This needs to go far and wide.
he knows.
— CommunityCorner (@EdenfieldPl) January 2, 2021
Lin knows what went down pic.twitter.com/3rQsblyRCR
1. China is the aggressor
2. Iran is the proxy bogeyman - the excuse to launch WWIII (look here not there)
3. Their aim is to divide the country against itself and they feel they succeeded
4. They use crime (poisoning) + law to protract the crisis
6. They are projecting their own crimes onto the victims of their crimes (eg blaming General Flynn’s “digital soldiers” for election interference - that is all of us, folks)
10. Know that when Patriots speak of the true evil of the enemy we are fighting, that they are not making stuff up.
**THEY NEED TO COMPROMISE SCOTUS TO FINISH THIS — EYES ON!**
WAKE UP WAKE UP WAKE UP
WAKE OTHER PEOPLE UP
WHITE SQUALL!
More from Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal PhD
POTUS calling out the Justice Department as corrupt.
To be clear, I would distinguish between regular employees of the Justice Department and the decisions made officially. It's important to do this.
It is also worth noting that "federal agents can be sued for putting Muslim men on the no-fly list in alleged retaliation for their refusal to cooperate with counterterrorism
"The decision, a rare expansion of personal liability for law-enforcement misconduct, was one of four unanimous rulings the court issued Thursday"
"The court also found that there is no statute of limitations on when rape charges can be filed in the armed services"
IF Biden gets in, nothing will happen to Hunter or Joe. Barr will do nothing, and the new group of partisan killers coming in will quickly kill it all. Same thing with Durham. We caught them cold, spying, treason & more (the hard part), but \u201cJustice\u201d took too long. Will be DOA!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 12, 2020
To be clear, I would distinguish between regular employees of the Justice Department and the decisions made officially. It's important to do this.
It is also worth noting that "federal agents can be sued for putting Muslim men on the no-fly list in alleged retaliation for their refusal to cooperate with counterterrorism
"The decision, a rare expansion of personal liability for law-enforcement misconduct, was one of four unanimous rulings the court issued Thursday"
"The court also found that there is no statute of limitations on when rape charges can be filed in the armed services"
It’s amazing how the President actually gets his enemies to do the work of burying themselves.
In this audio, which of course the President knew was being taped (after years of leaks), the President gets the Georgia Secretary of State to own the faulty data. Raffensperger cannot claim he made a mistake.
It’s a sting. “Shredded ballots” and “took out machines” - “do you know anything about that? ‘Cause that’s illegal, right?”
How can the fake news claim that this audio is false? The answer is that they can’t. It comes from one of their own, The Washington Post.
Ryan Germany, General Counsel for Georgia’s Secretary of State, jumps in. “No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.”
“But have they moved the inner parts?”
“Are you sure, Ryan?”
This is what a deranged mobster sounds like.#LockHimUp
— Republicans for Joe Biden \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@RepsForBiden) January 3, 2021
pic.twitter.com/bsrqVcQFUu
In this audio, which of course the President knew was being taped (after years of leaks), the President gets the Georgia Secretary of State to own the faulty data. Raffensperger cannot claim he made a mistake.
It’s a sting. “Shredded ballots” and “took out machines” - “do you know anything about that? ‘Cause that’s illegal, right?”
How can the fake news claim that this audio is false? The answer is that they can’t. It comes from one of their own, The Washington Post.
Ryan Germany, General Counsel for Georgia’s Secretary of State, jumps in. “No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.”
“But have they moved the inner parts?”
“Are you sure, Ryan?”
SolarWinds follow up. Very good tweet explaining what happened.
Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.
“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu
FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.
At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”
Hackers reportedly slipped malware into prior SolarWinds software updates, which gave them access to a "God-mode" for infected networks, including the Treasury and Commerce departments.
— Wes Wilson (@weswilson4) December 14, 2020
The Pentagon is also a SolarWinds customer.https://t.co/Srcoztssol https://t.co/OgMhAjJqPx
Basically what this means is that SolarWinds itself was exploited. Someone posted an infected update as legitimate (digitally signed), leading customers to download a bad update.
“Multiple trojanized updates were digitally signed from March - May 2020 and posted to the SolarWinds updates website” https://t.co/8e3bMFWXYu
FireEye then explains that infected organizations were approached and exploited. This is a separate Step 2.
At this point, information is already going to “malicious domains” without extra intervention, after the malware does nothing for “up to two weeks”
More from Culture
In a recent article published in the Stern, there is now a criminal complaint filed against Michael Inacker, the then CEO of the PR firm WMP for what includes allegations of the knock out payments from the emirate of Qatar to hide a dossier for their role in financing Hezbollah
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
That allegedly 750,000 euros, which would have been divided between Jason and Michael.
In return, "Jason" was supposed to keep to himself the information he had researched in Qatar, that a high-ranking person in the emirate of Qatar was financially supporting Hezbollah.
https://t.co/TdaAECu35a
There is an interesting point in the article, WMP (Inacker) still had PR contracts with both Qatar and Saudi and “Jason” had some information about arms deliveries organized by people from Qatar with suppliers in Belarus, Serbia, Macedonia, and Yemen.
One of the authors of the Policy Exchange report on academic free speech thinks it is "ridiculous" to expect him to accurately portray an incident at Cardiff University in his study, both in the reporting and in a question put to a student sample.
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
This is ridiculous. Students were asked for their views on this example and several others. The study findings and conclusions were about student responses not the substance of each case. Could\u2019ve used hypotheticals. The responses not the cases were the basis of the conclusions.
— Eric Kaufmann (@epkaufm) February 17, 2021
Here is the incident Kaufmann incorporated into his study, as told by a Cardiff professor who was there. As you can see, the incident involved the university intervening to *uphold* free speech principles:
The UK govt\u2019s paper on free speech in Unis (with implications for Wales) is getting a lot of attention.
— Richard Wyn Jones (@RWynJones) February 16, 2021
Worth noting then that an important part of the evidence-base on which it rests relates to (demonstrably false) claims about my own institution
1/https://t.co/buoGE7ocG7
Here is the first mention of the Greer at Cardiff incident in Kaufmann's report. It refers to the "concrete case" of the "no-platforming of Germaine Greer". Any reasonable reader would assume that refers to an incident of no-platforming instead of its opposite.
Here is the next mention of Greer in the report. The text asks whether the University "should have overruled protestors" and "stepped in...and guaranteed Greer the right to speak". Again the strong implication is that this did not happen and Greer was "no platformed".
The authors could easily have added a footnote at this point explaining what actually happened in Cardiff. They did not.
