Saturday, April 8, 2017

Mainstream Trump opposition vanishes overnight revealing the true motivation: war


How interesting it is that the establishment media has failed to take a breath in its efforts to dismantle and discredit anything Donald Trump since the moment he threw his hat into the ring. Yet, the very moment he chose to fall in line with the deep state agenda of War–that which was clearly the motivation for the onslaught of the negative press–he was quickly deemed “Mr. President” by the very same outlets who were only days prior championing calls of impeachment and arrest, ...


Rep. Gabbard: Syria missile strike 'illegal and unconstitutional'



Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, told Fox News' "Tucker Carlson Tonight" Friday that the American missile strike on a Syrian airfield as "an illegal and unconstitutional military strike" that drew the United States closer to military conflict with Russia.

Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, also said the strike was "an escalation of a counterproductive regime change war in Syria that our country’s been waging for years, first through the CIA covertly, and now overtly."


Should We Trust the Gov’t Claims About Syria?



By James Bovard April 8, 2017 Originally published by USA Today President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are adamant that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians last month. They have thus far provided the public scant hard information to back up their claims. Even Obama ally Sen. […]


Friday, April 7, 2017

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Fake Chem Attack in Syria, Oscar Winners White Helmets with memorable performance



"....White Helmets are handling the corpses of people without sufficient safety gear, most particularly with the masks mostly used, as well as no gloves. Although this may seem insignificant, understanding the nature of sarin gas that the opposition claim was used, only opens questions.

Within seconds of exposure to sarin, the affects of the gas begins to target the muscle and nervous system. There is an almost immediate release of the bowels and the bladder, and vomiting is induced.

When sarin is used in a concentrated area, it has the likelihood of killing thousands of people. Yet, such a dangerous gas, and the White Helmets are treating bodies with little concern to their exposed skin(!?) This has to raise questions. It also raises the question why a doctor in a hospital full of victims of sarin gas has the time to tweet and make video calls. This will probably be dismissed and forgotten however".


Wednesday, April 5, 2017

CNN Anchor Speechless After Congressman Questions Syria Chemical Attack Story


(ANTIMEDIA) A CNN anchor was left speechless Wednesday during a televised interview when a congressman questioned the mainstream narrative that Bashar al-Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons this week.

“It’s hard to know exactly what’s happening in Syria right now. I’d like to know specifically how that release of chemical gas, if it did occur — and it looks like it did — how that occurred,” Representative Thomas Massie told CNN’s Kate Bolduan.

Continuing, the Kentucky congressman asked the question so many who doubt the established line have asked in the past: Why?

Because frankly, I don’t think Assad would have done that. It does not serve his interests. It would tend to draw us into that civil war even further.”

Note that the corporate anchor’s expression snaps to attention the instant she realizes Massie is doubting the narrative.

Bolduan, visibly taken aback by what the man is saying — as though it were inconceivable a U.S. lawmaker might have an original opinion on matters — fumbled for words a few moments before managing a simple: “Who do you think is behind it?”

Massie began to answer, but Bolduan cut him off. Unsurprisingly, she asked him directly if he was saying he believes what the Russians are saying — that Assad had nothing to do with the attack that killed dozens in Syria on Tuesday. Reuters reported Wednesday that the attack has sparked renewed calls to oust the country’s president.

The Kentucky congressman stuck to his guns, however, reiterating his earlier position:

“I don’t think it would’ve served Assad’s purposes to do a chemical attack on his people…It’s hard for me to understand why he would do that — if he did.”

The CNN anchor, clearly at a loss for words, thanked Massie for his time.

Creative Commons / Anti-Media / Report a typo


Paul Goes There… The Real Question We Need To Ask Involves Susan Rice and Obama [VIDEO]


Rand Paul went there today while on Fox News with Brian Kilmeade and stated that the real question that should be asked over Rice unmasking private citizens is did Obama eavesdrop on Americans for political reasons? That’s a no-no. We already know that what Rice and others did was unethical… now we need to know if she or others broke the law. The question answers itself because someone leaked those identities and that’s a felony.

Paul contends that Rice never actually answered the question of whether she unmasked private citizens and he’s right. She deftly sidestepped the issue. Then she covered her rear saying that if she did, it wasn’t for political reasons. Really Susan? You requested having the names of people unmasked. That was disseminated to all the intelligence agencies. Then you had spreadsheets compiled of Trump’s people’s phone calls and those were sent out all over the place. That wasn’t for national security reasons. It was strictly political.

From The Daily Caller:

Sen. Rand Paul told Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade Wednesday morning that revelations about Susan Rice unmasking private citizens mentioned in intelligence reports raises a more serious question.

Did President Obama “eavesdrop” on Americans for political purposes?

“I don’t think she answered the question, ‘did she unmask people in the Trump administration?’” the Kentucky Republican first posed. “She said, ‘maybe I did, but I didn’t do it for political reasons.’”

“I think it’s incumbent on her to show to the American people why it wouldn’t have been a political reason.”

“If someone were investigating the Trump administration, it ought to be the F.B.I. not someone in the White house,” he continued. “She’s a political appointee that reports directly to the president.”

“The real question we need to ask is did the president eavesdrop and sift through all of the mountains of intelligence we have?”

“Did you know that over a million Americans’ phone calls are listened to without a warrant?” he asked Kilmeade. “We need to protect American privacy.”

“We can’t allow intelligence to be used for political purposes.”

Susan Rice should have to prove to Americans that what she did wasn’t political. The House Intel Committee is requesting she testify under oath. If she did nothing wrong, that shouldn’t be a problem. But if she refuses or pleads the 5th, there’s definitely and issue there. Those spreadsheets should be traced and reviewed. Everyone who received them should be investigated… thoroughly.

People high up in the intelligence agencies are now beginning to come forward. Rice and Obama/Jarrett won’t be able to hide for long on this. The question is… what price will they have to pay if they stepped over the line from unethical into criminal? Americans want to know that they aren’t being subjected to this kind of surveillance as well. This goes far beyond the White House and the Trump administration. Intelligence should not be used as a political weapon. Ever.

The post Paul Goes There… The Real Question We Need To Ask Involves Susan Rice and Obama [VIDEO] appeared first on I Have The Truth.


Tuesday, April 4, 2017

Intelligence Insider Who Simulated Financial War Games For Government: “What They’re Going To Do Is Lock Down The System… Close The Banks, Money Market Funds, Stock Exchanges”



There is only one reason the U.S. economy has thus far avoided a completely devastating collapse that threatens to end life in America as we have come to know it. According to former intelligence operative and author of Jim Rickards, it has everything to do with confidence. Slow but surely, however, that confidence is eroding and it is only a matter of time before the machinations and manipulations of central banks, governments and financial institutions lead to a total destabilization of the system.

And when that day finally comes – when credit markets lock up, stock markets crash, or the U.S. dollar collapses – Rickards, the author of The Road To Ruin: The Global Elites Secret Plan For The Next Financial Crisis, warns in a recent interview with Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog that access to your assets will be heavily restricted.

You’re going to be in the middle of a panic, whether it’s three months, six month, nine months for the IMF to issue SDR’s, or to convene a global monetary conference, or push the legislative process… whatever it is, it’s going to take some time.

What are you going to do in the meantime, in the middle of the panic, when central banks are constrained and they haven’t come up with their new game plan.

What they’re going to do is lock down the system… close the banks… close the money market funds… suspend redemptions… close the New York Stock Exchange…

They’ll tell you it’s temporary, the same way Richard Nixon in 1971, when he suspended the gold standard, he used the word ‘temporary’… Of course that was 45 years ago and it’s still in place… that’s what they mean by temporary in Washington… it’s 45 years.

But whether it’s 45 years or 45 days, they’re going to temporarily close all of these financial institutions…

Maybe you can get $300 a day from your ATM for gas and groceries… they’ll say “why do you need more than $300 a day for gas and groceries?”


New Bill to Penalize Missed Vaccines


By Dr. Mercola

In March 2017, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sponsored bill H.R. 1313, the Preserving Employee Wellness Programs Act. At first glance the bill sounds reasonable, as it encourages the development of employee wellness programs to encourage workers to make healthier lifestyle choices.

The bill asserts that such health promotion and prevention programs help to reduce chronic illness, improve health and limit expanding health care costs.1

The bill is intended to "clarify rules relating to nondiscriminatory workplace wellness programs" and gives employers legal grounds to enforce the use of their wellness programs among employees. Specifically, the bill states in Section 2(3):2

" … [E]mployers would be permitted to implement health promotion and prevention programs that provide incentives, rewards, rebates, surcharges, penalties, or other inducements related to wellness programs, including rewards of up to 50 percent off of insurance premiums for employees participating in programs designed to encourage healthier lifestyle choices."

Will Employees Be Penalized for Opting Out of Workplace Vaccines?

Some consumer groups, including the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), are calling on Americans to oppose H.R. 1313 because it essentially coerces employees into employer-run wellness programs, which pertain not only to programs of health promotion but also to "disease prevention offered by an employer."3

"The words 'disease prevention' are concerning since not everyone agrees with the use of vaccines to prevent disease," NVIC noted.

In addition to the talk of surcharges and penalties in Section 2(3), Section 3(c) suggests that employers may be able to require employees who do not follow through with certain wellness standards to request and complete an alternative standard:4

"Nothing … shall be construed to prevent an employer that is offering a wellness program to an employee from requiring such employee … to request a reasonable alternative standard (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard).

Nothing … shall be construed to prevent an employer from imposing a reasonable time period … during which the employee must complete the reasonable alternative standard."

NVIC stated in an action alert:5

"The concern is this bill if passed into law would be applied to penalize employees who do not get regular vaccines imposed by an employee wellness plan. H.R. 1313 is indeed a threat to anyone employed by a company or large organization that offers a 'wellness' program …

… and partners with government and Pharma to 'give carrots and apply sticks' to employees who do or do not go along with government endorsed 'standard of care,' which includes receipt of federally recommended vaccines, whether the language in this bill says the word 'vaccine' or not."

A Legal Requirement for Vaccine Mandates at Work?

The U.S. government claims it does not impose vaccine mandates for adults, except for those entering the military. However, it's not unusual for hospitals and other employers to fire workers who refuse certain vaccines, such as annual flu shots.

In one case earlier this year, however, six health care workers fired from a hospital in Erie, Pennsylvania, for refusing the annual flu vaccine were reinstated with back pay.6

According to Dr. Meryl Nass, a vaccine blogger with special interests in vaccine-induced illnesses, it appears American hospitals do not actually have a legal leg to stand on when firing health care workers over vaccine refusals, although they do have financial incentive to do so.

In short, hospitals that have higher vaccination rates for patients and health care workers get higher Medicare reimbursement rates. Perhaps H.R. 1313 would also give them legal backing to require that employees take part in wellness programs, including vaccinations, or be penalized.

On the House Committee on Education and the Workforce website, (a committee chaired by Virginia Foxx), it's noted that:

"Under H.R. 1313, employers will have the legal certainty they need to reward workers for making health lifestyle decisions. H.R. 1313 also reaffirms existing law that allows employers to provide responsible incentives for participation in employee wellness programs."7

What is not pointed out, however, is that under H.R. 1313 employers could not only reward workers and provide incentives for participating in wellness programs — they could also impose surcharges and penalties.

Pediatrician Writes of 'Snuffing Out the Anti-Vaccine Movement'

Scientific American recently posted an opinion piece written by Dr. Peter J. Hotez, director of the Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development in Houston and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at the Baylor College of Medicine.8

Hotez, a vaccine developer and president and director of the Sabin Vaccine Institute's Product Development Partnership, has been described as a vaccine industry spokesperson.9

In the Scientific American article, he writes that "an American neo-antivaccine movement is underway" and predicts it will result in severe measles outbreaks and possibly "subvert global health."

He also trashes the film Vaxxed, which has brought important questions about vaccine safety into the limelight, calling it "a faux documentary alleging a vast conspiracy and cover-up at the CDC."

He even stoops to name-calling, by way of posting a 1902 invitation for membership by the Anti-Vaccination Society of America, which describes the organization as a group of "half-mad, misguided" people.10

Calls for Increased Vaccine Safety Should Be Encouraged, Not Criticized

The piece has ruffled many feathers, in part because of its inaccuracies. For instance, measles outbreaks can and do occur even in highly vaccinated populations.

Hotez's opinion piece also struck a nerve with many because it seems to suggest that people who call for increased transparency and vaccine safety studies are dangerous.

In reality, however, it's the refusal to conduct comprehensive vaccine safety studies that poses a risk to every man, woman and child who receives vaccines. According to a rebuttal to the piece posted by NVIC's The Vaccine Reaction journal:

"Dr. Hotez … is so worried about the growth in size and influence of the grassroots movement of well-educated people, who are questioning mainstream vaccine science and demanding that their informed consent rights and basic civil liberties be respected that he is actually calling for this movement to be snuffed out.

… But what exactly does he mean by this? Does he mean that anyone who questions the safety and effectiveness of vaccines or refuses a vaccine should be penalized in some way? Is he suggesting prison time? Certainly, he is not suggesting some sort of government sponsored capital punishment?

For the record, let it be known that Dr. Hotez does have conflicts of interest in making such a call. The Texas Children's Hospital Center for Vaccine Development receives a lot of money from government and industry to develop and produce vaccines and so does the Sabin Vaccine Institute.

And while he has written, 'I will never see a penny from our vaccines,' there is a lot of money flowing into and out of the institutions in which he has prominent positions and exerts substantial influence regarding vaccine development and promotion."

Does Mandating Vaccines in Hospitals Make Patients Healthier?

A key example of the types of questions that we need to be asking regarding vaccinations, especially those levied upon workers at the threat of their jobs, is whether or not they achieve their stated goal, which presumably would be to reduce disease and make people (or in the case of health care workers, patients) healthier.

A review published in July 2013 by the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews found, however, that:

"[L]aboratory-proven influenza or its complications (lower respiratory tract infection, or hospitalization or death due to lower respiratory tract illness) did not identify a benefit of health care worker vaccination on these key outcomes …"11 It went on to state: "This review does not provide reasonable evidence to support the vaccination of health care workers to prevent influenza in those aged 60 years or older resident in long-term care institutions."

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published an update to this analysis in June 2016, noting that 5 percent of health care workers who had received the influenza vaccine and 8 percent of workers who were unvaccinated, had laboratory-proven influenza each season and that health care workers may transmit influenza to patients. Still, the conclusions remained the same.

"Offering influenza vaccination to health care workers based in long-term care homes may have little or no effect on the number of residents who develop laboratory-proven influenza compared with those living in care homes where no vaccination is offered," the authors wrote.12

Another 2013 meta-analysis — this one by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — similarly found, "The evidence quality that health care personnel vaccination reduces patient mortality and influenza cases is moderate and low, respectively."13

If employees are going to be threatened with losing their jobs or subjected to penalties for opting out of vaccinations, it should at least be proven that they're effective for their intended purpose, and safe, neither of which has been done.

Vaccine Exemptions Increasingly Under Attack

Your right to vaccine exemptions is under attack in many states, from Texas to California, with lawmakers increasingly pushing for mandatory vaccination in the name of public health. In 2015, for instance, California quickly went from a state with a personal belief exemption that protected vaccine choice to one with one of the strictest vaccine policies in the U.S.

California is only 1 of 3 states in the U.S. that has eliminated the personal belief exemption for conscientious, philosophical or religious beliefs and now only allows a medical vaccine exemption that must be written by a medical doctor or other state-designated medical worker.

Texas lawmakers have also filed bills aimed at lowering the number of children who attend school with a conscientious belief exemption for "non-medical" reasons. One by one, there are bills being proposed in many states to remove vaccine exemptions from state public health laws, while government health officials support the addition of new vaccine mandates using a flawed, and sometimes fatal, one-size-fits-all schedule.

Most would agree that in the case of medical care, one size does not fit all. But in the case of vaccinations, public health officials prescribe the exact same number and timing of vaccinations for every child without taking into account biological differences among children, such as chronic diseases or mitochondrial disorders that may increase their risk of vaccine reactions.

Even in adults, serious reactions can occur unexpectedly, such as the case of an Australian man who received a whooping cough (pertussis) vaccine in order to visit his newborn baby, only to suffer a severe reaction and become paralyzed from the waist down.14

Join the Movement to Oppose H.R. 1313

It's clear that there are more questions than answers regarding vaccination, and scientists have only scratched the surface of the complex changes that occur when you artificially manipulate the human immune system. Consider, for instance, the fact that vaccines cannot provide 100 percent protection from any given disease. Vaccines are imperfect, and imperfect vaccines may actually trigger the evolution of more severe disease.15

Increased attacks on vaccine choice by removal of vaccine exemptions are occurring, which is why taking action to protect your right to personal liberty and informed consent is so important. Toward that end, if you'd like to contact your legislators in Washington, D.C. and voice your opinion to oppose H.R. 1313, which may give employers the legal ability to penalize workers for not getting vaccinated, you can do so on NVIC's Advocacy page.

Enter your zip code to see the contact information for your Congressional Representative and two U.S. Senators so you can voice your opposition to this bill.

Related Articles:

 Comments (9)


Monday, April 3, 2017

US Selectively Invokes Liberal Virtues to Serve War Propaganda: Bashar Assad Today; Bertrand Russell in 1922


Interviewer: “All sides in this war have been accused of civilian casualties, but Western media has been almost completely silent about the atrocities committed by the rebels” [who, according to internal US government analysis, operate predominantly under the umbrellas of al Qaeda and ISIS, which are directly sponsored by US-backed dictatorships including Saudi Arabia and Qatar].

Syrian president Bashar Assad: “Whenever they [the West] talk about [or] use as mask – human rights, civilians, children – they use all these just for their own political agenda, to [influence] the feelings of their own public opinion to support their intervention in this region, whether military or political. So, they don’t have any credibility regarding this.”


Bertrand Russell

In 1922, the extremely influential British philosopher, mathematician and historian, Bertrand Russell, pointed out the US invokes “humanitarian” and “liberal virtues” when they can be used to help pursue US “imperial” and “financial interests”, and mysteriously “fails to perceive [the] applicability” of these virtues when their invocation would hurt imperial/financial interests (1) [just as someone like Trump ‘mysteriously’ fails to perceive the applicability of science regarding climate change, but accepts its general applicability in everyday life, such as when he takes medications, uses a computer, etc].

This self-serving dynamic (Russell notes hypocrisy is one of the “main ingredients” of US/British culture [2]) is why in the West much is heard about human rights in Iran and North Korea, and very little about human rights in Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, and Colombia (to give only a few examples, and not to mention mass torture, killing, etc., taking place within the US), major human rights-violating regimes that are heavily supported and assisted by the US.

While invoking human rights in Iran and North Korea is used to condition US public opinion for intervention and possible installation of US-backed regimes in those countries, the US does not invoke human rights in Saudi Arabia (which unlike Iran has not even the guise of elections), Israel, etc., to anywhere near the same degree, and instead keeps illegally supporting these regimes (against international law and the advice of human rights groups), since at the time there is no need to condition public opinion for the possible overthrow of the governments there, as they are already allied to US financial and imperial interests.

Thus, as Assad notes, liberal virtues are invoked as a propaganda tool to influence US public opinion to support the use of illegal and devastating force in attempting to overthrow the Syrian government – another in a long string of countries the US has attempted to conquer, leaving or contributing to a trail of millions of corpses and mass suffering – while the US supports the totalitarian dictator of Saudi Arabia, Salman Abdulaziz, as he too attempts to conquer Syria and Yemen through policies including mass starvation of children, killing civilians, and support of ISIS.

Assad has a special firsthand knowledge of this dynamic since the Bush Jr. regime, before it began working to overthrow the current Syrian government in 2006 by funneling weapons, sponsoring proxy armies, and fostering tension in Syria (a policy Obama continued), coordinated with Assad in human rights violations, specifically on torturing and killing prisoners captured by and extra-judiciously accused of plotting against the US.

The dynamic is further visible in Obama’s decisions regarding this matter.  Obama (and the Western oligarchy generally) continued the policy of the Bush Jr. government of invoking human rights to condition US public opinion against Assad and to support the overthrow of the Syrian government, but this was the selective, propagandist invocation of “liberal virtues” noted by Russell and Assad:

While Obama continued to invoke human rights violations in Syria, at the same time he not only brokered the biggest weapons deal in history – with no less than Saudi dictator Abdulaziz – but he refused to prosecute Bush Jr. cadre members who coordinated with Assad on human rights violations in Syria (and caused the deaths of millions in Iraq) because, as Obama put it to NYT in 2009, people “need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.”

Thus, according to Obama, people should “look backwards” regarding Syrian human rights violations, but should mysteriously not look backwards at these same violations when they include the involvement of US officials.  People should also refrain from looking backwards at US war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, or anywhere else, particularly those ordering the war crimes.

However, people should again look backwards when those like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden expose US war crimes and human rights violations, so that those who expose the crimes may be jailed.  It may also be safely presumed that, regarding extrajudicial killings (ie murders) and thousands of acts of manslaughter committed by Obama himself, it would again be wrong to look backwards.

As Russell pointed out, “liberal virtues” are thus invoked in propagandist alignment with US financial/imperial interests, which to a large extent include the interests of people Pope Francis has called the bloody merchants of death, arms dealers.  (The US is by far the world’s biggest arms trafficker.)

Robert J. Barsocchini is an independent researcher and reporter whose interest in propaganda and global force dynamics arose from working as a cross-cultural intermediary for large corporations in the film and Television industry.  His work has been cited, published, or followed by numerous professors, economists, lawyers, military and intelligence veterans, and journalists.

(1) Russell, Bertrand. The Problem of China. Beijing: Zhong Yang Bian Yi Chu Ban She, 2011. Originally published 1922. Pp. 167-72. Print.

[2] Ibid. Pp. 160.

US Selectively Invokes Liberal Virtues to Serve War Propaganda: Bashar Assad Today; Bertrand Russell in 1922 was originally published on Washington's Blog


Bob Woodward: Obama officials possibly facing criminal charges for unmasking scheme


The Washington Post's Bob Woodward warned on Wednesday that there are people from the Obama administration who could be facing criminal charges for unmasking the names of Trump transition team members from surveillance of foreign officials.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said earlier that he had briefed Trump on new information, unrelated to an investigation into Russian activities, that suggested that several members of Trump's transition team and perhaps Trump himself had their identities "unmasked" after their communications were intercepted by U.S. intelligence officials.


Attkisson v. Eric Holder, Department of Justice, et al | Sharyl Attkisson

Attkisson v. Eric Holder, Department of Justice, et al | Sharyl Attkisson:

In February 2012, “sophisticated surveillance spyware” was installed on Ms. Attkisson’s work-issued laptop computer. A later forensic computer analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s laptop and the family’s desktop computer had been the “targets of unauthorized surveillance efforts.” That same forensic analysis revealed that Ms. Attkisson’s mobile phone was also targeted for surveillance when it was connected to the family’s desktop computer. The infiltration of that computer and the extraction of information from it was “executed via an IP address owned, controlled, and operated by the United States Postal service.” Additionally, based on the sophisticated nature of the software used to carry out the infiltration and software fingerprints indicating the use of the federal government’s proprietary software, the infiltration and surveillance appeared to be perpetrated by persons in the federal government.

'via Blog this'

Sunday, April 2, 2017

9/11 Families Call On Department Of Justice To Investigate Saudi Lobbying Of Vets


by Derrick Broze, Activist Post:

SaudiFlag911-777.jpgThe 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism have sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions asking him to investigate the connection between over 100 Saudi lobbyists, U.S. veterans, and the Trump International hotel.

A group representing an estimated 6,500 families of 9/11 victims is calling on the Department of Justice to investigate a foreign influence campaign by Saudi Arabia which sought to convince veterans to fight against a recently passed law that allows for lawsuits against the Saudi kingdom in relation to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. Yahoo! News reports that lawyers representing the 9/11 Families and Survivors United for Justice Against Terrorism are accusing Saudi operatives of deceiving hundreds of veterans into lobbying against the bill by warning them that they may be susceptible to lawsuits in foreign countries for their role in military conflicts.

“In service of this dangerous effort to influence Congress into passing legislative text promoted by a foreign power, the Kingdom and its foreign agents have targeted U.S. veterans nationwide” and “deceived them into serving as unwitting advocates for the Saudi government,” the families’ letter reads.

The group of over 300 veterans were flown to Washington D.C. and treated to meals and discussion about the controversial Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA), a recently passed law that allows victims of terrorism to file lawsuits against foreign nations. Veterans were not notified that the financiers of their trip were representatives of the Saudi Kingdom. The 9/11 families have fought for years to sue the Saudi Kingdom to reveal more details about the role the nation played in the 2001 terror attacks. The Saudi government has opposed JASTA since its inception, at one point threatening to liquidate millions of dollars in U.S. assets.

The letter accuses the Saudi Kingdom of using more than 100 foreign agents to “build a state of the art and nationwide lobbying and propaganda apparatus” to affect the U.S. legislative process.”According to media reports and records filed with the Department of Justice, the Kingdom has been paying at least $1.3 million per month to registered foreign agents, the majority of whom are registered solely to work on the Kingdom’s campaign to undermine JASTA,” the letter reads. The families are now demanding that the DOJ “commence an immediate national security investigation” to determine if anyone violated the statute known as the Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which requires full disclosure of foreign sponsored lobbying activities.

Read More @ Activist Post


Neocon Fury Over Trump’s Syria Policy


by Stephen Lendman, Market Oracle:

Neocon senators John McCain (R. AR) and Lindsey Graham (R. SC) likely believe war is peace. Freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength – with attribution to George Orwell.

They’re furious about Secretary of State Tillerson, saying “the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”

Separately, US UN envoy Nikki Haley said “(y)ou pick and choose your battles, and when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.”

McCain said he’s “deeply disturbed” about their comments.

“Their suggestion that Assad can stay in power appears to be just as devoid of strategy as President Obama’s pronouncements that ‘Assad must go.’ “
“Once again, US policy in Syria is being presented piecemeal in press statements without any definition of success, let alone a realistic plan to achieve it.”

“Such a policy would only exacerbate the terrorist threat to our nation.”

Graham said letting Assad remain in power would be “the biggest mistake since (Obama) failed to act after drawing a red line against (fabricated claims about his) use of chemical weapons.”

It would “ignore the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people…” It would be a victory for Syria, Russia and Iran, “crushing news” for America.
Here are the facts McCain, Graham, likeminded neocons and media scoundrels suppress.

“The Dirty War on Syria…relies on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory” – Tim Anderson.

Syria is Obama’s war, naked aggression, now Trump’s. It’s not civil as falsely reported.

It’s flagrantly illegal under international law, the laws of war and constitutional law. Nations may not attack others except in self-defense, and only if authorized by Security Council members – not presidents, prime ministers, lawmakers or anyone else.

Syria was invaded by US-created and supported terrorists – ISIS, al-Nusra and others. So-called “moderate rebels” don’t exist, one of many Big Lies about ongoing conflict.

All wars depend on deception and Big Lies. Truth-telling exposes them, why belligerents and supportive media scoundrels suppress them.
Syria was aggressively attacked. Assad acts responsibly in defending his nation and people.

He’s not slaughtering them. Nor is he using chemical or other banned weapons.

Syria is an independent nation threatening no others. Russia and Iran support its sovereignty, territorial integrity and right of its people to decide who’ll lead them – free from foreign interference, as international law requires.

America, NATO, Israel and their rogue allies support naked aggression, regime change, and puppet rule replacing legitimate governance.
McCain, Graham and likeminded congressional neocons want endless US aggression continued in multiple theaters.

Trump’s proposed safe zones in Syria is a thinly veiled balkanization scheme, wanting the country partitioned, establishing Kurdish and Arab-run areas separate from Damascus – destroying the Syrian Arab Republic as it now exists.

Russia, Iran and the Syrian people forthrightly oppose this scheme. Despite all-out Moscow conflict resolution efforts, war still rages.

Washington’s objective remains unchanged – destroying and controlling the country, isolating Iran.

Its turn awaits. Washington and Israel want the Middle East map redrawn, establishing unchallenged shared control.

The diabolical scheme risks direct confrontation with Russia, the unthinkable possibility of nuclear war, a doomsday scenario if launched.

Read More @


Zika virus vaccine will genetically re-engineer your DNA



Touted as “the next great epidemic,” just the words “Zika virus” are enough to strike fear into the hearts of millions. With every pregnant woman on high alert and female athletes bailing out of the Rio Olympics in terror last year, the mainstream media created an epidemic of hysteria far greater than the danger posed by the disease itself. With conditions like microcephaly (babies born with abnormally small heads) and Guillain-BarrĂ© syndrome (an autoimmune disorder in which the body attacks its own peripheral nervous system) being blamed on Zika, fear spread like a contagious disease – quickly and without reason.

But, stop and think: When was the last time you saw a Zika headline? How many babies actually ended up being born with microcephaly? How many people have you heard of that contracted Guillain-Barré after being infected with Zika? (RELATED: Learn more about the real story behind Zika, here.)

Note what the Washington Post, after being at the forefront of the media hysteria for months, quietly wrote nearly a year into the “epidemic:”

Nearly nine months after Zika was declared a global health emergency, the virus has infected at least 650,000 people in Latin America and the Caribbean, including tens of thousands of expectant mothers.

But to the great bewilderment of scientists, the epidemic has not produced the wave of fetal deformities so widely feared when the images of misshapen infants first emerged from Brazil.

The truth is, the whole thing pretty much fizzled out to nothing, but not until after millions of women endured an anxiety-ridden pregnancy, mosquitoes were sprayed en masse with dangerous neurotoxins like DEET, and Big Pharma established the popular narrative that Zika is a dangerous disease, and like all dangerous diseases, needs a – wait for it – vaccine!

Having pretty much come to nothing by the latter part of 2016, one would expect that to be the end of the Zika hysteria. A shamefaced media and medical community should be bowing their heads in shame and waiting for the whole thing to blow over, right? But no! In August 2016, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proudly announced that it would start investigating a Zika vaccine for humans. Then, in November last year, the NIH announced the start of the first of five clinical trials to test the Zika Purified Inactivated Virus (ZPIV) vaccine.

This is not an ordinary, run-of-the-mill vaccine, either. This is how the NIH explained the mechanism of the proposed vaccine:

The investigational Zika vaccine includes a small, circular piece of DNA — called a plasmid — that scientists engineered to contain genes that code for proteins of the Zika virus. When the vaccine is injected into the arm muscle, cells read the genes and make Zika virus proteins, which self-assemble into virus-like particles. The body mounts an immune response to these particles, including neutralizing antibodies and T cells. DNA vaccines do not contain infectious material — so they cannot cause a vaccinated individual to become infected with Zika — and have been shown to be safe in previous clinical trials for other diseases. [Emphasis added]

So, this vaccine will work by injecting synthesized genes into your body, permanently altering your DNA, and presumably, the DNA of your children and all of their offspring. Naturally, the fact that this vaccine would alter the recipient’s DNA forever is enough to spook many people, but it also raises some other concerns.

Jon Rappaport, an award-winning investigative journalist, makes the point that with a vaccine like this, the sky would be the limit for the government. Under the guise of “vaccination,” DNA could be altered to make people more obedient or passive, intelligent and talented, subservient, etc.

Knowing as we do that the Zika hysteria was essentially a storm in a teacup, it really does make you wonder what the ulterior motive might be for developing such a vaccine, doesn’t it?



Mainstream Media: Fake News Through Lying by Omission


Fake news is simply a new, Trump-popularized descriptive for media lying that occurs in 2 basic forms, lying by omission and lying by commission. Lying by omission is far, far worse than lying by commission because the latter can


Auto Industry Resorts To Biggest Incentives Ever To Slow Decline In Sales


Submitted by Wolf Richter of WolfStreet

The Last time automakers tried this was in 2009!

In a few days, automakers are going to report their new vehicle deliveries for March. TrueCar, Kelley Blue Book, and LMC Automotive are predicting total vehicle sales slightly above the flat-line compared to March a year ago, though sales were down year-over-year in both January and February.

TrueCar forecasts an increase of 0.2% year-over-year to 1.586 million new cars and light trucks, with retail deliveries (excluding fleet sales) growing 1% to 1.276 million units. J.D. Power and LMC Automotive said on Friday that they expect an increase of 1.9%, to 1.62 million units, with retails sales up 1%, boosted by record incentives.

If sales nevertheless fall, everyone will blame the winter storm that arrived in the winter – “unexpectedly” or something. And it is possible that sales might fall. There was no winter storm in February, which was one of the warmest Februaries on record. Yet, sales in February fell 1.1% year-over year. They edged down in January too. And sales in both months combined fell 1.4% from the same period a year ago.

It’s not like automakers haven’t been trying. They paid out record incentives to accomplish this feat of slowing down the sales decline. In February, the industry in the US shelled out on average $3,587 per vehicle in incentive spending, per TrueCar. It was the highest ever for a February.

We’ll get to the March incentives in a moment. Just a quick word on what transpired in February. The table below shows average incentive spending per unit sold:

Some standouts among US brands:

  • GM clocked in at over $5,125 per unit in incentives. That’s apparently what it took to get its sales to rise 4% year-over-year.
  • Ford, which has been priding itself in its “disciplined approach” to incentives, spent over a grand less, $4,011 on average, and its sales declined 4%.
  • Fiat Chrysler may be beyond help. That’s perhaps why CEO Sergio Marchionne has been so desperately looking for a buyer. FCA spent $4,362 per unit on incentives in February, as total sales still plunged 10% and are down 11% for the first two months.
  • Car sales for GM, Ford, and FCA plunged 23%, 24%, and 26% respectively. While GM and Ford showed gains of 16% and 5% respectively in light truck sales, FCA couldn’t even do that, and its trucks sales fell 7%.

These are averages per unit: At $5,125 per unit at GM, there may be some models with $10,000 in incentives and others with none, depending on what GM needs to move at the moment, based on inventories on dealer lots, production, and profit margins (that range from very fat on high-end pickups to very slim on small cars).

For March, J.D. Power and LMC Automotive pegged incentives at $3,768 per new vehicle sold – the highest ever for any March. The prior record for March was achieved in 2009 as the industry was collapsing. In June 2009, GM filed for bankruptcy.

By these estimates, the incentives in March would amount to 10.4% of suggested retail price, in the double digits for the first time since 2009. These are some seriously desperate incentives!

TrueCar estimates that incentive spending in March rose 13.4% year-over-year to an average of $3,511 per vehicle sold. But this would be 2.1% lower than the desperate incentives in February:

Some standouts:

  • GM cranked up its incentives by 21.4% from a year ago, but dialed it back 4.5% from February.
  • Honda increased incentive spending 27% year-over-year, and increased it 2.9% from February.
  • FCA, which had already been dousing the market with incentives a year ago, increased it another 7% year-over-year, but remained about flat with February.
  • Subaru, lowest on the list with a modest $901 in incentives per unit sold, nevertheless felt it needed to crank them up by 59% from a year ago.

And look at the total dollar amounts spent in March: $5.54 billion! In just one month! GM alone spent $1.3 billion in March.

If GM piles on incentives at this rate three months in a row, it would spend nearly $4 billion on incentives, in just that quarter, just in the US alone. How much dough is that for GM? In Q1 2015, GM reported global net income of $2.0 billion. In Q1 2015, it reported global net income of $0.9 billion. These incentives can eat an automaker’s lunch in no time. And they did in the years before the industry collapsed during the Great Recession.

For consumers in the mood, there’s an old saw: “Good deals are made in tough times.”

But not for automakers. They face another reality: Sales have peaked. The seven-year up-trend has ended. Pent-up demand from the Great Recession has disappeared. Trading is getting more difficult, with falling used vehicle prices and rising interest rates. Subprime lending is facing real hardship. And these enormous incentives are now required just to keep sales from falling more quickly, and to defend market share against other desperate automakers and their incentives.


War and Propaganda | Dissident Voice

War and Propaganda | Dissident Voice: "The U.S. has been at war throughout much of its history. Some wars were blatantly wars of conquest; e.g., the Indian Wars (the near genocide of Native Americans) and the Mexican-American War. Whatever the real reasons for our military actions, they were usually sold to the public as being defensive in nature and this practice still goes on."

'via Blog this'