister of Foreign Affairs, Julie Bishop.

Bishop has been on show in the local media lately, lauded as a loss to politics: an “icon”, someone called her, to be admired.

The elevation to celebrity feminism of one so politically primitive as Bishop tells us how much so-called identity politics have subverted an essential, objective truth: that what matters, above all, is not your gender but the class you serve.

Before she entered politics, Julie Bishop was a lawyer who served the notorious asbestos miner James Hardie which fought claims by men and their families dying horribly with asbestosis.

Lawyer Peter Gordon recalls Bishop “rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying.”

Bishop says she “acted on instructions … professionally and ethically”.

Perhaps she was merely “acting on instructions” when she flew to London and Washington last year with her ministerial chief of staff, who had indicated that the Australian Foreign Minister would raise Julian’s case and hopefully begin the diplomatic process of bringing him home.

Julian’s father had written a moving letter to the then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, asking the government to intervene diplomatically to free his son. He told Turnbull that he was worried Julian might not leave the embassy alive.

Julie Bishop had every opportunity in the UK and the US to present a diplomatic solution that would bring Julian home. But this required the courage of one proud to represent a sovereign, independent state, not a vassal.

Instead, she made no attempt to contradict the British Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, when he said outrageously that Julian “faced serious charges”. What charges? There were no charges.

Australia’s Foreign Minister abandoned her duty to speak up for an Australian citizen, prosecuted with nothing, charged with nothing, guilty of nothing.

Will those feminists who fawn over this false icon at the Opera House next Sunday be reminded of her role in colluding with foreign forces to punish an Australian journalist, one whose work has revealed that rapacious militarism has smashed the lives of millions of ordinary women in many countries: in Iraq alone, the US-led invasion of that country, in which Australia participated, left 700,000 widows.

So what can be done? An Australian  government that was prepared to act in response to a public campaign to rescue the refugee football player, Hakeem al-Araibi, from torture and persecution in Bahrain, is capable of bringing Julian Assange home.

The refusal by the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra to honour the United Nations’ declaration that Julian is the victim of “arbitrary detention” and has a fundamental right to his freedom, is a shameful breach of the letter and spirit of international law.

Why has the Australian government made no serious attempt to free Assange? Why did Julie Bishop bow to the wishes of two foreign powers? Why is this democracy traduced by its servile relationships, and integrated with lawless foreign power?

The persecution of Julian Assange is the conquest of us all: of our independence, our self respect, our intellect, our compassion, our politics, our culture.

So stop scrolling. Organise. Occupy. Insist. Persist. Make a noise. Take direct action. Be brave and stay brave. Defy the thought police.

War is not peace, freedom is not slavery, ignorance is not strength. If Julian can stand up, so can you: so can all of us. 

John Pilger gave this speech at a rally for Julian Assange in Sydney on 3 March.

 

PS: All media are receiving the above news-report. Let’s see which ones are fakes.

The House Just Passed A SECOND Extreme Gun Control Bill

This article was originally published by Dagny Taggart at The Organic Prepper

For the second day in a row, gun-grabbers in the US House of Representatives have passed an extreme gun control bill.

Yesterday we reported that the House of Representatives voted to pass H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would require background checks for all firearm sales, including private transactions and purchases made online and at gun shows. Currently, only federally licensed firearms dealers, importers, and manufacturers are required to conduct background checks on customers under federal law.

We also reported that the House would be voting on another gun control bill this week – H.R. 1112, the Enhanced Background Checks Act of 2019, which has been nicknamed the “Charleston Loophole” bill:

That bill would extend the amount of time firearms dealers must wait for a response from the background check system before the sale can proceed to 20 days. Currently, they can make the sale if they haven’t received a response in three days. (source)

The National Rifle Association (NRA) warned that H.R. 1112 is “worse” than H.R. 8:

Under that bill, gun sales from licensed dealers would be subject to the discretion of federal officials. Through either malice or incompetence, the legislation creates an unworkable system where gun buyers could be placed in an endless loop of background checks and would never actually receive the firearms they wish to purchase. (source)

Today, the House voted to pass H.R. 1112 on a largely party-line vote of 228 to 198.

Rep. Debbie Lesko, a survivor of domestic violence, attempted to amend the bill to keep the three-day time limit on background checks for domestic violence victims trying to buy a gun, reports USA Today:

“Do we really want to tell victims of domestic violence they have to wait up to 20 business days,” the Arizona Republican asked, “before they are allowed to adequately defend themselves?” (source)

The NRA published a statement in response to the vote, which reads:

“The anti-gun politicians in the House of Representatives continue to employ the shameful tactic of exploiting tragedies to market gun control that won’t prevent criminals from committing murder.  It’s a sham and the Charleston Loophole bill is the perfect example of their dishonesty. The assertion that a supposed 10-day delay would have prevented a crime that took place over 60 days after the initial delay is ridiculous.  This legislation would not have prevented the Charleston murders, and even worse, the legislation is so poorly drafted it would put law-abiding citizens who need a firearm for self-defense at risk by trapping them in an endless loop of delays. The NRA will continue to fight for the constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to defend themselves and their families without apology.” (source)

The Republican-controlled Senate is very unlikely to pass the bill, and as we reported yesterday, President Trump would likely veto it anyway:

In a statement, the White House announced it opposed the bills for violating Second Amendment rights.

“The extensive regulation required by H.R. 8 is incompatible with the Second Amendment’s guarantee of an individual right to keep arms,” the statement reads. “By overly extending the minimum time that a licensed entity is required to wait for background check results, H.R. 1112 would unduly impose burdensome delays on individuals seeking to purchase a firearm.”

The two bills are expected to pass in the House, but would then need to be approved in the Senate, where Republicans hold a majority. In its statement, the White House suggested President Trump would veto both pieces of legislation if they pass the House and Senate.

The gun grabbers are NOT going to stop.

The gun grabbers in Congress are not going to stop trying to take away our rights. They will continue to chip away with insidious measures. We will see continued efforts to diminish our rights.

And the worst thing is, they’ll call it “common sense” measures. Terminology like that sets it up so that anyone who objects is a nutcase. It makes it seem as though those of us who demand our rights be unfettered are fringe lunatics instead of self-reliant, law-abiding citizens.

This bill may not pass this Senate. If they pass it, President Trump will most likely veto it.

But this is a sign of things to come. They’re not going to stop and imagine if we have a gun grabber in the White House.

They ARE coming for our guns. Don’t let anyone fool you.

About the Author

Dagny Taggart is the pseudonym of an experienced journalist who needs to maintain anonymity to keep her job in the public eye. Dagny is non-partisan and aims to expose the half-truths, misrepresentations, and blatant lies of the MSM.


The Pantry Primer

Please feel free to share any information from this article in part or in full, giving credit to the author and including a link to The Organic Prepper and the following bio.

Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her websites, The Organic Prepper and DaisyLuther.com She is the author of 4 books and the co-founder of Preppers University, where she teaches intensive preparedness courses in a live online classroom setting. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter,.

Draft Registration Will Be Either Ended or Imposed on Women

A choice must now be made. It is officially unconstitutional to discriminate against 18-year-old women by not forcing them to sign up to be forced against their will to kill and die for Venezuela’s oil or some other noble cause.

Yes, the fine U.S. judiciary has declared for-men-only Selective Service registration to be verboten.

That’s not to say there isn’t debate on the matter. One side holds that women should be treasured as the delicate witless pieces of property they are because the Bible says so, and therefore they must be kept out of war entirely. The other side says that good modern liberal progressive feminists should demand the right of every woman to be forced, on pain of prison or even death, to help murder a million Iraqis for the cause of creating ISIS or some similar high purpose. Enlightened women demand not only equal pay, but equal moral injury, PTSD, brain injury, suicide risk, lost limbs, violent tendencies, and the chance to board airplanes first while everybody thanks them for their “service.”

To comply with the Constitution, the U.S. government now must either . . .

  1. Abide by the U.N. Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact and stop launching wars.
  2. Undo corporate-personhood and dollar-speech, eliminating the influence of war profits and stop launching wars.
  3. Impeach and remove fascist warmongers and stop launching wars.

or . . .

Wait a minute, sorry, I saw the word “Constitution” and lost touch with normalized illegality. What I meant to say was: To comply with the Constitution, the U.S. government now must either . . .

  1. Impose draft registration on men and women alike, or
  2. Abolish draft registration.

Which brings us to an even crazier debate, that between the huge percentage of peace activists who favor not only draft registration but a draft, and those of us who want to see the draft abolished and war along with it. Those favoring a draft as a means to peace may tend to line up with those favoring the feminist right to be forced to kill and die. You’ll have to ask them how comfortable they are in that company. Those of us favoring the abolition of draft registration, of course, find ourselves lined up beside misogynistic warmongers.

How do I like that company? Frankly, I couldn’t care less. It’s not the point. I agree, on the topic of ending wars, with libertarians who want to end wars for the same reasons they want to end schools and parks and environmental protections. I agree on withdrawing U.S. troops from Syria and Afghanistan with certain carefully selected and not acted upon statements made by the current occupant of the White House. “You can’t help people being right for the wrong reasons,” said Arthur Koestler. “This fear of finding oneself in bad company is not an expression of political purity. It is an expression of a lack of self confidence.”

But how can I be so confident that ending Selective Service is the right thing to do?

The military draft has not been used in the United States since 1973. Neither has the War Powers Resolution, but that could very well change this month. The draft machinery has remained in place, costing the federal government about $25 million a year. Males over 18 have been required to register for the draft since 1940 (except between 1975 and 1980) and still are today, with no option to register as conscientious objectors or to choose peaceful productive public service. The only reason for keeping Selective Service in place is because the draft might be started up again. While most states’ governments claim that making voter registration automatic would be too much trouble, they have made draft registration automatic for men. This suggests which registration is seen as a priority.

We’re all familiar with the argument behind peace activists’ demand for the draft, the argument that Congressman Charles Rangel made when proposing to start up a draft some years back. U.S. wars, while killing almost exclusively innocent foreigners, also kill and injure and traumatize thousands of U.S. troops drawn disproportionately from among those lacking viable educational and career alternatives. A fair draft, rather than a poverty draft, would send — if not modern-day Donald Trumps, Dick Cheneys, George W. Bushes, or Bill Clintons — at least some offspring of relatively powerful people to war. And that would create opposition, and that opposition would end the war. That’s the argument in a nutshell. Let me offer 10 reasons why I think this is sincere but misguided.

  1. History doesn’t bear it out. The drafts in the U.S. civil war (both sides), the two world wars, and the war on Korea did not end those wars, despite being much larger and in some cases fairer than the draft during the American war on Vietnam. Those drafts were despised and protested, but they took lives; they did not save lives. The very idea of a draft was widely considered an outrageous assault on basic rights and liberties even before any of these drafts. In fact, a draft proposal was successfully argued down in Congress by denouncing it as unconstitutional, despite the fact that the guy who had actually written most of the Constitution was also the president who was proposing to create the draft. Said Congressman Daniel Webster on the House floor at the time (1814): “The administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion…Is this, sir, consistent with the character of a free government? Is this civil liberty? Is this the real character of our Constitution? No, sir, indeed it is not…Where is it written in the Constitution, in what article or section is it contained, that you may take children from their parents, and parents from their children, and compel them to fight the battles of any war, in which the folly or the wickedness of government may engage it? Under what concealment has this power lain hidden, which now for the first time comes forth, with a tremendous and baleful aspect, to trample down and destroy the dearest rights of personal liberty?” When the draft came to be accepted as an emergency wartime measure during the civil and first world wars, it never would have been tolerated during peacetime. (And it’s still not anywhere to be found in the Constitution.) Only since 1940 (and under a new law in ’48), when FDR was still working on manipulating the United States into World War II, and during the subsequent 75 years of permanent wartime has “selective service” registration gone on uninterrupted for decades. The draft machine is part of a culture of war that makes kindergarteners pledge allegiance to a flag and 18-year-old males sign up to express their willingness to go off and kill people as part of some unspecified future government project. The government already knows your Social Security number, sex, and age. The purpose of draft registration is in great part war normalization.
  2. People bled for this. When voting rights are threatened, when elections are corrupted, and even when we are admonished to hold our noses and vote for one or another of the god-awful candidates regularly placed before us, what are we reminded of? People bled for this. People risked their lives and lost their lives. People faced fire hoses and dogs. People went to jail. That’s right. And that’s why we should continue the struggle for fair and open and verifiable elections. But what do you think people did for the right not to be drafted into war? They risked their lives and lost their lives. They were hung up by their wrists. They were starved and beaten and poisoned. Eugene Debs, hero of Senator Bernie Sanders, went to prison for speaking against the draft. What would Debs make of the idea of peace activists supporting a draft in order to stir up more peace activism? I doubt he’d be able to speak through his tears.
  3. Millions dead is a cure worse than the disease. I am very well convinced that the peace movement shortened and ended the war on Vietnam, not to mention removing a president from office, helping to pass other progressive legislation, educating the public, communicating to the world that there was decency hiding in the United States, and — oh, by the way — ending the draft. And I have zero doubt that the draft had helped to build the peace movement. But the draft did not contribute to ending the war before that war had done far more damage than has any war since. We can cheer for the draft ending the war, but four million Vietnamese lay dead, along with Laotians, Cambodians, and over 50,000 U.S. troops. And as the war ended, the dying continued. Many more U.S. troops came home and killed themselves than had died in the war. Children are still born deformed by Agent Orange and other poisons used. Children are still ripped apart by explosives left behind. If you add up numerous wars in numerous nations, the United States has inflicted death and suffering on the Middle East to equal or surpass that in Vietnam, but none of the wars has used anything like as many U.S. troops as were used in Vietnam. If the U.S. government had wanted a draft and believed it could get away with starting one, it would have. If anything, the lack of a draft has restrained the killing. The U.S. military would add a draft to its existing billion-dollar recruitment efforts, not replace one with the other. And the far greater concentration of wealth and power now than in 1973 pretty well assures that the children of the super-elite would not be conscripted.
  4. Don’t underestimate support for a draft. The United States has a much greater population than do most countries of people who say they are ready to support wars and even of people who say they would be willing to fight a war. Forty-four percent of U.S. Americans now tell Gallup polling that they “would” fight in a war. Why aren’t they now fighting in one? That’s an excellent question, but one answer could be: Because there’s no draft. What if millions of young men in this country, having grown up in a culture absolutely saturated in militarism, are told it’s their duty to join a war? You saw how many joined without a draft between September 12, 2001, and 2003. Is combining those misguided motivations with a direct order from the “commander in chief” (whom many civilians already refer to in those terms) really what we want to experiment with? To protect the world from war?!
  5. The supposedly non-existent peace movement is quite real. Yes, of course, all movements were bigger in the 1960s and they did a great deal of good, and I’d willingly die to bring back that level of positive engagement. But the notion that there has been no peace movement without the draft is false. The strongest peace movement the United States has seen was probably that of the 1920s and 1930s. The peace movements since 1973 have restrained the nukes, resisted the wars, and moved many in the United States further along the path toward supporting war abolition. Public pressure blocked the United Nations from supporting recent wars, including the 2003 attack on Iraq, and made supporting that war such a badge of shame that it has kept Hillary Clinton out of the White House at least once so far. It also resulted in concern in 2013 among members of Congress that if they backed the bombing of Syria they’d been seen as having backed “another Iraq.” Public pressure was critical in upholding a nuclear agreement with Iran last year. There are many ways to build the movement. You can elect a Republican president and easily multiply the ranks of the peace movement 100-fold the next day. But should you? You can play on people’s bigotry and depict opposition to a particular war or weapons system as nationalistic and macho, part of preparation for other better wars. But should you? You can draft millions of young men off to war and probably see some new resisters materialize. But should you? Have we really given making the honest case for ending war on moral, economic, humanitarian, environmental, and civil liberties grounds a fair try?
  6. Doesn’t Joe Biden’s son count? I too would love to see a bill passed requiring that congress members and presidents deploy to the front lines of any war they support. But in a society gone mad enough for war, even steps in that direction wouldn’t end the war making. It appears the U.S. military killed the Vice President’s son through reckless disregard for its own cannon fodder. Will the Vice President even mention it, much less make a move to end the endless warmaking? Don’t hold your breath. U.S. Presidents and Senators used to be proud to send their offspring off to die. If Wall Street can out-do the gilded age, so can the servants of the military industrial complex.
  7. We build a movement to end war by building a movement to end war. The surest way we have of reducing and then ending militarism, and the racism and materialism with which it is interwoven, is to work for the end of war. By seeking to make wars bloody enough for the aggressor that he stops aggressing, we would essentially be moving in the same direction as we already have by turning public opinion against wars in which U.S. troops die. I understand that there might be more concern over wealthier troops and greater numbers of troops. But if you can open people’s eyes to the lives of gays and lesbians and transgendered people, if you can open people’s hearts to the injustices facing African Americans murdered by police, if you can bring people to care about the other species dying off from human pollution, surely you can also bring them even further along than they’ve already come in caring about the lives of U.S. troops not in their families — and perhaps even about the lives of the non-Americans who make up the vast majority of those killed by U.S. warmaking. One result of the progress already made toward caring about U.S. deaths has been greater use of robotic drones. We need to be building opposition to war because it is the mass murder of beautiful human beings who are not in the United States and could never be drafted by the United States. A war in which no Americans die is just as much a horror as one in which they do. That understanding will end war.
  8. The right movement advances us in the right direction. Pushing to end the draft will expose those who favor it and increase opposition to their war mongering. It will involve young people, including young men who do not want to register for the draft and young women who do not want to be required to start doing so. A movement is headed in the right direction if even a compromise is progress. A compromise with a movement demanding a draft would be a small draft. That would almost certainly not work any of the magic intended, but would increase the killing. A compromise with a movement to end the draft might be the ability to register for non-military service or as a conscientious objector. That would be a step forward. We might develop out of that new models of heroism and sacrifice, new nonviolent sources of solidarity and meaning, new members of a movement in favor of substituting civilized alternatives for the whole institution of war.
  9. The war mongers want the draft too. It’s not only a certain section of peace activists who want the draft. So do the true war mongers. The selective service tested its systems at the height of the occupation of Iraq, preparing for a draft if needed. Various powerful figures in D.C. have proposed that a draft would be more fair, not because they think the fairness would end the warmaking but because they think the draft would be tolerated. Now, what happens if they decide they really want it? Should it be left available to them? Shouldn’t they at least have to recreate the selective service first, and to do so up against the concerted opposition of a public facing an imminent draft? Imagine if the United States joins the civilized world in making college free. Recruitment will be devastated. The poverty draft will suffer a major blow. The actual draft will look very desirable to the Pentagon. They may try more robots, more hiring of mercenaries, and more promises of citizenship to immigrants. We need to be focused on cutting off those angles, as well as on in fact making college free.
  10. Take away the poverty draft too. The unfairness of the poverty draft is not grounds for a larger unfairness. It needs to be ended too. It needs to be ended by opening up opportunities to everyone, including free quality education, job prospects, life prospects. Isn’t the proper solution to troops being stop-lossed not adding more troops but waging less war? When we end the poverty draft and the actual draft, when we actually deny the military the troops it needs to wage war, and when we create a culture that views murder as wrong even when engaged in on a large scale and even when all the deaths are foreign, then we’ll actually get rid of war, not just acquire the ability to stop each war 4 million deaths into it.

There’s also the danger of the path begun with expansion of draft registration to women leading next to compulsory short-term “national service” for all. This might even be done with military and non-military options, though one can imagine what the struggle would look like to try to give the non-military servitude — excuse me, service — the same compensation and benefits as the military.

I recommend that we actually find common ground to what little extent it exists with those who say that we should treasure women so much that we would never send them off to kill or die. Then we should work to expand that admirable outlook to include men too. Can’t we treasure men that much?

We should help find young women and men career prospects outside the machinery of death. Help create the universal right to free college. Repair the unfairness of the poverty draft and the stop-lossing of troops by giving young people alternatives and ending the wars. When we end the poverty draft and the actual draft, when we actually deny the military the troops it needs to wage war, and when we create a culture that views murder as wrong even when engaged in on a large scale and even when all the deaths are foreign, and even when women are equally involved in the killing, then we’ll actually get rid of war, not just acquire the ability to stop each war four million deaths into it.

We need a movement with women and men from around the world to create a global treaty banning all military conscription for all people.

We need a movement to abolish sexism, racism, environmental destruction, mass incarceration, poverty, illiteracy, and war.

President Sall tipped to win as Senegal votes

February 24, 2019

By Sofia Christensen and Juliette Jabkhiro

DAKAR/FATICK, Senegal (Reuters) – Senegalese voters headed to the polls on Sunday for an election President Macky Sall is expected to win after strong economic growth in his first term, although rights groups criticize him for squeezing out rivals.

Senegal’s small fish-exporting economy expanded more than 6 percent last year, one of the highest rates in Africa, driven by an ambitious reform and development plan that included the construction of a new railway.

The 57-year-old president has spoken confidently of winning a second term and promised to deliver universal healthcare and better access to education.

Supporters chanted ‘Ole, Ole’ and flashed ‘V’ for victory signs, as Sall cast his vote in his hometown of Fatick.

“The elected president will have to be the president of all Senegal. I hope this president will be me,” he said.

About 6.5 million people are registered to vote at polling stations that opened at 8 a.m. (0800 GMT) and close at 6 p.m. Official results are due out on Friday with a run-off for the top two on March 24 if no one secures a majority.

After voting in Fatick, pensioner Adama Sakho, 81, said he believed Sall would win in the first round, praising his social spending policies.

“I’m retired, and now in one month I receive the same amount of money I used to make in three months,” he said. “He has the hand of God. Everything he touches gets realized. And he brings luck, because it’s during his reign that we found oil and gas.”

There are hopes of an oil and gas boom in Senegal as energy majors develop previously untapped fields off its Atlantic coast.

FIVE CANDIDATES

Opinion polls are banned in the run-up to the vote, but a survey by a Senegalese data company in November gave Sall 45 percent support. Of his four rivals now lined up in the smallest field of candidates since 1988, none had more than 16 percent.

Despite Sall’s popularity, some citizens question whether a high-speed train, new motorways and a swanky conference center will benefit average citizens in the former French colony of 15 million people where the average income is less than $200 a month.

Many people do not have reliable water or power supplies.

University professor Bakary Manga, 43, said he would vote for opposition candidate Ousmane Sonko as he was disappointed in Sall’s first term.

“It was a big nonsense with him. The cost of his projects is excessive, we can do much better with much less,” he said as he queued at a polling station in Dakar.

Rights groups have criticized the exclusion of two popular candidates from the race in the West African nation that has long been viewed as the region’s most stable democracy. It has seen peaceful transitions of power since independence in 1960.

Former mayor of Dakar, Khalifa Sall and Karim Wade, son of former President Abdoulaye Wade who was in power from 2000 to 2012, were barred from running due to corruption convictions.

The former president himself said in a statement the vote was being rigged and told supporters of his son to boycott the poll.

The government has dismissed the criticism, promising a free and fair vote.

The remaining challengers are Sonko, a former tax inspector who is popular among the youth, as well as third-time contender and former Prime Minister Idrissa Seck. Lawyer Madicke Niang and IT professor Issa Sall are also running.

Sonko told supporters at his final rally on Thursday that he would congratulate Sall if the vote was fair. “But if he steals the victory, I ask the youth to walk to the presidential palace and chase him out,” he said.

At least one person was killed this month in clashes between Sall’s backers and his opponents in the southeastern city of Tambacounda, but campaigning has been largely peaceful.

(Writing by Sofia Christensen and Alessandra Prentice; Editing by Edward McAllister and Keith Weir)

Arizona Bill Forces People To Submit DNA… And Pay For It

New legislation working its way through the Arizona Senate would establish one of the country’s first statewide DNA databases in which wide swaths of residents would be forced to give up their genetic material.

State Senate Bill 1475, sponsored by Rep. David Livingston (R), would essentially collect DNA from anyone currently required to submit fingerprints, including teachers, safety inspectors, real-estate agents, anyone in law enforcement, and appraisers. Anyone who dies will also have their DNA collected and stored under the bill. 

Meanwhile, a $250 fee would be collected from people submitting biological samples under the bill.

AZ Rep. David Livingston (Photo: Michael Chow/The Republic)

The DNA database would be maintained by the Department of Public Safety, which would include a person’s name, social security number, date of birth and last known address – and could be accessed and used by law enforcement for investigations. The database can also be shared with other government agencies across the country for the purposes for “employment, licensing, death registration, missing persons identification,” and IDing people using aliases or multiple identities, reports AZ Central

No other state has anything this expansive in place, according to David Kaye, an associate dean for research at Penn State University who studies genetics and its application in law.

Kaye said the proposed bill is one step away from requiring DNA from anyone who wants a driver’s license. –AZ Central

DNA is currently collected from anyone convicted in Arizona of a felony or a misdemeanor sex crime. 

“It doesn’t seem like solving crimes is a big priority here,” says David Kaye. “It’s not focusing on the people most likely to be linked to crimes, it’s just spreading the net more broadly.”

Widespread opposition

The bill has been widely opposed by Arizona residents, including the West Maricopa Association of Realtors, who voiced their opposition last week, suggesting that Livingston “would do well to read Thomas Paine’s “Rights of Man”. His premise is as true today as it was 250 years ago: Man is given natural rights as part of his existence. He does not join a society or form a government in order to lose those rights.”

Arizona wants some DNA, but the FBI wants all of it

While Arizona’s bill collects DNA from certain categories of individuals – and eventually everyone once they’re dead, the FBI is creating a “nation of suspects” according to a US think tank, as they seek to collect every single American’s DNA for a massive database signed into law in 2017 by President Trump which comes into effect this year. 

The Rapid DNA Act allows police to routinely collect DNA samples from anyone they’ve arrested, but before they’ve been convicted of a crime. The 2017 law requires several states to connect Rapid DNA machines to the “Codis,” the FBI’s national DNA database

Approximately the size of a desktop printer, use of the Rapid DNA machines made by Thermo Fisher Scientific and others, are “expected to become as routine a process as taking fingerprints,” according to the Daily Star

But John W. Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute believes it is a sinister development which will make everyone a suspect.

Speaking to Daily Star Online, he said: “The fact of the matter is that these machines are not full-proof.

“But we could look at a situation in which someone could be arrested, have their mouth swabbed and then be charged within hours after generating a DNA profile.

“We are looking at the erosion of the concept of innocent before proven guilty because it will allow police to go on fishing expeditions. –Daily Star

“When you sit on a park bench, you shed DNA,” says Whitehead. “That is now up for grabs by police who could swab it, and run it through a DNA database. If they find a match, or if misconduct occurred anywhere in the vicinity where your DNA was found, you might find yourself charged with a crime you never committed merely because you happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.”

“Even people who aren’t charged with major crimes could have their DNA put on file,” adds Whitehead. “People who are just seen as suspicious could have their genetic makeup stored in a criminal database.

Asgardia, the World’s First Space Kingdom, Has Gained 1 Million Citizens Here on Earth

The space nation has a hidden agenda, and is based around a technocracy instead of individual rights. Citizens are human resources who are spied upon and tracked. Asgardia is a constitutional monarchy, but the monarch has yet to be identified.[

We Are Change TV.US