The Moral From Yesterday's Oval Office Squabble? Don't Get Into A Debate With A Swine

                                                          
The  72-  year old bully brat buffoon who vowed to shut down the government yesterday.

In case you haven't seen it yet, check out the squabble that transpired yesterday in the Oval Office, between Dotard and the two Dem leaders, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi:

Trump Argues With Schumer And Pelosi On Border Security - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-CuAbbZUoI

The spectacle immediately drew multiple takes from the Neoliberal-dominated media, including this morning on CBS Early Show when anchors John Dickerson and Gayle King declared: "This was no way to behave in the Oval Office and it doesn't look good for either side".   Well, duh.  But what would you have had the two Dems do, sit stone silent like VP Mike Pence?  As former Florida GOP congressman Dave Jolly put it last night: "Both Schumer and Pelosi deserve applause for standing up to Trump and refuting each of his lies." 

Bingo!  But as usual, the Neolib media always plays the "two sides" baloney to try to appear non-partisan. It doesn't work and it never has because anyone with an average IQ can see right through it.  For once we actually have a cross check on this boisterous buffoon, and he doesn't like it,  so prefers to throw a fit for the cameras as he postures like a crazed baboon.  He knows in his puerile heart that starting next year the D-House will go into every nook and cranny of his sorry reign. But in the meantime a word of advice for the Dems:   It may be best not to engage in any discussions on anything regarding policy - because in the end it's not about policy - whether a border wall, immigration in general, the national debt....or whatever.

All of which elicits the question of what yesterday's fracas was all about. I tend to agree with political commentator Ezra Klein who insisted last night ('Last Word') it was never about any border wall, but rather about Trump being in a fight and enjoying a fight. Recall, as the late conservo columnist Charles Krauthammer, David Brooks, Dave Jolly, the WSJ's  Dan Henninger and many others have observed, this is a guy that "likes to punch back".  If one reduces the altercation to this meme, the whole event becomes fairly transparent: it was all about the "Trump Show" and a "terrible day for America" - to use Klein's description.

Why a terrible day?  Because if Trump goes through with his vow to shut down the government on December 21st, 400,000 federal employees will be sent home, another 350,000 will be furloughed. Many agencies will be short-staffed and unable to do the people's business. AS for HUD, nearly 87 % of its 7,800 staff will be sent home meaning the poor in need of Sec. 8 housing will not get it.

As Klein elaborated on the reasons for this farce:

"Give Pelosi and Schumer credit for putting him in a corner, What struck me so deeply about that meeting is that Donald Trump doesn't himself want the wall.  That is not the meeting you want if you want the wall. The difference in what he wants in funding and what he's currently got in funding is about $3.7 billion.  That is nothing in the federal budget. 

If he wanted that wall he would not have put that meeting in front of the cameras, and he'd be willing to give them something for it.....But the thing about Trump is he doesn't want the wall, he wants the fight over the wall. So I don't think they exactly know what to do about a president who doesn't want his policies because he doesn't care about policy. What he wants to do is have fights with Democrats about policy or about policy ideas or words that sound like policy ideas. And have those fights on camera.

The fact those fights don't redound well for him, the fact he's not in a popular position doesn't seen to really bother him. Trump runs his presidency as if the ratings on the television show he's starring on are good and the punches are seen. And today was a good day in the Trump Show."

And as even the CBS personnel noted correctly, it distracted from Trump's problems in finding someone to replace John Kelly as chief of staff, and his multiple legal troubles.

The best takeaway from all this for the Democrats in the House,  when they take the reins next year?  George Bernard Shaw's famous quote:


In other words, don't engage in any more bizarre reality "shows" with this septuagenarian toddler - especially in the Oval Office with cameras running. Instead deftly use subpoenas and complement Mueller's probe with your own investigations. In other words, stolidly and solidly - without fanfare- do the work the Repukes wouldn't.   The American people, at least the non-Foxite sentient set, will thank you for it!

See also:

Donald Trump

An Unstable Dolt

by P.M. Carpenter | December 13, 2018 - 7:49am | permalink

And:

Elizabeth Preza

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Chuck Schumer | Donald Trump | Nancy Pelosi

Pelosi And Schumer Corner Trump As He Spews Lies About The Border Wall — And Insists He’s ‘Proud’ To Shut Down The Government

Bernie Scores A Resounding Win in NH: Can He Go All The Way?

It was gratifying last night to see Hillary delivering her concession speech for the New Hampshire primary with the clock not having even reached 7.30 p.m. Mountain time. By the time of her concession Sen. Bernie Sanders had amassed a nearly 21 percentage point lead in the count (59% to 40%) or very close to the margin that the polls had forecast.

Bernie's victory speech - televised in full on MSNBC and FOX (split screen - share dwith the Trumpies waiting for their own winner)  embodied all the themes he's sounded in this campaign so far, including the corrupting presence of campaign finance contributions from Wall Street's high rollers  (see also my post yesterday). One intriguing stat was that females in NH went for Sanders by 53% to 47% with younger women (18-45)  favoring the 74-year old by nearly a 69%-29% margin. It appeared the brash putdowns by Hillary surrogate Madeleine Albright ("A special place in hell is reserved for women who don't support other women....blah, blah") didn't have their intended effect and in fact may have backfired.

To the electrified, energized crowd gather in the victory venue, Bernie said:

"It is a political revolution that will bring tens of millions of our people together. It will bring together working people who’ve given up on the political process; it will bring together young people who’ve never participated.”

He then delivered his website, www.BernieSanders.com 

to which supporters can donate - noting "this is my campaign fund raiser". Today he will be in New York, including for guest appearances on the network shows.

Has he achieved any respect from his momentous win? A little. But as is their wont, the Neoliberal media is still unprepared to award an unqualified victory - any more than they allowed it in Iowa where Hillary surrogates gamed the outcome -  literally - with at least 6 coin tosses (prompting a call for investigation by the Des Moines Register). Their belief, expressed also last night, is that he achieved his wins in two "white states" but would have serious problems in the South or anywhere else.

As UK Guardian writer Lucia Graves pointed out:

"He is going to need more than just those young voters in the weeks to come: he has picked up plenty of delegates in the small, overwhelmingly white states of Iowa and New Hampshire because of them, but it’s not clear if they alone can carry him to continued victories as the election moves south."

But unlike the U.S. Neoliberal media she did caution against belittling his Iowa caucus and NH primary success:

"There are a lot of pragmatic reasons that Sanders and his team ought to feel trepidation looking at the long primary season and Clinton’s polling leads – but a pragmatic man probably wouldn’t have challenged her to a primary in the first place. And if pragmatism was winning over Democratic voters, they wouldn’t be voting in droves for the candidate promising a revolution."

Bingo! And as NH exit polls showed, an increasing fraction of Dem voters are demanding character over "experience". (By about 32 percent to 27 percent).  I believe this trend will continue as more and more is learned  about Hillary's Wall Street speeches, for which transcripts are sought. After all, as a presidential candidate who promises to rein in the money boys, we have every right to know what she told them after being paid $675,000 (by Goldman Sachs).

Lastly, the other outsider, Donald Trump, did congratulate Bernie before taking the stage for his own victory speech - but in a way it was back-handed. He told his own supporters "Bernie wants to give away everything free" but that in fact perverts the facts.

Making a single payer health care plan available to all citizens is not "giving away everything for free" given the U.S. was a signatory to a UN 1994 Declaration making health care a RIGHT. Too few people now recall that salient fact. And, if it is a RIGHT, then it must be accessible to all citizens, not unaffordable (driving people into bankruptcy) or selective.  Hence, Bernie is merely seeking to honor that edict as opposed to neglecting it as U.S. leaders have done the past 21 years. He is asserting that if and when this country is a signatory to a UN Declaration it means something. This as opposed to not being worth the paper printed on.

As for the expansion of Social Security, to ensure our elder citizens aren't scrounging the rest of their lives, that comes under the General Welfare clause of the Preamble to the Constitution, e.g.

“We the PEOPLE of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."

For more on this, and why more conservatives (like Trump) need to study it, see: 

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/08/parsing-general-welfare-clause.html

 As for Bernie's continued primary challenges I believe he will meet them head on, even as the fight intensifies. The only proviso I would make is don't take any weapon off the table. And if Hillary continues to bash him as "unelectable" because of his democratic socialism - well, then it is time to play the email card!

See also:
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/10/donald-trump-bernie-sanders-new-hampshire-primary-anti-establishment-outsider-campaigns

Pope Francis - a 'Feel Good' Choice for TIME Person of the Year

Two main contenders: Edward Snowden and Pope Francis. Snowden was runner up for Person of the Year, but ought to have taken it.

Well, the votes have come in and Pope Francis beat out Edward Snowden as TIME's 'Person of the Year'.  While I love this Pope and his plucky statements, let's face it: he hasn't affected world events, governments to the extent that Snowden has by his revelations of NSA snooping worldwide. Those have shaken governments to their core, re-aligned relationships, created diplomatic turmoil in the highest reaches of power, and informed citizens across the globe that their freedom is essentially a myth. Based on lots of fulsome rhetoric - but when the state or states can spy on them at will (see previous post )grabbing emails, cell phone messages, etc.  they are basically puppets.

Let us get it clear that the basis of the 'Person of the Year' award is not for the one "best loved" or even "most popular" or "most moral" - which is why TIME had no problem choosing Adolf Hitler once, to the consternation of most Americans.  It is based on the Person who MOST AFFECTED global events for that year. Thus, it would have been a no-brainer to choose Edward Snowden.

Pope Francis, as loveable as he is, has simply not actually affected the world beyond the 1.1 billion Catholics.  While he has chided the Vatican's fossils for their overweening attention to the "pelvic sins" (contraception, masturbation, abortion etc.) he has not actually changed any of the Church's doctrines in these areas or altered the Magisterium- based pronouncements or issued new encyclicals to redefine ethics.

Indeed, he comes nowhere near to the actual actions that had been planned by Albino Luciani (Pope John Paul 1, assassinated in September, 1978) who had intended to repeal the proscriptions against artificial birth control and also shake up the Vatican Bank, including ridding it of Paul Marcinkus. (See David Yallop's book, 'In God's Name').

So while on the religious ethics front Francis has delivered some terrific rhetoric, he hasn't really delivered in terms of actions.

He does merit credit for coming out strong against 'trickle down economics' and Neoliberal market capitalism, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/bravo-to-pope-francis-for-warning-of.html

But even here, embedded Neoliberal Catholic columnists like Ross Douthat (of The New York Times) have written about Frances' remarks and exhortations can still be rendered compatible with Neoliberal market principles, e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-pope-and-the-right.html

Excerpt:

it’s true that there is no Catholic position on, say, the correct marginal tax rate, and that Catholics are not obliged to heed the pope when he suggests that global inequality is increasing when the statistical evidence suggests otherwise.        But the church’s social teaching is no less an official teaching for allowing room for disagreement on its policy implications. And for Catholics who pride themselves on fidelity to Rome, the burden is on them — on us — to explain why a worldview that inspires left-leaning papal rhetoric also allows for right-of-center conclusions.

Meanwhile, by taking actual ACTIONS - Snowden has upended the entire national security state and even opened the door to powerful legislation to curb the excesses of the NSA. He has also opened the world's eyes, including those of tech companies, citizen users, to just how insecure their communications are and how unstable the platforms and the 'cloud'. Never mind the Neoliberal Constitutional traitors regard Snowden as the traitor.  This just shows how far removed they are from taking seriously their oaths to "protect and defend the Constitution."

In other words, TIME's choice of 'Person of the Year' amounted to a feel good choice that wouldn't upset too many other than a small coterie of hard-backed conservative Catholics.  By contrast, if they'd selected Snowden they'd have had the whole constellation of Neoliberal politico assholes, puppets, media and zombies screaming at them and calling down perdition for TIME "honoring treason".

So, while one can understand the reason why TIME punked out and made the easy, non-controversial choice,  one also understands it embodies the lack of courage that has dogged American journalism since Bernstein and Woodward helped expose Watergate.

In any case, Snowden was named as runner up but we all know - those of us with sense and perception - he ought to have been first.

Joe Klein Loses It: Blames Baby Boomers for "Current Political Mess" in 'TIME' Tirade

Neolib hack Joe Klein, in his latest TIME column ("Apocalypse Now", Oct. 21, p. 18) goes even further off the deep edge of pseudo-journalistic lunacy than he did back in the spring. Recall at that time, Klein put those of  us who challenged Obama on the Chained CPI issue (for Social Security) in the same "extremist" league as the NRA - which had recently mounted a counter-legislative initiative to shoot down a weak gun control law.  Klein had responded to a letter by Howard Dean’s brother who had sent out a letter headed ‘Disgusted’ with the subtitle: ‘President Obama’s Budget Has Left me Disgusted’. I had asked at the time if Klein was nuts or just plain stupid.


Now he's one-upped that display of stupidity with his latest broadside against the Boomers. He actually puts them in the same class as the Tea Party, if one can believe it, using the dubious basis that both were into "street theater, bombast and showtime" and yeah - we were "every bit of solipsistic" as the Tea Baggers. Jeebus! So Klein actually gets paid good money to write this bollocks?  In fact, we were a damned sight more educated than the Tea Bag crowd, and far more idealistic. We didn't carry "Don't Tread on Me" signs and wear funny hats but we did actually mount enough large demonstrations to be one major agent that brought an end to the illegal Vietnam war.

As for "solipsistic", uh, no, Joe! We went out into the world to express and manifest our idealism, such as volunteering as Peace Corps volunteers to actually help vulnerable, developing nations set up agricultural projects, effective health assistance and educational consolidation. We didn't march into streets bearing real loaded guns because we didn't approve of a health care law, or try to shut the fuckin' government down!

Klein, to his minimal credit does admit:

"I am not saying the baby boom generation caused the government shutdown, but we've presided over an era during which public trust in government has been demolished. We've allowed the influence of concentrated money to corrupt our democracy."

But Klein has the wrong bad guys. In fact, I can show it was the government itself - at the time just after the Kennedy assassination (the pivotal event from which most polls disclose trust seriously  plummeted) that incepted the most profound public cynicism and distrust in the government. This government was mainly dominated by the "greatest generation" and it was they - the likes of LBJ, Earl Warren, Arlen Specter, Gerald Ford, David Belin et al who by their dastardly cover up of the crime of the century - led to our current political morass and descent. The concentrated money? JFK had plans and proposals to limit that influence, but the gangster state didn't want it and murdered him. The cover up in the wake ensured no one would be any the wiser, but most of the American people were and saw beyond the façade

But specific  examples are needed to show this. And there's no better place to start than the lies,  deceits, and shenanigans of the Warren Commission itself. Perhaps no other judicial confection or whitewash has done more to irreparably damage public trust in government than this politically-appointed entity whose job was to cover up the real actors in the assassination of one of the most beloved presidents - who also threatened the establishment.

Let's examine in detail Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford's own specific role in upending history by concealing the truth. This is visible in the draft shown below wherein he altered key words, sentences to mislead on the bullet to Kennedy's back:


The initial draft of the report had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."


A comparison of the above, deliberate change (referencing a wound in the back of the neck)  to the photograph below from the autopsy,  shows clearly Ford sought to lie, since the bullet hole had clearly been marked in the back. Ford intentionally wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth! Ford is one part of the thousands of reasons the public came to mistrust government in the wake of the Kennedy assassination. Because if we couldn't trust government to perform this task, the faithful and judicious investigation of the slaughter of a sitting president, then it wasn't worth diddly spit or squat. And if it lied in its investigation-  to cover up the truth, then it couldn't be trusted!

Actual photo from Kennedy autopsy (but with rear of skull cosmetically replaced by mortician's plaster)  shows Ford is an inveterate liar.


Worse for Ford,  assassination eye-witnesses, including at least one Secret Service Agent in Dealey Plaza and several FBI agents (present at the Bethesda autopsy), placed the president's back wound exactly where the mute testimony of the president's jacket and shirt (and the above photo)  showed: six inches below the collar line.

The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th. That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

Let’s bear in mind that it was Gerry Ford  (who was no baby boomer!)  who originally suggested that the panel change its initial description of the bullet wound in Kennedy's back to place it higher up in his body. He knew, as did the others (including Arlen Specter, the author of the single bullet malarkey) that such changes were needed to make it fly and "disprove" conspiracy. Oh me, oh my, perish the thought of any conspiracy! We couldn't have the American people believe we were just another Banana Republic!

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics! Alas the only mention ever made of this perfidy was in the back pages of The New York Times nearly 33 years after the event.(See below)

But the change - though described as "ever so slight" in terms of wording, altered the whole basis for the Warren Conclusion! The Ford editing documents, on which the Times snippet was based, were made public by the Assassination Records Review Board. This agency had been set up by Congress (under the JFK Records Act) to compile all available evidence in the Nov. 22, 1963, murder. The documents had been part of the personal files of the late J. Lee Rankin, the Warren Commission's general counsel. If not for The JFK Records Act, we’d have never known about Gerald R. Ford’s tampering with the autopsy report in order to force it to show what he wanted, as opposed to the truth needed.


It’s sad to think that yet another of our sitting Presidents had a hand in deforming history, but the evidence is there and it’s not pretty! A year later, Ford produced his  own whitewash book Portrait of the Assassin, which was one of the most noisome put–up jobs ever, attempting to single out Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole perpetrator. But what would you expect of a lying scumball and one of those I blame for destroying public trust.

Which, by the way, he compounded when he pardoned Richard Milhous Nixon in 1974 - allowing the scumball who defiled the Constitution to walk free without impeachment - and doing it under the obvious nonsense of "preserving our national unity" when instead, it emboldened others to pursue even more arcane conspiracies and treachery  - such as the Iran -Contra conspiracy of Reagan.

Trust? Baby Boomers responsible for destroying public trust? Take your head out of your ass, Klein, and look at the numerous examples of how our own esteemed public "servants" spat upon their duty to truth, the Constitution and law and then tell me about destroying public trust.

The actual original description of the back wound placement was described thusly:

"in the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measure to be 14 cm from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Which conforms to the location shown in the autopsy image. (
This wound placement - as described in the autopsy report reference (above) and shown in the photograph, is also clearly deduced by reference to the detailed anatomical diagrams in Gray's Anatomy.) 

 

All of the above, mean that the position reported by the Warren Commission (and engineered by Gerald Ford's alterations)  was intended  to mislead the public  as to the placement of this crucial wound, so as not to undermine the entire underpinning of the single bullet theory. It was this poppycock and malarkey on which Oswald's guilt was predicated along with the other deceptions, including fake FPCC (Fair Play for Cuba Committee) handbills as reported by John Newman (Oswald and the CIA)

Worse, it discloses that the autopsists themselves may have been complicit, i.e. lied, to make the single bullet theory work. This claim is reinforced by the fact that on their original Autopsy Body Chart, they did correctly identify the location - not in the base of the neck (as their WC  testimony averred) but six inches lower (as depicted in the diagram  above). Thus, either they falsified the facts in their testimony, or the Warren Commission itself did, to make them compatible with their single bullet nonsense. Added cogency comes from knowing that one of the Warren-appointed autopsists, Dr. J.J. Humes, burned his original autopsy notes[1].  Humes was also the only one who claimed to have detected a bullet wound in the rear of JFK’s head

As for John Connally, he is clearly hit at two different times, around Z236, where he is seen dropping his right shoulder and puffing out his cheeks[2], and still with Stetson in right hand (so no wrist bullet could have entered by then) . Later, at about Z328, when the hat is no longer held (since the wrist has been hit). Connally's wife, Nellie, the lone limo survivor - also bears this out in a diary retrieved from that fateful day, in which she pointedly notes two shots - separately to her husband and JFK (prior to the fatal head shot)[3]

This totally refutes the Warren Commission's egregious 'magic bullet'  theory. While Mrs. Connally still accepts their 'lone gunman' conclusion, this diverges logically from her own observations of 2 separate bullets - since if one disposes of the 2-for-1 shot compression, a de facto 'minimal' conspiracy scenario materializes - as there are now too many shots in the allowed time frame. This was the reason the Warrenites needed the artifice of the  'single / magic bullet' theory to begin with.

 

In effect, if one rejects the Warren Commission's 'magic bullet' theory they also (logically) must reject its 'lone gunman' conclusion, whether they realize that or not.

Reinforcing this is the fact that, had Gov. Connally been hit at frame 230 (as single bullet adherents posit) he would have had to continue holding his heavy white Stetson for about another second and a half,  AFTER being shot in the right wrist. Anatomically, this is nonsense. Close examination of the key frames discloses he firmly retains his grip on his Stetson between right thumb and forefinger.

It is the ulnar nerve which permits this apposition. But any bullet fired  into the wrist (i.e. at Z-230) would have severed that nerve, making any  grasp of his Stetson totally impossible. Hence, lone nut adherents are asking that we subscribe to a physically impossible situation.

As for the usual lone nut rejoinder that he 'suffered a delayed reaction'. this is also nonsense. Stretching the laws of physical, anatomical nature just as violently as the single bullet lunacy tortures the Newtonian laws of physics into deformed caricatures. These caricatures become subservient to political agendas rather than natural laws.

The honest inquirer is left to ask: Why are these biological/neurological and mechanical laws being so desperately convoluted and deformed? To serve a politically expedient solution and a contrived whitewash that seeks to dismiss the real evidence and replace it with a plausible sounding substitute which is totally fictitious .

If Joe Klein really wants to know the exact point at which public trust in government dissipated let him re-examine the follies and fraud of the Warren Commission and its Report which deliberately lied to the American people regarding the slaughter of a sitting president - and which offal and decay has carried forward to our present because it's never been honestly addressed.  Until this festering wound on the body politic is finally examined rigorously and honestly, with the motives of the assassination courageously exposed, the corruption in our system will only get worse. You don't survive a gangrenous wound by ignoring it, or "looking beyond it" (as Larry Sabato suggested in his recent CBS Early show interview) but by confronting it, dealing with it and hopefully healing it!

 

---

 

 

---

[1] High Treason, p. 73.

[2] Groden, op. cit., p. 27.

[3] TODAY show interview, aired November 19, 1998.

 

 

Bloodhound Gang, Lady Gaga & Madonna Would Be Punished In BARBADOS TOO!

The U.S. corporate, Neoliberal media gets more sickening, reprehensible and vile by the day. Their latest news blasts (aimed at dolts and gullibles)  - strangely timed not long after Russia granted Edward Snowden temporary asylum - is to paint Russia as so lacking civil liberties they will go after a 'Murican Band (Blood Hound Gang) and two pop stars - Lady Gaga and Madonna.  Usually left out, or given four seconds of short shrift, is what they did to deserve the sanctions.

In fact, Blood Hound Gang, performing in the Ukraine, saw one of its members take the Russian flag and stuff it down his pants to the cheers of the gathered, drunken twits. For that they were banned from Russia, and that is the Russians' right to do - never mind U.S. corporate nabobs who can't even get their basic facts right (or don't want to) on the Kennedy assassination.

Make no mistake though. had this unwashed bunch of troglodytes tried that stunt in Barbados, say using the flag of Bim (broken Trident) they'd not only have been banned but have spent about a year in Glendairy Prison, keeping company with the rats. Had they tried the stunt in a neighboring island, and the news reached Bim, they'd also be banned - just like the Russians did.

Believe it or not, many other nations don't distort "free speech" rights like the hypocrites in the U.S. do.In Germany and Austria, for example, if you're so fucking stupid as to deny the holocaust and go about writing or speechifying on it, you will spend time in the clink.  This isn't being "tyrannical" but it is a sober and practical recognition that the past of these nations, if not managed stringently, could come back to bite them in unseemly ways, see e.g. http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/what-are-new-german-nazis-really-up-to.html

Thus, there are practical limits imposed on speech if it doesn't redound to the common welfare of the countries involved. And please, the U.S. has such checks as well though they may not be formal or under the aegis of gov't! Recall the fate of one former Univ. of Colorado prof, Ward Churchill, who lost his job after some little termite with nothing better to do dug up an old essay of his written in the aftermath of 9/11 ('"On the Justice of Roosting Chickens") then circulated  (fax-blasted) it to dozens of news sources.

When it came to the attention of the President and regents at the Univ. of Colorado, they immediately instigated an academic witch hunt, on HIM - no one else, and investigated all his past research ultimately arriving at a finding of "plagiarism" for which he was officially fired. (Unofficially, "plagiarism" was the cover employed to fire him for his provocative essay.)  Churchill's lawyers claimed the university violated the provision of equal rights under the law, since their investigations focused only on him and no one else. Hence, it was clearly designed to operate like a fishing expedition to expel Churchill. Other serious academics also protested, because of course they were smart enough to recognize an attack on free speech when they saw it, and found it violated university tenure protections as well. They feared, with good reason, the same could be done to them if a reason was found and as one prof put it: "Hell, if they looked hard and long enough they'd find plagiarism in just about everyone's portfolios of past papers, research - or what might be perceived by some as such."

So, the U.S. does impose limits on speech, it just doesn't always do it formally - though the recent attacks on whistle blowers could be viewed as formal gov't proscriptions. But my point is that with so many hypocrites in this country, it's easy to depict double standards, or ...that we are the goody two shoes nation while the others are baddies because they won't do what we do.

As for Madonna and Lady Gaga, most corporate news media sources just portray the ladies as victims of Russian heavy -handedness because they appeared on stage in Russia to defend the band 'Pussy Riot' and to plump for gay rights. The subtext conveyed is embodied in the question:  "How can anyone seriously defend Snowden going to Russia for asylum after this?"

In fact, only one media outlet I've seen - on CBS this morning - noted that neither Gaga nor Madonna had visas to enter the country. DUH! Don't these ladies know that entry without visas is illegal in any country that demands them?  If they pulled that stunt in B'dos they'd also spend time - in the women's sector of Glendairy- keeping company with somewhat smaller rats.

Instead of wasting their time and "talents" on the "persecution" of U.S. rock stars, the corporate Neoliberal media would do better to focus on substantial matters such as the actual cabal of gangsters and national security forces that killed John F. Kennedy and how our medical system is so distorted that people needing surgery have to travel to India, Mexico or Belgium to get it - saving vast sums of money even when air fare is factored in.

But see, the job of the U.S. media isn't to be invested in keeping citizens properly informed but to keep them brainwashed, or terrified....i.e. from the latest "terror alert" warnings.  And after all, we have 9/11 coming up so it's time to keep that meme alive!  Can't have the NSA losing its funding after all, or for congress critters to finally grow a pair and place limits on surveillance. Oh no. Better to cut Social Security and Medicare - as well as Medicaid for the poor- so the rich can live high off the hog while we blow more trillions on military and security BS.

Stay tuned!

See also:   http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/08/04/3542743/embassy-closings-travel-warning.html