Thursday, 21 June 2018

A flashback to Hillary and Obama's support for seperating migrant families

I am not trying to excuse the Dotard in any way but to point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats and their media puppets.

Flashback: Both Hillary And Obama Advocated Separating Migrant Families, Strict Border Control

19 June, 2018

"The Internet Never Forgets"
-Some guy
While the left rages against "separated migrant children" which they blame on President Trump's "zero tolerance" enforcement policy of Bush-era rules, several "inconvenient" video clips have cropped up revealing both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama advocating virtually the same border policy they are currently attacking Trump over. 

For example, Hillary Clinton said during a 2014 CNN Town Hall; 

"We have to send a clear message, just because your child gets across the border - doesn't mean your child gets to stay

But wait...

What’s happening to families at the border right now is a humanitarian crisis. Every parent who has ever held a child in their arms, every human being with a sense of compassion and decency, should be outraged.

Such virtuous signaling could only be outdone by this clip of Obama

Wow. Obama really did agree with @realDonaldTrump on Immigration.

Show this to your friends.

And let's not gloss over the fact that Obama separated migrant families, while taking criticism for encouraging migration while ignoring the growing crisis at the border.
'How many precious lives must be needlessly lost, women raped, girls forced into sex trafficking or people trapped into the drug trade before the Obama administration stops luring them here with continued grants of amnesty, legal status, work permits, and benefits?' asked Rep. Louie Gohmert. -Daily Mail (2014)

But wait - rolling the calendar back to 1995 when Bill Clinton promised to crack down on illegal immigration, we have the following quote:
"In the budget I will present to you, we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace. We are a nation of immgrants, but we are also a nation of laws." 

Meanwhile, in 1993 and 1994, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) had some harsh words about immigrants: 
"We've got to enforce our borders... The day when American can be the welfare system for Mexico is gone... I think we should enforce our borders..."

Somehow we missed the "internment camp" analogies at the time...


The media and political class become more and more outraged over the Trump administration’s decision to detain and prosecute immigrants illegally crossing the border.
Lost in the debate is any acknowledgment that President Obama’s administration also used detention facilities.
Current U.S. immigration laws, when enforced, have the consequence of temporarily separating adults who arrive with children into separate detention facilities in order to prosecute the adults.
The policy of prosecuting immigrants for crossing the border illegally has been in place for multiple administrations. The Obama administration prosecuted half a million illegal immigrants and similarly separated families in the process. So did the Bush administration.

Caitlin Johnstone on US immigration

Democrats Finally Deviate From “Let’s Start World War 3” Midterm Platform
Caitlin Johnstone

20 June, 2018

Last night Rachel Maddow finally took a break from her relentless warmongering toward Russia, Syria and North Korea to have a pretend cry about the plight of immigrant children on her hit MSNBC show. It was arguably the climax of a loud nationwide outcry against a federal policy of separating parents from their children when they are arrested for illegally crossing the border from Mexico into the United States, and the following day President Trump signed an executive order suspending that policy while congress comes up with some less draconian legislation.

And of course the entire thing was phony from top to bottom. The policy Trump’s political opponents have been blaming on the current administration was actually bipartisan and several administrations in the making, and as with many US policies simply grew progressively more depraved with each new president. The executive order leaves the debate over many, many immigration issues still unresolved, including the fact that it just means families will now be imprisoned together under Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ new “zero tolerance policy”, and the fact that thousands of families will still remain separated. And of course the entire furor only became a mainstream issue because midterm elections are coming up and the “Russia, Russia, Russia” platform of the last year and a half hasn’t exactly energized the Democratic party’s base. And of course that soulless bitch Maddow, who will cheerfully help inflame tensions between nuclear powers in order to give her ratings a bump, was 100 percent acting throughout the entire scene.

But you know what? I’ll take it.

I don’t normally comment on US immigration policy. My haters are always whining that I, an Australian, focus so much on American politics, but believe it or not I do have a strict personal code for the sorts of things I do and do not write about. I focus on the US because it is clearly the focal point of the transnational power establishment which uses its military and economic might to bully the rest of the world into supporting omnicidal, ecocidal plutocratic agendas, but as a strong proponent of sovereignty I do try to stay in my area and only write about things which directly or indirectly impact my part of the world. I don’t write about local US politics, I stay out of the gun control debate, and I don’t tell people in another country what their immigration policy should be. Plus an Australian criticizing any other country for cruel immigration policy would be laughable.

That said, I think I can safely say from within my sovereign boundaries that if the Democratic Party were to spend June through November campaigning on immigrants’ rights rather than on starting World War 3, the rest of the world will breathe a huge sigh of relief.

Trump-induced amnesia has erased much of the memory of this, but Democrats haven’t always been so goddamn terrifying. They’ve always been phony, and they’ve always been the other half of America’s oligarchic military-industrial complex problem, but before they lost their marbles in 2016 they did at least try to pretend to be vaguely progressive sometimes instead of basing their entire platform on attacking political opponents for trying to get along with Russia or North Korea. A reversion to the way things used to be, when Rachel Maddow was just a garden variety partisan hack instead of a psychotic amalgamation of all the worst aspects of Glenn Beck, Alex Jones and Joseph McCarthy, would be a welcome relief

Immigration has been an on-again, off-again pet issue of the so-called “Resistance” since Trump took office, but only enough to score a few political points with a cutesy sound byte here and there. Never before has immigration policy reform been so aggressively and urgently shoved through with one voice as it was these last few days, in a way that couldn’t possibly be ignored. It was the most galvanized the Democrats have been since 2016, and this, unlike the moronic strategy of fanning the flames of Russia hysteria and warmongering, is something that could actually energize the Democrats’ progressive base. Getting Trump to cave to pressure and sign an executive order is arguably the very first useful thing the “Resistance” has ever accomplished. More advocacy for the human rights of immigrants and less for nuclear war flirtation could help dig the donkey party out of the hole it’s in.

Obviously this wouldn’t even begin to address the massive, glaring problems that are plaguing the Democratic Party, who just overwhelmingly voted in favor of increased military spending while denying Americans the same basic social services that are accorded to everyone else in every other major country in the world. But hell, if you have a kid who’s constantly beating up his sister and tormenting the dog, you want to give him a cuddle and some positive reinforcement when he does something nice for once. Encouraging the Dems to go back to their pre-Trump levels of immorality and focus on things that human beings can get behind would benefit everyone, and giving them credit where credit is due when they accomplish something decent is probably a good idea. Whatever lures these lunatics away from the war drums and places emphasis on human rights over military violence, I support

Family seperations: Democrats refuse to be part of the solution

Given what we know about this being a bipartisan problem..

BREAKING: Democrats Reject Legislative Fix To Stop Family Separations

20 June, 2018

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) rejected a GOP legislative proposal on Tuesday that would fix the border separation issue that has consumed the national news cycle over the last week.

"There are so many obstacles to legislation and when the president can do it with his own pen, it makes no sense," Schumer said, according to The Hill. "Legislation is not the way to go here when it’s so easy for the president to sign it."

"How many times has immigration legislation passed in this Congress? How many times?" Schumer continued. "Zero. It's an excuse from our Republican colleagues who feel the heat, don't want to attack the president, even though they know, they know legislation will take a very long time and is unlikely to happen, and the flick of a president's pen could solve this tomorrow."

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) had said earlier in the day that he wanted the Senate to take up the bill immediately so they could put a permanent fix in place that would stop families from being separated at the border.

We hope to reach out to the Democrats to see if we can get a result,” McConnell said. “Which means making a law and not get into some sparring match back and forth that leads to no conclusion.”

I support, and all of the members of the Republican Conference support, a plan that keeps families together while their immigration status is determined.

Schumer refused to answer if Democrats would work with Republicans on a legislative fix for the issue, saying, "Let's hope we never get to that. Let's hope the president does the right thing and solves the problem, which he can do."

The end of the intenet as we know it?

'Disastrous' copyright bill vote approved

‘Link tax’ and death of memes? EU advances copyright controls

21 June, 2018

A committee of MEPs has voted to accept major changes to European copyright law, which experts say could change the nature of the internet.

They voted to approve the controversial Article 13, which critics warn could put an end to memes, remixes and other user-generated content.

Article 11, requiring online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content, was also approved.

One organisation opposed to the changes called it a "dark day".

The European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs voted by 15 votes to 10 to adopt Article 13 and by 13 votes to 12 to adopt Article 11.

It will now go to the wider European Parliament to vote on in July.


Last week, 70 influential tech leaders, including Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee, signed a letter opposing Article 13, which they called "an imminent threat to the future" of the internet.

Article 13 puts more onus on websites to enforce copyright and could mean that every online platform that allows users to post text, sounds, code or images will need some form of content-recognition system to review all material that users upload.

Activist Cory Doctorow has called it a "foolish, terrible idea".

Writing on online news website BoingBoing, he said: "No filter exists that can even approximate this. And the closest equivalents are mostly run by American companies, meaning that US big tech is going to get to spy on everything Europeans post and decide what gets censored and what doesn't."

Article 11 has been called the "link tax" by opponents.

Designed to limit the power over news publishers that tech giants such as Facebook and Google have, it requires online platforms to pay publishers a fee if they link to their news content.

The theory is that this would help support smaller news publishers and drive users to their homepages rather than directly to their news stories.

But critics say it fails to clearly define what constitutes a link and could be manipulated by governments to curb freedom of speech.

After the vote, US not-for-profit organisation Creative Commons, which aims to make more content free for others to share, called it a "dark day for the open web".

.@EP_Legal has adopted both Article 11 () and Article 13 (). It’s a dark day for the open web, but the fight will continue in the upcoming plenary vote in the European Parliament.

Another Twitter user tweeted: "15 MEPs voted for upload filtering. They understand the internet better than the people who invented it, apparently."

15 MEPs in the @EP_Legal Committee of the @Europarl_EN voted for upload filtering. They understand the internet better than the people who invented it, apparently.

Open Rights executive director Jim Killock told the BBC: "Article 13 must go. The EU parliament will have another chance to remove this dreadful law.

"The EU parliament's duty is to defend citizens from unfair and unjust laws.

"MEPs must reject this law, which would create a robo-copyright regime intended to zap any image, text, meme or video that appears to include copyright material, even when it is entirely legal material."

But publishers, including the Independent Music Companies Association (Impala) welcomed the vote.

"This is a strong and unambiguous message sent by the European Parliament," said executive chair Helen Smith.

"It clarifies what the music sector has been saying for years: if you are in the business of distributing music or other creative works, you need a licence, clear and simple. It's time for the digital market to catch up with progress."

View image on Twitter
Memes banned. Remixes outlawed. Parody videos removed. Critics say this would be the outcome of the EU adopting two controversial copyright rules that were just approved in committee.

Critics are unhappy with Articles 11 and 13 of the EU Copyright Directive, which were cleared by the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament on Wednesday and now face a floor vote scheduled sometime in July.

Dubbed the “link tax” by critics, Article 11 would require online platforms to pay for links to news and other content they refer to. While proponents said it was intended to make Google and Facebook share the profit they make with news organizations that are struggling in the modern market, critics have pointed out it could penalize linking to content for the purpose of criticism or commentary. It was narrowly approved by the committee, with 13 votes in favor and 12 votes against.

There is a big problem if all those who bring our cultural diversity in Europe to life... can no longer live from their work because online platforms are not prepared to involve them properly," Ehler said in a statement.

Article 13 is even more controversial, requiring the automatic removal of any material that appears to violate copyright. Critics say this would condemn memes, sampling, news footage and even public domain parliamentary recordings. Platforms would also be held legally liable for copyright violations by their users. This measure advanced with 15 votes in favor and 10 opposed.

Even as Article 11 would force online platforms to pay for content, Article 13 would result in stifling competition and arguably further empower major players like Google or Facebook, which, unlike smaller fish, would have the money and expertise to implement automated censorship and user moderation required to comply with the law. The platforms would also be incentivized to err on the side of censorship to avoid penalties for copyright infringement by their users.

These measures would seriously undermine basic internet freedoms," said German MEP Julia Reda (Pirate Party-Greens), a prominent critic of both articles.

A number of internet luminaries, including WWW inventor Tim Berners-Lee and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, have also spoken out against Article 13.

By requiring Internet platforms to perform automatic filtering all of the content that their users upload, Article 13 takes an unprecedented step towards the transformation of the Internet, from an open platform for sharing and innovation, into a tool for the automated surveillance and control of its users,” said the letter signed by Berners-Lee, Wales and dozens of others that was sent to MEPs last week.

Author and activist Cory Doctorow called it a ”foolish, terrible idea,” pointing out that the only filters even remotely able to remove content as required by the law are currently run by American companies, “meaning that US big tech is going to get to spy on everything Europeans post and decide what gets censored and what doesn't.”

There is no way for AI to decide whether the use of copyrighted work falls within legal exemptions such as quotations or parody. Those exceptions are not consistent across the EU’s 28 member states, nor does the EU have US-style fair use laws. This means that even if the copyright owner does not object to the use of content in memes, remixes, mashups or other creative work, the creators would still technically violate the law.