Reuters Spins Positive Trump Poll As Negative

 Political  Comments Off on Reuters Spins Positive Trump Poll As Negative
Jul 212017
 

Media Spins Positive Trump Poll as Negative: 88 percent of those who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 would do so again, but you wouldn’t know it by the way the media is reporting it!

Reuters Spins Positive Trump Poll As Negative

From Accuracy in Media:

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that 88 percent of those who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 would do so again, but you wouldn’t know it by the way the media is reporting it.

Here’s the headline from Reuters reporting on its own poll;

“Do-over: 1 in 8 people who voted for Trump want to change their vote-Reuters/Ipsos poll”

Although the headline isn’t patently false, it is deceptive since seven of eight Trump voters said they would vote for him again.

From the Reuters story (emphasis mine):

About one in eight people who voted for President Donald Trump said they would not do so again after witnessing Trump’s tumultuous first six months in office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll of 2016 voters.

While most of the people who voted for Trump on Nov. 8 said they would back him again, the erosion of support within his winning coalition of older, disaffected, mostly white voters poses a potential challenge for the president. Trump, who won the White House with the slimmest of margins, needs every last supporter behind him to push his agenda through a divided Congress and potentially win a second term in 2020.

The poll surveyed voters who had told Reuters/Ipsos on Election Day how they had cast their ballots. While other surveys have measured varying levels of disillusionment among Trump supporters, the Reuters/Ipsos poll shows how many would go as far as changing the way they voted. The survey was carried out first in May and then again in July.

In the July survey, 12 percent of respondents said they would not vote for Trump “if the 2016 presidential election were held today” – 7 percent said they “don’t know” what they would do, and the remaining 5 percent would either support one of the other 2016 presidential candidates or not vote.

Eighty-eight percent said they would vote for Trump again, a slight improvement over the May figure of 82 percent. Taken together, the polls suggest that Trump’s standing with his base has improved slightly over the past few months despite his Republican Party’s repeated failures to overhaul the healthcare system and multiple congressional and federal investigations into his campaign’s ties to Russia.

To be sure, most presidents lose support among core supporters the longer they are in the White House. According to the Gallup polling service, former President Barack Obama saw his popularity dip among Democrats and minority voters, though it did not come until later in his first term. But Obama, who won the Electoral College with greater margins than Trump, was not as reliant on retaining his core supporters.

The minority of Trump voters who said they would not vote for him again gave varying reasons in interviews for why they had changed their minds.

Reuters admits that most people who back him again and that a minority would not, yet it ran a headline that played up the minority opinion in an attempt to create the impression that Trump voters were losing faith in the president when in fact they were significantly more supportive than they were two months ago.

Not only that, they ran the following chart which flies in the face of what they were trying to convey.

Reuters Spins Positive Trump Poll as Negative

Reuters deserves a F for trying to foist this positive Trump poll on the public as a negative when in fact it showed the president’s strength increasing among us supporters.

 
 
via

Just One More Thing On Donald Trump Jr.

 Political  Comments Off on Just One More Thing On Donald Trump Jr.
Jul 122017
 
Just one more thing on Donald Trump Jr.

If Donald Trump Jr. deleted all of his emails, wiped his server with Bleachbit and destroyed all of his phones with a hammer, would the Mainstream Media suddenly lose all interest in the story and declare him innocent?

 

Just one more thing on Donald Trump Jr.

 

Jun 152017
 

An excellent collection of Liberal Media Hypocrisy

 

For the last year, Reddit user City-on-a-hill has been saving images that show the left leaning Mainstream Media’s hypocrisy. This is his FAKE NEWS collection.

 

Pass it on!

via

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today’s New York Times Front Page

 Political  Comments Off on Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today’s New York Times Front Page
May 022017
 

Today’s New York Times front page shows the horrific picture of the French police officer engulfed in flames from a Molotov Cocktail, but the caption is so strangely generic that you have to wonder if the editors tacitly support the rioters (Spoiler: THEY DO)

Media Propaganda Of The Day: Today's New York Times Front Page

Full PDF scan:
scannat

 

25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

 Political  Comments Off on 25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
Apr 262017
 

These 25 ways are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on social media.

25 Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
  1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
  2. Become incredulous and indignant
  3. Create rumor mongers
  4. Use a straw man
  5. Sidetrack opponents w name calling, ridicule
  6. Hit and Run
  7. Question motives
  8. Invoke authority
  9. Play Dumb
  10. Associate opponent charges with old news
  11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
  12. Enigmas have no solution
  13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
  14. Demand complete solutions
  15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
  16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
  17. Change the subject
  18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
  19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
  20. False evidence
  21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
  22. Manufacture a new truth
  23. Create bigger distractions
  24. Silence critics
  25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
  1. Avoidance
  2. Selectivity
  3. Coincidental
  4. Teamwork
  5. Anti-conspiratorial
  6. Artificial Emotions
  7. Inconsistent
  8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

This why concepts from the film, Wag-The-Dog, actually work. If you saw that movie, know that there is at least one real-world counterpart to Al Pacino’s character. For CIA, it is Mark Richards, who was called in to orchestrate the media response to Waco on behalf of Janet Reno. Mark Richards is the acknowledged High Priest of Disinformation. His appointment was extremely appropriate, since the CIA was VERY present at Waco from the very beginning of the cult to the very end of their days — just as it was at the People’s Temple in Jonestown. Richards purpose in life is damage control.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known ‘liar’s’ testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance — the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution — very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role — the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of “higher standards” of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders any discussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid — and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the later freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or — put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don’t apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response. Accusations should not be overused — reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):

Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

(1) Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil

Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

Example: Media was present in the courtroom (Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby) when CIA agent Marita Lorenz ‘confession’ testimony regarding CIA direct participation in the planning and assassination of John Kennedy was revealed. All media reported was that E. Howard Hunt lost his libel case against Liberty Lobby (Liberty Lobby’s newspaper, The Spotlight, had reported Hunt was in Dallas that day and were sued for the story). See Mark Lane’s remarkable book, Plausible Denial, for the full confessional transcript.

Proper response: There is no possible response unless you are aware of the material and can make it public yourself.. In any such attempt, be certain to target any known silent party as likely complicit in a cover up. In this case, it would be the entire Time-Warner Media Group, among others. This author is relatively certain that reporters were hand-picked to cover this case from among those having intelligence community ties.

(2) Become Incredulous and Indignant

Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the ‘How dare you!’ gambit.

Example: ‘How dare you suggest that the Branch Davidians were murdered! the FBI and BATF are made up of America’s finest and best trained law enforcement, operate under the strictest of legal requirements, and are under the finest leadership the President could want to appoint.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the Waco issue with disinformation tactics. Your high opinion of FBI is not founded in fact. All you need do is examine Ruby Ridge and any number of other examples, and you will see a pattern of abuse of power that demands attention to charges against FBI/BATF at Waco. Why do you refuse to address the issues with disinformation tactics (rule 2 – become incredulous and indignant)?

(3) Create Rumor Mongers

Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such ‘arguable rumors’. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a ‘wild rumor’ from a ‘bunch of kids on the Internet’ which can have no basis in fact.

‘You can’t prove his material was legitimately from French Intelligence. Pierre Salinger had a chance to show his ‘proof’ that flight 800 was brought down by friendly fire, and he didn’t. All he really had was the same old baseless rumor that’s been floating around the Internet for months.’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The Internet charge reported widely is based on a single FBI interview statement to media and a similar statement by a Congressman, neither of which had actually seen Pierre’s document. As the FBI is being accused in participating in a cover up of this matter and Pierre claims his material is not Internet sourced, it is natural that FBI would have reason to paint his material in a negative light. For you to assume the FBI to have no bias in the face of Salinger’s credentials and unchanged stance suggests you are biased. At the best you can say the matter is in question. Further, to imply that material found on Internet is worthless is not founded. At best you may say it must be considered carefully before accepting it, which will require addressing the actual issues. Why do you refuse to address these issues with disinformation tactics (rule 3 – create rumor mongers)?

(4) Use a Straw Man

Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

Example: When trying to defeat reports by the Times of London that spy-sat images reveal an object racing towards and striking flight 800, a straw man is used. The disinformationalist, later identified as having worked for Naval Intelligence, simply stated: ‘If these images exist, the public has not seen them. Why? They don’t exist, and never did. You have no evidence and thus, your entire case falls flat.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You imply deceit and deliberately establish an impossible and unwarranted test. It is perfectly natural that the public has not seen them, nor will they for some considerable time, if ever. To produce them would violate national security with respect to intelligence gathering capabilities and limitations, and you should know this. Why do you refuse to address the issues with such disinformation tactics (rule 4 – use a straw man)?’

(5) Sidetrack Opponents with Name-Calling and Ridicule

This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Example: ‘You believe what you read in the Spotlight? The Publisher, Willis DeCarto, is a well-known right-wing racist. I guess we know your politics — does your Bible have a swastika on it? That certainly explains why you support this wild-eyed, right-wing conspiracy theory.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt by association and attack truth on the basis of the messenger. The Spotlight is well known Populist media source responsible for releasing facts and stories well before mainstream media will discuss the issues through their veil of silence. Willis DeCarto has successfully handled lawsuits regarding slanderous statements such as yours. Your undemonstrated charges against the messenger have nothing to do with the facts or the issues, and fly in the face of reason. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 5 – sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule)?’

(6) Hit and Run

In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning — simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.

Example: ”This stuff is garbage. Where do you conspiracy lunatics come up with this crap? I hope you all get run over by black helicopters.’ Notice it even has a farewell sound to it, so it won’t seem curious if the author is never heard from again.

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your comments or opinions fail to offer any meaningful dialog or information, and are worthless except to pander to emotionalism, and in fact, reveal you to be emotionally insecure with these matters. If you do not like reading ‘this crap’, why do you frequent this NG which is clearly for the purpose of such discussion? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – hit and run)?’

(7) Question Motives

Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

Example: ‘With the talk-show circuit and the book deal, it looks like you can make a pretty good living spreading lies.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply guilt as a means of attacking the messenger or his credentials, but cowardly fail to offer any concrete evidence that this is so. If you think what has been presented are ‘lies’, why not simply so illustrate? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 6 – question motives)?’

(8) Invoke Authority

Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

‘You obviously know nothing about either the politics or strategic considerations, much less the technicals of the SR-71. Incidentally, for those who might care, that sleek plane is started with a pair of souped up big-block V-8’s (originally, Buick 454 C.I.D. with dual 450 CFM Holly Carbs and a full-race Isky cams — for 850 combined BHP @ 6,500 RPM) using a dragster-style clutch with direct-drive shaft. Anyway, I can tell you with confidence that no Blackbird has ever been flown by Korean nationals nor have they ever been trained to fly it, and have certainly never overflown the Republic of China in a SR or even launched a drone from it that flew over China. I’m not authorized to discuss if there have been overflights by American pilots.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imply your own authority and expertise but fail to provide credentials, and you also fail to address issues and cite sources. You simply cite ‘Jane’s-like’ information to make us think you know what you are talking about. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 8 – invoke authority)?’

(9) Play Dumb

No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

Example: ‘Nothing you say makes any sense. Your logic is idiotic. Your facts nonexistent. Better go back to the drawing board and try again.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You evade the issues with your own form of nonsense while others, perhaps more intelligent than you pretend to be, have no trouble with the material. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (Rule 9 – play dumb)?’

(10) Associate Opponent Charges with Old News

A derivative of the straw man — usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: ‘Flight 553’s crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won’t revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant to truth. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 – associate charges with old news)?’

(11) Establish and Rely Upon Fall-Back Positions

Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the ‘high road’ and ‘confess’ with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, ‘just isn’t so.’ Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly ‘call for an end to the nonsense’ because you have already ‘done the right thing.’ Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for ‘coming clean’ and ‘owning up’ to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

Example: ‘Reno admitted in hindsight she should have taken more time to question the data provided by subordinates on the deadliness of CS-4 and the likely Davidian response to its use, but she was so concerned about the children that she elected, in what she now believes was a sad and terrible mistake, to order the tear gas be used.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade the true issue by focusing on a side issue in an attempt to evoke sympathy. Perhaps you did not know that CIA Public Relations expert Mark Richards was called in to help Janet Reno with the Waco aftermath response? How warm and fuzzy it makes us feel, so much so that we are to ignore more important matters being discussed. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 11 – establish and rely upon fall-back positions)?’

(12) Enigmas Have No Solution

Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

Example: ‘I don’t see how you can claim Vince Foster was murdered since you can’t prove a motive. Before you could do that, you would have to completely solve the whole controversy over everything that went on in the White House and in Arkansas, and even then, you would have to know a heck of a lot more about what went on within the NSA, the Travel Office, and the secret Grand Jury, and on, and on, and on. It’s hopeless. Give it up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your completely evade issues and attempt others from daring to attempt it by making it a much bigger mountain than necessary. You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 12 – enigmas have no solution)?’

(13) Alice in Wonderland Logic 

Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact.

Example: ‘The news media operates in a fiercely competitive market where stories are gold. This means they dig, dig, dig for the story — often doing a better job than law enforcement. If there was any evidence that BATF had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma City bombing, they would surely have uncovered it and reported it. They haven’t reported it, so there can’t have been any prior knowledge. Put up or shut up.’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your backwards logic does not work here. Has media reported CIA killed Kennedy when they knew it? No, despite their presence at a courtroom testimony ‘confession’ by CIA operative Marita Lornez in a liable trial between E. Howard Hunt and Liberty Lobby, they only told us the trial verdict. THAT, would have been the biggest story of the Century, but they didn’t print it, did they? Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 13 – Alice in Wonderland logic)?’

(14) Demand Complete Solutions 

Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.

Example: ‘Since you know so much, if James Earl Ray is as innocent as you claim, who really killed Martin Luther King, how was it planned and executed, how did they frame Ray and fool the FBI, and why?’

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. It is not necessary to completely resolve any full matter in order to examine any relative attached issue. Discussion of any evidence of Ray’s innocence can stand alone to serve truth, and any alternative solution to the crime, while it may bolster that truth, can also stand alone. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 14 – demand complete solutions)?

(15) Fit the Facts to Alternate Conclusions

This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

Example: ‘The cargo door failed on Flight 800 and caused a catastrophic breakup which ruptured the fuel tank and caused it to explode.’

Proper response: The best definitive example of avoiding issues by this technique is, perhaps, Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet from the Warren Report. This was eloquently defeated in court but media blindly accepted it without challenge. Thus rewarded, disinformationalists do not shrink from its application, even though today, thanks in part to the movie, JFK, most Americans do now understand it was fabricated nonsense. Thus the defense which works best may actually be to cite the Magic Bullet. ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your imaginative twisting of facts rivals that of Arlan Specter’s Magic Bullet in the Warren Report. We all know why the impossible magic bullet was invented. You invent a cargo door problem when there has been not one shred of evidence from the crash investigation to support it, and in fact, actual photos of the cargo door hinges and locks disprove you. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 15 – fit facts to an alternate conclusion)?’

(16) Vanish Evidence and Witnesses

If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

Example: ‘You can’t say Paisley is still alive… that his death was faked and the list of CIA agents found on his boat deliberately placed there to support a purge at CIA. You have no proof. Why can’t you accept the Police reports?’ This is a good ploy, since the dental records and autopsy report showing his body was two inches too long and the teeth weren’t his were lost right after his wife demanded inquiry, and since his body was cremated before she could view it — all that remains are the Police Reports. Handy.

Proper response: There is no suitable response to actual vanished materials or persons, unless you can shed light on the matter, particularly if you can tie the event to a cover up other criminality. However, with respect to dialog where it is used against the discussion, you can respond… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. The best you can say is that the matter is in contention ONLY because of highly suspicious matters such as the simultaneous and mysterious vanishing of three sets of evidence. The suspicious nature itself tends to support the primary allegation. Why do you refuse to address the remaining issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 16 – vanish evidence and witnesses)?’

(17) Change the Subject

Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

Example: ‘There were no CIA drugs and was no drug money laundering through Mena, Arkansas, and certainly, there was no Bill Clinton knowledge of it because it simply didn’t happen. This is merely an attempt by his opponents to put Clinton off balance and at a disadvantage in the election: Dole is such a weak candidate with nothing to offer that they are desperate to come up with something to swing the polls. Dole simply has no real platform.’ Assistant’s response. ‘You idiot! Dole has the clearest vision of what’s wrong with Government since McGovern. Clinton is only interested in raping the economy, the environment, and every woman he can get his hands on…’ One naturally feels compelled, regardless of party of choice, to jump in defensively on that one…

Proper response: ‘You are both avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your evade discussion of the issues by attempting to sidetrack us with an emotional response to a new topic — a trap which we will not fall into willingly. If you truly believe such political rhetoric, please drop out of this discussion, as it is not germane, and take it to one of the more appropriate politics NGs. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 17- change the subject)?’

(18) Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents

If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

Example: ‘You are such an idiot to think that possible — or are you such a paranoid conspiracy buff that you think the ‘gubment’ is cooking your pea-brained skull with microwaves, which is the only justification you might have for dreaming up this drivel.’ After a drawing an emotional response: ‘Ohhh… I do seem to have touched a sensitive nerve. Tsk, tsk. What’s the matter? The truth too hot for you to handle? Perhaps you should stop relying on the Psychic Friends Network and see a psychiatrist for some real professional help…’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You attempt to draw me into emotional response without discussion of the issues. If you have something useful to contribute which defeats my argument, let’s here it — preferably without snide and unwarranted personal attacks, if you can manage to avoid sinking so low. Your useless rhetoric serves no purpose here if that is all you can manage. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 18 – emotionalize, antagonize, and goad opponents)?’

(19) Ignore Proof Presented, Demand Impossible Proofs

This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

Example: ‘All he’s done is to quote the liberal media and a bunch of witnesses who aren’t qualified. Where’s his proof? Show me wreckage from flight 800 that shows a missile hit it!’

Proper response: ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. You presume for us not to accept Don Phillips, reporter for the Washington Post, Al Baker, Craig Gordon or Liam Pleven, reporters for Newsday, Matthew Purdy or Matthew L. Wald, Don Van Natta Jr., reporters for the New York Times, or Pat Milton, wire reporter for the Associated Press — as being able to tell us anything useful about the facts in this matter. Neither would you allow us to accept Robert E. Francis, Vice Chairman of the NTSB, Joseph Cantamessa Jr., Special Agent In Charge of the New York Office of the F.B.I., Dr. Charles Wetli, Suffolk County Medical Examiner, the Pathologist examining the bodies, nor unnamed Navy divers, crash investigators, or other cited officials, including Boeing Aircraft representatives a part of the crash investigative team — as a qualified party in this matter, and thus, dismisses this material out of hand. Good logic, — about as good as saying 150 eye witnesses aren’t qualified. Then you demand us to produce evidence which you know is not accessible to us, evidence held by FBI, whom we accuse of cover up. Thus, only YOU are qualified to tell us what to believe? Witnesses be damned? Radar tracks be damned? Satellite tracks be damned? Reporters be damned? Photographs be damned? Government statements be damned? Is there a pattern here?. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 19 – ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs)?’

(20) False Evidence

Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

Example: Jack Ruby warned the Warren Commission that the white Russian separatists, the Solidarists, were involved in the assassination. This was a handy ‘confession’, since Jack and Earl were both on the same team in terms of the cover up, and since it is now known that Jack worked directly with CIA in the assassination (see below.)

Proper response: This one can be difficult to respond to unless you see it clearly, such as in the following example, where more is known today than earlier in time… ‘You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your information is known to have been designed to side track this issue. As revealed by CIA operative Marita Lorenz under oath offered in court in E. Howard Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt, James McCord, and others, met with Jack Ruby in Dallas the night before the assassination of JFK to distribute guns and money. Clearly, Ruby was a coconspirator whose ‘Solidarist confession’ was meant to sidetrack any serious investigation of the murder AWAY from CIA. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 20 – false evidence)?’

(21) Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or Other Empowered Investigative Body

Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

Example: According to one OK bombing Federal Grand Juror who violated the law to speak the truth, jurors were, contrary to law, denied the power of subpoena of witness of their choosing, denied the power of asking witnesses questions of their choosing, and relegated to hearing only evidence prosecution wished them to hear, evidence which clearly seemed fraudulent and intended to paint conclusions other than facts actually suggested.

Proper response: There is usually no adequate response to this tactic except to complain loudly at any sign of its application, particularly with respect to any possible cover up. This happened locally in Oklahoma, and as a result, a new Grand Jury has been called to rehear evidence that government officials knew in advance that the bombing was going to take place, and a number of new facts which indicate it was impossible for Timothy McVeigh to have done the deed without access to extremely advanced explosive devices such as available ONLY to the military or intelligence community, such as CIA’s METC technology. Media has refused to cover the new Oklahoma Grand Jury process, by they way.

(22) Manufacture a New Truth

Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

Example: The False Memory Syndrome Foundation and American Family Foundation and American and Canadian Psychiatric Associations fall into this category, as their founding members and/or leadership include key persons associated with CIA Mind Control research. Read The Professional Paranoid or Phsychic Dictatorship in the U.S.A. by Alex Constantine for more information. Not so curious, then, that (in a perhaps oversimplified explanation here) these organizations focus on, by means of their own “research findings”, that there is no such thing as Mind Control.

Proper response: Unless you are in a position to be well versed in the topic and know of the background and relationships involved in the opponent organization, you are not well equipped to fight this tactic.

(23) Create Bigger Distractions

If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

Example: To distract the public over the progress of a WTC bombing trial that seems to be uncovering nasty ties to the intelligence community, have an endless discussion of skaters whacking other skaters on the knee. To distract the public over the progress of the Waco trials that have the potential to reveal government sponsored murder, have an O.J. summer. To distract the public over an ever disintegrating McVeigh trial situation and the danger of exposing government involvements, come up with something else (Flight 800?) to talk about — or, keeping in the sports theme, how about sports fans shooting referees and players during a game and the focusing on the whole gun control thing?

Proper response: The best you can do is attempt to keep public debate and interest in the true issues alive and point out that the ‘news flap’ or other evasive tactic serves the interests of your opponents.

(24) Silence Critics

If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

Example: As experienced by certain proponents of friendly fire theories with respect to flight 800 — send in FBI agents to intimidate and threaten that if they persisted further they would be subject to charges of aiding and abetting Iranian terrorists, of failing to register as a foreign agents, or any other trumped up charges. If this doesn’t work, you can always plant drugs and bust them.

Proper response: You have three defensive alternatives if you think yourself potential victim of this ploy. One is to stand and fight regardless. Another is to create for yourself an insurance policy which will point to your opponents in the event of any unpleasantness, a matter which requires superior intelligence information on your opponents and great care in execution to avoid dangerous pitfalls (see The Professional Paranoid by this author for suggestions on how this might be done). The last alternative is to cave in or run (same thing.)

(25) Vanish

If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Example: Do a Robert Vesco and retire to the Caribbean. If you don’t, somebody in your organization may choose to vanish you the way of Vince Foster or Ron Brown.

Proper response: You will likely not have a means to attack this method, except to focus on the vanishing in hopes of uncovering it was by foul play or deceit as part of a deliberate cover up.

 

 
via

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

 Political  Comments Off on Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets
Apr 132017
 

Who are the White Helmets? This is a question that everyone should be asking themselves.

Fact-Sheet On Syria’s White Helmets

The White Helmets – here are a few facts that you need to know. Share this with your family and friends who rely on the Western Mainstream Media:

 
• The White Helmets, also called Syria Civil Defence, are not who they claim to be. The group is not Syrian; it was created with USA/UK funding under the supervision of a British military contractor in 2013 in Turkey.

• The name “Syria Civil Defence” was stolen from the legitimate Syrian organization of the same name. The authentic Syria Civil Defence was founded in 1953 and is a founding member of the International Civil Defense Organization (1958).

• The name “White Helmets” was inappropriately taken from the legitimate Argentinian relief organization Cascos Blancos / White Helmets. In 2014, Cascos Blancos / White Helmets was honored at the United Nations for 20 years of international humanitarian assistance.

• The NATO White Helmets are primarily a media campaign to support the ‘regime change’ goals of the USA and allies. After being founded by security contractor James LeMesurier, the group was “branded” as the White Helmets in 2014 by a marketing company called “The Syria Campaign” managed out of New York by non-Syrians such as Anna Nolan. “The Syria Campaign” was itself “incubated” by another marketing company named “Purpose”.

• The White Helmets claim to be “neutral, impartial and humanitarian” and to “serve all the people of Syria” is untrue. In reality, they only work in areas controlled by the violent opposition, primarily terrorists associated with Nusra/AlQaeda (recently renamed Jabhat Fath al Sham).

• The White Helmets claim to be unarmed is untrue. There are photos which show their members carrying arms and celebrating Nusra/AlQaeda military victories.

• The White Helmets claim to be apolitical and non-aligned is untrue. In reality they actively promote and lobby for US/NATO intervention in violation of the norms of authentic humanitarian work.

• The Right Livelihood description that “Syria Civil Defence” saved over 60,000 people and “support in the provision of medical services to nearly 7 million people” is untrue. In reality the zones controlled by terrorists in Syria have few civilians remaining. That is why we see “cat” video/media stunts featuring the White Helmets.

• The NATO White Helmets actually undermine and detract from the work of authentic organizations such as the REAL Syria Civil Defence and Syrian Arab Red Crescent.

• The recent Netflix movie about the White Helmets is not a documentary; it is a self promotional advertisement. The directors never set foot in Syria. The Syrian video, real or staged, was provided by the White Helmets themselves. From the beginning scenes showing a White Helmet actor telling his little boy not to give mommy a hard time until the end, the video is contrived and manipulative. The video was produced by a commercial marketing company Violet Films/Ultra Violet Consulting which advertises its services as “social media management”, “crowd building” and “campaign implementation”.

The true face of the White Helmets:


 

The REAL Syria Civil Defence

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-real-syria-civil-defence-exposes-natos-white-helmets-as-terrorist-linked-imposters/5547528

Who are the Syria White Helmets?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/06/21/who-are-the-syria-white-helmets/

White Helmets Deceive Right Livelihood and CodePink

http://truepublica.org.uk/global/white-helmets-deceive-right-livelihood-codepink/

White Helmets cat video showing terrorist zone with no civilians.  “The homeowners abandoned this district and its kittens.”  How fake does it get?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkfcE-Drnas

White Helmets are caught staging rescue only to claim they were making a mannequin challenge video.

http://archive.is/5D2Ew

 


 

 
via

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline

 Political  Comments Off on Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline
Apr 122017
 

A CIA document from the early 1980s details a US plan to destroy Syria — in much the same way the United States has been doing for the last few years.

Declassified CIA Document Reveals Plan To Destroy Syria For Oil Pipeline

Geostrategically crucial Syria has been at the center of a decades-long plot by the United States to depose the sovereign government and install one supportive of goals in the Middle East must be revisited — and quickly — before the beating of war drums drowns out the truth of our government’s recently-espoused mission.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly castigated President Bashar al-Assad for ordering a gruesome mass killing of civilians with chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun. This accusation sparked a bolstering of support for the Syrian regime from both Moscow and Tehran.

“Syria at present has a hammerlock on US interests both in Lebanon and in the Gulf — through closure of Iraq’s pipeline thereby threatening Iraqi internationalization of the war. The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey.”

While the preceding bears the names of leaders and nations familiar to current headlines, that assessment, cogently titled, “Bringing Real Muscle to Bear Against Syria,” from former CIA officer Graham Fuller in actuality discusses Syria under Assad’s predecessor — his father, Hafez al-Assad — and is dated September 14, 1983, amid the Iran-Iraq War.

CIA-RDP88B00443R001404090133-0

 
Fuller’s analysis, points out Activist Post’s Brandon Turbeville, evinces Assad as a nuisance hindering American empire’s lust to control vast fossil fuel stores and protect ally, Israel, against multiple threats in the Middle East. Destabilization of Iraq and Iran also features prominently in the intricate U.S. plan to deal with the irritant, elder Assad — who, incidentally, recognized Western ulterior motives for what they were.

As the six-page document continues,

Syria continues to maintain a hammerlock on two key U.S. interests in the Middle East:

— Syrian refusal to withdraw its troops from Lebanon ensures Israeli occupation in the south;

— Syrian closure of the Iraqi pipeline has been a key factor in bringing Iraq to its financial knees, impelling it towards dangerous internationalization of the war in the Gulf.

Diplomatic initiatives to date have had little effect on Assad who has so far correctly calculated the play of forces in the area and concluded that they are only weakly arrayed against him. If the U.S. is to rein in Syria’s spoiling role, it can only do so through the exertion of real muscle which will pose a vital threat to Assad’s position and power.

CIA Document screen shot

With Iraq seeking to enjoin support internationally in the war, the U.S. had to scramble to prevent the shutdown of a pipeline — a dilemma Fuller suggests could be alleviated through a change in narrative to present Syria as a more deviant enemy than even Iran. That, alone, would have changed the face of the war bearing the names of the two principal adversaries — Sunni majority, Iraq, and Syria-allied, Shi’a, Iran.

Fuller asserted,

“The US should consider urging Iraq to take the war to the other key source of its predicament: Syria.”

Further, he continued,

“The US should consider sharply escalating the pressures against Assad [Sr.] through covertly orchestrating simultaneous military threats against Syria from three border states hostile to Syria: Iraq, Israel and Turkey. Iraq, perceived to be increasingly desperate in the Gulf war, would undertake limited military (air) operations against Syria with the sole goal of opening the pipeline. Although opening war on a second front against Syria poses considerable risk to Iraq, Syria would also face a two-front war since it is already heavily engaged in the Bekaa, on the Golan and in maintaining control over a hostile and restive population inside Syria.

“Israel would simultaneously raise tensions along Syria’s Lebanon front without actually going to war. Turkey, angered by Syrian support to Armenian terrorism, to Iraqi Kurds on Turkey’s Kurdish border areas and to Turkish terrorists operating out of northern Syria, has often considered launching unilateral military operations against terrorist camps in northern Syria. Virtually all Arab states would have sympathy for Iraq.

“Faced with three belligerent fronts, Assad would probably be forced to abandon his policy of closure of the pipeline. Such a concession would relieve the economic pressure on Iraq, and perhaps force Iran to reconsider bringing the war to an end. It would be a sharpening blow to Syria’s prestige and could effect the equation of forces in Lebanon.”

In context, then-President Ronald Reagan faced pressure both to insert military power in Lebanon — a theater of stated neutrality for the U.S. — and to prohibit actual military assistance in the fraught regional entanglement.

That is, until a suicide bomber decimated a U.S. Marines barracks encamped at an airport in Beirut, killing hundreds — just one month subsequent to the date on Fuller’s Syria action plan.

Micah Zenko, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations — an albeit establishment- and Deep State-connected think tank — in “When America Attacked Syria,” wrote in 2012:

“The October 23, 1983, suicide truck bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut International Airport would kill 241 U.S. military personnel; simultaneously, another suicide bomber killed fifty-eight French servicemen of the MNF several kilometers away. (Two weeks later, yet another truck bomb exploded in the Israeli military headquarters in Tyre, killing sixty.) A FBI forensics assessment called the Marine barracks bombing the ‘biggest non-nuclear explosion since World War II.’ According to a Pentagon commission formed to investigate the attack, it was ‘tantamount to an act of war using the medium of terrorism.’ Within weeks, the CIA determined that ‘the bombings…of the United States and French MNF headquarters were carried out by Shia radicals, armed, trained, and directed by Syria and Iran.’”

That the CIA — master meddler in the affairs of sovereign nations — determined fault for the bombings rested with Syria and Iran left both plausibly responsible, with public perception largely following suit.

That a situation eerily similar — in behind-the-scenes string-pulling and long-term U.S. commitment to deposing an Assad from rule in Syria — appears to be playing out nearly three-and-a-half decades later, bellows resoundingly on failures of interventionist foreign policy.

Or, perhaps, its successes.

“Such a threat must be primarily military in nature. At present there are three relatively hostile elements around Syria’s borders: Israel, Iraq and Turkey. Consideration must be given to orchestrating a credible military threat against Syria in order to induce at least some moderate change in its policies,” Fuller explained in the document.

“This paper proposes serious examination of the use of all three states – acting independently – to exert the necessary threat. Use of any one state in isolation cannot create such a credible threat.”

Syria is now a landmine for the Trump administration — as it has been in varying intensity for a lengthy succession of presidents before.

 

 

 
via

Why Trump Launched A Missile Strike On Syria

 Political  Comments Off on Why Trump Launched A Missile Strike On Syria
Apr 072017
 
Three years ago, the Obama administration was celebrating that they had completely removed chemical weapons from Syria. Obama drew that Red Line and the Syrians and everybody else realized the bad actor they were dealing with, and they cowered in fear, and they did remove 100% of their chemical weapons. Wrong… Trump just removed them!

It is now clear that Obama and everyone in his administration lied to the American people when they said that 100 PERCENT of Syria’s chemical weapons were removed.

Obama was the one in bed with Russia all along. The Trump Russia narrative has been destroyed!

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

Good analysis on the missle attack from The Lid by Commander J.E. Dyer USN (Ret.):

In the early morning hours of 7 April in Syria – between 8 and 10 PM Eastern on 6 April, in the U.S. – two U.S. Navy Aegis destroyers began launching Tomahawk cruise missiles at an air base in Syria just east of the city of Homs. In total, the ships launched at least 59 cruise missiles. All were reportedly directed at the single air base, indicating the attack was meant to take the facility out of operation.

President Donald Trump, in a recorded address explained that USS Ross (DDG-71) and USS Porter (DDG-78) were striking the air base in Syria from which the chemical weapons attack that inflicted ghastly damage on civilians in Idlib Province was launched on Tuesday.

The target, according to the latest reporting, was Shayrat Air Base, located about 15 miles southeast of Homs. Fox News’s Jennifer Griffin indicated in the 10 PM hour that the Pentagon would be providing a track of the Syrian Su-24 Fencer – a tactical bomber – that it says conducted the chemical weapons attack on 4 April. In other words, the U.S. military has direct evidence that the attacking aircraft was a Syrian bomber jet. (This is not only feasible, it’s probable and routine.)

Shayrat Air Base was never one of Assad’s biggest, most developed bases. It is overshadowed by T4 air base (often referred to as Tiyas Air Base) further east, which has been the front line of the fight against ISIS for some months now.

Shayrat Air Base

But Shayrat has seen a lot of use for combat logistics in the last 18 months.  The Russians persistently denied it, but there have been numerous reports that they made improvements to Shayrat in 2015 in order to use it as a base.  And Arabic and social media have recorded Russian helicopters making use of Shayrat as an interim base for logistics stops, including mission refueling.  (Fox reports that the U.S. military used its hotline with Russian forces to give them warning of the attack.)

Some reporting has indicated that the Iranians have delivered weapons and material there too, and that “Iranian squadrons” were to operate from the base once it was improved by the Russians.  (The Iranian presence in T4/Tiyas has been better documented.)

The Russians’ use of the base means, at a minimum, that the U.S. has put Russia as well as the Assad regime on notice that there will be no tolerance for chemical weapons attacks.

 

Hillary said this yesterday. Is somebody still leaking to her?


 

In January, Susan Rice Assured NPR the Obama Admin Removed Chemical Weapons From Syria


 

 
via

Apr 062017
 

The Chemical attack in Syria has all the hallmarks of a false flag

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets, an al-Qaeda affiliated group funded by George Soros and the British government, have reportedly staged another chemical weapon attack on civilians in the Syrian city of Khan Shaykhun to lay blame on the Syrian government.

 
A day prior to the attack, Gulf-based Orient TV announced “Tomorrow we are launching a media campaign to cover the airstrikes on Hama country side including the usage of chemical warfare against civilians.” This shows clear foreknowledge that the rebels were going to stage an attack by Orient TV.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The White Helmets filmed much of the footage being released on the chemical attack. They have also been known to stage “rescue” videos in the past. However, this time it appears children were indeed killed in the making of this “media campaign.”

Several children appear in the videos suffocating from an unknown chemical substance, while others appear to have unexplained head injuries. It is known 250 people were kidnapped by Al-Qaeda last week from the nearby city of Hama, which is the same number as the current body count of wounded and killed civilians.

In another “coincidence,” a Pakistani British doctor who at the time of the attack was taking interview requests instead of helping the injured who were flooding in, and additionally received gas masks from a British organization three days prior to the attack.

The doctor, Shajul Islam, is being used as a source by US and UK media, despite facing terror charges for kidnapping and torturing two British journalists in Syria and being struck off the medical register. The organization responsible for sending him equipment is under fire for using donations meant for refugees.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In another suspicious event, the White Helmets operating in the same quarry near the attack received sarin-protective respirator suits one month before the attack, even though the Syrian government no longer possesses sarin.

The al-Qaeda-linked rebels have claimed the chemical was sarin gas used by the Syrian government; however, the OPCW has confirmed Syria no longer has chemical weapons and completely dismantled their stockpiles in 2013.

In contrast, the rebels have not gotten rid of the chemical weapons at their disposal.

According to award-winning journalist Seymour Hersch, intelligence reports show the rebels smuggled in chemical weapons from Libya through Turkey with the approval of Hillary Clinton.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

In 2013, so-called moderate rebels had filmed themselves killing rabbits with gas and threatening to kill religious minorities. ISIS is also known to be in possession of chemical weapons having conducted attacks on Syrian forces in Deir Ezzor.

However weaponized, sarin would have killed or at least injured unprotected first responders.  Sarin can be absorbed through skin and requires a full body suit; however, the White Helmets appeared to wear only masks and no gloves while they handled exposed victims. Others in the vicinity appear not to be wearing a mask at all and are yet unaffected.

Weaponized sarin is a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) capable of killing thousands. If sarin was indeed used, it must have been a weak, non-weaponized form.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and neo-con politicians have been quick to regurgitate the al-Qaeda-linked rebels version of the events before any investigation takes place.

Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu was quick to lay blame on the Syrian government, as did Amnesty International. France called for a security council meeting over the incident.

Federica Mogherini, the Italian Representative of the European Union (EU), blamed Assad while UK’s Envoy to the United Nations, Matthew Rycroft, blamed both Russia and Syria.

In response to the allegations, the Syrian Military and the Russian Ministry of Defense denied any involvement in the attack.

NATO governments are unhappy with the Trump administration’s recent statements that they no longer see regime change in Syria as a priority. In response to this, British Prime Minister Theresa May made a statement that Britain was still fully committed to regime change in Syria. The UK and France may have seen a staged chemical attack as an opportunity to push Trump into war with Syria.

George Soros Linked Group Behind Chemical Attack In Syria

The chemical attack came at the same time as another media attack was occurring against the Syrian government, which claimed that Syrian hospitals were in fact secret torture “slaughterhouses.”

The last chemical attack false flag attack occurred in 2013, where the Syrian Army was accused of using the WMD on the same day the Syrian government had invited weapon inspectors into Damascus, which resulted in Syria giving up its chemical weapons.

WATCH: Video Shows Obama Administration Bragging About Removing ‘100 Percent’ of Chemical Weapons From Syria

In the near future neocons may accuse Syria of failing to give up all chemical weapons, in spite of assurances by the OPCW. This is what happened to Iraq in 2003, which was invaded despite surrendering their chemical weapons in the 1990s.

No one questions how the Syrian government could possible use a weapon it doesn’t have, nor what motive it could possibly possess.

For the moment however, the narrative being pushed by neo-cons is “Trump should do what Obama failed to do, bomb Syria for al-Qaeda” and it seems that narrative is winning.

 

 
via

The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump
Apr 022017
 
The Mainstream Media Pattern On Trump

THE PATTERN:

1) Trump makes a claim.

2) The Mainstream Media declare him crazy.

3) Things happen that prove Trump was right

4) The Mainstream Media yells RUSSIA!

 

 

The Mainstream Media’s Incestuous Relationships With The Obama Administration

 Political  Comments Off on The Mainstream Media’s Incestuous Relationships With The Obama Administration
Feb 212017
 
Keeping It In The Family: The media’s incestuous relationships with the Obama Administration

 
A glimpse of the revolving door that existed between Mainstream Media network executives and the Obama White House. The map below gives us a glance at the media’s incestuous relationships with the administration.

It is a tangled web, in the Sir Walter Scott sense of the term… “Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.”

Keeping It In The Family: The Mainstream Media’s Incestuous Relationships With The Obama Administration

↑Click image to enlarge↑

 
via

Feb 062017
 
Recent “protests” against conservative speakers on college campuses have been marred by violence, yet excused and legitimized by mainstream media.

The Berkeley Riots And The Weaponization Of The Mainstream Media

University of California’s Berkeley campus, once the sight of iconic protests in favor of free speech in the 1960s, became embroiled in controversy last week after violent protests last Wednesday night shut down an event where controversial Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopolous was set to speak. A few hours before the event was set to start, groups of those in opposition to Milo began destroying property and their acts became increasingly more destructive over time. Numerous videos, posted on social media and captured by local news stations, also showed incidents where some of the protestors, apparently belonging to the anti-fascists or antifa movement, were beating people with flag poles and other objects. At least one man was beaten unconscious. As the violence began to spiral out of control, the event was ultimately canceled but not before over $100,000 in damages were done to UC Berkeley’s campus. Following the event, antifa groups took to social media to declare “war” on those with opposing views along with promises to “dismantle the state.”

Though this “protest” was undoubtedly disturbing, the aftermath has arguably been more so. Emboldened by the events at UC Berkeley, antifa groups elsewhere gathered at NYU to disrupt the scheduled talk of another conservative figure, Gavin McInnes – co-founder of Vice News and host and commentator at the Rebel Media. While police were able to prevent the same destruction of property and violence that had taken place at Berkeley, protestors infiltrated the event and McInnes himself ended up being pepper sprayed and attacked. Antifa members have also taken to making threats against alternative media reporters in the days since the riots at Berkeley. In one case, Cassandra Fairbanks of We Are Change – a media outlet that is neither liberal nor conservative in the traditional sense – as well as her young daughter were threatened on Twitter by the Arizona Antifa Front.

Berkeley Riots

Despite the chilling effect this is likely to have on the expression of conservative viewpoints on college campuses – and potentially elsewhere – the media as well as many politicians and public figures have either condoned the violence or publicly supported it. Major publications such as the New York Times hardly even mentioned the violence, only choosing to reference “self-described anarchists clad in face masks and spoiling for a fight.” The LA Times adopted the same strategy, focusing on free speech issues and Yiannopolous’ political views and most controversial statements while avoiding any discussion of the violence. Liberal-leaning outlets, such as the Daily Kos, took it a step further, characterizing the incident as one where one of Trump’s “little Breitbart friends had a bad night.” In addition to “mainstream” media, some politicians even expressly praised the riots such as Florida Congresswoman Val Demings who called the events at Berkeley “a beautiful sight.”

In addition to praising or condoning the violence, some mainstream outlets used the opportunity to blame conservatives and the right wing for the protests. For instance, CNN ran the headline “Milo Yiannopolous is trying to convince colleges that hate speech is cool” following the riots even though Milo did not even speak that evening save for a response to the rioting posted on his YouTube channel.

CNN argued that Milo was promoting “hate speech” for the following past statements:

In his campus talks, Yiannopoulos spares few targets. He’s gone after Black Lives Matter activists and has argued rape culture on campuses doesn’t exist. He portrays white males as victims and views social justice as a form of cancer. He has said people become feminists because they are “deeply physically unattractive.”

Though these opinions may be unpopular (especially on college campuses), they don’t necessarily constitute expressly racist, anti-semitic, or fascist ideas – though they do largely consist of critiques (albeit often crude ones) of left-leaning movements. The accusations of Nazism or white supremacy regarding Milo also seem out of place considering that he is Jewish, an immigrant, homosexual, and strongly prefers the romantic company of African-American men.

However, some went even further – accusing conservatives and Breitbart News of actually orchestrating the riots despite the clear evidence that the violent protestors identified as part of the far-left “antifa” movement. For instance, Political commentator, UC Berkeley professor, and former Secretary of Labor under Clinton Robert Reich postulated that “Yiannopolous and Breitbart were in cahoots with the agitators, in order to lay the groundwork for a Trump crackdown on universities and their federal funding.” The “crackdown” to which Reich refers is based off of a tweet from President Trump that essentially warned Berkeley to protect free speech following the riots or face the possibility of a loss of federal funding. In an interview with CNN, Reich reiterated this scenario, saying that he “wouldn’t bet against it.”

Clearly, this disproportionate, and frankly dishonest, characterization of the events is ultimately creating a consensus among the viewers of these media outlets that violent “protests” are acceptable – that is, at least, as long as those being attacked are conservative. Whether this is intentional or not is up for debate, but its ultimate effect is not. Violence in lieu of responsible political discourse is never favorable and condoning it for one group but not the other is the most dangerous type of partisanship the media and public figures can practice. All evidence seems to suggest that the mainstream media is quickly becoming weaponized.


The divide made bare during the most recent presidential election is becoming more and more glaring. Yet, regardless of one’s political sympathies, there is clearly something amiss with the violence now targeting conservative speakers at college campuses. Though many college students are liberal-leaning, it is important that students have the opportunity to be exposed to variety of opinions. While Yiannopolous and McInnes are indeed controversial and consistently breach the conventions of “political correctness”, there is insufficient evidence to condemn them as Nazis and white supremacists (remember – Yiannopolous is a homosexual Jew and McInnes co-founded “liberal” and “hipster” Vice). Labeling speeches they have yet to give as “hate speech” based largely on mainstream media-driven consensus does a disservice to free speech.

If conservatives were the ones violently “protesting” liberal-leaning speakers, there is no denying that the media and political response would be immediate and devastating. Yet now, the media and political establishment seem content to let some elements of the political left in the United States transform into the very thing they are claiming to fight against – fascists – with complete impunity. Indeed, Winston Churchill predicted this decades ago, saying that “The fascists of the future will call themselves anti-fascists.” Will Americans be able to see past these attempts to divide us and pit us against one another? We can only hope, but turning off the television news seems like a logical first step.

The fascists of the future will be called anti-fascists

 
By Whitney Webb

Donald Trump And Pope Francis

 Jokes, Political  Comments Off on Donald Trump And Pope Francis
Feb 062017
 

Donald Trump And Pope Francis

President Trump invited Pope Francis for lunch on his mega yacht, the Pope accepted and during lunch, a puff of wind blew the Pontiff’s hat off, right into the water.

It floated off about 50 feet, then the wind died down and it just floated in place.

The crew and the secret service were scrambling to launch a boat to go get it, when Trump waved them off, saying “Never mind, boys, I’ll get it.”

The Donald climbed over the side of the yacht, walked on the water to the hat, picked it up, walked back on the water, climbed into the yacht, and handed the Pope his hat.

The crew was speechless. The security team and the Pope’s entourage were speechless.

No one knew what to say, not even the Pope. But that afternoon, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post all reported:

“TRUMP CAN’T SWIM!”