These two progressive liberals, Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian, apparently haven’t heard that Trump’s decision to pull out was expressed many months ago.
Suddenly TYT cares about the Pentagon weighing in on the US getting out of regime change operations.
Oh, the Kurds have no choice but to cooperate with Syria and Russia and Iran vis-a-vis Turkey? Good.
The lawful and sensible solution is to have Syrian reunification.
Also, Assad is a democratically elected head of state. The UN election observers in Syria endorsed the election process. Bashar al-Assad is not a dictator!
The progressive news outlet TYT is engaging in Deep State-Mainstream media war propaganda and are thus in league with international terrorism [regime change ops and affiliated methods].
Experts say don’t believe news headlines that start with “Experts say.” And, in this case, the expert is me. Find out more in this week’s edition of #PropagandaWatch with James Corbett.
Did the CIA interfere in 1970s Australian politics? Former US intelligence operative and convicted spy, Christopher Boyce, tells his story to Australia’s Dateline program. Boyce’s intervention was made famous by Hollywood’s theatrical release of The Falcon and the Snowman. Boyce reveals covert US ‘regime change’ operations in Australia which would eventually remove the Labour Prime Minister from power, as Washington sought to protect its key intelligence gathering facilities located Down Under. Watch:
Presented by Mark Davis
Producers: SBS Dateline (2014)
Polls show that 100% of people love #PropagandaWatch and the vast majority of the viewing public thinks this is an excellent episode of the series. A recent survey found that everyone you know subscribes to The Corbett Report (and so should you!). What, you’re not one of those non-Corbett Report loving weirdos, are you?!
Today, I give you a frightening story about free speech censorship and watchlists just in time for the countdown to Halloween.
A recent article in The Tennessean reveals how the Williamson County School District (WCS) is monitoring students free speech and social media posts.
The WCS recently implemented a “threat surveillance program” called Gaggle, that is so invasive and frightening one would be hard pressed not to call it a “gag” program that limits students free speech.
When the WCS was asked to reveal specific details about what Gaggle and authorities are monitoring students speech for, they claimed they could not reveal any details “due to federal family protection laws.”
Public & private schools are joining the ranks of alphabet soup surveillance agencies like DHS, the FBI and the NSA claiming they cannot reveal surveillance details.
The Tennessean was able toshed some light on what Gaggle monitors by saying it, “operates using a mathematical algorithm to identify high risk words and phrases when students are logged into the district’s server.”
Gaggle’s video was a little more revealing, claiming that they monitor students social media posts 24/7 for things like:
profanity
insulting language
hate speech
provocative images
pornography
drug use
alcohol use and much more
When school districts and private corporations start monitoring students for things like profanity and insulting language, we should all be worried because it will not end there.
Soon social media providers will monitor everyone.
Parents think school districts have crossed the line with Gaggle.
“I’m concerned about the mining of all the other student-written text, regarding bullying, profanity, or anything offensive. Aren’t kids going to be too nervous to write anything that’s potentially controversial? What kind of education will they get if they’re walking on eggshells not to offend the computer algorithm?” WCS parent Thomas Morgan said.
Gaggle’s monitoring of students is a lot more invasive than what parents are being told.
Gaggle’s “Safety Management Dashboard” allows school staff and law enforcement to identify and track individual students who have the highest number of incidents.
The Gaggle Safety Management Dashboard allows superintendents, principals and other educators who are responsible for student safety to investigate and answer the following questions:
Which of my schools has the highest amount of incidents?
What educational tools are my students using most frequently?
How severe are the incidents Gaggle Safety Representatives discover?
Has the number of inappropriate incidents increased or decreased over time?
How does my school or district’s incident rate compare with national averages?
Mr. Morgan was right, students will be walking on eggshells because they will be afraid of getting put on a watchlist.
Gaggle’s Bloomington, Illinois staff, listens to and watches students social media content in real-time 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The video also revealed that at least seven school districts are using Gaggle: Oklahoma Public Schools, Cincinnati public schools, Duval public schools, Fort Wayne Community schools, Johnston County schools, Denver Public schools and last but not least the Williamson County School District.
The Tennessean revealed ahorrificvision of how school board members view monitoring students free speech.
“I don’t think it interferes with free speech. I think it is just like any other employer’s authority to monitor their network,” School board member Eliot Mitchell, 3rd District, an IT executive at a computer systems company said.
When faculty and law enforcement start viewing themselves as employers and students as employees, is it any wonder their free speech is in jeopardy?
What makes Gaggle’s incident tracking system even more disconcerting is that it builds a database of each student’s infraction[s] that will follow them throughout their lives.
Allowing corporations to create databases of our kids lives in school is horrendous. Soon no one will be able to escape being put on some type of government/corporate watchlist. That terrifies me.
The creation of Israel by seizing Palestinian land and expelling its 90 per cent Arab population is the root cause of terrorism, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in his speech at the UN, reports Malay Mail.
The Malaysian PM stated that since the creation of Israel “… wars have been fought in many countries, many related to the creation of Israel. And now we have terrorism when there was none before, or at least none on the present scale.”
Making his comments at the General Debate of the 74th UN General Assembly in New York, he added: “Military action against acts of terrorism will not succeed. We need to identify the cause and remove it. But the great powers refuse to deal with the root cause.”
The prime minister added that “… Malaysia cannot accept the blatant seizure of Palestine land by Israel for their settlements as well as the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel. The Palestinians cannot even enter the settlements built on their land…”
He went on to add: “Because of the creation of Israel, there is now enmity towards the Muslims and Islam. Muslims are accused of terrorism even if they did nothing. Muslim countries have been destabilised through the campaign for democracy and regime change. Muslims everywhere have been oppressed, expelled from their countries and refused asylum.”
“Thousands have died at sea and in the severe winters. One cannot deny that in the past there were no massive migration. Now the wars and instability due to regime change have forced them to run away from their countries,” he added.
Dr Mahathir also said that the application of the rule of law has been selective.
He said: “Friends may break any law and get away scot-free. Thus, Israel can break all the international laws and norms of the world and it will continue to be supported and defended. The unfriendly countries can do nothing right. There is no justice in the world.”
The protests in Hong Kong have entered their third month amid increasing violence. How did we get here? What triggered the protests? And why are they turning chaotic?
Strap in – I talk about IN-Q-Tel, who the Maxwell sisters married & their mega-huge impact on culture. I go in to Aaron Swartz, MIT Media Labs, the Santa Fe Institue, Edge.org, and the whole NASA / Jet Propulsion Labs Jack Parsons story with a mind-blower of an update on that! Also – did you know there was a project to put artists into the defense & tech corporations back in the 60s? It’s a pretty unbelievable story, which I share with you here. All that and MORE. BOOM BOOM BOOM.
The 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001. But there’s just one problem: Six out of the 10 commissioners have admitted that the commission was misled, stymied, hampered by conflicts of interest, and, ultimately, forced to participate in a politically-motivated cover-up. This is the story of the doubtful 9/11 commissioners.
To watch the full 9/11 Whistleblowers series, please CLICK HERE.
TRANSCRIPT
Of all the 9/11 whistleblowers, perhaps the most noteworthy are the 9/11 Commissioners themselves.
The 9/11 Commission (formally “The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States”) was set up by President George W. Bush, who dragged his heels a full 441 days before finally establishing a body to investigate the events of September 11, 2001, and “to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding” them. But that remarkable gap between the events and the empaneling of the Commission was not due to mere laziness; Bush actively resisted any investigation for as long as he could, taking the extraordinary and unprecedented step of personally asking Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit Congress’ investigation into those events.
It was only when the political pressure to form a commission of inquiry became too great for Bush to resist that he authorized the commission and nominated a chairman: Henry Kissinger.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Today I’m pleased to announce my choice for commission chairman: Dr. Henry Kissinger.
REPORTER: Dr. Kissinger, do you have any concerns about once the commission begins it work and fingers point to valuable allies—say, Saudi Arabia for example—what policy implications could this have for the United States, particularly at this delicate time?
HENRY KISSINGER: I have been given every assurance by the President that we should go where the facts lead us.
Kissinger’s reputation as a cover-up artist and tool of the political establishment was such that even The New York Times speculated that Bush’s nomination of him showed that the president wanted to contain the investigation into 9/11, not enable it. 9/11 victims’ family members, similarly concerned that Kissinger was being appointed to run a cover-up commission, challenged him to his face to release the client list of his political consulting business.
NARRATOR: Several family members approached Kissinger and requested a meeting at his office in New York. Prior to the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser conducted a thorough investigation of Kissinger’s potential conflicts of interest.
PATTY CASAZZA: Probably much to the chagrin of some of the people in the room, Lorie (Van Auken) asked some very pointed questions. “Would you have any Saudi-Amercian clients that you would like to tell us about?” And he was very uncomfortable, kind of twisting and turning on the couch. And then she asked, “whether he had any clients by the name of Bin-Laden?”And he just about fell off his couch.
NEWS REPORTER: Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, stepped down from the position Friday.
MINDY KLEINBERG: We thought the meeting went well.
The next morning, Kissinger resigned his post as head of the 9/11 Commission and former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton were appointed chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, to take his place.
Remarkably, the suggestions of political cover-up did not end there, nor were they confined to a marginalized “lunatic fringe” of “conspiracy theorists” derided by the establishment media. The remarkable and almost completely unreported fact is that six out of the 10 commissioners—Kean and Hamilton, as well as Bob Kerrey, Tim Roemer, John Lehman and Max Cleland—have all expressed concern that the commission was misled, stymied, hampered by conflicts of interest, and, ultimately, forced to participate in a politically-motivated cover-up.
In their book, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, and in press conferences and interviews at the time the report was released, Kean and Hamilton famously remarked that the commission had been “set up to fail.”
EVAN SOLOMON: Even Lee Hamilton, the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission itself, admits to us that the process he headed up was seriously flawed.
LEE HAMILTON: So there are all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We got started late. We had a very short time frame; indeed we had to get it extended. We did not have enough money. They were afraid we were going to hang somebody.
As it turns out, the majority of the commissioners felt that the commission had been lied to, deliberately obstructed, undermined by the White House, or set up with staff that had conflicts of interest in the investigation.
One of these concerned commissioners, Max Cleland, resigned because the commission had been “deliberately compromised by the president of the United States.”
Commissioner John Lehman, meanwhile, admitted on NBC Nightly News that the commission had to go through Karl Rove and other senior White House members to access key documents in their investigation and that “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way – conflicts of interest,” stressing, lest there be any doubt, that “All of the staff had, to a certain extent, some conflict of interest.”
Commission members even considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military’s complete lack of response on that day.
But perhaps the most cryptic of all the dissenting commisioners was Bob Kerrey. In 2009 he remarked that 9/11 was a “30-year old conspiracy,” but no mainstream reporter has ever followed up with him to clarify this statement.
JEREMY ROTHE-KUSHEL: Do you support a criminal investigation into 9/11? Because I know yours was an exposition. It was not a criminal investigation.
BOB KERREY: I don’t think so, but I don’t know. I mean, I do support a permanent commission to examine not just that but lots of other things in this area.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: But if it’s a permanent cover-up then it’s—I mean, if it an act of war and it’s hiding things—which everyone on your commission knew, that the Pentagon was changing their stories, lying to you—then it’s a cover up of an act of war, and under Article 3 Section 3 of the constitution it’s treason. So unless we get to the very bottom of it then we’re still talking a treasonous exposition.
KERREY: This is a longer conversation, I’m not sure we’ll ever get to the bottom of it.
ROTHE-KUSHEL: We have to or we can’t save our country, sir.
KERREY: I don’t think—Well, if that’s the that’s the condition upon which we’re going to be saving our country—Because the problem is, it’s a 30 year old conspiracy.
It is utterly remarkable that the 9/11 Commission and its final report are still held up as the final word on the events of September 11, 2001, when a majority of its own commissioners admit that the commission was a cover up and did not get to the bottom of the story. Even more remarkable is that this fact has never even been mentioned, let alone examined, in any mainstream media report. And, despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe the government is concealing what it knows about the events of September 11th from the public, to this day anyone who raises questions about the commission or its findings is treated as a conspiratorial loony by those same media personalities that refuse to report on the 9/11 Commission’s own whistleblowers.
It should be apparent by this point that the old argument that “someone would have talked” is not just fallacious, but factually incorrect. There have, in fact, been numerous whistleblowers with documentable evidence of the frauds and fictions that have been constructed around the official 9/11 narrative. Their disclosures put the “But someone would have talked” doubters in an uncomfortable predicament: Either they are lazy—boldly pronouncing on issues they have not themselves bothered to investigate—or they are lying.
What is especially galling when the so-called “skeptics” use the “someone would have talked” fallacy is that the whistleblowers have in fact done everything possible to publicize their stories—holding press conferences, filing formal appeals, joining whistleblower organizations, and making themselves available for interviews. For their heroic efforts, these brave men and women have been fired from their jobs, shunned by former colleagues, smeared by the mainstream media, and ignored by the public.
“Someone would have talked.” Indeed, numerous “someones” have talked. Some of them have even screamed. But when their cries are ignored, the stories of the 9/11 whistleblowers sound like the proverbial trees falling in the forest with no one around to hear them. Unless and until we give these valiant men and women a voice, then we will never hope to learn the truth about 9/11.
A solid majority of Americans who watch the Sept. 11, 2001, collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on video don’t buy the government’s story that fires brought it down, according to a new survey conducted by YouGov on behalf of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth).
After viewing video footage of the controversial building collapse from four different angles, 52% of Americans who participated in the survey are either sure or suspect it was caused by a controlled demolition, compared to 21% who are sure or suspect it was caused by ordinary fires. A sizable 27% say they don’t know.
By a similar margin, 51% who see the collapse say they are more inclined to believe the critics who argue that only the use of explosives in a controlled demolition can account for Building 7’s collapse, versus 20% who say they are more inclined to believe the government’s conclusion that fires caused the collapse. (To define “critics,” the survey references a group of 3,000 architects and engineers who have disputed the government’s report as well as researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who performed computer modeling of Building 7’s collapse and also concluded that fires could not have caused the collapse).
By a substantial 3-to-1 margin, 48% say they would support a new investigation into Building 7’s collapse (24% strongly support, 24% support) compared with just 15% who say they would oppose a new investigation (6% strongly oppose, 9% oppose). Meanwhile, 28% say they neither support nor oppose a new investigation, and 9% say they don’t know.
“The lopsided margin between those who suspect it was explosives and those who suspect it was fires really begs the question as to how and why this issue has been marginalized for so long,” said Ted Walter, who is director of strategy for AE911Truth. “Clearly, if the media were to do its job and provide the most basic information about 9/11 to the American people — or if a few elected officials started talking seriously about Building 7 — the public would be up in arms demanding a new investigation.”
Underscoring the absence of media coverage of Building 7, only 64% of participants said they were aware of a third skyscraper collapsing on 9/11 — and just 14% could name the building.
Last week, AE911Truth, along with researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, released the draft report of a four-year computer modeling study of the tower’s collapse. “The report confirms what most Americans suspect when they see the collapse,” said Walter. “Building 7 did not come down from fires.”
A while ago, I received an email from a friend who asked:
How can many, many respected, competitive, independent science folks be so wrong about [global warming] (if your [skeptical] premise is correct). I don’t think it could be a conspiracy, or incompetence. … Has there ever been another case when so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?
The answer to the second part of my friend’s question—“Has there ever been another case where so many ‘leading’ scientific minds got it so wrong?”—is easy. Yes, there are many such cases, both within and outside climate science. In fact, the graveyard of science is littered with the bones of theories that were once thought “certain” (e.g., that the continents can’t “drift,” that Newton’s laws were immutable, and hundreds if not thousands of others).
Science progresses by the overturning of theories once thought “certain.” … continue
This site is provided as a research and reference tool. Although we make every reasonable effort to ensure that the information and data provided at this site are useful, accurate, and current, we cannot guarantee that the information and data provided here will be error-free. By using this site, you assume all responsibility for and risk arising from your use of and reliance upon the contents of this site.
This site and the information available through it do not, and are not intended to constitute legal advice. Should you require legal advice, you should consult your own attorney.
Nothing within this site or linked to by this site constitutes investment advice or medical advice.
Materials accessible from or added to this site by third parties, such as comments posted, are strictly the responsibility of the third party who added such materials or made them accessible and we neither endorse nor undertake to control, monitor, edit or assume responsibility for any such third-party material.
The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.
The word “alleged” is deemed to occur before the word “fraud.” Since the rule of law still applies. To peasants, at least.
Fair Use
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more info go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
DMCA Contact
This is information for anyone that wishes to challenge our “fair use” of copyrighted material.
If you are a legal copyright holder or a designated agent for such and you believe that content residing on or accessible through our website infringes a copyright and falls outside the boundaries of “Fair Use”, please send a notice of infringement by contacting atheonews@gmail.com.
We will respond and take necessary action immediately.
If notice is given of an alleged copyright violation we will act expeditiously to remove or disable access to the material(s) in question.
All 3rd party material posted on this website is copyright the respective owners / authors. Aletho News makes no claim of copyright on such material.
Aletho News
Aletho News 