Wednesday, 24 May 2017

Julian Assange on the DNC and Wikileaks

"Julian Assange is going to be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare" - Kim Dotcom

September 26, 2016

Kim Dotcom puts out a statement on Seth Rich, aka "Panda"

There will be thousands of people disappointed in Kim Dotcom “not coming up with the goods”. Quite what they were expecting, I don’t know – a drop of docs etc that could be quickly countered by the mainstream media?

Here is Kim Dotcom’s statement.


Statement from Kim Dotcom

I know this because in late 2014 a person contacted me about helping me to start a branch of the Internet Party in the United States. He called himself Panda. I now know that Panda was Seth Rich.

Panda advised me that he was working on voter analytics tools and other technologies that the Internet Party may find helpful.

I communicated with Panda on a number of topics including corruption and the influence of corporate money in politics.

He wanted to change that from the inside.”

I was referring to what I knew when I did an interview with Bloomberg in New Zealand in May 2015. In that interview I hinted that Julian Assange and Wikileaks would release information about Hillary Clinton in the upcoming election.

The Rich family has reached out to me to ask that I be sensitive to their loss in my public comments. That request is entirely reasonable.

I have consulted with my lawyers. I accept that my full statement should be provided to the authorities and I am prepared to do that so that there can be a full investigation. My lawyers will speak with the authorities regarding the proper process.

If my evidence is required to be given in the United States I would be prepared to do so if appropriate arrangements are made. I would need a guarantee from Special Counsel Mueller, on behalf of the United States, of safe passage from New Zealand to the United States and back. In the coming days we will be communicating with the appropriate authorities to make the necessary arrangements. In the meantime, I will make no further comment.

I agree pretty much with this statement from indy journalist H.A. Goodman. Kim Dotcom has done it right.

As this September inteview interview shows Kim Dotcom has already had something to say on the subject

From before

Kim Dotcom confirms working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks

23 May, 2017
"Podesta is deeply concerned."
More Seth Rich news is breaking, which can only mean more bad news for the Democrats who concocted the entire Russiagate fake news story.
Kim Dotcom has confirmed via Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks.

Kim Dotcom has promised more information on Seth Rich will be released

I'm meeting my legal team on Monday. I will issue a statement about on Tuesday. Please be patient. This needs to be done properly.
4Chan’s /pol/ subgroup followed up on Kim Dotcom’s tweet with their own information, noting that high-ranking current and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation.

I knew Seth Rich. I know he was the source. I was involved.

Anons, I work in D.C.
I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current and former Democratic Party officials.
This is the reason why they have backed away from impeachment talk. They know the smoking gun is out there, and they’re terrified you will find it, because when you do it will bring the entire DNC, along with a couple of very big name politicians.
It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks. Podesta saying he wanted to “make an example of the leaker” is a huge smoking gun.”
The behavior is near open panic. To even mention this name in D.C. Circles [sic] will bring you under automatic scrutiny. To even admit that you have knowledge of this story puts you in immediate danger.
If there was no smoke there would be no fire. I have never, in my 20 years of working in D.C. Seen [sic] such a panicked reaction from anyone.
I have strong reason to believe that the smoking gun in this case is out o [sic] the hands of the conspirators, and will be discovered by anon. I know for certain that Podesta is deeply concerned. He’s been receiving anonymous calls and emails from people saying they know the truth. Same with Hillary.”

An Anon working in DC says that he's seeing people in a panic like never before about . They know their about to be exposed.

1:19 AM - 22 May 2017

This raises several questions. First, if Kim Dotcom knew that Seth Rich was, in fact, the WikiLeaks source, why is he just now coming forward with such information? Second, while Seth Rich may explain the DNC leaks we still don’t know who is responsible for the “Podesta Files” which we’re certain will continue to be attributed to “Russian hackers.”
Which leads to the most impotant question of all: is this all just another fake news diversion, or is there more to the Seth Rich murder?

Tuesday, 23 May 2017

The WSJ makes a case for kidnapping Julian Assange

(Julian Assange) may be hoping to make it to Ecuador, which is unlikely to extradite him to America. Then again, we could always seize him and spirit him here to face justice. We wouldn’t have to resort to the extradition process. The Supreme Court might even prefer it that way.”

What, precisely, is the difference between Stalinist Russia and this?

The U.S. Can Get Julian Assange

Avoid extradition and use secret services to airlift him to stand trial in America

By Seth Lipsky

21 May, 2017

Julian Assange is all smiles after Sweden dropped its rape charge against him. He may be hoping to make it to Ecuador, which is unlikely to extradite him to America. Then again, we could always seize him and spirit him here to face justice. We wouldn’t have to resort to the extradition process. The Supreme Court might even prefer it that way.

Take it from the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who wrote the opinion in U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (1992). It suggests that if America has a hand in kidnapping a culprit from foreign shores to bring him to justice here, the Supreme Court is not going to be too particular.

I’ve written about this over the years, including in 2009, when Scotland freed Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to go home to Libya. He’d been convicted for his role in bringing down Pan Am 103 in 1988. It struck me that America ought to capture Megrahi and bring him before an American court. President Obama could have acted under the precedent in the case of Humberto Alvarez-Machain, a Mexican physician.

The doctor was indicted for his alleged role in the murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent, Enrique Camarena Salazar. He was accused, as Rehnquist put it, of “prolonging agent Camarena’s life so that others could further torture and interrogate him.” On April 2, 1990, the doctor was, as Rehnquist put it, “forcibly kidnapped from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, to be flown by private plane to El Paso, Texas, where he was arrested by DEA officials.”

A U.S. district court concluded that the DEA was responsible, even though its agents were not personally involved. Dr. Alvarez claimed his abduction, in Rehnquist’s paraphrase, “constituted outrageous governmental conduct.” A dainty district court and the Ninth Circuit appeals bench were prepared to free Dr. Alvarez.

The Supreme Court was made of sterner stuff. It did cite a precedent, U.S. v. Rauscher , which blocked the prosecution of a defendant brought to America from England for a crime not covered in the extradition treaty between the two countries. The court took the view that once the U.S. proceeded under an extradition treaty, it was bound by its terms.

But the court also cited Ker v. Illinois (1886), which involved a thief, Frederick Ker, who’d been convicted in Illinois but fled to Peru, only to be brought back to court by a Pinkerton agent. Rehnquist wrote that Ker’s “presence before the court was procured by means of forcible abduction from Peru.” But because he wasn’t brought back via extradition, the court rejected his claims to rights under extradition law.

Which brings us to Mr. Assange. If his plan is to slink to Ecuador and if the U.S. really wants him, it might do better by avoiding extradition and turning to our secret services to airlift him to stand trial in America.

Even if America kidnaps him, that might not be the end of the story. Witness the denouement of the saga of Dr. Alvarez-Machain, who was put on trial in the same district court that shrank from trying him originally. The judge acquitted him before the case went to the jury. Dr. Alvarez-Machain then sued America and the Mexicans who’d kidnapped him in league with the DEA. That case, too, went to the Supreme Court, where in 2004 Dr. Alvarez-Machain lost unanimously.
It’s not clear the U.S. wants to put Mr. Assange on trial. If it does, though, the moral of Alvarez-Machain is that it doesn’t have to be squeamish about how it gets him here, even if he’s hiding south of the border.

Mr. Lipsky is editor of the New York Sun.

Trump's sell-out Saudi speech

Trump shows true colors in sell-out Saudi speech

In the Now, RT

So, remember that time when Trump said this? You will find out who really knocked down the World Trade Centre - ‘cause they have papers out there that are very secret. 

You may find it’s the Saudis, OK?’ Well, I couldn’t wait to see him call the Saudis out, to their faces, for being the leading backer of Wahhabi terror groups. ‘...But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three: safe harbour, financial backing and the social standing needed for recruitment…’ 

Isn’t that Saudi Arabia? ‘It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in that region… I am speaking, of course, of Iran.’ Wait a minute, you mean the people who are currently fighting al-Qaeda & Isis? ‘Designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation - which they certainly are.’ Yeah, also fighting ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria. ‘Saudi Arabia and a regional coalition have taken strong action against Houthi militants in Yemen’ Wow! 

OK, so did you even bother having one of your relatives write this for you, or did the Saudis just hand it to you when you showed up? ‘Assad has committed unspeakable crimes and the United States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned chemical weapss-ss-ss...’ 

Could this get any more embarrassing?

Prof. Stephen Cohen on the anti-Russia narrative

Dems crippling Trump’s plans to cooperate with Russia out of own ambitions – Stephen Cohen

The presidency of Donald Trump is off to a rough start. It seems the president’s every move breeds scandal, and mainstream media outlets are unrelenting in their attacks. At the center of the anti-Trump narrative is Russia, with Trump accused of working with Moscow to steal the US election and blamed for leaking state secrets to Russian officials. With an ongoing investigation into the barrage of allegations, calls are growing louder for the president’s impeachment. How will these scandals affect Trump’s presidency? And is the White House even capable of operating in this atmosphere of media hysteria? We ask contributing editor of the Nation magazine, professor emeritus at Princeton University – Stephen Cohen.

Russian troops in southern Syria

Russian forces arrive in southern Syria

21 May, 2017

BEIRUT, LEBANON (6:30 A.M.) – Russian paratroopers and special forces arrived in the Al-Sweida Governorate of southern Syria this week, following the U.S. attack on a pro-government convoy near the Iraqi border-crossing, a military source told Al-Masdar News last night.

The Russian military personnel will take the role of advising the Syrian government troops in southern Syria, while also helping to deter any potential response from the U.S. and Jordanian forces that have carved a niche in the Al-Sweida and Homs governorates.

According to some media activists in southern Syria, the Russian forces are planning to build a base along the Al-Sweida Governorate’s border with Jordan; however, this could not be confirmed by Al-Masdar News.

Rumors have also surfaced regarding the deployment of the 31st Brigade of the Russian special forces; they are allegedly meant to engage the enemy forces and help the government troops seize the Iraqi border-cross

A warning from 120 years ago

We’ve known about the Greenhouse effect for at least a century. I learned about it as a child in the 1960’s

Thomas Chamberlin's Call for Climate Action, in 1899

Thomas Chrowder Chamberlin, 1899: "It now becomes necessary to assign agencies capable of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere..."

More about Chamberlin: He was the first to demonstrate that the only way to understand climate change was to understand almost everything about the planet together — not just the air but the oceans, the volcanoes bringing gases from the deep interior, the chemistry of how minerals gradually disintegrated under weathering, and more. 

Chamberlin's novel hypothesis was that ice ages might follow a self-oscillating cycle driven by feedbacks involving CO2.

Source: An Attempt to Frame a Working Hypothesis of the Cause of Glacial Periods on an Atmospheric Basis

Text version


The 1847 lecture that predicted human-induced climate change

A near-forgotten speech made by a US congressman warned of global warming and the mismanagement of natural resources

21 June, 2011

When we think of the birth of the conservation movement in the 19th century, the names that usually spring to mind are the likes of John Muir and Henry David Thoreau, men who wrote about the need to protect wilderness areas in an age when the notion of mankind's "manifest destiny" was all the rage.

But a far less remembered American - a contemporary of Muir and Thoreau - can claim to be the person who first publicised the now largely unchallenged idea that humans can negatively influence the environment that supports them.

George Perkins Marsh (1801-1882) certainly had a varied career. Here's how Clark University in Massachusetts, which has named an institute in his memory,describes him:
Throughout his 80 years Marsh had many careers as a lawyer (though, by his own words, "an indifferent practitioner"), newspaper editor, sheep farmer, mill owner, lecturer, politician and diplomat. He also tried his hand at various businesses, but failed miserably in all - marble quarrying, railroad investment and woolen manufacturing. He studied linguistics, knew 20 languages, wrote a definitive book on the origin of the English language, and was known as the foremost Scandinavian scholar in North America. He invented tools and designed buildings including the Washington Monument. As a congressman in Washington (1843-49) Marsh helped to found and guide the Smithsonian Institution. He served as US Minister to Turkey for five years where he aided revolutionary refugees and advocated for religious freedom. He spent the last 21 years of his life (1861-82) as US Minister to the newly United Kingdom of Italy.
In other words, he kept himself busy. But I would argue his defining moment came on 30 September, 1847, when, as a congressman for the Whig party (a forerunner of the Republican party), he gave a lecture to the Agricultural Society of Rutland County, Vermont. (The speech was published a year later.) It proved to be the intellectual spark that led him to go on and publish in 1864 his best-known work, Man and Nature: Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action.

More than 160 years on, it really does pay to re-read his speech as it seems remarkably prescient today. It also shows that he was decades ahead of most other thinkers on this subject. After all, he delivered his lecture a decade or more before John Tyndall began to explore the thesis that slight changes in the atmosphere's composition could cause climatic variations. And it was a full half a century before Svante Arrhenius proposed that carbon dioxide emitted by the "enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments" might warm the world (something he thought would be beneficial).

Yes, in his speech, Marsh talks about "civilised man" and "savages" – and the language is turgid in places – but let's cut him a little slack: this was 1847, after all. It's about half way through he gets to the bit that matters most to us today:
Man cannot at his pleasure command the rain and the sunshine, the wind and frost and snow, yet it is certain that climate itself has in many instances been gradually changed and ameliorated or deteriorated by human action. The draining of swamps and the clearing of forests perceptibly effect the evaporation from the earth, and of course the mean quantity of moisture suspended in the air. The same causes modify the electrical condition of the atmosphere and the power of the surface to reflect, absorb and radiate the rays of the sun, and consequently influence the distribution of light and heat, and the force and direction of the winds. Within narrow limits too, domestic fires and artificial structures create and diffuse increased warmth, to an extent that may effect vegetation. The mean temperature of London is a degree or two higher than that of the surrounding country, and Pallas believed, that the climate of even so thinly a peopled country as Russia was sensibly modified by similar causes.
Some of the terminology he uses is clearly a little archaic to our ears today, but, broadly speaking, his hunch has subsequently proved to be correct. You can see him grappling with concepts that we now know as the urban heat island effect and greenhouse effect.

But in the speech he also called for a more thoughtful approach to consuming natural resources, despite the apparent near-limitless abundance on offer across the vast expanses of northern America. As the Clark University biography notes, he wasn't an environmental sentimentalist. Rather, he believed that all consumption must be reasoned and considered, with the impact on future generations always kept in mind: he was making the case for what we now call "sustainable development". In particular, he argued that his audience should re-evaluate the worth of trees:
The increasing value of timber and fuel ought to teach us that trees are no longer what they were in our fathers' time, an incumbrance. We have undoubtedly already a larger proportion of cleared land in Vermont than would be required, with proper culture, for the support of a much greater population than we now possess, and every additional acre both lessens our means for thorough husbandry, by disproportionately extending its area, and deprives succeeding generations of what, though comparatively worthless to us, would be of great value to them.

The functions of the forest, besides supplying timber and fuel, are very various. The conducting powers of trees render them highly useful in restoring the disturbed equilibrium of the electric fluid; they are of great value in sheltering and protecting more tender vegetables against the destructive effects of bleak or parching winds, and the annual deposit of the foliage of deciduous trees, and the decomposition of their decaying trunks, form an accumulation of vegetable mould, which gives the greatest fertility to the often originally barren soils on which they grow, and enriches lower grounds by the wash from rains and the melting snows.

The inconveniences resulting from a want of foresight in the economy of the forest are already severely felt in many parts of New England, and even in some of the older towns in Vermont. Steep hill-sides and rocky ledges are well suited to the permanent growth of wood, but when in the rage for improvement they are improvidently stripped of this protection, the action of sun and wind and rain soon deprives them of their thin coating of vegetable mould, and this, when exhausted, cannot be restored by ordinary husbandry. They remain therefore barren and unsightly blots, producing neither grain nor grass, and yielding no crop but a harvest of noxious weeds, to infest with their scattered seeds the richer arable grounds below.

But this is by no means the only evil resulting from the injudicious destruction of the woods. Forests serve as reservoirs and equalizers of humidity. In wet seasons, the decayed leaves and spongy soil of woodlands retain a large proportion of the falling rains, and give back the moisture in time of drought, by evaporation or through the medium of springs. They thus both check the sudden flow of water from the surface into the streams and low grounds, and prevent the droughts of summer from parching our pastures and drying up the rivulets which water them.

On the other hand, where too large a proportion of the surface is bared of wood, the action of the summer sun and wind scorches the hills which are no longer shaded or sheltered by trees, the springs and rivulets that found their supply in the bibulous soil of the forest disappear, and the farmer is obliged to surrender his meadows to his cattle, which can no longer find food in his pastures, and sometime even to drive them miles for water.

Again, the vernal and autumnal rains, and the melting snows of winter, no longer intercepted and absorbed by the leaves or the open soil of the woods, but falling everywhere upon a comparatively hard and even surface, flow swiftly over the smooth ground, washing away the vegetable mould as they seek their natural outlets, fill every ravine with a torrent, and convert every river into an ocean. The suddenness and violence of our freshets increases in proportion as the soil is cleared; bridges are washed away, meadows swept of their crops and fences, and covered with barren sand, or themselves abraded by the fury of the current, and there is reason to fear that the valleys of many of our streams will soon be converted from smiling meadows into broad wastes of shingle and gravel and pebbles, deserts in summer, and seas in autumn and spring.

The changes, which these causes have wrought in the physical geography of Vermont, within a single generation, are too striking to have escaped the attention of any observing person, and every middle-aged man, who revisits his birth-place after a few years of absence, looks upon another landscape than that which formed the theatre of his youthful toils and pleasures. The signs of artificial improvement are mingled with the tokens of improvident waste, and the bald and barren hills, the dry beds of the smaller streams, the ravines furrowed out by the torrents of spring, and the diminished thread of interval that skirts the widened channel of the rivers, seem sad substitutes for the pleasant groves and brooks and broad meadows of his ancient paternal domain.
If the present value of timber and land will not justify the artificial re-planting of grounds injudiciously cleared, at least nature ought to be allowed to reclothe them with a spontaneous growth of wood, and in our future husbandry a more careful selection should be made of land for permanent improvement. It has long been a practice in many parts of Europe, as well as in our older settlements, to cut the forests reserved for timber and fuel at stated intervals. It is quite time that this practice should be introduced among us.

After the first felling of the original forest it is indeed a long time before its place is supplied, because the roots of old and full grown trees seldom throw up shoots, but when the second growth is once established, it may be cut with great advantage, at periods of about twenty-five years, and yields a material, in every respect but size, far superior to the wood of the primitive tree. In many European countries, the economy of the forest is regulated by law; but here, where public opinion determines, or rather in practice constitutes law, we can only appeal to an enlightened self-interest to introduce the reforms, check the abuses, and preserve us from an increase of the evils I have mentioned.
A footnote: it is 150 years ago this year since Marsh was personally appointed by Abraham Lincoln to be the US's first ambassador to Italy. (Marsh was buried in Rome.) Just three years later, Lincoln approved the legislation which would lead to the creation of Yosemite National Park in California. This acted as a precedent across the world for federal and state governments to purchase or secure wilderness areas so they could be protected in perpetuity from development or exploitation. It's speculation, of course, but I've always wondered whether Marsh and Lincoln ever discussed such matters, be it in person or in correspondence. Perhaps, there's a keen historian out there who knows the answer?