Bharat Rakshak

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two marines, and one civilian), wounded 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]

Israel apologized for the attack, saying that the USS Liberty had been attacked in error after being mistaken for an Egyptian ship.[5] Both the Israeli and U.S. governments conducted inquiries and issued reports that concluded the attack was a mistake due to Israeli confusion about the ship's identity.[6] Others, including survivors of the attack, have rejected these conclusions and maintain that the attack was deliberate.[7]

In May 1968, the Israeli government paid US$3.32 million (equivalent to US$24.4 million in 2019) to the U.S. government in compensation for the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969, Israel paid a further $3.57 million ($24.9 million in 2019) to the men who had been wounded. In December 1980, it agreed to pay $6 million ($18.6 million in 2019) as the final settlement for material damage to Liberty itself plus 13 years of interest.

Pollard is the only American who has received a life sentence for passing classified information to an ally of the U.S.[2] In defense of his actions, Pollard declared that he committed espionage only because "the American intelligence establishment collectively endangered Israel's security by withholding crucial information".[3] Israeli officials, U.S.-Israeli activist groups, and some U.S. politicians who saw his punishment as unfair lobbied continually for reduction or commutation of his sentence.[4] The Israeli government acknowledged a portion of its role in Pollard's espionage in 1987, and issued a formal apology to the U.S.,[5] but did not admit to paying him until 1998. Over the course of his imprisonment, Israel made repeated unsuccessful attempts through both official and unofficial channels to secure his release.[6] He was granted Israeli citizenship in 1995.[7

Blake Zeff @blakezeff

The degree to which Michael Bloomberg is using his fortune to fundamentally alter & manipulate U.S. politics to his personal advantage extends way beyond ads. I've worked against him, covered him as a journalist & worked with his top aides. Here’s their playbook: (1/17)

Let’s start with endorsements. Background: Bloomberg was a GOP mayor & Rudy Giuliani ally, whose police stopped innocent black men so often his tactics were ruled unconstitutional. So how did he possibly get key Democratic endorsements in NYC? Here’s one way
2/17

But come on, it’s not like he can do that in *this* campaign. Sure he’s compiling a ton of random endorsements nationwide despite merely being a former mayor. But that’s because they loved his soda ban. Or his speaking style. Or... 3/17

In 2018, Mike spent $110 million to boost 24 candidates now in Congress. Turns out, giving people $2 million can be the start of a beautiful friendship. Then there are mayors: Want a grant from Bloomberg for new programs in your city...? 4/17
https://www.bloomberg.org/press/release ... challenge/

You may also see “community groups” back Mike's candidacy. As mayor, non-profits supported him when he reversed a voter referendum on term limits & made a backroom deal to help himself get a 3rd term. How’d that happen, you ask? He applied himself. 5/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/nyregion/07doe.html
Charity Backing Bloomberg 3rd Term Got Millions

You may also see fewer critics bash Mike's candidacy than you’d expect. After changing parties from GOP to Independent in 2007 as mayor, the local GOP rarely attacked anything he did. How'd he pull that off? I’ll give you a million guesses... 6/17
https://www.wnyc.org/story/240042-bloom ... enate-gop/
Bloomberg Gives Record $1M to State Senate GOP

Las Vegas (CNN)When Sen. Elizabeth Warren hopped on her press bus in Las Vegas Saturday, the national reporters who had covered her for months were nowhere to be seen. Instead, there were just five network embeds -- a sign of how much her political stature has suddenly fallen after a disappointing showing in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Warren, whose campaign is now stressing the long game and touting their investments in the Super Tuesday states and beyond, spent more than 30 minutes taking wide-ranging questions from the embedded reporters who have covered her presidential race every single day for the last eight months.
Warren, who speaks with reporters in a media availability after almost every one of her campaign events, has started speaking with journalists in more candid settings as she's dipped in the polls -- and even jumped on her press bus in New Hampshire, with a larger group of reporters covering her.
Here's what the senator had to say about various issues involving her campaign:

On Bloomberg running for president
Even before Michael Bloomberg launched his presidential campaign, Warren made clear she believes billionaires should be paying a wealth tax, which would help fund proposals such as universal child care and free tuition at public universities.
With Bloomberg in the race, Warren has taken every opportunity she's had to slam him for "buying" the presidential election.

When asked about whether she believes people connect with her comments on Bloomberg, Warren responded: "I think people do connect with them. ... The notion that Michael Bloomberg claims the financial 2008 crisis on restrictions on banks so they couldn't discriminate more against black and brown communities is truly outrageous. And anyone who thinks that should not be a candidate for President."
She was referencing comments Bloomberg made at a Georgetown University forum in 2008 at the height of the housing crisis in 2008 where he said getting rid of "redlining," the biased housing practice that stopped banks from providing mortgages in low-income, largely minority neighborhoods, was to blame for the collapse.
On her campaign changing their ad buys
Warren's campaign this month shifted ad money among upcoming states. They cut more than $750,000 in South Carolina, rearranged money in Nevada, added to Maine and added money toward African American outreach in South Carolina, according to a Warren campaign aide.
Along with the changes in ads, the campaign has also been sending emails since the Iowa caucus pushing deadlines for fundraising -- a tactic the Warren campaign hadn't used until now.
When CNN asked Warren on the campaign bus about the changes and whether it's a sign her campaign is struggling, Warren responded: "No. They're just figuring out where they want to spend their money to reach people in the most effective ways. In fact I think they're increasing overall ad buy."
When pressed about the fundraising emails from her campaign, Warren said: "We've got two billionaires in this race. And, uh, what is it, three more people on the debate stage who immediately after New Hampshire headed off to suck up some more money from millionaires and billionaires. Wall Street money is pouring into the Democratic primary. So yeah, I tell my supporters we're doing this grassroots and we need everybody to see what we are up against. It's not that people haven't been helpful, they've been enormously helpful. We raised $6 million after Iowa. We asked people to set a $7 million goal going forward before Nevada, raised a million dollars on the first day. And I'm very, very grateful for that."
On whether she'd place a moratorium on deportations

Warren, who had previously said she was open to placing a moratorium on deportations, said Saturday she was open to halting deportations in the first 100 days of her presidency.
"I'm committed to in the first 100 days, stop all deportations until we get a chance to review them again," she said. "And if this is, if these deportations that are on the table, the proposed ones, are not consistent with my policies, which means we don't scoop up family members, people who place no threat. People who are part of our communities, then they're not deported, they won't be deported. I want to put a complete halt until we can get that done."
CNN's Annie Grayer contributed to this report.

The condition of the Chinese novel coronavirus patient who died in France had “deteriorated rapidly” after being hospitalized on Jan. 25,

The youth organization, which celebrated its 110th anniversary February 8, listed liabilities of between $100 million and $500 million, but $50,000 or less in assets. The bankruptcy filing comes at a time when the organization faces hundreds of sexual abuse lawsuits, thousands of alleged abuse victims and dwindling membership numbers. As a result of the filing, all civil litigation against the organization is suspended.

Several of the lawsuits allege repeated fondling, exposure to p0rnography, and forced anal or oral sex.

Last April, exposed court testimony showed the organization believed more than 7,800 of its former leaders were involved in sexually abusing more than 12,000 children over the course of 72 years.

...the number of claimants will eclipse those of the Catholic church.
"The Catholic bankruptcies are limited in geographic scope. Here there will be claimants from all 50 states and the American territories," Pfau said. "We can talk about files and numbers, but in reality if you step back and realize the scope of the human carnage, it's stunning."

Rony wrote:Bloomberg and Sanders are Jewish
Buttigieg is gay
Gabbard (hated by DNC) is Hindu and a women
Yang (now withdrawn) is Taiwanese

They have zero chance against trump even if the DNC makes them the candidate. WASP America is not yet ready for them.

Arun.prabhu wrote:That’s just unkind. How many white folks voted for Obama the first time around?

“How could white Americans who voted for a black president in the past be racist,” or so the thinking goes.

“Clinton suffered her biggest losses in the places where Obama was strongest among white voters. It’s not a simple racism story,” the New York Times’s Nate Cohn wrote on the night of the election. This typically segues into an argument that Trump won by tapping into economic, rather than racial, anxiety — anger about trade and the decline of manufacturing, or the fallout from the 2008 Great Recession.

A new study shows that this response isn’t as powerful as it may seem. The study, from three political scientists from around the country, takes a statistical look at a large sample of Obama-Trump switchers. It finds that these voters tended to score highly on measures of racial hostility and xenophobia — and were not especially likely to be suffering economically.

“White voters with racially conservative or anti-immigrant attitudes switched votes to Trump at a higher rate than those with more liberal views on these issues,” the paper’s authors write. “We find little evidence that economic dislocation and marginality were significantly related to vote switching in 2016.”

This new paper fits with a sizeable slate of studies conducted over the past 18 months or so, most of which have come to the same conclusions: There is tremendous evidence that Trump voters were motivated by racial resentment (as well as hostile sexism), and very little evidence that economic stress had anything to do with it.

First, attitudes on race and immigration were crucial distinguishing characteristics of both Trump and Clinton switchers. The more racially conservative an Obama or third party voter was, the more likely they were to switch to Trump. Similarly, the more racially liberal a Romney or third-party voter was, the more likely they were to switch to Clinton.

Second, class was largely irrelevant in switching to Trump. Keeping racial attitudes constant, white working-class voters were not more likely to switch to Trump. The white working-class voters who did switch tended to score about as highly on measures of racial conservatism and anti-immigrant attitudes as wealthier switchers.

Third, the correlations between measures of economic stress and vote switching were either weak or non-existent. There’s just little evidence supporting the “economic anxiety” or “economic populism” explanations for the Trump surge.

“We find a much stronger association between symbolic racial and immigration attitudes and switching for Trump and Clinton than between economic marginality or local economic dislocation and vote switching,” Reny et al. write. “In fact, we find marginally small or no associations between any of our economic indicators and vote switching in either direction.”

How can people who wanted a black man to run the country somehow become attracted to Trump because of his racial demagoguery?

The unspoken premise behind this question is an assumption of a certain kind of white redemption narrative: By voting for Obama, white America exorcized its racial demons. But the truth is nothing of the sort. For one thing, Obama lost the white vote by 12 points in 2008 and 20 points in 2012.


For another, voting for Obama once or even twice doesn’t automatically mean that someone is not prejudiced against black people or immigrants. It’s possible to support Obama in particular while maintaining overall anti-black or anti-immigrant attitudes. In those cases, some other factor, like the Iraq War catastrophe or financial collapse, may have predominated over white voters’ racial hang-ups in the 2008 and 2012 election.

The 2016 election was different.

One reason is that Obama’s second term featured a significant amount of racial conflict. The Black Lives Matter movement was founded in 2013. The 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, and subsequent week of protest and unrest, kicked off a massive and racially polarizing national debate over police violence against African Americans.

A second reason is that Obama’s very presence in office was racially polarizing. Michael Tesler, a scholar at the University of California-Irvine, has documented in detail how Obama’s very presence in the White House polarized America along racial lines. It would make sense that this effect would grow stronger the longer Obama was in office, setting the stage for a major backlash in his final year.

Third, and arguably most importantly, the two candidates turned the election into a kind of referendum on American race relations. Trump kicked off his campaign by calling Mexican immigrants rapists and vowing to build a wall between the US and Mexico. He vowed to ban Muslims, and described black life in America as a hellscape of violence and poverty. Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign was not nearly so overt, which means it was less likely to attract voters who held latent racist and anti-immigrant attitudes.

Clinton, for her part, positioned herself as a champion of racial justice. While Obama’s rhetoric on race was typically post-racial, positioning the country as more united than divided, Clinton got out front on issues like police violence and immigration. There are plenty of valid reasons for this — Clinton was more worried about failing to turn out minority voters, Obama was more worried about alienating skittish whites, and there was no way to respond to Trump’s campaign without tackling race head-on.

The result, though, is that racial issues became the key political dividing line in a way they were not in either 2008 or 2012.

Rony wrote:I prefer Trump too and yes, there are non-racial reasons too for his win but based on that study, race seems to be the first among equals why he won in 2016.

Arun.prabhu wrote:It’s vox. They think everyone white is racist.

Rony wrote:I prefer Trump too and yes, there are non-racial reasons too for his win but based on that study, race seems to be the first among equals why he won in 2016.

pankajs wrote:https://twitter.com/blakezeff/status/12 ... 6936171520

Twitter Blake Zeff @blakezeff wrote: You may also see “community groups” back Mike's candidacy. As mayor, non-profits supported him when he reversed a voter referendum on term limits & made a backroom deal to help himself get a 3rd term. How’d that happen, you ask? He applied himself. 5/17
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/nyregion/07doe.html
Charity Backing Bloomberg 3rd Term Got Millions

Well, well, well, what do I find here in this article from NYT.

At the time of the 2008 hearing, Representative Anthony D. Weiner, who was expected to run for mayor, said, “If you rely on the mayor or the administration to fund your organization, saying no when the mayor calls is not an option.” Mr. Bloomberg’s tactic, he said, “walks right up to the line of coercion, and it’s very corrosive.”

Rony wrote:

Arun.prabhu wrote:It’s vox. They think everyone white is racist.

Do read that report again. Vox is quoting the third party study. They did not write it. The original study link is also in that report.

There was a Mard from Lyme
Who lived with 3 BBs at a time
When asked why the third,
He said "One's absurd!
And bigamy, sir, is a crime!

Kati wrote:Utah decriminalizes polygamy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah- ... ailsignout


Will our DDM write on it?

Mort Walker wrote:

Kati wrote:Utah decriminalizes polygamy

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/utah- ... ailsignout


Will our DDM write on it?

UCC still applies in the US. If gay marriage is legal then why not allow it for multiple consenting adults to enter into a marriage agreement?

Here's the editorial piece that New York Times has published, written by terrorist SIRAJUDDIN HAQQANI.
As usual, Sirajuddin makes an impassioned plea in favour of the Taliban. And New York Times chose to mainstream his terror propaganda.
Link -> https://nytimes.com/2020/02/20/opinion/ ... qqani.html

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Feb 20

Mini Mike Bloomberg’s debate performance tonight was perhaps the worst in the history of debates, and there have been some really bad ones. He was stumbling, bumbling and grossly incompetent. If this doesn’t knock him out of the race, nothing will. Not so easy to do what I did!

Here he got standing ovation in a cricket stadium in distant Gujarat... And back home in the US, the opposition is coming up with an 87 year old quasi-communist as his primary adversary in this year's presidential election!
#NamasteyTrump to the make-believe World of liberals

chetak wrote:Bloomberg brought a wallet to a knife fight.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump · Feb 20

Mini Mike Bloomberg’s debate performance tonight was perhaps the worst in the history of debates, and there have been some really bad ones. He was stumbling, bumbling and grossly incompetent. If this doesn’t knock him out of the race, nothing will. Not so easy to do what I did!

UlanBatori wrote:^^ Sad. Broomberg said after the debate lynching that the winner of the donkey debate was... u guessed it.. DT.
Now Sanders has become the Russian Agent per the Dee Enn See.

A study by the European Center for Law and Justice in Strasbourg has revealed several conflicts of interest between judges at the European Court of Human Rights and NGOs funded by George Soros.
The European Center for Law and Justice is an NGO which often appears at the court to campaign on social, family and religion-related issues. I am proud to be listed as a research fellow at the ECHR but in reality I have written only one article for the center’s website and I receive no salary from it. I had no role in writing the report.
The study has found that, out of the 100 judges who have served on the bench of the European Court of Human Rights in the period 2009-2019, nearly a quarter (22) have strong links to George Soros’ Open Society Foundation or to NGOs like Amnesty International and others which are funded by it. Human Rights Watch, for instance, has received $100 million from the Open Society Foundation since 2010.
Some of the NGOs receive so much of their budget from Soros that they are in effect wholly owned subsidiaries of his foundation.
The links between the judges and the NGOs are substantial. They include working for years as members of the board of directors or executive council of these NGOs; having teaching posts at institutes funded by them; being a salaried director of programs for the Open Society Foundation or associated NGOs; and undertaking other forms of paid work for them. The full list of these links can be found on pages seven and eight of the report.
A good example is that of the Bulgarian Yonko Grozev who, as leader of the Open Society Justice Initiative, defended the Pussy Riot case against Russia in 2018 before being elected as a judge of the court shortly thereafter.

An Arkansas man led Pentagon security on a wild chase after allegedly trying to blow up a car parked near the building. He was arrested in Arlington National Cemetery and faces charges that could land him in prison for 20 years.
Matthew Dmitri Richardson, 19, was spotted by Pentagon police on Monday morning as he was attempting to use a lighter to ignite a rag protruding from the gas tank of a car parked in the building’s north parking lot, according to court documents.

Collective meltdown in US liberal (ie, illiberal) media over socialist @BernieSanders’s surge in primaries, which could mean 4 more years of @realDonaldTrump.
Will, however, give 4 more years of gainful employment to comedians like @Trevornoah & the more serious standups on @cnn.

nachiket wrote:The meltdown is because they are afraid it'll be too easy for Trump to defeat Bernie. Trump seems believes so as well if you look at his tweets. He's constantly attacking DNC for trying to oppose Bernie. Makes sense because Bernie is least likely to make independents and moderates who might have voted for Trump last time to switch.

Problem for Dems is that all other candidates aren't crazy enough for their base, who seem to love Bernie. Much like how Trump's Republican rivals found out in 2016 that they weren't crazy enough for the Republican base anymore.