Yeah, Russia must've stolen 2010 and 2014 'shockers' too: Front pages, 2010: 'GOP Claims House in Huge Swing'; 2014: 'GOP Takes Senate-Riding Voter Anger to Take Control of Congress'; 2016: 'Trump Triumphs'...

Above via Free Republic commenter to article, "Mueller should resign," by Michael Goodwin, NY Post

10/29/17, "It's hilarious that they honestly believe that Trump won because of Russian influence and not because of how awful they are....Observing the liberal reaction to Friday's news reminds me of why they must never be allowed back into power. they're a bunch of spiteful children motivated by hatred and a desire for vengeance. posted on 10/29/2017, 2:38:18 AM by RC one"

............

Obama admin. refused 5 GAO recommendations to moderate its disposal of US uranium per May 2014 GAO report. GAO questioned legality of manner in which Obama continued to dispose of US uranium and whether proper value was being received in return-May 2014, GAO report

GAO May 9, 2014 report: "Open Recommendations: Uranium:" Obama Dept. of Energy disagreed with 5 GAO recommendations putting limits on pattern of US government sale of US uranium. 

May 9, 2014, "Department of Energy: Enhanced Transparency Could Clarify Costs, Market Impact, Risk, and Legal Authority to Conduct Future Uranium Transactions," GAO, GAO-14-291, May 9, 2014
 
Director: David C. Trimble...

"5 open recommendations

including 1 priority recommendation"
.................   

#1

"Recommendation: To ensure that DOE's cooperative agreement and internal documentation supporting its June 2012 acceptance of depleted uranium tails are accurate and transparent, the Secretary of Energy should continue to review the accuracy of its documentation associated with this transaction and seek an independent review of this documentation by a third party, such as the DOE Inspector General. 

Agency: Department of Energy Status: Open 

Comments: DOE disagreed with our recommendation, and as of March 2017, has not taken steps to implement it. GAO staff will follow-up on this recommendation in fiscal year 2017."... 

[Ed. note: Replacement for Obama Energy Sec. not confirmed until 3/2/17: March 2, 2017, "U.S. Senate confirms Rick Perry as Trump's energy secretary," Texas Tribune, Abby Livingston

"The U.S. Senate approved the confirmation of former Texas Gov. Rick Perry as the next secretary of the Department of Energy on Thursday."]

........................

#2

May 9, 2014 

"Priority Recommendation:" ["GAO's priority recommendations are those that we believe warrant priority attention. We sent letters to the heads of key departments and agencies, urging them to continue focusing on these issues. These recommendations are labeled as such."] 

"Recommendation: If DOE continues to transfer, sell, or barter depleted uranium tails pursuant to its general authority under the Atomic Energy Act, notwithstanding that the USEC Privatization Act likely prohibits such actions, to ensure that DOE is receiving the required compensation under the Atomic Energy Act and DOE policy, the Secretary of Energy should develop guidance for setting an appropriate method for determining the value of depleted uranium tails when transferring them as an asset and apply the method consistently and transparently, prior to conducting such transfers, sales, or barters. 

Agency: Department of Energy 

Status: Open Priority recommendation 

Comments: DOE disagreed with our recommendation and, as of March 2017, has not taken steps to implement it. DOE has maintained that the department is not required to establish guidance or a pricing policy for depleted uranium and that doing so would hinder DOE's ability to maximize the value received by the government in a given transaction. We continue to believe that having guidance that provides a consistent and transparent method of determining the value of tails in the context of a transaction is necessary to help DOE ensure that it is receiving reasonable compensation in return for its tails, especially given the potential for future tails transactions."

.................. 

#3

"Recommendation: To ensure that DOE mitigates risks associated with achieving the expected benefits of future uranium transactions that may rely on third-party contracts, the Secretary of Energy should take steps to mitigate the risks for each uranium transaction, in accordance with federal internal control standards.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE disagreed with our recommendation, and as of March 2017, has not taken steps to implement it. GAO staff will follow-up on this recommendation in fiscal year 2017.  

.....................

#4

"Recommendation: To ensure the quality, credibility, and transparency of any future uranium market impact studies, the Secretary of Energy should (1) conduct a rigorous and documented internal assessment consistent with contract provisions and the Department of Energy's Information Quality Guidelines of the quality of such studies and/or have an independent third party conduct a peer review; and (2) to the extent that market impact studies are made publicly available, require that studies include information on the methods, data sources, and assumptions used in such a way that allows others to understand, interpret, and evaluate the studies consistent with DOE's Information Quality Guidelines.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE disagreed with our recommendation, and as of March 2017, has not taken steps to implement it. GAO staff will follow-up on this recommendation in fiscal year 2017."

................


#5

"Consider...whether there is a need to reinstitute a guideline that limits annual uranium sales or transfers."...

"Recommendation: To further ensure that DOE's future uranium transfers do not have an adverse material impact on the domestic uranium market, the Secretary of Energy should seek and consider industry input both on the amount of DOE sales or transfers of uranium the market can absorb annually and on whether there is a need to reinstitute a guideline that limits annual uranium sales or transfers.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE disagreed with our recommendation, and as of March 2017, has not taken steps to implement it. GAO staff will follow-up on this recommendation in fiscal year 2017." 
..................

Added: More on "uranium tails" mentioned in Recommendations #1 and #2: Russia is skilled at re-enriching or upgrading the tails to natural uranium grade that may be used in nuclear weapons. Russia has shortage of uranium deposits:

June 2007, "Uranium Enrichment Tails Upgrading (Re-enrichment)," wise-uranium.org

"Re-enrichment of West European Depleted Uranium Tails in Russia," report prepared for Ecodefense Russia by Peter Diehl, Nov. 2004

Abstract 

Since 1996, depleted uranium tails from West European enrichers Urenco and Eurodif are being sent to Russia for re-enrichment. In Russia, the imported tails are, instead of natural uranium, fed into surplus enrichment cascades. The product obtained from re-enrichment is mostly natural-equivalent uranium plus some reactor-grade low-enriched uranium. These products are sent back to Urenco and Eurodif, while the secondary tails generated remain in Russia, where they are re-enriched further to obtain more natural-equivalent uranium and/or slightly enriched uranium. The latter is then used as blendstock for the downblending of surplus highly-enriched weapons-grade uranium into reactor-grade low-enriched uranium. The ultimate tails left, still comprising at least two thirds of the amount imported, remain in Russia with unknown fate.
This paper collects the scarce information available on this strange business, sets up a mass balance for it, looks into its odd economics and the policies behind it. Three driving forces are identified: Urenco's and Eurodif's aim to avoid tails disposal cost, Russia's shortage of uranium deposits, and the trade restrictions for Russian enrichment services."

..........

 

So-called conservative media outlet Washington Free Beacon via its billionaire open borders underwriter Paul Singer initially funded Fusion GPS Anti Trump Oppo-Research. The stench of Paul Singer's status with Washington Free Beacon had previously been undisclosed

"Singer was a major financial force behind the Rubio-Obama amnesty and immigration expansion push in 2013."

10/27/17, "Washington Free Beacon Via Billionaire Paul Singer Initially Funded Fusion GPS Anti Trump Oppo-Research," tcth, sundance 

"A few media reports are all confirming the initial funding for the Fusion GPS opposition research against candidate Donald Trump came from The Washington Free Beacon and the previously undisclosed underwriter for the WFB, billionaire Paul Singer.

This makes sense because WFB was the primary conservative media advocate for candidate Marco Rubio who was also backed by billionaire Paul Singer. The primary editor of WFB Matthew Continetti is married to the daughter of notorious NeverTrumper Bill Kristol: 

WASHINGTON – Lawyers for the conservative publication Washington Free Beacon informed the House Intelligence Committee Friday that the organization was the original funder for the anti-Trump opposition research project with Fusion GPS. (10/27/17, Washington Examiner, link) 

The Washington Free Beacon did not reveal their ownership, however both Breitbart and Daily Caller are confirming the financial underwriting for WFB comes from Paul Singer. The WFB is now attempting to explain their opposition research HERE. 

It’s a rather odd dynamic to discover that a media outlet would be purchasing a contract for opposition research, no? Then again, the majority of the electorate have no idea how the right-side of the political continuum is engaged in pushing an ideological agenda – they are not just reporting facts. WFB should lose all journalistic credibility; they won’t, but they should.

It should also be noted, despite the conflation by the democrats, the initial commissioned opposition research had nothing to do with the Clinton and DNC contract with Christopher Steele who wrote the ‘Russian Dossier’.

However, in the larger picture, billionaire Paul Singer’s confirmed activity only adds weight to our discussions in 2015 and 2016 about how billionaires influence conservative politics through their purchase of media to drive their ideology and self-interest.  If you know the billionaire behind the media enterprise you can predict the policy advocacy of the content therein.

Billionaire Robert Mercer owns Breitbart and originally supported Ted Cruz through the GOP primary.

Billionaire Farris Wilkes owns Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro) and supported Ted Cruz through the GOP primary.

Billionaire Cary Katz owns Conservative Review and CRTV (Mark Levin) and supported Ted Cruz through the GOP primary.

Billionaire Paul Singer owns Washington Free Beacon and supported Marco Rubio through the GOP primary.

In each instance the ideological worldview of the owner establishes the foundational building block for the political policy advancement promoted by the central figureheads within the media organization.  If you know the billionaire behind the organization you can predict the direction of the articles written by the media. 

Just like Carlos Slim (New York Times), Ted Turner (CNN) and Jeff Bezos (Washington Post), the same entrenched ideology applies to the billionaires and corporate media on the other side of the political spectrum.  Sinclair Media (Sara Carter – Circa) and Salem Media (Hot Air, Twitchy, Human Events, Red State, etc.) can all be guaranteed to express a very specific narrow policy and worldview -based on ideology- in each of their publications and broadcasts.

In the 2016 election presidential candidate Donald Trump did not have support from any billionaire or corporate owned media enterprise. When you look at the expressed worldview of the billionaire media and compare it to Trump’s “America First” compass heading you realize why this is not accidental. 

Billionaires like Wilbur Ross, Steve Mnuchin, Carl Icahn, Steve Wynn, Peter Thiel, Thomas Barrack and Woody Johnson all supported Trump, but they were outside media; and like Trump himself, focused more on the economic side of the policy spectrum. Billionaires, and Billionaire owned corporations, on the right side who own media are engaged more heavily in social transformations, cultural/social issues, religion and foreign policy advocacy for the nation state of Israel.

Billionaires on the right side who don’t purchase media are more focused on business and economics; those are Trump-type billionaires. As you might remember from earlier discussion threads:

"It is critical to understand nuanced DC perspectives within all of this because the same lobbying activity stems across a broad stream of “conservative media” outlets, and has an interest in influencing our opinion. Breitbart, Washington Free Beacon, Conservative Review, and a host of other media entities are aligned in purpose/ideology with strong religious, Pro-Israel lobbying positions.

This can sometimes create a challenging hypocrisy to reconcile, and is never more evident that on the subject of Iran.

Example: Steve Bannon will argue against military intervention from one side of his mouth, yet when it comes to Iran he will happily align with the need for a declaration of war or militaristic activity. Bannon’s connection with lobbying groups is also why he will never stop supporting Senator Ted Cruz.  It’s not simply a matter of U.S. policy, it’s an agenda aspect to supporting the lobby; and ultimately Israel’s best interests.

[Ted Cruz supported TPP and actually constructed Trade Promotion Authority, the vehicle for TPP passage. This would make one think Steve Bannon, who claims “Economic Nationalism” as a priority in 2017, would therefore abandon Cruz.  He doesn’t because of the larger interests of aligned and connected lobbyists and their influence on media.]

Senator Tom Cotton is an ally in America-First economically and on immigration; however, when it comes to foreign policy the filter of the pro-Israel lobby overlays his militaristic positions. This ideological alignment, and donor-rewarded advocacy within the GOPe, is a common DC influence agent for foreign policy.

Some christian and far-right (orthodox) media are also part of this advocacy. It becomes increasingly evident when we see Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Joel Pollak, et al, attacking Trump administration officials depending on the perception of policy risk to pro-Israel media positions.

Additionally, some attacks on Trump cabinet members by the “NeverTrump” community are driven by a concern the member’s support for Israel is not paramount in the policy.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been, and will be, openly skewered for positions that do not align with accepted conservative religious media orthodoxy. So too will Secretary of Defense James Mattis; or, as history has evidenced, Trump National Security Adviser HR McMaster....

Understanding the prism and world-view writers and pundits place upon their discussion of foreign policy helps everyone better evaluate content."

 
CTH was with Trump from 2012 yet we didn’t even know him. CTH knew we needed someone from outside the entire apparatus of politics, but we didn’t know who would ultimately come down that escalator and take point position for common sense. We are blessed and thankful."...(image above from CTH)


..........

Speaking of assaults, unelected NY Times is conducting an assault on the public by seeking to censor internet news it deems to be "Russian propaganda." NY Times would block news from Wikileaks not because it wasn't true and important news, but because it wasn't approved by pompous asses at CIA-Daniel Lazare, Consortium News

"The integration of the corporate media and the so-called “intelligence community” will thus be complete. Instead of information, the result will be a steady stream of CIA propaganda aimed at dulling critical faculties and preparing the public for one imperial misadventure after another."

10/25/17, "NYT’s Assault on Press Freedom," Danial Lazare, Consortium News

"Exclusive: The New York Times, which once postured as the champion of a free press, now is seeking crackdowns on news that the public gets from the Internet under the guise of combating “Russian propaganda,” explains Daniel Lazare."

"Once upon a time the danger to a free press came from the right. But since Russia-gate, liberals have been busy playing catch-up.

The latest example is a front-page article in Tuesday’s New York Times. Entitled “YouTube Gave Russian Outlet Portal Into U.S.,” it offers the usual blah-blah-blah about Kremlin agents engaging in the political black arts. But it goes a step farther by attempting to discredit a perfectly legitimate news organization.

Reporters Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore begin by noting that RT, the Moscow-funded TV channel formerly known as “Russia Today,” is now an Internet powerhouse and then observes that when it became the first YouTube news channel to surpass one million views, YouTube Vice President Robert Kyncl “joined an RT anchor in a studio, where he praised RT for…providing ‘authentic’ content instead of ‘agendas or propaganda.’”

Cue the ominous background music. “But now,” the article continues, “as investigators in Washington examine the scope and reach of Russian interference in United States policy, the once-cozy relationship between RT and YouTube is drawing closer scrutiny.”

Why? Because RT took advantage of its “prominent presence on YouTube’s search results” to pepper viewers with negative videos about Hillary Clinton. According to Wakabayashi and Confessore:

“As the presidential election heated up in the spring of 2016, RT consistently featured negative stories about Mrs. Clinton, according to United States intelligence officials. That included claims of corruption at her family foundation and ties to Islamic extremism, frequent coverage of emails stolen by Russian operatives from Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman, and accusations that she was in poor physical and mental health.”

The story quotes “the American intelligence community” describing RT as the Kremlin’s “principal international propaganda outlet” and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia calling YouTube “a target-rich environment for any disinformation campaign.”

Then comes the kicker: “Much like the Russian-controlled pages on Facebook, RT’s YouTube videos comply with YouTube’s community guidelines, which cover things like nudity, copyright violations and promoting violence against a group based on race or religion. But not propaganda.”

Bottom line: disinformation and propaganda are what RT is all about. But there’s a problem: the Times article is less than clear about what RT actually got wrong.

Making Real News into ‘Fake News’

The web version, for example, links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014 email obtained by Wikileaks in which [Hillary] Clinton acknowledges that “the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia…are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

“I think this is the most significant email in the whole collection,” Assange states as interviewer John Pilger murmurs in agreement. “As analysts know, and even the US government has mentioned…some Saudi figures have been supporting ISIS, funding ISIS. But the dodge has always been that it’s just some rogue princes using their cut of the oil to do what they like and – but actually – the government disapproves. But that email says no, it is the government of Saudi and the government of Qatar that have been funding the ISIS.”

The exchange resumes with Pilger saying: “And, of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious terrorist, jihadist group called ISIL or ISIS is created largely with money from the very people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation.” 

Assange: “Yes.”

Pilger: “That’s extraordinary.”

Is this dezinformatsiya, as the Russians call disinformation? The Times implies that is, yet in fact Assange’s statement is perfectly correct. The email’s authenticity is unchallenged while there is also no question that Arab Gulf interests have contributed massively to the Clinton Foundation.

As the foundation’s own records show, Saudi Arabia has given anywhere from $10 million to $25 million over the years, Qatar has contributed between $1 million and $5 million, while other Gulf governments, corporations, and individuals have kicked in anywhere from $13 million to $50 million more.

This is not fake news, but the plain truth. Moreover, it’s the scandalous truth because it shows Clinton taking money from people funding the same terror organizations she was professing to fight.

It’s as if Jesse Jackson had been found taking payoffs from South Africa’s white supremacist government during apartheid. If that had occurred, the Times would have been up in arms. Yet not only has it never said a word about the 2014 Clinton email, it is now going after RT for putting out news that it has sat on for months.

What’s going on here? Is the Times suggesting that truth is irrelevant and that the only thing that counts is where it originates? Is it arguing that what’s said matters less than who’s saying it – and that if it’s RT, WikiLeaks, or whomever, we must all stop up our ears so that the message will be blocked? 

Barring Foreign Information

The article goes on to suggest that “RT’s embrace of YouTube shows how difficult it could be to limit foreign influence.” Calling for foreign influence to be rolled back for no other reason than the fact that it’s foreign is very dangerous. Indeed, it’s nothing more than a liberal echo of the isolationist, America-First politics practiced by Donald Trump except that where Trump wants to bar immigrants and imports, the Times wants to bar foreign information, no matter how pertinent or how truthful. Instead of reporting news, it is seeking to block it.

While the Times was chasing after RT, The Washington Post was going public with the truly sensational news that the Clinton campaign’s law firm had paid for the notorious Christopher Steele dossier, famous for charging that Trump had paid for a couple of prostitutes to urinate on a Moscow hotel bed once occupied by Barack and Michelle Obama.

After accusing the Trump campaign of collaborating with foreign agents to influence an American election, it turns out that the Democrats, or at least their lawyers, not only collaborated with, but hired a foreign agent – Steele formerly worked for MI6, Britain’s version of the CIA – to do the same (and Steele claimed to have gotten Russian officials to supply unsubstantiated allegations designed to hurt Trump’s campaign).

The result of all this has been nonsense piled on top of nonsense. More than a year after the Democratic National Committee’s massive email dump, there is still no evidence that the Kremlin was responsible or even that it was a hack at all. (Wikileaks, with its 100-percent record for veracity, continues to maintain that the emails were leaked by an insider.)

Indeed, the sole basis for the charge is a report by CrowdStrike, a California-based cyber-security firm whose chief technical officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is known both for his anti-Kremlin bias and his close ties to the Clinton camp.  (See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Scandal Hidden Behind Russia-gate.”)

The FBI never inspected the DNC’s computer servers to see for itself if they were truly hacked while a major CrowdStrike foul-up – it subsequently accused pro-Russian separatists of using similar malware to target Ukrainian artillery units – has gone largely unreported even though the firm was forced to issue a retraction. 

Certainly, the Times has never breathed a word about the blunder. 

The NYT’s Motives

What’s the goal here? One aim, of course, is to drive Trump out of office – not by opposing him from the left, however, but from the right on the basis of anti-Russian xenophobia. But another is what might be described as an exercise in induced mass conformity.

If, thanks to Russia-gate, the Times succeeds in scaring Americans into believing that the country is being hit with an epidemic of “fake news” even though no one knows what the term even means; if it can persuade readers that news is “disinformation” simply because it comes from a Russian outlet; if it can convince them that “Kremlin-aligned agents secretly built fake Facebook groups to foment political division”"...

[Ed. note: No evidence has been provided for these claims. In any case, "the vast majority of ads...didn’t specifically reference the US presidential election, voting or a particular candidate." And the majority, 56%, ran AFTER the election. Ipso facto, they had nothing to do with the election. "Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone." What about "targeting?"  Facebook says only about 25%, or 248 of the total over 450 days were "geographically targeted" (no locations suggested, could be California, Maryland, Oregon, etc.), and of those "more ran in 2015 than 2016."  Many could've run after the election--Facebook has already stated the majority of ads ran AFTER the election. Facebook was apparently embarrassed at the meager number of ads it could scrape up, so deliberately sold false and grossly inflated headline numbers (ie, 3000 ads worth $100,000, 56% of which ran AFTER election) intended to damage confidence in US elections. Unfortunately, Facebook is known for grossly overstating its ad reach, claiming to reach more people than exist, per US Census: 10/2/17, "Facebook Ad Reach is More than U.S. Census Bureau Data in All 50 States (Report)," adweek.com, David Cohen] 

(continuing): "even though “Kremlin-aligned” can mean just about anything under the sun – if it can do all those things, then it can persuade them to turn their critical faculties off and believe whatever the U.S. intelligence agencies (and The New York Times) tell them to believe.

The integration of the corporate media and the so-called “intelligence community” will thus be complete. Instead of information, the result will be a steady stream of CIA propaganda aimed at dulling critical faculties and preparing the public for one imperial misadventure after another.
 
The Times, to paraphrase Chico Marx, is essentially asking readers, “Who you gonna believe, the CIA or your own critical faculties?” The correct answer, it seems to think, is the former. Rather than a force for enlightenment, the “newspaper of record,” is turning into the opposite."

....................

Sources: Facebook company blog posts :

9/21/17 (updates 10/3, 10/6, 10/8), "Hard Questions: More on Russian Ads," newsroom. Facebook.com, Elliot Schrage, Vice President of Policy and Communications (Scroll down for Sept. 21, 2017 post) 

9/6/17, "An Update On Information Operations On Facebook," by Alex Stamos, Chief Security Officer  


============

Among comments Consortium News: The two RussiaGate "sources," CrowdStrike and Steele's Anti-Trump dossier, were both paid by the Democrat National Committee and in one instance by the Hillary Clinton campaign:

=============

...............



Comment: The NY Times can do this because the US has only one functioning political party. The entire political class and media are on the same side (open borders, endless wars paid for by US taxpayers (global slaves), massive free trade deals, extreme globalism). There are no checks and balances to protect taxpayers. This describes a dictatorship.



.............

UK Monarchy awarded Harvey Weinstein CBE honor, Commander of the Order of the British Empire, which is one step below knighthood. Now, they're reconsidering-BBC

"The Honours Forfeiture Committee considers cases and the prime minister then sends recommendations to the Queen."

10/25/17, "Harvey Weinstein faces losing CBE amid sexual assault allegations," BBC 

"Harvey Weinstein could be stripped of his CBE following allegations of sexual assault made against the Hollywood producer, the BBC understands. 

The removal of the honour is believed to be being "actively considered" by the government's Honours Forfeiture Committee for the first time. 

He was awarded an honorary CBE for outstanding contribution to the British film industry in 2004.

Bafta has already suspended Weinstein's membership.

A Cabinet Office spokesman said forfeiture action "is confidential" and he could not comment on whether a specific case was being considered by the committee. 

More than two dozen women - among them actresses Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow and Rose McGowan - have made accusations against him including rape and sexual assault.

Weinstein insists sexual relations he had were consensual.

The latest claim against him came from actress and writer Brit Marling, who described an encounter in 2014 in which she claimed the movie mogul suggested they shower together. 

A number of organisations have distanced themselves from the American.

The Oscars board voted to expel the 65-year-old, whose films have won 81 Oscars. 

The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (Bafta) suspended him and said it hoped the announcement would send "a clear message".

A group of Labour MPs, including Jess Phillips and Chi Onwurah, have written to the prime minister calling for his CBE to be removed. 

CBE stands for Commander of the Order of the British Empire and is a rank in the UK's honours system - one step below a knighthood.

Taking honours away, called "forfeiture", is done when someone is judged to have brought the honours system into disrepute.

The Honours Forfeiture Committee considers cases and the prime minister then sends recommendations to the Queen. 

Previous recipients of honours to have had them removed include banker Fred Goodwin.

The former boss of the Royal Bank of Scotland was heavily criticised over his role in the bank's near-collapse in 2008.

Other high-profile cases include jockey Lester Piggott, who was stripped of an OBE after he was jailed in 1987 for tax fraud.

The former spy Anthony Blunt was stripped of his knighthood in 1979 for supplying hundreds of secret documents to the Soviets while a wartime agent for MI5."






...............

It's Morning in America: Slime-drenched Jeff Flake opts out of US Senate race, completely unaware of what even the NY Times Editorial Board noticed 17 months ago, May 3, 2016: "It's Donald Trump's Party Now"

"Senator...you simply don’t understand your own culpability in your demise." commenter




 




Image, banner of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition   

10/24/17, "“Toodles” – Senator Jeff Flake Concedes: The Peasants are Revolting," tcth, sundance

Freedom of Speech, Norman Rockwell

"More MAGA winning today as another senatorial blockage in the swamp is cleared. Senator Jeff Flake announces he will not seek reelection. Senator Jeff Flake told The Arizona Republic ahead of his announcement that he has become convinced “there may not be a place for a Republican like me in the current Republican climate or the current Republican Party.” Gee, ya think?"

'Freedom of Speech', Norman Rockwell

Top image: Norman Rockwell, "Freedom of Speech," preliminary study

Above image: Norman Rockwell, "Freedom of Speech," 1943. "A man dressed in work clothes...stands to give his opinion at a New England town meeting." 

......................

Added:






 
 

Image, banner of NY Times Editorial, posted Tuesday evening May 3, 2016 for Wed., May 4, 2016 print edition 

Even the NY Times Editorial Board was honest enough to admit that the 2016 Republican voters' message "is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the Republican politicians who betrayed them."...
........... 
May 3, 2016, By The NY Times Editorial Board: 

"Republican leaders have for years failed to think about much of anything beyond winning the next election. Year after year, the party’s candidates promised help for middle-class people who lost their homes, jobs and savings to recession, who lost limbs and well-being to war, and then did next to nothing.

That Mr. Trump was able to enthrall voters by promising simply to “Make America Great Again” — but offering only xenophobic, isolationist or fantastical ideas — is testimony to how thoroughly they reject the politicians who betrayed them."... 

......................

Added:

1/3/17, "Trump utterly gutted the GOP in the primaries. That was the real landslide of 2016." CNBC, Jake Novak   

...............

Among comments to top post
.................

"Coastie Paul says:

October 24, 2017 at 6:17 pm 

My remarks that I just sent to the Flake (pointless but it made me feel good): “Senator, your diatribe today on the Senate floor and proceeding comments to the media indicate that you simply don’t understand your own culpability in your demise. We (the deplorables, aka US citizens) are tired of being lectured to by people like you who think that they are smarter and know better than us on how to run our lives. You, and the rest of the “establishment” (both Republicans and Democrats), have done nothing but talk. The government has operated for nine years WITHOUT a federal budget. We’ve had CRs and “Crominbus” shoved down our throats, Obamacare, and then the false efforts at repeal, bandied at us, threats of TPP, and myriad other examples of you and your cronies failures. We’re woke and we’re tired of your, and others, BS and we’re not taking it anymore. We Americans have been abandoned by you and the rest of the DC establishment and we’ve decided that we’re just not that into you anymore. Voila’, hello President Trump. You don’t get it. Fine. Now, do something to help out the American citizen ( and not the multi-national money bag corporations that buy you guys off) on your way out of Congress. Quit your whining and do your job. Uphold your oath. I’ve never wanted to be disrespectful to members of Congress but you all have given us no choice. We’re not taking your BS anymore.”
..................... 

Comment: I like Norman Rockwell's depictions of every day American life. Unfortunately, some of his illustrations were used to sell World War II. Of course, the US must respond if our own country is attacked. But for 100 years or more, the farming out of Americans to fight and die in foreign wars was sold as a proud and uniquely American custom. Like the 1942 movie, ""Yankee Doodle Dandy," and the WWI song, “Over There,” Rockwell's "renditions were not only vital to the war effort, but have become enshrined in American culture." If Americans are attacked on their own land, of course they must respond. Being the world's military is an entirely different matter. Today Americans want to help other countries whenever we can, but we realize we've neglected our own country. We can't help others if we allow ourselves to become weak. We also know that no single country's taxpayers should be assumed to be global slaves or the global clean-up squad no matter how much its political class wishes it were so.



................ 

With Trump presidency country has last chance to reduce the administrative state but Never Trumper Republicans are squandering it by selfishly focusing on Trump's persona. Trump should have been heralded by these people, he actually did what they claimed had to be done-Rush Limbaugh, 10/24/17

"Trump ran against the administrative state. Romney, McCain, George W. Bush...Obama, Hillary. They were the administrative state. Trump gave everybody the blueprint on how to win."...

10/24/17, "Victor Davis Hanson on Trump and the GOP Civil War," Rush Limbaugh

"Rush: Victor Davis Hanson. He’s got a piece at National Review today called, “The ‘Never Trump’ Construct.”...So where is this civil war in the Republican Party? He’s not denying there’s a civil war. He’s not denying there’s a civil war. What he’s denying is that it’s over Trump, and he’s drawing a distinction between voters and people in Washington, voters and the establishment. And as far as concerned are concerned, there isn’t any civil war going on with Trump....

These Romneys, the McCains, what did they all say that they needed to do? When Rand Paul ran, he came by my office, and he made the point: “We can’t win with just Republican votes! We gotta go get Democrats. We gotta go get independents.” Well, Trump did! Trump should have been heralded by these people. He actually did what they claimed had to be done, which is why they claim they supported amnesty. The way they decided to do it, the Romneys and McCains — the way they decided to get Democrat votes — was to go Democrat light.

You know, be in favor of amnesty, be in favor of some national health care, but not like Obama’s. In other words, the McCain-Romney approach was, you know, tell enough to fool conservatives into thinking you were one while you were really going out and trying to appeal to Democrats and so forth. But they didn’t appeal to Democrats in the right way. They tried to peel off Democrats by being Democrat light, rather than what Trump did to get them. What did Trump do to get these disaffected Democrats, independents, Reagan Democrats? 

What did he do? “Make. America. Great. Again.” Trump ran against the administrative state. Romney, McCain, George W. Bush were Obama, Hillary. They were the administrative state. Trump gave everybody the blueprint on how to win....Never Trumpers on the Republican side...join the Washington establishment in opposing Trump simply because he’s an outsider....

Trump is a symptom of much more. In fact, it [Hanson's article] makes the point that Trumpism has been alive and percolating long before Trump came along and gave voters an outlet for it. What it really adds up to is that for 20 years or more, Republicans (conservatives, primarily) have been growing angrier and angrier and wearier and wearier of the Republican establishment. They have grown less trustful and less desirous and less supportive. But they had nowhere else to go.

They had to vote for the Democrat nominee or the establishment Republican. The first guy that came along who was not establishment Republican who articulated, validated what all these people felt….The point of the piece is to try to share with the Never Trumpers because there are still so many people that to this day have no idea why Trump won....

If you read Victor Davis Hanson’s entire column, you find out that most of the differences between Never Trumpers and Trump is not policy. It’s Trump. It’s his manner of speaking. It’s his personality. It’s his decorum. It is that he embarrasses people in his party and it embarrasses them because they want to be respected by our opposition, by our enemy. It’s the same old lament. There’s nothing new in it. But it is childish. There is an agenda out there that needs to happen to restore the country’s greatness and to defeat the left.

This insider-versus-outsider thing is a childish thing that’s stopping it. It’s pure opposition to Trump based on things that are not related to policy. It’s not as though Trump is doing things the Republican Party doesn’t support. He’s doing everything they do support! Or say they do. Repeal and replace Obamacare. Cut taxes. Fix immigration. Regrow the economy. Everything Trump’s doing is exactly what the Republican Party has said for years that they believe in....

Both in the media and in academia to think tanks and in Congress, they just can’t bring themselves to agree with Trump because Trump repulses them personally or what have you. It’s small-minded, it’s small-sighted, and it’s actually kind of selfish when you consider the stakes involved. Meaning: The future of the country and what kind of country we’re gonna be and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity we have here. I don’t know about you, but I never thought we’d have full control of the House, the Senate, and the White House at the same time. 

I never thought this opportunity would present itself. I hoped, don’t misunderstand. But I never thought so actually. Now it has, and it’s being squandered. It’s being squandered, and not because Republicans disagree. Now, I realize a lot of Republicans say things on the campaign trail that they don’t mean — and McCain! McCain is out there….McCain is supporting some newfangled cockamamie thing called truthfulness in ads. From the guy who lied to the American people about his immigration policy just to get elected, and then abandoned it after he gets sworn in again."
..........

Rush Limbaugh "Related links"

National Review: The ‘Never Trump’ Construct - Victor Davis Hanson



......................