Mediaboss Marketing

By Tom Harper, Las Vegas

Monday, June 21, 2021 | 2 a.m.

I applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for her commitment to an investigation after the majority of Republicans in the Senate voted against a bipartisan Jan. 6 commission. How can the Jan. 6 insurrectionists and those Republicans reconcile their actions with the preamble to the Constitution, which the Republicans swore to protect and preserve and which states, We the people ... in order to form a more perfect union ... insure domestic tranquility ... promote the general welfare ...?

Compare this to the flag held by many insurrectionists the Gadsden flag which depicts a coiled rattlesnake with the words Dont tread on me. Me: the selfish cry of the libertarian, is antithetical to the We of the preamble and the Declaration of Independence, which recognized that laws are for the public (i.e. common) good.

If the Gadsden folks believed they had the right to commit insurrection resulting in the deaths of five people and property damage in excess of $1million, how do we know Republicans were not complicit? Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., raised a fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists, and Republican members of Congress gave tours before the insurrection.

The snake is an apropos symbol for the Gadsden folks. A snake can mean a deceitful and treacherous person; traitor; turncoat. Criminal investigation and prosecution will take care of the Gadsden folks. A full investigation will expose all of the traitors involved in this heinous and despicable event.

See original here:
Insurrectionists picked the right flag - Las Vegas Sun

Timothy Holdiness, Letter to the Editor Published 9:48 a.m. CT June 22, 2021

Everyone should get the COVID-19 vaccine, though I can understand any uneasiness tied to it.

Our government hardly ever gives anything out for free, which can cause some concern when the vaccine is being provided for free. The proof of vaccination that comes with it shouldnt be seen as a tool to segregate anyone. I have not personally been asked for proof of my vaccination, even though I have it readily available on my LA Wallet app that includes my drivers license.

Those who refuse the vaccine should know that they are putting others at risk by going to events where they could contract the virus or pass it on to others.

To say that citizens are being pitted against each other over race and political beliefs is nothing new. We must remember that the civil rights movement has not ended.

The separation between political parties has become increasingly divided which should bring to light the need for more than two parties. The Green and Libertarian parties should be included in national politics instead of being blacklisted and excluded from debates. Having only two controlling parties is just asking for this division between citizens.

The claim that the military is weeding out anyone who doesnt agree with global warming, agrees with the Second Amendment, and has conservative opinions is incorrect. The military is trying to keep extremists from enlisting, not simply refusing all Republicans.

Having claimed that critical race theory is purely Marxism is incorrect. It is not a political faction, rather it is teaching the youth of the country about how racism shaped the way we live and how our public policy was shaped by the racism that has run rampant in our country for hundreds of years.

The First Amendment is one of the most well-known across the country, and it must be known that there are consequences when used to make statements that are hateful or incite violence. Just because we have the right to speak our minds freely, does not mean that people should be allowed to be hateful online with no repercussions. When anyone can post anything online without moderation, online environments will become toxic and ineffective at their goal of giving people a commonplace to have a voice virtually.

No time soon do I see the citizens of The United States of America losing their freedoms. If anything, we will have more individualized freedom away from the exclusive ways of the past.

Timothy Holdiness

Bossier City

Read or Share this story: https://www.shreveporttimes.com/story/opinion/readers/2021/06/22/letter-freedom-not-being-lost-united-states/5304329001/

See more here:
Letter: Freedom could be more individualized, but not lost in the United States - Shreveport Times

Getting down to the specifics of these bills, they range from bad to ugly, said Patrick Hedger, vice president of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is funded in part by groups connected to the Kochs. Americans for Prosperity, a Koch group, called the antitrust package a jumble of legislative proposals [that] targets American companies [and] treats them as guilty until proven innocent.

The critics are arguing, in part, that the bills are antithetical to GOP values, which traditionally emphasize the free market and oppose regulatory intervention.

These bills represent a huge intervention into the U.S. economy, said Jessica Melugin, director of the Competitive Enterprise Institutes Center for Technology and Innovation, which has received tens of thousands of dollars from Koch foundations in recent years as well as funding from the major tech companies. This is not on-brand for Republicans.

The Houses top Republican, Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, weighed in against the legislation on Wednesday, saying it only gives Democrats in the federal government more power to tip the scales. McCarthy, a California lawmaker, has received tens of thousands of dollars from Google, Amazon and Facebook, as well as the Koch Industries PAC, in recent years.

But traditional Republican aversion to meddling in big business saw serious erosion under Trump, whose Justice Department filed a major antitrust suit against Google. The antitrust bills right-leaning supporters say the Koch groups are simply out of touch with a populist GOP base that feels censored and silenced by the tech giants.

The Koch group and all of these pro-big tech people on the right, they do have an advantage, which is inertia, said Jon Schweppe, the director of policy and government affairs at the populist American Principles Project, which has received money from the Mercer family. The Republican Party for a long time has been a party opposed to any antitrust or concern about concentrated power. But the divide here is that the base definitely wants to break up Big Tech.

One sign of the anti-tech messages growing appeal among the GOP caucus: Rep. Ken Buck of Colorado, the top Republican on the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee, co-sponsored all five of the antitrust bills, along with North Carolina Rep. Madison Cawthorn and Texas Rep. Lance Gooden.

Buck said he believes that the legislative efforts are an extension of his outreach to blue collar voters.

When I go back to my district, I hear a lot of people talk about the fact that what Big Tech doing is wrong, he said. They dont necessarily know they cheated this particular company in this way, but they have this gut feeling that these companies are too big and theyre cheating. So I do think that we will reach out to a broad spectrum [with these bills].

Democrats behind the legislation have welcomed the support from Republicans, seeking to ride the populist wave to garner lasting support for their agenda.

Ultimately, its a fight for the future of the Republican party Trump-style populism vs. traditional conservatism and the Koch network isnt going down without a fight. As soon as the bills were introduced last week, Koch-backed groups including Americans for Prosperity, the American Enterprise Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the Open Competition Center, TechFreedom and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation came out with statements and campaigns condemning the legislation.

Aside from the tech companies themselves, the Koch groups and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have been some of the loudest voices blanketing Capitol Hill urging Republican lawmakers to oppose the legislation, according to two aides familiar with the conversations who asked to remain anonymous in order to discuss private conversations. (Many of the groups that receive Koch funding also receive money from Facebook, Google or Amazon.)

I dont think Koch is out on their own on this, said Zach Graves, head of policy at the Lincoln Network, a right-of-center tech advocacy group. I think they have a lot of alignment with relatively powerful industry groups not just tech, but also just general Chamber of Commerce types who dont want to see massive expansion of the antitrust regime and giving big new powers to the [Federal Trade Commission] and DOJ.

Each of the bills has at least one Republican co-sponsor, but the legislation will need more GOP support to push through the Senate. Thats left undecided Republicans in the middle of a tense debate.

For instance, the Heritage Foundation, which is building out its tech policy apparatus, has chosen to stay out of the public conversation for now as it weighs how to thread the needle between taking on Big Tech and maintaining a hands-off approach to government regulation.

As with any other meaningful policy debate, Heritage is carefully looking at the issues inherent to the Big Tech debate in order to come up with policy recommendations that address legitimate concerns about censorship and the growing influence of Big Tech platforms, said John Cooper, the Heritage Foundations associate director for institute communications. To argue that these are issues that dont require some sort of action is simply unrealistic at this point, though its important policymakers act in a way that doesnt give the federal government undue authority that Americans will regret giving to bureaucrats down the road.

Another crucial dynamic is the fact that the Koch network and the Chamber of Commerce, once two of the most important forces in the Republican Party, fell increasingly out of favor with GOP backers during the Trump era. The Koch network alienated a huge swath of formerly devoted Republican followers as its political arm expressed new openness last year to backing Democrats, and the Chamber drew fire for backing several Democrats as well.

The Koch network and Chamber crowd have zero influence right now, said one House Republican aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to speak candidly. Most of the House Judiciary members and their staff couldnt pick out their people from a police lineup.

But on the other side of the schism, many traditional conservatives and libertarians feel theyre defending the core of their party against Trumps influence. That includes growing GOP calls for a government crackdown on social media companies that they accuse of censoring conservatives, a theme that Trump pressed repeatedly during his time in the White House.

I reject the premise that this is the right is divided, said Berin Szoka, president of the tech- and Koch-funded think tank TechFreedom. People accusing tech companies of censorship, he added, are seeking to compel social media sites to host the most despicable people and content imaginable.

The Democratic-led bills H.R. 3816 (117), H.R. 3825 (117), H.R. 3826 (117), H.R. 3843 (117) and H.R. 3849 (117) dont include prominent anti-tech proposals that Trump and other Republicans had championed, such as stripping or reducing the online industrys protections against lawsuits over user-posted content. But anti-tech activists on the right have made it clear that they support the House antitrust bills in part to punish the major tech companies alleged censorship.

Conservatives are being canceled by Big Tech, we are being kicked off these platforms, we are being silenced and censored, said Mike Davis, founder and president of the right-wing Internet Accountability Project, which receives some funding from Oracle. Conservatives need to pick a side theyre either with everyday Americans or theyre with these Big Tech monopolists and their D.C. lobbyists.

Both sides agree that theres nowhere near as robust of an apparatus on the right for supporting antitrust changes. Whereas a swath of academics and groups on the left have taken up trust-busting as a priority policy area, only a few groups and figures are devoted to the issue on the right.

I think its going to take a new generation of folks, said the House Republican aide.

So far, most Republicans in Congress have not weighed in publicly on the legislation. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), the pro-Trump ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee with a more libertarian bent, has been actively whipping against the bills, targeting their Democratic roots.

On the other side, lobbyists for News Corp. and fellow Murdoch-owned company Fox have been working Republican lawmakers to vote in favor, according to two people familiar with the dynamics. And the tech giants themselves some of the biggest lobbying spenders in Washington are caught in the middle.

There is going to continue to be a battle on this, and it parallels the realignment, Schweppe said. The Kochs have always been this more libertarian wing. I dont think thats the main thrust of the party anymore.

Go here to see the original:
How the Houses Silicon Valley smackdown is dividing conservatives - POLITICO

SACRAMENTO, Calif., June 17, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- Louis Marinelli, an American political activistand California governor candidate, released a short filmexploring the issue of Vrbetice explosions in the light of the first Biden - Putin meeting.

The film was made in collaboration with Adam Kokesh, a libertarian activist who ran for USA presidency in 2020 and was aimed to present a perspective that is not widespread in the media today and discuss an alternative vision of the explosions in Czech Republic, sanctions against Russia and the current state of international relations prior to Putin - Biden meeting.

In 2014, a series of explosions destroyed an arms depot in the Czech Republic, causing two deaths. At the time, Czech authorities blamed the explosions on human error. But now, in the months leading up to the Biden-Putin meeting set for Geneva, the explosions have resurfaced as a topic of international concern - except now NATO allies and EU members are blaming Russia - and placing sanctions on Russia as a result, even though they lack any direct evidence of Russian involvement.

Louis Marinelli unravels the story and presents an alternative theory - is Europe's renewed interest in the 2014 explosions in Vrbetice really just a pretext to place sanctions on Russia and tarnish Russia's reputation before Putin's meeting with Biden? Or maybe the explosions are simply the result of a rivalry between two arms dealers - Emelian Gebrev, and Boyko Borissov, who, until recently, was also the Prime Minister of Bulgaria?

Additional information:

Louis J. Marinelli(born March 28, 1986) is an Americanpolitical activistof theCalifornia independencemovement organized under theYes CaliforniaIndependence Campaign, an umbrella organization representing the coalition of parties and organizations supporting the proposed California independence referendum. Marinelli is the former president of Yes California and the former interim chairman of theCalifornia National Party, under which he also ran forCalifornia State AssemblyinCalifornia's 80th State Assembly districtrepresenting southSan Diego,National City,Chula Vista,San Ysidro, and the surrounding communities.

Adam Charles Kokesh(born February 1, 1982) is anAmericanlibertarianpoliticalactivist, radio host, and author. Kokesh was a U.S.2020 Libertarian presidential candidaterunning on thesingle-issueplatform of an "orderly dissolution of thefederal government."

Kokesh is a formerU.S. Marine Corpssergeant, serving in theIraq Warin 2004. Upon his return from Iraq, he became ananti-waractivist and an advocate forIraq Veterans Against the War.

Media contact:Louis Marinelli[emailprotected]+79859426240

SOURCE Louis Marinelli

Originally posted here:
Louis Marinelli: Is Europe's interest in the 2014 Vrbetice Explosions driven by the Biden-Putin meeting? - PRNewswire

Keely Sullivan is a freelance journalist.

European conservatives go-to model for ending illegal immigration doesnt look so solid anymore. For the first time in decades, a court in Australia has freed an inmate from the Pacific nations zero-tolerance immigrant detention system, calling into question the legal foundation of how it handles asylum seekers.

European migration hawks have long eyed Australias approach because it worked. Though decried by human rights advocates, the systems supporters note that Australia has had next to no illegal sea arrivals since 2013. Instead, migrants intercepted at sea have often been diverted to processing camps on the Pacific islands of Manus and Nauru, stranding them there with no guarantee of release.

A lawsuit filed by Ahmed Mahmoud, a 29-year-old Syrian national, calls that system into question. A former legal resident of Australia who had lost his visa after an assault conviction in 2011, Mahmoud was freed from the system after nearly six years, after a court ruled that his long-term detention was illegal. He had bounced between 11 different detention centers including Christmas Island, halfway between Australia and Indonesia in the Indian Ocean.

Opponents of Australias system say Mahmouds case AJL20 vs. Commonwealth of Australia sets a precedent with important implications for how long Australia can keep asylum seekers in detention.

Any time that the court expresses limitations on the governments power to detain people is so important, said David Burke, legal director for Human Rights Law Centre. The case, he added, was effectively a clarification of the limits of when the government can do that. The case was decided in September. The Australian government is currently appealing the ruling.

The ruling is restricted to Australia, but critics of the countrys immigration policy say they hope it will cause Europeans looking to the country to reconsider.

The idea of stopping immigration by outsourcing responsibility to other countries has been gathering steam on the Continent. In a December 2016 interview with POLITICO, Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz then foreign minister endorsed the Australian approach and called for the EU to impose a similar system. In the U.K., Home Secretary Priti Patel has also advocated for an Australia-style system that included offshoring illegal refugee arrivals to Britain.

And in 2018, citing the ongoing migrant boat traffic in the Mediterranean, the EUs General Secretariat of the Council urged the European Council and Commission to study the feasibility of an offshore model similar to Australias.

The country that has taken the most practical steps so far to set up such a system is Denmark, where Immigration Minister Mattias Tesfaye signed an agreement with the Rwandan government widely-viewed as the first step toward opening an overseas asylum processing center there, 9,000 kilometers from European shores.

But while the system appeals to politicians hoping to look tough on migration, human rights advocates say it takes an unacceptable toll on those caught in the system.

Amnesty International has called Australias system a deliberate abuse of cruelty and a nightmare for asylum seekers, who have alleged physical abuse, sexual assault and insufficient medical care. Harsh detention policies have some populist appeal, particularly around election time, said Graham Thom, a refugee advocate with Amnesty International Australia.

A 2018 UNHCR finding noted a pervasive sense of helplessness and hopelessness among asylum seekers and refugees on Manus Island, citing declining mental health, insufficient assistance with bureaucracy, rough living conditions and uncertainty.

Copying Australia would be difficult in Europe, said Lina Vosyliute, a research fellow at Brussels-based Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS). Where Australian law is not always adhered to in offshore locations under the Australian system, EU laws and jurisdiction would be under an EU offshore system, including due process and human rights protections.

Wherever EU money is going, EU values and obligations are following, Vosyliute said.

The Australian offshore model currently offers no path to residency for refugees, who are instructed to settle permanently in a third nation, seek asylum elsewhere or return to their home country. If they cant or wont, they are left indefinitely in internment. The average length of detention in Australia has risen from four months to nearly two years since 2013.

I have met people in detention who havent got a lawyer for half a decade, said Alison Battisson, the lawyer representing Mahmoud. Its unlikely such a system would be ruled legal under EU law.

Opponents of the Australian system say they will use the Mahmoud decision to slow momentum for offshoring in Europe. This wonderful system that youre trying to promote does have cracks in it, said Judith Sunderland, associate director for Human Rights Watchs Europe and Central Asia division. We would certainly try to use it to shift the debate.

The decision would set the precedent for maybe Danish officials, who are thinking to do something like Australia did, said Vosyliute. This could be a good indication that its a no go for policymakers.

Here is the original post:
Doubts rise over Australias offshore handling of refugees - POLITICO Europe