In defiance of voter base, DNC rejects resolution calling for Israel arms embargo

Mondoweiss | Michael Arria

On Tuesday, Democratic National Committee (DNC) members at the party’s summer meetings rejected Resolution 18, which called for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a ceasefire in Gaza, an arms embargo, and a suspension of military aid to Israel.

Instead, members backed a status quo resolution introduced by DNC Chair Ken Martin, which simply called for more aid to be allowed into Gaza and a two-state solution. Despite the support, Martin went on to withdraw the resolution.

“I know that there are some who are interested in making changes today, but as we’ve seen, there’s divide in our party on this issue,” said Martin. “This is a moment that calls for shared dialog. It calls for shared advocacy, and that’s why I’ve decided today, at this moment, listening to the testimony and listening to people in our party, to withdraw my amendment and resolution.”

Martin says he will establish a task force “comprised of stakeholders on all sides of this” so that they can “bring solutions back to our party.”

Resolution 18 had faced opposition from lobby groups like Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI).

“Should it advance, it will further divide our Party, provide a gift to Republicans, and send a signal that will embolden Israel’s adversaries,” claimed DMFI president and CEO Brian Romick. “As we get closer to the midterms, Democrats need to be united, not continuing intra-party fights that don’t get us closer to taking back Congress.”

Polling has consistently shown that Democratic voters are, in fact, united on Israel. A majority of them oppose the genocide in Gaza and want the Israeli government held accountable for its actions in the region.

Read more 

70 Years Later, It's Still '1984'

Matthew Feeney

Inside Sources

 In October 1947 Eric Blair, known today by his pen name George Orwell, wrote a letter to the co-owner of the Secker & Warburg publishing house. In that letter, Orwell noted that he was in the “last lap” of the rough draft of a novel, describing it as “a most dreadful mess.” 

Orwell had sequestered himself on the Scottish island of Jura in order to finish the novel. He completed it the following year, having transformed his “most dreadful mess” into “1984,” one of the 20th century’s most important novels. Published in 1949, the novel turns 70 this year. The anniversary provides an opportunity to reflect on the novel’s significance and its most valuable but sometimes overlooked lesson.

The main lesson of “1984” is not “Persistent Surveillance is Bad” or “Authoritarian Governments Are Dangerous.” These are true statements, but not the most important message. “1984” is at its core a novel about language; how it can be used by governments to subjugate and obfuscate and by citizens to resist oppression.

Orwell was a master of the English language and his legacy lives on through some of the words he created. Even those who haven’t read “1984” know some of its “Newspeak.” “1984” provides English speakers with a vocabulary to discuss surveillance, police states and authoritarianism, which includes terms such as “Big Brother,” “Thought Police,” “Unperson” and “Doublethink,” to name a few.

The authoritarian government of Orwell’s Oceania doesn’t merely severely punish dissent — it seeks to make even thinking about dissent impossible. When Inner Party member O’Brien tortures “1984’s” protagonist, Winston Smith, he holds up his hand with four fingers extended and asks Smith how many fingers he sees. When Smith replies, “Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!” O’Brien inflicts excruciating pain. After Smith finally claims to see five fingers, O’Brien emphasizes that saying “Five” is not enough; “’No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four.”

Read more

How Social Media Is Becoming An Arm Of The State

Zero Hedge

Authored by José Niño via The Mises Institute

Say the wrong things and you might get kicked off of your favorite social media platform.

 Tech titans Apple, Facebook, and YouTube have wiped out talk-show host Alex Jones’s social media presence on the Internet. But the social media crusades weren’t over. 

Facebook recently took down popular pages like Liberty Memes and hundreds of other prominent libertarian-leaning pages . In the wake of the Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, social media network Gab was on the receiving end of suspensions from payment processors like PayPal and Stripe and cloud hosting company Joyent. Although these companies did not provide clear explanations for their dissociation with Gab, the media had a field day when they learned that the synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, had an account with the social media network.

 Should libertarians fear social media de-platforming? Or is this a case of private actors exercising their legitimate property rights by excluding those they wish to no longer do business with? 

The Blurring Lines of the Public & Private Sector 

Since the question of de-platforming has popped up, some conservatives have proposed state-based solutions to solve this problem. In a role reversal, conservative commentator Ann Coulter suggested that the governmentpass anti-discrimination laws to prevent social media platforms from de-platforming conservatives. Ideological consistency is a lot to ask for from seasoned veterans of Conservative Inc these days.

Read more

Putin Schools Journalists and Western Politicians in Annual Q&A Marathon

Sott.net

Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual marathon press conference today. Over 1,600 journalists were accredited for the event, which ended up lasting just under four hours.

The entire ritual just demonstrates how far Russia still has to go before it becomes a full-fledged Western democracy. In a real democracy, leaders only take pre-approved soft-ball questions from a select group of hand-picked journalists and then read their answers from teleprompters. Tough or unexpected questions are either ignored or given a pat answer devoid of any real information. After 20 minutes or so, that's a wrap. Under no circumstances are leaders to field countless questions from a range of sources, and extemporaneously provide detailed answers on a wide range of subjects. Sound about right?

Actually, the reason Western leaders don't do such things is because they're simply incapable of it. They don't have a command of all the facts and figures. They know their 'policy positions' are just slogans and sound bites made up for public consumption, so their answers are never in-depth or backed up by anything of substance. And they know the justification for the 'party line' is based on a foundation of deceit and lies, so they can't give adequate space for facts or other points of view. When you're following a script, you can't be spontaneous. Putin, on the other hand, can do so because he's something all his Western 'colleagues' are not: a real leader.

What follows are some of the highlights of today's Q&A. Check back for updates as they come. Here's the full video, if you have 4 hours to spare: 

Some of the high points so far...

Kind words for the US administration, and a reminder that Trump is 'constrained' by 'known limitations': 'Known limitations' hold Trump back from doing what he'd like to

"There are things [Donald Trump] would like to do, but so far couldn't, meaning healthcare reform and several other issues. He's spoken about improving relations with Russia. It is obvious, that even if he wanted it, he is unable to, due to known limitations," the president said Thursday.

"I don't know whether [Trump] still wishes [to improve relations with Russia] or whether this desire is completely exhausted," Putin continued. "I hope that he does and, after all, [I trust that, in] the interests of the American and Russian people, we will eventually normalize our relations, develop them and will fight common threats." 

Read more

Your Facebook, Twitter and blog are about to be monitored for references to the Government

Comment: More erosion of our freedoms in plain sight and under the cover of looking for "terrusts". So transparent.


--------------------------

Metro UK

If you’re one of those people that gets a bit vocal about politics, you’ll be interested to know that your Facebook, Twitter and personal blog are about to begin being monitored for references to the Government.

Ministers announced yesterday that the Government had awarded a contract to five companies who will monitor what people tweet, post to Facebook or blog about the Government and provide updates to Whitehall in real time.

Officials and ministers will provide a list of keywords and topics to the companies so that they know what to monitor.

‘We monitor digital, social and traditional media so we understand what people are saying, identify their concerns and shape policies accordingly,’ a Cabinet Office spokeswoman told the Independent.

‘Departments have always monitored social media but this agreement means they can find the most appropriate way of doing this at the best price, ensuring good value for money for the taxpayer.’

Comment: That's rich! Adopting Big Brother surveillance against the public which is then rationalised by saying that same public is getting value for their money! You couldn't make it up. 

While the Government has at times monitored digital news for a number of years, this is the first time that the Government has awarded a contract specifically for that purpose, and the first time that its surveillance specifically includes social media.