One of four iconic fig trees planted in 1875 to mark the site where the city of Los Angeles was founded COLLAPSES after the recent deluge that hit Southern California

• A fig tree that for 144 years shaded the brick plaza where the city of Los Angeles was founded has fallen

• One of four Moreton Bay fig trees circling El Pueblo de Los Angeles toppled during a Chinese lantern festival

• The trees were planted in 1875 by a city councilman, around the time Ficus trees were brought from Australia to Southern California to provide shade and landscaping

• A botanist with Los Angeles County, said the trees became unhealthy when the ground beneath their canopy was covered with concrete which prevented fallen leaves from decomposing and enriching the soil

By JAMES GORDON FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 00:34, 10 March 2019 | UPDATED: 05:15, 10 March 2019

Article

aeon

Carvings thought to depict Terra Mater (Mother Earth) decorate the Ara Pacis Augustae, built in honour of the military successes and political reforms of the first Roman Emperor, Augustus. Photo by DeAgostini/Getty

Pieter van der Horst is a scholar specialising in New Testament studies, Early Christian literature and the Jewish and Hellenistic context of Early Christianity. He is professor emeritus in the faculty of theology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands and is the author of many books, including Studies in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity(2014).

In Greco-Roman culture, the well-to-do weren’t expected to support and help the poor. The Greek and Latin verbs for ‘doing good, being beneficent’ never have ‘the poor’ as their object, nor do they mean ‘almsgiving’. The Greek word philanthrôpia doesn’t have the sense of our modern philanthropy. One is philanthrôpos towards one’s own people, family, and guests – not towards the poor. And eleêmosynê (from which ‘alms’ is derived), in the sense of showing pity or mercy for someone else, never has the poor as its primary object. Ancient Greek moralists didn’t admonish people to concern themselves about the fate of the poor. And while generosity was praised as a virtue, the poor were never singled out as its object; it was always directed to humans in general, provided that they deserved it.

In Greco-Roman culture, the well-to-do weren’t expected to support and help the poor. The Greek and Latin verbs for ‘doing good, being beneficent’ never have ‘the poor’ as their object, nor do they mean ‘almsgiving’. The Greek word philanthrôpia doesn’t have the sense of our modern philanthropy. One is philanthrôpos towards one’s own people, family, and guests – not towards the poor. And eleêmosynê (from which ‘alms’ is derived), in the sense of showing pity or mercy for someone else, never has the poor as its primary object. Ancient Greek moralists didn’t admonish people to concern themselves about the fate of the poor. And while generosity was praised as a virtue, the poor were never singled out as its object; it was always directed to humans in general, provided that they deserved it.

When Greeks did speak about the joy of giving to others, it has nothing to do with altruism, but only with the desired effects of giving: namely honour, prestige, fame, status. Honour is the driving motive behind Greek beneficence, and for that reason the Greek word philotimia (literally, ‘the love of honour’) could develop the meaning of ‘generosity, beneficence’, not directed towards the poor but to fellow humans in general, especially those from whom one could reasonably expect a gift in return. These were the ‘worthy ones’ because they acknowledged and respected the principle of reciprocity (quid pro quo), one of the pillars of ancient social life, which was simply stated by the poet Hesiod around 700 BCE: ‘Give to him who gives, but do not give to him who does not give (in return).’ Even though some ancient moralists occasionally said that in the best form of beneficence one does not expect anything in return from the beneficiary, the pervasive view was that a donor should be reimbursed one way or another, preferably with a gift greater than the donor himself had given.

Religion was not much help to the poor: they simply weren’t the favourites of the gods. There was a Zeus Xenios (for strangers) and a Zeus Hiketêsios (for supplicants), but there was no Zeus Ptôchios (for the poor), nor any other god with an epithet indicating concern for the needy. It was rather the rich who were seen as the favourites of the divine world, their wealth being the visible proof of that favour. The poor could not pray for help from the gods because they were poor, for their poverty was a disadvantage in their contact with the gods. This was the implication of the common belief that the poor were morally inferior to the rich. They were often regarded as more readily inclined to do evil; for that reason, their poverty was commonly seen as their own fault. No wonder that they were not seen as people deserving help, and that no organised charity developed in Ancient Greece or Rome. In such societies, giving alms to the poor could not be seen as a virtue, as care for them was often regarded as a mere waste of resources.

The distributions of corn to the population by city states or emperors in times of need cannot pass for organised charity because the corn was given to all citizens in equal measure (not only to the poor). The poor didn’t get more than the rich, and even the poorest class of society was never singled out for especially favourable treatment. All this applies to the Ancient Romans no less than to the Greeks. When a Roman is generous towards others, it is not because they are poor but because he expects to get something in return, and because it confers honour and status upon him. Beneficia are for fellow citizens, not for the poor.

Since the beneficiary was usually expected to give something in return, the benefaction could become a burden. ‘There are some who even hate their benefactors,’ said Menander the playwright. But the idea of reciprocity was deeply ingrained in ancient society, and giving remained one of the chief ways of acquiring status within the social or political group. Neither Ancient Greek nor Roman shrank from admitting that striving after honour was the decisive motive for generosity. The Roman philosopher and orator Cicero wrote that ‘most people are generous in their gifts not so much by natural inclination as by the lure of honour’. And Pliny the Younger pithily agreed: ‘Honour must be the consequence’ of generosity.

While care for the poor, let alone organised charity, was a non-item in Greco-Roman antiquity, it is a central concern in the Jewish Bible. Caring for the poor is seen as a major duty and virtue not only in the Torah of Moses, but also in the Prophets and other biblical writings. Most significantly, God is seen as the protector of the poor and the rescuer of the needy. They are his favourites and the objects of his mercy, regarded as humble before God and therefore often as pious and righteous.

That is not to say that we will find a positive evaluation of poverty here – the poor are ‘righteous’ only insofar as they are the innocent victims of injustice, and poverty does not automatically translate into piety, but it does seem to make one closer to God. In a courtroom, an Ancient Greek could invoke his opponent’s poverty in order to cast a dubious light on his character – this strategy was not available to a biblical Israelite.

The Torah urges Israel to be generous towards the poor in their midst. The prophets warn repeatedly against oppressing the poor and the needy. A ‘day acceptable to the Lord’ is the day on which the people share their bread with the hungry, bring the poor into their house, and clothe the naked. In the book of Job, the protagonist’s efforts to help the poor are emphasised as laudable. The poor were to be allowed to harvest the borders or corners of the fields and vineyards, and the sabbatical year was instituted in order that the poor might eat. The biblical adage ‘Open your hand to the poor’ encapsulates the Jewish Bible’s approach to charity.

In spite of the fact that there is much concern for the poor in the Bible, there still is no organised charity. Of course, some of the Torah’s commandments are in a sense collective measures, but it is still left to the individual whether or not to carry them out, since there is no central organisation to oversee its implementation.

The post-biblical Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides, a Jewish wisdom poem of 230 hexameters written in Greek, exemplify this private (as opposed to communal or organised) concern for the poor. In the opening section, the author wrote: ‘Do not oppress a poor man unjustly, do not judge him by his appearance,’ a sentiment repeated further on: ‘Give a labourer his pay, do not oppress a poor man.’ Then it says: ‘Give to a beggar at once and do not tell him to come tomorrow. Fill your hand and give alms to the needy.’ And again some lines further on: ‘When you have wealth, stretch out your hand to the poor. From what God has given you provide for those in need.’

When in the first 30 lines of his poem the author turns five times to the importance of taking care of the poor, it is evident how much value he attaches to this part of his message. The utterly un-Greek motif of love for the poor is one of his main concerns. But again, as in the biblical texts, it is all about private charity.

It is only in the early rabbinic period, especially the 2nd century CE, that we have concrete indications for institutional charity organised by the local synagogues. There were two such institutions: the quppah and the tamhuy. The quppah was the money chest to support the local poor, who received a weekly allotment; the tamhuy was the soup kitchen that was open on a daily basis to any poor person in need of a meal, including non-Jews.

The administrators of the synagogues appointed charity wardens who collected money every Friday, and others for the daily food collection and distribution. These officers were even allowed to exert some pressure on the members of the community in order to make sure that there would be enough to meet all needs. In order to prevent voluntary impoverishment, however, nobody was allowed to donate more than one-fifth of his property. It is significant that in the saying of Simon the Just, doing deeds of loving kindness is one of the three pillars upon which the world is standing, a remarkably un-Greek idea. Elsewhere, deeds of loving kindness are said to be equal to all the commandments of the Torah. Often, the motive for doing such deeds was the expectation of being rewarded by God, especially in the hereafter.

In rabbinic literature, it is stated repeatedly that the best way of giving to the poor is by doing it in such a way that nobody sees it happen or sees how much is being given. A gift to the poor must be made privately, with no one else present. A person who gives alms in secret is greater than Moses, says Rabbi Eleazar in the Talmud (he added that the gentiles give alms only for reasons of self-aggrandisement).

Whether every Jew lived up to this ideal is questionable in light of what the Gospel of Matthew has Jesus say in the Sermon on the Mount:

So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their award. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be done in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

Whatever one thinks about the authenticity of this saying, its critical note must reflect some form of reality; there must have been concrete practices that made these remarks relevant. And, in a sense, one could say that the many honorary donor inscriptions found in ancient synagogues prove that the Jews were not immune from the honorific ‘epigraphic habit’, although they are of a later date and do not concern alms but gifts to the community at large. But the sentiment expressed by Jesus above reflects the same mood as the one we find in rabbinic literature.

It’s hard to say when these poor-relief systems came into force because the sources that inform us about them are mostly late, that is, rabbinic. It is likely that the large-scale impoverishment caused by the two great wars against Rome (66-74 and 132-135 CE) was the most important trigger for producing this systematic care for the poor. Still, it’s not out of that question that some form of the system was already operative before 70 CE, even though we have no sources that explicitly say so (but absence of evidence is no evidence of absence).

The Christians had a system of poor relief right from the start, as indicated in the New Testament. In the earliest phase, when the Church was still a Jewish movement in the early 30s CE, the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem appointed seven men to oversee the daily distribution of food among the widows in their community. Not much later, the Jerusalem apostles and Paul agreed that the latter would organise a large-scale collection of money for the poor of the Christian community in Jerusalem. But these Christian initiatives cannot be regarded as a proof that Jewish-organised charity was already fully developed by the first half of the 1st century CE.

If there was a Jewish system of poor relief in the period when all Christians were still Jewish and remained within the fold of Judaism, a separate system was not necessary because poor followers of Jesus would be supported by the Jewish system. Otherwise one would have to assume that a ‘parting of the ways’ between Jews and Christians was taking place right from the start, which is very unlikely. So on the one hand it would seem that organised charity was a Christian innovation from the beginning. On the other, it is very hard to imagine that the Jews of the early Jesus movement spontaneously created from scratch a system of care for the poor without any Jewish precedent. I am inclined to think that they must have followed a Jewish paradigm, a system – however rudimentary – that was already in place in the 30s CE. But unfortunately we do not know anything about that.

What accounts for the difference between Greco-Roman and Jewish and Christian approaches to the care of the poor? The Dutch professor of ancient history Hendrik Bolkestein argued in his influential Charity and Poor Relief in Pre-Christian Antiquity (1939) that the differences between these two cultural spheres – as far as poor relief is concerned – had little or nothing to do with the differences between their respective religions. The contrast should be explained, he says, as a result of the different socioeconomic position of the poor in these cultures. To put it simply, Bolkestein states that the poor’s dependence upon the rich, and their lack of rights, was much higher in Israel than in Greece and Rome. However, recent research has shown that Bolkestein overstated the contrast between the socioeconomic position of the poor in Israel on the one hand and in Greece and Rome on the other. And aside from that, his interpretation of the evidence and the one proposed by me and others are not mutually exclusive.

It would seem, therefore, that there is little reason not to take seriously the Jewish and Christian claim that charity is a divine commandment, and that the poor have to be regarded as God’s protégés. The religious motivation of charity, the strong association of love for God with aid for the needy, is so omnipresent in all the Jewish and Christian evidence that it would be unwise to belittle or ignore it. To give an example, in the Jewish book of Tobit, the protagonist states right from the start that his care for the poor is the most obvious mark of his Jewishness, and that almsgiving is an excellent offering to the Most High. Nowhere is that religious principle stated more forcefully than in the words of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew, when he says to those who fed the hungry and clothed the naked: ‘You did it to me’.

In the Church, it was initially the main task of the deacons to organise charity. The first time they are mentioned in the New Testament as Church officials is in the opening line of Paul’s Letter to the Philippians, where the fact that he lists them after the bishops strongly suggests that they belong to the officials of the Church, and that at a very early date (the Letter is from the 50s CE) there was already a rudimentary hierarchy. The fact that a pupil of Paul says that deacons should not be greedy for money suggests that they were involved in financial matters, most probably the collection and distribution of alms.

Although the nomenclature is Hellenistic (diakonos is not a Jewish designation of a religious official), it seems clear that the function of the deacon is patterned upon that of the Jewish charity officials. For even though the New Testament does not give us a clear description of the tasks of a diakonos, it seems certain that care for the poor was among these tasks, and that money from the community chest was used for that purpose. The texts stress that deacons should not be infected by love for money, and this leaves no doubt about the moral dangers of this ministry in which they were in charge of the charity box. Apparently, not every deacon could withstand the enticements that came with it.

Much of what has been presented here is about theory, about how it should be, which is not necessarily as it was in reality. We have to distinguish between what Bolkestein called ‘preached ethics’ and ‘lived ethics’. And unfortunately we know much more about the ‘preached’ theory than about the ‘lived’ practice. This implies that, as far as poor relief is concerned, the practice might have been worse, much worse, than the theory. When we see how often and how vehemently the Hebrew prophets fulminated against oppression and exploitation of the poor, it is clear that the theory was frequently not brought into practice. On the other hand, it is also possible that in Greco-Roman societies, in spite of the indifference towards the poor that one finds so often expressed, in actual practice there was much more compassion for them and much more genuine humanitarian concern than one would expect. But we simply do not know.

However, a line from a letter written by an emperor should be remembered. In 362 CE, Julian the Apostate, the last pagan emperor of the Roman Empire, wrote in a letter to a priest in Asia Minor that lots of corn should be distributed to the inhabitants of Galatia; one-fifth of it should be given to the poor, and the rest to strangers and beggars. Notably, he then adds: ‘For it is a shame that, when no Jew ever has to beg and the impious Galilaeans [Christians] support not only their own poor but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us.’

So in spite of any relativising observations, it remains an indisputable fact that organised charity in the sense of a communal obligation towards the needy, which was by and large unknown in Greco-Roman culture, was created by the Jews and adopted by the Christians. And one can hardly deny that these developments were inspired by the sincere conviction that humankind should imitate God’s special concern for the most vulnerable among humans – the poor.

***

ACTIVIST POST

The European Union’s MANDATORY National Biometric ID Card Will Affect 512 Million People

March 12, 2019

By MassPrivateI

A recent European Union (EU) announcement about national IDs will destroy millions of people’s privacy and create a near-global biometric database.

An article in State Watch News revealed that the EU has agreed to create a MANDATORY national biometric ID card.

Measures being negotiated as part of the EU’s ‘Security Union’ are moving ahead swiftly, with the Council and Parliament reaching provisional agreements on new rules for immigration liaison officers, the EU’s Visa Code and the introduction of mandatory biometric national identity cards; and the Council agreeing its negotiating position on the new Frontex Regulation.

Earlier this week, the Nepal government announced their plans to roll out a national biometric ID card that will affect 30 million people.

Last month, I wrote an article warning people about the global effort to restrict everyone’s right to travel. But what is happening across Europe and Asia should send chills down everyone’s back.

If you combine what is happening in the EU with America’s national biometric ID card, Real-ID, it becomes painfully obvious that everyone’s right to travel freely is in jeopardy.

512 million people will be forced to give up their privacy

A European national biometric ID card is all but a certainty.

All the EU needs is for 28 ambassadors to say yes, and just like that 512.6 million citizens will be forced to give up their privacy if they want to travel.

Today, representatives of the Council Presidency and the European Parliament reached an informal agreement on a regulation to improve the functioning of the European network of immigration liaison officers. It will now be presented to EU ambassadors for confirmation on behalf of the Council.

The Brussel Times claims that the member countries would have eight years to comply when the law takes affect.

How will this affect American travelers?

Any American wishing to visit any of the 28 countries that make up the EU will be profiled and given risk assessments by the “European Travel Information and Authorization System or ETIAS”

Since citizens of countries who do not need a visa for travel purposes in the EU do not need to go through a long process of applying for the visa, ETIAS will make sure that these people are not a security threat. This travel authorization system will gather, keep track of, and update necessary information regarding visitors to determine whether it is safe for them to enter Schengen countries.

If ETIAS sounds a lot like Homeland Security’s “U.S Electronic System for Travel Authorization System” and their secret No-Fly list give yourself a gold star, because that is exactly what it is modeled after.

If you and your family plan on visiting a country for an extended period of time, you will have no choice but to submit biometrics to the EU.

At the same time, the EU is also upgrading the Visa Information System (VIS) – which is currently used to hold information on all applicants for short-stay Schengen visas, but is being expanded to include information on long-stay visas and residence documents; to enforce mandatory biometrics in long-stay visas (currently a national competence); and to include the fingerprints of children from the age of six and up. All visa applicants will also be profiled.

Teenagers forced to carry national biometric ID cards

The Irish Times warned that children older than 12 years old would be forced to carry national biometric ID cards.

It proposed making biometric data mandatory for those countries with ID cards and said EU citizens’ ID cards (older than 12 years) and non-EU family members’ residence cards would now include biometric data, namely fingerprints and facial images, stored on a chip.

The State Watch article also warned that national biometric ID cards must be updated every 5 years and less for minors.

Identity cards will have a minimum period of validity of 5 years and a maximum period of validity of 10 years. Member states may issue ID cards with a longer validity for persons aged 70 and above. If issued, ID cards for minors may have a period of validity of less than 5 years.

Modeling ETIAS after Homeland Security’s, TSA is appalling. Forcing millions of people to carry national biometric ID cards has all the earmarks of a European police state.

Didn’t we learn anything from World War II?

You can read more at the MassPrivateI blog, where this article first appeared.

Top image credit: The Irish Times

***

***

MailOnline

America is withdrawing all remaining diplomatic personnel from Venezuela as the country descends into chaos amid a nearly week-long blackout

• US State Department first withdrew all dependents in January and reduced embassy staff to a minimum

• Said its decision this week 'reflects the deteriorating situation in Venezuela, as well as the conclusion that the presence of US diplomatic staff at the embassy has become a constraint on US policy'

• It did not specify what exact day the personnel would be withdrawn from the embassy in capital Caracas

• Venezuelans started looting supermarkets in Caracas on Sunday, as power outages reached their fourth day

• At least 15 patients with kidney disease died after dialysis machines stopped working during power outage

By DAILYMAIL.COM REPORTER and ASSOCIATED PRESS

PUBLISHED: 04:33, 12 March 2019 | UPDATED: 13:21, 12 March 2019

Article

(By the time this happens war is usually not far behind. Ed)

***

RT

We are being lied into war again – Lee Camp

March 13, 2019

© AFP / GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / JOE RAEDLE

I was 23 when we invaded Iraq, and I wasn’t sure it was based on lies, but something deep down in me told me it was based on lies. Kinda like if your blind date shows up and you notice he has a 2004 flip phone.

It seems vaguely worrisome, and no explanation he can haltingly supply will put you at ease. Plus, anyone else who acts like it’s normal also becomes suspect.

The invasion of Iraq just felt like it was a lie to me. And it turned out that I was right, that it was a lie, and that the entirety of the mainstream media and our government were either wrong or lying and, most of the time, both.

Now our government and our media are trying their damnedest to lie us into another war, this one with Venezuela. They tell us the Venezuelan people are desperate for necessities like toothpaste, while independent journalists show piles of affordable toothpaste in Caracas.

And even if they didn’t have toothpaste, that hardly seems like a good reason for America to begin dropping our long-range bad decisions on the heads of innocent people. Turning a town into an impact crater for the sake of a battle to stop gingivitis seems a bit extreme.

The mainstream media and nearly the entirety of the US government tell us Juan Guaido is the “interim president,” even though he was never elected to that position and the current president is still leading the Venezuelan government and military. So I guess this “interim” is the time between Guaido being a nobody and the time when he goes back to being nobody but now gets to tell women at parties, “You know, I used to be interim president.”

The mainstream media also inform us that the Venezuelan military set US aid trucks on fire, when video shows opposition forces doing it. Furthermore, the idea of Venezuela taking “aid” from the country whose sanctions are crushing them would be like the Standing Rock Sioux accepting gift packages from the construction crews swiss-cheesing their land to lay down the Dakota Access pipeline. Unless the boxes are filled with industrial paper towels to help clean up oil spills, I fail to see how it would be beneficial. Sometimes you do indeed have to look a gift horse in the mouth (or should I say “gift dog”).

This is not the first time our government and our media have conspired to drag the American people into war with another country – or helped create a coup that will inevitably have disastrous results. So I thought this would be a prime moment to go through the top four greatest hits.

Number 4: The Spanish-American War

This is widely considered to be the birth of modern media propaganda, because it was the first war actually started by the media. Newspapers fabricated atrocities in the never-ending quest for more readers.

And as the New York Times noted, “[T]he sensationalistic reporting of the sinking of the American battleship Maine in Havana harbor on Feb. 15, 1898 … and all the other egregious reporting leading up to the Spanish-American War might have been considered merely cartoonish if it hadn’t led to a major international conflict.”

I think maybe the New York Times got that quote confused with its mission statement: “Cartoonishly dragging America into major international conflict since 1851!”

Number 3: The Vietnam War

Sure, most everyone knows the catastrophic Vietnam War was precipitated by the Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which US naval vessels were fired upon by villainous North Vietnamese torpedo boats. Following that skirmish, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recommended that President Johnson retaliate, and the full-force Vietnam War had begun. But most Americans still don’t know that there was no Gulf of Tonkin incident—unless you count US naval ships literally firing their weapons at weather events they saw on the radar. The 2003 documentary ‘The Fog of War’ finally revealed the truth. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara confessed that the Gulf of Tonkin attack did not actually happen.

That’s right. It never happened. Much like leprechauns or dragons or Simon Cowell’s talent, it was a figment of our national imagination.

The lies of our government, followed by the fawning, credulous reporting from our media, led to the death of 58,000 US service members and as many as 3.8 million Vietnamese.

The United States government has one of the most powerful Departments of Fabrication and Falsification ever assembled. It’s a modern marvel on par with the Great Pyramid of Giza and Rafael Nadal’s down-the-line running forehand.

Number 2: The Iraq War

Of course, there’s the most obvious lie about Iraq, i.e., that Saddam Hussein had so many weapons of mass destruction that he would often use one to scrub hard-to-reach places while in the tub. But that wasn’t the only falsehood manifested to bring about our complete annihilation of the sovereign nation Saddam ruled over. There were others, such as the idea that Saddam was connected to Al-Qaeda and perhaps played a role in the 9/11 attacks. William Safire at the New York Times, in May 2002, wrote, “Mohamed Atta, destined to be the leading Sept. 11 suicide hijacker, was reported last fall by Czech intelligence to have met at least once with Saddam Hussein’s espionage chief in the Iraqi Embassy.”

Yes, Safire was able to polish a load of bullt so thoroughly it would sparkle like a sapphire. And that column is still up on the Times’ website, without a correction or retraction. I would say the Times is only useful for covering the bottom of a birdcage, but I’d fear the paper would lie your pet cockatoo into an ill-advised invasion, killing millions.

But the propaganda didn’t even stop there. There was also the anthrax attacks following 9/11. Anthrax was mailed to press outlets and the offices of politicians. To this day, many people still believe it had something to do with Iraq or Al-Qaeda because of award-winning national embarrassments like Brian Ross.

“Brian Ross at ABC News wrote ‘the anthrax in the tainted letter sent to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle was laced with bentonite’ and ‘bentonite is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein’s biological weapons program.’ ” As Salon so clearly put it, “All of those factual claims … were completely false, demonstrably and unquestionably so. … Yet neither ABC nor Ross have ever retracted, corrected, clarified, or explained these fraudulent reports.”

And, as you would expect, following that blatantly false reporting, Brian Ross did not lose his job. In fact, he wasn’t put out to pasture from ABC News until last year, when he “reported that fired national security adviser Michael Flynn was ready to testify that Trump told him to contact the Russians during the campaign.”

That report—much like the rumors of Brian Ross’s journalistic integrity—turned out to be absolutely false.

(In my professional opinion, anyone who had anything to do with the selling, perpetrating or planning of the Iraq War should never again hold a position higher than assistant trainee to the guy who picks up the st of a dog that does not belong to anyone of any particular importance. If that position does not exist, we as a nation should create it just for this moment. Yet, despite my objections, Robert Mueller (head of the FBI at the time of the invasion and a big supporter of it) is leading the biggest investigation in the country. John Bolton, who advocated for the Iraq invasion as far back as the 1990s, is now national security adviser. Bill Kristol, who pushed for the war and said it would last two months, is now a regular panelist on MSNBC. And the list goes on.

Unlike Defense Secretary McNamara, who admitted the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened, we don’t have a smoking gun showing that the Bush administration created these lies to get us into Iraq. … Oh, wait! Turns out the paper shredder at the Bush Oval Office was on strike for a higher minimum wage in 2002, and in fact, we do have a memo written by Bush’s defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, a year before US forces unleashed a reign of terror on the Iraqi people. His memo about war with Iraq stated “How start? US discovers Saddam connection to Sept 11 or to anthrax attacks? Or maybe a dispute over WMD inspections?”

I’m not sure what’s more striking—that this memo exists, or that it sounds like the Bush boys planned a massive international battle the same way a broke 35-year-old maps out his bad novel that he’s sure is the ticket out of his mom’s basement.

“How start horrible bloody war? Maybe Saddam found to moonlight as porn star?”

Point is, multiple completely false stories laid the groundwork for an invasion of Iraq that left well over 1 million people dead.

Number 1: The Bombing of Syria

President Bashar Assad gassed his own people, thereby guaranteeing more American involvement—and he did it just days after Donald Trump had told the Pentagon to begin withdrawing troops from Syria. At least, that’s the story the corporate media repeated on-loop for at least a month, only pausing every 10 minutes to try desperately to get us all to buy more things with “baconator” in the name or to seek out a harder penis.

So we are expected to believe Assad did the one thing that would ensure more US involvement just as he was about to win his war? It’s kinda like how, when I’m about to win a fistfight, I often poke myself repeatedly in the eye. You know—just to keep it exciting.

Famed journalists Seymour Hersh and Robert Fisk have done great work showing that the chemical attacks never happened, but there’s a new update. Just two weeks ago, a BBC producer came forward and said the Douma, Syria, chemical attack footage was staged.

His tweet said that after six months of investigations, he can prove that no fatalities occurred in the hospital. Yet our breathlessly inept mainstream American media, with little to no evidence, ran around saying, “There was a chemical attack! Those poor people! And they don’t have toothpaste, either! We must bomb them to help them!”

The overarching point here is that we’ve replaced our media with stenographers to the ruling elite long ago. The ruling class comes up with a lie to manufacture American consent for its all-American war crimes, and that lie is then sprayed like laminate all over average American citizens. This goes on until such time as any average citizen who questions said lie is looked at like they have two heads, and one of them is covered in rat sht.

For the “journalists” who hose the lies across the country the best, awards and private jets and rooftop drinks with midlevel celebrities like Chuck Norris await them. Now we’re getting to the point where the actual rulers — the Trump administration, etc.— are not even hiding their corruption. John Bolton stated on Fox News that the ultimate goal is to steal Venezuela’s oil. But our media continue to tout the propaganda line. Even after Bolton said that, you won’t see Anderson Cooper or one of Fox News’ grand wizards saying, “Venezuela is undergoing a US-backed coup because we’d like to steal their oil.” It’s truly dizzying that the corporate media preserve the propaganda even after the “leaders” have revealed their true sinister intentions.

On the inside of Wolf Blitzer’s eyelids, the phrase, “Must Defend the Matrix” blinks in red.

The propaganda line for Venezuela right now is, “We want to help the poor Venezuelans.” Well, if you want to help them, then keep America out of their face. Don’t force them to have anything to do with the country that came up with drive-through fried food served in a bucket and opioid nasal sprays. At no point does anyone look at the Donald Trump presidency and think, “Wow, that country really has things figured out. I hope they bring some of their great decision-making to our doorstep.”

By Lee Camp

Lee Camp is an American stand-up comedian, writer, actor, and activist. Dubbed by Salon as the “John Oliver of Russia Today”, Camp is the host of RT America’s first comedy news show Redacted Tonight, which tackles the news agenda with a healthy dose of humor and satire. Lee’s writing credits are vast, having written for The Onion, Comedy Central and Huffington Post, as well as the acclaimed essay collections Moment of Clarity and Neither Sophisticated Nor Intelligent. Lee’s stand-up comedy has also been featured on Comedy Central, ABC’s Good Morning America, Showtime’s The Green Room with Paul Provenza, Al-Jazeera, BBC’s Newsnight, E!, MTV, and Spike TV.

This article was originally published by Truthdig.

This column is based on a monologue Lee Camp wrote and performed on his TV show, “Redacted Tonight.”

***

DailyMail

China steps in to help President Maduro get the lights back on after looters ran riot during 'madness' of Venezuela's worst ever blackout

• Shocking pictures show empty shops and warehouses which have been left with little stock and merchandise

• Across the country looters smashed shop windows and made off with goods across 300 businesses

• There had been a nationwide power outage in the country last week causing chaos due to the lack of electricity

  By TERRI-ANN WILLIAMS FOR MAILONLINE

  PUBLISHED: 02:00, 14 March 2019 | UPDATED: 10:55, 14 March 2019

  

  General view inside a supermarkert looted during the massive blackout that has paralyzed Venezuela for six days, in Maracaibo

  Article

  ***

  RT

  US Senate passes Yemen war resolution, refusing to back Trump’s support for Saudi-led coalition

  March 14, 2019

  

  FILE PHOTO: Smoke and debris rise from the site of a Saudi-led air strike in Sanaa, Yemen © Reuters / Khaled Abdullah

  The Republican-controlled Senate has passed a resolution that would end US involvement in the Saudi-led coalition’s brutal war in Yemen, countering President Donald Trump’s support for the controversial conflict.

  The Yemen War Powers resolution, which passed 54-46, blocks US forces from any involvement in the increasingly unpopular war without further authorization from Congress. Its backers have argued that US involvement in the conflict violates the constitutional requirement that Congress alone can authorize participation in war.

  An earlier version of the resolution passed the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives but was rejected by the Senate; the resolution must now pass the House again before it is sent to the White House, where Trump has promised to veto it.

  A small group of Republicans were willing to cross party lines to rebuke Trump over his support for a conflict the United Nations has declared a humanitarian disaster, which has killed tens of thousands of civilians and left half the population of Yemen on the brink of starvation.

  US forces previously provided targeting support for coalition airstrikes and even mid-air refueling for coalition planes, until that practice was reportedly discontinued late last year.

  The Yemen War Powers resolution also serves as a vehicle to pressure Trump to condemn the Saudi government over the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, which US intelligence agencies have pinned on Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

  Meanwhile, revelations that interests connected with the Trump administration were in negotiations to sell the Saudis nuclear technology have shed new light on the president’s cozy relationship with the embattled kingdom.

  Coalition forces led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have relentlessly bombed Yemen since 2015 in an effort to oust the Houthi rebels controlling the capital city of Sanaa. The US-armed and -trained coalition has reportedly deliberately targeted hospitals and other civilian infrastructure, leading to a massive cholera outbreak, and upwards of 60,000 people are believed to have died in the conflict since 2016 – with a further 85,000 estimated dead of famine and malnutrition.

  Half of Yemen's population relies on food aid to survive, placing them in immediate danger of starving to death after coalition forces blockaded the port city of Hodeidah last year.

  EXPRESS

  ‘Total DISGRACE’ - Nigel Farage gears up to SAVE Brexit as he brands Parliament ‘LIARS’

  NIGEL FARAGE has launched a scathing attack on Parliament following the vote against a no deal Brexit yesterday.

  By BILL MCLOUGHLIN

  March 14, 2019

  Yesterday MPs voted 312 to 308 in favour of Yvette Cooper’s amendment to remove a no deal Brexit which has now jeopardised the original referendum result in the eyes of many Eurosceptics. Now a member of the newly founded Brexit Party, Mr Farage has accused Parliament of failing to honour the original referendum result. With the UK’s exit date fast approaching, it remains unclear what direction the Government will take and due to that, Mr Farage has issued some brutal remarks.

  In two tweets yesterday, Mr Farage said: “A total disgrace, Parliament no longer represents the people.

  “This is a Parliament of outright liars. We will have to fight them again.

  “And mark my words — we will beat them once more.”

  After voting in favour of Ms Cooper’s amendment, MPs delivered another devastating blow to Mrs May as the Prime Minister lost another vote on her own no deal motion.

  In a last minute change, the Prime Minister decided to whip against her motion - despite stating that it would be a free vote - as it had been amended to be more definitive than she had intended.

  However, 17 Conservative MPs went against her to reject a no deal Brexit scenario completely and paved the way towards Article 50 being extended.

  Although the vote is non-binding it goes against Mrs May’s original rejection of a no deal Brexit on March 29.

  In a stark warning to Brexiteers Mrs May also warned that if MPs do not back her deal or a no deal Brexit, delaying Brexit for a prolonged period of time may well be likely.

  Writing a column in the Daily Telegraph Mr Farage also launched an incredible attack on the Government as he once again warned that Brexit could well be in danger.

  He said: "We are living through one of the most shameful chapters in our country’s history.

  "While there is anger with our MPs for their serial betrayal, people are uniting around a clean Brexit.

  "It's heartening to see many Remain voters acknowledge that, unless Brexit is delivered, our country may be damaged irreparably."

  A spokesperson for Theresa May said: “The house needs to understand that if it’s not willing to support a deal in the coming days and not willing to support leaving without a deal by 29 March, it’s suggesting there has to be a much longer extension.”

  In a chaotic night in Westminster, Mrs May also revealed she will return to the EU and ask for a short extension until June 30 but only if Commons agreed her deal.

  Following that admission, it is likely that Parliament will have to vote once more on Mrs May’s deal next week before an EU summit on March 21 and 22.

  Moreover, according to the Independent, a cross-party group of Remain MPs are now forming plans for the Commons to vote on alternative courses of action.

  BBC

  Italy bans unvaccinated children from school

  March 12, 2019

  

  Italian children have been told not to turn up to school unless they can prove they have been properly vaccinated.

  The deadline follows months of national debate over compulsory vaccination.

  Parents risk being fined up to €500 (£425; $560) if they send their unvaccinated children to school. Children under six can be turned away.

  The new law came amid a surge in measles cases - but Italian officials say vaccination rates have improved since it was introduced.

  Under Italy's so-called Lorenzin law - named after the former health minister who introduced it - children must receive a range of mandatory immunisations before attending school. They include vaccinations for chickenpox, polio, measles, mumps, and rubella.

  Children up to the age of six years will be excluded from nursery and kindergarten without proof of vaccination under the new rules.

  Those aged between six and 16 cannot be banned from attending school, but their parents face fines if they do not complete the mandatory course of immunisations.

  The deadline for certification was due to be 10 March after a previous delay - but as it fell on a weekend, it was extended to Monday.

  "Now everyone has had time to catch up," Health Minister Giulia Grillo told La Repubblica newspaper.

  She had reportedly resisted political pressure from deputy prime minister Matteo Salvini to extend the deadline even further.

  Ms Grillo said the rules were now simple: "No vaccine, no school".

  Italian media report that regional authorities are handling the situation in a number of different ways.

  In Bologna, the local authority has sent letters of suspension to the parents of some 300 children, and a total of 5,000 children do not have their vaccine documentation up to date.

  In other areas there have been no reported cases, while still others have been given a grace period of a few days beyond the deadline.

  Is the law having an effect?

  The new law was passed to raise Italy's plummeting vaccination rates from below 80% to the World Health Organisation's 95% target.

  On Monday - the last day for parents to provide documentation proving their children had been properly vaccinated - the Italian health authority released figures claiming a national immunisation rate at or very close to 95% for children born in 2015, depending on which vaccine was being discussed.

  The 95% threshold is the point at which "herd immunity" kicks in - when enough of the population is vaccinated for the spread of the disease to become unlikely, thereby protecting those who cannot be vaccinated.

  That includes babies too young to be vaccinated themselves, or those with medical conditions such as a compromised immune system.

  Last month, an eight-year-old recovering from cancer was unable to attend school in Rome due to his weak immune system.

  The child had spent months receiving treatment for leukaemia, but was at risk of infection because a proportion of pupils in the school had not been vaccinated - including several in the same class.

  The Lorenzin law, drafted by the previous government, had a tumultuous birth. When the current coalition came to power, it said it would drop mandatory immunisations although it later reversed its position.

  The two populist parties in power had faced accusations that they were pursuing anti-vaccination policies.

  Writing in a Facebook post on Monday, Ms Grillo admitted it "is a law that, at the time of approval, we criticised for several reasons" - and said that the law would be changed to include only those vaccinations that were necessary based on scientific data.

  Why do parents not immunise their children?

  The anti-vaccination movement has been growing globally in recent years, sparking alarm from the World Health Organization.

  A long-discredited paper by Andrew Wakefield was behind much of the scare, but rumours around immunisation have continued to spread, leading to public health risks as not enough people are immune to such diseases.

  Mr Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register after fraudulently claiming there was a link between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism and bowel disease in children.

  He made the claim based on the experiences of just 12 children, and no other study since has been able to replicate his results.

  ***

  FOX NEWS

  Diver survives after being scooped up in whale's mouth off South Africa

  By Travis Fedschun

  March 10, 2019

  

  Rainer Schimpf seen in the mouth of the Bryde's whale off Port Elizabeth, South Africa, in February. (Heinz Toperczer/Barcroft Images)

  A diver in South Africa survived an experience out of a biblical passage last month when he ended up almost being swallowed by a whale.

  Rainer Schimpf, 51, was snorkeling off the coast of Port Elizabeth, South Africa, when he ended up in the path of a Bryde's whale, which opened his jaws and engulfed him headfirst.

  "We were very astonished that out of nowhere this whale came up," he told Sky News. "I was busy concentrating on the sharks because you want to know if the shark is in front of you or behind you, left or right, so we were very focused on the sharks and their behavior -- then suddenly it got dark."

  Schimpf, who has worked as a dive operator for over 15 years, said he was in the water with two others for just a matter of minutes before the whale appeared. He had happened to be with a group recording a sardine run, which is where marine animals such as dolphins, whales, and sharks gather fish into bait balls.

  The 51-year-old said once the whale grabbed him, he felt pressure around his body but soon realized he was too big for the whale to swallow him whole which was "kind of an instant relief."

  "So my next thought was that the whale may take me down into the ocean and release me further down, so I instantly held my breath," he told Sky News. "Obviously he realized I was not what he wanted to eat so he spat me out again."

  Unlike the biblical story of Jonah, Schimpf didn't end up in the animal's belly but was able to swim away after being released.

  Bryde's whales are members of the baleen whale family, a group that includes blue whales and humpback whales, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

  "Bryde’s whales are named for Johan Bryde, a Norwegian who built the first whaling stations in South Africa in the early 20th century," the agency says. "Bryde’s whales are found in warm, temperate oceans including the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific."

  The whales can weigh about 90,000 pounds and grow to a length of 55 feet, according to the NOAA. The whales have a diet that consists mainly of krill, red crabs, shrimp and a "variety of schooling fishes," but clearly not adult humans.

  Schimpf said the whole experience showed him just how small humans are in the world.

  "Once you're grabbed by something that's 15 tons heavy and very fast in the water, you realize you're actually only that small in the middle of the ocean," he told Sky News.

  ***

  RT

  Loyal sheepdog tries to hunt down truck transporting his flock to the slaughterhouse

  March 12, 2019

  

  Piqué © Facebook / Guàrdia Municipal de Fogars de la Selva

  An incredibly loyal Spanish sheepdog has hit national headlines after he chased a truck, loaded with his doomed flock, down a dangerous motorway as they were transported to an abattoir.

  The dog, named Piqué, chased the herd of sheep – which he had protected since he was a young pup – for miles down the AP7 motorway near Barcelona. Piqué was rescued by local police, who shared the heart-wrenching tale of the dog who “protects his pack until the end” online.

  Concerned motorists notified police of Piqué chasing a van down the highway, and luckily he escaped without injury. However the same can’t be said for his beloved flock who went on to meet their maker at the slaughterhouse.

  Police wrote that while “animals never cease to surprise us,” they requested that owners keep their pets safe and use this “beautiful dog” as an example for why we should “make an effort to improve their lives.”

  “They teach us many things, some of these things call it instinct. But, in fact, they are qualities that sometimes make our own. If they were humans we would be talking about values,” the heartfelt police statement read.

  The movie-like tale grabbed headlines in several Spanish publications who praised Piqué’s heroic efforts.

  ***

  ***

  Until next week...keep on believing.
  Almondtree Productions

  “For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called: But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, [yea,] and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence.”
  (1 Corinthians 1:26-29)