(November 29, 2019)
The title question would seem to be just about the most obvious one that a person could raise, considering Alexander Vindman’s background, his associations, and his most recent behavior. The fact that hardly anyone seems to be making it is just one more reason, I believe, that he very likely is working for the CIA and has been throughout his military career. Actually, very much to his credit, Rush Limbaugh has observed that Vindman appears to be employed by people other than those in his chain of command. He just stops short of speculating as to who, exactly, that might be, like, say, the CIA.
We’re talking about the Jewish Ukrainian American military officer in the middle of the ginned-up Adam Schiff-Nancy Pelosi-MSM impeachment inquiry. From all indications, he is the man who shared his supposed concerns about President Donald Trump’s July 25, 2019, telephone conversation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky with the “whistleblower.” The latter person has been widely identified as the Yalie, CIA analyst, and Democratic Party partisan, 33-year-old Eric Ciaramella. On its face, Vindman would appear to be acting in an insubordinate fashion toward the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces, of which he is a part. At the same time, if we have learned nothing more from the entire Russiagate fiasco, it is that the U.S. intelligence community, abetted by the Operation Mockingbird press, has been in a state of almost open revolt against Donald Trump for quite some time now. What could explain the man’s behavior better than that he is a part of that crowd?
Taken at face value, Vindman’s actions would appear to be an absolute career killer. What incredible effrontery for a United States military officer to sneak around behind the back of the United States President, providing what should be considered classified information to said President’s obvious political enemy, to be leaked to the enemy press and the enemy Congress to put the President in the worst possible light! Even worse, the bad-light-shining is accomplished by mischaracterizing the core information being leaked. Yet, Vindman, this obvious careerist-to-the-core even followed up with a willing performance before the President’s chief Congressional antagonist, Adam Schiff, the Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
This week Angela Merkel, a German-Polish Marxist who has served as the Federal Republic of Germany’s chancellor since 2005, warned against the “propagation of hate”, cautioning those who may tend to speak their minds, that freedom of speech is not “for free.'”
Echoing the rhetoric of a public relations campaign underway throughout the West against “hate speech,” Merkels’ comments came in an address to the German Parliament on November 27.
Merkel came under fire in 2016 for agreeing with Turkish President Erdoğan to prosecute a German comedian for publicly reciting a poem satirizing Recep Erdoğan in a performance that sought to illustrate the limits of free speech in Germany.
Four-legged robot “Spot” resembles a metal dog without a head.
The Mind Unleashed
(November 26, 2019)
(TMU) — Police in the United States have quietly begun integrating advanced robots into officers’ ranks, raising alarm among civil liberties advocates and police watchdogs in the country.
Video of Boston Dynamics robots climbing stairs, carrying boxes, and doing basic parkour have long circulated around the internet, creeping out viewers with the lifelike motion of its humanoid robot model and it’s semi-autonomous four-legged robot “Spot”—a customizable bot which resembles a metal dog without a head that, understandably, some people call “terrifying.”
And now, radio station WBUR and the ACLU have discovered that the Massachusetts State Police have been leasing one of the Boston Dynamics’ robot dogs for use in its bomb squad.
Spot’s integration into the state police, which began in August, marks the very first time that such advanced robotics have been deployed within a civilian police force.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts has been seeking official public records on the use of Spot in the police arsenal. The group believes that the robotic dogs, which can carry out such tasks like opening doors and clearing obstacles in high-risk environments, have already been put to use in live incidents.
Indiana U Decision; New TracyvFAU Video Series
November 25, 2019
Editor’s Note: A major US research university has refused to terminate a tenured professor’s employment for exercising his constitutionally-protected right to free speech. The university’s ostensible respect for the First Amendment elicited positive reactions from “students, academics and lawyers, many of whom praised the provost for publicly excoriating the professor’s opinions while respecting one of the nation’s basic freedoms,” the New York Times observes.
There is notably no mention by the “newspaper of record” of the TracyvFAU First Amendment case where in 2015 a Florida public university successfully sidestepped the First Amendment by firing a tenured academic for questioning his university administration’s efforts to censor his similarly protected speech.
New York Times
(November 22, 2019)
A provost at Indiana University has earned praise for harshly condemning a professor’s views while respecting the First Amendment.
The provost did not mince her words about the opinions of a professor on her campus. His views were racist, sexist and homophobic, she wrote in a statement this week. They were “vile and stupid,” she said, and “more consistent with someone who lived in the 18th century than the 21st.”
But the provost, Lauren Robel of Indiana University Bloomington, was equally clear on another point: The First Amendment prohibited the university from firing the professor, Eric Rasmusen, for expressing those views. “That is not a close call,” wrote Professor Robel, who also teaches at the law school.
The unusually candid statement quickly drew attention from students, academics and lawyers, many of whom praised the provost for publicly excoriating the professor’s opinions while respecting one of the nation’s basic freedoms.
Conflicts over academic freedom and private speech have long been mainstays of college campuses. There was the case of Steven Salaita, the professor whose job offer was revoked by the University of Illinois in 2014 over his criticism of Israel. And John McAdams, the professor who was reinstated by a Wisconsin court last year after Marquette University suspended him for criticizing a graduate student on his personal blog.