Judicial Watch Sues for Records on Biden Administration’s COVID-19 Community Corps Program | Judicial Watch

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/jw-covid-corps/

… “The federal government organizing a ‘corps’ of private individuals, minors, corporations, and unions to push controversial COVID policies is concerning,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Also concerning is the Biden administration’s unlawful refusal to turn over records about this program to the American people.”

Marcos and Martial Law in the Philippines | The Tactical Hermit

Comment by tonytran2015: This is a good real life story of how power corrupts.

https://hcsblogdotorg.wordpress.com/2021/09/22/marcos-and-martial-law-in-the-philippines/

Ferdinand Marcos changed parties to run against Diosdado Macapagal and was elected president in 1965. While running for the presidency, Ferdinand Marcos and his wife, Imelda Romualdez, sang campaign duets as part of his strategy to win votes. Marcos came to power as a nationalistic social reformer with a broad electoral mandate to deal with the country’s chronic problems.

During his first term of office, he achieved considerable improvement in initiating infrastructure programs and increasing rice production. The country was ranked second in Asia in terms of economic standings.

At the beginning of his term, Imelda was all charm. Then in Sept. 1966, she made her international debut on an official trip with Marcos to the United States. She entranced Lyndon Johnson…

Free Trading our Way to Marxism – 4dforum

https://4dforum.org/2021/09/16/free-trading-our-way-to-marxism/

Chinese culture has become modernized and a rise in their middle class is a positive thing. One would hope this would decrease the ethnocentric nature of Chinese culture. If so, it hasn’t resulted in policy changes from the Communist Chinese government on issues like the Uyghur minority, Tibetor the Falun Gong. The protesters for democracy in Hong Kong do not relish being integrated into the Chinese surveillance state, also financed by cheap labor on the global market and with a complete disregard for environmental impact.

This South China Morning Post story is about the addition of two nuclear submarines to the Chinese Navy. Are we on the way to another cold war paid for with US dollars?…

A Message To White Military | VikingLifeBlog

https://vikinglifeblog.wordpress.com/2021/09/14/a-message-to-white-military/

White soldiers, who do you serve?

Do you serve your countrymen? Do you serve your family back home? Do you serve your people by protecting the American value of a God-given right to hormone replacement therapy for your children? What about the American value of the right to pursue record-breaking profits for big business, while your brothers are granted the privilege to live paycheck to paycheck in the service of their economic overlords?

It’s time to stop serving this anti-White system. Resist the unconstitutional orders. Speak up about the injustices against our people. If you have no other option, resign before it is too late. Please, for the good of yourself and your people, do not continue on this path.

The Mannerbund

Australian Court Overturns Dismissal Of Anti-Israeli Professor – JONATHAN TURLEY

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/05/australian-court-overturns-dismissal-of-anti-israeli-professor/

Facebook

There is an important ruling on academic freedom out of Australia where one of the most controversial academic figures in the country secured a ruling from a federal court to overturn his dismissal by Sidney University. Professor Tim Anderson was fired after inserting a swastika in the middle of an Israeli flag and posting a picture of a lunch in which one of the guests wore badges that said “Death to Israel” and “Curse the Jews” written in Arabic. The lower court found that the academic freedom promised Anderson upon his hiring was unenforceable and largely aspirational. The ruling (below) found an enforceable standard, though this does not end the long controversy over Anderson’s status.

Anderson, a political economist, is an extremist voice in Australian political debates. He has criticized for pro-Iranian and anti-Israeli statements as well as remarks deemed anti-Semitic. He appears to have a tolerance for some of the most blood-soaked authoritarian regimes in the world with controversial visits to places like Syria and North Korea.

Anderson has been repeatedly accused to violent crimes in support of his views. In 1979, he was convicted and sentenced to 16 years for an alleged conspiracy to bomb the house of a far-right political figure as part of Ananda Marga, a socio-spiritual organization. After seven years in prison, he was released and later pardoned. In 1989, he was arrested again and convicted of three counts of murder for planning the Sydney Hilton Hotel bombing. However, that conviction was overturned on appeal in 1991.Despite his radical and allegedly violent past, Sidney University hired Anderson and, as part of the “Enterprise Agreement,” the university agreed to Clause 317 to “uphold the principle and practice of intellectual freedom in accordance with the highest ethical, professional and legal standards.”

That brings us to Anderson’s latest controversy. Anderson caused an outrage when he posted an image that included an Israeli flag with a swastika over it. It is a deeply offensive and disgraceful image. Anderson deserved to be roundly condemned for the posting but the Court correctly noted that this is still the expression of his view Israeli policies:

“Consider the PowerPoint presentation in more detail. It is the Israeli flag superimposed with the swastika which is the issue. Everything else in the PowerPoint presentation involves the expression of a legitimate view, open to debate, about the relative morality of the actions of Israel and Palestinian people. Dr Anderson is making a public comment asserting that the concept of moral equivalence between Israel and Palestinian people who attack Israel is false, in part, because of an asserted higher number of deaths of civilian Palestinians in Gaza from purportedly “precision attacks” by Israel compared to an asserted far lower number of deaths of people in Israel from purportedly “indiscriminate” attacks by Palestinians. He is including Israel within a long history of colonial exploitation by one political entity over another weaker entity or people. It does not matter whether this comparison may be considered by some or many people to be offensive or insensitive or wrong. As discussed, offence and insensitivity cannot be relevant criteria for deciding if conduct does or does not constitute the exercise of the right of intellectual freedom in accordance with cll 315 and 317.”

What is most notable for American civil libertarians is the references to academic freedom rather than free speech. In the United States, this would be viewed as a free speech question, particularly if committed by a state school. However, the construct is due to the contractual promise of academic or intellectual freedom afforded to faculty. That leaves an issue for renewed litigation as made clear by how the court addressed the lunch issue:

“277 The contrary submissions for the appellants are not persuasive. Insofar as the issue is one of connection to employment, it does not matter that Dr Anderson was not under any duty to post photographs or anything else on social media. He chose to do so in the described circumstances which create the sufficient connection to his employment. It does not matter that the posting of a social event does not “obviously” constitute public debate. The photo was made public and includes Mr Tharappel, an academic colleague of Dr Anderson’s at the University (see J [17]), wearing a jacket with the badge saying, in Arabic, “Death to Israel”, “Curse the Jews” and “Victory to all Islam”: J [220]. These are political comments connected with Dr Anderson’s academic work as an employee of the University. It does not matter that Dr Anderson was on leave or on about to be on sabbatical. He was still an employee of the University. It does not matter that the lunch photo was not captioned. The badge worn by Mr Tharappel spoke for itself. It does not matter that Dr Anderson made no comment about the badge. Dr Anderson chose to post the lunch photo on his Facebook account. It does not matter that in attending the lunch and posting the lunch photo Dr Anderson was engaging in a personal social activity. A person can be both engaging in a personal social activity and conduct themselves in a manner connected to their employment.

278 The question whether the University gave Dr Anderson a lawful and reasonable direction to remove the lunch photo depends on whether the lunch photo in fact constituted misconduct or serious misconduct which the primary judge did not decide. If it was in fact misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was lawful and reasonable. If it was not misconduct or serious misconduct to post the lunch photo, the University’s direction to remove the lunch photo was unlawful and unreasonable.”

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as saying Anderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

While condemning Anderson’s views, academic groups have rallied behind the case as an exercise of academic freedom. The ruling is a major win in that regard given the lower court’s view that this guarantee is effectively unenforceable. Yet, the court is sending the case back to define the limits of academic freedom. The notion that a professor could be canned for posting a picture of a third party wearing an anti-Israel badge is breathtaking. The picture can be seen in the opinion below.

Many however condemned not just Anderson but his use of free speech. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC), Ron Porat is quoted as sayingAnderson is a mouthpiece for Iran and he and others are “exploiting the right to freedom of speech in this country, the Al-Tajamu network promotes support for murderous regimes and terrorists, and in some cases, also disseminates antisemitic tropes.”

This is not exploiting free speech. It is the essence of free speech. We do not need free speech protections for popular speech. It is a protection that guarantees that even the least popular among us will be allowed to speak. Anderson is the price we pay for free speech. His views and conduct are often repellent and hurtful. However, the same rights protect Porat and others in condemning his views and associations. Ironically, Anderson is enjoying not just free speech but due process that is utterly absent in places like North Korea and Iran. Yet, we do not protect Anderson because we agree with him. We protect him despite our disagreement with him in order to defend this fundamental right.

I am admittedly a free speech dinosaur. I believe in largely unfettered free speech, particularly for statements made off campus or outside of a classroom. I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. We previously wrote about academic freedom issues at University of Rhode Island due to its Director of Graduate Studies of History Erik Loomis, who has defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

Anderson was engaged in public discourse over his views of Israel and other matters. Such viewpoint expression must be protected if we are to maintain the needed bright line rule that protects us all. We are living in an age of rage where people often spend more time trying to silence opposing voices than responding to them. In this case, a court was willing to reduce academic freedom itself to a mere aspirational consideration for universities in yielding to campaigns for termination. While the continued litigation brings continued concerns over how speech could be curtailed in this case, this was a major victory for Australian academics despite their overwhelming disapproval of the views of Professor Anderson.

Here is the opinion: NTEU and Anderson v University of Sydney [2021] FCAFC 159.

The Economics Of Disaster Capitalism

https://www.nationandstate.com/2021/09/03/the-economics-of-disaster-capitalism/
Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com, If we look at what is taking place, what seems glaringly obvious to me is that there is a coordinated demolition of entire countries, their business sectors, and with this financial ruin a top-down approach to “fixing” the ruin is being enacted. Step no…

Australia Passes Sweeping Online Surveillance Bill Amid Privacy Concerns – Nwo Report

https://nworeport.me/2021/09/01/australia-passes-sweeping-online-surveillance-bill-amid-privacy-concerns/

The Australian federal government last week passed a sweeping surveillance bill that would grant top law enforcement agencies the authority to take over social media accounts and hack the devices of individuals suspected of participating in serious online crime.

The Surveillance Legislation Amendment (Identity and Disrupt) Bill 2020 passed both houses of federal parliament on Aug. 25, and introduces three new powers which Home Affairs Minister Karen Andrews argues will assist law enforcement in keeping up with evolving technologies to protect Australians.

Specifically, the legislation grants the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) the power to modify or delete the data of suspected offenders, collect intelligence on criminal networks, and take control of suspected offenders’ online accounts.

Those who refuse to comply can face up to 10 years in prison.

In defending the legislation, Andrews cited an operation earlier this year that resulted in 290 arrests, saying that this “confirmed the persistent and ever evolving threat of transnational, serious and organised crime—and the reliance of these networks on the dark web and anonymising technology to conceal their offending.”

“In Operation Ironside, ingenuity and world-class capability gave our law enforcement an edge. This bill is just one more step the government is taking to ensure our agencies maintain that edge,” the minister said in a statement.

“Under our changes the AFP will have more tools to pursue organised crime gangs to keep drugs off our street and out of our community, and those who commit the most heinous crimes against children,” she added.

Passage of the bill however has been met with scrutiny, with some human rights activists saying it’s a “draconian” and “extreme” infringement on an individual’s right to privacy.

Earlier this year, Bill Rowlings, CEO of rights group Civil Liberties Australia, called for the measure to be scrapped.

“These are particularly draconian and particularly bad, so my message would be to throw these out, start again and get some proper consultation from the beginning,” he told SBS Newsin March.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) has separately expressed concern that these powers may adversely impact the privacy of a large number of individuals, including individuals not suspected of involvement in criminal activity.

“Given the privacy impact of these law enforcement powers on a broad range of individuals and networks, they should be accompanied by appropriate privacy safeguards,” the OAIC said in March.

Upon passage of the bill, some legal bodies have also argued that the federal government ignored recommendations from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) on the implementation of critical safeguards.

According to Sky News, President of the Law Council Dr. Jacoba Brasch QC said that these powers “have the potential to cause significant loss, damage or disruption to lawful computer users who are not suspected of any wrongdoing.”

Senior lawyer at the Human Rights Law Centre, Kieran Pender, told the news outlet that given the “unprecedented” and “extraordinarily intrusive” nature of these powers, they should have been narrowed to what is strictly necessary and subject to robust safeguards.

“It is alarming that, instead of accepting the Committee’s recommendations and allowing time for scrutiny of subsequent amendments, the Morrison Government rushed these laws through Parliament in less than 24 hours,” he added.

The bill is now awaiting Royal Assent, the final step before it becomes law.

It’s Not the Jab – It’s the Precedent, by Eric Peters | STRAIGHT LINE LOGIC

https://straightlinelogic.com/2021/08/23/its-not-the-jab-its-the-precedent-by-eric-peters/

People who don’t believe in standing on principle don’t understand the principle of precedent—acquiesce to one tyranny and you’ve opened the door to the next tyranny, and the next, and the next, and so on. From Eric Peters at ericpetersautos.com:

If you knew someone who chose not to exercise, who ate too much not-good food, would you exult in the news of his having been diagnosed with diabetes or cancer? Most people would not and if any did exult, it would be considered evidence of a mental defect (sadism) by the rest.

Yet people – some people – practically celebrate when a person who questions the rightness of forcing people to submit to “vaccinations” gets sick – and practically dance on their graves if they die.

There are many good – sound – reasons for objecting to forcing anyone to get “vaccinated” that have nothing to do with sickness, as such, but rather with this business of forcing people to take medicine or submit to medical treatment of any kind whatsoever. It sets a precedent by affirming the principle that it is ok to force people to take medicine and submit to medical treatment. Once that is established, for any medicine or treatment it will naturally become the basis for requiring that people submit to other medical treatments; they will be required to take other medicines – as decreed by the government and enforced by corporations, through “policies” that render it impossible to work or even to socialize without proof you’ve submitted to these decrees.

There are some, perhaps, who wish to live in such a world but most probably do not. Yet they cannot see that they are helping to build such a world by supporting this push to make everyone roll up their sleeves.

Just this once? If you think so, think again. Please.

As always, there are people who cannot see the inevitability. The same people who could not see that mass acceptance of the “masks” – as these psychological training devices are styled – would lead to mass “vaccinations” – as these unsafe and ineffective temporary symptom suppressors are styled. The same people, in mentality, who could not see that giving the federal government the legal power to seize – that is, to “tax” – a portion of the incomes of the very wealthy would inevitably lead to the government seizing a portion of the incomes of everyone.

Continue reading→