[identity profile] abomvubuso.livejournal.com
Yes, there was an explosion targeting the team bus of German club Borussia Dortmund the other day, just before their game with AC Monaco in Dortmund for the Champions League quarter-final. One player (Spaniard Marc Bartra) sustained medium injuries.

There were various versions for the incident, one was an Islamist terrorist act (similarly, some matches were reportedly targeted at the Euro'16 in France); the other is that a left-wing faction of the Dortmund fans did this in revenge for the club's "soft" stance on racism and expressions of neo-Nazism by some Dortmund fans.

But whatever the case, the fans of both rivals in this Champions League encounter have amazed everybody with the absolutely outstanding way they reacted. It all started at the stands, where the stadium authorities announced that the game was going to be postponed for the following day due to the attack on the bus. The visiting French fans started chanting "Dortmund! Dortmund!" in support of their hosts.

Then it all got even better. Because the game was postponed for the next day, thousands of French fans would remain stranded in Germany without a place to stay. And the Dortmund fans responded in style. They initiated a #bedsforawayfans hashtag and opened their homes to the visiting fans. So, hundreds of strangers from another country who were supposed to be cheering a team that was going to try to defeat the local team, ended up being sheltered by the fans of their local rival.

Lots of friendships were created in the process. Tons of selfies were published on the social networks, showing fans of both sides having fun together.

The fact that Monaco beat Dortmund 3-2 on the next day, doesn't matter even one bit at this point. What matters is that the French and German people showed what football is really about: bringing people together. Terrorism cannot win.
[identity profile] debunkgpolitics.livejournal.com
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] debunkgpolitics at Former NSA Advisor and U.N. Ambassador Rice on Charges of Spying on the Trump Campaign
The April 4, 2017 interview with Ms. Rice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpjN4iEz9Ooraised additional questions that would prove or disprove claims that she assisted in spying on the Trump Campaign.
In the beginning, she gave a fictional example of when unmaking a name would be necessary. Plus, Ms. Rice said that sometimes unmasking a name is sometimes okay (~5:35). Both points are sensible, as identifying the American can help officials better assess whether there is a serious threat. She later said that the White House would/could not have directed intelligence agencies to spy on political opponents (~11:14).
Another revealing point Ms. Rice made is that she, along with any other NSA Advisor, receives information based on what the intelligence community (IC) considers important (~11:58). Thus, the NSA Advisor is subject to the discretion of other intelligence officials, who have their own standard process of whether to specifically identify an American (~6:23).
Ms. Rice also said that possible Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential election was revealed about six months ago.
Ms. Rice is correct in that interference in any U.S. Presidential election is a grave concern for the IC. Thus, the IC had every reason to unmask the name of an American conversing with Russian to properly investigate the matter. Clearly, the IC found identifying Gen. Mike Flynn necessary.
The pertinent questions are:
1. Did she request reports concerning possible Russian interference in the election?
2. Why would anyone reveal Gen. Flynn to the public rather than keep is identity internal?
3. How long did the IC monitor Gen. Flynn? Interfering with an election and investigating a threat to national security takes a while.
4. How much of the monitoring did Ms. Rice follow? Surely, she would have been regularly provided reports of an attempt to interfere with a national election.
[identity profile] debunkgpolitics.livejournal.com
Originally posted by [livejournal.com profile] debunkgpolitics at Another Problem with U.S. Immigration Policy
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Plyler v. Doe that local school districts could not deny enrollment to children in the United States illegally. The rationale was that not educating illegal immigrant children would deny them a better future. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/457/202 The problems with decision are: more crimes like that at Rockville High School can happen again; more people have an incentive to illegally cross U.S. borders and bring their children; taxpayer dollars are wasted on children who have no business in the schools; plus, there are fewer resources for children who have a business to be in those schools. To an extent, the school districts are at fault by not reporting the illegal aliens to federal authorities. As a result, they are turning their schools into “sanctuaries.” The districts can allow for enrollment. They must comply with the law or face heavy penalties, including a lawsuit that would cost billions in settlements. They must comply with the law or face heavy penalties, including a lawsuit that would cost billions in settlements. But, meanwhile, they can still report the children to federal authorities, who will, hopefully, deport them and their families. Thus, the districts would be complying with Plyler and upholding U.S. immigration law. A legitimate fear of deportation would discourage illegal immigration.
There are two other solutions to this problem. One, the U.S. Supreme Court can reverse itself. Two, Congress can overturn Plyler with an amendment. In fact, if the Republicans in both houses are sincere about helping Pres. Trump reduce illegal immigration, they will consider an amendment to overturn Plyler.