DECACS, Inc. and all its Initiatives

File 20180827 75972 19v0afj.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Black power militant H. Rap Brown and Stokely Carmichael (right) appeared at a sit-in protest at Columbia University in New York City on April 26, 1968. AP

Stefan M. Bradley, Loyola Marymount University

“If they build the first story, blow it up. If they sneak back at night and build three stories, burn it down. And if they get nine stories built, it’s yours. Take it over, and maybe we’ll let them in on the weekends.”

This is what Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and Black Panther Party affiliate H. Rap Brown told a crowd of Harlem residents at a community rally in February 1967.

They were there to protest Columbia University’s construction of a gymnasium in Morningside Park, the only land separating the Ivy League university from the historic black working-class neighborhood. The gym, along with the discovery that Columbia was affiliated with the Institute for Defense Analysis – a national consortium of flagship universities and research organizations that provided strategy and weapons research to the U.S. Department of Defense – stirred students to protest for more decision-making power at their elite university.

When considering the key events of 1968, such as the Tet Offensive, the assassinations of national leaders, demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention and the Olympics, as well international events concerning democracy, the Columbia uprisings merit attention.

Issues converge on campus

As I detail in my book – “Harlem vs. Columbia University: Black Student Power in the Late 1960s” – all the issues of the 1960s and New Left collided on the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia. Students contended with the war in Vietnam, institutional racism, the generational divide, sexism, environmentalism and urban renewal – all while trying to find dates and attend classes.

Everything came to a head on April 23, 1968 – just weeks after the assassination of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. That was when members of the Columbia chapter of Students for a Democratic Society hosted a rally on campus to decry the war – and, what many considered the racist gym in Morningside Park. Members of the Students’ Afro-American Society, or SAS, and Columbia varsity athletes – known as jocks – were in attendance as well. SAS followers showed up to resume an earlier fight they had with the jocks who supported the construction of the gymnasium.


Read more: Revolution Starts on Campus


Some students had been working with Harlem community groups. They saw the gym as a symbol of the university’s “power” over a defenseless and poverty-stricken black neighborhood. They joined local politicians who opposed the gym for a myriad of reasons, including its concrete footprint in a green park and the inability of the community to have access to the entire structure once built.

Troubled relations

The situation was, of course, complex. Columbia had long been a contentious neighbor to Harlem and Morningside Heights. The campus gym was decrepit and prevented the university from competing with its Ivy peers effectively in terms of facilities and space. Regarding the park, Columbia had constructed softball fields that initially community members could use. By 1968, however, only campus affiliates could access the fields. Then, white faculty members had been mugged in the park.

The university, seeking to expand in the postwar period, purchased US$280 million of land, mortgages and residential buildings in Harlem and Morningside Heights. That resulted in the eviction of nearly 10,000 residents in a decade, 85 percent of whom were black or Puerto Rican.

Columbia acted in coordination with Morningside Heights, Inc., a confederacy of educational and religious institutions in the neighborhood that also sought to “renew” the area to serve their mostly white patrons. David Rockefeller, grandson of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller, acted as MHI’s first president. Columbia was the lead institution.

Despite being close to a black neighborhood, the university admitted few black students and employed a handful of black instructors. For instance, as I report in my book, in the 1964-1965 school year, there were only 35 black students out of 2,500 students enrolled in Columbia’s College of Arts and Sciences, and just one tenured black professor. By spring 1968, there were more than 150 black students enrolled.

On April 23, protesting students attempted to take over the administration building but were repelled by campus security. Then, they walked to the gym construction site where they tore down fencing and physically confronted police. From the park, they returned to campus where they finally succeeded in taking over a classroom building, Hamilton Hall. In doing so, they surrounded the dean of the college, Henry Coleman, who chose to stay in his office with his staff. To “protect” Coleman, several jocks stood guard outside his door.

Clashes with police

What started as a racially integrated demonstration of students took a turn in the late night when H. Rap Brown and several community activists showed up at the invitation of the Students’ Afro-American Society. The student group, Brown and the community activists agreed that black people solely should occupy Hamilton Hall and that white activists should commandeer other buildings. The white demonstrators accommodated, leaving Hamilton and taking over four other buildings. That forced Columbia officials to contend with not just a student protest but a black action on campus at that height of Black Power Movement. Incidentally, the community activists removed and replaced the jocks as sentries of the dean’s office.

Participants of a student sit-in assist each other in climbing up into the offices of Columbia University President Grayson Kirk on April 24, 1968. AP

To the ire of many white university administrators of the period, Stokely Carmichael of SNCC and the Black Panthers fame showed up to explain – through the press – that the university deal either with the student activists on campus or militants coming from Harlem. This insinuated the tone of the demonstrations would change drastically. Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. had been assassinated less than three weeks before. From offices in Morningside Heights, Columbia administrators had watched Harlem burn as residents mourned and reacted to the black leader’s death. The only thing that separated the elite white institution from angry black rebels was the park in which the university was building a gymnasium against the will of many community members.

In consultation with New York Mayor John Lindsay, Columbia administrators chose to end the demonstrations by calling 1,000 New York police officers to clear the five occupied campus buildings on April 30. Chaos and brutality prevailed. As the NAACP and other Harlem community organizations stood watch, black students vacated Hamilton, which SAS had renamed Malcolm X Hall, and were arrested peacefully. In the building that national Students for a Democratic Society leader and Port Huron Statement author Tom Hayden occupied, police and demonstrators collided physically. One of the most iconic documents of the postwar period, the 1962 Port Huron Statement outlined the need for young people to be in the vanguard of the movement to eradicate racism and grind the military-industrial complex to a halt; it centered the notion of participatory democracy, which called for greater inclusion of the citizenry in decision-making. In other buildings, students found themselves on the hurt end of police batons when they resisted arrest.

Police rush toward student protesters outside Columbia University’s Low Memorial Library on April 30, 1968. AP

Worldwide attention

In opening the door to violence, the university turned what was a local matter into an international story and radicalized moderate students and neighborhood residents. Young radicals abroad learned of “Gym Crow” and university-sponsored defense research. In solidarity, they supported the Columbia student activists’ causes and chanted “two, three, many Columbias” – a refrain that gained popularity among American student protesters.

After the demonstrations in April, ensuing violent demonstrations in May, and a six-week student strike, the university did not build the gym in the park and renounced its membership in the Institute for Defense Analysis.

In my view, elements of the 1968 Columbia rebellion are inspiring and instructional for today’s students, protesters and community residents. As gentrification threatens the homes of poor black people in urban areas today, activists should recall that 50 years earlier young people believed they could cut their university’s ties to war research and prevent a prestigious white American institution from expanding into black spaces at the same time. They succeeded.

Our new podcast “Heat and Light” features Prof. Bradley and Columbia University’s Michael Kazin discussing this issue in depth.

Listen on Apple Podcasts Stitcher Listen on RadioPublic Listen on TuneIn

Stefan M. Bradley, Chair, Department of African American Studies, Loyola Marymount University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

 

Advertisements

Source: Coming Coup Against Trump

By Finian Cunningham

July 17, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –  The American backlash against President Trump over his summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin has been as ferocious as it was predictable.

Every possible vilification has been thrown at him. But it is the slur of Trump as “traitor” that puts this president in grave danger.

Democrats, Republicans, state intelligence pundits, hawkish media, liberal media — all have launched a torrent of attacks on Donald Trump for daring to meet with Putin in Helsinki this week.

The Washington Post accused Trump of “openly colluding with the criminal leader of a hostile power”. Let those extreme words sink in for a moment. The implication is as serious as it can get.

As with other politicians and media outlets, the Post said the president had “betrayed” American intelligence services by siding with President Putin in denying that Russia had interfered in US elections.

Former CIA chief John Brennan denounced Trump as a “traitor” who had “committed high crimes” in holding a friendly summit with Putin.

It can’t get more seditious than that. Trump is being denigrated by almost the entire political and media establishment in the US as a “treasonous” enemy of the state.

Following this logic, there is only one thing for it: the US establishment is calling for a coup to depose the 45th president. One Washington Post oped out of a total of five assailing the president gave the following stark ultimatum: “If you work for Trump, quit now”.

The US political class have cast their verdict that Trump is a state enemy, and are openly calling for a mutiny against the White House.

Trump’s political survival is the balance. Possibly the only thing staying the hands of his enemies for now is their wariness about how the ordinary American citizens would react to a deep state maneuver to overthrow the elected leader.

Despite the torrid hysteria in the US political elite over the meeting with Putin, the mass of American citizens seem rather sanguine about the development. It’s fair to say that many Americans would applaud the attempt by Trump to normalize relations with Moscow. After all, that was one of the main reasons why they voted him into the White House in 2016.

The American political class are agog to get rid of Trump, but they are apprehensive to make a decisive move just yet, because such a gambit to depose the president may engender a wider social revolt against the elites. There is a strong sense that US society is seething from numerous grievances. Poverty and abysmal social inequality as well as popular alienation from the Washington establishment are all too rife for a potential civil war or revolution if stoked too much.

One can anticipate that the media campaign to pillory Trump as a traitor will go into overdrive in the coming days, with the calculation by his powerful enemies within the deep state that public opinion can be turned decisively against him for “betraying America” to a “hostile enemy”. If that manipulation of public opinion is achieved, then Trump is a goner.

Admittedly, Trump has many flaws and much of his foreign policy is in keeping with the usual criminal conduct of American imperialism. But one thing that can be said in his favor is that he is not driven by an irrational Russophobia nor a hellbent determination to have a confrontation with Moscow — unlike many in the US establishment.

Trump is often guilty of peddling fake news himself. But one thing he gets right is his dismissal of the “Russia-gate” narrative as a hoax. The US establishment created that farce as a way to undermine Trump and overturn his intention of normalizing relations with Russia.

For two years, Trump’s political enemies have been flogging the “Russia interfered in our democracy” trope — to no avail. The latest wheeze was the unsubstantiated indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence personnel only days before the Helsinki summit.

To be fair to Trump, he wasn’t dissuaded by that effort to sabotage his summit with Putin. But the trap was set. As soon as the meeting was over in Helsinki, all hell has broken lose in the deep state-controlled US media and politicians, condemning Trump.

Russia’s Putin called the tedious allegations of Russian interference in US democracy “the biggest nonsense ever”. Trump said he agreed with that assessment. Probably many ordinary American citizens also agree that the whole affair has been cooked up by political elites who were never happy with the democratic mandate given to Trump.

Trump is right to reject the so-called US intelligence assessment claiming that Russia under Putin’s orders meddled in the presidential race. Putin told the Helsinki press conference that he wanted Trump to win the election in order to improve bilateral relations. So what? Are foreign leaders not entitled to have opinions on who comes to power in rival countries?

In any case, the US intelligence assessment is not conclusive nor a consensus of all 16 state agencies, as former American ambassador Jack Matlock recently pointed out. In other words, the claim is only partial and far from definitive. It was “politically motivated,” said Matlock, a veteran diplomat.

The American political class is sick. It is suffering from a psychosis that prevents any understanding of reality. It is living in abject denial of reality, convinced of its delusions about Russia being a hostile enemy, and Trump being a “Kremlin stooge”.

The problem for the American establishment is that it doesn’t like the way democracy worked out. The people voted for a candidate who wanted to restore relations with Russia. For the elite, that outcome is unacceptable, and they have tried every dirty trick in the book to overturn the democratic process. Ironically, they claim that Russia tried to subvert American democracy, when it is the effete elite in Washington and the deep state apparatus that are subverting the country’s constitution.

How ludicrous can these people get? An American president holds a long-overdue meeting with the leader of the world’s second nuclear power. The meeting was a success in terms of opening a friendly dialogue between the two leaders. And yet the US ruling class excoriate this event as a “disgrace” and “criminal collusion”.

The interests of ordinary American citizens, as with the mass of people around the world, are not served by irrational hostility towards Russia. It is in our interests to have peaceful dialogue and to develop mutual understanding between the US and Russia to avert confrontations.

It is only an unrepresentative elite who could possibly want hostility. War and conflict is profitable for a tiny few. But this cabal in the US, and among its European allies, driven by Russophobia and war profits, is nevertheless extremely powerful. They control the mainstream media and politicians with their money and intelligence assets.

When the interests of the ruling elite in the US are threatened anything is possible. Assassinations and coups are par for the course for these plutocrats and their agents.

The livid reaction to Trump’s eminently reasonable engagement with Putin this week — a reaction that is vicious and coordinated — is an ominous sign that powerful forces are moving against this president.

Finian Cunningham has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For nearly 20 years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent.

This article was originally published by “Sputnik –

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Source: The U.S. Has Taken More Than 3,700 Children From Their Parents — and Has No Plan for Returning Them

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S program of systematically separating migrant children from their parents is steadily expanding, government officials confirmed Tuesday. Under Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s “zero tolerance” doctrine, U.S. authorities have been ordered to criminally prosecute all individuals arrested for illegally crossing the border without exception, including asylum-seekers and parents arriving with small children.

The result has been historic, and catastrophic, with the U.S. government intentionally creating thousands of so-called unaccompanied minors whose immigration cases have now become separate from their parents, plunging them, on their own, into an already overwhelmed system of federal bureaucracies.

The War on Immigrants

Read Our Complete CoverageThe War on Immigrants

In a phone call with reporters, senior officials at the various agencies responsible for the crackdown said thousands of families have been impacted by the measures so far. They added that there is no uniform, border-wide guidance in place establishing rules for how immigration agents on the ground should handle cases involving sensitive populations, such as babies and small children. Instead, officials said, it is up to Border Patrol chiefs at individual stations to exercise “discretion” in determining how to handle such cases. Officials described the ongoing effort as a program aimed at “deterrence.”

Brian Hastings, acting chief of law enforcement operations for the Border Patrol, told reporters that from May 5, 2018, through June 9, 2018, a total of 2,235 families comprising 4,548 people were apprehended along the southern border. “The total number of children that were made UACs through this prosecution initiative,” he explained, was 2,342, and the total number of adults referred for prosecution during that time period was 2,206.

MigrantChild7-1529445778

Graphic: Moiz Syed

“All humanitarian considerations and policies remain in place. There’s discretion given to the field chiefs over each of the nine southwest border sectors for the appropriate referrals for sensitive cases, those include adults who are traveling with tender-age children,” Hastings said. “The chiefs in the field are allowed to make that discretionary call.” When asked if that meant there was no blanket, border-wide guidance on the separation of infants from their parents, Hastings replied, “That’s correct.” He added that “the chiefs in the field” have “generally” considered children under the age of 5 as being “tender aged.” Hastings could not provide statistics on the number of children under 5 who his agency has separated from their parents.Steve Wagner, acting assistant secretary at Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, which oversees the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which is in turn responsible for the children the government is taking into custody, said his agency hopes the program will deter parents from entering the country without authorization. “We expect that the new policy will result in a deterrence effect,” he said. “We certainly hope that parents stop bringing their kids on this dangerous journey and entering the country illegally, so we are prepared to continue to expand capacity as needed. We hope that will not be necessary in the future.”

Wagner had no numbers to provide regarding families who have been reunited, post-prosecution, under the administration’s new program.

Shortly after the call, McClatchy, citing a review of federal data, reported that the “Trump administration has likely lost track of nearly 6,000 unaccompanied migrant children, thousands more than lawmakers were alerted to last month.” Last week, the government said it separated 1,995 children from their parents from April through May. Today, the Border Patrol cited a somewhat larger number — 2,342 — for May through June. Earlier this month, The Intercept reported a minimum of 1,358 children were separated from their parents from October 2017 through mid-May. While precise numbers remain fuzzy, due to overlapping timelines reported by different media outlets, it is safe to say the number of migrant kids separated from their parents by the Trump administration is well over 3,700 and climbing.

Testifying before lawmakers last month, the deputy chief of Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, said he anticipates that the government will continue separating families at a rate of roughly 650 cases every two weeks into the foreseeable future. The Border Patrol chief in the nation’s busiest sector, meanwhile, is pushing his agents to ramp up arrests and prosecutions even more, telling the Washington Post over the weekend that his office has not yet reached 100 percent enforcement — as the administration has called for — but that they are working to get there.

Such an increase would require overcoming the mounting political and public pushback the administration’s efforts are currently receiving. But even if zero tolerance ended tomorrow, thousands of families have already been separated, so the question remains: Is there a functional mechanism in place to insure those parents get their kids back?

For attorneys and advocates on the ground, the answer at the moment is no. In a series of interviews over the last week, federal public defenders and legal advocates working within the immigrant detention system and at the ports in Arizona, as well as providers of care to migrant kids nationally and U.S. immigration officials, were unanimous in their criticism of the system — or lack thereof — currently in place to reunite migrant children with their parents.

Dona Abbott is the branch director of refugee services for Bethany Christian Services, a leading organization involved in placing children in ORR custody in foster care. With more than 40 years of experience dealing with children fleeing violence and persecution, she told The Intercept that there is simply no system in place for the reunification of families to criticize or praise. Instead, she said, there is a never-ending list of questions that people who deal with the fallout of family separations have been forced to answer on their own: How do you reunify children with parents who are being deported? Can we reunify them before they’re deported? What does the parent want? What does the parent say is in the child’s best interest?

“Just finding the parent sometimes is a challenge,” Abbott explained.

MCALLEN, TX - JUNE 12:  U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to detain a group of Central American asylum seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. The group of women and children had rafted across the Rio Grande from Mexico and were detained before being sent to a processing center for possible separation. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is executing the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy towards undocumented immigrants. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions also said that domestic and gang violence in immigrants' country of origin would no longer qualify them for political asylum status.  (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)

U.S. Border Patrol agents arrive to detain a group of Central American asylum-seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018 in McAllen, Texas.

Photo: John Moore/Getty Images

No System in Place

Sometimes arresting agencies are handing kids over to ORR with identifying information, Abbott said, and sometimes they aren’t. Again, she said, there’s no system in place. “There’s a lot of families and a lot of kids affected by this — a lot,” she said. At the same time, none of the child welfare organizations that deal with unaccompanied minors, which the administration is creating more and more of each week, were consulted or warned before “zero tolerance” became the official enforcement posture of the federal government in early April. “We didn’t have a chance to ask questions and talk about how will the system work,” Abbott said. “Typically, you like to do that.”

Currently, the government’s solution for parents whose children it has taken is a 1-800 number. This also presents a problem, Abbott said, because often parents in detention have little to no access to phones. “What we’re finding is that we’re having to call detention centers,” she explained. As an example, Abbott pointed to the case of an 8-year-old girl who Bethany Christian is currently providing care for. “She’s been separated from her mom about a week, and we just keep calling all of the detention centers,” she explained. “Do you have someone by this name?” they ask. “The 1-800 number hasn’t been called, probably because mom hasn’t been allowed to make the call and we’re just not sure where mom is,” Abbot said.

For little kids, certainty about a parent’s whereabouts is of critical importance, Abbott said. “When you’re 8, a week is a long time,” she said. “You just don’t know, is my mom safe?” The issue of state-enforced separations, involving armed men in uniforms with guns, she added, can be particularly jarring for children from areas in Central America and Mexico where the line between organized crime and government security forces is nonexistent, and the entire purpose of the journey north was to escape precisely those kinds of scenarios. Abbott described the case of 10-year-old boy who tells the story of seeing his father handcuffed before they were separated. “That is scary for someone coming from a country where we know, it’s been reported over and over again, police are corrupted,” Abbott explained.

This particular boy’s ordeal also involved another troubling development emerging in recent cases, Abbott added: agents in the field, specifically Border Patrol agents, making on-the-ground calls about who gets to try to claim asylum and who does not. “Border Patrol seems to have a lot of independence and autonomy in their decisions,” Abbott said. “In the case of this little 10-year-old, there just didn’t seem to be anything other than they didn’t think dad had an asylum case and they immediately deported him, but they didn’t deport his son, and they didn’t make sure they went together. So now we have to try to reunite them. And the son is indigenous, which adds another layer of issues.”

Rather than install a system that reunites children with their parents, the administration has imposed at least one new measure that could decrease that likelihood. Earlier this month, McClatchy reported that ORR had entered into a new agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, in which the agency would share fingerprints and run immigration checks on potential sponsors who come forward to take custody of kids. “It’s not just the parent,” Abbott explained. “The new rule is everyone in the household, every adult in the household, must be fingerprinted, and those fingerprints, all those fingerprints, must be handed over to the Department of Homeland Security for criminal investigation. That means, probably, detention and deportation.” Already, as McClatchy reported, “the percentage of unaccompanied youths claimed by parents has dropped from 60 percent four years ago to 41 percent in 2017 after increasing crackdowns.” Abbott expects more of that to come.

“I can’t imagine it won’t exacerbate a difficulty with sponsors not feeling safe coming forward to claim their family member, their child,” she said.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 18:  U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen (L) leaves after she briefed members of the press as White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders (R) looks on during a White House daily news briefing at the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House June 18, 2018 in Washington, DC. Nielsen joined White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders at the daily news briefing to answer questions from members of the White House Press Corps.   (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, left, leaves after she briefed members of the press as White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, right, looks on during a White House daily news briefing on June 18, 2018 in Washington, D.C.

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

False Claims About Separations

In a call with reporters last week, public affairs officials with the various Trump administration agencies responsible for separating migrant kids from their parents defended their actions on the grounds that they have no other choice, falsely claiming that the law requires such separations. Demanding that they not be quoted in their effort to “correct the record,” the flacks blamed the media for irresponsible reporting. In particular, they claimed that the federal government is not separating babies from their parents and denying that government agents have used false pretenses to take kids from their parents, never to be returned again. Abbott said both claims were false.

For one, she said, the government has definitely separated babies from their parents. “The average age now of a child we have in care is 7, but we have children from 8 months all the way to 17,” she said. Second, she said, Bethany Christian provided care for a 6-year-old girl, who, along with her mother, described the pretense of a bath being used to carry out a separation. “Her mother was told, ‘We’re going to give her a bath,’ and they took her and never brought her back. Put her in foster care. I’m sure some immigration officer thought that saved the trauma of the separation, crying and screaming, but I can’t imagine what that mom thought,” Abbott said. “Maybe what the government is trying to say is, ‘We’re not systematically condoning that,’” Abbott said, but the fact remains: “We’ve heard it directly from a parent and a child.”

The chaotic implementation of “zero tolerance” is leading to all sorts of experiences like this, Abbott argued, and the public is only hearing a fraction of them. She described another, about a little boy who came to Bethany Christian carrying a belt. “An adult belt just rolled up and clung in his hands,” Abbott explained. “We were like, ‘Oh, what’s this about?’ We finally get the belt away from him and inside, as we unravel it, is dad’s name and phone number.” For Abbott, the presence of the number sent a clear message. “Dad had in one last desperate moment” said to himself: “What can I send with my son that tells somebody where to find me?”

“So he writes it on his belt,” she said. “We’ve just had too many kids have those kind of separation stories to suggest that it is anything but a little chaotic. More than a little bit — it is chaotic.”

Abbott is hardly alone in her concerns. Two sources The Intercept interviewed regarding the government’s family separation program — including an attorney who has represented children in ORR custody and a senior DHS official working on immigration issues — spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press. They, too, pointed to the absence of an effective system to reunite parents with their kids.

Contrary to claims from the administration, the attorney said the government is indeed separating parents from children even when those families present themselves at lawful ports of entry. “We’re definitely seeing that, even though sometimes the administration says they’re not doing that,” they told The Intercept. Similarly, they added, the government’s claim, relayed in a background call with reporters last week, that it is not separating babies from their parents, is simply not true. “That’s wrong,” they said. “We’re seeing babies.”

MCALLEN, TX - JUNE 17: In this handout photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection,  U.S. Border Patrol agents conduct intake of illegal border crossers at the Central Processing Center on June 17, 2018 in McAllen, Texas. (Photo by U.S. Customs and Border Protection via Getty Images)

In this handout photo provided by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Border Patrol agents conduct intake of illegal border crossers at the Central Processing Center on June 17, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.

Photo: U.S. Customs and Border Protection via Getty Images

No Way Home

The likelihood that those children will find their way back to their parents is entirely uncertain, the attorney added. In cases where a parent expresses a desire to be deported with their child, Immigration and Customs Enforcement promises to coordinate on reunification, they said, but has routinely failed to follow through. “We’ll get a promise of coordination and then it doesn’t happen,” they said, adding that instead attorneys come to learn that a parent has already been deported just as the reunification process is unfolding. “There’s just not any commitment to the coordination of removal or reunification before removal. There doesn’t seem to be any plan.” The DHS official agreed with that assessment. “It’s all up in the air,” they told The Intercept. “There’s no way this ends well. I feel like now that we’ve crossed this precipice, there’s no limit as to how far Trump and his people will go.”

In the absence of clarity, defense attorneys involved in the prosecutions that lead to family separations have turned to federal magistrate judges for relief, and in some cases, the judges are taking action.

In Tucson, upwards of 70 migrants are criminally prosecuted, in group hearings, for illegally crossing the border every day under the government program known as Operation Streamline. With those prosecutions spiking 71 percent over the last year, and family separations becoming routine, federal defense attorneys have begun asking judges presiding over the hearings to take unusual steps in order to increase the chances that parents will be reunited with their children. “One of the things we were asking for the judges to order, and the judges have been receptive to ordering, is that our clients be kept here, even if they receive a sentence of time served, and they’re subject to deportation — that they be kept here in order to be reunited with their kids,” Molly Kincaid, a federal public defender in Tucson told The Intercept. “They’d literally rather be kept in custody and reunited with their children.”

Kincaid explained, “Most of our clients who are affected by this are getting the misdemeanor, they’re only being charged with the misdemeanor because it’s their first entry.” Normally, she said, people charged with the first-time offense take the plea, accept the time served, and are quickly deported. Now that parents and children are in the mix, she said, an increasing number of defendants are expressing that they want to remain in the country. “It’s very bizarre because most of the time that’s what our clients want — they want the misdemeanor and to go back home as soon as possible, but when you have a child here, obviously that’s the most important thing,” Kincaid said.

So far, the magistrate judges in Tucson have appeared receptive to the effort. “In every single case where an attorney is requesting that recommendation, our magistrate judges are making them,” Christina Woehr, also a federal public defender in Tucson, told The Intercept. In an effort to bolster recommendations, Kincaid has additionally sought orders requiring the government to disclose the locations of children in custody. Any increase in transparency would be a welcome change, the two attorneys said.

Earlier this month, Kincaid appeared before Magistrate Judge Bruce G. Macdonald’s during a Streamline hearing. Her client, Cerafino Perez Andres, a Guatemalan father, had crossed the border with his 15-year-old daughter five days earlier. Following his arrest, Perez Andres’s daughter was taken by the government and, standing before Macdonald, Kincaid explained that he had no idea where she was. Federal prosecutor Christopher Lewis told Macdonald that CBP and the U.S. Attorney’s Office have “no knowledge or control as to where they will place those children,” and that the kids are the responsibility of ORR, which does not have a mechanism for reporting back on the whereabouts of the children it receives from DHS agencies.

“I’m hoping, though, that you can ask them to at least provide you with that information,” Macdonald told Lewis, according to audio of the hearing obtained by the Arizona Daily Star.

“I can inquire, but there’s no mechanism on the part of ORR to report that back,” the prosecutor replied.

“Well, I’m asking for you to ask them to report that back,” the judge said.

Cosme Lopez, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office, stressed that the judge’s words were not an order. “I think the pivot point here is ORR,” Lopez told The Intercept, downplaying the Department of Justice’s role in family separations. “Our involvement has really not changed that much,” he said. “We have nothing to do with the children or the apprehension,” he added. “Our piece is so minute, it’s not even funny,” he insisted. The DOJ does not literally apprehend then process children, but the department’s role in family separation is not “minute.” Family separation is the consequence of a “zero tolerance” directive initiated by Sessions, who is head of the Justice Department. This change in prosecutorial priorities is at the very core of the national scandal that family separation has evolved into. The DOJ is just as implicated as all of the other enforcement agencies.

Kincaid and Woehr, the federal public defenders, point out that judges placing detention recommendations on their clients’ cases is hardly a solution to the situation at hand. They describe the measures more like a band-aid intended to staunch the enormous due process and emotional damage currently being done to migrant families. “It’s a pretty terrible choice to have to make as a parent,” Woehr said. “Do you want to be held in indefinite detention hoping you are reunited with a child who, you don’t know where they are, or do you want to ask to be deported and let your child’s immigration case wind its way through our system?” Woehr added, “The issue we run into with asking the government to disclose the location of the children is ICE says, ‘Well, they’re not in our custody anymore; they’re in ORR custody, so we have no way of finding their location,’ which shifts the burden of finding the location of the child to our detained or deported clients, which just adds to the terrible situation that they’re facing.”

“It’s Kafkaesque,” she said. “It’s just a nightmare.”

Kincaid agreed. “It’s one of the things that we’re struggling with right now and that we’re trying to address — is basically how to follow up with our clients to see if this reunification is happening, to see if they’re actually staying here, or they’re just getting deported immediately and their kids are staying here, which is obviously the worst-case scenario for most of our clients,” she said. “I can tell you that the whole situation seems to be shrouded in mystery for us.” Both pushed back on arguments, such as those from the Trump administration, that the migrants impacted by family separation bring their kids to U.S. in order to exploit a loophole and thus, gain entry into the country. “I don’t get that at all,” Kincaid said. “I’ve never heard that from any client,” Woeher added. Describing the experiences her clients have recounted, Kincaid said, “It really is more of a situation of real desperation.”

Fighting for Reunification

Beyond the horror of seeing parents separated from their kids, the attorneys said the current situation raises serious due process and proportionality questions. “Parents in this country who are citizens and are going through a process to potentially have their parental rights terminated — they have a lot of rights,” Kincaid pointed out, and yet, in the case of migrants, parents are losing their children through rapid-fire procedures in remote, closed-off government facilities. There’s also the question of how the punishment fits the crime, when the crime is a misdemeanor and the punishment is indefinitely losing your child. “You’re looking at a day in custody as your sentence, but oh, as a collateral consequence of your sentence, you’re going to lose your child for maybe a year — we don’t know,” Woeher said of the current practice.

For now, the public defenders’ focus remains on reunification, though it’s a campaign they wish they did not need to undertake. “We’re fighting for reunification right now but really, I think, the best thing that could happen is to go back to prosecutorial discretion, where you just don’t charge these cases,” Kincaid said. “Let’s not put ourselves in this situation to begin with, where we’re separating families.”

Part of what’s making the impact of “zero tolerance” and family separation so profoundly difficult to respond to, especially in terms of reunification, attorneys say, is that huge numbers of the people involved are little kids, toddlers, and babies — all of whom now have their own immigration cases, and no parents around to help.

With three offices and nearly 70 people on staff, the Florence Project has been the sole provider of free legal representation for people in immigration detention in the state of Arizona for nearly 30 years. Since January, the organization has documented 350 cases of family separation, and attorneys there are feeling the effects of representing very young clients. “Our kids program used to work mainly with 16-, 17-year-old Guatemalan boys, unaccompanied minors,” Lauren Dasse, the project’s executive director, told The Intercept. “Now we’re seeing a lot of young children. A lot of our clients are young and separated from parents.”

Those clients, Dasse said, have included a blind 6-year-old girl who was separated from her mother, and other preverbal, nonverbal, and disabled children and babies. The difficulty of sorting out these newly unaccompanied kids’ individual immigration cases, and reuniting them with their parents, is immense, Dasse said. “This is the most challenging thing I’ve seen,” she explained. “And I’ve heard that from staff cohorts in the field for a long time doing immigration defense and criminal defense, that this is the most challenging that they’ve had to do, is prep an inconsolable 4-year-old for their asylum hearing. You can imagine.”

And it’s not just the young kids, Dasse pointed out. “We have an older client, I think she’s 13, and she feels very guilty about her dad being detained because her dad was fleeing with her to keep them both safe,” she explained. “She’s put in a place where she has to make very adult-like decisions, with us representing her. She shouldn’t be in that place where she has to think of her own asylum case at this moment, because she has her guardian, her parent, as opposed to the unaccompanied minors that we’ve worked with for 20 years.”

Dasse described what’s felt like “a perfect storm of things that have happened over the past few months that have made our work and fighting your case so much more challenging.” She fears the combined impact of Trump administration efforts are aimed at increasing the time people spend in detention, so they will become more likely to abandon their cases, even if those cases involved potentially legitimate asylum claims. “Everything’s pointing to prolonged detention, and then the pressure is on people to give up on their cases,” she said. The DHS immigration official agreed, adding that the message from the administration appears to be “if you aren’t willing to be torn from your kids, spend six months or more in detention, and suffer humiliation and a complete upheaval of your life, then you don’t really need asylum.”

In response to the crackdown, the Florence Project is staffing up and building a rapid response team to handle family separation. Due to the government’s utter lack of transparency, much of that work involves combing through volumes of Streamline hearing transcripts, searching for parents whose children might have been taken. “It’s all very time-consuming,” she said. “Time-consuming and urgent. There’s an urgency right now that we’re all feeling.” The stakes right now couldn’t be greater, she argued.

“We are creating immeasurable trauma — immeasurable trauma, that will have lifelong effects on people,” Dasse said. “I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Abbott, of Bethany Christian, echoed that sentiment. “I’ve worked with unaccompanied children since 1977,” she said. “Forty years in child welfare, I’ve never seen anything quite like this. It’s so systematic.” Normally, she explained, the kids she works with have become unaccompanied for a reason. They are fleeing a war, for example, or a natural disaster, or some other crisis that causes them to enter the system without their parent. This is something different. In the U.S. context, she said, “people have managed to make it all the way to somewhere where they’re asking asylum and then are being separated.”

“This is purposeful, not part of the chaos of fleeing for your life. This is purposeful separation after you arrive at a border asking for safety,” Abbott said. “Quite honestly, I’ve never experienced where we use children as a deterrent.”

Top photo: U.S. Border Patrol agents detain a group of Central American asylum-seekers near the U.S.-Mexico border on June 12, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.

We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our nonprofit newsroom strong and independent. Join Us 

via Bombshell accusation: Hillary never had a State Department email address; all emails were sent to her at her private unsecured email

by Jon Rappoport

June 25, 2018

Many people have been led to believe Hillary had two separate email accounts. One was a traditional, secure, State Department address, where she received most of her classified information; the other was her personal, sloppily run, wide open, unsecured email, where she received some classified information. But wait.

Paul Sperry (NY Post) has the explosive story. Or, rather, he had it on January 31, 2016. That’s when it was published. What happened to it?

Sperry/2016: “The State Department is lying when it says it didn’t know until it was too late that Hillary Clinton was improperly using personal emails and a private server to conduct official business — because it never set up an agency email address for her in the first place, the department’s former top watchdog says.”

“’This was all planned in advance’ to skirt rules governing federal records management, said Howard J. Krongard, who served as the agency’s [State Department] inspector general from 2005 to 2008.”

“The Harvard-educated lawyer points out that, from Day One, Clinton was never assigned and never used a state.gov email address like previous secretaries.”

“’That’s a change in the standard. It tells me that this was premeditated. And this eliminates claims by the State Department that they were unaware of her private email server until later,’ Krongard said in an exclusive interview. ‘How else was she supposed to do business without [an official State Department] email?’”

“He also points to the unusual absence of a permanent [State Department] inspector general during Clinton’s entire 2009-2013 term at the department. He said the 5½-year vacancy was unprecedented.”

“’This is a major gap. In fact, it’s without precedent,’ he said. ‘It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG’.”

“Inspectors general serve an essential and unique role in the federal government by independently investigating agency waste, fraud and abuse. Their oversight also covers violations of communications security procedures.”

“’It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,’ Krongard said. An email audit would have easily uncovered the secret information flowing from classified government networks to the private unprotected system she set up in her New York home.”

“He says ‘the key’ to the FBI’s investigation of Emailgate is determining how highly sensitive state secrets in the classified network, known as SIPRNet, ended up in Clinton’s personal emails.”

“’The starting point of the investigation is the material going through SIPRNet. She couldn’t function without the information coming over SIPRNet,’ Krongard said. ‘How did she get it on her home server? It can’t just jump from one system to the other. Someone had to move it, copy it. The question is who did that?’”

“As The Post first reported, the FBI is investigating whether Clinton’s deputies copied top-secret information from the department’s classified network to its unclassified network where it was sent to Hillary’s unsecured, unencrypted email account.”

I did a bit of further searching, and came across a nugget buried in a CNN article, dated 3/3/15, “Team Clinton: ‘Nothing nefarious’ at State,” by Dan Merica and Laura Koran. Here it is:

“On Tuesday, Marie Harf, a deputy State Department spokeswoman, said… ’While Secretary Clinton did not have a classified email system, she did have multiple other ways of communicating in a classified manner, including assistants printing documents for her, secure phone calls, and secure video conferences,’ Harf added.”

Did you catch the key phrase? WHILE SECRETARY CLINTON DID NOT HAVE A CLASSIFIED EMAIL SYSTEM.

What does that indicate? It appears to confirm that Clinton NEVER had a secured, protected, official State Department email address. Therefore, despite denials, she must have been conducting classified government business through her own unsecured email account.

Was this issue ever brought up during interviews the FBI conducted with Hillary? If so, what were her responses?

For example, did she say, “Back off and ease up, boys, we’re all in this together”? Did she say, “We all know I’m trying to shield the Clinton Foundation operations and money”?

She never had an official State Department email account? She conducted all her classified email communication on her unsecured home server? There was no permanent inspector general at the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State? The State Department lied when it said it only discovered her private email account late in the game?

She’s clean as a whistle. Nothing to see here. Don’t worry, be happy.


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealedclick here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED,EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his freeOutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

via Amerikkkan Culture is a Bourgeois Culture | newafrikan77

img_1321img_1378img_1376

img_1377

American culture is a bourgeois culture. By this, i mean the dominant culture is shaped and propagated by the bourgeois (upper and middle) classes.

To be born and raised in America is to be steeped in this culture. The culture in which you are socialized shapes your ambitions and desires. Even the working and poor classes aspire to achieve the cultural standard as established by the bourgeois classes.

Individualism, competition, and consumerism are but a few of the values deriving from bourgeois culture. For the poor and working classes, these values work against Our best interests. Yet, We seem to practice these without understanding how these values only serve to keep Us subjected to bourgeois domination in the form of colonialism/neo-colonialism.

An essential aspect of revolutionary nationalist struggle is to identify and reject bourgeois values that perpetuate our oppression, exploitation and degradation.

As a colonized people, even the middle class among New Afrikans practice bourgeois values against their best interests. As such, the New Afrikan middle-class often have greater privileges than lower level working and poor classes, and typically struggle to protect and expand such privileges. As such the New Afrikan middle class accepts (existing) privilege over (envisioned) power, and never challenges colonial domination. This is the basis of neo-colonial reformism as opposed to revolution.

Amilcar Cabral says the bourgeois class (and i would also include ALL other classes within the nation) — if it wish to serve the cause of national liberation — “has only one choice: to strengthen its revolutionary consciousness, to reject the temptations of becoming more bourgeois and the natural concerns of its class mentality, to identify itself with the working classes and not to oppose the normal development of the process of revolution. This means that in order to truly fulfill the role in the national liberation struggle, the revolutionary petty bourgeoisie MUST BE CAPABLE OF COMMITTING SUICIDE AS A CLASS IN ORDER TO BE REBORN AS REVOLUTIONARY WORKERS, completely identified with the deepest aspirations of the people to which they belong.” – Kwa Kwamu

************************************************
Read Amilcar Cabral’s important 1966 speech “WEAPON OF THEORY” here: https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1966/weapon-theory.htm

 

“Voices Of Africa” Is available for Black History Month Programs

via “Voices Of Africa” Is available for Black History Month Programs — Steemit

“Voices Of Africa” Is available for Black History Month Programs. Bring us to your community centers, schools, churches, colleges and universities. We will travel to where you are!

Enjoy the soul-stirring Magic Of Drums.
Contact VOA: voicesofafrica@voicesofafrica.net
htttp://www.voicesofafrica.net

MORE INFORMATION:
The “Voices Of Africa” Choral & Percussion Ensemble is an Unique Artistic Collective of Artists dedicated to West African percussion Cultural Music. This music includes percussions, dance, songs and storytelling. VOA is an ensemble based in Philadelphia. We have a unique sound and presence with instruments are the Sekere, Sakara drum, Agogo bell, Djembe and Sangba/Djundjun drum and various other hand held percussion instruments. They are a vivacious, performing arts ensemble and have performed to standing ovations at the Women & Earth Conference, Ghana, West Africa, The Kennedy Center for Performing Arts, Washington, D.C., the National Women’s Music Festival and many other venues throughout the country and abroad. The “Voices Of Africa,” share the joy of their music, which spans the African Diaspora, through traditional African and African-American songs, message music, gospel and inspirational percussive rhythms. They have been together since 1990.

VOA Says  “Our purpose is to spread the message of freedom, peace and love through our music”

YouTube Favors Larger Channels But It’s Really The Slow Fizzle for Smaller and Newer Ones.

Greetings…….

The title of this video is “YouTube Favors Larger Channels But It’s Really the Slow Fizzle for the Smaller and Newer Ones.

I have been monitoring the many changes that have been going on with YouTube in 2017. Up until that time, I had seen several channels and videos get hammered by YouTube due to their content for a few years going back.  It didn’t impact on my channel until I stepped out there and did a video series on Michelle Obama and this rumor going around that she was a man. That video series garnered me several views, comments and subscribers. I posted the video in February of 2017 and continued to post subsequent vids to the series, there after.  Then YouTube took the video that had the most views, comments and decided to demonetize it because it was  “not advertiser friendly.” Why, because at that time, it was a no no to even mention transsexuals.

I did a lot of research on that series and did all I could to debunk the rumor by finding the source of it and showing that in my vids.  When YouTube came down on me, I sent them an email explaining what the purpose of my video was, that is, it was to support Michelle and get people to think outside the box, and yet they still, after manual review found my video to “not advertiser friendly”. They stopped monetizing the one that got me the most views, over 300k and then over time went down the list of all of them, one by one, and demonetized them.

Personally, I couldn’t understand what the problem was, there were dozens or maybe even hundreds of channels that had gotten on the “Michelle Obama is a Man” bandwagon and were garnering millions of views.  I had never thought I would get so many views and was quite surprised when I did!  I spent hours answering comments, etc.

Then I began to notice something.  My channel was small, and it didn’t really matter at that time if I got 300k views or over 4million in the past year, the content of my channel was not suitable for YouTube over all and they systematically demonetized my videos as I would put them up, in some instances it was instantaneously! To the point where it did not even matter what I put up, then, in grand YouTube fashion, they would re-monetize it after a day or so.  Of course, most vids are viewed right away so that didn’t help none.

But I also noticed other things that they were doing, they were suppressing views, unsubscribing folks from your channel, hiding your vids in that so called interstitial plane of existence, not alerting subs that you even posted a video and a host of other nefarious, passive aggressive tactics that would prevent your channel from growing or even reaching this so called announced threshold they sent out in their January 17, 2018 letter of intent to squash your revenues.

Even big channels were complaining about losing revenue some got over 300 vids demonetized, some lost channels altogether, some others lost subs and views were suppressed.

To me, it’s cloak and daggers, how in the world can any channel large or small deal with all these subversive tactics to diminish their presence on YouTube and surely the little guys who barely have 1000 subs can’t fight this YouTube War.

I have been on YouTube since 2009, and I was surprised to see my I Ching Videos increase in views over the years.  But it was in 2016 that I actively started to increase my video content because YouTube paid me! I was excited to be able to get a little chump change from them.

However, since my videos about Michelle Obama and the psyops around her being born a man, my views have gone down substantially.  I couldn’t understand why this was happening.  Now folks have to press the button to get notifications about uploaded vids, but that ain’t always the case, cause I get notifications for channels I did not press the button for.

Here is a sample of the vids I have done on this YouTube madness.

“Crowdfunding, Patreon and YouTube Demonetization”

https://youtu.be/F6Cz5XywRf4

In this video I explore the history of YouTube and its connection to Patreon because it seemed a little suspicious that of all the Video platforms you could only link to your patreon account.  I was also leery because Patreon channels became begathons, which I abhor, and which I would seldom do except in the credits of my vids. If you have a bunch of channels you favor, it would be almost financially impossible for you to pay out that money on a monthly basis, unless you are rich and famous and the rich and famous ain’t watching YouTube videos.  They are on the beach somewhere basking in the sun of their riches and fame.

Then YouTube decided to launch a Contributors options, which raised this question:

What is going to happen to Patreon now that Google Contributor has launched?

https://www.quora.com/What-is-going-to-happen-to-Patreon-now-that-Google-Contributor-has-launched.

Of course on the other hand, only if you have a huge YouTube channel with millions of views and thousands of subscribers do you even stand a chance on Patreon.

My next video entitled:

“Why Is YouTube Demonetizing My Videos?”  https://youtu.be/q-sXGne8Bb0

This lead me to the arena of the adpocalypse where YouTube was threatened by advertiser to pull the plug on them if they didn’t straighten up and fly right and get rid of that hate speech that they did not want their advertisements on.  This puzzled me greatly because I don’t have hate speech videos and I could not wrap my brain around what the heck was the problem with my videos, but slowly but surely one by one, they were demonetized, no reason given except some weirdness about not being advertiser friendly and devolving into not advertiser friendly for most advertisers, what ever the heck that means.

I began to scramble, now what do I do, how do I draw revenue from my vids, and of course you have these folks contacting you telling you how awesome your vids are and why don’t you join their program so they can show you how to grow your channel and reach millions.  But seriously though, if YouTube has already decided that your channel is dangerous to its health and well being, you won’t be able to grow anything because they will simply demonetize your videos, hide your channel, suppress your views and refrain from alerting your subscribers, so what’s the sense of getting involved in those “get rich” off YouTube programs?  I mean seriously.

So I started looking at other options for posting videos.  My next video on this YouTube journey is entitled:

“Untying the YouTube Knot”  https://youtu.be/43PvB_Z8TYY

I began to realize that we were having a co-dependent relationship with YouTube and that YouTube was abusing its creators in a very passive aggressive manner.  Instead of just shutting down channels and getting it over with, they started playing games, with its creators, taking them up and down in emotions, people were crying in their videos, others were angry and it was sure nuf free for all of emotions streaming through as channels were being hit, not just the small ones, but the larger ones as well.  And it was becoming clearer and clearer that we needed to drink at another troth because YouTube is not really caring about us, and that means all of us, except of course the silly ones that get millions of views, and even some of those perverted ones and the ones that draw child predators, now those channels thrive, and why is that?  And how do they get ads?  Very curious scenario right there I  might add.

Moving on…

As if what YouTube was doing to us wasn’t bad enough it took out another dagger to stab us with by putting us into their interstitial program.  Now that message from YouTube had me in the dictionary trying to determine what Interstitial meant. So my next video on this YouTube journey of who will win the YouTube jackpot at the end, was entitled:

“YouTube’s Interstitial Program”  https://youtu.be/9bBgfFcTstM

And by the way, all my vids about YouTube shenanigans were demonetized.  Gee, I wonder why?  But I digress.

Now YouTube had decided to push us to the background, I mean we are no longer necessary but they don’t want to just drop us like a hot potato so they give us this fancy name of the place we will be which really means we are so far out of view, you would need a microscope to find us.  So hurray hurray, we are now being interstitialize and of course our views, and subs will drop even further.

And the reason that I am going thru this is because, it ain’t like they just decided to make it hard for us to get views and subs, they have been gradually making it harder and harder for us to get them.  So, anyone coming on board now, is just being smacked with something that has been ongoing for at least 2 years out in the open and longer under cover.  Which is really like under the bed, cause YouTube had been under cover all along, it just got really raunchy lately.

My next video in this scenario, and mind you, it’s what YouTube is doing to my little channel and what I have discovered it’s doing to others as well.  Heads are rolling and I must emphasize, that you big channels out there, don’t get too comfy, cause YouTube is coming after you as well.  It doesn’t want anything on there but what they want on there and that’s TV, re-invented to fit to their platform, they want mainstream, nothing more or less, they do not care about creators or their creations, they want standardized programming that fits their new way and makes the advertisers happy as a kid in play town.

This became clearer and clearer as the saga unfolds.

It got so bad that I finally broke down and alerted all my subs with a personal letter telling them what YouTube was doing and asked them to support me if they wanted to, of course no support came, but hey, who knows if they even got the email?  Besides if you want their emails, to send to them directly you have to pay for that service. If you send out more than 25 emails a day, they end up in the spam folder, so you can’t win for losing.

YouTube got really interesting to the point where I explored in this video entitled

“Not Suitable for Most Advertisers”  https://youtu.be/jeLsed3jyVY

The slow fizzle persists and YouTube starts playing around with what it means to be advertiser friendly, not so friendly to most advertisers and just plain demonetized.  They started changing the color of the little buttons next to your videos and then asking you to request a review, but of course only if have you had at least 1000 views which of course you won’t get if you video is interstitialized, suppress, removed from trending, hidden from subscribers and a host of other nefarious tactics with the algorithms that YouTube used and continued to use.  So I invite folks to come check me out on other platforms because by this time, it is starting to stink really bad, YouTube is not playing fair, not that they have to, it’s their house and they can invite or dismiss anyone they wish, but it just seems that they fattened us up for the kill.

With all this going on, people started saying they didn’t feel the need to pay anyone for anything especially if they got it for free and now they gotta pay.  So my next video entitled:

“Why Pay Creators When the Service Was Once Free?”  https://youtu.be/iz7g5Y3uS1U

Was inspired by a rant by a subscriber who felt they shouldn’t have to pay for anything they got free.  And you know, I can see how that would be annoying and at some point enraging, first it’s free and then you gonna charge??  Now this whole subscription thing has gone over the top.  It used to be only a few outlets asked for you to subscribe, most others were free to view and free to read, now folks are asking for subscriptions and with some ip’s being banned, they really have to beg, and beg, and beg to stay afloat, and yet, I can truly understand why folks would balk at the idea that now they gotta pay, or folks are begging.  Interestingly enough, YouTube demonetized this video as well, and it was starting to look like they just are that teacher, who looks at your name and gives you an “f” and that’s it!

My next to last video in my YouTube saga of events with them is entitled

YouTube is Bipolar”  https://youtu.be/MeQeRs0nvQA

I just had to get this one out, because YouTube would demonetize a video and then in a couple of days, re-monetize it, and what the heck was that all about?? You know that in the first few hours after posting your video that that is where you get the most traction.  A couple of days later, ain’t nobody paying attention they are moving on.  So YouTube goes up and down and down and up, they say come here, come here, come here, and then say get away, get away, get away, and if that ain’t bipolar, I don’t know what is.

You never know when they are gonna lower another boom on us, in fact, they are causing us to suffer from Post Traumatic YouTube Stress Syndrome.

But what got me the most about all this, is that after watching several videos on this topic, no body seems to be talking about what is really happening and why folks can’t reach the threshold because YouTube is making sure that you don’t reach it.  It’s like your mom says you better clean up your room and as you are doing it, she throws more and more other stuff at you, that you never get a chance to do it completely and then you are in time out cause you didn’t do it.

I mean people would change the titles of their vids to be more acceptable, they would be careful of the tags, and the description of their videos, they would upload it into private and then make it public, they would stand on their heads and bark like a dog, and still YouTube would say, “oh no, you can’t do that, and slam you”.  I mean they even gave PewDiePie the blues who gave them an idle threat of a law suit, that went over like a lead balloon.  And if folks want to blame Logan Paul, I would not be surprised if he was put up to it, cause at this point, he should have know better than to post a video like that anyways, with all the censorship that’s going on on YouTube these days.

I Think this all started with the fake news meme that began during Obama’s administration and I remember one channel, Red Silver J (https://youtu.be/PJ1jf2W8HQM) who warned us, that they were coming after us and would be shutting us down, and that they were using certain psyops to target channels who got on the band wagon of the psyops and shut them down, one by one.  The link in the description of this video where he explains it all, is “no longer available.”  Imagine that!

So, I am gonna end my little triad with an article from Activist Post entitled

“YouTube Just Moved to Crush the Little People, Will Only Monetize Large Accounts”

https://www.activistpost.com/2018/01/youtube-just-moved-crush-little-people-will-monetize-large-accounts.html

activist post article front page

It has the original email sent out to their channels and it discusses some of the concerns about this “new Change” with YouTube, but again, what I find still missing is the gradual and systemic crushing of the little people, along with the big people as well.  There were some really big people out there that were hit hard by these 2017  changes on the YouTube Platform.   Some are saying that longer vids will work but that’s not true, cause folks don’t really watch any longer than 5 minutes of a video, I know that for sure from the comments I get, which clearly show they did not watch the entire video.  And making longer ones hoping that will make a difference when your channel is already in the YouTube doghouse is just a waist of time and energy.  YouTube is changing and the change does not include the folks who made YouTube famous, it does not include the little people and some of those big people who made it.  They will drop that hammer on them as well because they are changing how they wish to be as a Video platform.  We can complain all we wish, but they have the right, and it ain’t about free speech, it’s about controlling content that support their new face.  And they will hire thousands of employees, spend a ton of money, just to get that to happen. Period.

But here are some excerpts from this article.

YouTube alienated a large portion of its audience this week by demonetizing all of their smaller content creators. In an email sent out to millions of independent artists, musicians, and journalists, YouTube informed them that they were no longer eligible for advertising revenue on the site because their channels were simply not big enough.

The site now requires a minimum of 1000 subscribers and 4000 hours of viewed content, automatically disqualifying a large chunk of their creators from monetization.

The company also said that the change in policy was intended to “prevent bad actors from harming the inspiring and original creators around the world who make their living on YouTube.”

As The Free Thought Project reported last year, a group of whistleblowers from YouTube claimed that the company has allowed at least 100,000 predatory accounts to leave inappropriate comments on videos with no repercussions as “YouTube’s system for reporting sexualized comments left on children’s videos has not been functioning correctly for more than a year.”

This is a devastating situation for may content creators, but luckily there is a solution on the Blockchain. Many of the YouTubers who have become disenfranchised with the site are moving their content to DTube, which is a decentralized video hosting platform where users are paid in cryptocurrency for “likes” and comments.

As the big dogs shoot themselves in the foot, a revolution in social media is happening on platforms like DTube and Steemit. The dinosaur social media platforms are losing their relevance as we expose their censorship and subservience to special interests like the advertisers who have access to all your personal data. If you truly want to be a part of the next step, we invite you to join Steemit today. You have nothing to lose and everything to gain.

Now, they are saying, 1000 subs and 4000 hrs in the past 12 months.  This is what my analytics look like… Does that mean they will reevaluate me? And reopen my YouTube Partners account?  What about folks that get one of these criterion but not both?  And if you notice, after YouTube started it’s funny business my views went way down, to a dull roar and I am making barely pennies out the deal.  So yeah, it’s time, everyone, it’s time!!

YouTube analytics from Jan 20, 2017-Jan 20, 2018

As you can see, my channel views, subs and watch time peaked around Feb., 2017 like I mentioned earlier.  So let’s see if I meet the criterion when looking at Feb 20. 2017 thru Jan. 20, 2018.

YouTube analytics from Feb 20, 2017-Jan 20, 2018

Looks like I made it by the skin of my teeth, however, they will probably come up with something else to target my channel for demonetization.  They have already done so, and the wind is so out of my sails these days for doing much more than using YouTube as a holding place to copy and paste the url of my vids. Cause seriously, it’s just a matter of time, and as you can see, how my view count dropped significantly, and that is for all of the above reasons.

So folks, it is what it is, and YouTube is pushing us out and if we don’t get out now, I guess we will remain co-dependent with a platform that really has bigger fish to fry and is treating us small fish and even some big ones, like a bald headed step child, and that’s what I got to say about that!!

Tag Cloud