Author:
Oswald killer Jack Ruby told FBI informant to ‘watch the fireworks’ the day JFK was shot – documents
| November 18, 2017 | 8:45 pm | political struggle | No comments

https://www.rt.com/usa/410303-fbi-documents-jack-ruby-jfk/

Oswald killer Jack Ruby told FBI informant to ‘watch the fireworks’ the day JFK was shot – documents

Oswald killer Jack Ruby told FBI informant to ‘watch the fireworks’ the day JFK was shot – documents
Freshly released FBI records show that Jack Ruby, the man who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, asked an FBI informant if he wanted to “watch the fireworks” just hours before President John F. Kennedy’s assassination in 1963.

The document, which was among 10,744 files released by the National Archive on Friday, outlines what an FBI informant told officials about Ruby, hinting that the nightclub owner may have known that Kennedy was going to be targeted.

In March 1977, nearly 14 years after JFK’s assassination, the chief of the intelligence division of the Internal Revenue Service, Robert J. Potrykus, hand delivered a letter to the agent Ted L. Gunderson of the FBI’s Dallas office which outlined that Ruby telephoned the informant on the morning of the fatal shooting of the president and asked him if he wanted to go to watch the presidential parade.

READ MORE: JFK assassination: What was Lee Harvey Oswald doing in the USSR?

“The informant stated that on the morning of the assassination, Ruby contacted him and asked if he would ‘like to watch the fireworks,’” the letter reads.

“He was with Jack Ruby and standing at the corner of the Postal Annex Building facing the Texas School Book Depository Building at the time of the shooting. Immediately after the shooting, Ruby left and headed toward the area of the Dallas Morning News Building.”

The follow up documentation reveals that the informant was Bob Vanderslice of Dallas. In 1977 he told the FBI that Ruby said nothing to him immediately after the assassination. However after Ruby was arrested for killing Oswald, Vanderslice was also arrested on an unrelated charge, and he got to know Ruby better in Dallas County Jail.

Former marine Oswald was formally charged with killing the president before being gunned down by Ruby, as he was being transported to the county jail, just two days after the assassination in November 1963. Ruby later died in prison.

The Warren Commission, which was set up to investigate the president’s death, concluded that Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and that Oswald acted entirely alone. It also concluded that Jack Ruby also acted alone when he killed Oswald.

The National Archives has been releasing JFK assassination records in batches. An earlier release revealed no connection between Oswald and the CIA, undermining the popular theory that Oswald was a CIA operative.

US STRATCOM Head Ready to Resist Possible Illegal Order to Use Nuclear Weapons
| November 18, 2017 | 8:37 pm | Donald Trump, DPRK, struggle against nuclear war | No comments
a giant nuclear-equipped USAF B-52 bomber lifts off from the snow covered RAF Fairford runway in Gloucestershire, England, en route to the Gulf

US STRATCOM Head Ready to Resist Possible Illegal Order to Use Nuclear Weapons

© AFP 2017/ Gerald Penny
US

Get short URL
1736412112
https://sputniknews.com/us/201711181059228641-us-stratcom-president-nuclear-weapons/

Air Force Gen. John Hyten, commander of the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) said on Saturday he was ready to disobey a possible presidential unlawful order to use nuclear weapons.

WASHINGTON (Sputnik) — Air Force Gen. John Hyten said at the Halifax International Security Forum in Canada that the law of armed conflict set a number of criteria to determine legality of a military action such as necessity, distinction, proportionality, unnecessary suffering and others.

“I provide advice to the president, he will tell me what to do… And if it’s illegal, guess what’s going to happen? I’m going to say, ‘Mr. President, that’s illegal.’ And guess what he’s going to do? He’s going to say, ‘What would be legal?’ And we’ll come up [with] options, with a mix of capabilities to respond to whatever the situation is, and that’s the way it works. It’s not that complicated,” Hyten said, as quoted by the CBS News broadcaster.

“If you execute an unlawful order, you will go to jail. You could go to jail for the rest of your life,” he added.

Earlier this week, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee raised the issue of whether incumbent President Donald Trump should retain an authority to order a nuclear strike. The Senate focused on the problem after Trump’s harsh remarks about North Korea, which included the promise to to unleash “fire and fury” and to “totally destroy” the country if necessary.

Demonization of RT, Sputnik Marks the Death Rattle of the Washington Consensus
| November 18, 2017 | 8:31 pm | political struggle | No comments
Стенд Международного информационного агентства Sputnik (Спутник) в ЭкспоФоруме перед открытием XX Санкт-Петербургского международного экономического форума

Demonization of RT, Sputnik Marks the Death Rattle of the Washington Consensus

© Sputnik/ Igor Russak
Columnists

Get short URL
John Wight
122636413
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201711131059053922-rt-sputnik-russia-demonization/

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not fearful men, not descended from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes which were for the moment unpopular.”

US broadcast journalist, Edward Murrow, spoke these words in the 1950s, protesting against the witchhunt of communists, alleged communists, and of anyone thought to evince anything resembling sympathy or support for ideas associated with communism by Senator Joseph McCarthy, inspired by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) hearings of the 1940s.

McCarthy and his team of witch hunters were able to sow fear, paranoia, and a rigid adherence not to democracy or free speech, but to intolerance of dissent and the questioning of the received truths that sustained America’s engagement with the rest of the world.

In 2017 we are witnessing the rebirth of McCarthyism across the West in response to Russia’s recovery from the demise of the Soviet Union and the attempt to turn the country into a wholly owned subsidiary of Washington via the imposition of free market economic shock treatment thereafter. In the process critical thinking and reason has been sacrificed on the altar of Pavlovian conditioning and unreason, resulting in the embrace of hysterical Russophobic nostrums by a liberal political and media class for whom Russia can only ever exist as a vanquished foe or one that needs to be vanquished.

When a think-tank with the impertinence of naming itself “European Values” feels emboldened to compile and publish a “hit list” of over 2000 contributors to RT, as it did recently, made up of politicians, former diplomats, journalists, and academics from across the West, the foundations of Western liberal democracy start to crack. And when the US Congress passes a bill to force RT America to register as a “foreign agent,” then we are talking war being waged not against Russian media per say, but the thousands of US citizens who work for Russian media and their right to ply their trade in the land of the free.

There is nothing that RT or Sputnik International does that other state-funded broadcasters — the BBC, Voice of America, and France24 et al. — are not doing when it comes to their operations overseas. All state-funded media engage in cultural outreach, and each proffers an analysis of events via the prism of their own cultural, ideological and national worldview.

But let us not be naive. It would be a mistake to divorce the ongoing,  ever-intensifying campaign to drive RT and Sputnik out of existence in the West from the wider geopolitical struggle over the Washington-led unipolar status quo and the multipolar alternative demanded by Moscow’s recovery and re-emergence as a global power, along with Beijing. In this regard, in the context of this geopolitical struggle, Russian media in the West is seen as low hanging fruit, an easy target by which to render Russia a bloody nose.

Does anyone really believe for a moment that if Russia had or did accept its place as a neo-satellite of Washington that this campaign against RT and Sputnik would be taking place? If both media channels were echo chambers of the Washington Consensus you can best believe they would be allowed to operate freely and without molestation, without their employees or contributors being traduced as “Kremlin propagandists” or de facto “Russian agents.”

Speaking for myself for a moment, the views I express on Russian media are the same as those I express when they appear anywhere else, including the BBC. I am not told what to write, say or think by Moscow, and nor would I accept for a moment if any attempt was made to tell me what to write, say or think. Here I know that I speak for the many British and US citizens I know personally who also work at, with or for RT and Sputnik.

The entire thing is a sham — a malicious and ideologically driven attempt to police the portals of news dissemination and analysis to the point where rigid acceptance and obeisance to the aforementioned Washington Consensus, one responsible for upending the lives of millions at home and abroad over the years, is total.

There is a simple rule of thumb that will never let you down. It dictates that those who tell you who your enemy is are usually your enemy. It begs the question of whether Russophobia has become the acceptable form of racism among a liberal class whose hypocrisy is only exceeded by their mendacity?

The only conspiracy underway when it comes to RT and Sputnik is one designed to drive them out of operation in the West, thus allowing those ‘sons of liberty’ within the liberal class to gloat in a victory against the right to have their worldview questioned or contested.

If and when the day arrives that they do succeed it will be a hollow victory, pregnant with a dangerous precedent that it would be incredibly unwise to take lightly.

“Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.

Check out John’s Sputnik radio show, Hard Facts.

The USA, European Union and Ukraine denied to condemn Nazism at the UN General Assembly

Sunday, November 19, 2017

The USA, European Union and Ukraine denied to condemn Nazism at the UN General Assembly

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-usa-european-union-and-ukraine.html
Hiding behind the pretext of “freedom of speech”, the United States– accompanied by Ukrainevoted against a resolution condemning the glorification of Nazism introduced to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly by the Russian Federation. 
 
The resolution was approved by a recorded vote of 125 in favor to 2 against, with 51 abstentions. 
 
Among the abstentions are the countries of the European Union (including Greece), Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Turkey and Libya. 
Following the draft’s introduction, the United States representative proposed an amendment to the text that would change all sections deemed to violate- according to the US- individual freedoms of speech, thought, expression and association. The amendment was rejected by a recorded vote of 81 against, to 3 in favour (Israel, Ukraine, United States), with 73 abstentions.
Speaking after the draft, as a whole, was approved by a vote of 125 in favour to 2 against (Ukraine, United States), with 51 abstentions, several States commended efforts to combat Nazism, yet expressed concern over the scope of the draft.  
 
Showing the EU’s hypocrisy, Estonia’s delegate, on behalf of the European Union, said all contemporary forms of racism should be addressed in an impartial manner! We must remember that the government of Estonia- like other Baltic countries- have a leading role in glorifying Nazism during the last years, by honoring the Waffen-SS, organizing anticommunist fiestas and distorting history under the auspices of the European Union. 
 
No matter how hard they try to distort history, to glorify Nazism-Fascism and vilify Socialism-Communism, the historical truth is one and only: The Soviet Red Army and the peoples’ antifascist resistance crushed Nazism in WW2.
 
Mass and militant rally of the KKE and KNE in Athens

Saturday, November 18, 2017

Mass and militant rally of the KKE and KNE for the Polytechnic Uprising anniversary in Athens (VIDEO)

https://communismgr.blogspot.com/2017/11/mass-and-militant-rally-of-kke-and-kne.html
Large militant rally by KKE, KNE and labour-students’ unions commemorating the 44th anniversary since the Polytechnic Uprising; Athens, 17 November.
Black men get longer prison sentences than white men for the same crime: report

Black men get longer prison sentences than white men for the same crime: report

Inmates put their hands behind their backs as they return to their dormitory from the cafeteria Sept. 21, 2011, at Richland Parish Detention Center southeast of Monroe.
Inmates put their hands behind their backs as they return to their dormitory from the cafeteria Sept. 21, 2011, at Richland Parish Detention Center southeast of Monroe.(File photo by Scott Threlkeld)

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/11/black_men_get_longer_prison_se.html

African-American men in the criminal justice system serve longer sentences than white men who commit the same crime, according to a new federal study reported by ABC News Friday (Nov. 17).

After a review of demographic data of the country’s prisons from 2012 to 2016, the U.S. Sentencing Commission found that sentences for black men are 19.1 percent longer than for white men. When the commission accounted for violence in an offender’s past, black men last year also received sentences that were 20.4 percent longer than their white peers.

“After controlling for a wide variety of sentencing factors, the Commission found that Black male offenders continued to receive longer sentences than similarly situated White male offenders, and that female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male offenders,” the report stated.

The full ABC News report can be read online.

US military leaders would reject illegal order for nuclear strike, senators told

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/14/us-military-nuclear-weapons-strike-senate-trump

US military leaders would reject illegal order for nuclear strike, senators told

As senators raise concerns about ‘unstable’ Donald Trump’s decision-making, former commander says military is ‘not obligated to follow illegal orders’

Robert Kehler, right, addresses the Senate foreign relations committee.

Robert Kehler, right, addresses the Senate foreign relations committee. Photograph: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

As senators raise concerns about ‘unstable’ Donald Trump’s decision-making, former commander says military is ‘not obligated to follow illegal orders.

US military commanders would refuse a presidential order to carry out a nuclear first strike that they thought was illegal, senators were told on Tuesday.

Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the chamber’s foreign relations committee, has expressed fears that the president is taking the country “on the path to world war III”.

Separately CNN reported on Tuesday that a “Nato partner country” had raised concerns about Trump’s command of the US nuclear launch system, under which the president alone can order a launch.

Opening the hearing, Corker – who has recently been engaged in bitter exchanges with Trump over his fitness for office – noted that “the president has the sole authority to give that order, whether we are responding to a nuclear attack or not”.

“Once that order is given and verified, there is no way to revoke it,” the Tennessee senator said. “To be clear, I would not support changes that would reduce our deterrence of adversaries or reassurance of our allies. But I would like to explore, as our predecessors in the House did 41 years ago, the realities of this system.”

Chris Murphy, Democratic senator from Connecticut, said: “We are concerned that the president of the United States is so unstable, is so volatile, has a decision-making process that is so quixotic, that he might order a nuclear weapons strike that is wildly out of step with US national security interests.”

Retired Gen Robert Kehler, commander of US Strategic Command (StratCom) from 2011 to 2013, told the Senate committee that he would have refused to carry out a nuclear first strike on presidential orders if he believed it did not meet the requirements of proportionality and necessity under the law of armed conflict.

“I would have said: I’m not ready to proceed,” Kehler said.

“Then what happens?” he was asked.

“I don’t know,” he replied. “Fortunately, these are all hypothetical scenarios. There is the human factor in our system. There is a human element to this.

“It would be a very interesting constitutional situation, I believe. The military is obligated to follow legal orders but is not obligated to follow illegal orders,” Kehler said, adding that he always made sure he had legal advisers at hand when he was at Strategic Command.

Ed Markey, a Democratic senator from Massachusetts who is sponsoring legislation that would limit the president’s authority to launch a first nuclear strike, said he was not reassured by Kehler’s arguments.

“I don’t have confidence that a military chain of command would reject an order by the president to launch nuclear weapons in a preventative nuclear war situation,” Markey told the Guardian after Tuesday’s hearing.

“I think that would be abdicating the responsibility of the US Congress to a group of generals who in many instances would have been appointed by the commander-in-chief, Donald Trump. That’s a very thin reed on which to have the fate of the planet being dependent.”

The president and his top officials have said repeatedly that North Korea would not be allowed to threaten the US with nuclear weapons, but as Pyongyang has persisted with its nuclear and missile tests, it has been unclear what the administration would do to stop the regime.

In August, the national security adviser, HR McMaster, raised the prospect of a “preventative war”, but many observers of the Korean standoff said any conflict was highly likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear exchange.

Under the US constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war, but the president, as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, has the authority to respond to an actual or imminent threat. Much of the Senate committee hearing was taken up by discussion of what constituted an imminent threat and who could make that determination.

Peter Feaver, a politics professor at Duke University and a specialist on presidential war powers, said: “I would say distinguish between scenarios where the military wake up the president versus scenarios where the presidents wake up the military.”

Feaver added: “In the context where the president is waking up the military in an extreme funk, saying ‘I’m angry and I want something done’, he would require a lot of people cooperating with him to make the strike happen. And they would be asking the questions that would slow down that process.”

Arms control experts however, expressed doubt that lawyers would always be involved in the decision.

“The system is designed entirely for speed, not deliberation,” said Stephen Young, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

“Certainly in the case of responding to an incoming attack, the lawyers are not involved. It is not clear it would be any different for a nuclear first strike, despite Gen Kehler’s statements.”