A HARSH REALITY......

 

When some people hear the words “tax policy,” their minds immediately jump to percentages, dollar amounts, and spreadsheets.
But fundamentally, tax policy is about something broader.
It’s about who our government works for.
Does our government only work for billionaires and billionaire corporations, or does it work for everybody?
Does our tax system reward the rich, or does it look out for someone who’s putting together two or three jobs just to keep their family above water?
I’m bringing this up right now because Washington has major decisions to make about tax laws.
Donald Trump’s tax breaks for the rich that he passed in 2017 — mostly sucked up by millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations — are set to expire. And Congressional Republicans are working to extend them, following Trump’s lead, who promised to cut taxes for his “rich as hell” donors.
In the U.S. Senate, I’ll keep calling out GOP plans to slash taxes for the rich. I’ll keep putting forward plans to protect working families from devastating cuts. And I’ll keep fighting to make our government work not just for the wealthy and well-connected but everybody.
And I won’t be alone.
People like you are raising your voices around the country — at town halls, on the phone lines, at local organizing events, at protests — and exposing the Republican agenda. If we can grow and sustain our momentum, we can create enough pressure in Congress and from the public to stop the GOP from handing billions more dollars to billionaires.
While the GOP gets ready to give handouts to the wealthy, Elon Musk works from the inside to free up room in the budget with his illegal funding cuts — because tax breaks aren’t free, no matter how hard Republicans try to fudge the numbers.
Musk is targeting everyone from the public servants who make sure your dad gets his Social Security check on time to the scientists who could come up with the next big lifesaving breakthrough.
And Congressional Republicans are charging forward with proposed budget cuts that would hurt every community in America.
Take Medicaid, which would be gutted under the Republicans’ plans. It covers more than 79 million people. About half of all births are covered by Medicaid. Over a third of all children have health care thanks to Medicaid. More than half of all nursing home residents are covered by Medicaid. Many people are counting on Medicaid to pay for medicine that treats their cancer, the hip replacement they need to walk, the prescription for their child’s inhaler, or the nursing home that takes care of their uncle with dementia.
If the program is cut, the harm will echo through nearly every home in America.
But Congressional Republicans seem to think that’s a-okay if it means a billionaire can get a tax break.
Billionaires win. Families lose.
That’s their plan. You can fit it on a bumper sticker.
Help seeing a doctor, help covering grocery bills, help getting an education if you come from a family that can’t write a big tuition check — it’s all under attack from Congressional Republicans.
They want to increase costs for health care, food, and education for working people so they can decrease taxes for millionaires, billionaires, and giant corporations.
They want to reach into working people’s pockets to pay for billionaires’ handouts.
Taxes reflect our values. Taxes show what — and who — we value enough to collectively invest in. And Republicans are showing, pure and simple, that they value a handful of the wealthy and well-connected. Not the working people they claim to represent.
And they don’t want you to notice what they’re doing.
Newsflash: We are paying attention.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Warren
U.S. Senator, Massachusetts

Simply put, straightforward and unshowy words, describing a very factual scene happening nowadays in America and many parts of the world, the triumph of a small class mainly of billionaires and big corporate power and some dubious and questionable political ideologies, all at the expense of the majority of the masses. More so when we consider the last Tariffs imposed on everything we import from abroad , it is definitely a direct form of collective taxes, that wont hurt the very rich but make it more difficult to survive for the masses, and provide enough for the government to reduce taxes for the few at the top. 

My many thanks to all. 

AT THE HEART OF THE STORM......

 

Signal messaging at the heart of the storm
Le Temps March 26, 2025 ANOUCH SEYDTAGHIA

Despite recent amateur use by US officials, Signal is one of the most secure messaging services, ahead of WhatsApp or Telegram. However, the app is not recommended for government use. Here's our explanation.
This is a spotlight that Signal's executives probably wouldn't have imagined: the use of the messaging app by very high-ranking officials in the US government. Since Monday, it has become known that they are communicating via this app. It was Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, mistakenly added to a group, who revealed the affair. He was able to read exchanges with 18 people, including Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. This affair, which has triggered a political crisis in Washington, is an opportunity to take a closer look at Signal.

How does Signal work?
On the surface, it's like WhatsApp or Telegram. But Signal differs in two key ways. First, the business model, since the app is supported by a non-profit foundation based in the United States. Signal is free, without advertising or user tracking, and relies on user donations. The foundation was notably supported, through a $50 million contribution, by Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, who was disappointed with what Meta had done with it. The annual budget to run Signal is a similar amount.

The other difference from its competitors is Signal's transparent core. The messaging encryption protocol is open source, making it easily analyzeable by any external expert. Signal reportedly has between 50 and 100 million users, far fewer than the billion claimed by Telegram or WhatsApp's more than 2 billion customers.
Is Signal infallible?

Its security level is very high. "To my knowledge, the Signal protocol has never been cracked. But I know that governments are actively trying to do so, so there is no guaranteed protection forever," says Steven Meyer, director of the cybersecurity firm ZENData. "Apps like Signal and WhatsApp rely on end-to-end encryption that makes messages readable only by the sender and the recipient. It seems this technique is effective because several countries, including France, require these companies to introduce backdoors to gain access to information."

"The Signal protocol has never been cracked. But governments are actively trying to do so, so there is no guaranteed protection forever." STEVEN MEYER, CEO OF ZENDATA
"These applications are particularly vulnerable to organized crime or terrorism. It would appear that these applications are therefore very resistant to hacking," notes Jean-Marc Rickli, director of global and emerging risks at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.

Recently, Signal CEO Meredith Whittaker defended this level of protection, saying that "end-to-end encryption is the technology we have to ensure privacy in an era of unprecedented government and corporate surveillance."
Signal is therefore very resilient. But be careful: if an outsider manages to take remote control of the phone—and many governments have the technical tools to do this—the situation changes. Because it's then relatively easy to access all of the phone's content, including the contents of messaging apps.

Another concern: the user. "The fact that a stranger could have been invited and the other members of the group didn't react also raises questions that have nothing to do with cybersecurity but with the basics of digital hygiene and common sense, which are often exploited in social engineering to hack individuals or companies," notes Jean-Marc Rickli.

How should Americans have communicated?
According to Jean-Marc Rickli, "Government officials can use such apps to exchange routine, unclassified information. But the Signal app is not approved by the U.S. government for sharing classified information. To share such information, officials or decision-makers must use sensitive, compartmentalized information facilities where smartphones are not permitted. In this case, there was a clear violation of these rules."

There was indeed negligence, confirms Steven Meyer: "Generally, at the military and government level, there are communication tools for classified exchanges that are very secure and controlled. The downside is that these systems are not very practical for everyday life. So whenever possible, people use "mainstream" alternatives. And in this area, Signal is clearly the best app," says the director of ZENData.

Steven Meyer notes that in Switzerland, the Swiss app Threema is used within the military and government to communicate on topics that are not highly confidential. For more sensitive topics, other services, inaccessible to the general public, are used.
■
Article Name: Signal messaging at the heart of the storm
Publication: Le Temps
Section:International
Author: ANOUCH SEYDTAGHIA
Start Page:6
End Page:6

This message was sent to me by e-mail, from a friend, originally an article in a Swiss publication, "Le Temps" in French, translated by Google and myself to suit our blog as the scandal of the App and its usage by the highest hierarchy of the American administration for highly sensitive and classified communications continues to reverberate in the US.  
As always, my many thanks to all my good friends and readers. 

WILL THE US BECOME HUNGARY ?

 

Will the US Become Hungary?

Some say that under Trump, the US will become like Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Hungary: an illiberal democracy in which elections take place, but institutions like the courts and media are largely subverted to authoritarian rule. Having watched Russia slide into authoritarianism, M. Gessen made that case on The New York Times’ The Opinions podcast in November. Others think it’s less likely. Pointing to the difficulty of changing the US Constitution, the power distributed to states, and other factors, Bálint Madlovics and Bálint Magyar argue in a Foreign Affairs essay that Trump would find it more difficult to achieve the same thing here. They write: “Trump’s rampage through the federal bureaucracy and efforts to begin purges of civil servants, along with his flurry of executive orders that demonstratively challenge constitutional limitations on executive power, may seem shocking to U.S. democratic norms. But none of these plans have been put before Congress, and many of them will face legal and legislative roadblocks before they can be fully implemented.  By contrast, Orban has been able to use his disciplined supermajority in parliament to formally change Hungary’s legal foundations: tax laws, reforms, and even electoral amendments are regularly passed within days. Even the new constitution of Hungary has been amended 14 times by [Orbán’s party] Fidesz without public debate—something impossible in the United States, where constitutional amendments have been comparatively rare, requiring not only broad congressional approval but a laborious process of state ratification.” Some worry more actively. In another Foreign Affairs essay, Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way write that America’s “vaunted constitutional checks are failing. Trump violated the cardinal rule of democracy” when he refused to accept his 2020 election loss, as MAGA supporters attempted to block the transfer of power. Trump now has more experience in government and more fulsome control of the GOP. “[A]authoritarianism does not require the destruction of the constitutional order,” they write. “What lies ahead is not fascist or single-party dictatorship but competitive authoritarianism—a system in which parties compete in elections but the incumbent’s abuse of power tilts the playing field against the opposition.  Most autocracies that have emerged since the end of the Cold War fall into this category, including Alberto Fujimori’s Peru, Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela, and contemporary El Salvador, Hungary, India, Tunisia, and Turkey. …  [T]he system is not democratic, because incumbents rig the game by deploying the machinery of government to attack opponents and co-opt critics. Competition is real but unfair. Competitive authoritarianism will transform political life in the United States. … Democratic Party donors may be targeted by the IRS; businesses that fund civil rights groups may face heightened tax and legal scrutiny or find their ventures stymied by regulators. Critical media outlets will likely confront costly defamation suits or other legal actions as well as retaliatory policies against their parent companies.  Americans will still be able to oppose the government, but opposition will be harder and riskier, leading many elites and citizens to decide that the fight is not worth it.” Some strong words there, more so as the US is headed with sure steps into that direction, and more events of the sort taking place around the authoritarian world, take Israel and lately Turkey. As always, my many thanks to all for your time.

VOLTAIRE.......

 

Voltaire...and the thieves.

 In life there are two types of thieves:

1-The common thief : this is the one who steals your money, your wallet, your umbrella, etc.

 2 - The political thief is the one who steals your future, your dreams, your knowledge, your salary, your

education, your health, your strength, your smile, etc...

 The big difference between these two types of thieves is that the common thief chooses you to steal your property.

While you choose the political thief to steal from you.

 And the other big difference, which is not the least:

a. It is that the common thief is hunted by the police.

b. while the political thief is most often protected by a police escort....

Voltaire was a versatile and and prolific writer and philosopher, satirist and historian, producing works in almost every literary form. Famous for his wit and his criticism of the establishment , he was an advocate of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and separation of church and state, his short few words are often very factual and still applicable to our modern times.

As always, my many thanks to all.    

PAST AND PRESENT ALLIANCES......

 

America and the deception of jihad in the way of Allah

Prince *Mohammed bin Salman* gave a dangerous interview to the American newspaper *Washington Post* in which he revealed the truth and exposed the lie of what the Salafis called *the Islamic awakening*, and admitted that Saudi Arabia’s spread of Wahhabism was not purely for the sake of God, but rather was in response to an American demand and the use of Islam to serve American interests!!!

*Bin Salman* said that this was the result of a political deal that America concluded with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan, and that the marketing of this extremist religious thought was only to serve the battle against the Soviet Union...!!

This statement was a huge scandal, and the Washington Post commented on this scandal by saying: “It has now been confirmed that the spread of Wahhabism was nothing more than a tool of the Cold War between America and the Soviet Union, and that all these Qurans, mosques, head coverings, beards, short galabiyas, etc., were in fact nothing more than makeup, costumes, and accessories for the role required to be played in the Cold War movie..!!, and that the Islamic peoples were naive toys in a dirty political game that had nothing to do with Islam..!!”

The story began on December 27, 1979, when the US National Security Council approved a plan entitled “Jihad in Afghanistan against Atheism” written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor. Brzezinski immediately began a tour of the Middle East to convince the leaders of Islamic countries of his plan... Brzezinski began his tour with a secret visit to Cairo on January 3, 1980, where he met with Anwar Sadat. He then met with King Khalid in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on January 4, and then met with President Zia-ul-Haq in Islamabad, Pakistan, on January 5. Muhammad Hassanein Heikal says in his book “Unholy Wars,” p. 31, “Brzezinski called on these countries to play a leading role in the war against the “atheist” Soviet Union, which had invaded an Islamic country. Brzezinski carried with him a detailed plan in which he precisely defined the role of each country in that war. For example, there are those who provide financial funding, and there are those who mobilize and train fighters... etc. The strange thing is that the Jew Brzezinski He was speaking as if he were one of the companions of the Messenger of God who were jealous of Islam!! Brzezinski succeeded in convincing the Arab leaders to agree to his project and to be enthusiastic about it without any conditions..!!

*Mohamed Hassanein Heikal* says that Sadat’s meeting with Brzezinski lasted 3 and a half hours, during which Brzezinski focused on the fact that both *Al-Azhar and the Muslim Brotherhood* would have a major role in the war against the Soviets. Brzezinski explained that the importance of Al-Azhar’s role is due to it being the authority accepted by Muslims, in addition to the fact that the senior leaders of the jihad in Afghanistan are graduates of Al-Azhar colleges and have close ties to it (for example, Burhanuddin Rabbani and Abdul Rasoul Sayyaf)... Brzezinski added that the role of the Muslim Brotherhood may be more important than Al-Azhar’s role, especially since they have branches in most Islamic countries, in addition to the fact that the biggest leaders in Afghanistan belong to the Muslim Brotherhood (such as the famous leader Abdullah Azzam, for example)... Brzezinski stressed the need for coordination between Al-Azhar and the Brotherhood, and asked Sadat to undertake the task of unifying their joint efforts. Brzezinski explained that by considering that Sadat has authority over Al-Azhar, and because on the other hand he has good relations with the leaders of the Brotherhood.

Indeed, this trinity (Sadat, Al-Azhar and the Brotherhood) carried out the role assigned to it exactly as Brzezinski had defined it. The implementation of the plan began with a statement by Sadat in which he said: “The world should not be satisfied with issuing statements condemning the Soviet Union, but practical measures must be taken.”
On 12/30/1979, Al-Ahram published a fatwa by the Grand Mufti of the Republic, Sheikh Gad al-Haq Ali Gad al-Haq, calling on Muslims around the world to support the Afghan revolutionaries...and only two years later, the President of the Republic issued a decision appointing Sheikh Gad al-Haq as Sheikh of Al-Azhar.

As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they lived up to Brzezinski’s expectations and played a role that exceeded what was required of them!! In Egyptian universities, the Muslim Brotherhood students ignited the enthusiasm of students, held conferences and seminars, and organized campaigns to collect donations of money and blood... On the other hand, and at the behest of the group’s guide, *Hamed Abu al-Nasr*, the Muslim Brotherhood leader, *Dr. Kamal al-Halbawi*, stayed for 6 years, moving between Afghanistan and Pakistan to follow up on the implementation of the group’s orders and instructions. In addition, the Relief Committee of the Egyptian Doctors Syndicate, led by *Dr. Abdel Moneim Abu al-Fotouh*, sent many doctors to Afghanistan, and also collected huge sums of money to contribute to training fighters and providing them with weapons, medicines, and food supplies...

And now
officially:
It is forbidden to pay an end-of-service bonus to a male or female teacher if he or she is removed from the teaching profession due to adopting extremist ideas.. Serious political will
Quoted with modifications
Written by Mr. Ahmed Haroun

Got this report by email from a friend, I don't know about its authenticity as I haven't seen it at the WP, but the facts of the report are mostly obvious and authenticated, this partnership between American and Islamic institutions is quite a known and established fact of the cold war strategies and alliances, of course later on everything reversed, and now it's a declared war situation. Whereby with Israeli influence, all the Western countries and America are in an undeclared war with Islam and the Arabs. 

 My many thanks to all.  

NEIGHBOURLY LOVE.....

 
An open letter written by a Florida judge about the CANADA/USA relationships & history.
Robert Meadows (Circuit Court Judge, Florida).

Here is one American’s take on the growing trade war with the US and Canada.
"Have you ever stopped to consider how lucky we Americans are to have the neighbors we have? Look around the globe at who some folks have been stuck sharing a border with over the past half century:

North Korea / South Korea
Greece / Turkey
Iran / Iraq
Israel / Palestine
India / Pakistan
China / Russia
Syria / Lebanon
Russia / Ukraine

We’ve got Canada! Canada. About as inoffensive a neighbor as you could ever hope for. In spite of all our boasts of “American exceptionalism” and chants of “America first,” they just smile, do their thing and go about their business. They are on average more educated, have a higher standard of living, free health care, and almost no gun problems. They treat immigrants respectfully and already took in over 35,000 Syrians in the last two years.
They’re with us in NATO, they fought alongside us in World War I, World War II, Korea, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, Afghanistan, the Kosovo War and came to our defense after 9/11. There was that one time when Canada took a pass on one of our wars: Vietnam. Turned out to be a good call.

They’ve been steady consumers of American imports, reliable exporters of metals and petroleum products (they are the biggest importer of U.S. products from 37 states), and partnered with NASA in our space missions.

During 9/11 many aircraft were diverted to Newfoundland, an island province off Canada's east coast where Americans were housed in people's homes for two weeks and treated like royalty. In return for their hospitality, this administration slapped a 20% tariff on the products of Newfoundland's only paper mill, thereby threatening it's survival.
And what do Canadians expect of us in return? To be respected for who and what they are: Canadians. That’s what I call a good neighbor.

But the King of Chaos couldn’t leave well enough alone. Based on his delusions of perpetual victimhood, out of the clear blue, he’s declared economic war on Canada. On CANADA! And he did it based on Canada being a national security risk to the US! For no good reason, other than the voices in his head that told him it was a war he could win. So why not do it, then?

Again, we’re talking about Canada. Our closest ally, friend and neighbor.

On behalf of an embarrassed nation, people of Canada, I apologize for this idiotic and wholly unnecessary attack. Please leave the back channels open.
We the People of progressive persuasion stand with you.

As always, received this as an email, and obviously this judge is factual and to the point, very well expressed describing the actual mood of actual relations between the two neighboring and brotherly countries. 

My gratitude to all my good readers and friends.

“First They Came”: For Dems Who Dare to Do Nothing

 

“First they came …”
In honor of the feckless formation that is the institutional Democratic Party, I have updated Martin Niemöller’s famous 1946 confession, which came to be known as “First they came.” Here it is:
First they came for USAID employees, and I did not speak out—because I was not a USAID employee.
Then they came for Department of Education employees, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Department of Education employee.
Then they came for all federal employees, and I did not speak out—because I was not a federal employee.
Then they came for Social Security Medicare, and Medicaid, and I did not speak out—because I don’t need Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
(Nobody wanted to vote for me, either.)

Words extracted from Richard (RJ) Eskow's newsletter explaining our present situation in today's America, some 40 days into the Trump and oligarchy administration. 

But it’s now become clear that Trump isn’t just trying to dismantle American democracy. He’s gunning to destroy democracy worldwide.

And in the same line of thought,  Susan B. Glasser writes 

With today’s extraordinary, televised fight in the Oval Office between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky, we all saw clearly something that has been unfolding over the past couple of weeks: the United States of America has switched sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The country is no longer on the side of Ukraine.
This is a momentous shift by Trump, one that has implications not only for Ukraine’s very survival but for the survival of America’s partnership with its European allies. Last week, I wrote my column about what I called Trump’s Putinization of America, both in a foreign-policy sense—as in, actually pivoting toward Russia—and also in the sense of deploying an array of Putin-like tactics at home. This week, we see that shift even more clearly. On the third anniversary of Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine, Donald Trump—even before he fought with Zelensky today—directed the United States to vote with Russia, Belarus, and North Korea at the United Nations.
We see that there are real consequences to Trump’s admiration of and fascination with the world’s dictators, autocrats, and strongmen; that it’s not just a rhetorical preference. It’s become an actual foreign-policy direction for the country, which represents a radical shift in America’s postwar view of the world.
It’s a breathtaking pivot. And the question I asked in this week’s column is: What is anybody going to do about it? Where is the opposition to this shocking turn of events? I just kept thinking: the person cheering this change more than anyone is Vladimir Putin.
Excerpt of an article by Susan B. Glasser, with the brilliant " The New Yorker" Again to express the same, not only internally but affecting majorly our foreign policies and alliances.

We are watching what we never thought possible—the apparent transformation of our democracy into a dictatorship (or, as Trump has promoted, a monarchy with him as king).

Silence today is complicity in the destruction of the very values and interests that did in fact once form the heart of America.

As always, my many thanks to all my good readers and friends.