Hey! Good Evening!

This evening's music features blues rock musician Jimi Hendrix. Enjoy!

“It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man.”

-- Thomas Paine

News and Opinion

An interesting insight:

Why America is the World’s Most Uniquely Cruel Society

Any theory of being American must explain one salient and striking fact: cruelty. America is the most cruel nation among its peers — even among most poor countries today. It is something like a new Rome. It has little, if any, functioning healthcare, education, transport, media, no safety nets, no stability, security. The middle class is collapsing, and life expectancy is falling. Young people die for a lack of insulin they cannot crowdfund. Elderly middle-class people live and die in their cars. Kids massacre each other in schools — when they’re not self-medicating the pain of it all away. The combination of these pathologies happens nowhere else — not a single place — in the world. Not even Pakistan, Costa Rica, or Rwanda. Hence, the world is aghast daily at the depths of American cruelty — yet somehow, they seem bottomless.

(Of course I don’t mean that all Americans are cruel. I just mean that in the same way we say countries have attitude, dispositions, that there’s such a thing as a French or German national attitude or disposition, so, too there is an American one. Nor do I mean America is “the most cruel society in the world”. Can we really ever judge that? But it is uniquely cruel — a kind of special example — in weird, needless, and singular ways.)

Let me throw that into relief. Scandinavians are the happiest, longest-lived, and most prosperous people in the world because they do not punish one another constantly — but lift one another up. But Americans do not believe this reality. ... America was a strange, improbable combination of things, singular in history. A Promised Land — but one for the despised. Waves upon waves of them washed up on its shores. First, the Puritans, mocked and loathed in England. Then peasants and farmers and outlaws from across Europe. Then Chinese, Japanese, Latinos, and today, Muslims. These emigrants all tended to share a common trait. They were at the very bottom, the lowest rung, of social and economic heirarchies in their own countries. All of them. ... Let me make that clearer. We did not see nobles and landed gentry emigrate to America.

So first the English and French settlers supposed that this New World was theirs (and began a kind of genocide against its natives, of course). But it wasn’t just the natives that they came to hate, for threatening their natural right to this Promised Land. It was the next waves of settlers, too. ... You see, the crucial fact is that this didn’t happen elsewhere in the world — waves of settlers, all desperately trying to establish themselves above the next, last, most recent, in a hierarchy, all the more so, because they were despised, at the bottom, to begin with. ... Hence, the establishment of cruelty as a way of life — how else but to establish one’s self above the next wave of migrants?

So, today, here we are. Punching down has become a national institution, a norm, and a way of life. School shootings? Can’t ban guns — let the kids have “active shooter drills”. We are punching all the way down to our little five years olds. Life expectancy falling? Can’t have healthcare — let them self-medicate with opioids. We are punching down to the poorest. Education cost a fortune? Too bad, take out debt. We are punching down to our young people.

Nation with Crumbling Bridges and Roads Excited to Build Giant Wall

As America’s bridges, roads, and other infrastructure dangerously deteriorate from decades of neglect, there is a mounting sense of urgency that it is time to build a giant wall. Across the U.S., whose rail system is a rickety antique plagued by deadly accidents, Americans are increasingly recognizing that building a wall with Mexico, and possibly another one with Canada, should be the country's top priority.

Harland Dorrinson, the executive director of a Washington-based think tank called the Center for Responsible Immigration, believes that most Americans favor the building of border walls over extravagant pet projects like structurally sound freeway overpasses.

While some think that America’s declining infrastructure is a national-security threat, Dorrinson strongly disagrees. "If immigrants somehow get over the wall, the condition of our bridges and roads will keep them from getting very far," he said.

Trump says U.S. is pulling out of Syria “like, very soon.” That’s news to the State Department and Pentagon.

President Donald Trump is telling people that the United States will soon pull its military out of Syria — even though the people Trump put in charge of dealing with the Syrian civil war don’t exactly agree.

“We’re knocking the hell out of ISIS. We’ll be coming out of Syria, like, very soon,” Trump told officials at an event in Ohio Tuesday. “Let the other people take care of it now. Very, very soon we’re coming out.”

That’s apparently news to the State Department, whose spokesperson told Axios that she didn’t know of any plans to end the U.S. military presence in Syria. And as recently as January, Rex Tillerson (who headed the State Department until Trump abruptly fired him over Twitter earlier this month) called for “continued involvement” in the war-torn country. ...

Mike Pompeo, who’s been tapped to replace Tillerson, has also stressed the importance of remaining in Syria as long as it takes to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — not ISIS. In July 2017, the hawkish Pompeo declared, “It is difficult to imagine a stable Syria that still has Assad in power. He is a puppet of the Iranians and therefore it seems an unlikely situation where Assad will be sitting on the throne and America's interests will be well served.”

In an even more confusing twist, just hours before Trump’s comments, a spokesperson for the Pentagon also suggested that the U.S. military intended to remain in Syria for a long, long time.

Noor Salman, Widow of Pulse Killer Omar Mateen, Is Found Not Guilty of All Charges

In an Orlando courtroom this morning, a 12-person jury, after three days of deliberation, found Noor Salman, the widow of Pulse attacker Omar Mateen, not guilty on all charges. Salman had been accused of providing material support of terrorism, based on the accusation that she aided her deceased husband in the 2016 Pulse attack, as well as obstruction of justice for allegedly lying to the FBI. She will now be a free woman.

As The Intercept has been reporting, the prosecution of Salman was bizarre and dubious from the start. Salman has no history of any political or religious radicalism, and was a victim of her husband’s violent abuse, not his partner or collaborator. Worse, Justice Department prosecutors got caught lying to the court, by telling the judge — when successfully demanding that Salman be held for the last year without bail — that she had “cased” the Pulse nightclub with her husband, an assertion the FBI quickly determined was false.

DOJ prosecutors also hid the fact that Omar’s father, Seddique Mateen, had been an FBI informant since 2005. It now seems clear that the FBI did not previously arrest the younger Mateen in 2013, after they investigated him, out of deference to his father, with whom they were working directly. Salman’s lawyers suggested that the reason for prosecuting Salman was to scapegoat her for the attack. ...

While Salman's acquittal should be a cause for celebration for anyone who cares about basic justice and civil liberties, justice will not be truly served in this case until punishment is doled out to the prosecutors who purposely hid key facts from the court in order to keep her imprisoned for a full year, along with meaningful reforms to prevent future FBI deceit and manipulation regarding interrogations. One of the reasons prosecutors feel so free to lie, and one of the reasons the U.S. imprisons more of its citizens than any other country in the world, is because an ethos of impunity has been vested in prosecutors, whereby they are protected from all punishment — even when they deliberately engage in egregious misconduct that causes people to be unjustly imprisoned.

In Venezuela, It's 'Democracy' if US-Backed Candidates Are Empowered, 'Tyranny' if They Are Not

The Venezuelan government recently announced its decision to hold presidential elections, which are currently scheduled for May. The Trump administration denounced the move, saying they "would not be free and fair." Last year, the administration announced an unprecedented escalation of sanctions against the country. This, too, was justified under humanitarian pretexts. The US says its actions are a response to the government's "serious abuses of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

US Sen. Marco Rubio has even advocated that "the military of Venezuela must remove [Venezuelan President Nicolás] Maduro" under the justification that "Maduro and his inner circle have destroyed democracy and replaced it with dictatorship." Within this context, the former CIA director, Mike Pompeo -- who has recently moved into the position of Secretary of State -- admitted in his capacity as head of the CIA that the agency would like to see Maduro overthrown, and suggested last summer that it is working with others in the region to do so. ...

Such actions and statements would not be possible without the humanitarian pretext. But the labelling of the Maduro government's actions as "dictatorial" also serves another purpose. Within Venezuela, the US has systematically branded any political action it deems unfavorable as an illegitimate and dictatorial move of the government, while labelling actions which help to empower the parties the US looks favorably on as synonymous with the will of the "Venezuelan people." In this way, the US can use its influence over public opinion to pressure Venezuela into taking actions that help to put the US-backed opposition in power.

Assange Internet Cut Off By Ecuador For Doing Journalism

U.S.-backed Honduran government wants to use Facebook to crack down on journalists

In August 2016, reporter Dina Meza was leaked a list of names given by the Honduran government to its elite police intelligence unit, SERCAA. She was on it. ...

Meza was being harassed because of her reporting on human rights and corruption in Honduras, one of the world’s most dangerous countries for journalists. Despite winning awards from Amnesty International and Oxfam for her work, Meza is blackballed from the country’s mainstream press — another consequence of her defiant reporting — so she’s relied on social media to get her work to Hondurans. That recipe proved powerful during the disputed elections in November. It also provided most of the coverage of the human rights crisis that followed, which saw 38 people killed in protests against widely suspected electoral fraud.

Now, activists warn that the Honduran government is trying to crush reporting like Meza’s and the social media platforms like Facebook that Hondurans rely on. The country’s lawmakers have introduced legislation that gives the government sweeping powers to censor social media, and muzzle dissenting digital news sites. Specifically, legislation being discussed in the country’s congress aims to create a “cybersecurity commission,” able to order users to delete tweets and Facebook posts, or face fines of up to $50,000.

The deputies proposing the law argue it's necessary to stem a tide of online abuse that has flooded Honduras in the wake of the November vote. But critics say hate speech is covered by existing laws, and the new bill is really about suppressing critical coverage of the government.

“Social media provided the main forum for opposition views before the election and a key mechanism for the protest movement afterward,” said Edy Tábora, director of the Honduran Committee for Free Expression (C-Libre). “Now the government wants to create an organ of censorship that will bring this space under its control.”

The U.S. Government Is Finally Scrambling to Regulate Facebook

Washington and Big Tech are scrambling to keep up after revelations that the voter profiling firm Cambridge Analytica harvested data from 50 million Facebook users. The scandal has accelerated regulatory and oversight efforts and left top Democrats reconsidering the party’s traditional closeness to Silicon Valley.

Perhaps the biggest change in Washington has been to the Senate timeline for confirming members of the Federal Trade Commission, the agency with jurisdiction over data privacy and the tech industry. The FTC has been essentially adrift, operating with only two out of five commissioners. Last week, it appeared that four nominees for the commission were stuck in limbo, awaiting a slow-moving process to vet and nominate the fifth. But on Monday night the Trump administration nominated Becca Kelly Slaughter, chief counsel to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

Schumer, whose daughter works as a product marketing manager at Facebook, recommended Slaughter in late January, and the nomination was reportedly held up over background checks. That changed rapidly after the Facebook scandal renewed attention on the FTC. “Rebecca Kelly Slaughter will make an excellent FTC commissioner and I’m proud to have recommended her to the White House,” Schumer said in a statement.

Instead of a confirmation hearing occurring weeks or months after the nomination, as is often the case, Slaughter’s may take place as soon as April 11, in the week the Senate returns from its Easter recess, according to two sources close to the process. The Senate Commerce Committee would not confirm the hearing date in response to a request from The Intercept. But the rumored speed around Slaughter’s nomination reflects a commitment to new leadership at the FTC, which currently has two lame-duck members on its five-member panel.

The FTC could impose sanctions on tech platforms like Facebook, enforce data privacy controls, challenge acquisition deals, and even break up companies if it finds anti-competitive conduct. A reinvigorated agency, in sum, represents a legitimate threat to Big Tech. And congressional attention to the issue creates new pressure on the FTC to act.

John Pilger: Blocking internet access for Julian Assange is a war on freedom of speech

Alleging 'Very Serious' Violations, Groups File Complaint Against John Bolton Super PAC Over Ties to Cambridge Analytica

With John Bolton set to officially become President Donald Trump's national security adviser in just over a week, two government watchdog groups filed a criminal complaint late Thursday demanding an investigation into whether Bolton's super PAC wittingly conspired with the scandal-ridden British data firm Cambridge Analytica to commit "very serious" violations of U.S. election laws.

The complaint (pdf)—which also calls for a Justice Department probe into Trump's 2016 presidential campaign and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon—was spearheaded by Democracy 21 and Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), and it argues that Bolton's PAC violated federal laws prohibiting foreign nationals from "directly or indirectly" participating in the decision-making processes of American political campaigns.

"What's worse than the fact that it apparently happened in this case is that the people involved apparently knew they were breaking the law and continued to do so anyway," Noah Bookbinder, executive director at CREW, said in a statement on Thursday.

News that Bolton's PAC was an "early beneficiary" of Cambridge Analytica's vast Facebook data-harvesting effort was first reported by the New York Times last week.

Based on the accounts of former Cambridge Analytica employees as well as a trove of company documents, the Times reported that between 2014 and 2016, Bolton's super PAC " spent nearly $1.2 million primarily for 'survey research'" and "behavioral microtargeting with psychographic messaging"—services that relied on the personal data of Facebook users. According to Cambridge whistleblower and former employee Christopher Wylie, the Bolton PAC's messaging was aimed at "making people more militaristic in their worldview."

Why Are So Many Unarmed Black People Being Killed by Police? Sacramento Activist Speaks Out

Police shot Stephon Clark in the back 7 times, independent autopsy reveals

Sacramento police shot 22-year-old Stephon Clark in the back seven times, according to an independent autopsy.

Clark’s family hired its own medical examiner to perform a second autopsy after expressing skepticism over the conclusions drawn by last week’s formal county review, which wasn’t released to the public. The results of the independent autopsy, announced in a press conference Thursday, revealed that Clark was shot 8 times in total and that he didn't advance toward the officers, as the department had said. ...

“The proposition that he [Clark] was assailing the officers is inconsistent with the prevailing forensic evidence as documented in the autopsy,” said Bennet Omalu, a renowned pathologist who has done over 8,000 autopsies and has five board certifications. Omalu added that any one of the seven bullets that struck Clark in the back could have killed him. The eighth bullet entered the front of Clark’s thigh either after he was on the ground or as he was falling, according to Omalu. “Given the human anatomy, it was less likely that he sustained such a wound when he was standing erect,” he said. “He received gunshot 8 when he had fallen.”

Omalu said that when the first bullet struck Clark, he was facing the house with the left side of his back toward the two officers. The impact of the first gunshot would have caused him to turn so that his back was fully toward the officers. What’s more, Omalu said that Clark didn’t die instantaneously. He probably died anywhere between three and 10 minutes after being shot by the first bullet. That would mean that any delay to call an ambulance would have been crucial in whether Clark lived or died.

“The narrative put forward was that [the officers] had to open fire because [Clark] was charging at them,” the family’s lawyer Benjamin Crump said. “Well obviously, based on Dr. Omalu’s findings, it suggests all the bullets were from behind.”

Michigan State University Sent Nine “Undercover” Cops to Richard Spencer Protest — but It Says That’s Not Surveillance

On March 5, as many as 500 antifascists converged on the campus of Michigan State University in East Lansing to protest a speech by white supremacist golden boy Richard Spencer. The protesters — including MSU students, campus workers, antifa organizers, and people from surrounding towns — outnumbered those who had come to hear Spencer speak by many orders of magnitude.

White nationalists were also vastly outnumbered by cops. According to a police document obtained by The Intercept, there were more than 200 cops on hand for the event, from eight different jurisdictions. In addition, there were nine “undercover” officers dispersed throughout the crowd, including two from the MSU Police Department.

The use of undercover police at large protests — especially those involving anarchists — is commonplace. Police in unconvincing antifa drag have become a regular feature of recent antifascist protests around the country. An April 2016 analysis by the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI described the rising threat of “anarchist extremists” and warned that they would become more lethal if “fascist, nationalist, racist, or anti-immigrant parties obtain greater prominence or local political power in the United States.” MSU’s response to the Spencer event is yet another indication of law enforcement’s preoccupation with antifascist dissent. ...

MSU officials confirmed that there were officers on-site working “undercover,” but denied that their actions amounted to “surveillance.” MSU has strict regulations regarding undercover surveillance of student groups that were implemented after a high-profile infiltration of a student group was exposed 17 years ago.

Teacher walkouts over pay and pensions have spread to Kentucky

More than 20 counties in Kentucky announced schools will be closed Friday, following a massive wave of teachers refusing to come in to work after the state passed a new bill limiting pension and benefits late on Thursday. The new legislation limits the number of sick days teachers can put toward their retirement, caps an annual cost of living adjustment at 1.5 percent, and changes the structure of their pensions that would limit the amount they can receive from investment gains.

In Jefferson County, one of the 20 counties where schools closed, nearly 1300 teachers had filed absences for Friday by 5 a.m., with several hundred more expected. Of those schools still open, 123 would have students in empty classrooms with more than 10 teachers calling out. ...

Kentucky teachers have been worried about their pension for a while now, but in what the Kentucky Education Association called a “classic legislative bait and switch,” legislators tried to embed the pension and other changes in another 300-page Bill 151, which had, until then, concerned sewage services changes.

A Kansas bill could make schools liable for shootings if they don't arm teachers

As the debate over arming teachers in schools reverberates across the country, Kansas is doubling down on the idea. A new bill would not only authorize the arming of Kansas school staff, it would hold schools responsible if a shooting were to occur and the teachers and staff present were not allowed to be armed. ...

Kansas teachers are technically already allowed by state law to carry guns on public school campuses as long as they have a permit and meet any school-specific requirements. But according to the Kansas City Star the 2013 legislation caused problems with insurance providers for some of the state's school districts, who refused to extend coverage because of the liability of armed staff.

As a result, some districts put their own policies in place, overriding the law and disallowing the concealed carry of weapons on school property. The bill currently before the House committee also addresses this by forbidding insurance companies from refusing coverage just because a school district allows teachers and staff to be armed.

Centrist Group Backed Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBT Rep. Lipinski Because His Opponent Supported Bernie Sanders, Emails Reveal

Earlier this year, Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., was facing a surprisingly robust primary challenge from Marie Newman, a progressive Democrat backed by some of the many constituencies that Lipinski has clashed with over the years. Lipinski represents a solidly Democratic seat, but has become one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, with his opposition to legal abortion and hostility toward marriage equality and immigration rights.

Eventually, Lipinski narrowly defeated Newman in the March 20 primary — thanks in part to support from the centrist political alliance No Labels. Lipinski is a member of the group’s House Problem Solvers Caucus, an informal collection of representative who work to, well, solve problems. ...

By spending so heavily to back the anti-LGBT Lipinski, No Labels crossed the line with some Democrats who were otherwise inclined to support the group, according to emails between the group’s founder and CEO Nancy Jacobson and two separate members of the group’s email distribution list. The list members wrote in their objections to Jacobson, who explained her rationale in exchanges that were subsequently obtained by The Intercept. ...

Jacobson replied with her reasoning for the group’s intervention, explaining that part of the opposition to Newman was related to her endorsement by Bernie Sanders, the independent senator from Vermont. “I see a whole new crop of Democratic challengers—like Marie Newman—who see Bernie—WHO IS NOT EVEN A DEMOCRAT—as a model worthy of emulation,” Jacobson wrote, all-caps in the original, denigrating Sanders for not labeling himself a Democrat. “But I don’t think we need more people in Congress on either side who rile up their bases and then actually achieve nothing.” ...

Jacobson said she worried that a Lipinski loss could set off a domino effect that could lead to other incumbents being knocked out as well. “If Dan Lipinski loses, I am certain it will embolden the far left to try to knock out every last moderate and independent thinking Democrat left in Congress,” she wrote. “They are in effect, trying to do what the Tea Party has done to the Republicans over several elections. I think this would be a disaster.”

A TigerSwan Employee Quietly Registered a New Business in Louisiana After the State Denied the Security Firm a License to Operate

Tigerswan, the private security company notorious for its work surveilling pipeline opponents at Standing Rock on behalf of Energy Transfer Partners, hit a roadblock last July in its effort to provide intelligence and security services in Louisiana. The Louisiana State Board of Private Security Examiners determined that TigerSwan was unfit to obtain a license to work in the state based on a lawsuit it is facing for unlicensed security operations in North Dakota.

But TigerSwan did not give up on its ambitions to work on another controversial Energy Transfer Partners project, Louisiana’s Bayou Bridge pipeline. ... Not only is TigerSwan appealing the Louisiana denial, but a deposition given to the security board suggests the firm — operated by military special operations veterans of the war on terror — may have set up a front company in order to get around the licensing mess. ...

The same month that the board denied TigerSwan’s license application, a person named Lisa Smith rented office space in Lafayette, Louisiana. She registered her new company, LTSA, with the secretary of state’s office and submitted an application for a license with the private security board. During the board’s background check process, its investigator uncovered a detail mysteriously missing from Smith’s resume: She worked for TigerSwan. ... Seeking to clarify Smith’s connections to TigerSwan, the board deposed her in September. In the deposition, which the Center for Constitutional Rights obtained via a public information request, security board attorney Adrienne Aucoin asked Smith, “What is your present employment?”

“I work for TigerSwan,” Smith replied.

The board denied Smith’s license application, stating that she had “willfully, knowingly, and in the board’s estimation intentionally engaged in material omission of fact” with respect to her employment history. The board’s executive director, Fabian Blache, told The Intercept, “It appeared that Lisa Smith’s failure to include the information about TigerSwan on her application was a deliberate attempt to keep us from drawing a nexus between the two, and that the application that was being sought at that time could have been, if issued, used to circumvent the denial of the TigerSwan license.” Smith did not respond to a request for comment.

Big Oil and Climate Science on Trial

In 'Victory for the People,' Judge Tosses Out Exxon's Attempt to Keep Climate Crisis Knowledge Hidden

A federal judge brought the public one step closer on Thursday to discovering how much Exxon Mobil knew about its fossil fuel development's effects on the climate, as she threw out the company's lawsuit seeking to end a probe into its alleged cover-up.

The attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts are investigating whether the oil and gas giant lied to investors and the public about evidence of climate crisis in past decades. Exxon sued the two states after they subpoenaed documents showing its understanding of climate change and its communications with shareholders about the issue.

U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni ruled against Exxon's argument that the two states are pursuing a "politically-motivated" attack on the company, and that its free speech rights were violated by the investigation.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman applauded Caproni's decision, calling Exxon's case a "frivolous, nonsensical lawsuit that wrongfully attempted to thwart a serious state law enforcement investigation."

I missed this one earlier this month:

Oil Was Central in Decision to Shrink Bears Ears Monument, Emails Show

Even before President Trump officially opened his high-profile review last spring of federal lands protected as national monuments, the Department of Interior was focused on the potential for oil and gas exploration at a protected Utah site, internal agency documents show.

The debate started as early as March 2017, when an aide to Senator Orrin Hatch, Republican of Utah, asked a senior Interior Department official to consider shrinking Bears Ears National Monument in the southeastern corner of the state. Under a longstanding program in Utah, oil and natural gas deposits within the boundaries of the monument could have been used to raise revenue for public schools had the land not been under federal protection.

“Please see attached for a shapefile and pdf of a map depicting a boundary change for the southeast portion of the Bears Ears monument,” said the March 15 email from Senator Hatch’s office. Adopting this map would “resolve all known mineral conflicts,” the email said, referring to oil and gas sites on the land that the state’s public schools wanted to lease out to bolster funds. The map that Mr. Hatch’s office provided, which was transmitted about a month before Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke publicly initiated his review of national monuments, was incorporated almost exactly into the much larger reductions President Trump announced in December, shrinking Bears Ears by 85 percent. ...

The internal Interior Department emails and memos also show the central role that concerns over gaining access to coal reserves played in the decision by the Trump administration to shrink the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument by about 47 percent, to just over 1 million acres. Mr. Zinke’s staff developed a series of estimates on the value of coal that could potentially be mined from a section of Grand Staircase called the Kaiparowits plateau. As a result of Mr. Trump’s action, major parts of the area are no longer a part of the national monument.

“The Kaiparowits plateau, located within the monument, contains one of the largest coal deposits in the United States,” an Interior Department memo, issued in the spring of 2017, said. About 11.36 billion tons are “technologically recoverable,” it projected. From the start of the Interior Department review process, agency officials directed staff to figure out how much coal, oil and natural gas — as well as grass for cattle grazing and timber — had been put essentially off limits, or made harder to access, by the decision to designate the areas as national monuments.

Also of Interest

Here are some articles of interest, some which defied fair-use abstraction.

Deconstructed Podcast: Will John Bolton Get Us All Killed?

Despite Israel’s threats of violence, Gaza protesters have peaceful dream

Palestinians say over a dozen killed in Gaza border protest

Trump is gutting the National Endowment for Democracy, and that’s a good thing

This Facebook comment about Jeremy Corbyn is going viral

A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

The Cloud Act Is a Dangerous Piece of Legislation

Vatican scrambles after pope appears to deny existence of hell

A Little Night Music

Jimi Hendrix - Hey Joe

Jimi Hendrix - Satisfaction

Jimi Hendrix - The Wind Cries Mary

Jimi Hendrix - Fire

Jimi Hendrix - Red House

Jimi Hendrix - Sunshine Of Your Love

Jimi Hendrix - Little Wing

Jimi Hendrix - Catfish Blues

Jimi Hendrix (Jimmy James - The Blue Flames) - I'm a man