Hello Dante? What Level Is This?

[ponchi101]

About the cemetery in the Netherlands.
Again, a good example of how fascism/totalitarianism works. If you erase history, eventually it works; if the new generation cannot find that history, it will fade away soon.
They are going full textbook on this.

[ponchi101]

I want to see the nine non-fiction books Elon recommends.
I do mean it.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

[ponchi101]

It stands for Schutzstaffel-ecretary. That's all.
C'mon, people. When they lie, we call them for that. When they are honest, we scorch them too.
When are they going to catch a break? WHEN???!!!

[ti-amie]

[dryrunguy]

The NY Times is suing the Pentagon over its Pentagon Press Corps restrictions.

::

New York Times Sues Pentagon Over First Amendment Rights
The lawsuit said the Defense Department’s new set of rules for journalists “violates the Constitution’s guarantees of due process, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.”

By Erik Wemple
Reporting from Washington

Dec. 4, 2025
Updated 7:27 a.m. ET

The New York Times accused the Pentagon in a lawsuit on Thursday of infringing on the constitutional rights of journalists by imposing a set of new restrictions on reporting about the military.

In the suit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Washington, The Times argued that the Defense Department’s new policy violated the First Amendment and “seeks to restrict journalists’ ability to do what journalists have always done — ask questions of government employees and gather information to report stories that take the public beyond official pronouncements.”

The rules, which went into effect in October, are a stark departure from the previous ones, in both length and scope. They require reporters to sign a 21-page form that sets restrictions on journalistic activities, including requests for story tips and inquiries to Pentagon sources. Reporters who don’t comply could lose their press passes, and the Pentagon has accorded itself “unbridled discretion” to enforce the policy as it sees fit, according to the lawsuit.

The suit said that “reporting any information not approved by department officials” could lead to punishment, “regardless of whether such news gathering occurs on or off Pentagon grounds, and regardless of whether the information at issue is classified or unclassified.”

The complaint sought a court order halting enforcement of the rules and a declaration that the provisions “targeting the exercise of First Amendment rights” were unlawful. The Times has retained Theodore J. Boutrous, a First Amendment lawyer who has argued major media access cases in federal court. Julian E. Barnes, a Pentagon reporter for The Times, is listed as a plaintiff alongside the company.

The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The new rules are the latest step in a monthslong effort by Pete Hegseth, the defense secretary, to curtail the access and privileges of the Pentagon press corps.

Mr. Hegseth arrived at the Pentagon in January after a bruising confirmation process that surfaced allegations of excessive drinking and sexual assault, which he said were untrue. Early in his tenure, Mr. Hegseth proposed evicting from the Pentagon a veteran reporter at NBC News who had contributed to some of the coverage.

The department later stripped several national news outlets of their workspaces in the Pentagon, offering them mostly to conservative outlets. Mr. Hegseth has also added limits on where reporters can roam in the complex.

A draft of the new restrictions first emerged in September, and was revised after pushback from lawyers representing news organizations. The final rules were released on Oct. 6, and more than a week later, dozens of credentialed journalists — including six from The Times — surrendered their badges instead of signing the document. The departing outlets have continued reporting on the military despite the access limits.

Many major news organizations released statements in October condemning the Pentagon policy as an incursion on the First Amendment. “The policy is without precedent and threatens core journalistic protections,” said a statement from ABC News, CBS News, CNN, Fox News Media and NBC News.

In a press briefing on Wednesday, a senior Times lawyer said that there had been discussions with other news organizations about joining the suit but that the newspaper had decided to proceed alone.

The suit took issue with multiple provisions of the new policy, including one that empowered the Pentagon to deem a journalist “a security or safety risk.” Such a determination could hinge on whether the journalist engaged in unauthorized disclosure of classified information or certain unclassified information, among other considerations.

The policy’s wording on “solicitation” has been a particular worry of media lawyers. It asserts that the First Amendment does not protect reporters when they “solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information” and could apply to “calls for tips” that encourage Defense Department employees to share “nonpublic” agency information.

Providing channels for sources to send information, the suit said, was a “routine” practice for journalists.

Legal clashes between journalists and the government over access to federal buildings have arisen repeatedly across President Trump’s two terms.

During his first administration, the White House pulled the press passes of two White House correspondents. The journalists regained those passes after litigation. This year, The Associated Press sued the government after being excluded from White House press pool events in cramped spaces such as the Oval Office; litigation challenging that move is ongoing.

In each of those cases, the government targeted one journalist or outlet for punishment. The Pentagon restrictions, on the other hand, seek to bind an entire press corps. And those restrictions, the suit argued, would suppress the work of news organizations “with perceived viewpoints the department disfavors.”

After the departure of the legacy press corps, the Pentagon announced that a new group of outlets had agreed to the restrictions and would work from the press space in the building. The new arrivals feature an array of pro-Trump outlets that have echoed administration talking points and show little inclination to investigate its actions.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/04/busi ... =url-share

[ti-amie]

[Owendonovan]

No one is buying this as remotely legitimate. So stupid.

[ponchi101]

HE is buying it.
There is no sports organization that is more corrupt than FIFA. It is truly a gigantic cesspool of corruption.
But FIFA is also extremely successful and it rules the most popular sport in the world. So, showing this award to a man that completely falls for you at the slightest sign of idolatry is pretty smart.
The world cup is next year. Plenty of time to make billions, if they play Tiny well. And they will.

[ti-amie]

‪Mark Hamill‬
‪@markhamillofficial.bsky.social‬
· 4h
How to buy yourself a needy malignant narcissist? Just offer him a phony, made up "Peace Prize" & he's all your's!!!
No need for a formal ceremony as he'll snatch from the box & put it on all by himself. Both laughably pathetic AND pathetically laughable.

[ti-amie]

[ti-amie]

Philip Bump‬
‪@pbump.com‬
· 2h
Every part of this is bonkers. The intro is bonkers. The transition to his health is bonkers. The mention that other presidents didn't need cognitive exams is bonkers. The claim that this screening test is somehow hard is bonkers. The idea that criticism of him is treason is bonkers. All of it.

[ponchi101]

Bad combination: senility and anger. Leads to stuff like this.