Our CRAZY WEATHER , what is REALLY CAUSING it.

Solar activity may be responsible
for our climate weather , rather 
than green house gas emissions.

A planet that has never been hotter. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since 2005—and the 5 warmest years on record have all occurred since 2015. Climate change deniers have argued that there has been a “pause” or a “slowdown” in rising global temperatures, but numerous studies, including a 2018 paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, have disproved this claim.WITH the current heatwave we have been experiencing lately . If we were to compare the weather over a 50 year period up until now , we have had a huge swing in variations of jet streams , wild ridging of high pressure systems. WHO has ever heard of the Polar Vortex . Our weather is crazy let's face it , I spent the last week looking at local news weather reports on YouTube going back to late 80's and 1990's . One of things I found is that on the west coast of North America there has been a sharp decline in Low Pressures systems out in the North Pacific Ocean , but a huge increase in High Pressure ridging . It's if there are pockets of hot air that have no place to go but build up and up .  So what could be the culprit ? Let's look at Carbon Dioxide according the "global warming theory".  Carbon Dioxide has been rising for nearly a century,  we know that  .Global monthly average concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen from around 339 parts per million in 1980 (averaged over the year) to 410 parts per million in 2019, (1)>>an increase of more than 20%. The rise of C02 [ if believable ] has to affect how we breathe . I am going to present a few things here based on geological science , that will have you thinking a little why the current global warming model is wrong But the average degree of temperature According to NOAA's 2020 Annual Climate Report the combined land and ocean temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.13 degrees Fahrenheit ( 0.08 degrees Celsius) per decade since 1880; however, the average rate of increase since 1981 (0.18°C / 0.32°F) has been more than twice that rate A few years ago I didn't believe in Global Warming (GW). Some of my reasoning: Earth cycles through different climates. We're still coming out of an ice age, and warmer temp's are to be expected. Natural phenomena like volcanoes naturally produce millions of tons of CO2, and the environment handles it. - But then I learned that the observed temperatures are increasing a lot more than is expected if we were just coming out of an ice age. And that the volcano argument is kind of weak. (2)>>So I was a believer for a while.But now I'm skeptical again. We can also see this lack of consensus in the popular culture of the day. Soylent Green, released in 1973, was based on the dire environmental predictions of the time, with a world where all of earth's resources had been depleted, the oceans were devoid of life, farmland was ruined, and people lived in overpopulated squalor in cities. If global cooling was a common prediction back then, it would've made its way in, instead, the earth was depicted as being unbearably hot due to the Greenhouse Effect.

Carbon Dioxide Theory .

My reasoning is summarized thus: Scientists are attempting to predict what will happen to the climate in the future. They do so in two ways. 1) To look at past climate data, and extrapolate trends. 2) To understand the mechanisms of climate (ocean currents, ocean temps, CO2 absoprtion, etc, etc), and build a model of how the environment should change.Here is the thing you need to know about scientists...they love to argue with each other. Careers are made by proving someone else wrong. So when you get 95%+ of these disagreeable people to agree on anything, that is pretty significant.That's a good point. Many scientists themselves have a strong incentive to prove climate change wrong, but we still have 95% agreement. Shows there's some strong numbers behind it.While I do not want to diminish how harmful 2 C of warming could be for many ecosystems (especially coral reefs), the Earth has been 2 C warmer many times before in Earth history. The challenge is the rate of change: Ecosystems and societies have adapted over the past thousands of years to something very close to the current climate. If 2 C of warming were to occur over one million years instead of less than a century, it would not be that big a deal.  (3)>>The problem is the rate we are changing to 2C; 2 C of warming if achieved over a very long time period is not that big a deal for the Earth system.Though natural cycles and fluctuations have caused the earth’s climate to change several times over the last 800,000 years, our current era of global warming is directly attributable to human activity—specifically to our burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, gasoline, and natural gas, which results in the greenhouse effect. In the United States, the largest source of greenhouse gases is transportation (29 percent), followed closely by electricity production (28 percent) and industrial activity (22 percent).Climate scientists expect droughts, heat waves and extreme rain events only to get worse out here. It seems that they have . The Southern Plains averages seven days per year above 100 degrees Fahrenheit – but that number is expected to quadruple by 2050, according to the latest U.S. National Climate Assessment.  WE have to remember too that any increase of any type of gas in the atmosphere will have consequences to living , breathing life [ see my note to "an increase of more than 20% 👇] if co2 levels did rise by 20 % we would be having breathing problems right now . The Science can't explain that part , remember .

Using The Planet Venus as climate model .

 The pseudo science modelling hard at work again (4)>>*Venus  had oceans, rain, oceans, and perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics".   (5)>>Dr. Carl Sagan back in the 1960's introduced the models for Climate Change . He used the planet Venus to demonstrate a runaway green house as the cause of the Planet Venus having surface temp 900 F , the crushing pressure of 92 atmospheres .While the  Venusian C02 concentration is 95 % comparing Earth's 0.04%. Remember that Mars the next planet with c02 with the same percentage the temp on Mars surface is much lower. Carbon Dioxide on Mars is more like antifreeze, it keeps Mars cold with a thin atmosphere.   So Carbon Dioxide can't be the sole factor driving the high temperatures on Venus . The cloud tops on Venus are much colder than the surface which can't explain why heat from the sun is being trapped on Venus by the thick clouds . Venus own thick clouds  deflects a lot of the sun light. So where is the Venusian heat coming from ? Dr. Sagan missed a point about  Venus , now the science on Venus is current that the Venusian green house may not be caused by the sun trapped heat .  The hellish conditions on Venus are all in part due to out of control volcanism . Venus C02 is volcanic , again . Venus is a highly volcanic planet that has constant resurfacing , the crust is elastic that it flows like glaciers under a ocean . On Venus the ocean is molten rock . The thin crust , the volcanism , the large amounts of Co2 that out gassed from a volcanic origin . These findings about Venus create problems for the climate change models for Earth . Earth has volcanoes the amount of Co2 on Earth is too low to explain the weather we have that has been linked to global warming so something else is going on .

AL GORE'S Gory Climate model .

 AL GORE's chart is hard to read. My link has an easier to read version. The point of his graph is that CO2 and temperature move together. However, the data he shows does not adequately demonstrate the theory that CO2 drives temperature increase. The climate deniers have gotten a lot of mileage from that graph since they have a strawman that's easy to refute. Remember that chart from  (6)>>An Inconvenient Truth about the projected temperature increase? (http://web.ncf.ca/jim/ref/inconvenientTruth/full/00_23_53.jpg) Is that turning out to be correct? Does anybody know where to find a chart of this prediction vs current temperature . Gore's climate model has pretty much taken in by society . The good news for all of us is that Mr. Gore appears to have overstated the threat of eco-apocalypse, which he seems to implicitly acknowledge on his latest media tour. In the interim, conservatives like talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh haven’t let Mr. Gore forget his most dire and least accurate weather predictions. But the Gore analysis on another issue is being rejected by even some of his committed climate allies.I have only a few words to say to Al Glore  about his gloom and doom scenario regarding the imminent dangers of global warming as he climbs into a chauffeur driven gas guzzling SUV when he could have been driven in a hybrid. Just BLOW a puff of air on ME.Gore is not a natural honest edifice of truth.He is a condescending pusher of lies, to promote his stock in alternative fuels and energy.It's all about profit for him, by twisting the narrative through self promotion, and glorifying the environmental left...Take the profit from him, then lets see how long he would stay on this path.

The Midnight SUN .

 Perhaps if we just skip the Co2 as the leading cause of the wild weather , the hot flashes we get every summer . We have look at our Sun .  (7)>>The Sun is what drives weather on every planet in our solar system. Earth is no exception .But sometimes the Sun gets extra restless. It has “solar indigestion!” These sudden and intense hiccups and burps are called solar flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs). The effects of these types of space weather are not so pretty! As a matter of fact, they can be very bad for humans and their equipment.A solar flare happens when the Sun suddenly burps out a blast of extra energy. Some of this energy is very “high-energy” energy called X-rays. CMEs are even bigger burps. CMEs are the biggest explosions in the solar system.About half the sunlight reaching the surface of the planet is radiated upward in the form of infrared heat, absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, warming the surface of the Earth. The rate of energy coming from the Sun changes slightly day to day. Over many millennia the Earth-Sun orbital relationship can change the geographical distribution of the sun’s energy over the Earth’s surface. It has been suggested that changes in solar output might affect our climate—both directly, by changing the rate of solar heating of the Earth and atmosphere, and indirectly, by changing cloud forming processes.Over the time-scale of millions of years, the change in solar intensity is a critical factor influencing climate (e.g., ice ages). In the last Million years the Sun has gotten brighter , more intense , so we had fewer , fewer Ice Ages . Best wisdom on how sun-sized stars evolve suggest that, at its current age the  (8)>>Sun is brightening by about 1% every 100 million years. If that rate of brightening were constant, 100 years would see a brightening equal to the one millionth root of 1.01, or about 0.000001%. However, we know that the Sun’s brightness can fluctuate by a far larger amount year-to-year, and certainly century-to-century. Measurements of Solar brightness from 100 years ago and our current understanding of how the sun works both lack precision that would let us conclude that the sun has brightened over that period.There is a slow (very slow) trend of an increasing luminosity of the sun (+6% every 1000 million years). On top of that the sun shows little variations and fluctuations. A time scale of 100 years is very short. The last three decades satellites have measured the total solar irradiance (TSI) and before that we have proxy measurements from which we can deduce the TSI.

IN Crease of Solar Brightness and Earth .

When I was a kid, I have very specific memories and instances of the sun being(9)>>YELLOW/ORANGE in color. That's why we drew the damn thing that color in pictures. But beyond that, I remember being able to look up at the sun and not have to immediately turn my eyes away. You could look at the sun kind of unfocused like, and it would almost darken in shade, and the rest of the sky would turn a purple/reddish hue, like you were wearing shades. Obviously you couldn't do this for like, ever... But I definitely remember being able to look at the sun for about 30-40 seconds. That's literally why the whole concept / phrase don't stare at the sun, it will mess your eyes up came about! I mean, if looking at it instantly blazed your eyes like it did now, making you immediately turn away, why would there even need to be a warning....? As the sun is now.... It is WHITE. Very clearly WHITE and not a hint of yellow or orange. If you look at that thing, it's like shining a match lighting laser pointer at your retina. I'm sorry but the sun was never this damn bright! W. T. F.??? Like it literally makes me crack up because of how God damn ridiculous it is!!! I mean come on guys, they changed the SUN?!?!??!!!??? This is a really interesting speculation! I hope it’s accurate, we could use some uplifting progress in the condition of the world that is actually visible. While we all can point the finger the C02 concentration as a culprit , over the next Century the Sun will dominate headlines as a star undergoing evolutionary changes begins to brighten .

My Last word AS I escape the Midnight Sun.

I read Poul Anderson's "Winter of the World" which took place in a very distant future at the ending of "an Ice Age". Our time is so far in the tale's past that the names of places and our various polities are all lost completely. Some sort of nuclear exchange had apparently also happened so long before that the craters were believed to be natural features. It was a good story which explored Anderson's usual tropes but it was hardly a warning of the shape of things to come. SilverBob's novel "Time of the Great Freeze" was published in 1964.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>an increase of more than 20%. A Sudden increase in Co2 , 339 parts per million in 1980 (averaged over the year) to 410 parts per million if the measure is correct , would we have  a few things here to note  . How much of it is is changing the way we breathe , the animals breathe , the insects & so on .  Even a slight increase in Co2 is dangerous to humans . Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and convulsions. In 1958, Charles Keeling started taking daily measurements of the amount of carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping greenhouse gas He wanted to study the seasonal cycle that drives carbon dioxide higher when plants are dormant during Northern Hemisphere winter and lower in the summer when plants are taking carbon dioxide out of the air through photosynthesis. But Keeling found an unexpected change over time – that the total amount of carbon dioxide was increasing year after year. (2)>>So I was a believer for a while.But now I'm skeptical again. Why l asked for your definition of climate change, and l often ask others is that the term is so broad it is essentially meaningless ie the term climate change, not your definition.This is an oxymoron. In science, there is evidence to support a theory or there isn't, but there is no "belief." In the case of climate change, there is evidence that the climate is changing and there is evidence that a large portion of the change is the result of human activity.I think in the future, the foreseeable future that is, younger scientists and journalists will not conform to the current narrative. I think they will say "our older generation had it wrong, lucky we are now here to correct their misconceptions"(3)>>The problem is the rate we are changing to 2C; 2 C of warming if achieved over a very long time period is not that big a deal for the Earth system. There were a few predictions of global cooling at the time, but part of that was due to the huge rise of sulfur emissions from the burning of coal. As environmental regulations were tightened in the 70s, sulfur, which has the effect of blocking out the sun, cooling the earth, disappeared and by the 80s it was clear that the earth would get hotter, not colder.The "global cooling consensus" is one of those myths that climate deniers spread to sow doubt and is just as fundamentally dishonest as all the others.t's simplistic, but nevertheless true to say that in the 1970's scientists underestimated the role that anthropogenic emissions would play in the climate balance. If you underestimate the role that CO2 and other greenhouse gases play in the climate, your predictions are going to be incorrect. We've seen this mistake repeatedly. Contrarian and denialist spokespeople have frequently predicted that climate change will reverse and we will enter a cooling period, or that the current warming trend has ended (this latter assertion was particularly popular between 2003 and 2012). These predictions have repeatedly and universally been wrong. So the lesson here is: don't underestimate the role of greenhouse gases in climate.What kinda blows my mind is the notion that because people in past underestimated the sensitivity of climate to CO2, CO2 must play not role at all. That doesn't make a lot of sense.(4)>>*Venus  had oceans, rain, oceans, and perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics".Venus is a very strange place, totally uninhabitable, except perhaps in the clouds some 60 kilometres up where the recent discovery of phosphine may suggest floating microbial life. But the surface is totally inhospitable.Less than one billion years ago, the climate dramatically changed due to a runaway greenhouse effect. It can be speculated that an intensive period of volcanism pumped enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to cause this great climate change event that evaporated the oceans and caused the end of the water cycle.However, Venus once likely had an Earth-like climate. According to recent climate modeling, for much of its history Venus had surface temperatures similar to present day Earth. It likely also had oceans, rain, perhaps snow, maybe continents and plate tectonics, and even more speculatively, perhaps even surface life.(5)>>Dr. Carl Sagan back in the 1960's. Sagan reflected scientific conclusions of 1990 – the laws of science have not changed in the last 20 years. The same conclusions are being constantly rediscovered – The laws of CO2 heating the atmosphere remains.Sagan also made statements about global cooing.” . . . But we have also been perturbing the climate in the opposite sense. For hundreds of thousands of years human beings have been burning and cutting down forests and encouraging domestic animals to graze on and destroy grasslands. Slash-and-burn agriculture, industrial tropical deforestation and overgrazing are rampant today. But forests are darker than grasslands, and grasslands are darker than deserts. As a consequence, the amount of sunlight that is absorbed by the ground has been declining, and by changes in the land use we are lowering the surface temperature of our planet. Might this cooling increase the size of the polar ice cap, which, because it is bright, will reflect still more sunlight from the Earth, further cooling the planet, driving a runaway albedo2 effect?” For some reason, we don’t ever read about that. Can you say “cherry picking?”(6)>>An Inconvenient Truth about the projected temperature increase? Al Gore’s overblown rhetoric makes no sense, of course. Yet his hyperbolic claims beg the question: How did this all start?Back in the 1970s, media articles warning of imminent climate change problems began to appear regularly. TIME and Newsweek ran multiple cover stories asserting that oil companies and America’s capitalist life style were causing catastrophic damage to Earth’s climate. They claimed scientists were almost unanimous in their opinion that manmade climate change would reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century.The April 28, 1975 Newsweek proposed solutions that even included outlawing internal combustion engines.This sounds very similar to today's climate change debate – except, in the 70s, the fear was manmade global cooling, not warming.TIME magazine’s January 31, 1977 cover featured a story, “How to Survive The Coming Ice Age.” It included “facts” such as scientists predicting that Earth’s so-called average temperature could drop by 20 degrees Fahrenheit due to manmade global cooling. Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration warned readers that “the drop in temperature between 1945 and 1968 had taken us one sixth of the way to the next Ice Age temperature.” (7)>>The Sun is what drives weather on every planet in our solar system. Some scientists tried to find a link between changes in Earth’s weather and solar variability.  Some scientists have wondered if changes in our weather and climate might be linked with short or long term solar cycles. Weather is the current atmospheric conditions, including temperature, rainfall, wind, and humidity for a given area, while climate is the general weather conditions over a longer amount of time. This has been an active area of research for decades.The first hypothesis relies on the fact that in both the 11 year cycle and, in the longer term, the changes in solar energy are highest at ultraviolet (short) wavelengths.The short wavelength radiation is particularly effective in modifying ozone concentrations in the level of the atmosphere above where typical weather occurs. According to this hypothesis, modifications in the ozone layer could in turn filter down to that level of the atmosphere where our weather is formed, potentially modifying clouds and temperatures there. Solar radiation is the climate’s fundamental energy source. In this chapter we consider the solar irradiance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, its variation with location and season, and its energy distribution within the climate system. We discuss how changes in the radiation balance may influence global surface temperature and may thus be involved in climate change.(8)>>Sun is brightening by about 1% every 100 million years.  LETS HOPE that modern science is correct that we will see the Sun getting brighter in it's evolution only  in a billion years from now .The sun definitely changed, but it’s not an M.E. It’s a natural cycle of our star that we’re not taught about.The sun is moving into its next phase of existence. Its getting hotter, and will eventually turn blue (not red like we’re told in school). The changing of the sun comes with a whole host of impacts.This is a different star in our sky. We are in the Orion Spur of the Milky Way. We were in outer Sagittarius arm before. Our star, EARTHS YELLOW SUN (Superman's power source...?) is back there.The sun probably is changing. I read somewhere that it started burning helium instead of hydrogen, but someone told me that’s not yet true. It’s definitely more intense though, no question. When I’m out in the sun I feel like I’m being radiated! Maybe it’s because we have less ozone? (9)>>YELLOW/ORANGE in color. This is something that has been a hot (No pun intended) topic among my family and friends since at least 2005 when we started calling the Sun “the blinding orb in the sky”.Yes, we used yellow crayons as kids and the sun goes more to the red end of the visible light spectrum as it gets lower on the horizon or is filtered through dust/pollution - but it never was instantly blinding like it is now.Picasso famously used to stare at the sun for long lengths of time *and didn’t go blind (though one can perhaps say it influenced his vision. And his art).There were jokes about the sun burning us more back in the 90s in movies like Robocop but this bright white light appears to really be different.Maybe it took 30 years to get to where it is now and kind of snuck up on us but people have been talking about this since long before they started talking about the Effect.

U.S. Involvement in Haiti Assassination ? & Cuba ?

Haitian President Moise was starting to consolidate 
power for himself as a Dictator , he challenged 
the Covid vaccine . Now the question lingers
was the U.S. Involved in his demise ? 

Well let's look at it this way it's going to be very difficult for us in the  (1)>>United States to be able to understand this assassination and i'll tell you why we've never had in my lifetime right off the top of my head an assassination that involved a conspiracy we always have low nuts now down in Haiti obviously they didn't fall for the old lone nut thing they couldn't pull it off with a lone nut or they didn't try to so let's look at the united states in my life time the murder of john f Kennedy they tell us it's a lone nut the the murder of Robert f Kennedy another lone nut the murder of Dr martin Luther king another lone nut john Lennon's murder another lone nut so we here in the united states have never truly had a political assassination that involved more than one person now i say that tongue-in-cheek do we really believe that all four of our assassinations that occurred here in america were all the results of a lone nut and that there was no conspiracy involved at all . (2)>>This assassination is going to destabilize the country for years and the country is already pretty unstable already, there’s a essentially a power vacuum and no legitimate individual to fill it. It’s probably also going to strain relations between Dominicans and Haitians even further. Dominicans and Haitians don’t like each other very much, and it’s said that some of the assassins were speaking Spanish, which some might use to pin the blame on the Dominican Republic.Seems like saying the US was involved in the assassination is a bit early based on the info in that, many believe it I'am not sure how widespread it is. Regardless, Haiti is gonna be in a bad place for a long while.Why would US government agents announce themselves if they did this? This isn’t like the US trumpeted up a flimsy allegation first and then arrested him, it’s straight up murder. If the US wanted Moise dead, wouldn’t it be much easier to straight up not do that and say it was of one the many other parties that wanted him dead or even just pay one of those other parties to do it?Also, why would the US government want Moise dead?While I won't discount the possibility, this makes it sound like what we know is the US trained some of the people as part of a program to do do with the Colombian government. They later went on to do this assassination.There's nothing here that currently implies the US actually told these people to do it, or trained them specifically for that purpose.If the US was involved, which is still plausible, this sounds like it isn't the evidence of said involvement though  (3)>>it could lead to such evidence if it exists. The Washington Post editorial board raced out a statement calling for a “swift and muscular international intervention.” Political commentator David Frum, who helped sell the Iraq War as a speechwriter for then-U.S. President George W. Bush, quickly added his voice to the chorus, warning “what happens in Haiti does not stay in Haiti.” Within hours of the president’s assassination, the idea had solidified into a formal request by one of the battling factions of the eviscerated  (4)>>Haitian government for U.S. forces to be deployed. I would wonder as well of this assassination was staged as "excuse" for U.S. occupation. I would have to predict that in a matter of weeks U.S. Troops could be going to Haiti .Haiti’s government is barely functioning (I’m going to assume it doesn’t reach far beyond the capital) and Cuba is obvious.

 Cuba Next ? 

 

Anti- Government protests in Cuba ' are they
setting a stage for a U.S. Led invasion ?

(5)>>America’s policy on Cuba is one of its stupidest. We are now 30 years out of the Cold War. Yet here we are, still treating Cuba like an enemy of the state. They are a passive, decent people with different government we don’t approve of. I don’t like communism, but why should we embargo a decent nation that has zero interest in getting in our way?How many other awful, disgusting governments do we do business with much less don’t embargo than Cuba? It’s even more screwed  up the US will keep its restrictions on Cuba while simultaneously not allowing their people asylum. The United States is expected to soon announce initial steps as part of the Biden administration’s review of Cuba policy and in response to Havana's crackdown on the biggest street protests in decades, State Department officials said on Monday. The senior officials’ comments further signaled that President Joe Biden was not ready to soften the U.S. approach after his predecessor, Donald Trump, rolled back a historic Obama-era détente with Havana, and that the latest Cuban unrest would have a significant impact on any policy moves. Thousands of Cubans staged spontaneous anti-government protests a week ago to demonstrate against an economic crisis that has seen shortages of basic goods and power outages. They were also protesting the government's handling of the corona-virus pandemic and curbs on civil liberties. Scores of activists were detained. Fortunately for those who regard a potential US invasion of Cuba as insane. WITH COVID spreading on the island of Cuba , the island is going to explode with unrest in the next few months . The humanitarian aide between Haiti and Cuba is going to be a tremendous burden on American might . It should not be under-stated how fervently these Cuban-American populations want concrete US military action. It might not be a good thing if you look at Russia , China flexing their ambitions against the American interventionist policies . It’s extremely easy to posture as an “anti-interventionist” in the abstract — few would overtly brand as a committed “interventionist” these days — and then throw your skepticism out the window when it comes to specific circumstances in which you think it’d be a great idea to deploy US power to topple a foreign government right amid a growing pandemic .Joe Biden, the US president, said in a statement: “We stand with the Cuban people and their clarion call for freedom and relief from the tragic grip of the pandemic and from decades of repression and economic suffering to which they have been subjected to by Cuba’s authoritarian regime.” BIG Question now which authoritarian regime is responsible for Haiti and Cuba looking , just looking for a excuse to invade , and occupy .

NOTES AND COMMENTS:  

 

 (1)>>United States to be able to understand this  assassination. It sounds like a Miami based security company - CTU hired the Colombian Mercs that were involved. It also sounds like CTU and the Colombian Mercs, weren’t entirely aware of what they had got into. Most of them are saying they thought they were providing anti-terror security. The fact that most of the Colombian Mercs were ex-military and some were previously trained in the US, is purely incidental.The question really is - who hired CTU?Some of the former Colombian servicemen arrested after last week’s assassination of Haiti’s president previously received U.S. military training, according to the Pentagon, raising fresh questions about the United States’ ties to Jovenel Moïse’s death.“A review of our training databases indicates that a small number of the Colombian individuals detained as part of this investigation had participated in past U.S. military training and education programs, while serving as active members of the Colombian Military Forces,” Lt. Col. Ken Hoffman, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement to The Washington Post.The Pentagon’s review is ongoing, Hoffman said. He did not say how many of the men received training or precisely what it entailed.Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), whose legislation provides oversight to foreign defense aid used in human rights abuses, said the episode was a grim reminder that U.S. assistance to other countries can take unexpected turns. (2)>>This assassination is going to destabilize the country for years. Moise’s assassination leaves Haiti with an unstable government and an increasingly frustrated population. In addition to the current state of siege implemented by Joseph, Haiti’s interim government has formally asked the US to send security assistance to protect infrastructure including Haiti’s seaport, airport, and gasoline reserves as a precautionary measure. During a briefing Friday, White House press secretary Jen Psaki offered measured support, saying, “we will be sending senior FBI and DHS officials to Port-au-Prince as soon as possible to assess the situation and how we may be able to assist.” Moise himself had a tumultuous presidency beginning in 2017, marked by authoritarian tactics and inability to gain the Haitian people’s trust. Soon after he was elected, Moise revived the nation’s army, disbanded two decades before. This was a controversial decision in a country still dealing with the aftermath of its catastrophic 2010 earthquake, stoking fears that the army would drain already limited resources. Further skepticism came from the army’s history of human rights abuses and the multiple coups it had carried out. The decision to bring the army back set the tone for Moise’s presidency, as he continuously prioritized his interests and power over those of the people. In the absence of a functioning legislature, Haitian law allows the president to rule by decree, and in January 2020, Moise refused to hold parliamentary elections and dismissed all of the country’s elected mayors, consolidating his power. (3)>>it could lead to such evidence if it exists.   Venezuela presented evidence linking the Colombian mercenaries behind the murder of Haiti's President Jovenel Moïse to a 2018 assassination attempt on President Maduro. Both involved Florida-based firm CTU Security, run by a right-wing Venezuelan-American. Several of the men involved in the assassination of Haiti's President previously worked as US law enforcement informants, according to people briefed on the matter, as US investigators grapple with an increasing number of Florida links to the alleged hit squad.(4)>>Haitian government for U.S. forces to be deployed. While anything could happen, it’s doubtful that Joe Biden will accede to these demands for military intervention. But in some ways, the pro-intervention advocacy on display in New Jersey could be even more influential on a Democratic administration than the pro-intervention advocacy also rabidly underway in South Florida, where Cubans are more reliably Republican. (GOP mayor of Miami Francis Suarez just called for US airstrikes.) Hudson County, NJ on the other hand is a major Democratic stronghold, and so calls for military action emanating out of it could scramble some of the expected partisan configurations surrounding the issue. (5)>>America’s policy on Cuba is one of its stupidest. If the US never put a boycott on Cuba, it would probably one of the American countries with the best living conditions right now. Imagine having a small country with not too much resources and the biggest  predator of the earth tells you for basically existing outside of its control. They killed the Cuban economy simply to prove a point. Dying and starving people in  pandemic situation has destroyed Cuba .

Trump's Media Lawsuit

 

Former President Donald Trump said Wednesday that he is filing class action lawsuits against three of the country's largest tech companies -- Facebook, Twitter, and Google -- all of which have banned the former president from their social media platforms.

Trump’s had been deleted from internet, and any one of us could be next – Snapchat. Twitter. Facebook. YouTube. Google. Amazon. Instagram. Shopify. Twitch. Tiktok... Gone... And he’s the President of the United States. If they can do it to him, they can do it to anyone. For any reason.(1)>>Trump's lawsuit against the Social Media giants is a good thing for anyone who believes in the First Amendment , the right of Free Speech . What made me support Trump is that social media censoring a U.S. President regardless of his views, this  is extremely un- American , contrary to the Constitution of the country . Not ONLY is banning Trump is discriminatory is concerning . (2)>> In January, many online platforms decided they no longer wanted to host President Trump’s speech. Google, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, and other social media services announced they would no longer distribute Trump’s calling out election fraud but accusing him  of hateful, demeaning, outrageous speech or anything else he might have to say.  Trump was not that bad  if you compare others  .Social media platforms have long been governed by ‘community guidelines’ which dictate behavior on the platform. Trump’s Twitter ban and the removal of the microblogging and networking platform Parler from application stores were due to the content ‘inciting violence’ as laid out in the community guidelines of Twitter, and Amazon.Trump isn’t the only political figure who has been allowed to use social media platforms to incite violence – others include Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro and Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte. I have seen many examples of "tweets" from many world leaders, peoples  from countries like Iran that for the example where the Iranian Supreme leader was calling for the Palestinians for Jihad , for the extermination of the Zionist enemy . Back in  (3)>>2017, a Twitter employee went so far as to deactivate President Trump’s account. Though the account was later reinstated, it began a long-brewing feud between Conservatives and the Silicon Valley based company. President Trump was quick to respond to this latest offense. He left the social media outlet with a clear warning, “Republicans feel that  (4)>>Social Media Platforms totally silence Conservatives voices. We will strongly regulate, or close them down, before we can ever allow this to happen. We saw what they attempted to do, and failed, in 2016. We can’t let a more sophisticated version of that happen again. Just like we can’t let large scale Mail-In Ballots take root in our Country. It would be a free for all on cheating, forgery and the theft of Ballots. Whoever cheated the most would win. Likewise, Social Media. Clean up your act, NOW!!!!”The permanent suspension of Trump's account has triggered controversy over freedom of speech in US society. Trump and his supporters accused Twitter of stifling "free speech," while US mainstream media outlets and  (5)>>Trump's opponents support the ban, arguing it's not an infringement upon freedom of speech. It's reported that First Amendment lawyers said the action didn't violate Trump's rights. They argued that the Constitution protects against government action censoring a citizen's speech, but Twitter is a private company. (6)>>The hypocrisy and double standards of US democracy have increasingly been laid bare in recent years. Take freedom of speech. For American media outlets and many Americans, those who can speak and whose "freedom of speech" is protected are those who hold similar political viewpoints with them.

 SOCIAL MEDIA DOUBLE STANDARDS 

 For Trump's allies and supporters, banning Trump on Twitter and other social media platform is an attempt to wreck freedom of speech. It's unacceptable to them. But for Trump's opponents, it's a necessary measure to denounce violence, smash efforts to glorify violence, and protect social order and stability. The so-called freedom of speech is just a tool for Americans to attack each other, or insult other countries.Donald Trump hasn’t been the only Conservative voice silenced by social media tyrants in recent years. PragerU, a non-profit that creates videos and other Conservative content, had two videos removed because they contained “hate speech,” although Facebook never explained what portion of the video they were referring to. In addition, (7)>>PragerU personality Will Witt shared that nine of the organization’s posts were completely censored, reaching zero of their three million followers. Twitter has been known to hold Liberal celebrities to a much different standard, allowing them to break community guidelines. (8)>>Kathy Griffin posted a graphic image of Trump’s severed head shortly after he was elected. While she face massive outrage from Liberals and Conservatives alike, Twitter still has allowed her to put out threatening Tweets over the past two years. This serves as the perfect example of the double standard Twitter holds in favor of those who politically align with their agenda. 

THE FUTURE of TRUMP's LAWSUIT against Social Media Giants .

Trump accused the companies of violating First Amendment free speech rights through "censorship" against him and others, "blacklisting" and "canceling" people for political reasons. "If they can do it to me, they can do it to anyone," he said.  (9)>>It’s true that the First Amendment ordinarily applies to the government rather than private companies. But the central claim in Mr. Trump’s class-action lawsuit—that the defendants should be treated as state actors and are bound by the First Amendment when they engage in selective political censorship—has precedent to back it up. Their censorship constitutes state action because the government granted them immunity from legal liability, threatened to punish them if they allow disfavored speech, and colluded with them in choosing targets for censorship. The companies are private and therefore not subject to First Amendment claims from users and have liability protections under Section 230. But in his lawsuits, Trump is arguing that the tech giants worked with the government to censor Americans and thus are “state actors” who can be sued.The banishment of Trump by major tech platforms reignited Republican calls to revoke the legal shield, arguing that it has enabled social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter to censor conservative viewpoints.Trump recently stepped up his public activity by restarting rallies and making a trip to the southern U.S. border last week to criticize Biden’s immigration policies. He’s backing candidates in the 2022 midterm elections and actively opposing others. He has also held out the prospect of running again for president in 2024.Trump and the MAGAs can create their own websites and host their own platforms. They violated FB and Twitters terms. Just because they violated the rules of one playground doesn't mean they're unable to build their own sandbox. The rest of the internet is out there and they're free to take their nonsense to the far corners of it.  Three words - Lab Leak Theory. Despite being a perfectly reasonable theory of possible COVID origin point, the idea was denounced as a conspiracy, with backing by government figures, and then used to censor "misinformation" on sites like Facebook. If this isn't censoring with government sanction, then I don't know what is. I'll have to do research on the legal precedents mentioned here, but if they hold up in court, then Mr. Trump might have this in the bag.

NOTES AND COMMENTS:

(1)>>Trump's lawsuit against the Social Media giants is a good thing for anyone . Donald Trump told Bill O’Reilly  that he is eager to sit for a deposition in the lawsuit he filed against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube . The class-action lawsuit filed in the South Florida U.S. District Court claims that Facebook, Alphabet’s YouTube, and Twitter are censoring Trump and other Americans. The litigation seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, and wants the court to strike down a portion of the law, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.Because Trump had nearly 90 million followers on Twitter and used his account primarily to broadcast ideas, Rosenblatt Securities analyst Mark Zgutowicz predicted the stock could benefit if the former president succeeded in convincing a federal judge to lift the ban.  " How can social media claim to be fostering democratic debate when they are suppressing the voice of the leading figure of one of the two major political parties? How is this different from digital suppression in one-party states like North Korea and China?" Dinesh D'Souza.(2)>> In January, many online platforms decided they no longer wanted to host President Trump’s speech. SEE THE ACLU argument here ⇛⇛https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/the-problem-with-censoring-political-speech-online-including-trumps/ ACLU, expressed concern that a few of these companies — namely Facebook, Google, and Twitter — wield such enormous power over online speech that, if they used it against people with fewer outlets than the president of the United States, the companies could effectively silence them. It seems that the "experts" are trying to characterize this suit as Trump wanting to restrict the "free speech" of social media companies. Actually, the question is should these companies be immune from lawsuits due to the protection they get from section 230? Publishers enjoy freedom of speech, but if they commit slander, libel or spread misinformation they can be sued. Section 230 protects the social media companies from such suits. The companies justify this by saying they have an open board--i.e. people are free to post anything--the companies do not control the content. However, the media companies are not allowing some people to post anything and other people and topics are also restricted. When a company edits its content then they no longer have an open board. They are effectively making statements. If these statement are slanderous, libelous or untrue then the victims of the statements should be able to sue them. That is the question being addressed--should the social media companies be immune from such suits given their "editing" of the content on their boards.(3)>>2017, a Twitter employee went so far as to deactivate President Trump’s account. A customer service employee deactivated the @realdonaldtrump account, it said, clarifying that it had been their last day in the job.The account was down for 11 minutes. The latest incident has sparked debate about the security of the president's account, given the potential consequences of posts falsely attributed to Mr Trump being published.After the account was restored, Mr Trump's first tweet was about the Republican Party's tax cuts plan.Twitter said it was investigating the problem and taking steps to avoid it happening again.On Thursday evening, the @TwitterGov account wrote: "Through our investigation we have learned that this was done by a Twitter customer support employee who did this on the employee's last day. We are conducting a full internal review."  (4)>>Social Media Platforms totally silence.    Free speech is universal. If this class action lawsuit goes nowhere, then it is time to elect officials that will make laws to keep corporate America from censoring, from keeping news offline (Hunters laptop), from shutting down any debate that has political ramifications, and preventing anything that copies China’s CCP party of preventing dissenting opinions. Times have changed. All information flows thru the internet, and most of it flows thru social media platforms. It is about time these platforms are forced to uphold freedom of speech that is guaranteed in our constitution.(5)>>Trump's opponents support the ban, arguing it's not an infringement upon freedom of speech. Many people are complaining about being kicked off social media platforms, either because of particular posts or because of a series of posts. And the question arises, do you have a right not to be kicked off Facebook, Twitter, etc.? The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Trump encouraged and amplified these arguments when he issued a (largely symbolic) executive order in May 2020 declaring that “free speech is the bedrock of American democracy,” and insisted that “in a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow a limited number of online platforms to hand pick the speech that Americans may access and convey.” The deplatforming of the president appeared to many conservatives to offer vivid proof that these companies are just as dangerous to freedom of speech as Trump had claimed.(6)>>The hypocrisy and double standards of US democracy have increasingly been laid bare in recent years. Regardless of US hypocrisy when it comes to freedom of speech, banning Trump on social media platforms offers us a chance to redefine and understand freedom of speech. "Even in the US, a country which claims itself to be the beacon of democracy, freedom of speech has boundaries and bottom lines," said Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for American Studies at Fudan University. Throughout US history, fearing the implications of real democracy, political elites and powerful stakeholders have often manipulated laws and policies to advance their own motives and to maintain power.(7)>>PragerU personality. A federal court in California has ruled that tech platforms like YouTube aren't bound by the First Amendment when they're deciding whether to remove offensive content.The ruling was made during a case brought by the right-wing group Prager University, which sued YouTube and its parent company Google in 2017 for flagging some of its videos as "inappropriate." PragerU posts videos on everything from economics to philosophy from a conservative perspective.It argued that YouTube marking its videos as inappropriate constituted illegal censorship under the First Amendment. According to The Wall Street Journal, the flagged videos included titles like "Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?" and "Why Isn't Communism as Hated as Nazism?"   (8)>>Kathy Griffin posted a graphic image of Trump’s severed head shortly after he was elected.  Griffin shared the infamous, bloody photo, 2017 photo of her holding a prop meant to look like President Trump's severed head after he won the election against Hillary.I don't have a high degree of confidence in this view, but I don't see why Kathy Griffin lost jobs/sponsors and received so much criticism. Part of being a comedian is making jokes about current events, and currently a large percentage of humanity figuratively wants Trump's head on a stick. The only time I disapprove of a joke/gag is when it spreads misinformation or hatred. I don't believe anyone who saw this image took it as a rallying call to decapitate Trump. The comedian took back her apology for the stunt in which she held up a fake severed head of President Trump while being interviewed in Australia."I'm no longer sorry. The whole outrage was BS. The whole thing got so blown out of proportion," said Griffin on Australia's Sunrise show.  (9)>>It’s true that the First Amendment ordinarily applies to the government rather than private companies. Zuckerberg ran a shadow government and paid for election sites and boxes that contributed to the massive fraud (but of course even that wasn't enough to fix election - China/Iran/and others had to shut it down in 6 states and run their magic algorithm) - but the point is FB and Twitter seem to be more like the CCP (and CIA) than an American company with American principles.  Of course, papers like WSJ aren't that much better ...Of course, Trump's and tens of thousands of others were denied their First Amendment Rights, and the fact that it has gone on so long just shows you the depth of the corruption in the courts, and up and down the system.  A brave judge couldn't deny it ... but bravery is rare these days.The Gaslighting and Censorship has fooled those in a Propaganda/Trump Derangement Syndrome stupor, but it has only awaken those who love this country and are ready to defend it.The idea that a private company can apply censorship is appalling. Only a judge should be entitled to do that. At least in a democracy. It is fundamental that this issue is addressed and Social Media be considered for what they are: utilities, that must abide by the First: freedom of speech, and freedom to "petition the government for a redress of grievances".