Here's Jimmy Dore.
Hey, Noam, as long as you're sharing, do you want to share about how you used to recruit for the CIA? Or would telling that truth exposing your fraud ass for what you really are?
Noam's a fake ass.
By the way, has anyone ever done a study on how many DSA leaders worked for the CIA? Gloria Steinem's a good place to start and then just move down the list.
The political convenience of relying on corporate controls is most evident in the support for a massive system of corporate-based speech controls now implanted in the United States. The government cannot implement a censorship system under the Constitution — but it can outsource censorship functions to private companies like Facebook and Twitter. Just this week, the White House admitted it has been flagging “misinformation” for Facebook to censor. At the same time, Democrats like Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) have demanded that Big Tech companies commit to even more “robust content modification” — an Orwellian term for censorship. Liberal writers and media figures have called for corporate censorship despite the danger of an effective state media run through private corporations. Even Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced the First Amendment right to freedom of speech being “weaponized” to protect disinformation.
The public is now required to discuss public controversies within the lines and limits set by corporate censors — with the guidance of the government. Twitter barred reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop until after the 2020 election. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform may discuss the origins of COVID-19, after previously censoring such discussion — but it still bars opposing views on vaccinations and the pandemic. Other companies actively block wayward thoughts and views; last week, YouTube was fined by a German court for censoring videos of protests over COVID restrictions. Meanwhile, Twitter censored criticism of the Indian government meant to expose mismanagement of the pandemic that is costing lives.
The common refrain from the left is that corporate censorship is not a limit on free speech because the First Amendment only addresses government limits on speech. That not only maximizes the power of corporations but minimizes the definition of free speech. Free speech is not exclusively contained in the First Amendment. It includes the full range of speech in society in both private and public forums. Yet, liberals — who once opposed the recognition of corporate free speech rights in cases like Citizen’s United — are now great advocates for corporate speech rights, in order to justify the censorship of opposing views.
Social media companies are not just any businesses, however. They were created as neutral platforms for communication between people when they were given special immunity from lawsuits. Yet these corporations now control an enormous amount of public discourse and have become a rising threat to the democratic process, expanding their authority to frame the debate on issues ranging from climate change to gender identity, from election fraud to public health. You must espouse the “truth” as established by these companies on certain questions or risk being banned as “misinformation spreaders.” Indeed, Psaki this week insisted that once people are banned by one company, they should be banned from all social media companies.
If these trends continue, citizens could find themselves effectively exiled by order of corporate governors — unable to travel or go to school while also barred from espousing dissenting views on social media. They would, effectively, be “disappeared” within a shadow state that lacks any electoral or appellate process — a dystopian brave new world that could become all too real if we allow elected officials to use corporate surrogates to control the essential aspects of our lives.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
Monday, July 26, 2021. The day of the meet-up is finally upon us, look for the US media to whore on Iraq and then quickly drop the topic. Just like they always do.
Finally, the day is upon us. Iraq's prime minister Mustfa al-Kadhimi is in the United States and will meet with President Joe Biden later today. Mustafa has been puffing out his chest and declaring that Iraq does not need US "combat troops." So troops leave? No, "combat troops." Weasel words. Mustafa wants US troops to remain in Iraq, he just wants them to be called something other than combat troops. On NPR's UPFRONT this morning, Ruth Sherlock explained, "Analysts say this is actually more about [politics and diplomacy than any real change on the ground for now. They see this as almost window dressing to help the Iraqi prime minister with domestic politics back in Iraq."
AFP refers to Mustafa as a "weakened leader" and notes, "Technically, there are no actual combat troops on the ground in Iraq, where the US military has officially only deployed advisors or trainers."
ALJAZEERA pretends something is really going to take place in the meet-up.
As Ruth Sherlock notes in her audio report, even US military brass are saying that there is no real change taking place. But so many want to pretend otherwise, don't they?
Douglas A. Silliman was the last US Ambassador to Iraq under then-President Barack Obama. He spoke last week with KURIDSTAN 24.
Across Twitter you find fools and liars (and paid whores) perpetuating the lie that US troops are leaving Iraq. That's not the case. Troops will not be called "combat troops." There is not expected to be any real change in numbers.
This is a shell game and con artists and dupes are required for shell games to work. Saddest of all may be the ones posing as Iraqis (Iraq's tiny Jewish population today does not allow for me to be that persons with Jewish first names and last names are Iraqis) who invoke the name of Allah to lie about what's taking place.
If you're going to waste US taxpayer dollars on Twitter efforts at least hire more convincing people.
In October, elections are supposed to be held and this latest spin and garbage is an attempt to help build support for Mustafa's weakened government.
Mustafa's statements are similar to those made by Fuad Hussein, Foreign Minister of Iraq, to THE WALL ST JOURNAL. THE TEHRAN TIMES noted, "According to the American newspaper, the purpose of the statement, current and former officials said, is to enable the Iraqi leader to blunt the political pressure from Shiite factions who want all of the approximately 2,500 American troops in the country to depart, while maintaining U.S. support for Iraqi security forces."
As elections approach, Shi'ite cleric, goon squad head and one-time movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr pouted that he would sit out the process. At THE NEW ARAB, Azhar al-Rubaie notes reactions to Moqtada's tantrum,
“Muqtada al-Sadr withdrew from the next election just in the media, but nothing is official,” Ahmed Sameer, a 35-year-old Basra-based resident told The New Arab.
“The Sadrists run the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Electricity and both sectors have corruption, so his announcement was to clean up his movement after getting a bad reputation since they won the majority of parliament seats,” he added.
“I will never vote for anyone in the next elections, we all hope that Iraq will be ruled by a good person but unfortunately all of them have an affiliation to outside [powers], mostly supported by Iran-backed wings,” said Sameer.
He added: “The government, with or without al-Sadr, will do nothing in favour of the people, they work in their own favour, they have run Iraq for more than 18 years. What will they bring to us? They bring us poverty, crime, corruption, and zero services”.
For political analyst and activist Ghanim al-Abid, Sadr’s withdrawal leaves many unanswered questions as to his motivations.
“The Sadrist movement’s withdrawal from the early elections has raised many question marks, considering that the Sadrist movement was keen to hold the elections on time,” he told The New Arab.
The Iraqi government is a failure. It is unable to deliver even the basics such as potable water and electricity.
The US-Iraqi statement is expected to detail a number of non-military agreements related to health, energy and other matters.
The United States plans to provide Iraq with 500,000 doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine under the global COVAX vaccine-sharing program, the senior administration official said.
The United States will also provide $5.2 million to help fund a UN mission to monitor October elections in Iraq.
In other news, Rania Khalek Tweets:
The following sites updated: