MINNESOTA : NAZI ALERT !

MINNESOTANS BEWARE : NAZI ALERT ! NAZI ALERT !

NAZI NAZI

Poland to seek extradition from United States of suspected Nazi commander

Reuters, March 14, 2017

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland plans to seek the extradition of an American on suspicion of committing crimes against humanity in the World War Two deaths of 44 Polish villagers, Poland's government-affiliated history institute said on Monday.

The man, identified as Michael K., is suspected of ordering the killings in 1944 in eastern Poland when he was a commander in the Nazi's SS-led Ukrainian Self Defence Legion, the Institute of National Remembrance (IPN) said in a statement.

As a result of that order, several villages - including Chlaniow and Wladyslawin - were set on fire and buildings destroyed, the IPN said.

“In our investigation Michael K. is the main suspect. We are convinced that this person, living in the United States, was the person who carried out the pacification of (the villages),” Robert Janicki, a prosecutor with the IPN, told Reuters. “All the evidence we have gathered, mainly the documents we have collected, give us this certainty.”

The IPN has asked a regional court in the Polish city of Lublin to issue an arrest warrant for Michael K. as the first step toward an extradition request.

Janicki would not reveal Michael K.’s last name, due to privacy laws, but he was identified by the Associated Press as Michael Karkoc, who lives in Minnesota.

The AP news agency reported Monday that Karkoc, now 98, is suffering from Alzheimer's disease, according to his family.

Karkoc could not be reached for comment by Reuters.

Karkoc's age would not stop investigators, Janicki said

SYRIA: ASSAD CONDEMNS TRUMP'S INVASION

Commander-in-Chief Trump sends more troops to Syria, almost doubles U.S. invasion force

Stop Supporting Terrorism in Syria 

U.S. Is Sending 400 More Troops to Syria

The New York Times, March 9, 2017

The United States is sending an additional 400 troops to Syria, American officials said on Thursday.

The increase, which includes a team of Army Rangers and a Marine artillery unit that have already arrived in Syria, represents a near-doubling of the number of American troops there.

The United States military has declined to say how many troops it has deployed in Syria. The formal troop cap is 503, but commanders have the authority to temporarily exceed that limit.

The Rangers’ presence became apparent last weekend when they were seen driving around the northern Syrian town of Manbij in Stryker vehicles and armored Humvees. The Washington Post earlier reported the deployment of the Marine artillery battery.

The United States is already carrying out airstrikes in Syria and has deployed surface-to-surface rockets in the northern part of the country. Before he left office, President Barack Obama approved the use of a small number of Apache attack helicopters. Now, Marine artillery is being added, along with logistical support and training and protection in dealing with improvised explosive devises.

Gen. Joseph L. Votel, the head of the United States Central Command, told reporters on Thursday that he was open to asking for more conventional military units if they are needed. “I feel very comfortable with mixing Special Operations forces with conventional forces,” General Votel said. “That is the way we fight.”

Turning to other regions, General Votel said he agreed the Afghan conflict was stalemated and supported the appeal from the American commander in Afghanistan for additional troops.


+ + +

Associated Press, 10 February 2017:

Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview released on Friday that the United States is welcome to join the battle against "terrorists" in Syria — as long as it is in cooperation with his government and respects the country's sovereignty. Assad said he has not had any communication — direct or indirect — with President Donald Trump or any official form the new U.S. administration. Assad's government has labelled all armed opposition to his rule — including the U.S.-backed rebels — as "terrorists."


+ + +

Wikipedia, 10 March 2017:

"On 8 March, various news outlets reported that conventional US troops as part of an amphibious task force left their ships in the Middle East and deployed to Syria, where they established an outpost from which they can provide artillery support for U.S.-backed local forces. The deployment marks a new escalation in the U.S. war in Syria, and puts more conventional U.S. troops in the battle, that until now had primarily used Special Operations units. The force is part of the 11th MEU, 400 US Marines from the Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 4th Marines will crew an artillery battery of M-777 Howitzers; whilst additional infantrymen from the unit will provide security, while resupplies will be handled by part of the expeditionary force’s combat logistics element. A defense official with direct knowledge of the operation said the Marines were flown from Djibouti to Kuwait and then into Syria. There are 900 US soldiers and Marines deployed to Syria in total (500 special forces troops were already on the ground to train and support the SDF [Syrian Democratic Forces]); under the existing limits put in place by the Obama administration, the formal troop cap for Syria is 503, but commanders have the authority to temporarily exceed that limit to meet military requirements. approximately 100 US Army Rangers in Strykers and armored Humvees deployed in and around Manbij, US officials said they are there to discourage Syrian, Russian, or Turkish troops from making any moves against US-backed forces, specifically preventing them inadvertently coming under fire."


+ + +

RT, 23 February 2017:

McCain secretly travels to Syria to meet with troops, leaders, opposition

[Photo: Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) fighters. Northern Raqqa province, Syria.]

Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) made a secret trip to a Kurdish-held region in northern Syria last weekend to speak with US military officials, rebel fighters, and leaders in the region.

On Wednesday, Julie Tarallo, a spokeswoman for McCain, confirmed that he’d made the trip, calling it a “valuable opportunity to assess dynamic conditions on the ground in Syria and Iraq.”

Tarallo also praised President Donald Trump’s late January order to conduct a a 30-day review of US strategy to combat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL), saying that “Senator McCain looks forward to working with the administration and military leaders to optimize our approach for accomplishing ISIL’s lasting defeat.”

Defense Secretary Jim Mattis is now compiling a “preliminary plan” to comply with Trump’s order.

The unusual trip, which the Wall Street Journal said was organized with help of the US military, was the first time a US lawmaker has traveled to the region since American special operations forces began fighting alongside local forces.

McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, made a short trip to Syria to speak with Kurdish fighters and US troops.

Mattis also recently made a trip to Iraq to refine the plan ordered by Trump while General Joseph L. Votel, the head of US Central Command told the Wall Street Journal that more American troops would be needed.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has objected to US troops working with Kurdish troops to capture the city.

“The change of administration in the United States presents an important opportunity to review and reassess current policy in Syria,” McCain said in a statement released Monday.

In his statement, McCain says that he has discussed proposals to combat Islamic State with Erdogan, including establishing safe zones in Syria.

During his trip, McCain also met with Saudi Arabian King Salman bin Abdulaziz and the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan.


+ + +

Assad condemns Trump's invasion force

Trump and Obama's invaders are in Syria to defend the USA's terrorist proxies from the Syrian Army and its allies.

Asma Assad


Assad calls U.S. forces 'invaders'

Reuters, Mar 12, 2017

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said U.S. forces in Syria were "invaders" and he had yet to see "anything concrete" emerge from U.S. President Donald Trump's vow to prioritize the fight against Islamic State.

"We haven't seen anything concrete yet regarding this rhetoric," Assad said in an interview with Chinese TV station Phoenix.

This week, the U.S.-led coalition announced that around 400 additional U.S. forces had deployed to Syria.

Asked about a deployment of U.S. forces near the northern city of Manbij, Assad said: "Any foreign troops coming to Syria without our invitation are invaders. We don't think this is going to help".

Around 500 U.S. forces are already in Syria.

Assad dismissed the U.S.-backed military campaign against Islamic State in Syria as "only a few raids".

Assad noted that the Russian-backed Syrian army was now "very close" to Raqqa city after advancing to the western banks of the Euphrates River this week - a rapid gain that has brought it to the frontier of areas held by the U.S.-backed forces.

He said Raqqa was "a priority for us", but indicated that there could also be a parallel army attack towards Deir al-Zor in the east, near the Iraqi border. Deir al-Zor province is almost completely controlled by Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

The Deir al-Zor region had been "used by ISIS as a route for logistics support between ISIS in Iraq and ISIS in Syria, so whether you attack the stronghold or you attack the route that ISIS uses, it (has) the same result", Assad said.

With Russian and Iranian military support, Assad firmly has the upper hand in the war with rebels who have been trying to topple him with backing from states including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United States.


Assad Democratic Freedom Fighters


NYT REPORTS THAT NYT IS FAKENEWS

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2139116872d1355905d46246af83b1f3e1400cb904885127dd63f41870f798c0.jpg

The Kike's New York Times reports that New York Times is Fake News

2017.01.20:

Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides

By Michael S. Schmidt, Matthew Rosenberg, Adam Goldman, New York Times, January 20, 2017, Page A1

American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation.

The F.B.I. is leading the investigations, aided by the National Security Agency, the C.I.A. and the Treasury Department’s financial crimes unit. The investigators have accelerated their efforts in recent weeks but have found no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing, the officials said. One official said intelligence reports based on some of the wiretapped communications had been provided to the [Obama] White House.

Of the half-dozen current and former officials who confirmed the existence of the investigations, some said they were providing information because they feared the new administration would obstruct their efforts. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the cases.

Numerous news outlets, including The New York Times, have reported on the F.B.I. investigations into Mr. Trump’s advisers. BBC and then McClatchy revealed the existence of a multiagency working group to coordinate investigations across the government.


2017.03.06:

Comey Asks Justice Dept. to Reject Trump’s Wiretapping Claim

F.B.I. Chief Pushes for Justice Dept. to Refute Trump.

By Michael S. Schmidt, Michael D. Shear, Adam Goldman, New York Times, March 6, 2017, Page A1

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, asked the Justice Department this weekend to publicly reject President Trump’s assertion that President Barack Obama ordered the tapping of Mr. Trump’s phones, senior American officials said on Sunday. Mr. Comey has argued that the highly charged claim is false and must be corrected, they said, but the department has not released any such statement.

Mr. Comey, who made the request on Saturday after Mr. Trump leveled his allegation on Twitter, has been working to get the Justice Department to knock down the claim because it falsely insinuates that the F.B.I. broke the law, the officials said.

A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment. Sarah Isgur Flores, the spokeswoman for the Justice Department, also declined to comment.

Mr. Comey’s request is a remarkable rebuke of a sitting president, putting the nation’s top law enforcement official in the position of questioning Mr. Trump’s truthfulness. The confrontation between the two is the most serious consequence of Mr. Trump’s weekend Twitter outburst, and it underscores the dangers of what the president and his aides have unleashed by accusing the former president of a conspiracy to undermine Mr. Trump’s young administration.

In a statement from his spokesman, Mr. Trump called “reports” about the wiretapping “very troubling.”

It is not clear why Mr. Comey did not issue a statement himself. And while the Justice Department applies for intelligence-gathering warrants, the F.B.I. keeps its own records and is in a position to know whether Mr. Trump’s claims are true.

Mr. Trump’s demand for a congressional investigation appears to be based, at least in part, on unproven claims by Breitbart News and conservative talk radio hosts that secret warrants were issued authorizing the tapping of the phones of Mr. Trump and his aides at Trump Tower in New York.

Senior law enforcement and intelligence officials who worked in the Obama administration have said that there were no secret intelligence warrants regarding Mr. Trump. Asked whether such a warrant existed, James R. Clapper Jr., a former director of national intelligence, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” “Not to my knowledge, no.”

“There was no such wiretap activity mounted against the president-elect at the time, as a candidate or against his campaign,” Mr. Clapper added.

ROTHSCHILD INVESTIGATES SJW's SELF-SERVING MORAL OUTRAGE

Moral Outrage Is Self-Serving, Say Psychologists

Perpetually raging about the world's injustices? You're probably overcompensating.

Elizabeth Nolan Brown | Mar. 1, 2017

When people publicly rage about perceived injustices that don't affect them personally, we tend to assume this expression is rooted in altruism—a "disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others." But new research suggests that professing such third-party concern—what social scientists refer to as "moral outrage"—is often a function of self-interest, wielded to assuage feelings of personal culpability for societal harms or reinforce (to the self and others) one's own status as a Very Good Person.

Outrage expressed "on behalf of the victim of [a perceived] moral violation" is often thought of as "a prosocial emotion" rooted in "a desire to restore justice by fighting on behalf of the victimized," explain Bowdoin psychology professor Zachary Rothschild and University of Southern Mississippi psychology professor Lucas A. Keefer in the latest edition of Motivation and Emotion. Yet this conventional construction—moral outrage as the purview of the especially righteous—is "called into question" by research on guilt, they say.

Feelings of guilt are a direct threat to one's sense that they are a moral person and, accordingly, research on guilt finds that this emotion elicits strategies aimed at alleviating guilt that do not always involve undoing one's actions. Furthermore, research shows that individuals respond to reminders of their group's moral culpability with feelings of outrage at third-party harm-doing. These findings suggest that feelings of moral outrage, long thought to be grounded solely in concerns with maintaining justice, may sometimes reflect efforts to maintain a moral identity.

To test this guilt-to-outrage-to-moral-reaffirmation premise, Rothschild and Keefer conducted five separate studies assessing the relationships between anger, empathy, identity, individual and collective guilt, self perception, and the expression of moral outrage.

For each study, a new group of respondents (solicited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk program) were presented with a fabricated news article about either labor exploitation in developing countries or climate change. For studies using the climate-change article, half of participants read that the biggest driver of man-made climate change was American consumers, while the others read that Chinese consumers were most to blame. With the labor exploitation article, participants in one study were primed to think about small ways in which they might be contributing to child labor, labor trafficking, and poor working conditions in "sweatshops"; in another, they learned about poor conditions in factories making Apple products and the company's failure to stop this. After exposure to their respective articles, study participants were given a series of short surveys and exercises to assess their levels of things like personal guilt, collective guilt, anger at third parties ("multinational corporations," "international oil companies") involved in the environmental destruction/labor exploitation, desire to see someone punished, and belief in personal moral standing, as well as baseline beliefs about the topics in question and positive or negative affect. Here's the gist of Rothschild and Keefer's findings:

* Triggering feelings of personal culpability for a problem increases moral outrage at a third-party target. For instance, respondents who read that Americans are the biggest consumer drivers of climate change "reported significantly higher levels of outrage at the environmental destruction" caused by "multinational oil corporations" than did the respondents who read that Chinese consumers were most to blame.

* The more guilt over one's own potential complicity, the more desire "to punish a third-party through increased moral outrage at that target." For instance, participants in study one read about sweatshop labor exploitation, rated their own identification with common consumer practices that allegedly contribute, then rated their level of anger at "international corporations" who perpetuate the exploitative system and desire to punish these entities. The results showed that increased guilt "predicted increased punitiveness toward a third-party harm-doer due to increased moral outrage at the target."

* Having the opportunity to express outrage at a third-party decreased guilt in people threatened through "ingroup immorality." Study participants who read that Americans were the biggest drivers of man-made climate change showed significantly higher guilt scores than those who read the blame-China article when they weren't given an opportunity to express anger at or assign blame to a third-party. However, having this opportunity to rage against hypothetical corporations led respondents who read the blame-America story to express significantly lower levels of guilt than the China group.

* Respondents who read that Chinese consumers were to blame had similar guilt levels regardless of whether they had the opportunity to express moral outrage.

"The opportunity to express moral outrage at corporate harm-doers" inflated participants perception of personal morality. Asked to rate their own moral character after reading the article blaming Americans for climate change, respondents saw themselves as having "significantly lower personal moral character" than those who read the blame-China article—that is, when they weren't given an out in the form of third-party blame. Respondents in the America-shaming group wound up with similar levels of moral pride as the China control group when they were first asked to rate the level of blame deserved by various corporate actors and their personal level of anger at these groups. In both this and a similar study using the labor-exploitation article, "the opportunity to express moral outrage at corporate harm-doing (vs. not) led to significantly higher personal moral character ratings," the authors found.

Guilt-induced moral outrage was lessened when people could assert their goodness through alternative means, "even in an unrelated context." Study five used the labor exploitation article, asked all participants questions to assess their level of "collective guilt" (i.e., "feelings of guilt for the harm caused by one's own group") about the situation, then gave them an article about horrific conditions at Apple product factories. After that, a control group was given a neutral exercise, while others were asked to briefly describe what made them a good and decent person; both exercises were followed by an assessment of empathy and moral outrage. The researchers found that for those with high collective-guilt levels, having the chance to assert their moral goodness first led to less moral outrage at corporations. But when the high-collective-guilt folks were given the neutral exercise and couldn't assert they were good people, they wound up with more moral outrage at third parties. Meanwhile, for those low in collective guilt, affirming their own moral goodness first led to marginally more moral outrage at corporations.

These findings held true even accounting for things such as respondents political ideology, general affect, and background feelings about the issues.

Ultimately, the results of Rothschild and Keefer's five studies were "consistent with recent research showing that outgroup-directed moral outrage can be elicited in response to perceived threats to the ingroup's moral status," write the authors. The findings also suggest that "outrage driven by moral identity concerns serves to compensate for the threat of personal or collective immorality" and the cognitive dissonance that it might elicit, and expose a "link between guilt and self-serving expressions of outrage that reflect a kind of 'moral hypocrisy,' or at least a non-moral form of anger with a moral facade."

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/01/moral-outrage-is-self-serving

"BEAUTY" & BEASTS & QUEERS & KIKES

"BEAUTY" & BEASTS & QUEERS & KIKES

‘BEAUTY AND THE BEAST’ SET TO MAKE DISNEY HISTORY WITH GAY CHARACTER

Attitude, Mar 1, 2017

Attitude Beauty and the Beast

[The Kike's] Disney’s live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast has quickly become one of the most eagerly anticipated movies in history.

While the reimagined romantic classic, featuring Emma Watson and former Downton Abbey star Dan Stevens, might seem like the ultimate celebration of heterosexual love, it’s actually harbouring a treasure trove of gay secrets – and is set to make history with Disney’s first ever “exclusively gay moment” on film.

Director Bill Condon [queer] reveals the heartbreaking true story that helped shape the 1991 film, and how it inspired him to create a character who would break new ground when it comes to LGBT visibility on screen.

Played by US actor Josh Gad [Afghani Kike, Joshua Ilan Gad], the character of LeFou serves as the sidekick to the film’s primary antagonist Gaston (Luke Evans [queer]), and is set to feature in a significant subplot of his own when it comes to his sexuality.

Kike Josh Ilan Gad

“LeFou is somebody who on one day wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston,” reveals Condon. “He’s confused about what he wants. It’s somebody who’s just realising that he has these feelings. And Josh makes something really subtle and delicious out of it. And that’s what has its payoff at the end, which I don’t want to give away. But it is a nice, exclusively gay moment in a Disney movie.”

Attitude editor-in-chief Matt Cain has welcomed the news as a landmark moment for LGBT representation.

“It may have been a long time coming but this is a watershed moment for Disney,” he says. “By representing same-sex attraction in this short but explicitly gay scene, the studio is sending out a message that this is normal and natural – and this is a message that will be heard in every country of the world, even countries where it’s still socially unacceptable or even illegal to be gay. It’s only a first step towards creating a cinematic world that reflects the one in which many of us are now proud to live. But it’s a step in the right direction and I applaud Disney for being brave enough to make it – and in doing so hopefully helping to change attitudes and bring about real social progress.”

The film’s leads Emma Watson and Dan Stevens discuss the underlying queer sensibility which helped make 1991’s cartoon iteration of Beauty and the Beast resonate so profoundly with many gay men.

“I think it was really important for Dan and I to develop and understand why each of our characters feel as if they don’t fit in,” says Emma. “I certainly felt watching the original that I wanted to know more about why Belle feels that she’s different and why she wants to be different and why she’s naturally different.”

Profile

卍心の智

Author:卍心の智

Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.

Link