Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mainstream media. Show all posts

Thursday, July 24, 2014

If you think that Israel is justified to carry out their murderous attacks on hundreds of un-armed men, women, and children, it is certainly due to a bias forced upon an all-to-happy-to-comply "mainstream media" so long as they can keep their despicable jobs. The woman in the picture below believes that anyone with moral principals would seek to stop a genocide before worrying about his/her job. Please watch this inspiring video. However, this is now the third DemocracyNow! interview that I've come across to have been censored by way of blocking the function of the embed code. Accordingly, you will need to watch the original by clicking the link below the picture.







WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2014  

MSNBC’s Sole Palestinian Voice Rula Jebreal Takes on Pro-Israeli Gov’t Bias at Network & in US Media



















http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/23/msnbcs_sole_palestinian_voice_rula_jebreal

Topics   Gaza, Media Analysis, Israel & Palestine

Guests  Rula Jebreal, Palestinian author and political analyst who frequently appears on MSNBC. She worked for many years as a broadcast journalist in Italy, where she also covered the Middle East. She is the author of Miral, which was made into a film by Julian Schnabel.

A week after public outrage helped force NBC’s reversal of a decision to pull veteran reporter Ayman Mohyeldin out of Gaza, the sole Palestinian contributor to sister network MSNBC has publicly criticized its coverage of the Israel-Palestine conflict. "We are disgustingly biased when it comes to this issue," Rula Jebreal said Monday on MSNBC’s Ronan Farrow Daily, citing a disproportionate amount of Palestinian voices and a preponderance of Israeli government officials and supporters. Jebreal joins us to discuss her decision to speak out against MSNBC and her broader criticism of the corporate media’s Israel-Palestine coverage. An author and political analyst who worked for many years as a broadcast journalist in Italy, Jebreal also shares her personal story as a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship who is married to a Jewish man and has a Jewish sister.

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Who really killed JFK and, if a conspiracy, who were they and what were their motives? The Assassination Records Review Board has kept secret 1,100 records that, according to the Associated Press, was claimed to be withheld from the American public because they contain “information about confidential sources or methods or have national security complications.” But 50 years after the fact those confidential sources are mostly dead, and the methods and “national security complications” of that period have nothing in common with today’s national security. Indeed, on April 27, 1961, JFK himself told the press corps that “…there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment…”


JFK, Secrecy & the Unspeakable Forces of the National Security State

By: Kevin Gosztola Friday November 22, 2013 1:07 pm                                         Original Here.

John F. Kennedy on September 2, 1963,
being interviewed by Walter Cronkite
From the National Archive & 
in the public domain.
The establishment media, which has been commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s assassination for the past week, will not take the time to appropriately present the dynamics in military and intelligence agencies leading up to when he was killed in Dallas.

Of the three major Sunday morning network television shows on November 17, “Meet the Press, “Face the Nation,” and “This Week,” only “Face the Nation” with Bob Schieffer broached the topic of whether JFK’s assassination was part of a conspiracy. It was mentioned to show that there is no evidence that the CIA, anti-Castro Cubans or President Lyndon B. Johnson had been involved. But no one bothered to mention that all the files on his assassination have not been released.

The Assassination Records Review Board has kept secret 1,100 records that, according to the Associated Press, the Board claimed contained “information about confidential sources or methods or have national security complications.” Each record is anywhere from one to twenty pages, and the files contain information on a deceased CIA agent, George Joannides, who was a “CIA case officer for the anti-Castro Student Revolutionary Directorate (DRE).”

Fifty years later, the CIA is still fighting efforts to release documents that are decades old. Jefferson Morley, a former Washington Post reporter, has worked to get all the files released and believes the CIA must be guarding something big if it still will not release all the documents.

The AP’s story on secret files that remain concealed acknowledges that the CIA was not keen to cooperate with investigators. Joannides was actually brought in to help complete requests for documents by those on the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigating what happened. No one knew that the time that Joannides, a witness, was put in a position to edit material provided to the committee.

Now, I am far, far, far too young and have no memory of the assassination. I only know what I have read about JFK’s assassination and the events leading up to it. Yet, while my grandparents and parents (though very young) think of where they were, I cannot help but conclude that my generation should be reacting to this anniversary by taking interest in what led up to the murder and why, after fifty years, anything related to the horrible event would be permitted to remain secret for any reason.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., JFK’s nephew, assessed his uncle’s attempts to confront the national security state for Rolling Stone. His recounting of forces he bumped up against during his presidency concludes with the following:
…JFK’s great concerns seem more relevant than ever: the dangers of nuclear proliferation, the notion that empire is inconsistent with a republic and that corporate domination of our democracy at home is the partner of imperial policies abroad. He understood the perils to our Constitution from a national-security state and mistrusted zealots and ideologues. He thought other nations ought to fight their own civil wars and choose their own governments and not ask the U.S. to do it for them. Yet the world he imagined and fought for has receded so far below the horizon that it’s no longer even part of the permissible narrative inside the Beltway or in the mainstream press. Critics who endeavor to debate the survival of American democracy within the national-security state risk marginalization as crackpots and kooks. His greatest, most heroic aspirations for a peaceful, demilitarized foreign policy are the forbidden­ debates of the modern political era.
Where RFK Jr.’s analysis excels is its omission of any hypotheses about what JFK might have done if he was not assassinated. We can never know, and there is plenty to contemplate without getting into what impact he could have had.

Peter Kornbluh examined one of Kennedy’s final acts: reaching out to Cuba.

The CIA was opposed to dialogue with Cuba that might have cooled tensions. The CIA controlled Cuba policy, but Kennedy wanted to reach out to Fidel Castro and consider possibilities for ending hostilities.

“Fifty years later, the potential Kennedy envisioned for co-existence between the Cuban revolution and the U.S. has yet to be realized. As part of commemorating his legacy, his vision for a détente in the Caribbean must be remembered, reconsidered, and revisited,” Kornbluh suggested.

Finally, one of the best reflections on JFK’s assassination is contained in the book by James W. Douglass called JFK and the Unspeakable. It connects his assassination and the “unspeakable” forces likely behind it to the “unspeakable” forces that still work in the shadows today.
…John Kennedy’s story is our story, although a titanic effort has been made to keep it from us. That story, like the struggle it embodies, is as current today as it was in 1963. The theology of redemptive violence still reigns. The Cold War has been followed by its twin, the War on Terror. We are engaged in another apocalyptic struggle against an enemy seen as absolute evil. Terrorism has replaced Communism as the enemy. We are told we can be safe only through the threat of escalating violence. Once again, anything goes in a fight against evil: preemptive attacks, torture, undermining governments, assassinations, whatever it takes to gain the end of victory over an enemy portrayed as irredeemably evil. Yet the redemptive means John Kennedy turned to, in a similar struggle, was dialogue with the enemy. When the enemy is seen as human, everything changes…
Douglass makes the case in his book that Kennedy was “murdered by a power we cannot easily describe. Its unspeakable reality can be traced, suggested, recognized, and pondered.” He points the finger at our own government for being to blame for Kennedy’s assassination while at the same time bringing to light the turning away from nuclear war to peace (which RFK Jr’s Rolling Stone article actually outlines).

Despite what mainstream pundits say about Americans’ surviving interest in conspiracy theories around Kennedy’s assassination, it is unfair to marginalize those who are willing to interrogate the past and ask what that past means for the future. There is good reason to push for transparency on a chapter in American history that still remains partly clouded in darkness.

While JFK was simultaneously pleading with newspapers to self-censor information that the government thought Communist “enemies” could use against the United States, on April 27, 1961, he did say the following about secrecy in an address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association:
The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment…
The deep state, with the help of docile culture within the press, remains vigilant in guarding secret history it does not want the public to know, perhaps, because such history would explode myths it has relied upon to increase its stranglehold over government. Certainly, if officials within these agencies were found to have played a role in the assassination of an American president, it would likely leave Americans with a profound sense of anger and fear.

Today, as former NSA contractor Edward Snowden compels us through his disclosures to reconcile with the vast power granted to the NSA, all of our national security state should be up for debate. Its history and current concealed history around torture, rendition and targeted assassinations, which it fights in court to protect, should be thoroughly assessed. Page after page after page of the dark seedy exploits and the evil that men do when their identities are likely to never become known ought to be taken seriously. And, we should heed JFK’s words on the dangers of excessive secrecy, which has such an incredible capacity to shield corruption.

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Paul Craig Roberts: "All the proof that you need that you cannot trust the mainstream media." The Blogger: "Those who do trust the mainstream media will be the last to realize what cruelties your government has in store for you."



The perfect epitaph for establishment journalism
'If MI5 warns that this is not in the public interest who am I to disbelieve them?', says the former editor of The Independent


Glenn Greenwald
theguardian.com, Monday 14 October 2013 13.23 BST




Some journalists view this as an inviolable decree that may not be questioned or defied Photograph: Alamy
Like many people, I've spent years writing and speaking about the lethal power-subservient pathologies plaguing establishment journalism in the west. But this morning, I feel a bit like all of that was wasted time and energy, because this new column by career British journalist Chris Blackhurst - an executive with and, until a few months ago, the editor of the UK daily calling itself "The Independent" - contains a headline that says everything that needs to be said about the sickly state of establishment journalism:


In other words, if the government tells me I shouldn't publish something, who am I as a journalist to disobey? Put that on the tombstone of western establishment journalism. It perfectly encapsulates the death spiral of large journalistic outlets.

Lest you think that the headline does not fairly represent the content of the column, Blackhurst, in explaining why he would never have allowed his newspaper to publish any of the documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, actually wrote:
If the security services insist something is contrary to the public interest, and might harm their operations, who am I (despite my grounding from Watergate onwards) to disbelieve them?"
Most people, let alone journalists, would be far too embarrassed to admit they harbor such subservient, obsequious sentiments. It's one thing to accord some deference or presumption of good will to political officials, but the desire to demonstrate some minimal human dignity, by itself, would preclude most people from publicly confessing that they have willingly sacrificed all of their independent judgment and autonomy to the superior, secret decrees of those who wield the greatest power. Chris Blackhurst has obviously liberated himself from these inhibitions, though not entirely, as he infuses insincere caveats like this into his paean to the virtues of obedience: "I'm cynical about officialdom, having seen too many cover-ups and appalling injustices carried out in our name." One would think that most journalists (particularly those who edit a newspaper called "The Independent") would want to maintain at least a pretense of independent thought and thus refrain from acknowledging such cringe-inducing things about themselves.

Still, what Blackhurst is revealing here is indeed a predominant mindset among many in the media class. Journalists should not disobey the dictates of those in power. Once national security state officials decree that what they are doing should be kept concealed from the public - once they pound their mighty "SECRET" stamp onto their behavior - it is the supreme duty of all citizens, including journalists, to honor that and never utter in public what they have done. Indeed, it is not only morally wrong, but criminal, to defy these dictates. After all, "who am I to disbelieve them?"

That this mentality condemns - and would render outlawed - most of the worthwhile investigative journalism over the last several decades never seems to occur to good journalistic servants like Blackhurst. National security state officials also decreed that it would "not be in the public interest" to report on the Pentagon Papers, or the My Lai massacre, or the network of CIA black sites in which detainees were tortured, or the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, or the documents negating claims of Iraqi WMDs, or a whole litany of waste, corruption and illegality that once bore the "top secret" label. Indeed, one of the best reporters in the UK, Duncan Campbell, works for Blackhurst's newspaper, and he was arrested and prosecuted by the UK government in the 1970s for the "crime" of disclosing the existence of the GCHQ. When Blackhurst sees Campbell in the hallways, does he ask him: "who are you to have decided on your own to disclose that which UK officials had told you should remain concealed?"

The NSA reporting enabled by Snowden's whistleblowing has triggered a worldwide debate over internet freedom and privacy, reform movements in numerous national legislatures, multiple whistleblowing prizes for Snowden, and the first-ever recognition of just how pervasive and invasive is the system of suspicionless surveillance being built by the US and the UK. It does not surprise me that authoritarian factions, including (especially) establishment journalists, prefer that none of this reporting and debate happened and that we all instead remained blissfully ignorant about it. But it does still surprise me when people calling themselves "journalists" openly admit to thinking this way. But when they do so, they do us a service, as it lays so vividly bare just how wide the gap is between the claimed function of establishment journalists and the actual role they fulfill.

Saturday, October 05, 2013

Paul Craig Roberts: "Watch Glenn Greenwald Tear a BBC Pressitute to pieces." I found this to be a terrific recommendation!






http://youtu.be/f1Zvo8N3G94
NEWSNIGHT: Glenn Greenwald full interview on Snowden, NSA, GCHQ and spying

BBC Newsnight

Published on Oct 3, 2013

BBC Newsnight exclusive interview with journalist Glenn Greenwald on Edward Snowden, the PRISM revelations and mass surveillance

Blogger's Note: GCHQ is the official site of the UK Government Communications Headquarters which is the centre for Her Majesty's Government's Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) activities.

Monday, August 12, 2013

The critical moment in the political trial of the century was on 28 February when Bradley Manning stood and explained why he had risked his life to leak tens of thousands of official files. It was a statement of morality, conscience and truth: the very qualities that distinguish human beings. But the mainstream media weren't there to record it. They were waiting for the verdict so that they could condemn him for crimes he did not commit.



AUGUST 08, 2013                                                                                               Original here

Will Bradley Manning's Courage Inspire Other Whistleblowers?
Truth in the Crosshairs

by JOHN PILGER

The critical moment in the political trial of the century was on 28 February when Bradley Manning stood and explained why he had risked his life to leak tens of thousands of official files. It was a statement of morality, conscience and truth: the very qualities that distinguish human beings. This was not deemed mainstream news in America; and were it not for Alexa O’Brien, an independent freelance journalist, Manning’s voice would have been silenced. Working through the night, she transcribed and released his every word. It is a rare, revealing document*.

Describing the attack by an Apache helicopter crew who filmed civilians as they murdered and wounded them in Baghdad in 2007, Manning said: “The most alarming aspect of the video to me was the seemingly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have. They seemed not to value human life by referring to them as ‘dead bastards’ and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety [who] is seriously wounded … For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.” He hoped “the public would be as alarmed as me” about a crime which, as his subsequent leaks revealed, was not an aberration.

Bradley Manning is a principled whistleblower and truth-teller who has been vilified and tortured – and Amnesty International needs to explain to the world why it has not adopted him as a prisoner of conscience; or is Amnesty, unlike Manning, intimidated by criminal power?

“It is a funeral here at Fort Meade,” Alexa O’Brien told me. “The US government wants to bury Manning alive. He is a genuinely earnest young man with not an ounce of mendacity. The mainstream media finally came on the day of the verdict. They showed up for a gladiator match – to watch the gauntlet go down, thumbs pointed down.”

The criminal nature of the American military is beyond dispute. The decades of lawless bombing, the use of poisonous weapons on civilian populations, the renditions and the torture at Abu Graib, Guantanamo and elsewhere, are all documented. As a young war reporter in Indochina, it dawned on me that America exported its homicidal neuroses and called it war, even a noble cause. Like the Apache attack, the infamous 1968 massacre at My Lai was not untypical. In the same province, Quang Ngai, I gathered evidence of widespread slaughter: thousands of men, women and children, murdered arbitrarily and anonymously in “free fire zones”.

In Iraq, I filmed a shepherd whose brother and his entire family had been cut down by an American plane, in the open. This was sport. In Afghanistan, I filmed to a woman whose dirt-walled home, and family, had been obliterated by a 500lb bomb. There was no “enemy”. My film cans burst with such evidence.

In 2010, Private Manning did his duty to the rest of humanity and supplied proof from within the murder machine. This is his triumph; and his show trial merely expresses corrupt power’s abiding fear of people learning the truth. It also illuminates the parasitic industry around truth-tellers. Manning’s character has been dissected and abused by those who never knew him and claim to support him.

The hyped film, We Steal Secrets: the Story of WikiLeaks, mutates a heroic young soldier into an “alienated …lonely …very needy” psychiatric case with an “identity crisis” because “he was in the wrong body and wanted to become a woman”. So spoke Alex Gibney, the director, whose prurient psycho-babble found willing ears across a media too compliant or lazy or stupid to challenge the hype and comprehend that the shadows falling across whistleblowers may reach even them. From its dishonest title, Gibney’s film performed a dutiful hatchet job on Manning, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks. The message was familiar — serious dissenters are freaks. Alexa O’Brien’s meticulous record of Manning’s moral and political courage demolishes this smear.

In the Gibney film, US politicians and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff are lined up to repeat, unchallenged, that, in publishing Manning’s leaks, WikiLeaks and Assange placed the lives informants at risk and had “blood on his hands”. On 1 August, the Guardian reported: “No record of deaths caused by WikiLeaks revelations, court told.” The Pentagon general who led a 10-month investigation into the worldwide impact of the leaks reported that not a single death could be attributed to the disclosures.

Yet, in the film, the journalist Nick Davies describes a heartless Assange who had no “harm minimisation plan”. I asked the film-maker Mark Davis about this. A respected broadcaster for SBS Australia, Davis was an eyewitness, accompanying Assange during much of the preparation of the leaked files for publication in the Guardian and the New York Times. His footage appears in the Gibney film. He told me, “Assange was the only one who worked day and night extracting 10,000 names of people who could be targeted by the revelations in the logs.”

While Manning faces life in prison, Gibney is said to be planning a Hollywood movie. A “biopic” of Assange is on the way, along with a Hollywood version of David Leigh’s and Luke Harding’s book of scuttlebutt on the “fall” of WikiLeaks. Profiting from the boldness, cleverness and suffering of those who refuse to be co-opted and tamed, they all will end up in history’s waste bin. For the inspiration of future truth-tellers belongs to Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, Edward Snowden and the remarkable young people of WikiLeaks, whose achievements are unparalleled. Snowden’s rescue is largely a WikiLeaks triumph: a thriller too good for Hollywood because its heroes are real.


*Read Bradley Manning’s statement here

John Pilger’s film on Australia, Utopia, will be released in the UK in the autumn.

Friday, June 28, 2013

If you haven't treated yourself to the film "V For Vendeta," download or buy a copy. It's about people's desire for liberty in a futuristic England, which parallel's today's America ...except that the strength of Americans' desire for liberty remains to be seen.



Washington Is Driving The World To The Final War — Paul Craig Roberts

June 28, 2013 | Original Here                                                     Go here to sign up to receive email notice of this news letter

Washington Is Driving The World To The Final War

Paul Craig Roberts

“V For Vendetta,” a film that portrays evil in a futuristic England as a proxy for the evil that exists today in America, ends with the defeat of evil. But this is a movie in which the hero has super powers. If you have not seen this film, you should watch it. It might wake you up and give you courage. The excerpts below show that, at least among some filmmakers, the desire for liberty still exists.

Whether the desire for liberty exists in America remains to be seen. If Americans can overcome their gullibility, their lifelong brainwashing, their propensity to believe every lie that “their” government tells them, and if Americans can escape the Matrix in which they live, they can reestablish the morality, justice, peace, freedom, and liberty that “their” government has taken from them. It is not impossible for Americans to again stand with uplifted heads. They only have to recognize that “their” government is the enemy of truth, justice, human rights and life itself.

Can mere ordinary Americans triumph over the evil that is “their” government without the aid of a superhero? If ideas are strong enough and Americans can comprehend them, good can prevail over the evil that is concentrated in Washington. What stands between the American people and their comprehension of evil is their gullibility.

If good fails in its battle with Washington’s evil, our future is a boot stamping on the human face forever.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKvvOFIHs4k&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-gHVGOoE48

If you, an American, living in superpower America lack the courage to stand up to the evil that is “your” government, perhaps the courage of Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and tiny Ecuador will give you heart.

A US senator from New Jersey, Robert Menendez, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the Ecuadoran government that he would block the import of vegetables and flowers from Ecuador if Ecuador gives asylum to Edward Snowden. The cost to Ecuador would be one billion dollars in lost revenues.

Menendez’s statement–”Our government will not reward countries for bad behavior”–is ironic. It equates bad behavior with protecting a truth-teller and good behavior with betraying a truth-teller. Menendez’s statement is also a lie. The US government only rewards bad behavior. The US government consistently rewards those who conspire against the elected governments of their own countries, setting them up as dictators when Washington overthrows the elected governments.

Menendez’s threat did not work, but the senator did succeed in delivering yet another humiliating blow to Washington’s prestige. The Ecuadoran President, Rafael Correa, beat Menendez to the punch and cancelled the trade pact with the US on the grounds that the pact was a threat to the sovereignty of Ecuador and to moral principles and was being used by Washington to blackmail Ecuador. “Ecuador doesn’t accept pressure or threats from anyone,” added Communications Secretary Fernando Alvarado who then offered Washington foreign aid to provide human rights training to combat torture, illegal executions and attacks on peoples’ privacy.

Washington, exposed with its hand in the cookie jar devouring the privacy of the entire world and prevented by its hubris from acknowledging its illegal behavior and apologizing, has so mishandled the Snowden affair that Washington has done far more damage to itself than occurred from Snowden’s revelations. Washington has proven conclusively that it has no respect for anyone’s human rights, that it has no respect for any country’s sovereignty, that it has no respect for any moral principles, especially those it most often mouths, and that it relies on coercion and violence alone. The rest of the world now knows who its enemy is.

Washington’s presstitutes, by helping Washington demonize Snowden, Glenn Greenwald, Manning, Assange, and Ecuador, have demonstrated to the world that the US media is devoid of integrity and that nothing it reports can be believed. The US print and TV media and NPR comprise a ministry of propaganda for Washington’s immoral agendas.

On June 24, the Stasi State’s favorite whore, the Washington Post, denounced three times democratically-elected Rafael Correa as “the autocratic leader of tiny, impoverished Ecuador,” without realizing that the editorial not only demonstrated the Washington Post’s lack of any ethics whatsoever but also showed the entire world that if “tiny, impoverished Ecuador” can stand up to Washington’s threats, so can the rest of the world.

President Correa replied that the Washington Post “managed to focus attention on Snowden and on the ‘wicked’ countries that support him, making us forget the terrible things against the US people and the whole world that he denounced.” Correa added that Washington’s “world order isn’t only unjust, it’s immoral.”

The reason Washington hates Correa has nothing to do with Snowden. That Ecuador is considering asylum for Snowden is just an excuse. Correa is hated, because in the second year of his first term he repudiated the $3 billion dollar foreign debt that corrupt and despotic prior regimes had been paid to contract with international finance. Correa’s default threat forced the international financial gangsters to write down the debt by 60 percent.

Washington also hates Correa because he has been successful in reducing the high rates of poverty in Ecuador, thus building public support that makes if difficult for Washington to overthrow him from within.

Yet another reason Washington hates Correa is because he took steps against the multinational oil companies’ exploitation of Ecuador’s oil resources and limited the amount of offshore deposits in the country’s banks in order to block Washington’s ability to destabilize Ecuador’s financial system.

Washington also hates Correa for refusing to renew Washington’s lease of the air base in Manta.

Essentially, Correa has fought to take control of Ecuador’s government, media and national resources out of Washington’s hands and the hands of the small rich elite allied with Washington. It is a David vs. Goliath story.

In other words, Correa, like Venezuela’s Chevez, is the rare foreign leader who represents the interests of his own country instead of Washington’s interest.

Washington uses the various corrupt NGOs and the puppet government in Colombia as weapons against Correa and the Ecuadoran government. Many believe that it is only a matter of time before Washington succeeds in assassinating Correa.

American patriots, who feel that they should be on “their” government’s side regardless of the facts, would do well to remember what true patriotism is. For Americans, patriotism has always meant allegiance to the Constitution, not to the government. The oath is to defend the Constitution against enemies domestic and foreign. The Bush and Obama regimes have proven themselves to be the Constitution’s worst enemies. It is not possible for a true patriot to support a government that destroys the Constitution. The United States is the Constitution. Our country is not the Obama regime, the Bush regime, or some other administration. Our country is the Constitution. The Constitution is our country.

Beyond obligations to one’s own country, all humans have a responsibility to human life itself. Washington’s puppet states, such as the NATO countries, Japan, and Colombia, by providing cover and support for Washington’s aggression are enabling Washington to drive the world into World War III.

The temptation of Washington’s money easily overwhelms weak characters such as Tony Blair and David Cameron. But the governments of NATO countries and other accommodating states are not only selling out their own peoples by supporting Washington’s wars of aggression, they are selling out humanity. Washington’s hubris and arrogance grow as Washington bumps off country after country. Sooner or later Russia and China, will realize that they themselves are targets and will draw firmer lines. Arrogance will prevent Washington from acknowledging the lines, and the final war will be launched.

Washington’s hegemonic impulse is driving the world to destruction. The peoples of the world should realize this and force their governments to stop enabling Washington’s aggression.



Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Here is precisely why I get the news that matters from reliable internet sources and not the prestitute US "mainstream" media.






Top Ten Ways US TV News are Screwing us Again on NSA Surveillance Story (Iraq Redux)


Posted on 06/24/2013 by Juan Cole

Welcome to Informed Comment,
where I do my best to provide
an independent and informed
perspective on Middle Eastern
and American politics.
US television news is a danger to the security of the United States. First, it is so oriented to ratings that it cannot afford to do unpopular reports (thus, it ignored al-Qaeda and the Taliban for the most part before 9/11). Second, it is so oriented toward the halls of power inside the Beltway that it is unable to examine government allegations critically. US television news was an unrelieved cheering section for the launching of the illegal and disastrous Iraq War, which will end up costing the taxpayers many trillions of dollars, which seriously wounded 32,000 US military personnel (many of them will need help the rest of their lives), which left over 4000 soldiers, Marines and sailors dead, and which was responsible for the deaths of on the order of 300,000 Iraqis, the wounding of 1.2 million Iraqis, and the displacement from their homes of 4 million Iraqis (out of a then population of 26 million). In 2002 and 2003, Bush administration leakers and ex-generals led the television reporters and anchors by the nose. The corporations were all for the war, and they own the news. Where on-screen talent was unwilling to go along, such as Phil Donohue or Ashley Banfield, they were just fired.

Now, corporate television news is repeating this shameful performance with regard to the revelations by Edward Snowden of massive, unconstitutional government surveillance of Americans’ electronic communications. The full failure to do proper journalism was on display on Sunday (when, unfortunately, critical voices such as Rachel Maddow are absent). Here are the propaganda techniques used to stack the deck on Sunday:

1. Focus on the personality, location, and charges against the leaker instead of the substance of his revelations.

2. Smear Snowden with ad hominem fallacies. His transit through Moscow was held up as a sign of disloyalty to the United States, as though nowadays American business people and government officials don’t transit through Moscow all the time. The US ships significant amounts of military materiel for Afghanistan through Russia. Is that treasonous?

3. Focus on politicians making empty threats against China and Russia for not being sufficiently obedient to the United States. The US can’t do anything to either one that wouldn’t hurt the US more than it did them.

4. Ignore important breaking stories that impugn the government case. For instance, The Guardian broke the story Saturday morning that the NSA PRISM program was small compared to the TEMPORA program of GCHQ, its British counterpart, which Snowden alleged has attached sniffers to the fiber optic cables that stretch from New York to London, and is vacuuming up massive amounts of email and telephone conversations. A Lexis Nexis search in broadcast transcripts for Sunday showed that no US news broadcaster mentioned TEMPORA or GCHQ. This was true even though the NSA has 250 analysts assigned to TEMPORA and even though that program sweeps up and stores exactly the kind of material (telephone calls, emails) that President Obama denied were being collected.

5. Skew the guest list. Television news interviewed Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Rep. Ilena Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and a gaggle of retired FBI and CIA figures. All of them without exception were cheerleaders for the Iraq War. Glenn Greenwald was virtually the only voice allowed on the other side. He was cut short on CNN and was at a disadvantage on television because he was on the phone from Rio. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Al Gore, Steve Wozniak, Pierre Omidyar, and a whole host of figures supportive of Snowden having told us what is going on were not invited on the air to balance the hard liners interviewed.

6. Accuse journalists of treason for reporting Snowden’s revelations. This was the absolutely shameful tack taken by David Gregory on Meet The Press, when he asked Greenwald, “To the extent that you have aided and abetted Snowden, even in his current movements, why shouldn’t you, Mr. Greenwald, be charged with a crime?” The “to the extent” and “aided and abetted” language isn’t journalism it is shilling for the most despicable elements in Congress (and that is way over on the despicable scale).

7. Ignore past government misuse of classified information. Television news has studiedly avoided referring to Dick Cheney’s outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA field officer (and therefore outing of all the CIA field officers who used the same dummy corporation as she did as a cover,as well as all local informants known to be connected to that dummy corporation). Television anchors seem to think that the government is always trying to ‘protect’ us and is on the side of the angels, and sidestep the question of whether secret information can be used for private or shady policy purposes. Plame, by the way, is warning about the intelligence-industrial complex.

8. Continually allege or allow guests to allege that Snowden could have taken his concerns to the NSA or to Congress internally. None of his predecessors had any luck with that approach. Even sitting senators of the United States of America like Ron Wyden have been muzzled and cannot conduct a public debate on these abuses.

9. No one on television has discussed how many of the 850,000 analysts with access to secret databases containing your information work for private corporations such as Booz Allen Hamilton. That is, they aren’t even government employees. And, how much lobbying do these intelligence contractors do of Congress?

10. Focus the discussion on the alleged criminality of Snowden’s disclosures instead of on the obvious lawlessness of programs such as Tempora, which sweep up vast amounts of personal information on private individuals and store them in data bases. As Noam Chomsky has said, the way to distract the public in a democracy is to allow more and more vigorous debate about a more and more narrow set of issues. By narrowing the debate to “how illegal were Snowden’s actions?” instead of allowing the question, “how legal are the NSA’s actions,” the US mass media give the impression of debating both sides of a controversy while in fact suppressing large numbers of pertinent questions. 

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

The death of Michael Hastings has been in the news, but if you have relied on the "mainstream media" for the latest you have certainly would not have heard it from this angle.


More Details Emerge on the Death of Michael Hastings

http://youtu.be/uoyuXzM059Q


The Young Turks




Published on Jun 19, 2013

"Earlier today, WikiLeaks sent out a cryptic tweet that hinted they had more information about yesterday's tragic death of reporter Michael Hastings. They followed through with another tweet claiming that Hastings reached out to one of their lawyers to reveal to them he believed the FBI was investigating him."*

Our friend and colleague Michael Hastings died early Tuesday morning in a one-car crash in Los Angeles. Wikileaks' Twitter account is now reporting that hours before his death, Hastings contacted Wikileaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson saying he was being investigated by the FBI. Some establishment media outlets have taken care to try and assault Hasting's character and achievements as a journalist. Cenk Uygur breaks it down.

Monday, May 06, 2013

An investigative reporter with 40 years experience discovers that despite the presence of "rent-a-soldiers" at the finish line of the Boston Marathon, the lamestream media made no attempt to investigate who they were hired by and for what purpose. Instead the media repeatedly played movies of the Tsarnaev brothers (recorded by whom?) and regurgitated the official government position that they were solely responsible for the bombing. Read below to see some of the many puzzling things the media ignored or failed to question.









Craft International Services hired guns at the Boston Marathon:
Why Such Secrecy about Private Military Contractor’s Men Working the Event?

Speaking as an investigative reporter with almost 40 years’s experience, I can say that when government officials won’t talk, they’re generally hiding something embarrassing or worse.

I tried, and nobody will talk about those Craft International Services private security personnel who were widely observed and photographed near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, wearing security ear-pieces, hats and T-shirts bearing the company’s skull logo, and all wearing the same dark coats, khaki pants and combat boots, some carrying what appear to have been radiation detectors. (I got no hard answers, though there were some inadvertent hints given.)

I first contacted a man identifying himself as Jack Fleming, a public affairs person with the Boston Athletic Assn., sponsor of the marathon. Fleming advised me that “If you want to ask about that you should contact the Commonwealth (of Massachusetts) Executive Office of Public Safety.”

I called that agency and spoke with the public information office there, a man named Terrell. He first said, "Did you call the Marathon organizers?" When I replied that I had, and that they had said to call his office, he replied, "They did?" Then he said, “You should call the City of Boston Police Department. They released a security plan to some media organizations.”

Indeed they had released that plan to the Boston Globe. Based upon the information it got from the police the article the Globe ran, did report that the Police had deployed “air patrols, K9 units, and more than 1,000 uniformed officers and soldiers along the 26-mile course and the finish line,” but it made no mention of the private contracting of soldiers-for-hire, which is what Craft International does (see the Craft website). News agency Reuters reported, meanwhile, that a top official for the Massachusetts state Homeland Security Department, Undersecretary Kurt Schwartz, told a group at Harvard U. that his agency had “planned” for a possible bombing attack on the marathon, even running a “table-top” exercise about such an event a week before the race.

I called the Boston Police to ask if they had hired the Craft International personnel who were observed at the scene just before and after the bombing, and was told by the public affairs office there that “Anything having to do with the investigation of the bombing would have to be referred to the FBI Boston Division office.” When I pointed out that I wasn’t asking anything about the investigation, but was simply asking who had hired the security personnel from Craft International, the answer was simply repeated: “You’ll have to ask the FBI.”

So I called the FBI, and got a public affairs person there named Amanda Cox. Her initial response to my question was, “I do not have any information on that.” Then I said I had been referred to her by the Boston Police Department, and said that photos of the scene after the bombing had shown Craft International personnel conversing with FBI agents. She then put down the phone, and I could hear her turn to a supervisor and ask, her voice muffled, “This guy’s asking about the Craft Security Consultants -- who hired them and what they were doing.”

Seven apparent Craft International rent-a-soldiers behind and departing (top rt. with backpack) a communications van


























I next overheard the muffled voice of another woman to whom she had been speaking reply, “I think you could safely say, ‘I do know we worked with a lot of people who worked on security at the marathon...’” After that I couldn’t make out what was being said.

Cox later returned to the phone, and instead told me, “I’d refer you to the company on any information about who hired them.” (Taken together the overheard conversation and the official answer from Cox would at least seem to confirm that Craft's people were hired for the event, and that the FBI knows a lot more than it is willing to say about them.)

My next step was to call Craft International. The company has no phone number listed on its website -- just a general email address of info@thecraft.com (to which I wrote to asking for information, but which elicited no response)--but I found one listed for their headquarters office at 2101 Cedar Springs Rd., Suite 1400, Dallas, TX, in a listing on the company published in a directory in Bloomberg Businessweek, This entry noted that the company, in addition to “providing security, defense, and combat weapons training services for military, police, corporate and civilian clients in the US and internationally,” also “offers corporate and private and civilian training services...” The number, published in a business magazine, was clearly meant as a contact for potential customers to call.

A woman answered the phone brightly with the company's name. However, when I identified myself as a reporter, and said I was wondering if someone could tell me who had hired personnel from the firm to work at the Boston Marathon, she responded with a flummoxed: “Um, I um, don’t really have any information on that. I’m just an answering service.”

I replied, “Look, the number I called is listed as the number of the company’s corporate headquarters at 2101 Cedar Springs Road. You’re not an answering service.”

At that point she said, “Let me see who I can transfer you to.”

However, after a long pause, she was back, and said, “The answer I’ve been given is that you should go to the website, where there’s an email address you can write to with your question.”

I had already done that, I told her. She then said she couldn’t help me and hung up.

I also called the US Department of Homeland Security, but a women named Angela who answered the press office number for this public government agency (she refused to provide her last name despite being the public information office) said the DHS media office was “only taking inquiries sent in by email.” I sent in an inquiry asking if any unit of the DHS had hired Craft International to provide security at the Boston Marathon, but so far (note: two days later!) have received no response.

As things stand, since it's highly unlikely that Craft International, a private for-profit enterprise founded by the late ace Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle, would have "hired" itself to police the Marathon gratis, it seems pretty clear that we had rent-a-special forces-soldier people, hired by some agency, at the scene of the bombing ahead of the bombing.

And we have no reporting on this in the mainstream corporate media.

Why? I have no answer to that.

I did write to Andrea Estes, the lead writer of the Globe’s piece on police security planning mentioned above, who is described in her bio on the Globe’s website staff page as an “investigative reporter specializing in government accountability.”

I called and left a message on her phone, and sent her an email, asking if she had looked into the Craft Security personnel, to see who hired them, what they were doing at the race finish line, and why they appeared be carrying radiation detectors. She has so far not responded to my request for information and assistance concerning anything she had done or learned about this, or whether she had looked into it at all.

Certainly there is a big accountability question. A bunch of them actually. Here are a few:

* If Craft International people were hired, who hired them and why?

* If it was the Boston Police or the FBI that hired them, why won’t they just say so? Simply hiring outside security help should not be a secret, and could in no way affect the investigation into the bombing and the captured suspect, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, so why the secrecy about that? Given all the police presence, and the size of the FBI's Boston division, why did they need those extra guys from a private rent-a-soldier firm?

* If it was not the Boston Police or the FBI, what agency did hire the company, and why?

* If it was the state’s Homeland Security Dept. or or the state Executive Office of Public Safety, or perhaps more likely, the US Department of Homeland Security, did they notify the FBI that they had done so, and tell the agency what had prompted them to do this? 


* The big overarching question when it comes to who hired Craft International is, what possible gain in security could have been achieved by adding what appears to be seven guys (or perhaps a few more who didn’t appear in photos) from a private security firm when the Boston Police had in place over 1000 armed security people from their office and the National Guard, and when, as became evident immediately after the bombs went off, a large number of FBI personnel were also on hand?

Unless, of course, the Craft Security people were aware of something that we, the public, including the race participants and spectators, and perhaps even the police and FBI, were not aware of.

Transparency is critical to accountability. At this point, it is clear that we have had a massive failure of the national security state. Despite the fact that the FBI was aware of concerns about Tarmelan Tsarnaev, and the fact that the CIA had him on a watch list, he appears to have been able to work on line to learn how to build a powerful homemade bomb, to obtain the materials, including a substantial quantity of black powder, to build a number of them, and, allegedly with the help of his younger brother Dzhokhar, to place them near the finish line and detonate two of them, killing three people and injuring as many as 200. That’s a huge intelligence fail.

It would be an even bigger fail if it turns out that some agency had awareness of a credible threat and that it hired Craft International personnel to prevent it. We clearly need to know, and have a right to demand to know, who hired those men and why. After all, at a minimum, on the face of things, they did an abysmal job of preventing a bombing right in front of their supposedly well-trained noses.

And of course there is also another question, which is really disturbing: The image of the exploded backpack released by the FBI and identified as the remains of the pack that was carrying one of the two pressure-cooker bombs, prominently displays a white square on a black background. This is not a doctored photograph; it’s the photograph that was released by the FBI. There are also at least two photos depicting one of the Craft International men who is wearing a black backpack identical to several of the other Craft International personnel. The same white square is also visible on the top of his pack.

There does not appear to be any such white marking -- square or otherwise -- on the top of the black backpack worn by Tarmelan Tsarnaev, as observed in several security photos taken of him (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was shown carrying a smaller white or light-colored pack, slung over one shoulder). Check out the images below of Tarmelan, the exploded bag and the Craft International character:

FBI image of exploded pack with white square, white square on Craft guy's pack, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev (left.) with pack but clearly no white square marking












I am not drawing any conclusions from any of this, but I will say that when government agencies at all levels and a private contracting firm are all this obtuse and secretive (and in some cases even deceptive) about what should be a simple question -- who hired these men? -- my suspicions are aroused.

Somebody’s clearly hiding something.

And by the way, why aren't the mainstream media asking about this? Are corporate media journalists so intimidated about being labeled “conspiracy nuts” that they can't do their jobs? At a minimum, this goes to the question of accountability. It also goes to the question of inter-agency communication or lack of it. And given what we know about how many times the FBI has been an active encourager and enabler of terror plots which it later thwarts and claims credit for preventing, there’s the question, too of potential official culpability. Furthermore, when an horrific incident like this is used to justify such new threats to our Constitutional freedom as an unprecedented martial law-style lockdown of an entire 1-million-person metropolitan area and a precedent-setting deliberately Miranda-free, attorney-free interrogation of a hospitalized, gravely wounded and sedated suspect, it is critical that the whole story be told, not just the official one.
 

Thursday, January 24, 2013

SANDY HOOK INCONSISTENCIES COURTESY OF BRASCHECK TV

Blogger's Note: Go here for the original plus the opportunity to  subscribe to free email notifications of other videos of interest that  you won't learn from the mainstream media.  Additional Sandy Hook  inconsistencies can be found in my Sunday January 20th post, the second below this one. The text immediately below was provided by Brasscheck TV  as a synopsis of the six videos that follow. Note that while the  first  five are strictly audio, the sixth is a video. You will not find any  conspiracy theorizing here -- only a plethora of official stories that  simply don't add up.


What do you know about Nancy Lanza?

1. She was a "prepper" [sic]

2. She owned a legally registered AR-15

3. She took her son Adam shooting.

When did you "learn" these things?

Very early on, right?

What was the source of this "information?"

Here's some facts:

1. The Wall Street Journal sent a reporter to visit all the gun ranges in the area to find where Nancy and Adam Lanza went shooting.

Result?

No gun range within a 50 mile radius ever saw them.

2. Connecticut has some of the the strictest gun laws in the nation.

So-called "assault rifles" were already banned in the state.

Thus, if Nancy Lanza did own this gun, she did not own it legally.

3. Nanzy Lanza was a "prepper" [sic].

Really?

Who says so?

Where's the evidence?

An "unnamed source" very soon after the crime occurred - with no follow up evidence.

What else do we know about Nancy Lanza?

What was her profession? Where did she work? Where did she grow up? Who were her parents, siblings, extended family?

We know nothing. Zero.

Why is that?

Yet we "know" she was a prepper, she was gun owner and she practiced shooting at local gun ranges.

All false.

If these "early facts" are false, what else is?



Sandy Hook The Gun Range Myth

http://youtu.be/lCUDb1oplKU

Published on Jan 23, 2013



Sandy Hook Step One: Entry

http://youtu.be/aSJMIjlE0DQ

Published on Jan 23, 2013



Sandy Hook AR 15 Reality Check

http://youtu.be/l7ChKpN3SVw

Published on Jan 23, 2013



Sandy Hook The Lanza Family

http://youtu.be/_DJjo80rxuw

Published on Jan 22, 2013

"As reported in Rolling Stone, these three employees of General Electric subsidiary GE Capital were recently found guilty of conspiring with major Wall Street banks from around 1999 to 2006 of fixing public auctions of municipal bonds"

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/07/25/if-you-think-the-libor-scandal-is-an-anomaly-think.aspx



Sandy Hook Who is Adam Lanza

http://youtu.be/ZBEeJY9Rv7Y

Published on Jan 22, 2013



Has Adam Lanza Even Been Alive The Last 3 Years?

http://youtu.be/MmSKS4hwJ24

Published on Jan 5, 2013

There is ZERO online fingerprint of him, there is ZERO video evidence, there is ZERO car insurance, tax information, phone history. There is ZERO proof this guy has even been alive for the last 3 years.

The neighbors haven't seen him in years, nobody who lives around the Lanzas seems to have seen him, and the last time there is any record of him at all was 3 years ago.

The FBI apparently can't retrieve the information from his computer it was so well destroyed (how convenient).

What is more likely.. that a computer nerd would leave "No digital footprint for 3 years" (which would be practically impossible) or that he has been dead for 3 years?

No record of this kid after 2009 - after supposedly attending college at Central Connecticut State University in Danville - nothing.

Nobody knows him, nobody has seen him, and there is no video or other proof he is even alive- why is this guy being treated as the main suspect again?

His mom was supposedly "so badly disfigured they couldn't tell if it was her or not" Maybe it wasn't her. Maybe she's in Belize right now and this whole thing is a scam?

I guess we're taking Adam's dad's word for collecting his son's body- a guy who works for GE capital (GE owns NBC) and his brother? Both of whom are connected to New York finance?

Nobody "falls off the grid" for 3 years.. it just doesn't happen.

--------------------
As Shillers List pointed out in the comments below, the only picture they like to show of Adam Lanza is a very strange ghostly looking picture, when there are many other pictures of him that look pretty normal.

The same thing happened with Jared Loughner the alleged Tucson gunman, who had this normal picture which hardly EVER gets shown to the public: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/CRIME/01/08/arizona.shooting/t1main.loughner.fb.jpg

Originally, it was not cropped, and he's holding a kickoff magazine - The public only sees the "freakish" looking Loughner picture, they don't want his tan, good looking "sports fan" side being shown, as that doesn't fit their agenda.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

What really happened at Sandy Hook last month? How can we possibly know? How well do the published facts fit the official story? This video has been viewed 11 MILLION times in just about 12 days!!! Do you know what this means? It means that virtually everyone who has viewed it has recommended it to friends. This is the meaning of going viral. By contrast, this blog is only visited by about 1000 viewers a month...



The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8


ThinkOutsideTheTV

Published on Jan 7, 2013

First off I would like to thank the users that contributed to this video, including IDAHOPICKER, MAX MALONE and OneTruth4Life. This is not meant to offend anyone but merely to raise questions that need to be answered. I am not pointing the finger because there is too much confusion, but it seems something is going on!

LINKS:

Helicopter footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9YwnXAtm4k

Multiple Shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7pT0nKxgqY

Medical Examiner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JV3KYBS64R8

Gene Rosen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alp64daGTSo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFyexz_IuHE

Facebook Page DEC 10: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyJ0Nl5lpOg

Robbie Parker: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKWgCRBR5qE

Obama Pics: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSnhYMaGYuY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHv_RhVgfUQ

FEMA drills: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlWi97yBRAc

Sites up before shooting : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUAXBChnbE

Nurse Sally Cox - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIz-Nx_RV0g