• Home
  • Media/ Media Corruption

The Shocking Soros 'Speech Code Cartel' Memo

Exclusive: Joseph Farah on most 'diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America'


By Joseph Farah
WorldNetDaily.com

You can’t make this stuff up.

Never, even in my fertile imagination, would I have guessed that we would find a smoking-gun 49-page memo revealing how George Soros operatives, including David Brock, were there at the genesis, the planning stages, with their hands on the ignition key, of the most concerted, well-funded, diabolical attack on free speech in the history of America.

But there it is.

Millions saw it on the DrudgeReport – including, no doubt, President Trump, Vice President Pence and Republican congressional leaders. But most Americans still know nothing of its existence – because it was not reported among the Big Media. They don’t want you to know about it. They would be embarrassed if America found out how they have been used and manipulated – from their focus on “Russian collusion” to other wild conspiracy theories targeting their No. 1 villain, President Trump.

It was nothing short of a plan to turn Google, Facebook and other social media into hyper-partisan Democratic Party activists, promoters, cheerleaders, and off-the-books donors in an effort to turn the country into a one-party state.

And they’re getting away with it, even though the beans have been spilled publicly. That’s partly because, as I have pointed out before, Google-Facebook control the media. They use the media. They manipulate the media. They choose winners and losers among the media. That’s real power that we have never seen before in American life.

The timing of this insidious plot is key. When did it begin? Right after Trump was inaugurated. That’s when the attacks on the independent, alternative media – WND, Breitbart, et al. – began. We’ve been feeling the squeeze ever since – through politically skewed algorithms and speech codes.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

The Weekly Standard’s Ties to Fusion GPS


 


By Julie Kelly
AmGreatness.com

In his online appeal for money after being fired this week, disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok credited an unlikely source to vouch for his victim status: The Weekly Standard.

At one time a leading conservative magazine, the Standard declared last month that Strzok’s plight was merely an “overwrought tale of bias” and the case against him is “just sound and fury.” The article brushed off Strzok’s actions as “several bad judgment calls” and blasted Congressional Republicans for continuing a criminal investigation into the now-unemployed G-man.

Strzok is following only 32 people on his newly-verified Twitter account. Bill Kristol, the editor-at-large of the Standard, is one of them.

So, what’s with the fanboying between the Standard—an allegedly serious publication dedicated to advancing conservative principles—and a corrupt government bureaucrat who embodies everything the conservative movement fought against for decades?

I found an article in the Standard archives this week that might explain why. On July 24, 2016, just days before Strzok helped launch a counterintelligence probe into the Trump campaign, Kristol gave Strzok and the Obama Justice Department a big assist from the anti-Trump Right by posting a flawed and questionably-sourced article. “Putin’s Party” is compelling evidence that Kristol and the Standard were far from mere sideline observers as the Trump-Russia collusion scam took shape in the summer of 2016.

At the very least, the timing of the article suggests there was careful coordination between the central players—including the Hillary Clinton campaign—and Bill Kristol to derail Trump’s candidacy just weeks before the election. But the article’s content also serves to raise alarming questions about the claims by many Republicans that “conservatives” had no knowledge of or involvement with the Christopher Steele dossier.

Let’s back up a bit. On the morning that Kristol’s piece posted, the Trump-Russian election collusion story was in its embryonic stage—nearly all American voters that summer remained blissfully unaware of the details in this preposterous story—but secretly it was being peddled to the media by Fusion GPS, a political opposition research firm hired by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee to dig up Russian-related dirt on Donald Trump. Talking points produced by Glenn Simpson, the head of Fusion, and contained in the Steele dossier, were making the rounds in the D.C.-NYC media claque during July 2016. (At the same time, Steele was working with the FBI and alerting the agency to his dubious findings about the Trump campaign.)

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Video: The CIA Weaponized the Concepts of “Conspiracy Theories” and “Fake News” to Enslave the Masses


 
 
 

 

“Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.

CIA Conspiracy Theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the “New Right.” Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively “weaponizing” the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question.

This important memorandum and its broad implications for American politics and public discourse are detailed in a book by Florida State University political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, Conspiracy Theory in America. Dr. deHaven-Smith devised the state crimes against democracy concept to interpret and explain potential government complicity in events such as the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the major political assassinations of the 1960s, and 9/11.

CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request by the New York Times. The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”

The memorandum lays out a detailed series of actions and techniques for “countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.” For example, approaching “friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors)” to remind them of the Warren Commission’s integrity and soundness should be prioritized. “[T]he charges of the critics are without serious foundation,” the document reads, and “further speculative discussion only plays in to the hands of the [Communist] opposition.”

The agency also directed its members “[t]o employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose.”

1035-960 further delineates specific techniques for countering “conspiratorial” arguments centering on the Warren Commission’s findings. Such responses and their coupling with the pejorative label have been routinely wheeled out in various guises by corporate media outlets, commentators and political leaders to this day against those demanding truth and accountability about momentous public events.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Twitter Responds To Conservative Outrage As VICE Confirms "Shadow Ban" Reports


ZeroHedge.com

A Wednesday article in VICE confirmed a report from last week by the Daily Wire's Ryan Saavedra which revealed that Twitter has been "shadow banning" conservative users by limiting the number of people who are able to view content from the affected users. 

While last week's discussion focused on a site-wide "Quality Filter Discrimination" shadow ban, which prevents anyone not already following a user from viewing their posts, Vice notes that many conservative accounts aren't able to be found when typing names into the Twitter search engine. 

The Republican Party’s chair Ronna McDaniel, several conservative Republican Congressmen, and Donald Trump Jr.’s spokesman no longer appear in the auto-populated drop-down search box on Twitter, VICE News has learned. It’s a shift that diminishes their reach on the platform — and the same one being deployed against prominent racists to limit their visibility. The profiles continue to appear when conducting a full search — but not in the more convenient and visible drop-down bar. (The accounts appear to also populate if you already follow the person.)

Vice found the same wasn't true for Democrats: 

Democrats are not being “shadow banned” in the same way, according to a VICE News review. McDaniel’s counterpart, Democratic Party chair Tom Perez, and liberal members of Congress — including Reps. Maxine Waters, Joe Kennedy III, Keith Ellison, and Mark Pocan — all continue to appear in drop-down search results. Not a single member of the 78-person Progressive Caucus faces the same in Twitter’s search.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Everything About Time Magazine “Crying Girl” Immigration Propaganda Story is False….


TheConservativeTreehouse.com

Time magazine decided to take “fake” news to new levels of jaw-cropping falsity with their latest story of a Honduran toddler crying while accompanying her mother into the U.S.

Dozens of newspapers and magazines around the globe published a picture of a little girl and her mother Sandra Sanchez trying to get into the U.S., but everything about the story is false.

The two-year old and her mother were never separated; additionally, Mrs. Sandra Sanchez was previously deported for illegal border crossing.  This is the second time Sandra Sanchez was stopped attempting to gain entry, making her effort a felony under U.S. law.

The father of the child has told media and government officials, and the Honduran government confirms, the toddler’s mom abandoned her other three children in Honduras and there was no economic hardship.   Everything about this story is fabricated; however, that didn’t stop the media and politicians from attempting to exploit the narrative.

Washington – […] As more information comes out about the situation of Sandra Sanchez and her 2-year-old daughter, ICE confirmed on Friday that Sanchez was previously deported in 2013. (read more)

Reuters is reporting after contact with the child’s father:

 

“My daughter has become a symbol of the … separation of children at the U.S. border. She may have even touched President Trump’s heart,” Denis Valera told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Valera said the little girl and her mother, Sandra Sanchez, have been detained together in the Texas border town of McAllen, where Sanchez has applied for asylum, and they were not separated after being detained near the border.  Honduran deputy foreign minister Nelly Jerez confirmed Valera’s version of events.

Varela said he was awestruck and pained when he first saw the photo of his crying daughter on TV. “Seeing what was happening to her in that moment breaks anyone’s heart,” he said.

The photo was used on a Facebook fundraiser that drew more than $17 million dollars in donations from close to half a million people for the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), a Texas-based nonprofit that provides legal defense services to immigrants and refugees.

[…] Sanchez and her daughter had left Puerto Cortes, a major Honduran port north of the capital city, Tegucigalpa, without telling Valera or the couple’s three other children, he said.

He said he imagined that Sanchez left with the little girl for the United States, where she has family, in search of better economic opportunities.

“If they are deported, that is OK as long as they do not leave the child without her mother,” Valera said. “I am waiting to see what happens with them.”  (read more)

Time Magazine issues a correction, but will not retract the story despite the entire claim surrounding the narrative being entirely manufactured:

Today on the floor of the Senate Democrats use the picture to continue a false immigration enforcement narrative:

Democrat politicians and their media enablers are willing to fabricate any story in order to advance political goals.  This is the essence of “FAKE NEWS”:

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

John Kelly's Scathing Criticism of 'Vicious' Press on NPR Left on the Cutting-Room Floor


By Tim Graham
NewsBusters.org

White House chief of staff John Kelly surprised the liberal media by granting an interview to National Public Radio, something Donald Trump hasn't done in his brief political career. Kelly talked to John Burnett, who knew Kelly as a press briefer when he was embedded with the troops in southern Iraq. In this interview, Kelly was scathing about the press, and guess what? Those comments didn't make the story, which aired on Friday's Morning Edition. 

Take this passage from the partial NPR transcript:

JOHN BURNETT: So what's harder — commanding Marines in a combat zone in Iraq or bringing order to the Trump White House?

JOHN KELLY: Working in the White House is the hardest thing I've ever done in my life, bar none.

BURNETT: Talk about that.

KELLY: Well, first, with all due respect to people like yourselves, I was not ready for the press that covers a White House. All of my time, and you remember it a little bit, I think, we were pretty good to you guys. We had a good team effort going in the field. When I was working in the Pentagon at a higher level, senior level the Pentagon press corps were really good to work with. I mean they, they seldom wrote or did the story you wanted to read, naturally, but they were really professional in trying to get the accurate aspect of every story. It wasn't personal. It was pretty professional. And I still call some of them ... good acquaintances. This is vastly different. This is — it's personal, it's vicious. ...

I did my first off the record [interview] — that was immediately violated. But after about six weeks in a job one of the reporters said to me, "Look you were our worst nightmare. This place was a clown show before you showed up. We didn't think this president would last a year [or] 18 months. Now that you're here, there's order to the place. The leaks all but went away. So, sorry but you got to go." So here I am, sitting, still here.

BURNETT: With your background valuing chain of command and military discipline, do you feel like you've brought some discipline and integrity to this inner circle?

They overstate that, press covers that a lot. Again, I don't mean to be too hard on the press but they — I know everything. Right? And so when I read the press accounts of what's going on here, I say, "gee, how could they have gotten that that wrong?" So I think the press, and maybe it's because only certain people talk and those people maybe leak or are sources — and maybe those people aren't as honorable as they should be. But when I read what they write, I think to myself they may have had some low-level source and that's — and to write a story like that — whatever "that" is for a major newspaper like the Post or the Times — to base it on almost rumor strikes me as being a little bit — not the way to do business.

Why does this part get buried? Can't the "Democracy Dies in Darkness" braggarts try to offer a self-defense when they're called vicious and unprofessional? Is offering a source anonymity sometimes used because the actual source is not impressive? The media don't want you to see how they make their slanted sausage. 

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Is Trump’s Threat to Remove Press Credentials Really an Attack on Press?


By Selwyn Duke
TheNewAmerican.com

In threatening to deny White House access to news organs peddling “fake news,” President Trump has been accused of launching a full-court press against the press. But, ironically, the notion that such an action constitutes an attack on media freedom is itself an example of fake news.

The Daily Mail reports on the story:

President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday that he might revoke White House credentials for some journalists, following the publication of a survey that showed a dramatic leftward tilt in television news coverage about him.

The Media Research Center, a conservative watchdog group, tracked the evening newscasts on ABC, CBS and NBC for the first four months of this year and found more than 1,600 ‘explicitly positive and negative’ statements about the president.

The group determined that nine out of 10 of those broadcast statements were negative. It did not include CNN and MSNBC in its research.

Trump vented, saying: “The Fake News is working overtime. Just reported that, despite the tremendous success we are having with the economy & all things else, 91% of the Network News about me is negative (Fake). Why do we work so hard in working with the media when it is corrupt? Take away credentials?”

Interestingly, the Mail did not fail to prove Trump’s point, writing in its headline that the president’s proposal was the “latest attack on [a] free press.” This itself is fake news.

Continue Reading

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)

Big Media Company Withholds FBI Investigative Bombshell For Months

Shielding Mueller, Hillary & FBI Brass from Publicity Disaster


By TruePundit.com Investigative Bureau

A major media company has tabled and potentially buried an investigative blowout on the FBI which implicates Robert Mueller, Andrew McCabe and even Hillary Clinton, according to well-placed sources.

True Pundit’s Thomas Paine has contacted the editor of the mainstream publication and put the large publisher on notice: Either publish the story or True Pundit will out the players involved in keeping the story hush and locked down for months.

President Obama and key members of his administration too could be implicated in the story, sources report.

The publisher has reportedly been sitting on the blockbuster story for five months. Now, FBI sources who contributed to the story are beginning to question the publication’s motives.

A cover up or merely editorial complications?

Below is an email Paine dispatched to the Big Media editor on Sunday demanding the release of this important story which details the FBI’s tangled role in negotiating the release of a U.S. citizen being held hostage abroad.

Paine’s correspondence, in part, details challenges for other news publications to gather Intel on the story:

“This is a timely and important story that neither we nor any other media has been able to develop and report because again, you’ve locked down sources. Normally we would work around this but this is a unique story and we do not have that luxury as the group of well-placed sources is very close knit.

“Cut it loose (publish it or kill it) or we can write about you not cutting it loose. And you can answer to other folks — including the loyal FBI-linked sources — why you sat on the story for months when the issue of FBI corruption is at its peak of national interest. That is not something I’d like to do but either way, the story gets out in the public domain.”

“We’ve extended a courtesy here,” Paine said. “I’ve worked major national stories but when a story sits in the tank for five and six months it indicates something larger at the publication is at play, something beyond the reporter’s control.

“The goal right now is to get the story in print. Mission here before ego. This story is too important not be be seen by the public”

One way or another.

If the story is not released this week, Paine said he will expose the publication and additional unredacted details.

Tick tock.

  • Currently 0.00/5
Rating: 0.00/5 (0 votes cast)