​BY FRANK SALVATO
Did you know that before you even wake up in the morning you are subsiding profits to Chinese companies? It has to do with how our country levies shipping costs for products shipped from China. The fact is, shipping costs for products shipped by China into the United States are tantamount to nothing.
 
Without ever buying a single item online shipped from China, the American taxpayers – all of us – are subsidizing Chinese companies because of an antiquated system established by the Treaty of Bern in 1874. In its current form, it recognizes China as a poverty-ridden country and subsidizes shipping costs at a grotesque disadvantage to US companies and small businesses.
 
This issue caught my attention as I listened to a radio interview a couple weeks back. It featured a short-documentary filmmaker named Ami Horowitz, who did research on the subject. I urge everyone to watch the YouTube video short “Going Postal: Why are US Taxpayers subsidizing all Chinese packages?!” You will be disturbed.
 
As Horowitz explained, in addition to China’s low labor costs and almost non-existent regulatory oversight, China is taking advantage of a decade’s old antiquated system that established the Universal Postal Union, a creation of – you guessed it – the United Nations. This “specialized agency” allows member nations to ship any product anywhere in the United States for a discounted rate; for China, about $1.50 a parcel without regard for real costs associated with delivery.
 
This means that a $5 one-pound package sent from China would cost $1.50 to ship to anywhere in the United States, while a $5 one-pound package sent from New York to Chicago would cost the business $7.42. The Chinese company would make a $3.50 profit and the American company would suffer a $2.42 loss, and all because the United States Postal Service has been directed to adhere to a dictate mandated by the United Nations.
 
Within the system of the Universal Postal Union, China is considered a “Group 3” country meaning it qualifies for some of the lowest postal rates within the arrangement. China disingenuously joins destitute countries like Gabon, Botswana, and Cuba, as well as other poverty-stricken third-world countries, in special interest status because of their economies.
 
These special interest shipping rates necessarily lend themselves to disenfranchising US companies and small businesses from the marketplace. Case in point: the Chinese behemoth Alibaba.com.
 
Alibaba.com is the 500-pound gorilla in the online marketplace. They sell 3 times as many products as Amazon.com. To put that in perspective, Amazon.com sold 5 billion items via Prime Worldwide in 2017. Given the intense imbalance in the shipping cost playing field, Alibaba.com is well positioned to dominate the US online market in the years to come. And while this sets the stage for disaster for the US companies and small businesses who sell on Amazons.com, the situation gets much worse and all-encompassing.
 
These unfair and discriminatory shipping rates – again, subsidized by the US taxpayer – affect everything from online sales to brick and mortar stores and all of the cogs of those machines as well. Because more and more people are making online purchases, brick and mortar stores are struggling to survive and that means everything associated with them suffers: the people who transport products, people who manufacture packaging for products, and all of the companies that employ people who touch those components.
 
Recently, I posted comments in a Facebook Group covering the topic of loose leaf tea exclaiming my support for buying products that are “Made in the USA”. I was immediately confronted by Progressive-Left one-worlders who chastised me for being pro-United States. It would seem that even in an arena as innocuous as the tea world there are those who couldn’t care less about a fair and even playing field for the small and start-up business person here in the United States.
 
As a point of reference, where this staple is concerned, all the tea we Americans buy in the stores is imported. The big exporters to the United States are India, Sri Lanka, Japan, Argentina – and the biggest of them all, China. And while there is one indigenous plant to the United States – yaupon – that is a true tea plant, only a few brave souls seek to cultivate and process the plant for sale here in the United States. Incidentally, most all of these small US businesses exist online (read: must pay shipping costs) and have to compete with overseas imports (read: China, that pays no shipping into the United States).
 
Everything from tea to electronics, apparel to beauty products, and any and everything that can be bought online is bought at a disadvantage to American companies and small businesses thanks to the United Nations, the Universal Postal Union, and the one-worlder Progressives (and they exist on both sides of the political aisle) who are co-opting US tax dollars to subsidize a hybrid Chinese Capitalist-Communist economic system over our own economy.
 
If there was ever a subject that could unite the Left and the Right politically in our country this topic simply must be it: the elimination of preferred (read: discriminatory) shipping cost rates in business by the United States Postal System.
 
Making China and the other nations that market to Americans pay their fair share in shipping costs is a no-brainer. It would create fair trade in the marketplace, infuse funding to an already ailing postal system, and create employment opportunities across the United States as wealth and revenue streams infused our economy here at home.
 
One has to wonder if the America-haters will ever understand that putting the United States – the largest consumer nation in the history of mankind – at a disadvantage economically is tantamount to killing the goose that laid the golden egg for every other nation and economy on the planet. As the line from Forrest Gump goes: “Stupid is as stupid does.”

BY UNDERGROUND USA
Recently, an Australian editorial cartoonist came under fire because of an unflattering depiction of tennis star Serena Williams. It showed her throwing a tantrum at the US Open and her opponent asking to cede the match just to shut her up. The cartoonist, Mark Knight, was called "racist."
 
How Knight can be called racist when he was editorializing on Williams' bad behavior is incredible, but sadly, that's where we are as a society. If you are Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, or any other than a Caucasian you can act like a spoiled little asshole and no one is supposed to call you out on it. Conversely, if you are White and you do call the non-White out for acting like an asshole you are immediately labeled a "racist"...

BY FRANK SALVATO
​We are seventeen years on from the most significant event of our lifetimes: the Islamofascist terror attacks of September 11, 2001. For those who were aware on that day, the events were life-altering, changing the world forever, yet it seems as though we, as a society, have forgotten both the threat and the identity we all were forced to admit. We, the American people, are failing to learn from the events of history; we are failing to learn from the lesson of “the falling man.”
 
On that fateful day, we all watched as our fellow Americans were brought to a very ugly decision: to weather the heat, flames, and smoke only to suffocate and/or burn to death, or jump from an unimaginable height to a certain death. We watched “the falling man” as he lept from the upper stories of the North Tower at the World Trade Center at 9:41:15 AM EST. In less than a minute he would meet his death at the pavement below.
 
In the moments, days, weeks and months after the attacks of September 11th, our nation came together as a people. White, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow; Christian, Jew, Atheist, Agnostic and even Muslim, we all became one American people. We were attacked. Our country was attacked. Our people were slaughtered. We felt the grief, the anger, and the bewilderment as a people. We sought to learn about our attackers as a cohesive people and we, as a people, supported bringing justice to those who perpetrated the attacks.
 
But almost as abrupt as the attacks, the Progressive-Left began shrieking about “tolerance” and “profiling”, labeling anyone who dared identify the origin demographic of the attackers as “Islamophobes” and “xenophobic.” They began to divide the nation, seeking to play on the emotions of the uninformed; those who would blindly look past the obvious to escape the ire of the ideological social engineers of the Progressive-Left.
 
The mainstream media and social media giants literally took aim at those who tried to educate the American people on the tenets of Islam, the true meaning of jihad in particular. Those writers, pundits, and publications – physical and on the Internet – who did not sign on to the incomplete definition of jihad as solely an inner struggle were marginalized, with many online publications purged from critical-for-survival venues like Google News, Facebook and other popular social media platforms. They claimed that to educate the people on the full and accurate definition of jihad was “hate speech.”
 
As explained in The Concept & Practice of Jihad in Islam by Michael G. Knapp and published in a paper of the same name by the US Army War College:

“The last 30 years have seen the rise of militant, religiously-based political groups whose ideology focuses on demands for jihad (and the willingness to sacrifice one’s life) for the forceful creation of a society governed solely by the shari’a and a unified Islamic state, and to eliminate un-Islamic and unjust rulers. These groups are also reemphasizing individual conformity to the requirements of Islam.”
 
Of course, the Progressive-Left only cited the dogmatic definition of “struggle” alluding to the internal-intellectual struggle of the devout, conveniently ignoring the functional definition used by Islamofascist terrorists and their organizations; the same groups that perpetrated the attacks of September 11th. At a time when it was imperative that the American people remained cohesive, the Progressive-Left sought to pull us apart.
 
Seventeen years on we are more divided than we have ever been since the US Civil War. American pitted against American and because we have been manipulated into believing we have nothing in common when it comes to Left-Right politics and ideology. The truth is this. We are still the same people who came together in the aftermath of the attacks of September 11th. Nothing changed but the narrative we have been fed.
 
Through it all, the falling man and 2,995 others who perished that day remain dead. Through it all, the truth remains the same: Islamofascist terrorists had declared war twice on the United States, trained terrorists both abroad and on American soil, and slaughtered 2,996 people, injuring over 6,000 more. The cost of the damage to the World Trade Center and the Pentagon is estimated at over $10 billion. Through it all, we buried our countrymen by the scores.
 
We owe the people who died on September 11, 2001, so much more than what we have become. We owe the falling man more than being divided at the hands of disingenuous ideological actors.
 
Remember the falling man...and act accordingly. Never forget the lesson of September 11th: We are all Americans, each and every one of us, together.

BY JAMES ‘SPYKE’ SZEREDY
Disclaimer: Author is not a cyber expert but works in an environment which looks at systems-of-systems threats and risk management which encompasses cyber and the concept of the IOT. The writing and opinion is solely of the author. It is not representative of author’s employer or larger organizational structure. 

The title says it all…how secure is the law enforcement, yes, the local and state level law enforcement network which holds evidence? How easily can it be manipulated? This quick discussion originally was focusing on the breathalyzer aspect, but due to the recent DEFCON, it will also add another piece of the puzzle. As many organizations expand their use of technology, we all know there are inherent weaknesses which need to be secured.

So…what spurred this on…a couple of factors were the tipper but started off truly a look at breathalyzers.

The two companies which come to mind and in active use by a number of law enforcement organizations are Dräger (Draeger) and CMI, Inc. The breathalyzer (BrAC) software has been a legal issue and in contention for well over a decade. Any open source search on the legal issues behind the breathalyzer software can be found across the country from New Jersey to Washington state.

Even recently, Jason Lantz, a Washington-based defense lawyer, hired two security researchers to examine the source code and found flaws which could produce incorrect results (1). The Zack Whittaker article for Zero Day highlighted the point where the researchers work came to a halt due to legal action from Dräger (Draeger). So, once more…a decade later this still exists and now meets with legal action. This to many should point to an indicator of issues even on the corporate side.

This is old news, per say, but there is much more to the story than having faulty software for the BrAC measurement of their machines.

Massachusetts, New York and many other states are dealing with breathalyzer challenges of late 2017, now with probably enhanced defense arguments against the devices due to the 2018 findings. Beyond the concerns of the breathalyzer, there are new law enforcement body cams. These concerns about devices came up during this year’s DEFCON. The body cam will be later. The infrastructure and hardware discussion should be next regarding the breathalyzer. 

To begin with, there is the operating system on the devices. The Dräger 9510 and the CMI Intoxilyzer 8000 & 9000 run on Windows CE 6.0. Windows CE 6.0 extended support end date was April 10, 2018. So, this is no longer supported and even if the breathalyzers were capable of upgrading to Windows Embedded Compact 7, it goes off life support in April 2021 (2). This is not about putting a bug in Windows CE 6.0 or 7.0, but from what I understand talking to some cyber folks, the system can be hacked, or at least rooted. There should be no worry about the CE, but more so the application, much like GPS software, running on the CE backbone. How secure is the Breathalyzer software and does it have a HASH for verification? So, the first issue here is how vulnerable, or secure, is the software beyond the fact of the flaws in the code, on the device? There is probably no Hash, or modification date, to show if the software has even been adjusted. This gets into threats a few paragraphs down. So, I guess we’ll start off with digging first into the “system” where the breathalyzer might reside…let’s go hardware first. 

Both company’s state their device can be put onto the network. Images show a wonderful Cat-5 plug right next to the USB slots. So, this device now resides within local police stations and detention centers. As with all environments today, and the fact within hours of an arrest, the photos are online, this means these networks are connected to the larger web. How secure then is the police networks? Having not sat behind the desk at a law enforcement office, do the police use Win 10, still on Win 8, or some other OS. Knowing the breathalyzers can be placed on the network, how is it tied in for remote access? The company’s both state their devices can be remotely operated/accessed. Due to the WIN CE 6.0 OS, does the parent application to interrogate the breathalyzer sit on a “Windows” machine work like a print server? Anyone who has been around the hacking community knows, the easiest way into a network back in the day, was via the print connections on networked printers. The security just sucked. Now, knowing the device is on the network, does it work the same way? 

How should one go about evaluating the law enforcement network is probably even a bigger debate on the cyber security side. How quickly can the IPs of the network, both main and out stations be identified and what is the connectivity? This might be one of the easier elements to identify. From the cyber side, who is interrogation and IP look ups help quickly solve this lack of information. It would be horrifying if the internal routers of a police station used 192.168.1.1 with an infinite DHCP table and no MAC limitations. So, beyond the technical cyber information look up online, how else can the network and security be found out?

Some of the best information comes via old school methods.

First, the basic trash and dumpster dives. Someone threw out a network map, password and or a whole set of log in credentials, and maybe some other information about the network. Just tell the cops when they ask about you being in the dumpster…you are looking for cans to recycle. 

Secondly, not all cops know who works in their IT department. So why not just social engineer the desk officer at 3 am when life is slow, and the world is tired due to a network server issue. Use a computer with a number spoofing capability to ensure the right number shows on the call log.

Third, there is just the basic, let’s go phishing to a mass email address which you found in the trash which shows the “all” distro and you drop a malicious link, etc. Don’t forget, still spoof the address to gain access. But wait, you ask why anyone would want to access a breathalyzer on a cop network...so let’s get into the human threat beyond the failings already identified by the security experts. We’ll get back to the breathalyzer software in a few paragraphs.

The first threat is easy, it’s the insider. The officer or employee who feels anyone drinking and driving should pay, no matter how little, or how much, they have had. Insider threats are a given. Think about the recent ones for both corporate and US Government. The insider might feel the laws are not enough and all should pay a price for driving under the influence. So, with issues in the code, they make a minor adjustment and everyone blowing ends up with a higher reading. As mentioned above, if there is no method to check authentication of code every time the machine starts, then you never know what an insider might have done.

Second threat…money…and insurance. For bigger insurance companies, maybe not a big deal. They have loyal following and know they will increase the rates of those financially viable of paying and continue on their marry way. There are a number of other insurance companies at the local level who would reap the benefits of more DUIs in the amount of money they will make by mandating the higher insurance cost to meet the punishments, or requirements, levied by the state legal system. In this case, a hired hacker adjusts the breathalyzer software to ensure a wealth of clients.

Third threat…the evangelist. This is victim of a DUI fatality. The family member or someone associated with the family who has lost a loved one due to a DUI accident. There are many who can understand this person’s angst and anger towards a DUI driver who might have survived and their desire to make any and all others pay dearly for their driving drunk. They may be a hacker, they may hire a hacker, but we all get it. This is one who also monitors the device remotely and adjusts information on the fly. How secure is the data file when it moves from the breathalyzer onto the network for evidence purposes for court cases? 

Lastly, there could be one who is smart enough with code to imbed a “get out of jail” line in the code. The one who drives while intoxicated but knows if they create an entry into the software which matches maybe their name, when busted it automatically ensures the reading is at or below the .05%. In this case, the read out would probably show a two sample at .044% and .048% to ensure some diversity in the readings and definitely ensure they are safe from prosecution. This individual might also be an insider wanting to ensure their alcohol use is never truly seen if they are busted by their own officers. 

Some of these might work for a local machine, but why not go big…bigger is better when wanting to effect masses. Pointed out above, the devices live on a network. Both companies state their devices can be remotely access for maintenance, so is the perpetrator an insider and not local? Then again, the devices typically go back to a central law enforcement lab for calibration. If the main software resides in these labs and on a server, accessible to lab personnel and the company’s, then why not change it there? This follows the concept of DNS poisoning. Once I have infected the master copy, then every machine which comes in for calibration will be infected by the device. Yes, there might be some lab fail safes to ensure the numbers are correct, but let’s go back to the smart hacker who puts in a “timebomb” which shifts the software after it leaves the lab. 

So how secure is the evidence for BrACs? Makes one start to wonder. Now add to this the fact body cam footage usually accompanies results into the court room when it comes to DUI cases. This year’s DEFCON brought forth issues with body cams. In an article published by Mallory Locklear points out the findings by Josh Mitchell where five known body cams used by law enforcement have major security flaws (3). Security flaws which show the ability to manipulate the footage without detection. But wait…there could be more to the issue. Back into network security, car footage and body cam footage are stored on the police network. Has anyone looked into the ability to hack cop car footage? Either way, if the footage is hacked and manipulated before storing, then being able to forensically challenge the information might be difficult, may be near impossible.

Through not much exploitation has been done against the CMI machines, there is probably a good chance they are in the same predicament as the Dräger. The vulnerabilities could be huge to the law enforcement community if the major part of this discussion matches the issues with the body cam discussion at the end.

The breathalyzer has been under scrutiny for over a decade and will be under scrutiny for the immediate future. Add to it, the issues which might be abound for network security, file integrity, and authentication, just adds to the complexity of the legal issues behind the machines and their use. Compile issues with breathalyzer data and compromised body cam or car cam information, who knows the ramifications to the multitude of course cases which have already happened, currently in process and those still to come. So once again…the question to the state’s and company’s…how secure is your system and the evidence?

FOOTNOTES
1. Whittaker, Z. (2018). Researchers say a breathalyzer has flaws, casting doubt on countless convictions. [online] ZDNET. Available at: https://www.zdnet.com/article/draeger-breathalyzer-breath-test-convictions/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].
2. DRCS Solutions. (2018). Microsoft Lifecycle. [online] DCRS. https://www.dcrs.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/MICROSOFT-OPERATING-SYSTEMS-END-OF-SUPPORT-DATES.pdf [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].
3. Locklear, M. (2018). Security flaws could open body cameras up to hacks. [online] MSN. Available at: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/securty-flaws-could-open-body-cameras-up-to-hacks/ar-BBLSOHX [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].

BY FRANK SALVATO

We have the best government that money can buy.
– Mark Twain

In 2016, the Trump campaign vowed to purge Washington from entrenched influencers.  Later, President Trump reinforced this agenda by proclaiming that his administration would “drain the swamp”.  Despite efforts to accomplish this almost aspirational goal, Washington cronies disguised as Trump loyalists emerged, claiming to have ties to the President.  Many of these undercover lobbyists are not true conservatives. Rather, they are business opportunists driven solely by greed.  In this context, the press has uncovered a Washington swamp creature that became a symbol of political access pimping.  Mostly through leaked documents, and a public airing of a sordid extramarital affair with an adult entertainer named Shera Bechard, Americans were introduced to Elliott Broidy.  Broidy preferred to stay in the shadows. He is a longtime political fundraiser who exploited his short-lived access to the Trump administration and various Republican politicians.  But, who is he really?  And why did the GOP and Trump accept his advances, and why should we care?  

Let’s start with the intriguing fact that Broidy is a convicted criminal.  A former CPA, former Democrat and former Bill Clinton supporter, Broidy courted the GOP promising to raise money. He had a good track record for being able to strong arm donors dating to the mid-2000s when he served as Republican Finance Chair until he was forced to resign after being convicted of public corruption as a key player in the New York Pension Fund bribery scandal.

Broidy positioned himself as a successful defense contractor, venture capitalist and a Jewish philanthropist.  This image appears to be a deliberate exaggeration to infiltrate the GOP and the Trump world. People get involved in the political process to shape policy and elect representatives whose values they share and who promise to improve our way of life.  Not everyone who gets involved is an ideological purist, however.  People also get involved in political finance for selfish reasons.  They seek to elevate their social standing and achieve some tangible pecuniary benefits.  For instance, some want to be appointed as ambassadors, while others may seek to alter laws that benefit their businesses.

Broidy sought to use his political posts with the Republicans to make big money. The Republicans saw him as a source of money and access to the wealthy Jewish conservatives on the West Coast.  In turn, the Jewish Republican community sought access to the GOP and Trump and assumed Broidy had it.  The Jewish community was a convenient access point to wealth and projected a pretextual value base, which was a building block for the façade that Broidy, as a savvy Washington insider, was selling. 

As part of his image makeover, he could no longer re-emerge solely as a private equity investor after his private equity fund, Markstone Capital turned into a huge financial failure and a personal disgrace.  Markstone’s collapse was described in the press as a tremendous financial failure, as was told in numerous articles mostly in Israeli papers. The new platform had to be created, and it was a tiny security business called Circinus LLC. Broidy became a “defense contractor” overnight. And he began to offer up the American President to dictators, third world crooked politicians, foreign law firm, sanctioned Russian companies, and anyone who would consider hiring Circinus or Broidy’s consulting firms for multimillion-dollar contracts. The few big names that were somehow affiliated with Broidy’s defense contractor firm as “advisory board members quickly jumped ship as the negative news stories piled on.  Currently, Circinus LLC shows a page with error messages when you click on the “leadership” link on the firm’s site.

Journalist Celeste Katz, in her April 13, 2018, Forward article Elliott Broidy, Scandal-Tarred GOP Donor Inflated Role in Jewish Groups, raises some questions about dated, exaggerated, and false claims in Broidy’s professional biography. Katz exposes a segment of Broidy’s Jewish manipulation angle. But Katz’s story raises more questions than it provides answers.  Beyond highlighting that Broidy may be guilty of resume embellishments particularly when it comes to Jewish causes, Katz does not tell us much more about why he might be focusing on Jewish causes – beyond his professed love for the Jewish people.  We are left to surmise what his real motivations are from various scandals – past and present - and public records. 

For Broidy the image of being affluent was a way to fit into the wealthy Jewish community he sought to manipulate and the wealthy Republican donor he offered up to the GOP.  For many reporters, Broidy’s claim of wealth and proximity to Republican elites was a convenient way to belittle the Republican politicians that eagerly accepted donations or favors from Broidy.  Broidy used the wealthy Jewish Republicans to borrow money to pay off his personal debts, get credit for political donations, raising his political profile, which in turn enabled him to solicit what ultimately amounted to advocacy clients.  These clients had to hire Broidy’s security firm to get access to American political establishment that Broidy promised would avail them of fast-track solutions to their problems.

What was Broidy doing prior to 2016? After his conviction some 7 years ago, Broidy was asked to resign from virtually all of the charity and corporate boards.  Broidy was asked to leave the prestigious Hillcrest Country Club known for having many prominent Jewish members.  He hid from the press and many of his Beverly Hills socialite “friends” turned away from him.

From 2012 to 2016 Broidy struggled.  He tried to launch numerous start-ups such as an event company, a women’s energy drink brand, encryption technology, Russian oil and gas ventures.  His efforts failed.  To pay the $18 Million restitution for his bribery conviction, Broidy borrowed heavily from controversial Los Angeles based Jewish business leaders.  He sold his heavily leveraged mansion in Bel Air, a posh section of Los Angeles, and rented a home in Beverly Hills. 

To his credit, Broidy did not give up.  He was able to generate some positive press releases about his efforts to produce films and launch a nonprofit.  A seemingly trumped-up Wikipedia page suddenly appeared characterizing Broidy as a philanthropist and a venture capitalist, dismissively and in passing mentioning the corruption conviction and avoiding the mention of Markstone’s massive failure.  Broidy even hired a press release mill run by a recently murdered public relations consultant, Glen Selig. 

Then, in 2016 Broidy made a winning bet — he started to raise money for the pre-election campaign of Donald Trump.  Despite all the baggage, Broidy used his new image to get back into the fold.  He served as the national vice-chairman of the Trump election campaign and as the vice-chairman of the inaugural committee. 

Senators Blumenthal and Warren could not pass up the opportunity to demand to have Broidy’s flurry of political scandals and unregistered advocacy efforts scrutinized by the law enforcement establishment.  They issued an official letter on April 16, 2018, requesting that the U.S. Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, initiate an investigation of Broidy, focusing on potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Foreign Agents Registration Act, and related offenses.
             
Broidy’s ability to infiltrate American politics demonstrates how easy it is to exploit the American political system if you promise to raise money.  Broidy appears to have used the Republicans by touting his track record as a fundraiser.  Knowing how to manipulate the political machine, in a period of 2 years he made significantly more money than he donated and raised.  With Broidy history repeats itself.  Now we are in 2018 and Broidy has once again become toxic – and not only with Republican Jewish donors and the GOP, but with the American people.  He sought out fast fortunes and replaced Markstone with Circinus as his new vehicle for getting paid for peddling political influence.

Broidy’s tenacity and avarice availed him of a second chance during the Trump presidential campaign. His recklessness exposed him as a flimflammer. He conned the Republican establishment and sold out everything he pretended to stand for.   More importantly, he serves as a glaring example of how political institutions and politicians are willing to overlook a donor’s criminal past if they believe that they can get access to money.

Frank Salvato is the operating partner at The Archangel Organization, a reputation management and organizational strategies group. He serves as managing editor of The New Media Journal His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His analysis has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, and Accuracy in Media, and is syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the author of six books examining internal and external threats facing our country. He can be heard weekly on “The Captain’s America: Third Watch” radio program syndicated nationally on the Salem Broadcasting Network and is a host on The Underground Podcast Network.

In this segment we talk about the the advancing Socialist movement coming out of Northern California, Omarosa and her illegal taping in the White House Situation Room and more!

BY FRANK SALVATO
Not too long ago, a new “media” platform emerged on the Internet. Medium promised to be something of an equalizer for new media writers. Someone who took the art of communication seriously (but lacked the indoctrination certificate of the ideologically-bent journalism schools) would have the chance, if diligent, to make a reasonable amount of profit for their knowledge and efforts. But just like anything that shows even a modicum of promise where the information sphere is concerned, Medium has fallen to Progressives and Leftists.

A list of recent article titles says it all:

• If You Think Socialism’s Unaffordable, You Don’t Understand Capitalism
• The Quislings of the American Collapse
• As QAnon Goes Mainstream, Trump’s Rallies Are Turning Darker
• Fearing a Trump Return to Torture, Phycologists Keep Ban at Guantanamo
• If You Want More Capitalism You Should Want More Socialism
• Evangelicals, Catholics Attack LGBTQ Children
• Selling the Idea of Empire to Americans
• Can White Liberalism Save America
• Protests Are Not Enough. The Trump Resistance Needs Money.
• The Ethical Collapse at the End of Capitalism

It goes on and on for as far back as you care to stomach it.

First, it needs to be said (as if the aware don’t already know) that Capitalism is under attack by the Progressive Left in the United States. Ever since the election of Barack Obama, Progressives have believed they had the “goal line” in sight. They saw – and rightly so, a dysfunctional Republican Party leading a fractured Conservative Movement far behind them on the race to the finish line. The prize at the end of this finish line: transforming the United States from a Constitutional Republic to a Socialist Democracy. Progressives were racing for the goal line while the Right seemed to not even know what game was being played.

But Progressives misjudged their time “came out,” racing for the goal line thinking victory was at hand. Then the country swung back to the center from its misguided surge to the ideological Left.

The intellectual argument in If You Think Socialism’s Unaffordable, You Don’t Understand Capitalism, represents the still Progressive wing that still believes the country can be duped into believing the false promises of Socialism. The argument in the article not only doesn’t hold water, it is arrogant in its simplistic view of Capitalism. To wit:

“Yet in America, the prices of all the basics of a good life...have risen by hundreds or thousands of percent. Perhaps you think I exaggerate. Very, well, let’s review the evidence. Healthcare has risen by two thousand percent. The price of education has gone up by 1000%. Food, 300%. Rent and house prices, 400%. Childcare, 500%. Those are all conservative estimate, too, from what I reckon...

“...Predatory capitalism. In industry after industry, consolidation has been the norm. Huge monopolies have been built. Those monopolies have raised prices relentlessly every year, because that is what monopolies do — because capitalism demands rising profits, no matter what the cost to human beings is....”

“How are Americans overpaying? Obviously, there’s the direct cost — they’re broke! But then there are the indirect costs, too — the “opportunity costs”, as Americans say. Americans live five years less than Europeans. The suicide rate is skyrocketing. They don’t trust their institutions or their society. Their kids can’t afford to move out. Mistrust, despair, loneliness, rage, futility, depression — right up to life itself. These are costs, too, that American pay predatory capitalism. They are massively overpaying capitalism for the basics of life, not just with money, but with their potential — their time, energy, minds, bodies, and lives...”

“Socialism” — minor-league social democracy — just as in every other rich country, will lower the prices of the basics of life massively, systemically, and permanently. It reduces the price of all the basics of life, which American faces severe eudaimonic hyperinflation for now because capitalism keeps jacking it up...”

A cursory look at every pure Socialist Democracy proves all of this to be a load of horse shit. Venezuela, Greece, Cuba (a Communist country masquerading as a Socialist Democracy) and the usual suspect despot nations in Central and South America and Africa, prove beyond doubt in their economic demises that Socialist Democracies always – and without fail – crash into full-blown Communism or the economic upheaval of revolution; their people crushed beneath the jackboot heel of poverty and oppression.

Capitalism, on the other hand, is the only economic system – in the history of mankind – to create a Middle Class. In Socialism, Communism, Oligarchies, and Monarchies there are only the “haves” and the “have-nots.” Capitalism, even at its most flawed (yes, even with predatory Capitalism and the disingenuousness of monopolies like Google and Facebook), is a system of opportunity where one can work to elevate his or her financial situation; thus the absence of serfs and lords, and a Middle Class that spans the economies.

Perhaps what Medium should do, if the powers that be there want to salvage their publication from the jaws of the propaganda monster, is to explain why colleges (who get federal and state tax dollars, donations from Alumni and corporate America, grants from philanthropic organizations, and who still charge outrageous tuitions) are turning out liver-damaged and indoctrinated masses of uselessness at every graduation. Maybe Medium should talk about some of the shocking salaries and benefits unions force employers to pay to employees thus forcing the cost of food and housing through the rhetorical ceiling. And childcare? How about making it easier to have a one-income family so that a parent – rather than a village idiot (read: Hillary Clinton and her ilk) – can raise a child?

These are topics that should be explored by the new media (the mainstream media is too far gone to have credibility in discussing these issues), but Left-leaning and Progressive propagandists – like those who make the decisions at Medium – are more interested in social engineering and ideological indoctrination than the truth about society and economics.

Until there are people with spines enough to speak without fear; to jettison political correctness and have the courage to brand an idiot an idiot, we are doomed.

BY FRANK SALVATO
They say that all politics is local. This is true. Equally true is the notion that the government closest to you is the entity of government that affects you the most. So, when local politics and the power brokers behind local politics are corrupt the people suffer.
 
Corrupt politicians are nothing new to politics. They are chronicled back to the Roman Empire and before. Power plays during the times of the Pharaohs were commonplace and the Ides of March saw Caesar on the wrong end of a multitude of daggers. So, too, are power brokers infamously enshrined in the annals of history (I should have used a play on the word anal, but I assume you all did anyway).
 
One of the most significant double-edged swords to emerge in recent years where politics and government are concerned is social media.
 
On the one hand, it obliterates the monopoly on information that the mainstream media held to date. No longer can the “Big 3” networks propagandize ideologically about things like the Tet Offensive (actually a significant victory for the United States but characterized as a loss by Walter Cronkite and the rest of the mainstream media) and get away with molding the opinions of the American people. Social media has allowed the people to call the propagandist media out on manipulation.
 
On the other hand, we have disingenuous power players (or “trolls,” which I have written about recently) who seed disingenuous content on social media to further the poison-politics of their “operative” candidates, most often elected officials running for re-election who would serve as a gateway to monetary benefit to special interest parties. A perfect example of this would be the politician running for re-election who is bankrolled by deep pocket developers who expect quid pro quo when zoning variances and other legislation come before the local authority. “You give me a contribution and I will see the good in your project for the community,” or, in other words, “You wash my back and I’ll wash yours.”
 
Social media trolls will gin-up unwarranted outrage by seeding disingenuous content and queries so that people engage emotionally, and before they explore the facts of the matter from valid and legitimate sources. This is the sharper edge of the double-edged sword. Our society has become so addicted to convenience that they mistake (or not) supposition for fact because they believe they are getting legitimate information on social media.
 
To that end, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and the rest of the more popular social media platforms, play into this informational power grab by inferring that they vet informational sources. Facebook instituted new algorithms and protocol to vet informational sources, but the “vetters” themselves have been called into question for their biases. Facebook “groups” have established administrators to vet individuals and content, but many of those groups are decidedly jaded to a position or a movement, political or ideological. Who is to say that those administrators, themselves, aren’t ideologically skewed to a particular line of thought; that they aren’t willing to dedicate themselves to one-sided coverage or to advancing known untruths to achieve their goals? Progressives and disingenuous political operatives believe, in their heart of hearts, that the end justifies the means (read Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky).
 
While this malady is certainly happening at a national level, it is more destructive and more prevalent on local levels. Because media – and especially mainstream media – is geared toward attracting the largest audience (a must for purposes of ratings and profit) local politics is most often incubated on social media. This allows for inexperienced and disingenuous political operatives and “wannabes” (in Chicagoese we would call them “political hacks”) to pollute the information that voters (read: citizens and taxpayers) consume about the goings-on. False statements, known untruths, disingenuous memes, and flat-out smears are their practice and trade. Want to be a “news source”? All you have to do is throw up a Facebook page, call it a newspaper, buy a banner and pretend you are a journalist. The result of their efforts is elevating corruption to elected office.
 
So, what can be done to neuter the disingenuous local power brokers? The answer is simple but it requires effort, and sadly effort is something our society has conditioned us not to expend unless it is about our own personal pleasures.
 
We all – all of us, need to go to the sources for information. If information is cited in an article go to the citation and consume the information from the source. If a notion is floated that seems explosive question the author or poster for source information. Don’t consume hearsay on social media as fact; vet the information for validity. Question everything and everyone. Demand sources and if the originator cannot provide them consider that source as invalid. Demand and expect truth and when you come across someone who is advancing propaganda or untruths unmask them and brand them with a nuevo scarlet letter: “P” for propagandist.
 
Social media is a fantastic forum and it helps us to keep in touch with people, alerts us to events and, yes, keep up with the happenings in our neighborhoods, towns, and cities. But just like any other information source, social media has its dark side and its dark players; those who would gain (usually monetarily) from manipulating your understanding of the issues. Please take the time to find source information so you aren’t duped into doing the disingenuous their bidding.
 
As President Ronald Reagan said: “Trust but verify.” It’s the intelligent thing to do.

Frank Salvato is the operating partner at The Archangel Organization, a reputation management and organizational strategies group. He serves as managing editor of The New Media Journal His writing has been recognized by the US House International Relations Committee and the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His analysis has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, and Accuracy in Media, and is syndicated nationally. Mr. Salvato has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News Channel and is the author of six books examining internal and external threats facing our country. He can be heard weekly on “The Captain’s America: Third Watch” radio program syndicated nationally on the Salem Broadcasting Network and is a host on The Underground Podcast Network.

BY DARLENE CASELLA

Feminist demonstrators wearing pink vagina hats, carry signs with words that cannot be spoken in polite conversation. They protest the nomination of Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

The moment he was nominated to the Supreme Court, liberals howled that abortion would become
illegal. They are wrong, abortion would not be outlawed. Leftist claims about what would happen if the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision were overturned, are false.

Before Roe there was no federal law regulating abortions. Some states had banned it; except when the life of the mother was endangered; such as Texas. In some states, such as New York and California, abortions were legal.

One of the most contentious decisions in history, Roe v. Wade became a law suit in 1969. Norma
McCorvey, a 21-year-old with no job, and no husband, was pregnant with her 3 rd child. Texas allowed abortion only when the life of the mother was endangered. Feminist Dallas lawyers claimed Norma had a right to an abortion in Texas, that she should not need to leave Texas and travel to a state where it was legal. She was given the pseudonym Jane Roe; the case started in Wade County, thus Roe v. Wade.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Norma’s baby was born during the court cases, and given up for adoption. Later Norma McCorvey became an intensely prolife activist.

There have been landmark controversial Supreme Court Decisions such as racial segregation and
‘separate but equal’ which were subsequently overturned.

Roe v. Wade remains unsettled and in doubt. Candidate Trump said that he would appoint pro-life
justices. In a recent television interview, President Trump said that if Roe were reversed, the issue of
abortion would be left up to each state.

Chuck Schumer and other leftists in the Senate are making abortion the issue that would nix a well-
qualified candidate from becoming a Supreme Court Justice. Recent rulings by activist judges have
abandoned the Founders intentions by creating new constitutional rights. These rulings are not from
strict interpretations of the Constitution, but strayed into the legislative function.

Due to such behaviors on the part of activist judges the media now labels candidates as right
(constitutionalists) or left (activist) and calling for the court to be balanced rather than unbiased.
Activist judges are not what the Founders aspired to for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court is intended to be non-political. Statues of Lady Justice are blindfolded because she seeks justice according to the constitution; blind to politics or to other factors. Using abortion as a litmus test to deny an appointment rips the blindfold from her eyes. The Senate’s attempts to tip the
scales of balance is inappropriate.

Lady Justice must maintain her interminable role in history. She is compelled to remain blindfolded
keeping the scales of justices even, not premeditatedly tipping to the right or to the left with each
appointment.

Darlene Casella was before retirement an English teacher, a stockbroker, and owner/president of a small corporation. She lives in Bermuda Dunes, California and can be reached HERE

BY DARLENE CASELLA

Before Lawrence of Arabia rode onto the Arab Peninsula, nomadic tribes of Christians, Jews,
and Zoroastrians thrived. In WWI the British cut a deal with Emir Sharif Hussein to lead an
Arab Revolt against the Ottomans. T.E. Lawrence strengthened Hussein’s war effort.

The Saudi Dynasty of King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud followed Wahabis Islamic Law and controlled the
Arabian Peninsula after the Arab Revolution. In 1932 it became a state. Salman bin Abdulaziz
Al Saud became King after the death of his half-brother. Mohammad bin Salman bin Abdulaziz
Al Saud was appointed the Crown Prince in 2017.

Quranic Sunni interpretations determine gender roles in Saudi. Judges have discretion. For
example, there is no mandatory age for marriage. Most assert that the marriage age is 9.
However, a father may gift his daughter in marriage at any age; requesting that consummation
be delayed until puberty.

Saudi Arabia has a system of male guardianship. Fathers own daughters at birth. When he
gives her in marriage, the husband owns her. Polygamy is legal. Islamic law requires a woman
to obtain the consent of a male guardian for major decisions. Permission is required to travel,
marry, leave prison, access healthcare, rent an apartment, or to file a legal claim.

Prince Mohammed’s Vision 2030 is an architecture of social and economic change. Last
month’s Royal Decree made it legal for women to drive, and get a driving license without
permission of a guardian. More than 120,000 women have applied for driving licenses. Other
reforms include allowing both sexes to attend concerts and to watch football in a stadium, the
seating is gender segregated.

Islamic law is enforced regarding proper dress, and codes of behavior. However, small steps to
gender freedom have begun. Women may seek employment without a guardian’s permission.
Rules restricting work to only certain fields have been lifted. The Oxford Aviation Academy is
taking applications from women. Steps against domestic violence are improving. Women are
allowed to have their own identification cards. Women are allowed to vote and be candidates
in local elections.

Women driving was banned 60 years ago, Saudi women activists have been fighting for the
right to drive since 1990. Many were punished and imprisoned. Hardline Islamists fight to
justify maintaining the driving ban. A leading cleric, Sheikh Saad al-Harjari, said: “Women have
only half the brainpower of men, lack the intelligence to drive, and it will promote promiscuity.
You can revoke the ban, but you cannot force men to allow their sisters and wives to drive.”
Internet media shows violent backlash against any woman driving a car. There are threats to
burn the woman and her car.

Western women are the other extreme from gender inequality. For us such lives of male
dominance is incomprehensible. Furiously we think that these small steps are too little too
late. However, many Saudi women are wearing a Mona Lisa smile because - “This Could be the
Start of Something Big”.

Darlene Casella before retirement was an English teacher, a stockbroker, and owner/president of a small corporation. She can be reached HERE