Thursday, October 6, 2022

Israel Is Directly Arming at Least 7 Syrian Rebel Groups

by Jason Ditz, The Anti Media:

Israel’s mounting interest in Syria’s War, and in particular in picking fights with the Assad government, Iran, and any other Shi’ite factions in the country, have included reports by analysts of a growing amount of Israeli arms and ammunition flowing across the border for rebels.

Officially, Israel isn’t a big fan on Sunni Islamist organizations. Such groups are the bulk of the rebellion on the Golan frontier, and that’s made them groups Israel has a very serious interest in seeing survive and thrive on the border.

Analysts say Israel is directly arming at least seven groups in the area. To be clear, no specific factions are named in any of these reports, but past reports have put Israel on the side of some very unfashionable groups, like al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which have been active in the area for some time.

Read More @ TheAntiMedia.com

EXPOSED: Left-wing “fact checkers” are nothing more than sleazy censors of content they don’t like

0

by Jayson Veley, Natural News:

If George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were somehow resurrected and got a chance to experience a week in 2018 America, they would no doubt be in shock at the left’s incessant attempts to curb the First Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree. While political censorship is occurring at virtually every level of American society, it is perhaps most prominent on the Internet, where so-called “fact checkers” are now suppressing conservative content in the name of upholding the truth.

On Tuesday, several prominent conservatives participated in the Social Media Neutrality Panel at the Newseum in Washington D.C., including Jim Hoft of The Gateway Pundit, Pamela Geller of The Geller Report, Margaret Howell of Rightside Broadcasting, tech entrepreneur Marlene Jaeckel and Oleg Atbashian from The People’s Cube.

At one point during the event, Oleg Atbashian, who is an author, satirist and graphic artist from the former USSR, commented on how supposed “fact checkers” that are hired by Silicon Valley to moderate certain content and information on the Internet are not only disingenuous, but also working to destroy all points of view that do not align with the progressive agenda. For Atbashian’s full statement on the issue, you can watch the video below:

Quite frankly, Atbashian couldn’t be any more correct. For years now, websites like Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter have been taking steps to curb what they consider to be “hateful” or “inaccurate” information, which incidentally, always seems to be articles or posts that contain conservative messages. In this way, the title of “fact checkers” that these people have given themselves is really just a front – they claim to stand for the truth so that nobody bothers to look into their true goals and motives. But as conservative content continues to be targeted for suppression and censorship, that mask is finally beginning to slip off. (Related: Google, Facebook and Twitter are now routinely violating the First Amendment to silence all non-conforming voices.)

One of the most blatant examples of censorship from these so-called Internet fact checkers occurred back in October of last year, when Twitter blocked a pro-life campaign ad put out by GOP Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s Senate campaign team over concerns that the ad may offend some viewers.

In the ad, Blackburn, who had previously chaired a House panel investigating Planned Parenthood’s sale of fetal tissue, claims to have “stopped the sale of baby body parts.” Not long after the campaign ad was published on Twitter, a representative for the social media giant reached out to Blackburn’s team and explained that the ad’s reference to fetal tissue was “deemed an inflammatory statement that is likely to evoke a strong negative reaction.” (Related: An undercover video of Twitter engineers has revealed how tech giants have devolved into dangerous left-wing censorship regimes.)

Read More @ NaturalNews.com

Woman Pulled From Public Hearing While Listing Corporate Donations to Reps

0

by Annabelle Bamforth, Freedom Outpost:

It’s good to know that some citizens are well aware and have the courage to reveal this information to the public. Then there are the powers that be that stand ready to silence them.

A West Virginia resident and House of Delegates candidate was physically removed from a public hearing at the West Virginia House of Delegates shortly after she began reading a list of donations made to delegates by the energy industry, during discussion of a bill aimed at easing restrictions on gas and oil-related drilling on private land.

Lissa Lucas, Democratic candidate for District 7 of the West Virginia House of Delegates., appeared at the state capitol to testify regarding House Bill 4268, “which would allow a majority of 75 percent of owners or heirs of a single piece of property to determine whether the property could be developed for oil or gas production” according to WVNews. Lucas claimed that those speaking in favor of the bill and some voting on the bill were being paid by “the industry.”

“I have to keep this short because the public only gets a minute and 45 seconds while lobbyists can throw a gala at the Marriott with whiskey and wine and talk for hours to the delegates,” Lucas said.

She went on to list oil and gas donations that have been made to members of the House Judiciary Committee— which included Committee chairman John Shott, who quickly opposed Lucas’ listing of names.

“John Shott. First Energy $2,000. Appalachian Power $2,000. Steptoe & Johnson—that’s a gas and oil law firm—$2,000. Consol Energy $1,000. EQT $1,000. And I could go on,” Lucas said.

Shott then said, “Miss Lucas, we ask that no personal comments be made?”

Read More @ FreedomOutpost.com

Kim Dotcom: “Let Me Assure You, The DNC Hack Wasn’t Even A Hack”

0

from ZeroHedge:

Kim Dotcom has once again chimed in on the DNC hack, following a Sunday morning tweet from President Trump clarifying his previous comments on Russian meddling in the 2016 election. 

In response, Dotcom tweeted “Let me assure you, the DNC hack wasn’t even a hack. It was an insider with a memory stick. I know this because I know who did it and why,” adding “Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied. 360 pounds!” alluding of course to Trump’s “400 pound genius” comment. 

Dotcom’s assertion is backed up by an analysis done last year by a researcher who goes by the name Forensicator, who determined that the DNC files were copied at 22.6 MB/s – a speed virtually impossible to achieve from halfway around the world, much less over a local network – yet a speed typical of file transfers to a memory stick.

Read More @ ZeroHedge.com

Italy’s poor elderly want food while the country’s migrants complain about Wi-Fi signals

0

from Voice Of Europe:

Italy accepted hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants since 2014. Most of them are from Africa and the Middle East.

On Youtube a shocking video compares Italy’s elderly with the migrants. The results are devastating.

Read More @ VoiceOfEurope.com

Robert Mueller III Indicts Some Russian Social Media Trolls: Indictment Scams the American People

0

by Barbara Boyd, LaRouchePac.com:

In the first two weeks of February, things looked really bad for the coup being run against the President of the United States. Congress, in the form of the House Intelligence Committee, announced that it would be publishing a series of three memos exposing how the coup was fomented. If the first memo, published on Feb. 2nd concerning a deliberate fraud on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court by former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney Sally Yates, and others, is any guide, criminal investigation of the Obama White House is on the agenda.

The House Intelligence Committee, backed by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has announced that two upcoming memos will expose the role of key State Department personnel and Obama’s intelligence chiefs, respectively, in the coup. The track being followed by Congressional investigators is centered on the use of a very dirty dossier about Donald Trump produced by British intelligence agent Christopher Steele as part of a full spectrum British/Obama information warfare operation designed to defeat Trump in the 2016 election. Failing that, the British and Obama set out to poison Trump’s presidency and impeach him.

Senators Chuck Grassley and Lindsey Graham had already referred Steele to the U.S. Department of Justice for criminal prosecution. Something, clearly, had to be done to turn the tables or, at least, slow the charge. Something had to be done to take the focus away from the actual British criminals and their U.S. co-conspirators and refurbish the increasingly discredited Russiagate myth. Enter the ever dutiful Robert Mueller III and his flimsy Feb. 16 indictment of 13 Russians and 3 Russian companies which allegedly conspired to interfere in the 2016 U.S. election.

A few things are of note just on the surface of this case. The indictment, written and formulated like a press release rather than a legal document, will never have its factual basis challenged in court. Mueller knows this. The U.S. has no extradition treaty with Russia, and the Russian Constitution bars extradition of Russian citizens. According to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the Russians fooled the Trump campaign by pretending to be Americans, based on stolen identities. There is no allegation of “collusion” with the Trump campaign. 

Read LaRouchePAC’s dossier, “Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him”

There is no claim that this operation affected the vote in the Presidential election, nor could there be, as the expenditures alleged for this amateurish hit-or-miss social media operation were completely dwarfed, by huge orders of magnitude, by the expenditures made by Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders, and associated PACS and organizations.

But, oh those evil Russian “bad actors” who “meddled” in an American election, as even the President initially tweeted. As we have repeatedly warned, the strategic context of the coup against Trump is an all out effort to preserve the Anglo-American order against what is perceived to be the rising power of China, now allied with Russia. China has constantly and persistently invited the United States to join its One Belt, One Road initiative, the largest infrastructure development project ever undertaken in world history. Trump’s reasoned approach to both Russia and China is seen as an existential threat to the continued Anglo-American partnership which has dominated the world since Franklin Roosevelt’s death.

Russiagate’s initial narrative, that Russians hacked the DNC and John Podesta’s email accounts to damage the Clinton campaign and elect Trump, has been discredited by the work of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. William Binney, a former technical director of the NSA, states that if such Russian hacking occurred, the NSA would have the evidence of it and would have found a way to produce it. The VIPS also conducted a scientific experiment demonstrating that the source of the WikiLeaks DNC emails was a leak, not a hack. Now, the emphasis has shifted to another claim in the January 2017, evidence-free “assessment,” of supposed Russian interference by three of Obama’s intelligence chiefs—this one the claim that the Russians ran a social media campaign designed to support Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, and later to roil the existing divisions in American society. This social media campaign was run from an entity called the Internet Research Agency in St. Petersburg, Russia, according to the 2017 Obama intelligence assessment and Mueller’s indictment.

Read More @ LaRouchePac.com

Opinion: Fearless Adversarial Journalism Doesn’t Work When You Are Funded By A Billionaire

0

by Elizabeth Vos, Disobedient Media:

Disobedient Media previously opined on the dagger-in-the-back publication of a hit piece against Wikileaks’ Julian Assange just one day after a UK magistrate, with blatant conflict of interest in the matter, shot down his legal representatives’ attempt to finally free him from the confines of the Ecuadorian embassy.

What that article did not address was the patently obvious terminal illness suffered by The Intercept. That is, the outlet claims to publish “fearless, adversarial” reporting, while it is funded by a billionaire. Ken Silverstein, formerly employed at The Intercept and by Omidyar’s First Look Media, has described endemic problems at the outlet that have risen directly out of Omidyar’s leadership or lack thereof.

The fundamental problem facing The Intercept is not ultimately about how or why the outlet published a smear specifically timed to cut support away from Assange, even though that is in and of itself despicable. It’s that doing so acts in support of the very deep state and moneyed, military interests that The Intercept purports to critique “fearlessly.”

Adding to a sense of betrayal of The Intercept’s principles in the wake of the outlet’s hit-piece is the fact that a number of writers at the publication are by all accounts on good terms with Assange, and have worked with mutual supporters including the superb Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi. Maurizi collaborated with Wikileaks on the verification of documents for many years, and worked with Glenn Greenwald on preparation for the disclosure of the Snowden files.

Adding to the years of support Greenwald has shown Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder also sent Wikileaks’ own Sarah Harrison to the aid of Snowden after he was marooned in Hong Kong in 2013, an act which Stefania Maurizi revealed very likely cost the publisher his freedom.

After the publication of the Snowden files, the UK ceased any attempt to create a legal process by which Assange might have been safely freed, and in the same year pressured Sweden to continue its investigation after the country’s authorities expressed their intent to drop the matter. Likewise, in the wake of Assange’s actions towards Snowden, the Obama White House changed its stance from a reluctant acceptance that prosecution of WikiLeaks for publishing might not be possible given that US publishers had also published the same material.

Snowden’s revelations also provided much of the impetus for the launch of The Intercept as an outlet, after Glenn Greenwald departed from The Guardian. In this way, Assange’s story and his fate in the Ecuadorian embassy is inextricably linked with the origin of The Intercept’s rise on the back of the Snowden revelations.

Only a few months later, in October 2013 while Snowden was still stuck in a Moscow airport and out of reach of US authorities and The Intercept was gearing up for launch, the UK made it clear to the Swedish prosecutor that she should not drop her investigation and European Arrest Warrant for Assange, even though Sweden’s law on proportionality required her to do so.

In the wake of Snowden’s escape to Russia, Assange remained trapped in 30 square meters of an embassy and lost any hope that had existed earlier in 2013 that he would soon be released from that space, where we now know he cannot receive even the most basic medical care. Meanwhile, The Intercept has become what it set out to destroy.

The relationship between Assange and The intercept makes it impossible to see the organization’s publication of an intrinsically flawed smear piece aimed at Assange as anything other than a deep betrayal.

Which brings us inevitably to Pierre Omidyar. That the multi-billionaire Ebay founder despises Trump and would have preferred former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to assume the mantle of the Presidency is an understatement, but to focus only on his political outlook also misses the point of the larger issue facing The Intercept.

The billionaire’s incoherent vision of the First Amendment (disturbing for someone who funds journalistic endeavors) aside, the nature of The Intercept’s fatal catch-22 would remain if Omidyar woke up tomorrow to become a MAGA-hat wearing, NRA-supporting conservative. That is, a media outlet cannot perform as an ‘independent and adversarial’ entity when it is birthed within and nurtured by the very establishment it must confront.

When USA Today reported that Omidyar would contribute $250 million to pursue “independent journalism,” a genetic malfunction was written into the Intercept’s DNA. One cannot operate in an adversarial manner when one is supported directly by the same moneyed interests that require the most scrutiny and transparency of all.

That the magnate’s influence would seep, tide-like, into the reporting and editorial decisions of The Intercept seems difficult to ignore, but it is that inevitable creep itself and not the flavor of his beliefs which makes the situation so damning for The Intercept.

I’ve previously written at length in an effort to describe the chilling uniformity that ultimately pervades the plutocratic class. Being a billionaire makes Pierre Omidyar much more like one of the Koch Brothers than any liberal without access to the same magnitude of wealth and influence in the US political sphere. The fact that wealth translates to political influence was described in a Princeton University study, indicating that the United States operates as a plutocracy. In that light, it is the wealth that binds Omidyar, the Kochs and their ilk, as opposed to political outlook.

Read More @ DisobedientMedia.com

REPORT: Andrew McCabe Altered Peter Strzok’s 302 Notes on General Flynn interview – Then Destroyed Evidence

by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit:

Investigative journalist Mike Cernovich dropped a hot story on Sunday night.

According to Mike, former Deputy Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Andrew McCabe altered far left FBI investigator Peter Strzok’s notes on his interview with General Michael Flynn.

And then McCabe destroyed the evidence.

This comes after Byron York reported that former FBI Director James Comey told lawmakers Flynn did not lieunder oath.

Then Flynn was indicted by the Mueller witch hunt months later for lying.
What changed?
According to Cernovich Andrew McCabe altered Strzok’s 302 reports — then destroyed the evidence.

In March he’ll retire with 1.8 million in pension, paid by us, the taxpayers.

He needs to be fired and put in prison, not nobly retired.

Via Mike Cernovich:

Read More @ TheGatewayPundit.com

Hungary’s PM Orban Accuses Soros of Buying Influence at Brussels and UN

0

from Sputnik News:

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has once again taken aim at his personal bête noire, George Soros, as part of his strong anti-immigration rhetoric.

Having previously accused the Hungarian-born US tycoon George Soros of orchestrating immigration from the Middle East and Africa by pumping funds to NGOs supporting “open-doors” values in Europe, this time Orban has claimed that Soros is using his funds to buy influence in Brussels as well as at the UN.

“Soros has antagonized not only us but also England, President Trump and Israel too,” he said. “Everywhere he wants to get migration accepted. It won’t work. We are not alone and we will fight together… and we will succeed.”

Last week, the so-called “Stop Soros” bill was submitted to the Hungarian Parliament; the proposed legislation would enable the Interior Minister to ban NGOs, particularly those funded by Soros, that encourage migration and “pose a risk” to national security.

Soros has been accused of meddling in Britain’s affairs after admitting to having donated enormous funds to an anti-Brexit campaign.

Islamization

During his annual state of the nation speech, Orban warned the audience against the “Islamization” of Europe, claiming that “Europe won’t even realize that it has been invaded.”

Known for his tough stance on immigration issues, the Prime Minister added that “Christianity was Europe’s last hope,” and brought to light the fact that the threat comes from within the European Union itself.

“Absurd as it may sound the danger we face comes from the West, from politicians in Brussels, Berlin and Paris,” Orban said. “Of course we will fight, and use ever stronger legal tools. The first is our ‘Stop Soros’ law.”

Read More @ SputnikNews.com

The Neutered West: Canada Makes National Anthem “Gender Neutral”

0

by Selwyn Duke, The New American:

It’s certainly no surprise in a country whose prime minister wants to raise “feminist” sons and prefers the term “peoplekind” to “mankind,” but Canada’s national anthem has now become “gender neutral.” CBC News reported on the story:

The Senate passed a bill that renders the national anthem gender neutral Wednesday [1/31] despite the entrenched opposition of some Conservative senators.

The House of Commons overwhelmingly passed a private member’s bill in 2016 that would alter the national anthem by replacing “in all thy sons command” with “in all of us command” as part of a push to strike gendered language from “O Canada.”

The bill was first introduced by Liberal MP Mauril Bélanger, who died in 2016.

… Since 1980, when “O Canada” officially became the country’s anthem, 12 bills have been introduced in the House to strip the gendered reference to “sons,” which some have argued is discriminatory. All attempts have failed until now.

And with the change having received “royal assent” yesterday, it now is officially part of the anthem.

“O Canada” has a somewhat complex history, and some considered it Canada’s unofficial anthem well before 1980. Originally written in French by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier in the late 19th century, the most popular English translation was penned by judge and poet Robert Stanley Weir. Note, however, that Weir’s version already reflected political correctness, in a sense, as he purged the song’s strong Christian content. The original French version opened with “Under the eye of God,” whereas the official English one’s first line is “O Canada!” This changed the focus from God to country — and perhaps to state.

While Routhier was alive when Weir translated and transformed his song, that Weir is now gone was noted by conservative senators, who stymied past efforts to alter the anthem saying that “Parliament had no business tinkering with the words of a song written by a man long dead,” wrote CBC News. The Canadian leftists don’t mind such tinkering, though, not any more than they mind stymieing the words of those still alive: They used a controversial motion in the Senate to shut down debate and prevent conservative statesmen from speaking against the anthem change.

Of course, the Left has long manipulated the language, an effort that has spawned speech codes in colleges and workplaces. For as Stuart Chase explained in his 1959 book The Tyranny of Words, the side that defines the vocabulary of a debate, wins the debate. 

This is easy to understand. Imagine a German culture and a French one vying for primacy in a certain geographical area. If the French could convince all the Germans to speak French, wouldn’t they already have won at least half the battle? Is it any different in our “culture wars”? Would traditionalists have any chance of victory if they reflexively adopted the lexicon of the Left? 

And that lexicon metastasizes continually. I provided some examples last year:

Let’s start with the Obama administration’s not-so-seamless word twisting. It mandated replacing “juvenile delinquents” with “justice-involved youth,” which sounds like teens studying criminology. “Boots on the ground” became “direct action on the ground”; “terrorist attack” became “man-caused disaster,” which sounds like the election of Obama; “rogue states” became “outliers”; terrorism at work became “workplace violence”; “war” became “kinetic military action”; and the “global war on terror,” itself euphemistic (“terror” is a method, not an adversary), became “overseas contingency operations,” to name a handful of examples. Obama also banned the terms “Islam” and “jihad” from national security documents.

Other terms leftists have sought to eradicate/ban, on college campuses and elsewhere, are “birthdays,” “poverty,” “divorce,” disease,” “hunting,” “junk food,” “religion,” “male,” “female,” “illegal alien,” “violate,” “man up,”  “he,” “she,” and, well, you could probably find hundreds more examples.

As for making the language gender neutral, at least this reflects proper use of the word “gender,” which traditionally was almost exclusively a grammatical term (referencing categories into which words are divided, such as masculine, feminine, and neuter). Yet it can have harmful effects.

Read More @ TheNewAmerican.com