For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.name website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

 
Brainwash television mind control.

Image: Internet
First, the premiere anchors, who are managing editors of their own broadcasts, give themselves the go signal.
They will leave their comfortable chairs and travel to the scene of crime.   “It’s that big.”
The anchors lend gravitas.   Their mere presence lets the audience know this story trumps all other news of the moment.   That’s the first hypnotic cue and suggestion.
Of course, the anchors were not in Newtown, Connecticut, as reporters.   They weren’t there to dig up facts.   Their physical presence at the Sandy Hook School and in the town was utterly irrelevant.
They could have been doing their newscasts from their studios in New York.   Or from a broom closet.
But much better to be standing somewhere in Newtown.   It imparts the sense of crisis to the viewing millions.
Priests intoning their benediction
At the same time, the anchors are also there to give assurance.   The subliminal message they transmit is: whatever has happened here is controllable.
The audience knows the anchors will provide the meaning and the official voice of the tragedy.   The anchors are, in a way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their elegies to the dead.
This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get.
This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime.
For example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions about contradictions in the official scenario.
God forbid, the truth
Suppose that became the primary focus.   Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God forbid, the truth.
In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers.   What a concept.
No, a priest doesn’t browbeat a parishioner.   He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption.
But if, by some miracle, these anchors launched a quest for truth, the whole scene would devolve into uncertainty and even chaos.
“First, there was a man in the woods.   You people chased him.   You pinned him down and brought him back into town.
Who is he?   What’s his name?   Where is he?   Is he under questioning?   What are you asking him?
What gave you a clue that he might be a second shooter?   Come on.   Talk to us.   People want to know.   We aren’t going anywhere.   We want some answers.”
This is called reporting
This is called reporting, a foreign enterprise to these blown-dried kings and queens of media news.
“Sir, I know ABC definitively reported there was a second shooter.   They said you gave them that information.   Where did you get it?…No, I’m sorry, that’s not an answer, that’s a non-sequitur.”
Those of us reporting online declare there is something amiss when the second-shooter story is dropped like a hot potato…and we are called conspiracy theorists.
Get it?   Trying to ask relevant questions becomes conspiracy only because the major media didn’t do their job in the first place.
“Sir, was it one gun found in trunk of the car or three?   Show me the car.   Yes.   Let’s see it.   I want to get the license plate.   Excuse me?   The car is what, some kind of state secret?   I don’t think so.   There are twenty dead children in that school over there, and we want to get to the bottom of this.   Take me to the car.”
It’s called an investigation
It’s called an investigation.   Reporters do that.
“Sir, your newspaper ran a story about a man’s body being found in Adam’s brother’s apartment.   Then that became Adam’s mother found dead in her own house here in Newtown.
What exactly happened there?   A mistake?   Wouldn’t you say that was a pretty big mistake?   How did it happen?   What’s that?   Typical confusion in the early reporting of a crime?   I don’t think so.
Thinking a woman was a man and thinking he or she was found in New Jersey instead of Connecticut, that’s not typical at all.   Did police find a man’s body.   Speak up.”
Television viewer entrained and conditioned
Your typical American television viewer would cringe at such demanding questions.   You know why?   Because he has been entrained and conditioned by news anchors to refrain from digging below the surface.   In other words, that viewer is hypnotized.
“Dr. Smith and Officer Jones, we understand that this boy, who was autistic, extremely shy, who had some sort of personality disorder, went into that school and methodically carried out the slaughter of twenty-seven people.   In order for him to do that, he had to reload clips at least twice after the first clip ran out.
Does that make sense?   We’re not just talking about a violent outburst here, we’re talking about a methodical massacre.   How do you explain that?”
Breaking through their hypnotic programming
If these anchors kept on asking questions like this, do you know what would happen?   The viewing audience would begin to stir, would begin to break through their hypnotic programming and wake up.
“You know, he’s right.   That doesn’t make sense.   Maybe there really was a second shooter.”
“Or that Lanza kid…maybe he didn’t kill anybody at all.”
“What?   You mean he was…set up?”
“Maybe he was a patsy.”
Yes.   Instead of this kind of talk being consigned to “conspiracy nuts,” it actually becomes part of the evening news experience.   Because reporters suddenly ask tough questions.
But no.   We have to go with grief and shock.   We have to lead with it and stay with it.
But that is an artificial construct.   Yes, of course people in Newtown feel great shock and pain and loss and grief and horror, but the news producers are consciously moving minutes and hours of it through the tube and filtering out everything else.
They do this every time one of these events occurs, and so the audience expects it and soaks it in and, in that state of entrainment and hypnosis, the audience doesn’t want anything else…because anything else would BREAK THE FLOW and the spell, and the grief would no longer have the same impact.
Newtown is presented as a television event.   From the outset, the mood is funereal.   It has that tinge and coloration.   The audience absorbs it and wants no intrusion on it.
Matrix programming
This is Matrix programming.
The anchor is not only the priest, but also the teacher.   He/she shows the audience how to experience the event and what to feel and what to think and how to act.
One of the great skills of an anchor is the ability to present the news seamlessly.   This is what those big paychecks are for: the blends and segueways and the underlying tone of sincerity that bleeds into every detail of what is being reported.
That is also hypnotic.   It sets up a frequency that moves into the brains of the audience.   In those brains, it’s an Acceptance-frequency.
Canada!
Stephen Harper fake nose.

Robocon election Harper

Cheating in the Canadian Robocon election of 2011.

Voter suppresion in Canada.

CANADA Fixing Elections Through Fraud.

On the Need for a Royal Commission on Electoral Practices in Canada.

Image: Take a Bow, Stevie
youtube.com/watch?v=0wXXBR8Ubw4
This is how democracy disappears.   One seemingly minor step at a time.
First you control what your party members can say.   Then you control what the media can say by forcing journalists to swear allegiance to government ministers.   Then you control what the people can say.
All the changes appear small and insignificant when looked at in isolation.   Which allows successive changes to follow, also apparently in isolation and now without media critique.
When you finally wake up one day and are confronted with the totality of these nefarious changes, it is too late.   For on that fateful day, it is at last crystal clear that democracy has been replaced with a 'new and improved' form of 21st century totalitarianism — corporate only friendly.
Harper is doing it, one step at a time.   Just think, your children will get to live in a totalitarian state gunning for war with its shiny new F35's.
"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press.
You know it and I know it.
There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with.
Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone.
The business of the journalist is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell the country for his daily bread.
You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press.
We are the tools and vassals of the rich men behind the scenes.
We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance.
Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men.
We are intellectual prostitutes."
John Swinton, former Chief of Staff, New York Times
I will order two thousand robocalls please — PIERRE POUTINE of course that is my real name
The credibility of elections is creating a crisis of legitimacy and trust that once linked citizens to the institutions that govern us.
2000 and 2004 elections in United States systemic fraud
How independent is the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada?   How is the robocon scandal affected by the in and out scandal on electoral accounting?
Attack ads — speciality of Conservative Party of Canada
       The importation into Canada of tactics for stealing votes and elections      
     Voter Suppression and Telephone Fraud      
       Robocon scandal at first seemed to involve only a small number of electoral districts     
Fox News (sic)
Incipient Fascist State: America Has Gone Away
by Paul Craig Roberts
Anyone who doesn’t believe that the US is an incipient fascist state needs only to consult the latest assault on civil liberty by Fox News (sic).
Instead of informing citizens, Fox News (sic) informs on citizens. Jason Ditz reports (antiwar.com Dec. 28) that Fox News (sic) “no longer content to simply shill for a growing police state,” turned in a grandmother to the Department of Homeland Security for making “anti-American comments.”
The media have segued into the police attitude, which regards insistence on civil liberties and references to the Constitution as signs of extremism, especially when the Constitution is invoked in defense of dissent or privacy or placarded on a bumper sticker.
President George W. Bush set the scene when he declared: “you are with us or against us.”
Bush’s words demonstrate a frightening decline in our government’s respect for dissent since the presidency of John F. Kennedy.
In a speech to the Newspaper Publishers Association in 1961, President Kennedy said:
“No president should fear public scrutiny of his program, for from that scrutiny comes understanding, and from that understanding comes support or opposition; and both are necessary. . . Without debate, without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed, and no republic can survive.
That is why the Athenian law makers once decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy.
And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment.”
Press not protected to amuse and entertain
The press is not protected, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers, in order that it can amuse and entertain, emphasize the trivial, or simply tell the public what it wants to hear.
The press is protected so that it can find and report facts and, thus, inform, arouse “and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
In a statement unlikely to be repeated by an American president, Kennedy told the newspaper publishers:
“I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people, for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.”
The America of Kennedy’s day and the America of today are two different worlds.
8 young homeless people die trying to keep warm
In America today the media are expected to lie for the government in order to prevent the people from finding out what the government is up to.
If polls can be believed, Americans brainwashed and programmed by O’Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh want Bradley Manning and Julian Assange torn limb from limb for informing Americans of the criminal acts of their government.
Politicians and journalists are screeching for their execution.
President Kennedy told the Newspaper Publishers Association that:
“it is to the printing press, the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news, that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: Free and Independent.”
Who can imagine a Bill Clinton, a George W. Bush, or a Barack Obama saying such a thing today?
Eight young homeless people die trying to keep warm
Propaganda ministry for the government
Today the press is a propaganda ministry for the government.
Any member who departs from his duty to lie and spin the news is expelled from the fraternity.
A public increasingly unemployed, broke and homeless is told that they have vast enemies plotting to destroy them in the absence of annual trillion dollar expenditures for the military/security complex, wars lasting decades, no-fly lists, unlimited spying and collecting of dossiers on citizens supplemented by neighbors reporting on neighbors, full body scanners at airports, shopping centers, metro and train stations, traffic checks, and the equivalence of treason with the uttering of a truth.
Obama coming up with a mission
Two years ago when he came into office President Obama admitted that no one knew what the military mission was in Afghanistan, including the president himself, but that he would find a mission and define it.
On his recent trip to Afghanistan, Obama came up with the mission: to make the families of the troops safe in America, his version of Bush’s “we have to kill them over there before they kill us over here.”
No one snorted with derision or even mildly giggled. Neither the New York Times nor Fox News (sic) dared to wonder if perhaps, maybe, murdering and displacing large numbers of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen and US support for Israel’s similar treatment of Lebanese and Palestinians might be creating a hostile environment that could breed terrorists.
If there still is such a thing as the Newspaper Publishers Association, its members are incapable of such an unpatriotic thought.
Growing police state
8 young homeless people die trying to keep warm December 28, 2010
Today no one believes that our country’s success depends on an informed public and a free press. America’s success depends on its financial and military hegemony over the world.
Any information inconsistent with the indispensable people’s god-given right to dominate the world must be suppressed and the messenger discredited and destroyed.
Now that the press has voluntarily shed its First Amendment rights, the government is working to redefine free speech as a privilege limited to the media, not a right of citizens.
Fox News (sic)
Thus, the insistence that WikiLeaks is not a media organization and Fox News (sic) turning in a citizen for exercising free speech.
Washington’s assault on Assange and WikiLeaks is an assault on what remains of the US Constitution.
When we cheer for WikiLeaks’ demise, we are cheering for our own.
© Copyright 2005-2010 GlobalResearch.ca
The most disgusting aspect of US life is the trial of hero Bradley Manning, or Breanna Manning, take your pick.

Hundreds of Thousands of US Government Employees had access to the US military's classified network of terror and deceit.

Yet only one youngster had any thought of letting the world view this criminality.

Mass crimes against humanity - unspeakable grief and horror committed by supposedly a sane country.

Hundreds of millions turning their heads away because they do not want to see, feel, or hear the blood dripping onto their soul.

Image: Internet
The most disgusting aspect of US life is the trial of hero Bradley Manning, or Breanna Manning, take your pick.
Hundreds of Thousands of US Government Employees had access to the US military's classified network of terror and deceit.
Yet
only one youngster had any thought of letting the world view this criminality.
Mass crimes against humanity — unspeakable grief and horror committed by supposedly a sane country.
Hundreds of millions turning their heads away because they do not want to see, feel, or hear the blood dripping onto their soul.
Kewe
Free the Wikileaks hero
Hail all those who seek to open Illuminati treasured secrecy
What great courage this man, this young man, has!
A great hero of his generation!
What great tribute we pay to those who break with Illuminati authority!
How foul those who imprison this young man!
How I pray they will be brought to account for their traitorous action!
Kewe
Purple Heart For Moral Convictions
Pain so deep it cries a silent weep
Camouflaged in fear afraid to speak
In desperate hope a wounded heart revealed
In Bradley Manning's courageous light no longer concealed
Bradley Manning's heroic fight
click here
Bradley Manning Support Network
click here
The cloud travelled to a great height first in the form of a ball, then mushroomed.

Image: Los Alamos National Laboratory
The cloud travelled to a great height first in the form of a ball, then mushroomed, then changed into a long trailing chimney-shaped column.
Use of nuclear weapons would mean the end of humanity!
Meanwhile, coinciding with the release of Fidel's speech, there has been extensive coverage of the EU Parliament's 'human rights' prize granted to Cuban dissident Guillermo Farinas.
Almost every single major Western news media has published the same Associated Press report out of Havana.
Visibly, nuclear war is not front-page news.
The overriding threat of war and destruction is overshadowed by a barrage of media disinformation.
The military agenda is presented as a humanitarian endeavor.
War criminals are rewarded for their contributions to World peace.
The corporate media is complicit in its biased coverage, particularly with regard to the loss of life resulting from the US-NATO led war in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The lie prevails.
In an utterly twisted logic, war is presented as a means to preserving World Peace.
Media Blackout on Nuclear War
click here
In a Nuclear War the Collateral Damage would be the Life of All Humanity
click here
Lebanon
The American Embassy — Illuminati controlled BBC CNN and Western media hyping the message — warned Americans to avoid Ahmadinejad’s “provocative and potentially dangerous visit.”
Close to 750,000 people, or approximately one quarter of the total population of Lebanon, of all ages and stations in life, appeared at the main road from Beirut’s airport.
Wretched Palestinian refugees, tightly shoe horned into Lebanon’s squalid UN camps, denied even the most elementary civil rights by an apathetic international community and some of the local sects, could be seen along the route.
Many with eyes moistened, perhaps by Nakba memories and tears of hope for the early liberation of their sacred Palestine and the full exercise of their internationally mandated and inalienable Right of Return to their homes.
Throwing a non-Illuminati newspaper to Israel American territory in occupied Palestine.

Image MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty Images
Throwing a non-Illuminati newspaper to Israel/American territory in occupied Palestine
On the Road with Ahmadinejad in Lebanon
click here
US ISRAEL MASS WAR CRIMES
Israel Caused Holocaust Palestine Lebanon
Atrocities Lebanon and Palestine
The Murdoch 'ethos' was demonstrated right from the beginning of his career, as Richard Neville has documented.
In 1964, his Sydney tabloid, the Daily Mirror, published the diary of a 14-year-old schoolgirl under the headline, "WE HAVE SCHOOLGIRL'S ORGY DIARY".
A 13-year-old boy, who was identified, was expelled from the same school. Soon afterwards, he hanged himself from his mother's clothesline.
The 'sex diary' was subsequently found to be fake.
Soon after Murdoch bought the News of the World in 1971, a strikingly similar episode involving an adolescent diary led to the suicide of a 15-year-old girl.
.... The message was clear: Thatcher was willing to use death squads.
The Sunday Times and the Sun, side by side in Murdoch's razor-wired Wapping fortress, echoed Thatcher's scurrilous attacks on Thames Television and subjected the principal witness to the murders, Carmen Proetta, to a torrent of lies and personal abuse.
She later won £300,000 in libel damages, and a public inquiry vindicated the programme's accuracy and integrity.
This did not prevent Thames, an innovative broadcaster, from losing its licence.
The propaganda war against Iran
Bill Van Auken
June 24th, 2009
Talks to doctor
Inauguration of hospital in Sanare, Venezuela
The US media, led by the New York Times, is continuing its concerted propaganda campaign against Iran over charges that the government stole the June 12 presidential election.
There is not even a semblance of objectivity in the media coverage, which parrots the charges of the opposition headed by defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi as fact and dismisses the government’s claims as lies.
The opposition is lauded as democratic and reformist, while incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his supporters are portrayed as virtual fascists.
One would scarcely imagine that the two men represent rival factions within the same ruling establishment.
Responsibility for the violence in the streets of Tehran is attributed entirely to the government and its security forces.
No connection is drawn between these events and the broader situation in the region, where the US is waging two wars, on Iran’s eastern and western borders, both aimed at establishing American hegemony over the oil-rich territory.
Suggestions that the US and its intelligence agencies are involved in the turmoil in Iran are dismissed as ludicrous, fabrications by an Iranian government trying to divert public opinion.
It was later identified
the men were not Chávez
supporters but paid by
opposition supporters,
foreign agents involved.
This, in a country where Washington overthrew a democratically elected government in 1953, propped up a brutal dictator, the Shah, for more than a quarter of a century, and has carried out covert CIA operations in the recent period involving the use of special operations troops on Iranian soil.
The New York Times and Venezuela
If all of this sounds familiar, it should.
Little more than seven years ago, a very similar media campaign, once again spearheaded by the New York Times, was carried out against the government of President Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.
Then, as now, standards of journalistic objectivity were thrown out the window.
Chávez was vilified and his opponents, drawn largely from Venezuela’s oligarchy and privileged layers of the middle class, were portrayed as crusaders for democracy.
Statements by the opposition were reported as fact or treated with the utmost respect, while the government’s contentions were subjected to derision.
A few quotations from the New York Times of March and April 2002 give the flavor of this campaign.
On March 26, the newspaper published a story entitled “Venezuela’s President vs. Military: Is Breach Widening?”
The content of the piece made it clear that the answer was, hopefully, yes.
“The rebellious officers helped energize a disjointed but growing opposition movement that is using regular street protests to try to weaken Mr. Chávez, whose autocratic style and left-wing policies have alienated a growing number of people.”
It continued, “Although he promised a ‘revolution’ to improve the lives of the poor, Mr. Chávez has instead managed to rankle nearly every sector—from the church to the press to the middle class—with his combative style, populist speeches and dalliances with Fidel Castro...”
In the Times’ coverage of Venezuela — as in Iran — the phrase “nearly every sector” was used to exclude the overwhelming majority of the population, the urban and rural poor, which had twice given Chávez the widest electoral victories in the country’s history.
Subsequent articles described Chávez as a “left-wing autocrat” and “a mercurial left-leaning leader whose policies had antagonized much of Venezuelan society.”
The newspaper favorably presented a speech by a former energy minister to a group of “striking” managers at the state-run oil company, who declared, “This can only end with the president resigning... This is about him or us.   It is a choice between democracy and dictatorship.”
There was the question of violence.
It was later identified
the men shooting were not
Chávez supporters but paid
by opposition supporters, foreign agents involved.
When unidentified gunmen opened fire during a mass opposition march on the Miraflores presidential palace — a throng comparable in both its size and class composition to those that have taken to the streets of Iran — the 19 deaths that resulted were all attributed to government security forces or Chavez’s armed supporters.
It subsequently emerged that a number of the dead were among the crowd that had gathered to defend Chávez and that much of the fire had come from the Caracas metropolitan police force, loyal to the city’s mayor, Alfredo Peña, a fierce opponent of the president who enjoyed US support.
In its coverage of the clash, the Times sought out Peña, who, unsurprisingly, blamed all of the carnage on Chávez.
The purpose of all of this became clear in the wake of the demonstration, when a section of the military, together with Venezuela’s big business association and the US-sponsored bureaucracy of the right-wing union federation, joined in a coup that briefly overthrew Chávez.
In the immediate aftermath of the coup, the Times showed its hand in an editorial entitled “Hugo Chávez Departs.”
“Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator,” the Times crowed.   “Mr. Chávez, a ruinous demagogue, stepped down after the military intervened and handed power to a respected business leader...”
The newspaper insisted that Washington had no role in the overthrow, “denying him [Chávez] the role of nationalist martyr.   Rightly, his removal was a purely Venezuelan affair.”
Nothing could more clearly express the conception of “democracy” shared by the Times and the US ruling establishment.
A regime created through the military overthrow of an elected government was “democratic” so long as it was more amenable to US interests.
In Venezuela, which supplies 15 percent of US imported oil, these interests are clear.
As for the claim that the coup was “purely Venezuelan,” this was a cover-up of a concerted and protracted US destabilization operation, in which the Times played an indispensable role.
The “democratic” coup, however, lasted just two days.
Chávez was restored to power as a result of masses of urban poor taking to the streets against the new regime and sections of the military turning against it.
The Times backpedaled slightly, admitting that it had greeted Chávez’s overthrow with “applause,” while regretting that it had “overlooked the undemocratic manner in which he was removed.”
In Iran, the New York Times is following essentially the same script, albeit it on a grander scale.
Attend rally in support
of supreme leader
Ayatollah Khomeini
Once again: Who is the Nation’s Iran correspondent, Robert Dreyfuss?
The Nation has not provided any answer to the question posed by the World Socialist Web Site on Monday: “Who is Robert Dreyfuss?”
As we explained, Dreyfuss is a contributing editor of the magazine, which presents itself as the voice of “progressive” politics in America.
He wrote a book —
Hostage to Khomeini — in 1981, calling for the Reagan administration to organize the overthrow of the Islamic Republic of Iran and denouncing President Jimmy Carter for having betrayed the Shah.
At the time, Dreyfuss was a member of the fascistic organization led by Lyndon LaRouche, serving as “Middle East intelligence director” for its magazine Executive Intelligence Review.
This is the man that the Nation relies upon as its chief commentator on “politics and national security” and who it sent to Iran to cover the election.
He has echoed the line promoted by the New York Times, declaring himself in favor of a “color revolution” in Iran.
A comparison of what he wrote then and what he writes today only makes it all the more urgent that the Nation explain why such an individual is one of its editors.
This arises particularly in relation to one of Dreyfuss’s principal sources during his recent trip to Iran, Ibrahim Yazdi, Iran’s former foreign minister and a so-called “dissident.”
An article published by the Nation on June 13 entitled “Iran’s Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It’s A Coup,” consisted largely of an interview with this man, who said the election was rigged and illegitimate.
In his book Hostage to Khomeini, however Dreyfuss said that Yazdi was part of a “coterie of experienced, Western-trained intelligence agents.”
He claimed that Yazdi’s “directions from Washington and London came via the ‘professors,’ men such as Professor Richard Cottam of the University of Pittsburgh,” whom he described as a former “field officer for the CIA attached to the US embassy in Tehran.”
Dreyfuss wrote: “Yazdi’s wife once described Cottam as ‘a very close friend of my husband, the one person who knows more about him than even I do.’”
Elsewhere in the book, Dreyfuss refers to Yazdi as “Mossad-tainted.”
The question is: which Dreyfuss are we to believe—the one who exposed Yazdi as an intelligence agent for the US, Britain and Israel, or the one who now quotes him at length as an advocate of “democracy” and “reform”?
Dreyfuss has never publicly repudiated what he wrote in 1981. Was he lying then, or is he lying now? The Nation is obliged to answer. Its readership deserves to know what Dreyfuss is doing at the magazine.
Source click here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/prop-j24.shtml
thepeoplesvoice.org — click here
©2009 by thepeoplesvoice.org
Iran election truths
As far as international media coverage is concerned, it seems that wishful thinking got the better of credible reporting.
In the future, observers would do us a favour by taking a deeper look into Iranian society, giving us a more accurate picture of the very organic religious structures of the country, and dispensing with the narrative of liberal inevitability.
It is the religious aspects of enigmatic Persia that helped put an 80-year-old exiled ascetic at the head of state 30 years ago, then the charismatic cleric Khatami in office 12 years ago, the honest son of a blacksmith — Ahmedinejad — four years ago, and the same yesterday.
Most underreported fact of the year: Ahmadinejad introduced free health care for 22 million people
All the accusations about Ahmadinejad's mismanaging the economy e.g. inflation, basically come down to him actually handing out cash to people.
Maybe my memory isn't what it used to be, but I do remember complaints from clerics and other conservatives at the time Ahmadinejad was first elected that he wasn't religious enough, that he was almost secular.
If that's correct, it may account for his appeal to the liberal middle class as well.
Of course, the Western press would ignore that, wanting to make him some kind of Muslim wacko.
The more I think about it (why did I not do that beforehand?) the more does the result makes sense.
While in west seen as 'conservative,' Ahmadinejad is no such thing.
His distribution policies are straight social-democratic — in that he is on the left.
His support is thereby with the poor and worker people.
Still living on modest means himself, he is their hero.
At the same time he is the one who actually challenged the ruling mullah class when he attacked Rafsanjani.
His frequent visits in the provinces will have helped too.
He is pious and not afraid to show that.
Mousani is the economic conservative guy, mainly caring for the rich and bazaaris.
Being supported by Rafsanjani, the richest crook in Iran overall, obviously showed that.
In a land with a relatively small middle class it is therefore not astonishing to see Ahmadinejad win.
Ahmadinejad really was a populist leader and probably was rewarded for that.
To have to courage to call Rafsanjani and the other older clerics corrupt on national television during a debate may well have been impressive.
To the degree Ahmadinejad got Mousavi to defend Rafsanjani Ahmadinejad may have turned the election into another referendum on the corruption of the old-guard clerics, which is notorious in Iran, to his benefit.
My guess is foreign policy played almost no role in this election beyond that the general feeling in Iran is that there is not a serious foreign threat from the Americans.
Thanks for that link, slothrop.
You have to love those who define themselves as Liberals and/or Progressives.
Because Mousavi is painted as a Liberal Reformer, Liberals/Progressives in the West should throw their support behind him, and now we see he's just abother scumbag..... but he's their scumbag, so that makes it all good.
(comment above: shades of the US and Obama — Kewe)
 
AMERICAblog.com
Bill Maher just outed Republican party chair Ken Mehlman as gay on Larry King Live
by John in DC - 11/08/2006
Oh my.
Note: has been removed due to your Corporate Conglomerate
You own the country you live in.
You own the laws.
You can do something about this.
Get rid of all politicians, in the US Democrat and Republican, outside the US, all your own politicians in the pocket of multi-national corporate conglomerates.
Stop them taking away your access to knowledge.
Stop them taking away your freedoms.
It's up to you if you wish the elite of the world to rule you.
And your children's world.
Sorry about the video quality.   I had to re-record it with my itty-bitty camera.   But it gets the job done. And let me just say, if Mr. Mehlman wasn't toast after last night, I suspect he is now.
I wouldn't be surprised if the religious right is wondering if closeted gays in the upper reaches of the GOP didn't help throw the election for the Dems.   Ken and Karl just oversaw the dismantling of the Republican majority in both houses of Congress.   As the commercial says: Priceless.
DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005
CENSORED BY CNN: BILL MAHER
SUGGESTS RNC CHAIR MEHLMAN IS
GAY....
CNN | Posted November 8, 2006
CENSORED BY CNN: BILL MAHER SUGGESTS RNC CHAIR MEHLMAN IS GAY....

During the live broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher suggested to Larry King that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is gay.

Partial transcript of Bill Maher's appearance on Larry King Live:

Bill Maher: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. 

I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...

Larry King: You will Friday night?

Bill Maher: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...

Larry King: You will name them?

Bill Maher: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...

Larry King: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...

Bill Maher: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.

Picture and transcript: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
From CNN
From CNN:
During the live broadcast of CNN's Larry King Live, Bill Maher suggested to Larry King that Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman is gay.
Partial transcript of Bill Maher's Live appearance on Larry King Live:
BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...
LK:You will Friday night?
BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...
LK: You will name them?
BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. Ken Mehlman. Ok, there's one I think people have talked about. I don't think he's denied it when he's been, people have suggested, he doesn't say...
LK: I never heard that. I'm walking around in a fog. I never...Ken Mehlman? I never heard that. But the question is...
BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.
When CNN re-aired the interview later that night, they edited out Larry King and Bill Maher's discussion of Mehlman's potential homosexuality.
Partial transcript of Bill Maher's re-aired appearance on Larry King Live:
BM: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party, are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will Friday night...
LK:You will Friday night?
BM: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...
LK: You will name them?
BM: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first.
LKL: But the question is...
BM: Maybe you don't go to the same bathhouse I do, Larry.
Copyright 2006 © HuffingtonPost.com, Inc
AMERICAblog.com
CNN tells YouTube to pull down video outing GOP party head Ken Mehlman
by John in DC - 11/09/2006
I just got a cease-and-desist letter from YouTube, see below, regarding my CNN footage I posted. The footage, you'll recall, was from Larry King Live last night in which Bill Maher outed Republican Party chair Ken Mehlman as gay. It seems that CNN has suddenly decided that it no longer wants bloggers, or YouTube, posting any of its video, which is kind of surprising since I always thought we were doing a CNN a favor by constantly touting their network. Apparently I was wrong.
NOTE: You can still see the entire video on Huff Post.
CNN has also now edited the official transcript of Larry King Live, so that no one will ever know what really happened. Here is CNN's transcript:
MAHER: A lot of the chiefs of staff, the people who really run the underpinnings of the Republican Party are gay. I don't want to mention names, but I will on Friday night.
KING: You will Friday night?
MAHER: Well, there's a couple of big people who I think everyone in Washington knows who run the Republican...
KING: You will name them?
MAHER: Well, I wouldn't be the first. I'd get sued if I was the first. (A PORTION OF THIS TRANSCRIPT HAS BEEN REMOVED)
KING: Great way to close out this segment. It's poignant.
CNN didn't just edit out the naming of Mehlman as gay, they even edited out Larry's question, and Maher's answer, about why gay people sometimes work against their own people. Now why is that question being censored by CNN?
I plan to cut the video back to ten seconds, the crucial part where Bill Maher outs Mehlman, then put it back up (I also still have the 3 meg file, 1 minute 20 seconds long - as do lots of other people, including the Huff Post). I have a law degree from Georgetown and I know intellectual property law as it concerns journalism. You can post an 8 to 10 second video clip as fair use for news purposes, and that is what I plan to do. And if CNN and Google try to close down my YouTube account for using an 8-10 second snippet for news purposes, they're going to have serious problems.
Here is the cease and desist I just got from YouTube:
CNN blocking YouTube from showing its Larry King outing of Ken Mehlman
 
Friday, August 25, 2006
CBS, NBC Clean Up Bush's 'Happy' Talk
NEW YORK - August 25 — During his August 21 press conference, George W. Bush responded to a question about the Iraq War by saying that "sometimes I'm happy" about the conflict. But many readers and TV viewers never heard the remark, since journalists edited the statement to save Bush any possible embarrassment.
Bush's unedited comment was as follows:
Q: But are you frustrated, sir?
BUSH: Frustrated?   Sometimes I'm frustrated.   Rarely surprised.   Sometimes I'm happy.   This is — but war is not a time of joy.   These aren't joyous times.   These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country.   I understand that.
Viewers of CBS Evening News (8/21/06) saw a carefully edited version of that response—one better suited to presenting Bush as serious and concerned with the effects of the war.   Reporter Bill Plante previewed the answer by saying that Bush "conceded that daily reports of death and destruction take a toll, both on the nation and on him."   The edited quote that followed:
Frustrated?   Sometimes I'm frustrated, rarely surprised.   These aren't joyous times.   These are challenging times, and they're difficult times.   And they're straining the psyche of our country.   I understand that.
CBS was not alone in massaging Bush's response—many outlets excised Bush's "happy" remark, or found other ways to clean up Bush's performance.   NBC Nightly News (8/21/06) worked around Bush's awkward answer; reporter Kelly O'Donnell noted that Bush "offered an unusual glimpse into his thinking," but then proceeded to edit the comments to Bush's advantage:
BUSH: Frustrated?   Sometimes I'm frustrated.   Rarely surprised.
O'DONNELL: ...and acknowledged Iraq's weight on the nation.
BUSH: They're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country.   I understand that.
So instead of airing Bush's "happy" remark, NBC's reporter stressed the fact that Bush was serious about Iraq's "weight on the nation."
Print outlets also generally left out Bush's remark and praised his performance.   The New York Times (8/22/06) interpreted Bush's "occasionally rocking back and forth" as a sign that he was "generally upbeat," while the Los Angeles Times was more effusive: "Bush's appearance suggested he was settling into a pattern of regular, wide-ranging interactions with reporters in which he can appear confident and presidential" (8/22/06).
Of course, Bush can only appear that way if the press decides to present his comments in the most flattering light.   With the Iraq War widely unpopular with the public, many viewers may have found Bush saying that it sometimes made him "happy" jarring and distasteful.   CBS and NBC apparently thought it was more appropriate to shield viewers from Bush's words—and, perhaps more importantly, shield the White House from that public response.
ACTION: Contact CBS and NBC and ask them why they decided that Bush's comments about the Iraq War making him "happy" should be excised from their reporting.
Common Dreams NewsCenter © 1997-2006
All sound, fury, and popular entertainment: one decade on, Fox is top dog in the ratings
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Published: 07 October 2006
It is the night of the Bush-Gore presidential election in 2000, perhaps the weirdest of all moments in America's recent political history.
Already, the key state of Florida has been kicked around like a football — placed in the Gore column for a couple of hours and then, because of erroneous exit-polling data, yanked back and deemed too close to call.
The network anchors are settling in for a long night.   On CBS, Dan Rather says the heat from Florida is "hot enough to peel house paint".
Over at Fox News, the runt of the American cable news litter, the election desk is being manned by a certain John Ellis, who just happens to be George and Jeb Bush's first cousin.
According to a new book by David Moore, a Gallup poll election veteran who was doing a very similar job that night for CBS and CNN, Ellis spent much of his evening on the phone to the Bush brothers.
At 2.15 am on the East Coast, Ellis shouts out excitedly: "Jebbie says we got it! Jebbie says we got it!" Jebbie is, of course, the governor of Florida as well as the Republican candidate's brother.
Seconds later, Fox calls the election for Bush.   Within minutes, the other networks have followed suit — not because their polling data supports the call, but because they are terrified of being beaten to the punch by some puny little cable station.
The call, of course, turns out to be as erroneous as the earlier one for Gore, and the election is destined to go on for another 36 agonising days.
[Supreme Court decision for Bush — not to count balots — see below]
But in the meantime a new phenomenon in American television news has been born.
Election night 2000 was the moment Fox News — owned by Rupert Murdoch, and run by a veteran media consultant to the Republican Party — won its spurs and made sure it would never again be underestimated by the media punditocracy.
The station has gone on in much the same spirit as it approached that extraordinary night, purporting to be a disinterested bearer of the day's tidings, while in fact pushing a very specific Republican agenda.
Its fortunes have been bound, with almost uncanny closeness, to those of George W Bush — soaring in the audience ratings when the president has himself pushed the peaks of his popularity, then slumping as the aura that attached itself to the White House in the immediate aftermath of September 11 has dulled almost to the point of invisibility.
Fox nonetheless remains the number one cable news station.   In a few short years, it has almost entirely rewritten the rules of American television news coverage, influencing its ideological nemeses as much as its bedfellows with its penchant for presenting politics as a form of gladiatorial sport — all sound, fury and popular entertainment, in which fact and reasoned analysis are ditched in favour of outrage, anger and patriotic pride.
Today, Fox News celebrates its 10th anniversary, but really the station has lived through two distinct phases.
In the first phase, from 1996 to the 2000 election, it was the also-ran of American broadcast journalism, the cable offshoot of what was already a marginal network.
Fox, at that time, was known for airing The Simpsons, not for its news coverage.
Correspondents at Fox News had trouble getting accreditation with major government agencies and had to fight for a place on presidential plane trips.
Its political proclivities became clear during the Clinton impeachment saga in 1998, but the furore over Monica Lewinsky, the Kenneth Starr report and the rest was so widespread that the station had trouble getting itself noticed.
Since 2000, Fox has evolved, essentially, into the White House's news poodle — pushing the (non-existent) links between Saddam Hussein and September 11, talking up every report of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, both before the 2003 invasion and since, playing to the country's fear of another al-Qa'ida attack and reinforcing the notion that only Republicans have the resolve to keep Americans safe.
When Republican politicians feel vulnerable — like Dick Cheney after he accidentally shot a friend on a hunting trip to Texas earlier this year — they talk to Fox News, and no other outlet.
When Democrats feel the need to reach out to the other side, as party chairman Howard Dean does from time to time and Bill Clinton did as recently as two weeks ago, they stick their heads into the lion's den and pride themselves when they feel that they have re-emerged alive.
But Fox News has not thrived only because of the political climate of the past years.   It has also managed to be grimly compelling entertainment.
Roger Ailes, the station's chief executive who cut his teeth crafting Richard Nixon's television image for his successful 1968 presidential campaign, understood right from the get-go that the best way to trounce the competition was to be more lively than them.
"I watched CNN for a week before I went on and I kept trying to wake myself up," he recalled in an interview with the Associated Press last week.
"I kept nodding off and I realized they are biased, they are boring, they looked like a network that has never had any competition."
So Fox introduced flashy graphics, impassioned shouting matches between ideological opposites, and news coverage that was both insidiously partisan but also gleefully liberated from the ponderous on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand style of traditional broadcast journalism.
In no time, it had leapfrogged past MSNBC and CNN and became essential viewing for anyone seeking to understand the true nature of America under the Bush administration.
Political doublespeak of Karl Rove
The political doublespeak characteristic of Karl Rove, the president's key political advisor, also became the salient feature of Fox News.
"Fair and balanced," the station called itself.
"We report, you decide," the anchors like to say.
The reality is rather different.   The most aggressive hosts, like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, take pleasure in ripping to pieces any guest they happen to disagree with.
O'Reilly notoriously told the son of a New York Port Authority worker who died on September 11 to "shut up" and show more respect for his father because he dared suggest the Bush administration was acting in its own, not the country's, best interests.
Hannity's speciality has been to take any piece of bad news for the administration and put a positive spin on it — usually by blaming everything on Bill Clinton.
Foley labeled Democrat when Republican
Both men have been on rare form just this past week.   On O'Reilly's show, the disgraced Florida congressman Mark Foley — who was caught sending sexually explicit computer messages to teenage pages at the House of Representatives, and now threatens the party's entire mid-term election strategy — was repeatedly labelled a Democrat when he is, crucially, a Republican.
In early 20s, suggestion Monica Lewinsky had been teenager
Hannity, meanwhile, suggested that Monica Lewinsky was a teenager when she had her dalliance with President Clinton (she wasn't — she was in her early 20s) and blamed the entire furore on "selective moral outrage by Democrats trying to turn this into a political issue and having a double standard".
Civil war in Iraq good thing?
Sometimes the spin is so dizzying it is almost funny.
Back in February, Neil Cavuto's daytime show asked the question: "All-out civil war in Iraq: could it be a good thing?"
Then, four days later, the same show framed the issue an entirely different way.   "'Civil war' in Iraq: made up by the media?"
The Fox News formula may be good for ratings, but its effect on the public has been little short of toxic.
Fox News viewers more ignorant of world affairs than any other news consumers
A University of Maryland poll taken six months after the Iraq invasion demonstrated that Fox News viewers were more ignorant about world affairs than any other category of news consumers, but also had a stronger belief than anyone else in how well informed they were.
The only other place in the world where television news has been so politicised is Silvio Berlusconi's Italy — and one wonders whether the peculiar mixture of slanted news coverage and teenage dancing girls didn't have an influence on Messrs Murdoch and Ailes.
Unlike Italy, where Mr Berlusconi took over the country and with it control of the state television channels as well as his own, the United States has a relatively free market in media.   [Before takeovers and conglomerations]
If Fox pushed CNN and the other networks to the right and encouraged them to indulge in similar shouting-head debates, it was through sheer competitive pressure rather than coercion.
Interestingly, the pendulum is now starting to swing against Fox — both the style and the content of the station.
Its ratings are down 28 per cent on last year, and its hard to conclude that its hard-charging ideological support of a now deeply unpopular President Bush is not at least partly to blame.
Katrina needed to be put into 'perspective'
The mood began to shift when Hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans just over a year ago, when Fox News's own correspondents started rebelling against the political agenda of the studio hosts.
When Sean Hannity suggested that correspondent Shepard Smith's dire reports of the Big Easy's abandonment by the federal government needed to be put into "perspective", Smith memorably and emotionally retorted: "That is perspective! That is all the perspective you need!"
The zeitgeist has moved against Fox in other ways, too.
Its non-stop cheerleading for Bush has made it an easy target — almost too easy — for a new generation of news satirists who have popped up on another cable station, Comedy Central.
So, when are you going to start?
First Jon Stewart, of the Daily Show, and then his acolyte Stephen Colbert, who has broken out on his own and also delivered a brilliantly subtle anti-Bush routine at this year's White House Correspondents' dinner, have made regular and merciless fun of the most prominent Fox News hosts.
When Stewart invited O'Reilly on to his show last year, his first question was: "Why so angry?"
With the studio audience already laughing at him, O'Reilly answered: "There's a lot of bad people out there and it's our job to go after them."
Stewart countered: "So, when are you going to start?"
Stewart also got into a spat with Fox correspondent Geraldo Rivera, who has a habit of putting himself front and centre of the news in ludicrous ways.
(In New Orleans, he surrounded himself with black babies and personally grabbed hold of a stretcher carrying an old woman out of a waterlogged house, just so he could show the viewers how selfless he was being.)
Itty-bitty Nixons minus the relevance
Stewart and Colbert subsequently did a hilarious joint routine in which Colbert — whose on-screen persona is an exaggerated version of a Fox news host — puffed himself up with sudden rage and asked: "What are you implying, that O'Reilly and Geraldo are narcissists enthralled with their own overblown egos, projecting their own petty insecurities on to the world around them, inventing false enemies for the sole purpose of bolstering their sense of self-importance, itty-bitty Nixons minus the relevance or a hint or vision — how dare you?"
Such spot-on satire has had a curious disarming effect on Fox, whose stars may be blessed with many gifts but not any noticeable sense of humour.
A couple of years ago, the shenanigans of Stewart and Colbert might have just been one more excuse to organise a shouting match on the cable airwaves.
Now, though, the number one news phenomenon of the new millennium is looking strangely chastened.

©2006 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd.  All rights reserved
Mark Foley who resigned after disclosures about emailing mail Congress pages asking for penis size, labeled Democrat instead of Republican on Fox News O'Reilly Factor
Mark Foley who resigned after disclosures about emailing mail Congress pages asking for penis size, labeled Democrat instead of Republican on Fox News O'Reilly Factor.

Image: BradBlog.com
Fox News Channel
Launched in 1996, Fox News has in recent years consistently earned higher viewer ratings than the other cable news networks.
It is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox Broadcasting Co.
The media empire of News Corp. chairman and CEO Rupert Murdoch also includes the conservative New York Post and The Weekly Standard.
Roger Ailes, the chairman, CEO, and president of Fox News Channel, is a former aide to President Nixon, a consultant to President Reagan, and worked for George H. W. Bush's 1988 presidential campaign.
The morning program Fox & Friends features three hosts with conservative perspectives.
Carl Cameron, the network's chief White House correspondent, and congressional correspondent Brian Wilson have both often presented ostensibly straight news programming with a slant that favors conservatives.
Fox's other daytime programs (The Big Story with John Gibson, Fox News Live, and Your World with Neil Cavuto) and its marquee weekend news show (Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, which also airs on Fox Broadcasting Co. affiliates) also are presented as objective news sources, yet Media Matters for America has compiled substantial research indicating the network's coverage most often favors the conservative viewpoint and often blatantly misinforms viewers.
Fox's featured programs (Fox & Friends, The O'Reilly Factor, and Hannity & Colmes) often advance misinformation that furthers the conservative position on an entire slate of issues.
Here are some of examples of Fox News' consistent practice of presenting news in a way that favors the conservative position:
Fox News doctors AP reports to mimic White House terminology [2/23/05]
"[O]n the Fox News Channel programs Special Report with Brit Hume and Hannity & Colmes, only the polls that provided good news for Bush-Cheney and the least positive results for Kerry-Edwards were reported." [7/9/04]
Fox 'Supreme Court Analyst' declares it's 'our job' to make sure Bush nominee isn't 'vilified by the left' [7/1/05]
"Although Fox News Channel purportedly refused to run the latest attack ad from discredited anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth because it 'accuses Kerry of treason, a crime punishable by death,' the network gave the ad plenty of free airtime during network news coverage." [9/24/04]
"On the August 6 edition of Fox News Channel's Special Report with Brit Hume, the 'Fox All-Star Panel' attempted to put the best possible spin on disappointing job numbers for July, discussing the new data using almost the same language as the Bush administration and the Republican National Committee (RNC)." [8/10/04]
"[Tom] Adkins has used each of his regular appearances on Your World [with Neil Cavuto] to launch vitriolic attacks against Democrats under the guise of economic analysis. Fox News Channel offers no information about Adkins to indicate why the network thinks he is qualified to provide such analysis." [8/3/04]
"Fox News Channel devoted an entire segment of the September 28 edition of Special Report with Brit Hume to an interview with the president of a conservative front group who attacked Senator John Kerry while pretending to analyze the voting preferences of 'this year's crucial target voter,' the so-called 'security moms.' " [9/29/04]
"Fox News Channel general assignment reporter Major Garrett falsely suggested that Democrats were perpetrating voter fraud in Philadelphia." [10/25/04]
"Fox News Channel aired one hour and 16 minutes less of speeches from the [Democratic] convention live than did CNN and one hour and 47 minutes less than did MSNBC." [8/2/04]
"Fox News Channel anchor Greg Jarrett practically pleaded with his Republican guest, Craig L. Fuller (chief of staff under former Vice President George H.W. Bush), to repeat a Bush-Cheney '04 attack on the Democratic National Convention." [7/26/04]
...which sheds additional light (as if any further was needed) on the absurd claims that the Fox "News" Channel is actually a "news" organization.
It is not.
It is a Propoganda Ministry beyond the reach of the accountability and responsibility under which any self-respecting and true news organization would normally operate.
<www.bradblog.com/
CNN — 'The most trusted name in news'
People funded by George Soros
On Thursday, October 5, the Chicago Tribune and The Hill both ran articles that touch on who was behind the recent revelations about former Republican Congressman Mark Foley (FL), who resigned after news reports that he had sexual conversations with teenagers via email and instant messages.
The Chicago Tribune quoted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) blaming Democrats for the revelation:
When asked about a groundswell of discontent among the GOP's conservative base over his handling of the issue, Hastert said:   "I think the base has to realize after awhile, who knew about it?   Who knew what, when?   When the base finds out who's feeding this monster, they're not going to be happy.   The people who want to see this thing blow up are ABC News and a lot of Democratic operatives, people funded by George Soros."
He went on to suggest that operatives aligned with former President Bill Clinton knew about the allegations and were perhaps behind the disclosures in the closing weeks before the Nov. 7 midterm elections, but he offered no hard proof.
"All I know is what I hear and what I see," the speaker said.   "I saw Bill Clinton's adviser, Richard Morris, was saying these guys knew about this all along.   If somebody had this info, when they had it, we could have dealt with it then."
Though Hastert offered no proof for his allegations, as the Tribune noted, his comments would drive CNN's coverage of the Foley scandal for a day.
The Hill, meanwhile, reported that the emails were given to reporters by a Republican, not a Democrat.   The article, headlined "Longtime Republican was source of e-mails," revealed that:
The source who in July gave news media Rep. Mark Foley's (R-Fla.) suspect e-mails to a former House page says the documents came to him from a House GOP aide.
That aide has been a registered Republican since becoming eligible to vote, said the source, who showed The Hill public records supporting his claim.
The same source, who acted as an intermediary between the aide-turned-whistleblower and several news outlets, says the person who shared the documents is no longer employed in the House.
But the whistleblower was a paid GOP staffer when the documents were first given to the media.
The source bolstered the claim by sharing un-redacted e-mails in which the former page first alerted his congressional sponsor's office of Foley's attentions.   The copies of these e-mails, now available to the public, have the names of senders and recipients blotted out.
These revelations mean that Republicans who are calling for probes to discover what Democratic leaders and staff knew about Foley's improper exchanges with under-age pages will likely be unable to show that the opposition party orchestrated the scandal now roiling the GOP just a month away from the midterm elections.
The Hill's report is consistent with comments by ABC News' Brian Ross, who broke the story, and who told The New York Times that his sources were Republicans:
Mr. Ross dismissed suggestions by some Republicans that the news was disseminated as part of a smear campaign against Mr. Foley.
"I hate to give up sources, but to the extent that I know the political parties of any of the people who helped us, it would be the same party," Mr. Ross said, referring to Republicans.
CNN reporters and producers knew?
So, on the morning of Thursday, October 5, CNN reporters and producers almost certainly knew the following facts:
1.   The Republican Speaker of the House was blaming Democrats for revealing that Republican Congressman Mark Foley had sexually explicit internet conversations with teenagers, though the speaker offered no evidence to back up his allegations.
2.   A widely-read Capitol Hill newspaper reported (on the front page) that the emails were passed on to reporters by a "longtime Republican."
3.   The ABC News reporter who broke the story said his sources were Republicans.
Flagrantly misleading their viewers — over and over again
How did "the most trusted name in news" choose to handle this information?   By flagrantly misleading their viewers — over and over again, all day and into the evening.
CNN repeatedly reported Hastert's allegations, and similar charges made by other Republicans.   But not once did those reports include any mention — no matter how vague — of the report in The Hill that a "longtime Republican" was the source.   Not once did they mention Brian Ross's statement that his sources were Republicans.
For example, at approximately 9 a.m. ET, CNN congressional correspondent Dana Bash told American Morning viewers of Hastert's allegations:
BASH:   Now, the speaker told the Chicago Tribune last night that he has no intention of resigning and tried to make the case — tried to rally his angry base by saying that's exactly what Democrats want, for him to fold his tent so they can sweep the House.
He also stepped up a charge that he has been making in the past couple of days that Democrats were behind the timing of all this.   He said that his opponents, funded by George Soros, even aligned with Bill Clinton, held on to this to make a bigger splash right before the election.
Someone whose job is to cover Congress, from Capitol Hill
Bash made no mention of The Hill's report, or of Ross's comment.   She didn't even include a response from the Democrats she was helping Hastert to smear.
Bash, by the way, is CNN's "congressional correspondent."   The Hill is named after Capitol Hill, where Congress is located; the paper bills itself as "The Newspaper for and about the U.S. Congress."
For those readers unfamiliar with Capitol Hill, copies of The Hill are even more plentiful than Abramoff skybox tickets.  
Someone whose job is to cover Congress, from Capitol Hill, would have to make a real effort to remain unaware of a Page One article in The Hill about the very subject she is reporting on.
But, for whatever reason — and there are many possible reasons, several of which are perfectly innocent — Bash didn't mention the facts reported by The Hill.
Repeated Hastert's baseless charge, failing to mention The Hill's report
Half an hour after Bash's report, at 9:39 a.m. ET, Media Matters for America posted an item noting that she uncritically repeated Hastert's baseless charge and that she failed to mention The Hill's report.
CNN's first reports of Hastert's claims — those reports by Bash and others that came before, say, 10 a.m. — might plausibly and charitably be described as inadequate or sloppy rather than negligent or knowingly misleading.
Why?
Maybe they hadn't seen The Hill yet; maybe they had, but lacked time to incorporate the information into their on-air reports.
Maybe they hadn't been able to reach Democrats for a response.
Maybe they had missed Ross's comments in The New York Times a few days before.
We know the reports were incomplete, inadequate, and misleading, but we have no idea why.
Rest of day?
But it's hard to be as charitable towards CNN's reporting for the rest of the day.   Twenty-seven separate times, by our count, CNN repeated Hastert's unsubstantiated and false claims that Democrats were behind the Foley story.
Those 27 mentions include passing mentions, like Lou Dobbs's statement that "Congressman Hastert blamed the scandal on the Democratic Party, its supporters in the media and financier George Soros."
They include full-length reports by correspondents Mary Snow, Drew Griffin, and others.
They include everything in between.
But each conversation is counted only once
For example, when The Situation Room featured a lengthy report during which the allegation was repeated multiple times, we only counted it once.
CNN's transcripts for October 5 are here — if you don't trust our count, do your own, using your own standards.
Maybe you'll come up with 17, maybe you'll come up with 37; we think 27 is as good a number as any.
But it doesn't really matter what the number is; what matters is that none of them — not a single one — mentioned the basic facts as reported by The Hill and The New York Times:  the people responsible for giving the media the Foley story were Republicans.
Repeated Hastert's bogus attacks all day, dozens of times, without noting even the most basic of facts
Instead, CNN simply reported and repeated Hastert's bogus attacks all day, dozens of times, without noting even the most basic of facts — facts that clearly illustrate the falsity of Hastert's charges.
To be sure, CNN anchors and reporters did occasionally question whether Hastert's desperate gambit would work — whether it would be politically effective — but they didn't point out that it simply wasn't true.   We recently explained the foolishness of this approach to political journalism:
The typical explanation — from journalists and observers alike — for why news stories should not state that a claim made by a political figure is false is that to do so would be to make an inappropriate judgment that is best left to the reader.
As Lehrer said:   "I'm not in the judgment part of journalism.   I'm in the reporting part of journalism."
Journalists make judgments all the time
While shying away from making judgments about matters of fact, of readily-discernable truth, journalists do make judgments all the time.
In particular, judgments about how events and actions are likely to be received by the public are a regular feature of political reporting.
We frequently note the tendency by journalists to tout the political advantage Republicans are likely to gain from ... well, from just about everything.   Author and blogger Glenn Greenwald made the same point this week.
In other words, reporters often refuse to offer their judgment about matters of fact, but they do offer their judgment about the potential political effects of events and actions.
This is completely backwards.
Consumers of news lack the time, expertise, and, in many cases, ability to determine which of two contradictory statements by competing political figures is true.
They often lack the resources to determine if, for example, President Bush's claim to have "delivered" on the promises he made in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is true.
That's where news organizations should — but, with depressing frequency, have not — come in.
They have — or should have — the expertise and the time to assess those claims, and to report the facts.
That's what readers, viewers, and listeners need.
That's what journalism should be all about.
Don't need journalists telling us what 'political impact' of something is
On the other hand, as consumers of news, we don't need journalists telling us what the "political impact" of something is going to be; how it will "play at the polls."
It's our job to decide that.
It's our job to decide who we'll vote for and why; how we'll assess the parties' competing agendas and approaches to the problems we face.
Instead of telling us how they think we'll react, we need journalists to give us the information upon which we can make an informed decision.
To tell us the facts, and the truth, and the relevant context.
Then we'll tell them the political impact.
But really, that was only the beginning.
Since then, as voter discontent with the war, stagnating wages, job outsourcing and the general direction of the country has escalated, Washington has battened the hatches, and gone from spitting bile to firing tank ordnance at the oncoming battalions of ordinary people who, goddamned them, dare to think they should be able to have some say in their own country.
Washington Post columnist David Broder — the so—called dean of the Washington press corps — called voters who want change "elitist insurgents" — a not-so-subtle attempt to conflate American voters with terrorists.
Then there was my personal favorite — David Brooks sitting there in his pink shirt with a smarmy half-grin in Northwest Washington telling the country "Don't Worry, Be Happy."
Brooks breathed a sigh of relief that "the Clintonite centrists are reasserting their intellectual, financial and political supremacy" and that Hillary Clinton gave a speech that scholars at the fringe-right-wing American Enterprise institute "called remarkably centrist."
Thank god, said Brooks, that the "renegades who rail against the establishment are being eclipsed by the canny establishmentarians" because, according to him, "They're the ones who know how to use the levers of government to get things done."
Ah yes, with war raging in the Mideast, poverty rising in America, people struggling to pay their bills, Clinton-backed free trade deals shipping jobs overseas — thank the lord that the same old crew was supposedly reasserting itself because that record shows "they know how to get things done."
 Do you know what kind of weapons causes this damage?
   More on chemical weapons   click from underneath  
He's not 100 percent wrong, of course - these people do know "how to get things done" — but only exclusively for the fat cats who pay to get a seat at the table — the fat cats that people like David Brooks feel most comfortable with.
The fat cats that way too many Democratic officials are more than happy to go brag to reporters about shaking down even as they deride the GOP's culture of corruption.
Incredibly, however, none of the establishment's old tricks seem to be working anymore.
All of the Jedi mind tricks, all of the false storylines, all of the Clockwork Orange-style indoctrination efforts just don't seem to be sticking.
And that's why it's gotten so ugly of late.
Today, we see David Broder quite literally losing control of his faculties on the pages of the Washington Post.
You can almost see the veins popping out of that shiny white forehead you've gotten so used to seeing on Meet the Press.
Like the bad, overdone stereotype of the crotchety senior who is angry that the world around him is changing, Broder declares that there needs to be "a new movement in this country" to "resist "the extremist elements in American society."
Who are these extremists?
Why, people who use the Internet to politically organize and engage.
Yes, according to Broder, "bloggers" are the moral equivalent of "doctrinaire religious extremists" — yet again, another not-so-subtle effort to portray anyone who dares to excercize their democratic rights as an Osama bin Laden supporter.
He then fires off a screed about various politicians such as Rep. Sherrod Brown.
He calls him "a loud advocate of protectionist policies that offer a false hope of solving our trade and job problems."
Right, because in David Broder's cloistered world, the "free" trade deals Brown has opposed have done such wonders for places like Ohio.
In David Broder's world, those hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers who have been thrown out onto the street thanks to NAFTA and China PNTR are the filth of the earth that high and mighty elite Washington journalists like him cannot be bothered with.
In David Broder's world, any request for our trade pacts to include restrictions on child slavery, environmental degradation, and pharmaceutical industry profiteering off desperately poor people, positively un-American.
Why?
Because David Broder lives in a place where all of these critical issues are merely just more fodder and gossip for a newspaper column — not real challenges in his life.
Nor in the life of the people he spends his time with in the Washington Beltway.
Bin Laden poster being held up at rally
U.S. Government Caught Red-Handed Releasing Staged Al-Qaeda Videos
Immediate Congressional investigation demanded, media oversight of clear and deliberate psychological warfare against American population non-existent
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 5 2006
Revelations that the US government had been in possession of footage released on Sunday depicting alleged Al-Qaeda hijackers and Osama Bin Laden since 2001 and evidence that the footage itself was filmed by security agencies, went unquestioned by the media — who blindly towed the official line that the tape was released by Al-Qaeda.   This is smoking gun proof that the U.S. government is staging the release of alleged Al-Qaeda tapes and it demands an immediate Congressional investigation.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the "laughing hijackers," Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts describe as surveillance footage taken by a "security agency."
This explains the lack of a soundtrack in the video and the fact that the tape does not focus solely on Bin Laden but pans around and shows the attendees in the audience.
Furthermore, film of the Bin Laden speech, reported by the dominant media as new footage, was previously broadcast in the UK docudrama The Road to Guantanamo, which was first seen on British television nearly seven months ago in March.
News reports over the weekend contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend by Al-Qaeda.
Either Al-Qaeda has been given access to US intelligence surveillance tapes of its own organization or the tape was released by the US intelligence apparatus.   The evidence provides no other explanation.
The fact that the same footage was used in The Road to Guantanamo is startling because the context of the clip in which it is seen portrays British and American intelligence agents showing doctored footage to detainees, whereby their likeness has been edited in with CGI to the Bin laden rally scene, using it to intimidate them into confessing to being Al-Qaeda members.
The latest video tape hoax is only the most recent of a dirty laundry list of past examples where old, re-hashed, or outright faked footage of Bin Laden and his followers was mysteriously obtained and released at the most politically expedient time.
These examples are all referenced in our original investigation.
Atta
Recall that the Pentagon's stated intention to artificially magnify Musab Al-Zarqawi's role in Iraq was followed by the release of a video tape of Al-Zarqawi threatening the infidels.
The target of this leaked propaganda campaign to boost Al-Qaeda's profile was said to be the "U.S. home audience," and included planting fake stories in newspapers — one of which was later splashed on the front page of the New York Times.
The agenda dovetails with the necessity of the torture program — there are very few real terror cells in existence outside of the puppet mastery of the U.S. and British intelligence apparatus.
To maintain a state of fear and obedience amongst the target "home audience," there need to be regular "two minutes of hate" intervals and the artificial creation of supposed terrorist networks and plots.
The tapes are also a desperate attempt to prop up the official version of 9/11 as its credibility crumbles globally and a firestorm of awakening to the fact that the attack was an inside job rages.
I encourage everyone to fully imbue themselves of our original investigation and make it a viral story across the Internet.
Click here to get the original story and lobby for mainstream media to pay attention.
We need to demand higher standards from our media starting with a proper investigation as to who the true source of this tape was and an immediate skepticism towards all such future alleged "Al-Qaeda" video tape releases.
A press that lazily dismisses the origins of these tapes as a side-issue is playing a central role in disseminating unchecked war propaganda and violating every code of journalistic ethical conduct.
The U.S. government's role in obtaining and carefully stage-managing the dissemination of these tapes, many of them old footage re-released over and over again, is now without a doubt manifestly obvious and demands immediate Congressional investigation as part of a wider probe into the admitted fake news scandal that has characterized the Bush White House as the most duplicitous and manipulative administration in history and befits a regime that is engaging in psychological warfare against the American people.
--------------------------------------------------
"The DVD of the resistance!" Get TerrorStorm on DVD today!
Subscribe to Prison Planet.tv and see it in high quality.
Or watch it for free via our site and Google Video.

---------------------------------------------------
uruknet.info
اوروكنت.إنفو
informazione dall'iraq occupato
information from occupied iraq
أخبار منالعراق المحتلة
Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld
Following the trail for five minutes leads to Pentagon
Steve Watson / Infowars
Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld

Following the trail for five minutes leads to Pentagon
October 5, 2006
U.S. Government Caught Red-Handed Releasing Staged Al-Qaeda Videos
Following on from our three features on the latest dubious Al Qaeda video, We can reveal that further investigation into the origin of Al Qaeda video and tape release leads straight back to US military intelligence and Donald Rumsfeld.
The origin of the latest video, starring Mohammed Atta and flight 93 hijacker Ziad Jarrah, has been swept under the carpet by the mainstream media who bizarrely admit that the government has had the tape since late 2001 but still suggest it is a new release by Al Qaeda.
Interesting also is the fact that in an NBC article, they admit that before receiving the "exclusive US analysis" of the London Sunday Times' tape, they had filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same tape of Atta earlier this year:
"The Sunday Times said it had obtained the video "through a previously tested channel" but gave no further details.
NBC News filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the videotapes early this year, but the Pentagon has not yet turned them over. "
This is an open admission that it is the Pentagon that has released this tape and not Al Qaeda.
This dovetails with our previous analysis that revealed that the footage has been seen before in a docudrama, the Road to Guantanamo, where it is shown to detainees at camp Delta as an intelligence surveillance tape.
Along with experts on Islamic terrorist groups who are baffled by the video and have declared that it has come from a security agency, the very journalist who received the tape also says the source was not Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda Tapes: Direct Link To Military Psyops And Donald Rumsfeld

Following the trail for five minutes leads to Pentagon
It is also interesting that this journalist, Yousri Fouda is not only a Sunday Times journalist but also the London Bureau Chief of Al Jazeera.
He is the guy who normally breaks all the Al Qaeda tapes anyway, so really the London Times connection is just a smokescreen.
All evidence indicates that the tapes are provided to Fouda and Al Jazeera by As Sahab, the "production company" of Al Qaeda, via a group known as Intelcenter, who also SELL the videos online.
Intelcenter normally have the tapes available for sale as soon as they are released, indeed in the past they have even predicted when they are going to get a tape before it is released as they did with the second London bomber tape on the anniversary of 7/7.
Intel center is run by Ben Venzke, who is an interesting character.
A google search results in the revelation that he used to be the director of intelligence at a company called IDEFENSE, which is a verisign company.
IDEFENSE is a web security company that monitors intelligence from the middle east conflicts and focuses on cyber threats among other things.
It is also heavily populated with long serving ex military intelligence officials.
The Director of Threat intelligence, Jim Melnick, served 16 years in the US army and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and worked in psychological operations.   From the IDEFENSE website:
Prior to joining iDefense, Mr. Melnick served with distinction for more than 16 years in the U.S. Army and the Defense Intelligence Agency.
During this period, Mr. Melnick served in a variety of roles, including psychological operations, international warning issues with emphasis on foreign affairs and information operations and Russian affairs.
He also served in active political/military intelligence roles with an emphasis on foreign affairs.
Mr. Melnick is currently a U.S. Army Reserve Colonel with Military Intelligence, assigned to the Office of the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Melnick has been published in numerous military and foreign affairs journals, and has received numerous military and DIA awards.
Mr. Melnick has a Master of Arts in National Security and Strategic Studies from the U.S. Naval War College, a Master of Arts in Russian studies from Harvard University, and a Bachelor of Arts with Honors in Political Science from Westminster College.
So here we have a company that by it's own admission has a senior military psy-op intelligence officer who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.
As Intelcenter and Ben Venzke are directly connected to IDEFENSE, this puts Rumsfeld 3 small steps away from the Al Qaeda propaganda videos.
The NBC "US analysis" should be the focus of the latest tape and not the Times articles.
It is an astounding piece of psyop propaganda that attempts in a shoddy way to fill in the "gaps" in 9/11 intelligence.
The analyst, Evan Coleman, after admitting that the Pentagon has been "sitting on it" goes on to say:
"It is important for people to watch and realize that this video is conclusive proof that 9/11 was orchestrated by Al Qaeda at the most senior levels."
He then makes a direct assault on the 9/11 truth movement by saying:
"This is the kind of video proof that is going to put a lot of 9/11 conspiracy theorists out in the cold and for good reason."
Related: Surprise Surprise, It's Another Al Qaeda Blockbuster Release
Related: Atta's Father Says Video Fake, Credibility of 'Hijackers Tape' Crumbles
Over time I was increasingly shocked by the speed and ease with which many intelligent and seemingly competent members of the CFR [ Council on Foreign Relations ] appeared to eagerly justify policies and actions that supported growing corruption.
The regularity with which many CFR members would protect insiders from accountability regarding another appalling fraud surprised even me.
Many of them seemed delighted with the advantages of being an insider while being entirely indifferent to the extraordinary cost to all citizens of having our lives, health and resources drained to increase insider wealth in a manner that violated the most basic principles of fiduciary obligation and respect for the law.
In short, the CFR was operating in a win-lose economic paradigm that centralized economic and political power.
I was trying to find a way for us to shift to a win-win economic paradigm that was — by its nature — decentralizing.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
 
The reader can appreciate why Wall Street would welcome someone as accommodating as Gorelick at Fannie Mae.
This was a period when the profits rolled in from engineering the most spectacular growth in mortgage debt in U.S. history.
As one real estate broker said, “They have turned our homes into ATM machines.”
Fannie Mae has been a leading player in centralizing control of the mortgage markets into Washington D.C. and Wall Street.
And that means as people were rounded up and shipped to prison as part of Operation Safe Home, Fannie was right behind to finance the gentrification of neighborhoods.
And that is before we ask questions about the extent to which the estimated annual financial flows of $500 billion–$1 trillion money laundering through the U.S. financial system or money missing from the US government are reinvested into Fannie Mae securities.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
James Forrestal
James Forrestal’s oil portrait always hung prominently in one of the private Dillon Read dining rooms for the eleven years that I worked at the firm. Forrestal, a highly regarded Dillon partner and President of the firm, had gone to Washington, D.C. in 1940 to lead the Navy during WWII and then played a critical role in creating the National Security Act of 1947.

He then became Secretary of War (later termed Secretary of Defense) in September 1947 and served until March 28, 1949.

Given the central banking-warfare investment model that rules our planet, it was appropriate that Dillon 
partners at various times lead both the Treasury Department and the Defense Department.

Shortly after resigning from government, Forrestal died falling out of a window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, 1949.

There is some controversy around the official explanation of his death — ruled a suicide.

Some insist he had a nervous breakdown. Some say that he was opposed to the creation of the state of Israel.

Others say that he argued for transparency and accountability in government, and against the provisions instituted at this time to create a secrete “black budget.”

He lost and was pretty upset about it — and the loss was a violent one.

Since the professional killers who operate inside the Washington beltway have numerous techniques to get perfectly sane people to kill themselves, I am not sure it makes a big difference.

Approximately a month later, the CIA Act of 1949 was passed.

The Act created the CIA and endowed it with the statutory authority that became one of the chief components of financing the “black” budget — the power to claw monies from other agencies for the benefit of secretly funding the intelligence communities and their corporate contractors.

This was to turn out to be a devastating development for the forces of transparency, without which there can be no rule of law, free markets or democracy.

Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits

Photo: Wikipedia     

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed Forrestal as an administrative assistant on June 22, 1940, then nominated him as Undersecretary of the Navy six weeks later. In the latter post, Forrestal would prove to be very effective at mobilizing industrial production for the war effort.
He became Secretary of the Navy on May 19, 1944, following the death of his immediate supervisor Frank Knox from a heart attack. Forrestal then led the Navy through the closing year of the war and the demobilization that followed.   What might have been his greatest legacy as Navy Secretary was an attempt that came to nought.   He, along with Secretary of War Henry Stimson and Under Secretary of State Joseph Grew, in the early months of 1945, strongly advocated a softer policy toward Japan that would permit a negotiated face-saving surrender.   His primary concern was "the menace of Russian Communism and its attraction for decimated, destabilized societies in Europe and Asia", and, therefore, keeping the Soviet Union out of the war with Japan.   Had his advice been followed, Japan might well have surrendered before August 1945, precluding the use of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   So strongly did he feel about this matter that he cultivated negotiation attempts that bordered closely on insubordination toward the President.
Forrestal opposed the unification of the services, but even so helped develop the National Security Act of 1947 that created the National Military Establishment (the Department of Defense was not created as such until August 1949), and with the former Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson retiring to private life, Forrestal was the next choice.
His 18 months at Defense came at an exceptionally difficult time for the U.S. military establishment:   Communist governments came to power in Czechoslovakia and China; West Berlin was blockaded, necessitating the Berlin Airlift to keep it going; the war between the Arab states and Israel after the establishment of Israel in Palestine; and negotiations were going on for the formation of NATO.   His reign was also hampered by intense interservice rivalries.
In addition, President Harry Truman constrained military budgets billions of dollars below what the services were requesting, putting Forrestal in the middle of the tug-of-war.   Forrestal was also becoming more and more worried about the Soviet threat.   Internationally, the takeover by the Communists of Eastern Europe, their threats to the governments of Greece, Italy, and France, their impending takeover of China, and the invasion of South Korea by North Korea would demonstrate the legitimacy of his concerns on the international front as well.
Photo and description: Wikipedia
James Forrestal’s oil portrait always hung prominently in one of the private Dillon Read dining rooms for the eleven years that I worked at the firm. Forrestal, a highly regarded Dillon partner and President of the firm, had gone to Washington, D.C. in 1940 to lead the Navy during WWII and then played a critical role in creating the National Security Act of 1947.
He then became Secretary of War (later termed Secretary of Defense) in September 1947 and served until March 28, 1949.
Given the central banking-warfare investment model that rules our planet, it was appropriate that Dillon partners at various times lead both the Treasury Department and the Defense Department.
Shortly after resigning from government, Forrestal died falling out of a window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital outside of Washington, D.C. on May 22, 1949.
There is some controversy around the official explanation of his death — ruled a suicide.
Some insist he had a nervous breakdown. Some say that he was opposed to the creation of the state of Israel.
Others say that he argued for transparency and accountability in government, and against the provisions instituted at this time to create a secrete “black budget.”
He lost and was pretty upset about it — and the loss was a violent one.
Since the professional killers who operate inside the Washington beltway have numerous techniques to get perfectly sane people to kill themselves, I am not sure it makes a big difference.
Approximately a month later, the CIA Act of 1949 was passed.
The Act created the CIA and endowed it with the statutory authority that became one of the chief components of financing the “black” budget — the power to claw monies from other agencies for the benefit of secretly funding the intelligence communities and their corporate contractors.
This was to turn out to be a devastating development for the forces of transparency, without which there can be no rule of law, free markets or democracy.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
What Briody does not mention is allegations regarding Brown & Root's involvement in narcotics trafficking. Former LAPD narcotics investigator Mike Ruppert once described his break up with fiance Teddy — an agent dealing narcotics and weapons for the CIA while working with Brown & Root, as follows:
“Arriving in New Orleans in early July, 1977 I found her living in an apartment across the river in Gretna. Equipped with scrambler phones, night vision devices and working from sealed communiqués delivered by naval and air force personnel from nearby Belle Chasse Naval Air Station, Teddy was involved in something truly ugly.
She was arranging for large quantities of weapons to be loaded onto ships leaving for Iran.
At the same time she was working with Mafia associates of New Orleans Mafia boss Carlos Marcello to coordinate the movement of service boats that were bringing large quantities of heroin into the city.
The boats arrived at Marcello controlled docks, unmolested by even the New Orleans police she introduced me to, along with divers, military men, former Green Berets and CIA personnel.
“The service boats were retrieving the heroin from oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, oil rigs in international waters, oil rigs built and serviced by Brown and Root.
The guns that Teddy monitored, apparently Vietnam era surplus AK 47s and M16s, were being loaded onto ships also owned or leased by Brown and Root.
And more than once during the eight days I spent in New Orleans I met and ate at restaurants with Brown and Root employees who were boarding those ships and leaving for Iran within days.
Once, while leaving a bar and apparently having asked the wrong question, I was shot at in an attempt to scare me off.”
Source: "Halliburton’s Brown and Root is One of the Major Components of the Bush-Cheney Drug Empire" by Michael Ruppert, From the Wilderness
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
The Clinton Administration took the groundwork laid by Nixon, Reagan and Bush and embraced and blossomed the expansion and promotion of federal support for police, enforcement and the War on Drugs with a passion that was hard to understand unless and until you realized that the American financial system was deeply dependent on attracting an estimated $500 billion-$1 trillion of annual money laundering.
Globalizing corporations and deepening deficits and housing bubbles required attracting vast amounts of capital.
Attracting capital also required making the world safe for the reinvestment of the profits of organized crime and the war machine.
Without growing organized crime and military activities through government budgets and contracts, the economy would stop centralizing.
The Clinton Administration was to govern a doubling of the federal prison population.
Catherine Austin Fitts — Dillon Reid and Co. Inc. And the Aristocracy of Stock Profits
View the video below:
MSNBC Fake News Interview with 'analyst' Evan Coleman.

It smells of sulphur here!

Presidente de la Bolivariana República de Venezuela
Hugo Chávez
Note: has been removed due to your Corporate Conglomerate
You own the country you live in.
You own the laws.
You can do something about this.
Get rid of all politicians, in the US Democrat and Republican, outside the US, all your own politicians in the pocket of multi-national corporate conglomerates.
Stop them taking away your access to knowledge.
Stop them taking away your freedoms.
It's up to you if you wish the elite of the world to rule you.
And your children's world.
Coleman contradicts himself throughout his own report by saying the Pentagon has had the video since 2001 whilst still towing the line that it was Al Qaeda that released the video.
The U.S. government's role in obtaining and carefully stage-managing the dissemination of these tapes, many of them old footage re-released over and over again, is now without a doubt manifestly obvious and demands investigation in a regime that is engaging in psychological warfare against the World's people.

Ludicrous Diversion - 7/7 London Bombings Documentary

On the 7th of July 2005 London was hit by a series of explosions.
There were calls for an impartial inquiry which have been rejected by the British Labour govenment.
Tony Blair described such an inquiry as a ‘ludicrous diversion’.
What don’t they want us to find out?
You probably think you know what happened that day.
But you don’t.
CNN — 'The most trusted name in news'
People funded by George Soros
While omitting salient facts, CNN has featured mindless repetition of bogus Republican charges and inane attempts at political prognostication.
During the 1 p.m. ET hour of Wednesday's, October 4 broadcast of Newsroom, congressional correspondent Andrea Koppel told viewers of a "signal that, perhaps, the worst is over for the time being" for Hastert. "The time being" didn't last very long:
At the top of the 2 p.m. hour, Newsroom reported that Kirk Fordham, the chief of staff to National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Reynolds, had resigned.
And near the beginning of the 4 p.m. hour of The Situation Room, CNN was reporting that Fordham said he made Hastert's office aware of Foley's behavior years ago.
If CNN is going to give us predictions instead of facts, is it too much to ask for the self-described "best political team on television" to make predictions that aren't laughably outdated by dinnertime?
Late Friday afternoon, Koppel reported:
"According to GOP leadership staff I have spoken today, they feel that some of the pressure now is off Speaker Hastert."
Earlier this year, CNN hired Bill Bennett, a longtime Republican activist and unofficial Bellagio resident.
Dubbed "The Bookie of Virtue" by the Washington Monthly, Bennett is perhaps best known as the moral nag who lectured Americans in The Book of Virtues to "set definite boundaries on our appetites"
-- while losing millions of dollars during apparently boundary-free binges in the gaming halls of Atlantic City and Las Vegas.
But Bennett isn't just a hypocrite: He's also a stridently conservative Republican who last year bizarrely equated black people with criminals.
Then CNN proved to skeptics that its hiring of Bennett was no fluke by giving radio host Glenn Beck his own hour-long Headline News show.
Good thing, too, otherwise viewers would have missed out on Beck's insightful comments comparing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean.
And on his timely August 9 declaration that Armageddon would arrive on the 22nd of that month.
Fortunately, due to CNN's decision to hire Beck, viewers had plenty of time to prepare.
Even more fortunately, Beck's prognostication skills are no better than Andrea Koppel's.
CNN what they don't report
But questionable personnel moves are only part of the story.
CNN's on-air content tells the story best.
The channel's reprehensible treatment of Hastert's bogus allegations that Democrats were responsible for the news stories about Mark Foley speaks for itself.
But it isn't the only way CNN has made a mockery of its claim that it is "the most trusted name in news" this week.
While it couldn't be bothered to tell viewers that Hastert's charges about Democrats were false, CNN did put a great deal of effort into amplifying and expanding upon them.
When Hastert and his staff were unable to provide evidence to substantiate his claims that Democrats and financier George Soros were behind the Foley revelations, CNN tried its best to cover for them.
Repeatedly running a lengthy segment in which they ominously noted that Soros has contributed to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the watchdog group that sent the FBI copies of some of the Foley emails in July.
Repeated GOP claims that CREW was somehow behind the news reports.
CNN didn't tell viewers this, but ABC News' Brian Ross specifically told The Wall Street Journal that CREW was not his source.
CNN reported anonymous claims by "government sources" that CREW hampered the FBI's investigation "because the group that provided it the email on July 21st of this year wouldn't name the page and edited the messages."
CNN did include a response from CREW executive director and former assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Sloan:
SLOAN: I would call that a lie, in fact.
On July 21, 2006, I sent to the FBI the emails.
They were not redacted in any way like they're claiming now.
The kid's name is on the email.
His full name and his email address, as well as the name of the Congressional staffer to whom he was sending the emails.
Flagrantly misleading their viewers — over and over again
But CNN then immediately repeated the bogus claim that CREW was responsible for the recent news reports about Foley.
CNN correspondent Drew Griffin noted: "Conservatives charge that CREW and its Democratic supporters held back the memo until just before November's elections."
Griffin, of course, didn't bother to note that those conservatives aren't telling the truth.
That The Hill reported, and Ross stated, that Republicans gave the emails to the media.
Ross has specifically said that CREW was not his source.
Later in the CNN report, Griffin noted that Sloan says that, contrary to the claims by anonymous government sources that CREW was uncooperative, there was no follow-up by the FBI after she sent them the emails in July.
GRIFFIN: Did you send it to some inbox that you knew would not get attended to?
SLOAN: No. And I'm going to tell you for the first time exactly who I sent it to because now that the FBI has been deciding to lie about what I sent and what they received, I sent it to an agent, a special agent in the Washington field office.
GRIFFIN (voice-over): Melanie Sloan gave us the name, and we called that FBI agent in question. So far, she has not returned our call.
Look at that exchange carefully:
Sloan named the FBI agent who she says was unresponsive -- but CNN cut that part of the video off and kept the agent's name a secret.
So CNN decided it was appropriate to allow government officials to hide behind anonymous quotes in order to accuse a private citizen of, essentially, obstructing justice.
But when that private citizen rebuts those accusations with an on-the-record, on-camera statement about who she tried to reach at the FBI, CNN edits the comments to conceal the FBI agent's identity.
Never once noted that government sources made conflicting statements
That isn't the only way CNN seemed to bend over backwards to protect the FBI.
Despite multiple segments about the interaction between CREW and the FBI, CNN never once noted that government sources have made conflicting statements.
They've said that they looked into the emails in July and found no reason to continue with a full investigation.
And they've said they were unable to investigate because CREW withheld information?
Well, which is it?
CNN didn't even tell its viewers the conflict exists.
Much less try to get to the bottom of it.
Foley resigned on September 29.
The FBI didn't send a preservation letter until October 4.
And CNN doesn't think that's newsworthy, or relevant to report which anonymous government officials claim they wanted to investigate promptly in July but were thwarted by the whistleblowers who brought the matter to their attention in the first place.
CNN has given no indication that it has asked its anonymous government sources about that.
Victoria crater, Mars, looking southeast
NASA's Mars rover, 2006
Victoria crater is seen looking southeast from 'Duck Bay' towards the dramatic promontory called 'Cabo Frio' on Mars.

The small crater in the right foreground, informally known as 'Sputnik', is about 20 meters (about 65 feet) away from the rover, the tip of the spectacular, layered, Cabo Frio promontory itself is about 200 meters (about 650 feet) away from
the rover, and the exposed rock layers are about 15 meters (about 50 feet) tall.

This is an approximately true color rendering of images taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity during the rover's 952nd sol, or Martian day, (Sept. 28, 2006) using the camera's 750-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 430-nanometer filters.

Picture: NASA
Victoria crater, Mars, looking north
50 meters away from the rover
A view of Victoria crater is seen looking north from 'Duck Bay' towards the dramatic promontory called 'Cape Verde' on Mars.

The dramatic cliff of layered rocks is about 50 meters (about 165 feet) away from the rover and is about 6 meters (about 20 feet) tall.

The taller promontory beyond that is about 100 meters (about 325 feet) away, and the vista beyond that extends away for more than 400 meters (about 1300 feet) into the distance.

This is a false color rendering (enhanced to bring out details from within the shadowed regions of the scene) of images taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity during the rover's 952nd sol, or Martian day, (Sept. 28, 2006) using the camera's 750-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 430-nanometer filters.

Picture: NASA

(left)
Victoria crater is seen looking southeast from 'Duck Bay' towards the dramatic promontory called 'Cabo Frio' on Mars.
The small crater in the right foreground, informally known as 'Sputnik', is about 20 meters (about 65 feet) away from the rover, the tip of the spectacular, layered, Cabo Frio promontory itself is about 200 meters (about 650 feet) away from the rover, and the exposed rock layers are about 15 meters (about 50 feet) tall.
This is an approximately true color rendering of images taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity during the rover's 952nd sol, or Martian day, (Sept. 28, 2006) using the camera's 750-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 430-nanometer filters.
(right)
A view of Victoria crater is seen looking north from 'Duck Bay' towards the dramatic promontory called 'Cape Verde' on Mars.
The dramatic cliff of layered rocks is about 50 meters (about 165 feet) away from the rover and is about 6 meters (about 20 feet) tall.
The taller promontory beyond that is about 100 meters (about 325 feet) away, and the vista beyond that extends away for more than 400 meters (about 1300 feet) into the distance.
This is a false color rendering (enhanced to bring out details from within the shadowed regions of the scene) of images taken by the panoramic camera (Pancam) on NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity during the rover's 952nd sol, or Martian day, (Sept. 28, 2006) using the camera's 750-nanometer, 530-nanometer and 430-nanometer filters.
Photos: NASA
August 22, 2006
President Bush Admits Iraq Had No WMDs and ‘Nothing’ to Do With 9/11
President Bush admitted that the Iraq war is “straining the psyche of our country.”
But he vowed to stay the course.
A reporter questioned him about why he opposed withdrawing US troops from Iraq.
In his answer, Bush admitted that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and had “nothing” to do with 9/11.
— Click Here for video/audio report
Above streams may not be connected correctly — click below and watch Qana segment or fast forward 15 minutes.
AMY GOODMAN:    On Monday, Present Bush admitted the Iraq war is "straining the psyche of our country," but he vowed to stay the course.   A reporter questioned him about why he opposed withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq.
REPORTER:    A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in.   How do you square all of that?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:    I square it, because — imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who would — who had relations with Zarqawi.   Imagine what the world would be like with him in power.   The idea is to try to help change the Middle East.
Now, look, I didn’t — part of the reason we went into Iraq was — the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction.   It turns out he didn't, but he had the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction.   But I also talked about the human suffering in Iraq, and I also talked the need to advance a freedom agenda.   And so my question — my answer to your question is, is that — imagine a world in which Saddam Hussein was there, stirring up even more trouble in a part of the world that had so much resentment and so much hatred that people came and killed 3,000 of our citizens.
You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived, and then, you know, kind of that we're going to stir up the hornet's nest theory.   It just — just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned.   The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
REPORTER:    What did Iraq have to do with that?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:    What did Iraq have to do with what?
REPORTER:    The attack on the World Trade Center?
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH:    Nothing, except for it's part of — and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.   Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize, Ken.   Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.
AMY GOODMAN:    President Bush at his news conference yesterday.
Interview continues — Click Here
Bede Durbidge
San Clemente, California
Bede Durbidge, of Australia, surfs during round one of the Boost Mobile Pro competition off the coast of San Clemente, Calif., Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006.

US supplied and paid Israel bombing across Lebanon expanded Monday with missiles targeting all areas.

The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.

More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.

Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.

Picture: ASP, Sean Rowland
The First Europeans
Neanderthal skeleton
Why were they doomed?
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human version of a skelaton, left, are on display at the Museum of Natural History Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003 in New York.

The Neanderthal skeleton, reconstructed from casts of more than 200 Neanderthal fossil bones, is part of the museum's exhibit called 'The First Europeans: Treasures from the Hills of Atapuerca.'

A new study says evidence indicates that Neanderthals were still alive at least 2,000 years later than scientists had firmly established before.

Scientists have long been fascinated by the last days of the Neanderthals.

Were they doomed because they couldn't compete with the encroaching modern humans for resources, or because they caught new germs from the moderns, or because of climate change?

Did the two groups have much contact, and what kind?
 
US supplied Israel airstrikes hit near a funeral procession in south Lebanon on Tuesday, sending some of the 1,500 mourners running in panic and killing at least 13 people in nearby buildings, hospital officials and the town's mayor said. 

The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.

More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.

Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.

Picture: Basic Books

(left)
Bede Durbidge, of Australia, surfs during round one of the Boost Mobile Pro competition off the coast of San Clemente, Calif., Tuesday, Sept. 12, 2006.
US supplied Israel airstrikes hit near a funeral procession in south Lebanon on Tuesday, sending some of the 1,500 mourners running in panic and killing at least 13 people in nearby buildings, hospital officials and the town's mayor said.
US supplied and paid Israel bombing across Lebanon expanded Monday with missiles targeting all areas.
The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.
(right)
A reconstructed Neanderthal skeleton, right, and a modern human version of a skelaton, left, are on display at the Museum of Natural History Wednesday, Jan. 8, 2003 in New York.
The Neanderthal skeleton, reconstructed from casts of more than 200 Neanderthal fossil bones, is part of the museum's exhibit called 'The First Europeans: Treasures from the Hills of Atapuerca.'
A new study says evidence indicates that Neanderthals were still alive at least 2,000 years later than scientists had firmly established before.
Scientists have long been fascinated by the last days of the Neanderthals.
Were they doomed because they couldn't compete with the encroaching modern humans for resources, or because they caught new germs from the moderns, or because of climate change?
More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.
Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.
Photos: ASP, Sean Rowland, Basic Books

They're Scared
The power that they are comfortable with is on the ropes.
A failed war.
A plethora of proven lies.
A scandal that involves the very straw gay man that the Repubs like to wave at the voters.
The media that keeps this power strong is expected to get benefits at the monetary level, and I'm sure they have.
And what now?
Will the money stop after they've stuffed as much as they can into themselves?
Will their "acquired goods" disappear if a new type of power comes into play?
http://mediamatters.org/     
     Comments: MickD     
     October 7, 2006      
At the very least, Broder realizes that the American public is outraged at the twisted moral compass that govern him and his buddies.
That's why he is freaking out.
But there are still some who are prancing around, spewing happy talk, making a fast buck, totally unaware of what's really going on out here in the real world.
And perhaps even more insulting, totally unconcerned about their own naked hypocrisy.
For instance, just this week, we see former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now the head of Citigroup, standing on a stage with a straight face and holding a seminar about the best ways to alleviate international poverty.
That this man was the top architect of the international trade policies that have exacerbated both domestic and international poverty is an afterthought.
That this same man holding this seminar still refuses to acknowledge the culpability of the trade policies he has jammed down the world's throat is not to be mentioned.
All that matters to the fawning media and political establishment is that this much-worshipped moneyman is on stage saying we need to help poor people.
It makes you wonder if at some point soon, we'll be seeing Jack Abramoff holding a seminar on ethics and morals in the political arena.
Simultaneously, courageous reformers like Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) who has written a serious, bestselling book about how to really fix our economic policies are shoved to the side.
Barely getting mentioned in the press
While financial-industry-hack-turned-congressmen Rahm Emanuel and his buddy Bruce Reed who heads a corporate front group are given oodles of press attention.
Why?
For publishing a barely-selling pamphlet of warmed-over hollow talking points perpetuating the status quo and reinforcing negative stereotypes about those who want real change.

 
77 TV stations aired 'fake news reports'
Ron Brynaert
Published: Wednesday April 5, 2006
A study by a group that monitors the media reveals that, over a ten month span, 77 television stations from all across the nation aired video news releases without informing their viewers even once that the reports were actually sponsored content, RAW STORY has found.
One "news report" that aired on three stations relied on a video news release (VNR) produced by a PR firm on behalf of General Motors which was even apparently based on a "false claim."
Center for Media and Democracy's Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed is "a multimedia report on television newsrooms' use of material provided by PR firms on behalf of paying clients," containing video footage of the 36 video news releases (VNRs) cited in the report, plus a map and spreadsheet of the stations cited.
General Motors, Intel, Pfizer and Capital One are among the companies who produced VNRs with the help of three PR firms, and "[m]ore than one-third of the time, stations aired the pre-packaged VNR in its entirety."
An Oklahoma City FOX station owned by Sinclair is pegged as the "report's top repeat offender," airing five VNRs in full on its news broadcasts, with "the publicist's original narration each time."
Three stations "not only aired entire VNRs without disclosure, but had local anchors and reporters read directly from the script prepared by the broadcast PR firm."
News broadcasts based on a General Motors VNR stand out in the report as a striking example of "fake news," not just because they were left largely unchanged when aired on stations in Louisiana and Pennsylvania.
"GM, who introduced the first manufacturer web site in 1996, has recently lowered prices, in some cases by thousands of dollars, on all of their models as a direct result of the customers' ability to comparison shop on the Internet," Medialink's Kate Brookes "reported" in all three broadcasts.
But the Center for Media and Democracy blasts GM's "historical claim" as "fake."
"A simple dated search for "automotive web site" in the Nexis news database revealed a press release from August 1995 in which Volkswagen heralded the launch of their web portal," the report states.   "It wasn't until February 1996 that General Motors announced gm.com in their own press release."
A comparison between the General Motors VNR and one of the news broadcasts can be seen at this link.
Last year the New York Times published an article called "Under Bush, a new age of prepackaged TV news" [see below] — written by David Barstow and Robin Stein — which reported on the stealthy use of VNRs created by government agencies that crept into network news broadcasts.
The Times revealed that even though Radio-Television News Directors Association's "code of ethics" specifies to "clearly disclose the origin of information and label all material provided by outsiders," the Federal Communications Commission has "never disciplined a station for showing government-made news segments without disclosing their origin."
Last June, Chris Baker at the Washington Times reported that the Radio-Television News Directors Association "submitted a 13-page statement that said few TV stations air VNRs, and those that do almost always identify the source" to the Federal Communications Commission.   The statement drew from an "informal survey of 100 members" because, as the president of the Association told the Washington Times, "concrete data" was "hard to come by."
An article in Thursday's Times by Barstow (New York Times registered link) indicates that the Center "presented its findings yesterday to F.C.C. officials, including Jonathan S. Adelstein, a commissioner who has criticized video news releases."
Impressed by the "scope of what they found," Adelstein told the Times that it was a "disgrace to American journalism," and proof of "potentially major violations" of F.C.C. rules.

CNNI
CNN, the domestic U.S. version, has clearly sacrificed its principles right up there with most of the rest of the U.S. media.
However, as one who travels a great deal and also lives part-time outside the U.S., when I am moved to turn on the tv (not often) to see what's happening (usually when I don't have easy internet access), I usually end up watching CNN International.
It's very clear to me that CNNI offers a substantially different product than CNN domestic.
They have to, I would imagine, because the global, primarily high-end, audience that tunes them in simply wouldn't stand for the crap that's peddled within U.S. borders.
My point in commenting is that I would find it extremely interesting if you were to do a compare and contrast of CNN domestic with its international sibling.
We don't get nearly enough of that type of perspective and I think it's important enough to warrant your time.
The domestic/international product variance surfaced just a short while ago in the matter of the covers of the various Newsweek international editions vs. the cover of their domestic edition.
Another point.
Most non-U.S. tv cable and satellite services around the world carry news services from many countries.
I think it would be a terrific service to the American people if U.S. providers did the same.
Subsisting on a diet of 100% American propaganda is like eating at McDonalds every day.
Why not throw in propaganda from other countries as well?
http://mediamatters.org/     
     Comments: profmarcus     
     October 7, 2006      
At this same conference, we see images of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laughing it up with Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf.
That's right, the columnist who piously champions his supposed commitment to spreading democracy is happily, publicly hamming it up with a brutal central Asian dictator.
Ah yes, because it's all just so goddamned hilarious to a New York Times columnist who can sit back in his 12,000 square foot Bethesda mansion: Count his $2 billion family fortune:
Tell the world how much he really truly cares about freedom,
Push American soldiers into the Baghdad shooting gallery,
Advocate destructive trade policies that he brags about not having even read,
And blaming Americans whose economic lives have been decimated by those trade policies for not better educating themselves.
It's all just so goddamned funny for Tom Friedman, because he gets to do all that, yet still also gets to ham it up every few weeks on national television with Tim Russert, and gets to be on stage with his good friend Bill Clinton and pretend to be serious.
Of course, Clinton, who convened the conference that featured Rubin and Friedman, was recently the recipient of a 20,000 word New Yorker article that was the journalistic equivalent of what Monica Lewinsky did to him in those steamy Oval Office days.
In the article, New Yorker editor David Remnick proclaims from the mountaintop Clinton's supposed devotion to solving the African AIDS crisis.
But never once - not once - bothers to take a moment in between lavish banquets and starfucking exchanges to actually ask Clinton why, if he was so committed to stopping this awful plague, he insisted on passing trade deals that included provisions specifically designed to allow pharmaceutical companies to inflate AIDS drug prices in the developing world?
But then, if you are David Remnick and all that really gives you a professional hard-on is getting to eat barbeque in Bill Clinton's private apartment in his palatial presidential library, why would you ask such a question?
Because really, the only ones who care about the answer to such a question are the millions of impoverished peasants who were never able to afford AIDS medications thanks to those trade provisions.
And those aren't the people David Remnick hangs out with or is writing for.

A Reporter's Job
"In other words, reporters often refuse to offer their judgment about matters of fact, but they do offer their judgment about the potential political effects of events and actions."
The lie is this.
A reporter will say "I didn't have time to check out all of his claims. We had to run with what we had." This is just another way of saying the story is crappy and not complete and not ready to run.
Or Lehrer's quote about just "reporting what they say."
Lehrer's philosophy reduces the news media to a non questioning, non-independent, non thinking free public relations and message dissemination service, not much more than a text messager on a cellular phone.
Obviously, Lehrer is right in that the journalist has to allow the source to "say something."
But a reporter has no obligation to report a sources words unchallenged.
Any reporter with a brain knows that sources often tell outright lies to reporters, or at minimum, make statements which are deliberately slanted, evasive and less than the whole truth and nothing but.
Well aware that sources want to and will use rube reporters for their own purposes, at this stage the reporter then ... (drum roll please) ...
CHECKS OUT THE STORY !!!
Reporters use the lame excuse that questioning the veracity of a source's statement by backgrounding is "not objective" or "taking sides."
Err ... it's called journalism.
In political scandal reporting, a reporter knows by DEFINITION that a named principal in a scandal will likely lie to a reporter when making a public statement.
That's the nature of a scandal.
One side is lying.
Many people are lying.
A political scandal cannot exist without lying.
THOU SHALT NOT LET SOURCES LIE TO YOU WITH IMPUNITY
should be the screen saver on every reporter's computer.
Because if a reporter lets a source lie to him with impunity, the loser is the reader, the customer, the public, the general information base we rely upon to engage in thoughtful, informed public discourse.
When reporters unquestioningly air statements that are probably lies, the public commons becomes polluted, like a river used as the town dump and cesspool.
Clean water gets mixed with the foul goo.
The reporter has the job and unique opportunity to sniff out lies and evasions from sources BEFORE they enter the public commons.
The public does not have that ability, although the Internet is changing that.
For myself as a reporter, there is nothing better in the world than forcing a less than honest politician to retract a press release because I, the reporter, had found gross errors in it based upon my own independent research.
THAT IS JOURNALISM.
Failing to take this effort is not journalism.
It's just picking up a paycheck and looking good in a suit.
http://mediamatters.org/     
     Comments: Douglas Watts     
     October 7, 2006      
Thursday, April 6th, 2006
Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed... How Corporate-Funded Propaganda Is Airing On Local Newscasts As "News"
A new study being released today by the Center for Media and Democracy found at least 77 TV stations around the country have aired corporate-sponsored video news releases over the past 10 months.
The report accuses the TV stations of actively disguising the content — which has been paid for by companies like General Motors, Panasonic and Pfizer — to make it appear to be their own reporting.
In a broadcast exclusive we speak with the authors of the report and air examples of the video news release
— Click Here for video/audio report
DIANE FARSETTA:    We saw 13 stations in the ten largest media markets in the United States.
We added up what percentage of the U.S. population is in the broadcast area of those markets.
It’s something like 53% of the U.S. population.
So that gives you a sense of how widespread it is.
Undisclosed of the 98 different total broadcasts of fake news that we saw, not once did the station tell the viewing audience, ‘This was funded by Siemens.   This was funded by Pfizer.’
And that's what we see in terms...but that's what we’re saying would be meaningful disclosure.
We saw two instances of partial disclosure, but the clients were not named in those cases.
Interview continues — Click Here

A story that went almost unremarked on
The resignation of the publisher of the Miami Herald, Jesus Diaz jr.
Diaz had fired three staffers for El Nuevo Herald weeks ago for accepting money from the government's office for Cuba broadcasting.
Diaz's resignation followed protests and cancelled subscriptions from the Cuban exile community, and the paper rescinded the firings.
Reporter Wilfredo Cancio called the firings an attack on his "journalistic integrity".
But you have no integrity when you are hiding the fact that you are being paid by an outside source with an agenda.
http://mediamatters.org/     
     Comments: mefirst     
     October 7, 2006      
The same disconnection from reality is prevalent among many politicians — which might explain why some of them now are reacting so angrily to the fact that yes, they do have to face voters for reelection.
Take Joe Lieberman.
When confronted with the fact that he skipped more than half of all U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War and most of the votes on the destructive Medicare bill so as to attend fundraisers for himself, he angrily claimed there is a moral equivalence between him as a full-time, $160,000-a-year U.S. Senator skipping decisions on the most pressing national security and health care questions in American history, and his opponent missing 6 votes on a part-time town council 15 years ago.
He also says with a straight face that the reason he worked so hard to stop health care reform in the 1990s was because he cared about small business.
But then he conveniently forgets to mention that he authored legislation to raise taxes on small business health benefits.
Then there is Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) who is now airing television ads saying that asking President Bush to obtain search warrants after he's wiretapped phones as the law requires would dangerously slow down the original wiretapping.
Put another way, she's actually asking audiences to quite literally believe that the basic laws of space and time do not exist.
Meanwhile, chickenhawks who refused to serve in the military when they had the chance continue to sit comfortably in their Washington think tank offices and transform their sick insecurities of personal weakness and frailty into screams for more American soldiers to be sent to die in Iraq.
What you see here, folks, is that all of it — the elections, the public policies, the future of the country — is one big joke to the people in power.
And they are willing to lie, cheat and distort anything to protect the integrity of that joke they are so happily enjoying.
They don't want anyone asking questions of them.
They don't want anyone thinking they have a right to use democracy to change things.
They are fat and happy and putting the pedal to the metal in their sleek sports car on the great American highway overpass.
Anyone who tries to slow them down, run them off the road, or make them just glance at the blight below, gets the big, road-raged middle finger.
When I get up everyday at 5:30am to start working, it is still dark out.
I read through the clips and digest the daily dose of ever-more raw hatred coming from our nation's capital and directed at the majority of Americans.
Then I try to have some breakfast without feeling totally demoralized.
But as I look out on the darkness outside, I always remind myself of the famous parable: "It is always darkest before the dawn."
Win or lose, November 7th isn't going to change everything.
But win or lose, it's clear that things are already changing.
The rising anger coming from the halls of power are a reflection of the establishment's deep understanding that change is coming.
The screams from the angry pundits and the desperate politicians and the paying-to-play lobbyists are like the early warning sirens at a beach.
And just over the horizon, they see that tidal wave coming.
      David Sirota      WorkingforChange.com      September 21, 2006      
Maxakalisaurus topai dinosaur
Dino smile.

A replica of a Maxakalisaurus topai dinosaur head is seen at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

US supplied and paid Israel bombing across Lebanon expanded Monday with missiles targeting all areas.

The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.

More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.

Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.

Picture: AFP/Vanderlei Almeida
Dinosaur skull
Return of temperatures last seen in age of dinosaur
Skull of a three-year-old Australopithecus afarensis found in Ethiopia.

Scientists have discovered the remarkably complete skeleton of the 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by 'Lucy.'

The discovery should shed light on the contentious debate about how this species moved about.

The remains — no bigger than a cantaloupe — are 3.3 million years old, making them the oldest known skeleton of such a
youthful human ancestor. 

Global warming over the coming century could mean a return of temperatures last seen in the age of the dinosaur and lead to
the extinction of up to half of all species, a scientist said on Thursday.

US supplied Israel airstrikes hit near a funeral procession in south Lebanon on Tuesday, sending some of the 1,500 mourners running in panic and killing at least 13 people in nearby buildings, hospital officials and the town's mayor said. 

The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.

More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.

Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.

Picture: Copyright Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritages, Ethiopia

(left)
Dino smile.
A replica of a Maxakalisaurus topai dinosaur head is seen at the National Museum in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
US supplied Israel airstrikes hit near a funeral procession in south Lebanon on Tuesday, sending some of the 1,500 mourners running in panic and killing at least 13 people in nearby buildings, hospital officials and the town's mayor said.
US supplied and paid Israel bombing across Lebanon expanded Monday with missiles targeting all areas.
The Israel military, including weapons: tanks, missiles, warplanes, artillery, shells, are all funded by the US taxpayer.
(right)
Skull of a three-year-old Australopithecus afarensis found in Ethiopia.
Scientists have discovered the remarkably complete skeleton of the 3-year-old female from the ape-man species represented by 'Lucy.'
The discovery should shed light on the contentious debate about how this species moved about.
The remains — no bigger than a cantaloupe — are 3.3 million years old, making them the oldest known skeleton of such a youthful human ancestor.
Global warming over the coming century could mean a return of temperatures last seen in the age of the dinosaur and lead to the extinction of up to half of all species, a scientist said on Thursday.
More than Fifteen million US dollars is given by US taxpayers to Israel each day for their military use.
Total funding is more than 4 billion US dollars per year.
Photos: AFP/Vanderlei Almeida, Copyright Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritages, Ethiopia
December 27, 2005
Where Was the New York Times When It Mattered?
NSA Spied on UN Diplomats During Push for Invasion of Iraq
By NORMAN SOLOMON
D espite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on U.N. diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to green light an invasion.   When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush's illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA's targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major U.S. media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage — or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all.   Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA's spying at the U.N. goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
The eavesdropping took place in Manhattan
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate — which pointedly noted that "the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed."
But after dodging the story of the NSA's spying at the U.N. when it mattered most — before the invasion of Iraq — the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now.   That's all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the U.S. government's high-pressure campaign for the U.N. Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution.   A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about U.S. spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story.   "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers."   The key word was "timely."
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years.   But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on U.N. diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council.   (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.)   And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington's war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the U.S. government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of U.N. delegates."   The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency — the U.S. body which intercepts communications around the world — and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency."   The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.
Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan
The Observer explained: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the U.N. headquarters in New York — the so-called Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the U.S. and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for U.N. inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council — "the whole gamut of information that could give U.S. policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises."
Noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an "embarrassing disclosure."   And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide.   From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news.   But not in the United States.
Well, it's not that we haven't been interested
Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA's supposed paper of record.   "Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story.   But "we could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from U.S. officials. Smale added: "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting."   Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major U.S. media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer's revelations.   The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to U.N."   Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn't only depict U.S. surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported "some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery" — and "several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo's authenticity."
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo's "authenticity" was gone.   The British press reported that the U.K. government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak.   By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream U.S. press had disappeared.
U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War
As it turned out, the Observer's expose — headlined "Revealed: U.S. Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War" — came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major U.S. news outlets provided very little coverage of the story.   The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun's name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed."   She said: "I have only ever followed my conscience."
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo — and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it — the most powerful U.S. news outlets gave the revelation the media equivalent of a yawn.   Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of U.S. media concern about the NSA's illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
Norman Solomon is the author of War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death, from which this article has been adapted.
Freedom Next Time: Filmmaker & Journalist John Pilger on Propaganda, the Press, Censorship and Resisting the American Empire — Click Here
"Liberal Democracy is moving toward a form of corporate dictatorship.
This is an historic shift, and the media must not be allowed to be its façade, but itself made into a popular, burning issue, and subjected to direct action," said John Pilger.
"That great whistleblower Tom Paine warned that if the majority of the people were denied the truth and the ideas of truth, it was time to storm what he called the Bastille of words.
That time is now." We spend the hour airing a recent lecture by the acclaimed Australian filmmaker and muckraker.
Fake News Part II most recent
Unspeakable grief and horror
                        ...and the circus of deception continues...
He says, "You are quite mad, Kewe"
And of course I am.
Why, I don't believe any of it — not the bloody body, not the bloody mind, not even the bloody Universe, or is it bloody multiverse.
"It's all illusion," I say.   "Don't you know, my lad, my lassie.   The game!   The game, me girl, me boy!   Takes on interest, don't you know.   T'is me sport, till doest find a better!"
Pssssst — but all this stuff is happening down here
Let's change it!
To say hello:     hello[the at marker]Kewe.info
For Kewe's spiritual and metaphysical pages — click here
       Afghanistan — Western Terror States: Canada, US, UK, France, Germany, Italy       
       Photos of Afghanistan people being killed and injured by NATO