British press rallies around MI-6 spy who assembled dossier that Donald Trump calls "fake news."

Courtesy of Business Insider: 

There has been an avalanche of support for Steele's credentials in the British press over the past two days, the cumulative effect of which has been to add credibility to the unproven allegations against the US president-elect. Here are some key things we now know about Steele: 

Steele was head of MI6’s Russia desk. He worked at Britain's intelligence service for years and was a highly regarded specialist on Russia, according to The Guardian. He served in Paris and Moscow in the 1990s before retiring. He now runs the intelligence company Orbis Business Intelligence with Christopher Burrows, a former British Foreign Office counsellor. 

He has a network of sources in Russia. The New York Times said he was known for "his knowledge of the intricate web of Kremlin-tied companies and associates that control Russia." He called on these contacts to compile the allegations against Trump. 

Steele has been trusted by the FBI and others with sensitive work.Reuters reported that the intelligence expert supplied the FBI with information on corruption at football's world governing body, FIFA, in 2010. He also gathered intelligence on Russia for England's 2018 World Cup bid. Russia ultimately triumphed during the bidding process. 

He has friends in high places. Sir Andrew Wood, a former British ambassador to Moscow who helped alert US intelligence to the dossier, said Steele was a "very competent professional operator."

Well that doesn't sound like the sort of professional who simply traffics in gossip and innuendo.

Which was also the conclusion of David Corn who writes for Mother Jones, who interviewed Steele and had this to say:

I also was able to review the memos the former spy had written, and I quoted a few key portions in my article. I did not report the specific allegations—especially the lurid allegations about Trump's personal behavior—because they could not be confirmed. The newsworthy story at this point was that a credible intelligence official had provided information to the FBI alleging Moscow had tried to cultivate and compromise a presidential candidate. And the issue at hand—at a time when the FBI was publicly disclosing information about its investigation of Hillary Clinton's handling of her email at the State Department—was whether the FBI had thoroughly investigated these allegations related to Russia and Trump. I also didn't post the memos, as BuzzFeed did this week, because the documents contained information about the former spy's sources that could place these people at risk. 

When I spoke with the former spy, he appeared confident about his material—acknowledging these memos were works in progress—and genuinely concerned about the implications of the allegations. He came across as a serious and somber professional who was not eager to talk to a journalist or cause a public splash. He realized he was taking a risk, but he seemed duty bound to share information he deemed crucial. He noted that these allegations deserved a "substantial inquiry" within the FBI. Yet so far, the FBI has not yet said whether such an investigation has been conducted. As the former spy said to me, "The story has to come out."

At first the former spy was working for Republicans looking for dirt on Trump, but after the election they no longer seemed to care. However Streele himself felt that the information was too important to keep secret so he started looking for ways to disseminate it pro bono.

Here was his reasoning:

Mr Steele also decided to pass on information to both British and American intelligence officials after concluding that such material should not just be in the hands of political opponents of Mr Trump, who had hired his services, but was a matter of national security for both countries. 

However, say security sources, Mr Steele became increasingly frustrated that the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to believe there was a cover-up, that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails. 

It should also be noted that Steele was the agent who exposed the corruption within FIFA, a scandal that had international repercussions. Which only cements his reputation as a very professional and capable investigator.

Of course since all of this has come out this gentleman has gone underground, and there are reports that he is "terrified for his family's safety."

Maybe it's just me, but it seems that if this man was willing to sacrifice so much to get this information exposed to the public, that it behooves various media outlets around the world to at the very least work hard to either confirm or denounce it.

Right now it appears that Penthouse magazine might be taking the lead on that front: 

Adult magazine Penthouse has received three claims for its $1 million offer to anyone who could provide real tapes of President-elect Donald Trump’s alleged and unproven sexual escapades at the Ritz-Carlton in Moscow, the publication’s editor exclusively revealed to International Business Times Thursday.

I for one don't think this story is dead yet, and I am more than a little interested in seeing where it goes. 

British intelligence tipped off the US to Russian hacking way back in the fall of 2015. Also tracked communications between Trump advisors and Moscow.

Courtesy of The Guardian:  

British intelligence reportedly provided a vital tipoff to the US in 2015 about the extent of Russian hacking on the presidential election. 

The report on the UK’s involvement came after US intelligence agencies published an unclassified version of their finding that Vladimir Putin ordered a multi-pronged operation to interfere in the election in favour of Donald Trump. 

The New York Times, citing “two people familiar with the conclusions” of the report, said British intelligence was “among the first” to raise the alarm in autumn 2015 that Moscow had hacked the computer servers of the Democratic National Committee.

The Brits also noticed something else:

Over the course the campaign, British officials were as alarmed as their US counterparts over the extent of contacts between Trump advisers and Moscow and by Trump’s consistently pro-Russian stance on a range of foreign policy issues.

Well isn't that interesting? And completely unsurprising?

Here's more:  

Allegations about the depth and nature of contacts between the Trump camp and Moscow have been passed to the FBI but it is unclear whether they are the subject of a full investigation. 

There was no reference to them in the public version of the joint intelligence report on Russian interference in the election, compiled by the CIA, FBI and NSA.

You know if the FBI can undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign with a last minute, and false, suggestion that she might soon be under criminal indictment, then why are they saying nothing about a possible criminal investigation of Donald Trump before he is sworn into office? 

Never mind, I think the answer to that question is because the FBI, or at least director James Comey, may have been compromised in some way.

Which makes me wonder just who else the Russians managed to hack in the lead up to this election?

I also endorse this action.

I endorse this action by the @BritishArmy 👍🏻 (pic & story via @bennyjohnson) pic.twitter.com/olOyuAScZ6

— Bethany W. (@KrizleyWheatnik) October 24, 2015

Courtesy of the Independent:  

This week, Independent Journal reporter Benny Johnson was on the streets of Washington, DC, where he bumped into a group of British soldiers (around 750 of whom are based in the US). 

Startled by seeing foreign troops on Capitol Hill, Johnson inquired what they were doing there. 

One soldier replied: "We saw Donald Trump was about to become President so we thought it was a good time to invade and help you out."

I would hope that the American people are too smart to actually allow Donald Trump to set foot in the White House.

But if not......

The President responds to a potential fire in the White House like a boss.

Courtesy of the YouTube page:  

President Obama stops in the middle of his remarks at the White House Science Fair to call attention to a burning smell in the room. Obama jokes that the last time there was a fire at the White House "the British were invading."

Too cool for school. 

Bishop of Shrewsbury calls the John Lennon song Imagine "heart chilling."

Courtesy of the Catholic Herald: 

The Bishop of Shrewsbury has described the John Lennon song Imagine as “heart-chilling” in a Christmas homily. 

Reflecting on this year’s Christmas adverts which focus on the First World War, Bishop Mark Davies will say in a homily on Christmas Day: “The events of Christmas 1914 give the lie to the lazily repeated assertion that ‘religion is the cause of wars’. John Lennon would give voice to this ill-founded belief in the lyrics of his song Imagine. This becomes a heart-chilling vision in which Lennon imagines a world with no hope of heaven and no fear of hell. And he adds, ‘no religion too’. Only then, he suggests will ‘all the people’ be ‘living life in peace.’” 

The bishop will continue: “Yet the fact is, the wars of the century past, bringing with them atrocities and destruction on a scale never seen before, were largely inspired by secularist and, indeed, openly anti-Christian ideologies. In reality, it is human sin which lies at the root cause of war. Conflicts, writes St James, arise within the human heart wherever ‘bitter jealousy and selfish ambition’ are found (James 3: 14). Tonight we declare that Christ came to ‘save us from our sins’, to enable us to give glory to God and to bring peace amongst men. Christ calls all who would follow Him to have, as we have just heard in St Paul’s words: ‘no ambition except to do good’ (Titus 2:14).”

That last part is complete bullshit. In fact most wars were either inspired by religious differences, ideological differences, or strategic power grabs.

And the word "sin" is a bullshit primitive definition to explain complicated human behaviors that too many people lack the intellect or patience to understand completley.

As for the John Lennon, well I will take his beautiful song about hope and peace over the Catholic church's doctrine of shame, oppression, and misogyny any day of the week.

New survey finds that half of British people think that religion does more harm than good.

Courtesy of The Independent:  

More than half of people in the UK believe religion does more harm than good, while less than a quarter believe faith is a force for good, a new survey has revealed. 

And the viewpoint even applies to those with strong faiths – one fifth (20 per cent) of Britons who describe themselves as being “very religious” said religion was harmful to society. 

The findings from the study for The Huffington Post, which was carried out by Survation, challenge widely held beliefs about religion and its place in modern British society. 

They show that only eight per cent of Britons describe themselves as very religious, while more than 60 per cent said they are not religious at all. 

And the majority (55 per cent) believe that being religious does not necessarily make you a better person. One in eight Britons said atheists tend to be more moral, compared to just six per cent who said atheists are less moral. 

Of the 2,004 people surveyed, 56 per cent described themselves as Christian, 2.5 per cent were Muslim, one per cent were Jewish and the remainder were of another faith or none.

Well gee, maybe Lawrence Krauss was right, and maybe the end of religion really IS only a generation or two away.

Newly declassified documents indicate that British officials thought that Ronald Reagan was a "bozo" and were incredulous that he was elected President.

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:  

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were often portrayed as geo-political soul mates, but government files declassified in London on Wednesday expose a deep British disdain for the president who was described in official papers as homophobic, uninformed, disinterested and, not to put too fine a point on it, “a Bozo.” 

The British Foreign Office files seen by The Daily Beast show that Prime Minister Thatcher was warned President Reagan had little interest in world affairs and was unable to sustain a serious conversation about contemporary politics. 

The damning critiques, which expressed sheer incredulity that this man could occupy the White House, were shared at the highest levels of government before and after Reagan’s first State Visit to Britain in 1982. 

Despite the hostility of her advisors, Thatcher appeared to strike up a close relationship with Reagan based on their shared values. They loudly battled Communism together and were determined to vanquish the post-war economic consensus, which had been based on the work of John Maynard Keynes, in favor of trickle-down economics and low taxes. 

Successive British ambassadors in Washington were deeply unimpressed with the former California governor, however. Sir Nicholas Henderson, who was in the job when Reagan was elected, described him as a dogmatic and simplistic man. “He has clear-cut opinions, not to say prejudices, as was apparent to me when he told me à propos Keynes that it must not be forgotten that he was a homosexual,” Henderson wrote in his United States Annual Review of 1981.

Anti-intellectual,  anti-gay, anti-comprehension, oh yeah that was the Ronald Reagan that we knew and loathed here in the U.S..

Sir Oliver Wright, who replaced Henderson as the British Ambassador, was even less impressed with Reagan.  

Wright was aghast to find that smart and serious political operatives in D.C. appeared happy to work under Reagan’s leadership. “No one in Washington smirks when they are expounding the President’s views or communicating his policies,” he said. “No one in official and hardly anyone in non-official Washington decries his want of powers of analysis or his inability to argue a closely reasoned case.” 

Wright’s summation of the twin threads of the Administration’s policy objectives was equally damning. He described Reaganomics as “unsophisticated… it’s component parts self-contradictory” and his foreign policy as cartoonish and based on Reagan’s Wild West heritage. “California is on the look out for baddies and Public Baddie No 1 is the Soviet Union… baddies, as we all know, have only one proper fate: to bite the dust.”

Of course fortunately for Reagan there was Mikhail Gorbachev to usher in perestroika and do the dirty work in Russia, and allow Ronnie to take the lion's share of the credit.

Is it any wonder that a certain political lightweight choose him as her role model?

Palin at Reagan ranch

Since the British found Reagan so distasteful one can only imagine how upset they were by the election of George W. Bush in 2000. And if by some miracle Palin HAD been elected as the VP in 2008 perhaps they would have stopped returning our calls altogether.

Actor Chris O'Dowd believes that someday religion will be as reviled as racism.

Courtesy of The Sydney Morning Herald:  

Actor Chris O'Dowd thinks following a religion will eventually become as offensive and unacceptable as racism. 

The Irish star of films such as The Sapphires and Bridesmaids says he grew up respecting people of faith despite his atheist views, but has become "less liberal" as he ages. 

Now he says religious doctrine is halting human progress and brands it "a weird cult". 

O'Dowd has told Britain's GQ magazine: "For most of my life, I've been, 'Hey, I'm not into it, but I respect your right to believe whatever you want'. But as time goes on, weirdly, I'm growing less liberal. I'm more like, 'No, religion is ruining the world, you need to stop!'. 

"There's going to be a turning point where it's going to be like racism. You know, 'You're not allowed to say that weird s**t! It's mad! And you're making everybody crazy!' 

"And you know, now America can't have a president that doesn't say he believes in God. So we're f**ked! Like, they f**ked everything! 

"You wanna go and live in your weird cult and talk about a man who lives in a cloud, you do that, but don't. I mean, you really think that Barack Obama believes in God? No way!" 

Interestingly enough I just finished Netflix binging on his British sitcom "The IT Crowd." It was alright, not my favorite British comedy series, but it had a laugh or two.
 

As for what he says, I certainly agree with a lot of it. Most of it actually.

And he is right, no person could be elected to the White House if they did not proclaim that they believe in God.

But do we REALLY think that all forty four of them did for certain?

Cause I don't.

British officials storm offices of the Guardian and smash hard drives containing information provided by Edward Snowden. Seriously?

Courtesy of the Chicago Tribune:

 The British authorities forced the Guardian newspaper to destroy material leaked by Edward Snowden, its editor has revealed, calling it a "pointless" move that would not prevent further reporting on U.S. and British surveillance programs. 

In a column on Tuesday, Alan Rusbridger said he had received a call from a government official a month ago who told him: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back." 

The paper had been threatened with legal action if it did not comply. Later, two "security experts" from the secretive Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had visited the paper's London offices and watched as computer hard drives containing Snowden material were reduced to mangled bits of metal. 

Asked by the BBC who he thought was behind those events, Rusbridger said he had "got the sense there was an active conversation" involving government departments, intelligence agencies and the prime minister's Downing Street office. 

Downing Street and GCHQ declined to comment. 

Rusbridger said the "bizarre" episode and the detention at London's Heathrow airport on Sunday of the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald showed press freedom was under threat in Britain.

The detention of his partner by British officials has so angered Greenwald that he responded by saying this:

I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now. I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did. [...] They wanted to intimidate our journalism, to show that they have power and will not remain passive but will attack us more intensely if we continue publishing their secrets.

Greenwald has said in the past that only a portion of the Snowden documents have been released so far, it would seem that there might be some that Greenwald was not originally planning to release that might see the light of day in response to these actions.

Good job England!

I have to admit that I am at a loss as to understanding what in the hell the British government is thinking. They HAD to have known that destroying those hard drives would do nothing to stop the leaks, and that detaining Greenwald's partner would only piss him off.

All they have done is to play into the hands of those who are painting Snowden as a whistle blower and the governments attempting to silence him as Nazi like regimes trying to protect their egregious crimes against their citizens.

Perhaps Britain should have taken a page from the Americans who, instead of attacking Snowden or trying to keep the leaks from occurring, released documents confirming the existence of Area 51,  had the CIA admit that they were the masterminds behind Iran's 1953 coup, and had the President buy a new dog.

THAT is how you get a story off the front page.

Traditional liberal groups are pulling away from President Obama. Update!

This whole NSA surveillance revelation has had the result of making groups that are traditionally liberal to become disenchanted with the President.

Courtesy of the Examiner: 

Under President Obama, the United States is “a nation governed by fear,” the American Civil Liberties Union says in an open letter that echoes the criticisms Obama has made of George W. Bush’s national security policies. 

“[W]e say as Americans that we are tired of seeing liberty sacrificed on the altar of security and having a handful of lawmakers decide what we should and should not know,” the ACLU writes in a statement circulated to grassroots supporters and addressed to Obama. “We are tired of living in a nation governed by fear instead of the principles of freedom and liberty that made this nation great.” 

It’s strange to read in light of Obama’s disavowal of Bush. “[T]oo often — our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions,” Obama said in 2009. “Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us — Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens — fell silent.” 

The ACLU is circulating that statement in response to the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute Edward Snowden, who leaked information about the National Security Agency’s data collection programs before fleeing to Hong Kong (and now, Russia).

And they are not alone.

Courtesy of Amnesty International:

The US authorities must not prosecute anyone for disclosing information about the government’s human rights violations, Amnesty International said after Edward Snowden was charged under the Espionage Act. 

 The organization also believes that the National Security Agency (NSA) whistleblower could be at risk of ill-treatment if extradited to the USA. 

"No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression," said Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International. 

"It appears he is being charged by the US government primarily for revealing its and other governments’ unlawful actions that violate human rights.”

The problem with the information  that Snowden revealed is that it hit us in the face with information that most liberals either did not think about or actively hoped was not true. And that was that the apparatus put into place by the Bush administration, the same apparatus that infuriated liberals all over the country, was now being used by an administration that we desperately wanted to trust and support.

Now we can agree that Snowden is no angel, and in fact might even be considered a traitor. But the information that he revealed, well that is another matter altogether.

But here's the thing. We also learned through Snowden's documents, that Britain has a similar program. As does Israel. And I think it goes without saying that China, Russia, most Middle Eastern countries, and possibly the majority of European countries have programs that are quite similar.

So, and I am just playing devil's advocate here, how could America NOT have the NSA program?

AND, if you will indulge me a little further, wouldn't have advertising the fact that we are still doing this placed our allies at risk, and tipped off our potential enemies?

Anybody?

Update: Well it looks like Germany is not one of the countries doing it too:

Overzealous data collectors in the US and Great Britain have no right to investigate German citizens. The German government must protect people from unauthorized access by foreign intelligence agencies, and it must act now. This is a matter of national security.

So it appears that liberal groups are not the only ones pulling away.

Mathematics. Perhaps the most amazing poem about British immigration concerns that you will ever hear.

I love the cadence of her voice and for reasons that I can't quite explain I always tear up around the 1:20 mark.

As the British would say, "Brilliant!"

Does Hell exist? And if it does how do you feel about your loved ones being sent there? One woman's response might shock you.

The video below is from the BBC program "The Big Questions" which is a remarkable program with the kind of format that we in the states cannot seem to pull off effectively.

I must admit that I am somewhat addicted to the program and have watched numerous episodes, many dealing with religion, Atheism, the bible, and many of the types of controversial topics that I like to discuss here on IM.

In the one below they are talking about he existence of Hell and have a variety of experts representing various religions, faiths, and the nonreligious to discuss the topic. There are also a couple of regular church members included as they also are asked to provide their opinions.

This woman, Liz Weston, who has already established her belief in Hell, is asked at the 3:50 mark how she could enjoy heaven knowing that many of her loved ones are being tormented in hell.

Her response is so bizarre and irrational to me that it makes my head ache. Here take a listen:

Wow! Here is what she says, in case you also cannot believe it:

Weston: "No, it won't. Because I will be with Jesus."

Host: "But the people that you love.."

Weston: "The person that I love the most is Jesus."

Host: "But what about the people you love in your life?"

Weston: "But I don't love them as much as I love Jesus. That's the point."

The rest of the conversation is well worth watching and I encourage you to do so, but it is this one back and forth that quite literally caused me one or two sleepless nights.

Simply put I have NO frame of reference to understand how somebody could look forward to living for eternity while believing that the people she one loved are punished in the most excruciating manner possible, simply because she will be in the presence of a person that she has never met, and has no reality based relationship with.

Essentially, despite what she might believe, everything that she believes is admirable about Jesus, and worthy of her love, is something she read in a book or was told by a representative of the religion named in his honer.

She has NO actual relationship with Jesus, and yet gaining access to HIM after her death is more important than what will happen to the people who have loved her all her life, and those she has laughed, cried, and struggled beside for her entire existence.

It makes me wonder if she is able to really form relationships here on earth, if she is always thinking of how much more fulfilling the one she has after she dies will be? I mean is it possible to truly love, when you care more for the possibility to a perfect love that lays behind death's door than you do about the ones you are having as a mortal on this tiny rock in space?

I am anxious to hear what you have to say, because in my nonreligious brain this feels like the very definition of insanity.

Nursery rhymes with a side of racism.

Isn't that just darling? A book to teach young children how to count, while also reinforcing racist stereotypes and the denigration of people with the wrong skin color.

Doesn't get more educational than that!

The book is of course not a stand alone piece of racist propaganda, there is also an old English song to go along with it. You can hear that here. (Quite a catchy tune don't you think?)

From what I have been able to discover this book is from around the turn of the 19th century. (In fact there was a little animated short of the same name made in 1912.) However the song seems to originate from the times directly after the Civil War, when there was a concerted effort to dehumanize the black man.

And you know this is not the ONLY time that the word "nigger" has shown up in book form by any means, in fact Agatha Christie's famous book "And Then There Were none" was originally titled "Ten Little Niggers" in reference to ten figurines that were used to represent each person who had escaped justice and was brought to an island together to be punished for their crimes. (Later the book was entitled "Ten Little Indians" and the figurines were changed to Native Americans. Because you know that is SO much less racist.)

And the word "nigger" also showed up numerous other times in nursery rhymes as well.

"Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, catch an tiger by his toe. If he hollers let him go. Eeeny, meeny, miney, moe," is a favorite of children all over the world, except of course tigers don't holler. However the original version featured someone who might.

I bring this up, simply as an indication of how far we have come as a country. Today we have a black man sitting in the White House, an idea that would have been considered nothing less than blasphemous back when this book and song were popular choices in nursery rooms around the country.

And it also gives an indication as to why racism came roaring back to life after Barack Obama won election. It was as if racism was part of people's DNA and once Obama rose above the approved station for a man of color, that racism could no longer be denied.

Suddenly seemingly reasonable people felt perfectly justified in referring to him with racial epithets, denigrating his abilities, and blaming him for everything that had ever gone wrong, or ever WOULD go wrong, in this country. He receives so many death threats that he could probably use them as wallpaper and cover every room in the White House if he saw fit to do so.

The Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama is contrary to everything that has been drilled into people's heads going back decades, and decades. It goes against even those lessons they were taught as tiny children at their mother's knee.

What has been done over generations CANNOT be undone overnight, or even in four years.

But slowly it IS being undone. As are the prejudices against women, against the LGBT community, and against those who do not practice a particular religious faith.

Time is on our side, progress is coming, and watching it happen is, to me, an incredibly glorious thing to behold. And once in awhile it does us good to reexamine the ugliness of the past in order to truly appreciate the beauty of our future.

The Telegraph: "The question is no longer whether Mitt Romney loses the election. The really interesting conundrum is: what will happen to the Republican party when he does?"

The image that essentially sum up how MOST Americans feel about Mitt Romney.

Courtesy of The Telegraph:

Make no mistake, Romney is being lined up as the fall guy for this fiasco. And that in turn will create a round of internal bloodletting not seen since St Valentine's Day, 1929. 

Incredible as it may seem to most outside observers, Mitt Romney is actually what currently passes for a moderate in today’s Republican Party. Remember, this is a man who had to overcome front-runners including Newt Gingrich, who wanted to build a permanent colony on the moon; Herman Cain, who ran a campaign ad depicting a farmer being eaten alive by his own chickens, and Michelle Bachman, who said Hurricane Irene, which killed 26 people, was God’s way of getting the politicians' attention. 

Romney was sold – in the teeth of opposition from a significant section of the Republican grass roots – as the pragmatic choice, the compromise they had to make with ideology to secure victory. And when he loses, those activists are going to go as vengefully crazy as Cain’s Rhode Island Reds. 

Anyone who doubts the reaction of the GOP stalwarts to Romney’s impending defeat should bear in mind this single, if chilling, fact. Most of them still think he’s going to win. They genuinely believe the polls are fixed. They seriously think the surge in support for Obama is nothing more than an "MSM" conspiracy. Some of them clearly even believe the good Lord himself will appear in the spin room at the University of Denver next Wednesday. 

And when none of these things turn out to be true, the reaction will be truly terrible to behold. It will be like what happens inside one of those doomsday cults the morning after they all wake up and realize the world hasn’t ended after all. First the shock, then the denial, then finally the anger and retribution.

Okay I am not convinced that this guy is completely accurate in his assessment, but  I also do not think he is far off the mark.

What I DO know for sure is that I am going to make sure to have plenty of popcorn on had for this debacle. Because it is going to be epic!

P.S. By the way, for the few who may not know, the Telegraph is a British newspaper, so this is the assessment from the so-called foreign media. Aside from the fact that due to Romney's disastrous visit during the Olympics they think he is a twit, they really don't have a dog in this fight.

Perhaps some of the funniest television you will EVER see.

This is from a recent episode of the British satirical comedy 10 O'Clock Live. (Just imagine the Daily Show if everybody sounded like John Oliver.)

It is absolutely hysterical, so I thought I would share it with all of you just for a change of pace.

Be warned, there is very little censorship, and so you may hear some very colorful language. Though in my opinion filthy language always sounds so much more acceptable with an English accent.

Enjoy.

American Exceptionalism? Really?

New British two pound coin

American dollar bill

Am I being too sensitive? Or does anybody else find themselves embarrassed by this?

P.S. By the way I want one of those Darwin coins.

James Murdoch expected to be called back before the House of Commons after evidence reveals he may have lied in earlier testimony. A Murdoch lying? Oh the humanity!

Courtesy of the Daily Mail:

Yesterday it was suggested that James Murdoch must have known as long ago as 2008 that phone hacking was widespread at the News of the World, MPs were told. 

The News International chief executive had informed the Commons Culture, Media and Sport select committee in July that as far as he knew, voicemail interception had been limited to one ‘rogue’ reporter. 

But devastating evidence yesterday from two of his most senior managers alleged that he was alerted three years ago to the existence of an e-mail indicating that journalists other than Clive Goodman, who was jailed in 2007, had been engaging in illegal hacking. 

Former News of the World editor Colin Myler and ex-legal manager Tom Crone told the committee the e-mail strongly implied that others at the paper were deeply involved. 

Mr Crone said it was ‘absolutely inconceivable’ that the full significance of the e-mail had not been explained to Mr Murdoch who is now expected to be recalled to give evidence to MPs. He said last night that he stands by his testimony. 

Less than 24 hours after the pair delivered their powerful testimony before MPs, police this morning arrest a 16th suspect in their investigation of phone hacking at the News of the World. The 35-year-old man was arrested at his north London home in a dawn raid and has not been named.

Yes I am still paying attention to this case, and I still am of the opinion that it might very well eventually have a damaging effect on Fox News, and by association the Republican party. Well at least that is my hope.

I believe that the investigation on this side of the pond is just now getting started, however the recent revelations of just how chummy Murdoch was with Tony Blair should make investigators salivate at the possibility of finding some very high placed politicians with some very difficult to explain connections to the media mogul.

Did you know that Tony Blair was the godfather of Murdoch's daughter?

Oh yes, this could get very juicy indeed!

The fallout from News Corp. hacking scandal. spreads to US, ad buyers becoming nervous.

Courtesy of AdWeek:

The scandal has buyers trying to reconcile the outrageousness of the charges surrounding Rupert Murdoch’s U.K. tabloid with News Corp.'s significant U.S. footprint, which includes Fox News as well as the straitlaced Wall Street Journal. Some said that while they haven’t suspended advertising in News Corp.’s U.S. properties, they're growing wary about doing business with the media giant.
“You always wonder when anybody has a scandal,” said GregClausen, chief media officer of Doner in Detroit. Clausen said that while he would still consider News Corp. properties “viable” options for clients, he added, “It puts you a little bit on edge.”

Robin Steinberg, director of publishing activation at MediaVest, which is one of the biggest print-buying shops, controlling some $1 billion in annual spending, said news of the scandal is prompting her to seek reassurances from News Corp. representatives in the U.S.

“We are addressing the situation through conversations and explanation,” she said. “The expectation is that this approach and behavior will not carry over here into the states. Certain guarantees might be necessary for clients to be comfortable allocating money to these properties.”
Others flat-out declined to comment, preferring to leave the talking to clients. “It’s a little too touchy,” said a rep for one major buying agency.

One who was prepared to give News Corp. the full benefit of the doubt was Steve Farella, founder of TargetCast tcm.

“It clearly makes an agency and any client think twice about supporting that newspaper,” Farella said of News of the World. “But in my heart, I don’t believe that any company owned by News Corp. has a policy to break the laws.”

“This doesn’t make me think twice about doing business [with News Corp.],” he continued. “We are not in News of the World, and I don’t believe that the errant practice... is being duplicated at Fox News here in America.”

Really? That is mighty naive.

My money, says that whatever Murdoch was able to get away with in England he did here in the good old United States as well.  Murdoch is an arrogant, competitive prick, and I have little doubt that much more will be coming out about this scandal, including how widespread it truly is, in the very near future.

If Fox News suffers a significant blow to their credibility here in the states, the Republicans will be left without a handy megaphone to spred their lies and misinformation. That could render them all but politically impotent.

Damn, I need more popcorn again!

Rupert Murdoch tabloid at center of phone hacking scandal in Britian to close down.

It looks like the News of the World, has hacked their last phone.

News International says it is shutting down the News of the World tabloid that is at the center of Britain's phone hacking scandal.

James Murdoch, who heads the newspaper's European operations, says the 168-year-old newspaper will publish its last edition Sunday. The scandal has cost the paper prestige and prompted dozens of companies to pull their ads.

The Rupert Murdoch-owned tabloid is accused of hacking into the cell phone messages of victims ranging from missing schoolgirls to grieving families, celebrities, royals and politicians in a quest for attention-grabbing headlines.

Police say they are examining 4,000 names of people who may have been targeted by the paper.

The Sunday-only newspaper has acknowledged that it hacked into the phones of politicians, celebrities and royal aides, but in recent days the allegations have expanded to take in the phones of missing children, the relatives of terrorist victims and families of soldiers killed in Afghanistan.

Well that is one down, is it too much to hope that Fox News will be next?

I know I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

This just might be one of the most important stories unfolding right now.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

There are a few of us in the "new media" who believe that Murdoch and his crew might not have limited their phone hacking to the other side of the pond. 

I would certainly not be surprised to learn that there are a few phones belonging to politicians, or media competitors, or sources over here that might have reason to be concerned as well.

Unscrupulous