Twitter Bans Political Ads For 2020 Election & Fracking Blocked In California


Twitter announced recently that their ban
on political advertising is going to extend to legislation and social causes, a move that
could hurt candidates in groups who aren’t funded by big money donors. Farron, you said, you’ve said this a couple
of times. Anytime you see social media saying we’re
gonna, we’re, we’re really gonna make it difficult for you to use social media to advertise your
idea, your legislators, legislative concept, your candidacy. Who suffers? The, well the people who are grassroots mostly. And one of the things that’s really so awful
about this new decision is that you can’t even run an ad on Twitter anymore because
they ended it November 22nd. You couldn’t run an ad saying, you know, vote
yes or vote no on proposition one. You couldn’t explain the benefits, you know,
proposition one just to generic. But you can’t advocate or any outcome in any
kind of race or legislative battle. And that is absolutely devastating to the
people who use this as the tool to talk to their constituents. Well, here’s what it says, it says that it’ll
define political content. Now follow this. It’s going to define political content as
anything that references a candidate, a political party, a pointed government official or referendum
or ballot measure or legislation or regulation. What in the hell, I mean, that’s what journalism
does. We talk about these things. The problem is that we, that this is being
run, these decisions are being run in an in an environment where politically correctness
is killing us. I mean, we’ve got, we’re like, we’re, it’s
almost like are we too stupid to be able to read something or see something and make a
decision ourselves? They want to think for us and it’s not just
Twitter. We’re seeing it across the board right now. It’s like, it’s like this millennial snowflake
concept that is killing us. It’s all based on political correctness and
we’ve got to get away from it. The first amendment matters. We ought to be able to talk about a ballot
issue. We ought to be able to talk about legislative
issues that concern us on things like the environment, dangerous products, corruption
in government. This is saying we can’t do that. Well, the problem is they saw Facebook. Facebook took a lot of heat and rightfully
so, but then Facebook said, listen, our decision is we’re not going to fact check anything. You want to run an ad, you run an ad. If somebody reports it as being bad, we’ll
look into it. But we say whatever, run, whatever, and Twitter
says, wow, that’s, that’s one extreme. We’ll go to the other extreme and say nothing
at all. You can’t do anything. But Twitter is a far greater tool to reach
a huge amount of people in the shortest amount of time. And that is what these grassroots candidates,
these, you know, consumer organizations, they rely on Twitter far more than they do on Facebook. Okay. Let’s, let’s put it in a real, healthcare,
okay. Universal healthcare. What do we have with universal healthcare? You have a concept, a cause. Correct? And you have a bill legislative bill, and
according to the rules, you can’t talk about that on Twitter. Now, that’s how ridiculous it’s become. Now the other part of it is we’re going to
have, who is it that’s going to make these decisions? I mean, you’re going to have people that understand
that all of these issues so well that they can define, well, this is actually, this is
actual political discussion. We can’t permit this. Or is this discussion that ties into a bill
that’s pending that we ought to be able to talk about? You see, the problem is anytime you go down
this avenue, you’re saying to the American public, you are so frigging stupid that we
can’t trust you to be able to read something and figure it out yourself. That’s what this is. This is, this is, this is let’s take care
of stupid people because we’re smarter than they are. And what’s going to happen is that eventually
something’s going to squeak through and if it’s a right-leaning thing, the left is going
to be furious and claim a bias. If it’s a left-leaning thing, the right’s
going to claim a bias because eventually, because of the people they’re going to have
doing this, something’s going to sneak through and this is going to come back and bite Twitter
because regardless of which side it is, they’re going to be accused of having a huge bias
and it’s going to throw it all out the window. I, I hope it comes back and bites them. Farron, thanks for joining me. Okay. Thank you. And finally tonight, some good news. California has issued a moratorium on hydraulic
fracking processes and new fracking leases in the state. This is just a temporary halt to these procedures,
but it could potentially lead to a permanent ban on the state, throughout the state. This move by the state came after activists
and researchers put tremendous pressure on lawmakers to finally consider the risks involved,
specifically the increased risk of earthquakes that’s been associated with fracking. This risk is so great that several European
countries have already banned fracking all together. You can’t do it, period. They also highlighted the dangers of chemicals
used during the fracking process, which include countless carcinogens and toxic heavy metals
capable of poisoning drinking waters and entire aquifers. Unfortunately, the public is still in the
dark about all the chemicals used thanks to a law that, oh by the way, Dick Cheney helped
pass years ago. That’s a real comfort. This story shows how effective activism can
be to influence major positive change in this country and when the voices of the public
are loud enough, even the fossil fuel industry better pay attention. That’s all for tonight. Find us on Twitter and at Facebook on facebook.com/rtamericaslawyer. You can watch all RT America programs and
Direct TV, Channel 321 and also stream them on YouTube. I’m Mike Papantonio and this is America’s
Lawyer, where every week we’re going to tell you the stories that corporate media is ordered
not to tell because their advertisers won’t allow them to do that. Have a great night.

Psychiatrists Warns Congress About Dangers Of Trump’s Declining Mental State


A group of several hundred psychiatrists and
other mental health professionals have sent a letter to Congress urging them to include
Donald Trump’s cognitive decline in their impeachment inquiry. The group is led by three people, one of them,
Dr. Bandy Lee, who we have spoken about at length here at Ring of Fire. The other, George Washington University professor,
Dr. John Zinner and former CIA profiler, Dr. Jerrold Post. Now, these three psychiatrists and mental
health professionals are warning Congress in their letter that Donald Trump’s mental
state is declining and it is declining rapidly. But that’s obvious to anyone with even the
slightest little bit of psychology, but what they’re warning about is not just that it’s
that there are going to be dire consequences if this is not addressed. Now, all three of those people have volunteered
to testify in the impeachment inquiry, which is brilliant. Let’s bring them in. Let’s hear it from these mental health professionals
under oath, the people who, as they say in the letter, are trained to recognize these
types of things. Let’s hear from them. Let’s put them on national TV. Let’s put them out there in these articles,
telling the public what’s actually happening. That’s what needs to happen. Everyone needs to hear from these people because
the vast majority of people in this country, probably 99% or more, aren’t going to read
the letter to Congress. They’re not going to watch this video. They’re not gonna watch these other interviews
or read these other articles where these professionals have been interviewed. What they will do, a good portion of them,
is watch those impeachment hearings. And so that’s why this needs to happen. I’m going to read a couple of excerpts here
from this letter because this is absolutely remarkable, and this is Dr. Bandy Lee. Failing to monitor or to understand the psychological
aspects of impeachment on Mr. Trump or discounting them could lead to catastrophic outcomes. We implore Congress to take these dangerous
signs seriously and to constrain his destructive impulses. We and many others are available to give important
relevant recommendations as well as to educate the public so that we can maximize our collective
safety. And they’re right, this is a public safety
issue. This man has the nuclear codes. This man is in charge of the military. This man is in charge of the FBI and the CIA. He has all of these tools at his disposal
to do whatever the hell he wants anywhere the planet. That’s a danger. His tariffs that he put in place because he
got mad at China are costing American citizens $40 billion a year. His policies of bending over backwards for
corporations are making us breathe dirtier air and drink dirtier water and sending about
1300 people per year to an early grave. Those are dire consequences that we’re already
living with. Imagine what happens as this man continues,
as these psychiatrists point out, to lose his grip on reality. He is detached from reality is what they say. They continue. The one thing we are trained to do is to distinguish
between what is healthy and what is abnormal, and when the pattern of abnormality fits,
then we recognize that it is pathology and not part of the wide variation of which healthy
human beings are capable. What we recognize is a pattern of disease,
and that may look like another political ideology or another political style to the everyday
person who is unfamiliar with pathology, but to us it is a very recognizable pattern. His detachment from reality, his pathology
is actually gaining ground more quickly than the ability of rational actors to bring up
the facts. Meaning he’s getting too crazy that even we
can’t fact check him or continue to diagnose him because it’s getting so bad. For years now, we have been saying, how about
we listen to these people, but I’m going to narrow that focus down real quick. Congress, listen to these professionals. They want to come and talk to you. They want to add his mental health to the
impeachment inquiry. Let them do it because this is a story the
public needs to hear and they won’t hear it if you don’t invite these people to come testify.

Why The U.S. Government Pays Lockheed Martin Billions


Lockheed Martin is the top grossing defense
firm in the world, and the U.S. government supports that business to
the tune of over $37.7 billion. It surpasses its closest
competitors, Boeing and Raytheon, by nearly $20 billion in arms sales. These funds are granted by Congress
to provide equipment that enables the U.S. military to protect the
country at home and abroad. So why is Lockheed the
defense darling of the U.S. government? And how did it
beat out its competitors? One of the top priorities of
all administrations is the protection and safety of the American people. To ensure that, politicians work
with defense contractors to provide equipment to the military. This partnership provides a unique
opportunity for private corporations to execute the will of the government
and requires a delicate balance. President Eisenhower, in his farewell
address, coined the term military-industrial complex. And what he was talking about
was the close connection and collaboration between arms contractors
and uniformed military. In the councils of government, we
must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought
or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The political incentives of the U.S. Congress and the Department of Defense tended
to work together in a way that created enormous incentives
to increase military spending. For example, when there’s a major
weapons program like, say, the F-35, which is the current Air Force
combat aircraft, is being purchased, members of Congress might have questions
about this plane like is it performing well? Are we getting a good
deal for our money and so forth. They are reluctant to vote against it
because it means going up against potential jobs in their states. The Congress people in whose district
those companies are located and the Defense Department that then gets to
use the equipment that is purchased in this way. And Eisenhower believed
that that complex of the military, the industry and the government, the
Congress in particular, created a tendency for the United States
to overspend on national security. For most of the defense industry, their
biggest source of business is the Department of Defense. So they kind of
live and die with the defense budget as it increases, the revenue
increases, as it decreases, the revenue decreases. Waging an actual war is
a very expensive project. The 9/11 attacks in 2001 were a shock
to the American psyche, led to a substantial ramping up of U.S. military spending in the years after
2001, partly because of the immediate issue of terrorism and partly because
of the closely related but second order problems of the wars that
the counterterrorist program led to in Afghanistan and Iraq. The price tag gets huge. And so American defense spending has
grown radically since 2001 and remains very high. And Lockheed Martin is the
top-contracted company by the U.S. government. In 2018 alone,
the company sold $37.7 billion worth of contracts
to the U.S. government, making up 70%
of their net sales. The other 28% came from foreign military
sales and 2% came from commercial and other customers. Lockheed’s total revenue in 2018
was about $53 billion. By contrast, Lockheed’s next biggest
competitor, Boeing, was awarded about $23 billion from government
contracts the same year. So even though Boeing is a much
larger company with $101 billion in total revenue in 2018, only a small portion
of its business relies on defense contracts. Boeing might be a prominent example
where they do get a lot of revenue from the commercial business falling,
in fact, it’s about two thirds of its revenue from commercial
aviation, about a third from its defense business. Boeing mostly makes
planes for commercial airlines, but it also has a robust business
making military aircraft and other weapons. The next largest
competitor is Raytheon. Raytheon is a prominent defense firm
that offers services in everything from cybersecurity to
missile defense. 68% of Raytheon’s net sales
came from the U.S. government in 2018, which
means about $18.4 billion. They list
their principal U.S. government customer as the U.S. Department of Defense, as
does Lockheed Martin. However, before Lockheed Martin got
this very crucial customer, it struggled to define its identity. Glenn L. Martin opened his aviation
company on August 16th, 1912. The company went on to become one
of the earliest suppliers of the U.S. military, making aircraft for both
the army and the navy. They went on from success to success
through the twenties and the thirties pioneering all sorts of new
aircrafts, but particularly military airplanes. In 1961, the
second Glenn L. Martin Company merged with
the American Marietta Corporation. It was renamed the
Martin Marietta Corporation. The same year, Glenn Martin
launched his aviation business, the Lockheed brothers launched their
aviation business, the Alco Hydro Aeroplane Company, which was later
named Lockheed Aircraft Company. Lockheed, L-o-u-g-h-e-a-d, is
pronounced like Lockheed. People had a hard time pronouncing it
that led to the brothers legally changing the spelling of
their surname to Lockheed. Malcolm went on to start a
successful car hydraulic brake company, and Alan resigned after the company
was bought by Detroit Aircraft Corporation. But the company didn’t last
long and fell into receivership under the Title Insurance and Trust
Company of Los Angeles, officially killing Lockheed Aircraft Corp., which was a subsidiary. Its assets were sold off to Robert
Gross and other investors who went on to form a new Lockheed
Aircraft Corporation of Delaware. Lockheed Aircraft Corporation changed its
name in 1977 to Lockheed Corporation to demonstrate they offer
other services besides aviation. Those two companies, the Martin
Marietta Corporation and Lockheed Corporation, were two prominent competitors
in the defense marketplace. However, that marketplace has never
been completely independent of the government’s actions, just as President
Eisenhower had warned when he spoke of the
military-industrial complex. Military procurement had declined around 52%
from 1985 to 1997 in current dollar terms. Before 2001,
many people believed that national security had become a lot easier with
the end of the Cold War and that the United States could take what
was referred to at the time, a peace dividend. The much larger defensive
efforts that the United States had made during the Cold War when
we had to fight Soviet Union weren’t necessary anymore when the Soviet Union
collapsed and the Cold War ended. So defense budgets tended to decline. Leadership at the Department of Defense
inferred that the defense industry would have to shrink around 40% in
order to save the industry from collapsing amid declining demand
from the department. Officials encouraged companies to consolidate in
an effort to save each other. At the end of the Cold
War, there were concerns about whether the Pentagon budget, which was going to come down
about 10 to 25 percent or so was projected in real terms. Could that smaller budget sustain
the same number of contractors? And William Perry, the secretary of
defense, in the administration felt the answer was no. In fact, in
1993, the government asked specifically for less competition among
defense contractors. Look to your left.
Look to your right. One of your companies is not going to
be here in a couple of years. And then you also had
the infamous Last Supper. We think there are too many companies
in this business and we want to merge and combine with one another at
reduced costs to us, overhead costs at the corporate level. Norm Augustine
kind of engineered the whole series of mergers. Infamously or famously, Norm Augustine
who at the time was the head of Martin Marietta was at the
table with a bunch of other industry haters. And he was one of
the most aggressive executives taking that guidance and running with it. And he became CEO of the
combined Lockheed Martin and also consolidated and purchased lot of other
companies. Lockheed Martin absorbed large companies like Ford Aerospace
and Loral Corporation. Basically the big winner and that
consolidation after the Last Supper was Lockheed Martin. It was after that
that Lockheed aircraft and Martin Mary had emerged. In 1958, Lockheed Martin
proposed to Northrop Grumman and the government actually told them
not to do that. They cancelled that transaction. They said they wouldn’t approve it
and the idea was dropped. So that was that’s kind of, if
you will, the sort of the generally accepted end of the the
Last Supper consolidation era. By 2000, the industry had consolidated
into the marketplace we know today with Lockheed on top. So the way
the industry is structured now, the barriers to enter are huge. Unless they
brought up some of the existing companies, you’re only going to have
a couple of competitors for most things you might want to
do. Lockheed Martin now stretches into four business segments:
Aeronautics, Missiles and Fire Control, Rotary and Mission
Systems and space. It’s a company that has combined with
other companies over time to gain its current market position as the
largest company in the world. In 2019, Raytheon and United Technologies
announced intention to merge to have a better edge
on the defense industry. To protect their profits, companies like
Lockheed Martin also sell their aircraft to American allies when
cleared by the State Department. When the defense budget in the U.S. started to fall, a lot of companies
really amped up their work to sell products overseas. So depending on the company, that’s probably
now like 25 to 30 percent of their revenue may come
from international sales. That’s one way the government
controls the defense marketplace. Another way is through direct
negotiations with industry CEOs. In the 2017 fiscal year, the
then president, Barack Obama, proposed a budget of $582.7 billion for the
Department of Defense. The following year in 2018, President
Trump proposed a budget of $639.1 billion. For the fiscal year 2019,Trump
proposed a budget of $716 billion for national security, with $686
billion for the Department of Defense. And looking to the future,
Trump proposed a budget of $750 billion with $718.3 billion going to the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year 2020. The company was well positioned in the
Obama years as well because, you know, he actually spent significant money
in this decade, which includes most of the Obama two terms. We’ve spent a trillion more on the
Pentagon than in the prior decade, which was at the peak of
the Iraq and Afghan wars. President Barack Obama appointed Lockheed
CEO Marillyn Hewson to the president’s export council in
September of 2013. Marillyn Hewson from Lockheed Martin. Obviously, one of our greatest innovators
and one of those innovations is the F-35 fighter jet. It is the most advanced
fighter in the world. It’s stealth. You cannot see it. Is that correct? That’s correct. Better be correct. Right? A single F-35
can cost over $80 million and the government hasn’t always been happy with
the F-35’s performance and price. Then President-elect Donald Trump thought
the F-35’s program delays and high costs were bad for business. This one from the president-elect based
on the tremendous cost and cost overruns of the Lockheed Martin F-35, I’ve
asked Boeing to price out a comparable F-18 Super Hornet. This caused Lockheed Martin shares to
fall around 2% and sent Boeing shares up 0.5%. In January 2017, Trump commented on
the tension of his negotiation with Lockheed Martin. Look at
what’s happening with Lockheed. Number one, we’re cutting the price of
their planes by a lot, but they’re also expanding. And that’s going
to be a good thing. Ultimately, they’re going to
be better off. Hewson is actually in this very
interesting sweet spot where the defense budgets never been bigger
under any presidency. So that gives her company a lot of
leeway to snatch up a lot of those contracts. I don’t see any realistic
chance that there’s another company that’s going to exceed Lockheed Martin
in the next five years. Lockheed Martin will be delivering 478
F-35 aircraft to the U.S. government under their biggest deal yet,
a $34 billion contract with the Pentagon. In 2019, the U.S. government also approved the sale of 32
F-35 jets to Poland for around $6.5 billion so the company is poised
to be successful among allies as well. When you look at Lockheed’s diverse
portfolio and you pair that with a defense budget at a tune of
$700 billion, of course Lockheed is prime suited to pick up more government contracts
and to ride even more of a successful wave.