From October 20th, 2014 CE, forward – all new podcasts shall and will be free. Gratis. The truth must be deliverable without impediment — cognitive or otherwise.
Membership to LionelMedia grants access to the entire archive of past member podcasts since the inception of this site and also future announcements directed just towards members.
How do I become a member? It’s easy.Click here to subscribe. It’s $5.99 a month or $65.00 per year. You get a user name. You get a password. You can listen to the podcasts whenever you want; streaming on your computer or downloadable to your mobile device.
““High-frequency traders, for example, introduce greater instability into our financial markets through arbitraging gimmicks that add no value to the economy.”
Why is she even considered? Why? because she seems nice and familiarly dowdy and Amy Goodman-esque, like the nice lady with a lot of rescued dogs you see at Whole Foods who brings the cloth bag. The usual progressive leftie soft-spoken nice woman who’s real smart and seems anodyne. Do you think I’m kidding? The smart counter to the paleo-cretinous Neanderthal right.
Close but no cigar. While Elizabeth Warren has endorsed a Financial Transactions Tax (FTT), it’s been less than specific. This week she gave a speech at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College’s 24th Annual Hyman P. Minsky Conference, broaching the idea of a financial transaction tax (FTT) for her first time on record.
“High-frequency traders, for example, introduce greater instability into our financial markets through arbitraging gimmicks that add no value to the economy.
We can address this problem by instituting a targeted Financial Transactions Tax, designed to have no impact on regular ‘Mom and Pop’ investors. Such a tax would push sophisticated trading firms to invest in companies for the long-haul and strengthen our markets.”
It’s a start. Sorta. While this is certainly a positive step for Warren, she’s still behind others in her party because she gives no specific percentage(s) for an FTT. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD ) in January had already proposed a FTT, with 0.1% on stock trades and 0.01% on derivatives. Van Hollen’s FTT was so popular with the Democrats that Nancy Pelosi endorsed it. Well, Liz? Specifics. It’s a start and is specific whereas Liz’s just isn’t. Sad. So close, yet so far.
And those student loans? Great idea and then she pulled back. Again. Her “Bank on Students’ Emergency Loan Refinancing Act” was great. Theoretically. The act was intended to stop the doubling of student loan rates and allow refinancing of loans to under 4%. Great. Right? This was a bill that would theoretically effectively lift trillions of dollars in student loan debt off the shoulders of graduates struggling to buy homes, start families or pursue higher education. One of the biggest disappointments of 2014 was Warren pulling back on her initial 0.75% loans from the Federal Reserve discount window. Which of course begs the question, is she yet another stalking horse or just a mediocre politician?
It’s not propaganda; it’s the truth. The laughable moment when it hits you: what’s the truth? When is the truth true and not skewed and varied and altered reality? And according to whom? Tell me the story of the Vietnam War — from the point of view of an NVA regular. Wait, that’s not the way it happened. Oh, it most certainly did, from his point of view and vantage. And therein lies the inherent problems attendant to developing and establishing a one-size-fits-all “no bout a doubt it” truth.
‘Weaponization’ of Information House Foreign Affairs Committee Hearing April 15
“The agency charged with leading the effort – the Broadcasting Board of Governors – has a well-documented history of dysfunction,”, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), said in a statement announcing an April 15 hearing “to examine Russia’s use of media to destabilize Ukraine, Eastern Europe and beyond, and the U.S. government’s inability to respond effectively.”
The hearing, entitled “Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information,” will be held on Wednesday, April 15th at 10:00 a.m. in 2172 Rayburn House Office Building.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced the Committee will convene a hearing to examine Russia’s use of media to destabilize Ukraine, Eastern Europe and beyond, and the U.S. government’s inability to respond effectively. The hearing, entitled “Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information,” will be held on Wednesday, April 15th at 10:00 a.m. in 2172 Rayburn House Office Building.
Chairman Royce on the hearing: “For years, Putin has used the Russian media to consolidate power at home and divide societies abroad. The strategies employed today by the Kremlin are highly sophisticated and well-funded with an estimated annual budget of more than $600 million. Russia’s media machine has polluted the media environment, the truth is lost, listeners don’t know whom to believe, and fear divides society. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been slow to respond to this challenge and the agency charged with leading the effort – the Broadcasting Board of Governors – has a well-documented history of dysfunction. We need to reform the BBG if we are to have a chance against this ‘weaponization’ of information.”
Note: During the 113th Congress, Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel introduced “The U.S. International Communications Reform Act of 2014” (H.R. 4490) which passed the House unanimously. H.R. 4490 proposed to overhaul the Broadcasting Board of Governors, create cost savings, and increase agency efficiency. This legislation will be reintroduced in the coming weeks.
The information war. In 2011 Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State declared while appearing before a congressional committee to ask for extra funds to spread US propaganda through new media said that US is losing the global information war.
“During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America’s message out. After the Berlin Wall fell we said, ‘Okay, fine, enough of that, we are done,’ and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it,” she said. “Our private media cannot fill that gap.”
“We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning, the Chinese have opened a global multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English-language network. I’ve seen it in a few countries, and it is quite instructive,” she stated.
Questions. For your review, please consider the following questions.
Define specifically what is disinformation and propaganda versus spin doctoring versus the truth, the acceptable truth.
How can anyone watching mainstream American media today think for a moment that they’re receiving the straight news without distortion or bias? Or, correction, without unacceptable distortion or bias.
All day I face the barren waste without the taste of water, cool water. Behold the flanking maneuver crafted by Jeb and his handler. Jeb and Marco are old buddies, having forged a weird bond through a ceremonial sword commemoration in 1998. Read about it on your own time it’s bizarre and telling. Rubio will draw the anti-Jeb vote and ensure that it remain fragmented and disjointed. Clear the swing states so some independent challenger can’t take Jeb out. It’s the stalking horse scenario.
These stalking horse candidates need to be weak enough so that they will structurally and intellectually be incapable of outgrowing their assigned roles and stealing the nomination away from Jeb. But at the same time, they need to be strong enough to lock up 10-15% of the vote and put them in a kind of deep freeze, making sure that their support will never be extended to another candidate capable of defeating Jeb in the race. [Source]
Brilliant. Scott Walker cinches the blue-collar, anti-union vote, Rubio pulls the Latino warmonger clique, neither being able to trounce Jeb, just as Ron Paul did for Mitt Romney. Meanwhile Ted Cruz looks beyond lunatic-like, shores up and brings in the religious right — all to shield Jeb, provided cabinet posts and promises are made. It’s brilliant and calculated and something the confused and strategy-less Dems couldn’t get near. Poor, Hill. Shows up incognito at a Chipotle. Wow.
The greatest President in the history of our republic was assassinated 150 years ago today. I commend to you this look at how the news was reported that day. A mere five days after the end of the Civil War and before North and South had reconciliation, President Abraham Lincoln and the First Lady attended Our American Cousin at Ford’s Theatre. “Shots rang out from inside the playhouse, screams ensued and the 16th president of the United States was mortally wounded.” He was but 56.
Hillary Rodham Clinton will not be elected President of the United States. Never. Repeat: Never.
She announced today. And while the scrums of her faithful acolytes surround her with plaudits and praise and paeans and economia and salivating support, they can’t tell you why. Facts, issues mean nothing. They never did. It’s like the Che T-shirt. It’s image and memes and symbols and semiotics. No chance of research here, kids. It’s feeling.
She’s the last person you want near the switch. This may have said it all. Hillary Clinton thought it was real funny when Mo Qaddafi was whacked by death squads we funded, fueled and contracted . So, who’s laughing now? In this 11-second video, then Secretary of State Clinton cachinnated about the fall of Mr. Q in the Sgt. Pepper getup, quipping, “We came. We saw. He died.” He was a sovereign leader that was demonized by the West, a sentiment echoed by the lapdog impuissant mainstream Jurassic ossified news media. This is no one I want near the football. Webster Tarpley in Voltairenet.org wrote a thorough review of Hill’s history in Hillary Clinton: The International Neocon Warmonger. I commend it to you.
Means nuttin’ to me. I care nothing about her family, marriage or ambitions. I care not about her gender or anything other than her stated and recorded history. Which is bleak. I care nothing about her sketchy health issues including prismatic glasses, concussion and brain blood clots. Same goes for Monica Lewinsky and the scores of Bill’s scores, including attempted rapes and the like. If Hill stood over Vince Foster and popped a cap in his noggin it means nothing. Servergate, no big deal. Whitewater, Rose Law Firm records, Chinagate, Travelgate, Filegate, her amazing cattle futures trades, Lootergate, drug dealer donors, Ponzi schemer contributors and I’ll even give her a pass on Benghazi. The following are the bases for my absolute fear and dread of Hill as POTUS.
What legislative history? “There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it.” Her Senate biography is a scattered a laundry list of good intentions. This was padding her c.v. to create the illusion of experience.
Zero as Secretary of State.Maureen Callahan provides the following scathing indictment.
Her accomplishments as secretary of state are as unclear. She traveled to 112 countries, but again, she has nothing of consequence to her name: no peace treaty, no accord, no summit of consequence. Her defenders say that she helped restore America’s reputation in the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; critics say she was too afraid to make a mistake that would affect her presidential run in 2016.
When asked in 2014 by Diane Sawyer to name her greatest achievement or “signature doctrine,” Hillary could not. “We haven’t had a doctrine since containment worked with the Soviet Union,” she said. “But we’ve had presidents who’ve made some tough calls and some hard choices, some of which have worked, and some of which have not.”
What matters. She’s a warmonger and chickenhawk of the first order. I commend to you this adumbration of Hill’s bellicosity and neocon sentiment for your perusal and review. Starting with her defense of Bill’s 1998 cruise missile strike on the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, destroying the largest producer of cheap malaria and tuberculosis medication that provided over 60% of available medicine in Sudan, hill showed her true colors. Was it a post-Lewinsky distraction?
All we are saying is give peace a chance. In 2006 Hill supported sending UN troops to Darfur with support provided by NATO forces. Mo Q was crystal clear in his denunciation of this attack and intervention, claiming it was done not out of concern for Sudanese people but “…for oil and for the return of colonialism to the African continent.” Remember, most folks still think he had something to do with Lockerbie.
Then there’s Vlad. After Crimea chose the Russian Federation over Poroshenko’s proto-fascist rump state version of governance, Hill reached back into the anachronistic bag of tricks (and summoning Godwin) called Putin’s actions similar “what Hitler did in the ‘30s.” Hitler?! And with Ukraine on the front burner I don’t want her near the provocation switch.
Derivatives? Bill Clinton’s catastrophic repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act dissolved the firewall between commercial and investment banks. Glass-Steagall in effect prohibited commercial banks that dealt in usual bank-like activities such as managing deposits and providing loans from engaging in predatory loans and high-risk speculation. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, signed by Bubba in 1999, effectively obliterated Glass-Steagall and opened up savings and pensions to be looted from parasitic asset-stripping jackal banksters. And you can bet that Hillary would be right there.
She knows where her bread’s buttered. According to the National Review, Hillary netted a cool $400K from two “speeches” gave at a conference hosted by Goldman Sachs in October of 2013. Come on, Sparky. You know what this is about. And to be fair, they’re all Wall Street and bankster elite tools and shills.
Why in the hell do we even bother teaching kids in the first place? Anatole France said that “[t]he whole art of teaching is only the art of awakening the natural curiosity of young minds for the purpose of satisfying it afterwards.” Look how we destroy their spirit. In this simple Friday disquisition is my look at imagination and the brain. Inter alia, of course.
The illusion. Look, he’s got a great policy on smoking dope. Big deal. Look back to Bill Buckley, Milton Friedman and George Schultz — arch-conservative paleocons — and they were for the legalization of all drugs before Rand could make a fist. He’s articulate, seemingly more in touch with reality than Ted Cruz, bt the again so is my Aunt Phoebe, so what!
Listen up, Spicoli, it’s about more than dope. Review and research carefully to what he’s said and not said. Yes, above and beyond his weed policy.
He’s waxed neocon with his aggressive stance towards Putin anent Ukraine. Remember these beauts? In a National Review piece entitled “Rand Paul’s Plan for Ukraine: Bizarre and Delusional” Paul the dauphin said the following. “I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic.” He groused, “The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.” What?! Or this: In an TIME op-ed, Paul wrote: “Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.” [GULP!] Might I direct you to our friends at UFAA and TWSP for a cogent review of the good Senator’s views. I encourage you to search far and wide for everything on everything.
He’s flip-flopped on drone use to dispatch Americans on American soil. “If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and fifty dollars in cash. I don’t care if a drone kills him or a policeman kills him,” he said. Paul also stated in the same interview that “I’ve never argued against any technology being used when you have an imminent threat, an active crime going on.” Apparently, an “imminent threat” is constituted by a liquor store robbery, setting the due process and Constitutional bar for an emergency situation rather low. Wow.
His austerity measures à la Mont Pelerin Society would make Draco blush. It’s simply cruel and without merit. As has been said, we’re better than that. We’re the American School of Economics. Not Austrian. Verstehen? It’s factual and historical and essential to the continued and sustained existence of our republic. Look it up, Sparky.
His message is devoid of reference to infrastructure and critical government programs and expenditures. Look, it’s part of the mantra, I dig. The shibboleth and bumpsticker ideology that serves him well. As my great friend, Webster Tarpley has endorsed, where’s his message on measures to re-industrialize, build infrastructure, develop science drivers, create jobs, and restore a high-wage economy? But to be fair, no one’s talking about that. Save Dr. T. And speaking of friends, my great pal Alex Jones heartily endorses Rand and I can understand that. He is certainly not without any moment of cognizable sapience, but when stepping back from the mosaic, take a good look as I have. The big picture is what I’m interested in.
What’s a girl to do? Friends, on paper RP sounds significantly better than the other spouters of vapidity. But is he truly any different? No. In terms of actual policy? Nah! And remember that our system allows not the revolutionary. Were he to ever advance past the initial stages of review he would have to pledge fealty to globalist elites and panjandrums. So what to do? Well, I simply don’t vote for any of these folks. Their availability bodes ill in and of itself. I always write my name in and prefer to “throw away my vote” with a greater degree of panache. Unless and until there’s a revolution we can play musical chairs with candidates all day long and nothing will materialize. Nothing will change. Excuse me, better yet — nothing will improve. Remember what a wise man once said, if voting really changed anything it would be illegal.
Walter Scott is seen here being executed for having the unmitigated audacity to disrespect a cop who was going to arrest him by running away. Who knew that nonpayment of child support was a capital offense in South Carolina?
Forget anything and everything you’ve heard or thought about police shootings. This isn’t Ferguson or Michael Brown or Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or even Akai Gurley. Those cases involved at least the initial argument that a suspect/perp did something that might have warranted an officer’s activities. Michael Brown menaced Officer Darren Wilson. Eric Garner resisted arrest and died from the rigors of the arrest process and not being shot or beaten. This case is different. Drastically. Walter Scott was executed by an officer who never apparently thought of giving chase. Who shot Scott, as many have stated, like a deer. For sport. Sick sport. No argument could be made that this man posed a threat as he merely ran away and never even looked back, nothing furtive or threatening in the least. No feasible and available argument to explicate why this officer summarily dispatched this man. None.
We don’t need no stinkin’ grand jury. This North Charleston police officer, now charged with murder, decided he wasn’t going to give chase to a 50 year-old, out of shape traffic and child support miscreant. No, siree! Give chase?! Are you kidding? This cop violated every known rule of police pursuit known to mankind without exception. “When you’re wrong, you’re wrong,” North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said, announcing the arrest. “When you make a bad decision, I don’t care if you’re behind the shield or a citizen on the street, you have to live with that decision.” It will be a tutorial in police academies (I hope) for generations to come.
Michael Slager (CREDIT: Charleston Police Department)
This is the judge and executioner of Walter Scott. Add to the mix his cockamamie story about having Scott trying to wrest his Taser away from him — a Taser that he’s seen apparently dropping next to the dead, limp and bullet-riddled Scott — and there’s your opening for some serious Justice Department investigation. Notice also this mindless cop SOP thing about insisting that everyone be handcuffed behind their back even after they’ve clearly and absolutely are immobilized after HAVING BEEN SHOT IN THE BACK FIVE TIMES! His insistence upon protocol apparently didn’t include a cognizance of even determining whether he had probable cause or justification to use deadly force. Thank Gawd there was a video and thank Zeus the videographer who was in proximity wasn’t roughed or even worse. The fact that Scott was shot in the back as verified by a coroner’s report wouldn’t necessarily have provided his guilt for he could have alleged a furtive or quick or sinister move that precipitated such. No, thanks to Little Brother, Big Brother was nabbed in the act. And emphasis cannot be made enough as to the rarity of a cop charged with murder. Bravo!
Betty Cook, a lab assistant at the Stanford Research Institute, is shown taking a “blink test” as part of a project to study smog in Stanford, Calif. April 27, 1949.
What does this picture have to do with anything? Nothing. But neither does the dreck you’re being given that’s passing for news. It’s evident that you’ve exhibited an interest in what’s actually occurring in the world by you’re being here in the first place. The usual and routinized display of news bores you. You never bought it in the first place. You knew it was a con, a diversion. You are a curious and inquisitive citizen who is mature enough to understand and appreciate reality. Do you crave the truth? Absolutely. And yet through labyrinthine deception and obfuscation and confusion and distraction the major issues that impact upon your life are forgotten and overlooked altogether.
The revolution has commenced and you are already a part of it. As we speak, news and data collection platforms are changing seismically. Alternate and foreign news delivery systems are exploding exponentially. You are a part of the revolution. And critical to this explosion and revolution is the absolute fact that the left-right paradigm is but an illusion, a mystical magical bifurcated separation of nothingness. Cast off the labels, remove the name tags and dissect and parse the issues. The ruling class is counting on your nescience. The only way they can succeed is if you remain unaware. And that’s not going to happen because you are a part of the revolution.
Lafayette, I’ve arrived! You are aware of the lies that have been foist upon you. From the food you eat, to the mystical and magical wars against mystical and magical terrorists, to they hate our freedom – you know the con but you are a part of the revolution. The rudiments, the basics, the fundamentals of our republic is the Constitution. That’s not an expression or some cute shibboleth. It is the template and blueprint of the fundamental rights and protections that you as an American citizen enjoy. And every government elected heretofore and hereafter will do everything it can to destroy and decimate the very protections that it swears to uphold. This isn’t exaggeration or hyperbole. This is not part of the bumper sticker, playbook, echo chamber, cookie-cutter, ossified Jurassic mainstream media. This is the naked truth; pay attention because you are part of the revolution. Amen.
What is this? Is it revenge porn? Is it someone posting the documentation of how proud he is to be associated with a sylph of this nubility? Is it sextortion? Is it a retweet of a picture sent from the lass contained therein? It’s the motivation of the poster that determines in great part the criminal exposure (pun intended) and therein lies the problem.
Hey, Stuart Smalley, butt out! Al Franken, the constitutional jack the Ripper, who decided that net neutrality was a great thing all of a sudden, wrote a letter to the FBI. “As technologies rapidly advance, it is our responsibility to ensure that our nation’s laws keep pace with those technologies. But it is also our responsibility to ensure that existing laws are strictly enforced.” Remember Lionel’s Law: the law always lags behind technology. Well, what this represents is yet another example of your government trying to claw back the jurisdiction it lost when the Internet got out of control after DARPA and ancillary institutions began its research in the early 60s. The government’s attacking the Internet on many fronts: net neutrality via Title II of the Communications Act, copyright and intellectual property statutes, decency, national security, perhaps licensing and the Fairness Doctrine and now revenge porn.
Here come the lawsuits . . . and it’s about time. In 2014 the ACLU and a broad coalition of bookstores, newspapers, photographers, publishers, and librarians filed a federal lawsuit challenging an Arizona law that criminalizes speech protected by the First Amendment.
[T]he law criminalizes far more than such offensive acts, and it is not limited to “revenge.” A prosecutor need not prove that the person publishing the photograph intended to harm the person depicted. Likewise, a person who shares a photograph can be convicted of a felony even if the person depicted had no expectation of privacy in the image and suffered no harm. The law applies even when the person in the picture is not recognizable, and the law is not limited to “porn” – it criminalizes publication of nude and sexual images that could not possibly be considered pornography, let alone obscene.
It’s all covered, Sparky. Think of what can qualify under revenge porn or even sextortion, both involving the dissemination of information without consent that proves “embarrassing.” Think about news stories and storied Congressmen who snap photos of their genitals and sext away. When the news media publish them, they are guilty under these most vague statutes. Reports and exposés of Abu Ghraib depicting detained Muslim men forced to simulate fellatio whilst nude or appearing nude. It’s the question of overbreadth that plagues so many issues of constitutional import not to mention the following statute of note.
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act
“No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. [Source]
The late Michael Mahon Hastings was a journalist, author, contributing editor to Rolling Stone and reporter for BuzzFeed. LA Weekly reported that he was preparing new reports on the CIA at the time of his incineration in 2013. He was 33 years old. Nothing to see here.
Cool, huh? Hardly. As and per usual the media and consumer public have no ability to look beyond and behind the story and look deeper. With the advent of automation and the automaton, AI, drones and driverless cars the implications are frightening, to put it mildly. One day you’ll be a passenger in your car, not a driver, but a mindless passenger. You’ll be driven where you’re allowed to drive and should there be an accident of any sort, the issue of liability will be raised most assuredly.
Who killed Michael Hastings? Read this great piece on various speculation as to Hastings’ potential assassination. And where would anyone get that crazy notion. Oh, Dick Clarke, perhaps. “Wait, are you telling me that there is yet another example of a story I know nothing about because the media have yet again failed to do their job?” Ahem.
Could it be true? Former U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism Richard A. Clarke said that what is known about the crash is “consistent with a car cyber attack”. He was also quoted as saying “There is reason to believe that intelligence agencies for major powers—including the United States—know how to remotely seize control of a car. So if there were a cyber attack on [Hastings’] car—and I’m not saying there was, I think whoever did it would probably get away with it.” Ouch. But I digress. Watch the following horrors infra to see how farfetched that is.
Run! In the horror video that follows, Dr. Kathleen Fisher, a DARPA program manager, talks candidly and eerily jovially about the ability to hack into automobile computer systems. She candidly explains how it is possible to remotely control modern cars through Bluetooth and smart phone technology and destroy them. As I trust you know, DARPA, the acronym of Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, is the Department of Defense research agency responsible for the development of new technologies for use by the military. Her incredibly troubling address demonstrates that such an ability exists and the Pentagon has researched it and that should send shivers up and down your spine. She makes the comments within the first three minutes of the following video.
Send in the drones. Will drones be viewed as stalking devises, provocations of war? Subjects of harassment? After the umpteenth drone gets sucked up into a passenger jet turbine and disaster results, we’ll see how many people still love drones and UAVs. Not to mention the horrors caused in Yemen via our own POTUS Barry.
The commercial drone industry is in its infancy, so much so, that the FAA is having a difficult time separating aerial drone photography from actual commercial use. One thing the FAA seems to have a clear understanding of is Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos’ intent to fill our skies 400 feet or below with drones whizzing packages to Amazon’s Prime Members. Amazon has been awarded the FAA’s Experimental Airworthiness Certificate. Allowing Bezos to adhere to the FAA’s provisions. What could go wrong? [Source]