Mar 222017
 
Dozens of House Democrats have collectively paid $4 million since 2009 to Pakistani IT professionals now under criminal investigation who had access to House members’ email and computer files.

Five Pakistani Congressional Staffers In Criminal Probe

Five people employed by members of the House of Representatives remain under criminal investigation for unauthorized access to Congressional computers. Former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz employed at least one of those under investigation.

The criminal investigation into the five, which includes three brothers and a wife of one of the men, started late last year, as reported by Politico in February. The group is being investigated by US Capitol Police over allegations that they removed equipment from over 20 members’ offices, as well as having run a procurement scheme to buy equipment and then overcharge the House.

House Speaker Paul Ryan said last week Capitol Police are receiving additional help for the investigation. “I won’t speak to the nature of their investigation, but they’re getting the kind of technical assistance they need to do that, this is under an active criminal investigation, their capabilities are pretty strong but they’re also able to go and get the kind of help they need from other sources,” Ryan said.

The brothers, Abid, Jamal and Imran Awan, worked as shared employees for various members of the House, covering committees relating to intelligence, terrorism and cybersecurity, which included the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security and the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the Armed Services Committee.

Imran’s wife, Hina Alvi, and Rao Abbas, both of whom worked as House IT employees, are also under investigation.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

The group were banned from accessing the computers as a result of the investigation but, as of earlier this month, Imran Awan remains as an “technology adviser” to former Democratic National Committee chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was forced to resign in July following revelations that she worked to further Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the Democratic primary at the expense of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.

News of the brothers’ investigation has sparked speculation that it may be tied to the hack of the DNC servers, the contents of which were first released by Guccifer 2.0 and later published on WikiLeaks.

Russian actors have been accused of being behind the hack, which Democrats claim contributed to Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump. There have also been reports that the DNC hack came from an insider.

An email between DNC staffers in April 2016, which was released by WikiLeaks, references a staff member named Imran and how this person has access to the passwords for Wasserman Schultz’s iPad.

Garret Bonosky, deputy director of office of the DNC chair, tells Amy Kroll: “I have to get [this iPad] thing figured out. Need to make sure I have her username and password before I delete and reload the app.”

“I do not have access to her ipad password, but Imran does,” Kroll replies, later writing: “Just spoke to Imran, call me whenever GB and I’ll update you, don’t delete anything yet.”

Another email from the DNC hack, dated December 2016, references Imran once again. Wasserman Schultz’s assistant Rosalyn Kumar tells scheduler Anna Stolitzka: “[Nancy] Pelosi is doing [a] closed door meeting. No staff or anyone allowed. Kaitlyn come to Rayburn room and get her iPad for Imran.”

6-Figure Salaries

The brothers were paid high salaries for their work with various House members, above the median salary for Congressional staffers.

Imran, who started working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005, received $164,600 in 2016, with close to $20,000 of that coming from Wasserman Schultz.

Jamal, who started working as a staffer in 2014, was paid $157,350.12 in 2016.

Abid, who started working in 2005, was paid $160,943 in 2016.

Hina Alvi, who was employed as a staffer from February 2007, was paid 168,300 in 2016.

Rao Abbas was paid $85,049 in 2016.

The Daily Caller reports that Imran received $1.2 million in salary since 2010, while Abid and Alvi received over $1 million each.

House Democrats supporting the employees have suggested that the Pakistani nationality of the suspects may have inspired the investigation.

 
via

Mar 142017
 
Paul Ryan received funds from a Democratic organization called “ActBlue”. He’s one of two Republicans on the list. The other is Rob Portman of Ohio.

Paul Ryan Received Funds From A Democratic Organization Called "ActBlue"

Quick rundown on ActBlue:
ActBlue bills itself as “the online clearinghouse for Democratic action.” As a federally registered political action committee, it serves as a conduit for online contributions to Democratic candidates and committees. That is, ActBlue bundles and transmits earmarked contributions from individuals raised on their website to specific candidates.

The organization assists Democratic candidates and committees of all ideological persuasion, helping moderates and liberals alike. Through mid-2010, it has helped funnel more than $134 million — and counting — in contributions. Because much of that money comes in donations below the $200 threshold for itemized disclosure, the total amount given by donors via ActBlue is considerably greater than the totals listed below, which are based on FEC filings of candidates and committees that receive this money.

Their summary on Twitter reads:
“Our mission is to democratize power by putting powerful fundraising tools in the hands of grassroots donors across the United States.”

GRASSROOTS

Tied to Shareblue as shown here in a 2015 tweet:
https://twitter.com/Shareblue/status/654335670404653056

This organization is always tagged with things like “resist” and resist accounts on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/Jkineman/status/838848995539599360

Guess who received funds from Act Blue? Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and..

PAUL RYAN

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php?id=D000021806

This is like one big naughty list.

Paul Ryan Received Funds From A Democratic Organization Called "Act Blue"

Seems they are rewording their apps and website now that people are taking notice.
http://archive.is/bxzZ1
http://archive.is/AzsgF

 
H/T Reddit

Mar 052017
 
Senate Democrats posted her impassioned plea on their Facebook page as ‘Words Of Inspiration’

The Obama administration’s former Attorney General Loretta Lynch has made an impassioned video plea for more marching, blood and death on the streets – a video that was later posted on the Facebook page of Senate Democrats as “words of inspiration.”

The video is less than a minute long and begins by stating that people are experiencing “great fear and uncertainty,” with the unstated implication it is due to Donald Trump’s takeover of the White House.

Without offering any specifics, Lynch goes on to say that “our rights” are “being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back.”

But the strongest words come in a statement that seems to suggest the answer is street action that will inevitably turn bloody and deadly.

“I know that this is a time of great fear and uncertainty for so many people,” Lynch says. “I know it’s a time of concern for people, who see our rights being assailed, being trampled on and even being rolled back. I know that this is difficult, but I remind you that this has never been easy. We have always had to work to move this country forward to achieve the great ideals of our Founding Fathers.”

Lynch, who is scheduled to receive the Thomas Jefferson Foundation Medal of Law from the University of Virginia, goes on to say: “It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came together and supported those ideals who have made the difference. They’ve marched, they’ve bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We can do this again.”

She is officially in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code § 2102. Inciting riots. Time to round her up.

18 U.S. Code § 2102

Click to enlarge

 
via

Mar 032017
 
A “Meticulous” study conducted by the Media Research Center found that 88% of broadcast news coverage on President Trump and his administration was “Hostile” during his first 30 days in office.

Study Mainstream Media Coverage Of Trump’s First Month 88 Percent “Hostile”

The antagonism between Trump and the “Mainstream Media” is no secret, with Trump recently calling corporate-owned news media the “Enemy of the American People.” Now a new study, conducted by the Media Research Center (MRC), has confirmed that the media’s coverage of Trump has been anything but balanced, with 88% of all news coverage of the administration within its first 30 days in office found to be overtly “hostile.” The study analyzed evening newscasts on the “Big Three” networks – ABC, NBC, and CBS – for both tone and content during Trump’s first month in the White House. They found that the three networks had collectively produced around 16 hours of coverage on Trump and his administration, representing 54% of their total coverage for the entire month.

“Our measure of media tone excludes sound-bites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” wrote Rich Noyes – research director for the MRC – along with fellow MRC analyst Mike Ciandella. “Our measure of media tone excludes sound-bites from identified partisans, focusing instead on tallying the evaluative statements made by reporters and the nonpartisan talking heads (experts and average citizens) included in their stories,” the pair added.

Trump bad press 30 days

Despite the study’s focus on allegedly nonpartisan journalists and experts, the networks were found to have filled their stories with quotes largely from citizens angry about Trump’s policies, giving minimal airtime to Trump supporters. It was also found that reporters “often injected their own anti-Trump editorial tone into the coverage. ‘It has been a busy day for presidential statements divorced from reality,’ CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley […] began his February 6 broadcast.”

The study also noted that Trump’s so-called “Muslim ban” drew the most negative coverage, netting over three hours in total, though the border wall issue was a close second. The study also reported that “nearly an hour of coverage (56 minutes) was given over to anti-Trump protests on various topics, with nearly one-fifth (82 out of 442) of the Trump stories or briefs aired during these 30 days including at least some discussion of an anti-Trump protest.”

A previous MRC study had found that negative coverage of his campaign was similarly high with 91% of broadcast coverage at the time found to cast the Trump campaign in a negative light. With trust in the media at an all-time low and with a majority of Americans believing that the media is too critical of Trump, this latest study only confirms that the mainstream media remains remarkably out of touch with the average American.

 
By Whitney Webb

Mar 012017
 

An educational film to teach viewers about the dynamics of propaganda, made in the in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s.

A teacher dissects the processes in which propaganda works to an eager student. In it are moments of classic hokum, but curiously it all rings true today.

Beware of Propaganda!

 

Strategies Of Manipulation

 Information, Political  Comments Off on Strategies Of Manipulation
Feb 232017
 

The Strategies and Techniques of the Elite for the Manipulation of Public Opinion and Society

Strategies Of Manipulation

1. The strategy of distraction

The prime element of social control is the strategy of distraction consisting of deviating the public attention from the important problems and from the mutations decided by the political and economic elites by means of the flooding technique or the continuous inundation of distractions and insignificant information.

The strategy of distraction is equally indispensable to prevent the public from getting interested in the essential knowledge in areas of science, economy, psychology, neurology and cybernetics.

“To maintain the public attention distracted, away form the true social problems, captivated by subjects of no real importance. To maintain the public busy, busy, without any time to think; going back to the farm with the other animals.”

2. Create problems, then offer solutions

This method is also known as “problem-reaction-solution”. It creates a problem, a foreseen “situation” to provoke a certain reaction in the public in order to make this one the demanding force of measures that are desired to be accepted.For example: to let urban violence develop and intensify, or to organize bloody terrorist attempts in order for the public to demand laws of security or police-oriented ones in detriment of freedom. Or also: to create an economic crisis to make accepted the backward movement of social rights and the breaking down of public services as a necessary evil.

3. The strategy of degradation

To make accepted an unacceptable measure it is sufficient to apply it progressively, in a “degraded” manner, over a duration of 10 years. It is in this way that radically new socio-economic conditions have been imposed during the years 1980 to 1990. Massive unemployment, lacking, flexibility, relocation, salaries that no longer secure a decent income, so many changes that would have provoked a revolution should they be abruptly applied.

4. The strategy of differing

Another way of making accepted an unpopular decision is to present it as “painful but necessary”, obtaining the agreement of the public in the moment for the future application. It is easier to accept a future sacrifice than an immediate one. Firstly, because the effort is not deployed immediately.Next, because the public, the people, have always the tendency to naïvely hope that “all will go better tomorrow” and that the demanded sacrifice may be avoided. Anyway, this allows more time for the public to be accustomed to the idea and to accept it with resignation when the moment comes. Recent example: the move to the Euro and the loss of their economic and monetary sovereignty have been accepted by the European countries from 1994 to 1995 for their application in the year 2001. Another example: the multilateral agreements ofALCA (or FTAA) that the United States have imposed in the year 2001 to the countries of all the American continent (Central and South America) in spite of their reticence, conceding an application and the coming into force in the year 2005.

5. To address the public as children of younger age

The majority of the publicity “spots” addresses the public at large with the use of a discourse, arguments, personages, and a tone particularly infantile, many times near the weak, as if the spectator were a child of younger age or a mental handicapped. The more it intends to seek the deception of the spectator or listener, the more it is its tendency to adopt an infantile tone. Why? If it is addressed to a person as if he or she had 12 year of age, then, by reason of suggestion, he or she would also have, with a certain probability, a response or reaction that is lacking of a critical sense same as is the case of a person of 12 years of age.”

6. To utilize an emotional aspect rather than a reflection

To make use of the emotional aspect is a classic technique for making a short-circuit to the rational analysis, and hence to the critical sense of individuals. Besides, the utilization of the emotional registry allows us to open an access door to the unconscious to implant or to insert ideas, wishes, fears or worries, pulsations, or to induce behaviors.

7. To maintain the public in ignorance and stupidity

To make it in a way that the public is unable to comprehend the technologies and the methods utilized for their control and slavery. “The quality of the education given to the lower social classes must be the poorest or the most mediocre possible, in a way that the breach of ignorance that isolates the lower classes from the upper social classes must be and remain incomprehensible to the lower social classes.”

8. To promote in the public complacency with mediocrity

To promote in the public the idea that being stupid, vulgar and uneducated is “cool”.

9. To replace revolt with guilt

To make the individual believe that he himself is the only responsible for his misfortune, the cause of the insufficiency of his intelligence, of his capacities, or his efforts. Thus, instead of rebelling against the economic system, the individual self-devaluates and self-blames, which generates a depressive state, one of its effects is the inhibition of action. And without action, there is no revolution!

10. To know individuals better than they know themselves

In the course of the last 50 years, the accelerated advances of science have generated a growing breach between the knowledge of the public and that one possessed and utilized by the leading elites. Thanks to biology, neurology and applied psychology, the “system” has achieved an advanced knowledge of the human being, both physically and psychologically. The system has been able to know the common individual better than what the individual know about himself. This means that in the majority of cases, the system possesses a greater control and a greater power over individuals than what individuals have over themselves.

 

Apparently, Soros Pays His Rioters Very Well

 Political  Comments Off on Apparently, Soros Pays His Rioters Very Well
Feb 072017
 

I wonder if the parents of these Anti-First Amendment brats know that they’re rioting in the expensive designer clothes they get them on Christmas?

Apparently, Soros pays his rioters very well

Is that a pair of L.L. Bean Duck boots on the Anti-First’er in the background? Don’t they know a L.L. Bean family member donated to a Pro-Trump SuperPAC?

 
Source…
H/T Reddit

Bill Introduced In Congress To Pre-Emptively Attack Iran

 Political  Comments Off on Bill Introduced In Congress To Pre-Emptively Attack Iran
Feb 022017
 
Rep. Alcee Hastings (Democrat-FL) recently introduced a bill that would enable to US to invade Iran for the stated purpose of preventing it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Bill Introduced In Congress To Pre-Emptively Attack Iran

Earlier last month, Congressman Alcee Hastings (Democrat-FL) introduced H.J.Res. 10 or the “Authorization of Use of Force Against Iran Resolution.” Taken at face value, the bill appears to allow the President to authorize military force against Iran. Yet, the text of the bill goes further – it authorizes the president to launch a “pre-emptive” war with the Middle Eastern nation without requiring Congressional approval and without the necessity of Iran having actually committed any action that would warrant a full-scale invasion. Specifically, the text of the bill states that: “The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

H.J.Res. 10 is a joint resolution in the United States Congress.

A joint resolution is often used in the same manner as a bill. If passed by both the House and Senate in identical form and signed by the President, it becomes a law. Joint resolutions are also used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

 

The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln

 Political  Comments Off on The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln
Jan 192017
 
Democrats haven’t been this mad since Republicans freed the slaves.

The Inauguration Of Abraham Lincoln

The first inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as the 16th President of the United States was held on March 4, 1861, on the East Portico of the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.. The inauguration marked the commencement of the first term of Abraham Lincoln as President and the only term of Hannibal Hamlin as Vice President. The presidential oath of office was administered to Lincoln by Roger B. Taney, Chief Justice of the United States.

This was the first time Lincoln appeared in public with a beard, which he had begun growing after being elected president, in response to a written request by 11-year-old Grace Bedell. This effectively made him the first President to have any facial hair beyond sideburns.

On Inauguration Day, Lincoln’s procession to the Capitol was surrounded by heavily armed cavalry and infantry, providing an unprecedented amount of protection for the President-elect as the nation stood on the brink of war. During the 16 weeks between Lincoln’s victory in the 1860 presidential election and Inauguration Day, seven slave states had declared their secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America.

Train ride to Washington

An entourage of family and friends left Springfield, Illinois with Lincoln on February 11 to travel by train to Washington, D.C. for the inauguration. This group including his wife, three sons, and brother-in-law, as well as John G. Nicolay, John M. Hay, Ward Hill Lamon, David Davis, Norman B. Judd, and Edwin Vose Sumner.

For the next ten days, he traveled widely throughout the country, with stops in Indianapolis, Columbus, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Albany, New York City, and south to Philadelphia, where on the afternoon of February 21, he pulled into Kensington Station. Lincoln took an open carriage to the Continental Hotel, with almost 100,000 spectators waiting to catch a glimpse of the President-elect. There he met Mayor Alexander Henry, and delivered some remarks to the crowd outside from a hotel balcony. Lincoln continued on to Harrisburg. Then, because of an alleged assassination conspiracy, Lincoln traveled through Baltimore, Maryland on a special train in the middle of the night before finally completing his journey in Washington.

Source…

 

Thank You Obama!

 Political  Comments Off on Thank You Obama!
Jan 172017
 

Thank You Obama

This is the face of a charismatic but incompetent failure that presided over the fall of the Democrat Party. He helped his party lose 919 State legislature seats, lose control of Congress, lose control of Governorships across the nation, and help usher in the Trump era.

And somehow, a day from now, 4 years from now, 20 years from now the Democrats will still look back at him as a hero.

For that we sincerely Thank You Obama!

 

Jan 172017
 
After The WaPost’s Latest Shot, It’s Time To Call “Fake News” By Its Real Name “Weaponized Journalism”

It's Time To Call ‘Fake News’ By Its Real Name ‘Weaponized Journalism’

A Washington Post fake news article misrepresenting the “firing” of the head of the DC National Guard makes clear mainstream media has now weaponized the news.

Defying any sense of journalistic integrity and loyalty to the truth, the Washington Post did it again — publishing Fake News for clicks — which had the desired effect of worldwide outrage to suit a tightly-defined political agenda.

This latest astounding deviation from the facts, however, makes indisputably clear the weaponization of news. Journalists and media outlets make mistakes from time to time, but a pattern and practice of publishing unfounded, unverified, and fraudulent articles cannot be characterized simply as irresponsible.

We are in the midst of an information war of epic proportions — led haplessly astray of the truth with the Post leading the way — and it’s a dangerous and frightening portent of things to come, not the least of which will be propagandized truth and heavy-handed censorship.

On Friday, WaPo published an article claiming President-elect Donald Trump fired Washington, D.C., National Guard Major General Errol R. Schwartz — just in time for the inauguration — and that he would be forced to leave his post as soon as the president takes the oath of office.

But that isn’t true.

“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz told the Post. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” He added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”

WaPo’s erroneous reporting included a statement from D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson, who lamented, “It doesn’t make sense to can the general in the middle of an active deployment.”

“I’m a soldier,” the Post quoted Schwartz. “I’m a presidential appointee, therefore the president has the power to remove me.”

But WaPo left out a number of critical points — and horrendously slanted the rest — about this “firing” of the head of the D.C. National Guard.

That D.C. position — unlike the equivalent for states — is appointed by the president, not by the Pentagon, as the Post suggested, nor by any branch of the military. Also, the article glaringly omitted any statement from the Trump transition team, an inexcusable offense, considering it later emerged Schwartz had been offered to keep his position through the end of Inauguration Day — it was Schwartz who turned down the offer, preferring instead to vacate the role at 12 noon, when Trump will be sworn in.

Of course, the blatant misinformation presented by the Post seemed so juicy, countless corporate outlets parroted the claim. Thus this Fake News rippled around the planet earning the scorn of millions who believed Trump must have lost all sensibility for firing a man who had diligently performed his duties since his appointment to the post by former President George W. Bush — during a potentially dangerous event.

This also spawned a number of rumors — with raucous protests planned for Inauguration Day, and the week before, why would the incoming president fire the man in charge of security? Isn’t this a preposterous decision on Trump’s part? What is Trump thinking?

Like previous viral stories — at this point, one would be hard-pressed to deem them ‘news articles’ — the Washington Post published faulty information and subsequently began backtracking.

Notably, in each case, after erroneous information went viral worldwide, edits after publication go largely unnoticed by most of the populace. While retractions and post-publication editor’s notes sometimes appear on WaPo’s articles they are orders of magnitude less popular than the original story and, in this instance, the firing of Schwartz story has only been appended in content — no editor’s note yet graces the top or bottom of the article. (The original version can be found here.)

Any news organization actually practicing journalism would tell you this is egregiously irresponsible.

Except, it’s beginning to appear the Washington Post publishes misinformation and Fake News intentionally — knowing any subsequent disputation of its claims won’t gather as much steam as the original publication.

A distinct reason exists why this would be the case — Brandolini’s law.

“The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it,” Alberto Brandolini, an Italian independent software development consultant, keenly observed in 2013 — the Post knows this, and has been manipulating public perception exactly this way.

It was, after all, the Washington Post who initiated the altogether ironic war on Fake News — first turning from journalistic duty in the publication of several items blaming disinformation for the downfall of, well, nearly everything.

WaPo published an ‘article’ about supposed blacklist of over 200 outlets a nascent and seemingly prepubescent website, PropOrNot, had decided were Russian propagandists — linked either directly to the Russian government or had haplessly joined the effort by reporting Fake News during the election.

Literally nothing in that Post article was true. None of the claims were backed by evidence, no research or investigation had been performed, nothing. WaPo just printed the claims of PropOrNot and inserted plausible deniability by failing to link to the list or site. A subsequent retraction at the top of the page was akin to plugging a crack in a dam that’s already burst — damage to many reputable and award-winning outlets listed had already been done.

Previously:
RED ALERT: Head Of DC National Guard Removed From Command During Inauguration

 

Source… Claire Bernish  at The Free Thought Project