The Significance of Julian Assange and His Arrest

On April 11th, the co-founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange was arrested by British Police. Assange spent seven years living in an Ecuadorian consulate compound in London to avoid extradition to Sweden originally, and to the US on conspiracy charges and computer hacking. The conspiracy charges are in conjunction with former Army private and intelligence analysis Bradley Manning, who now goes by the name Chelsea Manning. Assange, who is 47 years old, had originally sought sanctuary over alleged rape charges of two women in Sweden and skipping bail. As it turned out, neither of the women actually filed rape charges, but were attempting locate Assange, whom they claimed knowingly transmitted a STD. However, those charges were dropped long ago and Sweden has shown no interest in reopening them.

Over the years, there's been several attempts to force Assange out, including attempts to kidnap him from the London compound. However, yesterday, Equator withdrew its "invitation" and the London Metropolitan Police were finally successful in "getting their man" just as Ecuador signed a 4.2 billion loan deal with the International Monetary Fund (the IMF). Assange is expected to be extradited back to the US as quickly as possible in order to stand trial. His crime, authorities claim, is collusion with the Russians (yes, them again) using hacked documents, some of which were allegedly classified and secret. Assange has maintained for years that none of the documentation came as a result of Russian espionage and that the documentation had been secretly provided by a third party.

The real "crime" that Julian Assange stands accused of...and for which he is no doubt guilty...is releasing the information he acquired to the public; information which reveals just how corrupt the US and other governments are. His information "leaks" mentions names, dates, places, and amounts. Assange has outed agencies as well as high profile individuals. Obviously, that makes him a dangerous man, and potentially one with a very short life expediency ahead of him.

Julian Assange is not unlike Edward Snowden, who revealed government secrets; mostly about secret surveillance of individuals like you and me by the federal government and made it public. Meanwhile, social platforms like Facebook, collected volumes of confidential information on its users and in turn either gave or sold it the various government intelligence and other agencies. As a result, Edward Snowden was forced to flee to Russia, where he now lives in exile while others, such as Mark Zuckerberg, the owner of Facebook, are hailed as "patriots" by the ruling political elites.

Thus, I have to wonder if it's not the fact that confidential information was compromised, but the fact that information affecting the ruling elites and government agencies, illegal though it may be, is to remain private and out of the public eye, while our information, regardless of how private and personal, is free and readily available to the government or can be sold without out knowledge or consent. Therefore, we have a situation where there is privacy and the veil of secrecy for some, but not for all.

Some would argue that releasing classified government information, regardless of how it's obtained, or information about public officials, even if it involves criminal activity, is somehow different from making available the private information of ordinary citizens who could, after all, could allegedly be plotting some possible terrorist act or other crime-in-the-making. Enter the "thought police" and where you are presumed guilty first. Meanwhile, wars for profit, running illegal arms deals or taking bribes to the tune of millions or even billions by government officials are seen as somehow okay or beyond public scrutiny. So too is using unsecured servers for the receipt and transfer of classified communication pertaining to national security is apparently permissible.

What we have is obviously a double standard. One set of rules and laws for the ruling Oligarchy and political class of plutocrats, and an entirely different set for you and me. Privacy, as we know, has become largely a thing of the past. Something that once existed decades ago, in the time of our grandparents or great grandparents. We are monitored virtually 24/7. Every time we go out to a public venue, there are cameras, be they security cameras on nearly every corner, in stores, or someone videotaping someone else. Overhead satellites are constantly looking down on us. Their sophistication is to the point where they can literally read the text on our cell phone, but of course, every electronic signal we generate, be it a cell phone call, text, email, landline call, computer log on and site search is tagged and monitored. In fact, every electronic message sent anywhere in the world is monitored. Every single one. We know this, in part, thanks to individuals like Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and groups like Anonymous, bloggers, and vloggers. They ratted out the rats regardless of the political leanings. For the Oligarchy and ruling political elites, people like Assange and Snowden are every bit as dangerous as Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein, and his capture is viewed by them in the same light.

So, what is the significance of Julian Assange's arrest and future trial (assuming he makes it that far)? No doubt that first and foremost, government authorities are going to want to know where...precisely...his information comes from. If it's the Russians or Chinese, they are going to want to know name, dates, and times. They will then conduct an exhaustive internal search for a possible mole. Obviously, this could result in a major international fallout. Alternatively, they will want to know if the information comes from a disgruntled employee or someone seeking a little private revenge for some perceived wrong. Perhaps too, the information comes from someone who feels they are a true patriot and was just serving their country by outing secret crimes against this country. Either way, government prosecutors and intelligence agencies are going to want to know who. That potentially put other lives in danger.

But there's something else at risk here, which is far more important and dangerous, and that's freedom of speech as protected by the 1st Amendment. Julian Assange views himself as a investigative journalist (whereas Edward Snowden was a government employee and Whistle-blower). Journalist have long enjoyed "journalistic privilege" which allows them to protect their sources, regardless of who those sources are or where that information comes from (with the possible exception of information which is potentially libelous). Government authorities will likely argue that Assange is no journalist and that he runs a extortion racket or perhaps even a spy operation whose goal is to spread disinformation.

Just as important, if not more so, is what information Assange is still privy to? What "dirt" is he still sitting on, and on whom or what government agency? The reason they'd want to know is to bury or discredit the information, eliminate any leaks or potential threats (in the literal sense of the word), and ensure that there are no further leaks ever again (if this was a movie, it would be something like "The Empire Strikes Back"). In the parlance of the intelligence community, this is about "identification and clean up". Assange's trial will be public. That much is true, but there will be much the public will not be allowed to see or hear. Behind the scenes, the "empire" will be mobilized to snuff out any "resistance" to the status quo; anything which prevents the expansion of its control, which especially includes keeping secrets from the public.

Fascism, as I've often mentioned, didn't die in 1945 in the ashes and rubble of World War II. It survived. If you strip away the racial and nationalistic ideology, it works because it's very effective. Fascism is a partnership between the government and big business. In the past, government acted essentially as the senior partner. Today, that partnership is much more balanced because they very same people routinely move between senior private and public sector positions. Wealthy corporate CEOs and presidents run for office, getting elected with the help of other wealthy and powerful individuals and groups in and out of politics. They serve for a while, often with the aid of these very same folks. When they retire, they go to work as lobbyists or "consultants", calling on their friends still in office and helping other like minded individuals into office, and so the cycle repeats. Partisanship and ideology doesn't really matter. Government contracts and profit do.

Fascism has generally been viewed as "Right-wing" historically because of its nationalism, although in truth it's a merger of elements from the Left as well as the Right, based on a particular country's history, traditions, values, and political structure. That's why the Fascism of Italy differed from the Fascism of Hungary or Romania, which in turned was different from the fascism of Spain, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay, or even Nazi Germany.

As modern Fascism's founder, Benito Mussolini once said, Fascism would be better named as corporatism. America have evolved (or "devolved" would be a better description) into an Oligarchy comprised of these super wealthy individuals and their corporations, alongside a professional political class of plutocrats into a modern Fascist state. Instead of pushing a solely nationalistic agenda, it pushes brand loyalties. Something we, a tribalistic human beings, can belong to, be it a product or a sports team. It's something we can rally around while remaining controlled. That's the point of today's political parties. We fight "wars" against "opponents" and reap a sense of victory or defeat. We defend our victory or revenge the defeat. We humiliate or "assassinate " the other side's leaders.

Of course, the more we can be divided, the easier it is to manipulate and control us; playing each other off the other. The more divided we become, the more focused we are on each other and other differences---real or manufactured---and the less attention we pay to the real changes happening around us; the wars over the control of resources or assets, the loss of freedoms such as free speech and the right to privacy along with the growth of a surveillance state, which is nothing more than a neo-police state.

The last thing the ruling Oligarchy and political class wants is for us to know the truth and to unite. That is what is behind the arrest of Julian Assange and others like him, be it vloggers on different ideological sides like Lauren Southern, Abby Martin, Bill Whittle, Stormcloudsgathering.com, or groups like Anonymous, as well as certain bloggers and local talk radio hosts. Government whistle-blowers like Edward Snowden pose a special threat to them because they are on the inside. The arrest of Julian Assange is also as much a message as anything to those who expose light into places where the ruling class wants darkness. It's as much about government transparency and the right of the public to know what's being done in its name as it is about protecting your personal and financial privacy.



Julian Assange: WikiLeaks co-founder arrested in London

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange arrested in London, facing possible US extradition

Ecuador inks 42 billion financing deal with IMF-Moreno

The Groups Anonymous Inspired Are More Powerful than Anonymous Ever Was

5 of the most famous federal whistleblowers

Am I Who I Say I Am? A Look At Human Microchipping

Recently, a Wisconsin snack food technology company by the name of Three Square Marketing, announced that it was going to be micro-chipping its employees, or at least those who volunteer for the procedure. According to the company spokesperson, the concept is to reduced the need to memorize passwords to access their computers or phone system as well as entry into certain secure rooms, not to mention paying for snacks and so forth for as little as swipe of the hand. The procedure is actually quite simple. It's just a minor insertion of a tiny microchip (about the size of a single grain of rice) called a RFID, or "Radio Frequency Identification" transmitter chip, in the loose skin portion of your hand between your thumb and forefinger. In fact, several companies have begun to offer similar procedures (my bank has started offering retinal scans in order to have access to safety deposit boxes).

Three Square Marketing is not the first company to offer this procedure. In fact, several companies have made this security measure available. Epicenter , a high tech company in Stockholm Sweden hopes to have all of its 700 employees micro-chipped shortly. But these aren't the only companies to venture forth with this new technology. Several other, mostly technology based companies, are at least dipping their toe in the water. In fact, back in 2003, Mexico's top prosecutor, Attorney General Rafael Macedo de la Concha, along with 160 members of his staff were implanted with a micro-chip at a cost of (US) $125.00 each (the average cost is approximately $300 per person, depending on the purpose of the chip). Other members of the Mexican government and military were "chipped" as well. The reason was for security purposes given the power, wealth, and brutal means the drug cartels are willing to go in order to gain access to this information.. No more memorized security codes or passwords and no more magnetic security ID cards. In short, nothing to steal, lose, or forget. Of course, other governments and their militaries are doubtlessly taking the same steps...and for the same reasons.

Domestically, the U.S. military is looking into implanting chips in soldiers, sailors, and airmen for similar reasons---security. No one wants to forget a password or security ID, especially while under combat conditions (especially when the military changes password and code frequently...and they never---ever--- involve your dog's name, your birthday, or your mother's maiden name). In addition, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), a high tech R&D center which officially operates out of the Pentagon, is working on a unique program called "Electronic Prescriptions" or more simply, "ElectRx". The objective is to implant a chip called a "nanosensor", which will monitor a soldier's bodily vitals and administer specific medication if required.

A similar program could monitor a soldier's blood pressure, respiration, pulse, temperature or other factors and through the use of biofeedback, electromagnetic devises, as well as perhaps administer a stimulant or sedative to help ensure they are at peak performance in every combat situation. As an aside, the Germans did something similar to this during WWII. Each combat soldier, sailor, or airman was provided with a regular stream of "Pervitin", a stimulant similar to crystal meth. This helped the soldier to stay awake longer and remain in the fight longer. Later, they were provided with a cocaine based drug with sinister sounding code name of "D-IX". Studies showed that with D-IX, individuals could hike 70 miles carrying a 45 pound backpack without a single rest break. No doubt had the micro technology been available, Nazi scientists would have found a use for it (of course, like so many other things, they were indeed working on the problem).

So, what are we to make of this? Would you be willing to be "chipped" for your employer? Let's look at it from another angle before you answer. Let's say that you, along with most Babyboomers, either are or will be facing the issue of ageing parents. One of the key problems is their tendency to get lost (especially if they suffer from dementia or some other neuro disease). A micro-chip equipped with GPS could be implanted to monitor their whereabouts. The same goes for those with small children who have the same tendency of wondering off. It would also help to prevent child disappearances. In addition, as pointed out above, it could monitor any medical needs either your parents or child requires.

Now, let's take it one step further. What if, by micro-chipping your hand, you could forgo your house key(s), car key, work security card or password? In addition, it would have all your medical information on it, from your childhood shots through your current medication, health concerns, your doctor and next of kin contact information as well as your insurance information. In case of a serious accident, wouldn't that be helpful? All EMS would have to do is scan your hand and your complete medical history is right there. No more guessing.

What if we pushed it just a bit further? What if this same micro-chip, which is capable of holding billions of bits of information, included your driver's license and car registration information on it? It would make life more manageable. Less digging through the glove box or business drawer or cabinet. You could even have a feature on it which includes your resume as well as financial information like your savings or checking account. You could even pay your groceries simply by scanning your hand the same way your groceries are scanned. As it is, some people use their smart phone much the same way, except now the information is right at your finger tips, well, close to your finger tips.

The companies implanting these micro-chips like VeriChip Corporation, a subsidiary of Applied Digital Solutions, Inc of Palm Beach Florida or Swedish Biohacking Group of Stockholm all claim that the information is extremely secure, although nothing is entirely foolproof. Nevertheless, they insist that the information encoded on the chip is at least as secure as it would be conventionally, with the key difference being that primary factor for secure breaches, namely hard documents such as security cards, passwords or pass codes written down on a piece of paper, are eliminated. By the way, the FDA has approved the use of microchips in humans as of 2004. Specifically, they approved its use for introducing medicine into humans. Microchipping for animals, which collects not just medical monitoring information, but also their migratory movements. For pets, they've long been essentially in tracking them when they go missing.

Ok, we've discussed all the pros, so let's talk about some possible negatives shall we? First, do you really want to share your personal medical issues with potentially everyone? Now, I know I said earlier that the information would be available for EMS, the hospital, the doctors and nurses, and perhaps the police. However, there is always the possibility that the built in security wall could be breached by a hacker or mistakenly by your employer. Then again, if you have employer provided insurance (or coverage underwritten by the federal government such as Veteran Administration, Medicare, or Medicaid), sharing personal medical information might become mandatory. Your financial information might also be hacked, but that would only come through a direct attack rather than someone stealing a card or stealing a password. Admittedly, this type of hack on your end will be the most difficult. Thus any potential cyber attack would be on the bank's end. Nevertheless, a quick change in security could solve that problem without you initially even knowing about it. Employee or work information nowadays exists within the company's digital world and is protected through a password, electromagnetic strip, or maybe a retinal scan. Sharing it on a microchip wouldn't really make that much difference, and unless it's going to allow you access to read it, wouldn't be a necessity, whereas security access to your work area, entry, etc would be a plus. The same goes with a resume---not useful, although things like gym passes, driver license, car registration, insurance information would obviously be useful. The same with your medical history and medication. If coupled with a medical devise, a chip could monitor things like blood sugar, a insulin plump, blood pressure, heart implant, and so on.

Finally (and in response to a dare), I'm posting the obvious negative to a microchipping---the "Mark of the Beast". Yelp, on a dare about me not mentioning it, here I go. As most people have been taught, the biblical Book of Revelations, Chapter 13, verses 16 -18, makes mention of a mysterious "mark" which equates to the "number of a Man" which equals 666 (or depending on how its calculated, 616) and unless you have it on either your right hand or forehead, your are forbidden to "buy or sell" anything. In the early years of Christianity, members of this new "sect" as they were called were being systematically harassed and often, killed for sport, either in the arena or for private entertainment of the ruling Emperor (one such occasion was when Caesar Nero had several Christians beaten, then nailed to a cross in various positions, dowsed with oil and then set on fire in order to provide lighting for one of Caesar's late night parties).

Therefore, it goes without saying, that early Christian writers had to be very careful about what they wrote when it came to Rome, Roman law, or any of Rome's leaders; especially Caesar himself. One way to do this was encoding key names, such as a number stood for a particular letter (this technique, called a "gematria", was used by other groups with their own letter/numbering system.). Thus, the number 666 was produced using the name of the Emperor at the time, Nero Caesar (vowels were always excluded) using Greek and 616 using Latin. So there you have it! What would you do? Would you embrace modern technology and have a microchip implanted? What if it was a job you really wanted and they required being micro-chipped? Would you set limits as to what you would have encoded on the chip? What about app updates? What if you bought a newly built house and it was fully automated and could be operated by using passwords and/or security codes... or a by using a couple of different remotes...or a single chip in your hand?


Microchips implanted in Mexican officials


New Obama plan calls for implanted computer chips to help U.S. troops heal


FDA approves computer chip for humans

Human Microchipping: An Unbiased look at the Pros and Cons

My 2016 Review Which Didn't Go As Planned

I had originally thought about writing a nice summary of the year's event; you know, kind of a wrap up for 2016. However, whenever I started to sit down and get started, something else would catch my attention, usually relating to this, for lack of a better expression, systematic shock by the Left that Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton, despite the near foregone conclusion that she would crowned as the first female American President, lost and the subsequent trauma which has ensued beginning with denial and then quickly into the anger stage. Now, we seem to be well into the blame stage where, in an effort to find some reason---no matter how absurd or illogical---how America was denied its "queen", how "The Donald" won (never mind the mood of the country for the last eight or even 16 years with Establishment politics), the open takeover of the country by the Oligarchy not to mention international embarrassments--American officials don't bow damn it---and apology tours, a never-ending wars complete with illegal gun deals, the murder of an ambassador as well as open borders for illegals and potential terrorists and so on and so on.

So, now, in a quest to ignore the obvious and distract Americans (again) from the reality of what's actually happening, the DNC and members of the Democratic Party Establishment have, at Hillary's urging, started to fix the blame for Hillary's loss (and there has to be somebody to blame other than the candidate herself) on the Russians. Apparently, according to the current narrative, Russian President Vladimir Putin personally directly Russian intelligence agencies to find ways to "rig" the election against Hillary (you know, like she and Debbie Wasserman did against Bernie Sanders) and to find ways to discredit her (like her failure to use secured servers and cell phones, using the office of Secretary of State to garner "pay-to-play" donations to the Clinton Foundation, attempts to cover-up unauthorized arms deals, failure to come to the assistance of a US Ambassador in Benghazi resulting in his death, the death of three other high value Embassy individuals and destruction of the Embassy itself and the subsequent cover-up, and literally thousands and thousands of pages of other "trivial points" in her words).

The story the current Regime is trying to sell to us via the corporate media, Russian intelligence operatives were able to bypass the National Security Agency, which is the largest and most powerful global communications monitoring network on the planet bar none and can literally monitor, record, and analyze every piece of electronic communication on in near real time; they broke through the communications net of the FBI, Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and its electronic monitoring capabilities, as well as the internal security features of the DNC, the US State Department (Hillary's repeated refusal to use secure cell phones or servers surely didn't help). Of course, let's not forget that most of what was released was from the very fingers of Hillary, her campaign staff, her SoS staff, the DNC, and so forth. In other words, what repeatedly damn them was their own words from their own sites, not manufactured emails or other electronic communications---but themselves. Yet, their complaint has been that someone else sabotaged Hillary's chances. Their arrogance is simply amazing, and then to demand an Congressional investigation and enlist the help of the aforementioned intelligence agencies to help find a scapegoat, and who better to blame than the one world leader who saw through both Obama and Hillary than Vladimir Putin.

According to Mr. Putin, he was less than disappointed that Hillary Clinton lost, especially given her oft repeated promises of continuing with President Obama's foreign policies, which has seen a refreeze of relations between Russia and the US, especially in the Middle East where Obama has repeatedly pushed for "boots on the ground" against Russia long standing regional ally, Syria. In addition, Russia has proven to be very successful with the efforts to target and remove terrorists operations, namely ISIS and Al Qaeda, in Syria while the US regards them as "allies" and refers to them as "rebels" since they are opposing President Assad's government and continued to arm and equipment them while outside Syria these same groups are the our enemies. Trump has expressed a willingness to work with Putin in eliminating these individuals wherever they are located or under whatever name they are currently using.

Nevertheless, Putin has repeatedly stated that neither he nor Russian intelligence was involved in rigging the US Presidential Election. Besides, if Russia could bypass our national intelligence network to this degree, I think our priorities need to be reexamined and we need to be more concerned how we could have a failure of this proporation than Hillary's loss. Next, we have Julian Assange, the Founder of WikiLeaks who, you know, actually leaked the information in question. According to Mr. Assange, Russian was not involved in any way in helping WikiLeaks in obtaining any of the volumes of emails and other documents which they've been making available to the public. Mr. Assange has stated, however, that most of his sources have been disillusioned staffers at the DNC, former Clinton associates and campaign volunteers, as well as former Bernie Sanders supporters. Huh. So, here we have a organization with the history of obtaining and releasing information and its presidents admitting to the leaks but this isn't acceptable to Hillary, the DNC, and the Political Establishment? I always thought that the keys to solve any crime were "motive, means, and opportunity", which WikiLeaks has, and here we have a public confession too but that's somehow not acceptable? Could it be that Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible for her own failure?

Lastly, we now have what I'm calling the "Revenge of the Talking Heads". From early on in the presidential race, it became more than clear that this was going to be about the two Establishment parties going through the formulated campaign with all the usual sound bites, glad-handing and scripted speeches as one cardboard candidate pretended to get indignant with the other cardboard candidate, and in the end you and I got to go vote for the one which sounded like they cared the most but didn't. You know, "the illusion of choice" which is American Politics these days. In this case, it was corporate owned Democrat Hillary Clinton vs. whoever the Pretender-to-the-Throne the other side would present. In the end, Hillary would emerge victorious after a "hard fought" but "honorable" race and call for the country to "come together" behind her administration and policy...blah, blah, blah. Well, it didn't work out that way did it?

Instead, we had a political outsider who the Establishment called a "clown", "the circus", and "didn't deserve to be there". Interesting. I thought anyone could run for President and it was up to us---the People---to decide who "deserved" to be there or not, but perhaps I'm mistaken. That must have been a cartoon from my youth. Throughout the campaign, the corporate media and its "talking heads" couldn't have been more non-transparent in their contempt for the non-establishment candidate or in the foregone conclusion that this "formality" of the election process was just the prelude to Hillary's coronation. No one, and I mean no one was any more dumbfounded than the camera perfect heads on NBC, CBS, FOX, MSNBS, CNN, and the rest of the corporate owned media outlets, but of those who were actually listening to the American People---the non-traditional media (including yours truly), we weren't surprised at all. In fact, most of us had been saying so all along!

Now, we the corporate media with its image and credibility irrevocably tarnished, has launched an all out campaign to shut down sites it regards as promoting "fake news". This includes not only trying to ignore them but removing them from sites like Facebook and YouTube because, well, you know, you can trust them with telling the "truth" not independent bloggers, writers, talk shows and other alternative news sites. Of course, to be sure, there are more than a few news sites, etc who put "questionable" stories out there---some of which sounding quite legit---but then so has and does the corporate media. Kettle meet pot, although I think those of us in the alternative media are more honest since we aren't often beholden to a paycheck and making some corporate powerbroker happy or necessarily towing some party line.

Regardless, I find it dangerous that the very same media outlets, 96% of which who are controlled by just six corporations---yes six---and beholden to corporate interests just like the two primary corporate political parties are should be allowed to "police" those who are trying to do an honest job and provide real news which they aren't even trying to report. To me, and I admit that I'm obviously biased on this point, but it reminds me of when the old Fascist and Communist regimes began imposing their propaganda machine on the countries, be it Nazi Germany, Franco's Spain, Stalin's Russia, Tojo's Japan or more recent dictatorships in Libya, Iraq or some of the countries in Latin America. As I think everyone knows by now, America isn't the Constitutional or democratic Republic it once was. It's an Oligarchy, and like most oligarchies, it's neo-fascist in its political ideology though it really doesn't care as long as they obtain and maintain control, be it the economy, the government, the military (which it uses as its enforcer), or control over our lives and, ultimately, our thoughts---our opinions and values---because as long as this illusion of choice continues, they still need to go through the formality of elections. It's, of course, much easier if they can predict our behavior triggers on certain issues and channel that in a certain direction to get the "official" results they wanted in the first place.

By the way, there's also another shift taking place which most Americans may be unaware of. In addition to this "witch hunt" against alternative media, there is a subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) attempt to delegitimize Trump and his incoming Administration underway; innuendos, understated questions, backhanded slurs against certain individuals, attempts to place doubts and undercut public trust going on by the corporate media. It's "as if" they are trying to plant in the mind of Americans that somehow the Presidential election was "stolen" or wasn't "legitimate" and that Trump isn't the "real" President. Some have started campaigns using the slogan "Not my President" and encouraging members of Congress, the military, the political bureaucracy to ignore Trump, his polices, and Executive Orders; a kind of passive aggressive resistance. Even Obama has been doing his best to undercut Trump by taking steps, especially in regards to foreign policy and immigration, that will hamper the new administration. Traditionally, the outgoing President didn't do much of anything as a courtesy to the incoming President, knowing firsthand how difficult it is hitting the ground running. It's part of the "peaceful transition" of administrations that we were known for. It appears those days are gone and we're witnessing yet another attempt by the Obama Regime to divide and disrupt America.

So, instead of looking back at the year, I decided that taking a closer look at how it ended was an excellent coda to the year and look forward toward 2017, and perhaps beyond. Of course, if we were to look back, I might suggest something more appropriate...like 1984. Have a healthy and safe 2017 everyone.

Bureau 121: The Sony Hack Fallout

This really wasn't the article I was planning on writing. Actually, I thinking about a summary of the year's major events---more than ample material there! As some of you may know, I'm a big movie buff, especially when it comes to Mel Brooks or those great movies from the 30's and 40's. In fact, Americans in general love their movies. We've had a love affair with Hollywood since the days of Mary Pickford, Lillian Gish, and Tom Mix, which brings me to the subject of this article. Last year, in 2013, some 1.34 billion movie tickets were sold, generating just under $11 billion dollars in revenue.

Movies have always allowed us the opportunity for escape. It magically allows us enter another time and place; to voyeuristically participate in the lives of characters we long to be or of those we love to hate. Movies have helped us transport ourselves from the everyday drudgery of our ordinary lives into a realms of enchantment, if only for a few hours. Movies have also brought us together, be it a couple on their first date or a nation during a time of war, a national tragedy or economic depression. A key part of this, perhaps an essential part, has been the leeway we've given moviemakers to tell their stories. It is imperative that the actors, as well as the writers and directors be allowed to explore their creativity; to push the boundaries as far they can go.

Naturally, they sometimes go too far; beyond the bounds of good taste or credibility. But we've never tried to restrict their creative licenses. Sure, we've censored them. We've rated them. We've edited them, We've toned them down, but all for content based on the audiences or perceived morals of the time but rarely have we prohibited them solely because of the subject matter (though some were not made due to the political or alleged political leanings of a writer, director, or producer during the mid 1950's during the "Red Scare"). I would say that's because we place such a high value on our freedom of speech as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers, but that would only be half true since the same sense of artistic freedom of expression can be found in Europe and in most other countries throughout the world; perhaps even to a far greater extent than our own, though they too have faced their own censorship due to political or religious intolerance.

But, now we have a new wrinkle we must consider. In today's interconnected world, amid all the tension, are there some topics that are simply out of bounds? We all remember what happened when author Salman Rushie wrote his 1988 book "The Satanic Verses", which enflamed some in the Moslem community and resulted in a price being placed on his head. Or when a few newspapers published cartoons which some Moslems felt were insulting to their Prophet Mohammed, resulting again in threats of violence against the various cartoonists as well as any newspaper which dared to run these allegedly "anti-Mohammed" cartoons (yet cartoons, TV shows, movies insulting Israel, Jews, America, or even Hindus and Buddhist were deemed perfectly acceptable to the same Moslem community).

Recently, Sony Pictures Entertainment produced a movie---a supposed comedy---about a bumbling talk show host and his producer who are hired by the CIA to killed the leader of North Korea entitled "The Interview". I guess someone at Sony thought this would be a hoot. Apparently, North Korea wasn't amused. Using a covert military cyber-hacking unit called "Bureau 121", operating under the euphemistic name of "Guardians of Peace", launched a hack attack on Sony, first hacking the movie studio's emails and releasing some embarrassing emails written some of the studio's senior executives about a few popular actors, producers, directors, and others. The emails rattled some cages; doubtlessly upset a few very powerful people in Tinseltown. Aside from some red faces and several groveling apologies, no serious or lasting damage was done. However, that was just beginning. The Guardians of Peace demanded that "The Interview" not be released. Any theater that did so would apparently be targeted for some sort of attack. The warning extended to anyone living near the offending theater, so one would naturally assume a bomb of some sort was implied.

As a result, five of the major film distribution outlets and at least three theaters chains announced they would not show the movie, scheduled for release this Christmas. Sony followed by stating that the movie would be withdrawn and not shown in any format at any time. Game over. Sony took quite a financial hit in the process. But the impact is really more than just about money. For the first time a foreign government has, through a military operation, attacked a US corporation; in this case to prevent release of a movie which its find objectionable. Now, I'm no fan of big corporations in general, and I certainly would not go see this movie for several (and hopefully obvious) reasons. But should a foreign government have the ability to dictate the release of a film, or a song, or a book, outside of its own domestic market?

During WWII, there were numerous propaganda films produced worldwide, although the US produced the lion's share by far, followed by the British while 90% of the films produced by Nazi Germany for instance contained no political content. Russia produced a few while the Italians and Japanese produced little of any consequence. During the Vietnam War, Hollywood released several anti-war films (including several about the Korea War, and by extension, Vietnam) while only one movie presented the war in a positive light (John Wayne's "The Green Beret" which was a box office dud). Still, there was no attempt by any side to prevent to production, release, or distribution of a film such as threatening to blow up studios or theaters. China is believed to have a similar military cyber-hacking unit as well and is thought to have been responsible for several attacks on US government agencies as well as financial institutions, yet not a peep out of them about any anti-Communist Chinese movie ("The Manchurian Candidate" comes to mind), book, or script.

I do have to sympathize with the North Koreans though on one point. This movie, even though it's billed as comedy (questionably given the previews I've seen), was about the assassination of their current head of state, their "Beloved Leader" Kim Jong-un. I wonder how Americans would feel about a North Korean or Chinese movie or book portraying the assassination of the President (ok, feel free to substitute Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton for Obama to put it in the proper context)? How would the Russians feel about a movie, even a knee slapping comedy, about bumping off Vladimir Putin? Somehow, I don't they'd care too much for it. See my point?

The question remains, as much as we in the US and in the West value our freedom of expression; as much artistic license as we believe we should allow, is there now a line that shouldn't be crossed given the connectedness of the world today? Where once a country could have poked fun at a culture, or a race, or even a religion, now to find that same content dangerously unacceptable? We have become far more sensitive for instance in how we portray Native Americans. Should this be extended to other nations and cultures as well? If so, shouldn't that be reciprocated? No more anti-Israel or anti-Jewish or Hindu or Buddhist movies by the Islamic countries for instance? No more negative portrayals of Hispanics, blacks, Asians or whites? No more Irish or German or French or Italian jokes or caricatures? How would this be enforced? Would it include songs? What about books or standup comedy routines? What about previously issued material? We can certainly buy most of the Nazi propaganda films, such as "Jud Suss" or "The Eternal Jew "online.

Or alternatively, was this attack by the North Koreans simply a new weapon in their arsenal? They have made it abundantly clear they would attack us, South Korea, the Japanese, or anyone else they pleased anytime they wanted too with full impunity. Is pulling this movie merely giving in---surrendering---to their demands, and if so, what do we do the next time (and there will be a next time) they demand something else? Many in Moslem community have been offended---perhaps rightly so---by what some in West and in Asia have said, written or drawn, but have made it clear that they are well within their bounds to portray Jews, Hindus, Buddhist, Christians, or any non-Moslem as they please. Should we or Israel or India then follow North Korea's lead? That just doesn't seem quite equitable to me.

We also need to consider whether pulling this movie is a surrender our freedom, in this case our freedom of speech. If so, what's the difference between this and bowing to terrorism in any of its other forms? What freedom will they, or someone else like them, demand next? At what point does freedom of expression give way to respect and tolerance or face down threats to those same freedoms? It is a brave new world indeed, but are we brave enough?

Sony cancels December 25th premiere of 'The Interview' after terror threat



Sony email hack: what we learned about greed, racism and sexism



The Sony hack: how it happened, who is responsible and what we've learned