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

Jan 162017
 

Understanding Media Spin
A Guide


Spin.

We all know it exists. The newsreaders, commentators and pundits all attempt to persuade others to accept their own point of view on events. This is what has become known as “media spin”. Some are obvious in their efforts, some are quite subtle. The knowledgeable listener is ever alert to this spinning so below is offered a humble guide to help you in your watchfulness.

Understanding Media Spin

“according to industry experts” “industry leaders acknowledge” — displaced former executives

“it’s widely thought” “it’s common knowledge” — constant repetition in the media has folks thinking it is the truth

“experts generally agree that” — some previously unknown college professors

“according to official sources” — two gals from the secretarial pool

“some in Congress say” — a couple of volunteer campaign workers

“internationally it is agreed that” — two East African diplomats told me

“you may not believe this but” — I don’t believe it but, I want you to

“it is believed that” — I think

“it is generally believed that” — a couple of others think so, too

“a new idea going around suggests that” — this is our latest disinformation scam

“it’s being said that” “people are saying” — we planted the seed and now it is spreading

“one observer has said” — a self-absorbed elitist said

“pundits claim” — two self-absorbed elitists said

“insiders say” — a disgruntled employee told me

“business gurus are telling us that” — overheard on the golf course

“according to The New York Times — the only paper biased enough to run the story


 

Jan 112017
 
Mainstream Media Exposed – Donald Trump NEVER Mocked A Disabled Reporter

 
I’ve seen a lot of videos posted debunking the “Trump mocks disabled reporter” narrative, but this one is the best of the bunch. It not only shows HOW the accusation is false, but explains WHY the Mainstream Media was so desperate to push it.

It’s all a matter of how the Mainstream Media frames it…
“Trump mocks disabled reporter” is factually true. He did (by definition) mock a reporter, who is disabled. Though what the Mainstream Media frames and the public hears is “Trump mocked a reporter for his disability” which of course is false.

Trump mocks disabled reporter
 

Jan 022017
 

Leaked John Kerry Audio Reveals Obama Intentionally Allowed The Rise Of ISIS

Absolutely stunning and something we always suspected – A leaked audio of Secretary Kerry reveals Obama intentionally allowed the rise of ISIS!

From Conservative Treehouse:

There are moments within investigative research when your jaw can stand agape as you recognize the scope of what you are reading or hearing.  A brutally down-played audio of Secretary John Kerry is just such an occasion.

♦ In August of 2014 President Obama (wearing a tan business suit) gave a press conference where he stated he “did not have a strategy” against ISIS. –Video Link

♦ Two months later, in October of 2014, Josh Earnest gave a press conference where he stated:  “Our ISIS strategy is dependent on something that does not yet exist” –Video Link

However, on September 30th 2016 the New York Times quietly released a leaked audio recording of Secretary John Kerry meeting with multiple factions associated within Syria.

When you listen to the audio recording it becomes immediately obvious what was going on when both of those 2014 statements were made by the White House.  In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to over 5 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.

This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama.  It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans.  What the recording reveals is substantive:

First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.

Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.

Thirdly, in order to facilitate the two objectives, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.

Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully before continuing.  Because this audio (below), along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.

The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.

When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria.  For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.

The revelations within this leaked audio are simply astounding. The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:

[…]  Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.

This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)

Listen to the audio.

Key Kerry moments at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.

The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria.  Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:

Read more…

Audio:

 
This elevates Obama and all those complicit to war criminal status worthy of prosecution.

Could this apply?

18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy

    If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 807; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(J), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)

Along with Obama and Kerry, Representative Adam Kinzinger, Senator John McCain, and candidate Evan McMullin could be sent away for this too.

Previously:
What’s Really Going On In Syria? Are We Being Lied To?

 

Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”

 Political  Comments Off on Syrians in Aleppo Chanting: “Clinton, you cow, leave us alone”
Dec 212016
 

Your government is lying to you.

Streamable mirror.

Previously:
What’s Really Going On In Syria? Are We Being Lied To?

 

Dec 182016
 

What's Really Going On In Syria?

What’s really happening in Syria? Hint: Barack Hussein Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and the Mainstream Media have been lying to us.

Eva Bartlett is an independent journalist from Canada. She has traveled to Syria many times to investigate human rights violations and terrorism against Syrians. What she has found out is a truth completely opposite of what the Mainstream Media and governments claim, i.e. “Fake News”.

During a United Nations press conference, Bartlett sharply criticized Western governments, particularly the United States, for their efforts to effect regime change in Syria. Contrary to the Western narrative, she said, the people of Syria do not want a regime change. During her travels to and around the country, she had talked to Syrians, who widely expressed support for President Bashar al-Assad, whose army is battling a number of Western-backed terrorist groups.

Watch the video below to hear the true about what is really going on in Syria.

(NSFW Language)

This is what a real journalist looks like. You forget that living here in the US!

Western mainstream media’s coverage of the Syrian war is “compromised” as their local sources are “not credible” and, in the case of Aleppo, not even there, a Canadian journalist said in an emotional speech at the UN.

“I’ve been many times to Homs, to Maaloula, to Latakia and Tartus [in Syria] and again, Aleppo, four times. And people’s support of their government is absolutely true. Whatever you hear in the corporate media is completely opposite,” Eva Bartlett, a Canadian journalist and rights activist, told a press conference arranged by the Syrian mission to the UN.

“And, on that note, what you hear in the corporate media, and I will name them – BBC, Guardian, the New York Times etc. – on Aleppo is also the opposite of reality,” she added. The mainstream media narrative, she argued, is meant to mislead the public about what is really happening in Syria by demonizing President Bashar Assad’s government and altering the facts on Russia’s support for Damascus.

Bartlett’s statements did not seemingly play well with everyone in the room. A reporter from Aftenposten, Norway’s largest print newspaper, challenged her and demanded Bartlett explain what she thought was the “agenda” of Western mainstream media. “Why should we lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie? How can you justify calling all of us liars?” he said.

Bartlett, who has been covering Syrian events for several years since the outbreak of the civil war, noted that while there are “certainly honest journalists among the very compromised establishment media,” many respected media agencies simply seem to avoid doing a fact-check.

She then asked her Norwegian colleague to name humanitarian organizations operating in eastern Aleppo. As the Aftenposten reporter stayed silent, Bartlett added that “there are none.”

“These organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights [SOHR], which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man. They’re relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets. Let’s talk about the White Helmets,” she went on.

Members of the controversial group “purport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib … no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.” Meanwhile, she noted, “their video footage actually contains children that have been ‘recycled’ in different reports; so you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in say August, and she turns up in the next month in two different locations.”

“So they [the White Helmets] are not credible. The SOHR are not credible. ‘Unnamed activists’ are not credible. Once or twice maybe, but every time? Not credible. So your sources on the ground – you don’t have them,” Bartlett concluded.

A journalist from Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera took a more measured tone and asked Bartlett to explain the difference between the Western and Russian media coverage, saying that Russian television channels report on humanitarian efforts and reconciliation instead of overt naming and blaming.

“You ask why we aren’t seeing this,” Bartlett said. “This relates to the other gentleman’s question about why most of the corporate media are telling lies about Syria. It’s because this is the agenda; if they had told the truth about Syria from the beginning, we wouldn’t be here now. We wouldn’t have seen so many people killed.”

Source…

Unedited video:

Not only has Trump’s victory turned America around (it’s certain, even though he’s not in office yet), but Syrians can finally have their home, neighborhood, city, and country back.

Here are some updates from the Aleppo liberation from the Obama/Hillary/Kerry-backed ISIS terrorists. Residents are overjoyed.

If this is true, it’s is CHILLING! It means that all the Syrian refugees coming here and migrating throughout Europe are being dispersed for a reason. Can you say Trojan Horse?

 

Dec 152016
 

The head of the Department of Justice REJECTS claims the Russians directly hacked our election.

Listen up, Mainstream / State-Run Media… The case is closed!

We didn’t see any Technical Interference from the Russians.

 

Dec 152016
 

Remember when John Podesta threatened to make an example of a suspected leaker in his emails?

Why isn’t the Mainstream Media asking John Podesta what he meant by this statement?

John Podesta Threatened To Make An Example Of Leaker

“I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.” ~ John Podesta Wikileaks email id 36082

I guess if the Mainstream Media reported on this they would have to admit the information leaked is real. So they look the other way and push the “Fake News” handed to them by the DNC.

Related: A ‘Disgusted’ Democrat leaked Clinton campaign emails

 

 

Fake News Example Of The Day: Hillary’s Double-Digit Lead

 Political  Comments Off on Fake News Example Of The Day: Hillary’s Double-Digit Lead
Dec 132016
 

Fake News Example Of The Day: Hillary's Double-Digit Lead

This example of Mainstream Media / Government approved propaganda is from October 23rd 2016.

Fake News link:
Clinton Vaults to a Double-Digit Lead, Boosted by Broad Disapproval of Trump (POLL)

 

Dec 122016
 

Hillary Set Up The 'Russian Hack' Excuse During The Debates

Was Hillary laying the foundation for “Fake News” during the debates?

Remember during the third and final debate when Hillary Clinton unexpectedly pivoted from the domestic immigration question to raise the issue of Russian’s involvement in the hacking of Democrats’ emails in an attempt, she said, to influence the outcome of the U.S. election?

Was this the strategy all along in case she lost? Watch the video below and you decide.

Finally, will Donald Trump admit and condemn that the Russians are doing this and make it clear he will not have the help of Putin in this election. That he rejects Russian espionage of this election which he actually encouraged?” Clinton said.

Putin, Trump said, “has no respect for this person,” pointing at his opponent.

“That’s because he’d rather have a puppet,” Clinton said.

“You’re the puppet,” Trump responded.

Clinton went on the attack: “You encouraged espionage on our people. That you are willing to spout the Putin line, sign up for his wish list, break up NATO, do whatever he wants to do, you continue to get help from him because he has a very clear favorite in this race. We’ve never had a foreign government trying to interfere with our election.

“Seventeen intelligence agents, military and civilian included, determined this intelligence attacks have come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.”

Wallace intervened and pressed Trump, saying top intelligence officials do believe there is Russian involvement.

“Do you condemn any interference” from Russia? Wallace said.

“By Russia or anybody else,” Trump said. “Of course I condemn. I don’t know Putin. This is not my best friend. But if the United States got along with Russia it wouldn’t be so bad.”

Source…

Hillary was SO concerned, that she put our nations classified documents on her personal private unsecured server, to give the Russians easier access to them!
 

Time Magazine’s Subliminal Message

 Pictures, Political  Comments Off on Time Magazine’s Subliminal Message
Dec 122016
 

It is hard to believe this one wasn’t intentional.

Time Magazine's Subliminal Message

Trump sits in a throne-like chair in a dimly lit setting. Even more subtly, Time placed the Trump’s head directly underneath the M in TIME, which creates a nice, subtle, devil horn-like touch.

 
Donald Trump: TIME Person of the Year 2016

More Fake News: Blaming Benghazi On A Video

 Political  Comments Off on More Fake News: Blaming Benghazi On A Video
Dec 102016
 

Fake News Benghazi Video Blame - More Fake News: Blaming Benghazi On A Video

Remember when Hillary sold the false video narrative hard in the weeks after the Benghazi attack? At a small ceremony upon the return of the caskets to Andrews Air Force base, Hillary even shook the hand of Charles Wood, father of Benghazi hero Ty Woods, and said, “We are going to have the filmmaker arrested.”

In this rare instance, Hillary was as good as her word. She and Obama set out to identify and punish the maker of that video, and they did so with a speed and severity that the attackers themselves were spared. Scarier still, Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian whose short video “The Innocence of Muslims” was initially blamed for sparking the Sept. 11, 2012 terror attack is now living in a homeless shelter run by First Southern Baptist Church in Buena Park, Calif. He has served time in prison, been shamed publicly by the White House and threatened with death.

Scary isn’t it that Hillary and Obama sent a man to jail to cover up a lie and the Mainstream media cheered them on!

In this week’s fact-checking video, CNN’s Jake Tapper takes a look at key public and private statements made by then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on the day of the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks in Benghazi and the days immediately following. The attacks on the U.S. diplomatic facility and CIA annex resulted in the deaths of four Americans.

As we have written, the Obama administration was quick to blame an online anti-Muslim video, which did trigger protests in Egypt and elsewhere, and slow to acknowledge that the heavily armed assault in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. “Hillary Clinton contributed to that false impression even though the State Department and Hillary Clinton seemed to know from the beginning that this was a terrorist attack,” Tapper says.

Source…

Related:
In 2013 Obama Legalized The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public
 
via

Washington Post “Fake News”: CIA Says Russia Tried To Help Trump Win The Election

 Political  Comments Off on Washington Post “Fake News”: CIA Says Russia Tried To Help Trump Win The Election
Dec 102016
 

Washington Post “Fake News”? Why did we know this was coming? Remember every time during the debates when Hillary tried to tie Trump to Russia. Guess the Washington elite had a strategy in case she lost!

Related:
In 2013 Obama Legalized The Use Of Propaganda On The US Public
 

Sharyl Attkisson – Astroturf And Media Manipulation

 Political  Comments Off on Sharyl Attkisson – Astroturf And Media Manipulation
Dec 072016
 

In this video Sharyl Attkisson discusses Astroturf groups, the fake grass roots movements funded from above in order to influence media coverage of a political issue. It is a bit over 10 minutes, not an outrageous investment of your time compared to the valuable information it provides.

In this eye-opening talk, veteran investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.

Sharyl Attkisson is an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C. She is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere. For twenty years (through March 2014), Attkisson was a correspondent for CBS News. In 2013, she received an Emmy Award for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her reporting on “The Business of Congress,” which included an undercover investigation into fundraising by Republican freshmen. She also received Emmy nominations in 2013 for Benghazi: Dying for Security and Green Energy Going Red. Additionally, Attkisson received a 2013 Daytime Emmy Award as part of the CBS Sunday Morning team’s entry for Outstanding Morning Program for her report: “Washington Lobbying: K-Street Behind Closed Doors.” In September 2012, Attkisson also received an Emmy for Oustanding Investigative Journalism for the “Gunwalker: Fast and Furious” story. She received the RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Award for Excellence in Investigative Reporting for the same story. Attkisson received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2009 for her exclusive investigations into TARP and the bank bailout. She received an Investigative Emmy Award in 2002 for her series of exclusive reports about mismanagement at the Red Cross.

 
via

Podesta-Soros Master Plan – How To Take Over America – 2008 And Beyond!

 Political  Comments Off on Podesta-Soros Master Plan – How To Take Over America – 2008 And Beyond!
Nov 252016
 

Podesta-Soros Master Plan

Wikileaks Email ID 59125 exposes John Podesta and George Soros Master Plan on how to take over America in 2008 and beyond!

It’s all there in the memos, the whole scheme… taking over the economy, protracted war, dividing Americans and controlling the media.

Email link: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59125

Email Screenshot:
podesta-soros-master-plan-email

Email Attachments:
2008 Combined Fundraising, Message and Mobilization Plan.doc
NYC meeting 2007 (Final Draft).doc

From 2008 Combined Fundraising, Message and Mobilization Plan.doc:

Memo To: George and Jonathan Soros, Peter and Jonathan Lewis, Herb and Marion Sandler, Steve Bing, John Sperling, Michael Vachon From:John Podesta (writing as a private citizen) cc: Anna Burger, Rob McKay and Tom Matzzie Date:October 30, 2007 RE: 2008 COMBINED FUNDRAISING, MESSAGING AND MOBILIZATION PLAN

This memo serves as the follow-up to our September meeting in New York. Coming out of this meeting, I was charged with putting together a more detailed and structured overview of what the combined messaging and voter mobilization elements of an independent expenditure would like in 2008.

Since then, I have met closely with Anna Burger, Rob McKay, Tom Matzzie, Susan McCue, Martin Frost, Stan Greenberg, Paul Begala and others to discuss these questions and flesh out a concrete plan for action in 2008. Tom Matzzie has produced a comprehensive campaign plan and institutional framework for the messaging effort and this memo will draw upon many of his ideas. This planning is on top of the existing work already under way by the America Votes-Catalist-Atlas network on the mobilization side.
I am confident that collectively we have produced a viable and successful model for achieving victory in 2008 (and beyond) built on transparency and full accountability for everyone involved.

To win in 2008 we will need to mount two large campaigns. The first will use national, state and local media to define the issues and narratives that will ultimately shape the election—a progressive “Messaging Campaign.” The second will be a voter contact and mobilization effort in targeted states to move swing voters and mobilize progressive voters—a progressive “Mobilization Campaign.” A successful joint strategy must be developed and executed to connect the messaging component to the ground game.

We suggest that you keep in mind the following strategic goals as we try to develop a framework for electoral activity in 2008:

Create the conditions for a tidal wave against the GOP. The stakes of the election need to fit the historical moment. The country is massively off track. Nothing will change until Bush and his supporters are out and new leaders are in—leaders who will be willing and able to do what is necessary for the country. A likely downturn in the economy, the protracted war in Iraq, rising inequality and Republican resistance to change can help set the stage for widespread gains up and down the ballot in 2008. This must again be a nationalized election in terms of scope and message.

Keep the President’s numbers down and brand all conservative candidates as “Bush Republicans.” Bush’s lame duck status cannot be allowed to create space for the Republicans to claim the mantle of change or conservative principle. The Republican presidential candidate will attempt to be the true heir of Ronald Reagan and may try to position himself as an agent for change, Sarkozy-style. We must continually remind voters that the nominee and all the rest of the Republican candidates are the residual forces of the failed Bush years.

Exploit the particular weaknesses of the Republican presidential nominee. Beyond tying the candidate to Bush, we must not be shy about reminding voters of the personal faults and character limitations of the Republican Party leader. The current crop of candidates is relatively unknown to Americans and will be ripe for definition through serious opposition research and media work. This will not happen organically. It will require sustained pressure and a willingness to play politics by their rules.

Ensure that demographics is destiny. An “emerging progressive majority” is a realistic possibility in terms of demographic and voting patterns. But it is incomplete in terms of organizing and political work. Women, communities of color, and highly educated professionals are core parts of the progressive coalition. Nationally, and in key battleground states, their influence is growing. Latinos and young voters are quickly solidifying in this coalition as well. But many of these voters are new to the process. All of these groups—in addition to working class voters and independents picked up in 2006—will require significant long-term engagement in order to keep them reliably on our side.

Control the political discourse. So much effort over the past few years has been focused on better coordinating, strengthening, and developing progressive institutions and leaders. Now that this enhanced infrastructure is in place—grassroots organizing; multi-issue advocacy groups; think tanks; youth outreach; faith communities; micro-targeting outfits; the netroots and blogosphere— we need to better utilize these networks to drive the content of politics through a strong “echo chamber” and message delivery system.

Set the stage for future progressive actions. All of this electoral activity will be for naught if we do not simultaneously advance a larger vision for why progressive change is necessary and how specific progressive legislation will achieve these goals. Should progressives win in 2008, the next president and Congress will face serious challenges in both cleaning up the mess of the Bush years and moving significant reforms in health care, energy, foreign policy and Iraq, poverty and mobility.

Leave something behind. We should think of investments in 2008 as building blocks for ongoing strategic campaigns and issue work in 2009 and beyond. Simply getting progressives elected will not be enough to maintain the political pressure and support necessary to pass progressive legislation and build a long-term, working majority.
Given the existing work on the voter mobilization side, primarily through the enhanced American Votes-Catalist-Atlas network and ongoing union efforts, most of our discussion in the New York meeting centered on the messaging side. The primary questions raised were: “What is the scope of the messaging campaign?” and “Who is going to run it?”

In this memo, I want to focus in greater detail on the messaging campaign, describe the mobilization effort again, and provide an overview of the governance and linkage between both efforts plus the joint fundraising through a new 527.

…. EXCERPT …..

The Messaging Campaign

The messaging component will be set-up through an existing 501(c)(4), currently named The Campaign to Defend America. This name will be changed when appropriate.

A (c)(4) board, with overlapping but not identical members from the other boards, will control the messaging component. Assuming resolution of some outstanding legal questions, I am prepared to serve as Chairman of the Board for the (c)(4) so long as I can continue to lead CAP/Action Fund. The messaging effort itself will be led by a President with full executive authority along with an executive team of three key individuals described below.

…. EXCERPT …..

• Developing a “Media Nerve Center” to align messaging across TV, radio, print, Internet, single-issue and advocacy organizations, progressive media, surrogates and new media. This “Media Nerve Center” would be connected to the Mobilization Campaign and eventually become a part of the permanent progressive infrastructure to last beyond the 2008 election.

…. EXCERPT …..
NYC meeting 2007

Controlling the Dialogue, Messaging and Media

If the structure of voter contact/voter mobilization is relatively mature, the structure of using outside forces to control the messaging and the debate in the campaign is almost nonexistent.

Ever since the 1996 Clinton campaign discovered the soft money loophole in the campaign finance law to run “issue ads” that pummeled Bob Dole before he even got the nomination, national and local television campaigns have been waged using non-federal dollars. The McCain-Feingold law closed down the loophole Clinton used to run that advertising through the DNC, but a new avenue for soft dollars to be spent on advertising quickly was found through spending by so-called 527 organizations. The FEC was in the process of narrowing this new loophole when the Supreme Court, this June, blew a hole in the McCain-Feingold laws to permit 527’s, unions, corporations, trade associations and others to run “issue ads” right up until Election Day.

The Media Fund in 2004 was built on this theory of soft money advertising and the notion that the candidate would be without resources from the spring through the convention.**

sehrman@earthlink is the original recipient of the memo; much speculation is in play over the identity of this poster – who only appears once in all the Wikileaks files – but this may in fact be a rare sighting of the elusive DC Power Maven and Hillary’s Mentor, SARA EHRMAN

Sara currently serves as a Senior Advisor to the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace. Sara’s extensive career has provided her with a dynamic and unique knowledge of the regional issues in the Middle East.

Sara has held several key positions over the years, including Legislative Assistant to two U.S. Senators, Co-Director on the McGovern Presidential Campaign, Director of Federal Affairs for the Governor of Puerto Rico, Political Director for the American Israel Public Committee, Founder/Director of the Texas/Israel Exchange, Deputy Political Director for Clinton for President and a member of the Clinton/Gore Transition team, and Deputy Political Director of the Democratic National Committee.

This was a good strategy on their part. Unfortunately, their nominee was Hillary Clinton, the most corrupt politician possibly of all time, and the Republican nominee was Donald Trump, who is not actually a politician, is not actually a Republican, and cannot be accused of being in concert with the Bush doctrine.

 
ref

Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments

 Political  Comments Off on Mainstream Media Falsely Spins Trump’s New York Times Climate Comments
Nov 232016
 

New York Times Trump

This is a classic example of “Fake News”. The Mainstream Media’s reporting of Trump’s interview with the New York Times says in that meeting he changed his mind on climate change. And if you read the transcripts, he didn’t. If you read the transcripts, he spoke like Trump always speaks. He didn’t commit himself to anything, and some of his answers were innocuous.

Trump actually cited ClimateGate, restated skepticism of ‘Global Warming’.

Climate Depot Analysis:

The media spin on President Elect Donald J. Trump’s sit down with the New York Times on November 22, can only be described as dishonest. Trump appears to soften stance on climate change & Donald Trump backflips on climate change & Trump on climate change in major U-turn

The ‘fake news’ that Trump had somehow moderated or changed his “global warming” views was not supported by the full transcript of the meeting.

Heartland Institute President Joe Bast had this to say about the full transcript of Trump’s meeting: “This is reassuring. The Left wants to drive wedges between Trump and his base by spinning anything he says as “retreating from campaign promises.” But expressing nuance and avoiding confrontation with determined foes who buy ink by the barrel is not retreating.” The Heartland Institute released their skeptical 2015 climate reportfeaturing 4,000 peer-reviewed articles debunking the UN IPCC claims.

Trump’s climate science view that there is “some connectivity” between humans and climate is squarely a skeptical climate view. Trump explained, “There is some, something. It depends on how much.”

Trump’s views are shared by prominent skeptical scientists. University of London professor emeritus Philip Stott has said: “The fundamental point has always been this. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically selected factor (CO2) is as misguided as it gets.” “It’s scientific nonsense,” Stott added. Stott is featured in new skeptical climate change documentary Climate Hustle.

Scientists at the UN climate summit in Marrakech commended Trump’s climate views. See: Skeptical scientists crash UN climate summit, praise Trump for ‘bringing science back again’

Trump also told resident NYT warmist Tom Friedman: ‘A lot of smart people disagree with you’ on climate change. (Note: Friedman has some wacky views: Flashback 2009: NYT’s Tom Friedman lauds China’s eco-policies: ‘One party can just impose politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward’)

Once again, Trump was 100% accurate as very prominent scientists are bailing out of the so-called climate “consensus.”

Renowned Princeton Physicist Freeman Dyson: ‘I’m 100% Democrat and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on climate issue, and the Republicans took the right side’

Nobel Prize-Winning Scientist Dr. Ivar Giaever, Who Endorsed Obama Now Says Prez. is ‘Ridiculous’ & ‘Dead Wrong’ on ‘Global Warming’

Green Guru James Lovelock reverses belief in ‘global warming’: Now says ‘I’m not sure the whole thing isn’t crazy’ – Condemns green movement: ‘It’s a religion really, It’s totally unscientific’

Politically Left Scientist Dissents – Calls President Obama ‘delusional’ on global warming

Trump correctly cited the Climategate scandal: “They say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between scientists…Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about.” See: Watch & Read: 7th anniversary of Climategate – The UN Top Scientists Exposed

Trump cited his uncle, a skeptical MIT scientist: “My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.” (Yes, other MIT scientists are very skeptical as well. See: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen Mocks 97% Consensus: ‘It is propaganda’

It is also worth noting that Trump’s often cited 2012 tweet about climate change stating “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive,” was clearly a joke and he has said it was a joke. It is further worth noting that climate skeptics do not believe the conecpt of “climate change” was “created” by China.

And in what has been described as “fake news”, the publisher of NYT tried to sell CO2-induced storms to Trump; but Trump refused to accept the claim.

NYT’s Arthur Sulzberger: ‘We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.’
Trump countered: ‘We’ve had storms always, Arthur.’


Trump is accurately citing the latest climate science by noting that extreme weather is not getting worse. See: 2016 ‘State of the Climate Report’

  • The U.S. has had no Category 3 or larger hurricane make landfall since 2005 – the longest spell since the Civil War.
  • Strong F3 or larger tornadoes have been in decline since the 1970s.
  • Sea level rise rates have been steady for over a century, with recent deceleration.
  • Droughts and floods are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind, and there is no evidence we are currently having any unusual weather.

Trump’s claim to have an “open mind” on U.S. climate policy and his comment that “I’m going to take a look at” withdrawing from the UN Paris agreement are more nuanced than his previous blunt statements that the U.S. will cancel the UN agreement. But those comments in the context of the interview are hardly a flip-flop or major signal of changing views on the issue.

(Climate Depot Note: UN Paris climate deal ‘is likely to be history’s most expensive treaty’ – ‘Cost of between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually’

University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted in 2014, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!)

http://www.thegwpf.com/donald-trump-on-climategate-the-paris-agrement/
Donald Trump’s New York Times Interview
President-elect Donald J. Trump during a meeting at The New York Times’s offices in Manhattan on Tuesday.

[….] THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, opinion columnist: Mr. President-elect, can I ask a question? One of the issues that you actually were very careful not to speak about during the campaign, and haven’t spoken about yet, is one very near and dear to my heart, the whole issue of climate change, the Paris agreement, how you’ll approach it. You own some of the most beautiful links golf courses in the world …

[laughter, cross talk]

TRUMP: [laughing] I read your article. Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. [inaudible] He doesn’t say that. He just says that the ones that are near the water will be gone, but Doral will be in great shape. (Note: Trump’s Seawall Is About His Business, Not Global Warming – ‘Only shows Trump uses climate alarmism to benefit his business’)

FRIEDMAN: But it’s really important to me, and I think to a lot of our readers, to know where you’re going to go with this. I don’t think anyone objects to, you know, doing all forms of energy. But are you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue who are, think, don’t even …

SULZBERGER: We do hear it.

FRIEDMAN: I was on ‘Squawk Box’ with Joe Kernen this morning, so I got an earful of it.

[laughter]

TRUMP: Joe is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully. But I have an open mind.

SULZBERGER: Well, since we’re living on an island, sir, I want to thank you for having an open mind. We saw what these storms are now doing, right? We’ve seen it personally. Straight up.

FRIEDMAN: But you have an open mind on this?

TRUMP: I do have an open mind. And we’ve had storms always, Arthur.

SULZBERGER: Not like this (sic!).

TRUMP: You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind. (Note: EPA Says That The Worst Heat Waves Occurred in The 1930s)
My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject. It’s a very complex subject. I’m not sure anybody is ever going to really know. I know we have, they say they have science on one side but then they also have those horrible emails that were sent between the scientists. Where was that, in Geneva or wherever five years ago? Terrible. Where they got caught, you know, so you see that and you say, what’s this all about. I absolutely have an open mind. I will tell you this: Clean air is vitally important. Clean water, crystal clean water is vitally important. Safety is vitally important.

And you know, you mentioned a lot of the courses. I have some great, great, very successful golf courses. I’ve received so many environmental awards for the way I’ve done, you know. I’ve done a tremendous amount of work where I’ve received tremendous numbers. Sometimes I’ll say I’m actually an environmentalist and people will smile in some cases and other people that know me understand that’s true. Open mind.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

They’re really largely noncompetitive. About four weeks ago, I started adding a certain little sentence into a lot of my speeches, that we’ve lost 70,000 factories since W. Bush. 70,000. When I first looked at the number, I said: ‘That must be a typo. It can’t be 70, you can’t have 70,000, you wouldn’t think you have 70,000 factories here.’ And it wasn’t a typo, it’s right. We’ve lost 70,000 factories.

We’re not a competitive nation with other nations anymore. We have to make ourselves competitive. We’re not competitive for a lot of reasons.

That’s becoming more and more of the reason. Because a lot of these countries that we do business with, they make deals with our president, or whoever, and then they don’t adhere to the deals, you know that. And it’s much less expensive for their companies to produce products. So I’m going to be studying that very hard, and I think I have a very big voice in it. And I think my voice is listened to, especially by people that don’t believe in it. And we’ll let you know.

FRIEDMAN: I’d hate to see Royal Aberdeen underwater.

TRUMP: The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?

[…]

MICHAEL D. SHEAR, White House correspondent: Mr. Trump, Mike Shear. I cover the White House, covering your administration …

TRUMP: See ya there.

[laughter]

SHEAR: Just one quick clarification on the climate change, do you intend to, as you said, pull out of the Paris Climate

TRUMP: I’m going to take a look at it.

Full interview

They are going to constantly do what they can to stir things up and try to get people to turn against him. They didn’t get their way, were made to look like fools, so now they have to sensationalize everything to get people spreading lies and hate. Which is no surprise since it is a majority of liberals who work in this industry.

And they’re counting on all of us uneducated deplorables to believe their BS