Showing posts with label new york times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new york times. Show all posts

23 November 2018

Trump Twitter Insults 547 People Places Things NYT List Candidacy To Update


The 547 People, Places and Things Donald
Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List


https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/28/upshot/donald-trump-twitter-insults.html

Copyright 2018 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to The New York Times content)

21 September 2018

Russia-Trump Plot Timeline So Far Answer Links To New York Times Articles

Updated to 27 September 2018





The Plot to Subvert an Election
Unraveling the Russia Story So Far
For two years, Americans have tried to absorb the details of the 2016 attack — hacked emails, social media fraud, suspected spies — and President Trump’s claims that it’s all a hoax. The Times explores what we know and what it means.
Illustration by Matthieu Bourel; from top: photographs by the Kremlin, Eric Thayer for The New York Times, Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images, Whitten Sabbatini for The New York Times, White House photo


A Timeline Showing the Full Scale of Russia’s Unprecedented Interference in the 2016 Election, and Its Aftermath


Our Investigative Reporters Explain the Trump-Russia Story

Mark Mazzetti and Scott Shane answer readers’ questions on Russian interference in the 2016 election, the Mueller investigation and their reporting process.

Image
President Trump and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia in Helsinki, Finland, in July.CreditCreditPablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press

By The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/reader-center/putin-russia-investigation-questions.html

Copyright 2018 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to The New York Times content)

06 September 2018

"I Am Part Of The Resistance Inside The Trump Administration" NYT Op-Ed


I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration

I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html

"Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter." (Above-linked New York Times Anonymous Op-Ed essay excerpt sentence with McCain link.)  

Copyright 2018 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

26 January 2015

UPDATED NEWS: Former C.I.A. Officer Jeffrey Sterling Convicted Of Espionage For Providing Information To N.Y. Times Reporter James Risen On C.I.A. Operation To Feed Inaccurate Nuclear Information Via Russian Scientist To Iran As Obama Administration Continues "Unprecedented Crackdown"

       Monday, 26 January 2015, ALEXANDRIA, VA - Former C.I.A. officer Jeffrey Sterling today was convicted in federal court of espionage for providing information to New York Times reporter James Risen about a C.I.A. operation to leak intentionally flawed nuclear schematic information to Iran via a Russian scientist. The New York Times in the below article on the conviction today calls it part of the Obama administration's "unprecedented crackdown on officials who speak to journalists about security matters without the Administration's approval". The Ninth Amendment without further comment other than that in the next paragraph provides below a link to the article.
       The Ninth Amendment editorial board does observe that given the serious implications as to freedom of speech and the press under the First Amendment not to mention the specter prosecution "whistleblowers" including as to government waste and abuse raised by this case it appears that the standard that the New York Times sets out in the above quote is likely not a precise recitation of its scope as a standard encompassing all "security" matters without limitation as to type or timeframe seems susceptible to a very broad interpretation.
       The Ninth Amendment in an 18 January 2015 post below did provide a link to an article by a reporter attending Mr. Sterling's trial which described the C.I.A. "Operation Merlin" in considerably less charitable terms characterizing it as an unlikely, mismanaged, uncoordinated plot which not only wasted large amounts of resources but because of a lack of coordination of scientists preparing and reviewing what were supposed to be flawed nuclear plans also inadvertently have have provided Iran with nuclear schematics that indeed were helpful in the development of Iran's nuclear program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/us/politics/cia-officer-in-leak-case-jeffrey-sterling-is-convicted-of-espionage.html?module=Notification&version=BreakingNews&region=FixedTop&action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=29174522&pgtype=Blogs

       UPDATE: The following Reuters article further includes Attorney Geberal Etic Holder's comments on the case, some information on Holder DOJ's subpeoena history with AP and the press, as well as provides Jeffrey Sterling's sentencing date of 24 April 2015.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/newyorktimes-leak-idUSL1N0V51W820150127

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

18 January 2015

FREE EVENT: CIA v. CIA (SPY V. SPY) ? Federal Trial In Alexandria, Virginia Open Court Regarding Disclosure Of Information On Deranged CIA "Operation Merlin" Plot To Plant Flawed Nuclear Weapons Plans With Iran Via Russian Makes "Argo" Look Like A Reasonable Idea Plenty Of Free Seats Available

       Sunday, 18 January 2015, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA - A federal jury trial regarding the above at the Federal District Court at 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, Virginia which commenced last Tuesday, 13 January 2015 and is expected to last another three weeks featuring upcoming witnesses including Stanford University and Hoover Institution scholar and allegedly reformed torture enthusiast Condoleeza Rice is expected to have plenty of free seats for the public and press who may wish to drop by after visiting 619 S. Lee Street in "Old Town" about which trial interested readers may find more information at the below link.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/january/14/cia-on-trial-in-virginia-for-planting-nuke-evidence-in-iran/

Copyright 2015 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

03 December 2014

THE POLITICS OF FEAR: "The Gift That Keeps Giving" Thomas Friedman New York TImes Column Comment Response By The Ninth Amendment

       Wednesday, 3 December 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - The Ninth Amendment editorial board submitted the comment below to the New York Times in response to OP-ED columnist Thomas Friedman's column entitled "The Gift That Keeps Giving" reflecting on the culture of fear that has permeated the United States since 9/11/2001 as the result of a conscious choice of the not-really-elected "President" George "little shrub" Bush to play the "fear" card and lead the United States in that direction in which the country unfortunately has kept moving with such momentum that it has left President Obama with little room to maneuver even after six years to higher aspirations than caving to the irrational fears that is the only goal of "terrorists" who actually have very little power unless they get very lucky and get noticed.
       A true and correct copy of the text of the Ninth Amendment comment follows. It is now known at this time that a new milestone for the Ninth Amendment has been achieved along with our diabolical master plan in the spirit of Vincent van Gogh and so many other great talents shunned in their lifetimes to see our entire audience eliminated but to keep both our ears (except through one or two "mistake" or "sympathy" pageview hits from our non-existent brother) either through lack of reader interest and/or knock-off sites that after a few site visits today from the New York Times administration it has decided the following Ninth Amendment comment for the first time in history has and will not be digitally published by the New York Times along with the couple hundred comments that did pass muster following "The Gift That Keeps Giving" column:
"How ironic. FOX-TV for the first and only time gets the scoop and calls it "right", "little shrub" loses both popular and electoral votes but the GOP Court steps on in and voila Bush v. Gore effectively names Bush 43 President sends it back to FLA where Bush family Governor and GOP election official pull the lever and coup d'etat! President of these United States. Do not follow the Constitution knows best and Osama bin Laden gets the fool of his dreams for the big day in September. And again begins the Politics of Fear as that is the way Dick Cheney makes a killing as it were. Mr. Friedman the editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com could not agree with you or your commenters as of now more. A heartfelt thank you for this rare opportunity to make a somewhat relevant comment which in conclusion consists of three of our favorite quotes. One from our existentialism teacher at Exeter: "Thank you for belaboring the obvious." Two from a Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." And three from a U.S. President on the occasion of his first inaugural address before a remarkable first week in office in which he accomplished more than the House of Representatives has in a year, Franklin Delano Roosevelt: 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/03/opinion/thomas-friedman-the-gift-that-keeps-giving.html?ref=opinion

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

27 September 2014

BMJ Study "Links" Benzodiazepine Anxiety And Related "Z-Class" Sleeping Medication Use To Increased Risk For Alzheimer's Disease

       Friday, 26 September 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - The Ninth Amendment editorial board sincerely urges that readers not become unnerved nor anxious by the above heading to this post. Although the heading is accurate to its New York Times source which concerned readers may go to directly at any time via the link provided below the Ninth Amendment finds a few introductory words in order as literally millions of Americans suffer from anxiety and/or insomnia a great many of whom at some time(s) or even for quite extended periods of up to many years have taken or take one or more of the above two groups of drugs which together are known to the medical community as "sedative-hypnotics". The "benzo" primarily anxiety drugs include ones such as Xanax, Ativan, Valium and Klonopin which are of similar composition but differing periods of action. The "z-class" sleep medications include Ambien and Lunesta.
      The last thing the Ninth Amendment wants to do is make any readers anxious or lose sleep so please relax and allow us first to convey a few points. The above headline refers to a summary article in the New York Times describing a study by Canadian and French medical researchers recently published in the well-regarded British Medical Journal (BMJ). Because of the high degree of reader interest in this area the Times article so far has generated well over three hundred comments and counting in the digital edition.
       Although it is important for our interested readers to be aware of the content of this article (which itself links directly to the full study for those interested) because it could prove lucrative fodder for media hype the truth of the matter is that a great many of the commenters including physicians weighing in on the Times article make seemingly valid points calling into question several aspects of the study done on the basis of medical records rather than dedicated study participants which make any suggestion of a conclusion based on everything from the lack of value of information presented which did not contain dosage information to a lack of evidence of other factors which may have affected the "control group".
       One commenting M.D.,Ph.D. whose comment was the second published in the digital Times following the article went so far as to observe that "there is a fairly large scientific literature showing benzodiazepines reduce the deposition of amyloid as well protect from the toxicity of the abnormal protein. Thus there is substantial basis to believe that this class of medications might actually be protective from Alzheimer's. . . ." This statement is consistent with the observation by the physician chief editor in the Harvard Medical Newsletter a few years past that despite the recent large-scale demonization (largely among physicians who never had experienced ongoing severe anxiety or used them) of benzodiazepines especially in any longer-term use that his lifetime of medical practice experience showed that long-term and even lifetime use of this class of medications was indicated in some patients for whom they had meant a huge improvement in quality of life for persons who might otherwise forever be virtually immobilized or unable to interact with others and society overall without constant overwhelming anxiety.
       This extended to the seemingly incomprehensible math used to reach any conclusion other than one that was unproven and premature at best. None of the physicians commenting found the study to be persuasive of the assertion of any causal "link" as implied in the Times headline reflected above. At best they concluded the demonstrated relationship might be stretched to the limit as an "association".  Many also took the Times to task for publishing an article of such personal medical interest to so many readers on this topic which was written by one with no recognized nor noted medical credentials at all must less a physician specializing in this field.
       Many of these points are touched on in the Ninth Amendment's comment to the Times article published earlier today in the Times digital edition. It is followed immediately by a link to the article itself which includes the 300+ comments published as of this posting as well as incorporating a direct link to the full study as published in the BMJ.
       THE NINTH AMENDMENT CANNOT AND DOES NOT PROVIDE NOR PURPORT TO PROVIDE ANY MEDICAL ADVICE TO ANYONE AT ALL. READERS MUST SEEK ALL MEDICAL ADVICE FROM A PROPERLY LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHICH THE NINTH AMENDMENT IS NOT.

Ninth Amendment New York Times Digital Published Comment:




BigMartin

 waronnothing 27 minutes ago

With all due respect if the New York Times wishes to publish a medical column which greatly concerns a vast portion of the population who are ill and often suffer relentlessly even to the point of incapacity to interact or even meaningfully function at all with no other effective treatment available in this country the Ninth Amendment log at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com (which has no formal medical training whatsoever) respectfully suggests that rather than having it authored by one with apparently no formal medical credentials at all much less being a physician yet herself describes the subject as "a study designed with particular care" lasting for years yet then attempts to summarize in a few brief paragraphs that the Times has made a rather poor choice of one with authority meaningfully to interpret and present the information before ending the scant piece with an ominous quote from a physician making the pithy comment essentially that "Hey it's your life if you want to end it prematurely in a tragic mental void to pop a few sleeping pills be my guest". This is unhelpful just the type of medical advice a patient presumably would run from but for their suffering if it sounds as if they might get a prescription and some relief now that in the United States if one wishes to practice medicine there seems little point in enduring medical training and associated staggering debt to get an M.D. when one can get a G.E.D. join the DEA and "practice" medicine with no license at all.

Ninth Amendment New York Times SUBMITTED Comment 2 :



BigMartin
 waronnothing 

The Ninth Amendment log at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com (which has no medical expertise whatsoever) weighs in again on observing that comments here appear to be "all over the map". This confirms our earlier concern that this medical summary overall is not very helpful and should be presented ideally by a physician recognized as specializing in this area such that more readers might be left with a better more consistent understanding of what the underlying study did or did not conclude with some reasonable degree of assurance of the causal relationship of these drugs if any to the onset or course of Alzheimers Disease. This charged topic clearly is a matter of some importance to much of the population. The apparent lack of authority and consistent understanding here then seems to be addressed by the practice akin to opening "forums" where the value of each contribution is basically anyone's guess. We suggest that the Times consider following up this piece by one who might give readers more assurance of what was learned and most importantly what practical use they might make of that information. This is probably most helpful for those suffering from the underlying conditions the drugs are meant to treat to a degree of severity and for such a duration that those who have not experienced such extreme symptoms may not comprehend that they may drive one mentally into a hopeless condition regardless of their predisposition to depression when there seems no viable relief in sight.

New York Times Article:


Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

08 September 2014

DOJ Sues To Halt Disenfranchisement Attempt By Texas Desperate Corrupt GOP Politicians Of 1.2 Million Mostly Lower-Income, Black And Latino Voters By GOP Bogus "Phony" ID Obstacle Last-Ditch Grasp To Cling To Power No Matter What The Cost To Democracy

       Monday, 8 September 2014, CORPUS CHRISTI, TX - The New York Times entire editorial board yesterday in an editorial with link below expressed its clear disgust with Texas corrupt GOP politicians' last-ditch attempt to prevent voting by an estimated 1.2 million Texas mostly lower-income, black and Latino voters whose interests these self-serving Republican enemies of democracy clearly never have nor will even purport to represent especially once they finally are extricated from office and patronage appointments whether imminently via the ballot box or when they finally are convicted of corruption in public office with the loss of long-time blanket protection from answering to public justice by lame-duck federally indicted Texas Idiot Governor Rick "Payback" Perry.
       The Times editorial details the passage by Texas' Republican-dominated legislature of a voter ID law which the Times characterized as justified by the "phony" claimed (non-existent) problem of voter fraud in Texas with the law's real purpose being to impose requirements on voting known to Republicans to disproportionately deprive legitimate Texas lower-income, black and Latino voters whom they know best would not be voting for them of their day at the ballot box.  The law which was passed within hours after a United States Supreme Court (since admittedly) misguided ruling that invalidated portions of the Voting Rights Act which previously prevented Texas Republicans from passing just such laws due to the State's well-documented history of acting wrongfully to deprive legitimate voters of their right to vote long intended to keep bought and paid for Republicans in supposedly "publicly" elected office despite their clear lack of majority popular support among the eligible voting population of the State of Texas whose interests they in no way represented.
       As also detailed below the Texas sham "voter ID" law which among other things noted would allow for example concealed weapon permit but not student ID holders to vote passed in the absence of Republican lawmakers' ability to use such long-favored means as a poll tax to keep eligible voters from the ballot box is currently under challenge by a federal lawsuit filed by the United States Department of Justice along with various other supporters of protecting voting rights for all eligible to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/08/opinion/voter-id-on-trial-in-texas.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

20 August 2014

New York Times Entire Editorial Board To Defense Of Indicted Texas Idiot Governor Rick "Payback" Perry, Sort Of, Barring A Few Choice Observations On His Governance Of The State Of Texas

       Wednesday, 20 August 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - The New York Times editorial board on Monday, 18 August 2014 opined as to its doubts based on the current publicly known evidence that indicted Texas Idiot Governor Rick "Payback" Perry's conduct in withholding funds from the State's Public Integrity Unit rose to the level of criminal conduct barring future public incriminating revelations from the prosecution. The Times editorial linked to below could not otherwise be characterized as overly complimentary of indicted Perry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/opinion/is-gov-perrys-bad-judgment-really-a-crime.html

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved


12 July 2014

George Clooney Continues To Slam Trash English Tabloid The Daily Mail Online Mail New York Times Article Reports - Times Digital Publishes Ninth Amendment Editorial Board Comment

       Saturday, 12 June 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - The New York Times edition today reported in the article linked below that the normally publicly reserved George Clooney remains unmollified by what he apparently regards as insufficiently half-hearted insincere efforts of the English trash tabloid The Daily Mail's Web Publication Mail Online to worm its way out of an incendiary article it published making untruthful assertions including about Mr. Clooney's Lebanese fiancee and her family's relationship with him which seemingly have incensed Mr. Clooney.
       The tabloid already has acknowledged  its online piece was factually incorrect and withdrew it within hours of Mr. Clooney's publication of his first response in USA Today reportedly hammering the tabloid for what Mr. Clooney claims to have been its extreme recklessness in publishing a piece which could expose his fiancee and/or her mother and their far-flung families potentially to serious danger in a world which already presents more than enough real dangers.
       Preceding the link below directly to the Times article concerning Mr. Clooney's continuing apparent outrage at The Daily Mail's Web Publication Mail Online while that tabloid's Web Publication has continued to enjoy a surge of readership in its expansion into the United States' market is a comment submitted to the Times on behalf of the Ninth Amendment editorial board in response to the Times article which Ninth Amendment comment is here below reproduced verbatim (with one spelling error corrected) having been just hours ago published in today's same digital edition of the Times along with other comments directly responding to the Times article.



BigMartin

 waronnothing 1 hour ago

The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com expresses its full sympathy and support for Mr. Clooney, his fiancee, and all their families and loved ones. Mr. Clooney both in his life on and off the set is a living example of the very finest qualities of decorum and compassion far beyond what we ourselves could ever hope to achieve in our lifetimes. We are completely unfamiliar with the offending "tabloid" which would by all accounts seem to aspire to all the very worst qualities antithetical to what Mr. Clooney and his work both professional and humanitarian represents to all of us as the very finest example of the highest qualities which persons of every race might only aspire to achieve. Should the offending "tabloid" purport to hold itself out as a "news" organization given the most copious resources reported to be at its disposal might we suggest, including in recognition of and in respect for the scores of journalists who have given their lives in the field in just the past year to report the news, that it follow the example of news organizations such as CNN, the New York Times, le Monde and so many others and get some of its people off the streets of SoHo and Los Angeles and out there to the front lines of the Middle East and perhaps eastern Ukraine, for starters. These are serious times which is all the less excuse for spurious and infantile behavior by those who would hold themselves out to be members of the noblest of professions
                                                                                                                                                                   http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/12/business/media/heard-the-news-on-george-clooney-this-much-is-true-hes-livid.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSumSmallMediaHigh&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim as to Times material)

22 June 2014

Regarding Veteran's Administration "Scandals" Professor Paul Krugman Nobel Peace Prize Winner New York Times Columnist Cautions Readers Not Rush To Judgment Despite Media Hysteria

       Sunday, 22 June 2014, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - Nobel Peace Prize Winner New York Times (Uncompensated) Daily "The Conscience of a Liberal" Columnist Princeton University Economics Professor (and the Ninth Amendment Editorial Board is not sure exactly what else) Paul Krugman in a Thursday, 19 June 2014 column presented verbatim in its entirety as fair comment accessible by interested readers via the link below argues why more thoughtful persons may wish to exercise pause before rushing to judgment regarding information presented to them which facts on cursory examination may seem to be susceptible to but one "correct" interpretation but on further examination with more complete background context may not necessarily be exactly what it seems nor be presented in some cases solely for the necessarily "innocent" good-intentioned motives which readers might quite naturally be expected to impugn.
       In the following piece Professor Krugman raises the question whether the furiously fueled Veteran's Administration hypermedia scandal may be to some extent be instigated by the calculated manipulation of parties with agendas which some observers might not otherwise immediately expect as well as demonstrating to the Ninth Amendment's editorial board one of a great many persons such as Professor Krugman win a Nobel Peace Prize while members of the Ninth Amendment's editorial board and staff have not. The editorial board however does take this opportunity unambiguously to communicate that we in fact are available to accept the Nobel Peace Prize and the accompanying one million dollar "stipend" -- including any inflation or cost of living upward adjustments -- should duty call upon us to do so.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/20/opinion/the-hype-behind-the-health-care-scandal.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3As&_r=0  

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to Krugman column)

26 March 2014

Obama Deceives Again Remains Silent As President Himself Has Power Immediately To Halt Unconscionable Unconstitutional Repulsive Executive Spook Agencies' Recording Of All Americans' Phone Calls, Yet Obama Misleads Americans As To Congress' Unneeded "Approval"

     Tuesday, 26 March 2014, WASHINGTON, D.C. - The entire New York Times editorial board in today's edition flat-out calls President Obama on that repeatedly disingenuous not-so-cool a guy as he might have you think side of President-Bam-Bam-Bama-Orama (as locally known in the days living with Grandma getting "selfish" doing drugs -- well-crafted words on his first election CNN hour -- or did that really refer to dealing below-par product?) who has exposed himself failing to act "under stealth" instead again shown himself possessed of a most distasteful and unforgivable trait of betraying those who got him elected.
     Here the immediate issue disclosed by the Times is that President Obama while he would have the Country believe he waits on his recent request to Congress immediately to cease collection of ALL Americans' telephone calls every time we have used the phone since "little shrub" Bush the "not really elected" President approved recording everybody obviously illegally -- "yeah, Dick, okay sure" -- between daily afternoon rounds of video golf during naptime at the White House.
     President Obama so far as we know has not gone to any great lengths to disabuse the American people of their encouraged misunderstanding, as best we understand the Times, because the fact is that President Obama made his request fully aware that he as President Obama by virtue of his position whether under law, arcane budget or other clause, or who really cares what is in an absolute position immediately to shut down this massive heinous invasion of all of our privacy simply by stating "Stop, I terminate requested authorization for this "program" of recording all Americans' telephone calls (on the grounds of no cause whatsoever)".
     Now on that dishonesty, too, given the continuing misinformation of the American people making zero effort to correct their belief that the responsibility for continuing to conduct such a horribly illegal executive spook agency action actually rested with no one but Mr. Obama himself, well might Mr. Obama again step way out there on a limb and "frankly" assess his own behavior as "selfish"?  
     While he is at it might President Obama even really let himself have it for "admitting" his drug "selfish[ness]", but then completely ignoring that he promised his constituents when he became President that such persons who had such a health issue and were non-violent (in which group President Obama evidently included himself) properly would be treated as such. Only problem Mr. President Obama is that then immediately upon becoming President and soon having the opportunity to present his own budget on such matters, Mr. Obama unbelievably merely re-proposed verbatim intact no new treatment programs whatsoever but almost beyond belief an exactly duplicated drug enforcement budget proposal of the recently departed not-really-elected "little shrub" Bush.
     Now in a court of law eventually repeated acts which bear an uncanny resemblance to one another at a certain point might become admissible evidence of "habits", or God forbid even repeated so often with such similarity that they may be taken by the trier of fact to prove "character". Well, Mr. President Obama these early morning ramblings neither have been long-considered, long-researched, nor do they purport to be "all-inclusive" pro and con. Nevertheless we believe there are a GREAT many of us who voted for you who sadly may well never forget these and at least a few other of your Presidential acts (we will put aside your acceptance (and frequent use of) sole authority to murder by being the sole person self-permitted to give the "Fire" (or is it "Kill") order to a drone under the entirely distasteful newly updated for a new century CIA assassination protocol developed under your first Administration, if memory serves, as a the final component of the work of "lethal surveillance teams").
     And finally let us not forget those of us caught up in the tremendous fury of massive Constitutional upset and horror as to all sorts of loathsome provisions tossed into the so-called "U.S. Patriot Act", that apparent hodge-podge of yes maybe a little terrorism, and, well, yes, maybe quite a few "other" items as to which Congress had already unequivocally innumerable times told law enforcement and the spooks "no", which frankly well no one was really at the time of signing what-all given the circumstances not the least of which was that the strangely altered final draft allegedly mysteriously appeared up their on the podium with the first rays of dawn's early light its ink still fresh from the press, and no need to get one's fingers dirty as what was it, four or five hundred pages and the vote if four minutes?
     Mr. President, now on that one you definitely were against it. If anyone was against it, in case you forgot, that was you. Going into your first Election Day were there one thing we knew for sure about you it was that. So, Mr. President Obama-bama-bo-bama-orama the one saving grace, if one could call it that, was that the Bush administration's legislative nightmare thrust up the American people's *** that day must have been so beyond the pale even for that so-called "President's" crew, the usual cast of characters, that they must have felt compelled to see that the Patriot Act at least was not literally written as in stone, nor even in permanent marker, because the one thing it had was "sunset provisions" providing that if not specifically re-enacted the days would come when sections of it would fall off of it as the dead law it had always really been, but now longer effective.
     Our only question on that one Mr. Obama would undoubtedly have to be, we are sure you must have guessed it by now, is why the hell after all you had said and represented in your campaign, was your Administration actually in the end not the impetus to eliminate the legislation but in fact the opposite. Because it was your Administration that then took the fantastically unbelievable betrayal of your Aeministration's own initiative before those sunset provisions dropped off to propose that much of that most heinous in the Patriot Act become permanent law! Your administration took the initiative to make it the permanent law of the land! So, tell us please, sir. To trash our Constitution. Were you selfish?

Copyright 2014 Martin P. All World Rights Expressly Reserved

01 October 2013

Please "Like" N.S.A. To Facilitate Use Of Americans' "Mainway" Metadata To Monitor Your Phone, E-Mail, GPS, Family, Friends, Lovers, Acquaintances, Social Network Relationships

       Monday, 30 September 2013, THE TOWER OF LONDON - "Power Corrupts. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely." What on God's Earth could Lord Acton have meant by those convoluted words so confusing to the ordinary cryptographer as to surely have meant nothing at all? No doubt His Lordship uttered them just as thoughtlessly as the Founding Fathers entirely consistent with their otherwise tediously nonchalant drafting of the United States Constitution included the Ninth Amendment when they circulated it to the several states as one of the original Twelve two of which must have been really bad as the States could not even stomach that balderdash and had to trim the whole lot down to the Ten renumbered and come to be known as the "Bill of Rights" (or to today's three branches of Government the "Invoice of Suggestions".)
       Yea! did the Founding Fathers furthermore that fateful summer in addition to verily vestigial verbiage plunked elsewhere in the Preamble and Body of the Constitution's text lavishly extoll and make use of their many lustrous and other select arsenal of ponderous words for no reason at all other than to waste their time, breath, energy and to avoid having to go back a moment too soon to their families, whom in any case the N.S.A. had it fully metastasized could have been keeping an eye on them making sure lest they leave anything out of their letters or their (beta) Facebook entries.
       We might admit it appeared ever so slightly challenging to this Ninth Amendment editorial board for a while to predict the who and when until having done nothing to stop it came the next wave of perpetration of widespread U.S. Government overreaching, abuses of powers and outright violations of long-established laws as soon as those misdeeds became technologically feasible and "cost-effective" in that special "national security" sense of the term. That is any cost is effective and every security is national.
       Now despite N.S.A. General Keith Alexander's assurances of facile necessity like technology run amok with hackers the breaches of our liberties have rumbled exponentially close behind with the government hacking at the heels of our private lives at 20 million hits of metadata an hour. Turns out we really do not need to know exactly what you were doing on the telephone with the ACLU two hours a week, because we have a pretty good idea, and especially after the N.S.A. Hearing (oh, that is us!) then they spoke with the Center for Constitutional Rights for just another hour (told you those CCRS were always even a wee bit sneakier, a wee bit craftier). And zoom in on that wall at the Facebook birthday party video at their National Offices would you? 25X magnification, 17 filters, and, oh, hand over the night vision goggles while the candles are burning, just make out that "Master Litigation Chart" as if with the naked eye right there, eh? 
       Surely those "powers" of continuous contiguous surveillance which were never granted to any State most definitely not the Federal Government in 1789 nay to the N.S.A. nor any of the other fifteen or twenty others in any of the two-and-a-quarter-centuries thereafter (just thank goodness the Military stays out of our Government, has no interest in it like in those banana republics!) in the solemn and sacred Compact with the People known as the U.S. Constitution, so therefore according to the plain parameters of that document in fact remain vested exclusively as the inalienable rights (cannot take them away) and sole provinces (NO WE NEVER SURRENDER OUR MOST PRIVATE MOMENTS) of  WE THE PEOPLE of THESE UNITED STATES NO OTHER COUNTRY and it is WITH US ALONE they reside. (But who wants privacy if they have nothing to hide? Why not stay pure in the clean bright blinding light of the public arena, like us?)
       Pray read your Declaration of Independence, your Preamble, your Constitution, all your "Charters of Freedom", disseminate them each a thousand times over before THEY tell you SURE they EXIST but NOWHERE do they say YOU can READ THEM! Nowhere do they say we cannot convert them to digital and WIPE THEM CLEAN!
       Readers interested in more lately revealed details of the inexorably growing reality of the N.S.A.'s foreign surveillance turned domestic from warrant to not from cellular phone to e-mail to Facebook to GPS to Cellular Tower/Dishes (No Comment) to acquaintances to co-workers to friends to relatives to family to YOU and your society, media, meetings, schedules, conferences, your children, your pets will not want to miss the following latest New York Times piece including on "Mainway". Please support your New York Times:
  
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/nsa-examines-social-networks-of-us-citizens.html?ref=us&_r=0

Copyright 2013 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved (no claim to New York Times material)

19 June 2013

Obama Vapid Response Shocks Again Dismays Entire New York Times Editorial Board On But Most Recent Executive Major U.S. Constitutional Attack

     Wednesday, 19 June 2013, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - The Ninth Amendment most sincerely regrets yet again in what seems to be but a matter of weeks and indeed even through this log's most recent post to inform readers of reports that President Obama continues to dismiss and oddly appear to believe he is somehow even distanced from continuing reports of blatant Executive Branch (of which he of course is the Chief) encroachments of potentially calamitous historical Constitutional proportions on some of its most sacred and fundamental protections of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
     Many are perhaps most specifically and extensively set forth with the ratification by a majority of the several states of the Bill of Rights (which of course still in the view of this log known after all as "The Ninth Amendment"  has some VERY largely obviously to most anyone who can read English individually protective yet oddly indeed near-completely unexplored, unrecognized, unacknowledged and actually effectively ignored provisions which the State in the view of this log can only be said to maintain ludicrously are some sort of vestigial surplusage which would have had to be absolutely uncharacteristically inserted by the Founding Fathers as if they were, say, getting paid by the hour or page.
     In any case it was at most some few months ago that the entire editorial board of The New York Times as reported here called for the complete closure of Guantanamo Bay and release of remaining detainees especially in light of some who had now spent about a decade there even AFTER federal judges ORDERED them released and all essentially agreed that many (but not all - those being segregated) posed no threat at all. But Congress refused to provide funding.
     Then of course heinous legislation such as the cynically entitled "Patriot Act" survives even in all its admittedly worst provisions thrown in in the dead of night with President Obama's administration actually having had its and other legislation's Bush-era "sunset provisions" not only not left effective but having done so by making these laws destroying the fabric of this country permanent.
     And now in the wake of the most recent revelations of the Obama administration's continuation of the NSA's seven-year-old unconstitutional universal surveillance program even as the President and his new century "lethal surveillance teams" and Oval Office direct controlled drone assassinations and murders continue, the New York Times reports on President Obama's shockingly dismal and disingenuous statements in defense of the new surveillance state he oversees, even calling it successful when he well knows that the telephone component in particular produces far less safety-enhancing results.
     The Ninth Amendment has as recently indicated here had about as much as it cares to stomach for the moment. Interested readers are encouraged to click to the New York Times editorial link directly below for further details. God Bless America.


Copyright 2013 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved

29 April 2013

Times Columnist Professor "Krugtron The Invincible" Blasts Richest 1%'s Ignorant Tool Austerity Economists As "Knaves And Fools"

    Monday, 29 April 2013, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - New York Times economics Nobel Prize-winnng columnist Princeton Professor Paul Krugman yesterday assumed the name of "Krugtron The Invincible" in response to what he described essentially as continuing annoyingly ignorant criticism from so-called  "austerity economist" mouthpieces of the United States' richest 1% (soon to be if not already 0.1%) which tools of the rich Professor Krugman dismissed as "Knaves and Fools". The Ninth Amendment editorial staff's responsive comment published yesterday in the digital New York Times appears verbatim below. Readers may click on the link below to go directly to the comment and Professor Krugman's piece entitled "Knaves, Fools and Me (Meta)" to which the below comment responded.
  1. April 28, 2013 at 3:26 p.m.
      • BigMartin
      • waronnothing
      Professor Krugtron The Invincible, The editorial staff of the Ninth Amendment log at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com encourages you as all to express yourself as you will yet cautioning your new moniker may impede your chances of a second Nobel Prize. However our research staff has yet to determine definitively either one person's eligibility to win more than one Nobel Prize per corporeal manifestation (i.e. lifetime) or the probability thereof in any case. In which case your name change actually may be another brilliant tact to garner a second Nobel Prize consistent with your tendency undeniably to be scrupulously correct. As to the knaves and fools to whom you refer in the curious medieval/comic book world which you this day seem to inhabit we further agree that be it ignorance, stupidity, greed, avarice, absolute lack of knowledge or respect for some of this Great Country's harshest lessons of its none-too-distant history they do seem determined not only to repeat disaster revisiting past mistakes with exponential fervor but indeed to make them irreversible. Professor we fear that you may be too kind as many inhabiting a medieval/comic book world might be quick to point out that tragically some people are just plain self-centered dangerously no-good evil liars. We wish however to believe this ultimately not to be the case but prefer to maintain our belief or in any case imagine (John Lennon) in the triumph of the essential goodness and knowledge of humanity the world over.

      Copyright 2013 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved

06 April 2013

New York Times Entire Editorial Board Finally Calls For Guantanamo Bay Closure Detainees Release

     6 April 2013, NEW YORK, NEW YORK - In the wake of the most recent and longest hunger strike ever of remaining Guantanamo Bay detainees in numbers far greater than those told in more lies to the American people by the United States Government and the CIA many of whom were ordered released long ago the entire editorial board of the Ninth Amendment log salutes the entire editorial board of the New York Times for finally demonstrating the moral courage to call for the immediate closure of Guantanamo Bay and release of detainees in the New York Times published today. Readers may click the Times link below.
     The end of this atrocity indeed is the ultimate proof to the world that the United States did not lose the war on terrorism by sacrificing its own Constitution and fundamental principles upon which it was founded including as set out in the English Common Law and the International Laws governing the conduct of all nations.
     God Bless America.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/hunger-strike-at-guantanamo-bay.html?hp&_r=0

Copyright 2013 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved

13 December 2012

Zuckerboy And CIA Tools Facebook, Google and Twitter Lead Attack Of Viral Social Media Giants On Privacy Of American People

     Wednesday, 12 December 2012, SAN FRANCISCO - Hardly a moment passes on North Korea's "atomic clock" that megalomaniac Zuckerboy at the helm (a la drunken sot Exxon Valdez Captain Hazelwood) of Facebook, or "Mugshot" as more popularly known in the so-called law "enforcement" community, and other viral social media cohort CIA-fronts Google, Twitter and lesser players in the war on Americans' fundamental privacy rights announce some new "privacy policies".
     The Ninth Amendment's legal department scarcely is surprised to find these policies about as incomprehensible as impossible to decrypt when taken together as the latest "health" insurer "benefits" guide written exclusively by armies of hack two-bit lawyers with no healthcare knowledge whatsoever save further ripping off the American people for some mega-rich "health" insurer that dare not actually affix its name to the thousands of anonymous highrise towers insurance companies long have been known to own in downtown cities across the United States. (Hey Prudential, still own San Francisco's Embarcadero Center in a joint venture with the Rockefeller family?) That is, one is left with the overwhelming question (like T.S. Eliot), am I really getting something more here for my benefit, or am I actually losing even more rights and benefits at greater cost to me? The answer actually is not too difficult to predict at this point in the game.
     The Ninth Amendment strongly recommends this above date's New York Times technology section to interested readers especially as rich in details of the latest hijinks of the viral media giants as well as many references to websites devoted to providing readers with free means of defeating at least some of the tracking mechanisms of these CIA tools. Needless to say the Ninth Amendment was horrified to see that even the once-venerable New York Times has joined the game of tracking its readers and in some cases merely visitors who do not even "click" on anything.
     Readers are reminded to refrain from READING FREE UNLIMITED NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLES SIMPLY BY SETTING FREE FIREFOX BROWSERS TO "PRIVATE BROWSING" NOR SHOULD THAT TECHNIQUE NO LONGER WORK TO REFRAIN FROM PERFORMING SIMPLE SEARCHES SUCH AS "DEFEATING NEW YORK TIMES PAYWALL".
     Because of the rich material especially made available in this above date's Times to find websites dedicated to protecting readers' privacy including with free adjustments to different browser settings, the Ninth Amendment in its recognition of the importance of getting this material to press for the benefit of interested readers below provides the link to the main "Facebook" article which should lead resourceful readers to many of the tips for defeating viral social media privacy invasion practices. If but one life is saved....

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/12/facebook-changes-privacy-settings-again/

     The editorial board of the Ninth Amendment submitted the following comment for publication in the digital edition of the above date's New York Times in response to the Times' request for comments on the linked preceding article. The comment later was published in the digital New York Times.

  • BigMartin
  • waronnothing
The editorial staff of the Ninth Amendment log at www.waronnothing.blogspot.com expresses no surprise at the apparent complete ignorance of Facebook, Google and the rest of the "viral social media" crowd of CIA child tools in their continuing demonstration of complete ignorance of the Bill of Rights in general and here in particular fundamental privacy protections identified at least as long ago as Mr. Justice Douglas' identification of "penumbras" of fundamental privacy rights in his seminal opinion Griswold v. Connecticut. Probably as a result of most of these one-dimensional ill-educated techno-geeks having dropped out of Ivy League schools (those who got in them in the first place) long before receiving a well-rounded education and considering perhaps even graduating given the almighty allure of the dollar to megalomaniac Zuckerboy and his fellow viral social media cohorts. But shame on the New York Times for playing along including with this most dangerous game of tracking American citizens -- or has it forgotten so quickly what absolutely vital protections the United States Constitution afforded it in, among other things, in [sic] its complete protection by the United States Supreme Court from "prior restraint" in the Pentagon Papers case? As they say, what goes around comes around.
 Copyright 2012 Big M All World Rights Expressly Reserved (except as to New York Times content)