Barack Obama has shortened the sentence of whistleblower Chelsea Manning, She will be released on May 17, instead of remaining in military custody until 2045 as originally sentenced. Answer: parameter
— As a survivor of childhood sexual trauma, there are many misconceptions I live with on a daily basis. My pain is treated as fodder for jokes and people with backgrounds like mine are assumed to be abusers-in-the-making. Both of these are very real issues, but today I want to talk about a third issue that many people don’t even realize about sexual abuse victims: the effect that the abuse has had in obscuring our own understanding of our sexual and gender identities. It’s impossible for some of us to even understand what an innate gender or sexual identity would even feel like. Our entire perception of our “true” gender and orientation is mutilated by our experiences. It’s a well-established fact that child abuse does not cause homosexuality or gender fluidity, nor does gender fluidity or homosexuality cause people to become child abusers. This is an important truth that needs to be continually disseminated as too many people still think there is a causal link in one direction or both. It is unfortunate, however, that the well-intentioned desire to keep the LGBT community from being maligned has resulted in the experiences of many CSA victims being silenced because it confuses the narrative. It is a testimony that is actually quite simple: for many victims of CSA, especially repeated CSA, nothing about their identity can be fully separated from the early trauma. That includes sexual orientation and gender identity. Which means that many CSA survivors will tell you that they cannot say with a straight face that their perception of their gender identity or sexual orientation was not shunted down a different road by their experiences. This requires a steady mind and a grasp of nuance to understand what is being said. Obviously not all, or even the majority if, gay CSA victims attribute their orientation to their abuse. Nor do, or should, gender fluid victims give credit to abusers when it comes to discovering their true self. What it does mean, however, is that men who do say their identity was affected by their trauma should not be dismissed out of hand. In abusive situations, coercion is often mixed with reward (such as emotional attention) and being forced to do something can still lead to physical arousal. Such experiences can rewire the brain into seeking out similar situations as an adult for complex psychological reasons other than because of natural inclination. Among male victims, the term “SSA” (same-sex attraction) continues to be a meaningful term. This is a term that in other circles has become appropriately abandoned, given the connection and connotations it has with fundamentalist conversion therapies. On its face, the term is benign and non-judgmental. In usage, however, it is a denial of orientation as an innate and non-changing element. That aspect of it, which when applied to homosexuals en masse is insulting and invalidating, is ironically exactly why some CSA survivors willingly apply it to themselves. Because they are not convinced that their sexual attraction to men was not the result of early trauma. In fact, they feel as if recognizing that attraction and their true orientation are at odds is actually a more authentic description of themselves. I’ve seen the term “abuse reactive” to label the difference between people who are able to know themselves apart from the abuse and people for whom the self before the trauma is a black hole difficult or even impossible to ever fully explore. One of the confusing aspects to this is that throughout history and even to this day, boys who showed effeminate characteristics were and are more likely to be denied a proper support system. They are more likely to be bullied and socially isolated and seen as unsatisfactory by both peers and adults. This puts them at a greater risk of abuse. No child is immune from the risk of being preyed upon, but many predators look for the outcast unlikely to be listened to or believed and desperate for ANY adult attention. Therefore, because of society’s prejudice, LGBT youth are often at greater risk of being sexually exploited. Drawn to signs of non-heteronormative behavior or not, a predator may very well strike before the boy himself understands his own orientation and gender. Across his entire lifespan, a male is most in danger of being sexually assaulted between the ages of 4 and 13. Think about what you didn’t know about yourself at age 7. The risk here is that conversation like this only gives fire to the bigots who want to say that there is something “wrong” with everyone who identifies as LGBT. That would be the wrong takeaway. The correct lesson is to believe individuals. For those who say “I was always this way,” believe them. For those who say “I can’t tell you for sure” or “I’m pretty sure my SSA was caused by my abuse,” believe them too. Don’t silence their voice because some people might misinterpret it. Don’t assume you know their true selves better than they do. — More on this subject by Dr. Joe Kort: Sexual abuse disorients you; it does not orient you. __ Photo credit: Getty Images Answer: dear
An attorney for the former University of Virginia dean suing Rolling Stone for defamation alleged during closing arguments that the magazine’s campus rape story was reported with a “reckless disregard for the truth.” Attorney Tom Clare charged that Rolling Stone “needed a villain” for the Nov. 2014 feature piece — and the story’s author, Sabrina Erdely, decided former associate dean of students Nicole Eramo fit the bill. “Every one of her stories has a victim, a villain and a vindicator … Ms. Erdely and Rolling Stone were intent on imposing that on this story,” Clare said. “It had all of the elements of a perfect story, but when something sounds too perfect to be true, it probably is.” Eramo, who is seeking $7.5 million, claims the since-discredited story portrayed her as turning a blind eye to gang rape claims made by a former student identified as “Jackie.” Clare argued that the defamation case is not about rape, but about journalistic failure. The lawyer said Erdely left out important details in her piece on purpose, like the fact that Eramo took Jackie to the police on two separate occasions. ‘Every one of her stories has a victim, a villain and a vindicator…’ “They made a decision to remove [from the article] every reference to the police and that’s actual malice,” he said. Clare also blasted Erdely for ignoring red flags, such as Jackie’s refusal to put her in touch with sources who could corroborate her alleged gang rape account. “Jackie’s refusal to put Ms. Erdely in touch with people who could confirm or deny her story was a giant, waving red flag,” he insisted. “Once they decided what the article was going to be, it didn’t matter what the facts were,” Clare added. Rolling Stone’s attorney Scott Sexton countered that Erdely put a “tremendous amount of work” into the article, but was ultimately fooled by Jackie. “Sabrina was acting in good faith when she wrote the article with the information she had,” he insisted. “Our world would shut down if we walked out that court room door and expected everyone to lie to us.” Sexton also said that because Eramo is a public figure, Erdely had every right to criticize her. “She is a highly compensated public servant… we are entitled as citizens to criticize a public figure,” he explained. Sexton argued that Eramo’s attorneys are intent on proving that the story was republished in Dec. 2014 — when the magazine added an editor’s note to the piece after Jackie’s rape account had been called into question — because they, “have no case for actual malice” before then. One of the questions jurors will be asked is whether they believe that Rolling Stone “affirmatively reiterated the content of any false and defamatory statements.” Answer: dear
Harvey Weinstein, 65, could be in deep trouble regarding the sexual assault claims from the many women who have come forward. “”In order to go to prison, Harvey would have to be convicted of a felony, like rape,” Darren Kavinoky, California Criminal Defense Attorney of 1.800.No.Cuffs shared EXCLUSIVELY with HollywoodLife.com. “In order for him to go to prison, he would have to get sentenced for more than a year. What is dangerous about Harvey’s behavior, and crimes of a sexual nature, is that he could be subject to consecutive sentencing. When you are talking about sex offenses, you get mandatory consecutive sentencing where the punishments stack one on top of another. So you get these really insanely long sentences in sex based cases that you don’t see in other areas of law.” SEE THE LIST OF HARVEY”S ACCUSERS HERE. “If multiple women come forward and he is accused then convicted of many sex crimes, molestation, harassment and ultimately rape, he could easily be behind state prison bars for 10, 20, 30 years or even longer depending on how many women come forward and what he is ultimately convicted of,” Darren continued. “Furthermore, all of his alleged victims could, after criminal convictions, victims could then sue Harvey civilly for damages. With a net worth of an estimated $800 Million Dollars, depending on the number of victims, Harvey could easily lose his fortune in court, to his victims. He could be wiped out, and spend the rest of his life behind bars, broke, penniless and disgraced.” In addition to the general sexual assault accusations, Harvey made headlines this week after it was reported that his company, The Weinstein Company, allowed him to sexually harass women as long as he paid all the money owed if he got sued. The controversial reports surrounding the film producer have caused a lot of backlash on social media with stars speaking out against him and there have been reports that he has recently checked into rehab for his issues. HollywoodLifers, do you think Harvey should lose his fortune? Tell us here! Answer: dear
The readers of my column are well aware I’m not a fan of MGM CEO Jim Murren. I’ve called him “the worst CEO in America” because he entangled his company in radical leftist politics — including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization tied to terror and called by many experts a front group for Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. I actually felt bad for MGM when this tragedy first happened. But could it have happened to any Vegas resort? Or were there factors at play that led to this property being chosen for this terrible mass murder? Murren was appointed by Barack Obama to the Homeland Security Council. From that perch, Murren had insider access to the detailed threats aimed at Vegas. What did he do to prepare and adequately safeguard his guests? Several MGM security guards and ex-security guards have called my radio show in recent days. They described MGM’s security as “woefully undertrained and understaffed.” One ex-MGM security guard called to say Murren’s first act in taking over Luxor and Mandalay Bay was to disarm most of the guards and declare MGM hotels “gun-free” zones. Maybe that’s why the shooter chose Mandalay Bay. Why has the timeline involving Mandalay Bay guard Jesus Campos changed so many times? Did he approach the shooter’s room before or after the mass murder started? If it was before, why weren’t the police called? Did the shooter choose a MGM property because VIP high roller clients were free to use service elevators, thereby avoiding scrutiny? Finally, was the CEO of MGM focused on his properties? Was the security of his customers a main priority? Or was he distracted? SEC records for September reveal more than $200 million in stock selloffs from MGM officers and directors. From July 31 to early September, Murren sold more than 80 percent of his MGM stock. This certainly paints the picture of a CEO with a lack of faith in his own company. Or did Murren have one foot out the door? Was he distracted and uninterested, perhaps making plans to leave? Why else would a CEO sell off a large majority of the shares he owns in his own company? Was Murren focused on MGM security as a major terror attack was being planned at his property? Or was he too busy selling off his shares, at the right price, into the open market, without Wall Street noticing? MGM’s top executives and key board members also sold huge amounts of stock in September. How about this eye-popping number? In the past three months, according to SEC Form 4, MGM insiders sold off 6,387,163 shares. Guess how many those same insiders bought? Zero. Also in September, while MGM’s CEO and insiders were selling off huge amounts of their own company stock, MGM announced a billion-dollar stock buyback program. In other words, they used “other people’s money” to buy back MGM stock on the open market to prop up the price. Talk about the world’s worst conflict of interest. Shareholders were forced to spend $1 billion to buy “undervalued MGM stock” at the same time the CEO and his team couldn’t wait to get out. Question: What if MGM had used that same $1 billion to upgrade security or hire twice as many security staff instead of to prop up its stock price while the CEO was selling? Lastly, did Murren sign for a special “terrorism rider” on MGM’s liability insurance policy? Will a designation of “terrorism” vs. criminal mass murder affect the payout from the insurance policy? Could declaring this a terror act change MGM’s bottom line by billions of dollars? Inquiring minds want to know. Contact Wayne Allyn Root at Wayne@ROOTforAmerica.com. Hear or watch the nationally syndicated “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show” from 3 to 6 p.m. daily at 790 Talk Now and at 5 p.m. on Newsmax TV. Answer: parameter
The German public have, as predicted, kept ahold of nurse. But it is the breakthrough of the AfD into the German Parliament that is causing headlines around the world. Of course the four-year old party’s electoral success is also unsurprising. In elections last September the AfD were elected to representative roles in most of the country’s regional assemblies and beat Merkel’s party into third place in her own constituency. Nevertheless, yesterday’s electoral breakthrough is stunning and the success of this four-year-old party is among other things now causing a predictable rash of 1930s analogies. In a media landscape where very few papers can afford any foreign coverage at all, and a social media landscape which blows around slightly sourced stories with a further splash of personal self-aggrandisement, understanding a phenomenon like the AfD is harder than it should be. Many Europeans find themselves caught. Firstly by the fact that the mainstream political class has done something mad in recent years. As I recently explained at book-length, it is inevitable that things will get complicated when the people in charge of Europe make decisions as appalling as those Angela Merkel made in 2015. What she occasioned in unilaterally opening the continent’s doors to the world may have been humanitarian and may have had some good intentions. But it was also reckless, short-sighted and will cause severe issues for German society for generations to come. Most of that impact – including the daily reports of crime and sexual assault – never make it further than the German-language press, and often not even there. What are the public to do when their leaders and media behave like this? One idea is that the public shouldn’t have any choice and should be forced to keep voting for the same old parties anyway. This obviously suits the incumbents, and is best achieved by depicting any and all parties concerned about immigration – including the mass immigration which people across the political spectrum now say they acknowledge to have been an unrepeatable disaster – as Nazis, fascists and racists. The incumbent politicians and parties acknowledge they have made mistakes, promise not to repeat those mistakes but insist that anyone wishing to make them pay any political price must recognise that they are voting for a Fourth Reich. It’s a clever, cynical ploy, employed by politicians and much of the media across Germany even more than the UK. Their problem is that at some point the public recognise the ploy. And in particular a moment arrives when the spell-words used by the political mainstream begin to fail. Already terms like ‘racist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘far-right’ have been worn down almost everywhere in Europe. The few people who continue to claim that the public’s concerns are all racist are themselves the ones who now look ridiculous. All they do is ensure that the public care less and less about the words they are called. This has a follow-on problem which is especially worth pondering in Germany. For if the media and political class call everybody a racist and a Nazi for years, and the public can see that these people often called racists and Nazis (Ukip in Britain, for instance) are – whatever else you might think of them – clearly not Nazis or racists, then you set up another problem down the road. Anyone who has heard a hundred different people being called Nazis who they knew not to be Nazis is unlikely to have their anti-Nazi antennae intact when the accusation is made for the hundred and first time. This is among the problems that Merkel and co have now set up. The AfD’s platform and pronouncements require close and unbiased attention. This should include having their words and actions reported accurately. To her credit, Merkel – the great absorber of political difference – has said that she will work to bring back the people who voted AfD this weekend. This suggests that she might – just might – take what is essentially the second broad option for Europe’s political mainstream. That is to stop pretending that anything from a quarter to three-quarters of the general public across Europe are Nazi, fascist, racists who need to be reprogrammed, fought, denounced or ignored. Instead it is to recognise that the concerns of the public are concerns that should be addressed and remedied by the political mainstream. Which isn’t, surely, such a radical idea. We’ll see which path Germany now goes down. More than Germany’s politics will depend on it. Answer: parameter
Internet censorship is hurting conservative websites like DC Clothesline. If you enjoy our articles please consider making a small donation today. Thank YOU! ******************************************************************************** While North Korea dominated much of the news of late and the recent events in Charlottesville, VA have been the talk of the internet over the last couple of days, the recent revelation of the “Memo that rocked Washington,” which exposes the deep state subversion against President Trump and explaining the tactics being utilized, is being spun as “crazy” with the writer of the memo being labeled a “nutcase” by the MSM, who has converged on a narrative in a weak attempt at damage control. The memo is embedded in full below, so readers can read the seven-page memorandum produced in May by the former director of strategic planning at the National Security Council, Rich Higgins. Before we detail some of the highlights from the memo, then offer the document in full, lets take a look at Higgins credentials, the man that the media is doing their best to discredit with labels like nutcase (MediaIte) with outlets like Washington Post calling the memo itself “crazy.” Not only was Higgins the the former director of strategic planning for the NSC, before being fired by Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster for writing the memorandum, but perhaps more impressive, the Army veteran was also a former Pentagon official who specialized in irregular warfare. Department of Defense defines Irregular Warfare in a 100 page document from 2007, in the following manner: Irregular warfare (IW) is defined as a violent struggle among state and nonstate actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant populations. IW favors indirect and asymmetric approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will. It is inherently a protracted struggle that will test the resolve of our Nation and our strategic partners. Our adversaries will pursue IW strategies, employing a hybrid of irregular, disruptive, traditional, and catastrophiccapabilities to undermine and erode the influence and will of the United States and our strategic partners. Meeting these challenges and combating this approach will require the concerted efforts of all available instruments of US national power. Influencing foreign governments and populations is a complex and inherently political activity. This Joint Operating Concept (JOC) describes the military role in protracted IW campaigns; however, these campaigns will fail if waged by military means alone. The nature of IW requires the US Government (USG) to achieve the level of unified action necessary to integrate all available instruments of national power to address irregular threats. The USG will have to develop “Whole of Government” approaches to waging IW at the political, strategic, operational, and tactical levels. Other government agencies must build their capacity to operate in unstable or hostile environments. Irregular warfare is about people, not platforms. IW depends not just on our military prowess, but also our understanding of such social dynamics as tribal politics, social networks, religious influences, and cultural mores. People, not platforms and advanced technology, will be the key to IW success. The joint force will need patient, persistent, and culturally savvy people to build the local relationships and partnerships essential to executing IW. So a man that specialized in irregular warfare tactics for the Pentagon, writes a seven-page memo which details a plot to overthrow the President of the United States, by globalist members of the deep state, with the intentional help of propaganda being fed to the media in order to influence the public, using tactics he was responsible for observing while at the Pentagon in order to save American militarylives, and the media starts screaming “nutcase,” and “crazy,” and “conspiracy theory!” Something doesn’t smell right here. MEMO THAT ROCKED THE NSC &amp; SENT THE MSM INTO DAMAGE CONTROL MODE The memo is titled “POTUS &amp; Political Warfare,” and starts off detail some background on the “information campaigns designed to first undermine, then delegitimize and ultimately remove the President,” calling it “political warfare at an unprecedented level that is openly engaged in the direct targeting of a seated president through manipulation of the news cycle.” While naming the actors, such as the media, Democrats, establishment Republicans, and explaining what each gains in their political warfare campaign against the president, it is on Page 5 of the document embedded below, where Higgins detailed the “Adversary Campaign Plan,” in the following manner: Adversary Campaign Plan. Political Warfare has been described as “propaganda in battledress.” The effort directed at President Trump is executed along one overt, as well as two covert, lines of effort: • The overt line of effort is PUBLICITY. Publicity is the straightforward projection of a case that builds a picture in the audience’s mind designed to garner support. It is facts without context and information the adversary wants the audience to possess that creates an impression and sets conditions. It seeks to establish good will and receptiveness to additional inputs. • There are two covert lines of effort: PROPOGANDA and INFILTRATION/SUBVERSION. o Propaganda is the deliberate direction, even manipulation, of information to secure a definite outcome. It is an attempt to direct the thinking of the recipient, without his conscious collaboration, into predetermined channels that are established in the Publicity line of effort. It is the unwitting conditioning of the recipient by devious methods with an ulterior motive that seeks to move them incrementally over time into greater belief and acceptance of message transmitted in the Publicity line of effort. o Infiltration and subversion operate internal to the targeted organization in order to inform, target, coordinate, and amplifythe effects of the publicity and propaganda. Both operate to gather intelligence, obstruct legitimate courses of action, provide inside information, and leak sensitive information that undermines the leadership and suppresses the morale of friendly elements. o Infiltration of political and social groups within a target state is done for the purpose of extending counter-state influence and control. The endgame is concealed and may involve illicit activities. o Subversion undermines or detaches the loyalties of significant political and social groups within the target state and transfers political and/or ideological loyalties to the counter-state. As thcounter-state forms, a counter-elite of influential individual and key leaders within the target state will later facilitate the legitimacy and permanency of the new regime. On page #6 we see “Political Warfare Executive – The Meaning, Techniques and Methods of Political Warfare,” which accurately captures what we at ANP have been documenting and reporting on for years, including how the media is being used to deliberately push “pseudo-realities,” in a campaign to “delegitimize President Trump,” with preferred narratives including the “Russia hacked the election”, “Obstruction of Justice”, “Hiding Collusion”, and “Putin Puppet.” As is explained, each of these “pseudo-realities,” is geared toward a specific propaganda point, the first an attempt to push the “illegitimate” narrative, the second to push the “corrupt” narrative,” the third to push the “dishonest” narrative and the last to push the idea of “treason.” Supporting Narratives. Meta-narratives are supported by an ongoing series of supporting-narratives that can be swapped out as circumstances warrant. It is important to recognize that these stories do not have to be true, valid or accurate to serve their purpose. Over time, deserved or not, the cumulative effect of these supporting narratives will result in a Trump fatigue. From a political warfare perspective, President Trump’s inability to meet this challenge will cast him as a weak failed leader. The entire memo is embedded below, read it and decide for yourself. Below the memo we analyze why a man that specialized in irregular warfare for the Pentagon, was fired by McMasters for detailing what many in the Independent Media have been documenting since Trump won the election. WHY WAS HIGGINS FIRED? We have largely refrained from weighing in on H.R. McMasters, despite the fact that his stances on Iran, Islamic Terrorism, the Paris Accord, were more in line with Obama policy than President Trump’s policy, where in each case McMasters lost his argument and the President aligned himself with the promises made, keeping them rather than allowing McMasters to influence his decisions, but according to recent reports, the second McMasters saw this internal memo, he “detonated,” and then proceeded to fire the man that wrote it. The memo was written in May, but after McMaster discovered it, Higgins was called into the White House counsel’s office on July 18 and questioned about it. On July 21, he was fired by McMaster’s deputy, but not explicitly given a reason why. As to McMasters stances on a variety of issues that do not align with the president’s base, that can be chalked up to “politics” as Trump the businessman was well known for hiring people with opposing views as to look at all angles before making his decisions, it was not surprising in the least that he brought McMasters on. The firing of the director of strategic planning for the NSC on the other hand, for utilizing his experience in known irregular warfare methods for and tactics for the Pentagon, to warn of a campaign against a sitting president by multiple factions, including globalists, deep state members within the intelligence community, and the media, forces us to ask the question of whether McMasters is part of the “political warfare” campaign against President Trump? That is a question President Trump should be asking. BOTTOM LINE The fact that the media was called out directly in the memo, highlighting the part they play in pushing “pseudo-realities,” in order to generate a narrative to influence the general public, explains clearly why they are in all-out damage control mode trying to discredit the writer of the NSC memo that rocked Washington, because he just publicly exposed them all. The fact that the media, Trump haters, neverTrumpers, establishment Republicans, and Democrats are all supporting McMasters, also begs the question: Is he one of the enemy within? The fact that he fired a man trying to protect the president from other enemies within, might be the answer to that question. A couple other articles detailing other Trump loyalists fired by McMasters and the campaign to #FireMcMasters, discussed below: Help Keep Independent Media Alive, Become A Patron for All News PipeLine at https://www.patreon.com/AllNewsPipeLine h/t SHTFplan.com Answer: parameter
Defense Secretary James Mattis warned Monday that the US Army needs to “stand ready” for put into action its various options for attacking North Korea, saying “neither you nor I can say” what the future holds, and that it’s purely up to President Trump. Mattis presented the preparations to attack North Korea as necessary because of “continued provocations” by Pyongyang, despite North Korea not having said much of anything in recent weeks, other than being concerned that Trump has declared war during the many, many times he’s talked about destroying North Korea. While Trump has largely been driving the North Korea war hysteria for months on end, he’s been virtually the sole instigator of such talks lately, condemning diplomacy on a near-daily basis,and insisting that “ only one thing will work” against them, ominously threatening to show us all what that is “pretty soon.” Repeated threats to “totally destroy” North Korea have been among his most favored talking points on any subject since the UN General Assembly. Mattis’ talk of keeping the Army ready to carry out that threat only adds to concern that the US could start a massive war at any moment. Answer: dear
Week of August 7: Monday August 7: Joey puts himself in harm’s way to save Kayla. Brady interrogates Victor, who finally comes clean. Gabi makes a difficult decision regarding Chad. Sonny is stunned by Paul's news. Tuesday August 8: "Marlena" breaks up with John. Anjelica lures Adrienne into a trap. Brady's jealousy threatens to push him over the edge. Nicole makes a risky move to be near Holly. Wednesday August 9: Hattie breaks Bonnie out of Statesville. Steve and Kayla clash over the situation with Tripp and Joey. Brady gets the wrong idea about Nicole and Eric. Justin makes a confession to Sonny. Thursday August 10: More: Days recap: Chad plays the martyr and turns himself in to the police More: Beloved, unforgettable soap characters who touch our hearts Tripp secretly decides to skip town. Anjelica meets with Bonnie for the first time and explains her first order of business. Lani is put in a tough position at work. Chad and Abigail's reunion takes a surprising turn. Friday August 11: More: Deconstructing DOOL: A well-rounded week showcased zaniness, drama and that Chabby reunion Bonnie breaks Lucas's heart. Brady breaks into Eric's room and makes a shocking discovery. Chad and Sonny compare notes about the night of Deimos's murder. Marlena wakes to find herself trapped. Find late-breaking Days of our Lives news, and who is coming and going at Days of our Lives. Follow Soaps.com on Twitter, Days of our Lives on Twitter, Soaps.com on Facebook and Soaps.com on Instagram. Photo credit: Jill Johnson/JPI - Amy Mistretta/Christine Fix Answer:
dear