1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites): Voice of America: Trump’s Cruise Ban Hits Cuba’s Private-Sector Workers

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Lazaro Hernandez, who has made a good living showing U.S. cruise ship passengers around Havana in his pink 1950s Chevrolet, says the new U.S. ban on cruises to Cuba will wipe out 90% of his business overnight.

Hernandez is one of thousands of Cubans who benefited from the boom in American visitors to the Caribbean’s largest island following the loosening of travel restrictions under former U.S. President Barack Obama during the short-lived 2014-2016 detente between the Cold War foes.

Obama’s successor, President Donald Trump, aims to punish Cuba’s Communist government, especially for its alliance with Venezuela, by tightening the rules once more. Yet Cubans say those who will really suffer are the people, including the private-sector workers the United States purports to support.

“This is a fatal blow for us,” said Hernandez, 27, who makes $30 an hour — the equivalent of the average monthly state salary — doing tours of Havana. “If there’s no tourism, we don’t have work.”

​Second-biggest group of tourists

U.S. travelers excluding Cuban-Americans became the second-biggest group of tourists on the island in recent years after Canadians, with cruise travelers making up half of those.

Although they typically contributed less to the economy as they stayed on ships rather than in hotels or bed-and-breakfasts, they hired drivers and tour guides and spent at private shops, bars and restaurants.

“We bought T-shirts as souvenirs and bags,” said Sarah Freeman, 42, one of the passengers on the last U.S. cruise ship to sail from Havana, using a handcrafted wooden Cuban fan to fend off the Caribbean heat.

The new restrictions on U.S. travel to Cuba also include the elimination of so-called group people-to-people educational travel, one of the most popular exemptions to the overall ban on U.S. tourism to Cuba.

‘Negative perceptions’

William LeoGrande, a Cuba expert at American University in Washington, estimated the measures could reduce the number of non-Cuban-American U.S. visitors by two-thirds or more.

That could cut overall tourist arrivals in Cuba by about 10%, he said. Another expert, John Kavulich, said the drop could be as much as 20%.

“Optically, not having Carnival, Norwegian and Royal Caribbean in the marketplace will recreate negative perceptions about Cuba,” said Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council Inc., referring to the three main cruise lines forced to cancel service.

Earlier restrictions cut revenues

Tourism revenues, the country’s second-biggest source of hard currency, already slumped nearly 5% last year, according to official data.

That was partly the result of an earlier round of Trump administration restrictions.

Washington says it is pressuring Cuba to reform and tamp down its support for socialist Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, whom Trump has been seeking to force out in favor of opposition leader Juan Guaido, who is backed by most Western countries.

Critics say Trump is seeking to drum up support from the Cuban-American community in the swing state of Florida ahead of next year’s election.

Starting Thursday, many Cubans will be feeling the sudden absence in revenue from cruise passengers.

“For me, it will have a domino effect,” said Nichdaly Gonzalez, who earns her living posing for photos, dressed up in her colorful colonial garb, adding she expected to have to rein in her spending. As such, it will have a trickle-down impact on the local economy, especially in the ports of Havana, Santiago de Cuba and Cienfuegos that received the U.S. cruise ships.

The Cuban government has said it is aiming for tourism income to increase 5.8% this year, but it is hard to see how it can reach that goal now.

“We’ve lived with U.S. hostility now for 60 years, since the revolution, so we’ll get by,” said Abel Amador, 46, selling sketches to tourists on a cobbled street. “But this new move will still affect us.”

Voice of America

1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Counterintelligence from Michael_Novakhov (51 sites): Eurasia Review: You’re Under Arrest: How The Police State Muzzles Our Right To Speak Truth To Power – OpEd

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

“History shows that governments sometimes seek to regulate our lives finely, acutely, thoroughly, and exhaustively. In our own time and place, criminal laws have grown so exuberantly and come to cover so much previously innocent conduct that almost anyone can be arrested for something. If the state could use these laws not for their intended purposes but to silence those who voice unpopular ideas, little would be left of our First Amendment liberties, and little would separate us from the tyrannies of the past or the malignant fiefdoms of our own age. The freedom to speak without risking arrest is ‘one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation.’”—Justice Neil Gorsuch, dissenting, Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)

What the First Amendment protects—and a healthy constitutional republic requires—are citizens who routinely exercise their right to speak truth to power.

What the architects of the police state want are submissive, compliant, cooperative, obedient, meek citizens who don’t talk back, don’t challenge government authority, don’t speak out against government misconduct, and don’t step out of line.

For those who refuse to meekly accept the heavy-handed tyranny of the police state, the danger is all too real.

We live in an age in which “we the people” are at the mercy of militarized, weaponized, immunized cops who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

As such, those who seek to exercise their First Amendment rights during encounters with the police are increasingly finding that there is no such thing as freedom of speech.

This is the painful lesson being imparted with every incident in which someone gets arrested and charged with any of the growing number of contempt charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that get trotted out anytime a citizen voices discontent with the government or challenges or even questions the authority of the powers-that-be.

Merely daring to question, challenge or hesitate when a cop issues an order can get you charged with resisting arrest or disorderly conduct, free speech be damned.

In fact, getting charged or arrested is now the best case scenario for encounters with police officers who are allowed to operate under the assumption that their word is law and that there is no room for any form of disagreement or even question.

The worst case scenario involves getting probed, beaten, tasered, tackled, searched, seized, stripped, manhandled, shot, or killed by police.

This mindset that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question is a telltale sign of authoritarianism goose-stepping its way towards totalitarianism.

The rationale goes like this:

Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.

Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:

If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.

This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.

Then again, there can be no free speech for the citizenry when the government speaks in a language of force.

What is this language of force?

Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality. Contempt of cop charges.

This is not the language of freedom. This is not even the language of law and order.

Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely.

Just recently, in fact, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting police from lawsuits by persons arrested on bogus “contempt of cop” charges (ranging from resisting arrest and interference to disorderly conduct, obstruction, and failure to obey a police order) that result from lawful First Amendment activities (filming police, asking a question of police, refusing to speak with police).

In Nieves v. Bartlett, the Court ruled 6-3 to dismiss the case of Russell Bartlett, an Alaska resident who was arrested at an outdoor festival for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest after he refused to be interrogated by police and then intervened when police attempted to question other attendees about their drinking. While at a campsite party, Bartlett exercised his First Amendment right to refrain from speaking with a state trooper who was monitoring the event for underage alcohol consumption. Bartlett later intervened after observing another Trooper questioning a fellow camper in what he believed was an improper manner. At one point, one of the troopers reportedly caused Bartlett to stumble, then forced him to the ground, threatened to tase him if he resisted, and arrested him for disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. The charges were later dismissed. Bartlett sued, asserting that he was arrested in retaliation for challenging the Troopers’ authority. Although the Court recognized that people have a right to be free from a retaliatory arrest over lawful First Amendment activities, it ruled that if police have probable cause for the arrest, the person cannot sue for a free speech violation unless they can show that someone else was not arrested for the same actions.

Another case currently before the Supreme Court, Ogle v. State of Texas, involves the prosecution of a Texas man who faces up to one year in jail and a $4000 fine for sending emails to police criticizing them for failing to respond to his requests for assistance. Scott Ogle was charged with sending complaints to a sheriff’s office, including one email stating that officials were “pissing” on the Constitution. The Texas law under which Ogle was charged makes it a crime to send “annoying,” “alarming” or “harassing” electronic messages. The law is so overbroad that it could be used to punish a negative review of a restaurant posted online or caustic Facebook posts.

In yet another case, a rapper was charged with making terroristic threats after posting a song critical of police on Facebook and YouTube. In refusing to hear the case of Knox v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court paved the way for individuals who engage in controversial and unpopular political or artistic expression, by criticizing the police for example, to be labeled terrorists and subject to prosecution and suppression by the government. Police had been actively monitoring rapper Jamal Knox’s (a.k.a. “Mayhem Mal”) social media presence when they discovered the song titled “F**k the Police” and charged Knox and his rap partner with multiple counts of terroristic threats and witness intimidation.

These cases reflect a growing awareness about the state of free speech in America: it’s all a lie.

If we no longer have the right to tell a Census Worker to get off our property, if we no longer have the right to tell a police officer to get a search warrant before they dare to walk through our door, if we no longer have the right to stand in front of the Supreme Court wearing a protest sign or approach an elected representative to share our views, if we no longer have the right to protest unjust laws by voicing our opinions in public or on our clothing or before a legislative body, then we do not have free speech.

What we have instead is regulated, controlled, censored speech, and that’s a whole other ballgame.

Remember, the unspoken freedom enshrined in the First Amendment is the right to challenge government agents, think freely and openly debate issues without being muzzled or treated like a criminal.

Protest laws, free speech zones, bubble zones, trespass zones, anti-bullying legislation, zero tolerance policies, hate crime laws, and a host of other legalistic maladies dreamed up by politicians and prosecutors are aimed at one thing only: discouraging dissent and reminding the populace that resistance to the tyranny of the police state is futile.

Weaponized by police, prosecutors, courts and legislatures, “contempt of cop” charges have become yet another means by which to punish those individuals who refuse to be muzzled.

Cases like these have become typical of the bipolar nature of life in the American police state today: you may have distinct, protected rights on paper, but dare to exercise those rights and you put yourself at risk for fines, arrests, injuries and even death.

This is the unfortunate price of exercising one’s freedoms today.

Yet these are not new developments. We have been circling this particular drain hole for some time now.

Almost 50 years ago, in fact, Lewis Colten was arrested outside Lexington, Kentucky, for questioning police and offering advice to his friend during a traffic stop. Colten was one of 20 or so college students who had driven to the Blue Grass Airport to demonstrate against then-First Lady Pat Nixon. Upon leaving the airport, police stopped one of the cars in Colten’s motorcade because it bore an expired, out-of-state license plate. Colten and the other drivers also pulled over to the side of the road.

Fearing violence on the part of the police, Colten exited his vehicle and stood nearby while police issued his friend, Mendez, a ticket and arranged to tow his car. Police repeatedly asked Colten to leave. At one point, a state trooper declared, “This is none of your affair . . . get back in your car and please move on and clear the road.”

Insisting that he wanted to make a transportation arrangement for his friend Mendez and the occupants of the Mendez car, Colten failed to move away and was arrested for violating Kentucky’s disorderly conduct statute.

Colten subsequently challenged his arrest as a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and took the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which sided with the police.

Although the Court acknowledged that Colten was not trespassing or disobeying any traffic regulation himself, the majority affirmed that Colten “had no constitutional right to observe the issuance of a traffic ticket or to engage the issuing officer in conversation at that time.”

The Supreme Court’s bottom line: protecting police from inconvenience, annoyance or alarm is more important than protecting speech that, in the government’s estimation, has “no social value.”

While the ruling itself was unsurprising for a judiciary that tends to march in lockstep with the police, the dissent by Justice William O. Douglas is a powerful reminder that, in a free society, the government exists to serve the people and not the other way around.

Stressing that Colten’s speech was quiet, not boisterous, devoid of “fighting words,” and involved no overt acts, fisticuffs, or disorderly conduct in the normal meaning of the words, Douglas took issue with the idea that merely by speaking to a government representative, in this case the police—a right enshrined in the First Amendment, by the way—Colten was perceived as inconveniencing and annoying the police.

In a passionate defense of free speech, Douglas declared: 

Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet. The situation might have indicated that Colten’s techniques were ill-suited to the mission he was on, that diplomacy would have been more effective. But at the constitutional level speech need not be a sedative; it can be disruptive.

It’s a power-packed paragraph full of important truths that the powers-that-be would prefer we quickly forget: We the people are the sovereigns. We have the final word. We can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy. We need not stay docile and quiet. Our speech can be disruptive. It can invite dispute. It can be provocative and challenging. We do not have to bow submissively to authority or speak with reverence to government officials.

In theory, of course, “we the people” have a constitutional right to talk back to the government.

The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.

Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).

In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded as much in City of Houston v. Hill when it struck down a city ordinance prohibiting verbal abuse of police officers as unconstitutionally overbroad and a criminalization of protected speech.

Unfortunately, the brutal reality of the age in which we live is far different from the ideals set forth in the Bill of Rights: talking back—especially when the police are involved—can get you killed.

The government does not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully. And it definitely does not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.

We’re in deep trouble, folks.

Freedom no longer means what it once did.

Not only do we no longer have dominion over our bodies, our families, our property and our lives, but the government continues to chip away at what few rights we still have to speak freely and think for ourselves.

If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

Protest laws, contempt of cop charges, and all of the other bogus violations used by cops and prosecutors to muzzle discontent and discourage anyone from challenging government authority are intended to send a strong message that in the American police state, you’re either part of the herd, marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates, or you’re a pariah, a suspect, a criminal, a troublemaker, a terrorist, a radical, a revolutionary.

Yet by muzzling the citizenry, by removing the constitutional steam valves that allow people to speak their minds, air their grievances and contribute to a larger dialogue that hopefully results in a more just world, the government is creating a climate in which violence becomes inevitable.

When there is no steam valve—when there is no one to hear what the people have to say, because government representatives have removed themselves so far from their constituents—then frustration builds, anger grows and people become more volatile and desperate to force a conversation.

As John F. Kennedy warned in March 1962, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the government is making violent revolution inevitable.

*About the author: Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His book Battlefield America: The War on the American People is available online at www.amazon.com. Whitehead can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org.

Source: This article was published by The Rutherford Institute

Eurasia Review

Counterintelligence from Michael_Novakhov (51 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites): Voice of America: Warren Criticizes Trump’s ‘Dart Throwing’ Mexico Tariff Decision

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Democratic presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren on Wednesday criticized U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Mexico as “random dart throwing” that lacks a coherent strategy.

Trump unexpectedly told Mexico last week to take a harder line on curbing illegal immigration or face 5% tariffs on all its exports to the United States, rising to as much as 25% later in the year. On Tuesday, Trump said he expected to impose the tariffs as of Monday.

“Trump’s random dart throwing ain’t helping anybody,” Warren, a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, told reporters after a campaign event in Elkhart, Indiana.

Moments earlier, before a crowd of about 600 in the town with a large manufacturing sector, Warren assailed companies that are moving production abroad. While that echoed Trump’s criticism, she faulted his approach.

“Lets be clear — tariff policy by tweet does not work,” Warren said. “Randomly raising tariffs on a handful of goods with no coherent policy and doing it nation by nation makes no sense at all.”

Warren is one of more than 20 Democrats vying for the Democratic nomination to challenge Trump in the November 2020 election.

Mexican officials will seek to persuade the White House in talks hosted by U.S. Vice President Mike Pence on Wednesday that their government has done enough to stem immigration and avoid looming tariffs. The tariff fight merges two of Trump’s biggest campaign promises, on immigration and fair trade.

“Nobody goes into battle by themselves when they can be stronger by having allies in it,” Warren said, calling for a “coherent trade policy.”

Other Candidates Weigh In

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, who is also running to be a Democratic presidential nominee, criticized Trump for creating “chaos” by creating the tariffs and promising more.

“That’s the kind of chaos he likes,” Klobuchar said in an appearance on CNN on Tuesday. “And I just think that’s not how you embark on international diplomacy with one of our best allies.

U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, another Democratic presidential hopeful, had a similar criticism.

“This president has no plan and no ability to have a thoughtful approach towards trade or the economy,” Gillibrand said on Monday in a town hall on Fox News. “Because if he wanted to reduce the trade deficit, he’s only grown it.”

Voice of America

1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Counterintelligence from Michael_Novakhov (51 sites): Eurasia Review: Within Sight: An End To Illegal Fishing In The Pacific By 2020

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Illegal fishing is a security threat, ecological emergency and human rights crisis, but it can be stopped by 2020, according to the Friends of Ocean Action a public-private partnership involving a group of more than 50 global leaders who are fast-tracking solutions to the most pressing challenges facing the Ocean.

Ending illegal fishing in the Pacific is a key strategic priority for the Friends of Ocean Action, as part of its remit to drive transformative and scalable initiatives to help the international community act swiftly to “conserve and sustainably use our Ocean” (Sustainable Development Goal 14). The group is co-chaired by Peter Thomson, the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean, and Isabella Lövin, Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden. The aim is to fast track solutions for critical Ocean issues in time for the UN Ocean Conference in June 2020.

The Friends have identified powerful platforms on which governments can take concerted action against illegal fishing. The UN Port State Measures Agreement is designed to keep illegal fish out of countries’ ports. A total of 87 nations have signed up and the Friends are working with the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions, Global Fishing Watch, Pew Charitable Trusts, World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), The Nature Conservancy and the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy with 14 serving heads of government to ensure that important flag and port states around the Pacific join them and implement the agreement.

The Friends are also working with companies throughout the seafood supply chain as businesses raise demand for full traceability for the fish they buy. For example, through the Tuna Traceability Declaration, 66 leading retailers and processors have pledged that by 2020 they will only buy tuna that can be fully traced back to the vessel and trip on which it was caught. Through the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative, the 10-largest seafood companies, representing 10% of the global market, have also pledged to take action.

Technology such as machine-learning and satellite tracking is shining a spotlight on illegal fishing vessels and enabling businesses and governments to act. Facial recognition and blockchain allow seafood to be traced from the moment of capture all the way to the supermarket shelf. Jim Leape, a member of the Friends of Ocean Action and Co-Director of the Stanford Center for Ocean Solutions outlines the details here: We have the tools to tackle illegal fishing. It’s time to use them.

Seafood is the main source of protein for three billion people worldwide. But with nearly 90% of the world’s marine fish stocks now fully exploited, overexploited or depleted, fleets are increasingly operating illegally in other countries’ exclusive waters. Researachers have estimated that as much as $23.5 billion a year is stolen from communities and coastal nations through illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing – over 20% of the global harvest. Many IUU fishing operations are run by criminal organizations with links to arms, drugs and human trafficking.

It comes as the Ocean has been gaining increased attention on the international agenda. This year’s Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in November in Santiago, Chile, will focus leaders’ attention on bringing forward the implementation of measures that can end IUU fishing, and the UN “COP 25” climate talks in December (also in Chile) will push world leaders to place Ocean health higher up the political agenda.

Through their networks, the Friends of Ocean Action are mobilizing action to drive systemic change to other major Ocean challenges. They aim to:

  • End illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing
  • End plastic pollution through the Global Plastic Action Partnership
  • Expand Marine Protected Areas
  • Ensure food security from the Ocean
  • Decarbonize the maritime and shipping sector
  • Create an open platform for Ocean data
  • Scale and mobilize greater finance for Ocean innovation
  • Unlock progress on the Ocean by prioritizing gender-based solution
  • End harmful fisheries subsidies
  • Develop science-based targets to measure Ocean health

Each of the above “action tracks” requires concerted, public-private cooperation across geographies and sectors, which the Friends are helping to mobilize through their unique networks and influence. The Friends will be highlighting solutions through a campaign starting on World Oceans Day (8 June 2019), which runs until the UN Conference in 2020.

“We have the tools to tackle major Ocean challenges like illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing” said Peter Thomson, UN Secretary General’s Special Envoy for the Ocean and Co-Chair of the Friends of Ocean Action. “World leaders have a clear choice: business as usual, with continuing Ocean decline that will harm every area of human development and wellbeing or change in our behaviour, priorities and investments that balance Ocean protection with our socio-economic goals.”

The Friends of Ocean Action community was launched at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2018 in Davos-Klosters, alongside the High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy (now with 14 committed heads of government).

The group is convened by the World Economic Forum and World Resources Institute. It includes, to date, chief executive officers of 12 globally recognized businesses with large Ocean footprints; the heads of nine key international organizations with Ocean responsibilities; leaders of, and specialists at, 22 leading Ocean science and research institutions, NGOs and foundations and social enterprises; and 10 public figures who are leaders of the Ocean agenda.

“The Friends of Ocean Action is a group that is quickly becoming recognized as a vital informal platform for advancing tangible action and informed policy on the Ocean,” said Dominic Waughray, Head of the Centre for Global Public Goods, Member of the Managing Board, World Economic Forum. “Through fast, concerted, science-based multistakeholder action, we can drive systemic change to these seemingly intractable problems, preserve the Ocean for future generations and unlock new, sustainable forms of economic value.”

Eurasia Review

Counterintelligence from Michael_Novakhov (51 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites): 1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites): “russia france” – Google News: Russia seeks to woo foreign investors via ‘Davos’-like forum – RTL Today

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Russia seeks to woo foreign investors via ‘Davos’-like forum  RTL Today

The Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) has become a showpiece where Russia strives to show its openness to outside investment …

“russia france” – Google News

1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites)

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Feedly Logo
June 05, 2019

Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot
The truth is out there: FBI reveals file on Bigfoot – Yahoo News
FBI agents solve 2011 arson case – WHAS11.com
This is how the FBI captured 3 KGB agents in 1978 – We Are The Mighty
Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment – Quad-Cities Online

Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot

FBI from Michael_Novakhov (28 sites)
While Mulder and Scully never tackled Bigfoot during their tenure on The X-Files, it turns out the real FBI had beat them to it years earlier.  We now know this thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows for long-buried files on all sorts of criminal investigations to be declassified and made available to the public.
Read More

The truth is out there: FBI reveals file on Bigfoot – Yahoo News

Yahoo News
The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday released a correspondence file containing the results of tests it performed on a tissue sample alleged to be from Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch — a purported humanlike creature that was sporadically reported to be roaming the wilderness in the Pacific Northwest.
Read More

FBI agents solve 2011 arson case – WHAS11.com

WHAS11.com
FBI agents solve 2011 arson case The UNSOLVED team takes you inside FBI headquarters in Louisville where a special agent found the evidence linking two people to a fire, one that ultimately killed a first responder.
Read More

This is how the FBI captured 3 KGB agents in 1978 – We Are The Mighty

We Are The Mighty
During the darkest years of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union played a nuclear game of cat and mouse. The finest agents this side of the Berlin Wall were pitted against KGB spies determined to steal our secrets.
Read More

Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment – Quad-Cities Online

Quad-Cities Online
Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment Quad-Cities OnlineWASHINGTON (AP) — Guest lineups for the Sunday TV news shows: ABC’s “This Week” — Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; Sen.
Read More
Feeling mobile? Get the Feedly app and read on the go
GooglePlay Store App


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

The FBI News Review: Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Feedly Logo
June 05, 2019
Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot
The truth is out there: FBI reveals file on Bigfoot – Yahoo News
FBI agents solve 2011 arson case – WHAS11.com
This is how the FBI captured 3 KGB agents in 1978 – We Are The Mighty
Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment – Quad-Cities Online

Alerta de Google: fbi: FBI declassifies its brief investigation into the existence of Bigfoot

FBI from Michael_Novakhov (28 sites)
While Mulder and Scully never tackled Bigfoot during their tenure on The X-Files, it turns out the real FBI had beat them to it years earlier.  We now know this thanks to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which allows for long-buried files on all sorts of criminal investigations to be declassified and made available to the public.
Read More

The truth is out there: FBI reveals file on Bigfoot – Yahoo News

Yahoo News
The Federal Bureau of Investigation on Wednesday released a correspondence file containing the results of tests it performed on a tissue sample alleged to be from Bigfoot, also known as Sasquatch — a purported humanlike creature that was sporadically reported to be roaming the wilderness in the Pacific Northwest.
Read More

FBI agents solve 2011 arson case – WHAS11.com

WHAS11.com
FBI agents solve 2011 arson case The UNSOLVED team takes you inside FBI headquarters in Louisville where a special agent found the evidence linking two people to a fire, one that ultimately killed a first responder.
Read More

This is how the FBI captured 3 KGB agents in 1978 – We Are The Mighty

We Are The Mighty
During the darkest years of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union played a nuclear game of cat and mouse. The finest agents this side of the Berlin Wall were pitted against KGB spies determined to steal our secrets.
Read More

Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment – Quad-Cities Online

Quad-Cities Online
Guest lineups for the Sunday news shows | Entertainment Quad-Cities OnlineWASHINGTON (AP) — Guest lineups for the Sunday TV news shows: ABC’s “This Week” — Reps. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., and Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; Sen.
Read More
Feeling mobile? Get the Feedly app and read on the go
GooglePlay Store App

The FBI News Review


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites): 1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites): “Russia and US Presidential Elections of 2016” – Google News: Column: These are uncertain times for U.S. allies – Valley News

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Column: These are uncertain times for U.S. allies  Valley News

Seventy-five years ago, thousands of American and Allied sailors, soldiers and aviators braved heavy seas and murderous German fire in the historic invasion …

“Russia and US Presidential Elections of 2016” – Google News

1. Russia from Michael_Novakhov (116 sites)

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites): 1. US Security from Michael_Novakhov (88 sites): Stars and Stripes: 4 climbers stranded on treacherous Mount Rainier route; military helicopter assisting in rescue attempts

Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Rangers at Mount Rainier National Park are attempting to rescue four climbers stranded on the challenging Liberty Ridge route to the summit and issued an emergency closure for the route Wednesday.

Stars and Stripes

1. US Security from Michael_Novakhov (88 sites)

Global Security News from Michael_Novakhov (27 sites)


Spread the Knowledge
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
    27
    Shares
  • 27
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •