Aletho News


San Bernardino Media Hoax: CNN, Media, ‘Victims Families’ All Ransack Suspects Family Home, Faux FBI Crime Scene

By James Tracy | 21st Century Wire | December 4, 2015

Today saw another new low-point in American broadcast journalism, as members of the media and public ransacked the shooting suspects family home in Redlands, California. On closer examination, however, what is on display here has very little to do with journalism, and everything to do with staged ‘synthetic terror’.

It appears that both mainstream media and law enforcement are becoming increasingly desperate to sell an ever-more embellished and fantastic story line surrounding this latest alleged ‘Mass Shooting’ event that we’re told took place on Wednesday in San Bernardino, California.

Earlier, CNN’s official “terrorism analyst”, Paul Cruickshank, stated that San Bernardino’s staged event was, “the deadliest Islamist terrorism attack on US soil since 9/11”. If that was true, then any venues or sites related to this investigation would still be secured by law enforcement – and yet, less than 48 hours after what we’re told was a ‘mass shooting’ and ‘international terrorism’ event – members of the mainstream media and unidentified members of the public were let loose completely unsupervised, inside what authorities are claiming to be “the killers’ home” located in Redlands, California.

More than any other aspect of the contrived narrative currently being assembled by the mainstream media – this latest bit of media exhibitionism has provided clear proof that much of this story is a staged production – completely engineered by the media and members of certain government agencies…

‘PRESS GANG’: Media and public barge into the family home of alleged shooters.

This gives a new meaning to the term “press gang”. The media frenzy at the family’s Redlands home can only be described as a disturbing spectacle broadcast LIVE this morning over ten different major networks.

Today’s bizarre media stunt came only two hours after authorities and the media claimed it now had ‘evidence’ that Wednesday’s attack was “ISIS-inspired”. In a rush to establish a motive for Wednesday’s ‘Active Shooter Drill’ and staged terror event, a new piece of ‘virtual evidence’ appears to be as bizarre as it is laughable:

“We have evidence that while the attack was underway, the female shooter (Tashfeen Malik) is believed to have posted her allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi – but not on her own Facebook account, rather on another different named account believed to be linked to her Facebook account.”

As 21WIRE pointed out, authorities are intentionally not showing any photo or image of the alleged female shooter, Tashfeen Malik. It’s likely that this is because Malik was not actually involved in the shooting as the authorities are currently claiming. Based on this, we might expect investigators to turn around at a later date and claim that she “wasn’t actually one of the two shooters.’

Then things began to get even more ridiculous.

CNN’s reporter Victor Blackwell began today’s news segment joined by a large group of at least 150 persons, including 30-40 unidentified people filming on their cell phones which CNN claimed were “members of the victims’ families”, as well as at least 75-100 media personnel and cameramen, all of whom followed behind the property’s landlord, Doyel Miller, who appears to have given an unsupervised, guided tour to the media and unidentified members of the public.

Blackwell even admitted that locals from the neighborhood and their dogs could also be seen wandering through the property.


CNN’s Blackwell claimed to have simply walked into the house, and by chance, finds a 4 paged FBI Seizure Document dated 12/3/15, which details evidence removed in the supposed federal terrorism investigation. CNN’s Blackwell then goes on to read out loud on air, in what he describes as a list which paints “a really clear picture”, before reading out all the items:

“… ammunition, hard drives, laptops, thumb drives, rifle cleaners roll-a-dex, gun cleaning kit, bolt for M-4 style rifle, boxes of ammunition.”

Although CNN and others appear to have gone to great lengths to portray this bizarre news event as authentic, it’s quite clear the FBI or police had left their classified investigation documents and various items as staged, props for the media.

It is not yet clear whether or not members of the media had paid a sum of money to Miller for access to the property.

In what authorities have claimed is a crime scene and “federal investigation related to terrorism”, the alleged home of the shooters has no police tape and has already been opened to random members of the public and the media – who could be seen rummaging through the alleged shooters belongings with no police or federal agents to supervise what can only be described as a free for all.

“passports, driving license, an FBI evidence docket list of items removed from the house [just laying around for the media, we’re told]…”

MEDIA AGIT-PROP: CNN’s Anderson Cooper conducted today’s desperate media play, designed to shore-up the media’s latest “ISIS-inspired” narrative for this week’s ‘mass shooting’ staged event.

The entire fiasco was being stage-managed by the highly dubious CNN operative, Anderson Cooper, who is then flanked by CNN junior ‘reporter’ Stephanie Elam who clearly states, “I was the first person who walked into this room [bedroom] and saw how it was before everyone started touching it… I don’t want to show you these ID’s over here [as the camera then shows] just because I don’t want to show you those addresses on there, but I do believe they belong to the mother based on the ages that were there.”

So Elam had access and tampered with the entire crime scene. If it were a real federal crime scene, then this would be a violation of numerous state and federal laws, including a violation of the family’s rights to privacy. In addition, under California state law, all media members and public present are in violation of breaking and entering, vandalism, and theft as well in the event that any personal items were removed from the scene. The fact that no one has been arrested or charged is proof that this is not a real federal crime at all.

MEDIA VANDALISM OR STAGED ‘PRESS’ EVENT? Less than 48 hours after ‘the biggest attack since 9/11’, CNN’s Stephanie Elam leads a mob of media and public in ransacking the alleged family home of dead suspect Syed Farook.

CNN Reporter Carelessly Tosses Religious Prayer Beads, Religious Books

CNN’s Stephanie Elam then starts picking up and throwing the family’s personal religious items. “When I first walked in this group of prayer beads was sitting on the edge of the bed, Several prayer books that were all around, some business cards, receipts for store purchases, lotions and creams…”.

CNN’s Elam then picks up a set of prayer beads for the camera, before carelessly tossing religious items aside onto the bed below, and moving on to ransack the house along with the other members of the “press”. She clearly states that, “these items belong to the shooters’ parents” – as she and others carelessly rifle through the family’s personal belongings.


A media entourage of at least 40 reporters and 50 random members of the public (who the media claim were “victims’ family members”) appear to have been involved in a forced entry, or “breaking and entering”, as the entourage followed the landlord who, according to CNN junior reporter, “We watched him come back with a crow bar… and a drill… to remove the door that had been barricading with a piece of wood. Then everyone came in right after that.”

She then claimed that, “The police were ‘done’ with this building.”

Under the remote direction of Cooper, CNN’s on site cameraman then moves in for a close shot at a desk with a number of documents neatly arranged – including a passport, presumably belonging to family member of the alleged shooters.

STAGED: Passports were neatly on display for the media camera, in what appears to be staging of the supposed ‘crime scene’.
FRAMING THE STORY: CNN’s Elam claims as, “clear evidence of religious faith”.

San Bernardino: A Media Production

CNN’s law enforcement analyst Harry Houck then came on camera with Cooper to display some outrage, seemingly bedazzled and upset over, ‘how the FBI have allowed dozens of people to destroy the crime scene’.

What Houck and other media operatives are not asking is the real question here: if this were a real federal investigation and crime scene then, obviously there would be police tape, and the property would be supervised as it is less than 48 hours after such a high-profile ‘mass shooting’. Clearly, this is not a real crime scene – and by extension – we can conclude now that this entire event was likely to be a staged one.

One of the most incredible media reports was turned-in by Democratic Party-affiliated media outlet MSNBC, who could be seen going through the family’s personal effects and photographs, and showing “Muslim items” on camera. Shamelessly, MSNBC reporter Kerry Sanders rifles through childrens’ personal belongings in the room of Farook and Malik’s 6-month-old daughter (allegedly), and points out her crib and what appeared to be a “Muslim prayer rug”. The following viewing is disturbing, and almost unbelievable:


The bumbling MSNBC reporter Sanders seemed to be a bit desperate to make a case that these were ‘Islamic terrorists’, and whoever staged all the ‘evidence’ laying around the home – has clearly arranged passports and photos prominently in place for the media – in order for the hapless media to draw their own conclusions. One planted item is meant to be photos of Tafsheen Malik, shown here:

PLANTED PROP: Mystery photos: viewers are meant to think these photos belong to Tafsheen Malik, but “cannot be confirmed”.
MYSTERY WOMAN OR FBI HANDLER? The FBI and media have intentionally hidden the identity of the female suspect.

Once again, based on the FBI’s continued hiding of her identity, we can almost conclude that their supposed female suspect, Tafsheen Malik, was not involved in the staged shooting event at Inland Regional Center on Wednesday, but rather, could have been the FBI female handler of male suspect Syed Farook – a very similar scenario to a carbon copy modus operandi seen with Boston Bomber suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his illusive white American, Muslim convert and CIA -linked wife, Katherine Russell.

Not surprisingly, not CNN, nor any other mainstream media organization, will ever chase up any of these leads, and after today’s debacle – we should all know why.

December 4, 2015 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Timeless or most popular, Video | | 3 Comments

What No One Is Telling You About Mark Zuckerberg Donating 99% Of His Fortune To “Charity”

By Sadho Ram | SAYS | December 2, 2015

By now you must have heard that Mark Zuckerberg along with his wife Priscilla Chan has pledged to give away 99% of his estimated USD45 billion in Facebook stock to charity. Basically, Mark is giving away enough money to fund one of the world’s biggest charities for the next 45 years. Instead, he is funding his own. Here’s how:

The vehicle for his beneficence will be the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative LLC, a family-run foundation that he controls and through which he will maintain control of Facebook for “the foreseeable future.”

Which basically means:

Mark Zuckerberg will transfer ownership of his Facebook stock without paying capital gains taxes. He will also benefit from the possibility that his foundation will live beyond him, with his heirs and their heirs at the helm, untouched by estate taxes.

A Facebook PR, while confirming to BuzzFeed News, said that the initiative is structured as an LLC, and not as a charitable trust

Which means that unlike a charitable trust, which is compelled to spend its money on charity, Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, LLC will be able to spend its money on whatever it wants, including private, profit-generating investment.

While charity will certainly be one of the money’s destinations, it will be far from the only one. The money, according to a Facebook SEC filing, will go to “philanthropic, public advocacy, and other activities for the public good.”

One such activity: private investment. A Facebook release this afternoon stated as much.

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will pursue its mission by funding non-profit organizations, making private investments and participating in policy debates, in each case with the goal of generating positive impact in areas of great need,” it said. “Any profits from investments in companies will be used to fund additional work to advance the mission.”

One more thing about his pledge:

The Facebook founder is not giving away 99% of his Facebook shares all at once. He will be doing it over the course of the rest of his life.

Also, Michael Maiello points out in this Daily Beast piece:

Mark will deduct the fair value of his gift to his foundation from his taxable income in the year he makes the donation. A donor like Mark could realize a tax benefit equal to about one-third of the value of his gift. In this case, he stands to benefit as much as USD333 million, based on the USD1 billion he plans as his first transfer.

Rather than give to existing nonprofits, Mark is doing what other business leaders have recently done. Increasingly siphoning their fortune into their own organisations and this can be problematic.

Alexander C. Kaufman of The Huffington Post explains how:

The desire for control leaves the massive pool of money set aside for charities — about $358 billion in the U.S. last year — divvied between the roughly 1.5 million nonprofits registered in this country. Creating a new organization every time a company or wealthy individual wants to foster change only shrinks the available slices of that pie.

“Just because you were successful in the for-profit world doesn’t mean that nonprofits are a bunch of bleeding-heart idiots that need you to come in and show them how it’s done,” Ken Berger, the managing director of the social-good data service Algorhythm, told The Huffington Post in October. He previously ran the nonprofit watchdog Charity Navigator. “We have one of the most complex and sophisticated nonprofit sectors ever seen. Partnering with others is the best approach.”

That last part is key.

To sum up, his money is not going to a charity, but to his own LLC, which will let him evade tax by moving his private assets into a foundation. See, Zuckerberg doesn’t need massive tax benefits to do whatever he wants. He can just do whatever he wants.

But he will get those tax benefits and estate planning benefits and he will be able to give up his stock while holding onto power over his company.

As Michael Maiello in his Daily Beast piece reveals, “when we pay people like Zuckerberg to fund their own foundations, we are really helping the rich and coddled few even as we thank and honor them for their charity.”

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , | 4 Comments

Why ‘Active Investigations’ Don’t Justify Keeping Police Video Secret

By Jay Stanley | ACLU | December 4, 2015

The Chicago police last week released video of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald being shot to death by a police officer. Release of the video showing the 16-shot barrage came only after a judge order its release, and after more than a year during which the police had refused to make it public. In Minneapolis, protesters have been clashing with police as the police similarly refuse to release video in the recent shooting death of another young Black man, 24-year-old Jamar Clark. In both cases the police have cited the need to keep video under wraps because there is an “ongoing investigation.”

The question of what police body camera video gets released to the public, and when, is an important one, and has become one of the central areas of dispute surrounding the technology. At issue are two sometimes conflicting values: privacy, and government transparency. Our position (as outlined in our body camera white paper and model policy) is that while most video footage should be kept private—held for a short period in case a complaint is filed, not analyzed or used for any other purpose, and then deleted within six months—some video footage is important for the public to see. We call for video of incidents to be releasable under state open records laws where there has been a use of force, a felony arrest, or a complaint against a police officer. Certainly in the case of a police shooting or other use of deadly force, the public’s interest in understanding how and why an officer took such an extreme measure is overwhelming.

Police departments, however, regularly refuse to release video citing their need not to release details of ongoing criminal investigations. Aside from the question of whether police should have exclusive control over videos in the first place, the question needs to be asked: does this general exception to public transparency make sense in the case of body camera or other video footage of police uses of force?

There are a limited and narrow range of purposes for which exemptions should legitimately be granted. Those purposes include:

  • Protecting personal privacy
  • Protecting confidential sources
  • Not interfering with the investigation
  • Protecting the right to a fair trial

Many state laws have active-investigation exceptions to their open-records laws, and these laws vary but generally include the above factors, as does the federal FOIA law (Exemption 7). The federal law also includes a broad catch-all exemption for circumstances where disclosure could “reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings,” as well as an exemption for when it could “reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual.” And, it contains an exemption for law enforcement guidelines, techniques, and procedures where “such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law.”

But none of these exemptions justify the withholding of video footage of a shooting or other use of force by a police officer. Exemptions to open-records laws for “ongoing investigations” were simply not created with police video of police shootings in mind, and do not make sense applied to such recordings. Yet police departments around the country are using these rules to block or delay release of video not because it would harm investigations, but because it makes them look bad. This is not how things are supposed to work in a democracy.

Let’s look at each justification for “active investigation” exemptions and how they apply—or not—to body camera footage.

Privacy: One purpose of these exemptions is to protect people from the stigma of being under investigation before the police have even finished assessing whether there is evidence of their involvement in a crime. A police officer who has used deadly force against a citizen has typically already been identified, and has no right to privacy in such circumstances as they are an employee of the public whose actions, ostensibly to protect the interests of that public, merit the highest levels of community scrutiny.

A concrete example of this was given to me recently by Laura Schauer Ives, a civil rights attorney in New Mexico (and former legal director for the ACLU there) who litigates on police use-of-force issues, including the infamous James Boyd shooting. As she pointed out,

The public needs to know if there are problematic officers. That’s why in Albuquerque, we know which officers have shot people three, four times. We have officers who have repeatedly used excessive force against citizens, and that’s the only way to know it, by knowing their names. And that is their job. You’re a police officer doing your public job.

In Chicago, where police and city officials fought to keep civilian complaints secret, the resulting lack of sunshine has allowed problematic officers to stay on the job unpunished (as we now know only because of a decade-long legal battle to bring that information to light).

When it comes to the privacy interests of the subject or victim of a use of force (or his or her survivors), typically they do not object to release of the video on privacy grounds; in the vast majority of cases under contention they are the ones clamoring for release. I recently wrote about an exception, where a shooting victim’s family sought to block release—but even there the public’s interest in monitoring the police force overcomes the privacy rights of the subject of police use of force. Should a video show bystanders with a legitimate privacy interest, their identity can be obscured through redaction of the video.

Protecting confidential sources: If an officer shown in the video is an undercover officer, his or her identity can ordinarily be obscured through redaction. While a case involving an undercover officer is theoretically possible, I have not heard of one. Redaction should also be sufficient should bystanders or others in a video happen to be informants. (And of course unredacted bystander video posted online can render any of these protections moot.) But this exemption to transparency has been abused: Ives told me that in New Mexico “we see the Albuquerque Police Department making the argument that officers who are not undercover, are undercover. If you’re out in public in a police vest that says APD, sorry but you’re not undercover.”

Interfering with the investigation: Another purpose of secrecy can be to avoid alerting suspects that they are under investigation (potentially spurring them to destroy evidence) or revealing what the authorities know about them and their possible crimes. But if there has been a police shooting, then the situation is different from those in which the above concerns apply. In a shooting, or if there has been a complaint, the involved officers know full well that they will be the subject of an investigation. (It is important to temporarily withhold the video from viewing by those under investigation—witnesses, arrestees, and the involved officers—until after they have given initial statements on the incident, as we have explained, but that does not justify any significant delay in release of the video to the public.)

Furthermore, the reason that police don’t want to release the details of an investigation to the public is that they don’t want one member of the public in particular—the perpetrator—to see that evidence. But in a police shooting, once the involved officer has seen that video, withholding it from the public no longer serves the purpose of keeping it from the person under investigation—now it serves only to prevent the public from seeing it. That’s not a legitimate goal on its own.

The right to a fair trial: It is important insofar as possible to protect defendants in criminal trials—whether they are arrestees or police officers—against pre-judgment by the community. Exposure to video evidence can harm not just the defense, but also the prosecution; one former Justice Department official whose job had included prosecuting police officers made the point to me that letting potential jurors in the community view a video before trial will shape and prejudice their impressions of what took place.

This is a legitimate concern, but generally does not hold up against the public’s critical need to engage in oversight of how its police are using force. There are also several factors that diminish the force of this consideration. Bystander video has so far been much more common in police shootings than bodycam video, and nothing can stop bystanders from exercising their First Amendment right to post their videos of an incident for the whole community to see. The courts have dealt with public bystander videos and they can deal with public bodycam videos—through the jury selection process for example, or change-of-venue motions that can be filed if the concern is particularly significant. In addition, it’s not clear how differently a video will prejudice a juror who views it on YouTube before joining a jury, compared to how they’ll interpret it when viewed at trial. It is far more important to get untainted initial testimony from witnesses and participants in a use of force case, than shielding the community at large.

The right to a day in court: There’s another reason it’s not okay to delay release of video until investigations and other legal processes around an incident have run their course: it prevents individuals from seeking justice for police wrongdoing in court. “It’s actually imperative that these things be public because of federal pleading requirements,” Laura Ives told me, explaining:

It used to be when you go to federal court with a claim of abuse, you just needed to make enough of a claim to get past a motion to dismiss. Now the federal standard under a case called Iqbal is that your claim needs to be “plausible.” To demonstrate that, you have to have enough information—you have to have evidence, you have to have a fairly strong claim going into the litigation, and even then you’re going to go up and back within a circuit on the qualified immunity issue before you ever get discovery, before you ever get to see a video or get a deposition. So getting video as a public record, seeing what happened in a shooting for example, is very, very important if you don’t want your lawsuit dismissed before you ever get to see discovery.

Overall, in some circumstances there can be sufficient reason to delay the release of certain evidentiary materials due to an active investigation, but when it comes to police body camera videos, the public’s interest in immediate oversight of how police officers use force is overwhelming, and it is hard to imagine circumstances in which the reasons for withholding such videos are not inapplicable or fatally weak—and even in the scenarios I can come up with, redaction would be sufficient.

Indeed last week’s release of the Laquan McDonald video followed a ruling by a judge who found that the Chicago police had failed to prove that releasing the video would hurt any ongoing investigation. But where existing state open records laws and jurisprudence do not clearly provide for the immediate release of police body camera video, state legislatures should take action to make clear that ongoing-investigations exceptions to open records laws do not apply to police body camera footage. If unusual situations should arise that we have not unanticipated, in which the harms such laws are intended to prevent would be brought about with sufficient severity to overcome the compelling public interest in disclosure, then withholding should be allowed if the police can establish the likelihood of those harms to a judge under a very high standard—and establish that redaction cannot solve the problem. And the videos should be released at the earliest possible moment that those extraordinary conditions no longer apply.

Finally, it’s important to note the significant harm that withholding video of police shootings does to trust and confidence in police and their relations with the community. Such withholding increases the sense of disrespect, and often appears to communities to be another example of police abusing their authority—not without reason, as our analysis here suggests. Police having exclusive control over, and then refusing to release, video of killings, which are disproportionately of Black men, frays even further any semblance of dignity and trust, and brings into sharp relief the use of authority to attempt to avoid accountability.

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance | , | Leave a comment

Daily Shooter: 21st Century Wire report on San Bernadino


By James Tracy • 21st Century Wire • December 4, 2015

Another Daily Shooter event has taken place in San Bernardino, California. As we go to press, police marksmen appear to have shot-up a black SUV, with one suspect killed, one severely wounded [later pronounced dead] and another escaping on foot according to NBC News live coverage. It’s still unconfirmed whether the SUV passengers are actually the same men who were the original ‘active shooters’ at the original crime scene.

Earlier this afternoon at approximately 12pm PT, we’re told that 14 people were reported to have been killed and another 17 have been hospitalized with various injuries, after the 3 shooters are said to have opened fire with ‘long guns’ inside a conference venue, in the Inland Regional Center, a government-run disabled services office complex, located in San Bernardino. Police gave chase to suspects and claim that 3 assailants were masked (therefore could not be ID’d at the scene), heavily armed and possibly wearing body armor.

Made for TV

The later shoot-out was perfectly positioned for a Television News chopper to capture the drama unimpeded for national audiences, putting all the latest police military gear on display. Many hours after the initial event, Paramilitary Police units in armored MRAPs apparently shoot-up a black SUV, but it’s not known whether or not this was driven by one the original suspects, raising the possibility about whether the police have ‘accidentally’ shot-up the wrong vehicle. Despite the incredible media vantage point here, still no actual footage exists of the alleged deadly shoot-out other than a few photos seen afterwards, nor is there any footage of police removing the suspects dead bodies from the black SUV onto medical gurneys. […]

What happened to the CCTV footage of the shooters as they traveled into the parking lot, got out, and moved towards and throughout the building site? If past ‘Active Shooter’ drills are anything to go by, then it’s unlikely the public will be allowed to see any of this footage, unless it’s been heavily edited and supplied to the mainstream media. […]

Hard to Believe

We’re also old that many hours after the mass shooting incident, police miraculously track-down suspects in a black SUV only 1.5 miles from the original crime scene? Hard to believe, isn’t it?

The entire police case including its ability to pursue the black SUV with the alleged shooting suspects rests completely on a ‘police tip’ from one witness, a man named Glenn Willwerth, who we’re told owns a printing business, J&S Paper Southern, listed at 435 E Parkcenter Circle, San Bernardino, CA 92408 (oddly, this business has no website, only a Facebook page created on Sept 17, 2015), situated across the street from the Inland Regional Center. Willwerth said he saw the alleged shooters fleeing the initial scene in a black SUV, which police claim to have then followed back to the suspects’ residence before, incredibly, the suspects then headed back to the original scene of the crime many hours later.

The US media are already touting today’s event as, “the worst mass shooting since Sandy Hook in 2012.”

Following the take-down of the black SUV vehicle, tactical paramilitary police units escorting ATF and FBI agents then began performing armed, “door to door” searches of all homes in the vicinity of the SUV shooting scene.


The city of San Bernadino has been placed into lock-down, with closures of all schools, court houses and public buildings with all residents ordered to ‘shelter in place’. According to one local news affiliate anchor, “San Bernardino is now under Martial Law.” […]

UPDATE: A number of media outlets, including the Israeli-run website Vocativ, came out to declare the San Bernardino event an ‘ISIS attack on American soil’:

“ISIS extremists began celebrating the mass shooting in San Bernardino hours after the massacre, creating the hashtag #America_Burning as police hunted for as many as three shooters, Vocativ discovered. The Islamic State, however, did not take credit for the shootings in the ghoulish postings.”

If this theme gains traction this week, then it will certainly trigger an all-out right-wing political campaign to call for US troops on the ground in Syria and Iraq. The timing of today’s shooting and Britain’s historic ‘war vote’ today should not be underestimated as the two appear to be feeding into the exact same talking points and foreign policy directives. […]

Even as the suspects were being pursued, President Barack Obama took to CBS News in order to lay out his case for gun control in America. Normally the present wait until after the event has settled before inserting himself in the conversation, but today he broke that tradition – even though none of the facts were in at that time. It’s as if the President already knew what the final narrative would be.

As far as social fall-out and manipulation is concerned, this event successfully covers both sides of the American political paradigm. Thanks to this event and the media’s calculated coverage of it, left-wing social media users are calling for “Gun Control” (led by President Obama), while right-wing crowd is calling for, “More ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria, and Iraq”. … Full article with updates

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism, Timeless or most popular | | Leave a comment

Paris-San Bernardino

XYMPHORA | December 4, 2015

Remember the Paris attack, with the teams of expendable “martyrs”, and the three white mercenaries, the “non-expendables“, who drove up in a Mercedes, did their shooting, and then disappeared, never to be heard from, or spoken of, again, while the Muslim world of France continues to be torn apart looking for ‘terrorists’.  Then there was the Saint-Denis engagement, an explosion, and dead Muslims/witnesses.

Tweet (FOX 11 Los Angeles):

#BREAKING: Reports of an active shooter in San Bernardino. Police looking for 3 white males dressed in military gear. At least 20 injured”

Eventually, there is an engagement on the highway, a shootout, and dead Muslims/witnesses.

Some things that make you wonder:

  1. “Farook and Malik, who are thought to have married earlier this year in Saudi Arabia, are parents to a young child, now orphaned, whom they left with a grandparent before heading out on their murder spree.”
  2. “A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the suspects threw a thick-gauge copper pipe out of the SUV, but no explosives were found inside. The fake pipe bomb was equipped with a piece of material made to look like a wick.”  With an apartment allegedly full of real bombs – an apartment the authorities are allowing the press to rummage through – why would you throw a faked one?
  3. “Baccari says the reserved Farook showed no signs of unusual behavior, although he grew out his beard several months ago. He said he had been sitting at the same table as Farook at the party on Wednesday morning, but his co-worker suddenly disappeared, leaving his coat behind.”  As if he knew when to leave.
  4. A comment by ‘Clouds are nice’:  “Good job they caught them or everyone would still be looking for the three white men wearing balaclavas.”  Ha!

Correlations on Facebook Probably Key to ISIS Claim in San Bernardino”  “Female San Bernardino Shooter “Pledged Allegiance” to ISIS on Facebook”  A rather half-assed creation of the ‘legend’, with seemingly no other evidence of political inclination, and absurdly easy for anybody to fake.

Lawyer For San Bernardino Gunman’s Family Floats Sandy Hook Trutherism”

Is this another ‘hybrid’ ‘terrorist’ attack like Paris, where elements of ISIS and French intelligence worked hand in hand like the brothers they are, or is this some kind of patsy situation?

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Deception, False Flag Terrorism | , , | Leave a comment

Israel the Main Buyer of ISIS Oil — Report

Multiple reports claim that Israel is the top purchaser of smuggled ISIS oil

By Enrico Braun | Russia Insider | December 3, 2015

Citing multiple sources, the Israeli business press are now reporting that Israel is the main recipient of ISIS oil:

Kurdish and Turkish smugglers are transporting oil from ISIS controlled territory in Syria and Iraq and selling it to Israel, according to several reports in the Arab and Russian media. An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit for the terrorist organization.

The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.

In August, the Financial Times reported that Israel obtained 75% of its oil supplies from Iraqi Kurdistan. More than a third of such exports go through the port of Ceyhan, which the FT describe as a “potential gateway for ISIS-smuggled crude.”

It’s been well-established that Turkey is a major transportation hub for ISIS oil smuggling operations. But where is the oil sent? Someone has to buy it. The answer, apparently, is: Israel.

Al-Araby published an extensive investigation which lays out in detail how oil is transported from ISIS-controlled wells to Israel via Turkey.

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , , , , | Leave a comment

CNN Goes on Defensive After Calling Man Killed by Police the ‘Son of an Illiterate Heroin Addict’

By John Vibes | The Free Thought Project | December 3, 2015

Baltimore, MD – When reporting on the case of police brutality victim Freddie Gray, the man that was killed by police in Baltimore earlier this year, a CNN writer described Gray as “the son of an illiterate heroin addict.” The article quickly drew backlash and CNN attempted to edit the article, but it was too late, screenshots of the article had already gone viral.

CNN president Jeff Zucker later said that it was simply a mistake and insisted that there was no intent to slander the dead victim Freddie Gray.

“This was a mistake, the digital team removed it last night and inserted an editor’s note to be completely transparent. The editorial intent as the digital team has laid it out to me was to make clear he had a difficult upbringing. But clearly it did not come across that way when it was written and published. We recognize that. It did not work and we removed it. And were transparent about that. That was a mistake,” Zucker said.

graycnnquoteZucker said that the comments were taken “out of context,” however, the context was clear, they were attempting to assassinate the character of a dead man with accusations that were not even relevant to the case. This type of smear campaign is typical for victims of police violence, which is one big part of the reason why people in America are so confused about the police. When the victim is demonized, it allows the police to maintain the moral high ground and it absolves them of their crimes in the eyes of the public.

According to police, Gray was first stopped and arrested by officers at 8:39 am on April 12, and was thrown in the back of a police van 15 minutes later. An entire hour later an ambulance was called to give him medical care, but he sadly fell into a coma died soon after. He suffered broken vertebra and an injured voice box, which required emergency spinal surgery that he never recovered from.

Many suspect that Gray was the victim of a “Nickel Ride”, a horrific police torture tactic where a suspect is handcuffed and placed in the back of a police van without restraints, and driven recklessly around town by police officers. This practice has also been called a “Rough Ride” or a “Cowboy Ride.”

Grays death resulted in the protests and riots that took place in Baltimore earlier this year. The police officers involved in his death are now standing trial for their crimes.

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Social Darwinism, Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

Climate Science for the Layman – Professor Happer

November 30, 2015

Climate science for the layman as Professor of Physics at Princeton University makes it simple.
For a technical summary by Happer see;…

December 4, 2015 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | | Leave a comment