CBS 60 Minutes aired an investigation into fake news which was mostly fake news itself. The “fake news” scare was drummed up immediately after the election as an excuse to censor and shut down alternative media outlets. Media analyst Mark Dice has the story.
Outed CIA spy, and current chief political reporter for CNN, Dana Bash
CNN Chief Reporter Dana Bash Revealed As Top CIA Spy Targeting Trump
By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers
A fascinating Federal Security Service (FSB) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that the American-based CNN news channel’s chief political correspondent, named Dana Bash, has been revealed to be an intelligence operative for the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) involved in a plot to harm and/or discredit President Donald Trump on orders from top intelligence and political officials within the former Obama regime. [Note: Some words and/or phrases appearing in quotes in this report are English language approximations of Russian words/phrases having no exact counterpart.]
According to this report, on 10 January 2017, CNN became the first American major mainstream media organization to report on what is now commonly refereed to as the “Russian Dossier”—and though they did not provide exact details into this wholly discredited smear campaign against then President-elect Trump, and still being used by Democratic Party operatives against him, they did provide links and attributions into where it could be read on the website BuzzFeed. Read full article here
“We need to make this style of video and we’ve got to use Al-Qaeda’s footage . . . We need it to be 10 minutes long, and it needs to be in this file format, and we need to encode it in this manner.”
These were the specific instructions given to employees of a PR firm responsible for creating fake terrorist videos as part of a top secret propaganda mission paid for by the Pentagon — a mission that cost over half a billion dollars.
This story has come to light thanks to a former employee of the firm, Martin Wells, who came forward to talk about his time working on the project.
While we are now all-too familiar with the word terrorist, it only became popular about 15 years ago, after planes were flown into the World Trade Centre towers in New York. This event was monumental in not only reshaping U.S. security tactics but also policy that impacted the American people greatly.
It also spurred major division and debate, with many people disagreeing over what really happened. Within moments of the crashes, the media was already claiming that Osama Bin Laden had ordered the attacks and the word terrorist was used thousands of times over the next 24 hours. But as the days and weeks passed, it started to become clear that something wasn’t quite right with the official story and facts simply weren’t lining up.
The war on terror has raged on since that day, and although many have challenged the official story, terrorism is still an extremely real and dangerous threat in the minds of many. But how much of it is actually real? Could the U.S. and its organizations be behind some of it? Could they be funding terrorism for ulterior motives? Read more here
DC Whispers has an article pointing out that Government can legally lie to US citizens.
Check out this quote from FBI Director James Comey’s testimony to Congress today:
“…It’s perfectly legal for someone attending a classified briefing to LIE TO THE PRESS about what they heard in that meeting. The FBI cannot go out and correct the record because then they’d be “commenting on Classified information…”
What? They can lie and it is legal? Propaganda, lies, by the government and its employees, used to be illegal against US citizens, but not any more, thanks to an amendment to the NDAA.
These laws made propaganda used to influence foreigners and US citizens illegal. Without these laws, disinformation could run rampant. Read full article here
The newest version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) includes an amendment that would legalize the use of propaganda on the American public, reports Michael Hastings of BuzzFeed.
The amendment — proposed by Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and passed in the House last Friday afternoon — would effectively nullify the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which explicitly forbids information and psychological operations aimed at influencing U.S. public opinion.
Thornberry said that the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way,” according to Buzzfeed.
The vote came two days after a federal judged ruled that an indefinite detention provision in the annual defense bill was unconstitutional.
Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, who released a highly critical report regarding the distortion of truth by senior military officials in Iraq and Afghanistan, dedicated a section of his report to Information Operations (IO) and states that after Desert Storm the military wanted to transform IO “into a core military competency on a par with air, ground, maritime and special operations.”
Davis defines IO as “the integrated employment of electronic warfare (EW), computer network operations (CNO), psychological operations (PSYOP), military deception (MILDEC), and operations security (OPSEC), in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own.”
See what the founder of snopes.com has to say about his work relating to a story from ABC News;
David Mikkelson, founder of Snopes.com, a website known for its biased opinions and inaccurate information they write about stories on the internet in order to generate advertising revenue, told ABC News that he approves of what a story like this is accomplishing.
“You have to understand that when a story like this goes viral, and we spend a minute or two debunking it, we make lots of money. Stories like this have helped put my children through college, buy a new car, a home and even get the Silverback gorilla my wife Barbara always wanted since she was a child,” Mikkleson said. “We claim ‘to provide evidence for such debunkings and confirmation as well‘, but that’s just ridiculous. Do you know how much time that would take? Instead, we just copy and paste parts of the original article into ours, write a couple sentences, and that’s it. I just want to be clear, our website does zero journalism or anything creative, and I’m only telling you this for legal reasons. For example, do you remember that recent article we wrote debunking a story which claimed Scientology lost its tax-exempt status? Did you actually read our story? Who is the name of the person responsible for the hoax? What is the actual website URL? We claim to know it, but no real information is posted by us.” Mikkelson continues, “It is common for us to rewrite a story we’re debunking if we don’t like it. In one recent story of ours, we actually removed a person’s name from the original article and then called him a liar, oh the hypocrisy, but it is so funny at the same time! We also like to post fake, un-funny, juvenile disclaimers supposedly from the site in question and it is our authors, such as Jeff Zarronandia who are responsible for those gems. We tell our readers that the disclaimer is from the story we are debunking, but a simple google search that locates the actual article will show that our disclaimer is 100% fabricated. Sometimes I think that someone should start a company that debunks our debunkings, they could probably make a lot of money,” Mikkelson laughs. “And lots of people complain about our authors attacking websites and their owners for reasons that are 100% proven false, but since we block archive.org it just becomes their word versus ours. Plus, I know for our writers like Kim LaCapria, it is way more fun for them to cause controversy than report the facts; it results in more visitors. Kim LaCapria and Jeff Zarronandia go as far as accusing the site that the story originated from as ‘a clickbait fake news site that infringes the trademark-protected visual elements and domain names of legitimate news outlets in order to generate traffic and drive advertising revenues by creating and spreading entirely false “news” stories‘. The thing that is troubling about these claims and what Snopes and our authors are known for. We don’t list ONE factual piece of evidence to back up our claims; It’s just more of our hack, unethical journalism, and I only tell you this for legal reasons. I think it is business as usual for us to accuse the story we are debunking of spreading malware and viruses, but we never say what website it actually is. I think warning people about a site that could potentially destroy their computer is probably a good idea, and I hope one day to do that kind of ethical journalism, but people will click our ads regardless, bottom line; so why do the extra work? To be honest, I’d say in a given week I probably only do about fifteen minutes of real, actual, work.”
ABC News reached out to Hillary Clinton’s campaign for comment but did not receive a response.
Read Full Article Here – Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: “I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump’s Rally” See the second half of article.